Virtual vs. Face-to-Face Teams: Deadbeats, Deserters, and Other Considerations Emmeline de Pillis
Kimberly Furumo
University of Hawaii at Hilo College of Business and Economics 200 W. Kawili St. Hilo 96720 01 808 974 7469
University of Hawaii at Hilo College of Business and Economics 200 W. Kawili St. Hilo 96720 01 974 7672
[email protected]
[email protected] with advances in technology such as email, chat capabilities, video conferencing, and group support systems (GSS). Today’s teams are often virtual, composed of members who are located in different locations, and come together and disband quickly depending upon the organization’s needs. As some companies rush toward virtual work, others hold back, missing out on advantages such as reducing costs and time related to travel. But virtual teamwork does have some limitations.
ABSTRACT 201 participants were randomly assigned to complete an intellective task in either virtual or face-to-face three-person teams. Virtual teams displayed lower average performance, less cohesion and satisfaction, more time spent on the task, and more “deadbeats” or free-riders than face-to-face teams. Among the virtual teams there were also two “deserters,” individuals who openly abandoned the group. These findings indicate that virtual work design should only be selected over face-to-face work if cost savings are sufficient to justify the probable reductions in efficiency, morale, and performance.
Virtual teams are often more difficult to work in because of the lack of media richness or nonverbal cues [12]. Communication takes longer [11] and members may be more reluctant to share information [8]. This may lead to misunderstood communications, increased conflict, and lower cohesion. Studies have also shown that trust is an important requirement in virtual teams since individuals cannot be monitored as closely in this setting [6].
Average grade performance of female participants was 3.9% higher than that of male participants in the virtual teams, but only 0.9% higher than that of male participants in the face-to-face teams. In both conditions, males were more likely to be deadbeats than were females. The highest likelihood of being a deadbeat was among males in the virtual teams: 10.4% of them were reported as deadbeats by both team members. 7.3% of females in virtual teams and 3.6% of males in face-to-face teams were reported as deadbeats by both team members. There were no reports of female deadbeats in the face-to-face teams. Both of the deserters in the study were also males in virtual teams. The greater gap between male and female performance in the virtual teams, together with the incidence of free riding among males in the virtual teams, may indicate that virtual work might be an especially poor fit for the skills or working styles of at least some males
2. BACKGROUND: CONDITIONS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE IN TEAMS 2.1 Virtual vs. Face to Face Whether a team meets virtually or F-2-F, is likely to impact the difficulty of the team’s work. The lack of media richness in computer mediated communications in virtual teams leads to confusion, misunderstanding, and decreased trust [2, 3, 4]. Lack of trust, in turn, increases transaction costs because members feel the need to double check the work performed by others [7, 12]. Increased transaction costs may increase the time needed to complete a project, leading to reduced project quality and satisfaction. On the other hand, women working in teams have shown higher satisfaction with virtual teams than with face-to-face teams, and have perceived less conflict in virtual teams [9]
Categories and Subject Descriptors K.6.1 Project and People Management
General Terms: Management, Human Factors.
H1: Virtual teams will show lower cohesion.
Keywords
H2: Virtual teams will have a higher percentage of noncontributors—deadbeats and deserters—than face to face teams.
Gender, virtual teams, free rider problem, deadbeats, deserters.
1. INTRODUCTION Advances in technology have changed the nature of many teams. It is no longer necessary for teams to meet face-to-face (F-2-F)
2.2 Noncontributing group members Noncontributing behavior in groups is a persistent problem that lowers satisfaction. Researchers have designed and tested peer assessment instruments to minimize the problem (e.g. see [1, 10] We are interested in predicting two types of noncontributing behavior. We call the individuals engaging in these types of behavior Deadbeats and Deserters.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. SIGMIS-CPR’06, April 13–15, 2006, Claremont, California, USA. Copyright 2006 ACM 1-59593-349-2/06/0004...$5.00.
318
We asked participants to report how much work they put in (frequency of group contacts, hours spent, and estimated contribution), how the group worked together (trust, cohesion, process satisfaction, leader emergence) and how the group performed (outcome satisfaction). We also asked participants to report whether any team member failed to contribute to the task.
