Advertisement

Alles eine Frage der Zeit? Herausforderungen virtueller Teams und deren Bewältigung am Beispiel der Softwareentwicklung

  • Lisa HandkeEmail author
  • Simone Kauffeld
Hauptbeiträge - Thementeil
  • 22 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Basierend auf einem Fallbeispiel im Bereich Softwareentwicklung liefert dieser Artikel der Zeitschrift Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. einen Überblick über Kommunikations- und Koordinationsprozesse in virtuellen Teams. Faktoren wie räumliche Entfernung und Mediennutzung bewirken eine drastische Veränderung der Interaktion im Team und stellen dessen Mitglieder vor neue Herausforderungen. Um diese differenzierter betrachten, verstehen und bewältigen zu können, bietet dieser Beitrag zunächst eine Analyse der strukturellen Dimensionen virtueller Teamarbeit. Zu diesen Dimensionen gehören bspw. räumliche Entfernung, Art und Ausmaß von Mediennutzung sowie Diversität hinsichtlich Sprache, Kultur, oder Arbeitsweisen. Daraus ergeben sich zahlreiche Herausforderungen, u. a. der Umgang mit weniger interaktiven Kommunikationsmedien, das Fehlen situativer Hinweisreize oder die Vernachlässigung der Beziehungsebene. Der Einfluss der Virtualitätsdimensionen wird in diesem Beitrag sowohl anhand des Fallbeispiels praktisch demonstriert, als auch anhand etablierter Teameffektivitätsmodelle theoretisch eingebettet und erklärt. Abschließend werden Handlungsempfehlungen zur langfristigen Verbesserung virtueller Teamarbeit durch Förderung von Anpassungsprozessen in Kommunikation und Teamkognition aufgezeigt.

Schlüsselwörter

Virtualität Teamarbeit Kommunikation Mentale Modelle 

A matter of time? Mastering challenges of virtual team collaboration

Abstract

Based on a case study, this article provides an overview of communication and coordination processes in virtual teams. In order to understand the nature of virtual team interactions, the authors begin with an analysis of virtuality dimensions (e. g., geographical dispersion, media use). These dimensions can be connected to specific challenges, such as the lack of interactivity, the absence of social context cues or the low relational focus found in virtual communication. These challenges, in turn, are related to impairments in intrateam processes (e. g., communication) and/or team cognition (e. g., shared mental models). However, problems may be mitigated as teams learn to adapt to their working conditions. These phenomena are both theoretically embedded in a simplified model of virtual team functioning as well as practically demonstrated in the context of the case study. The article concludes with research-based recommendations to promote adaptation in virtual teams.

