Campbell Hallman Team Assesment

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE OF DISTRIBUTED TEAMS:

EXAMINING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ASYNCHRONOUS AND SYNCHRONOUS

COMMUNICATION IN PLANNING TASK EXECUTION

by

Teresa M. Bennett

BRUCE GILLIES, Psy.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

SARA JARVIS, Ph.D., Committee Member

THOMAS VAIL, Ph.D., Committee Member

Deborah Bushway, Ph.D., Dean, Harold Abel School of Psychology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

July 2009

UMI Number: 3366091

Copyright 2009 by Bennett, Teresa M.

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

______________________________________________________________

UMI Microform 3366091Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

ii

Abstract

As organizations are increasingly accomplishing tasks through the use of teams,

computer-mediated collaborations are becoming more commonplace. Distance between

team members and a lack of visual interaction can affect their development and

performance. Research is limited in examining differences between distributed teams

using various computer-mediated technologies, particularly those with less social (visual)

presence versus those with more. Organizations, such as the military, have difficulty

determining the type of media and the time to introduce media for teams required to plan

and perform tasks while geographically separated. This research compared distributed

teams using asynchronous and synchronous communication media in planning a task and

then changing their method of communication for planning a subsequent task. Team

development, through administration of the Hallam-Campbell Team Development

Survey (adapted for computer-mediated teams) and performance were measured after

both tasks. The findings of this research found little differences between teams as they

moved from one method of communication to another as well as between teams using

different methods of communication. Recommendations include further examination of

teams using mixed communication methods at different times for their planning and

execution of tasks. The results of this study are expected to help both organizations and

educational institutions that utilize teams to more adequately assess the choice of

computer-mediated media in a distributed environment.

iii

Dedication

This work is dedicated to my family. Without them, none of this would have been

possible. First and foremost, this is dedicated to my husband, Wink. You are my rock,

my best friend, and love of my life. No words can come close to express how much your

love and support has meant to me over these years. I would not have made it this far

without you by my side. To my loving children, Jackson and Shidela, I am truly blessed

to have you both in my life. Always my cheerleaders, I kept J-man and S-girl’s advice

close to heart…“Don’t give up Mom, keep trying!” And to my Dad and in loving

memory of both my mother and grandmother, who instilled the value of hard work, no

matter what the goal, and would toast this occasion with glasses raised high!

iv

Acknowledgments

It is with sincere gratitude that I convey my thanks and appreciation to my

committee chair and mentor Dr. Bruce Gillies who has been beyond instrumental in

helping me through this long journey. As I slowly completed each milestone and

encountered unexpected obstacles along the way, his professional advice, patience, and

encouragement kept me going. I also would like to thank both Dr. Thomas Vail and Dr.

Sara Jarvis for being invaluable members of my committee.

I would also like to personally thank Captains Ira Shurig and Chad Tossel,

Lieutenants Chad Sucillon and Crystal Murray, and Ms. Margaret Shurig. The help from

everyone in this study was very much appreciated.

Finally, I would like to thank Capella University for being a well-rounded and

dedicated institution allowing working professionals, parents, or both to pursue their

professional and personal aspirations. Each individual within the University from

counselors (thank you, Dr. Larson), technical support, colloquia staff, to instructors has

been a pleasure to work with and has made a difference not only towards my personal

achievements but for countless others.

v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Figures viii

List of Tables ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Background of the Study

Statement of the Problem

Purpose of the Study

Significance of Study

Research Design

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Assumptions and Limitations

Definition of Terms

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

CHAPTER 2. LITERAURE REVIEW 15

Introduction

Social Interaction and Teams

Research on Computer-Mediated Distributed Teams

Theories Guiding Computer-Mediated Distributed Teams

Social Presence and Team Development and Performance

vi

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 39


Research Design

Target Population and Participant Selection

Procedures

Measures

Re-statement of Research Hypotheses

Data Analysis

Expected Findings

CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS 52

Introduction

Description of Sample

Data Analysis

Summary

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENTATIONS 69

Introduction

Findings and Data Interpretation

Limitations

Suggestions for Future Studies

Conclusions

Summary

REFERENCES 104

vii

APPENDIX A: TEAM DEVELOPMENT SURVEY 111

APPENDIX B: MATERIAL COST SHEET 112

APPENDIX C: TASK PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET 113

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Overall Study Design 41

Figure 2. Study Design – Hypothesis 1 46







Figure 9. Distribution of Team Development Survey Responses Task 1 55

Figure 10. Distribution of Team Development Survey Responses Task 2 55

ix

List of Tables

Table 1. Distribution of Team Type 53

Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha for Task 1 and Task 2 56

Table 3. Results in Team Development – Hypothesis 1 58

Table 4. Results in Task Performance – Hypothesis 2 59





Table 9. Results in Task Performance on Task 1– Hypothesis 7 66

Table 10. Results in Task Performance on Task 2– Hypothesis 7 66

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Background of the Problem

Is distance detrimental to team success? Is personal interaction necessary for a team

to develop a bond with each other? In the twenty-first century, it is widely known that

organizations are saying good-bye to the conference room and are relying on technology

to bring teams together. While the importance of teams in terms of innovation and

productivity for the organization continues to grow, so does the prevalence of team

members being geographically separated. By 2006, as many as 67 million people were

predicted to be tele-working in the United States with teams forming across functional

areas, time zones, as well as nationalities (Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).

What distinguishes a team from just a group of people working together? Teams are

considered those which have members with a common purpose, interdependent roles, and

complementary skills (Yukl, 2002). The key word here distinguishing a team is

interdependence. Groups include members who may work together or share resources;

however, a team’s tasks are dependent upon the work of others to be fully successful.

Organizations are increasingly using teams to capitalize upon their strengths and abilities

to work together.

There are four constructs considered essential to develop team communication and

cooperation. These are super-ordinate goals, physical proximity, accessibility, and rules

and procedures (Pinto, Pinto, & Prescott, 1993). Physical proximity can influence the

frequency and type of interactions, as well as actual communication that occurs among

team members. Proximity, however, is a construct that needs to be re-considered with

the increasing use of electronic communication. Teams are more distributed these days

2

and communicate via e-mail and other electronic media. Distributed teams are known to

meet when and where they want, send and receive information faster, and share

information simultaneously to multiple members (Thompson & Coovert, 2003).

With a lack of physical proximity, distributed teams must still be successful and all

factors must be considered that impact their effectiveness and ability to function. Team

effectiveness has been described through Landy and Conte’s (2004) input-process-output

model. This model suggests that a variety of inputs combine to influence team processes,

which in turn, affect its outputs. Team development is considered dependent upon

interpersonal processes, and it is suggested that team effectiveness be considered a

process as opposed to end state (output) (Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990).

Team processes describe the inter-workings and social interaction of a group. There

are numerous variables that can reflect intra-group process, which is defined as the

interaction that takes place among members (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998).

These processes are identified as norms, cohesion, communication and coordination, and

decision making (Landy & Conte, 2004). Exchange of information is important for the

team to effectively have its members accomplish their tasks.

Interpersonal processes are facilitated by a sense of connection. A sense of social

presence, or connectivity among members, is deemed one of the most important factors

which help team members actively collaborate (Ubon & Kimble, 2003). Social presence

is considered essential for successful communication and dynamics within a team

(Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003). Social influence within a group discussion is transmitted

through verbal and “social context cues” (for example, seating position and body

language) (McGuire, Kiesler, & Siegel, 1987). Team members in a traditional face-to-

3

face setting, obviously, are able to experience the impact of social presence and its

influences.

Distributed teams communicating electronically, however, can have difficulty

establishing relationships among team members. With low social presence, studies have

demonstrated an increased level of frustration among computer-mediated teams as

compared to face-to-face teams (Thompson & Coovert, 2003). A such, distributed team

members also encounter issues in development and performance (Sia, Yan, & Wei, 2002;

Maruping & Agarwal, 2004).

Statement of the Problem

One of the most distributed organizations today is the military. It is essential that

members of the military be able to train team members, no matter how far apart they are.

In the Air Force, distributed mission operations involve the planning and execution of

complex flight missions with aircrew members in separate locations. Actual flight

training is accomplished across the world with team members using advanced simulators

which are connected real-time. Teams perform pre-flight planning, mission execution,

and post-flight brief using a variety of technologies to communicate with each other. The

types of computer-mediated communication chosen to accomplish these discussions do

vary by the amount of social presence that they provide.

Distributed aircrew teams have been known to use synchronous (e.g.,

videoconferencing), asynchronous (e.g., e-mail, text chat, or electronic chat room), or a

mixture of technologies for completing training missions. However, there is uncertainty

as to which facilitates optimal team planning and performance. Currently in the

4

distributed mission operations environment, choice of communication medium is

sometimes left to the aircrew or personnel facilitating the training.

With the amount and type of information to be communicated by the team, it is not

clear which computer-mediated approach is most effective as synchronous and

asynchronous methods each have their own advantages/disadvantages and variance in

terms of “social presence.” In addition, it is uncertain whether initial use of more

“socially present” technologies (such as video synchronous communication) is warranted.

Some early interaction of team members that provide social interaction may be sufficient

in establishing the development teams and impact their performance and allow

subsequent interactions with different methods of communication.

It is advocated by researchers in this field that computer-mediated teams chose their

communication technology carefully as teams rely on it to facilitate collaboration

(Thompson & Coovert, 2003). Organizations look to computer-mediated technologies to

save them millions of dollars by linking distributed team members. But, the other side of

this is that computer-mediated communications among distributed team members can

cost an organization if team members cannot work effectively with one another. The

majority of research in this area, however, has concentrated solely on the effectiveness of

computer-mediated teams as they compare to traditional face-to-face teams (Thompson &

Coovert, 2003; Kerr & Murthy, 2004; Maruping & Agarwal, 2004; Thatcher &

DeLaCour, 2005). There is limited understanding of differences between types of

computer-mediated teams by the technologies employed.

5


This study compared distributed, computer-mediated teams who chose different

methods of communication in terms of both team development and performance.

Specifically, this study included the examination teams that use either synchronous or

asynchronous form of computer-mediated communication for their initial interaction and

then changed communication media for performance of a subsequent task. Team

development was assessed after teams used different computer-mediated communication

media to plan a task. In addition, task performance by each team after using these

methods of communication to plan was also measured.

It is intended that these findings provide insight not only for distributed aircrew

mission teams to help them determine an optimal communication method, but also for

other types of distributed teams used across other organizations. It is anticipated that the

results of this research will help improve the selection of media for distributed teams and

facilitate improvements for team development and performance with the team, regardless

of communication method(s). Results of this study will also provide insight whether

introduction of certain types of computer-mediated communication method in the

planning of the first task teams are required to accomplish result in higher team

development or performance.

Significance of the Study

Organizations that have a high percentage of distributed teams, such as the military,

are realizing the importance of choosing the most effective and cost-efficient

communication technologies. Distributed mission operations for aircrew training provide

an opportunity for the military to reduce costs associated with face-to-face training

6

including travel of trainees and trainers, lodging, and aircraft maintenance. For

distributed operations to realize its cost-savings and continue to demonstrate a positive

impact on team training performance, the selection of effective media methods (or

mixture of methods) for exercises is essential. As with all organizations using distributed

teams, the military seeks to consider future investments into technologies offering the

latest synchronous video-conferencing capabilities, and results such as those that this

study will provide may provide valuable insight as to what, if any, additional investments

are needed.

The field of psychology has studied over the years various dimensions of team

dynamics and performance. Many of the theories and concepts supporting team

development are very relevant for distributed teams. However, psychologists are just

beginning to examine them in light of the nature of distributed teams as well as the

impact of using various technologies.

Despite the fact that the prevalence of computer-mediated teams is continually

increasing in today’s organizations, research in this area has mostly centered on the

comparison of computer-mediated teams to those that meet in traditional face-to-face

environments (Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Dennis & Valacich, 1993). As such, there is

growing need for research understanding the differences between computer-mediated

teams themselves. In addition, there is little research examining teams that use a mixture

of computer-mediated technologies over time. Teams are increasingly becoming a

“hybrid” composition, and there is a great desire for researchers to examine teams that

use different technologies at different times during the team process (Belanger et al.,

2006).

7

Research Design

This research project is a randomized experimental design whereas subjects are

assigned to teams who vary by method of communication in order to examine the

differences between computer-mediated teams both in team development and

performance. Modeling the research after distributed mission operation processes, teams

were allowed to plan for a task using computer-mediated communication using either

asynchronous (text-based chat) or synchronous (video conferencing) media and then

perform the assigned task in a synchronous (video or face-to-face) environment.

Asynchronous communication in this research included team members communicating

via text chat media. Synchronous communication occurred through the use of

videoconferencing software and allowed visual communication to occur between team

members.

Some organizations, such as the military, have no choice in terms of communication

method used for planning and/or task execution. Distributed mission operation exercises

arbitrarily use asynchronous or synchronous computer-mediated communication for

planning and synchronous media for task performance. However, there is a high price in

using videoconferencing synchronous communication media on a continuous basis when

face-to-face interaction is not always possible. Therefore, there is a desire to compare

teams that use different computer-mediated communication for planning in terms of both

the development and performance of the team.

After the planning phase for each task, team members were administered the Team

Development Survey to examine the differences between teams who use asynchronous

versus synchronous methods of communication. The Team Development Survey

8

measures elements of mission clarity, group cohesion, group behavior, skill development,

and personal satisfaction. Upon completion of the survey, teams performed a planned

task and were measured for performance when the task was completed. The study also

involved teams planning a second task using a different media for communication than

the first task (asynchronous or synchronous, respectively). Teams subsequently

performed the second task using the same method as used to perform the first task

(synchronous or face-to-face). The same measures from the Team Development Survey

and task performance were obtained from the teams as they planned and executed the

second task.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The research questions for this study centered on development and performance for

teams using different methods of computer-mediated communication in their planning

stages of task performance. If teams execute tasks using the same communication

method, do they differ in performance if they plan for the mission (task) when they use

different technologies? Do teams that have less social presence in planning have as much

team development as those who plan with more social presence? Is there any affect in

performance when teams who have social presence in planning for one task and do not

have as much social presence in planning an additional task?

The hypotheses of this research are organized in the following areas as they relate to

the research questions above. These areas are (a) synchronous versus asynchronous

teams (Hypotheses 1 and 2), (b) changing from asynchronous to synchronous teams

(Hypotheses 3 and 4), (c) changing from synchronous to asynchronous teams

9

(Hypotheses 5 and 6), and (d) synchronous versus face-to-face team performance

(Hypothesis 7).

Synchronous versus Asynchronous Teams: Hypotheses 1 and 2

The first two hypotheses for this study pertain to the differences seen between

asynchronous and synchronous teams as they plan for Task 1. The hypotheses are that:

Hypothesis 1: For Task 1, teams using asynchronous planning have statistically

significant lower team development, as measured by the Team Development Survey,

compared to teams that plan synchronously.

Null Hypothesis 1: For Task 1, teams using asynchronous planning have no

difference in team development, as measured by the Team Development Survey,

compared to teams that plan synchronously.


significant lower performance, compared to teams that plan synchronously.

Null Hypothesis 2: For Task 1, teams using asynchronous planning have no

difference in performance compared to teams that plan synchronously.

Changing from Asynchronous to Synchronous Teams: Hypotheses 3 and 4

Another set of hypotheses are concerned with the difference seen for teams that

change from asynchronous communication in planning the first task to synchronous

communication in planning the second task. Considering the importance of social

presence in the communication of teams, having the use of video technologies for future

team interaction is expected to show an impact on subsequent planning and execution.

Therefore, the hypotheses for changing from asynchronous to synchronous teams are:

10

Hypothesis 3: Teams that plan Task 1 asynchronously and plan Task 2

synchronously have statistically significant higher team development, as measured by the

Team Development Survey, for Task 2.

Null Hypothesis 3: Teams that plan Task 1 asynchronously and plan Task 2

synchronously have no difference in team development, as measured by the Team

Development Survey, between Task 1 and Task 2.


synchronously have statistically significant higher performance for Task 2.

Null Hypothesis 4: Teams that plan Task 1 asynchronously and plan Task 2

synchronously have no difference in performance between Task 1 and Task 2.

Changing from Synchronous to Asynchronous Teams: Hypotheses 5 and 6

For those teams having social presence in planning their first task, they should

realize the benefits of such visual interaction. This set of hypotheses are concerned with

the difference seen for teams who plan the first task using synchronous communication

and then plan the second task using asynchronous communication.

Hypothesis 5: Teams that plan Task 1 synchronously and plan Task 2

asynchronously have statistically significant lower team development, as measured by the

Team Development Survey, for Task 2.

Null Hypothesis 5: Teams that plan Task 1 synchronously and plan Task 2

asynchronously have no statistically significant difference in team development, as

measured by the Team Development Survey, between Task 1 and Task 2.


asynchronously have statistically significant lower performance for Task 2.

11

Null Hypothesis 6: Teams that plan Task 1 synchronously and plan Task 2

asynchronously have no statistically significant difference in performance between Task

1 and Task 2.

Synchronous versus Face-to-Face Team Performance: Hypothesis 7

The final set of hypotheses relate to task execution. Teams will be performing the

tasks by one of two forms of synchronous communication, by video teleconference or

face-to-face. Because Distributed Mission Operations are solely conducted using

synchronous technologies, results of teams using different methods for planning are to be

compared to traditional face-to-face teams. Social presence offered by synchronous

communication is expected to have similar benefits as traditional face-to-face interaction.

Thus, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 7: Teams that execute Task 1 and Task 2 face-to-face have statistically

significant higher performance as compared to teams that execute tasks synchronously.

Null Hypothesis 7: Teams that execute Task 1 and Task 2 face-to-face have no

statistically significant difference in performance as compared to teams that execute tasks

synchronously.

