Defining the “Virtualness”
of Groups, Teams, and Meetings
Fred Niedetman
Catherine M. Beise
University of Baltimore
1420 North Charles
Baltimore, MD 21201
41 O-926-971 7
Kennesaw State University
1000 Chastain Rd.
Kennesaw, GA 30144
770-423-6572
CbeiseQ ksumail.kennesaw.edu
FniedermanQubmail.ubalt.edu
ABSTRACT
These new technology generated patterns of communication
provide stimulation for organizations to experiment with new
work arrangements[4]. Work teamscan have memberslocated in
differing geographic areas varying from different floors in a
building to “round the clock” operations on multiple continents.
Individuals can perform an increasing number of tasksfrom home
or remotelocations [15]. Organizations can supply a skeletal or
modular work environment into which frequently travelling
workers can connect periodically as needed. These new work
arrangementscan, in turn, create new organizational forms such
as increasingly networked organizations, shifting strategic
alliances, and outsourcing of non-core operations [6]; [12]; and
P71.
This paper presents a broad review of literature pertaining to
virtual teams, groups, and meetings and summarizes prior
researchin this area. Additionally, it discussesthe definitions
used by other researchersin application to virtual teams,groups,
and meetings and shows how the three dimensions of time,
distance,and culture do not addressthe key distinguishing factors
defining virtual activities. The paper proposes measuring the
amountof electronically mediatedcommunication and the amount
of face-to-face communication as a means of categorizing
“virtual” groups. Given higMow measures on these two
dimensions,the resulting type of group is described. Finally, the
paperproposeshow measurementof thesedimensionscould lead
to helpful researchboth enriching group theory and practitioners
making decisions regarding how best to design “virtual” group,
teams,and meetingsfor their organizations.
Many organizations are still in the process of training their
employees about effective teamwork in a more traditional,
quality-oriented context. Now they must concurrently learn about
effective teamwork distributed over time and distance as well as
how to make optimal use of the available and continually
advancing communication technologies. For example, learning
the social along with the technical use of these new devices, is
important for collaboration [ 111. In order for technology
designersto better support distributed group work, it would be
helpful to have a better understanding of the characteristicsand
needsof “virtual” groups,teams,and meetings.
Keywords
Group support systems, Virtual groups/teams/meetings,
Computer-SupportedCollaborative Work
1. INTRODUCTION
Electronically supported communication media ranging from
telephone connections to Internet Web sites to low-earth orbital
satellite cellular technologies have becomeiqcreasingly available
to organizationsand individuals throughout the world. In addition
to the straightforward opportunity to link individuals in electronic
mediated communication, these technologies provide
opportunities for organizations to develop new patternsof workrelated interaction. These new patterns range from the now
standard act of calling ahead to check on an appointment to
complex organization of interrelated work-flows, such as
coordination of purchase order approvals supportedby a Lotus
Notesdistributed database.
This paper presents the background regarding concern for the
ideas of virtual teams, groups, and meetings and develops a
definition of a “virtual work group”. In addition, it proposestwo
dimensions for the categorization of virtual groups and describes
groupstypical of eachcategory.
2. BACKGROUND
Although much has been proposed regarding new “virtual”
communication methods and organizational forms, the
terminology surrounding these remains ill-defined. A growing
literature is developing around the organizational and technical
challenges and opportunities for these communication media
under the headings: virtual group, virtual team, and virtual
meeting. This literature derives from researchstreamsin (among
others) computer-mediatedcommunication 191, Group Support
Systems[l], [2], [3], [7], and telework [lo].
Some researchersand practitioners, notably [19], maintain that
communication and information technology breakthroughs are
enabling positive organizational attributes such as efficient
coordination of production and delivery of goods as well as
14
providing service to clients. These breakthroughs also enable
organizational flexibility and innovation, increased ability to
absorbchange,and programsto empoweran effective workforce.
