*****For Essays Guru Only*****
YellowLabHarley
challenges.pdf
Original Article
Challenges in Norm Formation and Adherence
The Knowledge, Skills, and Ability Requirements of Virtual and Traditional Cross-Cultural Teams
Stefan Krumm, Katrin Terwiel, and Guido Hertel
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany
Abstract. Due to the growing globalization of business processes, teamwork increasingly requires intercultural skills. Furthermore, many teams rely predominantly on electronic collaboration (virtual teams), requiring team members to develop and adhere to norms in a cue-deprived environment. In the current study, we conducted an online survey with 171 participants who fell into one of two subgroups of cross-cultural teams: members of either traditional or virtual teams. We compared the two groups of team members with regard to their importance ratings of several competencies for team performance. Starting with a large set of intercultural competencies derived from the literature, exploratory factor analyses yielded a four-dimensional solution (working conscientiously, coping with stress and ambiguity, openness and perspective taking, and knowledge about other cultures). Among those clusters, only the cluster working conscientiously yielded substantial differences between traditional and virtual-team members, indicating specific requirements for cross-cultural collaboration for virtual as compared to traditional teams.
Keywords: intercultural competence, intercultural skills, virtual teams
As a result of the globalization of business processes, both traditional and virtual work teams have become increasingly more culturally diverse (Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005). Apart from advantages due to multiple perspectives, cultural diversity within a team provides additional challenges due to higher insecurity about work procedures and mutual expectations (cf. Watson, Kumar, & Michaelson, 1993). In fact, culturally diverse teams often need additional starting time in order to develop norms to guide cooperation (cf. Chatman & Flynn, 2001).
A central question in this regard is whether devel- oping – and also adhering to – norms requires different knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) when teamwork is based predominantly on electronic collaboration as com- pared to traditional teamwork. Whereas traditional team- work is characterized by immediate and automatic personal (face-to-face) interactions between team members, communication on ‘‘virtual teams’’ is often reduced and cue-deprived (Axtell, Fleck, & Turner, 2004; Golden & Raghuram, 2010), providing additional challenges for being aware of and acting according to norms that vary across cultures (Duarte & Snyder, 2006; Ellingson & Wiethoff, 2002; Townsend, DeMarie, & Hendrickson, 1998). There- fore, the current study explored whether similar or different personnel requirements exist for traditional and virtual teams when facing cultural diversity. We addressed this
question by assessing the perceived relevance of KSAs for team performance as obtained from members of tradi- tional and virtual teams. In doing so, this research contrib- utes to existing findings on teamwork KSAs in several ways: (a) It adds to the relatively sparse research on virtual teamwork KSAs, (b) it follows Krumm and Hertel’s (2012) call to identify specific virtual teamwork KSAs by simulta- neously considering traditional teamwork KSAs, and (c) it adds to our understanding of challenges related to team norms in cross-cultural teams.
Virtual Teamwork
Virtual teams predominantly use digital media to communi- cate and to coordinate their work with at least one of the team members working in a different location and/or time zone (cf. Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005). Recent defini- tions of virtual teams posit that virtuality is a multifaceted construct and that teams vary on a number of facets (cf. Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Hertel et al., 2005). Taxonomies of dimensions that render the level of team virtuality were proposed by Kirkman and Mathieu (2005) as well as by Kristof, Brown, Sims, and Smith (1995). In their taxonomy, the former authors included the extent of digital media use,
� 2013 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology 2013; Vol. 12(1):33–44 DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000077
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
the synchronicity of team members’ interactions, and infor- mation value provided by digital media. Thus, teams are considered to be ‘‘more virtual’’ the more the team mem- bers interact by means of digital media, the more their inter- action is time-displaced, and the less information value that is provided by the digital media used. Kristof et al.’s (1995) model of team virtuality includes cultural diversity (i.e., the number of different cultural backgrounds among team members) as a further dimension that is relevant for the cur- rent research. The inclusion of cultural diversity as a dimen- sion of team virtuality is based on the idea that virtual teams are not restricted by location and, thus, are likely to consist of team members from different cultural backgrounds.
Virtual teams provide multiple advantages for both organizations and individuals (e.g., reduced travel costs, increased autonomy, and flexibility of employees; cf. Hertel et al., 2005). Conversely, virtual teamwork entails a number of challenges (cf. Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk, & McPherson, 2002; Krumm & Hertel, 2012). Such challenges include, but are not limited to, effectively using technology, ensuring efficient work flows, monitor- ing and motivating employees who work remotely, as well as ensuring trust and commitment among team members (cf. Harvey, Novicevic, & Garrison, 2004; Hertel, Konradt, & Orlikowski, 2004; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). A partic- ularly relevant challenge of culturally diverse teams that communicate and collaborate over digital media is that this form of collaboration hampers group norms from becoming effective in guiding behavior.
Group norms can be defined as ‘‘rules that groups adopt to regulate and regularize group members’ behavior’’ (Feldman, 1984, p. 47). Norms, if internalized by individuals, guide behavior by setting what is ‘‘normal and acceptable within a specific context or situation’’ (Burnett & Bonnici, 2003, p. 334). Culturally diverse teams in general need to cope with challenges related to norm formation and adherence as they bring together individuals who have been socialized under heterogeneous standards of what behavior is acceptable in a given context: Whereas certain team-related behaviors can be considered acceptable in one culture, it may be viewed as completely unacceptable in another (Armstrong & Cole, 1995; Furst, Blackburn, & Rosen, 1999). Thus, such teams may find it generally difficult to develop their own group norms. Similarly, adherence to group norms may be less likely on culturally diverse teams: According to social iden- tity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999), changing the social context (i.e., a work team context rather than the context of one’s own culture) activates different identities and norms. In culturally diverse work environments, cultural identities are likely to become more salient than the work team identity, thus increasing the impor- tance of making the work team context salient and making group norms explicit. In sum, culturally diverse teams emphasize the role of norms for teamwork.
The aforementioned challenges of culturally diverse teams may be further amplified in several ways when com- municating and collaborating via digital media. First, in vir- tual teams, norms need to be formed, and existing implicit norms need to be detected despite the fact that interactions
are largely cue-deprived (e.g., Cramton, 2001). Information about acceptable and unacceptable behavior is thus more ambiguous in virtual teams (Hertel, Konradt, & Voss, 2006) and can only be gathered gradually over time (Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 2000). Indeed, Vignovic and Thompson (2010) summarized the existing literature on cue deprivation in computer-mediated communication (CMC) and concluded that cue deprivation in virtual teams may hamper intercultural collaboration due to a lower awareness of the cultural backgrounds of collaborators (but see also Postmes et al., 2000, who assume increased awareness of social identities in virtual collaboration). As a consequence, existing knowledge about cultures may not be applied, and behavior may not be adjusted appropri- ately. Second, virtual environments impose special demands on individuals’ self-regulation as peers and super- visors have fewer opportunities to monitor compliance with norms (Ellingson & Wiethoff, 2002; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). If norm-related behavior is not displayed consis- tently, however, norm formation and detection is difficult to achieve (cf. Postmes et al., 2000). Third, time-displaced communication as another defining element of virtual teams (cf. Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005) might also contribute to reduced cultural awareness as collaborators do not engage in immediate interactions, which would demand paying undivided attention and focusing on the cultural aspects of their counterpart. Fourth, work team identities may not be salient at all if individuals work remotely. This is illustrated by the often-cited need for virtual-team mem- bers to create a sense of belonging and to overcome feel- ings of isolation (cf. Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk, & McPherson, 2002). Hence, virtual-team members may act according to norms activated by other more salient social identities (e.g., family or colleagues from outside the work team), process information based on their own cultural background rather than on their collaborators’ cultural backgrounds, and even perceive their colleagues working remotely as outgroup members, thus potentially facilitating distrust and hampering cooperation in virtual teams (cf. group engagement model, Tyler & Blader, 2003). Finally, and related to the previous challenge, members of virtual teams cannot casually meet over coffee to chit-chat between tasks (Arnison & Miller, 2002), so that not only should the development of trust and cohesion be more dif- ficult (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998), but (as a consequence), also the acquisition of implicit knowledge about culture and norms.
One potential way to address these challenges is to consider the KSAs that team members need in order to respond to these circumstances. For instance, team mem- bers may cope with cue-deprived environments by proac- tively asking for more information or by providing more contextual clues to their communication. Team members may also enable norm formation by acting in a consistent and predictable way or by actively suggesting rules for collaboration. Comparing cross-cultural traditional with cross-cultural virtual teams allows researchers to draw inferences about virtual teamwork KSAs that are specif- ically relevant in a context in which norm formation and adherence are pivotal.
34 S. Krumm et al.: Individual Requirements of Virtual Teams
Journal of Personnel Psychology 2013; Vol. 12(1):33–44 � 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
KSAs in Culturally Diverse and Virtual Teams
The KSAs typically considered to address challenges in culturally diverse teams – including challenges related to norm formation and adherence as culturally diverse teams bring together individuals who have been socialized under heterogeneous standards – are referred to as intercultural competence. Although scholars still discuss definitions of intercultural competence (Kuada, 2004), in the current research we adopt the notion of intercultural competence as ‘‘the ability to think and act in interculturally appropriate ways’’ (Hammer, Bennett, & Wisemann, 2003, p. 422; for a similar definition of cultural intelligence, see also Ang et al., 2007). In other words, intercultural competence includes the awareness and display of acceptable norm- based behaviors when communicating and collaborating across cultures.
Although the theoretical underpinnings of the construct of intercultural competence are still sparse (Kuada, 2004), Deardorff (2006) summarized that 80% of intercultural scholars included in her review agreed on 29 different inter- cultural competence KSAs, which included cultural aware- ness, knowledge, and cognitive skills. However, instead of focusing on single KSAs only, many experts (e.g., Ang et al., 2007; Chen & Starosta, 1996) agree that intercultural competence should be better considered as clusters of KSAs (e.g., cognitive or behavioral KSA clusters) that mutually or independently enable individuals to act appro- priately in culturally diverse settings. Including KSA clus- ters instead of single KSAs in studies in cross-cultural settings provides substantial advantages. Single KSAs may not be assessed reliably, whereas broader KSA clusters are more likely to provide sufficient reliability as they include several KSAs that are measured independently and are aggregated to build a cluster, thereby reducing mea- surement error. Moreover, most KSAs are not based on psychological theory (Reiter-Palmon, Brown, Sandall, Buboltz, & Nimps, 2006). Researchers should thus either select their set of KSAs according to established taxonomies of KSAs (such as the framework of intercul- tural competence by Chen & Starosta, 1996) to provide justification for their selection of KSAs or – in cases where a bottom-up approach is justified – identify underlying characteristics as a first step in theory development.
One possible structure of KSAs relevant in cross-cul- tural settings is provided by the intercultural competency taxonomy of affective, cognitive, and behavioral clusters as introduced by Chen and Starosta (1996), which was used as a guiding framework for the current study (see also Ang et al., 2007, who developed a similar framework). However, as this taxonomy is not specific for issues of vir- tuality, one major goal of the present study was to extend this framework and integrate virtuality of collaboration as an important moderator.
The currently available knowledge on virtual teamwork KSAs is mostly based on theoretical papers or case studies (e.g., Arnison & Miller, 2002; Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005; Siebdraht, Hoegl, & Ernst, 2009). Empirical studies relating
KSAs to team member and team performance are rare (for an exception, see Hertel et al., 2006). KSAs that are fre- quently outlined for virtual-team members include (but are not limited to): communication skills (e.g., Shin, 2004), self-management skills and adaptability (e.g., Hertel et al., 2006), trustworthiness and willingness to trust (e.g., Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998), willingness to learn (e.g., Duarte & Snyder, 2006), creativity (cf. Haywood, 1998), as well as intercultural skills (e.g., Ellingson & Wiethoff, 2002). In reviewing the existing literature, Krumm and Hertel (2012) counted up to 55 distinct individual qualities that were proposed to be relevant to virtual teams. However, most of these individual qualities have not yet been subject to empirical investigations.
In the current study, we therefore empirically examined KSAs that might be crucial in virtual cross-cultural teams. In doing so, we adapted the general approach of Chen and Starosta (1996) to focus on KSA clusters instead of single KSAs for reasons outlined above (see also Krumm & Hertel, 2012).
