Team collaboration in virtual worlds

Team Collaboration in Virtual Worlds

Surinder S. Kahai State University of New York at Binghamton Elizabeth Carroll York College of Pennsylvania Rebecca Jestice State University of New York at Binghamton

Abstract Are virtual worlds more or less effective for virtual team collaboration? We suggest that the answer to this question is complicated and dependent upon a number of factors, and we propose a research agenda with theoretical bases to guide researchers in the area of virtual team collaboration for the next seven to ten years. While virtual teams are increasingly used by organizations, there has been little systematic research done to understand how collaboration in virtual worlds compares to collaboration supported by other media, or how characteristics of virtual teams influence the collaboration process and outcomes. The research agenda that we propose looks at basic differences between virtual worlds and other media, but also includes consideration of the specific contextual factors, and the influence that leadership might have on the collaboration process and outcomes.

ACM Categories: H.5.3, I.3.7, J.4, K.4.3

Keywords: Collaboration, Computer-Mediated Communication, Computer-Supported Collaborative Work, Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Groupware, Leadership, Sociology, Virtual Reality Virtual Worlds

Introduction A recent flurry of coverage in the popular press indicates that businesses are increasingly using virtual worlds as a new way to enable collaboration among virtual team members (Kharif, 2007; Bulkeley, 2007, p. R10). Due to increasing competition, globalization, and inter-organizational alliances, virtual teams are commonplace today. In its pure form, a virtual team is a temporary arrangement of individuals belonging to different organizations and cultures, possessing different functional backgrounds, and working across different time zones on a common task. Though businesses have a variety of computer-based technologies for collaboration among virtual team members, convenience, accessibility, and cost issues have so far compelled businesses to use lean channels such as e-mail, instant messaging (IM), shared document folders, and discussion forums for the bulk of collaboration. Businesses expect virtual worlds to enrich electronic interaction by offering the visual, aural, and spatial dimensions lacking in the lean channels that are commonly used today (Kharif, 2007).

While businesses would like to know whether virtual worlds enable more effective collaboration in virtual teams than the lean channels in use today (Kharif, 2007), the question implies a simplistic view of virtual worlds -- one in which virtual worlds are uniformly

The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems 61 Volume 38, Number 4, November 2007

better, worse, or similar in performance compared to lean channels. Such a view overlooks the fact that a wide range of virtual world implementations is possible by including or excluding certain features and by altering the settings on them. Users have options relating to interactivity (e.g., allowing a member to instant-message another while chatting with the whole team), communication channels deployed (e.g., enabling the use of voice or the sharing of work objects such as spreadsheets), and fidelity of information carried by the communication channels (e.g., altering the resolution of the graphics or by using the same avatar for all group members and neutralizing individual identities). A simplistic view also overlooks that the effects one is likely to observe in virtual worlds will depend on the interaction of their features with factors that characterize virtual teams.

Virtual teams can be characterized in terms of their tasks, the diversity among members, the level of shared understanding among members, how well the members know each other, and how the team members and interactions are being led. The potential for interaction between the characteristics of virtual teams and virtual worlds stems from the ability of communicators in virtual worlds to vividly convey their identity, presence, location, activities, and work objects, and to control what is conveyed (e.g., change their appearance at will). These factors are likely to affect collaboration by influencing what is perceived by others and one’s own behavior. They are also likely to interact with virtual team characteristics. The diversity among members, for example, is made vivid when they decide to use avatars that closely represent their identity. This vividness can influence the interaction among group members by making the differences among them salient. Team members may withhold information due to uncertainty about how others, who are different from them, might react. If, however, the team leader is sensitive to this issue, s/he could turn this into an advantage by highlighting the benefits of pooling input from its diverse members.

