Measurement of Information Exchange in Virtual Teams Test of a Scale in English and German

Transcription

1 White Paper Measurement of Information Exchange in Virtual Teams Test of a Scale in English and German Authors: Dipl.-Psych. Anna Tschaut Dr. Oliver Rack Contact: Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz Hochschule für Angewandte Psychologie Institut für Kooperationsforschung und -entwicklung Riggenbachstr Olten anna.tschaut@fhnw.ch Tel: Date: July 2012

2 Content List of Tables Abstract Introduction and Project Overview ) Field Study 4 Procedure and Sample 4 Information Exchange: Description of Original Scale and Adaptations 4 Exploratory Factor Analysis 8 Information Exchange Scale (English Version): Description and Psychometric Properties 9 Subscales Inter-Correlations and Correlation with other Survey Scales 10 2) Laboratory Study 14 Procedure and Sample Information Exchange Scale (German Version): Description and Psychometric Properties Subscales Inter-Correlations and Correlation with other Experimental Scales Summary References List of Tables Tabelle 1: Original KomminO Subscale Structure Tabelle 2: Adapted Scales on Information Exchange - German and English Translation Tabelle 3: Loading of Information Exchange Items on Six Factors after Factor Rotation Tabelle 4: Field Study Scale and Item Psychometric Properties Tabelle 5: Field Study - Correlation of Information Exchange Scale and Subscales with other Survey Scales Tabelle 6: Field Study - Variable Source and Description Tabelle 7: Laboratory Study - Scale and Item Psychometric Properties Tabelle 8: Laboratory Study - Correlation of Information Exchange Scale and Subscales with other Experimental Scales Tabelle 9: Laboratory Study - Variable Source and Description

3 Abstract In a research project on the effectiveness management in virtual teams, the effect of different input factors (e.g., incentive systems) on processes and outcomes of virtual teamwork was investigated. With focus on information exchange, two studies were conducted: 1) a field study with virtual teams in two global companies (N=122) and 2) a laboratory study with university students (N=314). In this paper, the application and test of a scale on information exchange in virtual teams in English and German are presented. Furthermore, explorative analyses on inter-correlations with different team variables (e.g., commitment, performance) will be reported. 2

4 Introduction and Project Overview In a research project on the effectiveness management in virtual teams at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland 1, success factors for effective virtual team work were examined. In general, the project consisted of three studies, with two of them applying quantitative measures of information sharing in virtual teams. For study 1), we used a scale based on communication aspects in the workplace by Sperka (1997). This scale comprises several dimensions of communication and information exchange and has been tested in face-to-face collaboration before (Sperka, 1996). Therefore, it seemed to constitute an appropriate starting point for our study in which we assessed communication in teams in terms of information exchange and tested the scale in virtual collaboration. To our knowledge, the scale has not yet been applied to virtual teams so far. Hence, in this paper we report the results of the application of the scale in virtual teams. For this first application, we used slightly adapted items of the original scale which were translated into English. In a following second study (see 2) Laboratory Study, p. 14) we used German items that were slightly adapted from the original items. To get an idea of the relationship between information exchange and other constructs that are relevant for virtual team collaboration, further variables were measured in the two project studies. Among others, variables assessed were affective commitment (Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Stinglhamber, 2004), team boundaries (Faraj & Yan, 2009), team mental model (TMM, Ellwart & Konradt, 2007), self-leadership (cf. Houghton & Neck, 2002), conflicts (cf. Jehn, 1995), and performance (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007) in the first study as well as motivational processes (Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000), team boundaries (Faraj & Yan, 2009), trust (Wittchen, 2009), explicit coordination (Lewis, 2003), and performance (Griffin, et al., 2007) in virtual teams in the second study. 1 SNF DORE 13DPD ,

