school of communication and information virtual team innovation jennifer gibbs, ph.d. department of...
TRANSCRIPT
School of Communication and Information
VIRTUAL TEAM INNOVATION
Jennifer Gibbs, Ph.D.Department of Communication
Rutgers [email protected]
School of Communication and Information
TEAM VIRTUALITY
• Much of the virtual teams literature uses “virtuality” imprecisely:– Treats teams as virtual or not virtual– Lumps together “virtuality” features without examining their independent effects
• Need to unpack features of “virtuality” and view it as a continuum characterizing all teams:– Geographic dispersion– Electronic dependence– Dynamic structure– National diversity
School of Communication and Information
VIRTUALITY AS CONTINUUM
Aerospace Alliance Frame Team• 4 time zones• extensive electronic
communication • 4 nations• extensive outsourcing
Less virtual More virtual
Machine Inc. Machine NPD Team• 1 time zone• moderate electronic communication
• 1 nation• stable structure
School of Communication and Information
How do you think virtuality will affect creativity and innovation in teams or organizations? What positive or negative effects might it have?
School of Communication and Information
VIRTUALITY’S EFFECTS ON INNOVATION
Virtuality features have negative effects oninnovation (based on Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995):
• Geographical dispersion:– Reduces contextual knowledge of other sites– Increases coordination complexity
• Electronic dependence:– Reduces opportunities for monitoring– Reduces message clarity/comm. richness
• Dynamic structure:– Increases uncertainty about motives– Hard to preserve org. memory due to turnover– Harder to create flow and development phases
• National diversity:– Creates different communication preferences– Reduces team identification and shared vision
School of Communication and Information
MODERATING EFFECTS OF PSYCH. SAFE COMMUNICATION CLIMATE
A PSCC mitigates these negative effects:
• Geographical dispersion:– Increases exchange of contextual knowledge– Increases willingness to contribute
• Electronic dependence:– Increases informal comm. and feedback– Helps develop social cues for improvisation
• Dynamic structure:– Strengthens relationships by increasing trust &
reducing risk– Creates incentive for building shared history
• National diversity:– Bridges in-groups/out-groups to resolve conflicts– Increases integration while allowing cultural
differences to co-exist
School of Communication and Information
RESEARCH MODEL
Electronic Dependence
National Diversity
Dynamic Structure
Geographic Dispersion
Innovation
Psych. Safe Communication
Climate
(-)
(+)
Virtuality
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
School of Communication and Information
STUDY 1: METHODS
• Overview: exploratory interview-based analysis• Sample:
– 177 individuals from 14 teams, 7 industries, 18 nations, 32 cities, 16 organizations, 45 organizational subunits, and 11 functional areas
– 92% of each team sampled (avg.)• Procedure:
– Comprehensive 1-2 hour interviews with members of each collaboration on-site
– Collection of archival data• Analysis:
– Systematic qualitative analysis (Atlas.ti)– Nonparametric stats: Spearman’s rho
School of Communication and InformationSTUDY 1 SAMPLE EXCERPTS:
ROLE OF COMMUNICATION CLIMATE
Relationship between geographic dispersion and innovation
Relationship between national diversity and innovation
Teams with highly psych. safe communication climates
(+)“The fact that they are virtual, spread out, has introduced points of view that we wouldn't have gotten if they weren't virtual…If we made everyone move to the same place to do the work, that would alter their point of view; and wouldn’t be a very effective solution for this kind of work.” (Office Systems, Design Team)
(+)“I never felt that the cultural differences were a real problem. In most every case, those differences are known by the partners and accepted by the partners. Those things don’t make any problems, they can be an advantage for bringing up new ideas.” (Auto Unification, Function Team)
Teams with the least psych. safe communication climates
(-)“The geography is going to prevent our team and theirs from ever becoming a cohesive unit. Everything is geared toward the field. Our job function is never incorporated into it. For example, we rolled out a new tool, and nothing has been communicated out to the field. We've received a lot of brick walls.” (Travel Service, South Market Team)
(-)“Yes, there was discussion. But most of the time they were not discussions in which new ideas would come up. It’s really two sides and it stays like that.” (Europe Connect)
School of Communication and Information
STUDY 2: METHODS
• Overview: survey-based, moderated multiple regression
• Sample: – 266 individuals from 56 engineering project teams– Involved in design of $200 billion military aircraft– 79% of each team sampled (avg.),
average team size = 4.75• Procedure:
