Trust and leadership in virtual teamwork: A media naturalness perspective

TRUST AND LEADERSHIP IN VIRTUAL TEAMWORK: A MEDIA NATURALNESS PERSPECTIVE

Darleen M. DeRosa, Donald A. Hantula, Ned Kock, and John D’Arcy Paradoxically, virtual teams are ubiquitous and often successful, contrary to most current communication theories’ predictions. Media naturalness theory (Kock, 2001), an evolutionary perspective on communication and its principles of media naturalness, innate schema similarity, and learned schema diversity can be used to understand, study, and manage successful virtual teamwork. In particular, potential problems of trust and leadership in virtual teams are shown to be amenable to solutions rooted explicitly in an evolutionary context. From a media naturalness perspective, geographic distance and technological complexity are secondary to processes of adaptation, as humans remain the most complex and flexible part of the communication system. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Introduction Virtual teams, or teams of people who work interdependently across space, time, and organizational boundaries through the use of technology to facilitate communication and collaboration, are the result of the growth of teamwork in organizations and increased geographic dispersion (Lipnack & Stamps, 2000; Snow, Lipnack, & Stamps, 2001). Organizations are relying more heavily on virtual teams due to a more competitive global market, the benefits of integrating the work of specialized employees who might be geographically dispersed, and the need to save time and travel expenses (Kock, 2000; Mohrman, 1999; Townsend, DeMarie, & Hendrickson, 1998). Virtual teams allow or-

ganizations to expand potential labor markets by continually altering and improving organizational processes to capitalize on strengths, which is especially important in a global environment that has become increasingly competitive (Duarte & Snyder, 1999). Time is a crucial corporate resource; communication technologies help organizations avoid delays and attain immediate feedback (Opper & Fersko-Weiss, 1992). Moreover, communication tools allow team members to work on projects at a much quicker pace than if they had to travel and meet face-to-face (FTF) and allow organizations to use “relay race” procedures to accomplish tasks, resulting in a continuous workflow (Cascio, 1999). For example, as Texas employees are leaving work, team

Correspondence to: Donald A. Hantula, Department of Psychology, Temple University, Weiss Hall (265-67), Philadelphia, PA 19122, E-mail: [email protected] Human Resource Management, Summer/Fall 2004, Vol. 43, Nos. 2 & 3, Pp. 219–232 © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20016

220

•

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004

Although research on virtual teamwork has increased substantially in recent years, there has been little theoretical development to guide this research.

members in Hawaii are just beginning their day. These team members in Hawaii finish their day and transmit their work to team members in Bombay who are starting the workday. Finally, the Bombay team members contribute to the project and then send it back to Texas for further work. This “relay race” continues until the project is completed, which should require less time due to the virtual tools that allow these team members to work around the clock. In reference to software development teams, Gorton and Motwani (1996) referred to this process as “software shift work,” in which teams in different time zones work on a product in continuous cycles (around the clock). Virtual teams can also provide greater employee flexibility. Team members typically have increased freedom in their schedules and are not necessarily confined to a traditional workday or workplace. In some regard, virtual team schedules are analogous to “flextime” arrangements, allowing employees the ability to perform tasks on their own schedules. In addition, virtual teams provide dynamic team membership and increase the number of tasks or projects that employees can work on simultaneously (Cascio & Shurygailo, 2003). It is plausible that individuals belong to more than one team at the same time and have the flexibility to move from one team to another very easily. Moreover, organizations have the ability to quickly pool resources from a variety of locations by forming virtual teams to address specific organizational needs. Finally, the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center resulted in decreased business travel, which further increased the need for virtual communication (Alavosious et al., 2002; Weber, 2001). In general, virtual teams allow organizations to cut travel expenses and save travel time, which results in financial savings and may increase team member satisfaction. Drawbacks of Virtual Teams Although there are numerous advantages to employing virtual teams, there are also a number of major disadvantages that result from virtual collaboration. As the spatial and

temporal distance between team members increases, it is possible that communication becomes more challenging due to differences in culture, language, and access to technology, which can impede collaboration (Duarte & Snyder, 1999). Moreover, the lack of physical interaction results in reduced verbal, social, and status cues that are typically present in face-to-face (FTF) communication (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Sproull, 1986; Weisband, 1992). This may become especially important when team members are from different cultures, due to the fact that some cultures emphasize nonverbal cues and gestures in interpersonal interaction, which may lead to comprehension difficulties (Cascio, 1999). Moreover, creating a sense of “shared space,” or a place for individuals to come together and examine their work, is considered to be more difficult in virtual communication (Cohen & Mankin, 1999). Virtual team members might report feelings of social isolation due to the lack of FTF contact. Although new technologies such as “electronic hallways” help members to “socialize by the coffee pot or water cooler,” or as they “walk down the hall” (e.g., Johansen, 1989), it is unclear whether these technologies serve as substitutes for FTF social interaction, and virtual teams may be more susceptible to problems of coordination and cohesion. Specifically, work performance may be impeded by coordination difficulties between members, and teams may be less cohesive due to the lack of FTF contact and the decreased proximity in these teams (Kiesler & Cummings, 2002). Due to the prevalence of virtual teamwork in organizational settings and the link between virtual communication and outcome variables such as productivity and team member satisfaction, it is important that researchers understand what factors directly impact the success of virtual team communication. Although research on virtual teamwork has increased substantially in recent years, there has been little theoretical development to guide this research. Therefore, the current article proposes a new theoretical framework for research on virtual team communication and illustrates

