Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zlgnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T06:29:51.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Team Learning and Effectiveness in Virtual Project Teams: The Role of Beliefs about Interpersonal Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Aída Ortega ,
Miriam Sánchez-Manzanares ,
Francisco Gil  and
Ramón Rico
Aída Ortega*
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
Miriam Sánchez-Manzanares
Affiliation:
Universidad Carlos III (Spain)
Francisco Gil
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
Ramón Rico
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Aída Ortega. Departamento de Psicología Social. Facultad de Psicología. Universidad Complutense. Campus de Somosaguas. 28223 Madrid. (Spain). Phone: +34-913942886. Fax:+34-913943189. E-mail: aortegav@psi.ucm.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There has been increasing interest in team learning processes in recent years. Researchers have investigated the impact of team learning on team effectiveness and analyzed the enabling conditions for the process, but team learning in virtual teams has been largely ignored. This study examined the relationship between team learning and effectiveness in virtual teams, as well as the role of team beliefs about interpersonal context. Data from 48 teams performing a virtual consulting project over 4 weeks indicate a mediating effect of team learning on the relationship between beliefs about the interpersonal context (psychological safety, task interdependence) and team effectiveness (satisfaction, viability). These findings suggest the importance of team learning for developing effective virtual teams.

En los últimos años, se ha producido un creciente interés por los procesos de aprendizaje grupal en equipos de trabajo. Se ha investigado la influencia del aprendizaje de equipo en la efectividad grupal, así como las condiciones que facilitan dicho aprendizaje. Sin embargo, pocos trabajos han analizado los procesos de aprendizaje en equipos virtuales. Este estudio examina la relación entre aprendizaje de equipo y efectividad en equipos virtuales, así como el papel de las creencias compartidas sobre el contexto interpersonal en esta relación. 48 equipos desarrollaron un proyecto de consultoría de manera virtual durante cuatro semanas. Los resultados mostraron un efecto de mediación del aprendizaje de equipo en la relación entre las creencias sobre el contexto interpersonal (seguridad psicológica, interdependencia de tarea) y la efectividad grupal (satisfacción, viabilidad). Estos hallazgos sugieren la importancia del aprendizaje de equipo para desarrollar equipos virtuales efectivos.

Keywords

team learningbeliefs about the interpersonal contextteam effectivenessvirtual teamsaprendizaje de equipocreencias sobre el contexto interpersonalefectividad de equipoequipos virtuales

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , May 2010 , pp. 267 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alcover, C. M., Gil, F.& Barrasa, A. (2004). Aprendizaje de Equipo: Adaptación en una muestra española de las escalas de actividades de aprendizaje, Psicothema, 16(3), 378–383.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2001). Confronting failure: Antecedents and consequences of shared beliefs about failure in organizational work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, C. C. A., Pearson, C., & Entrekin, L. (2003). Examining the effects of internal and external team learning on performance. Team Performance Management, 9, 174–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. G., & Gibson, C. B. (2003). In the beginning: Introduction and Framework. In Gibson, C. B.& Cohen, S. G. (Eds.) Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 1–13). NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1986). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In Straw, B. & Cummings, L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 191–223). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity and team performance: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 628–638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeSanctis, G.& Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlap, W. P., Burke, M. J., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2003). Accurate test of statistical significance for rWG and average deviation interrater agreement indexes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 356–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edmondson, A. C. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviors in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, A. C. (2003a). Managing the risk of learning. In West, M. A., Tjosvold, D. & Smith, K.G. (Eds.). International Handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 255–275). Chichester/London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, A. C. (2003b). Speaking up in operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1419–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., Dillon, J. R., & Roloff, K. S. (2007). Three perspectives on team learning: Outcome improvement, task mastery, and group process. The Academy of Management Annals, 1.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Illgen, D. R., Porter, C. O. L. H., West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 821–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuller, M. A., Hardin, A. M., & Davison, R. M. (2006). Efficacy in technology-mediated distributed teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 209–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for teamlearning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 202–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context. A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodhue, D. L.& Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19, 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, M. G., Burke, M. J., Santuzzy, A. M.& Bradley, J. C. (2000). The impact of group process variables on the effectiveness of distance collaboration groups. Computers in Human Behaviors, 19, 629–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Romá, V., Peiró, J. M., & Tordera, N. (2002). An examination of the antecedents and moderator influences of climate strength. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 465–473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffith, T. L., & Neale, M. A. (2001). Information, processing in traditional, hybrid and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 379–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (Ed.) (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Hindz, 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. 1–13). NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Huber, G. P. (1991) Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization science, 2, 88–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, H. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A.& Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on teams and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29(6), 801–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction.Google Scholar
Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational Leadership in work groups. The role of empowerment, cohesiveness and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2001–2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkman, B. L.& Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management. 31(5), 700–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3) 77–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lent, R. W., Schmidt, J., & Schmidt, L. (2006). Collective Efficacy Beliefs in Student Work Teams: Relation to Self-Efficacy, Cohesion, and Performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A Longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50(11), 1519–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, T. K., Tyran, C. K.& Shepherd, M. (2003). Exploring emerging leadership in virtual teams. In Gibson, C. B. & Cohen, S. G. (Eds.) Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 1–13). NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse Into the Future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, L. L., Wilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004), Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here?. Journal of Management. 30(6), 805–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montoya-Weiss, M., Massey, A.& Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1251–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). The effect of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 941–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rico, R., Molleman, E., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., & Vegt., Van der (2007). The effects of diversity faultlines and team task autonomy on decision quality and social integration. Journal of Management, 33(1), 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salanova, M, Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martinez, I. M., & Shaufeli, W. B. (2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups. Small Group Research, 34, 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salanick, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senge, P. M. (1994). La Quinta Disciplina: el arte y la práctica de la organización abierta al aprendizaje. Argentina: Granica.Google Scholar
Shepers, J., De Jong, A., Wetzels, M., & De Ruyter, K. (2008). Psychological safety and social support in groupware adoption: A multi-level assessment in education. Computers & Education, 51, 757–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiller, S. H., & Mandviwalla, M. (2007). Virtual team research. An analysis of theory use and a framework for theory appropriation. Small Group Research, 38, 12–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In Leinhart, S. (Ed.), Sociological methodology (290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Tasa, K., Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H. (2007). The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitudinal perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. 92, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Boosche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments. Small Group Research. 37, 490–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J., & Van de Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54, 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Offenbeek, M. (2001). Processes and outcomes from team learning. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 10, 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, C. B., Chemers, M. M., & Preiser, N. (2001). Collective efficacy: A multilevel analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (8), 1057–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. M., Goodman, P. S., & Cronin, M. A. (2007). Group learning. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1041–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, S. (2003). Collective cognition in teams: The role of interactive learning and effects on team performance. Paper presented at the 63th Meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Wong, S. (2004). Distal and local group learning: performance trade-offs and tensions. Organization Science, 15, 645–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Gibson, C. (2006). Multinational Organization Context: Implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar