The use of virtual and online tools has become commonplace in organizations to remain competitive in a global and dynamic environment. To understand the impact of these tools on team performance, we examine virtuality through a dynamic lens and test a model that links two team characteristics—virtuality and team density—to team performance across performance episodes. Using data from 36 temporary graduate student teams in a classroom setting, random coefficient growth modeling shows that team density attenuates the negative relationship between virtuality and team performance more strongly over time. Our findings highlight the importance of using a dynamic approach to understand how virtuality and team density affect team performance over time. We discuss the theoretical implications of conceptualizing virtuality from a time-sensitive perspective.
AguinisH.RamaniR. S.AlabduljaderN. (2018). What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0011
2.
ArrowH.McGrathJ. E.BerdahlJ. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Sage.
3.
AtkinsonR. (1999). Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6),337–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00069-6
4.
BadewiA. (2016). The impact of project management (PM) and benefits management (BM) practices on project success: Towards developing a project benefits governance framework. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 761–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.005
5.
BaileyK.BreslinD. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: What can we learn from past research in organizations and management?International Journal of Management Reviews, 23(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12237
6.
BaldwinT. T.BedellM. D.JohnsonJ. L. (1997). The social fabric of a team-based MBA program: Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1369–1397. https://doi.org/10.5465/257037
7.
BalkundiP.HarrisonD. 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(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785500
8.
BalkundiP.WangL.KishoreR. (2019). Teams as boundaries: How intra-team and inter-team brokerage influence network changes in knowledge-seeking networks. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(3), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2331
9.
BaltesB. B.DicksonM. W.ShermanM. P.BauerC. C.LaGankeJ. S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 156–179. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2961
10.
BealD. J.WeissH. M.BarrosE.MacDermidS. M. (2005). An episodic process model of affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1054–1068. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1054
11.
BeckerT. E.AtincG.BreaughJ. A.CarlsonK. D.EdwardsJ. R.SpectorP. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2053
12.
BellB. S.KozlowskiS. W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102027001003
BlauP. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. Free Press.
15.
BlieseP. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In KleinK. J.KozwolskiS. W. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.
16.
BlieseP. D.PloyhartR. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random coefficient models: Model building, testing, and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 362–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442802237116
17.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.JohnsonJ. C. (2018). Analyzing social networks. Sage Publications.
18.
BorgattiS. P.FosterP. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00087-4
BrownM. I.PrewettM. S.GrossenbacherM. A. (2020). Distancing ourselves from geographic dispersion: An examination of perceived virtuality in teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 24(3), 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000120
CarlsonJ. R.ZmudR. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.5465/257090
24.
ChenH.MehraA.TasselliS.BorgattiS. P. (2022). Network dynamics and organizations: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 48(6), 1602–1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211063218
25.
CrawfordE. R.LePineJ. A. (2013). A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0206
26.
CuijpersM.UitdewilligenS.GuenterH. (2016). Effects of dual identification and interteam conflict on multiteam system performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(1), 141–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12113
27.
De JongJ. P.CurşeuP. L.LeendersR. T. (2014). When do bad apples not spoil the barrel? Negative relationships in teams, team performance, and buffering mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 514–522. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036284
28.
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
EllisP. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge University Press.
FabrigarL. R.PorterR. D.NorrisM. E. (2010). Some things you should know about structural equation modeling but never thought to ask. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 221–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.03.003
33.
FisherJ.KnappD.NguyenC. B.RichterD.ShutskoA.StoppeM.WilliamsK.IlhanA.StockW. G. (2020). Clustering social media services and messengers by functionality. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 8(4), 6–19. https://doi.org/0.1633/JISTaP.2020.8.4.1
34.
FullerR. M.DennisA. R. (2009). Does fit matter? The impact of task-technology fit and appropriation on team performance in repeated tasks. Information Systems Research, 20(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0167
35.
GaneshM.GuptaM. (2010). Impact of virtualness and task interdependence on extra-role performance in software development teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 16(3/4), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527591011053250
GibbsJ. L.BoyrazM.SivunenA.NordbäckE. (2021). Exploring the discursive construction of subgroups in global virtual teams. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 49(1), 86–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2020.1851745
38.
