Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Team Decision Making in Virtual and Face-to-Face Environments

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We conducted a laboratory study on 65 teams performing a decision-making task. The two experimental manipulations involved the use of different communication media and decision frames. The decision frame manipulation involved informing the team to choose the demonstrably correct solution versus the solution that seemed most likely. These factors interacted to reveal novel insights about their multiplicative effects on decision processes and team psychological states. Further, main effects of the communication medium were found for team psychological states and decision behavior. Results suggest that virtual teams were at a disadvantage when the task was framed as having a demonstrably correct solution. Conversely, face-to-face teams were more effective, particularly when told that the task had a demonstrably correct solution. Face-to-face teams were more effective on all decision behaviors. Media synchronicity theory serves as a unifying framework to contextualize this research in the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Intraclass correlations (ICC) are also commonly used as evidence to support aggregation to the group level. The ICC(1) represents the percentage of variance explained by group membership, and the ICC(2) represents the reliability of the group mean (Bliese 2000). However, Allen and O’Neill (2015) offered a recent review of the literature involving multi-level analysis with a particular focus on aggregation to the group level. With respect to laboratory studies that use a completely randomized design (such as the current study), Allen and O’Neill noted that manipulations in laboratory studies are designed to induce between group differences, thereby distorting or confounding the interpretation of between group variance captured by ICCs and used to justify aggregation. As a result they recommended use of \(r_{\mathrm{wg}}\), given that it is not influenced by between-group variance.

References

  • Allen NJ, O’Neill TA (2015) The trajectory of emergence of shared group-level constructs. Small Group Res 46:352–390. doi:10.1177/1046496415584973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alper S, Tjosvold D, Law KS (2000) Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Pers Psychol 53:625–642. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00216.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andres HP (2006) The impact of communication medium on virtual team group process. Inf Resour Manag J 19(2):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltes BB, Dickson MW, Sherman MP, Bauer CC, LaGanke J (2002) Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 87:156–179. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlet VL, Dennis AR, Yuan L, Barlow JB (2013) Individual priming in virtual team decision-making. Group Decis Negot 22:873–896. doi:10.1007/s10726-012-9333-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell BS, Kozlowski SWJ (2002) A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group Organ Manag 27:14–49. doi:10.1177/1059601102027001003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergiel BJ, Bergiel EB, Balsmeier PW (2008) Nature of virtual teams: a summary of their advantages and disadvantages. Manag Res News 31:99–110. doi:10.1108/01409170810846821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry GR (2011) Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams: Understanding why traditional team skills are insufficient. J Bus Commun 48:186–206. doi:10.1177/0021943610397270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese PD (2000) Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 349–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballer A, Gracia F, Peiró J (2005) Affective responses to work process and outcomes in virtual teams: Effects of communication media and time pressure. Journal of Managerial Psychology 20:245–260. doi:10.1108/02683940510589037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell J, Stasser G (2006) The influence of time and task demonstrability on decision-making in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Res 37:271–294. doi:10.1177/1046496406288976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley K (1986) Knowledge acquisition as a social phenomenon. Instr Sci 14:381–438. doi:10.1007/BF00051829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton CD (2002) Finding common ground in dispersed collaboration. Org Dyn 30:356–367. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00063-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton CD (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ Sci 12:346–371. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manage Sci 32:554–572. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu CKW (2011) Conflict at work: basic principles and applied issues. In: Zedeck (ed) APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol 3. APA, Washington, pp 461–493

  • De Guina AO, Webster J, Staples DS (2012) A meta-analysis of the consequences of virtualness on team functioning. Inf Manag 49:301–308. doi:10.1016/j.im.2012.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wit FRC, Greer LL, Jehn KA (2012) The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 97:360–390. doi:10.1037/a0024844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLuca D, Valacich JS (2006) Virtual teams in and out of synchronicity. Inf Technol People 19:323–344. doi:10.1108/09593840610718027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Valacich JS (1999) Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (pp. 1-10). doi:10.1109/HICSS.1999.772701

  • Dennis AR (1996) Information exchange and use in small group decision making. Small Group Res 27:532–550. doi:10.1177/104696496274003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Fuller RM, Valacich JS (2008) Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Q 32:575–600

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M (1949) A theory of cooperation and competition. Hum Relat 2:129–152. doi:10.1177/001872674900200204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M (2006) A framework for thinking about oppression and its change. Soc Justice Res 19:7–41. doi:10.1007/s11211-006-9998-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubrovsky VJ, Kiesler S, Sethna BN (1991) The equalization phenomenon: status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human Comput Interact 6:119–146. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0602_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo RA, Yost PR, Campbell RJ, Shea GP (1993) Potency in groups: articulating a construct. Br J Soc Psychol 32:87–106. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb00987.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambley LA, O’Neill TA, Kline TJB (2007a) Virtual team leadership: perspectives from the field. Int J e-Collab 3:40–64. doi:10.4018/jec.2007010103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambley LA, O’Neill TA, Kline TJB (2007b) Virtual team leadership: the effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 103:1–20. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han H, Hiltz ST, Fjermestad J, Wang Y (2011) Does medium matter? A comparison of initial meeting modes for virtual teams. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 54:376–391. doi:10.1109/TPC.2011.2175759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hecht TD, Allen NJ, Klammer JD, Kelly EC (2002) Group beliefs, ability, and performance: the potency of group potency. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 6:143–153. doi:10.1037//1089-2699.6.2.143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds PJ, Mortensen M (2005) Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: the moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organ Sci 16:290–307. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead AB (1996) The rank-order effect in group decision making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 68:181–193. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead AB (1996) Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making the effects of communication media. Human Commun Res 23:193–219. doi:10.1111/j1468-2958.1996.tb00392x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz FM, Bravington D, Silvis U (2006) The promise of virtual teams: identifying key factors in effectiveness and failure. J Eur Ind Train 30:472–494. doi:10.1108/03090590610688843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1993) Rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement. J Appl Psychol 78:306–309. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn KA (1995) A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Adm Sci Q 40:256–282. doi:10.2307/2393638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahai SS, Sosik JJ, Avolio BJ (2003) Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context. Leadersh Q 14:499–524. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00049-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr DS, Murthy US (2009) The effectiveness of synchronous computer-mediated communication for solving hidden-profile problems: Further empirical evidence. Inf Manag 46:83–89. doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS (2003) Work groups and teams in organizations. In: Borman WC, Ilgen DR, Klimoski RJ (eds) Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12): industrial and organizational psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 333–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 3–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson JR Jr, Christensen C, Abbot A, Franz TM (1996) Diagnosing groups: charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams. J Pers Soc Psychol 71:315–330. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson JR Jr (2010) In search of synergy in small group performance. Taylor and Francis, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • LePine JA, Piccolo RF, Jackson CL, Mathieu JE, Saul JR (2008) A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multitudinal model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Pers Psychol 61:273–307. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry PB, Nunamaker JF, Curtis A, Lowry MR (2005) The impact of process structure on novice, virtual and collaborative writing teams. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 48:341–364. doi:10.1109/TPC.2005.859728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry PB, Roberts TL, Romano NC, Cheney PD, Hightower RT (2006) The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication: does computer-mediated communication make a difference? Small Group Res 37:631–661. doi:10.1177/1046496406294322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry PB, Roberts TL, Dean DL, Marakas G (2009) Toward building self-sustaining groups in PCR-based tasks through implicit coordination: the case of heuristic evaluation. J Assoc Inf Syst 10:170–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowry PB, Scheutzler RM, Giboney JS, Gregory TA (2015) Is trust always better than distrust? The potential value of distrust in newer virtual teams engaged in short-term decision making. Group Decis Negot 24:723–752. doi:10.1007/s10726-014-9410-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu L, Yuan YC, McLeod PL (2012) Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: a meta-analysis. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 16:54–75. doi:10.1177/1088868311417243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Psychol Manage J 12:1–24. doi:10.1080/10887150802371773

