Group Behavior in Organizations

a23ars

Chapter8_GroupBehaviorInOrganizations.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Group Behavior in Organizations

281

8Technology and Teamwork

Jon Feingersh/Blend Images/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Identify the key elements and events driving the evolution of netcentric organizations and virtual teams.

• Describe ways in which netcentricity has changed business processes by redefining key elements and boundaries within the traditional system.

• Differentiate between social networking and social media, and identify ways in which they improve organizational functioning.

• Assess the potential benefits of organizational marketing strategies that utilize social media.

• Explain the concept of virtuality in teams and the key areas in which increased virtuality impacts team dynamics.

• Identify the five contexts that are commonly misaligned in virtual teams and explain their significance to team interaction.

• Describe the three basic functions of digital communications technologies within virtual teams and identify tools that accomplish these.

• Identify key problem areas in virtual team communications and the strategies for overcoming them.

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 281 8/19/16 9:33 AM

Introduction

Pretest

1. Virtual teams emerged outside of any formal organizational strategy, a natural product of the netcentric evolution.

2. Social networking platforms and social media are the same thing. 3. Online communities facilitate organizational knowledge sharing and employee

socialization. 4. Virtual teams now handle many of the tasks once performed by traditional teams. 5. Teleconferencing is a social media marketing tool.

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.

Introduction Zari is the leader of a recently formed team that is composed of members from the United States, Germany, and India. Zari is an experienced team leader, but she has never led a virtual team that spans three continents. While she is a little unsure of herself in this new situation, she decides to proceed as if this were a regular, colocated team—and sets the first team meeting.

The seven members of this international team have never met face-to-face. Communications between them have taken place primarily via e-mail, with the occasional phone call. Zari decides to use a teleconference format for their first team meeting and is met with her first challenge as leader of virtual team—managing several different time zones. Finally, the meeting is scheduled after finding a time that works for everyone. Zari takes the lead during the call. She formally introduces members, outlines the team’s goals, and discusses workflow and deadlines.

While Zari accomplishes her goals for the call and ultimately views it as successful, she feels something was missing from the team’s interaction. After reflecting on initial team meetings she has led in the past, Zari concludes that she’s missing the feeling that her team members have begun to gel. Just hearing each other’s voices does not seem to have been enough for them to get a real sense of each other—or of being part of a team. With this in mind, Zari schedules their next meeting and plans to use Skype so members can see each other, too. Her hope is that by seeing as well as hearing one another, members will be able to develop the sense of “togetherness” in action and purpose that Zari associates with working in teams.

Several weeks pass between the initial phone meeting and the team’s first Skype meeting. During that time, members work individually toward their goals and continue to communicate, but mainly through e-mail. As team leader, Zari is included on many of these communications and begins to notice a few things. First, members tend to lack cohesion, as their communications are strictly professional and formal. No informal communication takes place, and members are not bonding with each other in ways that will help them achieve their shared goals. Second, some team members’ competitive nature is becoming evident to Zari. This is concerning because competition goes against the core of teamwork and can lead some members to micromanage others, instead of trusting them to do their work.

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 282 8/19/16 9:33 AM

Introduction

As Zari begins the Skype meeting, she notices that the team members from India have not yet joined. She decides to wait a few minutes, using this time to facilitate some informal communication between herself and the members who are present. In an attempt to build familiarity, she addresses members by their first names, telling them all how glad she is to finally put faces to names and voices. Unfortunately, the conversation is awkward and stilted. The members from Germany seem irritated by the delay and uncomfortable with Zari’s attempts at familiarity, so after several minutes she moves forward with the meeting, despite the absence of the members from India.

When the meeting ends, Zari concludes that it was unsuccessful; she realizes that the team members have already established a pattern of working as individual satellites. A little face time now is not enough to break this habit. To bring them back together, Zari needs to take steps to build team cohesion before the next meeting. Zari is also aware that cultural factors are playing a role in impeding cohesion. Before she can begin improving cohesiveness within the team, she must understand and address the cultural factors at play. After a little research into business practices and cultural norms in Germany and India, Zari identifies two areas that are causing friction: punctuality and formality in addressing individuals. Each culture—India, Germany, and the United States—have different perspectives on these matters, and Zari realizes that she will need to address the differences before she can proceed with building cohesion.

After addressing cultural norms, one of the first steps for developing cohesion will be to enlist all team members in the creation of a road map to complete their goals. Zari believes that if they help map out the steps to success, it will foster cohesion and provide opportunity for informal interactions. Zari also plans to encourage face-to-face communication by making Skype or FaceTime one of the team’s main communication methods. While it won’t surpass e-mail as the primary method of communication, getting face time with each other will help the team get to know one another. Zari plans to both suggest this and model this behavior to her team. She will also need to model social exchanges. She hopes that with enough encouragement on her part, the rest of the team members will take the initiative to spark social interactions that will bond them together in critical ways.

After several months of modeling the behavior she wants to see from her team, members convene for another Skype meeting to address progress toward their goals. Zari finds this meeting to be much more in line with her expectations for a colocated team meeting. She feels that her encouragement played a key part in helping her team members build cohesion despite the physical distance between them.

The past 50 years have seen the birth and death of many culture-shifting technolo- gies. Buying music on CDs, browsing for books in the aisles of a bookstore, and being discouraged from using social media at work: All of these real-life phenomenon are rap- idly fading into pop culture history. Communication and information technologies have given birth to the information economy, and from those foundations arose a virtual reality wherein many of us live, play, learn, and work. This chapter describes the rise of virtual organizations, work spaces, and teams. It examines the major forces behind the evolution of online business and work practices, such as the global shifts in informa- tion technologies, the growing complexity of organizational products and needs, and

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 283 8/19/16 9:33 AM

Section 8.1 Netcentricity: Cultural Evolution in Action

the successful experimentation and implementation of alternative workplace strate- gies. The chapter also examines the major differences between traditional and virtual team dynamics, problematic issues specific to virtual teamwork, and strategies to address these problems. Let’s begin by taking a look at the origins of online work.

8.1 Netcentricity: Cultural Evolution in Action Netcentricity refers to the ability of digital networks to instantaneously and globally distribute information (University of Maryland, 1999). Netcentricity and the emergence of an information-based global marketplace have generated an increasingly complex, fast-paced, all-access business environment in which traditional marketing territories and product monopolies have been obliterated and classic sales and service strategies made obsolete. Beginning in the 1990s, the shift toward netcentricity resulted in widespread hypercompetition and rivalry among companies as they struggled to assimilate the dynamics of the evolving marketplace (D’Aveni, 1995). As the decade progressed, top management recognized that the increasingly complex, dynamic working environment and production needs often demanded more KSAs than were readily available within a single organization (Agarwal, 2003).

Emerging communication technologies helped companies address their changing needs by enabling business practices and new methods of working that were freed from the traditional boundaries of place, space, and use (Agarwal, 2003; Vos, Van Meel, & Dijcks, 1999). The launching of the Internet—along with its near instantaneous ability to connect, share information, and communicate problems and needs—revolutionized the marketplace. Organizations began to incorporate IT and network-based processes and work practices. These new netcentric organizations (Hazari, 2002; Kharitonov, 2011) evolved from alternative workplace strategies adopted by companies as they worked to keep pace with this cultural evolution.

Alternative Workplace Strategies The use of technology to redefine organizational boundaries originally began as a campaign to reduce operating costs. In the 1990s large corporations like AT&T and IBM began pioneering alternative workplace strategies based on flexible and nontraditional working methods and practices (Gibson, 2003; Apgar, 1998). These strategies looked for ways to use the new technologies and characteristics of the changing business world. Since more employees were traveling, for example, companies experimented with shared desks and office space for people on different work and travel schedules. Setting up satellite offices—smaller workplaces located closer to employees’ homes, and in areas where real estate is comparatively inexpensive— was another strategy aimed at reducing costs. As communication technology opened up the realm of teleconferencing, AT&T began working on a strategy that would take advantage of these growing technologies by asking employees to work from their homes, which would save millions of dollars.

In 1994 more than 30,000 AT&T employees from top management to line operators began an experiment in remote work, referred to at the time as telecommuting. The experiment proved successful, and by 1998 the resulting consolidation and elimination of office space and related overhead costs freed up roughly $550 million (Apgar, 1998). While AT&T experi- mented with telecommuting across its organization, IBM implemented a strategy that set up

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 284 8/19/16 9:33 AM

Section 8.1 Netcentricity: Cultural Evolution in Action

complete business units to work remotely with its North American sales and service organi- zation. This strategy was also a success, and by 1997 IBM had reduced expenditures by 42%, saving the company billions of dollars per year (Apgar, 1998).

As communication and information technologies grew in scope and ability throughout the 1990s, alternative workplace strategies evolved beyond a simple conservation of space and resources to encompass real-time, multiperson data sharing and virtual collaboration. The U.S.-based Dow Chemical Company began its global expansion in 1996 by creating an international network of virtual teams. However, virtual teams at that time had to work much harder than they do today to organize real-time communications and data sharing. They met via phone conference and shared documents, which they individually downloaded from an online server. Each team member was then responsible for recording any changes to the content of these documents over the course of their meeting.

