Cohesion and Performance in Virtual Teams: An Empirical Investigation

10th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2004

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 1283-1290

  Huang, Rui ^a   Chidambaram, Laku ^a   Carte, Traci A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

feedback; Group cohesion; performance; virtual teams

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION; FACE-TO-FACE TEAMS; GROUP COHESIONS; GROUP MEMBERS; GROUP PERFORMANCE; ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS; PERFORMANCE; RESEARCH QUESTIONS; VIRTUAL TEAM; WORKGROUPS;

ADHESION;

EID: 65449162627     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Andres, H.P. (2002) “A comparison of face-to-face and virtual software development teams.” Team Performance Management, 8, 39-48.
2. Burke, K., Aytes, K., and Chidambaram, L. (2001) “Media effects on the development of cohesion and process satisfaction in computer-supported workgroups,” Information Technology and People, 14(2), 122-141.
3. Chidambaram, L., and Jones, B. (1993) “Impact of communication medium and computer support on group performance: a comparison between face-to-face and dispersed meetings,” MIS Quarterly, 17(4), 465-488.
4. Daft, R.L., and Lengel, R.H. (1986) “Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design,” Management Science, 32 (5), 554-571.
5. Evans, C.R., and Dion, K.L. (1991) “Group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis,” Small Group Research, 22(2), 175-186.
6. Field, A. (2003) Discovering Statistics, London: SAGE Publications.
7. Ganster, D.C., Hennessey, H.W., and Luthans, F. (1983) “Social desirability response effects: three alternative models,” Academy of Management Journal, 26, 321-331.
8. Gersick, C. (1988) “Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development,” Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9-41.
9. Gordon, M.E., Slade, L.A. and Schmitt, N. (1986) “The ‘science of the sophomore’ revisited: From conjecture to empiricism,” Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 191-207.
10. Klein, H.J. (1989) “An integrated control theory model of work motivation,” Academy of Management Review, 14, 150-172.
11. Langfred, C., and Shanley, M. (1997) “The importance of organizational context, I: A conceptual model of cohesiveness and ineffectiveness in work groups,” Public Administration Quarterly, 21(3), 349-369.
12. Langfred, C.W. (1998) “Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? An investigation on the effects of cohesiveness on performance.” Small Group Research, 29, 124-143.
13. Lord, R.G., and Hanges, P.J. (1987) “A control system model of organizational motivation: Theoretical development and applied implications,” Behavioral Science, 32, 161-178.
14. Lott, A.J. and Lott, B.E. (1965) “Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction,” Psychological Bulletin, (64), 259-309.
15. McGrath, J.E. (1984) Groups: Interaction and Performance, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16. McGrath, J.E. (1991) “Time, interaction, and performance (TIP),” Small Group Research, 22(2), 147-174.
17. Mesch, D.J., Farh, J., and Podsakoff, P.M. (1994) “Effects of feedback sign on group goal setting, strategies, and performance,” Group and Organization Management, 19(3), 309-333.
18. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., and Ahearne, M. (1997) “Moderating effects of goal acceptance on the relationship between group cohesiveness and productivity,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 974-.
19. Seashore, S.E. (1954) Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group, MI: University of Michigan Press.
20. Townsend, A.M., DeMarie, S., and Hendrickson, A.R. (1998) “Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future.” Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17-28.
21. Weiner, N. (1948) Cybernetic: Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Cambridge: MIT Press.
22. Yoo, Y., and Alavi, M. (2001) “Media and group cohesion: relative influences on social presences, task participation, and group consensus,” MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 371-390.