Skip to main content

Communication and leadership differences in virtual design teams: Why some teams do better than others

Abstract

Organizations in today’s global economy face continual pressures to remain responsive to changes in the competitive marketplace. One way that firms have adapted to these pressures is to use web-based communication technologies to support virtual project teams. To better understand the effectiveness of these dispersed teams, we have analyzed the transcripts of eight virtual design teams composed of graduate students in information systems. Using a coding scheme based on design rationale concepts, we compare and contrast the communication activities of high and low performing virtual teams working on the early stages of software design.

Our results suggest that the high performing virtual teams significantly out-communicated the low performing virtual teams. High performing teams communicated more regarding design alternatives. They also spent considerably more effort summarizing their work and discussing the write-up of the final design deliverable. The leaders of high performance teams had more communication content than leaders of low performing teams.

References

  • [1]_B.J. Avolio, S. Kahai, and G.E. Dodge, Eleadership: implications for theory, research, and practice,Leadership Quarterly, 11(4): 615–668, 2001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [2]_G. Barczak, and D. Wilmon, Leadership differences in new product development teams,Journal of Product Innovation Management, 6(3): 159–167, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • [3]_T.A. Carte, L. Chidambaram, and A. Becker, Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams,Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, pages 323–343, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [4]_P. Castka, C.J. Bamber, J.M. Shapre, and P. Belohoubek, Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams,Team Performance Management, 7(7/8): 123–134, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [5]_M.R. Cutosky, J.M. Tenenbaum, and J. Glicksmant, Madefast: Collaborative engineering over the Internet,Communications of the ACM, 39(9): 78–87, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [6]_S.J. Deny, L.A. DuRussel, and A.M. O’Donnell, Individual and distributed cognition in interdisciplinary teamwork: a developing case study and em erging theory,Educational Psychology Review, 10(1): 25–56, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [7]_A.C. Edmondson, M.A. Roberto, and M.D. Watkins, A dynamic model of top management team effectiveness: managing unstructured task streams,The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3): 297–325, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [8]_K.M. Eisenhardt, Building Theories from Case Study Research,Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550, 1989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [9]_J. Fjermestad, An integrated framework for group support systems,Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 8(2): 83–107, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [10]_J. Fjermestad and S.R. Hiltz, An assessment of group support systems experimental research: Methodology and results,Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(3): 7–149, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • [11]_J.F. George, G. Easton, J.F. Nunamaker, and G.B. Northcraft, A study of collaborative group work with and without computer-based support,Information Systems Research, 1(4): 394–415, 1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [12]_T.L. Griffith, and M.A. Neale, Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: from nascent knowledge to transitive memory, inResearch in Organizational Behavior, B. M. Staw and R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Volume 23, pages 379–421, JAI Press, Stamford, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • [13]_T.L. Griffith, J.E. Sawyer, and M.A. Neale, Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology,MIS Quarterly, 27(2): 265–287, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • [14]_ RA. Guzzo, Fundamental considerations about work groups, in Handbook of Work Group Psychology, West, M.A., (Ed), John Wiley, & Sons, West Sussex, England, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • [15]_R.J. Hackman and C.G. Morris, Group tasks, group interaction processes and group performance effectiveness: areview and proposed integration, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, L. Berkowitz, (Ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • [16]_V.B. Hmsz and R.S. Tindale, and D.A. Vollrath, The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors,Psychology Bulletin, 121(1): 43–64, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [17]_A.B. Hollmgshead and J.E. McGrath. Computer-assisted groups: a critical review of the empirical research, in Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, R.A. Guzzo and E. Salas, (Eds.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • [18]_S.L. Jarvenpaa, K. Knoll, and D.E. Leidner, Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams,Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4): 29–64, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • [19]_S.L. Jarvenpaa and D.E. Leidner, Communication and Trust in Global virtual teams,Organization Science, 10(6): 791–815, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [20]_T. Kayworth and D. Leidner, The global virtual manager: a prescription for success,European Management Journal, 18(2): 183–194, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [21]_K.W. Kerber and A.F. Buono, Leadership challenges in global virtual teams: lessons from the field, S. A.M.Advanced management Journal, 69(4): 4–10, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • [22]_S.T. Kinney and R.R. Panko, Project teams: profiles and member perceptions-Implications for group support system research and products,Proceedings of the 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1996.

