assignment

Article

The ‘‘virtual team player’’: A review and initial model of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics for virtual collaboration

Julian Schulze and Stefan Krumm Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

Abstract In spite of the increasing demand for virtual cooperation, still relatively little is known about the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) individuals need for virtual teamwork. Thus, the current paper aims at synthesizing the existing literature into a comprehensive model of virtual teamwork KSAOs. To this end, we review (a) existing frameworks of KSAO requirements for virtual teamwork, (b) challenges posed by different facets of virtuality, and (c) KSAOs particularly relevant for meeting the identified challenges. The results of this review are integrated into a holistic model of virtual teamwork KSAOs with distal characteristics (personality, experience) and more proximal qualities (knowledge, skills, and motivation). Research gaps as well as avenues for future research will be outlined and applications for virtual team staffing and training will be discussed.

Keywords competencies, KSAOs, teamwork, virtual teams, virtuality

Virtual teamwork comes with many advan-

tages for organizations as well as for their

employees. Organizations gain the possibility

to distribute work around the globe, can access

markets worldwide, and bring together experts

regardless of their location. Employees benefit

from flexible work arrangements and reduced

travel times (cf. Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier,

2008). Such advantages together with ongoing

technical advancements have led to a large

Paper received 5 May 2014; revised version accepted 1 October 2016.

Corresponding author:

Julian Schulze, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Education and Psychology, Habelschwerdter Allee 45,

14195 Berlin, Germany.

Email: [email protected]

Organizational Psychology Review 2017, Vol. 7(1) 66–95

ª The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2041386616675522

journals.sagepub.com/home/opr

Organizational Psychology Review

proliferation of virtual teamwork. For instance, a

recent survey including 1,700 knowledge workers

revealed that 79% of them worked frequently in dispersed teams (Ferrazzi, 2014). Generally,

it is safe to say that virtual teams have become

a standard work form.

However, virtual teamwork also comes with

a lot of challenges for team members. Chal-

lenges include handling technology, dealing

with reduced or absent face-to-face contact,

communicating asynchronously, establishing

norms, and collaborating cross-culturally (e.g.,

Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk, & McPherson,

2002). Hence, it is vital for virtual team mem-

bers to possess the appropriate knowledge, skills,

abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) to

address these challenges. While several com-

prehensive reviews on virtual teamwork in

general (e.g., Gilson, Maynard, Young, Var-

tiainen, & Hakonen, 2015; Martins, Gilson, &

Maynard, 2004) and on important subtopics (e.g.,

virtual team leadership; Hoch & Kozlowski,

2014) are available, reviews on virtual teamwork

KSAOs are rather sparse. This is even more

surprising in light of the many single studies

available and the seeming heterogeneity of

approaches and results: Some studies sought to

identify KSAOs required to meet one of the

many challenges specifically (e.g., computer-

mediated communication competence; Spitzberg,

2006), others addressed the KSAOs that are nec-

essary for virtual teamwork in competency mod-

eling approaches (e.g., Hertel, Konradt, & Voss,

2006) or in in-depth case studies (e.g., Jarvenpaa,

Knoll, & Leidner, 1998), some have studied

personality traits as predictors of virtual team

performance (e.g., Balthazard, Potter, & Warren,

2004), others again have investigated the rele-

vance of team processes and emergent states for

virtual team outcomes, thus enabling inferences

on related team member KSAOs (e.g., Maynard,

Mathieu, Gilson, O’Boyle, & Cigularov, 2013).

Therefore, the current review aims to (a) syn-

chronize the rather heterogeneous, un-unified pic-

ture, (b) derive an integrative framework of virtual

teamwork KSAOs, which can (c) stimulate further

theory building and future research in the domain of

virtual teamwork KSAOs, (d) guide practitioners in

training and selecting virtual team members.

Outline of the review

The guiding framework of this review is essen-

tially an input–mediator–output model (Ilgen,

Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). 1

We

consider three input variables of virtual team

mediators and outcomes: personal characteristics

(i.e., team member KSAOs; personality traits),

situational characteristics (i.e., virtuality-related

challenges), and person � situation interactions (i.e., KSAOs that are particularly relevant for

meeting the identified challenges). We will

organize the current review to mirror this trinity.

First, we will review empirical and theoretical

studies on KSAOs as predictors of team mediators

and outcomes (regardless of the virtuality-related

challenges). Second, we will focus on virtuality-

related challenges as input variables and review

their effects on team mediators and outcomes.

Third, we will review KSAOs that are specifically

relevant when specific facets of virtuality and

associated challenges are given. Ultimately, this

approach will help to address why and when

certain KSAOs are relevant for virtual teamwork.

Defining virtual teams

Traditionally, virtual teams are frequently

defined as ‘‘a group of people who interact

through interdependent tasks guided by common

purpose. Unlike conventional teams, a virtual

team works across space, time, and organiza-

tional boundaries with links strengthened by

webs of communication technologies’’ (Lipnack

& Stamps, 1997, pp. 6–7). 2

From a more recent

perspective, at least four different approaches to

defining virtual teams exist:

The dichotomy approach treats virtual teams

as the opposite of face-to-face or so-called tra-

ditional teams (e.g., Hosseini, Zuo, Chileshe, &

Baroudi, 2015). The dimensional approach

posits that teams vary on a single virtuality

Schulze and Krumm 67

continuum (e.g., Martins et al., 2004; Ortiz de

Guinea, Webster, & Staples, 2012), ranging

from merely face-to-face (low virtuality) to

entirely virtual (high virtuality). In an even

more differentiated form, the multiple facets

approach distinguishes several facets of vir-

tuality, thus enabling researchers to examine

the effects of each facet individually (e.g.,

Chudoba, Wynn, Lu, & Watson-Manheim,

2005; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). Finally, the

discontinuity approach emphasizes the role of

individuals and how they perceive potential

boundaries (e.g., geographic dispersion, elec-

tronic dependence) in the form of discontinuities,

whereby a discontinuity is created ‘‘when an

individual encounters a situation in which nor-

mal and routine behaviours do not produce

expected action responses and flows of informa-

tion’’ (Watson-Manheim, Chudoba, & Crowston,

2012, p. 38). In the current review, we will

include studies adopting either one of these

approaches. However, a focus will be on the last

two approaches as numerous studies promote

the differentiation of virtuality into facets

instead of a generic conceptualization of virtual

teams in order to identify facet-specific chal-

lenges and related KSAOs (e.g., O’Leary &

Cummings, 2007).

Review of team member KSAOs in virtual teams (Approach 1)

For the first step of this review, we included

studies providing a set of individual character-

istics as drivers of virtual teamwork success 3 —

presuming that such studies incorporated the

variety of individual differences constructs

identified in previous research on virtual team-

work KSAOs. The identified studies suggested

a broad spectrum of potentially relevant

KSAOs (see Table 1 for details). Next, we will

organize these KSAOs into broader categories

and focus on the most frequently mentioned

characteristics.

In sum, six KSAO clusters were identified as

relevant in virtual teamwork across the

identified studies. 4

According to the reviewed

studies, being successful in virtual teams

requires to know how and when to use a

medium for communication and knowledge

transfer (media KSAOs), to communicate

effectively (communication KSAOs), to act in a

way that creates trust and to be willing to trust

others (trust-related KSAOs), to be able to work

with people from different cultural backgrounds

(intercultural KSAOs), to manage oneself effec-

tively (self-, time-, and project-management

KSAOs), and to handle conflicts constructively

(conflict management KSAOs). The studies

included in this step showed less consensus on

other KSAOs (e.g., setting norms and roles,

problem solving, integrity), which were there-

fore not included in Table 1.

Several aspects are worth noting at this

point. First, KSAOs are often vaguely defined

(Shippmann et al., 2000). Thus, it remains

unclear, for example, what it exactly means to

possess communication KSAOs in the context

of virtual teamwork. Second, some KSAO

clusters were included in many different theo-

retical and empirical studies, but empirical

evidence did not unanimously speak to their

relevance for virtual team performance (e.g.,

communication skills; Hertel et al., 2006). This

may be attributed to the fact that, as a third

remedy, the herein reviewed studies on KSAO

sets as predictors of virtual team outcomes were

not very specific for any facet of virtuality.

Rather, these studies mostly adopted the dichot-

omous or dimensional approach to virtual teams

(see Shin, 2004, for an exception). Hence, a vital

next step for the purpose of this paper was to

review virtuality-related challenges and to eval-

uate the match between these challenges and the

KSAO clusters presented before.

Review of virtuality-related challenges (Approach 2)

Acknowledging the ample research in this area,

we identified virtuality-related challenges and

their effects on team mediators and outcomes

68 Organizational Psychology Review 7(1)

by focusing primarily on meta-analyses, sum-

maries, or reviews in the domain of virtual

teamwork. However, we followed up on insights

gained from this step by also scrutinizing related

primary studies. Table 2 provides an overview of

the results.

Two recent meta-analyses provided aggregated

results on the effects of virtuality on important

team mediators and outcomes (Mesmer-Magnus,

DeChurch, Jimenez-Rodriguez, Wildman, &

Shuffler, 2011; Ortiz de Guinea et al., 2012).

They revealed that virtuality negatively affected

team conflict, communication frequency, knowl-

edge sharing, performance, openness of informa-

tion sharing, and satisfaction. Concerning facets of

virtuality, more specifically, the vast majority of

research discussed three core challenges: tech-

nology use, cultural differences, and geographic

dispersion (see Table 2 for details).

Use of technology can be challenging with

regard to relationship building (Powell et al.,

2004); effective communication (Caya et al.,

2013; Martins et al., 2004); cohesion, trust,

conflict, coordination, and team identification

(Curseu et al., 2008; Hertel et al., 2005; Powell

et al., 2004; Scott & Wildman, 2015); and can

also affect overall team performance (Curseu

et al., 2008). A more fine-grained view on

technology use revealed specific challenges

for the work in virtual teams due to (a)

Table 1. Results of Approach 1: Key KSAO clusters, example descriptions provided by the studies, and literature sources.

KSAO cluster Example descriptions Included in

Media KSAOs Knowledge about functionalities of a medium; knowing how and when to use a medium; use the potential of the media; adapt to channel restrictions.

Blackburn, Furst, & Rosen, 2003; Duarte & Snyder, 2006; Hill, 2008; Holtkamp, Lau, & Pawlowski, 2015; Kokko, Vartiainen, & Lönnblad, 2007; Roy, 2012; Shin, 2004; Wang & Haggerty, 2011

Communication KSAOs

Communicate effectively with dispersed team members; skillful knowledge sharing; send and interpret messages appropriately.

Blackburn et al., 2003; Hertel et al., 2006; Hill, 2008; Holtkamp et al., 2015; Johnson, Heimann, & O’Neill, 2001; Kokko et al., 2007; Krumm & Hertel, 2013; Roy, 2012; Shin, 2004

Trust-related KSAOs Skills to develop and maintain interpersonal trust (e.g., responsiveness, dependability, active and frequent participation); disposition to trust.

Blackburn et al., 2003; Hertel et al., 2006; Hill, 2008; Johnson et al., 2001; Kokko et al., 2007; Krumm & Hertel, 2013; Roy, 2012; Shin, 2004

Intercultural KSAOs Knowledge and skills that help to interact with people from different cultures (e.g., organizational, functional, national).

Blackburn et al., 2003; Duarte & Snyder, 2006; Hertel et al., 2006; Hill, 2008; Holtkamp et al., 2015; Kokko et al., 2007; Krumm, Kanthak, Hartmann, & Hertel, 2016; Shin, 2004

Self-management KSAOs

The skill to manage oneself effectively (e.g., self-, time-, and project- management).

Blackburn et al., 2003; Duarte & Snyder, 2006; Hertel et al., 2006; Hill, 2008; Kokko et al., 2007; Krumm & Hertel, 2013; Krumm et al., 2016; Shin, 2004

Conflict management KSAOs

The skill to constructively solve conflicts. Blackburn et al., 2003; Hertel et al., 2006; Hill, 2008; Kokko et al., 2007; Krumm et al., 2016

Note. KSAOs ¼ Knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics.