Trust and Leadership in Virtual Teamwork

the implications of this theory on two key research areas in virtual teamwork: trust and leadership. A Theoretical Framework for Virtual Team Communication Although there has been a great deal of research comparing FTF and computer-mediated teams (e.g., Adrianson & Hjelmquist, 1991; Barkhi, Jacob, & Pirkul, 1999; Chidambaram & Jones, 1993; Hedlund, Ilgen, & Hollenbeck, 1998; Hollingshead, 1996; Straus, 1996; Weisband & Atwater, 1999), it is evident that there is a lack of comprehensive theory to guide research in this area (Baltes, Dickson, Sherman, Bauer, & LaGanke, 2002), and further, there is little empirical research into the factors associated with virtual team success (Workman, Kahnweiler, & Bommer, 2003). While media richness theory and social theories account for some interpersonal and performance processes in virtual teams, they are too narrowly focused and do not fully explain many of the variables surrounding virtual team communication and productivity. Thus, several of these predominant theories will briefly be examined in order to highlight the need for a more comprehensive theoretical framework. Media Richness Theory Media richness theory has been widely cited and continues to be the predominant theory in research on electronic communication. Specifically, media richness theorists (Daft & Lengel, 1986) asserted that various types of communication media could be classified according to their level of richness based on their capacity for feedback, the number of cues and channels used, and how personal they are (also see Daft & Lengel, 1984). FTF communication is classified as the most “rich,” followed by video communication, telephone communication, letters and memos (personal documents), electronic mail (e-mail), impersonal written documents, and numeric documents. Thus, the synchronicity of the communication media may influence information richness. For in-

stance, asynchronous communication is exemplified by a delay in feedback. Some media, such as bulletin boards and memos, do not accommodate for feedback. On the other hand, some technologies, such as the telephone and chat rooms, are high in synchronicity but still may be low in richness. The lack of information richness in asynchronous communication may impact virtual team development, but other factors may impact team efficacy. Media richness theory might be useful to understand communication media in virtual teamwork, but it seems that the theory fails to fully account for some of the findings on technologies such as videoconferencing and does not completely explain the superiority of FTF communication. Burke, Aytes, Chidambaram, and Johnson (1999) found that perceptions of various media did not remain constant as suggested by media richness theory, but rather evolved over time. As team members became more familiar and more comfortable with media lower in richness, their perceptions toward the media continued to become more positive, which has important implications on the types of media used in virtual teamwork. For example, it may not be necessary for organizations to purchase expensive media due to their high degree of richness if team members become more comfortable with “lean” media over time. More importantly, the tenure of the team may also play a role in media choice such that teams meeting for only one session might be more successful using media higher in richness (especially if team members are not comfortable with lean media). In a longitudinal study, Alavi, Wheeler, and Valacich (1995) found that “distant” (in terms of geographical proximity) teams using desktop videoconferencing exhibited critical thinking skills that were superior to those in the FTF and “local” videoconferencing teams. As a result of these findings, they concluded that media richness theory fails to fully explicate complex team behavior; for instance, media richness theory does not account for team member familiarity or contextual factors such as norms for technology use, which may impact the formation of trust and other inter-

•

221

Media richness theory might be useful to understand communication media in virtual teamwork, but it seems that the theory fails to fully account for some of the findings on technologies such as videoconferencing and does not completely explain the superiority of FTF communication.

222

•

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004

Most importantly, media richness and social theories do not incorporate any reference to biological and evolutionary explanations, which might bring innovative and valuable insights to understanding interaction with these new technologies.

personal processes in virtual communication. In addition, media richness theory was put forth before the development of many recent technological innovations and has not yet accounted for many of the “superrich” technological media (e.g., virtual reality software and technology that utilizes extremely rich combinations of audio, video, and visual streams) that have recently emerged. Finally, media richness theory seems to ignore the social and contextual variables that may be critical to team communication, as noted by Markus (1994), who found that social influences such as social pressure can impact technology use. Social Theories Social theories, such as adaptive structuration theory (AST; Poole & DeSanctis, 1990) and social information processing theory (SIP; Walther, 1992) pay greater attention to contextual variables that might impact media selection and team performance due to the argument that technical characteristics of communication media do not completely account for task effectiveness and user satisfaction. Under AST theory, social factors, technological features, the task, and the users’ environment all interact to influence performance. SIP is based on the notion that given sufficient time for communication, computer-mediated teams will experience the same interpersonal interaction as FTF teams (if all other variables are comparable between these teams). In this sense, temporal factors such as the length of time a team works together play an important role in team relational development and, ultimately, impact team performance. Although AST and SIP offer contributions, it is evident that they are not fully comprehensive in their scope, since they tend to focus on social and relational factors and pay less attention to media usage and features of the technology. Theories that focus on aspects of the technology such as ease of use, as in Davis’s (1989) technology acceptance model, have not been the subject of much research in this regard. Kock (2001) noted that media richness and social theories do not fully ac-

