Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness

307

Published on

Presentation on virtual team research as part of my PhD defense at Iowa State University, Nov 1, 2013

Presentation on virtual team research as part of my PhD defense at Iowa State University, Nov 1, 2013

Published in: Business, Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
307
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Decision matter more when stake are high and times uncertainMore with less systems, peopleMaximize resources, develop more effective REQUIRESGreater interdependence, effective decisionsStronger cohesion, trust, commitment ability to adapt to changeIMPACTSPerformance, climate, proceduresPracticeTeach with technology, teach others to use technology in teaching, learning, and the learning environmentScholarship20 national and international conference presentationsService13 service appointments related to the enhanced use of technology in the organization
  • 97 percent of respondents said their organizations either planned to increase virtual work options or keep them at the same level (Leonard, 2011).43 percent of HR professionals responding to a SHRM poll predict that a larger proportion of their workforce will be telecommuting within the next five years (Lockwood, 2010).
  • More importantly…A recent report, The Challenges of Working in Virtual Teams, based on a survey of nearly 30,000 employees found that:reading nonverbal cues (94%).establish rapport and trust (81%).managing conflict (73%).express opinions (64%) decision making is more difficult on virtual teams (69%). (Hastings, 2010).
  • Virtual team boundaries create a unique dynamic.Alignment of interaction processes, technology, and surrounding conditions gives outcomes that are relatively favorable (DeSanctis and Poole, 1993).Bell and Kozlowski (2002) call for more research on interaction between communication technology and task type on team processes and effectivenessProcess and display structures designed to foster effective interaction in the virtual environment can lead to improvements in attitudes,performance, and provide insight into how teams will behave given their unique operating conditions.CS groups spent proportionately more of their communication attending to procedures than did manual groups-Zigurs, DeSanctis, and Polle, 1988
  • To what extent does action process structure influence perceptions of team work climate?To what extent does action process structure influence justice perceptions of procedures?To what extent does action process structure impact team decision performance?To what degree does technology affordance moderate performance and attitudes?
  • There is overlap between groups, teams, and virtual team definitions, especially in terms of outcomes and boundaries.In this study, virtual teams are groups of people who work interdependently across space, time, and organizational boundaries usingtechnologyto communicate, collaborate and reach a common goal.
  • Team members influence and are influenced by each otherFestinger’s social comparison theory people bring distinct beliefs and attributes, tend to compare against others. Blau’s theory of social exchange costs/ benefits of interactions, satisfied gives helping, reciprocation, high status, fairnessTeams use patterns of interaction to communicate information about problems and solve themBales Interactive Process Analysis (IPA) orientation, evaluation, control, integration decision. IPA teams as human interaction systems with an “overarching problem-solving sequence of interaction”, effective problem solving outcomes related a “satisfactory set of social-emotional relationships to each other” Task performance-Teams perform tasks, reflect resources, strategies, interactions for outcomesthe most commonly studied are those relating to task type, task behavior, and task processes Task types produce distinct interactionvary in complexity, difficulty, interdependence have different outcomesInfo process-Teams use cognitive processes for “acquiring, processing, storing, exchanging and using information”make sense of information related to problems, generate alternatives, and make decisionsNeed to pool, information, recognize what is missing, error correction, and aggregationSociotechnicaldynamic of members, tools, resources, task and technology changes in technology impact existing group structures, tasks, technologies traditional to those structures Subsystems:personnel group members, technological subsystem, technology available, external environmental factors
  • Inputs are properties of group structure, the task, and properties of the environment-set the conditions under which group interaction takes place.Process represent interdependent acts; convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral action directed to-ward taskwork to achieve collective goalsOutputs parallel to the input classes and represent changes process makes to input variablesInputCollaborative Display ConditionsProcess Action process structure conditionsOutcomesTeam ClimateProcedural JusticeDecision Performance
  • Monitoring progress toward goals. Tracking task and goal progress, interpreting system information in terms what needs done, and transmitting progress team. Systems monitoring. Systems monitoring refers to tracking team resources and environmental conditions Team monitoring and backup responses. Team monitoring and backup is defined as assisting team members to perform their tasksCoordination activities. We define coordination activities as the process of orchestrating the sequencing of timing and eventsAction process, i.e. monitoring, backup, and coordination (Marks et al., 2001): improves information sharing and decision making,creates interdependence & aligns tasks and goals, clarifies information and fosters alternatives,improves procedural consistency, process and outcome control,interact with technology to enhance decision, team climate and procedural justice outcomesDisplay structure of information, way it is displayed can improve understanding of complex information sets; rank-ordered attribute levels used to quantity the value of information, to screen information and make alternatives visible, shared representation and interactive capability increased pooling of information, but did not foster effective information exchange, Fischer, but Voigtlander did
