Creativity in Asynchronous

Virtual Teams: Putting the

Pieces Together

Rosalie J. Ocker
Pennsylvania State University
 Creativity in asynch VTs
 3 related experiments, involving nearly 100
teams and 400 graduate students
Key finding:
 Asynchronous VTs

 significantly more creative than teams that had

some FtF communication
 4 studies conducted to explore this finding
-- each from a different perspective.
 Four Studies in Terms of the Input-Process-Output Model
Input
Process Output

Individual

Member Personality
(Study 1) Team Interaction

Ocker, 2008 Communication Content

(Study 3)
Ocker & Fjermestad, 2008
(expanded version) Team
Team
Team Composition Interaction Influences Creativit
Creativit
(Study 4)
Status effects Ocker, 2005 yy
(Study 2)

Ocker, 2007
 Table 1. Comparison of Experiments 1, 2 & 3
Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3
(extended)* (Ocker & (Ocker, 2001)
(Ocker et al., Fjermestad,
  1996, 1998) 1998)
Length (days) 14 14 17
graduate graduate
students from students from
NJIT (CIS PSU (MBA
subjects and IS) same and MSIS)
Web-EIES
computer (EIES2 base
conferencing with a web
system EIES2 user interface) FirstClass
experimental Automated Computerized
task Post Office Post Office same
 Study 1: Personality Facets

 Looks at impact of individual personality facets

on team creativity
 A positivist study of 10 asynchronous teams in
Experiment 3
 Research questions:
 Do individual member personalities predict virtual
team creativity?
 Do individual member personalities predict virtual
team quality?
 Personality traits – 5 factors, each with multiple facets

Extraversion Openness Conscientiousness

Warmth Fantasy Competence
Gregariousness Aesthetics Order
Assertiveness (c,+) Feelings Dutifulness
Activity Actions Achievement (c,-)
Excitement Seeking Ideas (c,+) Striving
Positive Emotion Values Self-Discipline
Deliberate (q,+)
Neuroticism Agreeableness
Anxiety (c,+) Trust (q,-)
Hostility Straightforwardness
Depression Altruism
Self-Consciousness Compliance
Impulsiveness Modesty
Vulnerability to Tender-mindedness
Stress
 Results of Regression Analysis
Creativity Quality
an individual who is: an individual who is:
 imaginative and  deliberate, thorough
original thinker and careful
 enthusiastically  not terribly trusting of
expresses ideas teammates-- rely on
(without being over- self to complete project
bearing)
work rather than on
 more concerned with
team members
ideas than project
grade
 Study 2: Status Effects of
Team Composition
 Dominance
 key inhibitor of VT creativity (Study 4)
 Qualitative analysis
 8 mixed-sex asynch teams from Exp. 3
 Research question:
 How is dominance manifested in virtual
teams?
 Dominance
 when a member has undue influence over
the team’s processes or work product.

 often stems from an individual’s status,

which can be broadly defined as ‘a
position in a social network’
 Results: 5 teams experienced
dominance
Dominant member
 first to contribute a significant amount of

task-related content
 then proceeded to control the key content

development
 belonged to the team’s majority sex

 in teams where females were majority

 in teams where males were majority
 Dominance and its absence
 driven by a combination of status traits
 age seniority, work experience seniority, and
expertise
 in 4 dominated teams
 these status traits belonged to dominant
member; absent in the other members.
 in 3 non-dominated teams
 status markers were counter-balanced across
multiple members
 Study 3
 Communication Content
 Jerry’s presentation
Study 4: Influences on Team Creativity
(Team Interaction)
Qualitative analysis of 10 asynch teams from
Experiment 3
Research question:
 What influences the creative performance

of asynchronous virtual teams?

 Enhancers
 Stimulating Colleagues
 Variety of Social Influences
 NO routines of interaction, such as habitual agreement
or disagreement
 Collaboration on Problem Definition
 multiple members involved in defining the concept and
requirements
 Surface-Reduce Equivocality
 converged through a process of coming to terms with
divergent perspectives
 Individual Team Composition
Personality Facets Status effects
(+) Assertive (-) Age
(+) Ideas (-) Work Experience
(+) Anxiety (-) Expertise
(-) Achievement (+) counter-balance

Team Interaction Team Interaction

Enhancers Inhibitors
(+) Stimulating Colleagues (-) Dominance
Team
Team (-) Domain Knowledge
(+) Variety of Social
Influences Creativity
Creativity (-) External Reward
(+) Collaboration on (-) Time Pressure
Problem Def. (-) Downward Norm
(+) Surface-Reduce (-) Structured Approach
Equivocality (-) Technical Problems
(-) Lack Shared
Team Interaction Understanding
Communication Content (-) Non-stimulating
Colleagues
(+) Critical Debate
 Study References
 Ocker, R. J. (2007). Creativity in Asynchronous Virtual Teams: Putting the
Pieces Together. In Higher Creativity for Virtual Teams: Developing
Platforms for Co-Creation. T. Torres and S. MacGregor (Eds.), Hershey:
Idea Group, pp. 26-47.
 Ocker, R. J. (2008). Exploring the Impact of Personality on Virtual Team
Creativity and Quality. In Encyclopedia of E-Collaboration, Ned Kock (Ed.),
Hershey: Idea Group.
 Ocker, R. J. (2007). A Balancing Act: The Interplay of Status Effects on
Dominance in Virtual Teams, IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 50, 3, 1-15.
 Ocker, R. J. (2005). Influences on Creativity in Asynchronous Virtual
Teams: A Qualitative Analysis of Experimental Teams, IEEE Transactions
on Professional Communication, 48, 1, 22-39.
 Ocker, R.J. and Fjermestad, J. (2008). “Communication Differences in
Virtual Design Teams: Findings from a Multi-Method Analysis of High and
Low-performing Experimental Teams,” The DATA BASE for Advances in
Information Systems.
 Experiment References
 Ocker, R. J. (1995). Requirements definition using a distributed asynchronous group
support system: Experimental results on quality, creativity and satisfaction. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, New Jersey.

 Ocker, R. J., Hiltz, S. R., Turoff M., & Fjermestad, J. (1996). The effects of distributed
group support and process structuring on software requirements development teams,
Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3), 127-154.

 Ocker, R. J., Fjermestad, J., Hiltz, S. R., & Johnson, K. (1998). Effects of four modes of
group communication on the outcomes of software requirements determination, Journal
of Management Information Systems, 15(1), 99-118.

 Ocker, R. J. & Fjermestad, J. (1998). Web-based computer-mediated communication: An

experimental investigation comparing three communication modes for determining
software requirements. Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences, (HICSS-31; IEEE Computer Society, CD ROM), Hawaii, January.

 Ocker. R. J. (2001). The relationship between interaction, group development, and

outcome: A study of virtual communication. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34; IEEE Computer Society, CD
ROM), Hawaii, January.
 Study One Method
 Data Set: 47 participants from the 10
asynchronous teams in Experiment 3
 Personality measure (indiv): The Adjective
Check List (ACL)
 Creativity measure (team): objective measure
of creativity based on unique ideas from team
reports
 Quality measure (team): 2 judges measured the
quality of each team’s solution in team report
 Study Two Analysis
Level of analysis:
 data for this study have a multilevel structure --
participants nested within teams; variables
describing participants (personality traits) and
variables describing teams (creativity and
quality).
 lack of independence and the potential for a
team or group effect (Gallivan & Bebunan-Fich,
2005).
 Tested for a group effect – none, so an analysis
at the individual member level was permissible.
 Personality traits
 Personality traits distinguish individuals from each
other
 5 broad factors of personality traits
 extraversion, openness, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, and neuroticism
 Each factors has multiple personality facets
associated with it.
 Each personality facet includes
 a common ‘portion’ attributable to the associated factor
 a portion attributable to that particular facet .