  • [23]_R.E. Kirk, Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences, Brooks/Cole Belmont, CA, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • [24]_D. Knight, C.C. Durham, and E.A. Lock, The relationship of team goals, incentives, and efficacy to strategic risk, tactical implementation, and performance,Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 26–338, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [25]_R.T. Leenders, J.M.L. van Engelen, and J. Kratzer. Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: a social network perspective,Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 20(1): 69–92, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [26]_M.L. Maznevski and K.M. Chudoba,. Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness,Organization Science, 11(5): 473–492, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [27]_J.E. McGrath and A.B. Hollmgshead, Groups Interacting with Technology, Sage Publications, CA, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • [28]_T.P. Moran and J.M. Carroll, Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, Erlbaum Associates, N.J, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • [29]_R.J. Ocker and J. Fjermestad, Web-based computer-mediated communication: an experimental investigation comparing three communication modes for determining software requirements,Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, pages, 88–97, 1998.

  • [30]_R.J. Ocker, J. Fjermestad, S.R. Hiltz, and K. Johnson, Effects of four modes of group communication on the outcomes of software requirements determination,Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(1): 99–118, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • [31]_R.J. Ocker, S.R. Hiltz, M. Turoff, and J. Fjermestad, The effects of distributed group support and process structuring on software requirements development teams,Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3): 127–153, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  • [32]_G.M. Olson, J.S. Olson, M. Carter, and M. Storrosten,. Small group design meetings: an analysis of collaboration,Human Computer Interaction, 7, pages, 347–374, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [33]_J.S. Olson, G.M. Olson, M. Storrosten, and M. Carter, Groupwork close up: a comparison of the group design process with and without a simple group editor,ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 11(4): 321–348, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [34]_R.R. Patrashkova-Volzdoska, S.A. McComb, and S.G. Green, Examining a curvilinear relationship between communication frequency and team performance in cross-functional project teams,IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50(3): 262–269, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [35]_A. Pettigrew, Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice, National Science Foundation Conference on Longitudinal Research Methods in Organizations, Austin, TX, 1988.

  • [36]_G. Piccoli and B. Ives, Trust and the unintended effects of behavior control in virtual teams,MIS Quarterly, 27(3): 365–395, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • [37]_M.B. Pinto and J.K. Pinto, Project team communication and cross-functional cooperation in new program development,Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7(3): 200–212, 1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [38]_M.S. Poole and R.Y. Hirokawa, Communication and Group Decision Making, Sage, New York, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • [39]_G.P. Powell and B. Ives. Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research,The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1): 6–37, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • [40]_S. Qureshi, M. Liu, and D. Vogel, The effects of electronic collaboration in distributed project management,Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, pages, 55–75, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [41]_R. Rosenthal and R.L. Rosnow, Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis, McGraw Hill, New York, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • [42]_A.F. Rutkowski, D.R. Vogel, M.V. Genuchten, T.M.A. Bemelmans, and M. Favier, E-collaboration: the reality of virtuality,IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 45(4): 219–230, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [43]_S. Sanker, F. Lau, and S. Sanhay, Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory building about virtual team development,The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 32(1): 38–56, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • [44]_J.B. Schmidt, M.M. Montoya-Weiss, and A.P. Massey, New product development decision-making effectiveness: comparing individuals, face-to-face teams, and virtual teams,Decision Sciences, 32(4): 575–600, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [45]_T.A. Stewart, Managing in a wired company,Fortune, 130, pages, 44–56, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • [46]_B.C.Y. Tan, K.K. Wei, W.H. Huang, and G.N. Ng, A dialogue technique to enhance electronic communication in virtual teams,IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(2): 153–165, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [47]_S.I. Tannenbaum, E. Salas, and J.A. Cannon-Bowers, Promoting team effectiveness, in Handbook of Work Group Psychology, M.A. West, (Ed.), John Wiley, & Sons, West Sussex, England, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • [48]_H.J. Thamkain, Leading technology-based project teams,Engineering Management Journal, 16(2): 35–42, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • [49]_A.M. Townsend, S.M. DeMarie, and A.R. Hendrickson, Virtual teams: technology and the workplace of the future,Academy of Management Executive, 2(3): 17–29, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • [50]_M.E. Warkentin, L. Sayeed, and R. Hightower, Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: an exploratory study of a web-based conference system,Decision Sciences, 28(4): 975–996, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [51]_Y. Yoo and M. Alavi, Emergent leadership in virtual teams: what do emergent leaders do?Information and Organization, 14(1): 27–58, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fjermestad, J., Ocker, R.J. Communication and leadership differences in virtual design teams: Why some teams do better than others. J Braz Comp Soc 13, 37–50 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03192544

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03192544

Key Words

  • Virtual design teams
  • communication
  • team performance
  • virtual team leadership