count for electronic communication behavior; media richness tends to be overly simplistic by focusing largely on the congruence between technological media and the type of task, whereas social theories are more global and tend to explain, rather than predict, more complex communication behavior. Most importantly, media richness and social theories do not incorporate any reference to biological and evolutionary explanations, which might bring innovative and valuable insights to understanding interaction with these new technologies. In an attempt to incorporate features of social and technological theories in an evolutionary perspective, Kock (2001) proposed the media naturalness theory, a framework that combines evolutionary theory with social and technological theories to account for behavior in electronic communication. The Media Naturalness Theory From an evolutionary standpoint, synchronous FTF communication (using auditory sounds and visual cues) has been the primary mode of communication in the evolutionary history of human beings, which means that humans are optimized for FTF interaction (Kock, 2002). All other things being equal, humans prefer FTF because it is the most natural form of communication. Furthermore, communication modes that are most similar to FTF interaction are more natural for humans. Most importantly, humans might not be optimized for many of the existing technological media, because many of these media suppress many of the features of FTF communication (Kock, 2002). The media naturalness theory classifies FTF interaction at the midpoint of a onedimensional scale where points further away from the midpoint, either less rich or more rich, are viewed as less natural, thereby requiring an increase in cognitive effort. On the other hand, media richness theory classifies communication media on a linear continuum that ranges from low to high in amount of richness, which is problematic, as some communication media are labeled as super-rich, thereby conceptualizing these media as being superior to FTF

Trust and Leadership in Virtual Teamwork

communication, at least in terms of their amount of richness. Kock (2001) asserted that any non-FTF communication medium, even if it is super-rich, should be perceived as being less natural and as requiring more cognitive effort than FTF communication. Unlike media richness theory, the media naturalness framework is compatible with social theories of electronic communication behavior. The media naturalness theory emphasizes three main principles (Kock, 2001). First, the media naturalness principle focuses on the degree of naturalness of a communication tool compared to traditional FTF communication, as well as the amount of cognitive effort necessary to use the communication medium. In this sense, media that integrate features of FTF interaction will be perceived as more natural and require less cognitive effort. There are five key elements that typify natural FTF communication. First, individuals are collocated and can see and hear one another. Next, there is a high degree of synchronicity that allows individuals to quickly interact. Third, individuals have the ability to observe and convey facial expressions. Fourth, individuals are able to observe and convey body language. Finally, individuals possess the ability to convey and listen to speech. Some communication media are designed to incorporate many of these five elements that are found in natural interaction, while other media are designed to prevent users from experiencing these elements. The media naturalness principle states that a decrease in the degree of media naturalness of a communication medium should lead to the following outcomes in regard to a communication interaction: an increase in levels of cognitive effort, an increase in ambiguity levels, and a decrease in physiological arousal (Kock, 2002). While there is a need for additional research on media naturalness, existing research on electronic communication can be used to examine this hypothesis. For example, Kock (2001) found that a decrease in media naturalness led to an increase in cognitive effort. In addition, the idea that a decrease in media naturalness is likely to result in a

greater probability of misrepresented communication cues, thereby leading to increased ambiguity, is aligned with empirical findings that electronic communication is more ambiguous than FTF interaction (e.g., Carlson & Zmud, 1999; Graetz, Boyle, Kimble, Thompson, & Garloch, 1998; Kock, 2001). Finally, researchers (e.g., Reinig, Briggs, Shepherd, Yen, & Nunamaker, 1995; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986) have also concluded that users of electronic communication media generally report that computer-mediated communication is less exciting and not as emotionally fulfilling as FTF interaction, which is consistent with the idea that media that suppress features of FTF interaction have less physiological arousal than FTF communication. The innate schema similarity principle, the second principle in the media naturalness framework, emphasizes that, due to evolutionary history, there should be innate influences that are common to all individuals, regardless of their cultural and social backgrounds. Thus, individuals from different cultures should still possess the same electronic communication behavior; this point is especially relevant to virtual teams, where team members are more likely to come from different cultures and social backgrounds. This principle emphasizes the importance of using evolutionary similarities to make behavioral predictions about electronic communication behavior (Kock, 2001) given the expectation that individuals possess similar preferences, regardless of their cultural and social background. Finally, the learned schema diversity principle (Kock, 2001) emphasizes that individuals learn and acquire communication schemas through the environment and points out the importance of individual differences as a result of learning. For instance, individuals who have more experience using e-mail are more likely to report e-mail as being more natural than those who are not familiar with using e-mail. Moreover, learned schemas partially subdue the role of innate schemas, although innate schemas are still present. As a species, it is clear that human beings are very adaptive; however, there is ambiguity surrounding the

•

223

The media naturalness principle states that a decrease in the degree of media naturalness of a communication medium should lead to the following outcomes in regard to a communication interaction: an increase in levels of cognitive effort, an increase in ambiguity levels, and a decrease in physiological arousal.

