Introduction
With the advancement of emerging communication technologies, the higher education landscape has also been undergoing dramatic changes. Online education, an alternative form of traditional classroom teaching, has increasingly become a part of the mainstream of higher education. Sixty-five percent of schools offering graduate face-to-face courses also offer graduate courses online (Allen & Seaman, 2005).
Emerging new technologies affords great capabilities for distance learners to engage in virtually distributed collaboration in online courses. In the last decade, virtual teams became increasingly prevalent in online courses due to the perceived benefits of online virtual teams, which might provide a solution to two central concerns in distance education: quality and attribution (Rovai, 2002). Studies have indicated many advantages of using teamwork in online courses: encouraging knowledge construction through sharing multiple perspectives, nurturing a community of learners, triggering deeper processing of content through interaction, and transforming learning experience though developing critical thinking skills and reflection (Duarte, & Snyder, 1999; Conrad & Donaldson, 2004; Palloff & Pratt, 2005).
Although the value of online teamwork is widely recognized, there is still a dearth of research that provides evidence on how team can work effectively in online courses. In particular, there is a lack of systems perspective to linking the social, task, and technological dimensions to the entry, process, and outcome variables of the teamwork process (Carabajal, LaPointe, & Gunawardena, 2003). The purpose of this study is to add to the existing knowledge of online virtual teamwork by examining the roles of various structural and social variables on the effectiveness of teamwork. This study intended to answer several research questions:
·Are there significant differences on team performance or satisfaction if teams were structured differently?
·Are there any significant relationships between trust and virtual team performance or satisfaction?
·Are there any significant relationships between team management style and virtual team performance or satisfaction?
Literature Review
Virtual Team Defined
In this paper, a virtual team is defined as “a group of people with complementary competencies executing simultaneous, collaborative work processes through electronic media without regard to geographic location” (Chinowsky & Rojas, 2003, pp. 98).
Team Structure
In general, team structure defines the nature and patterns of relationship and division of work among individuals in groups (Wong & Burton, 2000). In this paper, team structure refers to the division of a team’s work environment into sub-tasks assigned to individual members or sub-teams. Such division dictates the distribution of information and responsibilities of each team member. In teamwork research two types of structures were usually studied to understand their effects on team performance. Hierarchical structure refers to those in which team members have specialized roles, or hold information and capabilities that are unique to each other. Such divisions of roles results in high interdependencies among team participants. On the contrary, nonhierarchical structures refers to those in which team members have non-specialized roles and have less interdependencies among each other to accomplish the common team goal (Urban, Bowers, Monday, & Morgan, 1995).
Studies that examine the relationship between team structure and team performance in non-educational settings revealed diversified results. The advocates of hierarchical structure argued that a high degree of group partition reinforces individual accountability and thus could prevent the “slacker” or “free-loading,” which commonly impaired group performance in virtual environment (Lin, & Hui, 1999; Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, MacDonald, Turner, & Lupton, 1963; Lin, Yang, Arya, Huang, & Li, 2005). On the other hand, studies also suggested that non–hierarchical structural seemed to have outperformed hierarchical structure (Urban, Bowers, Monday & Morgan, 1995; Bowers, Urban, Morgan, 1992; Kleinman & Serfaty, 1989). For example, Urban et al., studied teams in the context of military training and found that nonhierarchical structure was associated with superior performance more so than hierarchical structure, especially under high workload.
The divergent results may have reflected the moderating effect of other factors. For example, structural contingency theory related to organizational design suggests that no structure is better across teams in organizational settings. However, hierarchical structure may work better than nonhierarchical structure in less complex environments, and nonhierarchical structure may work better than functional structure in complex environments. Evidence was found to support this theory in virtual teams (Moon, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, West, Ellis, & Porter, 2004).
Similarly, studies conducted in educational settings that examine the two different types of structure did not show consistent results. For example, Rose (2004) compares the effect of two different structures in a small group, problem-based learning context. In hierarchical structure (referred to as “cooperative structure”), students were assigned specialist roles, where the nonhierarchical structure (referred to as “collaborative structure”) did not assign roles but allowed each participant to have a critical dialogue with others by advocating and defending their own views and challenging others. The results suggested that the group with hierarchical structure indicated higher perceptions of inter-subjectivity and deep processing for the role assignment group during the initial weeks of activity. Over time, however, these levels equalized across group structures.
Another study (Joung & Keller, 2004) evaluated two types of structures during online debates. The hierarchical structures assigned pre-structure roles as pro or con. The other group did not assign roles but allow students the flexibility to choose their own roles. The results suggested that hierachial structure demonstrated greater amounts of critical thinking and critical and dynamic interaction patterns than the nonhierarchical group.
Although it is difficult to compare the results of structural impact in different settings and the current investigations are inclusive, it is safe to say that there is a differing degree of team structure impact on the teamwork process in different contexts, and there is still a lot to be done to investigate its impact on group work in either work or learning settings.
Trust
In this article, trust is defined as “an emergent state comprising team member intentions to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of the members of the team”(Kiffin-Petersen, 2004). Trust is often billed as being the critical factor for effective team process and performance. It is believed that the lack of trust increases the cost of team operations because of extra effort needed in monitoring team members (Serva & Fuller, 2004). In addition, lack of trust also negatively affects team members’ satisfactions with teamwork and their willingness to continue working with the team (Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975).
Studies have consistently found that trust has an indirect influence on team effectiveness via its impact on team process such as problem solving, decision-making, and communication (Kiffin-Petersen, 2004). For example, studies have found that a high trust team stimulates creative and diversified patterns of behavior that improved the team's problem solving. In contrast, low trust teams showed defensive pattern of behaviors that interfere with information flow within the team, thus hindering the effectiveness of problem solving (Zand, 1972; Boss, 1978; as cited in Kiffin-Petersen ).
Working in virtual teams produces additional challenges not faced by traditional teams due to the absence of social cues that can transfer interpersonal affections including trust. Research evidence suggests that such absence does not necessarily hinder the development of trust in virtual teams but just prolongs the process of trust building (Walther, 1996; Henttonen, & Blomqvist, 2005). Studies also suggest that trust plays the same important roles in the functioning of virtual teams as in traditional teams (Morris, Marshall, & Kelleyrainer, 2002; Henttonen & Blomqvist, 2005).
Conflict Management
Working in teams is challenging, and conflict occurrence is inevitable. In general, conflict refers to differences or discrepancies of team members' ideas, opinions, or ways of doing things. The attempt of virtual teams to manage internal conflicts is a crucial factor in team performance and dynamics (Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001).
Prior studies reveal that team conflicts have often had both positive and negative effect on team performance. A relationship (or interpersonal, affecting, social) conflict may be detrimental to team effort. It hurts team members’ satisfaction and members’ intent to remain in teams regardless of task types or team goals, but it does not have any positive impact on team performance. On the other hand, task (or cognitive) conflicts may be productive to team task accomplishment and team decision-making. In particular, in teams performing non-routine tasks, task conflicts appears to promote critical evaluation of problems and options, while simultaneously reducing thoughtless agreements (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).
Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001) point out that it is effective when teams establish conditions to prevent control or guide potential conflicts and preempt conflicts before they happen. However, teams also should be able to take an action of conflict management in order to handle conflict situations that have arisen and interfered with the productivity of work.
According to a prior study (Rahim, 1992; Thomas & Kilmanne, 1974, as cited in Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001), there are different ways to manage conflicts in a team including: avoidance, accommodation, competition, collaboration, and compromise. Avoidance conflict management behavior is characterized by evasiveness and failure to directly address conflicting viewpoints. Accommodation conflict management behavior shows obligation for others. Competition behavior is defined as pursuit without careful regard of others. On the other hand, collaboration behavior shows attempts to identify and achieve outcomes for mutual benefit. In addition, compromise behavior is characterized by intermediate concern for self and others.
Montoya-Weiss et al. (2001) argue that conflict theory that is applicable to face-to-face classroom settings may not be wholly transferable to asynchronous teams owing to fundamental differences in an online environment. Since a conflict is an internal process variable that occurs in the process of teamwork, it is influenced by input variables and environmental variables that may affect the way in which teams experience and resolve conflicts. In particular, it is quite possible that the conflict resolving behaviors will be affected by unique factors of online environments (i.e., text-based communication, anonymity, few verbal cues, lack of presence, cultural differentiation by geographical locations). Previous studies (Hollingshead & McGrath, 1995, as cited in Zhang and Ge, in press) indicated that teams mediated by technologies may have less interaction, presence, and information sharing owing to the differences of virtual environments, and may take longer time on tasks as compared to face-to-face teams.
