1. School of Communication and Information VIRTUAL TEAM INNOVATION Jennifer Gibbs, Ph.D. Department of Communication Rutgers University jgibbs@rutgers.edu

2. School of Communication and Information TEAM VIRTUALITY Much of the virtual teams literature uses “virtuality” imprecisely: –Treats teams as virtual or not virtual –Lumps together “virtuality” features without examining their independent effects Need to unpack features of “virtuality” and view it as a continuum characterizing all teams: –Geographic dispersion –Electronic dependence –Dynamic structure –National diversity

3. School of Communication and Information VIRTUALITY AS CONTINUUM Aerospace Alliance Frame Team 4 time zones extensive electronic communication 4 nations extensive outsourcing Less virtual More virtual Machine Inc. Machine NPD Team 1 time zone moderate electronic communication 1 nation stable structure

4. School of Communication and Information How do you think virtuality will affect creativity and innovation in teams or organizations? What positive or negative effects might it have?

5. School of Communication and Information VIRTUALITY’S EFFECTS ON INNOVATION Virtuality features have negative effects on innovation (based on Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995): Geographical dispersion: –Reduces contextual knowledge of other sites –Increases coordination complexity Electronic dependence: –Reduces opportunities for monitoring –Reduces message clarity/comm. richness Dynamic structure: –Increases uncertainty about motives –Hard to preserve org. memory due to turnover –Harder to create flow and development phases National diversity: –Creates different communication preferences –Reduces team identification and shared vision

6. School of Communication and Information MODERATING EFFECTS OF PSYCH. SAFE COMMUNICATION CLIMATE A PSCC mitigates these negative effects: Geographical dispersion: –Increases exchange of contextual knowledge –Increases willingness to contribute Electronic dependence: –Increases informal comm. and feedback –Helps develop social cues for improvisation Dynamic structure: –Strengthens relationships by increasing trust & reducing risk –Creates incentive for building shared history National diversity: –Bridges in-groups/out-groups to resolve conflicts –Increases integration while allowing cultural differences to co-exist

7. School of Communication and Information RESEARCH MODEL Electronic Dependence National Diversity Dynamic Structure Geographic Dispersion Innovation Psych. Safe Communication Climate (-) (+) Virtuality H1 H2 H3 H4 H5

8. School of Communication and Information STUDY 1: METHODS Overview: exploratory interview-based analysis Sample: –177 individuals from 14 teams, 7 industries, 18 nations, 32 cities, 16 organizations, 45 organizational subunits, and 11 functional areas –92% of each team sampled (avg.) Procedure: –Comprehensive 1-2 hour interviews with members of each collaboration on-site –Collection of archival data Analysis: –Systematic qualitative analysis (Atlas.ti) –Nonparametric stats: Spearman’s rho

9. School of Communication and Information STUDY 1 SAMPLE EXCERPTS: ROLE OF COMMUNICATION CLIMATE Relationship between geographic dispersion and innovation Relationship between national diversity and innovation Teams with highly psych. safe communication climates (+) “The fact that they are virtual, spread out, has introduced points of view that we wouldn't have gotten if they weren't virtual…If we made everyone move to the same place to do the work, that would alter their point of view; and wouldn’t be a very effective solution for this kind of work.” (Office Systems, Design Team) (+) “I never felt that the cultural differences were a real problem. In most every case, those differences are known by the partners and accepted by the partners. Those things don’t make any problems, they can be an advantage for bringing up new ideas.” (Auto Unification, Function Team) Teams with the least psych. safe communication climates (-) “The geography is going to prevent our team and theirs from ever becoming a cohesive unit. Everything is geared toward the field. Our job function is never incorporated into it. For example, we rolled out a new tool, and nothing has been communicated out to the field. We've received a lot of brick walls.” (Travel Service, South Market Team) (-) “Yes, there was discussion. But most of the time they were not discussions in which new ideas would come up. It’s really two sides and it stays like that.” (Europe Connect)

10. School of Communication and Information STUDY 2: METHODS Overview: survey-based, moderated multiple regression Sample: –266 individuals from 56 engineering project teams –Involved in design of $200 billion military aircraft –79% of each team sampled (avg.), average team size = 4.75 Procedure: –Online survey of team members and 2-3 internal customers of each team (selected by program leader) Analysis: –Hierarchical moderated regression analysis

11. School of Communication and Information STUDY 2: MEASURES Geographic dispersion: measure of categorical dispersion across locations in the team (Blau’s formula) Electronic dependence (  =.72): 4 items measuring extent of reliance on 1) email, 2) teleconferencing, 3) collaborative software, and 4) overall reliance on CMC Dynamic structure (  =.70): 3 items, e.g., “members of this team change frequently” National diversity: measure of categorical dispersion across nations in the team (Blau’s formula)

12. School of Communication and Information STUDY 2: MEASURES Psychologically safe communication climate (  =.79): 4 items, e.g., “members are able to say what they think”, “when there’s a problem, members talk about it” Innovation: 2-3 customers per team asked to assess “compared to what is possible (100%), estimate how effective this team has been at innovation using a percentage.” Convergent validity: high correlations between innovation and 1) technical performance, 2) effectiveness, and 3) knowledge sharing Controls: 1) team size, 2) task interdependence, 3) leadership style, 4) team training effectiveness

13. School of Communication and Information STUDY 2 RESULTS: MODEL Electronic Dependence Dynamic Structure National Diversity Geographic Dispersion Innovation Psych. Safe Communication Climate -.24* -.22* -.27* -.24* Significant interaction effects across elements Virtuality Controls: team size, task interdependence, leadership*, training * p<.05

14. School of Communication and Information

15. Figure 1a. Effect of communication climate on the relationship between geographic dispersion and innovation. 85.89 79.75 79.52 68.42 60 70 80 90 100 Low High Geographic Dispersion Innovation Psychologically safe communication climate Non-psychologically safe communication climate Figure 1c. Effect of communication climate on the relationship between dynamic structure and innovation. 86.12 78.93 83.11 70.85 60 70 80 90 100 Low High Dynamic Structure Innovation Figure 1d. Effect of communication climate on the relationship between national diversity and innovation. 85.15 80.59 78.57 68.11 60 70 80 90 100 Low High National Diversity Innovation 88.58 81.15 76.17 63.07 60 70 80 90 100 Low High Electronic Dependence Figure 1b. Effect of communication climate on the relationship between electronic dependence and innovation. Innovation

16. School of Communication and Information More nuanced conceptualization of virtuality; elements have differential effects on innovation Virtuality may have unintended negative consequences for innovation Critical role of psychologically safe communication climate in moderating negative effects of virtuality DISCUSSION

17. School of Communication and Information CURRENT WORK Ways in which knowledge sharing challenges can be overcome by PSCC, trust, and identification in virtual settings Constitutive view of virtual teaming: virtual team processes are constituted through communication Dialectical tensions as productive way of managing differences in global collaboration –Cultural differences as dynamic tensions rather than polar oppositions

18. School of Communication and Information CULTURE AS KALEIDOSCOPE

19. School of Communication and Information QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION What factors make it difficult to share knowledge in virtual contexts? How can differences be managed successfully to promote innovation and creativity in virtual work contexts? How can a PSCC be created? What other questions are on your mind?

20. School of Communication and Information Contact Info: Dr. Jennifer Gibbs Department of Communication Rutgers University jgibbs@rutgers.edu