Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does the Order of Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication Matter in Diverse Project Teams? An Investigation of Communication Order Effects on Minority Inclusion and Participation

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study investigated whether meeting electronically first using computer-mediated communication (CMC) before meeting face-to-face (FTF) increases the inclusion of a female group member in a predominantly male project team.

Design/methodology/approach

We used an experimental design and a sample of 200 college students grouped within 50 four-person teams of one woman and three men. Twenty-five teams communicated using CMC first, then FTF. The other 25 teams communicated using FTF first, then CMC.

Findings

Results showed that women felt more included in the teams when they used CMC first and then FTF as opposed to the more often recommended FTF and then CMC. Findings showed that the order of communication medium influenced perceived inclusion, which in turn influenced individual participation.

Implications

Conventional wisdom suggests that today’s project teams, whose members typically use a variety of communication media, should always meet FTF first at the beginning of their life cycle to enhance individual and team performance. Our study suggests that within diverse teams in which one minority team member is different from the rest of team and may feel excluded, initial CMC may help the minority member feel more included.

Originality/value

This study shows that the order of communication medium can influence team outcomes. In particular, meeting using CMC first and then FTF can be helpful for diverse teams with minority team members.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams, D., Hogg, M., & Marques, J. (2005). Social psychology of inclusion and exclusion. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, S. B. (2009). Relationship networking: Society and education. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 735–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group and Organization Management, 27, 14–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benokraitis, N. V., & Feagin, J. R. (1995). Modern sexism: Blatant, subtle, and covert discrimination (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Cohen, B. R., & Zelditch, M. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J. K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhappu, A. D., Griffith, T. L., & Northcraft, G. (1997). Media effects and communication bias in diverse groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 199–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the experimental literature. Journal of Business Communication, 34, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, H. W. J., Walker, O. C. J., & Larréché, J. (1998). Marketing management: A strategic approach with a global orientation (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, G. (1995). The secrets of team facilitation. Training and Development, June, 46–52.

  • Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catalyst. (2009). U.S. Women in business. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.catalyst.org/publication/132/us-women-in-business.

  • Chatman, J., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 956–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, J. N., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K. R. (2000). Women and men in organizations: Sex and gender issues at work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramond, B. (1995). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: From design through establishment of predictive validity. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 229–254). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30, 678–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 243–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fjermestad, J. (2004). An analysis of communication mode in group support systems research. Decision Support Systems, 37, 239–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furst, S. A., Reeves, M., Rosen, B., & Blackburn, R. S. (2004). Managing the life cycle of virtual teams. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 6–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Experiencing work: Values, attitudes, and moods. Human Relations, 50, 393–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, F. Deary, D. Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, J. (1992, October). Work teams: How far have they come? Training, 59–65.

  • Griffith, T. L., & Neale, M. A. (2001). Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 379–421). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 199–267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. B. (2007). Virtual team leadership: Perspectives from the field. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 3, 40–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effect of surface- versus deep-level diversity on group cohesiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves, T. (1986). Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 305–314.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holvino, E., Ferdman, B., & Merrill-Sands, D. (2004). Creating and sustaining diversity and inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (pp. 245–276). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33, 987–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, F. M., Bravington, D., & Silvis, U. (2006). The promise of virtual teams: Identifying key factors in effectiveness and failure. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30, 472–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, P. R., Wall, T. D., Martin, R., & Davids, K. (1993). New measures of job control, cognitive demand, and production responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 753–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, M. S. (2000). The gendered society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31, 700–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1997). The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 30, 730–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantz, A. (2001). Meetings in a distributed group of experts: Comparing face-to-face, chat, and collaborative virtual environments. Behaviour and Information Technology, 20, 111–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, M. R. (1999). The gender impact of temporary virtual work groups. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 276–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockheed, M. E., & Hall, K. E. (1976). Conceptualizing sex as a status characteristic: Applications to leadership training strategies. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 31–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, P., Baron, R., Marti, M., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1251–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mor-Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. (1998). A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity. Administration in Social Work, 22, 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group on the individual: A self-attention perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 295–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. L., & Randel, A. E. (2004). Expectations of organizational mobility, workplace social inclusion, and employee job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Postmes, T., & Lea, M. (2000). Social processes and group decision making: Anonymity in group decision support systems. Ergonomics, 43, 1252–1274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rains, S. A. (2005). Leveling the organizational playing field—virtually: A meta-analysis of experimental research assessing the impact of group support system use on member influence behaviors. Communication Research, 32, 193–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 342–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, B. A., & Yoder, J. D. (2004). Gender differences in leader emergence persist even for dominant women: An updated confirmation of role congruity theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 187–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C. L., & Noe, A. W. (1991). Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male–female and white–black differences in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 263–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, N., & Stults, D. M. (1985). Factors defined by negatively keyed items: The result of careless respondents? Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 367–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schriesheim, C., & Hill, K. D. (1981). Controlling acquiescence response bias by item reversals: The effect on questionnaire validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1104–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the “social” in computer mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 30–65). Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spears, R., Postmes, T., Lea, M., & Watt, S. E. (2001). A SIDE view of social influence. In J. Forgas & K. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes (pp. 331–350). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spears, R., Lea, M., Corneliussen, R. A., Postmes, T., & Haar, W. T. (2002). Computer-mediated communication as a channel for social resistance: The strategic side of SIDE. Small Group Research, 33, 555–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanko, T., & Gibson, C. B. (2009). Virtuality here and now: The role of culture in virtual teams research. In R. S. Bhagat, & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of culture, organization and work (pp. 272–304). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Straus, S. G. (1996). Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and information distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 27, 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 43–75). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, E. W. K., & Kwan, K. M. (1999). Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 759–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 402–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A., I. I. I. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. (1985). Social categorization and the self concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior (Vol. 2). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Prooijen, J., Van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2004). Group belongingness and procedural justice: Social inclusion and exclusion by peers affects the psychology of voice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 66–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on workgroup cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisband, S., & Atwater, L. (1999). Evaluating self and others in electronic and face-to-face groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 632–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A., I. I. I. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The first author would like to thank the members of her dissertation committee, Bradley Kirkman, Christopher Porter, Murray Barrick, and Winfred Arthur, Jr. for their helpful feedback. We are grateful to Ray Aldag for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. We would also like to thank David Hill for technical support with the lab. The first author received financial support from the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University, as well as the Centers for Management Information Systems and Human Resource Management at Texas A&M University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management and Human Resources Department, The Wisconsin School of Business, The University of Wisconsin—Madison, 975 University Avenue, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    María del Carmen Triana

  2. Management Department, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA

    Bradley L. Kirkman

  3. Department of Marketing and Management, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, 79968-5348, USA

    María Fernanda Wagstaff

Authors
  1. María del Carmen Triana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bradley L. Kirkman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. María Fernanda Wagstaff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María del Carmen Triana.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Triana, M.d.C., Kirkman, B.L. & Wagstaff, M.F. Does the Order of Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication Matter in Diverse Project Teams? An Investigation of Communication Order Effects on Minority Inclusion and Participation. J Bus Psychol 27, 57–70 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9232-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9232-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation