A Matter of Tactics: Interpersonal vs. Social Identity Relationships in Virtual Teams
Many organizations now recognize the potential of internet based work teams which allow individuals from all over the world to communicate and send information cheaply. These “virtual teams” can be quickly created to meet shifting business needs. Such teams offer a means by which individuals with wide ranging technical and cultural expertise can work from geographically dispersed locations. Additionally, these teams may provide higher flexibility, responsiveness, and more economic advantages than collocated work teams (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). Individuals that participate in virtual work teams are likely to relate to one another either on an interpersonal or social level. Therefore, managers may wish to establish rules or guidelines to encourage team members to relate to one another in a particular manner based upon the situational factors that may lead one approach to be more effective.
One tactic managers could use to encourage team members to relate on an interpersonal level is to increase the level of propinquity among participants. Propinquity refers to proximity in both space and time and is a necessary condition to the development of interpersonal relationships (Korzenny, 1978). When placed in mediated contexts, functional propinquity refers to the use of various media to lessen feelings of psychological distance between individuals. One way that propinquity could be increased is to encourage team members to take full advantage of the bandwidth available to them. Team members should be encouraged to develop their own web pages with pictures of themselves as well as relevant work history and personal information. Not only does the information on these pages serve to individuate team members but the pictures serve to increase propinquity by widening the bandwidth. However, the use of pictures for promoting social relationships must be used with caution. Groups that have functioned together for long periods of time affinity for one another may suffer with the introduction of pictures because it violates previously held expectations regarding team members’ appearances. In contrast, short term or new groups are likely to benefit from the introduction of pictures as it reduces their uncertainty (Walther, Lecture).
Another major proposition of electronic propinquity theory states that “the more mutual directionality of the channel, the more propinquity” (Korzenny, 1978). People may perceive some channels as providing more feedback than others. Communication technologies should be carefully selected to ensure that they have the potential to provide active feedback. Instant messaging systems should be chosen which include features that allow team members to see whether other members are active, idle, or typing. Likewise, asynchronous message boards should include time and date stamps. Knowledge of how actively engaged other team members are in a discussion can function to increase propinquity. Research shows that lags in feedback contribute to negative attributions concerning their partners and make it difficult to handle problems among virtual teams (Cramton, 2001). Individuals should be encouraged to post, at a minimum, of two times a day or even more frequently depending upon the rate at which the work is progressing.
It should be noted, however, that the increasing the ability for teams to gage feedback may backfire if team members do not provide it. While higher bandwidth and more mutual directionality of the channel may contribute to the creation of interpersonal relationships, they are not sufficient conditions to guarantee its development. Any man who has sat next to an attractive woman in a bar knows that proximity is not enough to initiate a relationship; interaction is necessary. Interestingly, the first messages among online teams seem to set the tone for how individuals interact thereafter (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). Therefore, to foster interpersonal relations it may be important to start the team out by offering personalized introductions that focus on social characteristics of the team rather than the project at hand. Following these introductions, an icebreaker exercise, or even a short game that deemphasizes task behaviors while encouraging social interaction, should be conducted. Another factor that should be considered when attempting to foster interpersonal relationships online are the communication skills of individual team members. When choosing team members, selection should be based upon their general interpersonal communication skills as well as their ability to use the internet effectively.
The social identification model of deindividuation effects suggest tactics several that managers might take to encourage group members to relate on a social level. First, group members must be encouraged to maintain visual anonymity and discouraged from exchanging extraneous social information. Side theory holds that “different media might make personal and social attributes more or less visible, and thereby influence the relative importance of (inter)personal and (inter)group differences in users’ perceptions and in group processes more generally (Postmes & Bayes, 2005). Assigning neutral handles, such as “User 1,” to the team members may prove useful in eliminating the social cues with which names such as “Antonio” or “LaShara” are imbued. It is extremely important to include as little individuating information as necessary as “individuating information may result in a broader range of partner evaluations or stimulate attributions of dissimilarity and negative evaluations” (Walther & Parks, pg. 539, 2002).
Another tactic that may prove useful to managers attempting to create social relations among group members would be to foster competition with a relevant out group. Usually social demands to behave normatively are relatively weak until they are presented in the context of intergroup behavior (Postems & Baym, 2005). Intergroup comparisons bring about tacit social comparisons which serve to strengthen group cohesiveness and transform the group from a mass of differentiated individuals to a coalescence sharing a social identity (Postmes & Baym, 2005). This shared social identity will help to create group norms and a clear purpose as the group compares and contrasts itself to salient outgroups. These comparisons and intergroup competitions may also lead to the development of both in and out group stereotypes which may affect how individuals attribute certain behaviors by creating a positive group bias, thus effecting group processes.
Finally, managers should try to establish a common group history and future as well as trying to develop group norms regarding task behavior. A social identity is a shared conception of the defining features and boundaries of a group and can be broken down into the processes of self-categorization and social identification (Postmes & Baym, 2005). The introduction of a common group history may introduce a salient category that in context will lead to a social identity. As earlier noted, the first interactions among group members lead to the development of relatively stable group norms. Additionally, it is important to start off the group with an assignment that may not be conducive to the sharing of individuating information but will allow the group to develop trust through interaction.
Managers may want to encourage people to relate on an either social or interpersonal level based upon the tasks and context of the interactions. Managers may want to encourage team members to embrace a social identity for short term projects or one shot interactions. A singular social identity may be conducive to the development of swift trust in which members of a team import trust from other more familiar settings due to time constraints which prevent the development of more individuated trust. However, teams that work together for long periods of time or that are likely to interact in the future may be benefited by the use of an interpersonal strategy. In conclusion, overall context of the project would heavily influence which strategy I would recommend a manager embrace. However, if a project will extend long enough to allow interpersonal relationships to develop, I would recommend an interpersonal approach. The rules and suggestions associated with the development of interpersonal work teams seem less restrictive and may feel more natural to team members than those intended to encourage social relationships.
Works Cited
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346-371.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791-815.
Korzenny, F. (1978). A theory of electronic propinquity: Mediated communications in organizations. Communication Research, 5, 3-24.
Postmes, T., & Baym, N. (2005). Intergroup dimensions of the Internet. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 213-238). New York: Peter Lang.
Walther, J.B. (Lecture)
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Many organizations now recognize the potential of internet based work teams which allow individuals from all over the world to communicate and send information cheaply. These “virtual teams” can be quickly created to meet shifting business needs. Such teams offer a means by which individuals with wide ranging technical and cultural expertise can work from geographically dispersed locations. Additionally, these teams may provide higher flexibility, responsiveness, and more economic advantages than collocated work teams (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). Individuals that participate in virtual work teams are likely to relate to one another either on an interpersonal or social level. Therefore, managers may wish to establish rules or guidelines to encourage team members to relate to one another in a particular manner based upon the situational factors that may lead one approach to be more effective.
One tactic managers could use to encourage team members to relate on an interpersonal level is to increase the level of propinquity among participants. Propinquity refers to proximity in both space and time and is a necessary condition to the development of interpersonal relationships (Korzenny, 1978). When placed in mediated contexts, functional propinquity refers to the use of various media to lessen feelings of psychological distance between individuals. One way that propinquity could be increased is to encourage team members to take full advantage of the bandwidth available to them. Team members should be encouraged to develop their own web pages with pictures of themselves as well as relevant work history and personal information. Not only does the information on these pages serve to individuate team members but the pictures serve to increase propinquity by widening the bandwidth. However, the use of pictures for promoting social relationships must be used with caution. Groups that have functioned together for long periods of time affinity for one another may suffer with the introduction of pictures because it violates previously held expectations regarding team members’ appearances. In contrast, short term or new groups are likely to benefit from the introduction of pictures as it reduces their uncertainty (Walther, Lecture).
Another major proposition of electronic propinquity theory states that “the more mutual directionality of the channel, the more propinquity” (Korzenny, 1978). People may perceive some channels as providing more feedback than others. Communication technologies should be carefully selected to ensure that they have the potential to provide active feedback. Instant messaging systems should be chosen which include features that allow team members to see whether other members are active, idle, or typing. Likewise, asynchronous message boards should include time and date stamps. Knowledge of how actively engaged other team members are in a discussion can function to increase propinquity. Research shows that lags in feedback contribute to negative attributions concerning their partners and make it difficult to handle problems among virtual teams (Cramton, 2001). Individuals should be encouraged to post, at a minimum, of two times a day or even more frequently depending upon the rate at which the work is progressing.