  • Climate represents a shared perception of the types of behaviors, practices, and procedures that are supported in aspecific setting (Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998).Interaction, interdependence, and shared goals are needed for shared climate perceptions to develop (Figl & Saunders, 2011) Participative safety is high, members feel free from reprisal, and are more likely to participate, contribute to, and take risks Support for innovation is high, members more likely to express verbal and written support for new ideas, make practical efforts to make resources available, and bring new ideas forward. Team vision is the shared group perspective of team members that goals are worthwhile and achievable. Task orientation enables effective monitoring, and critical review of actions. The task orientation dynamic provides a feedback-loop that helps team adapt and improve
  • Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the outcomes received,procedural justice refers to the fairness of decision-making processes, andinteractional justice refers to the fairness of the interpersonal treatment thatone receives from another person.The six rules are, consistence, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, and ethicality. A high level of peer procedural justice creates a favorable socialenvironment as it induces team members to participate in decision-makingprocesses, apply decision-making rules in a consistent manner, among others(Leventhal, 1976).Task teamwork process should be composed ofcommunication, coordination, and contribution. Interpersonal teamworkprocess should be composed of cohesion, effort, and support (Dayan &Benedetto, 2008).Specifically, task teamwork process engendered higher team performance, measured as grades, whereasinterpersonal teamwork process boosted team citizenship behaviors, measuredas helping and loyalty.
  • Outcomes between virtual and other teams, similar, but VT take longer to make a decision Virtual groups are as good as or better at generating ideas than face-to-face groups Eectronic decision support systems led to higher decision quality Online team communication and coordination protocols impact performance Preference of majority and influential group members has strong impact on decision outcomes Computer mediated teams make better decisions, members were less satisfied with the process and decision,
  • Biased Information Evaluation FavoringIndividuals form initial impression on their own information that’s hard to changeGroup member shared information and the preference of others reinforces initial choice, or revises choice to match groupBiased Information Evaluation Sampling FavoringGroups focus on shared information because there is more, and it is discussed more oftenSampling advantage and pyscho-social process impact what is discussed and howPremature ConsensusShared information prior to discussion leads to premature decisionDiscussion focuses on exchange and validation of information related to initial preferencesFinal decision based on these preferencesCorrect solution not reflected prior to discussion, so chances slim information will be exchanged and negotiated for correct alternativeGreitmeyer, Schulz-Hardt, Brodbeck and Frey, 2006The advocacy groups procedure discussed more information both shared and unshared than free-discussion groups and the pooling of unshared information increased over trials (37%) to (49%). But teams did not make significantly better decisions or improve decision quality overtimeShulz-Hardt, et al. 2006Minority or full diversity dissent groups without a proponent were far less successful, with only (26%) solving the hidden profile. Dissent groups with a proponent also repeated information lessTend to be influenced by majority; but Thinking of others preferences, or ANY any variable that distracts attention from processing the information exchanged reduces recallMojisch and ShulzHardt 2010Other group members’ preferences negatively affect decision quality; attention that is allocated to considering information is decreased Condition groups solve hidden profiles (68%) than participants in the remaining four conditions (27%) Kray and Galinski, 2003Groups primed with a counterfactual mind-set were almost three times as likely to make the correct decision to not go ahead with the race compared to groups who had not been primed with counterfactual thinking.Critical thinking groups made correct decisions, 83% of the time compared to 42% of the time for consensus groups.Reimer, Reimer, Hinsz, 2010A major advantage of common cues is that they facilitate information processing by allowing for more direct comparison of alternatives than unique cues.Naïve groups exchanged more of their unshared information than predecided groups, who focused more on group members’ preferences. Groups that failed to detect the hidden-profile alternative exchanged more of their shared their unshared information. Conversely, groups that detected the hidden profile exchanged similar amounts of their shared and unshared information
  • The experiment used a two factor design with two levels. The within-subject factor was the exclusive decision information set given to each team member. The between-groups factors were two independent variables, action process structure and information display structure, used to test the hypotheses.
  • Participants drawn from 2 universitiesSome participants received extra credit for classAll participated in a drawing for a large prize, and a $20 bonus for the team with the best performance (time and accuracy).Demographics included information about diversity, gender prior knowledge of each other, and prior work together before the studyIn addition, they were asked about their comfort level using internet tools.
  • Study administration, trials, and data collection performed online.Scheduling was done through the Doodle tool Correspondence of participants through emailTask was done in 4 member teams in Google documents using text-based chat and collaborative text editingData was collected using Qualtrics survey software
  • High APS/High IDSAPS, Discussion monitoring, backup, coordination, leaderIDS, Can use chat and edit documentLow APS/High IDSAPS Discussion ad hoc team processIDS, Can use chat and edit documentHigh APS/Low IDSAPS, Discussion monitoring, backup, coordination, leaderIDS, Can use chat, no collaborative editingLow APS/Low IDSAPS Discussion ad hoc team processIDS, Can use chat, no collaborative editing
  • Hypothesis 1: Action process structuring will be positively related to perceptions of team climate.Hypothesis 2: Action process structuring will be positively related to perceptions of procedural justice.Hypothesis 3a: Action process structuring will be positively related to perceptions of optimal candidate suitability after team discussion.Hypothesis 3b: Action process structuring will be positively related to the value placed on shared versus unshared decision information.Hypothesis 3c: Action process structuring will be positively related to decision accuracy.Hypothesis 4: Information display structuring will moderate the relationship between action process structuring and team climate.Hypothesis 5: Information display structuring will moderate the relationship between action process structuring and procedural justice.Hypothesis 6: Information display structuring will moderate the relationship between action process structuring and decision accuracy
  • ReliabilityCronbachs alpha >.7 correlation and variance between the items in scaleAggregationRWG(j) >.7 within-team agreement/IRRICC1 > .12 between team versus within-team varianceICC2 > .7
  • Control Variables-These variables for internet comfort level, age, and ethnicity were controlled for in the regression tests.Internet technology comfort level was positively correlated with team climate and procedural justice scores. Ethnicity was positively correlated with procedural justiceAge was positively correlated with team climate
  • Hypothesis 1: Action process structuring will be positively related to perceptions of team climate.Hypothesis 2: Action process structuring will be positively related to perceptions of procedural justice.Hypothesis 3a: Action process structuring will be positively related to perceptions of optimal candidate suitability after team discussion.Hypothesis 3b: Action process structuring will be positively related to the value placed on shared versus unshared decision information.Hypothesis 3c: Action process structuring will be positively related to decision accuracy.Hypothesis 4: Information display structuring will moderate the relationship between action process structuring and team climate.Hypothesis 5: Information display structuring will moderate the relationship between action process structuring and procedural justice.Hypothesis 6: Information display structuring will moderate the relationship between action process structuring and decision accuracy
  • Most factors (11 of 13) loaded significantly (p < .001) on their associated latent constructs with acceptable factor loadings represented by standardized regression weights above 0.50. Two procedural justice indicators, P6 (ability to appeal) and P7 (ethical and moral standards) were non-significant. Model fit indices: (X2=201.94, df= 63; X2/df, 3.20; GFI=0.88; CFI =0.82; IFI=0.82; RMSEA=.103; f.p., Parameter is fixed for estimation purpose; *All t-values are significant at p< 0.001.
  • APS-Stronger procedural messages, verbal influenceInitiation messages - requesting or suggesting deadlines individual bias may have been reduced because members were (advocated) primed for dissent about attributes and the information set.group level bias because teams were able to pool information more effectively, unshared information mentioned more often during discussion, but equal okay, and members felt less inhibited about voicing opinion especially when collaborative display was present.Reimer-Groups that had 10 minutes for their discussion pooled a higher proportion oftheir information than did groups who had 5 minutes (F(1,104) = 20.60, p < .01).