GibsonC. B.GibbsJ. 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(3), 451–495. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.3.451
39.
GibsonC. B.GibbsJ. L.StankoT. L.TeslukP.CohenS. G. (2011). Including the “I” in virtuality and modern job design: Extending the job characteristics model to include the moderating effect of individual experiences of electronic dependence and copresence. Organization Science, 22(6), 1481–1499. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0586
40.
GibsonC. B.HuangL.KirkmanB. L.ShapiroD. L. (2014). Where global and virtual meet: The value of examining the intersection of these elements in twenty-first-century teams. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 217–244. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091240
41.
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
42.
GriffithT. L.NealeM. A. (2001). Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 379–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23009-3
43.
HackmanJ. R.MorrisC. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 45–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60248-8
44.
HandkeL.CostaP. L.KlonekF. E.O’NeillT. A.ParkerS. K. (2021). Team perceived virtuality: An emergent state perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(5), 624–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1806921
45.
HandkeL.SchulteE.-M.SchneiderK.KauffeldS. (2019). Teams, time, and technology: Variations of media use over project phases. Small Group Research, 50(2), 266–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496418824151
46.
HertelG.GeisterS.KonradtU. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.01.002
47.
HillN. S.KangJ. H.SeoM.-G. (2014). The interactive effect of leader-member exchange and electronic communication on employee psychological empowerment and work outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 772–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.006
48.
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
49.
HoeglM.WeinkaufK.GemuendenH. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0053
50.
HoxJ. J.MoerbeekM.Van de SchootR. (2017). Multi-level analysis: Techniques and Applications. Routledge.
51.
IbarraH. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 56–87. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1993.3997507
52.
IlgenD. R.HollenbeckJ. R.JohnsonM.JundtD. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250
53.
JamesL. R.DemareeR. G.WolfG. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
54.
JarvenpaaS. L.LeidnerD. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.6.791
55.
JehnK. A.MannixE. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069453
56.
JungstM. (2023). Differential effects of technological invasion on employee silence across generational cohorts. Systèmes d’Information et Management, 28(1), 11–42. https://doi.org/10.54695/sim.28.1.0011
57.
JungstM.BlumbergB. (2016). Work relationships: Counteracting the negative effects of conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 27(2), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-10-2014-0079
58.
KatzD.KahnR. L. (Eds.). (1978). Organizations and the system concept. In The social psychology of organizations (pp. 17–34). Wiley.
59.
KimS. H.SongH.ValentineM. A. (2023). Learning in temporary teams: The varying effects of partner exposure by team member role. Organization Science, 34(1), 433–455. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1585
60.
KirkmanB. L.GibsonC. B.KimK. (2012). Across borders and technologies: Advancements in virtual teams research. In KozlowskiS. W. J. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 789–858). Oxford University Press.
61.
KirkmanB. L.MathieuJ. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31(5), 700–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279113
62.
KuypersT.GuenterH.van EmmerikH. (2018). Team turnover and task conflict: A longitudinal study on the moderating effects of collective experience. Journal of Management, 44(4), 1287–1311. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000175
63.
LeBretonJ. M.SenterJ. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642
64.
LePineJ. A.PiccoloR. F.JacksonC. L.MathieuJ. E.SaulJ. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x
65.
LinN. (2002). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press.
66.
LindsleyD. H.BrassD. J.ThomasJ. B. (1995). Efficacy-performing spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 645–678. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080333
67.
LorinkovaN. M.PearsallM. J.SimsH. P.Jr. (2013). Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 573–596. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0132
68.
MäkikangasA.JuutinenS.MäkiniemiJ. P.SjöblomK.OksanenA. (2022). Work engagement and its antecedents in remote work: A person-centered view. Work & Stress, 36(4), 392–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2022.2080777
69.
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/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785
70.
MartinsL. L.GilsonL. L.MaynardM. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here?Journal of Management, 30(6), 805–835. https://doi.org/1016/j.jm.2004.05.002
71.
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
72.
MathieuJ. E.HollenbeckJ. R.van KnippenbergD.IlgenD. R. (2017). A century of work teams in theJournal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000128
73.
MathieuJ. E.KukenbergerM. R.D’InnocenzoL.ReillyG. (2015). Modeling reciprocal team cohesion-performance relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and members’ competence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 713–734. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038898
74.
MathieuJ. E.MaynardM. T.RappT.GilsonL. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061
75.
MathieuJ. E.RappT. L. (2009). Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: The roles of team charters and performance strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013257
76.
MathieuJ. E.TannenbaumS. I.DonsbachJ. S.AlligerG. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40(1), 130–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313503014
77.
MaynardM. T.MathieuJ. E.GilsonL. L.SanchezD.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
78.
MaynardM. T.MathieuJ. E.RappT. L.GilsonL. L. (2012). Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1772
79.
Mesmer-MagnusJ. R.DeChurchL. A.Jimenez-RodriguezM.WildmanJ.ShufflerM. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.002
80.
MitchellT. R.JamesL. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 530–547. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.5393889
81.
NorthM. S. (2019). A gate to understanding “older” workers: Generation, age, tenure, experience. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 414–443. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0125
82.
OhH.ChungM.-H.LabiancaG. (2004). Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 860–875. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159627
83.
OhH.LabiancaG.ChungM.-H. (2006). A multilevel model of group social capital. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.21318918
84.
ParkE. K.SundarS. S. (2015). Can synchronicity and visual modality enhance social presence in mobile messaging?Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.001
85.
PintoJ. K.PrescottJ. E. (1988). Variations in critical success factors over the stages in the project life cycle. Journal of Management, 14(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638801400102
86.
PitariuA. H.PloyhartR. E. (2010). Explaining change: Theorizing and testing dynamic mediated longitudinal relationships. Journal of Management, 36(2), 405–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308331096
87.
PreacherK. J.CurranP. J.BauerD. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437
88.
PurvanovaR. K.KendaR. (2022). The impact of virtuality on team effectiveness in organizational and non-organizational teams: A meta-analysis. Applied Psychology, 71(3), 1082–1131. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12348
89.
QuigleyN. R.TeslukP. E.LockeE. A.BartolK. M. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance. Organization Science, 18(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0223
90.
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.2017.002
91.
ReagansR.ZuckermanE. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.502.10637
92.
ReagansR.ZuckermanE.McEvilyB. (2004). How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 101–133. https://doi.org/10.2307/4131457
93.
RobersonQ. M. (2019). Diversity in the workplace: A review, synthesis, and future research agenda. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015243
94.
SchulteM.CohenN. A.KleinK. J. (2012). The coevolution of network ties and perceptions of team psychological safety. Organization Science, 23(2), 564–581. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0582
95.
ShortJ.WilliamsE.ChristieB. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons.
96.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B.WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press.
97.
SparroweR. T.LidenR. C.WayneS. J.KraimerM. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316–325. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069458
98.
Suárez-LantarónB.Deocano-RuízY.García-PeralesN.Catillo-RecheI. S. (2022). The educational use of WhatsApp. Sustainability, 14(17), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710510
99.
TannenbaumS. I.MathieuJ. E.SalasE.CohenD. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough?Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01396.x
100.
TuckmanB. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. https://doi.10.1037/h0022100
101.
TzabbarD.VestalA. (2015). Bridging the social chasm in geographically distributed R&D teams: The moderating effects of relational strength and status asymmetry on the novelty of team innovation. Organization Science, 26(3), 811–829. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0969
102.
Uhl-BienM.GraenG. B. (1998). Individual self-management: Analysis of professionals’ self-managing activities in functional and cross-functional work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.5465/256912
103.
UmphressE. E.LabiancaG.BrassD. J.KassE.ScholtenL. (2003). The role of instrumental and expressive social ties in employees’ perceptions of organizational justice. Organization Science, 14(6), 738–753. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.6.738.24865
104.
Van EmmerikH.JawaharI.SchreursB.De CuyperN. (2011). Social capital, team efficacy and team potency: The mediating role of team learning behaviors. Career Development International, 16(1), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431111107829
105.
VenkataramaniV.LabiancaG. J.GrosserT. (2013). Positive and negative workplace relationships, social satisfaction, and organizational attachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1028–1039. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034090
106.
WaltherJ. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (Vol. 4, pp. 443–479). Sage.
107.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
108.
WilsonJ. M.StrausS. G.McEvilyB. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.08.001