224

•

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004

... this framework should be informative for HR practitioners and managers who work with virtual teams, as it might guide decisions on training, FTF meetings, and team member selection, which ultimately impact team performance and virtual team member satisfaction.

temporal duration in which adaptation takes place. For example, what is the average amount of time for adaptation to take place? As a result, there is a need to focus on the timing and circumstances around the adaptation process. In essence, the media naturalness theory was put forth in order to bridge the gap that currently exists between technological and social theories. Because this theoretical framework highlights the need to understand the degree of mismatch between our biological communication apparatus and features of a communication medium, it might be informative for HR and management decisions on electronic communication and virtual teamwork. Specifically, the framework might offer additional guidelines for both the selection and the application of technological media in organizations. For example, the framework might facilitate the decisions of HR practitioners and managers, who often need to make decisions about technologies and resources to support virtual teamwork and electronic communication. In addition, the framework might help managers and venture capitalists make predictions about the likely evolution of communication technologies and therefore target their investments in certain types of technologies (Kock, 2001). Finally, this framework should be informative for HR practitioners and managers who work with virtual teams, as it might guide decisions on training, FTF meetings, and team member selection, which ultimately impact team performance and virtual team member satisfaction. There are several major research areas where application of the media naturalness theory might be especially helpful to understanding virtual team effectiveness. First, given the previous research findings that computer-mediated teams are generally less productive and less satisfied than FTF teams, it is especially important to examine how technology impacts interpersonal processes such as trust, which may have a fundamental impact on virtual team performance. In addition, there is a need for research on virtual team leadership and how managing from a distance might impact both team performance and the interpersonal relationships of

virtual team members. Thus, these two key research areas are explored, and recommendations are put forth based on principles of the media naturalness framework. Trust in Virtual Teams: A Paradox? It is no longer uncommon for communication to cross boundaries—both within and outside of an organization (Hinds & Kiesler, 1995). Even though advancements in communication technologies might significantly facilitate virtual team collaboration and ultimately enhance team performance, it is important for virtual team members to develop strong interpersonal dynamics and support mechanisms, as even the most advanced information technologies only partially contribute to the success of these teams (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001). Zaccaro and Bader (2003) contend that development and maintenance of trust may be one of the most important factors contributing to virtual team success, given the obstacles that may impede the establishment of trust in these teams. On the other hand, Benoit and Kelsey (2003) showed that trust was independent of team performance in a sample of student virtual teams. Kipnis (1996) stated that managers and organizations employ technology as a means to exert greater control over employees (e.g., through greater supervision and surveillance). However, this seems to be ironic, because as the use of technologies increases, managers and team leaders will need to trust employees even more, which is especially true for virtual teams, where team members typically have greater levels of independence and autonomy in their work. Thus, the importance of reciprocal trust, coupled with the fact that team leaders have less FTF contact and direct supervision over team members, poses new challenges to interpersonal processes such as control and trust, as well as to assumptions regarding their importance. Nohria and Eccles (1992) suggested that FTF interaction is vital for the development and sustenance of trust. Virtual team members who never meet FTF, or who have very few meetings, may be less

Trust and Leadership in Virtual Teamwork

willing to trust other team members, as FTF contact is important for reinforcing social similarity, shared values, and expectations (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). Thus, according to the innate schema similarity principle of media naturalness theory (Kock, 2001), virtual team members should find it most difficult to trust others when they are interacting through communication media that are most distinct from FTF communication. However, according to the learned schema principle, it is also plausible that individuals who have learned to trust others when communicating through various media may experience less difficulty with interpersonal processes such as trust. Thus, it might be important for virtual team members, especially those members who have less experience with virtual communication, to employ technological media that allow for many FTF cues. In addition, the role of initial trust in these contexts may become paramount. In contrast to FTF teams in which the focus has been on relationship building prior to working on tasks, Hart and McLeod (2003) show that a task focus early on is important to team building in virtual teams. Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) reported that a type of “swift trust” developed in global virtual teams but also noted that this trust was fragile. Increased cultural diversity may also be an important factor in the formation of trust in virtual teams, as team member values may impact the formation of trust (Jones & George, 1998), and increased levels of diversity may lead to more discomfort and lower levels of trust (Kipnis, 1996). On the other hand, the lack of physical cues inherent in current virtual teamwork may suppress some of the discomfort associated with diversity and instead highlight the similar adaptive problems all team members are facing. If diversity cues (e.g., physical appearance, olfactory cues, accents, mannerisms) are not salient, but task and technology factors are at the forefront, impressions of others may be formed more by task performance and technological acumen. It may be that the swift trust found by Jarvenpaa and Leidner could serve as a starting point, but that an emphasis on performance and task-related matters,