Research Methodology
Research Setting
The present study was conducted at an online MBA program at a large Midwestern university. The participants were enrolled in a capstone course called Business Planning and Management in the 2005 Fall and Summer quarter. Participants took this course at the end of their first year in the program. In the course, students were broken down into project groups of four to six students to work on an online simulation project. Each team was asked to adopt the view of a senior manager responsible for running a business venture. Each team assumed responsibility for a 100-million-dollar company in the electronic sensor manufacturing industry. The simulations required management teams to evaluate situations and make decisions to grow their company. Teams set a strategy and applied strategic concepts and techniques when forming and implementing a business plan, and were asked to integrate a firm’s production, marketing, human resources, research and development, financial and pricing plans.
Data Collection
Data were collected from all 208 members of 44 teams for a 95% response rate. Six teams’ data were later dropped from the study because the team did not follow instructions when structuring their teams. Seventeen teams used hierarchical structure and 21 teams used non-hierarchical structure. A survey was administrated on measuring learners’ virtual teaming experiences. The virtual team experience score were administrated during the midterm of the course.
As stated, the return rate of virtual teaming questionnaires was about 95 percent. Forty-seven percent of participants are in their twenties and 10.8% are above forty. The majority of learners (79.4%) have taken 7 to 10 courses in the program. About 10% of learners took fewer than seven courses.
Instruments
The 22-item questionnaire with contained four dimensions: coordination, trust, conflict management resolution, and teamwork satisfaction.
Conflict management resolution measures scores on two types of strategies used by a learner when working in a team, including competitive conflict management (five items) and cooperative conflict management (three items). Scales of conflict management solutions were adapted from previous research (Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001; Paul, Seetharaman, Samarah, & Mykytyn, 2004).). The five cooperative management items measured the effort of the team members' attempts to identify and achieve outcomes that integrated the interests of all parties involved. A sample item for the cooperative approach scale is, “Team members seek a resolution that will be good for all of us.” Subjects were asked to rate on a five-point scale (1=strongly agree, 5 strongly disagree) the degree to which team members agreed with the five statements. The competitive management approach had three items aiming to measure the degree to which the conflict was a win-lose situation, and how each team member might pursue their own interest without regard for others. A sample item is, “Team members treat conflict as a win-lose contest.” The coefficient alphas for the cooperative and competitive scales were .826 and .806, respectively.
Trust measures the students’ perceptions of trust between themselves and their teammates. Trust scales (10 items) were adapted from Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) and Mayer's (1995) questionnaire. Sample items were, “I really wish I had a good way to oversee the work of other team members on the project” and, “Overall, the people in my group are very trustworthy.” The Cronbach’s alpha for the trust dimension is .851.
Overall satisfaction includes four items that measure learners' degree of satisfaction with team work process (“looking back at the whole course, I am satisfied with our teamwork project”), team output (“I think I learned many meaningful lessons throughout team projects”), overall value (“overall, I believe that the whole teamwork process of our team is valuable to driving us toward team goals.”), and team decision making quality (“overall, I believe that our team came up with the best solution as we expected”).
Team performance was measured by the final profit score from team simulations. This score provided an objective measure of team performance because it reflected the ability of the team to utilize the knowledge and skills learned from the curriculum to make judicious decision for their simulated industry.
Two types of team structure were used in the study: hierarchical structure and non-hierarchical structure. Teams that used hierarchical structure divided the individual work based on functionality of the company. Each member was responsible for one specialized area of the company. For example, a company may have areas such as research and development, marketing, product, finance, and so forth. Under this structure, each team member had very specialized roles and had to coordinate closely with other divisions to make a decision. In a non-hierarchical structure, each team member was responsible for one product. Each member had to assume responsibilities for all the areas associated with that product. Under this structure, team members could make relatively independent decisions without consulting with others but coordinating with others on the strategic goals of the company.
A dummy variable was used to code the structure. “0” referred to hierarchical structure; “1” was used to refer to non-hierarchical structure.
Findings
Correlation analysis revealed that team structure was negatively correlated with team performance (Table 1). The hierarchical structure was associated with higher team performance. The trust level of the group was positively correlated with team cooperative conflict management style and negatively correlated with competitive management style. Trust level also had high positive relationships with team satisfactions. Competitive management style was negatively correlated with cooperative management style.
Table 1. Correlation Analysis Results
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
1 |
Structure |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
Trust |
.017 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
3 |
Cooperative management |
.129 |
.754(**) |
1 |
|
|
|
4 |
Competitive management |
.081 |
-.561(**) |
-.581(**) |
1 |
|
|
5 |
Team performance |
-.323(*) |
.216 |
.195 |
.001 |
1 |
|
6 |
Team satisfaction |
-.057 |
.561(**) |
.664(**) |
-.310(*) |
.493(**) |
* P<0.05
** P<0.01
ANOVA results (Table 2) revealed that the non-hierarchically structured groups had significantly higher performance than hierarchical groups. However, the two groups did not differ significantly on trust level, conflict management styles, and team satisfactions.
