PRICE College of Business University of Oklahoma University of Oklahoma Spanning Time, Distance and...

PRICECollege of Business

University ofOklahomaUniversity ofOklahoma

Spanning Time, Distance and Spanning Time, Distance and Diversity with TechnologyDiversity with Technology

A Program of ResearchA Program of Research

Laku Chidambaram Laku Chidambaram Traci CarteTraci Carte

Michael F. Price College of BusinessMichael F. Price College of BusinessThe University of OklahomaThe University of Oklahoma

Norman, OK 73072, USANorman, OK 73072, USA



AgendaAgenda

1.1. Theory DevelopmentTheory Development

2.2. Stream of StudiesStream of Studies

3.3. Synopsis of Study 1 (focused on Quantitative Synopsis of Study 1 (focused on Quantitative Analysis)Analysis)

4.4. Synopsis of Study 2 (focused on Qualitative Synopsis of Study 2 (focused on Qualitative Analysis)Analysis)



1. Theory Development 1. Theory Development



Prior ResearchPrior Research

• Relational Demography (Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989)Relational Demography (Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989)

• Social Categorization Theory (Turner, 1987) Social Categorization Theory (Turner, 1987)

• Similarity/Attraction Paradigm (Byrne, 1971) Similarity/Attraction Paradigm (Byrne, 1971)



The Group Formation ProcessThe Group Formation Process

• Many theorists (i.e., Gersick, 1989; McGrath Many theorists (i.e., Gersick, 1989; McGrath 1991) have suggested that groups alternate 1991) have suggested that groups alternate between focusing on:between focusing on:– Relational activities (i.e., group well-being, member Relational activities (i.e., group well-being, member

support, relational development)support, relational development)

– Production activities (i.e., task performance, project Production activities (i.e., task performance, project deliverables, work outcomes)deliverables, work outcomes)

• Some of Gersick’s work suggests that relational Some of Gersick’s work suggests that relational development may take precedence in early stages development may take precedence in early stages and production in later stages of group’s history.and production in later stages of group’s history.



Collaborative Technologies (CTs)Collaborative Technologies (CTs)

CAPABILITIES COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGIES

E-mail Groupware (e.g., Lotus

Notes)

Group Support Systems (e.g.,

GroupSystems)

Desktop Conferencing (e.g., NetMeeting)

Chat Rooms

REDUCTIVE CAPABILITIES

Visual Anonymity High High High Low (with Audio)None (with Video)

High

Equality of Participation

Moderate Moderate High Low High

Synchronous Interaction No No (in most cases)

Yes (in most cases)

Yes Yes

ADDITIVE CAPABILITIES

Coordination Support No Yes Yes (in some cases)

Yes No

Electronic Trail Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Enhanced Capabilities Image & File Transmission

Document Storage & Retrieval

Decision Support Features

Audio- & Video- Conferencing

Instant one-on-one Messaging



Impact of CTsImpact of CTs

CAPABILITIESCAPABILITIES EFFECTSEFFECTS IMPACT IMPACT EARLYEARLY

IMPACT IMPACT LATERLATER

Visual Visual AnonymityAnonymity

Reduces salience of surface-level Reduces salience of surface-level diversitydiversity

HighHigh LowerLower

Equality of Equality of ParticipationParticipation

Provides a level playing field; Provides a level playing field; minority opinions heardminority opinions heard

HighHigh LowerLower

Asynchronous Asynchronous InteractionInteraction

Slow interactions; reduced ability Slow interactions; reduced ability to coordinate etc.to coordinate etc.

HighHigh LowerLower

Coordination Coordination SupportSupport

Enables tracking of people, Enables tracking of people, projects, and prioritiesprojects, and priorities

LowerLower HighHigh

Electronic Electronic TrailTrail

Easy retrieval of comm.; provides Easy retrieval of comm.; provides audit trailaudit trail

LowerLower HighHigh

Enhanced Enhanced CapabilitiesCapabilities

Richer comm. (audio-/video-); Richer comm. (audio-/video-); task support (decision support)task support (decision support)

LowerLower HighHigh



Conventional wisdom and existing work on technology support for collaborative work suggests this for teams in general

We propose that, depending on the degree of diversity, the opposite may be more appropriate

Group makeupGroup makeup Early stagesEarly stages Late stagesLate stages

HomogeneousHomogeneous

Face-to-face Face-to-face interactioninteraction

Collaborative Collaborative technologies technologies addedadded

DiverseDiverse

Collaborative Collaborative technologies technologies introducedintroduced

Face-to-face Face-to-face interactions interactions addedadded

Challenging Conventional WisdomChallenging Conventional Wisdom



2. Stream of Studies 2. Stream of Studies



Stream of StudiesStream of Studies

StudyStudy FocusFocus Design/MethodsDesign/Methods

1.1. Managing diversity with Managing diversity with collaborative technologycollaborative technology

Lab experiment Lab experiment QuantitativeQuantitative

2.2. Coordination and collaborationCoordination and collaboration Lab experiment Lab experiment Qualitative Qualitative

3.3. Technology choice in diverse Technology choice in diverse groupsgroups

Field study & labField study & lab

Quantitative & Quantitative & QualitativeQualitative

4.4. Creativity in diverse teamsCreativity in diverse teams Lab experimentLab experiment

Quantitative & Quantitative & QualitativeQualitative



3. Synopsis of Study 13. Synopsis of Study 1

(Quantitative Analyses Focused on the (Quantitative Analyses Focused on the

Interactions and Performance of Diverse Teams)Interactions and Performance of Diverse Teams)



Research QuestionResearch Question

• Do the effects of collaborative Do the effects of collaborative technologies differ over time between technologies differ over time between diverse and homogeneous teams?diverse and homogeneous teams?



Research DesignResearch Design

• Conducted field experiment using students at OU, Conducted field experiment using students at OU, Salisbury State, and Michigan TechSalisbury State, and Michigan Tech– 22 virtual teams collaborated on a semester-long database 22 virtual teams collaborated on a semester-long database

project and used Yahoo! Groups exclusively (for project and used Yahoo! Groups exclusively (for communication and task-related exchanges)communication and task-related exchanges)

– 22 collocated teams collaborated on same project 22 collocated teams collaborated on same project communicating primarily in face-to-face settings and communicating primarily in face-to-face settings and using Yahoo! Groups for task-related exchangesusing Yahoo! Groups for task-related exchanges

– Team assignments were made in each treatment so that Team assignments were made in each treatment so that half the teams were diverse and half homogeneoushalf the teams were diverse and half homogeneous



Project DetailsProject Details

• Phase 1:Phase 1: Conceptual model (rough draft) Conceptual model (rough draft) • Phase 2:Phase 2: Conceptual model (final version) Conceptual model (final version)

• Phase 3:Phase 3: Logical design (normalized) Logical design (normalized)

• Phase 4:Phase 4: Implementation (queries, forms, reports) Implementation (queries, forms, reports)

• Phase 5:Phase 5: Debriefing Debriefing



Data CollectedData Collected

• A variety of perceived and actual demographic dataA variety of perceived and actual demographic data• Surveys administered after each phase of the Surveys administered after each phase of the

deliverable capturingdeliverable capturing– Perceived diversity (surface and deep)Perceived diversity (surface and deep)

– Relational conflictRelational conflict

– CohesionCohesion

– Outcome satisfactionOutcome satisfaction

• Grade assigned by course instructor used as an Grade assigned by course instructor used as an “actual” measure of performance“actual” measure of performance



Sample DemographicsSample Demographics

Variables Virtual(n=105)

Collocated(n=105)

Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Age (in years) 22.7 (4.60) 22.3 (3.80)

Work experience (part time; in years)