On the cognitive KSA cluster (i.e., understanding cul- tures), high levels of virtuality may exhibit rather mixed influences which might compensate for each other. On the one hand, several authors argue that non-task-related communication is often reduced in virtual teams (e.g., Arnison & Miller, 2002), thereby decreasing chances of informally gaining knowledge of other cultures. On the other hand, the social identity model of de-individuation effects (SIDE; cf. Postmes et al., 2000) posits that in the absence of other individuating information, which is often the case when virtuality is high, the awareness of social identities (such as one’s culture) may become more salient. This in turn might increase acquisition and application of knowledge about cultures.
For the affective KSA cluster (i.e., attitudes and emo- tions when dealing with other cultures), similar mixed effects can be assumed that might also compensate for each other. Establishing cohesion and trust, for example, is con- sidered more difficult when collaborating over digital media (e.g., Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). Conversely, vir- tual teams are often employed in multinational companies and thus may gradually develop a global culture, thereby attenuating potential negative attitudes toward others’ national cultures (cf. Erez & Gati, 2004). To conclude, acknowledging that more theory and research is needed on the relevance of the cognitive and affective KSA clusters of intercultural competence in virtual teamwork, we refrain from making specific assumptions in the current study.
However, the behavioral KSA cluster of intercultural competence might be of increased importance in virtual collaboration. Adaptively adjusting verbal and nonverbal behaviors (such as altering facial expressions in cross-cul- tural interaction or adaptively reacting to a counterpart’s behavior), which has been shown to relate to the perfor- mance of cross-cultural traditional teams (Ang et al., 2007), should be less relevant under time-displaced digital forms of communication. In the cue-deprived environment of virtual teams, such adaptive behaviors may be replaced by explicit task-related rules that ensure smooth collabora- tion and communication and prevent misunderstandings
S. Krumm et al.: Individual Requirements of Virtual Teams 35
� 2013 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology 2013; Vol. 12(1):33–44
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
and distrust. Consequently, the critical behavior on virtual teams may shift to establishing, knowing, and following rules and procedures (e.g., meeting deadlines, using the agreed communication channels) – which, in trait terms, is referred to as conscientiousness. Behaviors related to conscientiousness might reduce uncertainty and provide shared expectations. Findings by several authors have pro- vided support for the relevance of norms and compliance to rules on virtual teams (e.g., Harvey et al., 2004; Shin, 2004). Furthermore, less normative pressure might be exerted in a virtual-team environment (i.e., when employ- ees work remotely). Whereas traditional team members may monitor each other’s adherence to group norms, indi- viduals on virtual teams must provide higher self-discipline to regulate their behavior (cf. Harvey et al., 2004; Hertel et al., 2006). In sum, we posit: KSAs related to working conscientiously will be more important in cross-cultural virtual teams as compared to cross-cultural traditional teams (Hypothesis 1). Again, due to the likelihood of mixed influences, no specific assumptions were made for KSAs from the affective or cognitive intercultural KSA clusters.
Method
Participants and Data Sampling
Participants were contacted via online forums and social media, as well as via representatives of organizations and private networks. The final sample consisted of 171 partic- ipants (mean age = 31.7 years, SD = 11.7) and included only those participants who completed the survey and cat- egorized themselves as having profound experience with cross-cultural teams (i.e., teams including at least one mem- ber with a different cultural background than the rest of the team) that employed either traditional (n = 105) or virtual forms of collaboration (n = 66). We ensured that each par- ticipant worked on a separate team, which enabled us to gather independent and unclustered (subjective) data about 171 teams (105 traditional and 66 virtual teams) as reported by one single member of the team. Participants represented 31 different nationalities (128 Germans; all other partici- pants were almost equally distributed, with n � 5, across 30 different countries worldwide). However, participants represented mostly Western cultures (70%). Altogether, 74 teams were located in Germany; the remaining teams were almost equally distributed across the globe (with not more than five teams coming from a single other country). The time spent with the current team differed substantially: Whereas 39% had worked for more than 2 years on their
teams, almost as many participants (31%) had worked with their teams for 6 months or less. Participants reported that the team they worked with contained 13 members on aver- age (SD = 11.1). The 171 participants reported 135 differ- ent jobs covering the full range of Holland’s (1985) general occupational themes (i.e., realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, conventional).1 Data were collected via an online survey, which was available in the English and German languages.
Measures
We included a broad spectrum of subfacets of intercultural competence. Subfacets were selected if at least two authors or author teams had made reference to a subfacet as part of the broader concept of intercultural competence. The full set of concepts included in the current study is presented in Table 1 together with references to related research, reviews, or existing measures. These facets were then rephrased into KSAs (e.g., ‘‘deal with problems that do not have a clear solution’’) in a way that the phrasing made sense in a team context. If necessary, we translated single facets of intercultural competence into more than one KSA to capture the meaning and to avoid item wordings that were misleading. After we had translated all the KSAs to German and English, three bilingual individuals trans- lated the English equivalents back to German. If necessary, we adjusted the English phrasing to match the German.
The resulting 60 items consisted of the same item stem (‘‘for success and/or good cooperation of my intercultural [virtual/traditional] team, it is absolutely necessary...’’)2
(format adapted from Loughry, Ohland, & Moore, 2007) and different endings depending on the KSA in question (e.g., ‘‘. . . to know the verbal/spoken customs of the other team members’ cultures’’ or ‘‘to react as calmly as possible to frustrating situations’’). Participants were asked to rate each one of the 60 questions on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = absolutely disagree, 7 = absolutely agree).
We did not apply established questionnaires of intercul- tural KSAs to avoid having too narrow a selection of KSAs and to be able to address the specific challenges of virtual collaboration. Please note, however, that the 60-item pool included in the current study covered KSAs derived from established questionnaires such as the Multicultural Person- ality Questionnaire (Zee & Oudenhoven, 2000) as well as its successor, the Intercultural Readiness Check (Zee & Brinkmann, 2004), the Global Competencies Inventory (Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens, & Oddou, 2010a), and the Intercultural Effectiveness Scale (Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens, & Oddou, 2010b).
1 Holland (1985) developed a typology of organizational environments covering these six broad organizational themes. Realistic jobs are characterized by practical and physical work; investigative jobs largely involve intellectual engagement; artistic jobs require creative activities; social jobs are characterized by supporting and helping others; enterprising jobs involve leadership and competition; conventional jobs are characterized by organizational and clerical work.