In 1997 the unwieldiness of this technique, along with the high probability of personal error, prompted Dow Chemical to adopt Microsoft’s NetMeeting, one of the earliest commercially available Internet-based videoconferencing tools. NetMeeting allowed Dow Chemical’s global virtual teams to conference, chat, data share, and view and make collaborative changes to the same document in real time. Dow Chemical tech specialist Harold Bennett noted that the new software dramatically increased effective collaboration, mainly by facilitating these real-time interactions. He noted that the ability to simultaneously view and edit the same information, see changes in progress, and give immediate suggestions or feedback empowered team members to resolve issues on the spot, rather than through long and arduous phone and e-mail exchanges (Microsoft Corporation, 1998).

Organizations that embraced netcentricity and virtual teamwork were rewarded with substantial benefits. Virtual work spaces increased organizational flexibility and market access and allowed exploitation of geographically limited assets or characteristics such as specialized facilities, natural resources, or relatively low labor costs (Mowshowitz, 1994; Carmel & Agarwal, 2000). Today netcentric organizations leverage their connectivity to reduce processing time and resource cost in both internal and external transactions (Hazari, 2002). For example, online product ordering takes a fraction of the time previously needed— and customers do the work themselves. Management decisions are aided by increased connectivity as well, as lag times between gathering information and communicating viewpoints and decision preferences from distributed employees have been nearly eliminated. Smaller businesses that were previously restricted to local customer bases and suppliers due to high operating costs now have entry into the global marketplace. As business processes and practices become increasingly netcentric, traditional organizational boundaries are being redefined.

Redefining Traditional Boundaries Most contemporary organizations operate under some degree of netcentricity. Cooperation and collaboration across organizational and geographical boundaries is common. Employ- ees are increasingly likely to work with, manage, or be managed by groups and individuals who are spatially distributed, separated by time zones or asynchronous project input, and functionally and/or culturally diverse (DeSantis & Monge, 1999). Some organizations, such as Netflix, Amazon, and eBay, operate almost entirely online. Others augment their brick-and- mortar operations with network-based work practices that utilize the online environment for internal and external information and resource sharing, contacting customers and suppliers,

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 285 8/19/16 9:33 AM

Section 8.1 Netcentricity: Cultural Evolution in Action

and handling customer-related interfacing such as customer service, product descriptions or viewing galleries, and sales. Ikea is good example of an augmented brick-and-mortar business. Its stores are designed and set up entirely around customer walking and browsing: Custom- ers enter the store via an escalator and are directed along a marked path through each level of the store, ending their journey at the ground floor cash registers for checkout. Despite this reliance on the brick-and-mortar format, Ikea also maintains a detailed commercial website that allows customers to browse and shop for home delivery, check in-store product avail- ability, and address customer service issues.

Companies like Netflix, Amazon, eBay, and Ikea all use netcentricity to their advantage, enabling their business processes and interactions to transcend traditional boundaries of space, time, location, and culture (DeSantis, Staudenmayer, & Wong, 1999). However, the information and technology age has had another profound impact on global business and society: It has for- mally established the concept of nonmaterial products. Today organizations like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Wikipedia offer information and social connection, profiting through indirect commercial methods rather than direct transactions for material goods. Wikipedia survives on yearly donation drives to offer free access to a wide range of knowledge. Facebook and Linke- dIn offer free membership access in exchange for exposure to targeted advertisements and marketing campaigns, all of which generate revenue. LinkedIn also profits by selling access to enhanced brand, talent acquisition, and search features for corporate recruiters (Potter, 2015).

The intersection of social media and organizational strategy has blurred the line between private and professional social interactions, redefining this traditional boundary as well. Netcentricity has had a profound effect on contemporary lifestyle and culture, irrevocably changing the way we interact and exchange value. These societal changes are reflected in the corresponding evolu- tion of organizational knowledge sharing and structure toward dependence on social network- ing and online communities.

Conceptualizing Social Networks A social network is essentially a web of connectivity between individuals and groups. Social networks are not groups and are distinct from other forms of association. Unlike aggregates, social networks tend to exist more in the mind than within a concrete place and time. Likewise, though social networks require that their members have some point of relativity to provide the initial connection point (for example, a supplier and a distributor meet and share contact information at a conference or through a social networking site), they do not require all members to share the same point of relativity. For example, while social categories are defined by members who have at least one characteristic shared by all (such as gender or profession), social networks encompass members who may have

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images Lionel Bonaventure/AFP/Getty ImagesDavid McNew/Getty Images

Amazon, Facebook, and Wikipedia are powerful netcentric organizations that are shaping lifestyle and culture in the 21st century.

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 286 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.1 Netcentricity: Cultural Evolution in Action

no point of relativity other than their own contact with an existing member. In this way, social networks represent both direct and indirect connections between people who may or may not ever interact. The idea that our social contacts can link us to people we have never met or interacted with inspired the concept of “six degrees of separation,” the theory that a relation between any two people in the world can be demonstrated with six or fewer social connections (Newman, Barabási, & Watts, 2006; Dodds, Muhamad, & Watts, 2003).

Social networks form a web of personal connections and communications that enable knowl- edge and information to be disseminated between individuals and groups (Allen, James, & Gamlen, 2007; Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2002). They cross both organizational and geo- graphic boundaries and allow for organizational socialization, learning and innovation, as well as day-to-day business operations (Cross & Parker, 2004). Before the advent of social networking platforms like Facebook and LinkedIn, social networking referred to the practice of leveraging existing social connections to build and expand personal and professional con- tacts and influence. While contemporary social networking includes this old definition, it has also grown to encompass active participation within and development of online communi- ties through direct and indirect social connections and interactions. Social networking activi- ties include creating and perusing online profiles, activity and messages boards, and video and blog posts, as well as using widgets and unique interaction features such as “tweeting” on Twitter, “friending” and “poking” people on Facebook, or high-fiving someone on Hi5, a popu- lar Central American social networking platform.

Concepts in Action: The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon In a 1994 interview, actor Kevin Bacon is reputed to have claimed that he had worked with almost every actor in Hollywood, or someone who had worked with them (Perman, 2012). Later that same year, three college students in Reading, Pennsylvania, decided to put that statement to the test after watching a run of movies in which Bacon had appeared. They came up with a party game based on the six degrees of separation theory that proposes that no two people in the world are separated by more than six social connections (Newman et al., 2006; Dodds et al., 2003). The game, which came to be known as the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, became an instant classic. In fact, it was so popular that it launched a board game, a book, and a charitable organization headed by Kevin Bacon; the game was even adopted by Google (Per- man, 2012; SixDegrees.org, 2014). To this day, you can go to the Google home page, type the name of any celebrity followed by the phrase bacon number, and Google will tell you how they are linked and by how many degrees of separation.

Although originally based on the six degrees concept, Bacon has been in so many films that four or more links are rare (Reynolds, 2015). The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon may seem like a silly game, but it’s actually a great demonstration of the social network concept. Next time you’re on Google, try typing in the name of your favorite actor or actress, along with bacon number, and check out a social network in action.

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. Using the concepts from this chapter, explain how the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon

models a social network. 2. Consider Google’s adoption of this game. What motivated Google’s designers to add this

feature? What is the function of the Google search engine? Does it do more than simply sift through information? Suggest one way in which adding interaction games and fea- tures to the search bar benefits Google and helps sustain a sense of community in the online environment.

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 287 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.2 Social Networking: Leveraging the Social Media Interface

Defining Online Communities People seem to intuitively understand the concept of an online community, but coming up with an actual definition is easier said than done. The confusion stems from the fact that online communities can be extremely diverse in social and technical structure, and added to that, they are dynamic, evolving, and subject to constant change (de Souza & Preece, 2004). Given these conditions, a broad definition is most practical; therefore, we define an online community as a large number of people who consistently engage in computer-supported social interaction under some common interest or purpose and are governed by communal norms and policies (Preece, 2000; Miller, Fabian, & Lin, 2009). Wikipedia and Pinterest contributors, regular consumers of an online magazine or consumer site, periodic participants in a chat or knowledge-sharing forum, and the people with whom we consistently interact on Facebook are all examples of online communities.

The online public as a whole is sometimes referred to as the online community. However, this is simply a colloquialism that is only loosely connected to the actual concept—in the same way that some people will refer to any collection of others as a “group.” Actual online commu- nities have a concrete size that ranges from large (more than 1,000 members) to small (less than 100 members). While their memberships are too large and inconsistent in their interde- pendencies to be considered a group, online communities are certainly group-like in that their members share some common interest or purpose and they self-police collectively accepted norms. Online communities are created and maintained through the process of social net- working (Haythornthwaite, 2007).

Some people think that members who neither interact within nor share the same physical context could not possibly constitute a community, a concept associated with social connectedness, cooperative behavior, interdependent interests, and mutual concerns (Sichling, 2008). However, despite the lack of real face-to-face interaction, self-identified members of online communities report experiencing the same social bonds and interrelations found in traditional communities, building strong emotional ties to other online members through participation in cooperative problem solving, knowledge and story sharing, and working toward common goals (Haythornthwaite, 2007). As both social and commercial interactions have moved increasingly online, social networking and online communities have had a profound impact on organizational knowledge sharing and structure by redefining organizations’ external (organization-to-public) and internal (employee-to-employee) interface.

