Empowering followers in virtual teams: Guiding principles from theory and practice

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Computers in

Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1884–1906

Human Behavior

www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Empowering followers in virtual teams:Guiding principles from theory and practice

Ashley A.G. Walvoord a, Elizabeth R. Redden b,Linda R. Elliott b, Michael D. Coovert a,c,*

a Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave. PCD 4118g,

Tampa, FL 33620, USAb Army Research Laboratory, ARL/HRED @ SAIC, Building 4, Rm 545, Fort Benning, GA 31905, United States

c MDC and Associates, Inc., 4004 Stanley Rd., Plant City, FL 33565, United States

Available online 18 March 2008

Abstract

Effective leadership requires relationship skills such as – problem solving conflict management,motivation, communication, and listening [Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall]. Arguably, nothing is more important to a leader than the skillsinvolved in communicating one’s intent to followers, for it is only through effectively transmittingintent that followers may understand and then execute the goals of the team and leader. The modernwork-world is dominated by computer-mediated communication, and this communication is thebread and butter of virtual teams; however, simple transmission of information from point A to pointB is not enough – the virtual environment presents significant challenges to effective communication.In this paper we review issues related to virtual teams and developments in multimodal displays thatallow teams to communicate effectively via single or multiple modalities (e.g., visual, auditory, tac-tile). This discussion is grounded in guiding principles for design and use of information displays thatwere identified and culled based on multiple review criteria from an extensive review of the literature.We present an applied example of the utility of these guiding principles for multimodal display design,in the context of communicating a leader’s presence to virtual followers via commander’s intent.� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: e-Leadership; Teams; Computer-mediated communication

0747-5632/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.006

* Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. FowlerAve. PCD 4118g, Tampa, FL 33620, USA.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M.D. Coovert).

mailto:[email protected]

A.A.G. Walvoord et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1884–1906 1885

1. Introduction

In this era of growing popularity for virtual team structures in organizations, teammembers and leaders must respond to new and different job demands resulting from moredistributed and international structures (e.g., research teams, corporate teams, medicalteams). Team members must perform successfully with dispersed members, where triedand true traditional team processes may not be sufficient. Non-traditional settings orworkstations can vary considerably in degree of isolation and technology-dependence,such that ‘‘distributed” teammates and leaders could function with occasional face-to-faceinteractions, or all communication might occur virtually. In these situations, virtual or dis-tributed contexts necessitate a metamorphosis of traditional leader responsibilities to pro-duce an adaptive function termed, ‘‘e-Leadership”. e-Leaders must execute theirleadership roles primarily through virtual communication (Zaccaro & Bader, 2002). In thispaper we explore multimodal information display as an important target for interventionand prevention of virtual miscommunication, and we introduce the Guiding Principles – atool for practitioners, researchers and designers to aid the development and use of infor-mation displays in a variety of areas, including virtual teams. The following sectionsreview the needs of virtual team members (‘‘e-Followers”), components of successfule-Leaders, and the basics of multimodal design in information displays. After describingthe Guiding Principles tool, an extended example is presented in which the principlesare employed to develop a system to convey commander’s intent. The commander’s intentapplication demonstrates the need for researchers to give additional consideration to therole of display modality in studies of virtual processes (e.g., leadership, justice, motivation,performance management, etc.).

2. Virtual teams

The foundational constructs that are important for success in traditional teams (e.g.,trust, cohesion, satisfaction) are mirrored in virtual teams, however a key difference in vir-tual teams is the mediation by technology in the development and effectiveness of teamcommunications. Geographic dispersion of team members requires the use of technolo-gies, such as email, instant messaging, phone conferencing and webinars, to communicateand perform. These technologies provide an advantage in that they give, team membersaccess to more information and media than ever before (Avolio & Kahai, 2003). However,a virtual environment can provide too many different communication technologies suchthat team members feel overwhelmed (Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).

Communication between virtual team members serves not only in the exchange of crit-ical information among team members working in different places, but also in the buildingof interpersonal relationships. Virtual networks can be strong structures for processingcomplex information or tasks, but unfortunately they are often weak structures for sup-porting interpersonal interaction and relationships (Jarvenpaa & Tanriverdi, 2002). Vir-tual communication often lacks contextual information, and it can foster perceptions oftime pressure because alternatives to face-to-face communication (e.g., typing) are moretime-consuming and effortful. Slower communication and misunderstandings among teammembers can lead to inadequate critical thinking, human error in information processing,uncertainty, perceived isolation, as well as reduced satisfaction, task- and organizational-commitment, trust, and team cohesion (Caballer, Gracia, & Peiro, 2005; Driskell, Radtke,

1886 A.A.G. Walvoord et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1884–1906

& Salas, 2003; Jarvenpaa & Tanriverdi, 2002; Timmerman & Scott, 2006; Workman, Kah-nweiler, & Bommer, 2003). As suggested by Thompson and Coovert (2003), one of the pri-mary reasons for virtual communication breakdowns is that team members do notadequately establish or diligently uphold a status of mutual knowledge. Indeed, researchdemonstrates that engaging the other team member and ensuring that both team membersshare a common understanding produces better performance outcomes (Timmerman &Scott, 2006).

Distributed teams may have prior experience working together closely (e.g., a dispersedinfantry squad that is digitally linked), or they may be ad hoc (e.g., first responder police,fire, and hospital workers responding to an emergency situation). Thus the decision to usea communication technology should be influenced not only by task demands, but also bythe team members’ prior history, experiences and perceptions related to both the task andthe technology itself (Hasty, Massey, & Brown, 2006; Workman et al., 2003).

3. e-Leaders

A number of experts have engaged the topic of e-Leadership in order to bring clarity tothe ambiguous set of responsibilities that challenge leaders of virtual teams (e.g., Cascio &Shurygailo, 2002; Yukl, 1998; Zigurs, 2002). e-Leaders must coordinate and maintainknowledge, trust and accountability, while upholding influence and communicating visionto e-Followers. As with traditional leadership roles, it is the primary responsibility of e-Leaders to fill the void in organizational structure, only this ‘‘void” takes on new meaningin the context of virtual teams (Jarvenpaa & Tanriverdi, 2002). From the issues addressedhere, communication is clearly a primary ‘‘void” for e-Leaders to tackle.

e-Leaders play a large role in the establishment of efficient communication practiceswhere structure, expectations and implementation are concerned (Hertel, Geister, & Kon-radt, 2005; Zigurs, 2002). At a basic level, if technology-mediated communication is to beeffective, e-Leaders must encourage team members to move information exchanges for-ward at each event of contact between team members (Cascio & Shurygailo, 2002). Mosttheories of information exchange assume rational decision-making as the driver of com-munication technology use by team members, which may not be an accurate representa-tion of reality (Timmerman & Scott, 2006). Considering the pressures experienced byteam members due to time scarcity, numerous advanced technologies and (in)appropriate-ness of a particular modality for the information being exchanged, there is a need fore-Leaders to identify or make available to team members the most appropriate communi-cation media for the virtual team task or process.

The selection, provision and use of multiple communication media is referred to as a‘‘communication mode repertoire”, and it is critical for leaders to recognize the need tolimit the number of advanced, complex technologies to those that are truly needed, inorder to avoid distraction and cognitive overload (Belanger & Watson-Manheim, 2006).Once established, e-Leaders must use the communication repertoire interactively with vir-tual team members rather than offering a simple ‘‘open door” policy, or checking in occa-sionally (Cascio & Shurygailo, 2002; Zigurs, 2002). Experts believe that, depending on taskcharacteristics, frequency of communication has a curvilinear relationship with virtualteam performance outcomes (e.g., Timmerman & Scott, 2006); therefore, e-Leaders shouldmonitor the frequency of communication overall and of the use of a particular technology.This knowledge will enable e-Leaders to better communicate with their virtual teams, and


it will inform adjustments or future additions to the team’s communication moderepertoire.

The success of e-Leadership comes down to ‘‘presence” and interaction (Zigurs, 2002). Aswe have discussed, many cues are lost in computer-mediated environments (e.g., face time,body-language, voice inflection), but to be effective, e-Leaders must have ‘‘presence” in vir-tual environments so that leadership can be experienced by virtual team members. The abil-ity of a virtual leader to impart presence and communicate intent enables followers to makedecisions similar to those that the leader would make if the leader were at the follower’s loca-tion. The interactive use of multimodal communication technologies contributes to thisobjective, and it is our hope that recognition of the issues related to multimodal informationdisplay and virtual team dynamics will benefit practitioners, researchers, designers and vir-tual teams through improvements to the virtual communication environment.

