1 / 21

Creativity in Asynchronous Virtual Teams: Putting the Pieces Together

Creativity in Asynchronous Virtual Teams: Putting the Pieces Together. Rosalie J. Ocker Pennsylvania State University . Creativity in asynch VTs. 3 related experiments, involving nearly 100 teams and 400 graduate students Key finding: Asynchronous VTs

arleen
Download Presentation

Creativity in Asynchronous Virtual Teams: Putting the Pieces Together

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  11. Study 3 • Communication Content • Jerry’s presentation

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

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

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

  15. Study References • Ocker, R. J. (2007). Creativityin Asynchronous Virtual Teams: Putting the Pieces Together. In Higher Creativity for Virtual Teams: Developing Platforms for Co-Creation. T. Torres and S. MacGregor (Eds.), Hershey: Idea Group, pp. 26-47. • Ocker, R. J. (2008). Exploring the Impact of Personality on Virtual Team Creativity and Quality. In Encyclopedia of E-Collaboration, Ned Kock (Ed.), Hershey: Idea Group. • Ocker, R. J. (2007). A Balancing Act: The Interplay of Status Effects on Dominance in Virtual Teams, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50, 3, 1-15. • Ocker, R. J. (2005). Influences on Creativity in Asynchronous Virtual Teams: A Qualitative Analysis of Experimental Teams, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48, 1, 22-39. • Ocker, R.J. and Fjermestad, J. (2008). “Communication Differences in Virtual Design Teams: Findings from a Multi-Method Analysis of High and Low-performing Experimental Teams,” The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems.

  16. Experiment References • Ocker, R. J. (1995). Requirements definition using a distributed asynchronous group support system: Experimental results on quality, creativity and satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, New Jersey. • Ocker, R. J., Hiltz, S. R., Turoff M., & Fjermestad, J. (1996). The effects of distributed group support and process structuring on software requirements development teams, Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3), 127-154. • Ocker, R. J., Fjermestad, J., Hiltz, S. R., & Johnson, K. (1998). Effects of four modes of group communication on the outcomes of software requirements determination, Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(1), 99-118. • Ocker, R. J. & Fjermestad, J. (1998). Web-based computer-mediated communication: An experimental investigation comparing three communication modes for determining software requirements. Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (HICSS-31; IEEE Computer Society, CD ROM), Hawaii, January. • Ocker. R. J. (2001). The relationship between interaction, group development, and outcome: A study of virtual communication. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34; IEEE Computer Society, CD ROM), Hawaii, January.

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

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

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

More Related