As in teams that meet face-to-face, leadership plays a critical role in virtual teams by influencing how team members relate to one another and their motivation to contribute to the team’s task. However, due to the use of lean communication channels, a virtual team’s leader needs to alter the effort and strategies for building motivation and relationships. Zigurs (2003, p. 344) argues that due to the absence of proximity and nonverbal cues, which facilitate relationship development among team members, virtual team leaders would need to spend more time on the development of relationships compared to a leader of a traditional team. Additionally, Zigurs (2003, p. 344) suggests that virtual team leaders choose a medium

that helps them project telepresence or the feeling of “being there” with the followers. The ability to project telepresence is determined by a medium’s ability to be vivid (i.e., produce a rich environment for the senses) and interactive (i.e., enable the users to influence the form and content of communication).

Virtual worlds offer an attractive way for a leader to be vivid and interactive with followers. They allow a leader to implement creative communication schemes not possible with other channels. A leader could set up a virtual world meeting in which all participants’ avatars appear the same. With improvements in virtual world technology, such a meeting may one day approximate “being there” normally enabled by a face-to-face meeting but it would represent a creative twist not possible in a normal face-to-face meeting. Team members in virtual worlds also have more control of self-presentation and communication (e.g. multi-conversing) that is not possible in face-to-face meetings.

To guide future research on collaboration in virtual worlds, we propose a research agenda that focuses on studying the effects of different virtual world features and leadership styles on virtual team collaboration in virtual worlds. We also seek to understand leadership emergence during virtual team collaboration in virtual worlds. Several theories are relevant for this research agenda. Because they deal with the conveyance of information and the interactivity enabled when different media and their features are used, Media Richness Theory, Media Synchronicity Theory, and the Channel Expansion Theory will play a critical role in the formulation of research that looks at how virtual worlds and their features influence collaboration by themselves and by interacting with aspects of virtual teams. Virtual worlds are different from other media employed today for virtual team collaboration due to the conveyance of visual, aural, and spatial cues. Since communicators using a virtual world need to be present at the same time, virtual worlds also differ in terms of the interactivity and the rehearsability of a message that they enable. For instance, collaborators using the voice channel in a virtual world have a very limited ability to rehearse their messages before transmitting them.

There is no single theory to explain the effects and emergence of leadership in virtual worlds. The Substitutes for Leadership Theory offers a perspective that recognizes that leadership behaviors are moderated by the context in which they are exhibited. Complementing that, the Full Range Leadership Model helps understand different styles of leadership behavior. Theories that deal with the presentation and availability of identities in a social setting would be relevant for understanding social


interaction in virtual worlds. Virtual worlds offer a rich range of possibilities for self-presentation and, therefore, the identity that one adopts. Additionally, one can change one’s identity from one situation to the next. Two theoretical perspectives are suggested for understanding the effects of these possibilities: Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects and Impression Management Theory. Theoretical Perspectives Media Richness Theory and its Extensions

Media Richness Theory (MRT) suggests that communication media differ in richness; richer media enable (a) the use of a greater number of communication channels, (b) more rapid feedback, (c) greater language variety, and (d) greater personalization of one’s message (Daft & Lengel, 1986). According to the theory, richer media enable a common understanding to be reached more quickly than leaner media. Empirical support for MRT has been mixed. MRT was developed before the widespread use of CMC in organizational settings and it has been criticized for its apparent failure to generalize to CMC systems. Consequently, extensions to MRT have been proposed. Two well-cited extensions are the Media Synchronicity Theory (Dennis & Valacich, 1999) and the Channel Expansion Theory (Carlson & Zmud, 1999).

Media Synchronicity Theory subsumes the first three media richness characteristics listed above and adds three new characteristics to give rise to the following set: (a) immediacy of feedback, (b) symbol variety or the number of ways in which information can be communicated, (c) rehearsability or the ability to rehearse one’s message before transmission, (d) reprocessability or the ability to reprocess or view a message over and over again in a communication situation, and (e) parallelism or the ability to conduct multiple simultaneous conversations (Dennis & Valacich, 1999, p. 2). Media Synchronicity Theory holds that it is not possible to treat a medium as invariant along these five dimensions because different implementations of the same medium can correspond to different levels on one or more dimensions. Nor is it possible to collapse these five dimensions into a single property that could be related to task requirements. Therefore, one needs to match media capabilities on the five dimensions to the requirements of the situation in order to determine the most effective medium for that situation.