Schulze and Krumm 69

communication via media low in information

richness (e.g., text-based media), (b) use of asyn-

chronous media, and (c) inappropriate task–tech-

nology fit. Information richness is defined as the

information-carrying capacity of a communica-

tion channel (e.g., availability of visual cues; Daft

& Lengel, 1986). Several authors pointed to

the lack of social cues, of nonverbal, and of

paraverbal features when communicating over

media with low information richness, which

can hamper attentiveness, mutual understand-

ing, relationship building, and trust develop-

ment (e.g., Curseu et al., 2008; Powell et al.,

2004). The synchronicity of communication

addresses the extent of time lags inherent in

some forms of mediated communication (Kirk-

man & Mathieu, 2005). Asynchronous commu-

nication can restrict the frequency and wealth of

relational messages, can increase uncertainty

(e.g., due to online silence; Panteli & Fineman,

2005), and can cause coordination problems

(Warkentin, Sayeed, & Hightower, 1997). Lastly,

inadequate task–technology fit (i.e., match of the

technology with the communication require-

ments of the task; Powell et al., 2004) was fre-

quently mentioned as a cause for ineffective

Table 2. Results of Approach 2: Key virtuality facets, their impact on team mediators, and key challenges associated with each facet.

Virtuality Facet Impact on Challenges caused by

Technology use (Ale Ebrahim, Ahmed, & Taha, 2009; Axtell, Fleck, & Turner, 2004; Caya, Mortensen, & Pinsonneault, 2013; Curseu, Schalk, & Wessel, 2008; Gilson et al., 2015; Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; MacDuffie, 2007; Martins et al., 2004; Martins & Schilpzand, 2011; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004; Scott & Wildman, 2015).

Relationship building, communication, cohesion, trust, conflict, coordination, team identification, team performance (e.g., Curseu et al., 2008; Martins et al., 2004; Powell et al., 2004).

Communication via media low in information richness; use of asynchronous media; inappropriate task–technology fit (e.g., Curseu et al., 2008; Daft & Lengel, 1986; Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005).

Cultural differences (Connaughton & Shuffler, 2007; Gibson, Huang, Kirkman, & Shapiro, 2014; Gilson et al., 2015; Hertel et al., 2005; Martins et al., 2004; Martins & Schilpzand, 2011; Powell et al., 2004; Scott & Wildman, 2015; Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010; Zimmermann, 2011).

Communication, coordination, cohesion, trust, conflict, team identification, team functioning (e.g., Martins & Schilpzand, 2011; Scott & Wildman, 2015; Zimmermann, 2011).

Diversity in values, norms, working styles, etc.; different intercultural communication behaviors; lack of language proficiency (e.g., Anawati & Craig, 2006; Hinds, Neeley, & Cramton, 2014; Nurmi, 2009).

Geographic dispersion (Ale Ebrahim et al., 2009; Axtell et al., 2004; Caya et al., 2013; Connaughton & Shuffler, 2007; Gibson et al., 2014; Gilson et al., 2015; Hertel et al., 2005; MacDuffie, 2007; Scott & Wildman, 2015; Zimmermann, 2011).

Relationship building, communication, motivation, conflict, trust, coordination, team innovation (e.g., Connaughton & Shuffler, 2007; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Hertel et al., 2005; MacDuffie, 2007).

Configurational dispersion and isolated working; spatial dispersion; temporal dispersion and different time zones (e.g., Espinosa, Slaughter, Kraut, & Herbsleb, 2007; Nurmi, 2011; O’Leary & Cummings, 2007).

70 Organizational Psychology Review 7(1)

communication (e.g., Dennis, Fuller, & Valacich,

2008; Maruping & Agarwal, 2004).

Several reviews and meta-analyses converge

in that cultural differences can be a challenge

for effective team communication (Martins

et al., 2004), coordination (Powell et al., 2004),

conflict management (Gibson et al., 2014;

Martins & Schilpzand, 2011; Scott & Wildman,

2015), trust creation (Martins & Schilpzand,

2011; Zimmermann, 2011), team identification

(Gilson et al., 2015; Zimmermann, 2011), the

development of cohesion (Gibson et al., 2014),

and ultimately for effective team functioning

(Martins & Schilpzand, 2011). Again, a closer

look on the cultural differences facet revealed

specific challenges for the work in multicultural

virtual teams due to (a) the diversity in, for

example, values, orientations, conventions, norms,

and working styles, (b) intercultural communica-

tion behaviors, and (c) lack of language profi-

ciency. Diversity in values, orientations, and

conventions were frequently associated with mis-

understandings and conflicts between team mem-

bers. For example, Nurmi (2009) showed that

discrepant working styles of Japanese (flexible and

work-oriented) and Finnish (more family-oriented)

virtual team members caused frustration. With

regard to intercultural communication behaviors,

research addressed problems arising from non-

adaptive verbal behavior in spoken and written

communication as well as from a different com-

munication culture (Anawati & Craig, 2006).

Lastly, poor language skills led virtual team

members to withdraw from conversations and

perceive feelings of nervousness and anxiety if

spoken or written language was not readily

understood (Hinds et al., 2014; Nurmi, 2009).

Finally, the reviewed studies indicated that

geographic dispersion can pose challenges for

motivation (Hertel et al., 2005), conflict man-

agement (Gilson et al., 2015; Scott & Wildman,

2015), trust development (Connaughton &

Shuffler, 2007), effective communication (Caya

et al., 2013; Connaughton & Shuffler, 2007;

Scott & Wildman, 2015), coordination, inter-

personal climate, relationship building (Caya

et al., 2013; Gibson et al., 2014; MacDuffie,

2007), and team innovation (e.g., Gibson &

Gibbs, 2006). A closer inspection of the geo-

graphic dispersion facet revealed challenging

working conditions due to (a) configurational

dispersion, (b) spatial dispersion, and (c) tem-

poral dispersion. Configurational dispersion sig-

nifies the distribution of team members in varying

configurations (e.g., a one-to-many setting) that

can result in low visibility and awareness of iso-

lated team members and increased coordination

requirements (O’Leary & Cummings, 2007).

Spatial dispersion refers to the geographic dis-

tance of team members (mostly measured in feet

and miles; O’Leary & Cummings, 2007) that can

be challenging with regard to relationship build-

ing (Kiesler & Cummings, 2002), and can

increase uncertainty and ambiguity (Nurmi,

2011; Weisband, 2002). Lastly, the temporal

dispersion denotes the overlap of working hours

and time zone differences that team members

have to cross in order to collaborate with remote

others, which can result in low accessibility to

information, coordination problems (Cummings,

Espinosa, & Pickering, 2009; Espinosa et al.,

2007), and increased job strain due to, for

example, off-hour working or increased

travel time (Nurmi, 2011).

Summing up the aforementioned, the reviewed

literature reveals that different virtuality-related

challenges converge on similar problems (e.g.,

communication, relationship building), but the

causes seem to be quite different. For example,

communication breakdowns can be caused

by incompetent media use (e.g., Niinimäki,

Piri, Lassenius, & Paasivaara, 2012) as well

as by language barriers or culture-related

misunderstandings (Nurmi, 2009). Like-

wise, relationship building can be hindered

due to the challenge of communicating via

media low in information richness (MacDuffie,

2007) or due to the spatial distance and the

lack of face-to-face contact among work col-

leagues (Kiesler & Cummings, 2002).

It is important to mention the large hetero-

geneity in effect sizes and results that were

Schulze and Krumm 71

reported in the studies (e.g., Ortiz de Guinea

et al., 2012), which points to the importance of

moderator variables. This means that virtuality

does not unanimously impede teamwork and

that—among other moderators (e.g., task require-

ments; cf. van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan,

2004)—team member characteristics might

mitigate or even reverse the proposed negative

effects of virtuality (e.g., Holtkamp et al., 2015;

Watson-Manheim et al., 2012).

Initial insights as to which KSAOs are apt

to mitigate the negative effects of technology

use, intercultural differences, and geo-

graphic dispersion can be derived by compar-

ing Approaches 1 and 2 of this review. In fact,

the virtuality facets (e.g., use of technology)

and affected team mediators (e.g., low trust)

overlap remarkably with the six KSAO clusters

presented before. That is, each one of the

KSAO clusters either targets a virtuality facet

itself (e.g., media KSAOs and the technology

facet; intercultural KSAOs and the intercultural

differences facet) or one of the affected team

mediators. More specifically, the trust and the

conflict management clusters address team

mediators impacted by all three facets of vir-

tuality. Management KSAOs, on the other hand,

may be particularly relevant when geographic

dispersion is high (due to decreased visibility and

lack of external support; see Hertel et al., 2006).

On the other hand, the review of the litera-

ture also revealed that—although virtuality

facets generally converge with the proposed

KSAOs—little detail as to how to address the

facet-specific challenges is provided. There-

fore, we next turn to theories and empirical

evidence linking individual characteristics to

specific virtuality-related challenges.

Virtuality facets and related team member characteristics (Approach 3)

In the following sections, we summarize the

findings of the literature searches that focused on

the interplay of virtuality facets and individual

characteristics that address the various identified

challenges. 5

Figure 1 provides a high-level

overview of all the findings that will be pre-

sented. As becomes obvious, team members

must possess relevant knowledge and skills to

address virtuality-related challenges. Further-

more, our review revealed that each one of the

virtuality-related challenges has a motivational

component, which will also be reviewed next.

The trinity of motivation, knowledge, and skills

is well in line with drivers of job performance in

other domains (e.g., Campbell, McCloy, Oppler,

& Sager, 1993). Additionally, our literature

search revealed that personality and experience

should also be considered as distal characteris-

tics to address virtuality-related challenges.

Knowledge and skills for handling technology-related challenges

Our literature review revealed that a variety of

challenges come into play when teams rely on

media devices (e.g., accurate task–technology

fit, asynchronous communication). Two com-

ponents are particularly important in handling

these challenges of technology use: knowledge

and skills (cf. computer-mediated communica-

tion competence [CMC competence]; Spitzberg,

2006). A competent communicator will be

knowledgeable about how and when to use

specific media devices for collaboration and

has the skills to communicate effectively by

digital means.

Knowledge. Several authors highlight the impor- tance of knowing the media capabilities to create

an adequate media–process match (e.g., Dennis

et al., 2008; Spitzberg, 2006). Inadequate media

choice and use can harm teamwork and there-

fore play a pivotal role in virtual teamwork

(e.g., Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2014; Maznevski

& Chudoba, 2000). Specifically, our review of

the literature revealed three noteworthy facets

of media choice: knowledge about single,

sequential, and concurrent media use.

72 Organizational Psychology Review 7(1)

C ha

lle ng

es

a )

T e c h n o lo

g y -u

se -

re la

te d c

h a ll

e n g e s

b )

C u

lt u

ra l-

d if

fe re

n c e s-

re la

te d c

h a ll

e n g e s

c )

G e o

g ra

p h

ic -

d is

p e rs

io n -r

e la

te d

c h a ll

e n g e s

K no

w le

dg e

& s

ki lls

a )

T e c h n o lo

g y

k n o w

le d g e ;

C M

C s

k il

ls

b )

In te

rc u

lt u ra

l

k n

o w

le d

g e ;

in te

rc u lt

u ra

l sk

il ls

c )

D is

p e rs

e d -w

o rk

-

re la

te d k

n o w

le d g e ;

d is

p e rs

e d -w

o rk

-

re la

te d s

k il

ls

M ot

iv at

io n

a )

M o

ti v

a ti

o n

t o

u se

te c h n o lo

g y

b )

M o

ti v

a ti

o n

t o

h a n

d le

c u lt

u ra

l d if

fe re

n c e s

c )

M o ti

v a ti

o n t

o w

o rk

g e o g ra

p h ic

a ll

y

d is

p e rs

e d

Pe rs

on al

ity c

ha ra

ct er

is tic

s (e

.g .,

o p

e n

n e ss

t o

e x p e ri

e n c e ;

d is

p o si

ti o n t

o

tr u

st )

E xp

er ie

nc e

a )

T e c h

n o

lo g y

e x

p e ri

e n

c e

b )

In te

rc u lt

u ra

l e x p e ri

e n c e

c )

D is

p e rs

e d

w o

rk

e x p e ri

e n c e

D is

ta l

in p u ts

M e d ia

to rs

X X

O u tp

u ts

P ro

x im

a l

in p u ts

F ig

u r e

1 .

In p u t–

m e d ia

to r–

o u tp

u t

m o d e l o f vi

rt u al

te am

K S A

O s.