8.2 Social Networking: Leveraging the Social Media Interface Netcentricity has caused a major change in societal and organizational perspective. The world has been reframed through the lens of information technology, which has changed the way we communicate, gather, store, and distribute information; exchange value; and interact on both personal and professional levels. The tools of the information age—computer and IT networks, e-mail and text messaging, blogs, wikis, RSS publishing, social networking sites, and real-time interfacing apps such as FaceTime and Skype—have become primary chan- nels of communication, connecting organizational members to each other and to the outside

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 288 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.2 Social Networking: Leveraging the Social Media Interface

world. These tools have become core elements of organization functioning, and thanks to social media marketing, essential features of organizational strategy as well (Straker, Wrigley, & Rosemann, 2015). To understand how organizations make use of these tools and how they have reshaped organizational knowledge sharing and structure, let’s look at how organiza- tions leverage social media to enhance the function of their external (organization-to-public) and internal (employee-to-employee) interface.

Organization-to-Public Interface Digital channels provide a new and powerful interface between organizations and the public. They offer near continuous and simultaneous access to millions of existing and potential consumers, customers, clients, employees, partners, suppliers, and competitors that interact at various online forums, including any surfers who happen to pass through. Contemporary organizations primarily engage the public through social media, online tools and vehicles for social interaction, communication, and information exchange. These include blog and video posts, “tweets,” Google bar games, surveys, advertisements, widgets, comments, taglines, and more. Social media is often confused with social networking and social networking platforms. Here is the difference: Social networking is an activity; social networking platforms represent the space in which this activity occurs; and social media are the tools used to communicate and interact during social networking sessions. When we post a video response to someone’s YouTube page, for example, we are engaging in social networking (an activity involving social connection and interaction), via a social networking platform (YouTube), using social media (our video post).

Online communities and social networking platforms have become the prime forums for social media marketing, advertisement, and public relations campaigns (Petrov, Zubac, & Milojevic, 2015). This application of netcentricity significantly benefits the organization. The online communities and social networking platforms that support social media create a two- way interface between the organization and the public. Companies can market their products, branding, and image and get immediate and diverse feedback from customers, which includes collecting consumers’ input regarding their wants and needs (Hansson, Wrangmo, & Soilen, 2013). Social media works very much like word-of-mouth marketing—always an influential factor in consumer attitudes and behavior—in which product reviews and recommendations for or against specific goods and providers of goods are passed from person to person (Park & Cho, 2012). Informal social interaction among existing and potential consumers, and between the organization and the public, generates “brand communities” of product users. While admirers act as product cheerleaders and enhance brand loyalty, corresponding antibrand communities among users speak out against a product. Both of these forces ultimately increase brand presence within social media (Krishnamurthy & Kucuk, 2009; Stokburger-Sauer, 2010). Consumers promote favored brands by posting positive comments on brand-focused Facebook pages and company-sponsored tweets, as well as uploading and commenting on YouTube video clips (Seung-A, 2012). The same social media simultaneously allows consumers to deliver critical feedback and complaints straight to the source via company-affiliated social networking forums.

Facebook alone provides numerous examples of the social media driven organization-to- public interface in action (Inc., 2011). The brand-dedicated Facebook page for Bare Escen- tuals Beauty, Inc., for example, is propelled entirely by fans who comment and converse via wall updates, product discussion boards, and photo galleries. Customer feedback garnered

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 289 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.2 Social Networking: Leveraging the Social Media Interface

through these forums led to a complete redesign of the firm’s product packaging, answering consumers’ desire for a more practical container for on-the-go use (Escentual, 2016). Like- wise, Community Coffee, a century-old family business in Louisiana, has built an active fan base and thriving brand community by using its Facebook page to post recipes, invite recipe suggestions from consumers, and engage potential and existing customers with contests and trivia (Community Coffee, 2016). In 2010 Proctor and Gamble’s Old Spice video starring Isa- iah Mustafa reached viral status, using humor and sex appeal to drive their ‘Man Your Man Could Smell Like’ campaign. The product’s Facebook page hosted some of Mustafa’s personal- ized responses to comments from more than 1 million fans, promoting brand loyalty through active discussion, product giveaways, and the sense that customers and corporation were connecting on a one-on-one basis (Old Spice, 2016; Learmonth, 2010).

Utilizing social media for marketing, advertisement, and public relations enables organiza- tions to do the following:

• Increase brand recognition. Whether online comments and discussions are positive or negative, social media’s open forum, all-access nature, and word-of-mouth func- tion increase brand awareness and recognition.

• Enhance brand loyalty. As a consequence of both social influence and the human tendency to be attracted to people (or organizations) that are familiar and relatable, social media marketing enhances brand loyalty among consumers (Bell, 2013; Miller et al., 2009).

• Attract a wider clientele. Social media are the tools that drive social networking, an activity that involves accessing and interacting with an ever-widening sphere of people, all of whom can be potentially influenced by a social media campaign.

• Lower marketing costs. Public users are a critical driver of social media campaigns, relieving organizations of some of the burden—and the cost—of generating market- ing content.

• Improve search engine ranking. Google and other Internet search engines count social media presence as an important factor in ranking search results, using this as an identifiable marker for significant, legitimate, and credible organizations and brands (Petrov et al., 2015).

• Garner critical insight. By maintaining “opportunistic surveillance” of consumer discussions, contributions, and feedback, companies can garner critical insight into consumers’ opinions, issues, wants, and needs.

A word of caution is in order: Organi- zational use of social media market- ing must be strategically planned and carefully managed. Overeager and underplanned strategies can result in social networking so disorganized

Roberto Machado Noa/LightRocket via Getty Images

Organizations can leverage social media to increase their brand recognition. Revlon ran a social media campaign that offered free postcards and a chance to be featured on its Times Square billboard if customers shared photos via Instagram using the hashtag #loveison.

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 290 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.2 Social Networking: Leveraging the Social Media Interface

that it can confuse employees and customers alike. Athletic gear retailer Reebok, for exam- ple, completely revamped its social media marketing strategy after a 2012 audit revealed that it was unknowingly affiliated with more than 600 company- and customer-created social media accounts, including 232 Facebook pages, 30 Twitter accounts, and 100 YouTube channels (Advertising Age, 2012). More than half of these sported Reebok’s official trademark but were fan created and controlled. Meanwhile, the accounts created by the company were uncoordi- nated and underused, demonstrating how easy access to social media and a poorly planned and implemented strategy can lead to an overwhelming online presence that is completely nonfunc- tional (Straker et al., 2015). Next, we examine how social networking and online communities impact the employee-to-employee interface.

Employee-to-Employee Interface Netcentricity offers increased access to diverse resources that both organizations and consumers utilize and enjoy. The ease with which consumers can now comparison shop and swap information regarding products and services has created an ultracompetitive market characterized by shortened product life spans and continuous demands for innovation and reduced production times (Demsetz, 1991; Agarwal, 2003). Consequently, knowledge— and the ability to successfully pool and utilize diverse KSAs—has become a key production resource in contemporary organizations (Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2004).

The Internet links computer networks worldwide, and organizational employees access this information network from various devices. However, many organizations have also established intranets, or private networks that link an organization’s computers, devices, and databases and are accessible only to its employees. A company-wide intranet essentially functions as a mini-Internet, and organizations stock them with similarly useful features. Some offer employees access to searchable databases; social networking platforms; messaging, collaboration, and information management tools; and social media specifically tailored to organizational needs (de Vreede, Antunes, Vassileva, Gerosa, & Wu, 2016). The private social networks that develop within organizational intranets support knowledge sharing, learning, problem solving, and innovation, as well as day-to-day job-related communication and project management. Employees with similar work practices or interests often form online associations known as communities of practice, which regularly engage in knowledge sharing, member development, and collaborative learning (Allen et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2009).

Although they are a type of online community, communities of practice are not restricted to the online environment. Many host regular face-to-face knowledge and skill presentations to facilitate member development, encourage constructive exchange, interest new members, and help newly hired employees become assimilated and socialized into the organization (Cross & Parker, 2004). Similar to the socialization of new group members described in Chapter 2, organizational socialization is the process by which employees assimilate the norms, values, scripts, and knowledge that are essential to their successful function as organizational members (Saks & Gruman, 2011). Consider the following scenario, for example:

Newly hired at a major software development company, Hayley is still feeling out her colleagues and learning the ins and outs of the organization. Her boss, Lee, suggests that she attend a regularly scheduled get-together of programmers as a way to get “plugged in” to the organization, become better

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 291 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.3 Virtual Teamwork: Cooperating Across a Divide

acquainted with some of her colleagues, and check out some of their ongoing projects. A round of friendly introductions is followed by a demonstration of a new set of programming tools. Hayley is impressed by the new functionality features that are demonstrated and wonders if she can apply them to the project to which she has been assigned. After the demonstration, she initiates a lively discussion that ends with several ideas for combining and reinventing codes developed by the other members, and Haley gets contact information for each of her discussion partners. Engaging in this constructive exchange has furthered Hayley’s socialization process, located her within a useful community of practice, eased her entry into the organization’s social network, and facilitated productive knowledge sharing and cooperative learning.

Online communities of practice create and maintain an environment that fosters knowledge creation and sharing, enables process improvement, and enhances individual and organiza- tional efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation (Lesser & Everest, 2001). They accomplish this by enhancing an organization’s ability to:

• leverage dispersed knowledge and expertise, • generate and transfer process improvements and best practices, • support organizational learning and innovation, • increase the quality and rapidity of collaborative problem solving, • facilitate employee recruitment and external partnerships, and • enhance member development and employee satisfaction.

Multiple and differentiated communities of practice can be encompassed within a single organization, and each offers significant value to employees and the organization as a whole (Swan, Scarbrough, & Robertson, 2002). Online communities, organizational intranets, and social networking also play an essential role in facilitating communication, coordination, and collaboration between distributed employees. In the next section, we examine virtual teamwork and the complex dynamics of online interaction in virtual teams.