such as reported by Hart and McLeod (2003) and Benoit and Kelsey (2003), may better enable virtual teams to include diverse members in a trusting environment than FTF teams can. Although the data are equivocal, it is expected that trust will have an important impact on virtual team performance, team members’ attitudes such as team member satisfaction, and team behavioral outcomes such as absenteeism and turnover (Costa, Roe, & Taillieu, 2001). From a media naturalness perspective, those individuals who have more experience working in virtual relationships will adapt to new teams and new members more quickly according to the learned schema diversity principle. Similarly, this perspective also highlights that the initial wariness of new members should be readily acknowledged, and trust should be built up through reciprocity, appropriate emotional expression, and disclosure. In keeping with the centrality of adaptation in media naturalness theory, it may be important to realize that trust (or “reciprocal altruism”) is a means of adaptation that has been selected for in the human species over millennia and is argued to have arisen as a solution to problems of hunting (Tooby & DeVore, 1987). As such, it may not be surprising that a strong task focus in virtual teams may be the most advantageous in terms of trust, and, from this perspective, it may be argued that an emphasis on relational aspects of trust may not be beneficial for virtual teams. Finally, organizations need to focus on choosing technology that is compatible with the objectives of the team. Organizations and leaders need to ensure that team members are comfortable with the mode(s) of technology that the team will be relying on to communicate. Therefore, technological training may be especially beneficial to ensure that team members are comfortable with various technologies. Leadership and Virtual Teams: Managing from a Distance Virtual team leaders, who are managing the teams from a distance, may face new chal-

•

225

If diversity cues ... are not salient, but task and technology factors are at the forefront, impressions of others may be formed more by task performance and technological acumen.

226

•

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004

Virtual team leaders must devise new ways to perform traditional duties such as monitoring employees, providing quick and timely feedback, and resolving conflicts and other problems that might arise.

lenges (Staples, Hulland, & Higgins, 1999); with different levels of “virtualness,” virtual team leaders must juggle varying degrees of autonomy, interdependence, and FTF contact. Furthermore, virtual teams differ from traditional teams in a variety of ways; hence, traditional leadership theories might not necessarily be applicable to the management of virtual teams. For example, many virtual teams are formed for transient periods of time and undergo tremendous fluctuations in team membership. As a result, virtual team leaders may experience different management challenges compared to leaders of collocated teams. Spatial and temporal boundaries are probably the most obvious challenges that leaders and members of virtual teams face; however, this is not a trivial matter. Virtual team leaders must devise new ways to perform traditional duties such as monitoring employees, providing quick and timely feedback, and resolving conflicts and other problems that might arise (Zigurs, 2003). Furthermore, it will be especially important to develop new methods of team building and other techniques to enhance interpersonal relationships among team members, as well as between the team leader and the team members. Bell and Kozlowski (2002) proposed a typology of four major characteristics of virtual teams that might impact leadership and management. First, temporal distribution refers to the distribution of team members across time. Thus, if virtual teams employ communication media that are synchronous, it is possible that leaders might be able to more efficiently manage virtual teams that are more temporally distinct. This notion is compatible with the media naturalness theory in that synchronous media that closely resemble FTF communication should be the most effective. Second, boundary spanning addresses the extent to which virtual teams span functional, organizational, and cultural boundaries. As teams become more distributed, it may become more difficult for team leaders to create a cohesive team structure. In addition, life cycle refers to the duration of virtual team life cycle, as virtual team leaders may face more obstacles when working with teams that have short life cycles or membership that is more dynamic.

In general, teams that are more globally dispersed and who are only together for transient periods of time may be the most difficult to manage. Finally, member roles are important due to the fact that virtual team members may take on multiple roles and functions, which might lead to increased role conflict and ambiguity and, as a result, more leadership challenges. Thus, it is important to acknowledge that virtual teams possess different characteristics, as it would impede our understanding of these teams if all virtual teams were treated as if they were homogenous. Virtual team leaders who have no FTF interaction with team members are likely to encounter initial difficulties due to the fact that FTF communication should be most natural for both team members and team leaders, from a media naturalness perspective. However, according to the learned schema principle, if a team leader has been working virtually for several years, the leader may be most comfortable interacting with team members via communication technologies, as the leader’s behavior has been shaped and selected by the virtual communication environment over time. This principle would also hold true for virtual team members, which means that it may be most important to assess members’ level of comfort and experience with different types of technologies in order to design virtual team environments that are most conducive to virtual team collaboration. Virtual Team Leader Roles: A New Style of Management? The roles of virtual team leaders may be very different from traditional leader roles and may represent a shift from one of direct authority to an indirect role that emphasizes coaching and training (O’Connell, Doverspike, & Cober, 2002). Cascio (1999) asserted that virtual managers should focus on defining, facilitating, and encouraging performance. If team leaders use media naturalness theory as a guide for virtual team member selection, it may be important to choose team members who have collaboration experience with technological media and who may be more comfortable with the