Assumptions and Limitations

Because this study compared computer-mediated teams, it is assumed that all

members are proficient in the electronic medium with which they are being asked to use.

With the prevalence of computers today, there is an understanding that all subjects

assigned to the computer-mediated groups are experienced with their use. It is also

assumed that subjects will have an equal opportunity to participate in this research.

12

There are some limitations to this study, particularly in terms of generalizability of

the study results. First, the software/technology used in this study could vary from real-

world computer-mediated teams including the ability of the members to see and hear

each other based on utilization of straight e-mail correspondence, video conferencing,

and web-based presentations. Because the technologies used by computer-mediated

groups may vary, the results may be difficult to generalize across all types of computer-

mediated teams. Second, the tasks used in this study require the members to plan a

strategy and build a mock ship mast with the materials given. Research supports the

notion that different types of tasks require different levels and types of communication

media; therefore, there is an acknowledgement that the results may not be applicable to

all types of team tasks (Thompson & Coovert, 2003).

Conclusions may not be relevant to all types of teams because of the particular

subjects chosen in this study. There are implications for the generalizability of results in

using students. Students are acknowledged to have less subject knowledge and

experience in the domain in which the communication would take place. Research has

shown that teams that are new to working as a group require a different level of

communication and may generate different study results (Thompson & Coovert, 2003).

Research involving teams should consider work groups who have some knowledge and

expertise in the tasks that are being discussed.

In addition, there may be some concern that the students may have prior social

interaction that may influence the assessment of “true” distributed teams. As true for

many studies that use a student population to derive subjects, the limitations of prior

interaction among team members is always a consideration. The study design for this

13

project, however, sought to minimize this possible limitation by having volunteers of

freshman students participate in the research. In particular, this research recruited newly

enrolled (freshman) students who have had little opportunity to socialize prior to conduct

of the research. Prior student interaction will also be minimized by the fact that student

teams will be assembled to work with each other in the context of the particular task

assignments for the first time.

Definition of Terms

Computer-mediated communication - process by which people create, exchange, and

perceive information using networked communication or computer systems to facilitate

the transmission of messages and/or images.

Computer-mediated teams – teams that use computer-mediated communications to

accomplish a goal or objective.

Distributed mission operation – the practice of training aircrews that are

geographically separated, yet still conduct mission planning and execution as those

aircrews who meet face-to-face.

Mission planning – the meeting(s) conducted by aircrews to discuss operations to be

performed as part of flight training or real-world flight missions.

Asynchronous communication - communication in which there is no timing

requirement for transmission and in which individuals submit individual contributions to

the communication at any time. In this study, asynchronous communication means text

chat or e-mail messaging.

14

Face-to-face team – a team in which its members share the same physical location,

can see and hear one another, receive messages real-time as they are produced, and send

and receive information simultaneously.

Synchronous communication- recurring or operating at exactly the same periods;

synchronous communications occur in real time. For this research, synchronous means

video communications.

Social presence – refers to the amount of social or visual contact or sense of

interaction. For this research, it is conveyed through visual contact.

Virtual teams – teams operating with members not co-located and interact through

some sort of technological medium.

Tele-presence – factors normally present for face-to-face groups available to

distributed groups.

15

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to review the previous research conducted in

examining computer-mediated teams, the issues surrounding the use of various computer-

mediated technologies, the theories developed to date which try to explain such issues,

and the lack of research surrounding more practical uses of computer-mediated

technologies. Traditional research has focused on comparing computer-mediated teams

to traditional face-to-face teams; however, the technological choices for computer-

mediated teams continue to evolve and warrant continual evaluation within the choices of

media themselves. Practically, organizations may not have the choice of deciding

between traditional face-to-face and computer-mediated environments for having their

teams work together. Organizations, such as the military, are faced with distributed team

environments no matter what the task. Therefore, there is a growing need for examining

the difference between computer-mediated teams. With team interaction technologies

emerging on a continuum ranging from high to low social presence, understanding the

impact of different forms of computer-mediated communication on team performance

and development is important.

The literature surveyed for this study was achieved using various resources. Search

of relevant journal articles within library databases as well as internet search engines was

accomplished by querying with key words such as: virtual team, computer-mediated,

asynchronous versus synchronous communication, distributed teams, and social presence.

Different library databases were utilized, both in the area of psychology as well as

business and technology. With computer-mediated communication being a relevant

16

subject for not only Industrial/Organizational Psychology, other career field areas also

investigated included Business, Information Technology, and Education.

Social Interaction and Teams

The word “team” often means a group of people who have a common purpose,

interdependent roles, and complementary skills (Yukl, 2002). A team is more than a

simple gathering of people. A team has a shared mutual goal or clearly defined purpose

such as solving a problem or developing a product (Winum & Seamons, 2000). There

are several different types of teams that can exist, depending upon their influence on each

other and their goals. These types include functional teams (specialized jobs or having

similar functions), cross-functional (representative from each functional subunit), self-

managed (semiautonomous or self-governed with similar operational tasks), self-defining

(responsibilities shared among team members and all decisions made collectively), and

executive (Yukl, 2002). Depending upon the objectives of the group, members can be

selected accordingly. In addition, participants can be chosen based upon the personal

characteristics that they bring to the group (Zastrow, 2001).

How work is performed in organizations is shifting from an individual focus to

emphasis on teams. Positive team functioning has been linked to increased team

effectiveness (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi & Beubien, 2002). Team performance is an

integrated concept requiring examination of many aspects of those involved from the

individual, group, and organizational perspective. Because team performance involves

the interaction of people, the study of social dynamics is important. Social psychology

studies how individuals think, feel, and behave in regards to other people (Brehm,

Kassin, & Fein, 2005). Many aspects studied in social psychology are relevant in

17

examination of team performance. Elements of the self, team, and leader affect team

performance and success in reaching team goals. Participation in the team is affected by

an individual’s self-concept, including self-esteem and self-efficacy. Individuals will

behave in a team situation in certain ways based upon their perceptions of themselves and

how they think the team perceives them. Social identity theory supports the notion that

people will be motivated in a team to increase their self-esteem and categorize

themselves as part of the team in order to boost feelings of self identity (Chattopadhyay,

George, & Lawrence, 2004). Other individual beliefs, such as stereotypes, impact team

performance in numerous ways. Stereotypes and belief systems distort an individual’s

ability to communicate effectively and participate in the team in a positive manner.

Individuals can have the natural tendency to seek out information which confirms their

personal biases and stereotypes (Brehm et al., 2005).

Beyond individual behavior influencing team performance, the team as a whole will

have various aspects of social behavior which will impact its effectiveness. A variety of

models have been developed trying to explain how group characteristics influence team

effectiveness. Examining relationships longitudinally provides useful insight as to which

characteristics emerge as relevant. One model focuses on four group characteristics

including functional heterogeneity (group member’s perceptions about the diversity of

various functional experiences and skills held by other group members), preference for

group work (group member’s degree of feeling comfortable and enjoying working

collectively, as opposed to individually), group potency (collective belief in a group), and

outcome expectations (beliefs that group members have regarding the likely

consequences the group will experience as a result of their actions) (Jung, Sosik, & Baik,

18

2002). These characteristics, because they are a result of studying personnel over time,

have been noted to be variable. Characteristics are likely to fluctuate as the team

performs multiple tasks as opposed to other variables which tend to stay constant (e.g.,

group structure, planning processes, etc.) (Jung et al., 2002).

Individual team members influence the performance of the team through various

social dynamics. Member diversity is the first dynamic that comes to mind.

Organizations are increasingly seeing more diverse populations, and such diversities have

shown to be both positive and negative predictors of team performance (Sundstrom et al.,

2000). Many researchers have recognized that organizational performance depends in

some part on successful utilization of diverse backgrounds and characteristics that group

members possess (Jung, et al., 2002). Diversity refers to differences between individuals

on any attribute that may lead to perceptions that another person is different than

themselves (Van Knippenberg, DeDreu, & Homan, 2004). Diversity can range from age,

religion, race, skill level, etc.

Over the years, organizations are becoming more diverse in terms of their

demographic composition. In addition, cross-functional teams are becoming more

commonplace in organizations. Culturally-diverse work groups are known to have

different dynamics than homogeneous groups and are seen as having increased

challenges as well as opportunities. Team performance can be enhanced in the wake of

diversity with focused initiatives. Organizations must learn to obtain the most by having

a diverse work team in terms of ideas and values.

Along with taking advantage of differences, team cohesion is another social dynamic

which impacts team performance. Cohesion includes those forces on a group which push

19

members closer together (Brehm et al., 2004). Variables used to measure cohesion in

research surrounding group performance included the following (Beal, Cohen, Burke, &

McLendon, 2003): (a) interpersonal attraction (a shared liking for or attachment to the

group members), (b) task commitment (how much a task allows the group to attain

important goals or how much shared commitment there is to the group’s task), and (c)

group pride (the extent group members show liking for the status or ideologies that the

group represents).

When cohesion is strong, the group is motivated to perform well and is better able to

coordinate activities towards successful performance (Beal et al., 2003). Research shows

that cohesion is the most studied predictor of team performance (Sundstrom et al., 2000).

This does not mean that their relationship is clearly causally related. A positive

relationship between cohesiveness and team performance has been dependent upon such

factors as size and dependence level among members (Brehm et al., 2005).

Performance has also shown to be related to certain types of groups, too. For

example, cohesion has been shown to be a predictor in project teams, but not service

teams (Sundstrom et al., 2000). In terms of types of tasks to be performed, cohesiveness

can be disadvantageous for groups needing creative, innovative ideas (Brehm et al.,

2005). Having an appreciation for cohesiveness and its positive and negative effects can

help team performance adapt appropriately

Sometimes, teams can exaggerate their influences too much in one direction or

another, and the result is overall team performance suffers. Team polarization can lead to

extreme attitudes as a result of team members’ strongly persuasive stances (Brehm et al.,

20

2005). The optimal solution for organizations is to minimize the effects of such

tendencies and still allow members to feel free to communicate their opinions openly.

Overall, then, what makes teamwork “work”? The RHR Team Effectiveness Model

refers to the interaction of key elements contributing to effective team performance, of

which, includes the essential element of interpersonal processes (Winum & Seamons,

2000). Teams are viewed as a complex social system with many potential barriers for its

effective functioning. With a foundation in the field of social psychology, the RHR

Team Effectiveness Model includes interpersonal processes as an important element and

emphasizes that such processes are an interactive dynamic impacting the synergy and

constructive functioning of a team as a whole (Winum & Seamons, 2000). Interpersonal

processes are facilitated by communication.

Therefore, the study of communication and the impact of different communication

methods are important for successful interpersonal processes to exist. Having an

appreciation for the interpersonal processes is important for team effectiveness in relation

to its organizational context, and this is as important for not only co-located team

environments but also distributed team environments as well.

Research on Computer-Mediated Distributed Teams

Advantages of Computer-Mediated Communication

In the not too distant past, “virtual teams” (distributed teams using computers to

mediate communication) was considered a “novelty phrase” in organizations without

much focus on the implication of their use or utilization within an organization (Bergiel,

Biergel, & Balsmeir, 2008). These types of teams are not considered novelty anymore,

but are very commonplace. Teams using computer-mediated communication could be

21

considered an expansion of a traditional cross-functional team to include additional

elements spanning functional, organizational, and geographic boundaries. Because of

their increased use just within the past decade alone, it is important to understand the

issues inherent with computer-mediated communication as compared to traditional face-

to-face team interactions. Organizations depend on such teams to be agile and globally

competitive (Bergiel et al., 2008). However, studies comparing the effectiveness of

communication for computer-mediated communication teams as compared to face-to-

face teams have been mixed and ambiguous (Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003). Results have

demonstrated many disadvantages and advantages that have been found associated with

computer-mediated communication teams.

As stated, distributed (or virtual) teams are separated by geographic and/or temporal

constraints. Distributed teams are often defined by multiple dimensions typically seen in

traditional teams. These include whether the team is permanent or temporary, the team

has or does not have history or a future of working with each other, the team is similar or

diverse in culture geography (Jarvepaa & Leidner, 1999). However, the distributed team

also has an added dimension of communication mode which can be one method or a

mixture of methods.

Organizations view distributed teams as assets for various reasons. Because of their

separation, they can bring together members from different areas of an organization.

They can communicate whenever and wherever they desire. Organizations consider

distributed teams best equipped to leverage experts without the constraints of co-location.

However, without physical proximity, the interpersonal processes occurring between

22

distributed team members are prone to problems (to be discussed in the subsequent

section).

There are some benefits seen with computer-mediated teams in terms of social

interaction. Interaction of distributed team members through computer-mediated

communications permits more equal participation among group members and reduces

social constraints that can result in better idea generation. McGuire et al. (1987) showed

that groups that use computer technology for communication are less influenced by group

norms than face-to-face teams. Computer-mediated communication can break down

boundaries such as nationality, race, language and ideology (Postmes, Spears, & Lea,

2002). Individual differences in terms of social status are usually unknown. Individuals

may be more inclined to communicate differently than if they would in a face-to-face

interaction. Computer-mediated communication can increase group decision-making

quality by allowing facilitation of the expression of minority opinions (McLeod, Baron,

Marti, & Yoon, 1997). Anonymity of computer-mediated communication can reduce

inhibition associated with social apprehension and social status differences (McLeod et

al., 1997). It leads to more active and equal team member participation (Berry, 2006).

Social anonymity opens an opportunity for more intense communications and can impact

a member’s group identity (Stone & Posey, 2005).

There is no doubt that there is a definite synergy that develops within a group during

a decision-making process. People read off of one another and learn from their

interactions. One of the disadvantages of face-to-face groups is the possibility one or

more members dominating the group’s activities (Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003).

However, computer-mediated communication seems to encourage individual

23

participation by allowing a team member to openly broadcast personal opinion (Bishop &

Levine, 1999). Computer-mediated communication also offers the ability for team

members to reflect upon their responses as well as provide them time to collect additional

information prior to responding (Berry, 2006).

Idea generation has been found to be enhanced through electronic media. Computer-

mediated teams generate more ideas through brainstorming electronically versus face-to-

face settings (Kerr & Murthy, 2004). It has been noted that there are three advantages to

electronic brainstorming including: parallelism (members can contribute simultaneously),

group memory (medium enables ideas to be documented exactly as communicated), and

anonymity (sometimes ideas can be placed in a pool where individual identity can be

hidden) (Dennis & Valacich, 1993). Depending upon the tasks associated with

brainstorming in this medium, the effectiveness of computer-mediated team decisions can

more optimally reached.

Dennis and Valacich (1993) note some discovered advantages of electronic

brainstorming including the ability to work simultaneously, recording of group dialogue,

and allowing members to feel anonymous and freer to express themselves. It was also

hypothesized that large electronic-brainstorming groups would generate more ideas than

nominal groups, but that there would be little difference for smaller groups. Dennis and

Valacich (1993) compared the number of unique ideas between computer-mediated

communication and traditional face-to-face groups, as well as between small (six-

member) and large (twelve-member) groups. The researchers found that twelve-member

computer-mediated communication groups generated more ideas than twelve-member

24

face-to-face groups, while there were no differences between six-member groups (Dennis

& Valacich, 1993).

The findings of Dennis and Valacich (1993) are important because they dispel the

belief that electronic media is not an effective vehicle for teams. It does lend support that

depending on the type of task, for example idea-generation, a computer-mediated

communication team can be as or more productive than a traditional face-to-face team.

With face-to-face interactions, there is more likelihood that idea generation may be

hindered because of feelings of judgment. As Dennis and Valacich (1993) prove in their

results, smaller six-member face-to-face teams indicated more apprehension than any

other group. The study also suggests that group size is not necessarily a limiting factor

for computer-mediated teams (Dennis & Valacich, 1993). Obviously, there are critical

numbers of members before the returns of performance are minimized. Dennis and

Valacich (1993) admit if a more heterogeneous group of subjects were used, member’s

experiences, responsibilities, expectations, and other factors would more than likely show

different results such as more synergy with smaller group sizes.

Disadvantages of Computer-Mediated Communication

Distributed teams are faced with the challenges of managing conflict coming from

different boundaries or locations. Problems typically faced by teams causing conflict

include low organizational commitment, role ambiguity, and lack of team identification.

It is important for members to be aware of each other and to be able to perceive

themselves as a cohesive unit in decision-making (Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003).

Researchers have found that such problems are exacerbated in the context of virtual

teams (Maruping & Agarwal, 2004). Virtual team members may feel isolated and

25

missing a team identity. This could be due to the lack of expertise and knowledge about

the technology and its use. According to some researchers (Bergiel et al., 2008), self-

reported computer savvy team members may not have sufficient knowledge to meet the

demands with the virtual team.

The establishment of mutual knowledge among members of computer-mediated

teams is susceptible to confusion due to the nature of comparing written to oral

communication. Lacking mutual knowledge in a team environment can also lead to

dissatisfaction with the processes and outcomes associated with the team. Satisfaction,

however, can be a broadly-defined term. Satisfaction can include a multitude of areas

including with the discussion, process, communication medium, and other members of

the group (Thompson & Coovert, 2003).

Literature suggests that computer-mediated teams are vulnerable to communication

and coordination difficulties, particularly when their work involves a good deal of

interdependence (Thompson & Coovert, 2003). Thompson & Coovert’s (2003) main

argument in their research was that the mutual knowledge gained through personal face-

to-face team interaction is assumed to be lacking in computer-mediated teams. The

researchers examined specific variables including perceived discussion confusion,

process satisfaction, and decision recording accuracy. In addition, they also examined

the relationship among communication medium, team discussion time, and outcome

satisfaction.

The results of Thompson and Coovert’s (2003) study showed that computer-

mediated teams felt more dissatisfied with their collaborative processes and less satisfied

with the outcome of the team exercise (Thompson & Coovert, 2003). Their research

26

confirmed that the lack of mutual knowledge in existence with computer-mediated teams

is evidenced by feelings of confusion, lack of satisfaction in the process and outcomes of

the team collaborations, as well as inaccuracies in recording the team information.

