Creativity in Asynchronous Virtual Teams: Putting the Pieces Together Rosalie J. Ocker Pennsylvania State University

Creativity in asynch VTs 3 related experiments, involving nearly 100 teams and 400 graduate students 3 related experiments, involving nearly 100 teams and 400 graduate students Key finding: Asynchronous VTs Asynchronous VTs  significantly more creative than teams that had some FtF communication 4 studies conducted to explore this finding -- each from a different perspective. 4 studies conducted to explore this finding -- each from a different perspective.

Individual Member Personality (Study 1) Ocker, 2008 Team Composition Status effects (Study 2) Ocker, 2007 Team Interaction Communication Content (Study 3) Ocker & Fjermestad, 2008 (expanded version) Interaction Influences (Study 4) Ocker, 2005 Input ProcessOutput Four Studies in Terms of the Input-Process-Output Model Team Creativit y

Table 1. Comparison of Experiments 1, 2 & 3 Experiment 1 (extended)* (Ocker et al., 1996, 1998) Experiment 2 (Ocker & Fjermestad, 1998) Experiment 3 (Ocker, 2001) Length (days) subjects graduate students from NJIT (CIS and IS) same graduate students from PSU (MBA and MSIS) computer conferencing system EIES2 Web-EIES (EIES2 base with a web user interface) FirstClass experimental task Automated Post Office Computerized Post Office same

Study 1: Personality Facets Looks at impact of individual personality facets on team creativity Looks at impact of individual personality facets on team creativity A positivist study of 10 asynchronous teams in Experiment 3 A positivist study of 10 asynchronous teams in Experiment 3 Research questions: Research questions:  Do individual member personalities predict virtual team creativity?  Do individual member personalities predict virtual team quality?

Neuroticism Anxiety (c,+) Hostility Depression Self-Consciousness Impulsiveness Vulnerability to Stress Extraversion Warmth Gregariousness Assertiveness (c,+) Activity Excitement Seeking Positive Emotion Openness Fantasy Aesthetics Feelings Actions Ideas (c,+) Values Agreeableness Trust (q,-) Straightforwardness Altruism Compliance Modesty Tender-mindedness Conscientiousness Competence Order Dutifulness Achievement (c,-) Striving Self-Discipline Deliberate (q,+) Personality traits – 5 factors, each with multiple facets

Results of Regression Analysis Creativity an individual who is: imaginative and original thinker imaginative and original thinker enthusiastically expresses ideas (without being over- bearing) enthusiastically expresses ideas (without being over- bearing) more concerned with ideas than project grade more concerned with ideas than project grade Quality an individual who is: deliberate, thorough and careful deliberate, thorough and careful not terribly trusting of teammates-- rely on self to complete project work rather than on team members not terribly trusting of teammates-- rely on self to complete project work rather than on team members

Study 2: Status Effects of Team Composition Dominance Dominance  key inhibitor of VT creativity (Study 4) Qualitative analysis Qualitative analysis  8 mixed-sex asynch teams from Exp. 3 Research question: Research question:  How is dominance manifested in virtual teams?

Dominance when a member has undue influence over the team’s processes or work product. when a member has undue influence over the team’s processes or work product. often stems from an individual’s status, which can be broadly defined as ‘a position in a social network’ often stems from an individual’s status, which can be broadly defined as ‘a position in a social network’

Results: 5 teams experienced dominance Dominant member first to contribute a significant amount of task-related content first to contribute a significant amount of task-related content then proceeded to control the key content development then proceeded to control the key content development belonged to the team’s majority sex belonged to the team’s majority sex  in teams where females were majority  in teams where males were majority

Dominance and its absence driven by a combination of status traits driven by a combination of status traits  age seniority, work experience seniority, and expertise in 4 dominated teams in 4 dominated teams  these status traits belonged to dominant member; absent in the other members. in 3 non-dominated teams in 3 non-dominated teams  status markers were counter-balanced across multiple members

Study 3 Communication Content Communication Content  Jerry’s presentation

Study 4: Influences on Team Creativity (Team Interaction) Qualitative analysis of 10 asynch teams from Experiment 3 Research question: What influences the creative performance of asynchronous virtual teams? What influences the creative performance of asynchronous virtual teams?

Enhancers Stimulating Colleagues Variety of Social Influences   NO routines of interaction, such as habitual agreement or disagreement Collaboration on Problem Definition   multiple members involved in defining the concept and requirements Surface-Reduce Equivocality   converged through a process of coming to terms with divergent perspectives

Individual Personality Facets (+) Assertive (+) Ideas (+) Anxiety (-) Achievement Team Composition Status effects (-) Age (-) Work Experience (-) Expertise (+) counter-balance Team Interaction Communication Content (+) Critical Debate Team Interaction Inhibitors (-) Dominance (-) Domain Knowledge (-) External Reward (-) Time Pressure (-) Downward Norm (-) Structured Approach (-) Technical Problems (-) Lack Shared Understanding (-) Non-stimulating Colleagues Team Interaction Enhancers (+) Stimulating Colleagues (+) Variety of Social Influences (+) Collaboration on Problem Def. (+) Surface-Reduce Equivocality Team Creativity

