The effect of virtuality on individual network centrality and performance in on-going, distributed teams

Abstract

For distributed teams to succeed, individuals must interact successfully within team social networks. To understand individual performance in distributed teams, we consider a multi-dimensional view of individual virtuality and its relationship with centrality in the team's face-to-face network and ICT network. We leverage social network theory and hierarchically analyze data from 254 individuals in 18 teams. We find that members with higher dispersion are less central in the face-to-face network while those with higher ICT use are more central in the ICT network. Centrality in the ICT network, but not centrality in the face-to-face network, is positively related to performance. The results provide insights for academics and practitioners on how to improve individual performance in distributed teams.

Extending the Individual Level of Virtuality: Implications of Task Virtuality in Virtual and Traditional Settings

“…One of the pioneering literature review studies in virtual team research reported negative psychological experiences among virtual collaborators, such as isolation due to the lack of face-to-face contact [7]. However, researchers have widely ignored another important form of virtuality: virtuality at an individual level [8]. As a result, we do not know much about the implications of individual virtuality, because the individual dimension still suffers from many misconceptions and unknowns.…”

Invisible, therefore isolated: Comparative effects of team virtuality with task virtuality on workplace isolation and work outcomes

“…At the micro level, in virtual settings where the dependency on technology is high and physical face-toface contact is low, decreased job satisfaction, commitment, and identification as well as increased workplace social and physical isolation have been detected (Bartel, Wrzesniewski, & Wiesenfeld, 2012;Kurland & Egan, 1999;Mulki, Locander, Marshall, Harris, & Hensel, 2008). The evidence from previous studies has also shown that virtuality in teams detrimentally impacts the performance of both the team and the individual (Arling & Subramani, 2011;Lu, Watson-Manheim, Chudoba, & Wynn, 2006;Schweitzer & Duxbury, 2010).…”

“…Since the focus of research has shifted from virtual teams to the virtuality in teams, greater attention has been paid to the impacts of virtuality in team settings (Dixon & Panteli, 2010;Hosseini, Zuo, Chileshe, & Baroudi, 2015). By the same token, researchers have started studying the individual and behavioral effects influenced by virtuality (Arling & Subramani, 2011;Orhan, 2014;Suh, Shin, Ahuja, & Kim, 2011). Social support and the need for affiliation are often considered the missing elements in virtual work settings .…”

Evaluating virtuality in teams: a conceptual model

“…In addition, relevant studies have used dissimilar units of analysis including individual, team, or organisation levels to discover virtuality as pointed out by Shekhar (2006). As an example, Arling and Subramani (2011) asserted that investigators should consider individual virtuality for each single member of the team drawing upon the theories of social networks.…”

“…As one of the contributions of this paper, these attributes were identified, extracted, and integrated from the literature drawing upon the concept of discontinuities (Figure 4). Reliance on information communication technologies was not included among the attributes as it is deemed to be a dependent construct and should be considered as the consequence of the existence of other attributes of virtuality as aptly postulated by Arling and Subramani (2011). The metrics to evaluate the decrease in the quality of communications (Table 4) under conditions of virtuality are included within the model and linked with the attributes presenting virtuality.…”