8.3 Virtual Teamwork: Cooperating Across a Divide Virtual teams are separated by time, geography, and/or organizational boundaries, and they interact primarily through technology (Devine, 2002; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000; Powell et al., 2004). They evolved as a response to the challenges posed by the IT-driven economy, a globally distributed workforce, and a fast-paced, dynamic business environment. Though they were first introduced as an alternative workplace strategy, virtual teams now perform across all organizational levels and functions. They have, in fact, become the norm. Virtual teams can be applied in nearly all the same settings as traditional teams, and the tasks they handle are largely the same (Espinosa, Slaughter, Kraut, & Herbsleb, 2007; Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2004; Caya et al., 2013). Where they differ is in how they interact—via technology—and this distinction has a dramatic impact on how these teams coordinate, cooperate, and collaborate.

Virtual teams are netcentric by nature; that is, they depend on IT networks and technology- based interaction. In the early days of virtual teamwork, this was a response to the need to efficiently coordinate between remote locations or mobilize unique resources without undue

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 292 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Media richness

Netcentric dependence

Synchronicity

Low Synchronicity, Low media richness, High netcentric dependence

High synchronicity, High media richness, Low netcentric dependence

Section 8.3 Virtual Teamwork: Cooperating Across a Divide

cost. Netcentricity allowed virtual team members to work together despite the separation imposed by differences in time, location, or organizational boundaries. However, the benefits of being able to leverage connectivity and remote resources, access a wider range of member KSAs, and literally work around the clock soon had organizations looking for ways to use vir- tual teams whether they actually needed them or not.

Today teams with varying degrees of virtuality have become relatively common, from completely virtual teams to face-to-face teams that get a virtual assist (Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005). Members of a financial audit team, for example, may choose to exchange information and reports online even while sitting in the same room, both for convenience and to furnish everyone with digital copies of relevant data (Griffith, Sawyer, & Neale, 2003; Straus & Olivera, 2000). As Figure 8.1 illustrates, a team’s virtuality is measured across three dimensions:

• Degree of netcentric dependence (for example, the extent to which the coordination and execution of team processes rely on virtual interaction)

• Media richness of digital exchange (for example, the amount and quality of informa- tion, and social presence, communicated via digital channels)

• Synchronicity of member interaction (for example, the degree of delay between member exchanges)

Figure 8.1: Modeling team virtuality

A team’s virtuality is measured across three dimensions: its degree of netcentric dependence, the media richness of its digital exchanges, and the synchronicity of members’ interactions. As synchronicity and media richness decrease, netcentric dependence increases. As shown here, a team with high synchronicity and high media richness has a lower dependence on netcentricity. Conversely, a team with low synchronicity and low media richness has a higher dependence on netcentricty.

Source: Based on Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31(5), 700–718.

Media richness

Netcentric dependence

Synchronicity

Low Synchronicity, Low media richness, High netcentric dependence

High synchronicity, High media richness, Low netcentric dependence

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 293 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.3 Virtual Teamwork: Cooperating Across a Divide

On this scale, for example, a team that handles task and project management primarily through a media-lean, asynchronous digital channel such as e-mail is considered relatively high in vir- tuality, whether its member are distributed or colocated (meaning that they work together in the same location). This measure of virtuality was put in place when researchers (see Kirk- man & Mathieu, 2005, Griffith et al., 2003; Dixon & Panteli, 2010) realized that regardless of colocation, high dependence on a digital channel limits a team’s ability to experience immedi- ate feedback and subtle interpersonal cues such as body language, facial expression, and ver- bal tone. Thus, a colocated team such as the one described above will effectively interact like a virtual team, experiencing the same advantages and disadvantages in team performance and dynamics.

Netcentric teams offer a potentially unique combination of efficiency and effectiveness, allowing organizations to bring together members with desirable experience and KSAs, no matter where they are physically located or in what time zone they work. Enabled by digital technologies, information and work exchange are similarly freed from the constructs of time and space. However, as teams increase in virtuality, working as a cohesive unit becomes more difficult (Dixon & Panteli, 2010). Virtual teams must overcome all of the same performance obstacles as traditional teams and handle a few extra challenges as well. In the end, the basic elements that describe virtual teams—separation across various boundaries and digital communication—are the biggest hurdles to their effective performance. These hurdles are so big, in fact, that they each deserve a section of their own. The dynamics of digital communication are covered in Section 8.4. In this section, we address the issues that arise from the contextual differences between team members separated by time, geography, and/ or organizational boundaries.

Contextual Differences in Teams Traditional teams engage in face-to-face interaction because they work together in the same location. This has a greater impact on their effectiveness than you might think. Colocated team members interact within a shared environment where team members experience the same set of working conditions and influences (Brezillon, 2003; Anderson, 1995). This automatically generates a certain degree of contextual continuity—a continuously shared context—that offers team members a firm foundation for effective communication and coordination. Contextual discontinuities reflect a state of unshared context in which perceived differences cause miscommunication and discord (Chudoba & Watson-Manheim, 2008). While contextual discontinuities can arise in any team that has diverse membership, they are far more likely to cause difficulty in virtual teams whose members have different environmental, cultural, relational, social, and organizational contexts. The following paragraphs examine how unshared context in each of these areas impacts team interaction. Let’s begin by taking a closer look at environmental context.

Environmental Context Our environmental context encompasses the physical aspects of our work setting, including the presence of other people, the comforts (or discomforts) of the work space, the availability of equipment and technology, and ongoing activities, events, and distractions. Colocated team members necessarily share an environmental context. This is particularly useful for teamwork because it enables frequent and rich communication, increased familiarity through social interaction, and clear, easily recognizable commonalities between team members, all

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 294 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.3 Virtual Teamwork: Cooperating Across a Divide

of which facilitate the development of shared scripts and norms, mutual understanding, and relational bonds between team members.

Sharing an environment increases team members’ awareness of each other, their individual contributions and needs, and their status as a team. This sense of others, and one’s relation- ship to them in social interactions, is referred to as social presence (Kimble, 2011).When this awareness is lacking, team members who communicate via technology can lose sight of each other’s humanity and view themselves as isolated entities (Shen & Khalifa, 2008). In essence, team members whose social presence is unfelt seem less real. Consequently, team members are less likely to trust each other’s motives and contributions, voluntarily share information, or work on developing social bonds. As a result, they become more likely to view others as outsiders—possibly even competitors—and act without regard for their opinions and needs (Kohonen-Aho & Alin, 2015).

Cultural Context Cultural context encompasses the culturally accepted rules and norms that govern individuals’ attitudes, perception, and behavior, including how they demonstrate politeness and respect, communicate feelings, manage feedback, and interpret others’ attitudes and behavior. The diversity typical to virtual teams makes them especially vulnerable to both task and relationship conflict (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006). This can both positively and negatively affect team performance.

Diversity of viewpoints, experience, and KSAs can generate constructive task conflict that promotes creativity and flexibility, which increases the quality of outcomes in team problem solving and decision making (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Pelled et al., 1999). However, these differences also heighten the potential for destructive conflict between distributed members (Armstrong & Cole, 2002; McDonough, Kahn, & Barczak, 2001; Paul & Ray, 2013). Miscommunication and/or lack of alignment in task-related activities can generate confusion, irritation, and negative perceptions of other team members. If they respond to these feelings with aggression, they may find themselves in a rapidly escalating personal conflict that can further damage their relationships with other team members (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Korsgaard, Sapienza, & Schweiger, 2001). Members on either side of the conflict can develop isolationist tendencies rooted in mistrust and the desire to avoid further conflict or process loss. If others rally to them, they can form internal subgroups that divide and damage the team.

Relational and Social Contexts The relational and social contexts tend to be closely associated. Relational context reflects the member status, roles, and interrelationships that generate specific attitudes, behaviors, and expectations for social interaction. Meanwhile, social context reflects those rules and norms associated with the situational elements of a social interaction. People’s learned and intuitive understanding of relational context, for example, dictates that the attitude and behavioral expectations between a mother and son are different than those between a manager and employee. We see this even in family-run businesses, where the behavioral guidelines between family members are different while conducting business than during familial interactions. Consider Dana, a mother who is also a manager in her family business. Dana might talk briskly and use formal body language to her son Jordan while he is working as an employee at their

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 295 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.3 Virtual Teamwork: Cooperating Across a Divide

store yet conclude a business-related conversation by placing a hand on his arm and, in a completely different tone of voice, ask if he’s coming to dinner.

This also demonstrates how the relational and social contexts interrelate. As Dana shifts between the roles of manager and mother, she signals a brief shift in social context as well, moving from a formal business interaction to an informal familial exchange. Relational and social context are not always directly linked, however. People’s learned and intuitive under- standing of social context dictates how they adjust their expectations and behavior for social exchange in different settings. For example, people generally expect different types of behav- ior and interaction at a party than they would in a grocery store or an office space. Likewise, these expectations vary between an informal barbeque and a formal black tie event.

Both relational and social contexts are deeply impacted by the cultural context within which individuals have been raised. The attitudes, values, customs, practices, and behavioral norms that some people view as “correct” in relational or social contexts may be very different than those in another culture. Americans, for example, will generally voice their opinions and suggestions without much prompting during the discussion phase of a meeting—and may also have a tendency to interrupt at less appropriate points as well. While this behavior is accepted and expected among American team members, Americans who behave this way in a team meeting in Japan would likely be viewed as exceedingly aggressive and rude. Likewise, an American team leader might be dismayed by the apparent unresponsiveness of Japanese team members who sit quietly without speaking, even when the leader calls for people to contribute their ideas or opinions.

