virtual distance - phd disertation

8/9/2019 Virtual Distance - PhD Disertation

1/158

Virtual Distance: A Proposed Model for the Study of Virtual Work

By

Karen Sobel Lojeski

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty o f the Stevens Institute of Technology in partial fulfillment o fthe requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

S /t'ijeski, Candidate

ADVISORY COMMITTEE:

Dr. Richard iteilly, Chairman /Da te

Dr. warren Axelrod

br. Peter Dominick

Dr. Alan


2/158

UMI Number: 3223521

Copyright 2006 by

Sobel Lojeski, Karen

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMIUMI Microform 3223521

Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb RoadP.O. Box 1346

Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

roduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.


3/158

ABSTRACT

Virtual Distance: A Proposed Model for the Study of Virtual Work

The extensive use o f virtual teams (VTs) and outsourced resources has become a

ubiquitous norm in many corporations around the globe. However, little is known about

how this increasing trend, being implemented on such a large scale, impacts critical

performance drivers (Powell, Piccoli et al. 2004).

Despite a growing body o f literature on the subject of virtual work, there is still no

unifying framework that helps to predict organizational outcomes. The goal o f this

dissertation is to develop such a framework. The model, coined the Virtual Distance

Model (VDM), will help both researchers and practitioners better understand the complex

set of issues that can cause degradation to performance and productivity on VTs.

Virtual Distance is defined as the perceived distance between two or more individuals,

groups or organizations, brought on by the persistent and pervasive use o f technology-

mediated work and communications. Virtual Distance is a multidimensional perceptual

construct designed using the key elements which promote a sense o f distance in virtual

work environments. Research has shown that the perceived distance between two or

more individuals has negative effects on communication and persuasion and promotes a

tendency to deceive (Bradner and Mark 2002). Virtual work is comprised of team

members that are, by definition, distant from one another, both physically and

produced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.


4/158

psychologically. Socio-emotional factors can play a role in perceived distance and these

factors may contribute to decreased success (Barczak and McDonough 2003).

VDM was developed after conducting an extensive literature review and combining

findings from that effort with executive interview information collected over the course

of the first 18 months of this research. The model was tested using a multi-step research

method including surveys and follow-up interviews with key executives from a sample of

corporations leveraging virtual workspaces.

The findings show that Virtual Distance is in fact a new, unique and measurable construct

that has significant and negative relationships to Clarity, Trust and Organizational

Citizenship Behavior. The model also supports the hypothesis that through these

mediating variables Virtual Distance has a negative and significant relationship to Project

Success.

Author: Karen Sobel Lojeski

Advisor: Richard Reilly

Date: May 3, 2006

Department: Technology Management

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy



5/158

Dedication:

This work is dedicated to my husband Paul and my daughter Cezanne who both selflessly

provided me with constant support and made it possible for me to do what, at times,

seemed like the impossible. I love you both dearly you are the light of my life.



6/158

Acknowledgements:

I would like to thank my committee for all o f their support and critical input into this

dissertation. Each member added great value to this work. Peter Dominick was always

there to remind me that the process of good theory building is based on the combination

of experiences and academic research and was an on-going source of encouragement for

me. Bob Stinerock consistently provided me with motivation and empathy. Importantly

he underscored that to go through this process took some chutzpa and Bob always

helped me to see the lighter side of things. Alan Maltz kept me on track and provided

much-needed pragmatism and steady direction. Alan gently and routinely reminded me

to stay focused. Warren Axelrod helped me to put Virtual Distance into the context of

the most practical of real-world problems. Warren was a true believer from the

beginning and with each conversation he found new applications around how the work

could be used. And while everyone on the committee was invaluable to this work, most

importantly, I would like to thank Dr. Richard Reilly. Dick inspired me to use my mind

in ways that I could never have dreamed of before meeting him. As a brilliant researcher

and profoundly deep thinker, Dick taught me ways to look at and analyze problems that

have forever changed the way I will think about every-day life and philosophical

conundrums. There are no words that can truly describe my gratitude to him. Dick was

my mentor, my oracle o f all-that-is-the-best-about-research and he was a tireless and

highly enthusiastic contributor to the development of Virtual Distance. But most of all

Dick Reilly became a very dear friend to me - a relationship that I shall treasure for the

rest of my days. I also want to thank all of my friends and especially Dr. Mary Jo Wilson

for her never-ending supply o f support and encouragement.



7/158

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................8

LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................9

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................10

LI THE RESEARCH PROBLEM...........................................................................10

I.n THE RESEARCH QUESTION ....................................................................14

Lffl SIGNIFICANCE.............................................................................................15

I.IV IMPLICATIONS AN D CONTRIBUTIONS..............................................16

II. REVIEW OF RELEVANT RESEARCH................... ............................................... .17

II.I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE......................................................................17

II.E REVIEW OF VIRTUAL TEAM (VT) STUDIES AND DISTANCE FACTORS 28

n.m EXECUTIVE INTERVIEWS........................................................................ 44

n.rv LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH.......................................................47

HI. THE PROPOSED MODEL...............................................................................49

m.I CONSRUCTS AN D OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS................................49

in.I HYPOTHESES.....................................................................................................52

m .n. VIRTUAL DISTANCE, TRUST, CLARITY, OCB AN D PS...................... 53

IV. METHODOLOGY............................................................................................58

IV.I LARGE SURVEY SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION...................... 59

IV.II DATA ANALYSIS.............................................................................................61

V. RESULTS...................................................................................................................62

V.I DATA CLEANSING AN D CASE ELIMINATION SUMMARY..................62



8/158

V.II PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF VIRTUAL DISTANCE VARIABLES.... 65

VIE. FINAL ANALYIS OF CONSTRUCTS..........................................................67

V.IV SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESIS TESTS.........................................................71

V.V IN THEIR OW N WORDS................................................................................72

VI. DISCUSSION............................................................................................................74

VLI BACKDROP.......................................................................................................74

VI.II VIRTUAL DISTANCE FACTORS CONSIDERED ..................................... 76

VI.III RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VIRTUAL DISTANCE AND TRUST,

OCB, CLARITY AND PROJECT SUCCESS..........................................................88

VI.IV. CON TRIBUTION TO RESEARCH............................................................93

VI.V. CONTRIBUTION TO THEORY ......................................... 97

VII. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AN D FUTURE RESEARCH........................ 100

Vni. LIMITATIONS.....................................................................................................103

IX. CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................

Appendix 1 - Literature Review Detail.............................................. 106

Appendix 2 - Research Overview Sent to Prospective Participants............................ 121

Appendix 3 - Discussion Guide fo r Executive Interview s...........................................127

Appendix 4 - Glossary of Terms................................................................................... 128

Appendix 5 - Sample Excerpts from Executive Interviews....................................

130

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 131

Vita..................................................................................................................................143

produced with permission of the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction prohibited without permission.


9/158

Figure 1 - Model of Virtual Distance and Mediating and Dependent Variables..

Figure 2 - SEM Model.....................................................................................

67

Figure 3 - Identity Orientation Processes in Demographically Diverse Organizations*

Figure 4 - Thom psons Classification o f Interdependence....................................

Figure 5 - Literature Review Overview................................................................



10/158

Table 1 - Summary of V irtual Team Studies (Powell, Picolli & Ives, 2005)..................30

Table 2 *Comparative Table of Research and Distance Factors...................................

38

Table 3 - Construct Summary.........................................................................................50

Table 4 - Summary of Trust, Clarity and OCB Constructs...........................................52

Table 5 - Summary of Case Elimination ..........................................................................63

Table 6 - Preliminary Analysis of Virtual Distance Variables....................................... 66

Table 7 - Means, SD, Reliabilities, Intercorrelations for Model Variables.....................68

Table 8 - Summary of Hypotheses..................................................................................71

Table 9 - Selected Quotes from Comments Section of Survey...................................... 72

Table 10 - Characteristics of Bureaucratic and Post-Bureaucratic Organizations 79

Table 11 - Literature Review Analy..............................................................................I l l

Table 12 - Searchable Fields in Endnotes.................. 113

Table 13 - Table of Literature Databases Created........................................................115

Table 14 - Terminology Analysis..................................................................................117

Table 15- Duplication Analysis..................................................................................... 120

Table 16 - Glossary of Term s.........................................................................................128

eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.


11/158

LI THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

Several developments have led to major changes in the way the 21* century economy

operates (Roach, 2005). They include, but are not exclusive of the following:

Rapid acceleration of globalization (Friedman 2005);

new organizational forms including the networked organization (Miles and Snow

1992);

and individuals working together regularly who are separated by time, space and

organizational affiliation.

The above are being strung together by IT-enabled connectivity. At the organizational

level, one o f the most notable changes has been the rapid rise in the use o f global, VTs

(Stough, et al. 2000). However, while the VT body o f research continues to grow, still

relatively little is known about the combined effects of virtual work on performance

outcomes (Powell, Piccoli et al. 2004).

Therefore, while many o f the VT studies provide useful insights and recommendations

for future research, a lack of significant findings on the dependent variable, Success, may

suggest that we still do not fully comprehend the nature o f the seismic shifts occurring in

virtual, increasingly global, networked organizations.

Several issues may be contributing to the need for a more integrative and multi

dimensional approach to the research and ensuing theory development. Three of these



12/158

11

issues include two distinct streams of literature that do not readily inform one another, a

dichotomous versus continuous distinction between virtual and traditional teams, and a

myopic discussion of distance that is constrained to only physical factors.

Two Distinct Literature Streams

VT research has traditionally been conducted, for the most part, from two distinct points

of view; the management or organizational point of view which focuses mainly on the

social impacts of geographic dispersion and asynchronous communication (Jarvenpaa

and Leidner 1998; Townsend, DeMarie et al. 1998), versus the technological point of

view, which sometimes looks into behavioral issues (Miranda and Bostrom 1994), but

more often, uses the technological system as the basis for research design and hypothesis

construction (Larsen and Mclnemey 2002). However, both technology and social issues

are important to understanding the overall impact of virtual work on performance and

success. For example, interpersonal relationships affect the use of technology in a

positive direction (Kraut, Steinfield et al. 1999). The level of cognitive absorption that an

individual displays may be an antecedent o f perceived technology usefulness and

perceived ease of use which leads to more social interactions (Agarwal and Karahanna

2000). Therefore, if one were to try and construct a unifying model for the study of

virtual work, it is important to recognize that virtual workspaces are an integrative blend

of management, organizational and technological issues (Turoff 1997).



13/158

12

Virtual verms Traditional Teams

Much o f the literature defines VTs as collections of individuals separated by geography

and time zones, who use high-speed telecommunications and computers to communicate

(Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1998; Townsend, DeMarie et al. 1998; Majchrzak, Rice et al.

2000; Malhotra, Majchrzak et al. 2001). Using this operational definition, researchers

have conducted studies designed to compare traditional teams against virtual teams;

in many instances treating the state of being virtual as a dichotomous variable (Powell,

Piccoli et al. 2004). However, in organizations that rely on information and

communication technology (ICTX most professionals use a variety of different media to

conduct business (Pauleen 2003). At times they may be geographically separated and use

email, instant messaging or other electronic communication tools while at other times

they may meet face to face (FtF) and communicate verbally and non-verbally. In some

cases they may be interacting using both FtF and electronic communications at the same

time (Richtel 2003). In the 21st century and beyond, virtually all global knowledge

workers are likely to be virtual at least part of the time; making it almost impossible for

researchers to stabilize experimental study conditions enough to reflect real-world

interaction dynamics using the current set of constructs as defined. While it is true that

some individuals on teams will never meet, over the course of a project, or long-term

partnership, for example a strategic outsourcing relationship, the state of virtualness

among individuals will likely vary (Pauleen 2003). Therefore, it is proposed that the state

of being virtual be seen as lying more on a continuum or spectrum versus being one or

the other.



14/158

13

Distance Constructs Constrained to Physical Factors

While the notion o f distance is, by definition, at the heart of VT studies, most of the

literature so far has focused on geographic and temporal factors. Co-located teams are

those defined as having members located in the same place, i.e. there is no physical

distance separating team members. VTs are those defined as having members that are

geographically separate, with vast distances between one another (Alavi 1994;

Townsend, DeMarie et al. 1998; Majchrzak, Malhotra et al. 2004). Therefore, the idea

that physical distance plays a role in VT behavior is well-established. However, research

also shows that other variables can contribute to a sense of socio-emotional or

psychological distance. Interpersonal, social, organizational and technical factors also

play a role ami have important implications for the attitudes and behavior of team

members and their ability to succeed (Bradner and Mark 2002). These factors can

include, but are not limited by, building trust and motivating one another, cultural

diversity and lack o f goal clarity (Barczak and McDonough 2003). Collaboration,

whether it is FtF or computer mediated, occurs within a much broader context than

simply geographic and temporal dispersion. So there is reason to expand the research

beyond physical distance constructs. One of the baric assumptions of this thesis was that

the use o f geographic and temporal distance constructs alone, are not enough to explain

performance differences among teams in the 21st century. Instead, it was posited that the

construct of distance for VTs be expanded to include socio-emotional distance factors as

well.



15/158

14

As Stephen wrote, it is time to let go of some of our time-honored relationships

(Roach, 2005). While Roach was referring to macro-economic relationships, the

sentiment applies to micro-economic relationships as well - including virtual teams and

globally distanced workforces. A paradigm shift in thinking is required to do so and a

new, unifying and parsimonious framework is needed to open up the black box that sits

between virtual work and performance outcomes; one that reflects the integrative and

multi-dimensional nature of the complex interplay of both real and perceived issues at the

individual and group level. The development of such a model was the purpose of this

thesis and the resulting model has been named, The Virtual Distance Model (VDM).

The model was developed through a review o f the major research streams primarily in

management and technology, combined with some central tenants of the theories of

distance, social science, and psychology. In addition, an initial set of field research was

conducted, in the form o f executive interviews, to ground the theoretical discussion in

real-world terms as perceived by leaders at major, global organizations.

I l l THE RESEARCH QUESTION

The research to date suggests that there may or may not be performance differences

between VTs versus traditional teams (Powell, Piccoli et al. 2004). However, as was

noted earlier, the use of VTs versus traditional teams as the primary grouping mechanism

has not captured significant differences with respect to success. Therefore, this may

imply that the studies to date do not capture important factors that contribute to VT

performance. Therefore, a unifying model for the study of virtual work was developed



16/158

15

in this thesis in order to extend the research and consider a broader set of distance factors.

By combining what has already been learned about geographic and temporal distance,

and adding those learnings to other, socio-emotional factors that have been shown to

contribute to a sense of distance among team members, the VDM provides evidence that

statistically significant differences on the success measure, is related to both.

So the primary focus of this research was to identify the major factors that contribute to a

perceived sense of distance among team members, brought on by the pervasive use of

computer mediated communication and expanding virtual work environments, and to test

whether and how these factors, when taken together, impact project success.

The research question was therefore stated as follows:

How does virtual work impact project success?

L in SIGNIFICANCE

While a number of theories have been used to support VT studies, including but not

exclusive of network and organization theory (Ahuja and Carley 1999), social presence

and media richness theory (Burke and Chidambaram 1999; Majchrzak, Rice et al. 2000;

Ramesh and Dennis 2002), contingency theory (Galegher and Kraut 1994), and

structuration theory (Krumpel 2000; Qureshi and Vogel 2001), there has yet to emerge a

parsimonious theory for the study of virtual work on which to build a predictive model of

VT performance. It was the intent of this thesis to provide both theoretical supports for

the Virtual Distance construct, and to test the construct through a rigorous research



17/158

16

design, in order to create a unifying theory of virtual work. The evidence from this

investigation suggests that Virtual Distance Theory (VDT) should be considered as such.

I.IV IMPLICATIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS

The literature from a multitude o f sources including management, technology,

psychology, economics, networks, culture, distance theories and more, was reviewed as

part of this study. Combined with case study and survey data, an integrative, multi

dimensional view o f the potential causes for problems and performance degradation in

VTs was devised. Some suggest that this triangular and cross-disciplinary approach is

imperative if we are to better understand how virtual work impacts organizations over the

long term (Gopal and Prasad 2000; Orlikowski 2001). This study extends the literature

on virtual work in this manner. Additionally, a robust model for the study of virtual

work, that may provide predictive power for future VT studies, was also developed. This

was done by creating the construct of Virtual Distance. Virtual Distance was measured

using an indexing technique that quantitatively reflects many factors that to date have

been considered intangible or have gone unmeasured.



18/158

This chapter describes the review of the relevant research. An extensive literature review

on virtual work was conducted along with a review of relevant distance research. In

addition, executive interviews were used as another source of relevant research in the

model development. A detailed description of the review processes and analysis can be

found in Appendix 1.

In addition, this chapter includes a comparative table of some VT studies as described in

Powell, Picolli and Ives literature review (2005). This was done to highlight some

examples of the extent to which the factors that contribute to distance, as described in the

body of this dissertation, have been studied, within the context of previous works on the

subject of VTs.

I l l REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Virtual work environments are defined in a variety of ways. Virtual work can be

described as unique technological systems, in which software and system designers have

a major impact on not only the system design, but also the social systems in which they

are used (Turoff 1997). Virtual work environments are also operationalized as

geographically and temporally displaced groups of workers who use technology to

support work and communications (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1998; Townsend, DeMarie et

al. 1998; Massey, Montoya-Weiss et al. 2001; Massey, Montoya-Weiss et al. 2003).

Others characterize virtual work groups as global VTs which are internationally

distributed and which work toward an organizational mandate (Manzevski and Chudoba



19/158

18

2000). Virtual work environments are also cited as new forms of online communities

(Hiltz and Wellman 1997; Dennis, Pootheri et al. 1998) and network communities

(Hattori, Ohguro et al. 1999). Another definition holds that virtual organizations are

networks of independent companies that connect to share skills and cost (Dess, Rasheed

et al. 1995). Others view a virtual organization as one that uses email to communicate

and coordinate work (Ahuja and Carley 1999). Some distinguish virtual work

environments as companies that outsource organizational competencies (Dess et al.,

1995).

An example of two very different points of view on virtualhy is described in the quotes

below.

In his 1997 paper Virtuality, Turoff wrote:

.. .the property of virtuality has to be of explicit concern to the designers of

these systems. Virtuality carries the potential for the conscious design andimplementation of social systems that include organizational and economicsystems at any level of social aggregation... .My definition o f virtuality can besummed up as the potential for a virtual system to become part of the real world.The speed at which these societal transformations are now possible has left behindthe current approaches to dealing with social change (Turof 1997, p.42).

Turoff considers virtuality in the context o f social change and system design. However

highly cited management researchers, Townsend, DeMarie and Hendrickson (1998),

reference virtuality in terms o f teams very differently:

.. .virtual teams are groups of geographically and/or organizationally dispersedcoworkers that are assembled using a combination of telecommunicationsand information technologies to accomplish an organizational task. Virtualteams rarely, if ever, meet in a face-to-face setting. (Townsend, DeMarie et al.1998).



20/158


21/158

20

spatially and temporally displaced workers (Chidambaram 1996; Dennis and Kinney

1998; El-Shinnawy and Vinze 1998; Alavi, Marakas et al. 2002; Huang, Wei et al. 2003).

However no particular conclusions can be drawn when some of this work is taken in sum

(Pinsonneault and Heppel 1998).

Therefore, while the virtual work literature covers a wide variety of technologies and

organizational settings, the extensive variations in terminology and interpretation of

virtual work may be masking important findings that would otherwise be seen if a

unifying framework were used to discern virtual work research and bring together the

concepts that are reflected in these diverse lexicons.

Distance-Related Research

When one goes back and examines how distance has historically played a role in major

theory development, one quickly finds that distance has been an important factor in both

management and scientific endeavors. Part of modern-day economics is based on

location theory, which explains where economic activity takes place and why; a theory

grounded in the notion o f distance (Fujita and Krugman 2004). Cultural Distance (CD) is

also dted in economic literature. Understanding CD purports to help with decision

making in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) by multinational corporations (Lin 1996).

Social Distance (SD), a theory often found in social science studies, describes differences

in economic class and status (Coyte 1991). Other concepts, like power distance (Kersten,

Koeszegi et al. 2003), can also be considered variant forms of SD. Social Network

Theory (SNT) describes how network theory can be used to explain social behaviors



22/158

21

(Safferstone 1998; Ahuja 2000). Interaction among VT members may be influenced by

factors such as node centrality, a distance-based phenomenon (Ahuja, Galletta et al.

2003). The small-world phenomenon (the extent to which nodes become effectively less

distant as the number o f nodes increases) and other network-related characteristics have

helped researchers understand the dynamics between information and people (Adamic

and Huberman 2001; Barabasi 2003). The theory o f strong ties versus weak ties also

relies on distance-centered assumptions (Ho, Ang et al. 2003). Although strong ties may

be closer in proximal location, weak ties may be more meaningful to the network node or

individual (Wellman 2001).

Distance therefore can be seen as a fundamental concern in many disciplines. For VT

research, how can these and other distance theories be useful to the study of virtual work?

One clue was uncovered in Bradner and Marks 2002 article, Why Distance Matters:

Effects on Cooperation, Persuasion, and Deception. In this study the authors conducted

an experiment in which one group was told that the confederate, speaking to all the

participants only through virtual communications, was in the same city. The other group

was told that the confederate was across the country. Measurements on cooperation,

persuasion and deception were taken during the course of these virtual interactions. The

study found that perceived distance was a significant contributor to behavior. Those who

thought that they were further away were significantly less likely to cooperate or be

persuaded by the confederate and were significantly more likely to deceive others. (For

more detail see Bradner and Mark, 2002).



23/158

22

Most global VT research considers Geographic Distance (GD) as a fundamental

characteristic. But distance can also be used to describe the emotional or psychological

gap between team members who work in the same building and regularly meet face to

face (FtF). For a team that is working primarily in virtual space, socio-emotional

distance may be a function o f several other factors in addition to the obvious ones of

geography and computer mediation.

Factors Influencing Distance

Based on a review of management, information systems and psychological literature, a

number of socio-emotional distance factors that influence team members were identified.

