Emergent states in virtual teams: a complex adaptive systems perspective
Curs,eu, Petru Lucian
Journal of Information Technology, Volume 21, Number 4, December 2006 , pp. 249-261(13)

Abstract:
Research on virtual teams (VTs) has proliferated in the last decades. However, few clear and consistent theoretical attempts to integrate the literature on VTs in a systemic way have emerged. This paper uses the complex adaptive systems (CAS) perspective to integrate the literature on emergent states in VTs. According to this general framework, VT effectiveness depends on the interaction between three levels of dynamics: local, global and contextual. Team cognition, trust, cohesion and conflict are described as states that emerge from the interactions among the VT members and as parts of global dynamics, they impact on VT effectiveness, and in the same time they are influenced by the outcomes of the VT. The insights on this bidirectional causality as well as other benefits of using the CAS framework to improve our understanding of VTs are discussed in the paper. It also provides an overview of artificial simulation models as well as simulation results concerning the emergence of the four states described in the CAS framework and discusses several ways to improve the accuracy of the simulation models using empirical data collected in real VTs

Links between Real and Virtual Networks: A Comparative Study of Online Communities in Japan and Korea

abstract:
The present study explores how online communities affect real-world personal relations based on a cross-cultural survey conducted in Japan and Korea. Findings indicate that the gratifications of online communities moderate the effects of online communities on social participation. Online communities are categorized into a real-group-based community and a virtual-network-based community. The membership of real-group-based online community is positively correlated with social bonding gratification and negatively correlated with information- seeking gratification. Japanese users prefer more virtual-network-based online communities, while their Korean counterparts prefer real-group-based online communities. Korean users are more active in online communities and seek a higher level of socializing gratifications, such as social bonding and making new friends, when compared with their Japanese counterparts. These results indicate that in Korea, personal relations via the online community are closely associated with the real-world personal relations, but this is not the case in Japan. This study suggests that the effects of the Internet are culture-specific and that the online community can serve a different function in different cultural environments.

CyberPsychology & Behavior
Apr 2007, Vol. 10, No. 2 : 252 -257

A review of research methods for assessing content of computer-mediated discussion forums Journal of Interactive Learning Research | Date: September 22, 2006 | Author: Marra, Rose

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies are becoming increasingly important components of online educational environments (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004). The online discussion forum that is a significant component of many web-based courses is one type of CMC. Instructors and students rely on these asynchronous forums to engage one another in ways that replace face-to-face communication. The goal of such interactions is to promote critical thinking, meaningful problem solving, and knowledge construction (Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns, & Beers, 2004). In spite of the …

The Effects of Cultural Diversity in Virtual Teams Versus Face-to-Face Teams
D. Sandy Staples, Lina Zhao. Group Decision and Negotiation. Dordrecht: Jul 2006. Vol. 15, Iss. 4; p. 389

AbstractDiversity in the national background and culture of team members is common in virtual teams. An experimental study, with short term teams, was undertaken to examine the effect of cultural diversity on team effectiveness and to examine if this effect changes depending if the team worked face-to-face (F2F) or virtually. Heterogeneous teams were created that had greater diversity than homogeneous teams of individualism/collectivism values, different languages spoken, country of birth, and nationality. The teams worked on a desert survival task either F2F or virtually (via audioconference and electronic chat tools). The overall results indicated that heterogeneous teams were less satisfied and cohesive and had more conflict than the homogeneous teams, although there were no statistical differences in team performance levels. However, examining just the heterogeneous teams found that the performance of the virtual heterogeneous teams was superior to that of the F2F heterogeneous teams. The results support Carte and Chidambaram’s (2004) theory that the reductive capabilities of collaborative technologies are beneficial for newly-formed diverse teams.

‘collaboration’ is one of those buzz words, one of those management concepts, that have been flung at us so many times we just nod and agree it’s a wonderful thing we should all participate in. but is it? and how do we learn to collaborate?

the latest issue of the M/C journal focuses on collaboration. i have only read the editor’s notes and the titles of the articles look very intriguing. i expect to comment more on the journal.

i am a fan of collaboration. sure i’m brilliant (laugh now – meant to be a joke) but i can’t know everything going on in the world. i can’t be an expert on teams as well as code perfect php, speak fluent german and know every intricate detail on tax law but if i had aspirations of building a financial software package for the german market I would need those skills plus more (i’m not btw). of course collaborating with a team who had those skills would allow me to develop such a product.

during my research, i looked at conflict management styles (of which collaboration is one). in 1964, blake & mouton wrote ‘ the managerial grid ‘ and developed 5 management styles based on how much you care about people & production. the 2 dimensional framework still persists and was made even more famous in 1976 with the thomas-kilmann instrument measuring conflict styles (Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument ).

it’s unclear as to the effects of collaboration in conflict. brown (1992) thought it was best to use collaboration in all situations. some reports found using collaboration in conflict increased promotability (blake & mouton, 1964; thomas, 1971) while others linked it to negative team functioning and effectiveness (de dreu & van vianen, 2001). when administering the ‘dealing with conflict instrument’ (hiam, 1999) to my research participants:

collaboration was the dominant preferred style for handling conflict!

in fact, 89% said they preferred to use collaboration. while testing the instrument, hiam’s research also showed collaboration was the primary style but at 47% – no where near as high as my 89%. i wonder if this is because of the push towards teamwork or the influence of the buzzword? could it be industry specific (i don’t know those details of his study but mine were heavy IT)? is it a virtual vs face-to-face team difference?

my gut feeling is collaboration should not always be used during conflict. how well each style works was beyond the scope of my research but maybe there will be something in this journal that further explores the issue.