While the American might be wondering what went wrong, a Japanese manager might quickly identify which team members are waiting to share ideas by recognizing minute changes in certain people’s facial expression and body language (Meyer, 2014a, 2014b). A quiet request to each of these team members in turn will generate a stimulating conversation—much to the American’s surprise. This is an effect of the unshared relational and social contexts between the American and Japanese employees in this scenario. In Japanese culture, expressions and behaviors that are in any way attention grabbing or confrontational are considered extremely rude. Consequently, team members will not initially make any suggestions, nor will they draw overt attention to themselves, even when their opinions are solicited (Meyer, 2014a). Managers must read subtle cues in posture and expression, or suggest methods that do not conflict with cultural norms, such as writing ideas down and collectively mapping the group’s suggestions (Meyer, 2014b). These relational and social rules and norms would be inherently known to someone who grew up within Japanese culture but can seem difficult and strange to a cultural outsider.

Another commonality between the relational and social contexts is that both can be assimi- lated, or coconstructed, when team members work cooperatively to develop shared scripts and norms. By finding or creating commonality between diverse relational and social con- texts, team members can cooperatively generate a unified group culture based on the team’s unique membership, the developmental and operational setting in which it is embedded, and its organizational context. The development of shared scripts and norms enables coordinated teamwork, provides a framework for mutual understanding, and offers guidelines for social conduct, including what to do in a conflict situation (Caya et al., 2013). Understanding the influence of culture on relational and social contexts, for example, the leader of an American– Japanese cross-cultural team could establish discussion and idea exchange techniques that

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 296 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.3 Virtual Teamwork: Cooperating Across a Divide

are, from the beginning of an interaction, acceptable to everyone. Establishing written brain- storming and idea mapping as a team norm, for example, allows everyone to participate com- fortably, withoutcalling undue attention to contextual differences between team members. Creating a unified group culture improves social bonding and identification within the team, provides a forum of similarity, and increases acceptance for the differences that continue to exist between diverse members (Leung et al., 2003). These in turn foster the growth of trust within the team (Panteli, 2005; Korsgaard et al., 2003).

Organizational Context Organizational context encompasses the comprehensive culture, systems, structure, pro- cesses, and resources in place within an organization, including attitudes and behavior regarding teamwork, diversity, and conflict; evaluation, feedback, and reward systems; oper- ating procedures; dress code; formality of office relationships; and existing communication channels and networks. Teams that are isolated from their organizational context seldom suc- ceed in the long term, because teams require organizational support systems and frequent communication with other organizational units to perform effectively (Hertel, Geister, & Kon- radt, 2005; Harris & Beyerlein, 2008). Unshared organizational context can act as another form of cultural difference within the team, negatively impacting members’ ability to rec- ognize or develop shared scripts and foster cohesion. It also makes conflict between team members more likely, as differences in formalized ways of thinking and doing collide during team performance.

In traditional organizations, a wealth of social constructs and cues help employees establish relational links with other employees and the organization itself (Weisenfeld, Raghuram, & Garud, 1999). Organizational culture, norms, and patterns of interaction help shape employee behavior, motivation, and expectations. This drives the process of organizational identification, wherein employees form a socioemotional attachment to an organization and align their work-related interests, values, and expectations with those upheld by the organization’s prominent individuals and groups (Riketta, 2005; Agarwal, 2003). Organizational identification can generate solidarity among team members, mitigating the tendency to develop divisive subgroups and isolationist mentalities among distributed team members or work units (Axtell, Fleck, & Turner, 2004; Webster & Wong, 2008). These negative outcomes figure significantly into lowered levels of member satisfaction with virtual teams, as compared to more traditional team models (Hollingshead & McGrath, 1995; Bordia, 1997; Baltes, Dickson, Sherman, Bauer, & LaGanke, 2002).

Now that we better understand the nature of these contexts and their significance to virtual teams, let’s take a closer look at the interaction dynamics that can accompany contextual discontinuities.

Dynamics of Unshared Context As teams move up the scale of virtuality, contextual discontinuities increase. Unshared con- text is a major driver for misunderstanding, disorganization, and conflict (Caya et al., 2013). Differences in environmental context can cause team members to misunderstand or over- look important elements that affect their teammates’ performance. They may be working under difficult conditions or be subject to deadlines and commitments of which others are completely unaware. Differences in other contextual areas can impact how team members

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 297 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.3 Virtual Teamwork: Cooperating Across a Divide

communicate issues that arise during performance and how they handle and respond to con- flict. Consider the following scenario:

Hikari and Mario are culturally diverse and geographically distributed mem- bers of a virtual team. They are collaborating on a new product design that requires each member’s specific expertise, and they work on a rigidly sched- uled rotation. However, the IT network in Hikari’s office crashed just as she began her scheduled work on the project. The IT techs assured everyone that they would be back online in an hour or two, so Hikari decided to work on another, offline project while the techs dealt with the issue. She didn’t bother to call her team, because she expected the problem to be quickly resolved. By the end day, however, the network was still down, and Hikari, who had been completely wrapped up in her other work, realized she had not made any progress on the team project, nor had she informed her teammates of the delay. She checked the time difference, saw that both her teammates would be fast asleep, and decided to send a quick text saying she was running behind. She would call them at a more appropriate time the next morning.

Meanwhile, Mario has had a brilliant idea and has promised to incorporate it into the project and present it to his boss tomorrow afternoon. Upon waking, he finds a brief, vague message from Hikari saying she’s running behind and won’t be delivering the file this morning as expected. Without any contextual information on the delay, and anticipating losing face with his boss, Mario feels an immediate surge of frustration and anger toward Hikari, and he sends her a scathing e-mail. Hikari gets the message just before she goes to sleep and is so hurt and angry that just thinking about talking with Mario in the morning makes her feel sick. She has never before experienced a team member being so unreasonable, aggressive, and impolite. She doesn’t sleep well, nor does she answer his text or call him until nearly lunchtime the next day.

In this scenario, we can see that Mario and Hikari are well into some relationship conflict, generated by a lack of knowledge, communication, and misaligned expectations. It’s clear that they don’t share a cultural or environmental context, and we can infer from their interaction that their social and relational contexts differ as well. Relational and social context can be assimilated or coconstructed to generate a unified group culture based on the establishment of shared scripts and norms. It is clear that this did not happen in this situation. Developing shared scripts and norms may have enabled Mario and Hikari to react differently to their situ- ations. For example, at the outset of the project, the team could have developed guidelines for behavior that would have directed Hikari to immediately text the entire team at the start of the problem and keep them informed and updated throughout the process. Likewise, having guidelines for politeness and communication style during interaction and conflict could have mitigated Mario’s response.

If we distill the interaction between Mario and Hikari into its essential components, we can see that unshared context was at the root of the problem, but poor communication exacerbated it on two distinct levels. Poor communication was behind the lack of shared scripts and norms that could have helped the situation, and it was also the contributing factor to the escalation of confusion and conflict between Mario and Hikari. Thus, we see that communication plays a critical role in developing the shared scripts and norms that enable effective coordination, guide constructive interaction, and provide a framework for mutual

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 298 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.4 Digital Communication: Meeting by Messages

understanding. In turn, developing mutual understanding through knowledge sharing and interpersonal communication is key for dealing with contextual differences. Unfortunately this is the other area in which virtual teams face greater challenges than their traditional counterparts. As teams increase in virtuality, they become more reliant on technology and digital communication. While technology enables netcentric interaction, it also puts limits on how and what team members can communicate. In the next section, we’ll examine how this dichotomy affects process and performance in virtual teams.

8.4 Digital Communication: Meeting by Messages No team can be effective without cooperation, and communication is an essential part of developing and maintaining a cooperative framework for team performance and interaction (Korsgaard et al., 2003). Communication drives the processes that foster team cohesion and enable effective collaboration. Communication is an integral component in the following endeavors:

• Identifying mutual interests and positively related goals, setting the stage for cooperative work

• Building cohesion by enabling processes essential to its core components: commitment, attachment, and trust. This requires that teams be able to solidify and coordinate the cooperative framework by (a) jointly constructing clear and specific performance goals, (b) setting constructive guidelines for member conduct and accountability, and (c) monitoring and supporting each other’s performance.

• Coordinating and carrying out cooperative tasks • Recognizing and collaboratively resolving problems • Managing social relations and conflict within the team

To achieve all of this in a netcentric setting, teams have adopted digital communication technology (DCT), which offers a diverse range of synchronicity and function. In the following section, we outline some of the DCTs most popularly used for virtual teamwork and examine them from a broad category perspective.

Digital Communication Technologies for Virtual Teamwork The DCTs used for virtual teamwork have three basic functions:

1. Sharing information and knowledge 2. Supporting cooperative work and collaboration 3. Generating and maintaining social presence

As we examine the various DCTs, we’ll see that each supports these functions to varying degrees.