These include spatial, temporal, technical, organizational and social factors that shape the

perceptions of individuals engaged in collaborative work. In the present investigation

these factors were reviewed as to how they collectively impacted work related attitudes,

behavior and performance. Eleven factors likely to influence the perceptions of distance

between team members, are discussed in the following sections.

i. Geographic Distance (GD)

Research suggests that physical separation or closeness is of great importance to

interactions and that the closer one is physically to another, the greater the chance to form

social ties (Latane and Herrou 1996). Physical distance also impacts the tendency to

deceive, ability to influence and the likelihood of cooperation (Bradner and Mark 2002),

and has been shown to have some impact on learning behavior (Latane and Bourgeois



24/158

1996; Bulte and Moenaert 1998; Arbaugh 2001; Bradner and Mark 2002; Coppola, Hiltz

et al. 2002).

2. Temporal Distance (TD)

Differences in time zones between VT members are often cited as one of the factors that

plays a role in VT interactions (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1998; Montoya-Weiss, Massey et

al. 2002; Massey, Montoya-Weiss et al. 2003). It has also been suggested that TD be

considered when structuring organizations (Orlikowski and Yates 2002), globalizing an

organization (Boudreau, Loch et al. 1998), assessing team boundary issues (Espinosa,

Cummings et al. 2003) and coordinating VTs (Montoya-Weiss et al., 2002)

3. Relational Distance (RD)

RD refers to the difference between team members organizational affiliations. For

example, an employee of a company is relationally closer to another employee of the

same company versus an employee from a third party service provider. RD has been

shown to play a key role in social cohesion (Moody and White 2003), information

systems networks, as well as leader effectiveness (Klagge 1997).

4. Cultural Distance (CD)

Cultural differences have, to date, been a focus o f some research in virtual work and

innovation, VTs (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999; Dube and Pare 2001; Massey, Montoya-

Weiss et al. 2001), new product teams (Barczak and McDonough HI, 2003), risk

mitigation (Grabowski and Roberts 1999), virtual societies (Igbaria 1999), consensus



25/158

24

building using group support systems (Mejias, Shepherd et al. 1997), majority influence

(Tan, Wei et al. 1998), software development (Tellioglu and Wagner 1999) and more.

CD has also been used to study foreign investment expansion, entry mode choice, and the

performance of foreign invested affiliates, among others (Shenkar 2001). Following the

discussion o f social network theory and distance related phenomenon, CD has also been

used to interpret network ties amongst managers (Stevenson 2001). Additionally CD is

used to explain how international relationships affect responses and behaviors amongst

employees (Thomas and Ravlin 1995).

5. Social Distance (SD)

SD has been studied in a number of contexts including class or status differences

(Akerlof 1997), feelings of social closeness and distance based on social interactions in

social space (Bottero and Prandy 2003), as a factor in direct and networked exchanges

(Buchan, Croson et al. 2002), as a function of management (Fox 1977), a dimension of

the Systematic Multiple Level Observation of Groups (SYMLOG) management behavior

assessment (Jensen 1993), as a perceived measure contributing to the concept o f leader

distance (Antonakis and Atwater 2002), and as a factor in friendship networks

(Krackhardt and Kilduff 1999). Wiesenfeld found that virtual work environments may

weaken ties that bind organizations and their members together (Wiesenfeld, Raghuram

et al. 1999) increasing SD. In another case, centrality, or less distance from the center of

the social network, was found to mediate the relationship between social status and

virtual R&D groups (Ahuja, Galletta et al. 2003). In a virtual organization with no



26/158

25

formalized hierarchy at the outset, the emergence of a hierarchy and SD was found

(Ahuja and Carley 1999).

6. Relationship History (RH)

One aspect of SD is RH. This includes both the extent to which members have had a

prior relationship or relationships with some of the same people. RH has been shown to

be important in mentoring (Siegel, 2000) and trust building (Rousseau, Sitkin et al.

1998). In his study, "When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences

and opportunities in decision-making teams", Alge showed that FtF teams exhibited

higher levels of openness, trust and information sharing than computer mediated teams

that did not have a RH. However when computer mediated teams had prior relationships,

many of these issues were eliminated. (Alge, Wiethoff et al. 2003).

7.Interdependence

Interdependence is the degree to which one individual or group perceives that their

success is tied to another individual or group member (Thompson, 1967). Thompson

claimed distance was a major factor in his classification scheme on Interdependence

(Thompson 1967). Interdependent tasks require more communication (Bishop and Scott

2000), which should lead to decreased distance between team members. Task

interdependence has also been related to both organizational commitment and team

commitment and OCB (Pearce and Gregersen 1991; Bishop and Scott 2000). In the

virtual realm, goals may become less clear amongst players if they are not directly

attached to some sort of organizational mandate (Manzevski and Chudoba 2000).



27/158

26

Interdependent goals have also been found to have importance to international teams

(Davison 1994) and embedded, interdependent goal-setting in GSS has been shown to

help team cohesion (Huang, Wei et al. 2003).

8. Face to Face (FtF) Interaction

The notion of social presence has been used in research on virtual work to describe the

extent to which team members feel the presence o f other group members and die feeling

that the group is jointly involved in communicating (Andres and Zmud 2002; Venkatesh

and Johnson 2002). One end of the continuum of social presence is FtF so frequency of

FtF interaction should be related to perceptions of distance. In some cases only email is

used and no FtF or phone communications are considered (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999).

In other studies, two or more types of mediated communications are investigated. In

Why Distance Matters, Effects on Cooperation, Persuasion and Deception (Bradner

and Mark 2002), the authors chose Instant Messaging and Video Conferencing in an

attempt to simulate two ends of the communication spectrum. In other studies it has been

found that some FtF meetings blend well with other types of communication mediums.

There is some emerging support for the notion that a mix of communication methods

improves performance (Aiken and Vanjani 1997) mid produces higher levels of

commitment (Alavi 1994; Alavi, Wheeler et al. 1995).

9. Team Size (TmS)

Group or team size has been shown to affect ones sense o f belonging (Williams and

Wilson 1997). A sense of belonging is critical to the development of organizational



28/158

identity, which has been shown to have a direct influence on OCB (Shamir 1990; Pratt

1998). Group size in VTs has also been shown to affect team decision making (Baltes,

Dickson et al. 2002) and satisfaction (Dennis and Wixom 2002). Group size in virtual

work had impact on group support system processes (Dennis and Wixom 2002).

10. Multi-Tasking (M I)

Multi-tasking is a term used to describe a person working on more than one task at a

time. It can create significant stress on a person if he or she becomes overloaded and it

can lead to less efficiency and productivity (Brillhart 2004). Cognitively distancing

oneself horn the stress created by multi-tasking and information overload is known as

absent presence, the idea that we may be physically on a street comer, but our distracted

minds are not. (Berman 2003). The absent presence is a form of psychological distance.

Some have found that frequent interruptions affect decision making (Speier, Valacich et

al. 1999, Thompson, 2005). During meetings in the new millennium many listen to

presentations while also using hand-held PDAs to communicate with others

simultaneously. Some experts believe that multi-tasking in this way is detrimental to

productivity (Richtel 2003). While it has been shown that telecommuting can improve

satisfaction and work/life balance (Hill, Miller et al. 1998), family and other home-based

considerations may represent a form of multi-tasking that creates stresses that are difficult

to overcome (Richtel, 2003). The extent to which workers multi-task depends, in part, on

the organizations desire to increase productivity (Cascio 1993; Snizek 1995); another

key reason why virtual work is proliferating at hyperspeed.



