Communication in virtual teams

Human Resource Management Review 27 (2017) 575–589

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/humres

Communication in virtual teams: a conceptual framework and research agenda Shannon L. Marlow, Christina N. Lacerenza, Eduardo Salas ⁎ Rice University, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: Virtual teams Teamwork Team processes Communication

a b s t r a c t As virtual teams are becoming more frequently implemented within organizations, research examining the effect of virtual tool use on team functioning has correspondingly expanded. One primary focus of this literature is the impact of virtuality on team communication. However, findings remained mixed. Specifically, the impact of virtuality on the mechanisms between communication and performance as well as the simultaneous moderating effect of contextual factors on this relationship remains to be fully examined. One reason for this lack of clarity stems from ambiguity regarding the elements that constitute communication. To address this gap, this paper delineates which aspects of communication are most influential and should, consequently, be the primary focus of future research efforts. An overarching framework of the communication process with accompanying research propositions is also described to inform future research and the practice of virtual teams. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction To remain competitive and contend with increasingly demanding cognitive tasks (Ilgen, 1994), organizations implement teams across a diverse range of fields (Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999). As teams have become more prevalent within organizations, research examining contributors to team effectiveness has grown at a rapid rate. Communication is a team process that is consistently identified as enhancing team performance, as it facilitates the development of integral team processes and outcomes in a fashion distinct from other pertinent team variables (e.g., Espevik, Johnsen, Eid, & Thayer, 2006; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Consequently, the relationship between team communication and performance has been frequently assessed within the literature (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005). However, as teams research has grown rapidly, disparate streams of research assessing these relationships have emerged that have yet to be linked. Team communication is often conceptualized and defined in different manners (Stout, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 1994); however, team communication studies are frequently discussed in tandem with other studies, despite measuring communication in different ways. This contributes to inconsistent findings and a less nuanced understanding of this construct and its relationship with team performance. The strength of the relationship between information sharing and performance has been demonstrated to be contingent upon how information sharing is defined (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009); we suggest it is similarly necessary to distinguish between different forms of communication, a broader, related construct which subsumes information sharing. More specifically, it is necessary to delineate which features of communication are integral to team functioning and thus should serve as the primary focus of most research.

⁎ Corresponding author at: Rice University, Sewall Hall 464, Houston, TX 77005, Rice University. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Salas).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.005 1053-4822/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

576

S.L. Marlow et al. / Human Resource Management Review 27 (2017) 575–589

Another problem plaguing this literature is the emergence of new challenges which alter the way teams communicate. Recent advances in technological capabilities that have facilitated communication across distance and time have allowed organizations to more frequently utilize virtual teams (Leonard, 2011; Lepsinger, 2011). Paralleling the increasing prevalence of virtual teams, the effect of virtuality on team communication has received a high focus in the literature, as one intrinsic difference between virtual teams and traditional, collocated teams is the method of communication (Hertel et al., 2005). Specifically, highly virtual teams communicate primarily via virtual tools (e.g., e-mail, instant messaging; Gibson & Cohen, 2003). This has been argued to be detrimental to various team outcomes and early studies in this area generally sought to confirm this; however, more recent studies have begun to indicate that this relationship may be more complex than initially postulated (e.g., Mesmer-Magnus, DeChurch, Jimenez-Rodriguez, Wildman, & Shuffler, 2011). Consequently, there is a need to bridge older studies with the newer body of literature, and utilize relevant theory to explain any discrepancies between findings. To address these identified gaps, we integrate the present literature by organizing it around an overarching framework intended to inform future research. 2. A conceptual framework of communication in virtual teams The proposed conceptual model (Fig. 1) is predicated upon the input–mediator–output–input framework (IMOI) described by Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, and Jundt (2005), in which we conceptualize communication as a team process. The IMOI model extends the input–process–output (IPO) model (Hackman, 1987; McGrath, 1984; Steiner, 1972) by accounting for interactions among inputs and processes or other aspects of the model as such relationships have been extensively documented in salient research (e.g., Colquitt, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, LePine, & Sheppard, 2002). In the following section, we describe each element of the framework, beginning by discussing the communication component. Specifically, we review the literature in the area of virtual teams and identify the most significant elements of communication. Accompanying the description of this framework are relevant propositions. 2.1. Team communication: unpacking the black box One of the defining features of virtual teams is that communication primarily occurs through virtual tools (Gibson & Cohen, 2003). Consequently, researchers have sought to quantify the effect that this has on team processes and outcomes. One common finding is that virtual teams take longer to complete tasks (e.g., Graetz, Boyle, Kimble, Thompson, & Garloch, 1998; Hollingshead, 1996; Straus, 1996). Researchers note that this stems from a variety of issues, such as the time delay associated with utilizing virtual tools and the asynchronous nature of some virtual tools (Malhotra, Majchrzak, Carman, & Lott, 2001). A potential issue within this area of study is inconsistent and inconclusive findings. For example, research assessing communication content, rather than communication volume, has produced mixed findings. Hiltz, Johnson, and Turoff (1986) found that virtual teams generally focused more on exchanging taskoriented communication than face-to-face teams. Conversely, Bordia, Difonzo, and Chang (1999) demonstrated that communication content was not different, in terms of task focus, between virtual and face-to-face teams. However, Bordia et al. (1999) note that their findings are “suggestive” (p. 26), rather than conclusive, as they did not include a formal comparison between computer mediated groups and face-to-face groups. Martins, Gilson, and Maynard (2004) suggested that one reason for inconsistent findings pertaining to virtual teams is the manner in which virtuality is conceptualized. Initially, researchers often conceptualized virtuality as a categorical variable, with teams classified as either virtual or face-to-face (e.g., Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). Martins et al. (2004) noted that, as initial studies primarily took place in laboratory settings with student participants, this was appropriate but, as focus has since shifted to familiar teams in organizational settings, more suitable conceptualizations of virtuality have begun to be adapted. Specifically, researchers have since

Fig. 1. Proposed communication process framework in virtual teams.


577

denounced the dichotomous classification scheme as too simplistic and have instead begun arguing that virtuality should be defined as existing on a continuum (e.g., Griffith & Neale, 2001; Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005). More recent efforts have attempted to disentangle the impact of various moderators. A recent review synthesized studies assessing virtual and face-to-face teams on a number of outcomes and processes, concluding that one primary reason for inconsistent findings stems from the nature of the study (Purvanova, 2014). Specifically, Purvanova (2014) noted that studies conducted in laboratory settings generally suggested that virtual teams communicated less frequently, shared less knowledge, and showed decreased levels of performance as compared to face-to-face teams. Conversely, studies utilizing highly virtual teams in field settings indicated that performance levels were similar to face-to-face teams; Purvanova (2014) suggested that this may arise as a function of familiarity, with familiarity mitigating the negative impact of virtuality. Other recent efforts also indicate that moderators, such as study setting, explain the inconclusive findings in this literature. Specifically, a recent meta-analysis indicated that the impact of virtuality on the relationship between information sharing and performance is contingent upon the type of information shared (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2011). Despite these recent studies, work exploring the effect of additional moderating factors remains nascent. In part, this stems from the necessity of conducting field, as well as laboratory studies, to further understanding. As the trend of assessing the impact of virtuality has been elicited by the rise of virtual teams working in organizational settings (Leonard, 2011; Lepsinger, 2011), research should correspondingly examine virtual teams in field settings, in addition to using laboratory-based studies. Thus, research in this domain, as a whole, has illuminated some sources of inconsistencies but has not yet fully illuminated the effect of all extraneous variables. To address this gap, we describe an overarching framework predicated upon relevant theory and scientific evidence. However, as communication is a broad construct, it is first important to identify the most integral features. At a high level, researchers agree that team communication can be conceptualized as the exchange of messages between two or more members of the team (Adams, 2007). It is recognized as an integral team process because it enables the development and sustainment of other team processes that contribute to enhanced team performance, such as coordination and team monitoring (Gibson, 2001; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). However, Stout et al. (1994) argued that the relationship identified between communication and performance has varied because of the manner in which communication has been conceptualized. As communication is such a broad construct, different forms or aspects of communication are utilized and/or discussed in isolation, without reference to other communication elements even though all aspects are ultimately intertwined. To address this gap, we discuss the different aspects of communication that are most necessary for achieving targeted outcomes and are of particular relevance to the study of virtual teams. Among these identified elements, we include frequency, quality, and the content of communication, as summarized in Table 1. 2.1.1. Communication frequency One common manner in which team communication has been measured is through frequency or volume of communication over a variety of communication modes (e.g., e-mail, face-to-face interaction). Marks, Zaccaro, and Mathieu (2000) highlighted the necessity of distinguishing between communication frequency and other aspects of communication, as a prevalent finding within the literature is that a higher frequency of team communication is not always related to increased team performance; some teams are able to demonstrate effective performance under complex conditions despite limited opportunities to communicate with other team members (Entin & Serfaty, 1999). Moreover, familiar teams have been found to achieve a higher degree of performance than unfamiliar teams despite exchanging less information (Espeviket al., 2006). Researchers have suggested that familiar teams are able to perform effectively, even in the absence of overt communication, due to the presence of shared cognition (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993; Entin & Serfaty, 1999). This understanding enables team members to behave and contribute to the task in a manner that is compatible with their teammates; it further allows team members to understand how other team members may respond to various scenarios, despite being unable to communicate (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). Consequently, communication frequency is argued to not necessarily be required for high team performance. For example, Desanctis and Monge (1998), synthesizing relevant literature, found that when communication is conducted solely via electronic means communication frequency may increase, relative to face-to-face teams, while efficiency decreases; virtual teams may thus need to spend more time determining how to decrease irrelevant communication. However, communication frequency is recognized to serve an integral role in team development and functioning, especially in the beginning of a team's life cycle. Initially, communication frequency is argued to contribute to the development of several team processes because, as more Table 1 Elements of communication as identified in the literature. Construct name

Definition

Related citation

Communication frequency Communication quality Communication timeliness Closed-loop communication

Volume of communication over any communication modes Clarity, effectiveness, accuracy, and completeness of communication Extent to which communication is provided or received in a timely manner (a) A team member sends a message, (b) another team member receives the message, and (c) the original team member sent the message follows up to ensure it was received and understood Either task-oriented (i.e., communication focused on task completion) or relational-oriented (i.e., communication of an interpersonal nature)

Marks et al. (2000) González-Romá and Hernández (2014) Warkentin et al. (1997) McIntyre and Salas (1995)

Communication content

Keyton (1997)

578


interactions among team members occur, there are increased opportunities for team members to make beneficial contributions to collective understanding, and this can increase overall team functioning (Monge & Contractor, 2003). However, despite the noted importance of frequent communication, we suggest that an unusually high volume of team communication may hinder team processes and performance in highly virtual teams and that communication quality is, on the whole, more important. Meta-analytic evidence suggests that open communication, which can be conceptualized as an aspect of communication quality, significantly predicts team performance within virtual teams (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009), but we suggest that an overabundance of unnecessary shared information may result in cognitive overload, thereby decreasing performance (Chandler & Sweller, 1991). According to cognitive load theory (CLT; Sweller, Van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998), individuals have a limited working memory capacity and when this is met, learning and processing are impaired. That is, once an individuals' cognitive load reaches a certain threshold, processing—and therefore performance—is limited. Similarly, Miller (1956) suggests that there is an optimal amount of novel information that can be processed by an individual. It has been argued that hypermedia increases cognitive load (e.g., Eveland & Dunwoody, 2001); therefore, as virtuality increases, the baseline level of cognitive load required of team members may correspondingly increase. Moreover, as discussed earlier, Desanctis and Monge (1998) suggested that as communication volume increases within virtual teams, performance may decrease as a function of too much irrelevant information detracting from necessary information exchange. This impact may be exacerbated as the level of virtuality increases, as a high frequency of communication is likely to take the form of a high volume of e-mails or a high volume of messages via another virtual method. Sorting through these e-mails may result in a high degree of information overload (Schultz & Vandenbosch, 1998). Conversely, verbal communication in less virtual teams is likely to take the form of verbally spoken sentences, which we suggest can be more easily disregarded as needed. As such, we argue that the greater the amount of communication interactions, the greater the cognitive load level; we further suggest that this is exacerbated within highly virtual teams. A high number of communication interactions within a highly virtual team may hinder performance to a greater degree than within less virtual teams because of the modalities through which communication occurs (e.g., email) and the extra effort required to contend with a high volume of messages in this context. Based on this, we posit: Proposition 1. Virtuality moderates the relationship between frequent communication and team processes and outcomes, such that the negative relationship is stronger in more virtual teams than in less virtual teams.

2.1.2. Another common way of examining team communication is to measure communication Another common way of examining team communication is to measure communication quality, which we argue has a much greater impact on team outcomes than other elements of team communication. Consequently, we emphasize the role of communication quality, over frequency, within this framework. Frequency cannot be disregarded because it is an inherent part of the communication process, but we suggest that communication quality is more significant to the study of virtual teams and teams in general. Communication quality can be defined as “the extent to which communication among team members is clear, effective, complete, fluent, and on time,” (González-Romá & Hernández, 2014, p. 1046). In other words, communication frequency refers to how much communication occurs among team members whereas communication quality refers to the degree to which the communication among team members is accurate and understood. Clearly, it is difficult to disentangle communication frequency and quality, but it is important to note that these are two common manners in which team communication may be measured; correspondingly, results may differ according to the approach to operationalization that is undertaken. For example, we argue that high quality communication, regardless of the frequency of the communication, can further the development of shared understanding. Shared cognition is posited to develop as a function of team communication, as the sharing of information among team members can develop and reinforce shared beliefs and understandings regarding team roles and responsibilities (Macmillan, Entin, & Serfaty, 2004). These arguments seem to encompass communication quality, as a high exchange of irrelevant information will not further shared understanding whereas sharing information that is relevant to tasks and/or teamwork, can increase shared understanding. In other words, we argue that high quality communication, regardless of quantity, leads to a clarification of what and how events and contributions to interdependent tasks should take place, allowing for smoother overall functioning and better performance. This understanding eventually enables team members to interdependently work without communication, conserving cognitive resources and contributing to heightened team effectiveness (MacMillan et al., 2004). However, it is important to define precisely what high quality communication entails. We suggest that communication timeliness and closed-loop communication represent two facets of communication quality. Communication timeliness is particularly salient to virtual team interaction, as communication may be asynchronous in such teams (Warkentin & Beranek, 1999). For example, team members may be in different time zones (Holton, 2001) and consequently, one team member may receive an e-mail much later than it was sent from another individual on the team. Opportunities to interact in real-time may also be limited in this context (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). This can have a negative impact on team functioning; this aspect may contribute to the consistent finding that it takes virtual team members longer to accomplish tasks than face-to-face teams (e.g., Cappel & Windsor, 2000; Graetz et al., 1998; Hollingshead, 1996). Moreover, Kayworth and Leidner (2000) noted that delays in communication might be especially detrimental to planning and coordination processes in virtual teams. More specifically pinpointing potential sources of teamwork deficiencies associated with time delayed communication, Malhotra et al. (2001) noted that team members may be working on other tasks while simultaneously participating in teamwork interactions due to the asynchronous nature of communication media, thus dividing attention between activities and not fully investing in any of the tasks. We posit that communication timeliness has more of an impact on the performance of highly virtual teams because of this issue.