– Online survey of team members and 2-3 internal customers of each team (selected by program leader)
• Analysis: – Hierarchical moderated regression analysis
School of Communication and Information
STUDY 2: MEASURES• Geographic dispersion: measure of categorical
dispersion across locations in the team (Blau’s formula)
• Electronic dependence ( = .72): 4 items measuring extent of reliance on 1) email, 2) teleconferencing, 3) collaborative software, and 4) overall reliance on CMC
• Dynamic structure ( = .70): 3 items, e.g., “members of this team change frequently”
• National diversity: measure of categorical dispersion across nations in the team (Blau’s formula)
School of Communication and Information
STUDY 2: MEASURES
• Psychologically safe communication climate ( = .79): 4 items, e.g., “members are able to say what they think”, “when there’s a problem, members talk about it”
• Innovation: 2-3 customers per team asked to assess “compared to what is possible (100%), estimate how effective this team has been at innovation using a percentage.” Convergent validity: high correlations between innovation and 1) technical performance, 2) effectiveness, and 3) knowledge sharing
• Controls: 1) team size, 2) task interdependence, 3) leadership style, 4) team training effectiveness
School of Communication and Information
STUDY 2 RESULTS: MODEL
Electronic Dependence
Dynamic Structure
National Diversity
Geographic Dispersion
Innovation
Psych. Safe Communication
Climate
-.24*
-.22*
-.27*
-.24*
Significant interaction effects across elements
Virtuality
Controls: team size, task interdependence, leadership*, training
* p<.05
School of Communication and Information
Results of Moderated Regression Analysis, Study 2
Predictor variable* Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Team size -.26 -.01 .01 -.03
Task interdependence .03 -.04 -.08 -.05
Leadership -.28● -.07 -.03 .02
Training -.07 -.02 -.01 .03
Geographic dispersion -.24● -.11 -3.73●●●
Electronic dependence -.22● -.12 -5.34●●●
Dynamic structure -.24● -.17● -2.73●●
National diversity -.27● -.26● -1.89●
Psychologically safe communication climate .34●● 2.60●●●
Geographic dispersion x communication climate 3.18●●●
Electronic dependence x communication climate -4.91●●●
Dynamic structure x communication climate 2.29●●
National diversity x communication climate -2.04●●
R2 .31 .06 .17
F 6.77●●● 6.12●● 5.68●●●
df 4.47 1, 46 4, 42
Total R2 .16 .46 .53 .69
F 2.36 5.09●●● 5.70●●● 7.30●●●
D.f. 4, 51 8, 47 9, 46 13, 42
●p<.05; ●●p<.01; ●●●p<.001. *Tabled values are standardized regression weights.
School of Communication and Information
Figure 1a. Effect of communication climate on the relationship between
geographic dispersion and innovation.
85.89
79.7579.52
68.42
60
70
80
90
100
Low HighGeographic Dispersion
Inn
ova
tio
n
Psychologicallysafecommunicationclimate
Non-psychologicallysafecommunicationclimate
Figure 1c. Effect of communication climate on the relationship
between dynamic structure and innovation.
86.12
78.93
83.11
70.85
60
70
80
90
100
Low HighDynamic Structure
Inn
ova
tio
n
Figure 1d. Effect of communication climate on the relationship
between national diversity and innovation.
85.15
80.5978.57
68.11
60
70
80
90
100
Low HighNational Diversity
Inn
ova
tio
n
88.58
81.15
76.17
63.07 60
70
80
90
100
Low High Electronic Dependence
Figure 1b. Effect of communication climate on the relationship between electronic dependence and innovation.
Inn
ova
tio
n
School of Communication and Information
• More nuanced conceptualization of virtuality; elements have differential effects on innovation
• Virtuality may have unintended negative consequences for innovation
• Critical role of psychologically safe communication climate in moderating negative effects of virtuality
DISCUSSION
School of Communication and Information
CURRENT WORK
• Ways in which knowledge sharing challenges can be overcome by PSCC, trust, and identification in virtual settings
• Constitutive view of virtual teaming: virtual team processes are constituted through communication
• Dialectical tensions as productive way of managing differences in global collaboration– Cultural differences as dynamic tensions
rather than polar oppositions
School of Communication and Information
CULTURE AS KALEIDOSCOPE
GEOGRAPHICALDISPERSI ON
ELECTRONI CDEPENDENCE
DYNAMI CSTRUCTURE
FUNCTIONAL/PROFESSI ONAL
CULTURES
SOCIODEMOGRAPHI CCULTURE(S)
MI CRO-ORGANI ZATI ONAL
CULTURE(S)
CORPORATECULTURE
NATI ONALCULTURE
School of Communication and Information
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION• What factors make it difficult to share
knowledge in virtual contexts?
• How can differences be managed successfully to promote innovation and creativity in virtual work contexts?
• How can a PSCC be created?
• What other questions are on your mind?
School of Communication and Information
Contact Info:
Dr. Jennifer GibbsDepartment of Communication
Rutgers [email protected]