    Google Scholar 

  • Marett K, George JF (2013) Barrier to deceiving other group members in virtual settings. Group Decis Negot 22:89–113. doi:10.1007/s10726-012-9297-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad Manag Rev 26:356–376. doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruping LM, Agarwal R (2004) Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: a task-technology fit perspective. J Appl Psychol 89:975–990. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu JE, Rapp TL (2009) Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: the roles of team charters and performance strategies. J Appl Psychol 94:90. doi:10.1037/a0013257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mennecke BE, Valacich JS (1998) Information is what you make of it: the influence of group history and computer support on information sharing, decision quality, and member perceptions. J Manage Inf Syst 15:173–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesmer-Magnus JR, DeChurch LA (2009) Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 92:535–546. doi:10.1037/a0013773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell G (2012) Revisiting truth or triviality: the external validity of research in the psychological laboratory. Perspect Psychol Sci 7:109–117. doi:10.1177/1745691611432343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Münzer S, Holmer T (2009) Bridging the gap between media synchronicity and task performance: effects of media characteristics on process variables and task performance indicators in an information pooling task. Commun Res 36:76–103. doi:10.1177/0093650208326464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill TA, McLarnon MJW, Hoffart GC, Woodley HJ, Allen NJ (in press) The structure and function of team conflict profiles. J Manage. doi:10.1177/0149206315581662

  • O’Neill TA, Allen NA, Hastings SE (2013) Examining the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of team conflict: a team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Human Perform 26:236–260. doi:10.1080/08959285.2013.795573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postmes T, Spears R, Cihangir S (2001) Quality of decision making and group norms. J Pers Soc Psychol 80:918–930. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.6.918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Privman R, Hilts ST, Wang Y (2013) In-group (us) versus out-group (them) dynamics and effectiveness in partially distributed teams. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 56:33–49. doi:10.1109/TPC.2012.2237253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purvanova RK (2014) Face-to-face versus virtual teams: what have we really learned? Psychol Manager J 17:2–29. doi:10.1037/mgr0000009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahim MA (1983) A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Acad Manag J 26:368–376. doi:10.2307/255985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts TL, Lowry PB, Sweeny PD (2006) An evaluation of the impact of social presence through group size and the use of collaborative software on group member “voice” in face-to-face and computer-mediated task groups. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 49:28–43. doi:10.1109/TPC.2006.870460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz-Hardt S, Brodbeck FC, Mojzisch A, Kerschreiter R, Frey D (2006) Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. J Pers Soc Psychol 91:1080–1093. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz-Hardt S, Mojzisch A (2012) How to achieve synergy in group decision making: lessons to be learned from the hidden profile paradigm. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 23:305–343. doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.744440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwenk CR (1990) Effects of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 47:161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea GP, Guzzo RA (1987) Groups as human resources. In: Rowland KM, Ferris GR (eds) Research in personnel and human resource management, vol 5. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 323–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirani AI (2006) Sampling and pooling of decision-relevant information: comparing the efficiency of face-to-face and GSS supported groups. Inf Manag 43:521–529. doi:10.1016/j/im.2006.01/001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser G, Taylor LA, Hanna C (1989) Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three and six person groups. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:67–78. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stasser G, Abele S, Vaughan Parsons S (2012) Information flow and influence in collective choice. Group Process Intergroup Relat 15:619–635. doi:10.1177/1368430212453631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stasser G, Stewart D (1992) Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: solving a problem versus making a judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 63:426–434. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stasser G, Titus W (1985) Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. J Pers Soc Psychol 48:1467–1478. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stasser G, Titus W (2003) Hidden profiles: a brief history. Psychol Inq 14:304–313. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1403&4_21

  • Straus SG (1996) Getting a clue: the effects of communication media and information distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Res 27:115–142. doi:10.1177/1046496496271006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus SG, McGrath JE (1994) Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. J Appl Psychol 79:87–97. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swaab RI, Galinsky AD, Medvec V, Diermeier DA (2012) The communication orientation model: explaining the diverse effects of sight, sound, and synchronicity on negotiation and group decision-making outcomes. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 16:25–53. doi:10.1177/1088868311417186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson LF, Coovert MD (2003) Teamwork online: the effects of computer conferencing on perceived confusion, satisfaction and postdiscussion accuracy. Group Dyn Theory Res Practice 7:135–151. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.7.2.135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold D (1986) The dynamics of interdependence in organizations. Hum Relat 39:517–540. doi:10.1177/001872678603900603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold D (1991) Team organization: an enduring competitive advantage. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold D (2008) Constructive controversy for management education: developing committed, open-minded researchers. Acad Manag Learn Educ 7:73–85. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2008.31413864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold D, Peng AC, Chen NY, Fang SS (2013) Individual decision-making in organizations: contribution of uncertainty and controversy in China. Group Decis Negot 22:801–821. doi:10.1007/s10726-012-9294-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turban E, Liang T, Wu SPJ (2011) A framework for adopting collaboration 2.0 tools for virtual group decision making. Group Decis Negot 20:137–154. doi:10.1007/s10726-010-9215-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Connelly CE (2012) Team spirit: the influence of psychological collectivism on the usage of e-collaboration tools. Group Decis Negot 21:703–725. doi:10.1007/s10726-011-9245-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:452–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther JB (1996) Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun Res 23:3–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther JB, Bunz U (2005) The rules of virtual groups: trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. J Commun 55:828–846. doi:10.1093/joc/55.4.828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warkentin ME, Sayeed L, Hightower R (1997) Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: an exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decis Sci 28:975–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams E (1977) Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: a review. Psychol Bull 84:963–976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang D, Lowry PB, Zhou L, Fu X (2007) The impact of individualism-collectivism, social presence, and group diversity on group decision making under majority influence. J Manag Inf Syst 23:53–80. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222230404

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, N.W., Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

    Thomas A. O’Neill, Katarina Zivkov, Nicole L. Larson & Stephanie J. Law

  2. Lazaridis School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3C5, Canada

    Samantha E. Hancock

Authors
  1. Thomas A. O’Neill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samantha E. Hancock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katarina Zivkov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicole L. Larson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephanie J. Law
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas A. O’Neill.

Appendix: Survey Items

Appendix: Survey Items

Constructive controversy (Alper et al. 2000)

  1. 1.

    Team members express their own views directly to each other.

  2. 2.

    We listen carefully to each other’s opinions.

  3. 3.

    Team members try to understand each other’s concerns.

  4. 4.

    We try to use each other’s ideas.

  5. 5.

    Even when we disagree, we communicate respect for each other.

  6. 6.

    All views are listened to, even if they are the minority.

  7. 7.

    We use our opposing views to understand the problem.

Competitive interdependence (Alper et al. 2000)

  1. 1.

    Team members demand that others agree to their position.

  2. 2.

    Team members want others to make concessions but do not want to make concessions themselves.

  3. 3.

    Team members treat conflict as a win-lose contest.

  4. 4.

    Team members state their position strongly to get their way.

Relationship conflict (Jehn 1995)

  1. 1.

    How much emotional conflict was there among the members of your group?

  2. 2.

    How much anger was there among the members of your group?

  3. 3.

    How much personal friction was there in the group during decisions?

  4. 4.

    How much were personality clashes between members of the group evident?

  5. 5.

    How much tension was there in the group during decisions?

Team potency (Guzzo et al. 1993)

  1. 1.

    This team has confidence in itself.

  2. 2.

    No task is too tough for this team.

  3. 3.

    This team can get a lot done when it works hard.

  4. 4.

    This team believes it can be very productive.

  5. 5.

    This team feels that it can solve any problem it encounters.

  6. 6.

    This team believes it can become unusually good at producing high-quality work.

Integrative conflict management (Rahim 1983)

  1. 1.

    I tried to investigate an issue with my teammates to find a solution acceptable to us.

  2. 2.

    I tried to integrate my ideas with those of my teammates to come up with a decision jointly.

  3. 3.

    I tried to work with my peers to find solutions to a problem which satisfy our expectations.

  4. 4.

    I exchanged accurate information with my teammates to solve the problem together.

  5. 5.

    I tried to bring all our concerns out in the open so that the issues can be resolved the best possible way.

  6. 6.

    I collaborated with my teammates to come up with decisions acceptable to us.

  7. 7.

    I tried to work with my teammates for a proper understanding of the problem.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Neill, T.A., Hancock, S.E., Zivkov, K. et al. Team Decision Making in Virtual and Face-to-Face Environments. Group Decis Negot 25, 995–1020 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9465-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9465-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation