Advertisement

Einflussfaktoren und Auswirkungen eines gemeinsamen Medienverständnisses in virtuellen Teams

  • Rebecca MüllerEmail author
  • Conny Herbert Antoni
Hauptbeiträge - Thementeil
  • 13 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Praktische Relevanz und Ziel: Virtuelle Teams sind ein wichtiger Bestandteil von Unternehmen, wobei die Befundlage zu deren Leistungsfähigkeit bisher widersprüchlich ist. Medienkompetenz, als wichtige Voraussetzung erfolgreicher virtueller Teamarbeit, wurde bislang nur auf individueller Ebene betrachtet. In diesem Artikel führen wir das Konstrukt des geteilten mentalen Modells der Medien ein, welches die Medienkompetenz des Teams und das gemeinsame Medienverständnis in Teams beschreibt.

Vorgehen: Wir analysieren den Zusammenhang des geteilten mentalen Modells der Medien mit den Variablen des theoretischen Modells von Schmitdtke und Cummings (2017).

Ergebnisse: Ein gemeinsames Medienverständnis im Team mindert die negativen Auswirkungen der Virtualität auf die Teamkommunikation und -koordination. Außerdem fördert das geteilte mentale Modell der Medien das gemeinsame Verständnis der Aufgaben, Rollen und zeitlichen Struktur sowie die Kommunikation und Koordination.

Schlüsselwörter

Virtuelle Teams Mediennutzung Geteilte mentale Modelle Teamkommunikation und koordination 

Determinants and consequences of a shared understanding of media use in virtual teams

Abstract

Practical relevance and aim: Virtual teams are an important part for organizations, while the results are still inconsistent with regard to their performance. Media competence is a crucial requirement for effective virtual teamwork but has only been investigated on an individual level. In this article, we introduce the construct of a shared mental model of media in teams, which describes media competence on team level and a common understanding of media.

Procedure: We analyze the relationship between the shared mental model of media and the variables of the theoretical model by Schmidtke and Cummings (2017).

Results: A shared understanding of media use decreases the negative impact of virtuality on communication and coordination. A shared mental model of media promotes the shared understanding of task-, team- and temporal mental models as well as communication and coordination in teams.