2 We asked for success and/or good cooperation to broadly capture what is ‘‘essential for members of teams to do’’ (Loughry et al., 2007, p. 509). This operationalization mirrors approaches taken by other researchers and is specific concerning the two general aspects of performance at work (i.e., task and contextual performance).
36 S. Krumm et al.: Individual Requirements of Virtual Teams
Journal of Personnel Psychology 2013; Vol. 12(1):33–44 � 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
In order to account for additional variables that might impact team members’ ratings, we additionally assessed the digital media used, the extent of the use of digital media, and the extent of time-displaced communication (cf. Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005). Moreover, we captured characteristics of the individual, the team, and the team tasks by asking participants to give their nationality, cul- tural background, intercultural experience (e.g., number of countries visited), team size, cultural diversity of the team, industry, Holland’s (1985) general occupational themes, current location of the team member, and whether this loca- tion was his/her country of origin. If any of those variables differed between traditional and virtual cross-cultural teams, they were entered as covariates in subsequent analyses.
Statistical Analyses
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to identify the dimensionality of the 60 items reflecting inter- cultural KSAs. Principal axis factor analysis with an
oblique factor rotation method was considered the method of choice. Because the widely used Guttman-Kaiser crite- rion often overestimates the number of factors (Yeomans & Golder, 1982), Cattell’s scree test and parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) were applied. Items with loadings < .30 or cross-loadings on multiple factors were removed from the item pool. Factor scores (Bartlett method) were built on the basis of the final factor solution, which served as depen- dent variables in the multivariate and univariate analyses of variance (MANCOVA and ANCOVA).
A MANCOVA was conducted with the factor scores that resulted from the EFA. Whereas MANCOVA is considered robust against violations of the assumption of multivariate normality (cf. Tabachnik & Fidel, 1996), the assumption of homogeneity of covariance matrices was tested with Box’s M test of homogeneity. A MANCOVA was conducted with the control variables that differed between the two subsamples entered as covariates. Subse- quent ANCOVAs were conducted to further qualify the nat- ure of the overall mean difference between traditional and virtual cross-cultural teams. Although we hypothesized that the groups would differ with regard to KSAs related only to
Table 1. Facets of intercultural competence included in the current study
Facets of intercultural competence References
Ability and willingness to learn or adaptability 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12 Ability to self-disclose or being aware of one’s own cultural boundedness 2, 5, 8, 9 Agreeableness 2, 8, 10, 14 Flexibility, behavioral flexibility, or role flexibility 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16 Command of language 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 12 Communicational skills 2, 5, 9, 11 Conscientiousness 1, 17 Critical faculties 2, 9, 12 Curiosity, inquisitiveness (esp. for other cultures and foreign countries) 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 16 Emotional stability/coping with stress 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 16 Empathy or perspective taking 2, 3, 6, 12, 16, 17 Extraversion or initiative 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16 Goal/action orientation, performance motivation, or task fulfillment 2, 9, 11, 16 Knowledge and awareness of cultural differences 5, 11, 13, 14, 16 Meta communicational competence 2, 11 Nonjudgmental attitudes, doing less stereotyping, or being unprejudiced 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 16, 17 Openness or open-mindedness 2, 4, 10, 11, 14, 16 Optimism 3, 4, 9, 11, 15 Patience or tranquility 2, 3, 12 Polycentrism 4, 9, 14 Positive self-concept, self-efficacy, or self-esteem 3, 7, 9 Problem solving competence or conflict management 2, 5, 9, 12, 16 Relational skills, social competence, sociability, or trust building 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 16 Self-awareness or self-monitoring 2, 3, 4 Showing respect 2, 16 Talent for improvisation or creativity 2, 6, 9, 12, 15, 17 Tolerance for ambiguity 1, 3, 5, 9 Tolerance for frustration 3, 5, 9 Tolerance for uncertainty 3, 5, 12, 16, 17
Note. Reference list is not intended to be exhaustive. 1Albrecht (2005), 2Bergemann and Sourisseaux (2003), 3Bird et al. (2010a), 4Bird et al. (2010b), 5Brinkmann (2001)/Zee and Brinkmann (2004), 6Caligiuri (2000), 7Fenner and Selmer (2011), 8Hammer et al. (2003), 9Hatzer and Layes (2005), 10Huang, Chi, and Lawler (2005), 11Hummel and Zander (2005), 12Mol, Born, Willemsen, and Molen (2005), 13Ryssen and Godar (2000), 14Shaffer, Ferzandi, Harrison, Gregersen, and Black (2006), 15Stierle, Dick, and Wagner (2002), 16van der Zee and van Oudenhoven (2000), and 17Hofstede (2001).
S. Krumm et al.: Individual Requirements of Virtual Teams 37
� 2013 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology 2013; Vol. 12(1):33–44
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
conscientiousness, we conducted several ANCOVAs in case the EFA produced other factors that also yielded differences between virtual and traditional teams.
Results
Below, we first present the results of the EFA. Next, we outline the results of a MANCOVA and several ANCO- VAs, which tested for group (members of cross-cultural vir- tual teams vs. members of cross-cultural traditional teams) differences on the factors derived from the EFA. Descrip- tive statistics of the relevant variables are presented in Table 2.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
The 60 items were analyzed in the combined sample (tradi- tional and virtual cross-cultural team members, n = 171) using EFA. Results from the scree plot and parallel analysis suggested a four-factor solution. However, 22 KSAs showed low factor loadings or severe cross-loadings and were thus removed. The final factor solution is shown in Table 3. The four factors, which accounted for 40.3% of the variance, were labeled to reflect the KSAs with the highest loadings and yielded moderate to good internal con- sistencies. The factor working conscientiously comprised 13 items (e.g., ‘‘to feel a strong sense of responsibility toward the team’’ or ‘‘to plan things thoroughly in advance’’) and yielded an alpha of .82. The factor coping with stress and ambiguity included nine items (e.g., ‘‘to
react as calmly as possible to frustrating situations’’ or ‘‘to remain positive in difficult situations’’) and had an alpha of .76. The factor openness and perspective taking included 10 items (e.g., ‘‘to put oneself in another person’s position’’ or ‘‘to treat different opinions equally’’) and yielded an alpha of .87. Finally, the factor knowledge about other cultures comprised six items (e.g., ‘‘to know the cus- toms of the other team members’ cultures in written com- munication’’ or ‘‘to read between the lines’’) and had an alpha of .74.