Table 2. ANOVA Analysis Results
|
Dependent Variable |
Mean (S.D.) |
F, df |
Significance Level |
|
Hierarchical Group |
Non-hierarchical Group |
|
Trust |
4.134 |
4.142 |
.011,1 |
.917 |
|
Cooperative management |
4.268 |
4.351 |
.661,1 |
.440 |
|
Competitive management |
1.646 |
1.69 |
.237,1 |
.629 |
|
Team performance |
10971 |
7498 |
4.204,1 |
.048* |
|
Team satisfaction |
4.15 |
4.12 |
.115,1 |
.736 |
* P<0.05, ** P<0.01
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine the effect of the structure, trust, and conflict management variables on team performance as well as satisfaction. The results demonstrated statistically significant relationships between structure and performance. The team structure variable accounted for 10.5% of total variance. However, structure did not have significant effect on overall team satisfaction. Trust and cooperative management demonstrated significant effect on team satisfactions. Cooperative management style accounted for 22.7% of total variance of team satisfaction.
Table 2. Hierarchical Analysis Results with Unique Contributions: R, β, F
|
|
Team performance |
Team satisfaction |
|
|
R² |
β |
R² |
Β |
|
Structure |
.105* |
-.042* |
.003 |
-.149 |
|
Trust |
.46 |
.030 |
.394** |
.105 |
|
Cooperative management |
.49 |
.431 |
.227** |
.709** |
|
Competitive management |
.57 |
.282 |
.000 |
-.009 |
|
R² Total |
.256 |
.625 |
|
F |
2.837* |
13.742 |
|
Df |
4,33 |
4,33 |
* P<0.05, ** P<0.01
Discussion and Conclusion
The goals of the present study were threefold. The primary goal was to examine whether different team structures had differed team performance or satisfaction. The second objective was to examine whether trust can predict students’ team work performance or satisfaction. The final objective was to investigate the relationships between conflict management styles with respect to team performance or satisfaction.
The results of this study indicated a significant effect of team structure on team performance. In the present study, the teams with non-hierarchical structure outperformed hierarchical structure. This finding is consistent with Urban et al. (1995). The interpretation of this finding should not exclude the considerations of the task environment. The teams worked in an asynchronous online environment, which is commonly believed to bring a higher degree of vagueness, complexity, and structurelessness (Workman, Kahnweiler, & Bommer, 2001) into virtual teamwork process as opposed to face-to-face settings. This nature may increase the degree of difficulty of communication in virtual teamwork. For hierarchically structured teams, each person held a specialized role and extensive communication was needed for team members to make decisions to maintain routine operations of the team in order to achieve the goal of accomplishing a complex task such as business simulations. Effective communication may be disrupted by possible misunderstandings and disputes due the nature of lean media in asynchronous virtual teaming environment. Team members had to spend extra resources on the maintenance of the team's daily communications that may not add to team performance. However, in non-hierarchical teams, each person had a higher degree of autonomy and a wider range of responsibilities. This structure required less information reciprocation and thus resource is not wasted on unnecessary coordination but on the key tasks that eventually contribute to team performance.
Another important finding is the high predictive power of both trust and conflict in team satisfactions. Consistent with Kiffin-Petersen (2004), trust is not directly related to team performance. However, trust accounted for 39.4% of total variance of team satisfaction and conflict attributed 22.7% of total variance in team satisfaction. This finding added to evidence that both trust and conflict plays critical role in team effectiveness. In addition, trust was also positively associated with heightened level of cooperative management style. Teams with high trust was much more likely to be willing to cooperative with team members and expend effort on finding solutions that integrated different views. Thus, they perceived higher learning outcomes in team interaction and communication.
The findings have important implications for instructors in supervising virtual teams. First, the study indicated the importance of the social dimension in teamwork effectiveness. It is imperative for online instructors to take measures to cultivate trust and collaborative conflict management skills in virtual teams, and encourage teams to strive for integrated solutions in online teamwork. In most online courses, team social factors such as trust and conflict management have been neglected aspects. Although there is increased awareness of their importance due to the recognized relationships of trust or conflict resolution with community building, few instructors actually take measures to facilitate social cohesiveness and interpersonal relationship building. The results of this study indicate that it will be worthwhile to facilitate relationship communication through communicative actions and that developing shared goals will be critical to the success of virtual teams.
Secondly, the finding indicated the importance of considering team structure when designing virtual teams. Based on the findings from this and prior studies, the choice of team structure needs to avoid extreme hierarchical structure. In the context similar to this study where teams engaged in a complex tasks in an synchronous learning environment, team members sharing similar roles or responsibilities not only allows flexibility built into team when encountering dysfunctional situation but also allows the decisions to be made by integrating different perspectives.
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States, 2005. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved November 28, 2005, from: http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/growing_by_degrees.pdf.
Bowers, C. A., Urban, J. M. and Morgan, B. B. (1992). The study of crew coordination and performance in hierarchical team decision making. Report no. TR-92-01 (Orlando: University of Central Florida, Team Performance Laboratory).
Carabajal, K., LaPointe, D., & Gunawardena, C. (2003). Group development in online learning communities. In M. Moore & W. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 217-234). Nahwash, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chinowsky, P., & Rojas, E. (2003). Virtual teams: Guide to successful implementation.
Journal of management in engineering, 19(3), 98-106.
Conrad, R. M., & Donaldson, A. (2004). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Duarte, D., & Snyder. N. (1999). Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools and techniques that succeed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Golembiewski, R. T. & McConkie, M. 1975. The centrality of interpersonal trust in group processes. In Cooper, G. L. (Ed.), Theories of Group Processes (pp 131-185). London: John Wiley & Sons.
Henttonen, K., & Blomqvist, K. (2005). Managing distance in a global virtual team: The evolution of trust through technology-mediated relational communication. Strategic Change, (), 107 - 119
Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791-815.
Joung S., & Keller, J.M. (2004). The effects of high-structure cooperative versus low-structure collaborative design on decision change, critical thinking, and interaction pattern during online debate. Paper presented at annual conference of Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Chicago, IL.
Kleinman, D.L. & Serfaty, D. (1989). Team performance assessment in distributed decision making. Paper presented at the Simulation and Training Research Symposium on Interactive Networked Simulation for Training, University of Central Florida, Orlando.
Kiffin-Petersen, S.A. (2004). Trust: A neglected variable in team effectiveness research, Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 10(1), 38-53.
Lin, Z., & Hui, C. (1999). Should lean replace mass organization systems: A theoretical examination from a management coordination perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 30: 45-80.
Lin Z., Yang, H., Arya B., Huang Z., & Li, D. (2005). Structural vs. individual perspectives on the dynamics of group performance: Theoretical exploration and empirical investigation. Journal of Management, 31(3), 354-38.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.
Mayer, R. C., Davis J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organization trust. Academy Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Morris, S. A., Marshall, T., & Kelleyrainer, R. (2002). Impact of user satisfaction and trust on virtual team members. Information Resource Management Journal, 15(2), 2-30.
Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1251-1262.
Moon H., Hollenbeck J. R., Ilgen D. R., West B., Ellis A. P. J., & Porter C. O. L. H. (2004). Asymmetric adaptability: Dynamic team structures as one-way streets. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 681-695.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., Samarah, I., & Mykytyn, P. P. (2004). Impact of heterogeneity and collaborative conflict management style on the performance of synchronous global virtual teams. Information and Management 41, 303-321.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. T., Hinings, C. R., MacDonald, K. M., Turner, C., & Lupton, T. 1963. A conceptual scheme for organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8, 289-315.
Rose M.A. (2004). Comparing productive online dialogue in two group styles: Cooperative and collaborative. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 73-88.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197 – 211.
Serva, M., & Fuller, M. (2004). Aligning what we do and what we measure in business schools: Incorporating active learning and effective media use in the assessment of instruction. Journal of Management Education, 28(1), 19-38.
Urban, J. M., Bowers, C. A., Monday, S. D., & Morgan, B. B., Jr. (1995). Workload, team structure, and communication in effective team performance. Military Psychology, 7, 123-135.
Wong, S. S., & Burton, R. M. (2000). Virtual teams: What are their characteristics, and impact on team performance? Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 6(4), 339–360.
Workman M., Kahnweiler W., & Bommer W. (2001). The effects of cognitive style and media richness on commitment to telework and virtual teams. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 199-219.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
Zhang, K., & Ge, X. (in press). The dynamics of online collaboration: Team task, team development, peer relationship, and communication media. In A. D. de Figueiredo & A. A. Afondso (Eds.), Managing Learning in Virtual Settings: The Role of Context. Idea Group.
|