5 1) Field Study Procedure and Sample In the first study, an online-survey was conducted with members of virtual teams of two global companies (pharmaceutical sector and IT-industry). The team members were either directly contacted by the research team or they were recruited by the project partners in the companies. In the first case, they had been identified as team members by the team leaders and answered the survey in reference to the focal team specified by the team leader. In the second case, they independently chose a reference team before they answered the survey. In total, 122 team members participated in the survey, of which 90 answered to all the questions. Based on the total sample of the participants recruited by the research team (n=109 members of six virtual teams), the response rate was 77.8% (n=84) and the dropout rate during survey processing was 34.5% (fully answered questionnaires: n=55). Response rate within the six virtual teams ranged between 29 and 80 per cent, which is a sufficient to very good rate. After data screening, 4 cases were excluded due to insufficient data. Eventually, 118 cases were included in the analysis. Of the participants, 66% were male and 32% female (two cases missing). On average, they were 41 years old. Most of the participants, i.e. 63%, were located in Switzerland, followed by the United States with 14%. In this study, we defined virtual teams as teams whose members collaborate 50 or more per cent virtually (i.e. via different media). The mean degree of virtuality in the daily cooperation of the teams, assessed on a scale from 0 to 100 (0 = pure face-to-face, 100 = pure virtual collaboration), was 64. The mean degree of virtuality in the single teams varied between 41 and 89. Hence, except for one team the teams fulfilled our definitional criterion for virtual teams. Information Exchange: Description of Original Scale and Adaptations The original KomminO ( Kommunikationsprozesse in Organisationen ) scale by Sperka (1996) comprises 14 subscales, divided into two groups (see Tabelle 1). Tabelle 1: Original KomminO Subscale Structure Assessment of Communication Situation Communication Behaviour (1) Frequency of Communication (2) Information Access (3) Information Overload (4) Lack of Information (10) Withholding of Information (11) Information Summarization (12) Information Distortion (13) Information Positivisation 4

6 (5) Information Accuracy (6) Feedback on the Respondent s Work Performance (7) Relevance of Communication for the Work Conducted (8) Satisfaction with Communication Relationship (9) Trust in the Communication Partner (14) Information Negativity Of the 14 original subscales, we used seven (2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, and 14, see also Tabelle 2) in our survey to measure information exchange processes in organizational virtual teams. The items were adapted to fit our measurement focus by inserting the term Mitglieder meines virtuellen Teams and members of my virtual team in the English version respectively. Also, some items were slightly changed in their wording. For example, the first item of the Information Access subscale was adapted in the following way (German version): Original Wenn ich von wichtige Informationen für meine Arbeit benötige, erhalte ich diese eigentlich immer. Adaptation Wenn ich von den Mitgliedern meines virtuellen Teams Informationen für meine Arbeit benötige, erhalte ich diese immer. In the first place, the original items were adapted in the described way. In the second place, the adapted items were translated into English. Tabelle 2 lists the adapted subscales and their English translations. Tabelle 2: Adapted Scales on Information Exchange - German and English Translation German Subscales and Items English Subscales and Items Zugang zu Informationen Item Information Access 1. Wenn ich von den Mitgliedern meines virtuellen Teams Informationen für meine Arbeit benötige, erhalte ich diese immer. I-Zug1 I-Zug1E 1. When I need information from the members of my virtual team for my work, I am always able to obtain it. 5

7 2. Wichtige Informationen kann ich mir bei Bedarf jederzeit von den Mitgliedern meines virtuellen Teams einholen. 3. Die Mitglieder meines virtuellen Teams geben auf Anfrage nur zögernd Informationen an mich weiter. (R) I-Zug2 2. If needed, I can always get important information from the members of my I-Zug2E virtual team. I-Zug3 3. The members of my virtual team are reluctant to pass on information to me if I I-Zug3E ask for it. (R) Informationsüberlastung Item Information Overload 1. Es würde mir mehr nützen, wenn ich von den Mitgliedern meines virtuellen Teams weniger und nur die wichtigsten Informationen erhalten würde. 2. Ich erhalte von den Mitgliedern meines virtuellen Teams häufig zu viele Informationen. 3. Ich habe das Gefühl, von den Mitgliedern meines virtuellen Teams mehr Informationen zu erhalten, als ich für meine Arbeit wirklich nutzen kann. I-Flut1 1. It would be more useful to me if I received less and only the most important I-Flut1E information from the members of my virtual team. I-Flut2 2. I often receive too much information from the members of my virtual team. I-Flut2E I-Flut3 3. I feel that I receive more information from my virtual team members than I can I-Flut3E actually use for my work. Informationsmangel Item Lack of Information 1. Ich erhalte von den Mitgliedern meines virtuellen Teams zu wenige Informationen für meine Arbeit. 2. Ich habe das Gefühl, ich erhalte von den Mitgliedern meines virtuellen Teams zu wenige Informationen, um meine Aufgaben gut erledigen zu können. 3. Ich könnte besser arbeiten, wenn ich von den Mitgliedern meines virtuellen Teams mehr Informationen erhalten würde. I-Man1 1. I receive an insufficient amount of information from my virtual team members I-Man1E for doing my work. I-Man2 2. I feel that the amount of information I receive from my virtual team members is I-Man2E insufficient for doing a good job. I-Man3 3. I could do a better job if I received more information from my virtual team I-Man3E members. Genauigkeit der erhaltenen Informationen 2 Item Information Accuracy 1. Die Informationen, die ich von den Mitgliedern I-Gen1 1. The information I get from the mem- meines virtuellen Teams erhalte, bers of my virtual team is usually precise I-Gen1E sind in der Regel genau und eindeutig. and unambiguous. 2. Meiner Meinung nach sind die Informa- I-Gen2 2. In my opinion, the information I get 2 In the following the term Informationsgenauigkeit is used. 6