In another research study of computer-mediated teams, Straus and McGrath (1994)

hypothesized that as the need for member coordination on tasks increases, there will be

greater differences in product quality between computer-mediated and face-to-face teams.

Also, differences between computer-mediated and face-to-face groups in product quality

will be smaller for idea-generation tasks and greater for intellective and judgment tasks.

Straus and McGrath (1994) performed a repeated measures multivariate analysis of

variance for medium and task. In terms of performance effectiveness, they found

significant difference for medium and task type with the greatest difference seen among

them on the judgment task (Straus & McGrath, 1994). Analysis of productivity scores

showed a difference among medium with computer-mediated groups demonstrating

significantly less productivity (Straus & McGrath, 1994). Examination of quality showed

positive results for computer-mediated groups. There were no significant differences

between computer-mediated and face-to-face groups on any of the tasks. For instance,

there was no difference between them on idea quality, proportion of correct answers,

overall decision quality, and distribution of choices (Straus & McGrath, 1994).

With differences seen in satisfaction for judgment and intellective tasks as compared

to idea-generation tasks, Straus and McGrath (1994) concluded that as tasks require more

and more coordination and consensus, computer-mediated communication is viewed as a

less-than-suitable means of coordination. The results of this study confirm results seen

from other studies looking at computer-mediated groups (Thompson & Coovert, 2001;

27

Dennis & Valacich, 1993) that members of these groups are less satisfied with their work

and the process and find they are more confused. It also confirms that computer-

mediated communication is better for some types of tasks (idea-generation) as opposed to

others (intellective and judgment).

When examining research comparing computer-mediated teams to face-to-face

teams, a common thread is the amount of social presence. Social presence is a major

factor for the communication issues faced by computer-mediated teams. In this medium,

there is a lack of direct physical presence between the communicators. Social presence

theory advocates that communication media should vary accordingly to the degree of

“social presence” or the feeling that communication is social, warm, personal and

sensitive (Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003).

Computer-mediated communication is considered very low in social presence, while

face-to-face groups are considered just the opposite. Electronic media are seen to filter

out the cues provided by personal contact; therefore, face-to-face communications is

viewed as offering the highest degree of social presence followed by video, audio, and

then print (Galushkin, 2003). Social influence in group discussions is communicated

through verbal and “social context cues” (for example, seating position, body language,

etc.) (McGuire et al., 1987). The impact on team performance for computer-mediated

teams is that these elements of influence are removed and prevents the full exchange of

views and feedback.

Removal of social presence in computer-mediated communication groups has been

found to raise group polarization (Sia et al., 2002). In fact, group polarization is believed

to be raised is because of the feelings members have in being anonymous and the

28

restrictions of social cues (Sia et al., 2002). Uninhibited behavior can lead to more

extreme disagreements that can make the group ineffective in coming to consensus. It is

believed that with an appearance of providing a platform for “open voice,” computer-

mediated teams are more susceptible to conflicts and tensions (Bishop & Levine, 1999).

In contrast, there is a belief that when social presence is high (as with traditional face-to-

face communication), people are encouraged to treat each other as social beings with

feelings rather than objects (Sia et al., 2002). Reducing social presence can result in the

pursuit of self interests over group interests.

Theories Guiding Computer-Mediated Distributed Teams

There are several theories which provide the basis of studies concentrated on

computer-mediated teams. Given the unique and varied environment offered by

computer-mediated communications, these theories center upon aspects of task type and

relational issues in choosing the appropriate technology (Lim & Hung, 2008). Early

theories centered on the characteristics of media and their impact on the selection of

media. There are few theories addressing the role of interpersonal processes and the

impact of social influence.

Task-Technology Fit

The theory of task-technology fit is considered the only theory that addresses the link

between task requirements and technological functionalities (Maruping & Agarwal,

2004). Task-technology-fit theory provides guidance for team performance, so when

using computer-mediated communication, it is optimized by selecting the appropriate set

of tools matched to the requirements of the task (Kerr & Murthy, 2004; Zigurs &

Khazanchi, 2008). Tasks which differ based upon complexity (such as simple, problem,

29

decision, and judgment) are best matched to media with different levels of capability

(communication support, process structure, information processing) (Zigurs &

Khazanchi, 2008). Overall, it has been advocated that a successful computer-mediated

team is proficient in learning how to best utilize the medium that it has and the ability to

explore the creative use of different technologies (Colquitt, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, LePine, &

Sheppard, 2002).

While the majority of research has focused on choosing computer-mediated

communication versus a traditional in-person communication method, there has been

some research examining technology fit within the same computer-mediated method. For

example, there has been some assessment of selecting appropriate synchronous (video

conferencing) communication based upon the team’s task requirements. Nedelko (2007)

describes a matrix used to assign video conferencing (desktop or room-based) based upon

the number of sites connected as well as task type. This matrix considers the type of

technology (meaning the number of actual sites connected by conferencing software) in

order to perform different tasks. Multi-site (three or more) video conferencing is

considered best for routine problem solving or negotiations, while it is recommended for

more complex problem solving and data collection to use less number of sites (no more

than two) (Nedelko, 2007).

Media Richness Theory

Media rich theory also asserts that the selection of communication media should

match the features of a group’s task (Barkhi, Jocob, & Pirkul, 1999). Media Richness

Theory is considered a theory within the umbrella of Task-Technology Fit (Zigurs &

Khazanchi, 2008). Communication media vary in its ability to convey rich information

30

(such information includes communication that overcomes different frames of reference

as well as changes in understanding in a reasonable time) (Daft & Lengel, 1986).

Communication media can, therefore, be classified according to their level of “richness.”

Media that is more “rich” provides immediate feedback, multiple cues, and language

variety (Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003; Kumar & Benbasat, 2002).

Application of this theory places different communication media into a hierarchy in

terms of its ability to transport complex information from sender to receiver (Jonas, Boos,

& Sassenberg, 2002). A way to conceptualize this theory is by placing the types of

communication media by a rating by its ability to enable feedback, cues, message

tailoring and emotions. Newberry (2001) organized media in such a manner and placed

more rich communications such as face-to-face, video conferencing, synchronous audio,

and text-chat on the side of “high” media rating for providing feedback. For providing

multiple cues, only face-to-face communication was deemed sufficient, while all forms of

technology mediated communication (synchronous audio, asynchronous audio, text-chat,

e-mail, and threaded discussions) were considered “low” media for their ability to convey

multiple cues (Newberry, 2001).

Media is deemed “rich” based upon the number of cues available. Communication

can vary allowing text, verbal and non-verbal cues. Visual cues are seen as necessary to

read reactions and obtain an understanding of the impact of certain behaviors (Thompson

& Coovert, 2003). The media methods considered less “rich” are not able to convey

messages across multiple channels. The three dimensions of media richness are:

interactivity, adaptability, and channel capacity (Kumar & Benbasat, 2002). However, it

is also important to understand that the focus of this theory should not be confused with

31

media characteristics, but rather the ability for information to change understanding

within a defined period of time (Kumar & Benbasat, 2002).

According to this theory, media type (face-to-face, video conferencing, etc.) should

be chosen that offers the greatest efficiency and opportunity for the communication to

occur accurately (Newberry, 2001). Looking at the tasks required for within a team

environment, tasks requiring a significant amount of coordination are considered to

require richer media or higher rating as indicated above. It is generally assumed and

advocated that face-to-face communication is a richer media than computer-mediated

(Barkhi et al., 1999). This assumption is clouded, however, with the introduction of

visually-based technologies allowing teams to communicate.

Because of the belief of being a less rich medium for communication, teams using

computer-mediated communication are recommended to spend more time “verbalizing”

information than face-to-face counterparts (Thompson & Coovert, 2003). For example,

meaning, in some computer-mediated communication methods (such as text-base) is

attempted to be conveyed through the use of symbols which may or may not prove

effective (Kumar & Benbasat, 2002). “Verbalization” can also be achieved by

mimicking real-time conversations across computer-generated mediums.

Media Synchronicity Theory

Media Synchronicity Theory is considered a more three-dimensional model

incorporating team functions, media capabilities, and communication processes (DeLuca

& Valacich, 2006). This theory centers on the ability of communication technology to

transmit social cues inherent within face-to-face interactions (Maruping & Agarwal,

2004). Synchronicity is equated to the level of interaction. With interaction as a

32

fundamental element, media synchronicity theory is actually an extension of media

richness theory. The theory takes into consideration that tasks are varied within a team

activity and have multiple levels of complexity. While Media Richness Theory views

tasks as whole events and would assign the media based on a holistic assessment, Media

Synchronicity looks at tasks as singular events.

The dimensions affecting communication as identified by the Media Synchronicity

Theory are (DeLuca & Valacich, 2006): immediacy of feedback, symbol variety or the

format which information is conveyed (verbal and non-verbal symbols), parallelism or

the number of effective simultaneous conversations, ability to rehearse or fine-tune a

message before sending, and ability to re-process or re-address a message within the

same communication.

By considering tasks as individual event, this theory poses that each task will vary by

the dimensions listed above and be impacted by the interaction associated among them.

Communication media influences task performance by the ability or inability of the

media to support the dimensions. The Media Synchronicity Theory suggests that no

media is good or bad consistently on all five dimensions and the effectiveness of the

media in supporting group interactions is dependent upon the tasks involved (Chang,

2005).

With increased focus on media and the impact of changing technologies, Media

Synchronicity Theory was revised to replace immediacy of feedback with transmission

velocity (Dennis, Fuller, & Valacich, 2008). With media transmitting in a faster mode,

synchronicity is increased as exchanges in communication can occur faster and come

close to appearing seamless.

33

Media Naturalness Theory

This theory proposes that an individual’s cognitive effort will increase when engaged

in a mode of communication that is different from that which is more natural (Simon,

2006). As a result, a method that is more natural, such as videoconferencing, can be

viewed as preferable requiring less cognitive effort. However, as with any technology,

videoconferencing has its problems with poor quality of video or delayed audio

transmission. The issue with Media Naturalness is that it focuses on media itself in its

capacity to convey information and neglects task differences as well as complexity of

social forces (Simon, 2006).

Some communication methods are deemed “quasi-synchronous.” This type of media

are sort of a live message board which allows members to simultaneously type in

responses that are displayed almost real time on a common message board. Some believe

that this type of media for teams is optimal. The communication develops as nonlinear

sequential patterns and causes discussions to appear disjointed (Distiller & Thatcher,

2005). Ensuring communication is effectively achieving positive results would seem

quite difficult by having non-sequential, multiple streams of discussions occurring.

Members would have to develop some way to track decisions or milestones from these

discussions.

Social Presence Theory

Social presence is a major factor for the communication issues faced by computer-

mediated teams. What is presence? This is a valid question given the range of

technologies available for communication. Presence, in terms of computer-mediated

communication, appears to revolve around perceptions and abilities to “feel” connected.

34

Kumar & Benbasat (2002) outline different conceptualizations of presence including:

social richness (the level of conceptualization a team member has dependent upon the

salience of social perceptions), realism (the degree that the communication medium

produces realistic representations of others or the environment), transportation (the

feeling of “being there” or “we are together”), immersion (the extent the medium and

environment envelopes a user both perceptually and psychologically), and social actor

within medium (the level of interaction allowed with a communication medium which

includes interaction, or the lack of, among users).

Social presence is part of a larger set of theories in social psychology which are

based upon the premises of basic human interaction. There is not only the significance of

the interaction among individuals, but the manner in which interactions are mediated.

For this to occur there must be a level of awareness of the other team member’s existence

and perceptions that they are truly interacting. A related construct to social presence is

called co-presence which is considered a sense of the being in a shared space (Jerome &

Jordan, 2007). While interaction can be facilitated through computer-mediated

technologies, the instinctual nature of human interaction is still a major factor. In fact,

some view the categories of “social actor within medium” and “medium as social actor:

as the most significant aspects related to virtual team projects (Lim & Hung, 2008).

The state of social presence and co-presence can vary over computer-mediated

communication from a low level of awareness that the other team member is co-present

to a high level of awareness that the other team member’s emotional states are accessible

(Biocca & Harms, 2002). In fact, social presence is considered to include graduated

levels perceptions and states of mind. Biocca and Harms (2002) considered social

35

presence from not only a perceptual level in broader terms, but also from a subjective and

inter-subjective level which took into consideration awareness within the individual as

well as dynamics amongst the group such as perceived comprehension, attention

engagement, and symmetry between members providing a sense of mutual presence.

In computer-mediated communications, the lack of direct physical presence

influences the level of co-presence felt. Social presence theory first put forth by Short,

Williams, and Christie (1976), advocates that social presence is the perception that one is

communicating with people and not inanimate objects. Social presence is considered one

of the most important factors that help people collaborate because it allows the team to

feel a sense of belonging and cohesion amongst themselves (Na Ubon & Kimble, 1997).

This definition is expanded to include media which defined social presence as the degree

a person perceives to be real in a mediated environment (Newberry, 2001). When social

presence is low, team members are believed to be disconnected and cohesion levels low,

but if social presence is high, they feel “joint involvement” (Kurzendoerfer, n. d.).

Yet, team members must be able to work together despite their physical separation,

and this is highly influenced by the work required of the team. Social presence theory

advocates that communication media should vary accordingly to the degree of social

presence needed by the team’s task (s) (Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003; Kumar &

Benbasat, 2002). This theory also purports that the awareness and sensitivity of the

presence of other people is directly related to the number of communication accessibility

or modes (Liu, Tsang, Kwan, Ng, Cheung & Choy, 2007; Kurzendoerfer, n. d.). As the

number of communication restrictions decreases, the level of social presence is expected

36

to increase, while the number of restrictions can possibly increase and thus lessen the

ability to communicate, and cause a decrease in social presence.

Communication and social interaction conveyances vary. For example, social

influence in team discussions can be communicated through verbal and “social context

cues” (for example, seating position, body language, etc.) (McGuire et al., 1987). The

impact on team performance for computer-mediated teams is that these elements of

influence are removed or lessened and prevent optimal communication to occur (full

exchange of views and feedback). Social presence involves both the individual team

member sensing they perceive others and others are able to perceive them (Kumar &

Benbasat, 2002).

According to Social Presence Theory, the characteristics of media have the ability to

change the salience of each individual’s presence, and thus, have an impact on the

communication occurring in the group (Lim & Hung, 2008). It is a theory that purports

how technology can affect, distort, or enhance social cognitions and interactions (Biocca

& Harms, 2002). More visual (or synchronous) communications are seen to provide the

social and contextual cues necessary to develop a feeling of social presence. These

include having the ability to hear vocal fluctuations, see facial movements and even hear

surrounding sounds. Asynchronous (or text-based) communications are seen to lack the

ability to evoke feelings of social presence (Wheeler, 2005).

Social Presence and Team Development and Performance

There have been some limitations noted of applying Social Presence Theory on

computer-mediated teams since computer due to the reason that there are many levels of

“presence” allowed with computer-mediated communication (Lim & Hung, 2008). For

37

example, a text-based communication method has no social presence as compared to a

video-based communication method.

The performance demands of the team will play a significant role in terms of which

type of media to select for a distributed team. Task-technology fit could help predict a

team’s outcomes in terms of the degree the technology relates to the information-

processing and coordination needs of the tasks at hand (Maruping & Agarwal, 2002).

However, to compensate for missing social interaction and team building

experiences in the computer-mediated environment, it is suggested that organizations

provide at least some opportunity for computer-mediated teams to meet face-to-face at

particular stages of project development (Franz, 1999). Teams using technologies or

approaches high in media richness in the early stages of development enable trust among

team members to be developed (Maruping & Agarwal, 2002). In addition, when team

members face relationship conflicts or require some affect management, the need for

nonverbal cues and emotional content in the communications is greater (Maruping &

Agarwal, 2002). While media rich (video conferencing) or face-to-face meetings may

not be practical for every team communication effort, there should be opportunities for

some sort of “media-rich” interaction.

This topic leads to the research questions of this study. If provided an opportunity to

interact in a media-rich environment (synchronous video conferencing) for part of their

work together, do teams develop and perform as well as teams who meet initially by

other computer-mediated means (asynchronous or text-based communications)? Some

social presence is necessary to develop the perceptual salience of team members.

38

With most studies related to computer-mediated teams concentrating on differences

with face-to-face teams (Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Kerr & Murthy, 2004; Thatcher &

DeLaCour, 2005), there is limited research on comparisons between computer-mediated

teams. In addition, with the importance of social presence in establishing basically the

perceptual “glue” among its members, the introduction of visual interaction is also

important to examine for computer-mediated teams. Social presence as a measure,

however, is a difficult construct. It is considered having a lack of conceptual

standardization among researchers and a lack of agreement in terms of its measurement

(Jerome & Jordan, 2007). It can, however, be considered as part of the communication

variable (asynchronous versus synchronous). Characteristics of the communication

medium (in terms of stimuli, interactivity, and live interactions) are considered

determinants of presence (Jerome & Jordan, 2007). Therefore, presence in this study is

considered by the type of communication by its inclusion of visual connection, or lack

thereof, while its effect on team development and performance are measured.

39

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY


Social presence or the lack thereof, is an important consideration for distributed

teams. The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a difference between

computer-mediated teams having social, or visual, presence compared to those that do not

in planning for a task. Is initial “presence” going to show higher development within a

team than those that do not have such interaction? With research supporting the fact that

social presence, as experienced in more traditional face-to-face teams, is essential in

developing an effective team environment (Thompson & Coovert, 2003), introducing

some form of social interaction to a computer-mediated team by means of synchronous

communication is hypothesized to result in higher team development than asynchronous

computer-mediated teams. Similarly, because of the introduction of a social presence,

asynchronous computer-mediated teams with initial synchronous exposure are expected

to have no change in development or performance over time.