Adding technology to extend the ability of the organization to
communicate and coordinate should in turn have a positive
influence on theseother outcomes.
this definition, the term means‘being such practically or in effect,
although not in actual fact or name.” The example given is a
“virtual impossibility”, meaning that for practical purposes the
referent is impossible but not necessarily totally impossible. It
resemblesmoving toward a limit in calculus. One movestoward
the goal and expects to never quite reach it, but acts, in some
limited ways, as though one were there. This definition is not the
most promising for consideration of the ideas of “virtual groups”,
“virtual teams”, and “virtual meetings”. This definition suggests
that theseapproachbeing groups, teams,or meetings,but are not
actually such. It is as if to be a “real” or “non-virtual” group,
team, or meeting, there must be a face-to-face orientation.
Otherwise,theseactivities arejust an approximation.
Efforts to study and understand the range of results that
organizations can experience when adopting new technologies
have often focused on specific technologies. In a summaryof an
extensive body of research literature [5], the use of audio
conferencing and face-to-face conferencing (meetings) were
compared. The findings, in brief, held that for many tasksaudio
conferencing substituted for and even outperformed face-to-face
meetings.
In general, face-to-face outperformed audio
conferencing for tasks that “stress interpersonal communication”
and “are complex in nature”. Perhaps unexpectedly, the tasks
where audio conferencing proved stronger were “information
exchange,discussionof ideas,problem solving, somenegotiations
and interviewing.”
The second definition pertains to the extension of computer
memory by developing “virtual storage” such that the computer
actsas if it had more available memory. This definition might be
applicable to groups, teams,and meetingsthat are rather fuzzy in
terms of strict definition of membership. For example, a work
team might call on non-membersto provide input, comment,and
advice in such a way that they operateas if they were part of the
team. In consideration of the way virtual group, team, and
meeting tend to be used, this particular definition probably
represents a subset of the kinds of activities that would be
included as groups, teams, and meetings. It would remain for
careful measurementto show if this is a significant or minor
subset.
Much researchhas examined the impact of providing electronic
support to face-to-face meeting groups. Findings of a metaanalysis of twelve studies [ 141showedthat group supportsystems
(GSS) increaseddecision quality, time neededto reach decisions,
equality of participation, and degreeof task focus. It tended to
decrease consensus and satisfaction. Each of the studies
examinedwas a one period study and effects of repeateduse were
not considered.
Speierand Palmer [ 181recently proposedthe three dimensionsof
time, space,and culture to differentiate different kinds of virtual
groups. The idea is that each of these variables potentially
influence “communication, development of trust, types of
information technology neededin supporting work activities, etc.
(p. 572).” While these three dimensions may indeed influence
variables of interest in organizational communication, they do not
really provide a meansof differentiating highly virtual from less
virtual groups, teams, or meetings. Those teams where the
members are located further apart, where interactions are
separatedby delay, and where organizations vary in their way of
being or doing things should be more virtual. Time/space
dimensions may work well for matching specific technologies to
particular types of group interaction (e.g. fitting meetingware to
same time/same place or a web discussion board to different
time/different place). However, these dimensions are not as
helpful in categorizing different kinds of groups, teams, or
meetings.
Field studiesof the use of GSS in a variety of locations, including
the IRS [2], IBM [7], Texaco [3], and Burr-Brown [l], show a
wide rangeof results. Theseresults range from demonstratingthe
perceivedeffectivenessof the GSS meeting room environment to
showing contingenciesparticularly regarding the faithfulness with
which the technology is embracedaffecting the outcomesof using
thesetechnologies.
The field study environment contrasts with the controlled
conditions of the experiment, particularly in not making a fine
distinction among several meeting attributes, (e.g., setting,
agenda,facilitation, technology) that are typically bundled when
using a GSS. Using field study methods,it is difficult to control
for group facilitation and group managementtechniques along
with technology available and used. Therefore, it is difficult to
assessthe separatecontribution of the technology unbundled from
facilitation (expert managementof group processand technology)
and from group processtechniques. In order to addressthis issue,
another research stream examines the organizational context in
depth in a rich casestudy format to assessthe interaction between
groups and technology adoption and use [13]; [16]; [21].
For example, a traditional face-to-facegroup may processtasks
for days, months, even years (such as a community school board
or county planning commission), yet have very low use of
information technology. Another group may meet intensively for
a week but all communication may be mediated electronically.
The latter would likely be categorized as the more “virtual” or
more computer-mediatedgroup. Therefore, there is no logical
correlation between the length of time a group exists or the
amount of communication cycle time (time from statement to
response)and its “virtualness”.
Finally, the term “virtual meetings” characterizessomestudiesof
distributed groups using asynchronous communication, such as
computerconferencing [8].
A DEFINITION
OF “VIRTUAL”
3.
APPLIED TO GROUPS, TEAMS, AND
MEETINGS
By the same token, a University Board of Regents may be
dispersedacrossa large state (like California or Texas), yet have
very low use of information technology to support periodic faceto-face meetings. Another group may meetacrossan academicor
According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, there are two
definitions for the term “virtual”. The first is more general. By
15
industrial campus but with all communication electronically
mediated. Again, the latter would be more likely to be
categorizedas “virtual”. There is no logical correlation between
separation in physical distance and amount of “virtualness”,
although it remains an empirical question whether there is a
correlation between the amount of physical distance and the
tendencyto use electronic mediation.
communications. Since groups,teams,and meetingsexisted prior
to telecommunications, the traditional definitions do not take
information technology into account. The virtual “group”,
“team”, and “meeting” are distinguished from the non-virtual by
electronic interactions through telecommunicationsthat are either
addedto or replaceinteractions without electronic intervention.
However, if we consider information technologies to range from
those which have been widely used for several decades (e.g.
telephone) to those more recently emerging (e.g. Internet websites),few individuals, organizations,groups,teams,and meetings
are completely divorced from information technology. Even if
only used for scheduling or between meeting follow up, most
groups,teams,and meetings,someinformation or communication
technology is often used. Perhapsthe “virtualness” of a group is
the extent to which technology is usedfor group interaction.
If it assumedthat more electronic mediatedcommunication takes
place at larger distances, then empirical study would have to
account for discontinuities based on different prices for
communication. Historically, telephonerateshave been higher at
greater distances which would, presumably, affect decisions
regarding the amount of communication desired versus the
amountone is willing to spend. It may be likely that given a large
number of groups those most distant are more likely to use
electronically mediated communication, but clearly there will be
counter examples.
4. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
Given the above, the amount of virtualness should be related to
the amountof information technology use. However, this is likely
to be moderatedby the amount of continued traditional or face-toface activity of the group. A group that communicatessolely
through electronic media is clearly different from one with an
equal amount of communication through electronic media but
with additional communication in face-to-face mode. This
suggestsmeasurementon two dimensions: amount of face-to-face
group interaction (from 0 to very high) and amount of
electronically mediatedcommunication (from 0 to very high) over
a period of time. This view has the added benefit that each
dimension is observableand measurable,although, perhaps, with
somesubtletiesand difficulties in practice.
Finally, organizational culture as a definition of “virtualness” is
also problematic. Professional associationsmay be stronger than
employer-employee association. A set of CPAs in fifty
organizations may have more cultural commonality than do fifty
college professors across disciplines such as art history, subatomic physics, and physical education, working for the same
University. Union members at 10 plants may have more
commonality than a rangeof managerial,professional,blue collar,
and clerical employeesat the sameplant. The larger number of
organizational boundaries crossedalso does not insure a greater
amount of “virtualness”. One might, in fact, turn this concept
around and suggest that higher levels of use of information
technology to support group activity may create new common
worldviews and, thus, a new culture amonggroup members. The
conceptof “virtual community,” which describesthe development
of societies and cultures revolving around Internet groups (e.g.