In te

rp la

y o f vi

rt u al

it y-

re la

te d

ch al

le n ge

s (t

e ch

n o lo

gy u se

, cu

lt u ra

l d if fe

re n ce

s, ge

o -

gr ap

h ic

d is

p e rs

io n )

w it h

d is

ta l (p

e rs

o n al

it y,

e x p e ri

e n ce

) an

d p ro

x im

al ch

ar ac

te ri

st ic

s (k

n o w

le d ge

, sk

ill s,

an d

m o ti va

ti o n )

o f vi

rt u al

te am

m e m

b e rs

.

73

With respect to single media use, the theory

of media synchronicity (MST; Dennis et al.,

2008) predicts that ‘‘the ‘best’ medium is that

which best provides the set of capabilities

needed by the situation’’ (p. 588). MST differ-

entiates between two fundamental communi-

cation processes that are relevant for all tasks,

specifically ‘‘convergence’’ and ‘‘conveyance’’

(Dennis et al., 2008). Convergence processes

are characterized by the goal to arrive at

a common understanding. In contrast, con-

veyance processes deal with the transmission of

information. MST proposes that there is no

‘‘best’’ medium for every type of communica-

tion, but for (primarily) conveyance processes,

media low in synchronicity will be better sui-

ted, whereas for (primarily) convergence pro-

cesses, a medium higher in synchronicity will

lead to better communication performance. The

key propositions of the theory have been sup-

ported in a number of virtual teamwork studies

(e.g., DeLuca & Valacich, 2006; Lam, 2016;

Niinimäki et al., 2012). For instance, Lam

(2016) showed that MST training (i.e., teaching

the main principles of the theory and

therefore provide the necessary knowledge)

resulted in a higher quantity and quality of

communication in virtual student teams. In

essence, MST posits that team members

should have the knowledge about communi-

cation processes (conveyance, convergence),

about the relevant media capabilities, and about

how to best create a match between these two

aspects.

Referring to sequential media use, informa-

tion and communication technologies succes-

sion theory (ICTST; Stephens, 2007) predicts

that communication benefits from the use of

complementary successive ‘‘information com-

munication technologies’’ (ICT; e.g., a face-to-

face meeting or a videoconference followed by

an e-mail exchange) in contrast to successive

singular or single message transmission (e.g.,

e-mail followed by e-mail; C. S. Lee, Watson-

Manheim, & Chudoba, 2014; Stephens &

Rains, 2011). This modality augmentation (e.g.,

auditory, visual, textual) is assumed to reduce

errors and information overload in a commu-

nication interaction (Stephens, 2007). Initial

empirical evidence confirmed that complementary

ICT use for delivering repeated messages

significantly decreased perceptions of infor-

mation overload and improved information

processing as compared to the repeated use of

the same ICT (Stephens & Rains, 2011).

Modality augmentation is also important when

it comes to the concurrent and combinatorial

use of multiple media in parallel (e.g., C. S.

Lee et al., 2014; Watson-Manheim & Bélan-

ger, 2007). This form of media knowledge is

also important as it allows for more effective

communication and the reach of communica-

tion goals (e.g., Bélanger & Watson-Manheim,

2006). For example, participants in a study by

C. S. Lee et al. (2014) reported to concurrently

use telephone and NetMeeting TM

to combine

visual and auditory information simultaneously.

Thus, according to outlined theories and

following from the reviewed empirical evi-

dence, team members should know when to use

which media in single, sequential, and con-

current ways.

Skills. The second important component to handle technology-related challenges are the

behavioral-oriented skills while interacting

digitally (Spitzberg, 2006). Research on virtual

collaboration has provided evidence for the

assumption that relational and emotion com-

munication via CMC is possible, but needs time

and skills on the side of the collaborators (e.g.,

Beranek & Martz, 2005; Byron, 2008). The

skills needed to communicate effectively are

aptly conceptualized in the CMC competence

model by Spitzberg (2006).

According to Spitzberg’s (2006) model,

virtual communication skills can be subdivided

into the facets of expressiveness (i.e., expres-

sion of emotions, use of substitutes for missing

communication cues), coordination (i.e., timing

of responses, skillful topic initiation and clo-

sure), attentiveness (i.e., showing interest and

74 Organizational Psychology Review 7(1)

empathy in conversations), and composure (i.e.,

displaying certainty and writing in a confident

style). These skills are important predictors of

communication outcomes such as satisfaction

or effectiveness (e.g., Spitzberg, 2011).

Expressiveness has been shown to be of

great importance for the work in virtual teams

as it allows for relational work and emotional

involvement (Ayoko, Konrad, & Boyle, 2012;

Beranek & Martz, 2005). Especially in the

case of text-based CMC, nonverbal cues are

missing that team members must compensate

for (Darics, 2012). Research has shown that

virtual team members can substitute missing

cues, for example, by the use of emoticons

(e.g., happiness emoticon J for missing facial information; Darics, 2012) or unconventional

orthography (e.g., ‘‘noooooo’’ for missing

auditory information; Kalman & Gergle, 2014).

Importantly, training programs for virtual teams

that focused on drawbacks of electronic com-

munication (i.e., missing nonverbal communi-

cation cues, lower richness) and how to address

these problems (e.g., by sending relational

messages, use of emoticons to signify jokes or

sarcasm) had positive impacts on team cohe-

siveness (Beranek & Martz, 2005) and trust

(Warkentin & Beranek, 1999).

Coordination skills have been acknowledged

by studies in the field of virtual work that

focused, for instance, on the role of chronemics

(i.e., time-related cues such as e-mail response

time; Darics, 2014) or the importance of

maintaining conversational coherence in CMC

interactions (Cornelius & Boos, 2003; Cramton,

2001; Panteli & Fineman, 2005). As an example,

Panteli and Fineman (2005) studied the role of

silence in virtual teams and found that unex-

plained silence and nonresponsiveness can lead

to frustration and experiences of rejection.

With regard to attentiveness and composure,

we found only scarce empirical evidence. Pre-

liminary evidence for the importance of the

communication skill attentiveness is provided

by Jarvenpaa et al. (1998), who showed that the

interactions of high trusting virtual teams who

communicated via text-based media were

signified by high empathy in contrast to low

trusting teams with less empathetic interac-

tions. With respect to the communication skill

composure, lack of nonverbal cues can lead to

ambiguity and uncertainty (e.g., Maruping &

Agarwal, 2004). It can be hypothesized that

individuals who avoid the use of uncertainty

cues and display confidence in their writing

may help to address these issues. For example,

Darics (2012) found that virtual team members

used capital letters to convey assertiveness and

clarity in their messages. More research is

clearly needed to underpin the relevance of

these skills in the virtual team context.

Taken together, the skills to handle technology-

related challenges include expressiveness and

coordination while interacting in cue-deprived

and (a)synchronous forms of communication.

Furthermore, the model by Spitzberg (2006)

suggests that team members need to be atten-

tive and show composure, but empirical evi-

dence is currently scarce.

Knowledge and skills for handling cultural diversity-related challenges

Results from Approach 2 showed that cultural

differences can be a serious challenge for

virtual teamwork (e.g., Zimmermann, 2011).

Again, our review resulted in the bipartition

of knowledge and skills (cf. cultural intelli-

gence; Earley & Ang, 2003). To handle these

challenges competently, team members need

to be knowledgeable about culture specifics

and have the skills for competent inter-

cultural communication.

Knowledge. Cultural knowledge has been considered an important characteristic in

cross-cultural settings (cf. cognitive cultural

intelligence; e.g., Earley & Ang, 2003) and

multicultural virtual teams (Gregory, Prifling,

& Beck, 2009; Koh, Joseph, & Ang, 2010;

Krumm, Terwiel, & Hertel, 2013; Shokef &

Erez, 2008). As there is a higher propensity to

Schulze and Krumm 75

work with individuals from different cultures

while collaborating in a virtual team, members

need to possess knowledge about cultural

similarities and differences (Koh et al., 2010).

As this review provides a focus on virtual

teamwork, we want to point to the importance

of knowledge about differences in the percep-

tion of technology adequacy and in the actual

usage behavior of technologies between cul-

tures (e.g., Cardon & Dai, 2014; Hinds, Liu, &

Lyon, 2011; O. Lee, 2002). As an example,

e-mail was perceived as being disrespectful by

Koreans when reporting something to the vir-

tual team leader (O. Lee, 2002). Also, Cardon

and Dai (2014) found that Chinese instant

messaging users are far more accepting of

multicommunication in meetings (i.e., instant

messaging use) than American professionals.

Without such knowledge, team members

might wrongly attribute behaviors to individ-

ual characteristics rather than to culturally

based differences (Holtbrügge, Weldon, &

Rogers, 2013).

Furthermore, our literature review shows that

team members benefit from knowing how to

use ICT in such a way that negative effects of

different cultures and languages are mitigated

(Klitmøller, Schneider, & Jonsen, 2015; Shachaf,

2008; Tenzer & Pudelko, 2016). For example,

Shachaf (2008) proposed that when language

differences are present, e-mail is useful to mitigate

intercultural miscommunication by improving

language accuracy (i.e., due to the rehearsability

characteristic of e-mail). Supporting these find-

ings, Tenzer and Pudelko (2016) observed that

many virtual team members were cognitively

overwhelmed when using synchronous media due

to language barriers and therefore reduced com-

plexity by using asynchronous media.

Taken together, virtual team members need

to possess profound cultural knowledge and

knowledge about which media capabilities can

help to improve intercultural collaboration.

Skills. Many studies from the global virtual team literature point to the relevance of cross-

cultural communication skills and behaviors

(Anawati & Craig, 2006; Gibson & Manuel,

2003; Grosse, 2002; Olaniran, 2007; Zakaria,

Amelinckx, & Wilemon, 2004; Zaugg &

Davies, 2013). Generally, communication skills

in a multicultural context point to the capability

of individuals to communicate effectively by

displaying appropriate verbal and nonverbal

behaviors in cross-cultural interactions (cf.

behavioral cultural intelligence; Earley & Ang,

2003). Importantly, in a multicultural virtual

team study by Anawati and Craig (2006),

80.3% of the participating virtual team mem- bers reported to adapt their spoken communi-

cation, whereas only 60.7% adapted their written communication. The authors conclude

that spoken communication readily reminds

individuals to adapt their communication beha-

vior to the cultural background of the interaction

partners. It is therefore important that team

members adapt their spoken and written com-

munication behaviors to improve understanding

and avoid misunderstandings, for example, by

using precise, clear language, avoiding slang,

and by restating and clarifying meaning of

words (e.g., Cagiltay, Bichelmeyer, & Akilli,

2015; Zaugg & Davies, 2013). Considering the

aforementioned difficulties that often have

their roots in language problems, it is not

surprising that researchers proclaimed high-

quality language ability as a key skill when

working in global teams (Collins, Chou,

Warner, & Rowley, 2015; Neeley, Hinds, &

Cramton, 2012; Nurmi, 2009). In addition to

only adapting communication behavior, Chang

and colleagues showed that generally adapting

one’s behavior to different cultures (i.e.,

national and professional) will lead to trust

development and increased communication

quality and performance in virtual teams

(Chang, Hung, & Hsieh, 2014).

Taken together, cultural adaptation, most

importantly in the form of adaptive communi-

cation behavior as well as language proficiency

are important skills for the work in multi-

cultural virtual teams.

76 Organizational Psychology Review 7(1)

Knowledge and skills for handling geographic dispersion-related challenges

As a last important challenge, the review

revealed that geographic dispersion can have

negative effects on virtual teamwork (O’Leary

& Cummings, 2007). More precisely, config-

urational, spatial, and temporal dispersion all

can pose challenges to the work in a virtual

team, for example, by increasing coordination

complexity among colleagues. The literature

review again points to individual qualities in the

form of knowledge and skills that are needed to

handle dispersion-related challenges.

Knowledge. The literature review revealed that knowledge on how to leverage dispersed

working conditions with the help of different

media is of particular importance. Several

studies confirmed the benefits of synchronous

interaction, for example, in the form of regular

face-to-face meetings and site visits (Hinds &

Cramton, 2014; Karis, Wildman, & Mané,

2016) as well as in the form of videoconferen-

cing in order to bridge spatial dispersion and

increase connectedness between team members

(Bardhan, Krishnan, & Lin, 2013; Cummings

et al., 2009; Pauleen & Yoong, 2001; Sarker &

Sahay, 2004; Tang, Zhao, Cao, & Inkpen,

2011). Importantly, synchronous technologies

were found to help establishing common ground

as well as presence awareness between individ-

uals (Karis et al., 2016; Olson & Olson, 2000).

