Virtual Environment and Collaborative Work: The Role of Relationship Quality in Facilitating Individual Creativity



The emergence of virtual environments that support collaborative work has inspired this study. We believe that relationship quality (TMX) among dispersed people positively affects individual creativity. We also assume that media used for interaction play a significant role in reinforcing social relationships. We conducted a pilot study on Ubuntu-it open source community. Findings suggest the key role of TMX in determining individual creativity, assuming a particular significant in the context investigated.


Partial Little Square Virtual Environment Relationship Quality Physical Proximity Partial Little Square Analysis 


  1. 1.
    Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45:357–376.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to The Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social Yet Creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49:85–101.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yang, S. J. H., Chen, I. Y. L. (2008). A social network-based system for supporting interactive collaboration in knowledge sharing over peer-to-peer network. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66:3650.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allen, T. (1971). Communication networks in R & D Laboratories. R&D Management, 1: 14–21.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoegl, M., Proserpio, L. (2004). Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects. Research Policy, 33:1153–1165.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leenders, R. Th. A. J., Van Engelen, J. M. L., Kratzer, J. (2003). Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: a social network perspective. Journal Eng. Tech. Manage., 20:69–92.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kratzer, J., Leenders, R. Th. A. J., Van Engelen, J. M. L. (2006). Managing creative team performance in virtual environments: an empirical study in 44 R&D teams. Technovation, 26(1).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Warkentin, M. E., Sayeed, L., Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual Teams versus Face-to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-based Conference System. Decision Sciences, 28:975–996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Warkentin, M. E., Beranek, P. M. (1999). Training to Improve Virtual Team Communication. Information Systems Journal, 9.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43:118–135.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seers, A., Petty, M. M., Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-Member Exchange Under Team and Traditional Management: A Naturally Occurring Quasi-Experiment. Group & Organization Management, 20:18–38.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carlson, J. R., Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel Expansion Theory and the Experiential Nature of Media Richness Perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 44:153–170.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kock, N. (2002). Managing with Web-based IT in mind. Communications of the ACM, 45:102–106.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scott, S. G., Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liao, H., Liu, D., Loi, R. (in press). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32: 554–571.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Daft, R.L., Lengel, R., and Trevino, L. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 17:355–366.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39:1123–1134.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sproull, L. S., Kiesler, S. B. (1991). Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organization Science, 5:502–527.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39:1154–1184.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rockmann, K. W., Pratt, M. G., Northcraft, G. B. (2007). Divided loyalties: Determinants of identification in interorganizational teams. Small Group Research, 38(6):727–751.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lovelace, R. F. (1986). Stimulating creativity through managerial interventions. R&D Management, 16:161–174.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Amin, A., Roberts, J. (2008). Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice. Research Policy,37:353–369.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hertel, G., Nieder, S., Herrmann, S. (2003). Motivation of Software Developers in Open Source Projects: An Internet-based Survey of Contributors to the Linux Kernel. Research Policy, 32(7), (Special Issue: Open Source Software Development).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Management DepartmentParthenope UniversityNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations