Virtual Team Meetings

Abstract

Students find that choosing the appropriate technology for a virtual team meeting is not as simple as it first appears. The authors describe a class exercise used to demonstrate the benefits and drawbacks of using virtual team meetings by requiring students to replace a face-to-face meeting with a virtual meeting. The exercise challenged students’ assumptions about the ease of meeting virtually, and groups learned how to choose technology with capabilities appropriate for their meeting objectives. After reviewing the literature concerning the effectiveness of virtual work teams and technology choice, the authors describe the objectives of the class exercise, the context and content of the exercise, and classroom reflections. Finally, they review the benefits and limitations of this experiential exercise and advise instructors who see an opportunity to incorporate virtual team meetings within different management courses.

Keywords

virtual teams virtual team meetings communication medium choices technology choice student groups classroom exercise

As more and more organizations attempt to facilitate and encourage work between both collocated and dispersed workers, organizations are adopting new methods of digital communication to support collaborative work. In addition, organizations are decreasing the use of travel, downsizing, and struggling to do more with fewer resources. As such, there is increased awareness and demand across organizations for videoconferencing and other technology to facilitate electronic meetings (Ready, Hostager, Lester, & Bergmann, 2004). More than 50% of companies employing more than 5,000 employees use virtual teams, and more than 60% of professional workers belong to virtual teams (D’Souza & Colarelli, 2010). Even the line between conventional and virtual teams is blurring as collocated teams make frequent use of communication technology, and virtual teams may occasionally meet in a face-to-face setting (Gaudes, Hamilton-Bogart, Marsh, & Robinson, 2007).

In the 21st century, practitioners have an increasing number of choices with regard to what type of communication medium to use when forming virtual teams and hosting virtual team meetings (chat, video, audio, e-mail, etc.). For example, 11 million workers used instant messaging technology in 2004 and, if predictions hold, 167 million workers will have used this technology in 2011 (Schiller, 2010). However, with more choices may come more confusion, and using the latest technology for any particular meeting may not fit the team, the project, or the organizational culture.

With the evolution of new social networking and virtual technologies, discussions about virtual teams are inevitable in any small groups or teams course. Management instructors need effective and salient ways to present findings regarding effective virtual team meetings and the use of current technologies (E. A. Williams, Duray, & Reddy, 2006). Teams classes in business schools within the United States have emphasized the importance of understanding the inputs (the components that go into and support a team), processes, and outcomes of teams at work (see, e.g., Hackman & Morris, 1975; Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005), and now classes need to relate these established models within a virtual experience to teach students about the appropriateness of technology choice used to facilitate virtual meetings (as a crucial input to stimulate effective interactions).

To teach about virtual teamwork, it is important to use technologies and communication mediums other than traditional face-to-face classroom methods. As an example, Dineen (2005) designed the TeamXchange exercise to help students learn to communicate within virtual teams by requiring them to participate in fluidly changing virtual teams. This type of experiential activity within a traditional classroom transforms learning from passive to active (Kalliath & Laiken, 2006; Kolb, Rubin, & McIntyre, 1984) and teaches students the behaviors required to foster effective virtual communication because employers want students who are knowledgeable about new technological developments and have practical job skills that can be used immediately (Clark & Gibb, 2006; Kalliath & Laiken, 2006; Swenson, 2001). In addition to experiencing a real-time, virtual meeting, one of the critical decisions students also need to practice making is determining which communication medium or technology is appropriate for different virtual meeting agendas so as to improve the chances of effective communication.

To increase student appreciation for the benefits and drawbacks of meeting virtually using different communication mediums, we describe an experiential class exercise on virtual team meetings that was used to foster a deeper understanding of how technology choice influences meeting effectiveness. Within this article, we first review literature on virtual team communication and technology choice that guided the development of this exercise. Then, after introducing the learning objectives of the exercise, we describe how the exercise was implemented within two senior-level classes at a public university in the Midwest. Finally, we offer suggestions regarding how to incorporate this exercise in a variety of management courses.

Choosing Technology for Virtual Team Meetings

The use of virtual teams in the workplace provides many advantages and disadvantages—both for organizations and for employees. Virtual team meetings can reduce members’ perceptions of differences and establish a sense of equality among group members (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991). In addition, when members perceive themselves to be relatively anonymous and without status, more idea sharing (Parks & Sanna, 1999; Ready et al., 2004) and idea generation may occur (Dennis & Valacich, 1993; McLeod, Baron, Marti, & Yoon, 1997). However, virtual team meetings can also stimulate frustration when someone does not feel included (K. D. Williams et al., 2002), when miscommunication from misunderstandings and reduced communication occurs (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Ready et al., 2004), or when the technology fails (Cramton & Orvis, 2003). Thus, technology used to facilitate a virtual meeting should have the capabilities to communicate crucial information and be perceived as inclusive and appropriate.

Different communication technologies have different characteristics and capabilities and allow for different levels of communication richness (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Richness refers to both the quantity and the quality of information that could be shared within the communication technology. Technology should allow for the required level of richness (Daft & Lengel, 1986) and the amount of record keeping required to reach decision, task, or creative solutions (Nemiro, 2002; Sproull & Kiesler, 1992). Technologies that allow for detailed, comprehensive, affective information to be transferred immediately or synchronously, (e.g., face-to-face, videoconferencing, etc.) are richer than those that transfer fewer information cues asynchronously (e.g., bulletin board, memo, etc.). Face-to-face meetings are considered the richest of mediums because of the number of verbal and nonverbal cues that can be communicated during discussions, which provide more information regarding interpretation of information.

