Shared identity helps partially distributed teams, but distance still matters

Authors:
Nathan D. Bos;Ayse Buyuktur;Judith S. Olson;Gary M. Olson;Amy Voida
Affiliations:
Johns Hopkins University, Laruel, MD, USA;University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA;University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA;University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
Venue:
Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on Supporting group work
Year:
2010

Citing 5
Cited 2

In-group/out-group effects in distributed teams: an experimental simulation

CSCW '04 Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work
Collective efficacy as a measure of community

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Collocation blindness in partially distributed groups: is there a downside to being collocated?

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Identification in Face-to-Face, Hybrid, and Pure Virtual Teams: Untangling the Contradictions

Organization Science
Distance matters

Human-Computer Interaction

Cross-cutting faultlines of location and shared identity in the intergroup cooperation of partially distributed groups

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
A multi-level analysis of the impact of shared leadership in diverse virtual teams

Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Previous research on partially distributed teams has revealed a cluster of problems, including difficulty coordinating, 'ingroup' formation among members in different locations, and lower trust in teammates across distance. But these prior studies involved groups of strangers; would pre-existing groups have the same problems? We recruited groups from the same fraternity or sorority to test groups with a pre-existing shared identity. We found that these groups did indeed coordinate work better, cooperated more, and were more willing and able to take on larger scale projects. However, even within these high-performing shared identity groups, there were significant differences between collocated and remote members in performance, group efficacy, and sense of group identity.