Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness


Published on

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

Published in: Business, Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Process protocol for virtual team effectiveness

  1. 1. Process protocols for virtual team effectiveness Christopher Sean Cordes November 1, 2013 Iowa State University 1
  2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 7. Review of the Literature • Defining virtual teams • Conceptual basis of the research • Framework of team effectiveness 7
  8. 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. 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. 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. 11. Process and Display Structures • Action Process Structure – Monitoring – Backup – Coordination • Collaborative Display Structure – Collaborative text editing and chat – Chat only 11
  12. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 17. Methodology • Population • Variables & Measurements • Treatment conditions • Hypotheses 17
  18. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 23. Results • • • • Preliminary analysis Primary analysis Secondary analysis Confirmatory factor analysis 23
  24. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 29. StudyConclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations • Summary, Conclusions Discussion • Limitations • Recommendations 29
  30. 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. 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. 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. 33. Limitations • • • • • • Factor separation (control groups ad hoc) Constraints of chat Outside collaboration Figurative vs literal interpretations Instrument length, fatigue Technology usability 33
  34. 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