A situation is defined in terms of the need for conveyance and convergence. Conveyance refers to the exchange of information, followed by deliberation on its meaning. Convergence refers to the

development of shared meaning for information. In general, Media Synchronicity Theory proposes that media with high immediacy of feedback and low parallelism are suitable for convergence whereas media with low immediacy of feedback and high parallelism are suitable for conveyance. Both rehearsability and reprocessability are proposed to be important for conveyance and convergence. The importance of symbol variety for convergence and conveyance processes is contingent on a variety of issues that define the communication situation, including the task requirements (e.g., task execution, group well-being) and characteristics of the communicators (e.g., prior experience with each other). Media Synchronicity Theory is a relatively new theory and empirical examination of its basic propositions is limited. Consequently, it has not replaced MRT yet.

Due to the wide range of virtual world implementations that are possible, it is not possible to place virtual worlds as a single point on any of the media dimensions proposed by MRT or Media Synchronicity Theory. Theoretical and empirical examinations of (a) how to place the wide range of virtual world implementations on the media dimensions proposed by MRT or Media Synchronicity Theory, and (b) how effective the different implementations are in terms of meeting the task and socio-emotional requirements of virtual teams are clearly warranted.

Another extension of MRT, the Channel Expansion Theory (Carlson & Zmud, 1999) suggests that communicators’ experiences with (a) the communication medium being used, (b) each other, (c) the organizational context in which the communication is taking place, and (d) the messaging topic lead to higher perceived media richness. For example, preliminary evidence from an empirical study conducted by the authors suggests that familiarity with instant messaging (IM) may have led participants to express greater perceived richness in the IM condition than in the virtual world (Second Life) condition. Objectively, the virtual world possesses more of the richness characteristics than IM, and yet participants’ experience with the medium may have affected their perceptions. Similarly, leadership plays an important role in influencing the interactions among members of a group and, therefore, their experience with each other. How members of a virtual team meeting in a virtual world interpret their experiences with one another when these experiences are based on virtual digital representations, virtual gestures, and virtual meeting location is not clear at present.


Substitutes for Leadership Theory and the Full Range Leadership Model

Substitutes for Leadership Theory states that contextual characteristics in an organization, group, or task may substitute for, neutralize, or enhance the effects of leadership behaviors on a variety of variables such as follower satisfaction and task performance (Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986). Substitutes provide the same function as a leader’s behavior and make it irrelevant. For instance, a cohesive team can substitute for a leader’s attempts to make team members work well with one other. Neutralizers interfere with leader behaviors and reduce their impact. As an example, the absence of rewards for good citizenship behaviors can reduce the impact of a leader’s attempts to encourage good citizenship behaviors among her/his followers. Enhancers increase a leader’s influence. For example, the ability of a leader to influence subordinates’ salaries can increase her/his influence on followers’ behaviors.

This theory was originally developed with task and organizational characteristics in mind during the time when the use of computer mediated communication (CMC) systems was limited. However, CMC and leadership researchers (Avolio, Kahai, & Dodge, 2000, p. 630-631, 637, 643; Avolio & Kahai, 2003, p. 330; Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 2004, p. 96; Zigurs, p. 2003, p. 344) have suggested that features of CMC systems could substitute for, neutralize, or enhance the effects of a leader’s behaviors. Certain Group Support Systems (GSS), for instance, may provide the structure needed to complete the task and effectively serve as a substitute for leadership in virtual teams. The availability of visual, aural, and spatial cues, which distinguishes virtual worlds from other media used by virtual teams, may also act as moderators of leadership effects. Specifically, spatial cues like sitting at the head of a table may enhance the effects of a leader’s influence behaviors. Conversely, visual and aural cues that distinguish a leader from others may neutralize a leader’s perceived similarity to her/his followers. Since individuals tend to be influenced more by those like them than by those unlike them, the reduction in perceived similarity with the leader can reduce the effects of her/his influence attempts.