579

Communication timeliness is unlikely to vary as much as within teams that can meet face-to-face at any time; consequently, it is important to consider this aspect of communication, especially as pertaining to virtual teams, and we posit: Proposition 2. Virtuality moderates the relationship between communication timeliness and performance such that this relationship is stronger in more virtual teams than in less virtual teams. Another important aspect of communication quality includes the original sender following up and ensuring that the message was ultimately both received and understood. This is the definition of closed-loop communication which is comprised of three parts: (a) a team member sends a message, (b) another team member receives the message, interprets it, and subsequently acknowledges its receipt, and (c) the original team member who sent the message follows up to ensures it was received and understood (McIntyre & Salas, 1995). These elements are integral to reducing misunderstanding among team members and are especially salient to virtual teams, given the additional challenges they face in communicating. In general, presented information is argued to be misinterpreted or misunderstood due to differences in perspectives (Bandow, 2001). The possibility of misunderstanding is posited to increase in a more virtual setting, given the potential cultural differences and values of team members, which may lead to widely differing understandings of any given issue (Kayworth & Leidner, 2000). Moreover, the difficulties inherent to communicating via virtual tools present additional opportunities for communication problems; virtual teams may experience technological issues such as delayed audio or experience difficulties associated with interpreting text without the advantage of also hearing an accompanying verbal tone (Cramton, 2001). We suggest that closed-loop communication can mitigate some of these problems associated with high virtuality. If team members ensure that pertinent information was both received and understood by other members of the team, they will uncover more opportunities to clarify communication and subsequently improve team functioning. Face-to-face teams may inherently clarify misunderstanding, as it may be easier to ascertain, when receiving information in the form of vocal tone and nonverbal gestures (Cramton, 2001), whether communication is understood. But in highly virtual teams, opportunities for clarification may be less prevalent. For example, if an exchange is occurring via email, it may be more difficult to determine whether the information within the email was understood as vocal and nonverbal cues are absent. We suggest that closed-loop communication may alleviate the issue of misunderstanding in virtual teams by providing opportunities for clarification that would otherwise not accompany virtual communication; we further argue that ensuring communication is accurate and understood will contribute to enhanced performance in such teams. Therefore, we posit: Proposition 3. Virtuality moderates the relationship between closed-loop communication and performance such that this relationship is stronger in more virtual teams than in less virtual teams.

2.1.3. Communication content Communication within teams is argued to generally take two forms, as pertaining to content: task-oriented interaction (i.e., communication focused on task completion) and relational interaction (i.e., communication of an interpersonal nature) (Keyton, 1997). Although task focused communication is necessary for exchanging pertinent details for task completion, it has been argued that communication of a more interpersonal nature can foster integral affective states such as cohesion and trust (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). Although media richness theory posits that media without cues capable of conveying information such as warmth (e.g., tone) will inhibit relationship development (Daft & Lengel, 1986), studies consistently indicate that virtual teams are capable of sharing relational information via virtual tools (Adler, 1995; Chidambaram, 1996; Walther, 1995) which may strengthen affective states such as trust (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). Yet, few studies have extensively examined how communication content may impact various team outcomes. Thus, we mention communication content, like frequency, as an inherent part of the communication process that should be examined in future work. 2.2. Inputs The inputs in this model refer to characteristics of the team that influence how and when individual team members will engage in team communication. Kozlowski and Klein (2000) suggested that multilevel phenomenon, such as team processes, emerge as a function of individual characteristics and dynamic social interactions. Consistent with this view, we posit that team diversity, encompassing a wide range of individual differences among team members, serves as an input; team diversity can facilitate or inhibit the communication process. We believe this factor is highly salient to the study of virtual teams, consistent with other researchers who have focused on aspects of this construct (e.g., Arnison & Miller, 2002; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). 2.2.1. Team diversity A common thread across the study of virtual teams is the prevalence of highly diverse teams, characterized by a unique composition of individual differences such as different values, genders, beliefs, ethnicities, cultures, and experiences (Gibson & Cohen, 2003). These differences are posited to influence both team processes and outcomes (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). This is so prevalent that some researchers have conceptualized virtuality as including diversity (e.g., Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014); team diversity is a broad term subsumed by individual differences and has been defined as the heterogeneity of team member characteristics and is typically aggregated to the team level when studied (Chen & Lin, 2004). It encompasses a variety of differences including surface level (e.g., gender) and deep-level (e.g., beliefs) attributes (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998). However, results regarding the relationship

580


between team diversity and performance have been mixed. Team diversity has been found to both positively and negatively influence performance, which is suggested to stem from differing conceptual definitions and operationalizations of this construct as well as numerous moderators influencing results (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007). However, significant progress has been made in identifying the manner in which team diversity may impact performance and how different conditions affect the impact of this variable. For example, one study indicated that perceived diversity mediated the relationship between team diversity and team effectiveness (Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002). We further suggest that team communication is another mechanism through which this relationship can be explained. Specifically, variations in terms of culture, language, knowledge, and backgrounds are associated with a lack of common understanding (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007), which may negatively influence performance. We posit that this ultimately stems from communication difficulties pertaining to both communication quality and frequency, as those in highly diverse teams are likely to speak less (Zenger & Lawrence, 1989), providing fewer opportunities to clarify any misunderstandings. Similarly, Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, and De Dreu (2007) suggested that team members with diverse information will perform better as a function of exchanging more information or, conversely, exhibit poor levels of performance if team members fail to exchange information and must rely on their limited perspectives alone. We augment this argument by suggesting that team members who differ in regards to other facets, in addition to information diversity (e.g., cultural diversity, personality), must exchange more accurate information (i.e., engage in high quality communication) to reconcile differing approaches to task completion and other aspects of performance. In other words, team diversity can facilitate high levels of performance if high quality communication occurs because integrating and understanding unique team member perspectives may provide valuable insight into achieving higher levels of performance. However, if communication quality is low, individuals may struggle to coordinate their work with team members due to a lack of understanding, especially pertaining to different aspects of the task. We further argue that this effect is exacerbated in teams with a low degree of virtuality. Specifically, we suggest that as virtuality increases, team members must learn to utilize other team processes (e.g., coordination) to incorporate other team members' ideas and facilitate team performance. A ubiquitous theme throughout the virtual teams literature is the idea that teams with a high degree of virtuality may encounter communication difficulties due to the restrictions of communicating solely via virtual tools (e.g., lack of vocal tone and nonverbal cues) (Cramton, 2001). This argument evokes the quality aspect of communication. As previously stated, a high degree of diversity in various characteristics (e.g., gender, cultural background) may result in unique viewpoints that allow for novel approaches to the task; this can generate higher levels of performance. However, this process may manifest somewhat differently as virtuality increases. We argue that those in conditions of low virtuality may simply discuss and incorporate opposing viewpoints leveraging face-to-face communication, which is posited to be of a higher quality (Cramton, 2001); yet team members in highly virtual teams may not leverage discussion as a tool as often, and when they employ discussion the communication quality may be impaired due to the restrictions outlined above. Thus, such teams may use other processes, such as coordination, to incorporate these viewpoints. For example, highly virtual teams may notice a team member has contributed to the task in a novel manner, and follow suit without using overt communication to describe this process. They may simply adapt their existing conceptualization of the task (i.e., mental model) to better suit the new approach their teammate is taking. In contrast, teams with a low level of virtuality that can meet often to discuss differences may fully rely on high quality communication to make sense of the advantages and disadvantages associated with a high degree of diversity. Accordingly, we posit: Proposition 4. Within face-to-face teams, communication quality fully mediates the relationship between team diversity and team performance. In highly virtual teams, this relationship is only partially mediated by communication quality.