It should be noted, however, that the increasing the ability for teams to gage feedback may backfire if team members do not provide it. While higher bandwidth and more mutual directionality of the channel may contribute to the creation of interpersonal relationships, they are not sufficient conditions to guarantee its development. Any man who has sat next to an attractive woman in a bar knows that proximity is not enough to initiate a relationship; interaction is necessary. Interestingly, the first messages among online teams seem to set the tone for how individuals interact thereafter (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). Therefore, to foster interpersonal relations it may be important to start the team out by offering personalized introductions that focus on social characteristics of the team rather than the project at hand. Following these introductions, an icebreaker exercise, or even a short game that deemphasizes task behaviors while encouraging social interaction, should be conducted. Another factor that should be considered when attempting to foster interpersonal relationships online are the communication skills of individual team members. When choosing team members, selection should be based upon their general interpersonal communication skills as well as their ability to use the internet effectively.
The social identification model of deindividuation effects suggest tactics several that managers might take to encourage group members to relate on a social level. First, group members must be encouraged to maintain visual anonymity and discouraged from exchanging extraneous social information. Side theory holds that “different media might make personal and social attributes more or less visible, and thereby influence the relative importance of (inter)personal and (inter)group differences in users’ perceptions and in group processes more generally (Postmes & Bayes, 2005). Assigning neutral handles, such as “User 1,” to the team members may prove useful in eliminating the social cues with which names such as “Antonio” or “LaShara” are imbued. It is extremely important to include as little individuating information as necessary as “individuating information may result in a broader range of partner evaluations or stimulate attributions of dissimilarity and negative evaluations” (Walther & Parks, pg. 539, 2002).
Another tactic that may prove useful to managers attempting to create social relations among group members would be to foster competition with a relevant out group. Usually social demands to behave normatively are relatively weak until they are presented in the context of intergroup behavior (Postems & Baym, 2005). Intergroup comparisons bring about tacit social comparisons which serve to strengthen group cohesiveness and transform the group from a mass of differentiated individuals to a coalescence sharing a social identity (Postmes & Baym, 2005). This shared social identity will help to create group norms and a clear purpose as the group compares and contrasts itself to salient outgroups. These comparisons and intergroup competitions may also lead to the development of both in and out group stereotypes which may affect how individuals attribute certain behaviors by creating a positive group bias, thus effecting group processes.
Finally, managers should try to establish a common group history and future as well as trying to develop group norms regarding task behavior. A social identity is a shared conception of the defining features and boundaries of a group and can be broken down into the processes of self-categorization and social identification (Postmes & Baym, 2005). The introduction of a common group history may introduce a salient category that in context will lead to a social identity. As earlier noted, the first interactions among group members lead to the development of relatively stable group norms. Additionally, it is important to start off the group with an assignment that may not be conducive to the sharing of individuating information but will allow the group to develop trust through interaction.
Managers may want to encourage people to relate on an either social or interpersonal level based upon the tasks and context of the interactions. Managers may want to encourage team members to embrace a social identity for short term projects or one shot interactions. A singular social identity may be conducive to the development of swift trust in which members of a team import trust from other more familiar settings due to time constraints which prevent the development of more individuated trust. However, teams that work together for long periods of time or that are likely to interact in the future may be benefited by the use of an interpersonal strategy. In conclusion, overall context of the project would heavily influence which strategy I would recommend a manager embrace. However, if a project will extend long enough to allow interpersonal relationships to develop, I would recommend an interpersonal approach. The rules and suggestions associated with the development of interpersonal work teams seem less restrictive and may feel more natural to team members than those intended to encourage social relationships.
Works Cited
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346-371.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791-815.
Korzenny, F. (1978). A theory of electronic propinquity: Mediated communications in organizations. Communication Research, 5, 3-24.
Postmes, T., & Baym, N. (2005). Intergroup dimensions of the Internet. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 213-238). New York: Peter Lang.
Walther, J.B. (Lecture)
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