E-mail E-mail has become the predominant communication channel supporting day-to-day tasks and activities, task management, and productivity in contemporary organizations (Siu, Iverson, & Tang, 2006; Taylor, Fieldman, & Altman 2008). Easy to use and cost-effective, e-mail has

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 299 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.4 Digital Communication: Meeting by Messages

been universally embraced by both private and professional sectors that encompass all types of occupations and services. Even traditionally face-to-face domains such as psychotherapy and counseling increasingly rely on e-mail interactions (McDaniel, 2003; Nakada & Masayuki, 2000). E-mail features that allow users to simultaneously send to multiple addresses, edit and forward received mail, attach files and multimedia, and store and sort messages make e-mail an indispensable communication tool for both distributed and colocated team members (Hiltz & Turoff, 1993).

File Sharing File sharing applications come in two basic formats: interactive and noninteractive. Interactive file sharing applications like Google Docs are similar to wikis in that they store editable documents; however, the application itself cannot be modified by users. Google Docs offers free online spreadsheets, document management, and collaborative editing. Noninteractive file sharing applications offer cloud storage for a variety of files that can be accessed and downloaded by specified users but cannot be edited in-site. File sharing is a useful application and effective coordination tool for asynchronous work that does not require immediate attention or collaborative interaction. Some companies prefer to use a private file share application that is tied to an organizational server, as this allows superior control over content and access.

Project Management Project management tools are web-based applications that allow users to keep shared resources, task lists, calendars, and text and media files in a centralized location. From there, they can collaboratively monitor and manage the task activities and process. One step up from file sharing applications with editable documents, project management tools have revolutionized the way in which group and team coordination and collaboration is handled. Using online project management tools is rapidly becoming common practice for all kinds of groups and teams in contemporary organizations—much the way e-mail became a universal tool after having been established as an effective communication method for remote workers and virtual teams. Basecamp is one of the most widely known and used project management tools available today, but apps like Flow—which can transition seamlessly from desktop to mobile devices—continue the evolution of this contemporary work practice.

Wikis Wikis are web-based applications that support data, image files, and hyperlinks. They allow users to collaboratively develop and modify their content. In essence, they are freely editable websites that facilitate information and knowledge sharing among users. Wikipedia is the most widely known wiki on the web; it acts as a dynamically evolving knowledge repository that is developed and sustained by harvesting fragmented knowledge from diverse users (de Vreede et al., 2016). Following Wikipedia’s example, contemporary organizations are replacing traditional knowledge management systems that require significant management and expertise with easy-to-use, contributor-managed organizational wikis (Hasan & Pfaff, 2006). Wikis are completely collaborative, require no specialized web language or publication skills, keep prior versions of all web pages (along with author name, date, and related information) in a temporal database for change tracking and safeguarding, and publish new edits instantly for immediate viewing—and revision—by others. These special characteristics make wikis

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 300 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.4 Digital Communication: Meeting by Messages

a popular tool for supporting cooperative work and collaboration in which team members desire full-time access and modification rights to each other’s work. Software development teams frequently use wikis for this purpose (Louridas, 2006).

Wikis are also increasingly being used to facilitate innovation. For example, Cisco Systems Inc., a worldwide provider of organizational networking hardware, software, and service solutions, set up an organizational wiki called the Idea Zone (as known as the I-Zone) to enable employees to freely submit, critique, and brainstorm ideas and concepts for new products, business units, and new ways to use existing products (Samker & Bouchard, 2009). The U.S. Department of Defense puts its set of wikis—the DODTechipedia—to similar use, with private, open access, and classified wiki variations all aimed at enabling communication and collaboration between the military, science, and development communities. Another goal is to create an idea-sharing forum for industry, academia, and the government (Standing & Kiniti, 2011; White House, 2016).

Teleconferencing Teleconferencing applications primarily enable face-to-face online interactions, although most also handle other simple communication exchanges such as small file transfer and regular phone and chat conversations. Teleconferencing applications are critical for maintaining social presence, relational bonds, and cohesion in teams whose distributed membership prevents any other kind of regular face-to-face exchange. Some teleconferencing tools (such as Skype and HipChat) also provide real-time chat rooms for specified groups and generate chat logs that remain intact so that absent members can catch up after the fact. These features can also be used as a memory resource for members who participated.

Teleconferencing may soon move toward direct interaction via virtual world platforms, such as Second Life (Shen & Eder, 2009; Schott, 2013). Linden Lab’s Second Life began as a gaming platform in which users could select and control a relatively realistic avatar that “lives” in a virtual world. Today Second Life is used by a small but growing number of organizations, including large commercial entities, educational institutions, government agencies, and the U.S. military (Tutton, 2009). Users can communicate via Second Life’s audio and IM chat features and can incorporate multimedia materials and apps such as Google Docs. Although it is not yet a common practice, these organizations use Second Life to hold meetings, engage in collaborative work, and host training and learning events, as well as hybrid real world–virtual conferences that integrate virtual world events and discussions with ongoing real world conference activities (Sherman, 2011a). For example, Conversify, a completely netcentric e-commerce consultancy, uses Second Life for weekly “socials” and quarterly company review meetings, as well as virtual collaboration sessions (Sherman, 2011b). IBM has offices that are completely deserted because the workers have all moved online, and many are being trained to use Second Life as an interaction forum (Dretzin, 2010).

Next, we look at how DCTs affect our ability to manage communication and cooperative exchange in group and teamwork.

Managing Communication and Cooperative Exchange Face-to-face communication involves the entire range of human senses. It includes emotional and physical responses to others, the environment, and a specific, commonly held context.

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 301 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.4 Digital Communication: Meeting by Messages

Communication exchanges in virtual teams lack the context of face-to-face exchanges, because digital channels limit emotional and nonverbal cues. Additionally, asynchronicity adds another layer of difficulty to informational or collaborative exchanges. Real-time interactions must be carefully coordinated to ensure that the necessary people can attend and that team members who are not essential to a particular discussion are kept informed of relevant information, issues, and outcomes derived from the exchange. Communication mediums with delayed response times—such as e-mail, message posts, or noninteractive file sharing forums—can suffer from poor information and task coordination.

Virtual teams do not benefit from the frequent social interactions that traditional teams that share a work space enjoy. Due to the limitations of asynchronous exchange and digital communication, virtual teams often struggle to develop the normal relational ties that foster trust, mutual understanding, and conflict management, all of which are prime factors that influence team effectiveness (Caya et al., 2013). The challenges to virtual teamwork are primarily caused by the limitations of digitally communicating over distance. Consequently, managing virtual teamwork is largely a matter of managing communication and cooperative exchange. The following paragraphs describe some of the negative dynamics that can emerge from this situation, and outline basic strategies to overcome them. Let’s begin with the issue of taking responsibility for information management.

Taking Responsibility for Information Management E-mail enhances productivity by offering a rapid flow of asynchronous, cost-effective messages that are both easy to distribute and store. However, these features can also contribute to process loss if employees are not able to effectively manage incoming information (Mano & Mesch, 2010). Per day, organizational employees typically receive 70 to 80 incoming messages, nearly 20% of which are either graymail (such as unwanted notifications or newsletters) or spam, and they send 30 to 40 outgoing messages (Hong & Radicati, 2011). Feeling overloaded or overwhelmed by one’s amount of e-mail is a common complaint in organizational settings and even causes some employees to seek help for workplace stress (Anderson, 2004; Taylor et al., 2008). These negative emotional and psychological effects are caused by difficulties with the amount of information processing and work required by so many e-mails. Each of these issues can be addressed when individuals take responsibility for managing their e-mails, which involves the following actions:

• Specifically target e-mails. Employees typically receive a lot of e-mails that are not personally relevant. Many then compound the problem by automatically using the reply-all feature in their responses, generating another round of irrelevant e-mails (Jackson, Dawson, & Wilson, 2003). Specifically targeting e-mails to relevant individuals and groups significantly reduces the amount of irrelevant e-mails that clog up employee inboxes and therefore lowers the stress of dealing with inbox management.

• Manage mailbox features. Many employees do not take advantage of the ability to adjust how and when messages are viewed. Enabling inbox messages to display the first three lines of an e-mail instead of just the tagline, for example, allows imme- diate detection and deletion of irrelevant messages. It also enables one to quickly prioritize and categorize messages that do need to be dealt with.

• Adjust the rate of notification. Studies have shown that users typically leave their mail apps on the default setting, which automatically scans for and notifies them

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 302 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.4 Digital Communication: Meeting by Messages

of new messages every 5 minutes (Jackson et al., 2003). E-mail is, by nature, an asynchronous exchange; therefore, it is often not necessary to be notified of an incoming e-mail the moment it arrives. Such frequent interruptions contribute to loss of productivity, mental distraction and overload, and feelings of anxiety and irritation (Freeman & Muraven, 2010). On the other hand, long periods of uninterrupted concentration can be detrimental as well. The length of time any one person can effectively concentrate varies, but a break every 45 minutes or so is generally beneficial. E-mail messaging also has its own peak intervals—many are typically sent at the beginning of the workday, just before and after lunch, and at the end of the business day (Jackson et al., 2003). Virtual team members may have their own variation on these schedules, depending on where team members are based and what time zones they are in. By resetting e-mail application scanning and notification to longer intervals that come at appropriate times, e-mail interruptions can better serve employee productivity and well-being (Russell, Purvis, & Banks, 2007).