2.3. Emergent states In addition to the above noted inputs and team processes, emergent states signify critical phenomena within virtual team; emergent states are dynamic functions engendered by team context, inputs, processes, and outputs (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Emergent states develop as a result of team member interactions (i.e., communication), and because they can be the mechanism through which team inputs and processes lead to team outcomes (Marks et al., 2001), we include them in our model of virtual team communication. Generally speaking, team emergent states are typically classified as belonging to cognitive, motivational, or affective categories of team states (Marks et al., 2001). Although each class contains fundamental states, the extant literature suggests that trust and cognition represent the most proximal emergent states to virtual team communication. The development of such emergent states is argued to pose a particular challenge for virtual teams (e.g., Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluck, & McPherson, 2002). This is because emergent states are highly contextually bound and dynamic in nature (Marks et al., 2001) and become definite through shared team experiences and the passage of time, both of which highly virtual teams traditionally lack (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). 2.3.1. Trust Trust is considered to be “the glue of the global workplace” (Kirkman et al., 2002, p. 69; O'Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994, p. 243), and this extends to virtual teams. Collective, or team, trust refers to “a common belief among a group of individuals that another individual or group (a) makes good-faith efforts to behave in accordance with any commitments both explicit or implicit, (b) is honest in whatever negotiations preceded such commitments, and (c) does not take excessive advantage of another


581

even when the opportunity is available.” (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996, p. 303). Despite many researchers and practitioners denoting it as posing the greatest challenge to virtual teams (e.g., Kirkman et al., 2002), initial research suggests trust may actually be more integral as virtuality increases. Its importance among virtual team members is a direct result of the nature of virtual teams: a lack of face-to-face meeting time, short team lifespan, reliance on technology-mediated communication, and the inability to communicate in real time, which negatively impacts communication quality (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Lipnack & Stamps, 1999; Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001; Martins et al., 2004). As stated by Jarvenpaa and Ives (1994), “virtuality requires trust to make it work” (p. 44). Specifically, in virtual teams, a high degree of trust reduces concerns among team members in regards to whether individuals will complete their individual responsibilities and enables team members to be dependent upon one another in obtaining the team's collective goal (Greenberg, Greenberg, & Antonucci, 2007). The elements contributing to the importance of the establishment of trust within virtual teams, such as impaired communication quality, are also the direct causes of why creating trust among virtual team members is so difficult (Greenberg et al., 2007). For example, Greenberg et al. (2007) note that within highly virtual teams, team members are less likely to establish interpersonal, high quality relationships with one another due to the inability to hold casual conversations. Such informal discussions, characterized by relational-oriented communication, and meet-ups can lead to the formation of a collective identity, group norms, and a sense of belonging among team members (Greenberg et al., 2007). Additionally, because team members in highly virtual teams are likely to reside in various time zones, the establishment of trust may be inhibited due to the fact that team members will be working at opposite times (Gibson & Cohen, 2003); consequently, team members may feel a disruption in trust if they do not receive a timely reply from their teammate. In line with empirical evidence, we argue that within virtual teams, high quality communication, especially of an interpersonal nature, may combat barriers to trust establishment and this establishment of trust will lead to desired team outcomes (e.g., team performance). In a qualitative research study conducted by Holton (2001), it was concluded that virtual teams engaging in frequent communication dialogues developed mutual trust and shared understanding. Moreover, according to Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1998), predictable and timely communication, in line with our conceptualization of communication quality, preserves and maintains trust among virtual team members throughout the team lifecycle. Sporadic communication can lead to team members questioning whether others are still invested in the team's efforts and reduce confidence amongst team members. Additionally, it was suggested that team members can combat a potential reduction in trust by forewarning team members if they will be unable to communicate regularly for a period of time (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). Moreover, in an empirical study by Rocco (1998), results suggested that teams engaging in face-to-face communication during team inception were better able to develop trust among team members. A face-to-face meeting, which can be argued to allow for high quality communication (Cramton, 2001), allows for group identification to take place as well as the more effective establishment of group norms and trust. Researchers also suggest that establishing communication rules early on, such as by allowing for an initial face-to-face meeting, increases the amount of trust among virtual team members (Walther & Bunz, 2005). Specifically, Walther and Bunz (2005) described communication rules that emphasize fostering communication quality and frequency. For example, one rule specifies that team members should “overtly acknowledge that you have read one another's messages” (p. 834), which we categorize as an aspect of closed-loop communication and, ultimately, communication quality. However, it remains unclear whether certain communication patterns, and which elements of communication (i.e., communication quality, frequency, and content), are most ideal for trust development within this context. This stems from the confounding nature of these communication aspects. For example, it is unknown whether encouraging relational communication among virtual team members is equally as effective in fostering early trust as scheduling an initial face-to-face meeting characterized by high quality communication. These two communication patterns are not mutually exclusive; it is therefore difficult to determine which aspect of communication may be more significant for trust development. This is just one example; other communication patterns may function similarly in trust development. In sum, research suggests that establishing effective communication early in a team's life cycle, especially via a face-to-face exchange, can foster trust within teams. The empirical evidence outlined above further suggests that all of the aspects of communication we have identified, including frequency, quality, and communication content that is relationaloriented, is integral for trust development. We further suggest that this is especially critical in teams with a higher degree of virtuality. As previously discussed, highly virtual teams may suffer from communication that is lower in quality. Teams with a low degree of virtuality may be able to better consult with team members about perceived problems or questions pertinent to task completion by incorporating nonverbal and vocal tone cues into their exchanges. We also suggest that verifying that messages were received and following up to ascertain whether the message was understood, which constitutes engaging in closed-loop communication, is less cumbersome when communication is conducted in person. For example, when a communication exchange occurs via email, it may take additional effort to remember to complete that exchange by composing further emails or to remember that a previous email about the task was even sent. In contrast, it can be more immediately gauged whether a message is understood when communications are occurring face-to-face, thus enhancing communication quality. In a highly virtual team, a misunderstood email may thus remain unaddressed and if one team member does not further the exchange, task-relevant information may not be received and one of the team members may perceive that the other team member is not fulfilling their responsibilities due to a lack of trust. Thus, it is critical that effective trust is established early on to prevent misunderstandings from negatively impacting performance. Instead of relying on different elements of communication to resolve problems, we suggest that team members in a highly virtual team will have to leverage trust in the team to make sense of any perceived conflicts or problems; otherwise, problems or misunderstandings related to the team or task stemming from unclear or untimely (i.e., low

582


quality) communication may be interpreted as stemming from another team member and this may negatively impact performance. Accordingly, we posit: Proposition 5. Virtuality moderates the relationship between early trust and performance, such that this relationship is stronger in more virtual teams than in less virtual teams. Proposition 6. The development of trust within teams is moderated by the amount of initial face-to-face interactions among team members, such that trust develops to a greater degree in teams that have an initial face-to-face meeting.

