We explore the relationships between objective communication patterns displayed during virtual team meetings and established, qualitative measures of team member effectiveness.
Background
A key component of teamwork is communication. Automated measures of objective communication patterns are becoming more feasible and offer the ability to measure and monitor communication in a scalable, consistent and continuous manner. However, their validity in reflecting meaningful measures of teamwork processes are not well established, especially in real-world settings.
Method
We studied real-world virtual student teams working on semester-long projects. We captured virtual team meetings using the Zoom video conferencing platform throughout the semester and periodic surveys comprising peer ratings of team member effectiveness. Leveraging audio transcripts, we examined relationships between objective measures of speaking time, silence gap duration and vocal turn-taking and peer ratings of team member effectiveness.
Results
Speaking time, speaking turn count, degree centrality and (marginally) speaking turn duration, but not silence gap duration, were positively related to individual-level team member effectiveness. Time in dyadic interactions and interaction count, but not interaction length, were positively related to dyad-level team member effectiveness.
Conclusion
Our study highlights the relevance of objective measures of speaking time and vocal turn-taking to team member effectiveness in virtual project-based teams, supporting the validity of these objective measures and their use in future research.
Application
Our approach offers a scalable, easy-to-use method for measuring communication patterns and team member effectiveness in virtual teams and opens the opportunity to study these patterns in a more continuous and dynamic manner.
AyokoO. B.HärtelC. E.CallanV. J. (2002). Resolving the puzzle of productive and destructive conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups: A communication accommodation theory approach. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(2), 165–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022873
3.
BakkerM.LeendersR. T. A. J.GabbayS. M.KratzerJ.Van EngelenJ. M. L. (2006). Is trust really social capital? Knowledge sharing in product development projects. Learning Organization, 13(6), 594–605. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470610705479
4.
BassB. M.NortonF.-T. M. (1951). Group size and leaderless discussions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(6), 397.
5.
BeierM. E.KimM. H.SaterbakA.LeautaudV.BishnoiS.GilbertoJ. M. (2019). The effect of authentic project-based learning on attitudes and career aspirations in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21465
6.
BellB. S.KozlowskiS. W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011020270010
7.
BoiesK.FisetJ.GillH. (2015). Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 1080–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.07.007
8.
BonaccioS.O’ReillyJ.O’SullivanS. L.ChiocchioF. (2016). Nonverbal behavior and communication in the workplace: A review and an agenda for research. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1044–1074. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315621146
9.
BradleyB. H.BaurJ. E.BanfordC. G.PostlethwaiteB. E. (2013). Team players and collective performance: How agreeableness affects team performance over time. Small Group Research, 44(6), 680–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496413507609
10.
BullM.AylettM. (1998). An analysis of the timing of turn-taking in a corpus of goal-oriented dialogue. Fifth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing,Sydney, Australia, 30 November, 1998.
11.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.82
12.
CarterD. R.DeChurchL. A.BraunM. T.ContractorN. S. (2015). Social network approaches to leadership: An integrative conceptual review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 597–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038922
13.
ChaffinD.HeidlR.HollenbeckJ. R.HoweM.YuA.VoorheesC.CalantoneR. (2017). The promise and perils of wearable sensors in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442811561700
14.
ChoudhuryT.PentlandA. (2004). Characterizing social networks using the sociometer. Proceedings of the North American Association of Computational Social and Organizational Science (NAACSOS).
15.
CimaF.PazosP.CantoA. M. (2020). Exploring the relationship between teamwork skills and team members’ centrality. Proceedings of the 2020 IISE Annual Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 30May, 2020, 447–452.
16.
ClaymanS. E. (2002). Disagreements and third parties: Dilemmas of neutralism in panel news interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10–11), 1385–1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00070-X
17.
CraigD.PittsM. (1990). The dynamics of dominance in tutorial discussions. Linguistics, 28(1), 125–138.
18.
CsardiG.NepuszT. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695.
19.
CurhanJ. R.PentlandA. (2007). Thin slices of negotiation: Predicting outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 802–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.802
20.
Di FioreA.SouzaM. (2021). Are Peer Reviews the Future of Performance Evaluations. Harvard Business Review.
21.
DroletA.MorrisM. (1995). Communication media and interpersonal trust in conflicts: The role of rapport and synchrony of nonverbal behavior. Academy of Management Meeting.
22.
EmmertP.BarkerL. L. (1989). Measurement of communication behavior. Longman.
FayN.GarrodS.CarlettaJ. (2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11(6), 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00292
25.
FousheeH. C.ManosK. L. (1981). Information transfer within the cockpit: Problems in intracockpit communications (TP-1875; Information Transfer Problems in the Aviation System) (pp. 63–71). NASA-Ames Research Center.
26.
FrauendorferD.Schmid MastM.NguyenL.Gatica-PerezD. (2014). Nonverbal social sensing in action: Unobtrusive recording and extracting of nonverbal behavior in social interactions illustrated with a research example. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(2), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-014-0173-5
27.
FreemanL. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41.
28.
FroilandJ. M.DavisonM. L. (2020). Social perception: Relationships with general intelligence, working memory, processing speed, visual-spatial ability, and verbal comprehension. Educational Psychology, 40(6), 750–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1732873
29.
GerpottF. H.Lehmann-WillenbrockN.VoelpelS. C.Van VugtM. (2019). It’s not just what is said, but when it’s said: A temporal account of verbal behaviors and emergent leadership in self-managed teams. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 717–738. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0149
30.
GillespieB. M.ChaboyerW.FairweatherN. (2012). Interruptions and miscommunications in surgery: An observational study. AORN Journal, 95(5), 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2012.02.012
31.
GormanJ. C.CookeN. J.AmazeenP. G.FouseS. (2012). Measuring patterns in team interaction sequences using a discrete recurrence approach. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(4), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811426140
32.
GormanJ. C.GrimmD. A.StevensR. H.GallowayT.Willemsen-DunlapA. M.HalpinD. J. (2020). Measuring real-time team cognition during team training. Human Factors, 62, 825–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819852791
HoeglM.GemuendenH. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.435.10635
36.
HumphreyS. E.AimeF. (2014). Team microdynamics: Toward an organizing approach to teamwork. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 443–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.904140
37.
HumphreyS. E.AimeF.CushenberyL.HillA. D.FairchildJ. (2017). Team conflict dynamics: Implications of a dyadic view of conflict for team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 142, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.002.
38.
JaffeJ.FeldsteinS. (1970). Rhythms of dialogue (Vol. 8). Academic Press.
39.
JarvenpaaS. L.ShawT. R.StaplesD. S. (2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust: The role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15(3), 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0028
40.
JohnsonM. D.HollenbeckJ. R.HumphreyS. E.IlgenD. R.JundtD.MeyerC. J. (2006). Cutthroat cooperation: Asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785533
41.
KacewiczE.PennebakerJ. W.DavisM.JeonM.GraesserA. C. (2014). Pronoun Use Reflects Standings in Social Hierarchies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(2), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X13502654
42.
KimT.McFeeE.OlguinD. O.WaberB.PentlandA. S. (2012). Sociometric badges: Using sensor technology to capture new forms of collaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1776
43.
KlineP. (2015). Personality (Psychology Revivals): Measurement and Theory. Routledge.
44.
KnightA. (2021). zoomGroupStats: Analyze Text, Audio, and Video from “Zoom” Meetings.
45.
KolbeM.BoosM. (2019). Laborious but elaborate: The benefits of really studying team dynamics. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1478. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01478.
46.
KozlowskiS. W.ChaoG. T. (2018). Unpacking team process dynamics and emergent phenomena: Challenges, conceptual advances, and innovative methods. American Psychologist, 73(4), 576. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000245.
47.
LiH. Z. (2006). Backchannel responses as misleading feedback in intercultural discourse. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475750600909253
48.
LiH. Z.CuiY.WangZ. (2010). Backchannel responses and enjoyment of the conversation: The more does not necessarily mean the better. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 2(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v2n1p25
49.
LittlepageG. E.SchmidtG. W.WhislerE. W.FrostA. G. (1995). An input-process-output analysis of influence and performance in problem-solving groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 69(5), 877–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.877
50.
LoughryM. L.OhlandM. W.DeWayne MooreD. (2007). Development of a theory-based assessment of team member effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(3), 505–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644062920
51.
MachtG. A.NembhardD. A.KimJ. H.RothrockL. (2014). Structural models of extraversion, communication, and team performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 44(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2013.10.007.
52.
MacLarenN. G.YammarinoF. J.DionneS. D.SayamaH.MumfordM. D.ConnellyS.MartinR. W.MulhearnT. J.ToddE. M.KulkarniA.CaoY.RuarkG. A. (2020). Testing the babble hypothesis: Speaking time predicts leader emergence in small groups. Leadership Quarterly, 31(5), 101409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101409
53.
MarcusD. K. (2021). Studying group dynamics with the social relations model revisited. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 25(3), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000165
54.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.2307/259182
55.
MarlowS. L.LacerenzaC. N.PaolettiJ.BurkeC. S.SalasE. (2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001.
56.
MartelM. M.MarkonK.SmithG. T. (2017). Research Review: Multi-informant integration in child and adolescent psychopathology diagnosis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(2), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12611
McDonaldJ. D. (2008). Measuring personality constructs: The advantages and disadvantages of self-reports, informant reports and behavioural assessments. Enquire, 1(1), 75–94.
59.
McLarenC. D.SpinkK. S. (2020). Examining the prospective relationship between communication network structure and task cohesion and team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 24(2), 74. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000110
60.
MedinaM. N.SrivastavaS. (2016). The role of extraversion and communication methods on an individual’s satisfaction with the team. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 78.
61.
MullenB.JohnsonC.SalasE. (1991). Effects of communication network structure: Components of positional centrality. Social Networks, 13(2), 169–185.
62.
MüllerJ.MenesesJ.HumbertA. L.GuentherE. A. (2021). Sensor-based proximity metrics for team research. A validation study across three organizational contexts. Behavior Research Methods, 53(2), 718–743. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01444-x.
63.
MurphyN. A.HallJ. A.ColvinC. R. (2003). Accurate intelligence assessments in social interactions: Mediators and gender effects. Journal of Personality, 71(3), 465–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7103008
64.
NakagawaS.SchielzethH. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
65.
NebelS.SchneiderS.ReyG. D. (2016). Mining learning and crafting scientific experiments: A literature review on the use of minecraft in education and research. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 355–366.
66.
NikoleizigL.SchmukleS. C.GriebenowM.KrauseS. (2021). Investigating contributors to performance evaluations in small groups: Task competence, speaking time, physical expressiveness, and likability. PloS One, 16(6), Article e0252980. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252980
67.
NunallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
68.
O’BryanL.BeierM.SalasE. (2020). How approaches to animal swarm intelligence can improve the study of collective intelligence in human teams. Journal of Intelligence, 8(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence8010009
69.
O’ConaillB.WhittakerS.WilburS. (1993). Conversations over video conferences: An evaluation of the spoken aspects of video-mediated communication. Human-Computer Interaction, 8(4), 389–428. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0804_4
70.
OhlandM. W.LoughryM. L.WoehrD. J.BullardL. G.FelderR. M.FinelliC. J.LaytonR. A.PomeranzH. R.SchmuckerD. G. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self-and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 609–630. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0177
71.
OlguínD. O.GloorP. A.PentlandA. (2009). Capturing Individual and Group Behavior with Wearable Sensors. Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium: Human Behavior Modeling, 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-010-9300-4
72.
OrasanuJ.FischerU.McDonnellL. K.DavisonJ.HaarsK. E.VilledaE.VanAkenC. (1998). How do flight crews detect and prevent errors? Findings from a flight simulation study. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 42(3), 191–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129804200302
73.
ParkerK. C. (1988). Speaking turns in small group interaction: A context-sensitive event sequence model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 965.
74.
PengY.AntonN. E.ChaJ.MizotaT.HenningsJ. M.StambroR.RendinaM. A.Stanton-MaxeyK. J.StefanidisD.YuD. (2019). Objective measures of communication behavior predict clinical performance. Journal of Surgical Education, 76(5), 1337–1347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.03.017
75.
PentlandA. (2004). Social dynamics: Signals and behavior. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Developmental Learning, La Jolla, California, 20October, 2004, 263–267.
76.
PurdyJ. M.NyeP.BalakrishnanP. S. (2000). The impact of communication media on negotiation outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(2), 162–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022839.
77.
PurvanovaR. K. (2014). Face-to-face versus virtual teams: What have we really learned?The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(1), 2–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000009
78.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
79.
RicoR.Sánchez-ManzanaresM.GilF.GibsonC. (2008). Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge–based approach. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27751276
80.
RobertsF.FrancisA. L. (2013). Identifying a temporal threshold of tolerance for silent gaps after requests. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(6), EL471–EL477. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4802900
81.
RobertsF.FrancisA. L.MorganM. (2006). The interaction of inter-turn silence with prosodic cues in listener perceptions of “trouble” in conversation. Speech Communication, 48(9), 1079–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2006.02.001
82.
RobertsF.MarguttiP.TakanoS. (2011). Judgments concerning the valence of inter-turn silence across speakers of American English, Italian, and Japanese. Discourse Processes, 48(5), 331–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.558002
83.
RogersW. T.JonesS. S. (1975). Effects of Dominance Tendencies on Floor Holding and Interruption Behavior in Dyadic Interaction. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 113–122.
84.
RoseD.ClarkeP. (1995). A review of eye-to-eye videoconferencing techniques. BT Technology Journal, 13(4), 127–131.
85.
Sanchez-CortesD.AranO.MastM. S.Gatica-PerezD. (2010). Identifying emergent leadership in small groups using nonverbal communicative cues. International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces and the Workshop on Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction, Beijing, China, 4 November, 2010, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/1891903.1891953
86.
SauerN. C.KauffeldS. (2013). Meetings as networks: Applying social network analysis to team interaction. Communication Methods and Measures, 7(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.760729
87.
SchoberM. F.ClarkH. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21(2), 211–232.
88.
SherfE. N.SinhaR.TangiralaS.AwastyN. (2018). Centralization of member voice in teams: Its effects on expertise utilization and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(8), 813–827. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000305
89.
SorrentinoR. M.BoutillierR. G. (1975). The effect of quantity and quality of verbal interaction on ratings of leadership ability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(5), 403–411.
90.
StasserG.TaylorL. A. (1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 675–684.
91.
StiversT.EnfieldN. J.BrownP.EnglertC.HayashiM.HeinemannT.HoymannG.RossanoF.de RuiterJ. P.YoonK.-E.LevinsonS. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106
92.
ter MaatM.TruongK. P.HeylenD. (2011). How agents’ turn-taking strategies influence impressions and response behaviors. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 20(5), 412–430. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00064
93.
TostL. P.GinoF.LarrickR. P. (2013). When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1465–1486. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0180
94.
TrimboliC.WalkerM. B. (1984). Switching pauses in cooperative and competitive conversations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20(4), 297–311.
95.
TureskyE. F.SmithC. D.TureskyT. K. (2020). A call to action for virtual team leaders: Practitioner perspectives on trust, conflict and the need for organizational support. Organization Management Journal, 17(4/5), 185–206.
96.
WoolleyA. W.ChabrisC. F.PentlandA.HashmiN.MaloneT. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147
97.
YoungquistJ. (2009). The effect of interruptions and dyad gender combination on perceptions of interpersonal dominance. Communication Studies, 60(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970902834874
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