3.98 (4.02) 4.00 (4.00)

Grade point average 3.15 (0.44) 3.03 (0.57)

Gender Male=81Female=24

Male=87Female=18



Survey Response Rates: Actual (Percent)

Survey response after…

Virtual Teams

Collocated Teams

1st deliverable 92 (88%) 79 (75%)

2nd deliverable 82 (78%) 78 (74%)

3rd deliverable 76 (72%) 80 (76%)

4th deliverable 79 (75%) 86( 81%)

5th deliverable 57 (54%) 59 (56%)



Summary of FindingsSummary of Findings

• Diverse groups without technology support seemed Diverse groups without technology support seemed to start off well (in contrast to the literature on to start off well (in contrast to the literature on diversity), but then encountered steep drop offs in diversity), but then encountered steep drop offs in cohesion, task-based conflict and outcome cohesion, task-based conflict and outcome satisfaction (in line with the literature)satisfaction (in line with the literature)

• In contrast, diverse groups with technology support In contrast, diverse groups with technology support started off poorly (in contrast to our expectations) started off poorly (in contrast to our expectations) but then gained ground, especially in terms of but then gained ground, especially in terms of improvements in cohesion and outcome satisfaction improvements in cohesion and outcome satisfaction (in line with our expectations)(in line with our expectations)



Summary of Findings (contd.)Summary of Findings (contd.)

• Surprisingly, technology had little impact on the Surprisingly, technology had little impact on the task performance of any group—all started out task performance of any group—all started out poorly, improved and then flattened outpoorly, improved and then flattened out

• Also, remarkably similar profiles along most Also, remarkably similar profiles along most dimensions for homogeneous groups (with and dimensions for homogeneous groups (with and without technology support) without technology support)

• Overall, technology seemed to act as a brake for the Overall, technology seemed to act as a brake for the dysfunctional processes of diverse teams, rather than dysfunctional processes of diverse teams, rather than as an accelerator of their inherent valueas an accelerator of their inherent value



3. Synopsis of Study 23. Synopsis of Study 2

(Qualitative Analyses Focused on Coordination in (Qualitative Analyses Focused on Coordination in

Virtual Teams)Virtual Teams)



CoordinationCoordination

• Technology coordinationTechnology coordination refers to the integration of the refers to the integration of the available technological tools with the task deliverables available technological tools with the task deliverables (Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001)(Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001)– Conflicting results from the literature, based on whether Conflicting results from the literature, based on whether

technology coordination is emergent (Malhotra et al., 2001) or technology coordination is emergent (Malhotra et al., 2001) or imposed (Piccoli & Ives, 2003)imposed (Piccoli & Ives, 2003)

• Temporal coordinationTemporal coordination refers to the synchronization of refers to the synchronization of these task deliverables with member schedules and team these task deliverables with member schedules and team deadlines (Sutanto et al., 2005)deadlines (Sutanto et al., 2005)– Again mixed results: direct (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000) vs. Again mixed results: direct (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000) vs.

indirect effects (Massey et al., 2002); individual vs. group indirect effects (Massey et al., 2002); individual vs. group mechanisms (Sutanto et al., 2005); imposed vs. emergent rulesmechanisms (Sutanto et al., 2005); imposed vs. emergent rules



Coordination and CapabilitiesCoordination and Capabilities

• Coordination occurs through the two sets of capabilitiesCoordination occurs through the two sets of capabilities——reductivereductive and and additiveadditive—provided by collaboration —provided by collaboration technologies (Herbsleb, 2002; Brander et al., 2000)technologies (Herbsleb, 2002; Brander et al., 2000)

• We suggest that We suggest that technology coordinationtechnology coordination predominantly predominantly occurs through reductive capabilities, while occurs through reductive capabilities, while temporal temporal coordinationcoordination predominantly occurs through additive predominantly occurs through additive capabilities of CTs—an idea drawn from the Task-capabilities of CTs—an idea drawn from the Task-Technology Fit model (Zigurs & Buckland, 1998) Technology Fit model (Zigurs & Buckland, 1998)