2.3.2. Cognition Team cognition is a critical emergent state, as it arises from the interactions among team members (Marks et al., 2001). Team cognition refers to information shared by all team members relating to the team and task (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). There are two main categories of team cognition: transactive memory systems (TMS) and shared mental models (SMM). TMS refers to a shared system for encoding, storing, and retrieving information among team members (Wegner, 1987) whereas SMM are collective knowledge structures encompassing the task and team relevant knowledge that each member provides to the team (CannonBowers et al., 1993). The development of team cognition leads to more effective team processes. This has been supported via meta-analytic (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010) and empirical (e.g., Smith-Jentsch, Kraiger, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 2009) studies. Research also suggests that teams sharing collective knowledge about task-related information, goals, roles, responsibilities, and team interaction techniques will perform better than those who do not possess SMMs of these concepts (e.g., DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010). Generally, team cognition has been recognized as a strong predictor of team performance, and a recent meta-analysis by DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus (2010) found a moderately strong relationship (ρ = 0.38) between team cognition and team performance. Although the importance of team cognition translates to virtual teams (i.e., virtual teams displaying team cognition will perform better than those that do not), research suggests that virtual teams may not be able to develop this emergent state to the same degree that traditional teams can because of distinct inherent team characteristics (Griffith & Neale, 2001; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007). First, the communication patterns within virtual teams differ from that of traditional teams as they do not engage in lengthy amounts of face-to-face communication. One way teams develop team cognition is through task-oriented, face-to-face communication high in quality (Lewis, 2003); therefore, the development of team cognition amongst virtual teams is inhibited. Second, the sharing and coordination of knowledge, another critical component to team cognition development, is also lacking within virtual teams as team members are typically dispersed geographically, located in different time zones and countries, and are often comprised of members of various organizations (Martins et al., 2004; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). Thirdly, virtual teams also display an absence of fluid communication patterns, or low quality communication, which may pose a challenge to the development of team cognition (Olson, Teasley, Covi, & Olson, 2002). Fourth, research suggests that team cognition develops at a slower rate in virtual teams as compared to traditional teams (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007). Moreover, because most virtual teams work together on a specific project and disband relatively quickly (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002), they may not work together long enough to develop strong team cognition. Lastly, virtuality may impede a team's ability to engage in team processes necessary to foster team cognition (i.e., backup behavior; Marks et al., 2001). Due to the challenges associated with team cognition development within virtual teams, such teams might be less likely to hold strong levels of this emergent state. Therefore, we argue that the relationship between cognition and performance may be weaker in highly virtual teams as compared to traditional teams. In other words, virtual teams lack or have weak team cognition; thus, their performance cannot be explained by team cognition to the same degree that it is in face-to-face teams. Subsequently, we further suggest that cognition cannot develop as effectively in highly virtual teams as it can in teams that have a lower degree of virtuality and can incorporate face-to-face meetings to mitigate the potentially negative effect of virtual communication on overall understanding. Highly virtual teams will thus have to rely on other team processes to facilitate team performance. Therefore, we suggest: Proposition 7. Virtuality moderates the relationship between cognition and performance, such that this relationship is weaker in more virtual teams than in less virtual teams. 2.4. Team and task characteristics It is largely unclear how certain factors can mitigate or enhance different elements of communication and its relationship to pertinent team outcomes within highly virtual teams. Although initial work has primarily focused on the effect of task type (e.g., Straus & McGrath, 1994), we identify additional factors that are likely to influence virtual team communication and performance, as informed by the extant literature, in the aim of guiding future work. Specifically, we posit that team and task characteristics should all be examined in future studies. 2.4.1. Team characteristics There is substantial evidence that team and task characteristics can impact a variety of team processes and outcomes (e.g., Abbott, Boyd, & Miles, 2006; DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010). We leverage this research documenting the influential nature of team


583

characteristics on team processes to posit that team characteristics influence the relationship between team communication and performance, particularly within virtual teams. Thylefors, Persson, and Hellström (2005) suggested that dividing teams into separate categories based on the nature of task type is too simplistic an approach and posited that teams can be described by their characteristics, rather than divided into disparate categories. To address this divide, Wildman et al. (2012) synthesized taxonomies describing team type and team characteristics to delineate a more parsimonious framework. We utilize the most salient features of this taxonomy to describe the impact of team characteristics on the relationship between team communication and performance. Specifically, we identify task interdependence and virtuality as potential moderators of the relationship between communication and performance. Team interdependence refers to “the extent to which outcomes of the team members are influenced by, or depend on, the actions of others” (Wildman et al., 2012, p. 115). Saavedra, Earley, and Dyne (1993) delineated specific categories of interdependence, including pooled, sequential, reciprocal, and intensive task interdependence. The definition of interdependence suggests that a higher degree of interdependence necessitates more frequent communication among team members to achieve targeted outcomes (e.g., Saavedra et al., 1993). Within highly interdependent teams, individual team member responsibilities are reliant upon others, thereby increasing the need for effective communication amongst team members. When interdependence is pooled, team members can work separately, with less frequent team communication, and still achieve a high degree of performance. In the case of sequential interdependence, more frequent communication may be necessary to ensure that members understand when each part of the task is completed and they can begin their portion of contribution. As reciprocal interdependence necessitates a continuous tradeoff of work and intensive interdependence entails jointly working on a task, more communication is inherently necessary to achieve high performance under these conditions. Similarly, Dechurch and Mesmer-Magnus (2010) noted that as teams are required to work more as a unit than as an individual, they become more reliant on other members for resources (Wageman, 1995) and interaction (Van de Ven & Ferry, 1980). They found that when interdependence was high, the relationship between cognition and performance was strengthened. Research also demonstrates that interdependence impacts relationships between other team-level variables in a similar manner. For example, consistent support has been found for the moderating influence of interdependence on the relationship between collective efficacy and team performance, such that it is stronger when interdependence is higher (Gully, Joshi, Incalcaterra, & Beaubien, 2002; Stajkovic, Lee, & Nyberg, 2009). Additionally, research suggests that the link between cohesion and performance is strengthened as a result of high task interdependence (Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995). These findings, as a whole, suggest that as interdependence increases, various team behaviors and emergent states become increasingly important for achieving high performance amongst team members. We extend this argument to encompass the degree of virtuality. Specifically, we posit that the relationship between communication and performance within virtual teams is also moderated by interdependence, such that the relationship strengthens as a result of increased interdependence. Despite the noted differences between face-to-face and highly virtual teams (e.g., communication via virtual tools, distributed team members), we expect this relationship to be similar due to the strong influence of interdependence. According to personality researchers, between-person personality variance amongst individuals amidst a strong situation is nonexistent. That is, regardless of an individual's personality disposition, if they are in a strong situation they will be inclined to react in a certain way because norms are in place (Mischel, 1977). Contrastingly, weak situations are argued to not be associated with the onset of certain behaviors (i.e., norms have not been developed); therefore, there will be variance regarding how individuals react in these situations. Drawing from this paradigm, we argue that interdependence is a strong situation because team members hold a shared expectation. Specifically, we suggest that the expectation in place, as in face-to-face teams, is that everyone must contribute in order for the team's goal to be met, and team coordination is critical to attaining individual- and team-level goals. Although the methods by which interdependent virtual team members communicate are different than face-to-face team members, this necessity remains stable. In other words, communication is increasingly critical as interdependence increases, due to the presence of a strong situation which we argue innately implies the need for communication as opposed to a weak situation where it may be unclear whether team contributions, and consequently team communication, are required. Thus, in highly virtual teams, we suggest that, as interdependence increases, communication becomes increasingly important to facilitating high levels of performance. As such, we posit that: Proposition 8. Within virtual teams, interdependence moderates the relationship between communication and performance such that this relationship is stronger in highly interdependent teams than in less interdependent teams. Another important team characteristic to consider is virtuality or specific dimensions of virtuality. Although there has been a recent shift in perspective that categorizes the impact of virtuality on team processes as more complex (e.g., Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2011), virtuality has historically been conceptualized as detrimental to team functioning. Hertel et al. (2005) summarized these arguments, noting that virtuality is argued to negatively influence communication which, in turn, is posited to decrease levels of team performance and other salient team outcomes. These arguments stem from media richness theory, which posits that communication mediums differ in the extent to which they can convey meaningful detail or sufficiently rich information necessary for clear understanding (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Features which are posited to imbue richness include cues (e.g., non-verbal gestures) and synchronicity or quickness of feedback (e.g., feedback will be delayed via e-mail). Arguments that suggest virtuality may impair richness, which can be conceptualized as an aspect of communication quality in our framework, identify several potential obstacles associated with communicating via virtual tools (Hertel et al., 2005). One such obstacle includes the time delay related to communicating via virtual tools such as email; this would negatively impair the timeliness component of communication quality we identified. Cramton (2001) also notes that interpreting written text may be more complicated than deciphering verbal messages, as a lack of clarifying features such as tone can impair communication quality. The absence of nonverbal cues (e.g., nodding) is further argued