Research Design

The design for this study involved quantitative analysis of the dependent variables

team development and performance as compared to the independent variable of team type

(computer-mediated communication accomplished either through asynchronous (text

chat) or synchronous (video) method). Because the research examined these dependent

variables in terms of the effects of two independent variables within the same team, the

study involved an experimental within-subjects design.

To simulate the Air Force’s distributed mission operation environment, teams were

asked to perform an exercise that involved both planning and task execution. In this

40

study, teams were given the Tall Ships™ exercise. In Tall Ships™, teams are asked to

assemble the tallest ship mast possible in the least amount of time (Task 1), and then

teams are assembled again rethink their strategy and build yet a taller mast in the same

amount of time, but at the lowest cost (Task 2) (Teambuildinginc.com, n. d.). Teams are

given up to fifteen minutes to develop a plan to complete each task.

Task planning was performed by either by computer-mediated asynchronous (via

text chat) or computer-mediated synchronous (via videoconferencing) communication

media. Task execution was accomplished either by computer-mediated synchronous (via

video conferencing) or traditional face-to-face interaction (within the same conference

room). All subjects were given an introduction to the communication software prior to

the start of the tasks.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions which vary by

communication method: (a) Team 1 participants plan task 1 asynchronously (via text

chat), plan Task 2 synchronously (via videoconferencing), and execute both tasks in a

face-to-face mode; (b) Team 2 participants plan Task 1 asynchronously (via text chat),

plan Task 2 synchronously (via videoconferencing), and execute both tasks in a

synchronous mode (via videoconferencing); (c) Team 3 participants plan Task 1

synchronously (via videoconferencing), plan Task 2 asynchronously (via text chat), and

execute both tasks in a face-to-face mode; or (d) Team 4 participants plan Task 1

synchronously (via videoconferencing), plan Task 2 asynchronously (via text chat), and

execute both tasks in a synchronous mode (via videoconferencing).

The design for this research study consisted of the administration of self-report

questionnaire after completion of planning exercises for each task. Since self-report data

41

relies on subjects telling researchers what they believe to be true, this approach will be

appropriate for obtaining team members’ perception (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). As

observation of multiple groups simultaneously would be difficult for this research, the

study took advantage of the ability to administer questionnaires to a larger group of

subjects at the same time (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). In addition to the questionnaire, the

measure for team performance was acquired through data collection of the time each

team took to complete each task, height of the ship’s mast, and cost of materials for both

Task 1 and Task 2. With four different types of teams and two tasks, the study design

was organized in the following manner (Figure 1 below):

Figure 1. Overall Study Design

Target Population and Participant Selection

In descriptive research such as this one, the goal is to describe a characteristic of a

large population (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). Because the target population comprises

military aircrew personnel in a computer-mediated team environment, it involves a very

SynchronousAsynchronousSynchronousSynchronous4

Face-to-FaceAsynchronousFace-to-FaceSynchronous3

SynchronousSynchronousSynchronousAsynchronous2

Face-to-FaceSynchronousFace-to-FaceAsynchronous1

ExecutePlanExecutePlan

Task 2Task 1Team






Task 2Task 1Team

TeamDevelopment

Survey

TeamDevelopment

Survey

TeamDevelopment

Survey

TeamDevelopment

Survey

PerformanceWorksheet




42

diverse population spread across a multitude of geographic locations. The goal is to find

a sample of that possible population in order to make generalizations about the entire

population. Students represent a good a source for identifying a sample of a diverse

workforce, and are used in many computer-mediated research studies (Thatcher &

DeLaCour, 2003; Thompson & Coovert, 2003).

This study recruited students at a major mid-western university to participate in

multiple team exercises requiring communication coordination between its members. All

freshman students enrolled in an introductory behavioral sciences course were asked to

take part in the study. As this course is required for all freshman students, the sample of

subjects came from the entire freshman population for the spring and fall semesters. The

sampling strategy was a simple random design of students who volunteer to participate.

By using freshmen students, they will have had little opportunity for social interaction

prior to the study as freshman in this particular university are prohibited from wandering

around the campus and are also required to stay within the boundaries of their dormitory

outside of academic hours. There was also a control for internal validity during the study

itself by having the groups unaware of the different conditions for which they are

assigned.

The research design called for forming a number of groups per team condition. A

power analysis was performed to estimate the required sample sizes using the

assumptions that the Type II error rate set at β = 0.20 (power = 0.80) and Type I error rate

at α = 0.05. Estimations were achieved using different conventions as guides. Using

Cohen’s convention (Howell, 2004), an effect size meeting the “medium” level was

calculated to equal an n of 31 participants. Using a different convention to define

43

“medium” effect, the required n was 22 participants (Hinkle, Wiersman, & Jurs, 1994).

With similar psychological research studies using a medium effect size as standard, the

determination of a sample size of 24 participants per team condition (making 4 groups of

6-person teams) an acceptable sample determination (Keppel, 1991). Thus, a minimum

of 96 participants was needed.

Procedures

The research was submitted to the Capella University Human Subjects Institutional

Review Board with all supporting documentation following submission to the mid-

western university’s Institutional Review Board. Once permission was granted from the

two boards, a complete list of students enrolled in randomly selected programs were

obtained. Students were informed of the study as an extra credit opportunity. Sign-up

sheets were posted in the Psychology Department hallways which indicated the date and

time students volunteered to attend the study. Students who came to participate in the

study were asked to stay the entire duration of the exercise as well as participate in the

survey administration period.

For asynchronous communication, team members were placed in assigned office

spaces with computers. Synchronous team members were located in rooms with

computers equipped with teleconference/tele-presence software to allow them to video

conference with each other. All subjects were provided an introduction to the Microsoft

NetMeeting software prior to the start of the session. Subjects were asked to reply to

some example messages using the text chat software so that they are familiar with the

manner messages are sent and received. Subjects were also shown the video conference

44

software and asked to communicate a few minutes with the study administrators to

become familiar with the placement of the video camera and software itself.

Once the study was started, the teams were asked to plan and execute two separate

tasks. At the end of the planning exercises, the Campbell-Hallam Team Development

Survey was administered to each member (Attachment A). Participants individually

completed their questionnaire and were verbally assured of the confidentiality of their

responses. An instruction sheet was read to all participants prior to distributing the

questionnaire. Once completed, subjects enclosed their questionnaire in a sealed

envelope. Teams were then asked to execute the plan developed. This procedure was

repeated for a second task (planning and execution).

Measures

Independent variables for this analysis include type of team

(synchronous/asynchronous and asynchronous/synchronous planning teams). Dependent

variables include the categories of team development and task performance. The

questionnaire used in this research to assess team development was a version of the

Campbell-Hallam Team Development Survey which is originally based on 18 scales, and

of which, this study included questions from five of those including mission clarity,

group cohesion, group behavior, skill development, personal satisfaction (Leong &

Lewis, 1994). The constructs are defined as follows: mission clarity is the extent goals

and mission of the team are clearly defined, cohesion is the attraction of members to the

team, group behavior represents the individual behaviors which influence the group

dynamics as a whole, skill development is the individual team member’s own learning

during the team process, and personal satisfaction stands for team member attitudes

45

towards the team working experience (Xue, Sankar, & Mbarika, 2005). The version of

the Team Development Survey used for this study was an adapted version as used in

previous virtual team research (Xue et al., 2005).

The Team Development Survey is seen as a structured instrument to gather

characteristics “necessary for the effective functioning of work groups” and can be used

with different types of teams such as those developed on an ad hoc basis as well as cross-

functional teams (Nelson, 2003). This instrument is also useful in that it measure many

areas at one in terms of the individual team member’s experience. Campbell and Hallam

(1994) report the Team Development Survey is reliable with internal consistency

(Cronbach’s alpha 0.69 and test-retest reliability median correlation of r=0.80 (ranging

0.69-0.90). Questions on the survey are to be evaluated on a 5-point scale from “1”

(strongly disagree) to “5” (strongly agree) (Xue et al., 2005). Xue et al. (2005) assessed

the reliability of the constructs of the Team Development Survey used and found

acceptable reliability with measurements of Cronbach’s alpha above 0.7.

Task performance was measured by height of the structure (measured in inches

through use of a tape measure) and time to plan and execute completion of the structure

(measured in seconds by using a standard stopwatch). Cost was also determined using a

material cost worksheet (Attachment B). Each piece of the materials given to complete

the task is color-coded that varies by size and shape. The worksheet provides a cost list

of items by the different colors. Total cost of the mast created will be determined by the

sum of the pieces used. Task performance data were recorded in table format for each

team (Attachment C).

46

Re-Statement of Research Hypotheses

As stated earlier, the hypotheses are organized into four areas related to the research

questions and research design. These areas and associated hypotheses are:

Synchronous versus Asynchronous Teams: Hypotheses 1 and 2


significant lower team development, as measured by the Team Development Survey,

compared to teams that plan synchronously (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Study Design – Hypothesis 1


significant lower performance, compared to teams that plan synchronously (see Figure 3).






Task 2Task 1Team






Task 2Task 1Team

TeamDevelopment

Survey

TeamDevelopment

Survey

H1

47


Changing from Asynchronous to Synchronous Teams: Hypotheses 3 and 4


synchronously have statistically significant higher team development, as measured by the

Team Development Survey, for Task 2 (see Figure 4 below).







Task 2Task 1Team






Task 2Task 1Team

H3

TeamDevelopment

Survey

TeamDevelopment

Survey

TeamDevelopment

Survey

TeamDevelopment

Survey






Task 2Task 1Team






Task 2Task 1Team



H2

48


synchronously have statistically significant higher performance for Task 2 (see Figure 5

below).


Changing from Synchronous to Asynchronous Teams: Hypotheses 5 and 6


asynchronously have statistically significant lower team development, as measured by the

Team Development Survey, for Task 2 (see Figure 6 below).







Task 2Task 1Team






Task 2Task 1Team

H4










Task 2Task 1Team






Task 2Task 1Team

H5

TeamDevelopment

Survey

TeamDevelopment

Survey

TeamDevelopment

Survey

TeamDevelopment

Survey

49


asynchronously have statistically significant lower performance for Task 2 (see Figure 7

below).


Synchronous versus Face-to-Face Team Performance: Hypothesis 7

Hypothesis 7: Teams that execute Task 1 and Task 2 face-to-face have statistically

significant higher performance as compared to teams that execute tasks synchronously

(see Figure 8 below).







Task 2Task 1Team






Task 2Task 1Team

H7










Task 2Task 1Team






Task 2Task 1Team

H6





50

Expected Findings

There were several findings expected from this research study. Because of the

supporting literature demonstrating the lack of social presence and visual cues associated

with traditional face-to-face (or more social team interactions), asynchronous computer-

mediated team members were expected to not show higher team development measures

as compared to synchronous teams. However, it was also anticipated that teams planning

for the first time asynchronously would see higher levels of team development and task

performance in the second task exercise they perform because they are communicating

synchronously with a more media “rich” communication media. In addition, teams that

have synchronous interaction in the first exercise and asynchronous interaction later were

expected to demonstrate no difference in performance in terms of task measures due to

their initial social interaction (thus, accepting the null hypothesis).

Finally, in terms of task execution, the teams that plan using similar methods

(asynchronous/synchronous and synchronous/asynchronous) are also varied by the task

performance communication method (synchronous versus face-to-face). With social

presence available for the synchronous task execution teams, there was not expected to be

a difference between teams using synchronous or face-to-face methods in task

performance (again, accepting the null hypothesis).

The measures of team development showing low agreement with computer-mediated

team members will permit the development of performance interventions either in the

mode of new technologies or group behavior. The findings will add significant

understanding to the current studies focused on computer-mediated teams and lead to

51

additional research focused on exploring the relationship of performance and computer-

mediated teams as well as methods to improve it.

The findings of this research study are anticipated to be of great importance to

different types of organizational virtual teams as well as educational teams. The results

will help teams understand what impacts their performance. In reference to the team

effectiveness model presented earlier, the importance of interpersonal processes is an

essential piece contributing to the effectiveness of team development and performance.

The dynamics associated with teams arriving at decisions affects the overall culture of the

team and motivates individuals to feel as part of the team and for the team to perform as a

collective unit.

52

CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences between teams which

communicate using forms of computer-mediated communication. Computer-mediated

teams are known to be less effective working with each other (Thatcher & DeLaCour,

2003; Thompson & Coovert, 2003). Social presence or the lack thereof, is an important

variable to consider in using computer-mediated communication and evaluating its

impact on the team (Sia et al., 2002; Maruping & Agarwal, 2004). With the introduction

of new technologies, computer-mediated communication will vary by its degree of social

presence (synchronous forms such as teleconferencing versus asynchronous forms such

as e-mail). It is uncertain whether initial use of more “social presence” technologies

(such as synchronous video communication) is warranted for team development and

performance. Some early interaction of team members that provide social interaction

may be sufficient in establishing the development teams and impact their performance

and allow subsequent interactions with different methods of communication. This study

compared computer-mediated teams in terms of specific variables such as team

development and performance and considered the different choices of communication

(with varying amount of social presence) in the planning and execution of team tasks.

This study used a quantitative research design involving the analysis of the

dependent variables team development and performance as compared to the independent

variable of team type (using asynchronous (text chat) or synchronous (video) computer-

mediated communication method). Because the research examined dependent variables

in terms of the effects of two independent variables within the same team, the study

53

involved an experimental with-subjects design. To simulate the Air Force’s distributed

mission operation environment, teams were asked to perform an exercise that involves

both planning and task execution. In this study, teams were given the Tall Ships™

exercise. In Tall Ships™, teams were tasked to assemble the tallest ship mast possible in

the time given (Task 1), and then teams were assembled again build a taller mast (Task 2)

(Teambuildinginc.com, n. d.).

Description of Sample

The subjects for this study consisted of students enrolled in a beginner Psychology

class at a major mid-western university. A total of 99 students volunteered and

successfully participated in the study. There were 92 male subjects (92.9%) and 7 female

subjects (7.1%). All subjects were freshman students and ranged in age from 18-19

years. There were a total of 19 teams formed. Table 1 below provides a distribution of

the number of teams by team type (conditions which the teams varied).

Table 1.

Distribution of Team Type

Team

Type

Task 1 Task 2 # of

Teams Plan Execute Plan Execute

1 Asynchronous Face-to-Face Synchronous Face-to-Face 6

2 Asynchronous Synchronous Synchronous Synchronous 5

3 Synchronous Face-to-Face Asynchronous Face-to-Face 4

4 Synchronous Synchronous Asynchronous Synchronous 4

Total 19

54

Data Analysis

For the analyses, team development is understood in context of the items from the

Team Development Survey (which include areas of mission clarity, group cohesion,

group behavior, skill development, and personal satisfaction). Task performance was

assessed in terms of time to plan, time to execute task, cost as well as height of mast.

There were seven relevant hypotheses for this study. These hypotheses centered on

the measures of team development and performance either after performance of one task

or over two tasks. For the analyses, team development was understood in context of the

thirteen items modified from the Team Development Survey. Task performance was

assessed in terms of time to plan and complete the task as well as success of task

completion (height of mast or cost).

The Team Development Survey was administered after completion of planning for

Task 1 and again after planning for Task 2. Figures 9 and 10 show the distributions of

the responses (scale 1 to 5; 1= strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) for items 1-13 on

the Team Development Survey after Task 1 and Task 2.

While Campbell and Hallam (1994) reported that the Team Development Survey is

reliable (Cronbach’s alpha 0.69), reliability was also calculated using this study’s results.

The version of the Team Development Survey used for this research was an adapted

version used in previous virtual team research (Xue et al., 2005).

55

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

T1Q1

T1Q2

T1Q3

T1Q4

T1Q5

T1Q6

T1Q7

T1Q8

T1Q9

T1Q10

T1Q11

T1Q12

T1Q13

% o

f R

esp

on

ses

R5

R4

R3

R2

R1

Figure 9. Distribution of Team Development Survey Responses- Task 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

T2Q1

T2Q2

T2Q3

T2Q4

T2Q5

T2Q6

T2Q7

T2Q8

T2Q9

T2Q10

T2Q11

T2Q12

T2Q13

% o

f R

esp

on

ses

R5

R4

R3

R2

R1

Figure 10. Distribution of Team Development Survey Responses- Task 2

Table 2 shows the Cronbach’s alpha values for the Team Development Survey

administered after Task 1 and after Task 2. According to most professionals, a reliability

of 0.70 or higher is considered acceptable (Wikia.com. n. d.)

56

Table 2.

Cronbach’s Alpha for Task 1 and Task 2

Team Development Survey Cronbach’s Alpha

Task 1 0.792

Task 2 0.835

Analysis of survey items comprised of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)

providing an indication of the significant differences between the Team Development

Survey ratings between computer-mediated teams (asynchronous/synchronous and

synchronous/asynchronous). Significance F values provided evidence of between group

variability with significance statistically (p<.05). A level of significance less than 0.05

were interpreted to mean that there was a significant difference between means of the

groups compared in the analysis. If the level of significance was equal to or greater than

0.05, there was no evidence of statistical difference between means. Data were analyzed

using the Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 14.0 for Windows.

Data Analyses - Synchronous versus Asynchronous Teams: Hypotheses 1 and 2

Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 states: For Task 1, teams using asynchronous planning

have statistically significant lower team development, as measured by the Team

Development Survey, compared to teams that plan synchronously. The independent

variable in this analysis is the team type. This hypothesis directly compares teams who

plan asynchronously to teams that plan synchronously. Teams 1 and 2 planned Task 1

asynchronously, while Teams 3 and 4 planned Task 1 synchronously. Each item of the

57

Team Development Survey was analyzed as dependent variable. The mean, standard

deviation, F statistic, and significance value are provided in Table 3.

Significant differences were found between asynchronous and synchronous teams for

four items on the survey. Overall, while differences were found, the findings do not

support the hypothesis as three of the four item means for asynchronous teams were

higher than synchronous. The only item showing significant difference where the mean

response for synchronous teams (3.02) was higher than asynchronous teams (2.55)

actually stated that teams members “would rather join a different computer-mediated

team.”

Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 states: For Task 1, teams using asynchronous planning

have statistically significant lower performance, compared to teams that plan

synchronously. The hypothesis examines the same two types of teams as Hypothesis 1,

but looks at how teams differ in task performance. The independent variable in this

analysis is the team type. Again, Team 1 and 2 planned Task 1 asynchronously, while

Teams 3 and 4 planned Task 1 synchronously. Teams were assessed in terms of planning

time, execution time, height, and cost which were analyzed as dependent variables. The

mean, standard deviation, F statistic, and significance value are provided in Table 4.

58

Table 3.

Results in Team Development – Hypothesis 1

Item Item Descriptor

Asynchronous Synchronous

F-value Sig Mean SD Mean SD

1 Team members can easily understand the mission of the team.

4.42 0.786 4.09 0.858 3.960 .051

2 It is easy for team members

to understand the purpose of each meeting.

3.31 1.103 3.48 0.952 0.640 .426

3 I felt I was really part of our

team. 3.62 1.045 3.61 0.970 0.000 .982

4

If I had to do the same work again in a computer-mediated team, I would rather stay in the same team.

3.84 0.977 3.32 1.052 6.426 .013*

5

If I had to do the same work again, I would rather join a different computer-mediated team.

2.55 1.184 3.02 0.952 4.712 .032*

6 Team members were open

and frank in expressing their ideas and feelings.

4.25 0.775 3.86 1.002 4.792 0.031*

7 Team members were

committed to the goals and objectives of the team.

4.38 0.805 4.09 0.936 2.763 0.100

8

Team members recognized and respected individual differences and contributions during the exercise.

4.24 0.769 3.95 0.987 2.550 0.114

9 I improved my technical

ability through this exercise. 3.20 0.951 2.91 0.910 2.376 0.126

10 I improved my teamwork


11 I improved my decision-

making ability through this exercise.

3.25 0.927 3.25 0.892 0.001 0.980

12

Overall, I was personally satisfied with the computer-mediated team decision-making process.

3.69 0.960 3.25 0.991 5.011 0.027*

13 Overall, the quality of my

computer-mediated team’s interaction was high.

3.67 1.019 3.48 1.210 0.761 0.385

*Significant at p < .05

59

Table 4.

Results in Task Performance – Hypothesis 2

Performance Asynchronous Synchronous


Plan Time 14.28 1.250 11.92 3.484 4.348 0.052

Execution Time 1.94 0.140 2.00 0.000 1.633 0.218

Height 65.07 15.650 62.47 6.539 0.194 0.666

Cost 2,146.36 674.548 2,176.88 620.593 0.010 0.921


No significant differences were found among all the variables for task performance

between asynchronous and synchronous teams. The hypothesis was not supported. It

was hypothesized that asynchronous teams would have significantly lower performance

than synchronous teams. Teams that planned asynchronously did have a higher mean

time to plan (14.28 minutes), however, it was not significantly different from the

synchronous teams plan time (11.92 minutes). The communication method chosen for

the team for planning did not seem to affect their performance on the task.

Data Analyses - Changing from Asynchronous to Synchronous Teams:

Hypotheses 3 and 4

Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3 states: Teams that plan Task 1 asynchronously and then

plan Task 2 synchronously have statistically significant higher team development, as

measured by the Team Development Survey, for Task 2. Hypothesis 3 focuses on the

same type of team (Teams 1 and 2) and their differences in Team Development from

Task 1 and Task 2. The independent variable in this analysis is the Task. Each item of

60

the Team Development Survey was analyzed as dependent variable. The mean, standard


Significant difference in the team’s assessment of team development between

asynchronous and synchronous planning sessions was found for only one item (item 2).

This item related to understanding the purpose of the meeting. The remaining items

showed no significant difference for the team between asynchronous and synchronous

planning on the Team Development Survey. The results of this analysis do not support

the hypothesis that there would be significant difference for the team moving from an

asynchronous to synchronous computer-mediated communication method. Team

development does not seem to increase when the team is allowed to communicate for the

second task using more “socially present” or synchronous communication. The team

development from the planning is not significantly different from one task to the other

regardless of communication method.

Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 states: Teams planning Task 1 asynchronously and then

planning Task 2 synchronously have statistically significant higher performance for Task

2. Hypothesis 4 examines the same type of team (Teams 1 and 2) and their differences in

Team Performance moving from Task 1 to Task 2. Teams were assessed in terms of

planning time, execution time, height, and cost which were analyzed as dependent

variables. The mean, standard deviation, F statistic, and significance value are provided

in Table 6.

61

Table 5.



Task 1 Asynchronous

Task 2 Synchronous F-value Sig

Mean SD Mean SD

1 Team members can easily understand the mission of the team.

4.42 0.786 4.58 0.809 1.157 0.285

2 It is easy for team members to understand the purpose of each meeting.

3.31 1.103 4.11 0.956 16.516 0.000*

3 I felt I was really part of our team.

3.62 1.945 3.87 1.037 1.643 0.203

4


3.84 0.977 3.76 0.981 0.152 0.698

5


2.55 1.184 2.67 1.171 0.321 0.572

6 Team members were open and frank in expressing their ideas and feelings.

4.25 0.775 4.04 0.981 1.676 0.198

7 Team members were committed to the goals and objectives of the team.

4.38 0.805 4.31 0.814 0.222 0.638

8


4.24 0.769 3.96 0.881 2.991 0.087

9 I improved my technical ability through this exercise.

3.20 0.951 3.33 0.982 0.477 0.491

10 I improved my teamwork ability through this exercise.

3.27 0.891 3.45 0.959 1.061 0.305

11 I improved my decision-making ability through this exercise.

3.25 0.927 3.36 1.008 0.379 0.539

12


3.69 0.960 3.73 1.008 0.038 0.847

13 Overall, the quality of my computer-mediated team’s interaction was high.

3.67 1.019 3.78 1.117 0.280 0.594


62

Table 6.


Performance

Task 1 Asynchronous

Task 2 Synchronous F-value Sig

Mean SD Mean SD

Plan Time 14.28 1.250 11.75 3.226 5.882 0.025*

Execution Time 1.94 0.140 1.86 0.205 1.093 0.308

Height 65.07 15.650 84.03 13.490 9.268 0.006*

Cost 2,146.36 674.548 2,181.82 476.824 0.020 0.888


For teams moving from a task planned asynchronously to a task planned

synchronously, there were significant differences found in performance for plan time and

height of the mast built in the exercise. With team plan time for asynchronous planning

(14.28 minutes) higher than synchronous planning (11.75 minutes), the finding supports

the hypothesis. The height of the mast for synchronous planning (84.03 inches) is

significantly higher than the mast completed with asynchronous planning (65.07 inches)

which also supports the hypothesis that synchronous computer-mediated planning will

show higher performance as compared to the team when it planned using asynchronous

planning. While two of the four measures of performance showed significant differences,

the hypothesis is not overwhelmingly supported that synchronous communication will

result in higher team performance.

Data Analyses - Changing from Synchronous to Asynchronous Teams:

Hypotheses 5 and 6

Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 5 states: Teams that plan Task 1 synchronously and plan

Task 2 asynchronously have statistically significant lower team development, as

63

measured by the Team Development Survey, for Task 2. This hypothesis examines

Teams 3 and 4 which plan Task 1 synchronously and then change to asynchronous

planning for Task 2. The independent variable in this analysis is the Task. Each item of

the Team Development Survey was analyzed as dependent variable. The mean, standard


There were no significant differences in the teams’ development items when they

planned using a synchronous computer-mediated communication method for Task 1 as

compared to the team using an asynchronous method for Task 2. The findings did not

support the hypothesis. Teams that moved from a synchronous method to an

asynchronous method did not have lower team development scores once they moved to

the asynchronous environment. As with the similar set of hypothesis above which

compared the opposite situation (teams moving from asynchronous to synchronous

conditions), these results also support that there is no difference in team development in

planning regardless of communication method. Therefore, moving from a more “socially

present” communication method to a less “socially present” communication method

appears to have no impact on the team.

Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 6 states: For teams that plan Task 1 synchronously and

plan Task 2 asynchronously, there will be statistically significant lower performance for

Task 2. Hypothesis 6 compares performance of Teams 3 and 4 together for Task 1 versus

Task 2. Teams were assessed in terms of planning time, execution time, height, and cost

which were analyzed as dependent variables. The mean, standard deviation, F statistic,

and significance value are provided in Table 8.

64

Table 7.



Task 1 Synchronous

Task 2 Asynchronous F-value Sig

Mean SD Mean SD

1 Team members can easily

understand the mission of the team.

4.09 0.858 4.25 0.751 0.857 0.357

2 It is easy for team members

to understand the purpose of each meeting.

3.48 0.952 3.68 1.095 0.874 0.352

3 I felt I was really part of

our team. 3.61 0.970 3.68 1.006 0.105 0.747

4


3.32 1.052 3.57 0.900 1.436 0.234

5


3.02 0.952 2.73 0.949 2.125 0.149

6 Team members were open

and frank in expressing their ideas and feelings.

3.86 1.002 3.89 0.868 0.013 0.910

7 Team members were

committed to the goals and objectives of the team.

4.09 0.936 4.05 0.776 0.062 0.805

8


3.95 0.987 3.59 0.787 3.650 0.059

9 I improved my technical


10 I improved my teamwork


11 I improved my decision-

making ability through this exercise.

3.25 0.892 3.23 0.831 0.015 0.902

12


3.25 0.991 3.25 1.222 0.000 1.000

13 Overall, the quality of my

computer-mediated team’s interaction was high.

3.48 1.210 3.32 1.196 0.385 0.537


65

Table 8.


Performance

Task 1 Synchronous

Task 2 Asynchronous F-value Sig

Mean SD Mean SD

Plan Time 11.92 3.484 12.50 3.062 0.126 0.728

Execution Time 2.00 0.000 1.70 0.335 6.527 0.023*

Height 62.47 6.539 71.88 10.480 4.638 0.049*

Cost 2,176.88 620.593 1,994.38 686.104 0.311 0.586


There were significant findings for two variables of task performance. The teams

planned Task 1 synchronously and then planned Task 2 asynchronously. The hypothesis

was that the teams would see a lower performance for Task 2. However, despite the

significant differences between Task 1 and Task 2, the findings do not support the

hypothesis as task execution time was lower for asynchronous planning (Task 2), yet the

height was higher for asynchronous planning (Task 2) as compared to Task 1. Overall,

the findings do not demonstrate lower performance for asynchronous planning.

Therefore, the hypothesis is not supported. As with the results seen with team

development, there are no differences seen in teams that move from one communication

method to another. Thus, communication method having more or less social presence

does not have an impact on performance.

Data Analyses - Synchronous versus Face-to-Face Team Performance: Hypothesis 7

Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 7 states: Teams that execute Task 1 and Task 2 face-to-

face have statistically significant higher performance as compared to teams that execute

Task 1 and Task 2 synchronously. Hypothesis 7 focuses entirely on differences in task

66

execution. This analysis was performed for Task 1 and then for Task 2 (comparing the

performance of face-to-face versus synchronous task execution). Teams were assessed in

terms of planning time, execution time, height, and cost which were analyzed as

dependent variables. The mean, standard deviation, F statistic, and significance value are

provided. See Tables 9 and 10 below for the results.

Table 9.

Results Task Performance on Task 1 – Hypothesis 7

Performance Synchronous Face-to-Face


Plan Time 13.72 3.182 12.80 1.975 0.561 0.464

Execution Time 1.93 0.147 2.00 0.010 1.676 0.213

Height 63.68 7.855 64.31 16.669 0.012 0.916

Cost 2,383.50 547.905 1,910.00 668.170 2.917 0.106


Table 10.

Results Task Performance on Task 2 – Hypothesis 7

Performance Synchronous Face-to-Face


Plan Time 2.15 3.409 11.97 2.906 0.016 0.901

Execution Time 1.90 0.209 1.67 0.293 3.749 0.070

Height 79.88 12.852 77.85 14.863 0.102 0.754

Cost 2,428.00 290.796 1,741.67 585.144 10.837 0.004*


The tasks themselves were performed using either synchronous computer-mediated

communication or traditional face-to-face methods. The only significant difference

found between teams is cost on Task 2. The cost is significantly higher for the mast built

using the synchronous communication method versus face-to-face. Overall, however, the

67

hypothesis is not supported by these findings since more variables of performance were

not shown to be significantly different. The findings demonstrate that using a

synchronous computer-mediated communication method (video conferencing) as

opposed to a traditional face-to-face do not seem to have an impact on the team

performing the task at hand.

Summary

As stated previously, the purpose of this study is to examine the differences between

types of teams which communicate using forms of asynchronous and synchronous

communications. The teams planned and executed two tasks using either asynchronous

or synchronous methods to communicate for planning and either synchronous or face-to-

face methods to execute their plans. Measure of team development and performance

were obtained. Team development was assessed after planning was completed for each

task. Performance was measured after each respective task was completed. To evaluate

differences in team type by development and performance, analyses of variance were

conducted. There were seven hypotheses examined and findings of the analyses were

highlighted.

There were some differences by team type for both development and performance.

However, while there were significant differences found, there were not multiple

differences found which would support the particular hypothesis. For example, while

there were significant differences on the Team Development Survey in examining the

first hypothesis, the differences were on the majority, showing higher development scores

for asynchronous than synchronous teams which was in opposite direction of the

hypothesis. Overall, there are little differences between synchronous and asynchronous

68

computer-mediated teams in both teams development during the planning as well as team

performance of the tasks assigned. The implication for teams using computer-mediated

communications is that regardless of communication media used, the team development

and performance should be similar.

This chapter discussed the data collection and analysis used in this study of

computer-mediated teams. Chapter 5 will interpret the data further as well as suggest the

additional implications these findings on current and future research. It will also discuss

limitations of this study and the generalizibility of the research results.

69

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

Organizations around the world are increasingly using teams whose membership is

not necessarily confined by geographic location. Distributed team members carry many

benefits such as providing a broader scope of experienced personnel and lessen the

concern about re-locating members if they can communicate using some type of

computer-mediated medium (DeLuca & Valacich, 2006; Postmes et al., 2002).

Computer-mediated communications, however, vary by the amount of social presence

allowed by virtue of the technologies. Social proximity or feelings of social presence are

important for team development and overcoming team conflicts (Maruping & Agarwal,

2002).

Organizations are, thus, in need of understanding the impact of choices within

communication medium for distributed team communication (i.e., team member

development and performance). The research problem addressed in this study focuses on

the Air Force’s Distributed Mission Operations whereby team members must plan and

execute task(s) using various methods for communication. There are questions as to

whether the type of computer-mediated communication has an impact on the team.

Communications can be conducted through synchronous (face-to-face or electronically

via real-time video/audio), asynchronous (electronically via text-based chat), or a

combination of technologies. Some types of communication (synchronous) allow social

presence to be felt by team members, while others (asynchronous) do not. In addition, it

is not clear whether initial use of more “social present” or video communication with

visually-available cues is warranted. Some findings suggest that initial interaction with

70

social presence is sufficient in establishing the development of teams and impacts their

performance (Franz, 1999).

The significance of this study is that the results will help organizations understand

the importance of choosing the most effective and cost-efficient communication

technologies when using distributed teams. With distributed mission operations for

aircrew training providing an opportunity to reduce costs associated with face-to-face

training, the findings of a study such as this one will have a positive impact on the

decisions made in terms of the communication methods chosen (or mixture of those

methods).. With so many organizations using distributed teams, the military is not alone

in wanting to understand the impact of communication media on team development and

performance which will determine future investments into technologies offering the latest

capabilities.

Findings and Data Interpretation

Findings of Literature Review

The literature reviewed for this study focused on the importance found on social

interactions and social dynamics for teams to perform and function in an optimal manner.

Researchers recognize that teams are not merely a gathering of individuals, but

individuals brought together for a purpose and a clearly-defined goal (Winum &

Seamons, 2000). An increasingly inherent aspect of forming teams is to involve

members from across an organization, no matter where they are located. With one of the

traditional constructs for team development being physical proximity (Pinto et al., 1993),

researchers must now consider the impact of this proximity being distanced (both in

distance and time) and understand the impact on team development and performance.

71

Literature on the advantages and disadvantages of computer-mediated teams were

reviewed. With studies on computer-mediated teams being mixed, it is important to

understand the outcomes of all research conducted on such teams. Teams that are

distributed and communicating through use of technology can take advantage of the

ability to accomplish tasks without the restraint of time or place. They can bring in

varied resources to use appropriate expertise at the needed time. Interaction among

members appears uninhibited by the social strains seen with traditional face-to-face teams

(McGuire et al., 1987) which has been seen to improve the quality of team decision

making (McLeod et al., 1997). Tasks such as brainstorming activities are seen to be

better achieved by computer-mediated teams (Dennis & Valacich, 1993; Kerr & Murthy,

2004). The issues surrounding computer-mediated teams, however, revolve around the

lack of physical presence. Teams feel low commitment, role confusion, less cohesion,

and lack of team identity (Thatcher & DeLaCour, 2003; Maruping & Agarwal, 2004).

The literature concerning computer-mediated teams also includes related theories

which have provided the basis for studies of such teams in the past. There have been

many examinations on the selection of media, more particularly focused on the task types

associated with the teams and the selection of media. While theories such as task-

technology-fit are not very specific beyond emphasizing the importance of examining a

team’s task requirements and technology limitations (Colquitt et al., 2002; Kerr &

Murthy, 2004; Maruping & Agarwal, 2004), it has proven useful in guiding organizations

to consider if certain types of teams would be capable candidates for distributed

performance.

