Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 995–1020 | Cite as

Team Decision Making in Virtual and Face-to-Face Environments

  • Thomas A. O’Neill
  • Samantha E. Hancock
  • Katarina Zivkov
  • Nicole L. Larson
  • Stephanie J. Law
Article

Abstract

We conducted a laboratory study on 65 teams performing a decision-making task. The two experimental manipulations involved the use of different communication media and decision frames. The decision frame manipulation involved informing the team to choose the demonstrably correct solution versus the solution that seemed most likely. These factors interacted to reveal novel insights about their multiplicative effects on decision processes and team psychological states. Further, main effects of the communication medium were found for team psychological states and decision behavior. Results suggest that virtual teams were at a disadvantage when the task was framed as having a demonstrably correct solution. Conversely, face-to-face teams were more effective, particularly when told that the task had a demonstrably correct solution. Face-to-face teams were more effective on all decision behaviors. Media synchronicity theory serves as a unifying framework to contextualize this research in the literature.

Keywords

Teams Decision-making Team psychological states   Decision processes Decision behavior Hidden-profile 

References

  1. Allen NJ, O’Neill TA (2015) The trajectory of emergence of shared group-level constructs. Small Group Res 46:352–390. doi: 10.1177/1046496415584973 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alper S, Tjosvold D, Law KS (2000) Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Pers Psychol 53:625–642. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00216.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andres HP (2006) The impact of communication medium on virtual team group process. Inf Resour Manag J 19(2):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baltes BB, Dickson MW, Sherman MP, Bauer CC, LaGanke J (2002) Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 87:156–179. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2961 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartlet VL, Dennis AR, Yuan L, Barlow JB (2013) Individual priming in virtual team decision-making. Group Decis Negot 22:873–896. doi: 10.1007/s10726-012-9333-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell BS, Kozlowski SWJ (2002) A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group Organ Manag 27:14–49. doi: 10.1177/1059601102027001003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergiel BJ, Bergiel EB, Balsmeier PW (2008) Nature of virtual teams: a summary of their advantages and disadvantages. Manag Res News 31:99–110. doi: 10.1108/01409170810846821 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berry GR (2011) Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams: Understanding why traditional team skills are insufficient. J Bus Commun 48:186–206. doi: 10.1177/0021943610397270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bliese PD (2000) Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 349–381Google Scholar
  11. Caballer A, Gracia F, Peiró J (2005) Affective responses to work process and outcomes in virtual teams: Effects of communication media and time pressure. Journal of Managerial Psychology 20:245–260. doi: 10.1108/02683940510589037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell J, Stasser G (2006) The influence of time and task demonstrability on decision-making in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Res 37:271–294. doi: 10.1177/1046496406288976 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carley K (1986) Knowledge acquisition as a social phenomenon. Instr Sci 14:381–438. doi: 10.1007/BF00051829 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cramton CD (2002) Finding common ground in dispersed collaboration. Org Dyn 30:356–367. doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00063-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cramton CD (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ Sci 12:346–371. doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manage Sci 32:554–572. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Dreu CKW (2011) Conflict at work: basic principles and applied issues. In: Zedeck (ed) APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol 3. APA, Washington, pp 461–493Google Scholar
  18. De Guina AO, Webster J, Staples DS (2012) A meta-analysis of the consequences of virtualness on team functioning. Inf Manag 49:301–308. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2012.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Wit FRC, Greer LL, Jehn KA (2012) The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 97:360–390. doi: 10.1037/a0024844 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DeLuca D, Valacich JS (2006) Virtual teams in and out of synchronicity. Inf Technol People 19:323–344. doi: 10.1108/09593840610718027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dennis AR, Valacich JS (1999) Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (pp. 1-10). doi: 10.1109/HICSS.1999.772701
  22. Dennis AR (1996) Information exchange and use in small group decision making. Small Group Res 27:532–550. doi: 10.1177/104696496274003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dennis AR, Fuller RM, Valacich JS (2008) Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Q 32:575–600Google Scholar
  24. Deutsch M (1949) A theory of cooperation and competition. Hum Relat 2:129–152. doi: 10.1177/001872674900200204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Deutsch M (2006) A framework for thinking about oppression and its change. Soc Justice Res 19:7–41. doi: 10.1007/s11211-006-9998-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dubrovsky VJ, Kiesler S, Sethna BN (1991) The equalization phenomenon: status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human Comput Interact 6:119–146. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci0602_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guzzo RA, Yost PR, Campbell RJ, Shea GP (1993) Potency in groups: articulating a construct. Br J Soc Psychol 32:87–106. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb00987.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hambley LA, O’Neill TA, Kline TJB (2007a) Virtual team leadership: perspectives from the field. Int J e-Collab 3:40–64. doi: 10.4018/jec.2007010103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hambley LA, O’Neill TA, Kline TJB (2007b) Virtual team leadership: the effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 103:1–20. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Han H, Hiltz ST, Fjermestad J, Wang Y (2011) Does medium matter? A comparison of initial meeting modes for virtual teams. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 54:376–391. doi: 10.1109/TPC.2011.2175759 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hecht TD, Allen NJ, Klammer JD, Kelly EC (2002) Group beliefs, ability, and performance: the potency of group potency. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 6:143–153. doi: 10.1037//1089-2699.6.2.143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hinds PJ, Mortensen M (2005) Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: the moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organ Sci 16:290–307. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hollingshead AB (1996) The rank-order effect in group decision making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 68:181–193. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hollingshead AB (1996) Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making the effects of communication media. Human Commun Res 23:193–219. doi: 10.1111/j1468-2958.1996.tb00392x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Horwitz FM, Bravington D, Silvis U (2006) The promise of virtual teams: identifying key factors in effectiveness and failure. J Eur Ind Train 30:472–494. doi: 10.1108/03090590610688843 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1993) Rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement. J Appl Psychol 78:306–309. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jehn KA (1995) A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Adm Sci Q 40:256–282. doi: 10.2307/2393638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kahai SS, Sosik JJ, Avolio BJ (2003) Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context. Leadersh Q 14:499–524. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00049-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Kerr DS, Murthy US (2009) The effectiveness of synchronous computer-mediated communication for solving hidden-profile problems: Further empirical evidence. Inf Manag 46:83–89. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2008.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS (2003) Work groups and teams in organizations. In: Borman WC, Ilgen DR, Klimoski RJ (eds) Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12): industrial and organizational psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 333–375Google Scholar
  43. Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 3–90Google Scholar
  44. Larson JR Jr, Christensen C, Abbot A, Franz TM (1996) Diagnosing groups: charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams. J Pers Soc Psychol 71:315–330. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Larson JR Jr (2010) In search of synergy in small group performance. Taylor and Francis, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. LePine JA, Piccolo RF, Jackson CL, Mathieu JE, Saul JR (2008) A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multitudinal model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Pers Psychol 61:273–307. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lowry PB, Nunamaker JF, Curtis A, Lowry MR (2005) The impact of process structure on novice, virtual and collaborative writing teams. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 48:341–364. doi: 10.1109/TPC.2005.859728 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lowry PB, Roberts TL, Romano NC, Cheney PD, Hightower RT (2006) The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication: does computer-mediated communication make a difference? Small Group Res 37:631–661. doi: 10.1177/1046496406294322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lowry PB, Roberts TL, Dean DL, Marakas G (2009) Toward building self-sustaining groups in PCR-based tasks through implicit coordination: the case of heuristic evaluation. J Assoc Inf Syst 10:170–195Google Scholar
  50. Lowry PB, Scheutzler RM, Giboney JS, Gregory TA (2015) Is trust always better than distrust? The potential value of distrust in newer virtual teams engaged in short-term decision making. Group Decis Negot 24:723–752. doi: 10.1007/s10726-014-9410-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lu L, Yuan YC, McLeod PL (2012) Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: a meta-analysis. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 16:54–75. doi: 10.1177/1088868311417243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. MacDonnell R, O’Neill T, Kline T, Hambley L (2009) Bringing group-level personality to the electronic realm: a comparison of face-to-face and virtual contexts. Psychol Manage J 12:1–24. doi: 10.1080/10887150802371773 Google Scholar
  53. Marett K, George JF (2013) Barrier to deceiving other group members in virtual settings. Group Decis Negot 22:89–113. doi: 10.1007/s10726-012-9297-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad Manag Rev 26:356–376. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785 Google Scholar
  55. Maruping LM, Agarwal R (2004) Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: a task-technology fit perspective. J Appl Psychol 89:975–990. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.975 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mathieu JE, Rapp TL (2009) Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: the roles of team charters and performance strategies. J Appl Psychol 94:90. doi: 10.1037/a0013257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mennecke BE, Valacich JS (1998) Information is what you make of it: the influence of group history and computer support on information sharing, decision quality, and member perceptions. J Manage Inf Syst 15:173–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mesmer-Magnus JR, DeChurch LA (2009) Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 92:535–546. doi: 10.1037/a0013773 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mitchell G (2012) Revisiting truth or triviality: the external validity of research in the psychological laboratory. Perspect Psychol Sci 7:109–117. doi: 10.1177/1745691611432343 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Münzer S, Holmer T (2009) Bridging the gap between media synchronicity and task performance: effects of media characteristics on process variables and task performance indicators in an information pooling task. Commun Res 36:76–103. doi: 10.1177/0093650208326464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. O’Neill TA, McLarnon MJW, Hoffart GC, Woodley HJ, Allen NJ (in press) The structure and function of team conflict profiles. J Manage. doi: 10.1177/0149206315581662
  62. O’Neill TA, Allen NA, Hastings SE (2013) Examining the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of team conflict: a team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Human Perform 26:236–260. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2013.795573 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Postmes T, Spears R, Cihangir S (2001) Quality of decision making and group norms. J Pers Soc Psychol 80:918–930. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.80.6.918 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Privman R, Hilts ST, Wang Y (2013) In-group (us) versus out-group (them) dynamics and effectiveness in partially distributed teams. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 56:33–49. doi: 10.1109/TPC.2012.2237253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Purvanova RK (2014) Face-to-face versus virtual teams: what have we really learned? Psychol Manager J 17:2–29. doi: 10.1037/mgr0000009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rahim MA (1983) A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Acad Manag J 26:368–376. doi: 10.2307/255985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Roberts TL, Lowry PB, Sweeny PD (2006) An evaluation of the impact of social presence through group size and the use of collaborative software on group member “voice” in face-to-face and computer-mediated task groups. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 49:28–43. doi: 10.1109/TPC.2006.870460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schulz-Hardt S, Brodbeck FC, Mojzisch A, Kerschreiter R, Frey D (2006) Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. J Pers Soc Psychol 91:1080–1093. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schulz-Hardt S, Mojzisch A (2012) How to achieve synergy in group decision making: lessons to be learned from the hidden profile paradigm. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 23:305–343. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2012.744440 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schwenk CR (1990) Effects of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 47:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shea GP, Guzzo RA (1987) Groups as human resources. In: Rowland KM, Ferris GR (eds) Research in personnel and human resource management, vol 5. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 323–356Google Scholar
  72. Shirani AI (2006) Sampling and pooling of decision-relevant information: comparing the efficiency of face-to-face and GSS supported groups. Inf Manag 43:521–529. doi: 10.1016/j/im.2006.01/001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  74. Stasser G, Taylor LA, Hanna C (1989) Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three and six person groups. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:67–78. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stasser G, Abele S, Vaughan Parsons S (2012) Information flow and influence in collective choice. Group Process Intergroup Relat 15:619–635. doi: 10.1177/1368430212453631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stasser G, Stewart D (1992) Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: solving a problem versus making a judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 63:426–434. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stasser G, Titus W (1985) Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. J Pers Soc Psychol 48:1467–1478. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stasser G, Titus W (2003) Hidden profiles: a brief history. Psychol Inq 14:304–313. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1403&4_21
  79. Straus SG (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 Res 27:115–142. doi: 10.1177/1046496496271006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Straus SG, McGrath JE (1994) Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. J Appl Psychol 79:87–97. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Swaab RI, Galinsky AD, Medvec V, Diermeier DA (2012) The communication orientation model: explaining the diverse effects of sight, sound, and synchronicity on negotiation and group decision-making outcomes. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 16:25–53. doi: 10.1177/1088868311417186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thompson LF, Coovert MD (2003) Teamwork online: the effects of computer conferencing on perceived confusion, satisfaction and postdiscussion accuracy. Group Dyn Theory Res Practice 7:135–151. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.7.2.135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tjosvold D (1986) The dynamics of interdependence in organizations. Hum Relat 39:517–540. doi: 10.1177/001872678603900603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tjosvold D (1991) Team organization: an enduring competitive advantage. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  85. Tjosvold D (2008) Constructive controversy for management education: developing committed, open-minded researchers. Acad Manag Learn Educ 7:73–85. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2008.31413864 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tjosvold D, Peng AC, Chen NY, Fang SS (2013) Individual decision-making in organizations: contribution of uncertainty and controversy in China. Group Decis Negot 22:801–821. doi: 10.1007/s10726-012-9294-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Turban E, Liang T, Wu SPJ (2011) A framework for adopting collaboration 2.0 tools for virtual group decision making. Group Decis Negot 20:137–154. doi: 10.1007/s10726-010-9215-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Turel O, Connelly CE (2012) Team spirit: the influence of psychological collectivism on the usage of e-collaboration tools. Group Decis Negot 21:703–725. doi: 10.1007/s10726-011-9245-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:452–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Walther JB (1996) Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun Res 23:3–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Walther JB, Bunz U (2005) The rules of virtual groups: trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. J Commun 55:828–846. doi: 10.1093/joc/55.4.828 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Warkentin ME, Sayeed L, Hightower R (1997) Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: an exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decis Sci 28:975–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Williams E (1977) Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: a review. Psychol Bull 84:963–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zhang D, Lowry PB, Zhou L, Fu X (2007) The impact of individualism-collectivism, social presence, and group diversity on group decision making under majority influence. J Manag Inf Syst 23:53–80. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222230404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas A. O’Neill
    • 1
  • Samantha E. Hancock
    • 2
  • Katarina Zivkov
    • 1
  • Nicole L. Larson
    • 1
  • Stephanie J. Law
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Lazaridis School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations