INTRODUCTION
A virtual team can be described as an organizational unit unconstrained by geographical, temporal, organizational, and/or national boundaries (Townsend, DeMarie & Hendrickson, 1998). Despite their rising popularity, numerous issues exist surrounding how virtual teams can productively coordinate their resources, activities, and information, often in dynamic and uncertain task environments (Fiore, Salas, Cuevas & Bowers, 2003; Townsend et al., 1998). With organizational structure increasing in complexity to include both co-located and virtual team members, explicit linkages between theory and practice are critically needed to mitigate the negative effects that technology-mediated interaction may have on virtual team productivity. Our goal here is to demonstrate how classic and current theories and principles from organizational psychology can be effectively integrated within a sociotechnical systems framework to address the unique challenges faced by this subset of teams. Specifically, we analyze the effects that collaborative information technology and lack of co-location may have on virtual team members. We conclude with suggested interventions for organizational practice.
BACKGROUND
Open Sociotechnical Systems
Radical changes in organizational structure brought about through advances in technology represent a critical challenge for the appropriate application of theoretically-based principles in system design. Researchers and practitioners need to focus on system design issues not only at the individual or task level, but also at the team and organizational level. This involves a system-level analysis (Hendrick, 1997) of the following sociotechnical factors that interact to shape organizational outcomes and may hinder attainment of organizational goals:
(1) Personnel subsystem: comprised of the organizational unit’s members
(2) Technological subsystem: representing the technology available to the organizational unit
(3) External environmental variables: which act upon the organizational unit
Taken as a whole, these subsystems collectively represent the organizational unit as a sociotechnical system. Because the organizational unit both acts on and is acted upon by external forces, it would be considered an open sociotechnical system (Emery & Trist, 1960). Thus, the organizational unit can be viewed as a complex set of dynamically intertwined and interconnected elements, including inputs, processes (throughputs), outputs, feedback loops, and the environment in which it operates and interacts (Katz & Kahn, 1966).
Team Opacity in Distributed Environments
The technological component, in particular, plays a key mediating role by setting limits upon the system’s actions as well as by creating new demands that must be reflected in the internal structure and goals of the organizational unit (Emery & Trist, 1960). In distributed environments, the technological subsystem may have a potentially greater effect on team member interactions than would be expected in traditional co-located task environments. Virtual teams rely primarily on electronic communication processes to work together both synchronously (e.g., video conferencing, Internet chat rooms) and asynchronously (e.g., electronic mail, bulletin boards) to accomplish their tasks (Avolio, Kahai, Dumdum & Sivasubramanium, 2001). However, such technology-mediated interactions may increase the level of abstraction forced upon teams—a phenomenon referred to as team opacity (Fiore et al., 2003). Team opacity describes the experience of increased ambiguity and artificiality (i.e., unnatural quality) associated with distributed interaction. This decreased awareness of team member actions, resulting from a distributed organizational structure, creates an environment lacking in the rich visual, auditory, and social array of cues normally experienced in co-located team interaction, thereby limiting the use of implicit (i.e., tacit) coordination and communication strategies, and impeding the development of positive team attitudes and successful team evolution (Fiore et al., 2003).