8 tionen, die mir die Mitglieder meines virtuellen Teams geben, manchmal etwas uneindeutig. I-Gen2E from the members of my virtual team is sometimes a little ambiguous. (R) (R) 3. Die Informationen, die ich von den Mitgliedern I-Gen3 3. The information I receive from the meines virtuellen Teams erhalte, members of my virtual team should be I-Gen3E sollten genauer sein. (R) more precise. (R) Zusammenfassung von Informationen Item Information Summarization 1. Wenn ich an die Mitglieder meines virtuellen Teams Informationen weitergebe, stelle ich gewöhnlich alle Einzelheiten genau dar. (R) 2. Die Informationen, die ich an die Mitgliedern meines virtuellen Teams weitergebe, enthalten in der Regel nur das Wichtigste und keine Einzelheiten. 3. Die Mitglieder meines virtuellen Teams erfahren von mir gewöhnlich alle Einzelheiten zu einem Sachverhalt, wenn ich davon berichte. (R) I-Zus1 1. When I pass on information to the members of my virtual team, I usually I-Zus1E present all details in a precise manner. (R) I-Zus2 2. When I pass on information to the members of my virtual team, I usually I-Zus2E focus on the most important elements and leave out the details. I-Zus3 3. When I report on an issue to the members of my virtual team, I usually inform I-Zus3E them about all its details. (R) Positivierung von Informationen Item Information Positivisation 1. Ich gebe an die Mitglieder meines virtuellen Teams im Allgemeinen lieber gute als schlechte Nachrichten weiter. 2. Es ist mir unangenehm, wenn ich den Mitgliedern meines virtuellen Teams eine schlechte Nachricht überbringen muß. 3. Ich stelle den Mitgliedern meines virtuellen Teams gegenüber Sachverhalte manchmal positiver dar, als sie sich wirklich zugetragen haben. I-Pos1 1. I usually prefer to pass on good news rather than bad news to the members of I-Pos1E my virtual team. I-Pos2 2. I feel uncomfortable when I have to pass on some bad news to the members of I-Pos2E my virtual team. I-Pos3 3. I sometimes depict matters in a more positive light than corresponds to the I-Pos3E facts when I present them to the members of my virtual team. Negativierung von Informationen Item Information Negativity 1. Manchmal neige ich dazu, an die Mitglieder meines virtuellen Teams eher schlechte als gute Nachrichten weiterzugeben. I-Neg1 I-Neg1E 1. I sometimes tend to pass on bad news rather than good news to the members of my virtual team. 2. Hin und wieder stelle ich die Mitglieder I-Neg2 2. Occasionally, I depict matters in a 7

9 meines virtuellen Teams gegenüber Sachverhalte negativer dar, als sie sich wirklich zugetragen haben. 3. Es kommt vor, dass ich den Mitgliedern meines virtuellen Teams gegenüber die unangenehmen Aspekte einer Nachricht stärker hervorhebe als die angenehmen. Note. (R) = reverse coded item. I-Neg2E I-Neg3 I-Neg3E more negative light than corresponds to the facts when I present them to the members of my virtual team. 3. It happens that I focus on the unpleasant aspects of news more than on the pleasant ones when I tell it to the members of my virtual team. Exploratory Factor Analysis As the original items of the KomminO (Markus Sperka, 1996), first, had been changed in their focus and slightly in their wording, and second, had been translated into English, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis to test the scale structure with our specific sample of virtual team members. A principle component analysis with Varimax rotation was conducted. With regard to the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sample Adequacy and the Bartlett s Test of Sphericity the data fulfilled the requirements (KMO =.75, 2 (210) = , p.001). By Kaiser s criterion (eigenvalue > 1) six factors should have been extracted. However, the scree plot s point of inflexion suggested a three factor solution. Another criterion for the extraction of items for a factor are loadings greater than.40 and no substantive double loadings (cf. Field, 2009). Additionally, one important criterion is the content-logical structure or consistence respectively of the extracted factor. Based on these considerations, the final decision was made in favour of a three factor solution. All items loadings.30 on the six extracted factors are presented in Tabelle 3. Tabelle 3: Loading of Information Exchange Items on Six Factors after Factor Rotation Item Factor I-Zug1E.79 I-Zug2E.68 I-Zug3E(R) I-Flut1E.86 I-Flut2E.90 I-Flut3E.85 I-Man1E -.81 I-Man2E -.82 I-Man3E I-Gen1E I-Gen2E(R) I-Gen3E(R) I-Zus1E(R).73 I-Zus2E.73 I-Zus3E(R) -.68 I-Pos1E

10 I-Pos2E.78 I-Pos3E.70 I-Neg1E.67 I-Neg2E.74 I-Neg3E.74 Note. Extraction method: Principle Component Analysis; Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser-Normalisation. Factor loadings less than.30 were omitted. I-Zug = Information Access, I-Flut = Information Overload, I-Man = Lack of Information, I-Gen = Information Accuracy, I-Zus = Information Summarization, I-Pos = Information Positivisation, I-Neg = Information Negativity. E = English version. (R) = reverse coded item. Finally extracted factors and their respective items are indicated by a grey background. The first extracted factor encompasses the items Information Access 1 and 2 (I-Zug1E, I-Zug2E) and Lack of Information 1 to 3 (I-Man1E, I-Man2E, I-Man3E). We did not include the Information Accuracy items 1 to 3 (I-Gen1E, I-Gen2E(R), I-Gen3E(R)) as they simultaneously showed moderately high double loadings on the second factor. Also, they did not seem to fit into the scale from a content-logical perspective. We call this first factor Information Access (I-Acce). The second factor consists of the three Information Overload items (I-Flut1E, I-Flut2E, I-Flut3E). These were the items with the most substantive loadings on the factor. As has been mentioned for the first factor, Information Accuracy items 1 to 3 (I-Gen1E, I-Gen2E(R) have rather high double loadings and were therefore excluded from both the first and the second factor. The same applies to the item I-Zug3E(R), which is related to the first and the second factor. Thus, it does not seem to be clearly assignable to a single factor. The second factor is called Information Overload (I-Over). For the third factor, the three items measuring Information Negativity (I-Nev1E, I- Neg2E, I-Neg3E) and the Information Positivisation item 3 (I-Pos3E) were taken together as a factor measuring Information Distortion (I-Dist). Two other items (I-Man3E, I-Pos1E) were excluded as they did not have sufficient substantial loadings on the factor. Information Exchange Scale (English Version): Description and Psychometric Properties The final English version of the information exchange scale comprised three subscales (Information Access, Information Overload, and Information Distortion) with 12 items in total (response scale: 1 strongly disagree 2 disagree 3 neither 4 agree 5 strongly agree). The psychometric properties are listed in Tabelle 4. 9