At the same time, asynchronous communica-

tion can be useful to convey information while

working across different time zones (e.g., for

bridging off-work hours and foster task com-

pletion speed; Espinosa, Nan, & Carmel, 2015),

to reduce coordination delays (Cummings et al.,

2009), and to handle the uncertainty that can

arise from low access to information (Nurmi,

2011; Tang et al., 2011). Therefore, team

members need to have knowledge about the

capabilities that are inherent in different media

to support communication in dispersed working

contexts. On the other hand, our review also

points to the knowledge about the potential

downsides of the use of synchronous and

asynchronous communication channels in dis-

persed work settings. In a case study by Nurmi

(2011), regular face-to-face meetings across

high spatial distance resulted in travel fatigue.

Furthermore, regular videoconferencing meet-

ings led to edge-hour working (Tang et al.,

2011) and prolonged working hours that made

it difficult to establish work–life balance when

temporal dispersion was high (Nurmi, 2011).

Finally, extensive use of e-mail caused e-mail

overload (Nurmi, 2011).

Taken together, team members should have

knowledge about the benefits and drawbacks of

(a)synchronous media for leveraging dispersed

working conditions.

Skills. With regard to skills, a number of studies showed that time- and self-management skills

are particularly important to handle dispersion-

related challenges (Hertel et al., 2006; Koehne,

Shih, & Olson, 2012; Nurmi, 2011; Sivunen,

Nurmi, & Koroma, 2016; Tang et al., 2011).

Koehne et al. (2012) revealed that individual

remote members of a team needed appropriate

self-management strategies. Specifically, care-

ful planning, strategizing, and scheduling were

important to collaborate effectively with the

other team members at different locations and

across time zones. In a study by Tang et al.

(2011), shifting one’s work day was effective to

create time windows for interaction with other

team members and to reduce communication

delays, which further highlights the importance

of temporal flexibility (see also Cummings

et al., 2009; Sivunen et al., 2016). Furthermore,

time- and self-management skills turned out to

be pivotal for constructing work–life balance in

dispersed working contexts (Koehne et al.,

2012). Setting clear limits for work hours were

crucial to buffer strain caused by dispersion and

the related technology use (Nurmi, 2011). For

example, in a study by Sivunen et al. (2016),

team members were setting their instant

Schulze and Krumm 77

messaging program on offline status to signal

private time in the evenings.

Communication skills turned out to be

another important individual characteristic

in dispersed teamwork. Rather than taking

negative effects of geographic dispersion for

granted, a growing body of research highlights

the importance of perceived psychological

proximity, that is, a feeling of closeness to

distant team members (O’Leary, Wilson, &

Metiu, 2014; Wilson, O’Leary, Metiu, & Jett,

2008). According to Wilson et al. (2008; see

also Kiesler & Cummings, 2002; O’Leary et al.,

2014), frequent and in-depth interactive com-

munication as well as the development of a

shared identity are the main mechanisms that

raise perceptions of proximity, which can in

turn reduce uncertainty, provide contextual

information of others, increase cognitive sal-

ience, and enhance relationship quality (O’Leary

et al., 2014). In further support of this, several

studies identified presence and status infor-

mation as being of great importance for virtual

work as it helped, for example, to coordinate

work effectively (Espinosa et al., 2007), to

judge negative behavior of remotely operating

coworkers as related to situational rather than

internal factors (Cramton, Orvis, & Wilson,

2007), and to increase team performance

(Weisband, 2002).

A number of studies showed that frequent

and spontaneous communication is not only

vital to raise feelings of proximity, but also

important to handle conflict (Hinds & Morten-

sen, 2005), to raise visibility of ‘‘isolates’’ in

teams (Koehne et al., 2012), to maintain trust

and mutual knowledge (Nurmi, 2011), to

increase shared understanding between distant

team members (MacDuffie, 2007), and to

facilitate information convergence and con-

veyance processes in temporally dispersed vir-

tual teams (Espinosa et al., 2015).

Taken together, time- and self-management

skills as well as communication skills are

important to handle challenges imposed by

configurational, spatial, and temporal dispersion.

Motivation

Several authors acknowledge that it is not suffi-

cient to have the knowledge and skills to handle

the challenges imposed by virtuality, but that

individuals also need to be motivated to act on

their knowledge and skills (Campbell et al., 1993).

Accordingly, we summarize the motivational

aspects relevant to the challenges identified. As

motivation has often been considered as a

function of approach or avoidance tendencies

(Spitzberg, 2006), we will structure the existing

literature with regard to both motivational aspects.

Motivation to use technology

Regarding approach tendencies towards tech-

nology use, constructs such as computer play-

fulness (i.e., enjoying the process of using a

new system; Venkatesh, 2000) and perceived

usefulness (i.e., ‘‘the extent to which a person

believes that using an IT will enhance his or her

job performance’’; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008,

p. 275), as a form of extrinsic motivation, play

an important role in technology acceptance

models (e.g., Venkatesh, 2000). Whereas com-

puter playfulness shapes user’s perceptions of

the ease of technology use, perceived usefulness

directly affects behavioral intentions to use a

technology (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).

Regarding avoidance tendencies, several

studies on virtual work focused on constructs

such as computer anxiety (Brown, Fuller, &

Vician, 2004; Scott & Timmerman, 2005) and

CMC apprehension (Brown et al., 2004; Jac-

ques, Garger, Brown, & Deale, 2009; Wrench

& Punyanunt-Carter, 2007). Whereas computer

anxiety signifies a fear that is related to the

technology itself (Scott & Timmerman, 2005),

CMC apprehension points to the fear of the

communication or interaction process via

technology (Wrench & Punyanunt-Carter,

2007). Empirically, avoidance motives have

been linked to reduced CMC skills (Wrench &

Punyanunt-Carter, 2007), negative attitudes

towards technology use (Brown et al., 2004),

78 Organizational Psychology Review 7(1)

and suboptimal media selection (Scott &

Timmerman, 2005).

Motivation to handle cultural diversity

Researchers agree that motivation to adapt to

and work in a cross-cultural context is impor-

tant for intercultural collaboration in global

virtual work settings (Collins et al., 2015; Koh

et al., 2010; Magnusson, Schuster, & Taras,

2014; Presbitero, 2016). The construct fre-

quently mentioned in this context is dubbed

motivational cultural intelligence, which is

defined as ‘‘an individual’s capability to direct

attention and energy toward cultural differ-

ences’’ (van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2008, p. 17).

Magnusson et al. (2014), as an example,

showed that global virtual teams which exhib-

ited high motivation to learn and function in an

intercultural context also exhibited higher effort

to overcome culture-related challenges.

With regard to avoidance tendencies, we

identified foreign language communication

apprehension, defined as a fear of commu-

nicating in a foreign language, to be of impor-

tance in multinational teamwork (Hinds et al.,

2014; Neeley et al., 2012). Individuals in these

studies showed a variety of withdrawal beha-

viors (e.g., not contributing anything to a

meeting and abstinence of conversations) to

avoid negative emotions associated with the use

of the foreign language, thus hindering effec-

tive team functioning.

Motivation to work geographically dispersed

With regard to geographic dispersion, our

review did not reveal a specific form of anxiety

or apprehension. However, regarding approach

tendencies, the maintenance of high individual

work motivation seems to be a key issue

(Hertel, Konradt, & Orlikowski, 2004). As

pointed out by Hertel et al. (2004), spatial and

temporal distribution of team members pose

motivational challenges due to, for example,

feelings of anonymity, low social control, as

well as low visibility of own and other team

members’ contributions. In support of these

notions, Blaskovich (2008) stressed that social

loafing might be exacerbated in a virtual con-

text because the geographic separation of team

members decreases social impact (Blaskovich,

2008). On the contrary, individuals who engage

in interdependent goal setting, who are self-

efficacious with regard to their task accom-

plishment, who trust in their teammates, who

work and coordinate closely with other team

members, and who see a high instrumentality in

their own contributions, are likely to be highly

motivated, even in a dispersed working context

(Hertel et al., 2004).

Distal characteristics

Experience

There is a well-established relationship between

individual’s job experience, acquired job knowl-

edge, and job performance (Schmidt, Hunter, &

Outerbridge, 1986). Again, a more fine-grained

view on virtuality facets revealed facet-specific

experience conceptualizations that will be

described in more detail in what follows.

Technology experience. With regard to technol- ogy experience, channel expansion theory pre-

dicts that experience with a medium will shape

user’s perception of media richness (Carlson &

Zmud, 1999). More precisely, through the gain

in experience with a medium, individuals

will be able to effectively encode and decode

media-specific messages (D’Urso & Rains,

2008), ultimately leading to a skillful and more

effective usage of this very medium (Brown,

Dennis, & Venkatesh, 2010; Carlson, Carlson,

Hunter, Vaughn, & George, 2013).

Intercultural experience. Concerning cultural differences, many authors showed that inter-

cultural experience is a precursor for culturally

intelligent acting (for a summary, see, Ng, van

Dyne, & Ang, 2012). The role of experience has

Schulze and Krumm 79

been discussed in a multicultural virtual team

context, too (e.g., Erez et al., 2013; Shokef &

Erez, 2008; Taras et al., 2013). For example,

Erez et al. (2013) studied the effect of a colla-

borative experiential learning approach for the

development of cultural intelligence in 312

multicultural virtual teams. Over the course of

4 weeks, students were able to gain cross-

cultural experiences while working on a

virtual team project task. This hands-on expe-

rience resulted in significant increases in cul-

tural intelligence (Erez et al., 2013).

Dispersed work experience. Finally, concerning the distance facet of virtuality, we found few

studies on the effects of past experiences with

geographically distant settings (Nurmi, 2011;

Staples, Hulland, & Higgins, 1999; Wilson

et al., 2008). For instance, Staples et al. (1999)

revealed that remotely managed employees

with more remote work experience were more

self-efficacious, which in turn had a positive

impact on performance and satisfaction. Like-

wise, Nurmi (2011) found that individuals who

were experienced in working with people

located in different places were better able to

cope with decreased social support and had

higher abilities to master challenges induced by

the distributed work setting.

Personality characteristics

As a final distal aspect of our model, person-

ality characteristics were considered (cf. Bar-

rick & Mount, 1991). In several studies, the

personality dimensions of extraversion, con-

scientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to

experience were found to be relevant for virtual

teamwork (Balthazard et al., 2004; Furumo, de

Pillis, & Green, 2009; Hertel et al., 2006; Luse,

McElroy, Townsend, & DeMarie, 2013; Turel

& Zhang, 2010). Furthermore, as the develop-

ment of trust turned out to be an important

mediator while collaborating virtually (Breuer,

Hüffmeier, & Hertel, 2016), it is no surprise

that researchers tried to uncover trust-related

traits. Our literature review revealed that the

disposition to trust has been identified to be a

significant contributor to the development of

trust within a virtual team context (e.g., Jar-

venpaa et al., 1998; Kuo & Thompson, 2014).

In addition to this broad view on personality

effects, we also reviewed studies focusing on

the relationship of personality and specific

virtuality facets.

Personality and technology use. With regard to technology use, the literature review revealed a

particular importance of openness to experi-

ence. Openness to experience is thought to be

useful for adapting to new technologies in

virtual teams (e.g., Blackburn et al., 2003),

revealed a positive direct effect on the intention

to use collaborative technologies (Devaraj,

Easley, & Crant, 2008), and showed an overall

positive relationship with team technology use

(Venkatesh & Windeler, 2012). Furthermore,

openness to experience turned out to increase

performance in computer-assisted team deci-

sion tasks (Colquitt, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, LePine,

& Sheppard, 2002), heightened cohesion in

teams operating solely via a videoconferencing

tool (MacDonnell, O’Neill, Kline, & Hambley,

2009), and less CMC apprehension (Jacques

et al., 2009). With respect to other personality

dimensions, empirical evidence was less unan-

imous (but see Jacques et al., 2009; Venkatesh

& Windeler, 2012).

