Do I Really Know You and Does It Matter? Unpacking the Relationship Between Familiarity and Information Elaboration in Global Virtual Teams

Abstract

We investigate the relationship between personal and professional familiarly, team effectiveness, and viability, and how these relationships are mediated by information elaboration in global virtual teams. We further assess whether virtuality moderates the relationships between both types of familiarity and information elaboration. Based on data collected from 63 global virtual supply chain teams, our results suggest that professional familiarity is positively associated with team information elaboration, which in turn relates positively to both manager-rated team effectiveness and team leader–rated viability. Furthermore, team virtuality enhances the influence of personal familiarity on information elaboration, but dampens the relationship between professional familiarity and information elaboration. Our results suggest that professional familiarity is a more salient antecedent of information elaboration in global virtual teams. We discuss the implications of our results for both theory and practice.

Keywords

global virtual teams team familiarity information elaboration

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akgun

Byrne

Keskin

(2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42, 1105-1120.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

Argote

Ingram

Levine

J. M.

Moreland

R. L.

(2000). Knowledge transfer in organizations: Learning from the experience of others. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 82, 1-8.

Balkundi

Harrison

D. A.

(2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 49-68.

Barnwell

Nedrick

Rudolph

Sesay

Wellen

(2014). Leadership of international and virtual project teams. International Journal of Global Business, 7(2), 1-8.

Barrick

M. R.

Stewart

G. L.

Neubert

M. I.

Mount

M. K.

(1998). Relating member ability and personality to work–team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391.

Bartone

P. T.

Johnsen

B. H.

Eid

Brun

Laberg

J. C.

(2002). Factors influencing small-unit cohesion in Norwegian navy officer cadets. Military Psychology, 14, 1-22.

Bell

B. S.

Kozlowski

S. W.

(2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27, 14-49.

Bierly

P. E. I.

Stark

E. M.

Kessler

E. H.

(2009). The moderating effects of virtuality on the antecedents and outcome of NPD team trust. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 551-565.

10.

Bughin

Chui

(2010). The rise of the networked enterprise: Web 2.0 finds its payday. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/our-insights/the-rise-of-the-networked-enterprise-web-20-finds-its-payday

11.

Carton

A. M.

Cummings

J. N.

(2012). A theory of subgroups in work teams. Academy of Management Review, 37, 441-470.

12.

Chen

G. M.

(1995). Differences in self-disclosure patterns among Americans versus Chinese: A comparative study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 84-91.

13.

Chen

G. M.

Mathieu

J. E.

Bliese

P. D.

(2004). Validating frogs and ponds in multilevel contexts: Some afterthoughts. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 3, 335-343.

14.

Cheshin

Rafaeli

Bos

(2011). Anger and happiness in virtual teams: Emotional influences of text and behavior on others’ affect in the absence of non-verbal cues. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 2-16.

15.

Chiu

Y.-T.

Staples

D. S.

(2013). Reducing faultlines in geographically dispersed teams: Self-disclosure and task elaboration. Small Group Research, 44, 498-531.

16.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

17.

Cramton

C. D.

(2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346-371.

18.

Crawford

E. R.

LePine

J. A.

(2013). A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38, 32-48.

19.

Cropanzano

Prehar

C. A.

Chen

P. Y.

(2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organization Management, 27, 324-351.

20.

Daft

R. L.

Lengel

R. H.

(1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233.

21.

Dalal

D. K.

Nolan

K. P.

Gannon

L. E.

(2017). Are pre-assembly shared work experiences useful for temporary-team assembly decisions? A study of Olympic ice hockey team composition. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32, 561-574.

22.

DeStephen

Hirokawa

R. Y.

(1988). Small group consensus: Stability of group support of the decision, task process, and group relationships. Small Group Behavior, 19, 227-239.

23.

Edmondson

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.

24.

Espinosa

J. A.

Slaughter

S. A.

Kraut

R. E.

Herbsleb

J. D.

(2007). Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organization Science, 18, 613-630.

25.

Evans

N. J.

Jarvis

P. A.

(1986). The Group Attitude Scale: A measure of attraction to group. Small Group Behavior, 17, 203-216.

26.

Finkelstein

Hambrick

D. C.

(1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 484-503.

27.

Fuchs

L. S.

Dailey

A. M.

Power

M. H.

(1985). The effect of examiners’ personal familiarity and professional experience on handicapped children’s test performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 78, 141-146.

28.

Germain

McGuire

(2014). The role of swift trust in virtual teams and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16, 356-370.

29.

Gibson

C. B.

Cohen

S. G.

(2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual collaboration effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

30.

Gibson

C. B.

Gibbs

J. L.

(2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 451-495.

31.