Table 1. Factors influencing virtual team productivity
| Factor Definition/Description Impact on Virtual Team Productivity | |
| INPUT FACTORS | |
| Resources Personnel subsystem: Individual member knowledge, skills, attitudes Team size, composition | May be differentially affected by technological subsystem limitations (e.g., media richness, information synchrony) With low media richness, team opacity may: filter out critical paralinguistic cues hinder development of mutual trust (Avolio et al., 2001; Fiore, Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001) Conversely, lack of visual cues may lead to: greater focus on task-relevant member attributes (e.g., skills) less focus on task-irrelevant stereotypical attributes (e.g., race) selection of leaders that more closely embody team values, ideals, and goals (McKenna & Green, 2002) |
| Task Demands Nature of task (e.g., task complexity) and other work structure factors (e.g., communication channels) that form technological subsystem and external environment |
Team opacity may lead to: limited ability to monitor task-relevant cues provided by geographically dispersed teammates over-reliance on explicit communication strategies, resulting in poor task performance under conditions of high workload and task complexity (Entin & Serfaty, 1999) additional cognitive workload upon memory processes, inducing greater occurrence of memory failures (Fiore, Cuevas, Schooler & Salas, in press) |
| THROUGHPUT FACTORS | |
| Combination Various implicit (i.e., tacit) Processes and explicit (i.e., overt) team processes and/or behaviors (e.g., communication, coordination, decision making) necessary to accomplish team’s goals and/or task objectives | With low media richness (e.g., electronic mail), team opacity may limit or altogether eliminate use of: nonverbal, paralinguistic cues (e.g., hand gestures) when conveying information crucial to completion of complex tasks (Tang, 1991) beneficial information yielded in process artifacts emerging from collaborative work (Tang, 1991) implicit communication and/or coordination strategies (Fiore et al., 2003) |
| Process Losses Loss in team productivity resulting from poor coordination among members (i.e., lack of simultaneity of effort) and/or decreased social motivation (Steiner, 1972) | Due to lack of nonverbal cues, ambiguous nature of distributed interaction, and subsequent over-reliance on explicit strategies (Fiore et al., 2003), team opacity may: negatively impact execution of combination processes needed to attain desired outcomes impede evolution of mutual trust, collective efficacy, and group cohesion, leading to poorly developed team attitudes and decreased social motivation |
| Motivation Intrinsic and extrinsic factors that lead an individual to engage in a particular behavior or choose one course of action over another (Locke & Latham, 2002); motivation theories (e.g., goal-setting, self-regulation) focus on the underlying behaviors necessary to accomplish set goals (Bandura, 1986; Locke & Latham, 2002) | Team opacity may negatively impact: goal commitment due to impoverished nature of interaction and lack of motivating influence of paralinguistic cues inherent in face-to-face interactions (Teasley, Covi, Krishnan & Olson, 2000) development of common, engaging direction for virtual team, depending upon information flow (i.e., synchronous or asynchronous), resulting in poor motivation to meet training and/or performance objectives (Fussell et al., 1998) collective efficacy (i.e., members’ belief in their team’s ability or competence to attain desired outcomes; Bandura, 1986) due to limited opportunities for monitoring and evaluating other members’ performance (Fiore et al., 2003) |
| Shared Mental Shared understanding among Models (SMMs) team members of each member’s roles and responsibilities, task demands, and team-level interactions required to meet these demands (Cannon-Bowers, Salas & Converse, 1993); SMMs improve team’s ability to coordinate efforts, adapt to changing demands, anticipate needs of task and other members, and foster development of mutual trust (Avolio et al., 2001; Entin & Serfaty, 1999) |
Team opacity hinders SMM development due to decreased awareness of team member actions and expectations, resulting in: increased communication and coordination overhead due to over-reliance on explicit strategies (Entin & Serfaty, 1999) uncoordinated efforts, low team productivity, and unsuccessful attainment of organizational goals (Espinosa, Lerch & Kraut, 2004) diminished identification of role knowledge and poor source monitoring (Durso, Hackworth, Barile, Dougherty & Ohrt, 1998) poorly developed team attitudes (Fiore et al., 2001) |
FACTORS INFLUENCING VIRTUAL TEAM PRODUCTIVITY
Following a sociotechnical systems approach, we next discuss how the structure of information flow (i.e., synchronous or asynchronous) and format (e.g., text, audio, video) associated with distributed environments may contribute to team opacity and negatively impact productivity (for a full discussion, see Fiore et al., 2003). As with traditional co-located teams, virtual team productivity is critically dependent upon the resources available to the team, the task demands, and the combination processes enacted by the team which dictate how these resources are used to meet task demands (Steiner, 1972). Whereas the personnel subsystem comprises the virtual team’s principle resources, the technological subsystem and environmental constraints drive the task demands. The degree to which combination processes (e.g., coordination, communication, decision making) are effectively executed is especially susceptible to the impact of team opacity on the occurrence of process losses, the team’s motivation to achieve task objectives, and the development of a shared mental model. Table 1 summarizes these important input and throughput factors, highlighting the potential effect of team opacity.