In order to truly understand virtual leader and follower communication at a macrolevel (where team member interactions, shared knowledge and complex communicationtools are in use), it is important to first consider these communication processes at amicro-level where media richness, technology appropriateness and multiple cognitiveresources define every interaction.

4. Multimodal information display and communication technologies

Electronically-mediated communication of information affects a vast array of underly-ing processes (e.g., perception, encoding, decision-making, critical thinking, interpreta-tion). A number of theories seek to expose these processes, including (but not limitedto) media richness theory (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987), social presence theory (Short,Williams, & Christie, 1976), and channel expansion theory (Carlson & Zmud, 1999).Media richness theory proposes that the ‘‘richness” of a communication technology isbased on (1) the immediacy of feedback, (2) availability and use of multiple cues or chan-nels, (3) the ability to personalize messages, and (4) language variety. The potential of atechnology to communicate socio-emotional information is the basis of social presencetheory, where media are characterized by their ability to make salient the ‘‘presence” ofthe other person, or the interpersonal relationship involved. Channel expansion theoryposits that users will perceive a communication technology as rich based on their ownexperience with the media, their communication partner, the topic being communicated,and the organizational context. Both media richness and social presence theory suggesta continuing decrement in the ability to communicate contextual information as commu-nication format moves from face-to-face, to audio-visual, to audio, and finally to text.Stemming from this notion, virtual teams often use communication media other thanface-to-face, and consequently information exchange is characterized by a dearth of socialcues and contextual information (Warkentin, Sayeed, & Hightower, 1997).

The traditional interpretation of this reduction in available information is that virtualteam performance suffers as a consequence of content that is less ‘‘rich”. However, the fieldhas recently begun to recognize that media richness does not necessarily have a direct posi-tive relationship with virtual performance or successful interactions. In particular, there isevidence that effective communication can occur despite the contextual cues lost in trans-lation, especially if the lower richness medium is appropriate for the purpose of theexchange, and if additional contextual information or richness could increase ambiguityinstead of decreasing it (Driskell et al., 2003; Hertel et al., 2005; Workman et al., 2003).


These apparent discrepancies between theory and research findings are likely attribut-able to the issue of appropriate fit between technology, team and task characteristics. Forexample, ethnographic study of computer-mediated communications shows that feelingsof ‘‘connectedness” are not so heavily dependent on bandwidth, but rather can beenhanced by communicative activities that establish connections and pave the way forcontinued interaction with each other (Nardi, 2005). Nardi’s investigations suggest thatmany communicative transmissions between leaders and coworkers often are not aboutinformation exchange per se, but rather, serve to influence and establish levels of connect-edness. In fact, the relatively sparse bandwidth of instant messaging was shown to be anintegral mechanism to enhance feelings of cohesiveness and team-ness, through monitor-ing of who is ‘‘in” and ‘‘out” (normally perceived via audio cues such as door opening orshutting). Research also shows that leader-follower interactions can be improved with theuse of technology. Correctly applied technology can reduce follower feelings of evaluationapprehension and domination, and it can mimic or essentially substitute for transforma-tional leadership through flexibility and collectiveness (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Kahai, Sos-ik, & Avolio, 2003).

One aspect of technology appropriateness receiving a great deal of attention is thetime-related synchronicity of communication technologies (also termed contemporalityand simultaneity, Driskell et al., 2003) in concert with the interdependence of teamtasks (e.g., Cascio & Shurygailo, 2002; Hertel et al., 2005; Rico & Cohen, 2005; Timm-erman & Scott, 2006). Research demonstrates a performance benefit from using a syn-chronous communication medium when tasks require more interdependence, but Hertelet al. (2005) point out that in certain tasks having less synchronicity of informationcould also result in less biased use of mutual knowledge and it could reduce the like-lihood of neglecting unshared information (e.g., groupthink or social loafing duringbrainstorming or decision-making tasks). Indeed many recommendations exist formatching communication technology to task characteristics, as well as to characteristicsof a team’s phase in the typical virtual team lifecycle (e.g., Belanger & Watson-Man-heim, 2006; Cascio & Shurygailo, 2002; Hertel et al., 2005; McGrath & Hollingshead,1994). Although a fair amount of research addresses synchronicity and appropriatenessof technology for task and team characteristics, very little attention is given to themodality of communication in terms of the best way to present and transmit informa-tion. It is to this important issue of virtual team communication that we next turn ourattention.

Recognizing the need to improve the design of information display in a virtual teamcontext, researchers have begun to consider what display modality or combination ofmodalities is best-suited for communicating certain types of content (e.g., Driskell et al.,2003; Workman et al., 2003). A display modality is defined as the sensory channel(s)through which task-critical information or performance feedback is provided to a recipient(typically visual, audio, or haptic/tactile). A major contributor to the common virtualcommunication breakdown is cognitive overload of a particular sensory channel. Forexample, the use of a single sensory modality (e.g., visual presentation via instant messag-ing text, or via computer screen display) to provide a large quantity of task informationyields poorer performance than when information is presented via two sensory modalities(e.g., visual and audio, visual and tactile; Burke et al., 2000).

Historically, interface design has been dominated by visual or graphic displays. Morerecently, the integration of multimodal information displays has peaked the interest of


researchers and practitioners as a way to reduce workload, improve performance and thusfacilitate computer-mediated interaction. Multimodalities are formed through variouscombinations of single modalities presented simultaneously (e.g., audio-visual, such as awebinar audio conference).

We argue that a superior way to provide ‘‘rich” information to virtual team members isto avoid communicating the contextual information that is irrelevant, and instead use mul-tiple modalities to more richly communicate the target information. The modalities maybe redundant and reinforce the same information in different sensory modes, or eachmodality may provide different and augmentative information. We note here that the vir-tual teams literature has not capitalized on the potential of communicating informationvia haptic or tactile modality; therefore, this introduction of multiple modalities is espe-cially critical. A significant percentage of the multimodal research is theoreticallygrounded in the predictions of Multiple Resource Theory (MRT; Wickens, 2002).

The main tenets of MRT suggest that (a) people have several independent cognitiveresources, (b) some resources better lend themselves to simultaneous use, (c) tasks requir-ing the use of different resources can often be performed together, and (d) competition forthe same modality can produce interference. In other words, different cognitive resourcesexist to process information from different modalities (e.g., visual, audio, or tactile infor-mation). Thus, the presentation of a large amount of information via a single modality ismore likely to overwhelm the cognitive resources associated with that modality, whileinformation provided by multiple modalities is less likely to overload the multiple cogni-tive systems involved in processing the information.

The benefit of using multimodal displays is especially apparent in high-workload con-texts (e.g., Burke et al., 2006). Certainly, it is important to consider to which modalitiesinformation would be more successfully offloaded, given a particular task, or under whatcircumstances might a multimodal combination become disruptive. For example, the effec-tiveness of audio communications in a complex multimodal task situation will depend onfactors such as how many communication channels must be monitored, the volume ofcommunications, and the ease by which critical communications are recognized andunderstood. Consider the difference between directions given as ‘‘turn northeast in 0.5miles” versus ‘‘turn right at the next intersection”. Situational factors also affect the appro-priateness of a particular modality. Conditions such as a high level of audio traffic, a noisyenvironment, or a need for stealth will make audio communications less effective and tac-tile cues more salient and effective. These and other factors must be evaluated in order todesign a virtual communication medium that will function according to its potential.

Other theoretical perspectives, such as cognitive load theory (CLT; Chandler &Sweller, 1991; van Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005), make similar predictions. CLT positstwo factors that impact the ease of processing: intrinsic or extraneous cognitive load.Intrinsic cognitive load deals with the intrinsic nature of the learning tasks themselves.It cannot be impacted by training (instructional) interventions because it is dependenton the complexity of the internal schemata and automaticity available to the learner.Therefore, in complement to the propositions of MRT, highly interactive and complexinformation may require little cognitive effort for an individual who has highly devel-oped cognitive schemata for the problem (e.g., expert vs. novice). By contrast, extra-neous cognitive load can be impacted by instructional interventions. If multiplesources of information are necessary and all are presented visually, they might over-load the visual system.