The application of Substitutes Theory to virtual teams would be an interesting one due to the nature of virtual teams. Members of virtual teams are often chosen for their expertise and follower’s ability is often cited as a key contextual characteristic that substitutes for leadership. Furthermore, a virtual team leader typically has no formal authority over members. These features are likely to make virtual teams an interesting area for testing the boundaries of the Substitutes for Leadership Theory.

In order to understand the outcomes suggested by the Substitutes for Leadership Theory, it is important to have a clear frame for leadership behaviors in teams. A large and important stream of leadership research has centered on the Full Range Leadership Model (Bass & Avolio, 1993). This model identifies leadership behaviors as transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire and is widely accepted in the management literature. Transactional leaders motivate followers by engaging in transactional relationships in which they exchange rewards for performance. Transformational leaders influence followers by setting more challenging expectations, creating mutual respect, and focusing on followers’ needs and their higher motives. Laissez-faire leadership represents the absence of any transaction. The leader avoids making decisions, abdicates responsibility and does not use her/his authority. There has been a significant amount of research examining the application of transactional and transformational leadership styles in a GSS setting—e.g., leadership and anonymity effects on normative and anti-normative arguments regarding an ethical issue (Kahai & Avolio, 2006); effects of leadership style, anonymity and rewards on creative processes and outcomes (Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 2003); effects of leadership style on group creativity (Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio, 1998, 1999); effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness (Sosik, Avolio & Kahai, 1997). However, to the best of our knowledge, only Hoyt and Blascovich (2003) have examined the effects of transformational and transactional leadership styles in virtual environments and further examination of these styles in such environments is clearly required. Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects

The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) has been proposed as an alternative to the traditional deindividuation model. According to the latter, anonymity within a group leads to deindividuation or a state in which a group member is immersed in the group. A deindividuated member experiences low accountability and self-awareness due to which s/he is less inhibited by her/his internalized norms and is more willing to engage in behavior that s/he would not display in front of others (Diener, 1979; Festinger, Pepitone, & Newcomb, 1952). The SIDE model proposes that anonymity also causes deindividuation in group members, but in this case, deindividuation is defined as a state in which members do not have identifying information regarding other members in the group (Postmes & Spears, 1998). Lack of information regarding interpersonal differences among group members causes them to be more sensitive to available information about their personal or social identity. If


the available information highlights their association with a particular social group (e.g., a group of students), they pay more attention to that social group and behave in a way that conforms to that group’s norms. On the other hand, if the information available to members highlights their individuality, then they are more aware of themselves as individuals and behave in a way that conforms to their personal norms. Information that cues group members to their personal or social identity may come from task instructions, the computer interface, and group interaction (Lea & Spears, 1991; Spears, Postmes, Lea, & Wolbert, 2002).

Most SIDE studies have created deindividuation by eliminating visual information about group members. These studies, conducted using lean media akin to IM, have shown reinforcement of group norms when members’ social identity is made salient in visually anonymous groups. SIDE theorists have suggested that media that provide visual information can actually reduce the salience of group members’ social identity by highlighting individual differences. While one may be inclined to think that the use of avatars in virtual worlds can reduce the salience of social identity by providing visual information, their use actually offers an interesting duality. Specifically, avatars could be manipulated to enable visual identification or to eliminate visual differences. When visual differences are eliminated, depending on whether group members are cued to their personal or social identity, their behavior can differ. Through her/his comments to the group, a leader can cue group members to their personal or social identity. Sosik, Avolio, and Kahai (1997, p. 92) argue that by highlighting the importance of collective action, a transformational leader can increase the group’s salience for its members when their communication is anonymous. These ideas clearly suggest the need to examine the effects of avatar manipulation and their interaction with leadership behaviors.