Keywords

Virtual teams Media use Shared mental models Communication and coordination 

Literatur

  1. Andres, H. P. (2011). Shared mental model development during technology-mediated collaboration. International Journal of e‑Collaboration, 7, 14–30.  https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2011070102.Google Scholar
  2. Andres, H. P. (2013a). Collaborative technology and dimensions of team cognition. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management, 4, 22–37.  https://doi.org/10.4018/jitpm.2013070102.Google Scholar
  3. Andres, H. P. (2013b). Team cognition using collaborative technology: A behavioral analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 38–54.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941311298850.Google Scholar
  4. Antoni, C. H., & Syrek, C. (2017). Digitalisierung der Arbeit: Konsequenzen für Führung und Zusammenarbeit. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 48, 247–258.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-017-0391-5.Google Scholar
  5. Bélanger, F., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2006). Virtual teams and multiple media: Structuring media use to attain strategic goals. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 299–321.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-006-9044-8.Google Scholar
  6. Blackburn, R., Furst, S., & Rosen, B. (2003). Building a winning virtual team: KSAs, selection, training, and evaluation. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Hrsg.), Virtual teams that work. Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. Jossey-Bass business & management series, (Bd. 1, S. 95–120). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Boos, M., Hardwig, T., & Riehtmüller, M. (2017). Führung und Zusammenarbeit in verteilten Teams (1. Aufl.). Praxis der Personalpsychologie, Bd. 35. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  8. Brennan, S. E. (1998). The grounding problem in conversations with and through computers. In S. R. Fussell & R. J. Kreuz (Hrsg.), Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication (S. 201–225). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan (Hrsg.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (S. 221–246). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 13, 127–149.Google Scholar
  11. Cramton, C. D., & Webber, S. S. (2005). Relationships among geographic dispersion, team processes, and effectiveness in software development work teams. Journal of Business Research, 58, 758–765.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.006.Google Scholar
  12. DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. The Journal of applied psychology, 95, 32–53.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017328.Google Scholar
  13. Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32, 575–600.Google Scholar
  14. Draft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.Google Scholar
  15. Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (2006). Mastering virtual teams. Strategies, tools, and techniques that succeed. The Jossey-Bass business & management series, Bd. 3. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  16. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.1000873.Google Scholar
  17. Ellwart, T., Konradt, U., & Rack, O. (2014). Team mental models of expertise location. Small Group Research, 45, 119–153.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414521303.Google Scholar
  18. Gary, M. S., & Wood, R. E. (2011). Mental models, decision rules, and performance heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 569–594.Google Scholar
  19. Gevers, J. M. P., Rutte, C. G., & von Eerde, W. (2006). Meeting deadlines in work groups: Implicit and explicit mechanisms. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 52–72.Google Scholar
  20. Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research. Journal of Management, 41, 1313–1337.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314559946.Google Scholar
  21. Guo, Z., D’Ambra, J., Turner, T., & Zhang, H. (2009). Improving the effectiveness of virtual teams: A comparison of video-conferencing and face-to-face communication in china. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 52, 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2008.2012284.Google Scholar
  22. Hasty, B. K., Massey, A. P., & Brown, S. A. (2006). Role-based experiences, media perceptions, and knowledge transfer success in virtual dyads. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 367–387.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-006-9047-5.Google Scholar
  23. Klitmøller, A., & Lauring, J. (2013). When global virtual teams share knowledge: Media richness, cultural difference and language commonality. Journal of World Business, 48, 398–406.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.023.Google Scholar
  24. Kock, N. (2004). The psychobiological model: Towards a new theory of computer-mediated communication based on darwinian evolution. Organization Science, 15, 327–348.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0071.Google Scholar
  25. Kock, N., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Research article electronic media variety and virtual team performance: The mediating role of task complexity coping mechanisms. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 55, 325–344.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2012.2208393.Google Scholar
  26. Konradt, U., Schippers, M. C., Garbers, Y., & Steenfatt, C. (2015). Effects of guided reflexivity and team feedback on team performance improvement: The role of team regulatory processes and cognitive emergent states. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 777–795.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1005608.Google Scholar
  27. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 7, 77–124.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x.Google Scholar
  28. Kraiger, K., & Wenzel, L. H. (1997). A framework for understanding and measuring shared mental models of team performance and team effectiveness. In E. Salas, M. T. Brannick & C. Prince (Hrsg.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (S. 66–84). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 587–604.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.587.Google Scholar
  30. Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 971–986.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.6.971.Google Scholar
  31. Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., & Salas, E. (2017). Communication in virtual teams: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 575–589.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.005.Google Scholar
  32. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.2.273.Google Scholar
  33. Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding Theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 89–106.Google Scholar
  34. Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. (2014). Are we all on the same temporal page? The moderating effects of temporal team cognition on the polychronicity diversity–team performance relationship. The Journal of applied psychology, 99, 404–422.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035640.Google Scholar
  35. Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36, 876–910.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309356804.Google Scholar
  36. Mohammed, S., Hamilton, K., Tesler, R., Mancuso, V., & McNeese, M. (2015). Time for temporal team mental models: Expanding beyond “what” and “how” to incorporate “when”. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 693–709.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1024664.Google Scholar
  37. Moreland, R. L., & Myaskovsky, L. (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 117–133.  https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2891.Google Scholar
  38. O’Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31, 433–452.  https://doi.org/10.2307/25148802.Google Scholar
  39. Rosen, B., Furst, S., & Blackburn, R. (2006). Training for virtual teams: An investigation of current practices and future needs. Human Resource Management, 45, 229–247.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20106.Google Scholar
  40. Schmidtke, J. M., & Cummings, A. (2017). The effects of virtualness on teamwork behavioral components: The role of shared mental models. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 660–677.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.011.Google Scholar
  41. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386616675522.Google Scholar
  42. Stephens, K. K., & Rains, S. A. (2011). Information and communication technology sequences and message repetition in interpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 38, 101–122.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210362679.Google Scholar
  43. Thomas, D., & Bostrom, R. (2007). The role of a shared mental model of collaboration technology in facilitating knowledge work in virtual teams. In IEEE (Hrsg.), 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’07) (S. 37). Piscataway: IEEE.Google Scholar
  44. Thomas, D., & Bostrom, R. (2008). Building trust and cooperation through technology adaptation in virtual teams: Empirical field evidence. Information Systems Management, 25, 45–56.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530701777149.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abteilung für Arbeits‑, Betriebs- und OrganisationspsychologieUniversität TrierTrierDeutschland

Personalised recommendations