Trust and Leadership in Virtual Teamwork

lack of FTF contact. The spatial and temporal distances inherent in virtual teams demand that managers focus more closely on actual results and performance than may be the case in FTF management arrangements. A virtual team member is only known through their traces in the communication media and the results of their work; the types of biases, impression management tactics, and busywork that appear ubiquitous in FTF management contexts are minimized in a virtual team environment. On the other hand, Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, and Garud (1999) asserted that some virtual team managers might be resistant to virtual work for reasons such as threats to their identity and threats to their perceptions of control, which may be diminished by geographic dispersion and decreased FTF contact. In addition, according to media naturalness, it might be important for leaders to employ a variety of technological media, meet with team members both FTF and virtually, allow time for the establishment of trust within the team, and select virtual team members according to previous experience with virtual teamwork. Do Virtual Teams Require Leaders? Virtual teams appear to be much more taskfocused than FTF teams (Zigurs, 2003) and have high levels of autonomy and independence; hence, virtual teams may be analogous to self-managed work teams (SMWTs), where the members themselves are typically in charge of team management. Yeatts and Hyten (1998) reported that effective management in SMWTs was typified by a high level of coordination, efficiency in time management, the establishment of performance goals, monitoring of the team members’ performance, regular team meetings, frequent feedback, and team member training on performance monitoring. Thus, some of the management principles that typify effective SMWTs might be extremely useful if extended to virtual teamwork. For instance, it may be important to consider the possibility that virtual teams may not require external leadership, as these teams may benefit from

management styles similar to those found in SMWTs. One example of this is rotational leadership, where team members take turns leading the team. Thus, SMWT theory might provide a useful framework for some types of virtual teams, as many virtual teams are independent and may not require leadership, which may necessitate new theories. On the other hand, even though many SMWTs are largely self-managed, external leadership may be fundamental to the performance of these teams (Manz & Sims, 1986). Tesluk and Gerstner (2002) found that successful external managers provided clear objectives, established a climate of mutual trust by emphasizing the development of strong relationships with team members, and did not engage in micromanagement of the team. Further research should explore whether these factors are also important in the context of virtual teams. In addition, media naturalness theory might be an informative way of assessing how virtual managers can perform functions such as establishing trust and setting clear objectives for the team. For example, external virtual managers will need to be cognizant of how team members adapt to various communication media and how the development of trust may be impeded in virtual environments. Thus, the role of external virtual leadership should be explored in more depth in order to enhance the efficacy of virtual team performance. Implications for Virtual Team Research Although there has been a lack of theory and research guiding virtual team trust and leadership, it is proposed herein that media naturalness theory and its accompanying principles can serve as an integrative framework. Future research must begin to move beyond simplified models to more theoretically rich ones in order to appropriately deal with the complex set of variables in computer-supported cooperative work (Coovert & Thompson, 2001). In terms of research protocols, virtual teams exist in a highly technologically mediated environment, so that the line between “the laboratory” and “the field” may become quite blurry and laboratory studies

•

227

The spatial and temporal distances inherent in virtual teams demand that managers focus more closely on actual results and performance than may be the case in FTF management arrangements.

228

•

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004

Moreover, if organizational trends predict changes that will take place in educational settings, then it will be extremely important for educational institutions to prepare students for a tremendous increase in virtual collaboration and virtual work, especially given the learned schema component of the media naturalness framework.

need not necessarily sacrifice realism for control in the manner that vexes most other organizational research (DiFonzo, Hantula, & Bordia, 1998). If performance in virtual teams is seen as an issue of adaptation, longitudinal studies that permit the expression and examination of selection and adaptation are critical. Indeed, it may be that adaptation within virtual teams follows the same punctuated equilibrium model borrowed from evolutionary theory and applied to FTF teams (Gersick, 1988, 1991), in which there are long periods of stability punctuated with sudden and brief periods of change. As a result, in order to examine media naturalness and whether adaptation impacts virtual team performance over time, it is extremely important to design repeated measures studies that allow for temporally based changes. For example, in a longitudinal study comparing FTF and computer-mediated teams, FTF teams reported significantly higher levels of trust than computer-mediated teams at time one. However, there were no differences between the levels of trust in computer-mediated and FTF teams by the second session, which indicates that adaptation took place (Pawlowicz, 2003). If this is the case, it is important to examine the development of computer-mediated teams, assess how long it takes these teams to adapt, and investigate the performance of computer-mediated teams in comparison to traditional FTF teams over time. Furthermore, it will be important to investigate the impact of using different combinations of technological media, which is more realistic with virtual teams in both applied and academic settings. In essence, technological advancements have had a profound impact on both organizations and employees, allowing employees to work with different companies, achieve greater career mobility, and set up different living arrangements, as employees can live in one city and work in another. Hence, there is greater flexibility and more freedom in the workplace, and there will likely be a further increase in remote work, increased membership in multiple workgroups with highly fluid membership, an emphasis on knowledgesharing, and greater skill variety and independence. In addition, there are fewer constraints on interaction and collaboration.

Moreover, if organizational trends predict changes that will take place in educational settings, then it will be extremely important for educational institutions to prepare students for a tremendous increase in virtual collaboration and virtual work (Hantula & Pawlowicz, 2004), especially given the learned schema component of the media naturalness framework. And, to the extent that groups of individuals may be selected for or selected against culturally, if stable and identifiable subgroups or cultures of people are not prepared to enter a world of virtual work, relatively rapid within-group evolutionary processes will quickly favor those individuals with these new virtual communication and work skills and exclude those individuals without these skills (Henrich, 2004), perhaps leading to another, more vast digital divide. Argote and Ingram (2000) asserted that “our understanding of groups and technology will be advanced by a greater understanding of the changes in groups enabled or constrained by technology and the potential consequences of those changes for group and organizational processes and performance” (p. 288). Thus, it is necessary to fully assess the impact of geographic dispersion on teamwork, not only in terms of the role of technology, but in terms of some of the relational and leadership issues that emerge as a result of this dispersion. Although the changes in the organizational landscape in the past two decades may have zipped by in a wink, these changes are but a small blip compared to the changes in the environment humans have seen in the past few centuries. If we are still Pleistocene-era hunter-gatherers, as evolutionary psychologists argue, we have adapted well in the past, and show all signs that we will continue to do so in the future. No matter how complicated the next new technology may seem, it is still the human that is the most complex, flexible, and adaptive part of the system. To the extent that we can adapt communication technology to ourselves, we will, and to the extent we cannot adapt the technology, we will adapt to it. Authors’ Note Preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by a grant from the Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Temple University.

Trust and Leadership in Virtual Teamwork

Darleen M. DeRosa, PhD, is an organizational consultant with Right Management Consultants, where she focuses on the design of assessment centers to help organizations improve selection and retention practices. She received her PhD in organizational psychology from Temple University and actively participates in a variety of professional organizations, such as the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. She developed a questionnaire to assess virtual team performance and is coordinating a global research initiative to examine best practices in virtual teamwork. She has also presented and published research articles and book chapters, primarily related to virtual teams and the impact of technology on the workplace. Donald A. Hantula, PhD, is an associate professor of psychology at Temple University and executive editor of the Journal of Social Psychology. He holds a PhD in psychology from the University of Notre Dame, where he began working at the intersection of psychology and technology. His articles have appeared in many edited volumes and leading journals, including Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, and Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes. His current research synthesizes behavioral economics, evolutionary theory, and technology in multilevel analyses of decision making and performance. Ned Kock, PhD, is an associate professor of management information systems in the College of Business Administration, Texas A&M International University. He holds a PhD in management information systems from the University of Waikato, New Zealand. He received several awards for his scholarly papers, including the MCB Press Outstanding Paper Award and the Anbar’s Citation of Excellence award. He has authored over 80 conference proceedings, papers, and articles published in a number of journals including Communications of ACM; IEEE Transactions on: Education, Engineering Management, and Professional Communications; Information & Management; Information Systems Journal; Information Technology & People; Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce; and MIS Quarterly. John D’Arcy, MBA, is a doctoral student in management information systems at Temple University. He holds an MBA in management information systems from LaSalle University and a BS in finance and business logistics from Pennsylvania State University. He also worked for Ford Motor Company as a financial analyst, operations team leader, and a business analyst. Current research interests include computer-mediated communication, virtual teams, and information systems security. He also teaches courses in systems analysis and design and database management at the undergraduate level.

REFERENCES Adrianson, L., & Hjelmquist, E. (1991). Group processes in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Behaviour and Information Technology, 10(4), 281–296. Alavi, M., Wheeler, B. C., & Valacich, J. S. (1995). Using IT to reengineer business education: An exploratory investigation of collaborative telelearning. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 293–313.

Alavosious, M. P., Braksick, L. W., Daniels, A. C., Harshbarger, D., Houmanfar, R., & Zeilstra, J. (2002). The impact of terrorism on the U.S. economy and business. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(4), 3–26. Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169. Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P. , Bauer,

•

229

230

•

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004 C. C., & LaGanke, J. S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision-making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 156–179. Barkhi, R., Jacob, V. S., & Pirkul, H. (1999). An experimental analysis of face to face versus computer mediated communication channels. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 325–347. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49. Benoit, B. A., & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 34(5), 575–618. Burke, K., Aytes, K., Chidambaram, L., & Johnson, J. J. (1999). A study of partially distributed work groups: The impact of media, location, and time on perceptions and performance. Small Group Research, 30(4), 453–490. Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 153–170. Cascio, W. F. (1999). Virtual workplaces: Implications for organizational behavior. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior: The virtual organization (pp. 1–14). Chichester, England: Wiley. Cascio, W. F., & Shurygailo, S. (2003). E-Leadership and virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 31, 362–376. Chidambaram, L., & Jones, B. (1993). Impact of communication medium and computer support on group perceptions and performance: A comparison of face-to-face and dispersed meetings. MIS Quarterly, 17, 465–488. Cohen, S. G., & Mankin, D. (1999). Collaboration in the virtual organization. In C. L. Cooper and D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior: The virtual organization (pp. 105–120). Chichester, England: Wiley. Coovert, M. D., & Thompson, L. F. (2001). Computer supported cooperative work: Issues and implications for workers, organizations, and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Costa, A.C., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. (2001). Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 225–244. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information

richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191–233. Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance on information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340. DiFonzo, N., Hantula, D. A., & Bordia, P. (1998). Microworlds for experimental research: Having your (control and collection) cake, and realism too. Behavior Research, Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30, 278–286. Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (1999). Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools, and techniques that succeed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9–41. Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10–36. Gorton, I., & Motwani, S. (1996). Issues in co-operative software engineering using globally distributed teams. Information and Software Technology, 38, 647–655. Graetz, K. A., Boyle, E. S., Kimble, C. E., Thompson, P., & Garloch, J. L. (1998). Information sharing in face-to-face, teleconferencing, and electronic chat groups. Small Group Research, 29(6), 714–743. Hantula, D. A., & Pawlowicz, D. M. (2004). Education mirrors industry: On the not-so-surprising rise of the virtual classroom. In D. Monolescu, C. Schifter, & L. Greenwood (Eds.), The distance education evolution (pp. 142–162). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Hart, R. K., & McLeod, P. L. (2003). Rethinking team building in geographically dispersed teams: One message at a time. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 352–361. Hedlund, J., Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1998). Decision accuracy in computer-mediated versus face-to-face decision-making teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 30–47. Henrich, J. (2004). Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation.

Trust and Leadership in Virtual Teamwork Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53 (1), 3–35. Hinds, P., & Kiesler, S. (1995). Communication across boundaries: Work, structure, and use of communication technologies in a large organization. Organization Science, 6(4), 373–393. Hollingshead, A. B. (1996). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making: The effects of communication media. Human Computer Research, 23(2), 193–219. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815. Johansen, R. (1989). User approaches to computersupported teams. In M. Olson (Ed.), Technological support for work group collaboration (pp. 1–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531–546. Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 57–80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134. Kipnis, D. (1996). Trust and technology. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 39–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kock, N. (2000). Benefits for virtual organizations from distributed groups. Communications of the ACM, 43(11), 107–112. Kock, N. (2001). The ape that used email: Understanding e-communication behavior through evolution theory. Communications of the AIS, 5(3), 1–29. Kock, N. (2002), Evolution and media naturalness: A look at e-communication through a Darwinian theoretical lens. In L. Applegate, R. Galliers, & J. L. DeGross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 373–382). Atlanta, GA: The Association for Information Systems. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with technology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Lurey, J. S., & Raisinghani, M. S. (2001). An empirical study of the best practices in virtual teams. Information & Management, 38, 523–544. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1986). Leading selfmanaged groups: A conceptual analysis of a paradox. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 7, 141–165. Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organizational Science, 5(4), 502–527. Mohrman, S. A. (1999). The contexts for geographically dispersed teams and networks. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior: The virtual organization (pp. 63–80). Chichester, England: Wiley. Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. G. (1992). Face-to-face: Making networks organizations work. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: structure, form, and action (pp. 288–308). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. O’Connell, M. S., Doverspike, D., & Cober, A. B. (2002). Leadership and semiautonomous work team performance: A field study. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 50–65. Opper, S., & Fersko-Weiss, H. (1992). Technology for teams: Enhancing productivity in networked organizations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Pawlowicz, D. M. (2003). Media naturalness, temporal adaptation and virtual team performance: A matter of time. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk & C. Stenfeld (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 173–193). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Reinig, B. A., Briggs, R. O., Shepherd, M. M., Yen, J., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (1995). Affective reward and the adoption of group support systems: Productivity is not always enough. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3), 171–185. Snow, C. C., Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2001). The virtual organization: Promises and payoffs, large and small. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior: The virtual organization (pp. 15–30). Chichester, England: Wiley. Sproull, L. S. (1986). Using electronic mail for data collection in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 159–169.

•

231

232

•

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Summer/Fall 2004 Sproull, L. S., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492–1512. Staples, D. S., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A. (1999). A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10(6), 758–776. Straus, S. G. (1996). Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 27(1), 115–142. Tesluk, P. E., & Gerstner, C. R. (2002). Leading established self-managing work groups: Effects on processes and performance. Unpublished manuscript. Tooby, J., & DeVore, I. (1987). The reconstruction of hominid behavioral evolution through strategic modeling. In W. G. Kinzey (Ed.), The evolution of human behavior (pp. 182–237). New York: SUNY Press. Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17–29. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90. Weber, T. E. (2001, September 24). After terror attacks, companies rethink role of face-to-face. Wall Street Journal, p. B1.

Weisband, S. P. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 352–380. Weisband, S. P., & Atwater, L. (1999). Evaluating self and others in electronic and face-to- face groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 632–639. Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (1999). Managers in a virtual context: The experience of self-threat and its effects on virtual work organizations. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior, Vol. 6: The virtual organization (pp. 31–44). Chichester, England: Wiley. Workman, M., Kahnweiler, W., & Bommer, W. (2003). The effects of cognitive style and media richness on commitment to telework and virtual teams. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 63, 199–219. Yeatts, D. E., & Hyten, C. (1998). High-performing self-managed work teams: A comparison of theory to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Zaccaro, S. J., & Bader, P. (2003). E-leadership and the challenges of leading E-teams: Minimizing the bad and maximizing the good. Organizational Dynamics, 31, 377–387. Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity? Organizational Dynamics, 31, 339–351.