Personality and cultural differences. With regard to the facet of cultural differences, the review of

the literature again points to the importance of

openness to experience (Ang, van Dyne, &

Koh, 2006; Krumm et al., 2013; Presbitero,

2016). Individuals who score high on openness

to experience are thought to be curious, open to

learn new things, as well as cultured, and should

thus more likely be knowledgeable about cul-

ture specifics and motivated to interact with

unknown and unfamiliar cultural contexts (Ang

et al., 2006). Indeed, openness to experience

shaped motivational, cognitive, and behavioral

80 Organizational Psychology Review 7(1)

individual qualities in studies conducted with a

focus on multinational work settings (e.g., Ang

et al., 2006). Furthermore, Krumm et al. (2013)

showed that members of cross-cultural virtual

teams rated openness and perspective taking as

being of importance when collaborating virtually.

There are also empirical findings that sug-

gest the significance of extraversion and con-

scientiousness in a multicultural context (Ang

et al., 2006; Kapur, Paul, & Gupta, 2013;

Krumm et al., 2013; Presbitero, 2016). For

example, Kapur et al. (2013) reported evidence

for the importance of extraversion and con-

scientiousness for virtual teamwork, but did

also show that these effects were different for

U.S. and Indian virtual teams (i.e., the mean-

ingful correlation for conscientiousness was

only present in Indian teams, whereas the

extraversion facet was important in teams from

the US).

Personality and geographically dispersed work. Lastly, with regard to geographic dispersion,

results are scarce and rather inconclusive

(O’Neill, Hambley, & Chatellier, 2014; O’Neill,

Hambley, Greidanus, MacDonnell, & Kline,

2009; Wilson et al., 2008). Wilson et al. (2008),

for example, hypothesize that individuals with

high openness to experience may engage more

readily in communication and identification

processes, which in turn foster feelings of clo-

seness between distant team members. To our

knowledge, however, there are no empirical

studies that shed more light on the relationship of

openness and geographically dispersed work.

With regard to other personality facets,

O’Neill et al. (2014) showed that highly con-

scientious individuals engaged more readily in

self-management tactics (e.g., scheduling work

activities) when performing distributed work

(i.e., working outside the conventional work-

place), which helped to avoid social loafing

tendencies. In the same study, extraverted and

agreeable individuals were more likely to

show conscious socialization efforts, which

helped to overcome feelings of isolation and

cyberslacking tendencies. Conversely, in

another study by O’Neill et al. (2009), highly

sociable teleworkers (i.e., home-based tele-

work) showed lower performance, presumably

because they perceived it difficult to work

under isolated conditions. Clearly, more

research is needed to differentiate these rela-

tionships in the virtual team context.

Discussion

The purpose of this article was to review the

virtual team and related literature in order to

derive KSAOs that are crucial for virtual

teamwork and to synthesize these KSAOs in a

comprehensive model. In a first step, studies

were identified that summarized KSAOs for

virtual work, which resulted in a list of six

KSAO clusters. In a second step, the most

prominent virtuality facets were identified and

challenges of each dimension were derived. We

revealed a fairly good match between KSAO

clusters (Approach 1) and virtuality facets

(Approach 2). However, none of the studies

identified in Approach 1 conducted a KSAO

review with regard to virtuality-related chal-

lenges specifically nor did they provide in-

depth descriptions of the proposed characteris-

tics that are well grounded in the conceptual

and empirical literature. Therefore, in a third

step, distinct literature searches on each facet

were conducted to close this research gap and to

provide a comprehensive framework for virtual

team KSAOs that is in line with recent devel-

opments in the conceptualization of virtuality

as a multifaceted construct.

Figure 1 provides a summary of our frame-

work (organized along the input–mediator–output

logic). At the core of this model are the three

virtuality facets technology use, cultural dif-

ferences, and geographic dispersion. Each

facet poses challenges for teamwork and

impacts mediators and outcomes. Importantly,

for each facet we found motivational, beha-

vioral (skills), and cognitive (knowledge)

aspects that may help individuals to handle

Schulze and Krumm 81

these challenges competently. As an example,

when team members are highly motivated to

use technologies, bring in the knowledge of

media capabilities and the behavioral skills to

communicate well with technologies, potential

negative effects of technology use will either

not occur or will be less pronounced. Our

review also showed the importance of distal

variables (experience and personality) that can

also be linked to the virtuality facets and

to the identified KSAOs. Specifics of each

component of the model are given in the

respective sections of this review.

Theoretical implications

There are a number of theoretical implications

arising from this review. First and foremost, the

herein presented model provides a generic

framework for organizing and interpreting

the rather heterogeneous results on relevant

KSAOs. Specifically, it may help to explain

why the same individual characteristics were

identified as relevant for virtual team perfor-

mance in one study but not in others. Further-

more, several streams of literature were previously

rather unconnected. For example, theories on

effects of technology use (e.g., use of syn-

chronous and asynchronous media as outlined

by MST; Dennis et al., 2008) have not spe-

cifically outlined related KSAOs. By specifically

connecting virtuality facets with knowledge and

skills, we contributed to a more holistic approach

to virtual teamwork. In addition, the use of

virtuality-related challenges as the organizing

unit of our model comes with the advantage that

this model can be extended to future virtuality-

related challenges.

Second, the review points to the impor-

tance of considering specific virtuality facets.

Research has moved forward with regard to

the conceptualization of virtuality as a multi-

dimensional construct, but research around

virtual team KSAOs has not yet embraced this

as much as it could have. In addition to

summing up clusters of KSAOs that are

important for the virtual team (i.e., the

dichotomous approach to defining virtuality),

the review implies that depending on the

working conditions of a virtual team, KSAOs

are varying in their importance (i.e., the multiple

facet approach). With the rise of virtual team-

work, working conditions have become more

complex and technology use, cultural differ-

ences, and geographic dispersion are posing

challenges for collaboration. Yet, approaches to

define KSAOs for virtual teamwork have not

considered these challenges as specifically and

detailed as in this review.

Third, we highlight that research on indi-

vidual characteristics in virtual teamwork might

adopt a trinitarian view. That is, the prediction

of virtual team mediators and outcomes may be

considered as an interaction of (a) knowledge

and skills, (b) motivation, and (c) virtuality-

related challenges. Indeed, our review revealed

that knowledge domains, skills, and motivational

aspects could be identified for almost all facets.

Albeit there is a void of research on their inter-

action in the virtual team domain, our model

suggests that virtual team performance is highest

when team members have the knowledge and

skills and the motivation particularly relevant for

the challenges imposed by the virtual team’s

working conditions (i.e., the given degree of a

virtuality facet). The herein presented model

may also be viewed as a facet model (for an

overview on facet theory, see e.g., Shye, 1998).

That is, virtual teamwork competencies may be

viewed as an interaction of a motivation facet, a

knowledge and skills facet, and a challenges

facet (as well as additional facets not considered

in this review). Adopting such a view could

also stimulate theory development and research

concerning the specific nature of the three

components’ interaction. That is, one may

theorize whether for some challenges it will

be sufficient to possess the relevant knowl-

edge and skills (and a minimum level of

motivation), whereas other challenges may

require high levels of knowledge, skills, and

motivation.

82 Organizational Psychology Review 7(1)

Fourth, in bringing several lines of research

together, this review also uncovers the need for

theory adjustments. For example, several of the

reviewed studies imply the usefulness of text-

based communication media for convergence

communication processes in culturally diverse

virtual teams (e.g., Shachaf, 2008; Tenzer &

Pudelko, 2016). As pointed out by Tenzer and

Pudelko (2016), this is in contrast to the

assumption made by MST and, thus, is an

example of how a holistic theoretical framework

can highlight inconsistencies among theories.

Practical implications

The virtual teamwork KSAO model can serve

as a flexible tool for member selection and

training programs. Managers need to identify to

what extent virtuality facets play a role in future

or ongoing teamwork. For instance, in a virtual

team that works under conditions of high

cultural diversity, high reliance on (multiple)

technologies, and geographically dispersed

locations, many proximal and distal character-

istics are likely to play a role to handle the

challenges imposed by such a work setting. Yet,

the importance of virtuality facets may vary in

teamwork settings. For example, in a virtual

team that is homogenous with regard to the

cultural backgrounds and cultural orientations

of the team members, selection and training

can neglect the KSAOs associated with this

dimension. There is now more research on the

measurement of virtuality available that can

help to identify the degree of a given virtuality

facet. For instance, O’Leary and Cummings

(2007) provide mathematical formulas for

computing a spatial distance index, a time zone

index, and an isolation index. Information on

the degree of a given virtuality facet can then be

considered in order to identify the set of KSAOs

relevant for this specific type of work and

ultimately may guide the selection process of

virtual team members.

With regard to training programs, Rosen,

Furst, and Blackburn (2006) pointed to the lack

of support for virtual team training programs

by top management. According to the authors,

reasons may lie in the underestimation of the

particular challenges that virtual teamwork

poses and the relative ineffectiveness of exist-

ing training programs. Our literature review

provides valuable arguments on why virtual

team training programs and not approaches for

traditional teams need to be applied and how

future training programs should be designed to

raise effectiveness and acceptance by top

management. That is, training programs that

focus on meeting the challenges posed by one

or more virtuality facets specifically will most

likely result in increased KSAOs of team

members. As one possible example, in a recent

virtual team survey report with 2,984 partici-

pants, the authors point out that 92% of the respondents found it difficult to read nonverbal

communication cues (Briggs, 2014). Training

programs aimed at developing CMC compe-

tence will likely result in a better understanding

and usage of the nonverbal communication

cues available in virtual teams and should

therefore be developed and applied.

In addition to implications for staffing

and training, this review also provides some

guidance for managers and leaders of virtual

teams. For example, the provision of different

kinds of media is important for allowing

individuals to use technology KSAOs to their

full potential, especially when virtual teams

encounter novel contexts (Dennis et al., 2008).

Without the possibility to choose from a media

repertoire, teams cannot benefit from modality

augmentation or the variation of media syn-

chronicity for communication. The review also

points to the importance of leadership skills for

handling, for example, language barriers in vir-

tual teams. As Tenzer and Pudelko (2016) point

out, language proficient individuals must be

sensitized to the challenges experienced by low-

proficient teammates and should be encouraged

to have tolerance to use asynchronous email to

enable effective intercultural communication

and thus make use of their adaptation skills.

Schulze and Krumm 83

As a final practical implication, the herein

presented model may be used as a guiding

framework for developing a holistic assessment

instrument for individual characteristics in vir-

tual teamwork. Ideally, such an instrument

would comprise the trinity of knowledge, skills,

and motivation specifically required for each

virtuality dimension. Already existing instru-

ments (e.g., Cultural Intelligence Scale, CQS,

van Dyne et al., 2008; CMC Competence

Measure, Spitzberg, 2006) could be integrated

and adapted to fully account for the multi-

faceted nature of virtual teamwork.

Research gaps and avenues for future research

Through the review of the literature, we were

able to identify a number of important research

gaps, pointing to an avenue for future research.

More research on the interaction of virtuality

facets, knowledge and skills, and motivation is

needed. Ideally, future studies should assess the

degree of a given virtuality facet and the spe-

cific KSAOs in order to derive meaningful

conclusions. Currently, many studies from the

virtual team literature do not make use of

measures of virtuality and thus do not allow for

providing causal evidence for the links that are

proposed. That said, more research is needed on

the interaction of multiple facets and on the

relevance and expression of knowledge and

skills for one challenge, when, additionally,

another challenge is given.

Our review also revealed that some indi-

vidual difference constructs are conceptualized

and operationalized to fit the virtual context.

For example, Spitzberg (2006) introduced a

model of CMC competence along with a

questionnaire specifically developed to assess

this competence in mediated communication

contexts. However, such conceptualizations

are not available for several other constructs

included in this review. For instance, cultural

skills as understood and operationalized for

face-to-face contexts may not easily translate to

virtual contexts. More specifically, the CQS

(van Dyne et al., 2008) is a frequently used

questionnaire to assess intercultural KSAOs in

virtual teams (e.g., Li & Skulason, 2013). Yet,

participants need to rate items such as ‘‘I alter

my facial expressions when a cross-cultural

interaction requires it’’ (van Dyne et al., 2008,

p. 20), even in the complete absence of face-to-

face interaction. Thus, there is considerable

need for contextualization of traditional assess-

ment instruments (see also Presbitero, 2016, for

this argument). In fact, research by Schulze,

Schultze, West, and Krumm (2016) revealed that

constructs may differ substantially when oper-

ationalized for face-to-face versus computer-

mediated contexts. For instance, these authors

revealed that there was almost no relationship

between the motivation to communicate face-to-

face and the motivation to communicate via text-

based media.