Impression Management Theory

Impression management refers to attempts by individuals to control the impressions that others form of them. Goffman’s impression management theory (1959) states that individuals tend to portray themselves in a manner consistent with how they would like others to perceive them. Goffman’s model centered on the idea of co-presence and assumed that physical co-presence was necessary for identity expression. It also proposes that with greater control over expressive and physical equipment and symbols of their status, individuals are better able to create a coherent impression for others. In a recent paper, Ma and Agarwal (2007, p. 50) argued that individuals engaged in CMC can also experience a sense of co-

presence, which they refer to as virtual co-presence or a subjective feeling of being together with others in a virtual environment. Co-presence during CMC is expected to occur due to (a) interactivity and the speed of interaction, and (b) medium vividness, defined as the extent to which users can sense the presence of each other in a manner similar to the real world.

Research related to impression management during CMC, in general, is limited (e.g., O’Sullivan, 2000, showed that people revealing possibly negative aspects of themselves preferred mediated over non-mediated communication channels, because it gave them control over self-presentation) and future research on the role that impression management is likely to play in virtual world collaboration is warranted. The use of virtual worlds comes closer to face-to-face interaction than many other CMC systems in enabling rapid interactivity. It may also give them greater control than face-to-face communication over their expressions, their body, and symbols of their status because all of them can be manipulated digitally. This ability might influence the attributions that members make about others’ behaviors. For instance, they may harbor doubts that a member being considered for selection as group leader would behave in an expected way. Research Questions

Do past research findings about team collaboration apply in cases where a virtual world is the key communication medium? Virtual teams often have formal leaders and operate in some context. What are the effects of leadership and contextual variables and how do they influence team processes and outcomes? How do virtual world features influence the emergence of leaders in virtual teams? These are some general questions to guide research on collaboration in virtual worlds. We recommend laboratory experiments for data collection because they enable control over manipulation and measurement. As empirical results begin to emerge and form a picture of the nature of collaboration in virtual worlds, field studies should be used to confirm the generalizability of results.

Comparison of Virtual Worlds to Alternate Media

How does collaboration in a virtual world compare to other media regarding effects on the nature of communication, the development of trust, team cohesion, team potency, and decision making outcomes? We suggest that researchers start with a “minimal” virtual world implementation that acts as a baseline for future research. For alternate media, we suggest media commonly employed by virtual teams,


i.e., telephone (including Internet-based telephony products such as Skype), e-mail, IM, and discussion boards. Once comparisons between a minimal virtual world and alternate media are completed, researchers could proceed by comparing the “baseline” virtual world implementation to “enhanced” virtual world implementations. Ideally, the enhanced implementation should differ from the baseline implementation on a single feature (e.g., use of voice in addition to text) or a bundle of features that go together. The choice of a single feature or a common bundle of features would depend on whether the researcher is aiming for theoretical or practical insight.

Comparison of virtual worlds to alternate media should not happen in isolation but in conjunction with variations in one or both of the following: (a) leadership style, and (b) context. For leadership style, researchers may examine the effects of transactional versus transformational leadership styles or the effects of either of these styles relative to laissez-faire leadership. For context, researchers may vary task types (e.g., intellective vs. decision-making tasks as defined by McGrath, 1984) and the diversity among team members. We expect that much of the theoretical development for examining the research questions in this item will be guided by MRT and its extensions, the Substitutes for Leadership Theory, and the Full Range Leadership Model. Identities and Identity Manipulation in Virtual Worlds

Manipulation of identities could very well be considered an important feature of virtual worlds. The level of identity manipulation available in virtual worlds has not been possible previously in other CMC systems. There are at least two sets of questions that warrant examination. One set of questions deals with the salience of social versus personal identities. Specifically, how does collaboration in a virtual world, when compared to other media, affect the salience of group versus individual identities? How do transactional and transformational leadership styles affect the salience of social versus personal identities? How do the characteristics of avatars affect the salience of social versus personal identities? The second set of questions deals with attributions. Specifically, what are the effects of self-presentation methods on the attributions that team members make of others’ behaviors? How do these attributions affect the collaboration process and outcomes? How are these attributions influenced by transactional and transformational leadership styles? Examination of these two sets of questions will be guided by SIDE, the Impression Management Theory, and the Full Range Leadership Model.

Leadership Emergence in Virtual Worlds

There is no single theory (or a small set of theories) that can be suggested for the study of leadership emergence in teams collaboration in virtual worlds. Leadership emergence can take place in teams that are initially leaderless or have designated leaders. In addition to Impression Management Theory, the literature on leadership emergence in traditional teams is likely to be useful. This literature suggests there are two types of emergent leadership: ascribed or achieved (Neubert & Taggar, 2004). Ascribed emergent leadership stems from a process in which team members attribute competency and leadership ability to observable individual differences such as gender or personality. Status is then assigned by team members based on their implicit models of leadership with or without accompanying behavioral support. Achieved emergent leadership stems from a process in which team members assign leadership status to someone who provides valuable behaviors or makes valuable contributions to the team.

Researchers should first determine what factors have been found to be important for ascribed emergent leadership and then delineate those factors that are likely to be more salient or observable in virtual worlds relative to media generally used by virtual teams. Visual factors related to member status (e.g., gender, appearance, and seating position) are likely to stand out as significant for leadership emergence in virtual worlds. As the technology of virtual worlds develops and it becomes possible for virtual team members to display a greater range of nonverbal cues (e.g., eye gaze and hand gestures), researchers may want to study whether the display of certain types of nonverbal cues affects leadership emergence. Another set of questions may focus on how contextual factors such as the type of task being performed by a team moderate the effects of the above factors on leadership emergence. Eventually, once we gain an understanding of how unobservable individual differences (e.g., experience with virtual worlds) influence behaviors in virtual worlds, researchers may advance to examining achieved emergent leadership as a function of “unobservable” member characteristics. Concluding Remarks Virtual worlds offer a rich range of features and new possibilities for virtual team collaboration. Understanding their impacts on virtual teams is important in order to use them effectively and take full advantage of their current and future development. A carefully followed research agenda will bring greater understanding to the complex issue of virtual world collaboration compared to collaboration in other


channels. Leaders of virtual teams will be better able to choose appropriate virtual world features and leadership behaviors to heighten group effectiveness with a more thorough understanding of the complex interactions among leadership, context, and team members. References Avolio, B.J., and Kahai, S.S. (2003). “Adding the ‘E’ to

E-leadership: How it May Impact Your Leadership,” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 31, No.4, pp. 325-328.

Avolio, B.J., Kahai, S.S., and Dodge, G. (2000). “E- leadership: Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice,” The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11, No.4, pp. 615-668.

Bass, B.M., and Avolio, B.J. (1993). “Transformational Leadership: A Response to Critiques,” in M. M. Chemmers, M.M., and Ayman, R. (Eds.), Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions, San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 49-80.

Bulkeley, W.M. (2007). “Playing Well With Others,” Wall Street Journal, R10, June 18.

Carlson, J.R. and Zmud, R.W. (1999). “Channel Expansion Theory and the Experiential Nature of Media Richness Perceptions,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, No.2, pp. 153-170.

Daft, R.L., and Lengel, R.H. (1986). “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design,” Management Science, Vol. 32, No.5, p. 554-572.

Dennis, A.R., and Valacich, J.S. (1999). “Rethinking Media Richness: Towards a Theory of Media Synchronicity,” 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, Retrived from http://www.hicss.hawaii.edu.�

Diener, E. (1979). “Deindividuation, Self-Awareness, and Disinhibition,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 1160-1171.

Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., and Newcomb, T. (1952). “Some Consequences of Deindividuation in a Group,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 47, No.2, pp. 382-389.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York: Doubleday.

Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W., and Kerr, S. (1986). “Moderator Variables in Leadership Research,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, No.1, pp. 88-102.

Hoyt, C.L., and Blascovich, J. (2003). “Transformational and Transactional Leadership in Virtual and Physical Environments,” Small Group Research, Vol. 34, No.6, pp. 678-715.

Kahai, S.S., and Avolio, B. J. (2006). “Leadership Style, Anonymity, and the Discussion of an Ethical Issue in an Electronic Context,” International Journal of e-Collaboration, Vol. 2, No.2, pp. 1-26.

Kahai, S.S., Sosik, J.J., and Avolio, B.J. (2003). “Effects of Leadership Style, Anonymity, and Rewards on Creativity-Relevant Processes and Outcomes in an Electronic Meeting System Context,” The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, No.4-5, pp. 499-524.

Kahai, S.S., Sosik, J.J., and Avolio, B.J. (2004). “Effects of Participative and Directive Leadership in Electronic Groups,” Goup & Organization Management, Vol. 28, No.1, pp. 67-105.

Kharif, O. (2007). “The Virtual Meeting Room,” BusinessWeek, Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2007/tc20070416_445840.htm.

Lea, M., and Spears, R. (1991). “Computer-Mediated Communication, Deindividuation, and Group Decision Making,” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 34, pp. 283-301.

Ma, M., and Agarwal, R. (2007). “Through a Glass Darkly: Information Technology Design, Identity Verification, and Knowledge Contribution in Online Communities,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 18, No.1, pp. 42-67.

McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance, Englewood, CA: Prentice-Hall.

Neubert, M.J., and Taggar, S. (2004). “Pathways to Informal Leadership: The Moderating Role of Gender on the Relationship of Individual Differences and Team Member Network Centrality to Informal Leadership Emergence,” The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, No.2, pp. 175-194.

O’Sullivan, P.B. (2000). “What You Don’t Know Won’t Hurt Me: Impression Management Function of Communication Channels in Relationships,” Human Communication Research, Vol. 26, pp. 403-431.

Postmes, T., and Spears, R. (1998). “Deindividuation and Antinormative Behavior: A Meta-Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 123, No.3, pp. 238-259.

Spears, R., Postmes, T., Lea, M., and Wolbert, A. (2002). “When Are Net Effects Gross Products? Communication,” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 58, No.1, pp. 91-107.

Sosik, J.J., Avolio, B.J., and Kahai, S.S. (1997). “Effects of Leadership Style and Anonymity on Group Potency and Effectiveness in a Group Decision Support System Environment,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, No.1, pp. 89-103.


Sosik, J.J., Kahai, S.S., and Avolio, B.J. (1998). “Transformational Leadership and Dimensions of Creativity: Motivating Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups,” Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 11, No.2, pp. 111-121.

______. (1999). “Leadership Style, Anonymity, and Creativity in Group Decision Support Systems: The Mediating Role of Optimal Flow,” Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 33, No.4, pp. 227-256.

Zigurs, I. (2003). “Leadership in Virtual Teams: Oxymoron or Opportunity?,” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 31, No.4, pp. 339-351.

About the Authors Surinder Kahai is an Associate Professor at SUNY-Binghamton. Surinder researches computer-mediated collaboration, leadership in electronic groups, and IS leadership. His research has been published in Decision Sciences, Journal of Applied Psychology,

Journal of Management Information Systems, and Personnel Psychology. He is on the editorial boards of Group and Organization Management, IEEE-TEM, and the International Journal of e-Collaboration.

Elizabeth Carroll is the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment at York College of Pennsylvania. Her training is in organizational behavior, with a focus on the areas of leadership and creativity, and a particular interest in research methods. She has presented papers at the Academy of Management, SIOP, and the Western Academy of Management.

Rebecca Jestice is a doctoral student of MIS at SUNY-Binghamton. Rebecca’s research focuses on collaboration, decision-making, and leadership in virtual environments, particularly virtual worlds. She has presented her work at international conferences and is an avid participant in Second Life.


Documents

Team collaboration in virtual worlds