5. Guiding principles for e-Leadership communications

Despite repeated calls in the virtual teams literature to examine modality and cognitiveprocessing issues in relation to communication technologies (Driskell et al., 2003; Work-man et al., 2003), the interdisciplinary nature of multimodal research represents a wide dis-parity in tasks, settings, terminology, conceptualizations of specific modalities, andperformance measures which renders it difficult for developers to draw clear conclusionsabout the strengths or appropriateness of specific multimodal applications. Virtual teamresearchers have emphasized the need for a system of recommendations for the communi-cation technology that is most appropriate for a certain tasks (Rico & Cohen, 2005). Inresponse to this state of affairs, we developed the Guiding Principles for e-Leadership com-munications (GP), a tool housing recommendations from multiple literatures relevant tothe design of technology and computer-mediated information. Our method for the devel-opment of this tool is described next.

5.1. Literature review

Our effort to develop guiding principles began with an extensive review of the literature.In order to locate articles spanning a variety of research domains, databases employed forthe literature search included Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Institute ofElectrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), PsycInfo, Web of Science, Defense TechnicalInformation Center (DTIC), and Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA). A number of key-words were applied to each database to define the searches (e.g., multimodal, visual, tac-tile, audio, haptic, interface, display, dual-task). Both published and unpublished (e.g.,master’s theses and dissertations) references were considered for inclusion.

5.2. Guiding principles development

To qualify as guiding principle material, article content was required to address theapplication or design of specific single modalities, specific multimodalities, or general mul-timodalities of information presentation. A team of reviewers analyzed each of approxi-mately 450 articles for relevant content (Coovert, Gray, Elliott, & Redden, in press).GP material was accumulated in two ways, directly from article authors (e.g., when spe-cific recommendations were made for the design/use of information displays), or basedon reviewer observations regarding the findings of one or more studies. Approximately800 GPs1 were documented, content analyzed and coded for relevance to multimodalthemes and major issues. An organizing framework was developed according to thethemes represented in the GPs (Fig. 1). The resulting rational framework provides a help-ful index of recommendations that are searchable according to criteria of interest, such asspecific single or multimodal combinations, tasks, or cognitive issues. The frameworkallows the GPs to be cross-classified, introducing the user to concepts or issues thatmay not have been previously recognized as relevant. Additionally, areas in the frameworkwhich have few or no GPs tend to represent areas in need of future research. We note that

1 A copy of all guiding principles is available for download at http://www.cas.usf.edu/psychology/fac_coovert.htm.

http://www.cas.usf.edu/psychology/fac_coovert.htm

http://www.cas.usf.edu/psychology/fac_coovert.htm

1. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES (1-10) 1.1. Age (pp. 1-4)

1.1.1. Visual1.1.2. Audio1.1.3. Tactile 1.1.4. Multimodal (indicate AV, TV, AT, or ATV) 1.1.5. Not Specific to a Mode

1.2. Experience/Automaticity (pp. 4-8) 1.2.1. Visual1.2.2. Audio1.2.3. Tactile 1.2.4. Multimodal (indicate AV, TV, AT, or ATV) 1.2.5. Not Specific to a Mode

1.3. Gender Differences (p. 8) 1.3.1. Visual1.3.2. Audio1.3.3. Tactile 1.3.4. Multimodal (indicate AV, TV, AT, or ATV) 1.3.5. Not Specific to a Mode

1.4. Abilities (ex. Spatial ability) (pp. 8-10) 1.4.1. Visual1.4.2. Audio1.4.3. Tactile 1.4.4. Multimodal (indicate AV, TV, AT, or ATV) 1.4.5. Not Specific to a Mode

2. PERCEPTION OF CUES (11-66) 2.1. Location (pp. 11-20)


2.2. Threshold (pp. 21-28) 2.2.1. Visual2.2.2. Audio2.2.3. Tactile 2.2.4. Multimodal (indicate AV, TV, AT, or ATV) 2.2.5. Not Specific to a Mode

2.3. Apparent Motion (pp. 28-29) 2.3.1. Visual2.3.2. Audio2.3.3. Tactile 2.3.4. Multimodal (indicate AV, TV, AT, or ATV) 2.3.5. Not Specific to a Mode

2.4. Change Blindness/Change Detection (pp. 29-33)

3. FUNCTIONS APPROPRIATENESS (67-121) 3.1. Alert (pp. 67-79)


3.2. Navigation (pp. 79-86) 3.2.1. Visual3.2.2. Audio3.2.3. Tactile 3.2.4. Multimodal (indicate AV, TV, AT, or ATV) 3.2.5. Not Specific to a Mode

3.3. Driving (pp. 86-91) 3.3.1. Visual3.3.2. Audio3.3.3. Tactile 3.3.4. Multimodal (indicate AV, TV, AT, or ATV) 3.3.5. Not Specific to a Mode

3.4. Vigilance Tasks/Peripheral Information (pp.91-95)


3.5. Situation Awareness (pp. 95-98) 3.5.1. Visual3.5.2. Audio3.5.3. Tactile 3.5.4. Multimodal (indicate AV, TV, AT, or ATV) 3.5.5. Not Specific to a Mode

3.6. Target detection (pp. 98-107) 3.6.1. Visual3.6.2. Audio3.6.3. Tactile 3.6.4. Multimodal (indicate AV, TV, AT, or ATV) 3.6.5. Not Specific to a Mode

3.7. Object Manipulation (pp. 107-109) 3.7.1. Visual3.7.2. Audio3.7.3. Tactile 3.7.4. Multimodal (indicate AV, TV, AT, or ATV) 3.7.5. Not Specific to a Mode

3.8. Flying (pilots) (pp. 109-115) 3.8.1. Visual3.8.2. Audio3.8.3. Tactile

Fig. 1. Classification and cross-referencing structure for the guiding principles.


two of the most urgent future directions to address include the empirical comparison ofmultimodal displays in varying combinations of visual, audio and tactile/haptic channels,and the inconsistent use of terms in the labeling of modalities (e.g., consistent use of theterms ‘‘visual modality”, ‘‘multimodal”, and ‘‘augment”).

Although one of the benefits of computer-mediated communication is to provide a con-text that ‘‘rivals the richness of face-to-face environments”, there is some concern withproviding or using communication technologies that are too ‘‘rich”, because the additionalcontextual information may distract team members from their primary task (e.g., Caballeret al., 2005; Driskell et al., 2003). We argue that the goal of communication technologyshould be to maximize the richness of the media for a relevant piece of information(e.g., by using redundant or complementary multimodalities). This allows the interfaceto approximate the richness of face-to-face communication, while avoiding superfluousand distracting information. We commend Driskell and colleagues for their review inwhich they give insightful consideration of specific multimodal design in the virtual teams


domain, concluding that there are clear benefits to providing audio-visual (text-based)information to team members, while the evidence for both audio-visual (video-based)and visual-visual (text and video without audio) displays is less clear. Considering the pre-viously-discussed needs of virtual team members, the benefits of multimodal informationdisplays and the importance of bridging the gap between research and practice, the follow-ing section identifies components of successful virtual team leaders.

To make concrete the role of multimodal communication regarding e-Leadership andpresence, we now turn to an extended example of using the guiding principles for a spe-cific purpose. Ensuring comprehension and subsequent execution of commander’s intentis one of the most critical components of modern day leadership. We consider theaspects of commander’s intent and work through the process of utilizing the GPs for thisapplication.

6. Extended example: virtual leadership and commander’s intent

The tasks of e-Leaders (formulate and effectively communicate their plan) and e-Fol-lowers (interpret and implement the plan) can be difficult if their communications areconfined to words, test, or voices (Shattuck, 2000). Leadership is further complicated intime-pressured environments, where subordinates can not readily query their leader everytime they have to make decisions, and it is further complicated in flatter, loosely coupledorganization structures composed of semi-autonomous groups or members. e-Leadersneed a comprehensive view of their area of influence; since they cannot be physically pres-ent with the follower, they must impart their presence to assist followers in adapting totheir individual environments. Communicating intent is an effective means by whichremote leaders can impart their presence (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Shattuck & Woods, 2000).

