Weingart, Task versus relationship conflict: team perfor- mance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 2003, pp. Bailey, Out of sight, out of sy[r]
Trang 1A meta-analysis of the consequences of virtualness on team functioning
a HEC Montre´al, 3000, chemin de la Coˆte-Sainte-Catherine, Montre´al, Que´bec H3T 2A7, Canada
b Queen’s School of Business, 143 Union Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 8 July 2010
Received in revised form 6 June 2012
Accepted 21 August 2012
Available online 25 September 2012
Keywords:
Meta-analysis
Distributed
Virtualness
Group
Performance
Knowledge sharing
Satisfaction
Conflict
Time
A B S T R A C T
* Corresponding author Tel.: +1 613 533 3163; fax: +1 613 533 2325.
E-mail addresses: ana.ortiz-de-guinea@hec.ca (A Ortiz de Guinea),
(D.S Staples).
1
Tel: +1 514 340 7817; fax: +1 514 340 6132.
2
Tel: +1 613 533 2314; fax: +1 613 533 2325.
3 We excluded articles that did not have either a measure of virtualness or a comparison of virtual with face-to-face teams Neither did we quantitatively review articles at other levels of analysis, such as virtual communities or organizations, as this would confound the results.
Information & Management
j our na l ho me pa ge : w ww e l se v i e r com / l oca t e / i m
0378-7206/$ – see front matter ß 2012 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved.
Trang 2categori-zation
orexternal(situational).Aperson’sinitialattributionofanother’s
and/orsituation.Virtualteamsarelikelytomakeattributionerrors
theirenvironments.Thusthereispotentialforattributionerrorsto
beingsimilartothemselves[5].Invirtualteamsettings,subgroups
possiblerelationshipsisquitelarge.Wesearchedtheliteraturefor
outputs?
conflict,relationshipconflict,affectiveconflictandgeneralconflict,
inter-relatestronglybutnegativelytoteamfunctioning[e.g.,8]
4
Trang 3relationship [e.g.,21] Nevertheless, given that the majority of
frequency
making[18]
[e.g.,1].Itis,ofcourse,moredifficulttosharerichinformationand
virtualteamtask.Geographicdiversitycanalsoleadtothecreation
Finally,becausevirtualteamsareoftenculturallydiverse,language
sharing
perfor-mance
satisfac-tion
Trang 4experimentstobeshorter-term(andthelogicof H8,presented
satisfaction
searches(aftertheremovalofqualitativeandtheoreticalarticles),
availabledata
oftheresults.Forconflict,weconductedseparateanalysesfortask,
5
Many of the articles did not report all of the data we needed We contacted
6 Some of the studies reported mean differences (or some other statistic) on a variable of interest This mean difference was converted into a correlation, whose sign had to fit the direction of the mean differences reported in the study The graduate student checked that this sign was appropriate given the mean difference
Trang 5typesofconflict
correlationsinasinglestudycreatethepotentialforoverweighting
organizations
5.1 Computationofeffectsizes
correlations
correctingforunreliability)
c (CI)
c (CI)
c (CI)
c (CI)
c (CI)
0.15, 0.06)
0.31, 0.13)
0.12, 0.06)
0.12, 0.04)
virtualness (categorical measure)
virtualness (continuous measure)
r xy
7
In calculating the overall effect sizes for our meta-analysis, we used simple
Trang 6variables (individuals/groups, experiments/surveys, and short/
moderators
TurningtothetwomeasuresofvirtualnesspresentedinTable1,
Studiesalsoshowedconflictingresultsfortheeffectsofvirtualness
satisfaction
statistic.AsallhadasignificantQ(p<0.05),wefurtheranalyzed
(seeTable2 Allcomparisonsforlevelofanalysis(groupversus
approaches
Table 2
Hypothesized moderators.
Relationships Q Level of analysis
(H6)
ra
(k b
,n) Method (H7) ra
(k b
,n) Team duration
(H8)
ra
(k b
,n)
Virtualness – Task conflict 77 * Individual c 0.05 (2,433) Experiment c 0.33 * (3,404) Short c 0.37 * (2,355)
Group c
0.33 *
(4,197) Survey c
0.20 *
(2,226) Long c
0.18 *
(4,275) Virtualness – Other conflict 59 *
Individual c
0.21 *
(3,420) Experiment 0.05 (10,504) Short c
0.03 (8,372) Group c
0.05 (11,488) Survey 0.09 *
(4,404) Long c
0.16 *
(5,358) Virtualness – Communication
frequency
252 *
Individual c
0.04 (9,2239) Experiment c
0.01 (7,600) Short b
0.05 (6,517) Group c
0.30 *
(4,305) Survey c
0.11 *
(6,1944) Long c
0.18 *
(6,758) Virtualness – Knowledge sharing 67 *
Individual c
0.15 *
(3,318) Experiment c
0.61 *
(3,173) Short c
0.67 *
(1,59) Group c 0.34 * (4,224) Survey c 0.01 (3,353) Long c 0.10 * (5,417) Virtualness –Performance 276 * Individual c 0.04 (9,2220) Experiment c 0.17 * (12,889) Short c 0.27 * (11, 750)
Group c 0.19 * (21,1593) Survey c 0.08 * (16,2924) Long c 0.07 (16,1919) Virtualness –Satisfaction 262 *
Individual c
0.11 *
(14,1990) Experiment c
0.03 *
(16,1525) Short c
0.22 *
(12,1178) Group c
0.00 (9,727) Survey c
0.12 *
(7,1192) Long c
0.05 (10,1361)
a
r= coefficient corrected for the unreliability of predictor and criterion.
b
k = number of studies.
c Test of the differences between correlations (across the two levels of the moderator) was significant.