Deadbeats and deserters are different. Deadbeats are free riders, content to take credit for a group effort while their fellow team members complete most of the work. In order to allow others to do work for when they then take credit, deadbeats or free riders must be relatively low in conscientiousness. Deserters are highly conscientious as far as their own performance is concerned, but like deadbeats, they are not particularly loyal to the group. They are so concerned about their own grade that they are willing to do all the work as long as it meets their standards. They don’t have to rely on anyone else for their grade.
4. RESULTS Virtual teams displayed lower average performance, less cohesion and satisfaction, more time spent on the task, and more “deadbeats” or free-riders than face-to-face teams. Males were more likely than females be evaluated by their teammates as noncontributors or “deadbeats.” Both of the “deserters,” participants who openly abandoned their teams altogether, were males in virtual teams.
Males in past studies have shown lower group loyalty and higher self interest. Based on this, we hypothesize that both deadbeats and deserters will be more common among males in both the virtual and face to face groups. H3: A higher percentage of noncontributors—deadbeats and deserters—will be found among males than among females in virtual teams.
Face to face teams reported less leader emergence than virtual teams. Taken together with the lower productivity, satisfaction and group cohesion seen in virtual teams, the higher level of leader emergence may be a reaction to a perceived failure of communal decision-making. Virtual teams also reported significantly higher individual contribution and more meetings, indicating that they perceived they put in significantly more time and effort than their face-to-face counterparts—for lesser results, as measured both by subjective outcome satisfaction and by objective grade.
H4: A higher percentage of noncontributors—deadbeats and deserters—will be found among males than among females in face-to-face teams. There is not sufficient research on this topic to predict whether gender or technology has a greater effect on noncontributing behavior. We formulate this as a research question. RQ1: Does technology—whether the team is virtual or face-toface—have a greater effect on the incidence of noncontributing behavior than gender?
4.1 Table of results
3. THE STUDY 3.1 Participants
Variable
Vir Male
Vir Fem
FTF Male
FTF Fem
Gender Composition
67 (62%)
41 (38%)
56 60%
37 (40%)
49 (73.1%)
32 (78%)
32 (57.1%)
24 (65%)
.025
17.6
17.4
24.7
25.1
.000
6.7
7.7
5.8
5.9
.045
38.3%
41.4%
36.2%
33.5%
.003
3.5
3.7
4.2
4.2
.000.
4.7
4.6
5.4
5.5
.000
The most significant differences were found between virtual and face-to-face teams. No significant differences were found between gender groups within each technology.
123 male and 78 female upper division business students were randomly assigned to a virtual or face-to-face three-person team. The students ranged in age from 19 to 50 with a mean age of 22 years.
3.2 Task
% Reporting that a leader emerged Mean Reported # of contacts with other members Mean hours reportedly spent on project Mean % of project completed by respondent Mean trust (5 point scale) Mean cohesion (7 point scale)
We assigned the three-person teams an intellective task in which members were asked to identify the best geographic location in which to open a new plant. Each team member was given information about demand, capacity, and costs for two of six geographical areas. Members had to combine their individual information to arrive at the best solution. Teams were given one week to complete the task. Virtual teams used WebCT, an automated instructional tool, that allowed students to communicate via email, chat, or discussion board facilities. Virtual teams did not meet face to face at all during the course of the week, and by design were unaware of their teammates’ identities, including name and sex. F-2-F teams met in person, face-to-face to complete the project.
3.3 Measures We measured productivity by individual grade as a percentage. Students were assigned project grades based on the following three factors: accuracy and quality of the final report, timeliness of the report, and a confidential evaluation of their contribution by other members of the team.