FUTURE TRENDS
In distributed environments, the technological subsystem sets significant limits upon the personnel subsystem’s actions and creates new demands for optimal team productivity that must be addressed through training interventions and system design. Moreover, a virtual team is a dynamic organizational unit, developing as activities strengthen the quality of team member interactions (Morgan, Salas & Glickman, 1993). Fiore et al. (2003) described how these issues can be conceptualized within a distributed coordination space where virtual teams interact, evolve, and mature over time and space. Specifically, these activities, so critical to team development, occur not only during in-process interaction, but also during pre-and post-process interaction. Whereas in-process interaction occurs during actual task execution, pre-process interactions involve preparatory pre-task behaviors (e.g., planning session) where initial shared expectations are created in anticipation of team interaction (Fiore et al., 2001). Similarly, post-process interactions (e.g., after-action review) include post-task reflection on performance (Smith-Jentsch, Zeisig, Acton & McPherson, 1998). Such antecedent and/or consequent behaviors are critical to the team evolution and maturation cycle. Table 2 summarizes several organizational practices that can be employed at each of these stages to foster team development and the successful execution of team processes. Future research is clearly warranted to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions on virtual team productivity. Our goal in this article was to demonstrate how organizational psychology theories could be effectively integrated within a sociotechnical systems framework to address the unique challenges faced by virtual teams. Though much work still remains to be done and many questions still remain unanswered, we hope the issues set forth here will inspire others to explore further ways to achieve this goal.
CONCLUSION
As the prevalence of virtual teams increases, researchers must continue to address issues surrounding their design, implementation, and management. We must identify the sociotechnical factors that both help and hinder effective virtual team productivity so as to maximize their potential while mitigating the occurrence of process losses. Adopting a sociotechnical systems approach to investigate how team opacity interacts with these unique task demands and situational constraints to alter team processes and products will enable organizations to effectively utilize the technological subsystem’s capabilities to support virtual team productivity. Similarly, a better understanding of the distinct forms of group dynamics that may emerge in virtual teams will advance the design of appropriate training interventions. Unquestionably, the future success of virtual teams within organizations will depend upon the joint optimization of the personnel and technological subsystems comprising this unique sociotechnical system.
Table 2. Pre-, in-, and post-process interventions to promote virtual team productivity
| Intervention Rationale and Relevant Theoretical/Empirical Work | |
| PRE-PROCESS | |
| Pre-Task Briefing | Specifying clear, challenging yet attainable goals may lead to: increased effort on task, better use of strategies, and commitment to team (Locke & Latham, 2002) better SMM of task demands and team-level interactions required to meet these demands (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993) |
| Pre-Task Interaction | Initial face-to-face or technology-mediated (e.g., video conferencing) pre-task interactions may facilitate development of: trust and cooperation among team members (Rocco, 1998; Zheng, Bos, Olson & Olson, 2001) team’s social identity and positive team attitudes (Bos, Olson, Gergle, Olson & Wright, 2002; Zheng et al., 2001) |
| Team Building Exercises | Distinct training interventions aimed at improving the effectiveness of team processes and operations by prompting members to evaluate their behaviors and relationships (Tannenbaum, Beard & Salas, 1992) Valuable as both pre-process and in-process interventions |
| Role Identification (RI) & Interpersonal Relations (IR) | Most beneficial for fostering positive team attitudes and commitment to team RI: identifies each member’s roles and responsibilities to minimize any difficulties arising from role conflict or role ambiguity IR: improves relations among team members |
| Goal-Setting (GS) & Problem-Solving (PS) |
Well suited to enhance processes by which virtual teams use their resources to meet task demands GS: assists teams in setting individual and group goals, and determining strategies to meet these objectives PS: guides team members in developing requisite skills for identifying relevant elements in a problem (e.g., givens, goals, obstacles/constraints) and employing effective problem-solving strategies |
| IN-PROCESS | |
| Technological Support Tools | Designed to increase awareness of member actions and provide feedback on performance to enhance combination processes (e.g., coordination) and foster development of positive collective efficacy (Steinfeld, Jang & Pfaff, 1999) Team-level: inform distributed workgroups of member actions and important changes in within-team and external information, without diverting their attention away from central tasks (Cadiz, Fussell, Kraut, Lerch & Scherlis, 1998) Individual-level: provide powerful and flexible tools with which to interact with shared workspace and its artifacts (Gutwin & Greenberg, 1998) |
| Cross-Training | Particularly effective in fostering SMM development (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993) Helps members better understand each other’s roles and responsibilities Enables members to more accurately predict and anticipate each other’s behavior and make greater use of implicit team processes (Entin & Serfaty, 1999) |
| Team Adaptation and Coordination Training (Entin & Serfaty, 1999) | Focuses on building team’s SMM Enhances teamwork behaviors and coordination strategies by increasing quality and quantity of cues utilized by teams, leading to improved decision-making performance Adaptive to varying levels of stress and workload |
| Cue-Recognition Training | Increases saliency of critical aspects of task environment (Salas, Cannon-Bowers, Fiore & Stout, 2001) Decreases occurrence of memory failures and increases probability that team members recognize when critical cues have been missed |
| POST-PROCESS | |
| Debriefing Sessions & After-Action Reviews | Involves careful, well-structured dissemination of feedback information (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993) Promotes positive collective efficacy by prompting guided team self-correction and involving team members in self-regulation of their performance (Smith-Jenstch et al., 1998) Strengthens team’s SMM by: fostering shared knowledge regarding expectations and specific preferences of team members and effective teamwork processes (Smith-Jenstch et al., 1998) increasing source knowledge of member expertise (Libby, Trotman & Zimmer, 1987) |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The views herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the organizations with which the authors are affiliated. This research was funded by Grant Number F49620-01-1-0214, from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research to Eduardo Salas, Stephen M. Fiore, and Clint A. Bowers. Portions of this article were excerpted from: Cuevas, H.M., Fiore, S.M., Salas, E. & Bowers, C.A. (2004). Virtual teams as sociotechnical systems. In S.H. Godar & S.P. Ferris (Eds.), Virtual and collaborative teams: Process, technologies, and practice (pp. 1-19). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Address correspondence to Dr. Stephen M. Fiore, Institute for Simulation and Training, 3280 Progress Drive, Orlando, FL 32826; e-mail sfiore@ist.ucf.edu.
KEY TERMS
Explicit Team Processes: Openly articulated, overt communication and coordination behaviors. Example: Member A directly requests task-relevant information from Member B.
External Environment: Relevant work structure variables (e.g., task complexity) and other external forces (e.g., organizational climate) within the sociotechnical system that both act on and are acted upon by the organizational unit.
Implicit Team Processes: Largely unverbalized, tacit communication and coordination behaviors, founded on shared understanding of members’ roles/abilities and task/situational demands. Example: Member A provides Member B with backup assistance without being asked.
Open Sociotechnical System: A complex set of dynamically intertwined and interconnected elements, including inputs, processes (throughputs), outputs, feedback loops, and the environment in which it operates and interacts.
Personnel Subsystem: Sociotechnical system component comprised of the organizational unit’s members, including individual knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and team size and composition.
Team Opacity: Increased level of abstraction forced upon virtual teams due to the over-reliance on technology-mediated interactions; involves an experience of increased ambiguity and artificiality (i.e., unnatural quality) associated with distributed interaction, which inherently lacks the rich visual, auditory, and social array of cues traditionally available to co-located teams.
Team Productivity: Degree to which a group of two or more individuals can successfully coordinate their efforts to perform a task.
Technological Subsystem: Sociotechnical system component representing the technology (e.g., collaborative information technology) available to the organizational unit, influencing the nature of information flow (synchronous or asynchronous) and format (e.g., text, audio, video).
Virtual Team: An organizational unit that is unconstrained by geographical, temporal, organizational, and/ or national boundaries, and whose members rely upon electronic communication processes to work together both synchronously (e.g., video conferencing) and asynchronously (e.g., electronic mail) to accomplish their tasks.