* p < 0.05.
Trang 7variablemightbeasimplisticviewthatdoesnotcapturethereality
teams
7.1 Implicationsforresearchandpractice
7.2 Limitations
notprovideit)
[short/long]).Fewstudiestrytoseparatetheirindependenteffects
Acknowledgements
Webster
Trang 8[1] B Alge, C Wiethoff, H.J Klein, When does the medium matter?
Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 9, 2003, pp 26–37.
[2] D.J Beal, R.R Cohen, M.J Burke, C.L McLendon, Cohesion and performance in
groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations, Journal of Applied
Psychology 88, 2003, pp 989–1004.
[3] S.T Bell, Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a
meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 2007, pp 595–615.
[4] M Borenstein, L.V Hedges, J.P.T Higgins, H.R Rothstein, Introduction to
Meta-Analysis, Wiley, Chichester, England, 2009.
[5] T Carte, L Chidambaram, A capabilities-based theory of technology deployment
in diverse teams: leapfrogging the pitfalls of diversity and leveraging its potential
with collaborative technology, Journal of the Association for Information Systems
5, 2004, pp 448–471.
[6] C.D Cramton, K.L Orvis, J.M Wilson, Situation invisibility and attribution in
distributed collaborations, Journal of Management 33, 2007, pp 525–546.
[7] C.D Cramton, S.S Webber, Relationships among geographic dispersion, team
processes, and effectiveness in software development work teams, Journal of
Business Research 58, 2005, pp 758–765.
[8] C.K.W De Dreu, L.R Weingart, Task versus relationship conflict: team
perfor-mance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied
Psychology 88, 2003, pp 741–749.
[9] P.J Hinds, R Bailey, Out of sight, out of sync: understanding conflict in distributed
teams, Organization Science 14, 2003, pp 615–632.
[10] C Lin, C Standing, Y.C Liu, A model to develop effective virtual teams, Decision
Support Systems 45, 2008, pp 1031–1045.
[11] M.W Lipsey, D.B Wilson, Practical Meta-Analysis, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA, 2001.
[12] L.L Martins, L.L Gilson, M.T Maynard, Virtual teams: what do we know and
where do we go from here? Journal of Management 30, 2004, pp 805–835.
[13] A.P Massey, M Montoya-Weiss, M Hung, Because time matters: temporal
coordination in global virtual project teams, Journal of Management Information
Systems 19, 2003, pp 129–156.
[14] J Mathieu, M.T Maynard, T Rapp, L Gilson, Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a
review of recent advances and a glimpse into the future, Journal of Management
34, 2008, pp 410–476.
[15] M.T Maynard, J.E Mathieu, T.L Rapp, L.L Gilson, Something(s) old and
some-thing(s) new: modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness, Journal of
Organizational Behavior 33, 2012, pp 342–365.
[16] J.R Mesmer-Magnus, L.A DeChurch, M Jimenez-Rodriguez, J Wildman, M.
Shuffler, A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in
tea, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 115, 2011, pp 214–
225.
[17] M O’Leary, J.N Cummings, The spatial, temporal, and configurational
character-istics of geographic dispersion in teams, MIS Quarterly 31, 2007, pp 433–452.
[18] N.R Quigley, P.E Tesluk, E.A Locke, K.M Bartol, A multilevel investigation of the
motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance,
Or-ganizational Science 18, 2007, pp 71–88.
[19] L Schweitzer, L Duxbury, Conceptualizing and measuring the virtuality of teams,
Information Systems Journal 20, 2010, pp 267–295.
[20] S.M.B Thatcher, K.A Jehn, E Zanutto, Cracks in diversity research: the effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance, Group Decision and Negotiation
12, 2003, pp 217–241.
[21] R.L Wakefield, D.E Leidner, G Garrison, A model of conflict, leadership, and performance in virtual teams, Information Systems Research 19, 2008, pp 434– 455.
Ana Ortiz de Guinea is an assistant professor of Information Systems at HEC Montre´al She holds a PhD
in Information Systems from Queen’s University, a MSc from the University of Lethbridge, and a degree in Computer Science and Engineering from the Universi-dad de Deusto Prior to returning to academia, she worked as an Information Systems consultant Her research has been published in Computers in Human Behavior, the International Journal of Human Resource Management, the International Journal of e-Collaboration, the Journal of Global Information Management, and MIS Quarterly.
Jane Webster received her PhD from New York University and is the E Marie Shantz Professor of MIS in the School of Business at Queen’s University in Canada She has served as a Senior Editor for MIS Quarterly, VP of Publications for AIS, and advisor for AIS-SIGCHI She has published in a variety of journals including the Academy of Management Journal, Commu-nication Research, Information and Organization, Infor-mation Systems Journal, Information Systems Research, Journal of Organizational Behavior, MIS Quarterly, and Organization Science Her current research concerns information systems and technologies to support environmental sustainability
Sandy Staples received his PhD from the University of Western Ontario and is Professor and Distinguished Faculty Research Fellow of Management Information Systems in the School of Business at Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada His research interests include: knowledge management, distributed working practices
at both the team and individual levels, and assessing the effectiveness of information systems and IS practices Sandy has published in a variety of journals including Organization Science, Information Systems Research, Small Group Research, Information & Manage-ment, Journal of Management Information Systems, and Information Systems Journal.