Explaining the effects of Task Complexity in Computer-Mediated
Communication Dynamics: A Meta-Analysis
Virtual teams are those who rely on technology to span geographical distances between
team members. Virtual teams allow for greater collaboration and interdependence between
individuals in remote locations. However, as the technology used to facilitate team
communication has advanced, so too have the problems associated with collaboration via
technology.
Virtual teams have routinely been found to produce fewer communicative remarks (Daly,
1993; Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff, 1986; Kiesler, Zubrow, Moses, & Geller, 1985; McGuire,
Kiesler, & Siegel, 1987; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986; Webber, 2002), take
longer to complete tasks (Baltes, Dickson, Sherman, Bauer, & LaGanke, 2002; Daly, 1993;
Gallupe & McKeen, 1990; Hiltz et al., 1986; Kiesler et al., 1985; McGuire et al., 1987; Webber,
2002; Weisband, 1992), and demonstrate inferior communication quality (Webber, 2002) than
traditional face-to-face teams. A common explanation for these communication and time
discrepancies has been that virtual teams require extra time for typing and reading (Siegel et al.,
1986).
The examination of the performance differences between these two types of teams has
found mixed results. Several studies have found no performance differences between virtual and
face-to-face teams (Chidambaram & Jones, 1993; Gallupe & McKeen, 1990; Hiltz et al., 1986;
Hollingshead, 1996b), while other studies – including two meta-analyses – have found virtual
teams to produce less effective performance (Baltes et al. 2002; Cramton & Webber, 2002;
Hollingshead, 1996a; Webber, 2002).
One explanation for the inconsistency of these findings is that task type may moderate the
degree to which virtual teams have more problems than face-to-face teams (Benbasat & Lim,
1993; Hwang, 1998; Webber, 2002). Task type is an important moderator as evidenced by the
fact that it may account for up to 50% of the variability in group performance (Poole, Siebold, &
McPhee, 1985).
While past meta-analyses have examined virtual team/face-to-face team comparisons, our
meta-analysis will compare these teams based on McGrath’s (1984) four task types: idea
generation, intellective, judgment, and negotiation. These task types are hierarchical with idea
generation being least complex and interdependent and negotiation tasks most complex and
interdependent. The current meta-analysis will test McGrath and Hollingshead’s (1993) proposal
that while richer communication (i.e. face-to-face) is required for more complex and
interdependent tasks, less rich communication (i.e. computer-mediated) is more beneficial to less
complex and interdependent tasks.
Several outcomes will be studied: performance, satisfaction, speed, and communication
quantity and quality. In addition, we will also examine several variables that have been found to
moderate the virtual team- face-to-face team relationship in the past: group size, synchronicity,
anonymity, familiarity, and time to complete task (Baltes et al., 2002; Webber, 2002). Rather
than examining the effects of these moderators overall, the impact of such moderators on the
comparison between virtual and face-to-face teams will be studied within each task type. For
example, we would expect that larger virtual teams will have worse outcomes than larger faceto-face teams for complex tasks, but that this discrepancy will be attenuated for less complex
tasks.
Our initial literature search included PsycInfo and ABI/INFORM databases for studies
including all relevant terms. In addition, a search of conference presentations at SIOP, Academy
of Management, and APA over the past six years (1999-2004) was conducted. A search using
ProQuest Digital Dissertations located unpublished dissertations relevant to our research.
Finally, authors who had previously published virtual team research were contacted for any
unpublished studies.
Our initial search turned up 234 possible studies; however, studies are being eliminated
for several reasons (e.g., they do not include a face-to-face comparison, none of the dependent
variables of interest were measured, the study was completely theoretical). Two raters are
currently coding these articles with 100% accuracy in inter-rater reliability.
Following the meta-analysis technique as detailed by Hunter and Schmidt (1990),
analyses include the estimation of population variance, sampling error variance, and variance due
to artifacts. All statistics are being converted into d statistics (Cohen, 1983). The means and
standard deviations for each subset will be computed and t-tests will be performed to compare
differences between sub-meta-analyses. Corrections for sampling error, range restriction, and
measurement error will be conducted as information permits.
Although it is expected that task type account for much of the variance in virtual and
face-to-face team differences, any finding regarding the impact of task type will hold useful
implications for virtual teams in organizations. Similarly, any additional variance explained by
the additional moderators within task type will help guide both the structure of virtual teams and
their tasks in organizations.
References
Baltes, B.B., Dickson, M.W., Sherman, M.P., Bauer, C.C., & LaGanke, J.S. (2002). Computermediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 156-179.
Benbasat, I., & Lim, L.H. (1993). The effects of group, task, context, and technology variables
on the usefulness of group support systems: A meta-analysis of experimental studies.
Small Group Research, 24(4), 430-462.
Chidambaram, L., & Jones, B. (1993). Impact of communication medium and computer support
on group perceptions and performance: A comparison of face-to-face and dispersed
teams. MIS Quarterly, December, 465-491.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic
Press.
Daly, B. (1993). The influence of face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication
channels on collective induction. Accounting, Management & Information Technology,
3(1), 1-22.
Gallupe, R.B., & McKeen, J. (1990). Enhancing computer-mediated communication: An
experimental study into the use of a decision-support system for face-to-face versus
remote meetings. Information and Management, 18, 1-13.
Hiltz, S.R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making:
Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences.
Human Communication Research, 13, 225-252.
Hollingshead, A.B. (1996a). Information suppression and status persistence in group decisionmaking: The effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23,
193-219.
Hollingshead, A.B. (1996b). The rank-order effect in group decision-making. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 181-193.
Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hwang, M. (1998). Did task type matter in the use of decision room GSS? A critical review and
a meta-analysis. Omega, 26(1), 1-15.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T.W. (1985). Social psychological-aspects of computermediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123-1134.
McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
McGrath, J.E. & Hollingshead, A. B. (1993). Putting the “group” back in group support systems:
Some theoretical issues about dynamic processes in groups with technological
enhancements. In L.M. Jessup & J.S. Valacich (Eds.), Group Support Systems: New
Perspective (pp. 78-96), New York: Macmillan.
McGuire, T.W., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion
effects in risk decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5),
917-930.
Poole, M.S., Siebold, D.R., & McPhee, R.D. (1985). Group decision-making as structurational
process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T.W. (1986). Group processes in computermediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
37(2), 157-187.
Webber, S.S. (2002). Virtual teams: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Conference,
Denver, CO.
Weisband, S. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and
face-to-face decision-making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 53, 352-380.