584


to complicate the process of understanding certain forms of communication received via tools such as email and telephone (Cramton, 2001). Individuals may have difficulty understanding their team members as well as effectively communicating their own ideas without nonverbal cues, as these gestures are frequently used to confirm understanding (Kraut, Lewis, & Swezey, 1982). Underlying these arguments is the idea that high virtuality reduces communication quality as a consequence of using tools low in informational value. Consistent with this theory, Kirkman and Mathieu (2005) described a framework to delineate dimensions comprising the virtuality construct. In addition to synchronicity and level of reliance on virtual tools, informational richness was identified as the third dimension of virtuality. They defined informational richness as “the extent to which virtual tools send or receive communication or data that are valuable for team effectiveness” (p. 703) which ties into our conceptualization of communication quality. In Kirkman and Mathieu's (2005) framework, communication modalities such as email are conceptualized as being low in informational richness whereas videoconferencing tools are defined as being nearly as rich in informational value as face-to-face communication. This is in accordance with the arguments outlined above, as videoconferencing tools enable team members to send and receive nonverbal and vocal cues which are features argued to enhance informational richness. This, in turn, is posited to increase communication quality which ultimately fosters higher team performance (Cramton, 2001; Hertel et al., 2005). Thus, this framework and the theory underlying it suggest that as informational richness increases, communication quality is enhanced; as communication quality is related to performance, this argument further implies that performance will be enhanced as a result of incorporating virtual tools high in informational value to communicate. On the whole, this theory suggests that virtual teams that cannot incorporate face-to-face communication can implement tools high in informational value to improve communication quality and, ultimately, team performance. Therefore, we suggest: Proposition 9. Virtual tool use moderates the relationship between team communication and performance, such that teams with a high degree of virtuality that utilize communication mediums allowing face-to-face contact (e.g., videoconferencing) in addition to other virtual modalities, demonstrate the strongest performance.

2.4.2. Task characteristics Multiple taxonomies have been described to delineate different task types (e.g., Hackman, 1990; McGrath, 1984) and each differs in some manner; however, one common thread across these frameworks is the impactful nature of task characteristics on team functioning. For example, Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, (2009) found that information sharing was most strongly related to performance when teams were working on intellective hidden profile tasks (i.e., tasks where team members each possess differing pieces of information needed to successfully complete the task). However, most studies conducted assessing the moderating influence of task type generally do not directly investigate the communication process but, rather, the effect of task type on the relationship between communication modality and performance. For example, most initial work completed on virtual teams had the goal of comparing the performance of virtual teams to face-to-face teams on a variety of different task types. However, as Hertel et al. (2005) noted, most of these initial studies were based on ad hoc teams in laboratory settings so results should be interpreted with caution. A common theme that emerged across these studies is the superior performance of virtual teams on generation tasks, or brainstorming tasks, suggesting virtual teams may be able to produce more creative ideas (e.g., Gallupe, Cooper, Grise, & Bastianutti, 1994; Hollingshead & McGrath, 1995). In contrast, other researchers caution that the partial anonymity associated with working virtually may result in motivation losses on these types of tasks (Valacich, Dennis, & Nunamaker, 1992). Another consistent finding in this body of work is the inferior performance of virtual teams on decision-making tasks and the decreased level of agreement among team members, as compared to face-to-face teams (Baltes, Dickson, Sherman, Bauer, & LaGanke, 2002). Yet, it is difficult to study the impact of task type in practice, as tasks in applied settings rarely align with existing taxonomies. Consequently, there is a dearth of field research assessing the impact of task type on the relationship between team processes and salient outcomes. Rather, researchers suggest that it is necessary to examine the compatibility of the task, on a case by case basis, with highly virtual teams (Hollingshead, McGrath, & O'Connor, 1993). Rather than utilizing a task taxonomy that generates findings that do not easily generalize to field settings, we argue that one particularly universal characteristic of tasks, task complexity, should serve as the focus of future research. Highly complex tasks entail increased cognitive effort and enhanced team coordination for effective performance (Entin & Serfaty, 1999). Research suggests that familiar teams may be better equipped to handle a highly complex task because they can effectively perform with reduced communication, thereby increasing their capability to perform well on complex tasks (Espevik et al., 2006). Although complex tasks may not be as easy for highly virtual teams to complete due to their underlying nature (e.g., reliance on virtual tools, disbanding shortly upon task completion; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002), we posit that, consistent with existing theory (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993; Espevik et al., 2006) highly virtual teams are capable of achieving high levels of performance on these tasks if shared cognition is cultivated. Because the development of team cognition amongst team members in highly virtual teams is challenging without consistent face-to-face and regular communication, we argue that the relationship between performance and communication within highly virtual teams working on a highly complex task is exceedingly high. In other words, the moderating effect of task complexity on the relationship between communication and performance is strengthened as virtuality increases. We argue that task complexity, paired with high virtuality, affords increased opportunities for misunderstandings and mistakes; consequently, effective communication patterns are more critical for performance in highly virtual teams, as compared to face-to-face teams, in these conditions. Virtual teams can increase effective communication, thereby increasing team processes, emergent states, and performance during complex tasks by creating rules and norms for communication between team members early on in their team's life cycle (Walther & Bunz, 2005). We note that focusing on rules pertaining to communication quality in particular is critical, as the rules described by Walther and Bunz (2005) can


585

generally be categorized as pertaining to communication quality. We argue that these communication patterns are essential for contending with highly complex tasks and avoiding any increased opportunities for misunderstanding that may arise as a function of high task complexity coupled with high virtuality. We thus suggest: Proposition 10. Task complexity moderates the relationship between communication and performance such that this relationship is stronger when task complexity is high and weaker when task complexity is low. The moderating effect strengthens as the degree of virtuality increases.

2.5. Outputs In addition to performance, the motivational component of team effectiveness, team satisfaction, is also an important consideration when identifying successful virtual team functioning (Hackman, 1987). Although research suggests that satisfaction ratings tend to be lower as the level of virtuality increases (e.g., Baltes et al., 2002; Bordia, 1997; Hollingshead & McGrath, 1995; Warkentin, Sayeed, & Hightower, 1997), we argue that high quality communication may mitigate this effect. Hertel et al. (2005) states that satisfaction among virtual team members is increased when face-to-face communication occurs during team inception, non-job-related information is shared among team members, and constructive conflict management occurs. In a field study of product development teams, findings indicated that goal clarity (i.e., the extent to which performance expectations are communicated clearly) and team member familiarity (i.e., knowledge of team members' personality, skills, and interests), both of which are acquired by communication, increases virtual team satisfaction (Stark & Bierly, 2009). Their findings suggest that within the context of our framework communication content, specifically relational-oriented communication, may be particularly influential in facilitating team satisfaction. Furthermore, Kayworth and Leidner (2000) found that virtual teams utilizing an array of communication tools were more satisfied with their team's functioning, which may stem from the ability of some communication tools to overcome limitations imposed on communication quality by other tools. In addition, researchers have suggested that virtual team members and managers should openly communicate feedback in a timely manner in order to facilitate self-regulation and monitoring processes (Hertel, Konradt, & Orlikowski, 2004). Communication is argued to represent the conduit through which other team processes can take place (Marks et al., 2000). When fostering high quality communication, team members are able to clarify team roles, define team norms, establish cognitive models, and provide mutual support (Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995). Furthermore, researchers have identified a positive effect of high quality communication on team performance across an array of team types, such as cockpit crews (e.g., Oser, Prince, Morgan, & Simpson, 1991) and surgical teams (e.g., Edmonson, 2003). This direct link between communication quality and performance is also present among highly virtual teams as researchers argue that “regardless of the environment, effective communication is essential to group functioning” (Kayworth & Leidner, 2000, p. 186). Thus, research should continue to address the manners in which virtuality interacts with various characteristics, as outlined within the proposed framework, to impact performance and other relevant outcomes such as viability and satisfaction.