319
Vir vs. FTF Sig
Mean satisfaction with outcome (5 point scale) Mean satisfaction with process (5 point scale) Mean Individual grade Reported as a deadbeat by 1 other member Reported as a deadbeat by both members
3.7
4.1
4.3
4.2
.000
3.8
3.9
4.3
4.3
.000
76.1%
80%
81.4%
82.3%
ns
13 (19.4%)
6 (14.6%)
2 (3.6%)
2 (5.4%)
.000
7 (10.4%)
3 (7.3%)
2 (3.6%)
0 (0%)
.034
2 (3%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
ns
Deserter
duration, virtual teams yield significantly lower performance, lower satisfaction, and a lower results to effort ratio. Although several observers have made the case that highly computerized environments constitute a hostile space for female students (e.g [5]) virtual work appears to be a particularly poor fit for the average male participant in our study. In the face-to-face condition, male productivity as measured by earned grade was less than a percentage point lower than the average grade of female participants. In the virtual condition, the gap widened to 3.9 percentage points. Overall, male participants in virtual teams had the worst outcomes overall in both performance and satisfaction, with the single exception of perception of group cohesion. These differences did not reach statistical significance, but we feel that this is worth following up in future studies.
6. References 1.
Brooks, C. M. and Ammons, J. L. Free Riding in Group Projects and the Effects of Timing, Frequency, and Specificity of Criteria in Peer Assessments. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 5 (2003), 268-272.
2.
Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Ramirez, A., Dunbar, N. E., Kam, K. and Fischer, J. Testing the Interactivity Principle: Effects of Mediation, Propinquity, and Verbal and Nonverbal Modalities in Interpersonal Interaction. Journal of Communication, 52, (2002), 657-677.
3.
Carlson, J. R. and Zmud, R. W. Channel Expansion Theory and the Experimental Nature of Media Richness Perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, (1999), 153-170.
4.
Chubin, D. E., May, G. S. and Babco, E. L. Diversifying the Engineering Workforce. Journal of Engineering Education, (2005),
5.
Frenkel, K. Women and Computing. Communications of the ACM, 33, 11 (1990),
6.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K. and Leidner, D. E. Is Anybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 4 (1998), 29-64.
7.
Kramer, R. M. and Tyler, T. R., Whither Trust in Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, R. M. K. a. T. R. Tyler,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.
8.
Kraut, R., Fish, R. and Chalfonte, B. Requirements and Media Choice in Collaborative Writing. Human Computer Interaction, 7, (1992), 375-407.
9.
Lind, M. The Gender Impact of Temporary Virtual Work Groups. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 4 (1999), 277-285.
4.2 Hypotheses Cohesion and trust were significantly lower in the virtual teams than in the face to face teams. H1: Virtual teams will show lower cohesion was supported. Possibly as a result of low cohesion, commitment to the virtual teams was lower as well, as measured by participants’ willingness to free ride. Compared to face-to-face teams, significantly more members of virtual teams were reported by one or both teammates as noncontributing “deadbeats.” The low number of deserters— two—did not allow meaningful statistical analysis, although both had been assigned to the virtual teams. H2: Virtual teams will have a higher percentage of noncontributors—deadbeats and deserters—than face to face teams was strongly supported for deadbeats. For deserters, statistical significance was not achieved, but both deserters were from virtual teams. H3 and H4: A higher percentage of noncontributors—deadbeats and deserters—will be found among males than among females in virtual teams did not reach statistical significance, although a higher percentage of males than females were judged as noncontributing in both virtual and face to face teams. Hypotheses 3 and 4 were only weakly supported. In this study, the differences between the virtual and face-to-face conditions were more pronounced than the gender differences. We had asked,
10. Paswan, A. K. and Gollakota, K. Dimensions of Peer Evaluation, Overall Satisfaction, and Overall Evaluation: An Investigation in a Group Task Environment. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 4 (2004), 225-231.
RQ1: Does technology—whether the team is virtual or face-toface—have a greater effect on the incidence of noncontributing behavior than gender? Our results indicate that technology has a stronger effect than gender.
11. Straus, S. and McGrath, J. Does the Medium Matter? The Interaction of Task Type and Technology on Group Performance and Member Reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, (1994), 87-97.
5. Discussion Virtual work is tempting to any manager hoping to save money, reduce employees’ commuting and travel burdens, and increase efficiency. Our results indicate that at least for projects of short
12. Watson-Manheim, M. B. and Belanger, F. Support for Communication-Based Work Processes in Virtual Work. eService Journal, (2002), 61-82.
320