An EFA in the subsample of traditional cross-cultural team members also yielded a four-factor solution with nearly identical factor loadings and equally moderate to good internal consistencies (ranging from .71 to .84). The subsample of virtual cross-cultural team members was too small to be analyzed with EFA or included in tests of fac- torial invariance. However, applying the factor solution derived from the overall sample, the scales showed internal consistencies within the same range (.72 to .83).
In sum, the EFA for the total sample yielded four factors that showed very few cross-loadings; the structure was rep- licated in the subsample of traditional team members. The factors were labeled working conscientiously, coping with stress and ambiguity, openness and perspective taking, and knowledge about other cultures.
Differences Between Virtual and Traditional Teams
The main results of the analyses reported below are depicted in Figure 1. The relevant mean scores (i.e., the mean scores of the two groups: cross-cultural virtual vs.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for demographic variables and main dependent variables
Virtual teams Traditional teams
Variables M SD Ratio M SD Ratio
Age 34.53 10.85 29.94 11.88 Gender (female:male) 28:38 65:40 Cultural background (German:other)b 40:26 82:23 Working in country of origin or abroad 50:16 33:72
General occupational themes Realistic 12.1% 16.2% Investigative 16.7% 16.2% Artistic 4.5% 6.7% Social 13.6% 47.6% Enterprising 27.3% 2.9% Conventional 25.8% 10.5%
Dependent variables: Clusters of intercultural KSAs (see EFA in Table 3)a
Working conscientiously 5.70 0.77 5.44 0.69 Coping with stress and ambiguity 5.62 0.83 5.79 0.70 Openness and perspective taking 5.90 0.65 6.07 0.59 Knowledge about other cultures 5.63 0.96 5.52 0.83
aNotes. The mean scale scores are given, whereas the reported MANCOVA and ANCOVAs were conducted with factor scores. bSome subjects reported a nationality different from their cultural background; thus, the numbers reported here differ slightly from those presented in the Method section.
38 S. Krumm et al.: Individual Requirements of Virtual Teams
Journal of Personnel Psychology 2013; Vol. 12(1):33–44 � 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
cross-cultural traditional team members) on the four factors are also given in Table 2 (see ‘‘Clusters of intercultural KSAs’’).
The following variables differed significantly between the two subsamples and were added as covariates to the MANCOVA: age, t(169) = 2.54, p = .012; gender, v2(1) = 6.20, p = .013; cultural background (German vs. other cultures), v2(1) = 6.06, p = .014; working in country of origin or abroad, v2(1) = 31.88, p < .001; as well as the Holland (1985) general occupational themes1: social (yes vs. no), v2(1) = 20.71, p < .001, enterprising (yes vs. no), v2(1) = 22.43, p < .001, and conventional (yes vs. no), v2(1) = 6.91, p = .009.
The main precondition for conducting a MANCOVA (i.e., homogeneity of variance) was not met according to Box’s M test (Box, 1949), F(10, 89384.2) = 2.85,
p = .002. However, the cells containing the smaller sample did not produce larger variances and covariances, which rendered the assumption of a too liberal significance test unlikely. As recommended when a significant Box’s M test occurs, we used Pillai’s criterion instead of Wilks’ Lambda (cf. Tabachnik & Fidel, 1996).
After controlling for age, gender, cultural background, working in country of origin or abroad, and three general occupational themes, a MANCOVA with the factor scores of the four factors (derived from the EFA) as dependent variables still yielded a marginally significant overall effect, F(4, 159) = 2.01, p = .095, g2 = .048. Whereas sig- nificant or marginally significant effects of the covariates age, F(4, 159) = 2.39, p = .053, g2 = .057, and gender, F(4, 159) = 5.21, p = .001, g2 = .116, occurred, the remaining covariates were not significant. A further
Table 3. Final exploratory factor solution of the reduced set of intercultural KSAs
KSAs F1 F2 F3 F4
To feel a strong sense of responsibility toward the team .61 To make clear if one is not satisfied with something and to explain why .60 To plan things thoroughly in advance .58 To demand a great deal of oneself and to keep working hard to achieve one’s own goals .56 .33 To focus on efficiency as well as collegiality .54 To establish collective, clear, and detailed rules for working as a team .50 To maintain one’s own moral standards in every situation .47 To ask for feedback on one’s own statements and behavior .47 To be aware of one’s own values and opinions .47 To believe in the fact that one can accomplish anything through commitment and hard work .44 To fulfill one’s own tasks conscientiously .43 To have clear professional goals and to work toward them systematically .43 To be aware of one’s own strengths and weaknesses and how they may affect others .43 To react as calmly as possible to frustrating situations .66 To deal with problems that do not have a clear solution .60 To remain calm, even in difficult situations .56 To have strong self-confidence .54 To remain positive in difficult situations .52 To have methods available to reduce one’s own level of stress .48 To improvise or to solve problems creatively .47 To believe in one’s own abilities and strengths .46 To start again energetically after setbacks or personal crises .44 To not make premature decisions .42 To put oneself in another person’s position (his/her view and feelings) .55 To proactively approach people from other cultures .53 To always first see the good in people recently met .52 To view new and unfamiliar situations as an opportunity to learn .46 To flexibly adapt one’s own behavioral patterns or language if different social situations make it necessary .45 To treat different opinions equally .42 To open oneself in order to make it easier for other people to develop trust .40 To be curious about other people’s values, norms, ideas, and behavioral patterns .37 To get background information before judging another person’s behavioral pattern .35 To know the customs of the other team members’ cultures in written communication .75 To know the verbal/spoken customs of the other team members’ cultures .66 To know the social customs of the other team members’ cultures .58 To read between the lines (to be sensitive to written insinuations) .50 To know the customs in nonverbal signs (e.g., gestures, facial expressions) of the other team members’ cultures .48 To be perceptive to hints and insinuations (or to somebody saying something in a roundabout way) .37
Note. Factor loadings below .30 were omitted.