[20]), is another area of interest to a growing number of
researchers,although it is beyond the scopeof this paper.
Splitting these measuresinto a high and low levels leads to four
categoriesas shown below in the 2 by 2.
Face-to-face
A more realistic definition is that “virtual” groups, teams, or
meetings are each a subclass of the more general class. For
example a virtual group inherits the essentialcharacteristicsof all
groups but has an additional set of attributes. The “virtual group”
still consists of a set of membersthat may evolve over time,
where membershiprules may be crisp or fuzzy, and where there is
somedegreeof interaction or commonality among the members.
The “virtual team” still consists of a set of individuals who
through common purpose are distinguished from being merely a
group. The “virtual meeting” is still a meeting in termsof having
a purpose, a limited scope of interactions, some explicit or
implicit agenda, one or more task foci, and some level of
accomplishment(or regressionin the worst case). Perhapswhat
distinguishes a virtual group from a group is the addition of
technology.
Low
High
Low
Inactive
Traditional
High
Highly-Virtual
Fully-Supported
Electronic
Mediated
Table 1. Categories of Virtual Group, ‘. am, and Meeting
In this conceptualization, there are four categories:the low-low
combination yields a group that meetsinfrequently electronically
or face-to-face. Groups in this quadrant can be labeled as
inactive.
It may either be a productive or non-productive group.
If it is productive, it is likely a group that delegates work to
individuals and meetsonly rarely to review/coordinate outcomes
or it is a group that settlespolicy (e.g. a school board or corporate
board of directors). If it is an unproductive group, it may have a
function that is (or is viewed as) relatively unimportant.
Alternatively, it may display other group dysfunction such as lack
As with many domains of human activity, the introduction of new
technology creates new opportunities -- and invites
reconsiderationof the nature of the activity prior to technology
use. The introduction of computer-orientedtelecommunications
introduced new media through which individuals could
communicate. It becamequickly apparentthat this enabled not
only new forms of individual to individual communications,but
also new forms of individual to group and group to individual
16
of leadership, inability to provide meeting discipline, or inability
to scheduleat a mutually convenient time.
the work fairly structured. If the work is less structured or very
data intensive, a fully-supported structure may be needed. By the
sametoken, a fully-supported group may find that it is using too
many resourcesto achieve its goals and shift toward a highly
virtual structure. (It is less likely to shift toward the traditional
since much of the cost of electronic mediation tools is generally in
set up.) Therefore, if the electronic tools are already set up, the
additional cost of continuing to use them is likely to be negligible.
One exception might be where the membersare facing the need
for a periodic, expensiveequipmentupgrade.
The low FTF and high electronic would be what might normally
be thought of as a highly-virtual group. Regardlessof where the
group members are physically located, they choose to
communicate electronically. If they are widely dispersed, this
may be the only mechanismby which they can operateas a team,
This presents the opportunity to investigate many traditional
communications and small group research questions as they
pertain to new circumstances. These include whether the virtual
group is really a group and what it takes under a wide range of
circumstances to create the benefits of group cohesion, etc.
without face-to-face meeting. If they are not widely dispersed,
e.g. membersof various academicdepartmentson a campus,the
electronic mediation may represent a timelcost savings or
generateother meeting processgains (e.g. allowing everyone to
participate equally). An example of a low FI’F and high
electronic setting may be where a group is formed in an FIF
environment, but then createswork over time individually with
electronic coordination and exchangeof documents. The greatest
benefit of this arrangementwould seemto be combining the best
of delegation of taskswith relatively quick feedback. The danger
would be misunderstandingor drifting from the task during the
electronically supportedphase.
The unit of analysis is the particular group, team, or meeting.
