Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Review of Factors Affecting Creative Performance

  • Teresa Torres Coronas
  • Mario Arias Oliva
  • Juan Carlos Yáñez Luna
  • Ana María Lara Palma
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 369)

Abstract

Many studies have shown how teams improve their effectiveness and efficiency when a composition and skills balance is properly managed. Creativity has been an ignored variable, especially in virtual contexts. Contextual factors provoke significant differences between traditional team work and the virtual team work. Some authors suggest that virtual environment can achieve higher levels of creativity due to greater openness, flexibility, diversity and access to information compared to traditional conditions. However, building trust and team cohesiveness in virtual structures could be more difficult and creative performance can be affected, decreasing innovative solutions. We focus our study in critical aspects of creative performance that should be taking into consideration in emerging eLearning collaborative processes in higher education.

Keywords

Virtual teams Creativity Team working Higher education 

References

  1. 1.
    Abbey, A., Dickson, J.W.: R&D work climate and innovation in semiconductors. Acad. Manag. J. 26, 362–368 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amabile, T.M.: A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 10, 123–167 (1988)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amabile, T.M.: Creativity in context: update to “the social psychology of creativity”, xviii edn. Westview Press, Boulder (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amabilie, T.M.: Componential theory of creativity. Harvard Business School, Boston (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amabile, T.M., Gryskiewicz, S.S.: Creativity in the R&D laboratory. Greensboro, NC (1987)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andres, H.P.: A comparison of face-to-face and virtual software development teams. Team Perform. Manag. 8, 39–48 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andriopoulos, C., Lowe, A.: Enhancing organisational creativity: the process of perpetual challenging. Manag. Decis. 38, 734–742 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arnison, L., Miller, P.: Virtual teams: a virtue for the conventional team. J. Work. Learn. 14, 166–173 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Belbin, R.M.: Team roles at work, 2nd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brand, A.: Knowledge management and innovation at 3M. J. Knowl. Manag. 2, 17–22 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bryman, A.: Leadership and organizations. Routledge Library Editions, London (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davidow, W.H., Malone, M.S.: The virtual corporation. Harper Collins, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Pillis, E., Parsons, B.: Implementing self-directed work teams at a college newspaper. Coll. Student J. Staff. 47, 53–63 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Edmondson, A.C., Bohmer, R.M., Pisano, G.: Speeding up team learning. Harv. Bus. Rev. 79, 125–132 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ekvall, G., Arvonen, J., Waldenstrom-Lindblad, I.: Creative organizational climate: construction and validation of a measuring instrument (1983)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Farkas, M.: A note on team process. Harvard Business School, Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Feurer, R., Chaharbaghi, K., Wargin, J.: Developing creative teams for operational excellence. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 16, 5–18 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fincham, R., Rhodes, P.: Principles of organizational behavior, 4th edn. Londres, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Galbraith, J.R.: Designing organizations: strategy, structure, and process at the business unit and enterprise levels, 3rd ed. Wiley, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gladstein, D.L.: Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness. Adm. Sci. Q. 29, 499–517 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jex, S.M., Britt, T.W.: Organizational psychology: a scientist-practitioner approach, 3rd ed. Wiley, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson, P., Heimann, V., O’Neill, K.: The “Wonderland” of virtual teams. J. Work. Learn. 13, 24–29 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kayworth, T., Leidner, D.: Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. J. Manag. Inf. 18, 7–40 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kear, K., Chetwynd, F., Jefferis, H.: Social presence in online learning communities: the role of personal profiles. Res. Learn. Technol. 22, 1–15 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., McGuire, T.W.: Social aspects of computer-mediated communication. In: Dunlop, C., Kling, R. (eds.) Computerization and controversy: value conflicts and social choices, pp. 330–349. Harcourt Brace, Boston (1991)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C.B., Tesluk, P.E., McPherson, S.O.: Five challenges to virtual team success.pdf. Acad. Manag. Exec. 16, 67–79 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lewicki, R.J., Bunker, B.B.: Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In: Kramer, R.M., Tyler, T.R. (eds.) Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research, pp. 114–139. SAGE, Thousand Oaks (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lipnack, J., Stamps, J.: Virtual teams: reaching across space, time and organizations with technology. Wiley, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lipnack, J., Stamps, J.: Virtual teams: the new way to work. Virtual teams new W. to Work. Strateg. Leadersh. Vol. 27, pp. 14–19 (1997b)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mathieu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Donsbach, J.S., Alliger, G.M.: A review and integration of team composition models: moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. J. Manag. (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maznevski, M.L., Chudoba, K.M.: Bridging space over time: global virtual-team dynamics and effectiveness. Organ. Sci. 11, 473–492 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McGrath, J.E.: Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): a theory of groups. Small Gr. Res. 22, 147–174 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Miner, F.: Group vs. individual decision making: an investigation of performance measures, decision strategies, and process loss/gains. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 33, 112–124 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Naghavi, M.A.S., Nekoo, A.H., Molladavoodi, A.: Methodology for software development as organizational creativity factor. African J. Bus. Manag. 6, 8050–8054 (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nemiro, J.E.: Connection in creative virtual teams. J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 2, 92–95 (2001)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nemiro, J.E.: The creative process of virtual teams. Creat. Res. J. 14, 69–84 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nemiro, J.E.: Creativity in virtual teams: key components for success. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San Fran-cisco (2004)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nunes, S.T., Consultant, S., Osho, G.S., Nealy, C.: The impact of human interaction on the development of virtual teams. J. Bus. Econ. Res. 2, 95–100 (2004)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    O’Hara-Devereaux, M., Johansen, R.: Global work: bridging distance, culture, and time. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1994)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Potter, R.E., Cooke, R.A., Balthazard, P.A.: Virtual team interaction: assessment, consequences, and management. Team Perform. Manag. 6, 131–137 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Prince, G.M.: The practices of creativity. In: Thorne, P. (Ed.) Organizing genius. Blackwell Business, Oxford (1992)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Raghuram, S., Garud, R., Wiesenfeld, B., Gupta, V.: Factors contributing to virtual work adjustment. J. Manag. 27, 383–405 (2001)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rickards, T., Chen, M.-H., Moger, S.: Development of a self-report instrument for exploring team factor, leadership and performance relationships. Br. J. Manag. 12, 243–250 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Robbins, S.P.: Comportamiento organizacional, 10th edn. Pearson Educación, México (2004)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Short, J., Williams, E., Christie, B.: The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Smagt, T. van der: Enhancing virtual teams: social relations v. communication technology. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 100, 148–156 (2000)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Smolensky, E.D., Kleiner, B.H.: How to train people to think more creatively. Manag. Dev. Rev. 8, 28–33 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Solomon, C.M.: Managing virtual teams. Workforce 80, 60–64 (2001)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sundstrom, E., De Mouse, K.P., Futrell, D.: Work teams. Am. Psychol. 45, 120–133 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tohidi, H.: Teamwork productivity and effectiveness in an organization base on rewards, leadership, training, goals, wage, size, motivation, measurement and information technology. Procedia Comput. Sci. 3, 1137–1146 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    VanGundy, A.B.: Idea power. AMACOM, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Walker, J.W.: E-leadership? Hum. Resour. Plan. 23, 5–6 (2000)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Walther, J.B.: Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Hum. Commun. Res. 23, 1–43 (1996)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Walther, J.B.: Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Hum. Commun. Res. 23, 342–369 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    West, M.A.: The social psychology of innovation in groups. In: West, M.A., Farr, J.L. (eds.) Innovation and creativity at work, pp. 309–322. Wiley, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Young, K.S., Nabuco de Abreu, C.: Internet addiction: a handbook and guide to evaluation and treatment (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teresa Torres Coronas
    • 1
  • Mario Arias Oliva
    • 1
  • Juan Carlos Yáñez Luna
    • 2
  • Ana María Lara Palma
    • 3
  1. 1.Universitat Rovira i VirgiliTarragonaSpain
  2. 2.Universidad Autónoma de San Luis PotosíSan Luis PotosíMexico
  3. 3.Universidad de BurgosBurgosSpain

Personalised recommendations