S. Krumm et al.: Individual Requirements of Virtual Teams 39
� 2013 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology 2013; Vol. 12(1):33–44
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
MANOVA in which the previously nonsignificant covari- ates were omitted yielded a significant overall effect, F(4, 164) = 3.85, p = .005, g2 = .086. Thus, post hoc uni- variate analyses seemed justified and were conducted in the context of all the aforementioned covariates.3
Subsequent ANCOVAs revealed that this overall effect was due solely to the factor working conscientiously, F(1, 162) = 7.16, p = .008, g2 = .042, thus supporting Hypothe- sis 1 (i.e., that members of cross-cultural virtual teams would consider KSAs related to working conscientiously to be more important for team performance than members of cross-cultural traditional teams). The other three factors yielded nonsignificant results: coping with stress and ambi- guity: F(1, 162) = 0.17, p = .684, g2 = .001; openness and perspective taking: F(1, 162) = 0.23, p = .879, g2 = .000; and knowledge about other cultures: F(1, 162) = 0.698, p = .405, g2 = .004.
Discussion
Members of culturally diverse teams are challenged by the need to form and adhere to norms while individuals have been socialized under heterogeneous standards of accept- able behavior in a given context. As far as we know, the current study is the first to examine whether such chal- lenges require different knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) when teamwork is based predominantly on elec- tronic collaboration as compared to traditional teamwork.
As hypothesized, virtual-team members need to embody the KSAs related to working conscientiously in order to counteract the challenges of cue deprivation (Axtell et al., 2004; Cramton, 2001; Hertel et al., 2006), heightened need for self-regulation (Ellingson & Wiethoff, 2002; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999), time-displaced communication (cf. Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005), less salient work identities, and reduced trust and cohesion (cf. Brahm & Kunze, in press), which can be virtuality-related impediments to forming and adhering to norms. Instead of adapting one’s behavior in face-to-face interactions with culturally diverse team members by picking up on norms by monitoring the behavior of others and their reactions to self-displayed behavior (cf. Ang et al., 2007), when working on virtual teams, adherence to explicit rules and self-disciplined pro- active work behaviors are required to ensure trust, cooper- ation, and, subsequently cohesion and performance (e.g., Hertel et al., 2006; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998; Shin, 2004; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In other words: Working conscientiously becomes more important in work environ- ments that provide challenges of uncertainty and ambiguity.
Notably, the items subsumed under the working consci- entiously factor are also included in other taxonomies of KSA teamwork factors as their wording includes examples such as ‘‘responsibility toward the team,’’ ‘‘focus on effi- ciency and collegiality,’’ ‘‘establish [. . .] rules for working as a team,’’ or ‘‘have clear professional goals and work toward them’’ (cf. Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995; Stevens & Campion, 1994). Similarly, sev- eral researchers from the field of intercultural competence consider these aspects to be crucial for working in a multi- cultural environment. For example, van der Zee and van Oudenhoven (2000) stress the importance of what they refer to as orientation to action, meaning the individual quality to ‘‘get things done.’’ These and other authors assume that cross-cultural collaboration is generally chal- lenging (cf. Nurmi, 2009) and thus requires a stronger focus on achieving goals, monitoring results, being efficient (Caligiuri, 2000), and interpersonal facilitation (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1997). Such challenges are evident on virtual teams as well (cf. Hertel et al., 2006; Hoegl, Ernst, & Proserpio, 2007; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). The current results exceed previous findings by suggesting that virtual teamwork further enhances some challenges related to working in culturally diverse teams. Future research might explicitly examine interactions between dimensions of virtuality, levels of cross-culturality, and conscientiousness as predictors of work team outcomes.
Dimensionality of the KSAs and Results of Other Factors
The subjective importance ratings on a large list of intercul- tural KSAs showed a four-dimensional structure (labeled
Figure 1. Mean importance ratings of four different KSA clusters as obtained from either cross-cultural virtual or cross-cultural traditional teams. Notes. The mean scale scores are given whereas the reported MANCOVA and ANCOVAs were conducted with factor scores. 1 = KSA cluster working conscientiously; 2 = KSA cluster coping with stress and ambiguity; 3 = KSA cluster openness and perspective taking; 4 = KSA cluster knowledge about other cultures.
3 Analyses conducted on the basis of mean scale scores instead of factor scores yielded virtually identical results.
40 S. Krumm et al.: Individual Requirements of Virtual Teams
Journal of Personnel Psychology 2013; Vol. 12(1):33–44 � 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
working conscientiously, coping with stress and ambiguity, openness and perspective taking, and knowledge about other cultures). The factor-analytically retrieved clusters mirror some previously proposed approaches to intercul- tural competence as well as challenges typically associated with virtual collaboration (cf. Nurmi, 2009). The factors retrieved in the current study cover the broad KSA clusters proposed by Chen and Starosta (1996): Coping with stress and ambiguity falls into the affective KSA cluster, openness and perspective taking as well as knowledge about other cultures into the cognitive KSA cluster, and working con- scientiously into the behavioral KSA cluster (see also Ang et al., 2007, for similar clusters of cultural intelli- gence). Furthermore, three out of the four factors (i.e., openness and perspective taking, knowledge about other cultures, and coping with stress and ambiguity) were built by KSAs that were similar to the elements of intercultural competence that several scholars have agreed are the defin- ing elements of intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2006). This consensus is also reflected in the scientific literature that makes reference to these factors (cf. Byram, 1997; Lambert, 1994; Shaffer et al., 2006; van der Zee & van Oudenhouven, 2000; Yershova, DeJeagbere, & Mestenhauser, 2000)
No significant differences between virtual and tradi- tional team members were observed on the factors openness and perspective taking, knowledge about other cultures, and coping with stress and ambiguity. Hence, our findings con- trast the assumption that KSAs related to these factors are specific to cross-cultural virtual teams (Ryssen & Goddar, 2000). Although the circumstances of cross-cultural team- work differ substantially depending on whether the team is traditional or virtual (cf. Amichai-Hamburger, 2008; Cramton, 2001; Vignovic & Thompson, 2010), team mem- bers from both types of teams consider the KSAs related to the aforementioned factors to be of equal importance. One might speculate that different work-related challenges (e.g., picking up clues from posture and gestures vs. from written information) impose demands on the same KSAs (e.g., KSAs related to knowledge about other cultures). Alternatively, the current approach of aggregating KSAs into four broad factors might have diminished differences between team types in KSAs that fall on the same factor. In order to avoid spurious effects as a result of alpha infla- tion, however, we decided to include only the aggregated scores in our analyses. Future research linking specific working conditions to specific KSAs that are required of traditional and/or virtual cross-cultural teams might shed more light on this issue.
Although significant differences in importance ratings were evident for only one out of four factors, we would like to emphasize that team members rated all four factors as being important for success and collaboration on their team. Thus, although some facets of intercultural competence did not prove to be specific to virtual teams, they nevertheless are relevant and should be considered when staffing and managing virtual teams.
Limitations and Future Research
Among the shortcomings of the current research is the selection of KSAs, which followed rather an inductive bot- tom-up rather than a deductive top-down approach as the selected KSAs were not grounded in a single theory. Instead, we selected KSAs to cover the most prominent taxonomies as well as the dimensions of the most estab- lished measurement instruments. As a consequence, our factor solution was not deducted and cross-validated according to existing recommendations (Hurley et al., 1997). Future research on virtual and traditional teams could improve the current approach by establishing a factor structure in large samples of traditional and virtual-team members and by cross-validating the structure in other sam- ples (including tests of factorial invariance).
The sample comprised mainly team members from Western cultures. Moreover, participants mostly worked in organizations based in countries with a Western cultural background. Obviously, the importance ratings captured in the current study were influenced by the cultural back- grounds of the participants and need to be replicated with team members from other cultures. Furthermore, the num- ber of participants working on virtual teams was too small to conduct separate EFAs for this subgroup. However, the factor structure remained stable in the subsample of tradi- tional team members, and the internal consistency of scale scores that were built according to the EFA solution was sufficient in both subsamples.
Future research might further pursue this line of research by extending the current design in two ways. First, the comparison of virtual and traditional cross-cultural teams might be extended to virtual and traditional monocul- tural teams, which would enable us to clearly separate requirements due to cultural diversity and/or virtuality. Fur- thermore, the subjective importance ratings should be com- plemented by self-reported and objectively assessed individual differences concerning relevant KSAs, which should then be applied as predictors of performance indica- tors both on the individual and on the team level.
Practical Implications
Practitioners managing cross-cultural virtual teams might apply the current findings in several ways. First, they might put even more emphasis on the KSAs included in the factor working conscientiously as compared to managers of conventional cross-cultural teams. Please note that consci- entiousness already qualifies as one of the most important predictors of work in general (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina, 2006). The pres- ent results suggest that collaborating via electronic media on virtual teams further increases the importance of this aspect. This implication is particularly relevant as those KSAs may not be considered intuitively on culturally
S. Krumm et al.: Individual Requirements of Virtual Teams 41
� 2013 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology 2013; Vol. 12(1):33–44
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
diverse teams (cf. Deardorff, 2006). Second, leaders of cul- turally diverse virtual teams might establish norms of col- laboration and self-management by addressing the specific challenges aligned with the four factors reported here. For example, a highly useful norm for cross-cultural virtual teams might be that every team member is account- able for the team’s tasks and not only for his/her own spe- cific subtask. Another norm could be to proactively ask for feedback or to regularly provide feedback (e.g., at prede- fined phases of a business process). By implementing behavioral and organizational standards, individual efforts to cope with cultural diversity and remote work environ- ments can be reduced and redirected to the team task as such. Additionally and as suggested by the SIDE model (Postmes et al., 2000), leaders and members of virtual teams may be well advised to support common group iden- tities, so that despite a lack of physical contact, the team becomes real, which in turn facilitates norm formation. Fur- ther research in field settings is needed to examine effective practices in staffing and managing culturally diverse virtual teams.
References
Albrecht, A.-G. (2005). Untangling the laundry list. General mental ability, the big five, and context related variables as predictors for expatriate success. Retrieved from http:// opus.uni-lueneburg.de/opus/volltexte/2006/344/
Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2008). Potential and promise of online volunteering. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 544–562.
Ang, S., van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Manage- ment and Organization Review, 3, 335–371.
Armstrong, D. J., & Cole, P. (1995). Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in Work Teams: Research Paradigms for a Changing Workplace (pp. 187–215). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association. Arnison, L., & Miller, P. (2002). Virtual teams. A virtue for the
conventional team. Journal of Workplace Learning, 14, 166–173.
Axtell, C. M., Fleck, S. J., & Turner, N. (2004). Virtual teams. Collaborating across distance. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19, 205–248.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Person- nel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams. Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 21, 14–49.
Bergemann, N., & Sourisseaux, A. L. J. (2003). Internationale Personalauswahl [International personnel selection]. In N. Bergemann & A. L. J. Sourisseaux (Eds.), Interkulturelles Management [Cross-cultural management] (3rd ed., pp. 181– 236). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., Stevens, M. J., & Oddou, G. (2010a). The global competencies inventory (GCI). Retrieved from http:// kozaigroup.com/inventories/the-globalcompetencies-inven- tory-gci/
Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., Stevens, M. J., & Oddou, G. (2010b). The intercultural effectiveness scale (IES). Retrieved from
http://kozaigroup.com/inventories/the-interculturaleffective- ness-scale/
Box, G. E. P. (1949). A general distribution theory for a class of likelihood criteria. Biometrika, 36, 317–346.
Brahm, T., & Kunze, F. (2012). The role of trust climate in virtual teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27, 595– 614.
Brinkmann, U. (2001). The intercultural readiness check. Laren, Netherlands: Internal Publication, Intercultural Business Improvement.
Burnett, G., & Bonnici, L. (2003). Beyond the FAQ: Implicit and explicit norms in Usenet newsgroups. Library and Information Science Research, 25, 333–351.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Com- municative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). Selecting expatriates for personality characteristics: A moderating effect of personality on the relationship between host national contact and cross-cultural adjustment. Management International Review, 40, 61–80.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and conse- quences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 956–974.
Chen, G. M., & Starosta, G. J. (1996). Intercultural communi- cation competence: A synthesis. Communication Yearbook, 19, 353–383.
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organizational Science, 12, 346–371.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence. Journal of Studies in Interna- tional Education, 10, 241–266.
Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (2006). Mastering virtual teams. Strategies, tools, and, technologies that succeed (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Basss.
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40–57.
Ellingson, J. E., & Wiethoff, C. (2002). From traditional to virtual. Staffing the organization of the future today. In R. L. Henemann & D. B. Greenberger (Eds.), Human resource management in organizations (pp. 141–177). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An Interna- tional Review, 53, 583–598.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 47–53.
Fenner, C. R. Jr., & Selmer, J. (2011). Public sector expatriate managers. Psychological adjustment, personal characteris- tics and job factors. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 1237–1252.
Furst, S. A., Blackburn, R., & Rosen, B. (1999). Virtual team effectiveness: A proposed research agenda. Information Systems Journal, 9, 249–269.
Golden, T. D., & Raghuram, S. (2010). Teleworker knowledge sharing and the role of altered relational and technological interactions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1061– 1085.
42 S. Krumm et al.: Individual Requirements of Virtual Teams
Journal of Personnel Psychology 2013; Vol. 12(1):33–44 � 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Intercultural Devel- opment Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443.
Harvey, M., Novicevic, M. M., & Garrison, G. (2004). Chal- lenges to staffing global virtual teams. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 275–294.
Hatzer, B., & Layes, G. (2005). Interkulturelle Handlungskom- petenz [Intercultural action competence]. In A. Thomas, E.-U. Kinast, & S. Schroll-Machl (Eds.), Handbuch inter- kulturelle Kommunikation und Kooperation. (2nd ed., pp. 138–148). Gçttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Haywood, M. (1998). Managing virtual teams: Practical techniques for high-technology project managers. Boston, MA: Artech House.
Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams. A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69–95.
Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdepen- dence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 1–28.
Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Voss, K. (2006). Competencies for virtual teamwork. Development and validation of a web- based selection tool for members of distributed teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 477–505.
Hoegl, M., Ernst, H., & Proserpio, L. (2007). How teamwork matters more as team member dispersion increases. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 156–165.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences – comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.), London: Thousand Oaks.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 32, 179–185.
Huang, T.-J., Chi, S.-J., & Lawler, J. J. (2005). The relationship between expatriates’ personality traits and their adjustment to international assignments. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 1656–1670.
Hummel, T. R., & Zander, E. (2005). Interkulturelles Manage- ment. Schriften zum internationalen Management [Intercul- tural management. Essays on intercultural management]. M�nchen, Germany: Mehring.
Hurley, A. E., Scandura, T. A., Schriesheim, C. A., Brannick, M. T., Seers, A., Vandenberg, R. J., & William, L. J. (1997). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Guidelines, Issues, and Alternatives. Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 18, 667–683.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3, 1–36.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791– 815.
Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31, 700–718.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Challenges to virtual team success. Lessons from Sabre, Inc. The Academy of Man- agement Executive, 16, 67–79.
Kristof, A. L., Brown, K. G., Sims, H. P. Jr., & Smith, K. A. (1995). The virtual team. A case study and inductive model. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (2nd ed., pp. 229–253). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Krumm, S., & Hertel, G. (2012). 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). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Kuada, J. (2004, April 12). Intercultural competence develop- ment of Danish managers. Retrieved from http://www. business.aau.dk/ivo/publications/working/wp33.pdf
Lambert, R. D. (Ed.). (1994). Educational exchange and global competence. New York: Council on International Educa- tional Exchange.
Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Moore, D. D. (2007). Development of a theory-based assessment of team member effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 505–524.
Mol, S. T., Born, M. P., Willemsen, M. E., & van der Molen, H. T. (2005). Predicting expatriate job performance for selection purposes. A quantitative review. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 36, 590–620.
Nurmi, N. (2009). Unique stressors of cross-cultural collabora- tion through ICTs in virtual teams. In B. Karsh (Ed.), Ergonomics and health aspects of work with computers (pp. 78–87). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1997). Personality determi- nants in the prediction of aspects of expatriate job success. In D. M. Saunders & Z. Aycan (Eds.), New approaches to employee management: Vol. 4. Expatriate management: Theory and research (pp. 63–92). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341–371.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Brown, M., Sandall, D. L., Buboltz, C., & Nimps, T. (2006). Development of an O* NET web-based job analysis and its implementation in the US Navy: Lessons learned. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 294– 309.
van Ryssen, S., & Godar, S. H. (2000). Going international without going international. Multinational virtual teams. Journal of International Management, 6, 49–60.
Shaffer, M. A., Ferzandi, L. A., Harrison, D. A., Gregersen, H., & Black, J. S. (2006). You can take it with you. Individual differences and expatriate effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 109–125.
Shin, Y. (2004). A person-environment fit model for virtual organizations. Journal of Management, 30, 725–743.
Siebdraht, F., Hoegl, M., & Ernst, H. (2009). How to manage virtual teams. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50, 63–68.
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20, 503–530.
Stierle, C., van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2002). Success or failure? Personality, family, and intercultural orientation as determinants of expatriate managers’ success. Zeitschrift f�r Sozialpsychologie, 33, 209–218.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behavior: self-identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 225–244.
Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams. Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12, 17–29.
S. Krumm et al.: Individual Requirements of Virtual Teams 43
� 2013 Hogrefe Publishing Journal of Personnel Psychology 2013; Vol. 12(1):33–44
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 7, 349– 361.
Vignovic, J. A., & Thompson, L. F. (2010). Computer-mediated cross-cultural collaboration. Attributing communication errors to the person versus the situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 265–276.
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602.
Yeomans, K. A., & Golder, P. A. (1982). The Guttman-Kaiser criterion as a predictor of the number of common factors. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician), 31, 221–229.
Yershova, Y., De Jeagbere, J., & Mestenhauser, J. (2000). Thinking not as usual: Adding the intercultural perspective. Journal of Studies in International Education, 4, 59–78.
van der Zee, K. I., & Brinkmann, U. (2004). Construct validity evidence for the intercultural readiness check against the multicultural personality questionnaire. International Jour- nal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 285–290.
van der Zee, K. I., & van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The multicultural personality questionnaire. A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. Reliability and validity of self- and other ratings of multicultural effective- ness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 219–309.
Stefan Krumm
Department of Psychology Fliednerstrasse 21 48149 M�nster Germany E-mail [email protected]
44 S. Krumm et al.: Individual Requirements of Virtual Teams
Journal of Personnel Psychology 2013; Vol. 12(1):33–44 � 2013 Hogrefe Publishing
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