Any given individual is likely to be a memberof many groups and
teams. Each individual is also likely to participate in many
activities that fit into the category of “meeting” at varying
distances from the central tendencies of the category. If the
individual is a member of multiple groups with varying
experiences using electronically mediated communication,
attitudes toward the role and utility of the technology should
differ dependingon which situation the individual is askedabout.
The perceptions of an individual regarding electronic
communication can be measuredempirically by considering each
interaction betweenthe individual and the particular group, team,
or meeting. Overall individual judgementscan be comparedto a
set of individual judgementsregarding specific groups, teams,and
meetings.
The low electronic and high FTF group would be the traditional
group bound to geographic proximity (which may or may not
include significant travel for members). The bulk of past group
oriented researchtargets this quadrant and provides rich material
for speculationabout other formats.
6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
How can the goodnessof this virtualness framework be measured,
and why is it useful? First of all, for any given team the amount
of face-to-face and the amount of electronically mediated
communication are measurable. One could chooseto count each
interaction, each word, or each byte of message(some might
arguefor counting asmany different ways as possible), but clearly
whichever way is used, there is a basis for comparison.
Measuring both face-to-face and electronically mediated
communication provides an objective method of categorizing
groups or teams. Given this objective categorization, data can be
collected to examine:
*
1) To what extent do meeting oriented behaviors vary
with the categories(e.g. are there differences in participation, in
power or influence, in number of ideas generated,in amount of
conflict and conflict resolution)?
*
2) What influences groups or teams to select (or drift
into) particular categories? This choice might be affected by
technologies available, individuals’ comfort with technologies,
support for technology reliability (e.g. help desks), individual
preferences/characteristics,past experiences of team members,
and the natureof the task.
*
3) To what extent does a particular category influence
group outcomesin terms of economic impacts, work efficiency,
group member satisfaction, levels of trust, group consensus,
ability and motivation to implement decisions, and quality of
decisions,plans, and actions?
*
4) What are the technical and organizational best
practices or critical successfactors for each category that help
particular groups to use it effectively? What (if any) success
factorscut acrossall categories?
The high electronic and high FIF group can be called fillyTo the extent that the FTF environment provides
distinct organizational values and an electronic environment adds
to this, this may be the richest arrangement. A Workgroupwith
complex tasks that require high volumes of individual
contribution and much coordination (for example developmentof
complex information systems) may be best served by frequent
FTF meetings (for walkthroughs and standardsetting) and much
electronic communication for additional communication.
supported.
5. UTILITY OF THIS FRAMEWORK
This framework can be used to match tasks to specific group
formulations. For example, a group that has frequent, routine
tasksthat are fairly unambiguousmay be well servedby a highly
virtual structure. Similarly, a group that faces tasks involving
sequential decision making (member C requires a draft of work
from memberB who cannot start until receiving a first draft from
memberA) may also be best servedby a highly virtual structure.
In contrast, if the first group’s routine tasksstart to involve more
ambiguous decision making or start creating unexpectedresults,
the group may need to move toward either a traditional or fullysupportedstructure. Similarly, if the latter group’s work startsto
require complex version control or sensitive decision making
regarding which version takes precedence,it might be better
served by shifting toward a traditional or fully-supported
structure.
A traditional group might find itself shifting toward a highly
virtual structure if the expenseof physically meeting is high and
17
7. CONCLUSION
This paper presents a concrete conceptualization of a fuzzy
concept: “the virtual team, group, and meeting”. It does so by
proposing measurable dimensions for assessing the amount of
computer mediated communication and the amount of face to face
or traditional communication by a group. It is proposed that
combining high/low states of these two dimensions creates a
useful set of group types that can be used .as a component in
further investigations into the technologies best designed to
support each type, the tasks which groups of various types can
most effectively perform, procedural supports that are needed to
supplement technologies for support of each type, and the
evolution of groups from one to another type of “virtualness”.
8. REFERENCES
HI
Dennis, A.R., Heminger, A.R., Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., and
Vogel, D.R. Bringing Automated Support to Large
Groups: The Burr-Brown Experience. Information and
Management 18,3, (1990), 111-121.
PI
u11
Knoll, K. and S. Jarvenpaa Learning to work in
distributed global teams.
Hawaii International
Conference on Systems Sciences, Hawaii, IEEE (1995).
DeSanctis, G., Poole, M.S., Deshamais, G., and Lewis,
H.
Using Computing to Facilitate the Quality
Improvement Process: The IRS-Minnesota Project.
Interfaces,21,6, (1991), 23-36.
WI
Lea, M., T. O’Shea, et al. Constructing the networked
organization: Content and context in the development of
electronic communications. Organization Science 6, 4,
(1995), 462-478.
[31
DeSanctis, G., Poole, M.S., Dickson, G.W. and Jackson,
B.M. Interpretive Analysis of Team Use of Group
Technologies. Journal of Organizational Computing 3
1, (1993). I-30.
1131
Markus, M. L. Finding a happy medium: Explaining
the negative effects of electronic communication on
social life at work. ACM Transactions of Information
Systems 12,2, (1994). 119-149.
[41
DiMartino, V. and L. Wirth. Telework: A new way of
working and living. International Labour Review 129,
5 (1990) 529-554.
[I41
McLeod, P.L. An Assessment of the Experimental
Literature on Electronic Support of Group Work:
Results of a Meta-Analysis.
Human-Computer
Interaction, 7, (1992) 257-280.
PI
Fowler, G.D. and Wackerbarth, M.E.
Audio
Teleconferencing versus Face-to-face Conferencing: A
Synthesis of the Literature. The Western Journal of
Speech Communication, 44 (Summer 1980), 236-252.
v51
Nilles, J. Making Telecommuting Happen. (1995) Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
P61
Fl
Fulk, J. and G. DeSanctis. Electronic communication
and changing organizational forms.
Organization
Science 6,4, (1995), 337-349.
Orlikowski, W. J., J. Yates, et al. Shaping electronic
communication: The metastructuring of technology in
the context of use. Organization Science 6, 4, (1995)
423-444.
I71
Grohowski, R., McGoff, C., Vogel, D., Martz, B., and
Nunamaker, J.
Implementing Electronic Meeting
Systems at IBM: Lessons Learned and Success Factors.
MIS Quarterly, 14,4 (December 1990), 369-383.
[I71
Pickering, J. M. and J. L. King. Hardwiring weak ties:
Interorganizational computer-mediated communication,
occupational communities, and organizational change.
Organization Science 6,4, (1995) 497-486.
PI
Hiltz, S. R. and M. Turoff. Virtual meetings: Computer
conferencing and distributed group support. Computer
Augmented Teamwork: A Guided Tour. (Eds.) R. P.
Bostrom, R. T. Watson and S. T. Kinney. (1992) New
York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
USI
Speier, C. and Palmer, J. A Definition of Virtualness.
Proceedings of the Fourth Americas Conference on
Information Systems (Eds. E.D. Hoadley and I.
Benbasat), Baltimore, Maryland, (August 14-16, 1998)
571-773.
[91
Hiltz, S. R. and M. Turoff. Structuring CMC systems to
avoid information overload. Communications of the
ACM 28,7, (1985). 680-689.
u91
Stewart, T.A. Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of
Organizations. (1997), Doubleday, New York.
[201
[lOI
Judkins, P. E.
Towards new patterns of work.
Telework: Present situation and future development of a
new form of work organization. (1988), Amsterdam,
Elsevier, 33-37.
Stone, A.R. The War of Desire and Technology at the
Close of the Mechanical Age. (1995),The MIT Press,
Cambridge Massachusetts.
WI
Zack, M. H. and J. L. McKenney . Social context and
interaction in ongoing computer-supported management
groups. Organization Science 6,4, (1995). 394-422.