The US Military operates under the premise of commander’s intent whereby effectivecommunication of plans by leaders and the empowerment of subordinates to make deci-sions, allows more flexibility in response to threats. Commander’s intent trades off leadercontrol for the expectation of decisive action by followers in the face of ambiguity (Shat-tuck, 2000). Its purpose is to focus followers on what has to be accomplished in order toachieve success, even when the original plan no longer applies, and to channel theirefforts toward that end. In co-located teams, the ability of followers to understand theintent of their leaders is often influenced by expectations, trust, or contextual andsocio-emotional information. Dispersed or virtual team members may not be able tosee the expression on their leaders’ faces, hear the inflection in their voices as pointsare emphasized, or see their reactions as they respond to directives. The design of infor-mation displays that facilitate the ability of the followers to attend to, interpret and exe-cute the intent of their leaders can compensate for the inherent disadvantages of remotework environments, thus creating greater empowerment. Technology can facilitate theleader in imparting presence so that the decision-making frameworks of e-Followersallow them to respond the same way their leader would if he or she was able to viewthe situation through the leader’s eyes.

Commander’s intent consists of four processes – formulation, communication, interpre-tation, and implementation. Effective display design can facilitate the ability of e-Leadersand e-Followers to carry out the duties required for each of these components (Shattuck,2000). Here we proceed through each step of this particular framework, and show howguiding principles can support each process.


6.1. Formulation

A virtual leader may not have a complete view of his or her follower’s remote situationduring plan formulation and detailed instructions which are geared to rote following areoften not useful. Followers frequently have to deviate from these types of plans becausethe remote leader is unable to anticipate all the possible problems that could arise. Whenan e-Leader formulates plans to impart his or her intent rather than specific detailedinstructions, the formulation of the plan involves the development of a framework or acontext for plan adaptation and explains the goals and the reasons for pursuing the goals(Shattuck & Woods, 2000). To enable rapid and effective adaptation to change, intentshould also identify the critical events and decision points that affect subsequent missiongoals and plans (Alberts & Hayes, 2003; Atkinson & Moffat, 2005). A simple examplewould be if a threat is not located where it was expected. Plans must change quicklyand the quick response must be consistent with commander’s intent; therefore it is criticalthat e-Followers understand commander’s intent, including rules of engagement, in orderto provide rapid and appropriate response. Therefore, the e-Leader should communicatehis intent such that critical decision points are known and understood by the e-Followers,and are in some way tracked (automatically or by observation).

Technology and the internet can certainly assist leaders of virtual teams in the formu-lation of their plans and for this we turn to the GPs. As previously discussed, many of theprinciples regard how to minimize cognitive overload by employing multiple modes of dis-play, while recognizing that certain modalities are intuitive for specific kinds of informa-tion. Usually, a visual map display (traditionally, a paper map), forms the commonoperating picture of a military mission plan. The commander’s intent for location androute should be communicated simply and graphically. Certainly the more relevant knowl-edge leaders and followers have concerning the operation they are planning, the better.However, additional information may be made available through additional visual ‘‘lay-ers” to minimize visual clutter. The key word here is ‘‘relevant” because the GPs caution‘‘Cognitive overload is a critical issue to consider in user interface design’’ (Elting, Zwic-kel, & Malaka, 2002). A related guiding principle states that, ‘‘In determining how muchinformation to present a user with, consider that users need sufficient information to ade-quately perform the task, but too much information can overload a user’s short-termmemory and cause frustration’’ (Baca & Picone, 2005).

It is important that devices assist with information search and allow tailoring and spec-ificity of the search parameters. Another way to ensure that the leader and follower are notoverloaded with information during plan formulation is to design adaptive interfaceswhere automation controls the delivery of information so that the leader gets ‘‘the rightinformation in the right format at the right time’’ (Brickman et al., 1996, Moroney,1999; Hettinger, Cress, Brickman & Haas, 1996; Hollinagel, 1988, as cited in Tannen,2000) in order to formulate his/her plan of intent. Again, notice the theme of the ‘‘rightinformation”. Critical information requirements, rules of engagement, and decision pointsshould be identified and communicated as part of commander’s intent to ensure informa-tion that is timely, accurate, easily obtained, and synchronized with others. Further, antic-ipation and identification of information requirements for a particular mission shouldinvolve consideration of how the information will be distributed and displayed. For exam-ple, if the mission involves stealth and reconnaissance at night, a back-lit visual display oraudio radio communication will involve more risk, compared to more covert approaches.


6.2. Communication

Effective display design can compensate for the inherent problems with remote commu-nication and even enhance the abilities of the leaders of virtual teams to communicate withtheir followers. For example, team members ‘‘. . . may have to modify their communicationstrategy based on their proximity to other team members”. We know that listeners attend togestures, and that they use gestures in proximity situations to form a mental representationof the communicative intent of the speaker. Co-located leaders and followers have the capac-ity to interpret communicative facial expressions, gestures, intonation, and verbal behaviors,but remote leaders and e-Followers must develop a secondary level of communication thatcan compensate for problems created by not being able to attend to these behaviors. Video-conferencing attempts to provide these missing elements, but does so at the cost of highbandwidth, expensive equipment, and heightened demands on the attention of the user.

Effective multimodal display design can be used to augment or replace traditional video-conferencing for communicating commander’s intent. Graphical and natural language inter-faces can focus attention to key concepts, goals, and tactics. Related to this is a guidingprinciple that states, ‘‘Graphics displays are ideal when there are a lot of quantitative or rela-tional facts to present or for concrete or spatial information, while natural language is betterfor abstract concepts/processes” (Maybury, 1995). In addition, ‘‘graphics are better for pre-senting contextual information . . .” (Booher, 1975; as cited in Bradshaw & Johari, 2003). e-Follower understanding of critical decision events becomes vital for adaptive coordinationduring mission execution. The e-Leader must ensure and verify that his or her intent is fullyand completely understood and doing so further empowers followers to effectively executethe intent of the leader. This may require more effort from leaders in distributed contexts,as they must also establish or confirm the contextual information surrounding their intent.

6.3. Interpretation

Many of the same multimodal design features that assist remote leaders in communicat-ing with their followers also assist the followers in interpreting the intent of the commu-nication. Uncertainty can be a great hindrance to accurate understanding of the leader’sintent and it is as much a function of interpretation as it is the ability of the leader to pre-dict and identify all conceivable states of the environment.

Virtual teams will often be confronted with unanticipated events. Designing distributedsystems with the ability to function with less information requires that followers have avariety of responses at their disposal and the authority to implement them at their discre-tion. The GPs address ways to reduce the uncertainty of followers when interpreting lead-ers’ communications. Given the importance of uncertainty, we searched for guidingprinciples related to the portrayal of uncertainty. It has been shown that communicatinglevel of uncertainty aids decision-makers and further, that certain portrayals are more effec-tive than others. Mahan et al. (2006) demonstrated that graphic or animated visual iconsrepresenting level of uncertainty were associated with better decision-making than numericrepresentations (e.g., 60%, 80%, etc.) and all representations of uncertainty were better thannone at all. In his study, college students were trained to evaluate information relevant toestimating time to navigate terrain (e.g., visibility, need for stealth, terrain, opportunitiesfor concealment). While all estimates were less accurate when information was uncertain,the negative effect was significantly reduced by the use of graphic and animated icons.


6.4. Implementation

Implementation of commander’s intent involves ongoing reciprocal communicationamong the e-Leader and e-Followers, and this is where multimodal communication cancontribute greatly. Here, we provide some examples of how information flow, coordinatedaround commander’s intent and critical events, can be more effective with considered useof multimodal options.

6.5. Mulitmodal information flow

6.5.1. Communication of common operating picture: visual display

There is no doubt that visual presentation is powerful and effective, usually intuitive,and often overloaded. For military missions, it will likely remain to be the primary meansof communicating commander’s intent and tactical operations. The key is to make thiscommon operating picture available in the most intuitive manner—easy to use, easy tounderstand, and easy to respond. Table 1 presents a few selected guiding principles withregard to design of visual displays. We now move on to how alternate modalities can easeworkload and manage attention.

6.5.2. Intuitive display of critical information

The GP tool also addresses perception and comprehension of cues in various task con-texts. The overarching goal is to display information as intuitively as possible, while rec-ognizing particular task demands and constraints. The following examples are veryrelevant to Army operations, but they easily generalize to a number of non-military situ-ations where direction and location information must be quickly and accurately exchanged(e.g., firefighters, search and rescue, diving teams, etc.). While map-based visual displaysare critical to convey location and waypoint information, alternate modalities have beenshown to be very effective at conveying direction information. Recent studies have shownthat navigation information and direction of threat can be more intuitively and rapidlycommunicated through use of a tactile torso belt (eight tactors driven by GPS waypointinformation, where sensations over the navel or over the right hip, indicate moving for-ward or to the right, respectively), spatial speech (e.g., threat at 2 o’clock), or 3D audio(Elliott, Duistermaat, Redden, & van Erp, 2007; Gilson, Redden, & Elliott, 2007; Glumm,

Table 1Visual display guiding principles

Positioning a color indicator in close proximity to a continuous analog display should be an efficient way topresent two different sources of info (Meyer, 2001)

The human binocular field of vision is between 340� and 20�, the monocular field of vision is between 300� and80� (May & Badcock, 2002)

An object’s prominence in a scene is dependent on both its centrality within the scene and its size (Kelleher &Van Genabith, 2004)

When workload is high, operators tend to rely mainly on surface cues of displays, so it’s especially importantto use cues consistently (e.g., colors) (Gilson, Mouloua, Graft, & McDonald, 2001)

Helmet-mounted displays often degrade performance and lower presence because of their narrow field of view(FOV). The visual FOV of the (naked) human eye spans more than 180� (Seay, Krum, Hodges, & Ribarsky,2001; Waller, 1999; as cited in Yang & Kim, 2004)


Kehring, & White, 2006; Pettitt, Redden, & Carstens, 2006; Redden, Carstens, Turner, &Elliott, 2006; Redden & Elliott, 2007). Soldiers in this experiment expressed high levels ofappreciation for the tactile system and described the system as being hands-free, eyes-free,and mind-free. Specifically, they could easily follow tactile systems without taking theirhands off their weapon, having to look at a display, or interpret cue information. Soldiersused the tactile system effectively when there was very low visibility (e.g., night conditionswith rain and fog). This capability to intuitively convey direction information should alsobe of interested to other team situations, whether they be search and rescue personnel onurgent mission or disoriented tourists trying to regroup. Providing information in thishands-free, eyes-free, and mind-free format is certainly empowering to e-Followers. Table2 presents additional GPs in support of tactile representation of information.

6.5.3. Covert display of informationIn addition to direction information, tactile arrays can also be used to convey commu-

nications. An infantry leader of a dispersed group of soldiers may prefer to communicateshort but critical commands using tactile signals on a torso belt. In this way, the receiverscan process information without having to handle a device, messages can be more easilyperceived than visual arm and hand signals, and with more stealth than by use of radiomessages (Redden et al., 2006).

6.5.4. Managing reciprocal information updatesCurrent approaches to the study of teams emphasize the role of communication to

achieve shared awareness and dynamic coordination (Brannick, Salas, & Prince, 1997;Cooke, Salas, Cannon-Bowers, & Stout, 2000). For example, Salas and his colleagues haverefined a taxonomy of team functions that focus on achieving shared understanding ofmission, task, team roles, and resources. Team behaviors include exchanging information,monitoring others’ progress, recognizing others’ mistakes, providing backup behavior,and synchronizing actions and events. Shared awareness is thus key, and communicationsmust be managed to enable awareness while minimizing information overload.

A primary finding gleaned from the literature and supported by meta-analyses is thattactile or auditory alert cues regarding incoming information will increase performance,especially when under high, multi-tasking workload. e-Leaders must be able to quickly

Table 2Tactile display guiding principles

Brill and Terrence (2007) found significant and substantial improvements in perceiving the actual direction ofthe target using tactile cues to alert the presence of an unseen target. Target detection was approximatelythree times more accurate for tactile presentations versus 3-D auditory presentations (tactile mean was11.53�; auditory mean was 34.28�). Moreover, front-back reversals observed in the 3-D auditory conditionwere not found in the tactile display condition

Terrence and Brill (2007) found that that spatial tactile display outperforms or equals spatial auditorylocalization, regardless of body position and orientation

Burke et al. (2006) found that the addition of a tactile cue to a visual cue increased target acquisitioneffectiveness over the uni-modal visual cue (g = 0.68, p = 0.00)

Tactile displays are recommended, in combination with visual GPS systems, for land navigation operations ingeneral, and particularly, for night operations, combat operations requiring visual and/or audio stealth(e.g., no light emissions, no audio), and other high-workload mission situations


alert e-Followers of critical information and vice versa. Cell phones are the ubiquitousexample of communication with alerting mechanisms, and the effectiveness of such alertshas been documented, whether the operator is stationary viewing a command and controlscreen or moving with stealth through unknown terrain. Table 3 displays guiding princi-ples regarding the use of modalities for alerts.

Once the leader’s intent is formulated and effectively communicated to the follower whocorrectly interprets the intent, implementation of the intent must be as free as possible oferror. In Table 4, we present GPs addressing design for handling human error.

Remote leaders who are proficient at imparting their presence, through the effectivecommunication of their intent keep their followers engaged in the mission allowing themto sustain a good ‘‘picture” of the environment. Likewise, leaders must avoid the pitfall ofproviding too few or too many decisions to the followers. A GP principle warns that, ‘‘If adecision aid, expert system, or other type of decision automation consistently and repeat-edly selects and executes decision choices in a dynamic environment, the human operatormay not be able to sustain a good ‘‘picture” of the information sources in the environment,as he or she is not actively engaged in evaluating the information sources leading to a deci-sion” (Parasuraman, Sheridan, & Wickens, 2000). The guiding principles provide consid-erations for evaluating technology that also apply to evaluating the effectiveness of theleader in providing intent to the follower. It states, ‘‘When evaluating a device, one shouldconsider the following: (1) mental workload; (2) situation awareness (how much the auto-mation of decisions reduces the operator’s situation awareness); (3) complacency (operatormay not trust the automation and may eventually not monitor the device); and (4) skilldegradation (operator may be out of practice due to the function being consistently per-formed by automation)” (Parasuraman et al., 2000).

7. Evaluation methodology

The use of guiding principles to facilitate empowering followers (or any other goal)must be evaluated to determine their utility. An overarching framework developed by

Table 3Multimodal alerts guiding principles

When using alerts, adding levels of urgency can inform the user of the criticality of information they arereceiving or the task they need to perform

‘‘Advantages of instant messaging communication systems include the ability to communicate with multiplepeople at once, rapid responses to inquiries, and the ability to access archived chat sessions for clarification(Cummings, 2004)”

‘‘Drawbacks of instant messaging systems are that they can be disruptive and the flow of conversation can beawkward in the absence of non-verbal cues. These limitations are especially bad in time-pressured scenariosbecause interrupting the primary task (with the instant messages) increases mental processing time andleads to errors on the primary task (Cummings, 2004)”

Use of haptic effects and hapticons can communicate ideas to enhance email and instant messaging when theiruse is required, ‘‘. . .Hapticons are small, programmed force patterns that can communicate a basic notionsimilar to regular icons in a graphic interface (Cummings, 2004; Rovers & van Essen, 2004)”

An auditory alert cue for visual displays reduced friendly fire decision error from 3.12% to 1.04% over no cue(Scribner, Wiley, & Harper, 2005)

Table 4Guiding principles for handling human error

Make the action more perceptible (i.e., the possibility of activating the execution of another likely wrongaction should be reduced, a given action should provide unambiguous information for the ongoing activity,even before the attainment of the end state)

Use multi-sensory feedback

Display messages at a high level but with specific content (i.e., multilevel error messages, error message tellsyou it can not comply with your request, but there is a ‘‘since” or ‘‘because” button you can use to receivemore info)

Provide an activity log (people depend on external memory aids)

Allow comparisons (comparisons between outputs is a useful source of information for action evaluation)

Make results available to users as soon as possible and allow the user to have control of the format display(suggestions for this include (i) exploiting layout, (ii) exaggerating the differences, and (iii) stressing theaspects relevant to the just performed task)

‘‘Provide result explanations (i.e., make it extremely easy to determine why an input was not successful. If aninput causes an error, indicate the varying factors that may have led to the error and the best way to fix it”(Rizzo, Parlangeli, Marchigiani, & Bagnara, 1996, pp. 114–118)


Alberts & Hayes, 2006 (Fig. 2) illustrates a method for conceptualizing network centricwarfare (NCO) and it enables researchers to organize and apply comparable metricsacross projects and domains. We have tailored it to evaluate specific networked systemsand to determine if guiding principles have been properly employed so that followers invirtual teams are empowered.

The framework addresses four primary domains: Physical, Information, Cognitive, andSocial. According to Alberts and Hayes, these four interrelated domains are critical tounderstanding the requirements for successful networked operations. In their words, theframework highlights ‘‘the differences between data, information, knowledge that individ-uals and organizations possess or have access to based on their own senses, the sourcesthey control (organic assets), and the information they receive as a result of being con-nected to the network”. One can review each component of the framework and generatequestions with regard to how computers will influence or improve a particular virtual teamprocess or effect. In this next section, we discuss implications of the NCW framework forevaluation and discuss the factors that can be used to evaluate the strengths and weak-nesses of the networked system for each frame. Note that each frame is affected by thequality of the frames that feed into it as well as the factors that are identified for the frame.

7.1. Quality of organic information

Quality of organic information is a broad topic that includes information developed forplanning and also information obtained about the environment that is required for mis-sion execution. Here, the contribution of the networked system depends on identifyingthe type of information that the network is responsible for providing and the degree towhich the information is accurately obtained. The concept of quality of informationincludes the richness of information (including the breadth, depth, correctness, complete-ness, consistency, and timeliness of the available information).

Fig. 2. Network centric operations conceptual framework (top level) (adapted from Alberts & Hayes, 2006).


7.2. Quality of networking

The quality of the communications network is an important factor in follower empow-erment that often involves trust issues. Sheridan (1988) suggested reliability, robustness,familiarity, understandability, usefulness, and dependence as possible factors in trust.These factors, along with the security and latency of the network, drive how reliant thefollower is upon the data that is provided and affect the quality of the network. The impactof bandwidth and its effect on the volume, granularity and timeliness of the informationreceived and the level at which the information is fused also affects the quality of the net-working. Only the most relevant information is needed, so the degree to which the infor-mation is efficiently distributed by the network is important.

7.3. Quality of individual information

Information provided to the individual is impacted by other frames (i.e., quality ofthe network, the quality of the organic information the individual receives and thedegree to which that information can be shared). In other words, it is dependent uponthe ability to get the right information to the right person(s) easily and on time withoutbottlenecks or overloads. Information that is developed by the individual is dependentupon the flexibility of the network and the network sensors. Table 5 displays several


factors which impact the quality of the information developed by the individual usingthe network.

7.4. Degree of information sharability

The ability to share information is extremely important. The method of data input andthe tools available for sharing have a profound effect on the completeness of the data, theability to retrieve the data, the time spent sharing the data, and the ability of the receiver to

Table 5Network centric warfare (NCW) framework

Quality of individual information

Information access (degree to which the individual can easily access information on the network)Information latency (the match between the tolerance for latency and the amount of time required for the

follower to request and receive the information – the lower the echelon, the less tolerance there is forinformation latency)

Appropriateness and quality of information pulled by userInformation level (the degree to which the information developed by the individual is fused into actionable

combat information). Note according to Klein, Moon, and Hoffmann (2006) fusion might not be adesirable feature. It might make people less able to act intelligently because it could limit their ability to usetheir expertise if the data are hidden because of someone or something else’s interpretations

Degree of information sharability

Form of the data input method (e.g., qwerty keyboard, voice input, drawing input, etc.); If users havepreferences for output devices and modalities they would probably have preferences for input devices andmodalities (Althoff, McGlaun, Schuller, Morguet, & Lang, 2001)

Form of the information (the degree to which the information is in a form that can be easily shared – a graph,paragraph form, number strings, etc.)

Cognitive overload is a critical issue to consider in user interface design. Presentation planners should adapttheir presentation to the cognitive requirements of the communication device used (Elting et al., 2002)

Information transfer (the ability to pass information from one system to another)When information must be combined from various sources located at different points in space (e.g.,

information from two maps), or different points in time (e.g., panning), or both, the composite mentalpicture will be less accurate than when all information is available in a single source (Wickens, Thomas, &Young, 2000)Information classification (the degree to which the information can be shared by all network users no matterwhat clearance they possess)

Degree of shared information

User tendencies to share information (the degree to which users in the network are willing to shareinformation with others)

User abilities to share information (the degree to which users can effectively communicate information (i.e.,write effectively, speak the same language, communicate connotation, etc.))

User social network structure (the degree to which the structure of the users’ social networks include allnetwork members)

Quality of interactions

Team composition (the mixture of individuals that contributes to the team characteristics)Follower and leader psychological traits (the type of traits that impact team dynamics)Follower and leader psychological attitudes (the sociological background of team members)Team stability (the amount of time the team stays together before members are moved in or out)Team trust (the trust the members feel for the other team members)Haptic feedback is better than visual feedback in establishing virtual togetherness. This has implications for

remote virtual displays in areas of the military collaborating remotely on a task (Basdogan, Ho, Srinivasan,& Slater, 2000)


understand the data. The form of the information itself and the level of classification of theinformation impact the degree of information sharability. Information that cannot beshared because of its form (e.g., a drawing on a piece of paper; a whispered sentence thatwas not accurately captured; a data dump for which there was not sufficient bandwidth tofully transmit) or level of clearance has an adverse impact upon shared awareness andshared understanding. Factors affecting the degree of information sharability are pre-sented in Table 5.

7.5. Degree of shared information

The degree of information sharability (discussed above) and the impact of the networkusers’ tendencies and capabilities to share pertinent information with other users affectsthe degree of shared information. Table 5 houses several factors that are pertinent to thiscomponent.

7.6. Quality of interactions

The network configuration may be distributed so that the users never see each other.How the network helps diverse groups communicate over a distance and allows them tomake their shared goals explicit are important factors that affect the quality of the inter-actions. Also of importance is how the system affects team and social issues. Shared aware-ness and understanding are developed in social processes of interaction among teammembers and shaped by the characteristics and behaviors of the team members. Thus,teams must have the capacity to fully comprehend one another, the willingness to interact,and the desire to communicate clearly. Team factors that enhance the quality of interac-tions are provided in Table 5.

7.7. Quality of individual sensemaking

Sensemaking has been defined as ‘‘how people make sense out of their experience in theworld” (Duffy, 1995). Individual sensemaking consists of a set of activities or processes inthe cognitive and social domains that begins with perception and ends prior to takingaction(s). A fundamental way in which a computer system can affect understanding anddecision-making is through information display. The visualization afforded by an informa-tion system can help the user to comprehend complexity and to make intelligent decisionsquickly. Some would say that information display should ensure that after the receipt ofinformation, it should be displayed in the most intuitive manner. Others argue that thebest way could be to present information in ways that are not prima facie intuitive or thatdo not present the world ‘‘as it is”. Koshy (2004) developed a three pole classification as away of evaluating the visualization characteristics of a system in terms of readability,expressivity, and computability whereby higher levels of each component represent supe-rior characteristics.

7.8. Degree of shared sensemaking

Shared sensemaking concerns shared mental models, team communication, overlappingknowledge, and complementary knowledge structures (e.g., Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998;


Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993; Cooke et al., 2000; MacMillan et al., 2002; Ser-faty & Entin, 1995). It can be particularly difficult to achieve in multinational settings(Klein, Pongonis, & Klein, 2000). It also concerns the characteristics of the individual teammembers and the team as a whole. The issues involved are complex and more shared knowl-edge is not necessarily better, particularly in complex, dynamic, and interdependent situa-tions. Redden, Elliott, Turner, and Blackwell (2004) found that in hierarchical teamstructures, where leaders must coordinate, decide, and perform quickly, emphasis is on col-laborative situation awareness (SA) which is needed for the leader to make quick calculateddecisions on a dynamic battlefield, using data that are collected from many sources, includ-ing individual followers. The leader is the manager, coordinator, and executer of the evolv-ing plan while the individual soldiers focus on execution of tasks and the gathering of data.The emphasis is on the leader as the central component who receives shared SA from otherteam members. Individual SA is calculated to express the level of SA possessed by the indi-vidual team members, but the effect of the individual SA and the collaboration among theteam members can be tracked and measured at the leader level. Under other conditions(e.g., horizontal team structures), the more SA shared by all team members, the better.

Shared SA enhances the quality of coordination (synchronized actions) and has twocomponents – implicit and explicit coordination. Implicit coordination refers to the degreeto which the coordination is based on anticipation of other’s needs (driven by the ability ofthe team to work together) and the layout and structure of the system. Explicit coordina-tion describes the degree to which the coordination depends on system characteristics thatallow individuals to share their understanding. Sit and Fisk (1999) provide a GP forusability tests and coordination, stating that when performing usability tests on productsthat require task coordination, it is important to examine age-related performance after

users have had sufficient experience to stabilize performance.The form of the output of the information (the information received by the decision-maker)

also has an impact on information quality, affecting how. How quickly and easily can it beread. Also important are the readability, expressivity, computability, and shared understand-ing of the data. The GPs also speak to the readability of the shared data. For example, contrastenhancing filters (CEFs) in a visual display have not been found to increase legibility, userreading speed, letter counting or user comfort. In fact, CEFs have been found to increase userdiscomfort for CRTs (Cathode Ray Tubes), although the researchers note that this findingwas counterintuitive because the purpose CEFs were designed to reduce glare and enhancereadability of a screen (Sheedy, Subbaram, & Hayes, 2003).

7.9. Outcome measures

The three outcome measures in the framework are the degree of decision synchroniza-tion, the degree of actions/entities synchronized, and the degree of effectiveness. All theoutcome measures are affected by the agility and adaptivity of the network. Previous pub-lications (Alberts, 2002; Alberts & Hayes, 2003) define agility as including: responsiveness,robustness, innovativeness, flexibility, adaptability, and resiliency.

Many of the same factors that are present in agility are thought to be present in adap-tivity. The following are some of the hallmarks of adaptivity that were identified by Gri-sogono (2006): ability of the system to discover and exploit advantages available incontext; resilience to shocks, fast damage recovery; robust to perturbations; flexibleresponses (a range of different strategies for any given end); ability to rapidly change tack


to more effective behaviors; innovative (leading to creation of new strategies and newstructures); system learning from experience.

‘‘Agility” and ‘‘adaptivity” are not as easily measurable as a system characteristic perse, but are inferred from outcomes from system use. As such, it may not be feasible at thistime to evaluate the agility and adaptivity provided or supported by the system, except interms of system properties already described, such as information quality and share-ability.

8. Conclusions

Technological advances and the effective design of multimodal displays show promisefor imparting e-Leader presence, thus empowering followers to participate more in deci-sion-making and becoming increasingly self-reliant. When e-Followers clearly understandthe intent behind instructions, they are enabled to make better decisions on their ownwhen conditions or the situation demand adaptation. By knowing the goal, followers willbe able to determine what has to be done to reach it, even in the leader’s absence. Effec-tive design of network systems is critical to ensure that virtual teams can function effec-tively, thereby maximizing e-Leadership while simultaneously empowering followers.

Our work provides a discussion of empowering followers and team members in a virtualworkplace. We have presented constructs of importance and through a close examination ofthe literature, pulled and developed guiding principles that can be used to maximize com-munication through utilization of the multimodal capacity of individuals to process infor-mation. The guiding principles are further organized into a framework (see again Fig. 1)that provides easy access to them for the purpose of the researcher or system developer.Furthermore, it is important to not only develop such systems, but also provide a frame-work for their evaluation. This is our intent for the presentation of the Alberts and Hayes(2006) framework. Other frameworks should be chosen for systems developed to serve pur-poses other than communication of commander’s intent (i.e., e-Leader presence).

Traditional interfaces have relied too exclusively on the visual modality. Researchersare urged to give more consideration to the role of display modality in studies of virtualprocesses, as certain types of information are better processed in an audio or tactile sense.Circumstances also often lead to one channel becoming overwhelmed; when this occursinformation should be distributed and presented via a different modality.

Perhaps most powerful of all is the presentation of information via multiple modalities.Remember a time when you were growing up and a parent told you that you were lovedand simultaneously hugged you – the combination of audio and tactile information unam-biguously communicated to you, and you were empowered by a thorough understandingof their message. We can use the same strategy to empower followers in a virtual worldthrough the use of the Guiding Principles to develop empowering systems for theirutilization.

References

Alberts, D. (2002). Information age transformation. DOD Command and Control Research Program: Library ofCongress. Retrieved January 2007 from the WWW: http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_IAT.pdf.

Alberts, D., & Hayes, R. (2003). Power to the edge: Command. . . control. . . in the information age. DODCommand and Control Research Program: Library of Congress. Retrieved January 2007 from the WWW:http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_Power.pdf.

http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_IAT.pdf

http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_Power.pdf


Alberts, D., & Hayes, R. (2006). Understanding command and control: The future of command and control.DOD Command and Control Research Program: Library of Congress. ISBN 1-893723-17-8. RetrievedJanuary 2007 from the WWW: http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_UC2.pdf.

Althoff, F., McGlaun, G., Schuller, B., Morguet, P., & Lang, M. (2001). Using multimodal interaction tonavigate in arbitrary virtual VRML worlds. In PUI ’01: Proceedings of the 2001 workshop on perceptive user

interfaces (pp. 1–8). Orlando, Florida, USA.Atkinson, S., & Moffat, J. (2005). The agile organization: From informal networks to complex effects and agility.

DOD Command and Control Research Program: Library of Congress. ISBN 1-893723-16-X. RetrievedJanuary 2007 from the WWW: http://www.dodccrp.org/files/RUSI_review_Agile.pdf.

Avolio, B., & Kahai, S. (2003). Adding the ‘E’ to E-leadership: How it may impact your leadership.Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 325–338.

Baca, J., & Picone, J. (2005). Effects of displayless navigational interfaces on user prosodics. Speech

Communication, 45(2), 187–202.Basdogan, C., Ho, C., Srinivasan, M. A., & Slater, M. (2000). An experimental study on the role of touch in

shared virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7(4), 443–460.Belanger, F., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2006). Virtual teams and multiple media: Structuring media use to

attain strategic goals. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 299–321.Bradshaw, A. C., & Johari, A. (2003). Effects of an online visual procedure on task completion, time and attitude.

Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(4), 401–417.Brannick, M. T., Salas, E., & Prince, C. (Eds.). (1997). Team Performance Assessment and Measurement.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Brill, C., & Terrence, P. (2007). Discrete tactile versus auditory target cueing. In R. Gilson, E. Redden, & L.

Elliott (Eds.)., Remote tactile displays for the Contemporary Soldier. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: ArmyResearch Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate. Technical Report No. ARL-SR-0152.

Burke, J., Prewett, M., Gray, A. A., Yang, L., Stilson, R., Redden, E., et al. (2006). Comparing the effects ofvisual-auditory and visual-tactile feedback on user performance: A meta-analysis. In Proceedings of the ACM

8th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, Banff, Canada.Caballer, A., Gracia, F., & Peiro, J. (2005). Affective responses to work process and outcomes in virtual teams:

Effects of communication media and time pressure. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), 245–260.Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1998). Individual and team decision-making under stress: theoretical

underpinnings. In J. Cannon Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for

individual and team training (pp. 17–38). Washington DC: APA Press.Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision-making. In

J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Current issues in individual and group decision-making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Cascio, W. F., & Shurygailo, S. (2002). E-Leadership and virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 31(2), 362–376.Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction,

8, 293–332.Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors,

42, 151–173.Coovert, M. D., Gray, A. A., Elliott, L. R., & Redden, E. R. (in press). A Tool for the Accumulation and

Evaluation of Multimodal Research. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics–Part C:

Applications and Reviews.Cummings, M. L. (2004). The need for command and control instant message adaptive interfaces: Lessons

learned from tactical tomahawk human-in-the-loop simulations. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(6), 653–661.Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection and manager

performance: Implications for information systems in theory and research. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 355–366.Driskell, J. E., Radtke, P. H., & Salas, E. (2003). Virtual teams: Effects of technological mediation on team

performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 7(4), 297–323.Duffy, M. (1995). Sensemaking in classroom conversations. In I. Maso et al. (Eds.), Openness in research: The

tension between self and other (pp. 119–132). Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Elliott, L. R., Duistermaat, M., Redden, E., & van Erp, J. (2007). Multimodal guidance for land navigation.

Aberdeen Proving Ground: Army Research Laboratory. Technical Report No. ARL-TR-4295.Elting, C., Zwickel, J., & Malaka, R. (2002). Device-dependant modality selection for user-interfaces: An

empirical study. IUI ’02: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent User Interface, (pp. 55–62). San Francisco, California, USA.

http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_UC2.pdf

http://www.dodccrp.org/files/RUSI_review_Agile.pdf


Gilson, R. D., Mouloua, M., Graft, A. S., & McDonald, D. P. (2001). Behavioral influences of proximal alarms.Human Factors, 43(4), 595–610.

Gilson, R. D., Redden, E. S., & Elliott, L. R. (2007). Remote tactile displays for future Soldiers. US ArmyResearch Laboratory Special Report ARL-SR-0152.

Glumm, M. M., Kehring, K. L., & White, T. L. (2006). Effects of tactile, visual, and auditory cues about threatlocation on target acquisition and attention to visual and auditory communications. US Army TechnicalReport ARL-TR-3863.

Grisogono, A. M. (2006). The implications of complex adaptive systems theory for C2. Selected Papers from the2006 command and control research and technology symposium, sponsored by US DOD.

Hasty, B. K., Massey, A. P., & Brown, S. A. (2006). Role-based experiences, media perceptions, and knowledge

transfer success in virtual dyads. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 367–387.Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research.

Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69–95.Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Tanriverdi, H. (2002). Leading virtual knowledge networks. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4),

403–412.Kahai, S., Sosik, J., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity-

relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context. Leadership Quarterly, 14(4–5),499–524.

Kelleher, J., & Van Genabith, J. (2004). Visual salience and reference resolution in simulated 3-D environments.Artificial Intelligence Review, 21(3), 253–267.

Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffmann, R. R. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. IEEE:

Intelligent Systems, 21, 70–73.Klein, H. A., Pongonis, A., & Klein, G. (2000). Cultural barriers to multinational C2 decision-making. Presented

to the 2000 command and control research and technology symposium, Monterey, CA.Koshy, M. (2004). Three poles framework for classification of visualizations. In Proceedings of the first

international conference on concept mapping, Pamplona, Spain.MacMillan, J., Paley, M. J., Levchuk, Y. N., Entin, E. E., Serfaty, D., & Freeman, J. T. (2002). Designing the best

team for the task: Optimal organizational structures for military missions. In M. McNeese, E. Salas, & M.Endsley (Eds.), New trends in collaborative activities: Understanding system dynamics in complex settings. SantaMonica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Press.

Mahan, R. P., Wang, J., Yanchus, N., Elliott, L. R., Redden, E. S., & Shattuck, R. (2006). Iconic representationand dynamic information fidelity: Implications for decision support. US Army Contractor Report ARL-CR-0580.

May, J. G., & Badcock, D. R. (2002). Vision and virtual environments. In K. M. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of

virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications (pp. 29–63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Maybury, M. T. (1995). Research in multimedia and multimodal parsing and generation. Artificial Intelligence

Review, 9(2–3), 103–127.McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology. London: Sage.Meyer, J. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43(4),

563–572.Nardi, B. (2005). Beyond bandwidth: Dimensions of connection in interpersonal communication. Computer-

supported Cooperative Work, 14, 91–131.Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction

with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part A, 30(3), 286–297.Pettitt, R. A., Redden, E. S., & Carstens, C. B. (2006). Comparison of Army hand and arm signals to a covert

tactile communication system in a dynamic environment. US Army Technical Report ARL-TR-3838.Redden, E. S., Carstens, C. B., Turner, D. D., & Elliott, L. R. (2006). Localization of tactile signals as a function

of tactor operating characteristics. US Army Technical Report ARL-TR-3971.Redden, E. S., & Elliott, L. R. (2007). Research-based display design guidelines for vehicle crewman and ground

warrior interfaces, which enhance situational understanding and decision cycle performance. US ArmyTechnical Report ARL-TR-4231.

Redden, E. S., Elliott, L. R., Turner, D. D., & Blackwell, C. L. (2004). Development of a metric for collaborativesituation awareness. In Proceedings of the human performance, situation awareness, and automation conference

II, Daytona Beach, Florida.


Rico, R., & Cohen, S. G. (2005). Effects of task interdependence and type of communication on performance in

virtual teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), 261–274.Rizzo, A., Parlangeli, O., Marchigiani, E., & Bagnara, S. (1996). The management of human errors in user-

centered design. SIGCHI Bulletin, 28(3), 114–118.Rovers, A. F., & van Essen, H. A. (2004). HIM: A framework for haptic instant messaging. CHI ’04: CHI ’04

extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1313–1316). Vienna, Austria.Scribner, D., Wiley, P., & Harper, W. (2005). The Effect of Various Display Modalities on Soldier Shooting and

Secondary Task Performance. In Strategies to Maintain Combat Readiness during Extended Deployments – A

Human Systems Approach (pp. 4-1 – 4-10). Meeting Proceedings RTO-MP-HFM-124, Paper 4. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: RTO.

Seay, A. F., Krum, D. M., Hodges, L., & Ribarsky, W. (2001). Simulator sickness and presence in a high FOVvirtual environment. VR’01: Proceedings of the IEEE virtual reality conference (pp. 299–300). Yokohama,Japan, USA.

Serfaty, D., & Entin, E. E. (1995). Shared mental models and adaptive team coordination. In Proceedings of the

international symposium on command and control research and technology (pp. 289–294), Washington, DC:NDU.

Shattuck, L. G. (2000). Communicating intent and imparting presence. Military Review, 66–72.Shattuck, L., & Woods, D. (2000). Communication of intent in military command and control systems. In C.

McCann & R. Pigeau (Eds.), The human in command: Exploring the modern military experience (pp. 279–292).New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Sheedy, J. E., Subbaram, M., & Hayes, J. R. (2003). Filters on computer displays – effects on legibility,

performance and comfort. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(6), 427–433.Sheridan, T. B. (1988). Trustworthiness of command and control systems. In J. Ranta (Ed.), Analysis, design, and

evaluation of man-machine systems (pp. 427–431). New York: Pergamon Press.Short, J. A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunication. London: Wiley.Sit, R. A., & Fisk, A. D. (1999). Age-related performance in a multiple-task environment. Human Factors, 41(1),

26–34.Tannen, R. S. (2000). Multimodal Displays for Target Localization in a Flight Task. Dissertation Abstracts

International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 61, 2, 1117. Dissertation obtained via No. AFRLHE-WP-TR-2001-0102.

Terrence, P., & Brill, C. (2007). Tactile Localization From Different Body Orientations. In R. Gilson, E. Redden,& L. Elliott (Eds.), Remote tactile displays for the Contemporary Soldier. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD:Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate. Technical Report No. ARL-SR-0152.

Thompson, L. F., & Coovert, M. D. (2003). Team-work online: The effects of computer conferencing on

perceived confusion, satisfaction, and post-discussion accuracy. Group Dynamics, 7, 135–151.Timmerman, C. E., & Scott, C. R. (2006). Virtually working: Communicative and structural predictors of media

use and key outcomes in virtual work teams. Communication Monographs, 73(1), 108–136.Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent

developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177.Warkentin, M., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual teams versus face to face teams: An exploratory

study of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28(4), 975–996.Wickens, C. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 3(2),

159–177.Wickens, C. D., Thomas, L. C., & Young, R. (2000). Frames of reference for display of battlefield terrain and

enemy information: Task-display dependencies and viewpoint interaction use. Human Factors, 42(4), 600–675.Workman, M., Kahnweiler, W., & Bommer, W. (2003). The effects of cognitive style and media richness on

commitment to telework and virtual teams. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 199–219.Yang, U., & Kim, G. J. (2004). Increasing the effective egocentric field of view with proprioceptive and tactile

feedback. VR’04: Proceedings of the IEEE virtual reality conference (pp. 27–34). Chicago, Illinois, USA.Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Zaccaro, S. J., & Bader, P. (2002). E-Leadership and the challenges of leading E-Teams: Minimizing the Bad and

Maximizing the Good. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 377–387.Zigurs, I. (2002). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity? Organizational Dynamics, 31(4),

339–351.

Documents

Empowering followers in virtual teams: Guiding principles from theory and practice