Team virtuality has been mostly conceptualized as structural features, such as the percentage of time team members communicate via technology. However, the perception of distance and of information deficits (team perceived virtuality, TPV) may be an indispensable construct to understand virtual teams’ functioning. The lockdowns imposed on most countries due to COVID-19 created virtual teams with high degrees of structural virtuality. With structural virtuality held constant among teams, we explore configurations of work characteristics (autonomy, interdependence, and organizational support) that influence TPV. With a sample of 296 multinational workers, a Latent Profile Analysis identified four distinct profiles of those work characteristics. Those profiles related differently to TPV. Contrary to previous findings, interdependence seems to play an important role in these teams high in structural virtuality when their autonomy is also high, highlighting the pivotal role of frequent interaction among team members, under conditions of high structural virtuality.
AsparouhovT.MuthénB. O. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181
2.
AyyagariR.GroverV.PurvisR. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831–858. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409963
3.
BakkZ.VermuntJ. K. (2016). Robustness of stepwise latent class modeling with continuous distal outcomes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.955104
CarterK. M.MeadB. A.StewartG. L.NielsenJ. D.SolimeoS. L. (2019). Reviewing work team design characteristics across industries: Combining meta-analysis and comprehensive synthesis. Small Group Research, 50(1), 138–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496418797431
6.
CiarrochiJ.MorinA. J. S.SahdraB. K.LitalienD.ParkerP. D. (2017). A longitudinal person-centered perspective on youth social support: Relations with psychological wellbeing. Developmental Psychology, 53(6), 1154–1169. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000315
7.
CourtrightS. H.ThurgoodG. R.StewartG. L.PierottiA. J. (2015). Structural interdependence in teams: An integrative framework and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1825–1846. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000027
8.
DaftR. L.LengelR. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
9.
De GuineaA. O.WebsterJ.StaplesD. S. (2012). A meta-analysis of the consequences of virtualness on team functioning. Information & Management, 49(6), 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2012.08.003
10.
DeSanctisG.PooleM. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.2.121
11.
De TrevilleS.AntonakisJ. (2006). Could lean production job design be intrinsically motivating? Contextual, configurational, and levels-of-analysis issues. Journal of Operations Management, 24(2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.04.001
EmreO.De SpiegeleareS. (2019). The role of work–life balance and autonomy in the relationship between commuting, employee commitment and well-being. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1583270
FosterM. K.AbbeyA.CallowM. A.ZuX.WilbonA. D. (2015). Rethinking virtuality and its impact on teams. Small Group Research, 46(3), 267–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496415573795
16.
GajendranR. S.HarrisonD. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2006.27161834
17.
GeisterS.KonradtU.HertelG. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 37(5), 459–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292337
18.
GibbsJ. L.SivunenA.BoyrazM. (2017). Investigating the impacts of team type and design on virtual team processes. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 590–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.006
19.
GilsonL. L.MaynardM. T.Jones YoungN. C.VartiainenM.HakonenM. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313–1337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314559946
20.
GoldenT. D.GajendranR. S. (2019). Unpacking the role of a telecommuter’s job in their performance: Examining job complexity, problem solving, interdependence, and social support. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9530-4
21.
GriffinM. A.NealA.ParkerS. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438
22.
HackmanJ. R.OldhamG. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
23.
HandkeL.CostaP. L.KlonekF. E.O’NeillT. A.ParkerS. K. (2020). Team perceived virtuality: An emergent state perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1806921
24.
HandkeL.KlonekF. E.ParkerS. K.KauffeldS. (2020). Interactive effects of team virtuality and work design on team functioning. Small Group Research, 51(1), 3–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419863490
25.
HillN. S.BartolK. M. (2016). Empowering leadership and effective collaboration in geographically dispersed teams. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 159–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12108
26.
HochJ. E.KozlowskiS. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030264
27.
HofmansJ.WilleB.SchreursB. (2020). Person-centered methods in vocational research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 118, 103398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103398
28.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation odeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
29.
KellerA. C.IgicI.MeierL. L.SemmerN. K.SchaubroeckJ. M.BrunnerB.ElferingA. (2017). Testing job typologies and identifying at-risk subpopulations using factor mixture models. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(4), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000038
30.
KockN. (1998). Can communication medium limitations foster better group outcomes? An action research study. Information & Management, 34(5), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-7206(98)00066-4
31.
KockN. (2001). Compensatory adaptation to a lean medium: An action research investigation of electronic communication in process improvement groups. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1109/47.968108
32.
KorzennyF. (1978). A theory of electronic propinquity: Mediated communication in organizations. Communication Research, 5(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365027800500101
33.
KozlowskiS. W. J.BellB. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In BormanW. C.IlgenD. R.KlimoskiR. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). John Wiley.
LangfredC. W. (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of Management, 31(4), 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304272190
36.
LangfredC. W.MoyeN. A. (2004). Effects of task autonomy on performance: An extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 934–945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.934
37.
LeeY.ChoD. (2020). The effects of job demands, job resources, and personal resources on the psychological well-being of middle-aged workers in the United States: Assessing latent profile differences. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 20(3), 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-019-09414-2
38.
LoY.MendellN. R.RubinD. B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika, 88(3), 767–778. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/88.3.767
39.
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
40.
MarshH. W.LüdtkeO.TrautweinU.MorinA. J. S. (2009). Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of person- and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(2), 191–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510902751010
41.
MathieuJ. E.GallagherP. T.DomingoM. A.KlockE. A. (2019). Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 17–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106
42.
MaynardM. T.MathieuJ. E.GilsonL. L.SanchezD. R.DeanM. D. (2019). Do I really know you and does it matter? Unpacking the relationship between familiarity and information elaboration in global virtual teams. Group & Organization Management, 44(1), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118785842
43.
McLarnonM. J. W.O’NeillT. A. (2018). Extensions of auxiliary variable approaches for the investigation of mediation, moderation, and conditional effects in mixture models. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 955–982. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118770731
44.
MintzbergH. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organizations. Simon and Schuster.
45.
MorgesonF. P.HumphreyS. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321
46.
MorgesonF. P.MedskerG. J.CampionM. A. (2006). Job and team design. In SalvendyG. (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 428–457). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470048204.ch16
47.
MorinA. J. S.McLarnonM. J. W.LitalienD. (2020). Mixture modeling in organizational behavior research. In GriepY.HansenS.VantilborghT.HofmansJ. (Eds.), Handbook of dynamic organizational behavior: A method toolbox (pp. 351–379). Edward Elgar.
NylundK. L.AsparouhovT.MuthénB. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
50.
O’NeillT. A.McLarnonM. J. W.HoffartG. C.WoodleyH. J. R.AllenN. J. (2018). The structure and function of team conflict state profiles. Journal of Management, 44(2), 811–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315581662
51.
O’NeillT. A.McLarnonM. J. W.XiuL.LawS. J. (2016). Core self-evaluations, perceptions of group potency, and job performance: The moderating role of individualism and collectivism cultural profiles. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(3), 447–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12135
52.
OrlikowskiW. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.
53.
OrlikowskiW. J. (2010). The sociomateriality of organisational life: Considering technology in management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bep058
ParkerS. K.MorgesonF. P.JohnsG. (2017). One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000106
56.
ParkerS. K.WallT. D.CorderyJ. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317901167460
57.
RaabeB.FreseM.BeehrT. A. (2007). Action regulation theory and career self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(2), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.10.005
58.
RaghuramS.HillN. S.GibbsJ. L.MarupingL. M. (2019). Virtual work: Bridging research clusters. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 308–341. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0020
59.
Ragu-NathanT. S.TarafdarM.Ragu-NathanB. S.TuQ. (2008). The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0165
60.
RhoadesL.EisenbergerR. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
61.
RicoR.CohenS. G. (2005). Effects of task interdependence and type of communication on performance in virtual teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510589046
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192
64.
SchulzeJ.KrummS. (2017). The “virtual team player”: A review and initial model of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics for virtual collaboration. Organizational Psychology Review, 7(1), 66–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386616675522
65.
ShufflerM. L.DiazgranadosD.MaynardM. T.SalasE. (2018). Developing, sustaining, and maximizing team effectiveness: An integrative, dynamic perspective of team development interventions. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 688–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0045
66.
StegmannS.van DickR.UllrichJ.CharalambousJ.MenzelB.EgoldN.WuT. T. C. (2010). Der work design questionnaire [The Work Design Questionnaire]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie, 54, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000002
67.
WaltherJ. B.ParksM. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer mediated communication and relationships. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529–561). Sage.
68.
WilsonJ. M.Boyer O’LearyM.MetiuA.JettQ. R. (2008). Perceived proximity in virtual work: Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies, 29(7), 979–1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607083105