  • Teams using both action process and display structure were more affective in generalDisplay amplified influence of action process this supported better decisions, stronger feelings about the team, and the procedures.Action process and information display structure had separate influence on team climate Shared team knowledge is more important than mediadifferences in explaining communication processes. Once a shared interpretive context has been built, objectively leaner mediacan be used.Technology affordance was found to moderate action process impact on justice climate. action process structure to influenced justice perceptions to the degree teams have ability to structure the information and visualize it together in complete form. Fully ad hoc teams had high justice perceptionsTeam using display were perhaps less uncertain than fully unstructured teams because pictorial modes of performance advantage by reducing task uncertainty (Hakonen, 2008, Van den Bos & Lind, 2002; Stager and Muter(1971), and so perceptions of the team procedures were less salient.Display enhanced APS influence, but only APD significant APS more usefulTeams make more accurate decisions than when action process is enhanced with increased display affordance, but this effect is not interactive
  • Notes: Model fit indices: (X2=201.94, df= 63; X2/df, 3.20; GFI=0.88; CFI =0.82; IFI=0.82; RMSEA=.103; f.p., Parameter is fixed for estimation purpose; *All t-values are significant at p< 0.001.Adjusted ModelAll Factors Load SignificantlyNotes: Model fit indices: (c2=71.70, df= 40; X2/df, 1.80; GFI=0.95; CFI =0.96; IFI=0.96; RMSEA=.062Error covarianceE1E3 (TC1 and TC3 Vision)E1 E6 (TC1, and PJ2 Outcome control)
  • Patterns of factor interaction, interdependenceConstraints of chat and structural adaptationCollaboration on surveysFigurative vs literal interpretationsMonitor leadership impact, participationInstrument lengthTechnology usability-outside operant impactImpact of visual structure
  • Team designers examine how process structures can be implemented into team work given the unique nature of the team, task, technology, and virtualness of the work environmentTeam members should be trained how to apply action process techniques towards a variety of team, task types, and technology configurations
  • Transcript

    • 1. Process protocols for virtual team effectiveness Christopher Sean Cordes November 1, 2013 Iowa State University 1
    • 2. HCI Path: work and academics Design, manage, & teach interactive machine and human systems. 2008-> Instructional Design Associate Professor Instruction Services Coordinator Assistant Professor Instructional Technology Librarian Research assistant for MoDOT, the HS Truman Library, and MU Provost 2007 Human Computer Interaction 2004 Educational Technology & Information science 1999 Human Factors & Technical Communication 2
    • 3. Problem, purpose, contribution, questions • Virtual teams: the fastest growing work unit • 97% said organizations planned to increase virtual work options or keep them the same (Leonard, 2011). • 43 percent of HR professionals predict a larger proportion of their workers will be telecommuting in five years (Lockwood, 2010). 3
    • 4. VT Challenges More importantly… A recent report study of nearly 30,000 multinational companies found virtual teams challenged by: • reading nonverbal cues (94%). • establishing rapport and trust (81%). • managing conflict (73%). • expressing opinions (64%). • decision making (69%) (Hastings, 2010). 4
    • 5. The Problem • Virtual teams are distinctly different, especially in terms of boundaries, spatial, temporal, relational • Virtual team effectiveness study has grown; but questions remain about fit of communication media, process, and team level outcomes • Alignment of interaction processes, technology, and surrounding conditions gives outcomes that are relatively favorable (DeSanctis and Poole, 1993). • Bell and Kozlowski (2002) call for more research on interaction between communication technology and task type on team processes and effectiveness • Process and display structures foster interaction leading to gains in attitudes and performance, and provide insight into how teams will behave in the future given their unique operating conditions. 5
    • 6. Guiding Questions • To what extent does action process structure influence perceptions of team work climate? • To what extent does action process structure influence justice perceptions of procedures? • To what extent does action process structure impact team decision performance? • To what degree does technology affordance moderate performance and attitudes? 6
    • 7. Review of the Literature • Defining virtual teams • Conceptual basis of the research • Framework of team effectiveness 7
    • 8. Team definition • There is overlap between groups, teams, and virtual team definitions, especially in terms of outcomes and boundaries. • In this study, virtual teams are groups of people who work interdependently across boundaries using technology to communicate, collaborate and reach a common goal. 8
    • 9. Theories The study uses five schools based on the idea that teams are mechanisms that: • have member influence on each other and the team • use interaction patterns to communicate information about problems and solve them • do tasks with resources, strategies, and interactions required for effective outcomes • use cognitive processes to make sense of information • represent a dynamic of members, tools, resources, task and technology 9
    • 10. Model Framework • Input-Process-Output (McGrath, 1984) INPUT Inputs are properties of group structure, the task, and properties of the environment PROCESS Process represent interdependent acts; convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral action directed toward taskwork to achieve collective goals OUTPUT Outputs parallel input classes and represent changes process makes to input variables 10
    • 11. Process and Display Structures • Action Process Structure – Monitoring – Backup – Coordination • Collaborative Display Structure – Collaborative text editing and chat – Chat only 11
    • 12. Team Climate • Team climate represents shared perception of types of behaviors, practices, and procedures that are supported in a specific setting • Four dimensions, participative safety, support innovation, vision, task orientation • When climate is strong, members are more likely to… • participate and contribute to the team • express support for new ideas and bring them forward • make practical efforts to make resources available • enable effective monitoring and review of team actions • share information and acquire knowledge 12
    • 13. Procedural Justice • The six rules: consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, representative ness, and ethicality. • Positive justice increases helping, attachment, trust, cooperation, decision commitment • change to one rule can be offset by another • justice levels are positively related to role performance and conflict perceptions • justice perceptions tend to align and interact • Dispersion creates uncertainty so that justice perceptions are more salient 13
    • 14. Performance • • • • • • • Comparable to F2F teams Quality and quantity Tied to task May take VT longer Less interaction Less information exchange Less conflict resolution 14
    • 15. Hidden Profiles The study uses a hidden profile problem You are member of a four person pilot job search committee. B A C D All your team members have positive and negative information too. Some is the same. Some is different. B If team members share all the information between them the initial worst choice becomes the best. C A D Critical thinking, counterfactual mindset, listing 15
    • 16. Study design Inputs Task Design Shared and unshared information between members Process Action Process Outputs Performance/ Affective Monitoring, Backup, & Coordination protocol vs ad hoc process • Decision Performance • Team Climate • Procedural Justice Information Display Editable / collaborative document vs chat only The within-subject factor was the exclusive decision information set for each member. The between-groups factors were two independent variables, action process structure and information display structure. 16
    • 17. Methodology • Population • Variables & Measurements • Treatment conditions • Hypotheses 17
    • 18. Population • Participants drawn from 2 universities • Some participants received extra credit for class • All participated in a drawing for a large prize, and a $20 bonus for the team with the best performance (time and accuracy). • Demographics included information about diversity, gender, prior knowledge of each other, and prior work together before the study • In addition, they were asked about their comfort level using internet tools. 18
    • 19. Virtual Study Environment • Study administration, trials, and data collection performed online. • Scheduling was done through the Doodle tool • Correspondence of participants through email • Task was done in 4 member teams in Google documents using text-based chat and collaborative text editing • Data was collected using Qualtrics survey software 19
    • 20. Treatment Conditions Action Process Structure by Information Display Structure High APS/High IDS • APS, Discussion monitoring, backup, coordination, leader • IDS, Can use chat and edit document Low APS/High IDS APS, Discussion ad hoc team process IDS, Can use chat and edit document High APS/Low IDS • APS, Discussion monitoring, backup, coordination, leader • IDS, Can use chat, no collaborative editing Low APS/Low IDS APS, Discussion ad hoc team process IDS, Can use chat, no collaborative editing 20