Gigone

Hastie

(1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959-974.

32.

Gilson

L. L.

Maynard

M. T.

Jones Young

N. C.

Vartiainen

Hakonen

(2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41, 1313-1337.

33.

Goodman

P. S.

Garber

(1988). Absenteeism and accidents in a dangerous environment: Empirical analysis of underground coal mines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 81-86.

34.

Goodman

P. S.

Leyden

D. P.

(1991). Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 578-586.

35.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.

36.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.

37.

Griffith

T. L.

Sawyer

J. E.

Neale

M. A.

(2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly, 27, 265-287.

38.

Gully

S. M.

(2000). Work teams research: Recent findings and future trends. In Beyerlein

M. M.

(Ed.), Work teams: Past, present and future (pp. 25-44). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

39.

Hackman

J. R.

(1987). The design of work teams. In Lorsch

(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NH: Prentice Hall

40.

Hanft

T. R.

(2002). Familiarity in organizations. Dallas: University of Texas at Dallas.

41.

Butler

B. S.

King

W. R.

(2007). Team cognition: Development and evolution in software project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24, 261-292.

42.

Hertel

Geister

Konradt

(2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69-95.

43.

Hinds

P. J.

Cramton

C. D.

(2013). Situated coworker familiarity: How site visits transform relationships among distributed workers. Organization Science, 25, 794-814.

44.

Hinds

P. J.

Weisband

S. P.

(2003). Knowledge sharing and shared understanding in virtual teams. In Gibson

C. B.

Cohen

S. G.

(Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 21-36). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.

45.

Hoever

I. J.

van Knippenberg

van Ginkel

W. P.

Barkema

H. G.

(2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 982-996.

46.

Homan

A. C.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Humphrey

S. E.

van Knippenberg

Ilgen

D. R.

Van Kleef

G. A.

(2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1204-1222.

47.

Homan

A. C.

van Knippenberg

(2003, May). The beneficial effects of cross-categorizing informational and demographical diversity in groups. Paper presented at the 11th European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, Lisbon, Portugal.

48.

Homan

A. C.

van Knippenberg

Van Kleef

G. A.

De Dreu

C. K. W.

(2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189-1199.

49.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

50.

Huckman

R. S.

Staats

B. R.

Upton

D. M.

(2009). Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management Science, 55, 85-100.

51.

James

L. R.

(1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229.

52.

James

L. R.

Demaree

R. G.

Wolf

(1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.

53.

Jehn

K. A.

Greer

Levine

Szulanski

(2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 465-495.

54.

Jehn

K. A.

Shah

P. P.

(1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775-790.

55.

Johns

(2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-408.

56.

Kearney

Gebert

(2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 77-89.

57.

Killumets

D’Innocenzo

Maynard

M. T.

Mathieu

J. E.

(2015). A multilevel examination of the impact of team interpersonal processes. Small Group Research, 46, 227-259.

58.

Kirkman

B. L.

Mathieu

J. E.

(2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31, 700-718.

59.

Kirkman

B. L.

Rosen

Gibson

C. B.

Tesluk

P. E.

McPherson

S. O.

(2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. The Academy of Management Executive, 16, 67-79.

60.

Kirkman

B. L.

Rosen

Tesluk

P. E.

Gibson

C. B.

(2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of degree of face to face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 198-209.

61.

Kirkman

B. L.

Rosen

Tesluk

P. E.

Gibson

C. B.

(2006). Enhancing the transfer of computer assisted training proficiency in geographically-distributed teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 706-716.

62.

Klein

Moosbrugger

(2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65, 457-474.

63.

Krumm

Terwiel

Hertel

(2013). Challenges in norm formation and adherence: The knowledge, skills, and ability requirements of virtual and traditional cross-cultural teams. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12, 33-44.

64.

Kurmann

Keller

Tschan-Semmer

Seelandt

Semmer

N. K.

Candinas

Beldi

(2014). Impact of team familiarity in the operating room on surgical complications. World Journal of Surgery, 38, 3047-3052.

65.

LeBreton

J. M.

Senter

J. L.

(2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815-852.

66.

Lewis

(2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 587-604.

67.

Marlow

S. L.

Lacerenza

C. N.

Paoletti

Burke

C. S.

Salas

(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.

68.

Martins

L. L.

Gilson

L. L.

Maynard

M. T.

(2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805-835.

69.

Mathieu

J. E.

Gilson

L. L.

(2012). Criteria issues and team effectiveness. In Kozlowski

S. J. W.

(Ed.), Oxford handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 910-930). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

70.

Mathieu

J. E.

Rapp

T. L.

(2009). Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: The roles of team charters and performance strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 90-103.

71.

Mathieu

J. E.

Taylor

S. R.

(2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031-1056.

72.

McEvily

Perrone

Zaheer

(2003). Trust as an ongoing principle. Organization Science, 14, 91-103.

73.

McGrath

J. E.

Arrow

Gruenfeld

D. H.

Hollingshead

K. M.

O’Connor

K. M.

(1993). Groups, tasks, and technology: The effects of experience and change. Small Group Research, 24, 406-420.

74.

Mesmer-Magnus

J. R.

DeChurch

L. A.

(2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535-546.

75.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2014). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

76.

Nurmi

(2011). Coping with coping strategies: How distributed reams and their members deal with the stress of distance, time zones, and culture. Stress & Health, 27, 123-143.

77.

O’Leary

M. B.

Cummings

J. N.

(2007). The spatial, temporal, and configural characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31, 433-452.

78.

O’Leary

M. B.

Wilson

J. M.

Metiu

(2014). Beyond being there: The symbolic role of communication and identification in perceptions of proximity to geographically dispersed colleagues. MIS quarterly, 38, 1219-1243.

79.

O’Neill

O. M.

Rothbard

N. P.

(2017). Is love all you need? The effects of emotional culture, suppression, and work-family conflict on firefighter risk-taking and health. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 78-108.

80.

Pauleen

D. J.

Yoong

(2001). Relationship building and the use of ICT in boundary-crossing virtual teams: A facilitator’s perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 16, 205-220.

81.

Pillemer

Rothbard

N. P.

(2018). Friends without benefits: Understanding the dark sides of workplace friendship. Academy of Management Review, 43(4).

82.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

83.

Rafaeli

Ravid

(2003). Information sharing as enabler for the virtual team: An experimental approach to assessing the role of electronic mail in disintermediation. Information Systems Journal, 13, 191-206.

84.

Riordan

M. A.

Markman

K. M.

Stewart

C. O.

(2013). Communication accommodation in instant messaging: An examination of temporal convergence. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32, 84-95.

85.

Rusman

van Bruggen

Sloep

Koper

(2010). Fostering trust in virtual project teams: Towards a design framework grounded in a TrustWorthiness ANtecedents (TWAN) schema. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 834-850.

86.

Salas

Rozell

Mullen

Driskell

J. E.

(1999). The effect of team building on performance: An integration. Small Group Research, 30, 309-329.

87.

Schippers

M. C.

Den Hartog

D. N.

Koopman

P. L.

Wienk

J. A.

(2003). Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 779-802.

88.

Shachaf

(2008). Cultural diversity and information and communication technology impacts on global virtual teams: An exploratory study. Information & Management, 45, 131-142.

89.

Smith-Jentsch

K. A.

Kraiger

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Salas

(2009). Do familiar teammates request and accept more backup? Transactive memory in air traffic control. Human Factors, 51, 181-192.

90.

Souder

W. E.

(1988). Managing relations between R&D and marketing in new product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5, 6-19.

91.

Stasser

Stewart

(1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426-434.

92.

Steiner

I. D.

(1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.

93.

Stevens

M. J.

Campion

M. A.

(1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25, 207-228.

94.

Tekleab

A. G.

Quigley

N. R.

Tesluk

P. E.

(2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34, 170-205.

95.

Tjosvold

Tang

M. M.

West

(2004). Reflexivity for team innovation in China: The contribution of goal interdependence. Group & Organization Management, 29, 540-559.

96.

Tse

H. H. M.

Dasborough

M. T.

(2008). A study of exchange and emotions in team member relationships. Group & Organization Management, 33, 194-215.

97.

van Ginkel

W. P.

Tindale

R. S.

van Knippenberg

(2009). Team reflexivity, development of shared task representations, and the use of distributed information in group decision making. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13, 265-280.

98.

van Knippenberg

De Dreu

C. K. W.

Homan

A. C.

(2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.

99.

Vitharana

Ramamurthy

(2003). Computer-mediated group support, anonymity, and the software inspection process: An empirical investigation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29, 167-180.

100.

Walther

J. B.

Loh

Granka

(2005). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 36-65.

101.

Wegner

D. M.

(1987). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923-929.

102.

Wolfson

M. A.

Tannenbaum

S. I.

Mathieu

J. E.

Maynard

M. T.

(2018). A cross-level investigation of informal field-based learning and performance improvements. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 14-36.

103.

Zakaria

Amelinckx

Wilemon

(2004). Working together apart? Building a knowledge-sharing culture for global virtual teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, 15-29.

104.

Zellmer-Bruhn

M. E.

Maloney

M. M.

Bhappu

A. D.

Salvador

(2008). When and how do differences matter? An exploration of perceived similarity in teams. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 41-59.