Lastly, although the model of virtual team

KSAOs is derived from the conceptual and

empirical body of the available literature, it

needs to be validated in its entirety. Moderated

mediation analyses can help to address this

research need. For example, it might be explored

if KSAOs moderate negative influences of a

given virtuality facet on virtual team mediators

and ultimately outcomes (e.g., the negative

influence of cultural diversity is mitigated if

cultural KSAOs are available). Vice versa,

virtuality facets could be included as moderators

of KSAO–mediator relationships. KSAOs should

show stronger effects in context-congruent con-

ditions (e.g., intercultural KSAOs show a strong

effect under high levels of cultural diversity).

Finally, interaction effects of virtuality facets

need to be included to fully account for the

variety of working conditions for virtual teams

as outlined before.

Limitations

There are some important limitations of this

review. First, although the review revealed the

preponderance of the three virtuality facets in

84 Organizational Psychology Review 7(1)

the virtual team literature, there exist other

facets that were not considered. For example,

Chudoba et al. (2005) measured workplace

mobility (i.e., how much work is accomplished

while traveling or working at changing sites)

and variety of practices (i.e., to what extent

teams differ in their ways to track work or

change their project members) as dimensions of

virtuality. It is clearly desirable to add such

virtuality aspects to the virtual team KSAO

model if more studies are available that focus

on the interplay of such facets with specific

KSAOs. Second, studies from the realm of

virtual work more broadly were also included in

order to draw conclusions for the work in

virtual teams, but the generalizability of these

findings needs to be questioned as long as

empirical findings on the topic are missing.

Third, many of the included studies did not

assess clearly operationalized degrees of their

virtuality facets (e.g., a spatial distance index as

suggested by O’Leary & Cummings, 2007).

Rather, unmeasured multiple facets were pres-

ent at once, making it difficult to separate their

effects and their interplay with KSAOs. This

again points to the necessity to empirically

test our theoretical framework with moderated

mediation analyses and clearly operationalized

constructs in future studies. Fourth, we did not

incorporate research on important team topics

such as task type (Steiner, 1972) or leadership

(Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014). It can be assumed

that these variables are also important to con-

sider with respect to virtual team KSAOs.

For instance, self-management KSAOs may

become even more important when teams are

geographically dispersed and share leadership

functions. Finally, additional KSAOs not con-

sidered in this review may be beneficial in the

virtual team context. For example, one type of

KSAOs can be thought of as ‘‘mediator man-

agement’’ KSAOs (e.g., conflict management;

Paul, Samarah, Seetharaman, & Mykytyn,

2004) that may gain in importance when unfa-

vorable team dynamics are already present

(e.g., relationship conflict).

Conclusion

We reviewed the virtual team literature in order

to identify crucial KSAOs. These KSAOs along

with typical challenges of virtual teamwork were

organized along a comprehensive model. We

conclude that the ‘‘virtual team player’’ needs

the knowledge and skills and be motivated to

handle the challenges of technology use, cultural

differences, and geographic dispersion. Further-

more, distal characteristics in the form of per-

sonality and experience are also important for

working effectively in a virtual team context.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of inter-

est with respect to the research, authorship, and/or

publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the

research, authorship, and/or publication of this

article.

Notes

1. The input–mediator–output model is an advance-

ment of the input–process–output framework

(McGrath, 1984). The model recognizes that

many of the formerly labeled ‘‘processes’’ are

actually emergent states. Processes and emergent

states are thus summarized as mediators through-

out the article. For the sake of simplicity, our

model does not account for the multicycle nature

and the various interactions inherent in the model.

2. Following existing conventions, we will also con-

sider virtual collaboration by as few as two indi-

viduals to fall under the umbrella term of virtual

teamwork (e.g., Hertel et al., 2005).

3. Search of the electronic databases Ebsco Host

(databases included Academic Search Premier,

Communication & Mass Media Complete, Psy-

cARTICLES, PsycINFO, and PSYNDEX), Web

of Science, and Google Scholar. Keywords were,

for example, ‘‘competency,’’ ‘‘competencies,’’

‘‘KSAO,’’ ‘‘virtual team,’’ and ‘‘virtual work.’’

We also conducted manual scans of the reference

Schulze and Krumm 85

lists of identified articles and inspected the ‘‘cited

by’’ lists in Google Scholar.

4. It is important to mention that some of the

reviewed studies reported KSAOs as drivers of

virtual team performance that, in our opinion,

were not specific for virtual teamwork. Thus,

we did not include KSAOs such as domain

knowledge (Shin, 2004) or cognitive abilities

(Hertel et al., 2006) in the current review.

5. Literature searches in this section included the

virtuality dimensions as search terms, for exam-

ple, ‘‘geographic dispersion,’’ ‘‘multicultural

virtual team,’’ ‘‘technology,’’ as well as

virtuality-specific individual characteristics such

as ‘‘intercultural competence’’ or ‘‘computer-

mediated communication competence.’’ Further-

more, a manual scan of the reference lists of

relevant articles, and an inspection of the ‘‘cited

by’’ lists in Google Scholar were conducted.

References

Ale Ebrahim, N., Ahmed, S., & Taha, Z. (2009). Vir-

tual teams: A literature review. Australian Journal

of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3, 2653–2669.

Anawati, D., & Craig, A. (2006). Behavioral adapta-

tion within cross-cultural virtual teams. IEEE

Transactions on Professional Communication,

49, 44–56. doi:10.1109/TPC.2006.870459

Ang, S., van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality

correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intel-

ligence. Group & Organization Management, 31,

100–123. doi:10.1177/1059601105275267

Axtell, C. M., Fleck, S. J., & Turner, N. (2004).

Virtual teams: Collaborating across distance. In

C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), Interna-

tional review of industrial and organizational

psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 205–248). Chichester,

UK: Wiley.

Ayoko, O. B., Konrad, A. M., & Boyle, M. V.

(2012). Online work: Managing conflict and

emotions for performance in virtual teams. Eur-

opean Management Journal, 30, 156–174. doi:

10.1016/j.emj.2011.10.001

Balthazard, P., Potter, R. E., & Warren, J. (2004).

Expertise, extraversion and group interaction

styles as performance indicators in virtual teams.

The Data Base for Advances in Information Sys-

tems, 35, 41–64. doi:10.1145/968464.968469

Bardhan, I., Krishnan, V. V., & Lin, S. (2013). Team

dispersion, information technology, and project

performance. Production and Operations Man-

agement, 22, 1478–1493. doi:10.1111/j.1937-

5956.2012.01366.x

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five

personality dimensions and job performance: A

meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

Bélanger, F., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2006).

Virtual teams and multiple media: Structuring

media use to attain strategic goals. Group Deci-

sion and Negotiation, 15, 299–321. doi:10.1007/

s10726-006-9044-8

Beranek, P. M., & Martz, B. (2005). Making virtual

teams more effective: Improving relational links.

Team Performance Management: An Interna-

tional Journal, 11, 200–213. doi:10.1108/

13527590510617774

Bergiel, B. J., Bergiel, E. B., & Balsmeier, P. W.

(2008). Nature of virtual teams: A summary of

their advantages and disadvantages. Management

Research News, 31, 99–110. doi:10.1108/

01409170810846821

Blackburn, R., Furst, S., & Rosen, B. (2003). Build-

ing a winning virtual team. In C. B. Gibson & S.

G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creat-

ing conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp.

95–120). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Blaskovich, J. L. (2008). Exploring the effect of

distance: An experimental investigation of vir-

tual collaboration, social loafing, and group

decisions. Journal of Information Systems, 22,

27–46. doi:10.2308/jis.2008.22.1.27

Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016). Does

trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-

analysis of trust and team effectiveness consider-

ing virtuality and documentation as moderators.

Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online

publication. doi:10.1037/apl0000113

Briggs, J. (2014, July 31). RW3 CultureWizard

unveils biennial survey results for effective virtual

teaming [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://

blog.rw-3.com/blog/2014/07/rw3-culturewizard-

86 Organizational Psychology Review 7(1)

unveils-biennial-survey-results-for-effective-

virtual-teaming

Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Venkatesh, V.

(2010). Predicting collaboration technology

use: Integrating technology adoption and colla-

boration research. Journal of Management

Information Systems, 27, 9–54. doi:10.2753/

MIS0742-1222270201

Brown, S. A., Fuller, R. M., & Vician, C. (2004).

Who’s afraid of the virtual world? Anxiety and

computer-mediated communication. Journal of

the Association for Information Systems, 5,

79–107.

Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The

communication and miscommunication of emo-

tion by email. Academy of Management Review,

33, 309–327. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.31193163

Cagiltay, K., Bichelmeyer, B., & Akilli, G. K.

(2015). Working with multicultural virtual teams:

Critical factors for facilitation, satisfaction and

success. Smart Learning Environments, 2.

Advance online publication. doi:10.1186/

s40561-015-0018-7

Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., &

Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance.

In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel

selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Fran-

cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cardon, P. W., & Dai, Y. (2014). Mobile phone use

in meetings among Chinese professionals: Per-

spectives on multicommunication and civility.

Global Advances in Business and Communication

Conference & Journal, 3. Advance online

publication.

Carlson, J. R., Carlson, D. S., Hunter, E. M., Vaughn,

R. L., & George, J. F. (2013). Virtual team effec-

tiveness: Investigating the moderating role of

experience with computer-mediated communi-

cation on the impact of team cohesion and

openness. Journal of Organizational and End

User Computing, 25, 1–18. doi:10.4018/joeuc

.2013040101

Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel

expansion theory and the experiential nature of

media richness perceptions. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 42, 153–170. doi:10.2307/257090

Caya, O., Mortensen, M., & Pinsonneault, A.

(2013). Virtual teams demystified: An integra-

tive framework for understanding virtual teams.

International Journal of e-Collaboration, 9,

1–33. doi:10.4018/jec.2013040101

Chang, H. H., Hung, C. J., & Hsieh, H. W. (2014).

Virtual teams: Cultural adaptation, communica-

tion quality, and interpersonal trust. Total

Quality Management & Business Excellence,

25, 1318–1335. doi:10.1080/14783363.2012.

704274

Chudoba, K. M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., & Watson-

Manheim, M. B. (2005). How virtual are we?

Measuring virtuality and understanding its

impact in a global organization. Information

Systems Journal, 15, 279–306. doi:10.1111/

j.1365-2575.2005.00200.x

Collins, N., Chou, Y. M., Warner, M., & Rowley, C.

(2015). Human factors in East Asian virtual

teamwork: A comparative study of Indonesia,

Taiwan and Vietnam. The International Journal

of Human Resource Management. Advance

online publication. doi:10.1080/09585192.2015

.1089064

Colquitt, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R.,

LePine, J. A., & Sheppard, L. (2002).

Computer-assisted communication and team

decision-making performance: The moderating

effect of openness to experience. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87, 402–410. doi:10.1037/

0021-9010.87.2.402

Connaughton, S. L., & Shuffler, M. (2007). Multi-

national and multicultural distributed teams. A

review and future agenda. Small Group Research,

38, 387–412. doi:10.1177/1046496407301970

Cornelius, C., & Boos, M. (2003). Enhancing

mutual understanding in synchronous computer-

mediated communication by training trade-offs in

judgmental tasks. Communication Research, 30,

147–177. doi:10.1177/0093650202250874

Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge prob-

lem and its consequences for dispersed collabora-

tion. Organization Science, 12, 346–371. doi:

10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098

Cramton, C. D., Orvis, K. L., & Wilson, J. M. (2007).

Situation invisibility and attribution in distributed

Schulze and Krumm 87

collaborations. Journal of Management, 33,

525–546. doi:10.1177/0149206307302549

Cummings, J. N., Espinosa, J. A., & Pickering, C. K.

(2009). Crossing spatial and temporal boundaries in

globally distributed projects: A relational model of

coordination delay. Information Systems Research,

20, 420–439. doi:10.1287/isre.1090.0239

Curseu, P. L., Schalk, R., & Wessel, I. (2008). How

do virtual teams process information? A literature

review and implications for management. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 23, 628–652. doi:

10.1108/02683940810894729

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational

information requirements, media richness and

structural design. Management Science, 32,

554–571. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554

Darics, E. (2012). Instant messaging in work-based

virtual teams: The analysis of non-verbal commu-

nication used for the contextualisation of transac-

tional and relational communicative goals

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Loughbor-

ough University, Loughborough, UK. Retrieved

from http://erika.darics.co/download/darics_

phd.pdf

Darics, E. (2014). The blurring boundaries between

synchronicity and asynchronicity. New commu-

nicative situations in work-related instant

messaging. International Journal of Business

Communication, 51, 337–358. doi:10.1177/

2329488414525440

DeLuca, D., & Valacich, J. S. (2006). Virtual teams

in and out of synchronicity. Information Technol-

ogy & People, 19, 323–344. doi:10.1108/

09593840610718027

Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008).