Study References Ocker, R. J. (2007). Creativity in Asynchronous Virtual Teams: Putting the Pieces Together. In Higher Creativity for Virtual Teams: Developing Platforms for Co-Creation. T. Torres and S. MacGregor (Eds.), Hershey: Idea Group, pp Ocker, R. J. (2007). Creativity in Asynchronous Virtual Teams: Putting the Pieces Together. In Higher Creativity for Virtual Teams: Developing Platforms for Co-Creation. T. Torres and S. MacGregor (Eds.), Hershey: Idea Group, pp Ocker, R. J. (2008). Exploring the Impact of Personality on Virtual Team Creativity and Quality. In Encyclopedia of E-Collaboration, Ned Kock (Ed.), Hershey: Idea Group. Ocker, R. J. (2008). Exploring the Impact of Personality on Virtual Team Creativity and Quality. In Encyclopedia of E-Collaboration, Ned Kock (Ed.), Hershey: Idea Group. Ocker, R. J. (2007). A Balancing Act: The Interplay of Status Effects on Dominance in Virtual Teams, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50, 3, Ocker, R. J. (2007). A Balancing Act: The Interplay of Status Effects on Dominance in Virtual Teams, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50, 3, Ocker, R. J. (2005). Influences on Creativity in Asynchronous Virtual Teams: A Qualitative Analysis of Experimental Teams, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48, 1, Ocker, R. J. (2005). Influences on Creativity in Asynchronous Virtual Teams: A Qualitative Analysis of Experimental Teams, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48, 1, Ocker, R.J. and Fjermestad, J. (2008). “Communication Differences in Virtual Design Teams: Findings from a Multi-Method Analysis of High and Low-performing Experimental Teams,” The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems. Ocker, R.J. and Fjermestad, J. (2008). “Communication Differences in Virtual Design Teams: Findings from a Multi-Method Analysis of High and Low-performing Experimental Teams,” The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems.

Experiment References Ocker, R. J. (1995). Requirements definition using a distributed asynchronous group support system: Experimental results on quality, creativity and satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, New Jersey. Ocker, R. J. (1995). Requirements definition using a distributed asynchronous group support system: Experimental results on quality, creativity and satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, New Jersey. Ocker, R. J., Hiltz, S. R., Turoff M., & Fjermestad, J. (1996). The effects of distributed group support and process structuring on software requirements development teams, Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3), Ocker, R. J., Hiltz, S. R., Turoff M., & Fjermestad, J. (1996). The effects of distributed group support and process structuring on software requirements development teams, Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3), Ocker, R. J., Fjermestad, J., Hiltz, S. R., & Johnson, K. (1998). Effects of four modes of group communication on the outcomes of software requirements determination, Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(1), Ocker, R. J., Fjermestad, J., Hiltz, S. R., & Johnson, K. (1998). Effects of four modes of group communication on the outcomes of software requirements determination, Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(1), Ocker, R. J. & Fjermestad, J. (1998). Web-based computer-mediated communication: An experimental investigation comparing three communication modes for determining software requirements. Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (HICSS-31; IEEE Computer Society, CD ROM), Hawaii, January. Ocker, R. J. & Fjermestad, J. (1998). Web-based computer-mediated communication: An experimental investigation comparing three communication modes for determining software requirements. Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (HICSS-31; IEEE Computer Society, CD ROM), Hawaii, January. Ocker. R. J. (2001). The relationship between interaction, group development, and outcome: A study of virtual communication. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34; IEEE Computer Society, CD ROM), Hawaii, January. Ocker. R. J. (2001). The relationship between interaction, group development, and outcome: A study of virtual communication. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34; IEEE Computer Society, CD ROM), Hawaii, January.

Study One Method Data Set: 47 participants from the 10 asynchronous teams in Experiment 3 Data Set: 47 participants from the 10 asynchronous teams in Experiment 3 Personality measure (indiv): The Adjective Check List (ACL) Personality measure (indiv): The Adjective Check List (ACL) Creativity measure (team): objective measure of creativity based on unique ideas from team reports Creativity measure (team): objective measure of creativity based on unique ideas from team reports Quality measure (team): 2 judges measured the quality of each team’s solution in team report Quality measure (team): 2 judges measured the quality of each team’s solution in team report

Study Two Analysis Level of analysis: data for this study have a multilevel structure -- participants nested within teams; variables describing participants (personality traits) and variables describing teams (creativity and quality). data for this study have a multilevel structure -- participants nested within teams; variables describing participants (personality traits) and variables describing teams (creativity and quality). lack of independence and the potential for a team or group effect (Gallivan & Bebunan-Fich, 2005). lack of independence and the potential for a team or group effect (Gallivan & Bebunan-Fich, 2005). Tested for a group effect – none, so an analysis at the individual member level was permissible. Tested for a group effect – none, so an analysis at the individual member level was permissible.

Personality traits Personality traits distinguish individuals from each other Personality traits distinguish individuals from each other 5 broad factors of personality traits 5 broad factors of personality traits  extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism Each factors has multiple personality facets associated with it. Each factors has multiple personality facets associated with it. Each personality facet includes Each personality facet includes  a common ‘portion’ attributable to the associated factor  a portion attributable to that particular facet.