Maintaining Social Presence Social presence—or the lack thereof—is another challenge to virtual teamwork. Asynchronous digital communication channels limit expressive content, constraining the humanness of the interaction. It can be surprisingly easy to forget—or discount—the social presence of other team members and to fall into us-and-them thinking rather than the cohesive us-ness of the team (Lea & Spears, 1991; Agarwal, 2003). This represents a breakdown in the team’s shared identity and ultimately weakens members’ willingness and motivation to volunteer their best efforts (Espinosa, Cummings, Wilson, & Pearce, 2003; Korsgaard et al., 2001). Pursuing individual or subgroup goals can in turn undermine the team’s collaborative processes and encourage conflict over resources.

Such a scenario reflects a shift away from cooperative attitudes and behaviors and toward a more competitive orientation. Without social presence, distributed team members find it more difficult to trust each other’s motives or quality of input and contributions, and they may act without regard for each other’s opinions and needs (Kohonen-Aho & Alin, 2015). Paired with little or poorly developed cohesion, dispersed team members can take proprietary ownership in their work; they may feel threatened by the thought of others making changes to it, rather than feeling enthusiastic about the prospect of collaboration. In an effort to preserve the integrity of their own ideas, team members may try to micromanage each other, accompanying work updates and file exchanges with forceful suggestions or to-do lists. This can instigate conflict, as team performance becomes a battle of personal interests and agenda. To resolve such conflict, team members must be redirected toward constructive interactions, accept their roles as collaborative problem solvers, and reinvest in a shared identity.

Building and maintaining social presence is considered a best practice for virtual teamwork. This can be accomplished by increasing and normalizing the team’s use of:

• media-rich digital communication technologies such as FaceTime and Skype; • fun and interactive file sharing and collaboration tools; • informal messages and interactions between task-related exchanges; and • coordinated scheduling to increase member synchronicity.

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 303 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.4 Digital Communication: Meeting by Messages

Although building social presence is helpful, it doesn’t replace physical presence and the shared environmental context enjoyed by traditional teams. The lack of these elements in virtual teamwork poses another challenge for team members: performing effectively with fewer social cues.

Performing Despite Fewer Social Cues In traditional team settings, members gauge their acceptance and the success of their contributions by carefully monitoring cues regarding personal value and status within the group (Lind, 2001). However, many of these cues involve physical interaction, such as the use of body language during discussions (Fiol & O’Connor, 2002). The absence of such cues in the online environment makes it difficult for members to gauge their acceptance within the group and whether other team members will follow through on their part of the work. This may lead to, for instance, interdependent team members experiencing increased anxiety over meeting deadlines because they cannot easily observe the others’ progress.

The suspicion that certain teammates are not “pulling their weight” is a common—and rea- sonably justified—source of discord and distrust in virtual teams. Colocated team members can more easily use social pressure to enforce prosocial attitudes and behaviors, includ- ing that members fairly participate in, are accountable to, and contribute to the team. The mere need to physically face the team can motivate members to put forth greater effort and accountability (Agarwal, 2003). Without the consequence of being personally observed and criticized, distributed team members are more likely to engage in free riding, social loafing, and absenteeism than colocated team members (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994).

Problems that arise from the lack of social cues contribute to and are indicative of a deeper issue: a lack of clarity and trust regarding team tasks, member responsibilities, and roles. As outlined in Chapter 2, developing a clear vision and shared understanding of what team members will do and how they will do it is central to developing mutual accountability and trust. Knowing that team members are all on the same page, and having specific and measurable goals by which to gauge progress, builds a sense of ownership, efficacy, and expectation of fair effort and treatment that is foundational to trust, attachment, and commitment—all major components of team cohesion. Unfortunately, developing clear vision and shared understanding typically becomes more difficult for teams as virtuality and contextual discontinuities increase. Team members with one or more unshared contexts are more likely to have diverse, rather than shared, scripts. Script unification can be a complex and difficult process when it encompasses differences in viewpoint, communication style, and/or language, as well as the challenges of digital communication.

To facilitate virtual teamwork, several steps should be taken as early as possible in a team’s life cycle:

• Begin with a face-to-face meeting. Experts in netcentric team management sug- gest launching the team with a face-to-face interaction so that members can get acquainted, align goals, clarify their responsibilities and roles, develop operating principles for teamwork, and unify knowledge and use of communication technolo- gies (Powell et al., 2004; Caya et al., 2013; Hertel et al., 2005). If this can’t be done in person or via a conferencing tool like Skype, then arrange for a voice-only call; this

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 304 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Chapter 8 Summary and Resources

can still be a useful tactic to get everybody on the same page and initiate some sense of social presence, familiarity, and trust.

• Establish a strong alignment. A strong alignment of formal and informal elements at both the team and organizational level—such as goals, strategies, values, and norms—is vital to virtual teams’ effectiveness (Kathuria, et al., 2007; Quiros, 2009). Establishing a clear mission statement and operational charter can build a solid foundation for mutual understanding and cooperative action. This can help members navigate differences, reduce conflict and associated negative emotions, and clarify role responsibilities and decision-making processes (Thomas et al., 2012). Clear, specific, and measurable performance goals facilitate effective coordination, cooperation, and the development of shared scripts and trust between distributed members (Caya et al., 2013; Huang, Wei, Watson, & Tan, 2002).

• Address technology issues. Virtual team members primarily rely on technology- mediated collaboration systems and tools (Hinds & Bailey, 2003), but effectiveness often more largely depends on members’ shared level of knowledge and ability to use such technologies to support communication and coordination (Caya et al., 2013). Managers of netcentric teams should address members’ knowledge and expectations of such technologies. They should provide training in teamwork technologies during the initial launch meeting and periodically revisit best practices throughout the team’s performance.

• Model prosocial attitudes and norms. Virtual teams that rapidly develop trust tend to, from the outset, demonstrate several behaviors that establish prosocial attitudes and norms for online interactions. These include the following: 1. Engage in frequent social exchanges from the beginning of the team’s inception. 2. Send messages that are enthusiastic and optimistic in content and tone. 3. Participate in developing alignment structures. 4. Value fairness and mutual accountability. 5. Proactively deal with uncertainty regarding technology or tasks in establishing

reliable communication. (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998)

Early prosocial norms are upheld through subsequent social interactions, including group monitoring of fair treatment, member reciprocity, and mutual accountability (Webster & Wong, 2008; Korsgaard et al., 2003).

Chapter 8 Summary and Resources

Netcentricity has revolutionized the way we interact, both in our personal and professional lives. Organizational processes and practices have evolved in response to social changes related to netcentricity. Meanwhile, the boundaries between commercial organizations have been redefined by the informality and total access of social networking and social media tools. While teams that are completely face-to-face still exist, they are increasingly rare, as virtuality is becoming a common element in almost all organizational groups and teams. Success in contemporary teams can depend upon our understanding of how virtuality can affect our interactions, and of the steps we can take to enhance cooperation across barri- ers created by the digital interface and differences in language and context. Power relations between group members and leadership can have a major impact on teamwork—both in and out of the virtual world. In Chapter 9, we examine this facet of working together, explor- ing the dimensions of power, influence, and leadership in groups and teams.

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 305 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Chapter 8 Summary and Resources

Chapter Summary

• Netcentricity and the emergence of an information-based global marketplace have generated an increasingly complex, fast-paced, all-access business environment in which traditional marketing territories and product monopolies have been obliterated and classic sales and service strategies made obsolete.

• Netcentric organizations and virtual teams evolved in response to organizational challenges posed by the shift toward the IT-driven economy, a globally distributed workforce, and a fast-paced, dynamic business environment.

• Most contemporary organizations operate under some degree of netcentricity. Some operate almost entirely online, while others augment their brick-and-mortar opera- tions with network-based work practices.

• Netcentricity redefined the boundaries between the private and professional sectors and traditional organizational strategies and work practices. It also conceptualized nonmaterial goods as valuable commercial commodities.

• A social network is a web of direct and indirect connections between individuals and groups that enables the dissemination of knowledge and information.

• Digital communication tools, social media, and social networking have become the primary channels of communication and interaction, connecting organizational members to each other and to the outside world.

• Despite the lack of face-to-face interaction, online communities can generate the same social bonds and interrelations found in traditional communities. This occurs when members participate in cooperative problem solving, share knowledge and stories, and collectively pursue common goals.

• Digital channels provide a new and powerful interface between organizations and the public, dramatically redesigning organizational process and business practices.

• Utilizing social media for marketing, advertisement, and public relations allows organizations to do the following: • Increase brand recognition. • Enhance brand loyalty. • Attract a wider clientele. • Lower marketing costs. • Improve search engine rankings. • Garner critical insight into consumers’ opinions, issues, wants, and needs.

• Organizational intranets allow employees to access searchable databases; social networking platforms; messaging, collaboration, and information management tools; and social media specifically tailored to organizational needs.

• Online communities of practice create and maintain an environment that fosters knowledge creation and sharing, enables process improvement, and enhances individual and organizational efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation.

• Netcentric teams offer a potentially unique combination of efficiency and effectiveness, allowing organizations to bring together members with desirable experience and KSAs.

• Unshared context and digital communication are the root causes of performance obstacles specific to virtual teamwork.

• Colocated team members benefit from interacting within a shared environment in which team members experience the same set of working conditions and influences.

• Contextual discontinuities can arise in any team with diverse membership; however, the associated difficulties are more common in virtual teams whose members have different environmental, cultural, relational, social, and organizational contexts.

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 306 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Chapter 8 Summary and Resources

• Unshared context is a major driver for increased misunderstanding, disorganization, and conflict within teams.

• The digital communication technologies used for virtual teamwork have three basic functions: • Sharing information and knowledge • Supporting cooperative work and collaboration • Generating and maintaining social presence

• E-mail, file sharing, project management, wikis, and teleconferencing apps are all digital communications technologies used by virtual teams.