Media, tasks, and communication processes: A

theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly,

32, 575–600.

Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F., & Crant, J. M. (2008).

How does personality matter? Relating the

Five-Factor model to technology acceptance

and use. Information Systems Research, 19,

93–105. doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0153

Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (2006). Mastering

virtual teams: Strategies, tools, and techniques

that succeed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

D’Urso, S. C., & Rains, S. A. (2008). Examining

the scope of channel expansion: A test of chan-

nel expansion theory with new and traditional

communication media. Management Communi-

cation Quarterly, 21, 486–507. doi:10.1177/

0893318907313712

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelli-

gence: Individual interactions across cultures.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Erez, M., Lisak, A., Harush, R., Glikson, E., Nouri,

R., & Shokef, E. (2013). Going global: Devel-

oping management students’ cultural intelli-

gence and global identity in culturally diverse

virtual teams. Academy of Management Learn-

ing & Education, 12, 330–355. doi:10.5465/

amle.2012.0200

Espinosa, J. A., Nan, N., & Carmel, E. (2015). Tem-

poral distance, communication patterns, and task

performance in teams. Journal of Management

Information Systems, 32, 151–191. doi:10.1080/

07421222.2015.1029390

Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., &

Herbsleb, J. D. (2007). Team knowledge and

coordination in geographically distributed soft-

ware development. Journal of Management

Information Systems, 24, 135–169. doi:10.2753/

MIS0742-1222240104

Ferrazzi, K. (2014). Getting virtual teams right.

Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/12/getting-

virtual-teams-right

Furumo, K., de Pillis, E., & Green, D. (2009). Per-

sonality influences trust differently in virtual and

face-to-face teams. International Journal of

Human Resources Development and Manage-

ment, 9, 36–58. doi:10.1504/IJHRDM.2009

.021554

Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the

concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic

dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic struc-

ture, and national diversity on team innovation.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 451–495.

Gibson, C. B., Huang, L., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro,

D. L. (2014). Where global and virtual meet: The

value of examining the intersection of these ele-

ments in twenty-first-century teams. Annual

Review of Organizational Psychology and

88 Organizational Psychology Review 7(1)

Organizational Behavior, 1, 217–244. doi:

10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091240

Gibson, C. B., & Manuel, J. A. (2003). Building

trust: Effective multicultural communication pro-

cesses in virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G.

Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating

conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp.

59–86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J.,

Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual

teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10

opportunities. Journal of Management, 41,

1313–1337. doi:10.1177/0149206314559946

Gregory, R., Prifling, M., & Beck, R. (2009). The

role of cultural intelligence for the emergence

of negotiated culture in IT offshore outsourcing

projects. Information Technology & People, 22,

223–241. doi:10.1108/09593840910981428

Grosse, C. U. (2002). Managing communication

within virtual intercultural teams. Business Com-

munication Quarterly, 65, 22–38. doi:10.1177/

108056990206500404

Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005).

Managing virtual teams: A review of current

empirical research. Human Resource Manage-

ment Review, 15, 69–95. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.

2005.01.002

Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. (2004).

Managing distance by interdependence: Goal set-

ting, task interdependence, and team-based

rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 1–28.

doi:10.1080/13594320344000228

Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Voss, K. (2006). Compe-

tencies for virtual teamwork: Development and

validation of a web-based selection tool for mem-

bers of distributed teams. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 15,

477–504. doi:10.1080/13594320600908187

Hill, N. S. (2008). Virtual team member performance

and viability: The influence of individual charac-

teristics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Uni-

versity of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Hinds, P. J., & Cramton, C. D. (2014). Situated

coworker familiarity: How site visits transform

relationships among distributed workers.

Organization Science, 25, 794–814. doi:

10.1287/orsc.2013.0869

Hinds, P., Liu, L., & Lyon, J. (2011). Putting the

global in global work: An intercultural lens on

the practice of cross-national collaboration. The

Academy of Management Annals, 5, 135–188.

doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.586108

Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding

conflict in geographically distributed teams: The

moderating effects of shared identity, shared

context, and spontaneous communication. Orga-

nization Science, 16, 290–307. doi:10.1287/

orsc.1050.0122

Hinds, P. J., Neeley, T. B., & Cramton, C. D. (2014).

Language as a lightning rod: Power contests,

emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in

global teams. Journal of International Business

Studies, 45, 536–561. doi:10.1057/jibs.2013.62

Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading

virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural

supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 99, 390–403. doi:10.1037/

a0030264

Holtbrügge, D., Weldon, A., & Rogers, H. (2013). Cul-

tural determinants of email communication styles.

International Journal of Cross Cultural Manage-

ment, 13, 89–110. doi:10.1177/1470595812452638

Holtkamp, P., Lau, I., & Pawlowski, J. M. (2015).

How software development competences change

in global settings—an explorative study. Journal

of Software: Evolution and Process, 27, 50–72.

doi:10.1002/smr.1701

Hosseini, M. R., Zuo, J., Chileshe, N., & Baroudi, B.

(2015). Evaluating virtuality in teams: A concep-

tual model. Technology Analysis & Strategic

Management, 27, 385–404. doi:10.1080/

09537325.2014.1003206

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt,

D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input–-

process–output models to IMOI models. Annual

Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. doi:10.1146/

annurev.psych.56.091103.070250

Jacques, P. H., Garger, J., Brown, C. A., & Deale, C.

S. (2009). Personality and virtual reality team

candidates: The roles of personality traits, tech-

nology anxiety and trust as predictors of

Schulze and Krumm 89

perceptions of virtual reality teams. Journal of

Business and Management, 15, 143–157.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998).

Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in glo-

bal virtual teams. Journal of Management Infor-

mation Systems, 14, 29–64. doi:10.1080/

07421222.1998.11518185

Johnson, P., Heimann, V., & O’Neill, K. (2001). The

‘‘wonderland’’ of virtual teams. Journal of

Workplace Learning, 13, 24–30. doi:10.1108/

13665620110364745

Kalman, Y. M., & Gergle, D. (2014). Letter repeti-

tions in computer-mediated communication: A

unique link between spoken and online language.

Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 187–193.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.047

Kapur, K., Paul, R., & Gupta, R. K. (2013). Person-

ality and its impact on global virtual team perfor-

mance. International Journal of Indian Culture

and Business Management, 6, 410–429. doi:

10.1504/IJICBM.2013.054251

Karis, D., Wildman, D., & Mané, A. (2016). Improv-

ing remote collaboration with video conferencing

and video portals. Human–Computer Interaction,

31, 1–58. doi:10.1080/07370024.2014.921506

Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we

know about proximity and distance in work

groups? A legacy of research. In P. J. Hinds &

S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 57–80).

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimen-

sions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal

of Management, 31, 700–718. doi:10.1177/

0149206305279113

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P.

E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenges to

virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc.

Academy of Management Executive, 16, 67–79.

doi:10.5465/AME.2002.8540322

Klitmøller, A., Schneider, S. C., & Jonsen, K. (2015).

Speaking of global virtual teams: Language dif-

ferences, social categorization and media choice.

Personnel Review, 44, 270–285. doi:10.1108/PR-

11-2013-0205

Koehne, B., Shih, P. C., & Olson, J. S. (2012).

Remote and alone: Coping with being the remote

member on the team. Proceedings of the ACM

2012 Conference on Computer Supported Coop-

erative Work (pp. 1257–1266). New York, NY:

ACM. doi:10.1145/2145204.2145393

Koh, C., Joseph, D., & Ang, S. (2010). Cultural intel-

ligence and the global information technology

workforce. In H. Bidgoli (Ed.), The handbook of

technology management: Supply chain manage-

ment, marketing and advertising, and global

management (pp. 828–844). San Francisco, CA:

John Wiley & Sons.

Kokko, N., Vartiainen, M., & Lönnblad, J. (2007).

Individual and collective competences in virtual

project organizations. The Electronic Journal for

Virtual Organizations and Networks, 8, 28–52.

Krumm, S., & Hertel, G. (2013). Knowledge, skills,

abilities and other characteristics (KSAOs) for

virtual teamwork. In A. Bakker & D. Derks

(Eds.), The psychology of digital media and work

(pp. 80–99). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Krumm, S., Kanthak, J., Hartmann, K., & Hertel, G.

(2016). What does it take to be a virtual team

player? The knowledge, skills, abilities, and other

characteristics required in virtual teams. Human

Performance, 29, 123–142. doi:10.1080/

08959285.2016.1154061

Krumm, S., Terwiel, K., & Hertel, G. (2013). Chal-

lenges in norm formation and adherence. The

knowledge, skills, and ability requirements of vir-

tual and traditional cross-cultural teams. Journal

of Personnel Psychology, 12, 33–44. doi:10.1027/

1866-5888/a000077

Kuo, E. W., & Thompson, L. F. (2014). The influ-

ence of disposition and social ties on trust in new

virtual teammates. Computers in Human Beha-

vior, 37, 41–48. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.030

Lam, C. (2016). Improving technical communication

group projects: An experimental study of media

synchronicity theory training on communication

outcomes. Journal of Business and Technical

Communication, 30, 85–112. doi:10.1177/

1050651915602293

Lee, C. S., Watson-Manheim, M. B., & Chudoba, K.

M. (2014). Investigating the relationship between

perceived risks in communication and ICT-

enabled communicative behaviors. Information

90 Organizational Psychology Review 7(1)

& Management, 51, 688–699. doi:10.1016/

j.im.2014.05.008

Lee, O. (2002). Cultural differences in e-mail use of

virtual teams: A critical social theory perspective.

Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5, 227–232. doi:

10.1089/109493102760147222

Li, Y., & Skulason, A. (2013). Uncovering the

effects of cultural intelligence on cross-cultural

virtual collaboration processes. In P. L. P. Rau

(Ed.), Cross-cultural design. Cultural differences

in everyday life (pp. 237–246). Heidelberg, Ger-

many: Springer.

Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams:

Reaching across space, time, and organizations

with technology. New York, NY: Wiley.

Luse, A., McElroy, J. C., Townsend, A. M., &

DeMarie, S. (2013). Personality and cognitive

style as predictors of preference for working in

virtual teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 29,

1825–1832. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.007

MacDonnell, R., O’Neill, T., Kline, T., & Hambley,

L. (2009). Bringing group-level personality to the

electronic realm: A comparison of face-to-face and

virtual contexts. The Psychologist-Manager Jour-

nal, 12, 1–24. doi:10.1080/10887150802371773

MacDuffie, J. P. (2007). HRM and distributed work.

Managing people across distances. The Academy

of Management Annals, 1, 549–615. doi:10.1080/

078559817

Magnusson, P., Schuster, A., & Taras, V. (2014). A

process-based explanation of the psychic distance

paradox: Evidence from global virtual teams.

Management International Review, 54,

283–306. doi:10.1007/s11575-014-0208-5

Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2014). Enhancing

performance of geographically distributed teams

through targeted use of information and commu-

nication technologies. Human Relations, 67,

389–411. doi:10.1177/0018726713495284

Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T.

(2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and

where do we go from here? Journal of Manage-

ment, 30, 805–835. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002

Martins, L. L., & Schilpzand, M. C. (2011). Global

virtual teams: Key developments, research gaps,

and future directions. In A. Joshi, H. Liao, & J.

J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in personnel and

human resources management (Vol. 30, pp. 1–72).

Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing

team interpersonal processes through technology:

A task–technology fit perspective. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 89(6), 975–990. doi:

10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.975

Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L.,

O’Boyle, E. H., & Cigularov, K. P. (2013). Driv-

ers and outcomes of team psychological empow-

erment: A meta-analytic review and model test.

Organizational Psychology Review, 3, 101–137.

doi:10.1177/2041386612456868

Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Brid-

ging space over time: Global virtual team

dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science,

11, 473–492. doi:10.1287/orsc.11.5.473.15200

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and per-

formance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez-

Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J., & Shuffler, M.