3. Implications for theory and research Although research within virtual teams is burgeoning, questions remain in regards to the impact of degree of virtuality on team functioning and effectiveness. Incorporating virtual elements into team dynamics is becoming more common for many global and national corporations (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002); therefore, it is critical to identify the underpinnings of team performance in highly virtual teams. Communication is an important component to consider when studying virtual teams as this aspect of teamwork is a key differentiating factor between highly virtual and collocated teams; highly virtual teams may primarily rely on computer-mediated communication while collocated teams can utilize an array of communication methods (e.g., face-to-face, computer-mediated communication) (Gibson & Cohen, 2003). Researchers have argued that communication plays a critical role in predicting team effectiveness (e.g., Wong & Burton, 2000), and journals specific to virtual communication within teams have also emerged (e.g., the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication). Therefore, we described the current framework with the aim of informing future research on virtual teams and providing an initial foundation upon which future work can build. Specifically, we encourage future work to test different elements of the current framework within teams with varying degrees of virtuality, with particular attention given to the propositions (see Table 2). For example, more research is needed to test the meditational role of emergent states on team communication and team outcomes in highly virtual teams. Research has alluded to this relationship (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007), but future research should investigate the specific communication processes in highly virtual teams that support the more effective development of team cognition, trust, and other emergent states (Altschuller & Benbunan-Fich, 2010). Moreover, because highly virtual teams are employed across an array of contexts, future research should identify how emergent states develop through communication under various situations (Chang, Chuang, & Chao, 2011). Presently, researchers focus on big picture elements, but the context under which teams operate should also be considered as this likely has an influence on virtual team processing, as has been shown within traditional, collocated teams research (e.g., Tomoaia-Cotisel et al., 2013). In other words, future work should seek to test moderators of this relationship, given the numerous conditions virtual teams in organizational settings must work within. It is necessary that additional moderators are identified. Although we identified some of the most universal factors that are likely to affect this process, there are a variety of other features that may also

586


Table 2 Summary of research propositions. Research proposition Proposition 1: Virtuality moderates the relationship between frequent communication and team processes and outcomes, such that the negative relationship is stronger in more virtual teams than in less virtual teams. Proposition 2: Virtuality moderates the relationship between communication timeliness and performance such that this relationship is stronger in more virtual teams than in less virtual teams. Proposition 3: Virtuality moderates the relationship between closed-loop communication and performance such that this relationship is stronger in more virtual teams than in less virtual teams. Proposition 4: Within face-to-face teams, communication quality fully mediates the relationship between team diversity and team performance. In highly virtual teams, this relationship is only partially mediated by communication quality. Proposition 5: Virtuality moderates the relationship between early trust and performance, such that this relationship is stronger in more virtual teams than in less virtual teams. Proposition 6: The development of trust within teams is moderated by the amount of initial face-to-face interactions among team members, such that trust develops to a greater degree in teams that have an initial face-to-face meeting. Proposition 7: Virtuality moderates the relationship between cognition and performance, such that this relationship is weaker in more virtual teams than in less virtual teams. Proposition 8: Within virtual teams, interdependence moderates the relationship between communication and performance such that this relationship is stronger in highly interdependent teams than in less interdependent teams. Proposition 9: Virtual tool use moderates the relationship between team communication and performance, such that teams with a high degree of virtuality that utilize communication mediums allowing face-to-face contact (e.g., videoconferencing) in addition to other virtual modalities, demonstrate the strongest performance. Proposition 10: Task complexity moderates the relationship between communication and performance such that this relationship is stronger when task complexity is high and weaker when task complexity is low. The moderating effect strengthens as the degree of virtuality increases.

have an impact on this relationship. Identifying these specific moderators and their corresponding effects will enable practitioners to attain a more detailed understanding of how conditions can be structured to ensure team effectiveness. Tying into this research need, one theme that emerges from the literature is that findings pertaining to communication, and nearly every other aspect of virtual team functioning investigated, are somewhat mixed. This suggests numerous moderators are impacting findings. We also posit that these inconsistencies arise from differences in the conceptualization of many variables. Specifically, virtuality has been defined in numerous ways that may produce different findings. As more granular definitions are adopted (e.g., Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005), we expect future results to correspondingly become more nuanced, illuminating the reasons for prior inconsistencies. However, less commonly acknowledged is the numerous manners in which communication is defined. Even when communication is not the focus of the study of virtual teams, often, communication modality is nonetheless included and may be operationalized in almost countless manners. Such inconsistent approaches can impact results and limit generalizability. In clarifying these differences and emphasizing the need to align definitions and conceptualizations more precisely in future efforts, we hope to encourage future researchers to ensure that appropriate conceptualizations of these variables are utilized. In other words, constructs such as communication frequency should not be confounded with communication quality or communication content; future efforts should not confuse disparate elements of communication. In distinguishing between these components, a more granular understanding of virtuality within teams, and how this affects the communication process, can be obtained. Such comprehension is invaluable to organizations looking to utilize teams with some degree of virtuality and obtain levels of productivity similar to that observed within face-to-face teams. 4. Conclusion As virtual teams become more commonly utilized within organizations (Leonard, 2011; Lepsinger, 2011) and, correspondingly, more frequently studied, it is necessary that sufficient theory is available to guide both practice and science. Specifically, the communication process remains frequently investigated within this context. Yet communication is often defined in inconsistent manners, which may contribute to the mixed findings in this literature. To address this deficiency and inform future research, we identified the most relevant features of communication to the study of virtual teams as informed by salient theory and evidence. We also utilized the literature to inform the delineation of a framework intended to guide future research examining the effect of various aspects of virtuality on communication within teams. As we sought to emphasize within the framework, research indicates that virtuality has a complex effect on team functioning. A multitude of factors have been identified that influence how virtuality impacts team functioning and outcomes. Consequently, it is necessary to consider all moderating factors, such as task characteristics, to disentangle the complex influence virtuality has on team communication and its relationship with relevant team outcomes. Most importantly, consistency in accounting for all of these factors is integral to moving beyond the discrepancies that have plagued prior findings. In doing so, organizations may be provided with a clearer idea regarding how to foster both effective communication and performance in highly virtual teams, given the circumstances under which they are functioning. Acknowledgement This work was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) grant NNX16AB08G and the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) grant NBPF03402 to Dr. Eduardo Salas, Principal Investigator. The views expressed in


587

this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the organizations with which they are affiliated or their sponsoring institutions or agencies. References Abbott, J. B., Boyd, N. G., & Miles, G. (2006). Does type of team matter? An investigation of the relationships between job characteristics and outcomes within a teambased environment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(4), 485–507. Adams, S. K. (2007). Disciplinary hetero and homogenous design team convergence. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Adler, P. S. (1995). Interdepartmental interdependence and coordination: The case of the design/manufacturing interface. Organization Science, 6(2), 147–167. Altschuller, S., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2010). Trust, performance, and the communication process in ad hoc decision-making virtual teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(1), 27–47. Arnison, L., & Miller, P. (2002). Virtual teams: A virtue for the conventional team. Journal of Workplace Learning, 14(4), 166–173. Baltes, B., Dickson, M., Sherman, P., Bauer, C., & LaGanke, J. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 156–179. Bandow, D. (2001). Time to create sound teamwork. Journal for Quality and Participation, 41, 41–47. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 497–505. Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of experimental literature. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 99–120. Bordia, P., Difonzo, N., & Chang, A. (1999). Rumor as group problem solving: Development patterns in informal computer-mediated groups. Small Group Research, 30(1), 8–28. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. A. Guzzo, & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333–380). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cappel, J. J., & Windsor, J. C. (2000). Ethical decision making: A comparison of computer-supported and face-to-face group. Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 95–107. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. Chang, H. H., Chuang, S. S., & Chao, S. H. (2011). Determinants of cultural adaptation, communication quality, and trust in virtual teams' performance. Total Quality Management, 22(3), 305–329. Chen, S. J., & Lin, L. (2004). Modeling team member characteristics for the formation of a multifunctional team in concurrent engineering. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(2), 111–124. Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 143–165. 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(2), 402–410. Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual problem and its consequence for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371. Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R. M. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 30–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53. Desanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1998). Communication processes for virtual organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4) (0–0). 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(6), 678–711. Edmonson, A. C. (2003). Framing for learning: Lessons in successful technology implementation. California Management Review, 45(2), 34–54. Entin, E. E., & Serfaty, D. (1999). Adaptive team coordination. Human Factors, 41(2), 312–325. Espevik, R., Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., & Thayer, J. F. (2006). Shared mental models and operational effectiveness: Effects on performance and team processes in submarine attack teams. Military Psychology, 18, 23–36. Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from the Web versus print. Communication Research, 28(1), 48–78. Gallupe, R. B., Cooper, W. H., Grise, M., & Bastianutti, L. M. (1994). Blocking electronic brainstorms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 77–86. Gibson, C. B. (2001). Me and us: Differential relationships among goal-setting training, efficacy and effectiveness at the individual and team level. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(7), 789–808. Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495. González-Romá, V., & Hernández, A. (2014). Climate uniformity: Its influence on team communication quality, task conflict, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1042–1058. Graetz, K. A., Boyle, E. S., Kimble, C. E., Thompson, P., & Garloch, J. L. (1998). Small Group Research, 29(6), 714–743. Greenberg, P. S., Greenberg, R. H., & Antonucci, Y. L. (2007). Creating and sustaining trust in virtual teams. Business Horizons, 50(4), 325–333. Griffith, T. L., & Neale, M. A. (2001). Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 379–421. Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of levels of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26(4), 497–520. Gully, S. M., Joshi, A., Incalcaterra, K. 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(5), 819–832. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473–496. Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 47, 307–338. 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. Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and0deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107. 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(5), 1029–1045. Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 5(1), 69–95. Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 1–28. Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 225–252. Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural support, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390–403.

588


Hollingshead, A. B. (1996). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making- The effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23(2), 193–219. Hollingshead, A. B., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). The whole is less than the sum of its parts: A critical review of research on computer-assisted groups. In R. A. Guzzo, & E. Salas (Eds.), Team decisions and team performance in organizations (pp. 315–346). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., & O'Connor, K. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 24(3), 307–333. Holton, J. A. (2001). Building trust and collaboration in a virtual team. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 7(3/4), 36–47. Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1189. 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(6), 987–1015. Ilgen, D. R. (1994). Jobs and roles: Accepting and coping with the changing structure of organizations. In M. G. Rumsey, C. B. Walker, & J. H. Harris (Eds.), Personnel selection and classification (pp. 13–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1994). The global network organization of the future: Information management opportunities and challenges. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4), 25–57. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 29–64. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 187–213. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2007). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 783–808. Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2000). The global virtual manager: A prescription for success. European Management Journal, 18(2), 183–194. Keyton, J. (1997). Coding communication in decision making groups. Managing Group Life: Communication in Decision Making Groups, 236–269. Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31(5), 700–718. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluck, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 67–79. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. I. Ilgen, & R. J. Kilmoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology. Vol. 12. (pp. 333–376). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Kraut, R. E., Lewis, S. H., & Swezey, L. W. (1982). Listener responsiveness and the coordination of conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(4), 718–731. Leonard, B. (2011). Managing virtual teams: Selection, engagement, communication and performance management matter when supervising employees who rarely meet face to face. HR Magazine, 56(6), 38–42. Lepsinger, R. (2011). Virtual teams failure: 6 common missteps that threaten your team's success. Communication Briefings, 30(4), 5. Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587–604. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999). Virtual teams: The new way to work. Strategy & Leadership, 27(1), 14–19. Lurey, J. S., & Raisinghani, M. S. (2001). An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams. Information & Management, 38(8), 523–544. MacMillan, J., Entin, E. E., & Serfaty, D. (2004). Communication overhead: The hidden cost of team cognition. In E. Salas, & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 61–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., Carman, R., & Lott, V. (2001). Radical innovation without collocation: A case study at boeing-rocketdyne. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 229–249. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 971–986. 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(6), 805–835. McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Emerging principles from complex environments. In R. Guzzo, & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 149–203). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(12), 535–546. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J., & Shuffler, M. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation or virtually and information sharing in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 214–225. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number, seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 249–265. O'Hara-Devereaux, M., & Johansen, R. (1994). Globalwork: Bridging distance, culture, and time. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Olson, J. S., Teasley, S., Covi, L., & Olson, G. (2002). The (currently) unique advantages of collocated work. In P. Hinds, & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 113–135). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Oser, R. L., Prince, C. W., Morgan, B. B., & Simpson, S. S. (1991). An analysis of aircrew communication patterns and content (Tech. Rep. No. NTSC 89–004). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center, Human Factors Division. Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions for future research. ACM Sigmis Database, 35(1), 6–36. Purvanova, R. K. (2014). Face-to-face versus virtual teams: What have we really learned? The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(1), 2–29. Rocco, E. (1998). Trust breaks down in electronic contexts but can be repaired by some initial face-to-face contact. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference of Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 496–502). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Dyne, L. V. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61–72. Schultz, U., & Vandenbosch, B. (1998). Information overload in a groupware environment: Now you see it, now you don't. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 127–148. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Kraiger, K., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2009). Do familiar teammates request and accept more backup? Transactive memory in air traffic control. Human Factors, 51(2), 181–192. Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analysis of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814–828. Stark, E. M., & Bierly, P. E. (2009). An analysis of predictors of team satisfaction in production development teams with differing levels of virtualness. R&D Management, 39(5), 461–472. Steiner, J. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press. Stout, R. J., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1994). The role of shared mental models in developing shared situational awareness. In R. D. Gilson, D. J. Garland, & J. M. Quince (Eds.), Situation awareness in complex environments. Dayton Beach, FL: Embry-Riddle Aeuronautical University Press. Straus, S. G. (1996). Getting a clue. Small Group Research, 27(1), 115–142.


589

Straus, S. G., & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87–97. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. Thylefors, I., Persson, O., & Hellström, D. (2005). Team types, perceived efficiency and team climate in Swedish cross-professional teamwork. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(2), 102–114. Tomoaia-Cotisel, A., Scammon, D. L., Waitzman, N. J., Cronholm, P. F., Halladay, J. R., Driscoll, D. L., ... Stange, K. C. (2013). Context matters: The experience of 14 research teams in systematically reporting contextual factors important for practice change. The Annals of Family Medicine, 11(Suppl. 1), 115–123. Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Group size and anonymity effects on computer-mediated idea generation. Small Group Research, 23(1), 49–73. Van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. New York: Wiley. Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541. Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145–180. Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6(2), 186–203. Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 828–846. Warkentin, M., & Beranek, P. M. (1999). Training to improve virtual team communication. Information Systems Journal, 9(4), 271–289. Warkentin, M. E., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28(4), 975–996. Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In G. Mullen, & G. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Wildman, J. L., Thayer, A. L., Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Mathieu, J. E., & Rayne, S. R. (2012). Task types and team-level attributes: Synthesis of team classification literature. Human Resource Development Review, 11(1), 97–129. Wong, S. S., & Burton, R. M. (2000). Virtual teams: What are their characteristics, and impact on team performance? Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 6(4), 339–360. Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 353–376.