29/158

28

11. Technical Skill (TS)

Studies have shown that a members comfort level with technology plays a role in their

interactions with distant team members (Staples, Hulland et al. 1999). Less technically

competent team members may be less inclined or able to communicate and form the

kinds of relationship that would decrease social distance. The theory of cognitive fit

describes the need for matching problem-solving task to problem-solving tools in order to

obtain higher levels of performance (Agarwal, Sinha et al. 1996). Major corporations

have also found that technical and interpersonal skills are important to the selection of

VT members who are most likely to be committed to the project and to each other

(Kirkman, Rosen et al. 2002).

ILII REVIEW OF VIRTUAL TEAM (VT) STUDIES ANDDISTANCE FACTORS

In addition to the extensive literature review as discussed in the previous section and

detailed in Appendix I, a more targeted analysis was conducted to highlight how distance

is addressed in a sample of VT studies that are often cited. The studies chosen for this

analysis were taken from Powell, Picolli, and Ives literature review of 43 VT studies

(Powell, Picolli & Ives, 2005). A summary of these studies is shown in Table 1. In

Table 2 the representative studies are compared against the distance factors discussed

above. The studies highlighted by Powell, Picolli, and Ives (2005) are listed in the first

column. The distance factors are listed in the first row. A Y was marked in a cell if the

study addressed the distance factor and an N was marked if the study did not address

the distance factor.



30/158

Assumptions for Virtual Team Study Analysis

As was discussed in the previous section, VT research inherently assumes that VTs are

geographically distant (Townsend, 1998). Some meet FtF while others do not.

Therefore, for all studies listed, GD and FtF are assumed to be factors in the study. For

those investigations that included global VTs, it was assumed, although not always

specifically stated, that the study also considered TD and CD. Unless specifically stated,

all team members were assumed to be part of the same oiganization. Therefore RD was

not a factor. In some of the student-based studies (i.e., in the majority of the samples),

team members may have been relationally distant although this was not necessarily

stated, so it was not assumed to be a factor. If the work was described as focused on

Relationship Building, then it was assumed that the participants did not know each other

prior to the study, nor did they know any of the same people prior to the study.

Therefore, RelD was assumed to be present.



31/158

Table 1 - Summary of Virtual Team Studies (Powell, Picolli & Ives, 2005)

AuthorsYear ofPublication

Issues /VariablesExamined

TheoryTimeFrame

SubjectsTeamSize

Results

Ahuja&Carley

1999

Task, networkstructure,hierarchy,centralization, fit,

performance

Network andOrganization FormTheories

OngoingOrganizationemployees andacademics

66

VTs can be hierarchical and centralized from acommunication standpoint Fit between task andstructure not associated with objective performance

but is associated with satisfaction

Archer 1990

Decision quality,number ofalternatives, timeto reach decision,satisfaction

AST 8 Week Graduate Students 4-5VTs took longer to reach decision, but had equalquality and satisfaction

Berdahl &Craig

1996Participation,influence, gender

Proportional,Social Role,Expectation States

7 WeeksUndergraduateStudents

3-4Participation more centralized in VTs. In VTs, malesin majority-female teams had more influence, males imajority-male teams had less influence than females.

Burke &Aytes

1998

Cohesiveness,equality of

participation,leadership,coordination,

performance


3-4No difference between VT and TT in cohesiveness,performance, and equality of participation. Leadershbetter in TT. VT better at coordination at first.

Burke &

Chidambaram

1996

Social presence,communication,

effectiveness, ease-of-use,

performance

Social Presence &Media Richness 4 Weeks

UndergraduateStudents 4

TT reported greater social presence, communication

effectiveness, and ease-of-use. No difference inperformance between VT and TT.

Chidambaram

1996Work processes,cohesiveness,satisfaction

SIP, PunctuatedEquilibrium Model


5Over time, VT members will exchange enoughinformation to develop relational ties. Over time,attitudes improve as does satisfaction with outcomes.


32/158



TheoryTimeFrame

SubjectsTeamSize

Results

Chidambaram &Bostrom

1993

Conflictmanagement,cohesiveness,number ofahematies,decision quality

SIO, AST 4 WeeksUndergraduateStudents

5

No difference between teams decision quality. VTmore equal participation, task focus, more alternativegenerated. TT better at first in conflict management,cohesiveness; by midpoint, VT had surpassed TT.

Chidambarametal.

1990-1991Conflict resolution,cohesiveness

AST 4 Week Undergraduatestudents

5Conflict resolution and cohesiveness both initially

better in TT, by time 4. VT better at both VT morelikely to think of idea as ours

Crampton 2001Mutual knowledge,communication

problems

CommunicationTheories

7 Weeks Graduate Students 65 types of communication problems identified fromfailure o f creating mutual knowledge in VT.

Eveland &Bikson

1988

Leadership,sstructure,satisfaction,communication

1 YearOrg. workers &retirees

206-10 insubgroups

TT greater leadenhsip stability. VT leadershipfluctuated more. VT created unique structure. VTsatisfaction continually increased TT satisfactionremained same. VT communicated more.

Galegher&Kraut

1994

Planning, socialconversations,revising/writing,coordinationdifficulty, totalcommunication,communicationquality, perceivedfairness, perceived

project quality,projectperformance

ContingencyTheoryDiscuss severalothers

4 Week Graduate Students 3

TT more effective planning, revising/writing,perceived fairness, communication quality. VThadmore total communication. No difference in projectperformance. VT required more time, spent more tincommunicating. VT had more coordination difficult;fewer social conversations.


33/158



TheoryTimeFrame

SubjectsTeamSize

Results

Galvin &Ahuja

2001

Communicaiton,member status,informationexchange,informationcontent

OngoingOrg employees &academics

Notgiven

Newcomers to team engage in greater informationseeking, established members engage in moreinformation providing. Established members engagemore in seeking norms and values information - newmembers more likely to seek out this type ofinformation from private source.

Hollingshead,McGrath &OConnor

1993

Task type, taskperformance,cumulativeexperience,changes

Task-media fit

Task circumplexmodel


4-5

No difference between VT and TT for generating and

decision making tasks. TT better for negotiation andintellective tasks early on. Relationship between taskand technology performance more dependent onexperience with technology and team membershiprather than task type

Jarvenpaaetal.

1998

Benevolence,integrity, ability,teambuilding,trust, propensity totrust others

Results supporttheory of swifttrust

8 Weeks Graduate Students 4-5

Integrity early on important to development of trust,benevolence over time. Team building increasedknowledge about team members but did not directlyincrease trus t

Jarvenpaa& Leidnerr

1999 Swift Trust Swift trust 6 weeks Graduate Students 4-5

VTs with high trust also had: social communication,enthusiasm, predictable communication, substantialtimely feedback, ability to cope w ith technicaluncertainty, initiative, social to task focus, positiveleadership, phlegmatic response to crises. Swift trustlikely a result of communications

Johanssonetal.

1999Communication,coordination

5 WeeksUndergraduate andGraduate Students

22

Communication and coordination were biggest issuesin VT. Obstacles to coordination; power, doing it owway (power issues), communication predictability,culture


34/158

Authors

Year ofPublication


TheoryTimeFrame

SubjectsTeamSize

Results

Kaiser etal.

2000 Performance 3 WeeksUndergraduate andGraduate Students

6To improve performance in VT: intermediate goals awell as final goals, similar training for all clearstructure, team maintenance activities, team building.