(2011). A meta-analytic investigation of virtual-

ity and information sharing in teams. Organiza-

tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

115, 214–225. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.002

Neeley, T. B., Hinds, P. J., & Cramton, C. D. (2012).

The (un)hidden turmoil of language in global col-

laboration. Organizational Dynamics, 41,

236–244. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.03.008

Ng, K.-Y., van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2012). Cultural

intelligence: A review, reflections, and recom-

mendations for future research. In A. M. Ryan,

F. T. L. Leong, & F. L. Oswald (Eds.), Conduct-

ing multinational research: Applying organiza-

tional psychology in the workplace (pp. 29–58).

Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Niinimäki, T., Piri, A., Lassenius, C., & Paasivaara,

M. (2012). Reflecting the choice and usage of

communication tools in global software develop-

ment projects with media synchronicity theory.

Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 24,

677–692. doi:10.1002/smr.566

Nurmi, N. (2009). Unique stressors of cross-cultural

collaboration through ICTs in virtual teams. In

Schulze and Krumm 91

B.-T. Karsh (Ed.), Ergonomics and health aspects

of work with computers (pp. 78–87). Berlin,

Germany: Springer.

Nurmi, N. (2011). Coping with coping strategies:

How distributed teams and their members deal

with the stress of distance, time zones and culture.

Stress and Health, 27, 123–143. doi:10.1002/

smi.1327

Olaniran, B. A. (2007). Culture and communication

challenges in virtual workspaces. In K. St. Amant

(Ed.), Linguistic and cultural online communica-

tion issues in the global age (pp. 79–92). Her-

shey, PA: IGI Global.

O’Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The

spatial, temporal, and configurational character-

istics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS

Quarterly, 31, 433–452.

O’Leary, M. B., Wilson, J. M., & Metiu, A. (2014).

Beyond being there: The symbolic role of com-

munication and identification in perceptions of

proximity to geographically dispersed colleagues.

MIS Quarterly, 38, 1219–1243.

Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance mat-

ters. Human–Computer Interaction, 15, 139–178.

doi:10.1207/S15327051HCI1523_4

O’Neill, T. A., Hambley, L. A., & Chatellier, G. S.

(2014). Cyberslacking, engagement, and person-

ality in distributed work environments. Comput-

ers in Human Behavior, 40, 152–160. doi:

10.1016/j.chb.2014.08.005

O’Neill, T. A., Hambley, L. A., Greidanus, N. S.,

MacDonnell, R., & Kline, T. J. (2009). Predicting

teleworker success: An exploration of personality,

motivational, situational, and job characteristics.

New Technology, Work and Employment, 24,

144–162. doi:10.1111/j.1468-005X.2009.00225.x

Ortiz de Guinea, A., Webster, J., & Staples, D. S. (2012).

A meta-analysis of the consequences of virtualness

on team functioning. Information & Management,

49, 301–308. doi:10.1016/j.im.2012.08.003

Panteli, N., & Fineman, S. (2005). The sound of

silence: The case of virtual team organising.

Behaviour & Information Technology, 24,

347–352. doi:10.1080/01449290512331335618

Paul, S., Samarah, I. M., Seetharaman, P., & Mykytyn,

P. P., Jr. (2004). An empirical investigation of

collaborative conflict management style in

group support system-based global virtual

teams. Journal of Management Information Sys-

tems, 21, 185–222.

Pauleen, D. J., & Yoong, P. (2001). Relationship

building and the use of ICT in boundary-

crossing virtual teams: A facilitator’s perspective.

Journal of Information Technology, 16, 205–220.

doi:10.1080/02683960110100391

Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual

teams: A review of current literature and direc-

tions for future research. ACM SIGMIS Database,

35, 6–36. doi:10.1145/968464.968467

Presbitero, A. (2016). Cultural intelligence (CQ) in

virtual, cross-cultural interactions: Generalizabil-

ity of measure and links to personality dimen-

sions and task performance. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 29–38.

doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.11.001

Rosen, B., Furst, S., & Blackburn, R. (2006). Training

for virtual teams: An investigation of current prac-

tices and future needs. Human Resource Manage-

ment, 45, 229–247. doi:10.1002/hrm.20106

Roy, S. R. (2012). Virtual collaboration: The skills

needed to collaborate in a virtual environment.

Journal of Internet Social Networking & Virtual

Communities. Advance online publication. doi:

10.5171/2012.629512

Sarker, S., & Sahay, S. (2004). Implications of space

and time for distributed work: An interpretive

study of US–Norwegian systems development

teams. European Journal of Information Systems,

13, 3–20. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000485

Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Outerbridge, A. N.

(1986). Impact of job experience and ability on job

knowledge, work sample performance, and super-

visory ratings of job performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71, 432–439. doi:10.1037/

0021-9010.71.3.432

Schulze, J., Schultze, M., West, S. G., & Krumm, S.

(2016). The knowledge, skills, abilities, and other

characteristics required for face-to-face versus

computer-mediated communication: Similar or

distinct constructs? Journal of Business and Psy-

chology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/

s10869-016-9465-6

92 Organizational Psychology Review 7(1)

Scott, C. R., & Timmerman, C. E. (2005). Relating

computer, communication, and computer-

mediated communication apprehensions to new

communication technology use in the workplace.

Communication Research, 32, 683–725. doi:

10.1177/0093650205281054

Scott, C. P., & Wildman, J. L. (2015). Culture, com-

munication, and conflict: A review of the global

virtual team literature. In J. L. Wildman & R. L.

Griffith (Eds.), Leading global teams (pp. 13–32).

New York, NY: Springer.

Shachaf, P. (2008). Cultural diversity and information

and communication technology impacts on global

virtual teams: An exploratory study. Information

& Management, 45, 131–142. doi:10.1016/

j.im.2007.12.003

Shin, Y. (2004). A person–environment fit model for

virtual organizations. Journal of Management,

30, 725–743. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.03.002

Shippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Batjtsta, M., Carr, L.,

Eyde, L. D., & Hesketh, B., . . . Sanchez, J. I.

(2000). The practice of competency modeling.

Personnel Psychology, 53, 703–740. doi:

10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00220.x

Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2008). Cultural intelligence

and global identity in multicultural teams. In S.

Ang & L. van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural

intelligence: Theory, measurement and applica-

tions (pp. 145–158). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Shye, S. (1998). Modern facet theory: Content design

and measurement in behavioral research. Eur-

opean Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14,

160–171. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.14.2.160

Sivunen, A., Nurmi, N., & Koroma, J. (2016, Jan-

uary). When a one-hour time difference is too

much: Temporal boundaries in global virtual

work. Paper presented at the 49th Hawaii Inter-

national Conference on System Sciences,

Koloa, HI.

Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of

a model and measure of computer-mediated com-

munication (CMC) competence. Journal of Com-

puter-Mediated Communication, 11, 629–666.

doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x

Spitzberg, B. H. (2011). The interactive media pack-

age for assessment of communication and critical

thinking (IMPACCT #

): Testing a programmatic

online communication competence assessment

system. Communication Education, 60,

145–173. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.518619

Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen,

K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural

diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research

on multicultural work groups. Journal of Interna-

tional Business Studies, 41, 690–709. doi:

10.1057/jibs.2009.85

Staples, D. S., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A.

(1999). A self-efficacy theory explanation for

the management of remote workers in virtual

organizations. Organization Science, 10,

758–776. doi:10.1287/orsc.10.6.758

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and produc-

tivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Stephens, K. K. (2007). The successive use of

information and communication technologies

at work. Communication Theory, 17, 486–507.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00308.x

Stephens, K. K., & Rains, S. A. (2011). Informa-

tion and communication technology sequences

and message repetition in interpersonal interac-

tion. Communication Research, 38, 101–122.

doi:10.1177/0093650210362679

Tang, J. C., Zhao, C., Cao, X., & Inkpen, K. (2011).

Your time zone or mine?: A study of globally

time zone-shifted collaboration. Proceedings of

the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Sup-

ported Cooperative Work (pp. 235–244). New

York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1958824.1958860

Taras, V., Caprar, D. V., Rottig, D., Sarala, R. M.,

Zakaria, N., & Zhao, F., . . . Huang, V. Z. (2013).

A global classroom? Evaluating the effectiveness

of global virtual collaboration as a teaching

tool in management education. Academy of Man-

agement Learning & Education, 12, 414–435.

doi:10.5465/amle.2012.0195

Tenzer, H., & Pudelko, M. (2016). Media choice in

multilingual virtual teams. Journal of International

Business Studies, 47, 427–452. doi:10.1057/

jibs.2016.13

Turel, O., & Zhang, Y. (2010). Does virtual team

composition matter? Trait and problem-solving

configuration effects on team performance.

Schulze and Krumm 93

Behaviour & Information Technology, 29,

363–375. doi:10.1080/01449291003752922

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2008). Develop-

ment and validation of the CQS: The Cultural

Intelligence Scale. In S. Ang & L. van Dyne

(Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: The-

ory, measurement and applications (pp. 16–38).

Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A.

C. (2004). Work group diversity and group per-

formance: An integrative model and research

agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,

1008–1022. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008

Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived

ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motiva-

tion, and emotion into the technology acceptance

model. Information Systems Research, 11,

342–365. doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology

acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on

interventions. Decision Sciences, 39, 273–315.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x

Venkatesh, V., & Windeler, J. B. (2012). Hype or

help? A longitudinal field study of virtual world

use for team collaboration. Journal of the Asso-

ciation for Information Systems, 13, 735–771.

Wang, Y., & Haggerty, N. (2011). Individual virtual

competence and its influence on work outcomes.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 27,

299–334. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222270410

Warkentin, M., & Beranek, P. M. (1999). Training to

improve virtual team communication. Informa-

tion Systems Journal, 9, 271–289. doi:10.1046/

j.1365-2575.1999.00065.x

Warkentin, M. E., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R.

(1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams:

An exploratory study of a web-based conference

system. Decision Sciences, 28, 975–996. doi:

10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01338.x

Watson-Manheim, M. B., & Bélanger, F. (2007).

Communication media repertoires: Dealing with

the multiplicity of media choices. MIS Quarterly,

31, 267–293.

Watson-Manheim, M. B., Chudoba, K. M., & Crow-

ston, K. (2012). Perceived discontinuities and

constructed continuities in virtual work.

Information Systems Journal, 22, 29–52. doi:

10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00371.x

Weisband, S. (2002). Maintaining awareness in dis-

tributed team collaboration: Implications for

leadership and performance. In P. Hinds & S.

Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 312–333).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wilson, J. M., O’Leary, M., Metiu, A., & Jett, Q. R.

(2008). Perceived proximity in virtual work:

Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organi-

zation Studies, 29, 979–1002. doi:10.1177/

0170840607083105

Wrench, J. S., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2007).

The relationship between computer-mediated-

communication competence, apprehension, self-

efficacy, perceived confidence, and social pres-

ence. Southern Communication Journal, 72,

355–378. doi:10.1080/10417940701667696

Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., & Wilemon, D. (2004).

Working together apart? Building a knowledge-

sharing culture for global virtual teams. Creativ-

ity and Innovation Management, 13, 15–29.

Zaugg, H., & Davies, R. S. (2013). Communication

skills to develop trusting relationships on global

virtual engineering capstone teams. European

Journal of Engineering Education, 38, 228–233.

doi:10.1080/03043797.2013.766678

Zimmermann, A. (2011). Interpersonal relationships

in transnational, virtual teams: Towards a config-

urational perspective. International Journal of

Management Reviews, 13, 59–78. doi:10.1111/

j.1468-2370.2010.00284.x

Author biographies

Julian Schulze is a Research Assistant at the

Division of Psychological Assessment and Dif-

ferential and Personality Psychology at Freie

Universität Berlin, Germany. His research

interests include competencies for virtual team-

work and communication skills in face-to-face

and computer-mediated forms.

Stefan Krumm is a Professor of Psychological

Assessment and Personality Psychology at Freie

94 Organizational Psychology Review 7(1)

Universität Berlin. His research interests

include individual differences in basic cogni-

tive abilities, virtual teamwork, fit percep-

tions across the lifespan, and situational

judgment tests. His research is published in

journals spanning several psychological dis-

ciplines, such as Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, Journal of Organizational Behavior,

Intelligence, and Journal of Educational Psy-

chology. Prof. Krumm serves as an Associate

Editor for the European Journal of Psycholo-

gical Assessment.

Schulze and Krumm 95