11 Tabelle 4: Field Study Scale and Item Psychometric Properties Min 1 Max 1 M SD r it Cronbach s Subscales and Items Alpha if item deleted Information Access (I-Acce).87 (N=102) 1. I-Zug1E I-Zug2E I-Man1E (R) I-Man2E (R) I-Man3E (R) Information Overload (I-Over).88 (N=102) 1. I-Flut1E I-Flut2E I-Flut3E 'Information Distortion' (I-Dist).76 (N=99) 1. I-Pos3E I-Neg1E I-Neg2E I-Neg3E Note. 1 Response scale: 1 strongly disagree 5 strongly agree. I-Zug = Information Access, I-Flut = Information Overload, I-Pos = Information Positivisation, I-Neg = Information Negativity. E = English version. (R) = reverse coded item. All three scales show a good reliability value each. Furthermore, item-scale correlations are satisfying. Hence, these scales were used in further analyses of the study. Subscales Inter-Correlations and Correlation with other Survey Scales Tabelle 5 shows the inter-correlations of the overall information exchange scale and its subscales. Additionally, correlations with other central scales of the online-survey are presented. Tabelle 5: Field Study - Correlation of Information Exchange Scale and Subscales with other Survey Scales I-Exch (N=102) I-Acce (N=102) I-Over (N=102) I-Dist (N=100) Information Exchange Scale (I-Exch) 1 Information Access (I-Acce).54*** 1 Information Overload (I-Over).69***.01 1 Information Distortion (I-Dist).35*** -.37***.16 1 Commitment ** -.25* -.24* Team Boundaries *** ** Team Mental Model (TMM).01.28** * Self-Leadership Conflicts ***.35**.08 Performance ** ** Note. Pearson Correlation Significance (2-tailed): p 0.1, * p 0.05, ** p 0.01, *** p

12 Before discussing the correlations presented in Tabelle 5, we shortly list in Tabelle 6 the background of the other study variables as to give the reader a better understanding which concepts were measured in the questionnaire. Tabelle 6: Field Study - Variable Source and Description Variable Scale Source Scale Description Commitment Team Boundaries Team Mental Model (TMM) Self- Leadership Conflicts Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), Faraj, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary Work in Knowledge Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), Ellwart, T., & Konradt, U. (2007). Wissensverteilung und Wissenskoordination in Gruppen - Überprüfung deutschsprachiger Skalen unter computergestützter Gruppenarbeit. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 51(3), Based on: Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating Expertise in Software Development Teams. Management Science, 46(12), Based on: Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The Revised Self-Leadership Questionnaire: Testing a hierarchical factor structure for self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(8), Based on: Jehn, K. A. (1995). A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), Performance Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), Scale on affective team commitment (5 items; adaptation of the original 6-item scale: recoding of reversed items, deletion of one redundant item due to recoding; change from work group to team ). One subscale out of three was applied in the study: team boundary reinforcement (inwardfacing activities to internally set boundaries, e.g. by strengthening social identity, 3 adapted items). Four items measuring the knowledge of who in the team possesses which expertise. Measurement of self-leadership skills, behaviors, and cognitions by an 11-item scale. A 9-item scale measuring relationship and task conflicts in the team. The six subscales applied in the study include three work role behaviour aspects, each on individual and team level: proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity (2 levels *3 work role behaviour *3 items =18 items). 11

13 For the inter-correlations between the three information exchange subscales, only one statistically significant correlation between Information Access and Information Distortion can be found. The two subscales show a moderate negative correlation. Hence, the more someone perceives to have access to information, the less he or she states to distort information. Looking at Information Access, the subscale shows statistically significant correlations with all the other scales that were tested. A moderate positive correlation can be found with regard to commitment (r I-Acce, commitment =.34, p <.01), team boundaries (r I-Acce, team boundaries =.37, p <.001), TMM (r I-Acce, TMM =.28, p <.01), and performance (r I-Acce, performance =.34, p <.01). Also, a negative relationship appears with conflicts (r I-Acce, conflicts = -.37, p <.001). The correlation with self-leadership shows but only a weak relation (r I-Acce, self-leadership =.18, p <.10). As the study was cross-sectional in character, no causal conclusions can be drawn from the results. Nevertheless, even though reciprocal effects can be assumed for some of the relationships, a directional effect of information access on team processes and outcomes would not seem erroneous either. Information Overload shows a moderate positive correlation with conflicts (r I-Over, conflicts =.35, p <.01), which suggests either that the more conflicts the team is struggling with the more information they distribute (maybe in the attempt to clarify conflictual topics) or that the more information is distributed in the team the more the team is confronted with conflicts (for an early reference on maladaptive individual response to information overload see Katz & Kahn, 1978). The latter might be due to misunderstandings between the team members based on weak individual information processing, which itself could be caused by little time available for handling the huge amount of information received. Furthermore, a negative relationship with commitment (r I-Over, commitment = -.25, p <.05) and a tendential negative relation with team boundaries (r I-Over, team boundaries = -.19, p <.10) were found. The correlations with TMM, self-leadership, and performance show a negative sign though did not become statistically significant. Information Distortion is negatively related to commitment (r I-Dist, commitment = -.24, p <.05), team boundaries (r I-Dist, team boundaries = -.35, p <.01), TMM (r I-Dist, TMM = -.21, p <.05), and performance (r I-Dist, performance = -.34, p <.01). With regard to (affective) commitment, it might be assumed that as when a team member does not feel committed to the team, she or he is more inclined to distort information, a behaviour that probably has a rather adverse effect on team processes and outcomes. The negative relationship with performance could be understood as support of such a conclusion. The negative correlation with team boundaries in turn 12

14 suggests that the weaker the boundaries are perceived, the more information is distorted (though of course also the reverse effect can be assumed with information distortion weakening team boundaries). As the specific team boundary activities considered in this study (see Tabelle 6) are closely related to social identification issues (Faraj & Yan, 2009), this might be seen as further support for the interpretation of a negative effect of a too lose affective attachment between members and their team on information exchange behaviour. 13

15 2) Laboratory Study During the third study of the research project on effectiveness management in virtual teams, a laboratory study was conducted. In the following, we will present a short description of the study, the procedure, and the sample. As the aim of this paper is to describe the measurement of information exchange, the focus will be on this scale. Further information on the study and its outcomes will be presented elsewhere. In the laboratory study, dyadic teams of university students worked together on a decision-making task. Each participant was assigned to a different role within the team and provided with information on the role, an individual and a mutual task they had to process during a 30-minutes virtual collaboration. Some of the information relevant for solving the common problem was distributed unequally (hidden profile paradigm; e.g., see Lu, Yuan, & McLeod, 2012). Hence, the exchange of information was of particular importance for the teams to be successful. There was no regulation on how they had to come to a solution, except for the constraint with regard to the communication tool (Skype chat). In addition to the two team members, two fictitious team members (a team leader and a team member with a different functional role) appeared during the virtual collaboration through messages in the chat. As the participants operated in separate rooms, communicating only via the chat, they worked under similar circumstances as geographically distributed members of organizational virtual teams. Procedure and Sample The laboratory experiments were conducted at four different universities in Germany. Prior to the introduction of the roles and tasks, the participants filled in an online questionnaire on socio-demographic data and several baseline control variables (e.g., motivation, see Guay, et al., 2000). After they were thoroughly informed about the task, they proceeded with the assignment. In a posterior online questionnaire the participants evaluated the information exchange in the team beside other variables like team boundaries (Faraj & Yan, 2009), trust (Wittchen, 2009), coordination (Lewis, 2003), and performance (Griffin, et al., 2007). The final sample consisted of 314 participants. On average, they were years old (SD=3.88) and 79.6% were female. They were mostly in their first or second year of studies (M=2.46, SD=1.99) and had gained M=1.70 (SD=2.84) years of experience with teamwork in their professional life. The mean hours spent using Skype chat per month was 3.49 (SD=7.53). Additionally, the participants spend M=11.76 (SD=19.91) hours per month using other chat tools than Skype. Hence, the majority of the participants used Skype chat rather infrequently, 14

16 though most of them were generally experienced with virtual communication by means of chats. On a scale measuring computer anxiety (COMA, Richter, Naumann, & Horz, 2010) they showed a medium to low computer anxiety (M=3.72, SD=.70; 1=high anxiety - 5=low anxiety). Information Exchange Scale (German Version): Description and Psychometric Properties As the participants of the laboratory experiment were all German native speakers, we used the German items to measure the perception of information exchange in the team. Three dimensions of information exchange were assessed, that is information access, information overload and information accuracy. While for information overload and accuracy the original subscales were applied, the information access subscale is based on the items derived from the factor analysis conducted in the field study (see chapter 1) Field Study). Psychometric properties of the subscales are presented in Tabelle 7. Scale reliabilities and item-scale correlations show satisfying to good values. Tabelle 7: Laboratory Study - Scale and Item Psychometric Properties Min 1 Max 1 M SD r it Cronbach s Subscales and Items Alpha if item deleted Informationszugang (I-Zug).85 (N=313) 1. I-Zug I-Zug I-Man1 (R) I-Man 2 (R) I-Man 3 (R) Informationsflut (I-Flut).88 (N=314) 1. I-Flut I-Flut I-Flut 'Informationsgenauigkeit' (I-Gen).84 (N=314) 1. I-Gen I-Gen2 (R) I-Gen3 (R) Note. Informationszugang = Information Access, Informationsflut = Information Overload, Informationsgenauigkeit = Information Accuracy. 1 response scale 1-5. (R) = reverse coded item. 15

17 Subscales Inter-Correlations and Correlation with other Experimental Scales All three information exchange subscales show statistically significant correlations among each other (see Tabelle 8). While Information Overload is negatively related to both Information Access (r I-Flut, I-Zug = -.20, p <.001) and Information Accuracy (r I-Flut, I-Gen = -.37, p <.001), the latter two show a strong positive relationship (r I-Zug, I-Gen =.50, p <.001). Hence, the perception of (quantitatively) having access to information is to a certain degree related to the qualitative dimensions of perceived information exchange 3. Tabelle 8: Laboratory Study - Correlation of Information Exchange Scale and Subscales with other Experimental Scales Informationsaustausch I-Zug I-Flut I-Gen Informationsaustausch Skala 1 Informationszugang (I-Zug).81*** 1 Informationsflut (I-Flut).30*** -.20*** 1 Informationsgenauigkeit (I-Gen).58***.50*** -.37*** 1 Motivation (baseline) Intrinsic * Extrinsic -.14* -.17** ** Team Boundaries.32***.39*** -.21***.38*** Trust.23***.26*** *** Coordination.40***.48*** -.21***.42*** Performance.26***.29*** *** Note. N=314. Pearson Correlation Significance (2-tailed): p 0.1, * p 0.05, ** p 0.01, *** p The following Tabelle 9 gives some background information on the additional measures applied in the experimental study. Tabelle 9: Laboratory Study - Variable Source and Description Variable Scale Source Scale Description Motivation Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. Team Boundaries (2000). On the Assessment of Situational Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), Faraj, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary Work in Knowledge Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2 Situational Motivation Scale: The scale includes two subscales measuring intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (2 subscales *4 items =8 items). The two subscales applied in the study included team boundary buffering (i.e. activities to close an entity off from its environment, 4 adapted items) and team boundary reinforcement (inward-facing activities to internally set 3 Another factor to be mentioned is a possible influence of common-method variance (Meade, Watson, & Kroustalis, 2007), though this might not serve as solitary explanation for the correlations found. 16

18 ed.). London: Sage Publications. Trust Wittchen, M. (2009). Effects of selfcommitment on trust and motivation in computer-supported cooperative work. Tönning: DAV. Coordination Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring Transactive Memory Systems in the Field: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, Performance Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), boundaries, e.g. by strengthening social identity, 3 adapted items). In addition, three further items assessing boundary reinforcement aspects were included (adapted from Haslam, 2004). The scale measures trust in virtual teams (10 items). The focus of the scale is on explicit coordination in teamwork (4 of 5 original items). The six subscales applied in the study include three work role behaviour aspects, each on individual and team level: proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity (2 levels *3 work role behaviour *3 items =18 items). For Information Access, the analyses reveal statistically significant correlations with motivation to participate in the task prior to the experiment (r I-Zug, intrinsic motivation =.09, p <.10; r I-Zug, extrinsic motivation = -.17, p <.01), with team boundaries (r I-Zug, team boundaries =.39, p <.001), trust (r I-Zug, trust =.26, p <.001), explicit coordination (r I-Zug, coordination =.48, p <.001), and performance (r I-Zug, performance =.29, p <.001). Of peculiar interest appears the reversed relation for the two motivation subscales. As motivation was measured prior to the experiment, a causal effect on Information Access can be assumed. One possible explanation for the negative impact of extrinsic motivation on the perception of Information Access could be that study participants with a stronger extrinsic motivation in fact communicate differently during the experiment. Furthermore, as a) the experimental design included fictitious team members who did not respond to inquiries and as additionally b) a substantial amount of distracting messages from other fictitious organisational units were sent round, highly extrinsically motivated participants might have come to an adverse evaluation of the information exchange in the team. This might be due to a stronger outcome orientation induced by extrinsic incentives (e.g., see Finkelstien, 2009 for the positive relationship between extrinsic motivation and external, outcome oriented motives), which might go along with less tolerance for lack of information and information ambiguity as these are likely to be detrimental to goal achievement. The negative correlation with Information Accuracy (r I-Gen, extrinsic motivation = -.16, p < 17