Intertwining Strands of CoordinationIntertwining Strands of Coordination

Temporal Coordination (Content)

Additive Capabilities (Structure)

Reductive Capabilities (Structure)

Technology Coordination (Content)



Main ThesisMain Thesis

• A single type of coordination—termed “A single type of coordination—termed “monochordicmonochordic” ” coordination—is unlikely to provide the requisite means coordination—is unlikely to provide the requisite means for a virtual team to succeed for a virtual team to succeed

• Both types of coordination—termed “Both types of coordination—termed “dichordicdichordic” ” coordination—representing intertwining strands (over coordination—representing intertwining strands (over the life of the team) are likely to provide the means for the life of the team) are likely to provide the means for success in such settings success in such settings

• No coordination, termed “No coordination, termed “non-chordic,non-chordic,” refers to the ” refers to the absence of any significant coordination—i.e., no (or little) absence of any significant coordination—i.e., no (or little) coordination content in either technological capability—coordination content in either technological capability—and is likely to be the least successful approach of all and is likely to be the least successful approach of all



Operationalizing ConstructsOperationalizing Constructs

• A total of about 5,000 messagesA total of about 5,000 messages

• Coding for coordinationCoding for coordination– Two coders coded two teams independently; used for trainingTwo coders coded two teams independently; used for training

– All differences discussed and resolved for consensusAll differences discussed and resolved for consensus

– Remaining 20 teams were split between the two codersRemaining 20 teams were split between the two coders

– One more team was done together to check consistency; inter-One more team was done together to check consistency; inter-rater reliability was 93.5%rater reliability was 93.5%

– Counts for each coordination category split by sessionCounts for each coordination category split by session

• Coding for technology capabilities just completed (by two Coding for technology capabilities just completed (by two different coders)different coders)



Summary of ResultsSummary of Results

• All teams, regardless of coordination type, started off—All teams, regardless of coordination type, started off—not surprisingly—at about the same place in terms of not surprisingly—at about the same place in terms of their performance (as indicated by Ftheir performance (as indicated by F2,192,19 = .074, p=.929) = .074, p=.929)

• However, by the last session, significant performance However, by the last session, significant performance differences emerged (Fdifferences emerged (F2,192,19 = 3.341, p=.057) = 3.341, p=.057)

• These differences were consistent with our expectation: These differences were consistent with our expectation: Teams that engaged in dichordic coordination Teams that engaged in dichordic coordination outperformed those teams that engaged in non-chordic outperformed those teams that engaged in non-chordic coordination; and, those that engaged in monochordic coordination; and, those that engaged in monochordic coordination fell in between coordination fell in between



Coordination and Performance

Performance of Virtual Teams

0.7250

0.7450

0.7650

0.7850

0.8050

0.8250

0.8450

0.8650

0.8850

0.9050

0.9250

P1 P4

TIME PERIODS

SC

OR

ES

Non-chordic

Monochordic

Dichordic

Coordination Types



ConclusionsConclusions

• Embracing asynchroniety: Teams that interwove Embracing asynchroniety: Teams that interwove temporal and technology coordination to temporal and technology coordination to stretchstretch time performed the besttime performed the best

• Replicating familiarity: In contrast, those that Replicating familiarity: In contrast, those that tried to tried to overloadoverload time—typically by meeting time—typically by meeting together simultaneously—performed the worsttogether simultaneously—performed the worst

• One or the other: Teams that relied on one form One or the other: Teams that relied on one form or another of coordination fell in betweenor another of coordination fell in between



Questions?Questions?

Date post:	13-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	paulina-byrd
View:	216 times
Download:	1 times

PRICE College of Business University of Oklahoma University of Oklahoma Spanning Time, Distance and...

Documents