    • 21. Variables & Measures • Team Climate Designed by Anderson and West (1994), to measure the overall climate of the team experience: The inventory has subscales for four specific areas: group vision, task-orientation, support, and participative safety. • Procedural Justice Measures perceptions of procedural fairness, amount of control over process and outcomes, and the degree of consistency, accuracy, correctibility, bias, and ethicality. Jason Colquitt, (2001). • Decision performance • Decision accuracy-objective measure coded 1=correct, 0=incorrect • Decision Quality-suitability candidate prior to and after discussion, Information Sharing-value of individual shared and unshared attributes 21
    • 22. Hypothetical Model Action process structure will increase decision performance, team climate, and procedural justice perceptions. Ability to list and structure information is expected to moderate the influence of action process on outcomes. 22
    • 23. Results • • • • Preliminary analysis Primary analysis Secondary analysis Confirmatory factor analysis 23
    • 24. Reliability and Aggregation Construct Team Climate Procedural Justice Information Sharing Shared Information Unshared Information Decision Accuracy Decision Quality Cronbach’s Rwg(j) ICC(1) alpha .861 .962 .251 ICC2(2) .876 .725 .875 .180 .624 .880 .711 .213 .837 .815 .784 .140 .790 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 24
    • 25. Preliminary Analysis • Control Variables-These variables for internet comfort level, age, and ethnicity were controlled for in the regression tests. • Internet technology comfort level was positively correlated with team climate and procedural justice scores. • Ethnicity was positively correlated with procedural justice • Age was positively correlated with team climate. 25
    • 26. Outcomes by Factor Dependent Variable High Action process, High Information Display High Action process, Low Information Display Low Action process, High Information Display Low Communication Display, Low Information Display Team Climate 3.95 (.561) 3.80 (.520) 3.68 (.573) 3.52 (.520) Procedural Justice 4.00 (.590) 3.70 (.561) 3.55 (.672) 3.70 (.532) Decision Accuracy .807 (.410) .673 (.473) .635 (.470) .462 (.480) Decision Quality 3.80 (1.34) 3.50 (1.30) 3.50 (1.40) 3.27 (1.23) Information Sharing Shared 3.70 (.512) 4.01 (.433) 3.70 (.620) 3.94 (.388) 3.67 (.661) 3.67 (.734) 3.40 (.844) 3.61 (.734) Unshared 26
    • 27. Hypothesis Test Results Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Tested 1: 2: 3a: Supported Yes Yes Yes Hypothesis 3b: No Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Yes No Yes No 3c: 4: 5: 6: P-Value .001 .008 .003 .582 .108 .006 .535 .009 .462 Effect Size h2=.049 h2.=036 h2=.045 h2=.001 h2=.012 OR=2.34 h2=.001 h2=.042 OR=.794 27
    • 28. Factor Analysis Goodness-of-Fit Measures (x2=201.94, df= 63, x2/df, 3.20, GFI = 0.88, CFI = 0.82, IFI =0.82, RMSEA =.103). Factor Loadings Most factors (11 of 13) loaded significantly (p < .001) on latent constructs with acceptable factor loadings above 0.50. Two indicators, PJ6 (ability to appeal) and PJ7 (ethical and moral standards) were non-significant). Reliability R-Square values for all indicators but three were less than the level of 0.50. The range of variance explained across all 13 indicators extended from 0.01 or 1% (PJ7) to 0.64 or 64% (TC2).The data showed the model had relatively low explanatory power on most indicators. 28
    • 29. StudyConclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations • Summary, Conclusions Discussion • Limitations • Recommendations 29
    • 30. Main Effects • There is evidence monitoring, backup and coordination processes support team climate and justice perceptions, and accurate, higher quality decisions. • Display structure also influenced climate independently, but not justice or decision accuracy • But impact may be small as shown by the modest effect size indicators. 30
    • 31. Moderating Effects • Action process and information display structure had separate influence on team climate • In addition, increased technology affordance was found to moderate action process impact on justice climate, but experimental groups had similar scores to ad hoc • Finally, display affordance enhances action process structure so teams make more accurate decisions than when action process structure is used alone. But this effect is not interactive. 31
    • 32. Factor analysis • Examination shows correcting of error covariances with and between justice and climate indicators will improve model fit. E1E3 (TC1PS and TC3 Vision) E1 E6 (TC1PS, and PJ2 Outcome control) Model fit indices: (x2=71.70, df= 40; x2/df, 1.80; GFI=0.95; CFI =0.96; IFI=0.96; RMSEA=.062 32
    • 33. Limitations • • • • • • Factor separation (control groups ad hoc) Constraints of chat Outside collaboration Figurative vs literal interpretations Instrument length, fatigue Technology usability 33
    • 34. Recommendations • Team designers and members can implement action process structuring to meet unique task, technology, and virtual environment conditions • Exploration of team and justice climate facets in varying contexts and in longitudinal studies may provide better understanding of action process and display structuring impact 34

    ×