72

Additional theories related to computer-mediated communication examine

“richness” or “naturalness” of communication media which is a direct comparison to

traditional face-to-face communications. Little mention of the aspect of social presence

has been included in such research and discussions. In addition, there are no valid

instruments developed to quantify social presence due to its complex nature, although

some measures are proving to be “first steps’ in determining members’ perceptions

within mediated environments (Manes, 2008).

With so much focus on choosing communication media to be as “rich” in terms of

visual feedback as traditional face-to-face interactions, the topic of social presence is very

relevant to the discussion of computer-mediated teams and the selection of media. Social

presence theory, as a reminder, simply advocates that social presence is being aware of

communication with others and not just an inanimate object (Short, 1976). Clearly,

richness of media, such as that which is provided in more synchronous media, is a factor

in providing social presence. However, when organizations employ a mixture of

technologies ranging by the amount of richness and social presence is still important,

there remains a question as to how much social presence and at what time social presence

is introduced impacts the actual development and performance of a team.

Findings of this Research

This study compared computer-mediated teams using different methods of

communication in terms of both team development and member performance. The focus

of this research centered upon the examination of the influence of social presence by

comparing teams that first used synchronous computer-mediated communication to plan

a task and then used asynchronous communication to plan a second task to teams who did

73

the opposite (asynchronous communication for initial interaction and synchronous

communication for second planning exercise). Participants were randomly assigned to

different types of teams. They were all asked to plan and execute two separate tasks.

After planning the tasks using the assigned communication method, team members were

given the Team Development Survey (a version used by Xue et al., 2005). After

executing the task, teams were measure for their performance by the plan time, height,

execution time, and cost of the Tall Ships™ material.

Overall, there were seven hypotheses in this study that were examined. The

hypotheses focused on both team development as well as performance of the teams.

Generally, it was hypothesized that synchronous communication teams would show

significantly higher team development and performance because of the “richness” of the

communication and social presence offered by the visual nature of the synchronous

communication media. In addition, because teams changed communication media from

one task to the next, teams were also compared across Task 1 and Task 2 in terms of their

development and performance. It was hypothesized that those teams planning

asynchronously for their first task and planning synchronously for their second task

would see significant difference between them. A similar set of hypotheses were

developed for teams planning and performing in an opposite manner (planning

synchronously for their first task and planning asynchronously for their second task).

The same hypotheses were established which would state that there would be difference

between tasks seen in both development and performance.

The findings of this research will be discussed in terms of sets of hypotheses and the

issues upon which they focused. The findings center upon these areas: (a) synchronous

74

versus asynchronous teams (Hypotheses 1 and 2), (b) changing from asynchronous to

synchronous teams (Hypotheses 3 and 4), changing from synchronous to asynchronous

teams (Hypotheses 5 and 6), and synchronous versus face-to-face team performance

(Hypothesis 7).

Synchronous versus Asynchronous Teams

Hypotheses 1 and 2 examined teams on both development and performance for Task

1 and compared those teams assigned an asynchronous communication method for

planning versus synchronous communication method for planning. In examining the

results for the Test Development Survey, there were five items which showed significant

differences between asynchronous and synchronous teams. While the hypothesis stated

that synchronous teams were expected to have higher development than asynchronous

members, team members planning asynchronously rated higher agreement on a number

of items. Asynchronous teams thought that their team members were open and frank,

were satisfied with the decision process, and agreed that their team’s interaction was

high. Conversely, synchronous teams rated higher agreement on the item that they would

join a different computer-mediated team. There was no significant difference in

performance between asynchronous or synchronous teams performing Task 1.

The findings here are similar to those found by researchers such as Dennis and

Valacich (1993) which dispelled the belief that asynchronous electronic media is not an

effective communication vehicle for teams. It does lend support that depending on the

type of task, for example, idea-generation (Dennis and Valacich, 1993; Straus and

McGrath, 1994) or planning as demonstrated in this study, an asynchronous team can be

as productive as a face-to-face or socially-present synchronous team. With asynchronous

75

team members believing the communication was open and interaction high, there is more

support that an asynchronous environment lends itself for more equal participation

among its members. Despite the other team having the element of social presence, the

asynchronous team demonstrated a tendency to be satisfied with the planning process in

terms of decisions and communication freedom. As seen by others (McGuire et al.,

1987; Postmes et al., 2002; McLeod et al., 1997; Stone & Posey, 2005), communication

with less social presence actually leads to more open and free-flowing communication

including the assumptions that social inhibitions are released.

The type of task is an important element to consider for computer-mediated

communication. Depending upon the task requirements of the team, choice of

communication media impacts performance of that team. In this study, team members

had to come up with a plan to build the highest “mast” using the Tall Ships™ material.

Members had a finite number of each type of piece that could be used. The challenge for

these teams, on the majority, was to develop a good base out of the material so that the

structure would not fall.

According to Task-Technology Fit theory, a team must not only generate ideas but

should also distinguish from relevant and irrelevant ideas (Kerr & Murthy, 2004). And,

as tasks require more and more coordination and consensus, certain computer-mediated

communications are viewed as a less-than-suitable (Straus and McGrath, 1994). When

relating Task Technology Fit or Media Richness theories on the surface, the results of

this research would be supported as tasks such as brainstorming are considered to be

suitable for asynchronous communications (Kerr & Murthy, 2004). It has been found

that more complex tasks, such as negotiation, require a broad range of communication

76

media (Scheck, Allmendinger, & Hammann, 2008) including a mix of socially present

technologies versus non-socially present.

However, it has also been found that computer-mediated communications support

tasks beyond brainstorming, such as problem solving, to elicit more focused, on-task

“conversation” (Jonassen, 2001). In planning the task for this study, the teams used the

text-based medium to evaluate the alternatives, so there were some decisions to make

beyond brainstorming and having ideas thrown arbitrarily in the discussions. The

planning for these tasks were focused and were less subject to having communications

intermixed that was off topic. Although, with no differences seen in performance both in

planning time and height of the structure created, it is difficult to see the impact of

asynchronous communication.

While the task in this research may have been very focused and defined for the team

members, planning can become a more arduous task confounded by many factors. Klien

and Miller (1999) believe planning’s important function is to solve a problem and are

influenced by many factors including time pressure, scarcity of resources, available

expertise, task structure, and uncertainty. Some issues around computer-mediated

teamwork and the planning process are impacted by similar factors such as time, which is

relevant for all types of teams regardless of communication method. However, when

researchers assess differences in computer-mediated teams using asynchronous

communications versus traditional face-to-face interactions, they find that computer-

mediated teams have issues in establishing mutual knowledge or generating satisfaction

with decisions (Driskell, Radtke, & Salas, 2003; Thompson & Coovert, 2003).

77

While it has been noted that computer-mediated teams have been seen to be hindered

in their performance, issues can fade over time as a team works together (Berry, 2006).

However, for requirements such as planning, there are typically time constraints. In this

study, the teams did not plan for more than fifteen minutes, and there were no significant

differences found between asynchronous and synchronous teams in terms of time to plan.

If computer-mediated teams need more time to work together, it is unclear if planning for

a defined task, as used in this study, is not affected by time regardless of communication

method. If all other factors affecting planning (structure of task, expertise, availability of

resources) are well supported, it is not apparent if the issues found with distributed

communication are minimized in a short duration interaction.

Media Synchronicity Theory would not support these findings as they relate to task

complexity. The planning activity in this study is an important subtask for the teams

working together to complete the Tall Ships™ exercise. Media Synchronicity Theory

suggests that to successfully use media to complete a task, there must be an assessment of

the communication needed (DeLuca & Valacich, 2006). Communications can be viewed

from the perspective of needing to simply relay information or actually process

information. The planning activity in this study required that team members process

information given in terms of the materials and the objective of the task and come to

agreement as to how to accomplish the task. Seen as a “convergent” process, media of

higher synchronicity would be expected to provide the team better communication and

more satisfaction. However, some have argued that there is an alternate discussion of

Media Synchronicity which demonstrates that virtual teams adapt to less socially present

media and ultimately produce more focused, precise, persuasive communications

78

(DeLuca & Valacich, 2006). So, while media differences are a consideration, there must

not be a dismissal of team member behavior and adaptation within the media

environment.

Changing from Asynchronous to Synchronous Teams

In examining the same team moving from Task 1 to Task 2 but changing their

method of communication from asynchronous to synchronous, Hypotheses 3 and 4

suggested that Teams 1 and 2 would have higher team development and performance for

Task 2, as compared to Task 1, because of the benefits of the richness of synchronous

communication. Researchers put forth that synchronous (or those communications

accomplished through video-teleconferencing) may not be as “natural” as face-to-face

interactions, but synchronous media does allow for cues (verbal or non-verbal) to be

shared (Chapman, Uggerslev, & Webster, 2003). As such, moving to synchronous

communication was expected to show such benefits.

For the Team Development Survey, one item saw significant differences between the

team’s responses from Task 1 as compared to Task 2. This item referred to team

members agreeing that it was easier for them to understand the purpose of the meeting.

Team members reported higher agreement in understanding their purpose in planning

Task 2 than Task 1. Thus, agreement of understanding was higher when the team moved

to a synchronous environment. Despite the significance found in team member ratings,

however, this could be a function of having participated in Task 1 and moving onto Task

2, therefore already knowing the purpose of the team meeting for planning. Yet, the

findings are supported by researchers in the field of computer-mediated communication

with “sense of understanding” noted as the extent the communication medium is

79

conveying accurately the members’ thoughts and facilitating mutual understanding

among team members (Lim & Hung, 2008).

Distributed teams have been known to have difficulty developing a shared context

and understanding of the task issues. Teams that would normally be distributed conduct

traditional face-to-face meetings to establish shared context and improve coordination

(Hinds & Bailey, 2003). Because of its visual component, using synchronous

communication methods may instill a sense of “being on the same page” or “agreement”

among team members when planning for a task. However, some report that adding video

to an audio-only computer-mediated communication does little to improve

communication and may be due to poor use of video-based technology (Ehsan, Mirza, &

Ahmad, 2008). Thus, the overall lack of significant findings in adding a video

component to the team planning in the second task may indicate issues in team use of the

technology or lessen the importance of visual presence.

There were two areas where significant differences were found in examining

performance. The first difference was in plan time which showed that the teams took a

significantly longer time planning for Task 1 (asynchronous) versus Task 2

(synchronous). Secondly, the height of the structure created for Task 2 (planning

synchronous) was significantly higher than the one created for Task 1 (planning

asynchronous). It has been advocated that the introduction of social presence plays an

important role in influencing task-oriented discussions and social communications in

virtual project teams (Lim & Hung, 2008). In addition, the characteristics of the task

itself provided an opportunity for the team to perform well using either asynchronous or

synchronous methods for planning. The discussions during planning and performance of

80

the Tall Ships™ task were not complex in nature. Media Richness Theory puts forth that

the ability for information to be carried is dependent upon the richness of media used to

carry it. Therefore, with the planning and tasks in this exercise being low in complexity,

the choice of asynchronous or synchronous media may be an arbitrary one. It fact, it has

been found that media in low richness is suitable for facilitating simple discussions (Irem

& Dambra, 2004). In addition, it has been noted that computer-mediated teams’ use of

audio versus video do not impact communication because it is believed that transmission

of social cues may hold less meaning in a newly formed team, such as the ones used in

this research (Ehsan et al., 2008).

Changing from Synchronous to Asynchronous Teams

Hypotheses 5 and 6 examined the differences of development and performance

between Task 1 and Task 2 for teams which first used synchronous communication and

then switched to asynchronous communication. Because of the introduction of more rich

communication media in the first task, it was put forth by this set of hypotheses that the

teams would have significantly lower team development and performance for Task 2 as

compared to Task 1. There were no differences from the Team Development Survey for

the teams as they planned for Task 1 and Task 2.

With synchronous communication, it is advocated that members’ connectivity, or

sense of connection, is developed with the presence component of the technology (Lim &

Hung, 2008). It is unclear if this connectivity is carried over from one task to another

despite the communication medium of the second task. Team members have experienced

visual contact with other team members from the first task. Therefore, when faced with

an asynchronous communication medium, the lack of presence may not be necessary to

81

accomplish additional tasks. Bos, Gergle, Olson, & Olson (2001) saw that computer-

mediated teams take longer to develop interpersonal relationships, therefore, it is

recommended that when forming a distributed team, it is advantageous to make their

initial meeting face-to-face to facilitate team development (Irmer, Chang & Bordia,

2000). The hypothesis advocated in this study used synchronous communication media

instead of face-to-face interaction but still looked to synchronous communication to show

some advantages to the team once they changed to asynchronous communication

methods.

However, with no differences in team development between tasks, there are two

separate conclusions. Either teams do not need “rich” or synchronous meeting to show

satisfaction with their development or there was not sufficient time to see an impact of

the synchronous interactions. There have been some weaknesses noted in Media

Richness Theory. Media Richness Theory, as described in the literature, points to the

information needs of the task to be performed to be in line with the media chosen.

According to DeLuca and Valacich (2006), Media Richness Theory does not consider the

communication processes within tasks themselves. With results of team success using

asynchronous communications, members are believed to be modifying their behaviors

and expectations to work with each other regardless of the degree of social presence

(DeLuca & Valacich, 2006).

Teams do need to time to develop. Frequency and length of synchronous interaction

promotes more familiarity and cooperation (Hinds & Bailey, 2003). In addition,

experience in working within a team environment is also a consideration. People

experienced with working in teams may be satisfied with team development issues

82

regardless of communication method (Hamilyn-Harris, Hurst, von Baggo, & Bayley,

2006).

There other considerations when examining such results of team members moving

from a synchronous to asynchronous environment. In applying Media Naturalness

Theory, one would expect that there be a significant difference for members in such a

situation. Moving from a visual media to text-based chat in planning, the team members

are later exposed to a medium which has a lower-rated ability in terms of carrying

information. Using Newberry’s (2001) matrix, text-based chat scores on the low side of

the matrix in terms of its ability to provide feedback cues, to allow messages to be

created or changed specifically for a recipient, and to transmit feelings or emotions.

However, as generations of workers become more exposed to technologies incorporating

text-based chat, perhaps there is less impact than originally believed.

Researchers must consider a person’s “media competence” when studying computer-

mediated groups. Media competence is considered not only from the perspective of the

technology having flaws or limitations, but from a user perspective in terms of exposure

and training (Jonas et al., 2002). Technology self-efficacy is also viewed as inhibiting an

individual’s use and performance in a computer-mediated environment (Brown, Fuller, &

Vician, 2004). However, as generations become more exposed to communication

technologies and use various technologies on a more frequent basis, the competence and

efficacy of team members is increased.

In addition, text-based chat alone has become a more “fluid” communication tool

with the increased number of individuals “texting” frequently as a preferred mode of

communication. With asynchronous communication involving more personalized and

83

emotional characteristics, perhaps moving from a synchronous to asynchronous

communication method in a team environment is not as detrimental to team development

and performance as such theories would propose. Team members must be comfortable

moving from media to media. As exposure to different types of communication media

are increased, individual team members must become less sensitive to changing situations

in order to have positive effects on performance (Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).

These sensitivities seem to declining as more generations are exposed to technologies at a

young age.

There were significant differences in performance for the teams between Task 1 and

Task 2. Significant difference in both execution time and height were found. The teams

took longer to plan for Task 1 (planning synchronous) as compared for Task 2 (planning

asynchronous). In addition, the height of the structure developed for Task 2 (planning

asynchronous) was taller than for Task 1 (planning synchronous). The results for these

hypotheses are generally similar to the previous set of hypotheses which examined the

opposite situation (teams moving from asynchronous to synchronous). When team

members were brought together to plan the assembly of the Tall Ships™, they were given

specific instructions for the task and provided a detailed list of parts along with example

pieces. Due to the amount of direction and clarity given to the teams for planning the

tasks, it is understandable that there were no large differences found between teams

regardless of distributed communications that were used. Hinds and Bailey (2003)

describe “preventative measures” to help diminish the possible negative effects of

distributed communication which include purposeful conveyance of contextual

information and learning about the technology.

84

The teams in this study were provided a good framework to help them in the

planning process. With experience in using such technologies such as chat rooms and

videoconferencing, team members more than likely had confidence in using the

communication media presented to them. For teams in general, it is recommended that

organizations provide ample training in using any communication technologies. Teams

with higher levels of knowledge on the properties and functionalities of communication

technologies are more effective in using it and creating an environment for adequate

information transfer as well as coordination (Hinds & Bailey, 2003). Some researchers

indicate that computer-mediated technologies (either asynchronous or synchronous) are

“genres” which evolve over time and allow members to adapt their behavior to fit the

media (Berry, 2006).

Synchronous versus Face-to-Face Teams in Performance

The final hypothesis for this study examined differences between all teams,

regardless of communication method to plan, in terms of their performance in executing

Task 1 and Task 2 either using synchronous communications as opposed to traditional

face-to-face methods. It was hypothesized that there would be difference in performance.

While both communication methods (synchronous and face-to-face) involve social

presence of its members (in a visual capacity), synchronous communication is still

computer-mediated and should carry with it the same limitations as other computer-

mediated communication. In fact, task performance through video synchronous

communication has shown to include difficulties such as managing turn-taking, control of

the team through body position and eye gaze, motion awareness through peripheral

vision, awareness of side conversations, as well as manipulation of objects (Isaacs &

85

Tang, 1993). Videoconferencing has been criticized because of its limitations in video

and audio images with poor quality and delay in conveying communications (Simon,

2006). However, with technologies improving almost daily, it is worthy of continual

research and comparison to traditional communication methods.

In this study, the majority of performance variables showed no difference between

teams. There was only one significant difference found between synchronous and face-

to-face team performance, and this was seen in the cost calculation for Task 2. The cost

of the structure developed for Task 2 was significantly more for synchronous execution

teams as opposed to face-to-face teams. Cost, however, is a product of planning in terms

of the team deciding what to use in building the mast. The performance of the task is the

implementation of the plan. With no major differences found between the teams using

either method, team performance with the use of synchronous communication media

appears just as effective as face-to-face.

While past research has demonstrated significant difference between asynchronous

computer-mediated communications and face-to-face, these results do not always

automatically apply to synchronous communications. Teams that have video and audio

added to their communication methods show improved decision making when comparing

other computer-mediated technologies (Baker, 2002). Media Synchronicity Theory

would support these findings as it is proposed that communication media with higher

levels of synchronicity or interaction (high feedback, low parallelism) would yield greater

satisfaction and performance. Media Richness Theory would also support such results in

a similar manner. Yet, direct comparison of synchronous (video) computer-mediated

team performance to face-to-face team performance is rare.

86

Of the very limited research, it has been found that video conferencing

(synchronous) communications to be as effective as traditional face-to-face in building

trust and cohesion within a team (Bos et al., 2001; Chang, 2005; Jarvenpaa & Leidner,

1999). Studies examining other types of computer-mediated communications versus

face-to-face teams have typically found less cohesion or team commitment (Thatcher &

DeLaCour, 2003; Maruping & Agarwal, 2004; Biergiel et al., 2008). More synchronous

communication may prove to have less impact of low commitment and identity because

of its visual nature. Video conferencing is becoming more prevalent in team

performance, and the viewpoint that this type of communication method is less effective

is becoming more challenged (Liu et al., 2007).

However, the results of past studies found that it takes time to reach the level of face-

to-face teams in terms of team development. The results of Chang’s (2005) analysis

demonstrated that at least three times the amount of time was needed to develop the same

level of task and social cohesion as face-to-face teams. Other research has demonstrated

that video conferencing teams have lower levels of confidence in their decisions as

compared to face-to-face teams; however, there were no difference found in terms of

commitment to the group decision, accuracy, and number of beliefs discussed or learned

(Crede & Sniezek, 2003).

While some results, including the findings of this research study, may demonstrate

little differences between synchronous and face-to-face task performance, there are many

issues to explore prior to equating the two communication methods, particularly if one

method were to replace the other in terms of performing a task. Isaacs and Tang (1993)

would support that the real differences between synchronous (video) and face-to-face

87

team performance would be better visible when studying the processes of team member

interactions – i.e., in real work environments. In this study, teams may using

synchronous computer-mediated communication may have adapted to the limitations of

the technology by having one member control the building of the mast versus it being

more of a collaborative effort with team members being co-located (face-to-face).

The Task-Technology Fit theory is also applicable in this discussion as the theory

suggests that computer-mediated communication is optimized when the capabilities of

the media match the requirement of the task(s) (Kerr & Murthy, 2004). Therefore, task

complexity and level of support related to the technology is an important consideration.

This study involved a simple, straightforward task involving simple requirements for the

team to plan a strategy. The goal of the performance was to execute the plan developed.

With more complex and involved task requirements, which are present in real world

applications, the conclusions that the two methods (synchronous and face-to-face) are

equivalent, should not be assumed without deeper examination. In this research, teams

typically had one member building the mast according to plan while the others guided the

activity. If the task had required more communication in terms of dialogue between team

members, there are many considerations to take into account with the synchronous

(video) communication. For example, it is recommended that aspects of relative position

(actual viewpoints of each participant within the video conferencing), head orientation,

and gaze (position of looking within others’ facial region) be evaluated prior to

comparing this method of communication to face-to-face interactions (Vertegaal, 1999).

88

Limitations

There are a number of limitations and considerations for this study. The first aspect

of the analysis which relates to generalizability of the results involves the actual

technology used in examining synchronous and asynchronous teams. Today, there are

many options for teams to employ to facilitate computer-mediated communications.

These range from text, audio to visual media as well as considering the various

combinations amongst all three. In addition to the media, there are variations within

them in terms of real-time text (messaging) versus delayed email correspondence, video

capabilities in quality and resolution/responsiveness in a video feed, and others to

complicate the evaluation of teams and impacts upon their development and performance.

The technologies used in this study, including text (whiteboard) and video conferencing,

are just two variations. The results of this study may or may not be generalizable to other

computer-mediated communication team situations.

In addition to the type of media, the type of task and team are other important

limitations in terms of generalizing the results. The task for this study included both

planning and executing upon that plan to build the tallest mast with the materials given.

It is well understood and supported that different types of tasks require different types of

communication media, and thus, the results of this study may not be applicable to all

types of tasks teams perform (Thompson & Coovert, 2003).

The same is true for the type of team assembled. Teams can consist of members who

are from similar or dissimilar backgrounds, with varying amounts of experience both in a

team environment as well as with each other, and have different goals in terms of the

success of the team. For this study, students were employed who had little or no prior

89

experience in working with each other. As true for many studies that use a student

population to derive subjects, the limitations of prior interaction among team members is

always a consideration. The study design for this project, however, sought to minimize

the effect of prior experience by recruiting freshman students to participate in the

research. However, it must be understood that students have less experience in a team

environment as a whole (as compared to a team member within a large organization with

years of experience). The results of this study and their ability to be generalized to other

populations are impacted by the types of subjects used. With new teams shown to require

a different level of communication, there is the possibility that the results of this study

would have been different (Thompson & Coovert, 2003).

Another limitation in this study includes the demographics of the sample studied.

With students beings used, the average age of the sample population is between the ages

of 18 to 19 years of age. Results may not be generalizable to a larger population which

would include older and a wider age distribution of team members. This is also true

regarding gender. The distribution of the sample used in this study consisted primarily of

male students. The general population is more evenly distributed between genders.

Laboratory settings could be considered less ideal for examining the issue of

synchronous versus asynchronous communication for teams. Some feel there is a lack of

“ecological validity” with laboratory settings not truly capturing the longer relationships

and entrenchment team members have within an organization (Jonas et al., 2002). For

the target population for this research, however, it seemed ideal as military distributed

mission personnel operate in a less traditional organizational environment and often do

not have long relationships with others involved in a training exercise.

90

Finally, another limitation of this study is the actual duration of the task included in

the study design. It is known that teams that perform over time experience the impact of

task and technology at different levels (Driskell et al., 2003). Teams that spend larger

amount of time with each other (regardless of physical location) would be assumed to

have different results in terms of the use of various computer-mediated communication

methods and their development and performance. Tasks of “short duration” are

considered lasting 50-120 minutes, and it is believed that team members are really too

task-focused to promote any interpersonal relationships (Hamlynn-Harris et al., 2006).

Therefore, generalizing the results of this research to teams that interact on a longer basis

or over time would be a limitation.

Overall, there were very few problems in conduct of this study which would have

influenced the results. The video conferencing equipment was, at times, difficult to set

up and work optimally when the teams were in place. Some adjustments were made prior

to the team beginning the work; however, unforeseen difficulties sometimes occurred.

The timing of setting up the initial computer-mediated communication, moving to the

task performance, and then changing the computer-mediated communication method was

an important aspect of making the study successful. While there were some lags in

setting up the computer, overall, the process of moving the team members from planning

to task performance was overall uneventful and should have little to no impact on the

results shown.

Suggestions for Future Studies

The findings of this research study suggest a number of areas for future researchers

to pursue. Examining differences between computer-mediated teams whose interaction

91

involved either asynchronous or synchronous media, this study found little difference

between teams that had some level of social presence (synchronous or visual

communication) versus those that had no social presence (asynchronous communication).

In addition, little difference was found within teams using one method of communication

for the first task and another method of communication for the second task. These

findings hold true for both team development and performance.

However, this does not mean that differences in communication method are not

important to be studied by future research. With technologies changing constantly, there

must always be research on the forefront to examine their impact as well as ways to more

optimally use them for team development and performance. Distributed team

environments are becoming more of an integral part of organizations’ normal operations.

Effective communication is essential. Organizations must be able to fully understand the

implications of choosing one technology over another as well as the impact of mixing

technologies and the timing of their use. All too often, organizations may choose media

for the sake of cutting travel costs of members trying to meet geographically without full

knowledge of the implication in terms of team performance in using such technologies.

Communication media may also be considered equal on the surface by virtue of real-time

versus delayed communications, etc.

In depth examination of team performance should be included in future research.

Team performance is an essential element of team effectiveness. Referring back to the

RHR Team Effective Model presented by Winum & Seamons (2000), the connected

variables of team performance and interpersonal processes are important for the

assessment of team effectiveness.

92

In this research, teams worked together to plan and execute a simple task. The time

spent planning was, overall, not more than two minutes. There should be additional

research on the team performance, and development, of teams using different computer-

mediated technologies for teams interacting for a longer periods of time. In addition,

such research could provide more evidence of the impact of social presence. With

shorter duration team interactions, social presence may not have been established. Some

believe social presence should be considered on a multi-dimensional level which includes

many layers of perception beyond visual existence of another team member (Biocca &

Harms, 2002).

Additional research in computer-mediated team performance should also consider

cohesion. It has been supported that when cohesion is strong, a team is motivated to

perform well and is better able to coordinate activities towards successful performance

(Beal et al., 2003). Research shows that cohesion is the most studied predictor of team

performance (Sundstrom et al., 2000). This does not mean that their relationship is

clearly causally related. A positive relationship between cohesiveness and team

performance has been dependent upon such factors as size and dependence level among

group members (Brehm et al., 2005).

Performance has also shown to be related to certain types of teams, too. For

example, cohesion has been shown to be a predictor in project teams, but not service

teams (Sundstrom et al., 2000). However, application of some theories associated with

computer-mediated teams would question the importance or relevance of cohesion.

Some theories, such as media richness or social presence theories are seen to question the

ability for relationships to develop among team members (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999).

93

Despite such theories, research has shown that, while they take longer, computer-

mediated teams develop interpersonal relationships and factors associated with cohesion

(organizational commitment, satisfaction with goals, and group effectiveness (Irmer et

al., 2000). In terms of types of tasks to be performed, cohesiveness can be

disadvantageous for groups needing creative, innovative ideas (Brehm et al., 2005).

Research should examine distributed, computer-mediated further in order to more fully

develop an understanding of cohesiveness and its positive and negative effects in order to

help organizations make decisions to optimize team performance and select appropriate

use or method(s) of communication media.

There should be more examination of teams by different communication media.

Most research in the area of computer-mediated communications has between traditional

face-to-face and computer-mediated teams. There has been little research between teams

using various forms of computer-mediated technologies, which this study was focused.

Technologies are continually being developed and more rapidly than the research on

teams using them. In addition, organizations are increasingly using a different mix of

technologies within teams as they work together to complete tasks. This includes use of

different forms of both asynchronous and synchronous communications. While this

research did not support the advocacy of providing more socially present technology

prior to using less present technology, there should be more examination of different

mixes of technology in support of technology development as well as the issue of timing

the use of different technologies (either early or late in a team’s interaction). This

examination should also include a control of a purely face-to-face team across tasks as

compared to teams who change communication media between tasks. This would allow

94

a more direct comparison of traditional team processes along with emerging mixes of

technologies and their use over time.

Beyond the existence of social presence in communication media, this research did

not consider aspects of cognitive load. If the results of this research had demonstrated

higher team development and better performance using a mix of technologies (in

whatever order), then the application of technology mix should further research the

impact of multiple media including cognitive load. Technologies could provide a mix of

audio, visual, and text. These should be examined more deeply to see which technologies

help or hinder team development and performance. In research, it has been found that

adding interesting but irrelevant material to text passages actually reduces the amount of

relevant material that users remember (Mayer, Heiser, & Lonn, 2001). Looking at this

from a cognitive processing standpoint, it is imperative that extraneous material does not

compete with other resources.

Examining the type of team using computer-mediated communication would be

another area of future research. While this study focused on new team members working

together for the first time, introducing different communication media to teams who are

more experienced as a team may prove different results. In addition, experience level

with computer-mediated technologies is another factor to consider for future research.

Organizations face the challenge of having team members with various levels of

experience in using computer-mediated technologies. Members who are more

experienced may be able to adapt from one technology to another. This may not hold

true for everyone as less experienced members may be less effective members of the

95

team if use of the technology is challenging. These issues become prevalent as

technologies quickly develop and potentially become more complex or multi-faceted.

In terms of types of teams, cross-functional teams are increasingly being used by

organizations. A cross functional team is one whereby members come from different

organizational areas. There are a number of additional considerations when examining

these types of teams, for example in the area of personal interest. Each member will have

varying levels of interest in the team’s success. Each member has their own

organizational bias and goals/objectives for the team. With conflicting interests, similar

research such as conducted by this study should be conducted to examine the impact of

the team using different communication media as well as the timing of more socially

present media.

The area of leadership should be studied in terms of its impact on computer-mediated

teams. Team performance and development are influenced by having adequate

leadership in guiding the team through its tasks. A team using one or more different

communication technology, regardless of social presence or not, may benefit from the

type of leadership it receives. The question is whether leadership must adapt for different

technologies. Does socially present technology dictate a different leadership approach

than a less “present” technology (i.e., written text correspondence)?

With new technologies being introduced on a continual basis to teams, leadership is

considered to be the central component to channel and champion effective use of

technology (Berry, 2006). There are many areas where leadership can have an impact on

computer-mediated team development and performance. Leadership can provide the

feedback and common goals which are important for computer-mediated teams to have in

96

order to reduce task conflict. Virtual teams that develop a sense of shared identity

demonstrate lower levels of task conflict (Maruping & Agarwal, 2002). Researchers also

believe that greater conformity can be achieved in computer-mediated environments

when group standards are prominent and there is support for uninhibited expression

(Driskell et al., 2003).

One area of additional study should be whether more synchronous, socially present

media provide greater conformity as well as feelings of shared identity. Leadership style

has a direct impact on these as well. Future studies of computer mediated teams should

examine not only the variances in technology and its influence on team development and

performance, but also leadership approaches. Leaders play a major role in establishing

the team performance goals as well as ensuring tasks are completed in a timely and

effective manner. This is also true for distributed teams. It has been found that the more

a team relies on computer-mediated communications and less on face-to-face meetings,

the teams experience less empowerment which impacts team performance (Kirkman,

Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004). Research should assess whether leadership within a

distributed team can focus a team’s efforts and mediate consensus.

Conclusions

The research questions for this study were focused on the use of different computer-

mediated technologies and its impact on team development and performance. If teams

execute tasks using the same communication method, do they differ in performance if

they plan for a task using different technologies? Do teams that use technologies with

less social presence in planning have as much team development as those who plan with

technologies having more social presence? Is there any difference in team performance

97

between tasks for teams who have social presence in planning for one task but do not

have as much social presence in planning an additional task? With various

communication media available to use for planning, the research questions for this study

revolved around whether synchronous or asynchronous technologies led to higher team

development or performance. In addition, with synchronous technologies bringing in a

dimension of social presence, it was hypothesized that teams using more “socially

present” video conferencing would have higher team development and performance than

teams that planned using asynchronous communications.

Overall, the findings of this study did not support whether the introduction of

socially present (synchronous) communication led to higher team development or

performance, regardless if different teams were compared or the same team was

compared between tasks. The results of this research showed no significant differences

between different teams using either synchronous or asynchronous communications. The

overall implication of such results may prove that the introduction of social presence in

computer-mediated communication is not necessary for team development or

performance. Typical beliefs of researchers, such as Hinds and Bailey (2003) suggest

that more face-to-face meetings help to promote interpersonal relationships. With the use

of various forms of computer-mediated communication available today, perhaps face-to-

face interactions (periodic or initial) may not be as influential as originally believed.

However, these findings should lead to additional research associated with these

research questions in order to shed additional light into the findings as well as provide

deeper understanding of the implications of the absence or lack of absence of more

“socially present” media. Additional research is also warranted for such computer-

98

mediated teams as technologies are always changing and there are other variables to

consider when infusing new capabilities into the team environment. These include

different measures of team development, increasing the time teams interact, varying the

type of tasks teams perform, as well as infusion of leadership techniques within different

computer-mediated environments.

This study differed from previous research involving computer-mediated teams in

that it examined the differences of teams using different types of computer-mediated

communication media as opposed to comparing a computer-meditated team to a

traditional face-to-face team. Most research has only investigated a single type of

communication media relative to face-to-face interactions. This study sought to compare

different computer-mediated teams which varied by the level of social presence in terms

of planning and performing a task as well as comparing the same team in changing their

computer-mediated communication method for different tasks.

Studies comparing different types of computer mediated teams are important as

organizations often do not have a choice of whether or not to use computer-mediated

communication for task planning and performance. The results of such analyses will help

organizations in choosing the appropriate technology or mix of technologies.

A term being used in the world of computer-mediated communication is called

collaborative virtual environments. These environments are created using multiple

communication channels such as text, audio, video as well as external technologies as

shared software or multi-dimensional datasets (Scheck, et al, 2008). This study tried to

understand if teams interacting using one technology versus another for each task differed

in their development and performance. While there were no significant differences

99

found, there should be additional research into the impact of combining technologies and

the timing of their use. Introducing more visual communication media in the beginning

or sporadically throughout a team’s interaction is worthy of additional research. The

future of computer-mediated communications will involve use of more collaborative

systems taking advantage of multi-media capabilities. With the combinations of different

media ever changing, there is still limited knowledge as to how to combine media for

improved team development and task performance.

With such research, technologies such as group decision support systems can be

incorporated to further to assist computer-mediated teams in task performance. Such

systems are looked to as a very suitable technology option for managing task conflict

among computer-mediated teams (Maruping & Agarwal, 2002). These systems not only

provide a structure for communication by issues but allow members to become involved

in the team process via multiple means. Decision support systems have been developed

to be extremely dynamic allowing both text contributions as well as voting to occur by

members on a continuous basis (Turoff, Hiltz, Cho, Li, & Wang, 2002). Thresholds can

be set in discussions to where consensus can be determined if no new ideas of

information are presented. Members can then also accept or reject decisions and can

decide to continue discussions, if warranted.

As indicated by the literature review, computer-mediated teams are influenced by a

variety of factors. Theories developed around computer-mediated teams, in general,

focus on the choice of technology in terms of tasks and naturalness and do not fully

address the social dynamics of team development and performance. Social presence

theory, when applied to computer-mediated teams, is important to consider because it

100

addresses more of the internal process aspects of a team rather than focus on the

technology alone. Bringing in the dynamics of social psychology into the area of

computer-mediated teams is an important step to examining such teams more holistically.

With computer-mediated technologies often lacking social cues and also include a

lag or redundancy in responses, effective communication is important. Effective

communication is defined as reducing misunderstandings and is considered successful if

communication is coherent (Jonas et al., 2002). Efforts to improve the performance of

computer-mediated teams, then, can be focused on training members to better

communicate. Training can be provided to demonstrate how to create messages in a

manner that minimizes misinterpretations or misunderstandings (Franz, 1999).

Having clear and organized communication plans and work expectation systems are

seen as essential requirements for effective computer-mediated teams (Berry, 2006).

Computer-mediated teams have the ability through asynchronous media to carefully

review and reread information provided by other team members. Plans can be instituted

requiring some level of review and clarification of major discussion points. There must

be some process interventions in place to retrieve formerly overlooked information and

remind team members to consider otherwise ignored contributions (Thompson &

Coovert, 2002).

Feedback and common goals are also important for computer-mediated teams in

order to reduce task conflict. Virtual teams that developed a sense of shared identity

demonstrate lower levels of task conflict (Maruping & Agarwal, 2002). Researchers also

believe that, according to the social identity model of de-individuation, greater

101

conformity will be achieved in computer-mediated environments when group standards

are prominent and there is support for uninhibited expression (Driskell et al., 2003).

Building confidence and motivation are important for computer-mediated team

performance. Organizations should not withhold consideration for these factors just

because members are distributed. Continuous member support, through team

communications, as well as maintaining a team member’s sense of belonging in the

process are important ways to build motivation and confidence within the team

environment (Maruping & Agarwal, 2002). Organizations should also consider

individual’s differences in experience with computer-mediated technologies and their

expected anxieties in using new media. Incorporating a support structure for team

members as they move to computer-mediated environments is essential for the entire

team’s performance.

The study of computer-mediated communication will lead, in the long run, to the

development of tools for determining if this method is appropriate for a group to use. It

is advocated that three conditions are combined to influence the use of media in

computer-mediated teams: conventional understandings constructed by team members of

their workplace, technological aspects of the chosen media, and institutional support

which includes social structures within the organization (Berry, 2006). Organizations

more than likely understand the technological aspects better than the social ones relevant

to the team.

Summary

Organizations are continuing to learn the advantages of using geographically-

distributed teams in performing essential tasks. Organizations, such as the military, have

102

realized the benefits of such teams over the years and continue to use them in a wider

range of areas such as with aircrew distributed planning teams. A common dilemma

facing any organization is the choice and sequence of such media as the number of

technologies available increasingly grows and changes as possible methods of

communication for distributed teams.

Knowledge of the group dynamics and social variables involved with computer-

mediated teams is considered central to understanding their performance (Driskell et al.,

2003). It is obvious that organizations should not ignore social and psychological issues

and should focus on ways to improve team processes as they relate to their specific

performance needs. However, with communication technologies varying in their amount

of information richness, synchronicity, and social presence, organizations must

understand what, if any, impact these variances have on team development and

performance.

While the preference is to have some level of social presence or face-to-face

interaction, there are alternatives to be explored to develop social cohesion and

collaboration among distributed members. This study examined teams using different

methods of communication and whether more socially present technologies resulted in

higher team development or better performance. The results of this study found no

significant differences for teams who planned a task using synchronous versus

asynchronous communication, changed from synchronous to asynchronous

communication in planning, changed from asynchronous to synchronous communication

in planning, or performing a task using synchronous communication versus traditional

face-to-face interaction.

103

While no significant differences were found, the results have many implications.

Teams may not require as much socially present or synchronous interaction as believed.

However, this must be understood within the context of the type of task assigned and the

amount of time a team is allowed to interact. Additional research into the issues

associated with computer-mediated team performance should be conducted in order to

gain optimal performance and development from distributed teams and develop

appropriate interventions designed to address computer-mediated team deficiencies as

well as provide a means to capitalize on their inherent benefits (Thompson & Coovert,

2002).

As the RHR model illustrates, interpersonal processes are important contributors to

the development and performance of a team, regardless of the geographic location of its

members as well as the choices in communication media. Organizations such as the

military that rely on distributed teams to perform critical functions are in need of research

to guide the selection and incorporation of communication media. Regardless of the

types of technologies used, the core theories which infuse aspects of social psychology

remain relevant to the development and performance of teams. It is imperative that

researchers continue to examine the role of computer-mediated technologies and its

impact on team members as they work together to accomplish their goals and objectives.

Technologies should not be incorporated into a team environment for the sake of using

the latest and greatest technologies available. Remaining focused on the team in terms of

both its development and performance should be forefront.

104

REFERENCES

Baker, G. (2002). The effects of synchronous collaborative technologies on decision making: A study of virtual teams. Information Resources Management Journal, 15, 79-93.

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.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Neubert, M. J. (1998). Relating member ability and

personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391.

Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and

performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989-1004.

Belanger, F. & Watson-Manheim, M. (2006). Virtual teams and multiple media:

Structuring media use to attain strategic goals. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 299-321.

Bergiel, B. J., Bergiel, E. B., & Balsmeier, P. W. (2008). Nature of virtual teams: A

summary of their advantages and disadvantages. Management Research News, 31, 99-110.

Berry, G. R. (2006). Can computer-mediated asynchronous communication improve

team processes and decision making? Journal of Business Communication, 43, 344-366.

Biocca, F. & Harms, C. (2002). Defining and measuring social presence: Contribution to

the networked minds theory and measure. Retrieved January 11, 2009 from http://www.temple.edu\ispr\prev.conferences\proceedings\2002\final papers\bioccaandharms.pdf.

Bishop, L. & Levine, D. I. (1999). Computer-mediated communication as employee

voice: A case study. Industrial and Labor Relation Review, 52, 213-233. Bos, N., Gergle, D., Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (2001). Being there versus seeing

there: Trust via video. Retrieved March 6, 2009 from http://www.crew.umich.edu\publications\01-01.pdf.

Brehm, S. S., Kassin, S., & Fein, S. (2005). Social Psychology (5th ed.). Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company

105

Brown, S. A., Fuller, R. M., & Vician, C. (2004). Who’s afraid of the virtual world? Anxiety and computer-mediated communication. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5, 79-107.

Campbell, D. & Hallam, G. (1994). Manual for the Campbell-Hallam Team

Development Survey. Colorado Springs, CO: National Computer Systems, Inc. Chang, A. (2005). Synchronicity maters! Development of task and social cohesion in ftf

and text based cmc groups. Academy of Management Best Conference Paper, D1-D6.

Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., & Webster, J. (2003). Applicant reactions to face-to-

face and technology-mediated interviews: A field investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 944-953.

Chattopadhay, P., George, E., & Lawrence, S. A. (2004). Why does dissimilarity matter/

Exploring self-categorization, self-enhancement, and uncertainty reduction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 892-900.

Colquitt, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., LePine, J. A. & Sheppard, L. (2002).

Computer-assisted communication and team decision-making performance: The moderating effect of openness to experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 402-410.

Crede, M. & Sniezek, J. A. (2003). Group judgment processes and outcomes in video-

conferencing versus face-to-face groups. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 875-897.

Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media

richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571. DeLuca, D. & Valacich, J. S. (2006). Virtual teams in and out of synchronicity.

Information Technology & People, 19, 323-344. Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication

processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32, 575-600. Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better

than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 531-537. Distiller, K. & Thatcher, A. (2005). The effectiveness of teambuilding activity, as carried

out through a computer mediated communication medium: A comparative study. Retrieved March 25, 2008 from http://cyberg_wits.ac.za/cyberg/sessiondocs/cognitive/collab4/collab4.pdf.

106

Driskell, J. E., Radtke, P. H. & Salas, E. (2003). Virtual teams: Effects of technological mediation on team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 297-323.

Eshan, N., Mirza, E., & Ahmad, M. (2008). Impact of computer-mediated

communication on virtual teams’ performance: An empirical study. Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 32, 2070-3740.

Franz, H. (1999). The impact of computer mediated communication on information

overload in distributed teams. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved March 25, 2008 from http://casdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hics/1999/0001/01/00011028.pdf.

Galushkin, I. (2003). Text message: A potentially rich medium in distributed

organization. Retrieved April 9, 2009 from http://www.cs.queensla.ca/~roel/publications/chi99/gaze.pdf.

Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of

team efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819-832.

Hamlynn-Harris, J. H., Hurst, B. J., von Baggo, K., & Bayley, A. J. (2006). Predictors of

team work satisfaction. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 299-315. Hinds, P. J. & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in

distributed teams. Organization Science, 14, 615-632. Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (1994). Applied statistics for behavioral sciences.

(3rd ed.). Princeton, N.J.: Houghton-Mifflin. Howell, D. C. (2004). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA:

Thompson Brooks/Cole. Irem, S. & Dambra, J. (2004). Extending media richness theory: The influence of a

shared social construction. Retrieved March 8, 2009 from http://is2.lse.ac.uk/asp/aspecis/20040155.pdf.

Irmer, B. E., Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2000). The development of social and task

cohesion in computer-mediated and face-to-face task groups. Academy of Management, 2000, A1-A6.

Isaacs, E. A. & Tang, J. C. (1993). What video can and can’t do for collaboration: A case

study. Proceedings of the First ACM International Conference on Multimedia.

107

Jarvenpaa, S. L. & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791-815.

Jerome, L. W. & Jordan, P. J. (2007). Psychological perspective on presence: The

implications of mediated environments on relationships, behavioral health, and social construction. Psychological Services, 4, 75-84.

Jonas, K. J., Boos, M., & Sassenberg, K. (2002). Unsubscribe, pleeezz!! Management

and training of media competence in computer-mediated communication. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 5, 315-329.

Jonassen, D. H. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-

face group problem solving. Educational Technology, research and Development, 49, 35-51.

Jung, D. I., Sosik, J. J., & Baik, K. B. (2000). Investigating work group characteristics

and performance over time: A replication and cross-cultural extension. Group Dynamics: Theory, Practice and Research, 6, 153-171.

Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Upper Saddle River,

N.J.: Prentice Hall. Kerr, D. S. & Murthy, U. S. (2004). Divergent and convergent idea generation in teams:

A comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 381-399.

Klein, G. & Miller, T. E. (1999). Distributed team planning. International Journal of

Cognitive Economics, 3, 203-222. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team

empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 175-192.

Kumar, N. & Benbasat, I. (2002). Para-social presence and communication capabilities

of a web site. Retrieved October 16, 2006 from http//:www.iupjournals.org/eservices/es1-3.html.

Kurzendoefer, K. (n. d.). Social presence theory. Retrieved March 8, 2009 from

http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/teams/theory.kurzendoerfer.pdf. Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2004). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to

industrial and organizational psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

108

Leedy, P. D. & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design. (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Leong, F. T. L. & Lewis, M. A. (1994). Review of the Campbell-Hallam Team

Development Survey. Mental Measurements Yearbook. Retrieved August 18, 2008 from Capella University Research Database.

Lim, E. T. K. & Hung, Y. C. (2008). Exploring the concept of para social presence in

virtual project teams. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on Systems sciences, 2008, 1-10.

Liu, A. K., Tsang, P., Kwan, R., Ng, S. C., Cheung, Y. H. Y., & Choy, S. O. (2007). An

evaluation of framework of expertise presence in computer conferences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 1020-1036.

Manes, J. M. (2008). Social presence: A theoretical construct for evaluation of the

participatory catalog. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from http://conversants.syr.edu/journal/?p=58.

Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through

technology: A task-technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 975-990.

Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia

learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.

McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated

discussion effects in risk decision making [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917-930.

McLeod, P. L., Baron. R. S., Marti, M. W., & Yoon, K. (1997). The eyes have it:

Minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 706-718.

Na Ubon, A. & Kimble, C. (1997). Supporting the creation of social presence in online

learning communities using asynchronous text-based cmc. Retrieved March 8, 2009 from www.chris-kimble.com/Publications/Documents/Ubon_2003.pdf.

Nedelko, Z. (2007). Videoconferencing in virtual teams. The Business Review,

Cambridge, 7, 164-170. Nelson, K. (2003). Team assessments: A review and analysis of four current team

assessments. Retrieved August 14, 2007 from http://cuburn.edu/research/liter/media/pdfs/eval_conf.papers/2003se_wcky.pdf.

109

Newberry, B. (2001). Media richness, social presence and technology supported communication activities in education. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from http://learninggen.org/resources/lgend101_norm1/200/210.

Pinto, M. B., Pinto, J. K., & Precott, J. E. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of

project team cross-functional cooperation. Management Science, 39, 1281-1298. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2002). Intergroup differentiation in computer-

mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 3-16.

Scheck, S., Allmendinger, K., & Hamann, K. (2008). The effects of media richness on

multilateral negotiations in a collaborative virtual environment. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 20, 57-66.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of

Telecommunications. London: John Wiley. Sia, C., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. (2002). Group polarization and computer-mediated

communication: Effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity Informational Systems Research, 13, 70-90.

Simon, A. F. (2006). Computer-mediated communication: Task performance and

satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology. 146, 349-379. Stone, N. J., & Posey, M. (2005). Understanding coordination in computer-mediated

versus face-to-face groups. Poster session presented at the Annual meeting of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

Strauss, S. G. & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task

type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87-97.

Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and

effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 12-133. Teambuildinginc.com (n. d.). Tall ships™: A game for building effective teams.

Retrieved March 8, 2008 from http://store.teambuildinginc.com/items/team-activities/tall-ships/list.htm?1=1.

Thatcher, A., & DeLaCour, A. (2003). Small group decision-making in face-to-face and

computer mediated environments: The role of personality. Behavior and Information Technology, 22, 203-218.

110

Thompson, L. F., & Coovert, M. D. (2003). Teamwork online: Effects of computer conferencing on perceived confusion, satisfaction, and postdiscussion accuracy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 135-151.

Turoff, M., Hiltz, S. R., Cho, H., Li, Z., & Wang, Y. (2002). Social decision support

systems. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Retrieved March 25, 2008 from http://hicss.hawaii.edu/hicss-

35/hicsspapers/pdfdocments/clcsc03.pdf. Ubon, A. N. & Kimble, C. (2003). Supporting the creation of social presence in online

learning communities using asynchronous text-based cmc. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Technology in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, July 2003, 295 - 300.

Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K.W. & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity

and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.

Vertegaal, R. (1999). The GAZE groupware system: Mediating joint attention in

multiparty communication and collaboration. Proceedings of ACM CHI ’99 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 1999, 294 - 301.

Wheeler, S. (2005). Creating social presence in digital learning environments: A

presence of mind? Retrieved December 15, 2008 from http:\\www.vidolinq.tafe.net\learning2005\papers\wheeler.pdf.

Wikia.com (n. d.). Chrobach’s alpha. Retrieved May 19, 2009

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/chronbach’s alpha. Winum, P. C. & Seamon, T. R. (2000). Developing a team-based organization: A case

study in progress. Consulting Psychology Journal, 52, 82-89. Xue, Y., Sankar, C. S., & Mbarika, V. W. A. (2005). Information technology

outsourcing and virtual team. Journal of Computer Information Systems. Winter 2004- 2005, 9-16.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey: Prentice Hall. Zastrow, C. (2001). Social Work with Groups: Using the Class as a Group Leadership

Laboratory (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Thompson Learning. Zigurs, I. & Khazanchi, D. (2008). From profiles to patterns: A new view of task-

technology fit. Information Systems Management, 25, 8-13.

111

APPENDIX A

TEAM DEVELOPMENT SURVEY Gender: Male/Female Class Year: 2011 2010 2009 2008 Please rate the following statements according to the rating scale below by circling the appropriate number to indicate how well you agree with each statement.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

I could easily understand the mission of the team. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] It was easy for our computer mediated team members to understand the goal of the planning process. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I felt I was really part of our computer mediated team. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] If I had to do the same work again in a computer mediated team, I would rather stay in the same computer mediated team. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] If I had to do the same work again, I would rather join a different computer mediated team. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Team members were open and frank in expressing their ideas and feelings. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Team members were committed to the goals and objectives of the team. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Team members recognized and respected individual differences and contributions during the exercise. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I improved my technical ability through this exercise. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I improved my teamwork ability through this exercise. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I improved my decision-making ability through this exercise. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Overall, I was personally satisfied with the computer mediated team decision making process. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Overall, the quality of my computer mediated team’s interaction was high. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

112

APPENDIX B MATERIAL COST SHEET

Team: Task 1 Task 2

Part: Unit Cost # Units

Total Init Cost

# Units Total Unit Cost

Orange Rod $100

Purple Rod $75

Blue Rod $50

Red Rod $35

Green Rod $25

Blue Spool $75

Yellow Spool $50

Purple Connector $50

Blue Connector $50

Total Cost

113

APPENDIX C TASK PERFORMANCE WORKSHEET

Task 1 Task 2

Team Type

Plan Time

1

Exec Time

1

Height

1

Cost

1

Plan Time

2

Exec Time

2

Height

2

Cost

2

Campbell Hallman Team Assesment

Documents

Transcript of Campbell Hallman Team Assesment