19 .01) can be taken as further support for this interpretation. Interestingly, no statistically significant relationship was found between motivation and Information Overload. For Information Overload, a negative relationship with team boundaries (r I-Flut, team boundaries = -.21, p <.001) and with coordination (r I-Flut, coordination = -.21, p <.001) was found. Hence, the perception of strong team boundaries and a high evaluation of the coordination in the team go along with a reduced feeling of being overloaded with information. Again, this might be due to different information exchange patterns the team members conducted during the experiment. As the strength of team boundaries was manipulated beforehand and during the experiment a causal effect can be assumed for this relationship. The results suggest that the stronger the boundaries of the focal team are the less unfavourably do team members judge the information exchange in the team. Beside the behavioural reasons mentioned (i.e. an effect of team boundaries on information exchange related team interaction processes), this result might also be due to different individual cognitive processing mechanisms induced by strong team boundaries (i.e. an effect on the individual level). Furthermore, Information Overload tends to show a negative relationship with performance (r I-Flut, performance = -.11, p <.10). The strongest correlation for Information Accuracy appears in relation to explicit coordination (r I-Gen, coordination =.42, p <.001). This qualitative measure of information exchange is also related to the other scales, revealing a positive correlation with intrinsic motivation (r I- Gen, intrinsic motivation =.13, p <.05), team boundaries (r I-Gen, team boundaries =.38, p <.001), trust (r I- Gen, trust =.20, p <.001), and performance (r I-Gen, performance =.27, p <.001), and a negative relation to extrinsic motivation (r I-Gen, extrinsic motivation = -.16, p <.01). As all three information exchange subscales bear a statistically significant relationship with explicit coordination, this suggests that both the amount of information and its quality might be of importance for the coordination in the team. Summary To summarize, the studies have shown satisfying psychometric properties for both the English and the German scale on information exchange. Additionally, correlations with others variables that are relevant for virtual team collaboration provide first indicators for the validity of the scales. However, further longitudinal research and the application of the scales in different settings of virtual collaboration is needed to show the construct validity of the scales. 18

20 References Ellwart, T., & Konradt, U. (2007). Wissensverteilung und Wissenskoordination in Gruppen Überprüfung deutschsprachiger Skalen unter computergestützter Gruppenarbeit. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 51(3), Faraj, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary Work in Knowledge Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Finkelstien, M. A. (2009). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivational orientations and the volunteer process. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(5 6), Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the Assessment of Situational Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2 ed.). London: Sage Publications. Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The Revised Self-Leadership Questionnaire: Testing a hierarchical factor structure for self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(8), Jehn, K. A. (1995). A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley. Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring Transactive Memory Systems in the Field: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-Five Years of Hidden Profiles in Group Decision Making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), Meade, A. W., Watson, A. M., & Kroustalis, C. M. (2007). Assessing Common Method Bias in Organizational Research. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Richter, T., Naumann, J., & Horz, H. (2010). Eine revidierte Fassung des Inventars zur Computerbildung (INCOBI-R) [A revised version of the inventory on computer literacy (INCOBI- R)]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 24(1), Sperka, M. (1996). Organisationsinterne Kommunikation - Teil II: Zur empirischen Erforschung organisationsinterner Kommunikationsprozesse. Universität Dortmund, Dortmund. Sperka, M. (1997). Zur Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Kommunikation in Organisationen (KomminO). Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 41, Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), Wittchen, M. (2009). Effects of self-commitment on trust and motivation in computer-supported cooperative work. Tönning: DAV. 19