Kayworth&Leidner

2000

Communication,

culture,technology,leadership,relational links,,satisfaction,success

6 WeeksUndergraduate andGraduate students

5-7

VTs using more communication methods moresatisfied and more successful. Cultural differencesintensify communication and coordination problems.Effective leadership needed. Richer communicationfacilitates socialization

Kayworth& Leidner

2001-2002

Leader role, roleclarity, leadershipeffectiveness,culture,communicationeffectiveness

LeadershipTheories

5 WeeksUndergraduate andGraduate Students

5-7Effective leadership associated with communicationsatisfaction, role clarity, better relational skills, abilityto foster relational aspects structure

Krumpel 2000

Group knowledge,production,communication,content

StructurationTheory

OngoingWorking Group ofsubcommittees forIEEE

51Group knowledge production possible in VT. Group:engaged in knowledge production would do betterwith a leader

Lind 1999

Gender, cohesion,conflict, quality ofwork,inclusiveness

6-6 Weeks Students 4Women more satisfied. Felt more included and greatteam cohesiveness with the VT experience than men.

NO difference in quality of work between VT and Tl


35/158

Authors

Year ofPublication

Issues /Variables

Examined

TheoryTimeFrame

SubjectsTeamSize

Results

Lurey &Raisinghani

2001

Job characteristicsselection

procedures, teamrelations, team

processes,leadership,effectiveness,education,

rewards, executiveleadership, toolsand technologies,communication

Lengthvaried

Organizationemployees

Varied(3-15 in12separate

teams)

Team processes and ember relations had strongestrelationship to performance and satisfaction.Selection procedures and executive leadership stylemoderately related to performance and satisfaction.

Majchrzaketal.

2000a

Technology use,success, task type,conflict, sharedlanguage/knowled

ge

Media Richness,Social Presence,ask Circumplex

10 monthOrganizationemployees

8

FtF or phone used for abigous tasks, managingconflicts, brainstorming, clarifying goals, etc. VTused for routine tasks of analysis, project status. FtFmeetings early on created a shared language betweenmembers -= this enabled ambiguous tasks to becompleted later by VT

Majchrzaketal.

2000b AST 10 monthOrganizationemployees

8

Using collaborate technology creates severalmisalignments with pre-existing structure andenvironment VTs need to adapt all 3 structures -technology, o. environment, and work group structure

Malhotraetal

2000Sharedunderstanding,knowledge sharing

10 month Organizationemployees

8

3 mgt practices contribute to success of VT: strategy

setting, technology use should facilitate sharedknowledge and collaborative use, restructuring workwithout changing core needs

Mark 2001

Socialization,technology

participation, teamculture, integratingteam members

Over 6months


8-15Key challenges of VT of participation, team culture,and integrating remote work discussed


36/158

Authors

Year ofPublication


TheoryTimeFrame

SubjectsTeamSize

Results

Maznevski& Chudoba

2001

Processes,performance,communication,cohesion, culture,technology use,decision quality,commitment

AST Long-termOrganizationemployees

8,9, & 12

Effective VTs have high commitment, highcohesiveness, effective processes, satisfaction withdecisions, continuous communication, task-technologfit. Cultural difference affected coordination. RegulfFtF meetings provided necessary coordination.

McDonoughetal.

2001

Behavioralchallenges, projectmanagementchallenges,

performance

OngoingOrganizationemployees

Did notreport

Behavioral challenges greatest in GVT, then VT, ther

TT. Project management challenges least in TT.Performance greatest in TT then VT, then GVT.Greater project management challenges are associate*with lower performance for all 3 types of teams.Project management challenges more a function ofdistance between members than cultural differences.

Monyoya-Weiss et al.

2001Process structure,conflict

performanceConflict theories 3 weeks

Undergraduatestudents

5

Avoidance, compromise conflict has negativerelationship with performance. Process structureweakens negative effect on performance foravoidance, compromise conflict. Competition,collaboration conflict has positive relationship with

performance.

Qureshi &Vogel

2001

Adaptation(technology, work,socialX structure,specialization,coordination, task,learning

Provide framework of adaptation and organizationchallenges in VTs. Review of current research onadaptation.

Ramesh&Dennis

2002Coordination,work processes

Media Richness,MediaSynchranicity

3 month 11month2 Years


3610-56

VTs may operate better as object-oriented teams -decoupling team members through use o f well define

processes, inputs, and /or outputs rather than trying tctightly couple members may improve coordination inVTs.


37/158

Authors

Year ofPublication


TheoryTimeFrame

SubjectsTeamSize

Results

Robey etal.

2000

Learning,management,performance,communication,technology use,FtF meetings

Learning Theories 3+yearsOrganizationemployees

Communication improves cultural understandingswhich improve coordination. FtF meetings needed tcgain respect, trust, and interpersonal relations. Choicof technology based on many factors. Learning can teffectively accomplished; in VT

Sarker&Sahay

2002

Time, space,

culture, technicalexpertise,communication,coordination,socialization

14 Week Students 8-10Strategies for dealing with challenges involved withVTs

Sarkeretal.

2001

Technology,norms, social

practices, teamdevelopmentsages, frames ofreference,collaboration

Adapted GroundedTheory

CommunicationTheories

Structuration

14 Weeks Students 8-10 Communication, collaboration, social norms all adapland change in different stages of team development

Savicki etaL

1996Gender, task,communication,team development

4 WeeksUndergraduatestudents

4-6Female-only VTs are more satisfied, send more wordhave better team development, and self-disclose morethan male-only or mixed-gender VTs

Shardaetal.

1988

Effectiveness,decision time,confidence,number ofalternatives

8 WeeksUndergraduatestudents

3VT greater effectiveness and took longer to makedecision. No difference between VTs and TT onconfidence, number of alternatives generated.


38/158



TheoryTimeFrame

SubjectsTeamSize

Results

Suchan&Hayzak

2001Communication,attitudes,,technology use

Communication most important factor for success,seen as strategic activity to be considered daily.Mentoring program enabled socialization of member:Leaders used FtF meetings to help develop trustCulture and reward system supported informationsharing.

Tan et al. 2000

Cohesiveness,

collaboration,perceived decisionquality, perceiveddecisionsatisfaction

Dialogue Theory 4 weeksUndergraduateStudents

5

VTs receiving dialogue training had highercohesiveness, collaboration, perceived decisionquality, perceived decision satisfaction Differencesremained over time.

VanRysson&Godar

2000

Culture,technology,communicationeffectiveness

3 MonthsUndergraduateStudents

4

Cultural differences created problems for UG studentin areas of socialization, communication, coordinatio:Training needed both in how to communicate and ho1to use technology

Walther 1995Relationalcommunication

SIP 5 WeeksUndergraduatestudents

3

VTs became less task-oriented and less formal overtime. VTs perceived greater immediacy / affection /inclusion, communication of attitude likeness than di(0

Ioo

a

sEcw

'c o

.CO

cusCS

oo


Correlation

issignificantatthe

0.05

level(1-tailed).


68/158


69/158

68

Table 7 - Means, SD, Reliabilities) Intercorrelations for Model Variables

Mean StandardDeviation

VDI Trust OCB Clarity ProjectSuccess

(PS)

VDI -9.8543E-03.5147 (90)

Trust 2.0193 .7780 -.554(**) (.71)

OCB 3.6132 .5299 -,406(**) .451(**) (.82)

Clarity 3.6304 .7151 -,373(**) ,475(**) ,433(**) (.66)

Project

Success (PS)

3.4563 .8633-.239(**) ,317(**) ,418(**) ,398(**) (.84)

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Cronbachs alpha shown for all variables except VDI. VDIreliability was estimated as 1 - VEi/Vt; where VE is theerror variance for each of the eight components and V is thevariance for VDIReliabilities for all variables are shown in die diagonal

V.III.1 STRUCTURED EQUATION MODELING (SEM) RESULTS

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to test the overall model shown in Figure

1. The hypothesized model was tested with LISREL8. Figure 2 shows the results of the

SEM analysis for the hypothesized model with standardized path coefficients.



70/158

Figure 2 - SEM Model

.423

PSVirtual

Distance

Trust OCB-.640 .205 .479

-.338

The most common measure of absolute fit is the chi-square (x2)test, which is used to

determine whether there is a difference between observed and predicted covariance, with

a lower chi-square indicating a better fit. Another absolute fit test is the Root Mean

Squared Error of Association (RMSEA). This test is based on an analysis of the

covariance residuals, which are the differences between the predicted and observed

covariance. A value below 0.10 indicates a good fit (Steiger, 1990). An additional

absolute fit test is the Goodness o f Fit index (GFI) that measures how much better the

model fits relative to no model at all. Values are between 0 and 1, with scores greater

than 0.90 generally indicating a good fit (Kelloway, 1998, p. 27]. Because sample size

plays a major rol in absolute measures of fit *hree measures of comparath *fit were

used. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Normed Fit Index (NFI) and Non-normed Fit

*

Index (NNFI) measu.c how much better the model fits compared to a model in which all

observed variables are uncorrelated. A value of 0.90 or greater generally indicates a good

fit (Kelloway, 1998, p. 31).



71/158

70

All path coefficients were significant (p


72/158

71

V.JV SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESIS TESTS

The results of the hypotheses described in Chapter in are summarized in Table 9below.

Table 8 - Summary of Hypotheses

Hypothesis Supported (Yes/No)

H I: The factors of VDM will have thefollowing relationships to overall

perceived distance:

H la : CD will be significantly and

positively related to perceiveddistance

Supported

H lb: SD will be significantly and Partially supportedpositively related to perceived Supported on Contribution Statusdistance Not Supported on Formal Status

H lc: RelD will be significantly and

positively related to perceiveddistance

Supported

H id : ID will be significantly andpositively related to perceiveddistance

Supported

Hie: FtF interactions will be significantlyand negatively related to perceived

distance

Supported

H lf: TmS will be significantly andpositively related to perceiveddistance

Supported

H lg : MT will be significantly andpositively related to perceiveddistance

Supported

H lh : TS will be significantly andnegatively related to perceiveddistance

Not supported

H2: VDI will have a significant and

negative relationship to Clarity

Supported

H3: VDI will have a significant andnegative relationship to Trust

Supported

H4: Trust will have a significant andpositive relationship to OCB

Supported

H5: Clarity and OCB will have a direct,significant and positive relationship to

Supported

eproduce d with permission of the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction prohibited without permission.


73/158

72

Hypothesis Supported (Yes/No)

Success

V. V IN THEIR OWN WORDS

In addition to the survey items, participants were offered the chance to express any

comments they felt were important to the discussion. Table 10 is a partial list of these

comments. The first column, labeled Had Impact reflects a sampling of comments

from those that felt that working FtF versus virtually was generally better. This group

also widely believed that distanced team members created challenges for them. The

second column, labeled Had No Impact reflects a sample of comments from those that

felt working virtually was a positive or neutral experience. This group predominantly

thought that working virtually did not make a major difference for them. While not all

participants provided comments, the majority of comments reflected a preference for

working FtF.

Table 9 - Selected Quotes from Comments Section of Survey

It is easier to plan the work when in the same location. It had no effect, because the vendor is in Canada, in theVirtual sessions take more time and planning. same time zone and not on the other side of die world.

For the distant people, the key to relationship building iscommunication to build up trust between the parties. . . . .. ,Another key ingredient is listening we must be hble to E v f ^ w o r io n g ta the same location, not alllisten to other parties andunderstand their business sent representation to the weekly meetmgs.

issues, etc to work effectively together.

eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction proh ibited witho ut permission.


74/158

Because some team members were located in India, timewas wasted waiting for resolutions to issues. When

programs were tested by local team members and issueswere found, it required an extra day for each occurrenceto be resolved because of die time zone difference.

Distance is not a problem. I am on die best team, havethe kindest, most considerate co-workers imaginable -and a great leader who is always positive andsupportive. We are all very lucky.

It is more productive working in the same location

Virtual is better, faster and more productive - It savestransportation costs, saves transportation time, increasesthe available time for die employee to work, and isgenerally less stressful.

It became apparent during die project that the teammembers working in distant locations were notcompetent. This significant lack of programming skills,combined with long turnaround times for codecorrections, time-zone differences, and lack of regularefficient communication between on-shore and off-shoredevelopment resulted in extreme difficulties that

jeopardized the project As a result, the onshore teamhad to put in extended hours and essentially had torewrite most of die code that was done by the offshoreteam

When most of a team is in (me location and there is onemember who is in another state, that person may comeup with good ideas and input but does not do any of thelegwork. They are also not juggling the things that comeup in the main office and the interruptions.

People are closer (emotionally) with team members theysee and work with closely in the same location. Teammembers are warm toward others that we work withemotely but not to the same extent



75/158

74

As discussed in Chapters II and m , much of the research on VTs has characterized

distance as a function of two physical components; GD and TD. However, the research

results presented suggest that a unifying framework for the study of virtual work, that

considers both GD as well as Socio-Emotional Distance, in a multi-dimensional

construct, would be highly valuable in explaining the behavior of virtual workers. It was

argued that the Virtual Distance construct would provide meaningful insights into the

behavior of VTs and individuals working virtually. The VDM and its relationship to

Trust, Clarity, OCB and PS provided a framework for helping to understand virtual

behavior and how it influences PS. The findings suggest that Virtual Distance can be

identified and captured as a unique and blended mix of physical, social and psychological

factors that when taken together, significantly impact important performance outcomes.

VII BACKDROP

As globalization and technology continue to evolve, it is inevitable that virtual work will

increase. Organizational, cultural, as well as spatial and temporal differences in work

teams are likely to become the norm rather than the exception. Understanding how

Virtual Distance influences behavior is one of the keys to developing theories and

practices that can help select, organize and manage VTs effectively.

Virtual Distance is a multidimensional construct that incorporates a number of distinct

factors that create a socio-emotional state or distance between two individuals, between

an individual and a team or between two teams. The notion of distance described in this



76/158

75

work differs from other notions of distance (e.g., psychological, cultural, social) in that it

includes spatial distance and temporal factors that make it difficult for individuals to

develop social ties, as co-located workers have done for centuries.

As discussed earlier, distance has played a major role in many theories in both social

science and physical science. Many examples of distance-based or distance-influenced

theories and concepts exist. Location theory is a good example of how distance has been

used to predict the behavior of consumers and other economic players. Physical distance

between nodes on a network can influence transmission times along network paths in

information technology networks. Small-world phenomena grow out of network theory

and demonstrates how even vast numbers of nodes on multiple network paths can lead to

closer relations between individual nodes.

As work environments become more geographically dispersed, physical distance

becomes a more important feature. However, factors that can cause psychological or

emotional distance have to date been elusive and difficult to define or measure. In the

context of VTs, such factors have been relatively unexplored. The results of this study

show that non-physical, or virtual, distance factors may be just as important to the study

of VTs as the real distances between geographically dispersed work forces. The

construct of Virtual Distance provides a way to capture these socio-emotional factors

quantitatively and study their influence on behavioral and other work-related outcomes.



77/158

76

VLII VIRTUAL DISTANCE FACTORS CONSIDERED

VI.II.1 CULTURAL DISTANCE (CD)

CD is a predictor variable for Virtual Distance. In this study, two facets of CD were

measured: CV and CDiv. CV reflects cultural differences that may in part stem from

national characteristics but more importantly reflect organizational and work-related

differences in values.

Prior research has shown that cultural values are important to social identity, whereby

people who identify with one another tend to have the same or similar sets of values.

(Larkey, 1996). However in social identity theory, the notion of contact or physical

proximity is an inherent assumption that lies underneath the theory. Therefore, to

understand social identity theory in the context of virtual or non-proximal group

members, more analysis needs to be done. The contact hypothesis suggests that with

physical proximity, like integrated schools, cultural value differences may be minimized

or better understood and tolerated (Allport, 19S4). So if there is little to no physical

proximity in VTs, then cultural value differences may become even more accentuated.



78/158

Figure3-Identity

Orien

tation

Processesin

1u

* &3

roduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.


79/158

78

Brickson proposed that demographically diverse organizations, where team members are

physically distant and contain culturally diverse individuals, will produce varying identity

orientations depending on organizational, task, and reward structures (Brickson, 2000).

As can be seen in Figure 3, Bricksons model, the best global organizational outcomes

were argued to be those derived from corporate structures that include dense and

integrated relationship networks combined with dyad-based task and reward structures.

Identity orientation in high performing, culturally diverse work environments, were

posited to stem from relational identity orientation. Value orientation is aligned among

majority and minority team members within the context of social groups. In addition

Brickson posited that behaviors in high-performing global organizations include high

frequency and quality interactions with co-workers. Therefore the finding in this thesis,

that Virtual Distance is more prevalent when team members are culturally and

demographically distant, as well as distant on value dimensions, is consistent with these

assertions.

Volumes have been written on cultural differences (e.g. Chen, Chen, Meindl, 1998;

Corbitt, Peszynski, Hill, 2004; Davison, 1994; Shenkar, 2001). Much of this work is

centered on demographic differentiators. This has helped many organizations with

issues such as leader development, multi-culturalism and expatriate strategies, just to

name a few. However, the concept of culture creating socio-emotional distance across

organizational networks, found in many 21st century global companies, has not been as

widely investigated. Virtual Distance may help to provide a theoretical platform on

which to study the concept of distance-based, cultural phenomenon.



80/158

79

VI.II.2 SOCIAL DISTANCE (SD)

As discussed in Chapter V, SD was measured on two dimensions; formal social status

(SS) and contribution status (CS). SS related to differences in hierarchical, legitimate

positions, while CS related to differences in informal levels of status built on ones

contributions to the team. It was hypothesized that SD as a combination of these factors

would be a predictor variable of Virtual Distance. However, upon preliminary analysis,

CS was seen as a significant predictor of Virtual Distance and SS was not found to be

significant.

This finding suggests that social status in VTs is a function of informal rather than

formal, organizational hierarchies - the kind most often seen on a typical organizational

chart. This finding is consistent with Hodgsons research on project work and

bureaucratic control in a post-bureaucratic organization (Hodgson, 2004) summarized in

Table 11 below.

Table 10 - Characteristics of Bureaucratic and Post-Bureaucratic Organizations

Bureaucracy Post-Bureaucracy

Consensus through Acquiescence toAuthority

Consensus through InstitutionalizedDialogue

Influence based on Formal Position Influence through Persuasion/PersonalQualities

Internal Trust Immaterial High Need for Internal Trust

Emphasis on Rules and Regulations Emphasis on Organizational Mission

Information monopolized at Top ofHierarchy

Strategic Information shared in Organization

Focus on Rules for Conduct Focus on Principles Guiding Action

Fixed (and Clear) Decision Making

ProcessesFluid/Flexible Decision Making Processes



81/158

80

Communal Spirit/Friendship Groupings Network of Specialized FunctionalRelationships

Hierarchical Appraisal Open and Visible Peer Review Process

Definite and Impermeable Boundaries Open and Permeable Boundaries

Objective Rules to ensure Equity ofTreatment

Broad Public Standards of Performance

Expectation of Constancy Expectation o f Change

Source: Heckscher (1994)

As shown in Table 11 above, according to Heckscher, in a post-bureaucracy organization,

like that o f Miles and Snows networked organization (Miles and Snow, 1992), influence

is based less on formal position and more on persuasion and personal qualities. There is

a need for high internal trust developed through a network of specialized functional

relationships (Heckscher, 1994). Boundaries are more open and permeable, offering

team members the ability to establish status through less formal and contribution related

performance.

The finding that Virtual Distance can be predicted more on the basis of CS versus SS

makes intuitive sense. Given the changing nature of organizational structures toward a

post-bureaucratic structure, we should expect to see a stronger influence o f informal

hierarchies and status on Virtual Distance and performance outcomes. Partnerships and

other types of organizational relations are becoming ever more prevalent. These kinds of

relationships are not readily visible in a bureaucratic organization chart. A recent article

in BusinessWeek underscored this point. Despite the predominance of traditional, formal

structures, many of todays organizations actually behave as networks, designed for the

digital age (Business Week, 2005). These networks are composed of individuals trying



82/158

81

to find their way through a maze o f institutional layers that often detract from achieving

goals and objectives.

Creating the conditions under which team members develop social status through

informal ties based on the extent to which they contribute to the team, may become

increasingly important in networked, technologically-mediated work environments. If

team members believe that their contributions to the team earn them a higher status, then

Virtual Distance becomes less of an issue. The finding that Virtual Distance is more

likely to be found where informal status is less of a factor, suggests that future research

should incorporate measures of CS along with assessments of SS.

VI.II.3 RELATIONSHIP DISTANCE (RD)

RD was found to significantly and negatively relate to Virtual Distance. Those that either

knew each other prior to the start of the project or knew some of the same people as

others on the team, were less likely to perceive themselves to be distant from one another.

As Watts, the author o f Six Degrees (Watts, 2003), reminds us, the fictional Solarians of

Asimovs classic Foundation Trilogy (Asimov 1950-1992), lived in isolation from one

another but were connected by vast computer networks that enabled them to reach out to

very distant, and similarly isolated people. In contrast, Asimovs future Earth people,

described in his novel The Caves of Steel (Asimov, 1954), were cave dwellers who

lived in groups and knew each other very well but were relatively unaware of what lay

beyond their metal dwellings; virtually cut off from the rest o f the world. (Watts, 2003).



83/158

82

While this scenario makes for intriguing science fiction novels, such extremes are rarely

the case in the real world.

Sometimes, however, researchers fall prey to these kinds of black and white distinctions

in study designs. RH is often silently assumed according to whether the team member is

geographically close or distant; i.e., the Steel Cave or Solarian design. As shown in

Table 1 in Chapter n,previous samples were in large part comprised of student groups

teams. RH was assumed to be strong when the teams were collocated. RH was

predominantly assumed to be weak when teams were dispersed (e.g. Chidambaram,

1996, Galegher & Kraut, 1994).

However, in todays organizational networks, team members are more likely to work

with each other repeatedly (if the relationship between respective organizations remains

in place), even when team members are geographically dispersed. This trend has

spawned a growing body of research in the area o f social networking (Watts, 2003;

Barbasi, 2003; Labianca, 2003; Ioannides, 2006 ). Another indicator that RH is a source

of value to organizations using extensive virtual workforces, is the Rowing amount of

venture capital finding its way to start-up companies that focus on social networking

software (Rivlin, 2005). However, as a group, VT studies have tended to bucket RH

into a dichotomous state based on geography.

In his study on relationships and inteigroup conflict, Labianca (Labianca, Brass, et.al.,

1998) found that when team members knew some of the same people in the social

network, the influence o f relationships was stronger on perceived conflict. Evidence that



84/158

83

third-party relationships can have a significant impact on team dynamics supports the

virtual distance - phd disertation

Documents