• Due to the limitations of asynchronous exchange and digital communication, virtual teams often struggle to develop the normal relational ties that foster and support trust, mutual understanding, and conflict management, all of which are prime factors that influence team effectiveness.

• Managing virtual teamwork is largely a matter of managing communication and cooperative exchange.

• If possible, virtual teams should launch with a face-to-face interaction so that members can get acquainted, align goals, clarify member responsibilities and roles, develop operating principles for teamwork, and unify knowledge and use of communication technologies.

Posttest

1. Alternative workplace strategies were originally __________. a. long-term, continuous work units responsible for an entire product, process, or

service b. implemented as a campaign to reduce operating costs c. designed as wellness exercises for overworked and overstressed employees d. instigated as a testing ground for netcentric teams

2. Relational and social context are similar in that they are both profoundly affected by __________. a. unshared context b. physical distance c. cultural identity d. netcentricity

3. The face-to-face launch meeting for virtual teams should feature all of the following EXCEPT __________. a. goal alignment and role clarification b. operating rules and principles c. overview of relevant communication technologies d. alternative workplace strategies

4. Virtual teams evolved in response to __________. a. the ability of virtual interactions to simulate social presence b. the effects of technological and cultural changes on the business environment c. progressive developments in computer science and information technology d. the growing demand for freedom and flexibility for organizational employees

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 307 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Chapter 8 Summary and Resources

5. All of the following statements are true of online communities of practice EXCEPT: a. They regularly engage in knowledge sharing, member development, and

collaborative learning. b. They are a type of online community. c. They restrict members to online interaction. d. They are composed of people with similar interests.

6. Each of these statements regarding Facebook and LinkedIn are true EXCEPT: a. They are a form of social media. b. They enable social networking. c. They offer nonmaterial goods. d. They are profitable netcentric organizations.

7. Blogs, video posts, tweets, and Google bar games are all examples of __________. a. social networks b. social context c. socialization d. social media

8. Poor information management regarding e-mail can be a major source of __________. a. work-related stress b. archived information c. informal learning d. social connectivity

9. All of the following apply to social networks EXCEPT: a. They form a web of connectivity. b. They require members to be colocated. c. They represent direct and indirect connections. d. They require some point of relativity.

10. Teleconferencing applications are critical to the development of __________ between distributed members. a. communication b. cultural context c. social networking d. social presence

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. Reread the opening case study and, using the concepts from this chapter, describe the roles that social presence, digital communication, and unshared environmental context played in both the development and resolution of the problematic dynamics in Zari’s virtual team.

2. Twitter, Facebook, and eBay are netcentric organizations that generate social pres- ence through various means. Explore each of these sites and choose two ways in which the companies generate social presence. Then, compare and contrast them.

Answers: b, c, d, b, c, a, d, a, b, d.

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 308 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Chapter 8 Summary and Resources

Note the elements of each that contribute to social presence and describe your expe- rience with them. What level of social presence did you feel? Was the experience positive or negative, and why?

Additional Resources Links

• Benefits of Social Networking: http://www.forbes.com/sites/coxbusiness/2016/05/11/why-social-networking -matters-for-small-business-owners/#4d12eaf65466

• Virtual Collaboration Tools: https://blog.timedoctor.com/2010/12/03/the-8-best-collaboration-tools-for -virtual-teams

• Virtual Reality for Social Networking: http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2016/02/26/why-facebook-plans -to-bring-virtual-reality-to-social-networking/#5f63ccb41c22

• How Social Media Has Changed Us: http://www.forbes.com/sites/carriekerpen/2016/04/21/how-has-social-media -changed-us/#3666c8a440f6

• Virtual Workplace Using Virtual World Platforms: http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/11/05/second.life.virtual.collaboration /index.html

• Tips From TED: Virtual Collaboration: http://blog.ted.com/8-tips-for-virtual-collaboration-from-teds-tech-team

Videos • Digital Connectivity Blurs Industry Lines:

https://hbr.org/video/3886028345001/how-digital-connectivity-blurs-industry -lines

• Industrial Mining Goes Wireless: https://hbr.org/video/3819456791001/smart-connected-mining

• Building Trust in Virtual Teams: https://hbr.org/video/2363593491001/how-to-build-trust-on-your-virtual-team

Answers and Rejoinders to Chapter Pretest

1. False. Virtual teams are the product of many organizational experiments involving strategically planned and implemented alternative workplace strategies utilizing the rapidly developing information technologies in the late 20th century.

2. False. Social networking platforms represent the space (such as Facebook or You- Tube) in which we use social media (blogs, video posts, widgets, and so on).

3. True. Online communities of practice—a type of online committee—regularly engage in knowledge sharing, member development, and collaborative learning and facilitate the socialization of new employees.

4. True. Although they were once considered an alternative workplace strategy, virtual teams have become the norm, taking on many of the tasks and activities originally assigned to traditional teams.

5. False. Teleconferencing is a connectivity tool that enables users to interact face- to-face in real time, over the Internet. Teleconferencing tools play a critical role in maintaining social presence in virtual teams.

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 309 8/19/16 9:34 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/coxbusiness/2016/05/11/why-social-networking-matters-for-small-business-owners/#4d12eaf65466

https://blog.timedoctor.com/2010/12/03/the-8-best-collaboration-tools-for-virtual-teams

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2016/02/26/why-facebook-plans-to-bring-virtual-reality-to-social-networking/#5f63ccb41c22

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carriekerpen/2016/04/21/how-has-social-media-changed-us/#3666c8a440f6

http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/11/05/second.life.virtual.collaboration/index.html

http://blog.ted.com/8-tips-for-virtual-collaboration-from-teds-tech-team

https://hbr.org/video/3886028345001/how-digital-connectivity-blurs-industry-lines

https://hbr.org/video/3819456791001/smart-connected-mining

https://hbr.org/video/2363593491001/how-to-build-trust-on-your-virtual-team

Chapter 8 Summary and Resources

alternative workplace strategies A term used for business policies and processes that are based on flexible and nontraditional input points, operational settings, and work practices.

communities of practice A label for on- and offline associations in which employees with similar work practices and interests engage in knowledge sharing, member development, and collaborative learning.

contextual discontinuities A state of unshared context in which perceived differ- ences cause miscommunication and discord.

netcentric organization A label for network-based organizations and work practices.

netcentricity The ability of digital net- works to instantaneously and globally dis- tribute information.

Rejoinders to Posttest

1. The use of technology to redefine organizational boundaries originally began as a campaign to reduce operating costs. Organizational experiments with alternative workplace strategies began by taking advantage of growing communications tech- nologies to save millions of dollars by asking employees to stay home from work.

2. Both relational and social context are deeply impacted by the cultural context within which we have been raised and the attitudes, values, customs, practices, and behav- ioral norms that we view as correct.

3. Virtually all experts on netcentric team management suggest launching the team with a face-to-face interaction so that members can get acquainted, align goals, clarify member responsibilities and roles, develop operating principles for team- work, and unify knowledge and use of communication technologies.

4. Virtual teams evolved in response to the organizational challenges posed by the shift toward the IT-driven economy, a globally distributed workforce, and a fast-paced, dynamic business environment.

5. Communities of practice are composed of employees with similar work practices or interests who regularly engage in knowledge sharing, member development, and collaborative learning. Although they are a type of online community, they are not restricted to the online environment and often engage members both on- and offline.

6. Facebook and LinkedIn, both profitable netcentric organizations, enable social net- working—a nonmaterial product. Both are social networking platforms that provide a space for online interaction utilizing social media.

7. Social media are the online tools and vehicles for social interaction, communication, and information exchange. These include blog and video posts, tweets, Google bar games, surveys, ads, widgets, comments, taglines, and so on.

8. Poor information management regarding e-mail can lead one to feel overloaded and overwhelmed and even causes some employees to seek help for workplace stress.

9. Social networks are essentially connectivity webs that represent the direct and indi- rect connections between distributed people who share some point of relativity.

10. When team members cannot share the same physical space, social presence becomes key. Teleconferencing is a media-rich digital communication technology that plays a key role in developing and maintaining social presence between distributed team members.

Key Terms and Concepts

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 310 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Chapter 8 Summary and Resources

online community A large number of people who consistently engage in com- puter-supported social interaction under some common interest or purpose and are governed by communal norms and policies.

organizational identification The process wherein employees form a socioemotional attachment to an organization and align their work-related interests, values, and expectations with those upheld by the orga- nization’s prominent individuals and groups.

organizational socialization The process by which employees assimilate the norms, values, scripts, and knowledge essential to their successful function as organizational members.

remote work The practice of working from outside the office or from geographically distributed locations.

social media Online tools and vehicles for social interaction, communication, and infor- mation exchange. These include blog and video posts, tweets, online games, surveys, ads, widgets, comments, taglines, and so on.

social network A web of connectivity between individuals and groups.

social networking A practice that describes the active participation within and development of online communities through direct and indirect social connections and interactions; it involves leveraging exist- ing social connections to build and expand personal and professional contacts and influence.

social presence The sense of others, and our relation to them in social interactions.

virtuality A measure of how virtual a team is based on its degree of netcentric dependence, the media richness of its digital exchanges, and the synchronicity of its mem- bers’ interaction.

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 311 8/19/16 9:34 AM

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 312 8/19/16 9:34 AM