Keywords

Virtuality Team work Communication Mental models 

Literatur

  1. Allen, T. J. (2007). Architecture and communication among product development engineers. California Management Review, 49(2), 23–41.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, J. A., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2013). What happens before a meeting?—Small Talk steigert die Meetingeffektivität. PERSONALquarterly, 65(1), 22.Google Scholar
  3. Arora, A., González, V. M., & Payne, S. J. (2011). The social nature of work fragmentation: Revisiting informal workplace communication. Ergonomics Open Journal, 4, 23–27.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27, 14–49.Google Scholar
  5. Boos, M., Hardwig, T., & Riethmüller, M. (2017). Führung und Zusammenarbeit in verteilten Teams. Bd. 35. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  6. Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The leadership quarterly, 17, 288–307.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 153–170.  https://doi.org/10.5465/257090.Google Scholar
  8. Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2012). A theory of subgroups in work teams. Academy of Management Review, 37, 441–470.Google Scholar
  9. Chudoba, K. M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2005). How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information Systems Journal, 15, 279–306.Google Scholar
  10. Cramton, C. D., & Orvis, K. L. (2003). Overcoming barriers to information sharing in virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Hrsg.), Virtual teams that work : Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (S. 214–230). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.Google Scholar
  12. DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32–53.Google Scholar
  13. Dulebohn, J. H., & Hoch, J. E. (2017). Virtual teams in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 569–574.Google Scholar
  14. Ellwart, T., Happ, C., Gurtner, A., & Rack, O. (2015). Managing information overload in virtual teams. Effects of a structured Online team adaptation on cognition and performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 812–826.Google Scholar
  15. Ellwart, T., Peiffer, H., Matheis, G., & Happ, C. (2016). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen eines Online Team Awareness Tools (OnTEAM) in Adaptationsprozessen. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspsychologie, 4, 5–15.Google Scholar
  16. Espinosa, J. A., Lerch, F. J., & Kraut, R. E. (2004). Explicit versus implicit coordination mechanisms and task dependencies: One size does not fit all. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Hrsg.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (S. 107–129). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  17. Flepp, C., Meier, G., Burkhard, R., Schulze, H., Imhof, M., & Simon, A. (2016). „Du siehst mich, wenn ich dich auch sehe“ -Reziproke Awareness als Gestaltungskriterium für Orte virtuell-informeller Kommunikation wie z. B. ein virtuelles Café. In Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft (Hrsg.), Frühjahrkongress 2016 in Aachen: Arbeit in komplexen Systemen – digital, vernetzt, human?! Dortmund: GfA-Press. Beitrag A.2.1.Google Scholar
  18. Geister, S., Konradt, U., & Hertel, G. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 37(5), 459–489.Google Scholar
  19. Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Jones Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41, 1313–1337.Google Scholar
  20. Gurtner, A., Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., & Nägele, C. (2007). Getting groups to develop good strategies: Effects of reflexivity interventions on team process, team performance, and shared mental models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 127–142.Google Scholar
  21. Halbe, D. (2012). “who’s there?” differences in the features of telephone and face-to-face conferences. The Journal of Business Communication, 49(1), 48–73.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943611425238.Google Scholar
  22. Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human resource management review, 15, 69–95.Google Scholar
  23. Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 390–403.Google Scholar
  24. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review Psychology, 56, 517–543.Google Scholar
  25. Jung, J. H., Schneider, C., & Valacich, J. (2010). Enhancing the motivational affordance of information systems: The effects of real-time performance feedback and goal setting in group collaboration environments. Management Science, 56, 724–742.Google Scholar
  26. Kauffeld, S., & Güntner, A. V. (2018). Teamfeedback. In I. Jöns & W. Bungard (Hrsg.), Feedbackinstrumente im Unternehmen 2. Aufl. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  27. Kauffeld, S., Handke, L., & Straube, J. (2016). Verteilt und doch verbunden: Virtuelle Teamarbeit. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 47, 43–51.Google Scholar
  28. Kennedy, D. M., & McComb, S. A. (2010). Merging internal and external processes: Examining the mental model convergence process through team communication. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11, 340–358.Google Scholar
  29. Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team Virtuality. Journal of Management, 31, 700–718.Google Scholar
  30. van der Kleij, R., Maarten Schraagen, J., Werkhoven, P., & De Dreu, C. K. (2009). How conversations change over time in face-to-face and video-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 40, 355–381.Google Scholar
  31. Kock, N. (1998). Can communication medium limitations foster better group outcomes? An action research study. Information and Management, 34, 295–305.Google Scholar
  32. Kock, N. (2007). Media naturalness and compensatory encoding: The burden of electronic media obstacles is on senders. Decision Support Systems, 44, 175–187.Google Scholar
  33. Konradt, U., Otte, K.-P., Schippers, M. C., & Steenfatt, C. (2016). Reflexivity in teams: A review and new perspectives. Journal of Psychology, 150, 153–174.Google Scholar
  34. Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.Google Scholar
  35. Langan-Fox, J., Code, S., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2000). Team mental models: Techniques, methods, and analytic approaches. Human Factors, 42, 242–271.Google Scholar
  36. LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of applied psychology, 88, 27.Google Scholar
  37. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of management review, 26, 356–376.Google Scholar
  38. Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805–835.Google Scholar
  39. Martínez-Moreno, E., Zornoza, A., Orengo, V., & Thompson, L. F. (2015). The effects of team self-guided training on conflict management in virtual teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 24, 905–923.Google Scholar
  40. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283.Google Scholar
  41. Matthieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476.Google Scholar
  42. Maynard, M. T., & Gilson, L. L. (2014). The role of shared mental model development in understanding virtual team effectiveness. Group & Organziation Management, 39, 3–32.Google Scholar
  43. McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  44. O’Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31, 433–452.Google Scholar
  45. Peñarroja, V., Orengo, V., Zornoza, A., Sánchez, J., & Ripoll, P. (2015). How team feedback and team trust influence information processing and learning in virtual teams: A moderated mediation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 9–16.Google Scholar
  46. Rico, R., & Cohen, S. G. (2005). Effects of task interdependence and type of communication on performance in virtual teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 261–274.Google Scholar
  47. Riethmüller, M., & Boos, M. (2011). Zwischen Aufgaben-Medien-Passung und Teamleistung: Ein Blick in die Blackbox der Kommunikation. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 13(3), 21–30.Google Scholar
  48. Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 349–363.Google Scholar
  49. RW3 CultureWizard (2016). Trends in global virtual teams report. http://cdn.culturewizard.com/PDF/Trends_in_VT_Report_4-17-2016.pdf. Zugegriffen: 7. Sept. 2018.Google Scholar
  50. Salas, E., Wildman, J. L., & Piccolo, R. F. (2009). Using simulation-based training to enhance management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 559–573.Google Scholar
  51. Schulze, J., & Krumm, S. (2017). The “virtual team player” A review and initial model of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics for virtual collaboration. Organizational Psychology Review, 7, 66–95.Google Scholar
  52. Simon, A., Mahrer, A., & Mertens, M. (2017). Konfiguration von Orten virtuell-informeller Kommunikation (OVIK). In Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft (Hrsg.), Frühjahrskongress 2017 in Brugg: Soziotechnische Gestaltung des digitalen Wandels – kreativ, innovativ, sinnhaft. Dortmund: GfA-Press. Beitrag D.3.5.Google Scholar
  53. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1371–1520.Google Scholar
  54. Staples, D. S., & Zhao, L. (2006). The effects of cultural diversity in virtual teams versus face-to-face teams. Group decision and negotiation, 15, 389–406.Google Scholar
  55. Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of friendships in virtual worlds. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-14046-001. Zugegriffen: 7. Sept. 2018. Journal of Online Behavior, 1(1).Google Scholar
  56. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90.Google Scholar
  57. West, M. A. (2000). Reflexivity, revolution, and innovation in work teams. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson & S. T. Beyerlein (Hrsg.), Product development teams (Bd. 5, S. 1–29). Stamford: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  58. Zajac, S., Gregory, M. E., Bedwell, W. L., Kramer, W. S., & Salas, E. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of adaptive team performance in ill-defined task situations: A closer look at team cognition. Organizational Psychology Review, 4, 49–73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abteilung für Arbeits‑, Organisations-, und SozialpsychologieTechnische Universität BraunschweigBraunschweigDeutschland

Personalised recommendations