Summary of Type I literature on VTs employing the IMO theoretical framework (Empirical Studies)
| Study | Theory | Method/Sample | Input | Process/Emergent state (mediator) | Outcome | Findings | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | Satisfaction | Well-being | ||||||
| This study | IMO | Survey of 315 IT professionals from India | Perceived virtuality | Conflict management and Psychological Empowerment | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Perceived virtuality impacts team outcomes, i.e. perceived team performance, team satisfaction and subjective well-being. Perceived team satisfaction has a high positive impact on the other two team outcomes |
| Algesheimer et al. (2011) | IMO | 606 professional online gaming teams | Team demography, past team performance | Shared decision to perform, shared goals to perform | ✓ | – | – | Team processes have a strong effect on both rational and emotional dimensions of strategic team consensus |
| Andressen et al. (2012) | IMO | 681 employees and 116 team leaders in 129 teams | Transformational leadership, self-leadership | Motivation, self-leadership | ✓ | – | – | Influence of self-leadership on motivation in virtual work structures versus collocated work structures |
| Fuller et al. (2016) | IMO and MST | Quasi-experimental study/22 virtual project teams | Individual Characteristics —CMC Anxiety | Virtual Team Participation —Quantity and Quality | ✓ | – | – | Individuals with higher levels of CMC anxiety participated less and were rated more poorly by team members on their performance compared to those with lower levels of CMC anxiety |
| Hsu et al. (2017) | IMO and Control theory | Survey/220 IS practitioners | Control mechanisms (Formal control and Clan control) | Team-member behaviours (In-role behaviour and Extra-role behaviour) | ✓ | – | – | Formal control and clan control affect project performance by enhancing behaviours |
| Wei et al. (2018) | IMO, AST | Survey of 263 participants from Malaysian Global Business Services | Team cohesion, confidence, knowledge, skills, and abilities | Trust, creativity | ✓ | – | – | Impact of team climates on human dimensions (mediators) which affect team performance. Virtuality did not have a significant moderating effect on these relationships |
| Han et al. (2018) | IMO | Survey of 158 students | shared leadership | coordination, goal commitment and knowledge sharing | ✓ | – | – | Shared leadership positively affected coordination activities, goal commitment and knowledge sharing, which in turn positively affect team performance |
| Zhang and Guo (2019) | IMO and MIP-G theory | Survey of 96 Cross-functional project teams | Knowledge diversity | Knowledge leadership, transactive memory system | ✓ | – | – | Knowledge leadership is a crucial factor that can explain the inconsistency between knowledge diversity and CFPT performance |
| Holtz et al. (2020) | IMO and SIP theory | Experiments with 41 virtual teams of 164 students | Team Emotional Management | Team synergy and Motivation | ✓ | – | – | Training enhances the ability to identify and use resources, thus enabling the virtual team to increase performance |
| Malik et al. (2021) | IMO and JCM | Agile project managers and team members in Australia | Team autonomy, diversity, agile communication | Psychological empowerment | ✓ | – | – | Relationship between agile practices and the work-related psychological states experienced by agile teams |
| Rogers et al. (2021) | IMO | 997 students nested across 242 project teams in the US university | Peer Skills, Peer Interactions | Team processes | – | ✓ | – | Teams overcome virtuality to perform effectively. Team-embedded members react differently across virtual teams and face-to-face contexts |
| Study | Theory | Method/Sample | Input | Process/Emergent state (mediator) | Outcome | Findings | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived virtuality impacts team outcomes, i.e. perceived team performance, team satisfaction and subjective well-being. Perceived team satisfaction has a high positive impact on the other two team outcomes | ||||||||
| IMO | 606 professional online gaming teams | Team demography, past team performance | Shared decision to perform, shared goals to perform | – | – | Team processes have a strong effect on both rational and emotional dimensions of strategic team consensus | ||
| IMO | 681 employees and 116 team leaders in 129 teams | Transformational leadership, self-leadership | Motivation, self-leadership | – | – | Influence of self-leadership on motivation in virtual work structures versus collocated work structures | ||
| IMO and MST | Quasi-experimental study/22 virtual project teams | Individual Characteristics —CMC Anxiety | Virtual Team Participation —Quantity and Quality | – | – | Individuals with higher levels of CMC anxiety participated less and were rated more poorly by team members on their performance compared to those with lower levels of CMC anxiety | ||
| IMO and Control theory | Survey/220 IS practitioners | Control mechanisms (Formal control and Clan control) | Team-member behaviours (In-role behaviour and Extra-role behaviour) | – | – | Formal control and clan control affect project performance by enhancing behaviours | ||
| IMO, AST | Survey of 263 participants from Malaysian Global Business Services | Team cohesion, confidence, knowledge, skills, and abilities | Trust, creativity | – | – | Impact of team climates on human dimensions (mediators) which affect team performance. Virtuality did not have a significant moderating effect on these relationships | ||
| IMO | Survey of 158 students | shared leadership | coordination, goal commitment and knowledge sharing | – | – | Shared leadership positively affected coordination activities, goal commitment and knowledge sharing, which in turn positively affect team performance | ||
| IMO and MIP-G theory | Survey of 96 Cross-functional project teams | Knowledge diversity | Knowledge leadership, transactive memory system | – | – | Knowledge leadership is a crucial factor that can explain the inconsistency between knowledge diversity and CFPT performance | ||
| IMO and SIP theory | Experiments with 41 virtual teams of 164 students | Team Emotional Management | Team synergy and Motivation | – | – | Training enhances the ability to identify and use resources, thus enabling the virtual team to increase performance | ||
| IMO and JCM | Agile project managers and team members in Australia | Team autonomy, diversity, agile communication | Psychological empowerment | – | – | Relationship between agile practices and the work-related psychological states experienced by agile teams | ||
| IMO | 997 students nested across 242 project teams in the US university | Peer Skills, Peer Interactions | Team processes | – | – | Teams overcome virtuality to perform effectively. Team-embedded members react differently across virtual teams and face-to-face contexts | ||
Note(s): IMO = Input–mediator–output; AST = Adaptive Structuration Theory; MST = Media Synchronicity Theory; MIP-G = Motivational information processing in groups theory; SIP= Social information processing theory; CMC = computer-mediated communication; CFPT = cross-functional project teams; JCM = job characteristic model
Source(s): Author's own creation
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.