Media richness theory argues that richer mediums should be used with complex problems when multiple interpretations of information might occur, whereas less rich mediums are appropriate for more routine problems (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Media synchronicity theory (Dennis, Fuller, & Valacich, 2008; Dennis & Valacich, 1993) takes an even more precise approach to predict technology media appropriateness based on media capabilities and the task’s communication needs. Team members are likely to perceive different technologies more or less positively based on their speed of interaction and perceived richness (Levi & Rinzel, 1998), but the contingency foundation of media synchronicity theory suggests that technologies should be chosen based on specific needs (Dennis et al., 2008; Dennis & Valacich, 1993; Reichwald & Goecke, 1994). For example, routine reports could be disseminated within an intranet message board. However, when multiple perspectives are required, a complex task with great consequences is the focus, or immediate feedback is needed, technology with audio and visual capabilities may be necessary. For brainstorming, a medium that allows members to submit ideas without direct and immediate critical feedback would be preferable to a videoconference where people may engage in early criticisms or experience evaluation apprehension.

Unfortunately, the tendency is to choose a communication technology with the most capabilities rather than one that would be most appropriate for the task and the desired objectives (Gallaway, 1996; Yoo, Kanawattanachai, & Citurs, 2002). Leaders may choose a more expensive and complex medium over a simple, yet effective, medium to appear trendy, and this choice may negatively affect team processes (Hollingshead, McGrath, & O’Connor, 1993). Instead, leaders not only need to consider the type of task (decision making, creativity, etc.) and its complexity, but they must also consider member attitudes about certain communication technologies before choosing how virtual meetings will be held and how information will be shared (Reichwald & Goecke, 1994).

Malhotra, Majchrzak, and Rosen’s (2007) work on leading virtual teams offers advice regarding when to introduce new technology. When considering what type of communication medium to use for virtual meetings, leaders should consider the objective of the group and the familiarity of its members with a particular technology. It is advisable for leaders to consider group history, group member status and expertise, type and complexity of task, desired objectives, and organizational requirements when selecting technology for meetings (see, e.g., Caldwell & Uang, 1994). Additionally, leaders should introduce new or additional technology (or capabilities) only as needed to help foster more productive group processing. Leaders hoping to incorporate the use of virtual meetings for team projects should seek feedback from team members regarding what mediums they may feel more comfortable using (Gallaway, 1996). Finally, it is extremely important for leaders to be familiar with the medium chosen (to guide members if problems should arise) and to ensure that the learning curve for a medium is not too great (so as to not discourage team member contributions). Familiarity and confidence in a system is one of the factors that influence the success of a virtual team meeting (Repman, Zinskie, & Carlson, 2005).

Fortunately, technology has become more user-friendly, and most mediums are quickly learned, even by those without advanced technological expertise (Nelson, 2010). For brief descriptions and comparisons of common basic technologies currently used for virtual team meetings, please see Appendix A, which describes the characteristics of audio/videoconferences, chat, discussion boards, and instant message technologies. Of course, hybrid mediums or multiple mediums may also be used to facilitate virtual meetings.

Because of high comfort levels and familiarity with technology, members of younger generations are often more familiar with developing informal virtual relationships than face-to-face relationships (Prensky, 2001). Thus, when discussions concerning virtual team meetings are presented in a college classroom, traditional undergraduate students may quickly recognize different communication technology options and are also quick to assume their potential mastery of technology during proposed virtual team meetings. Relatively recently, Kvavik (2005) surveyed 4,374 freshmen and senior college students and found that they were frequent users of e-mail, instant messaging, word processing, and Internet browsing but that high levels of use and skill did not necessarily translate into preferences for increased use of technology in the classroom. Students are comfortable with a core set of technologies but are less comfortable with specialized technologies (Caruso & Kvavik, 2005). Kirkwood and Price (2005) argue that “few students have high levels of competence across a wide range of applications” (p. 271). An experiential activity/simulation that gives students the opportunity to choose the purpose of a virtual meeting, the type of technology used, and the meeting agenda may provide them information that contradicts their perceived technological mastery, thus educating them that workplace technology may differ from the technology they use in their personal lives. It was our aim to create such an exercise.

Exercise Learning Objectives

Give students the opportunity to connect course concepts with actual experience by meeting virtually, in real time, to discuss a current class project.

Allow students to make decisions about communication technology choices and experience the consequences of those decisions.

Expose students to the benefits and drawbacks of virtual meetings to accomplish different team objectives.

Challenge student assumptions of their own technology fluency.

Class Exercise

The instructor of a Teams and Teams Development course at a midsized Midwestern university used a virtual experiential class exercise to give students the opportunity to practice meeting virtually in order to complete a professional project. This particular course took a critical look at the use of teams in the workplace and used Levi’s (2007) text, Group Dynamics for Teams, to help guide class investigation of the appropriateness of different types of teams, different team structures, and different leadership techniques to maximize process gains and minimize process losses within small work teams. Late in the semester, the class discussed the use of virtual teams and meetings for work. Three consecutive lecture days (Monday, Wednesday, Monday) were devoted to this subject. The description of the exercise below is organized by day.

Context

During the two semesters that the instructor used this experiential exercise (Fall 2009 and Spring 2010), a total of 70 students, who were earning a bachelor’s degree with a major or minor in Organizational Leadership, were enrolled (class sizes of 34 and 36) in the Teams class. Students were “traditional” seniors (average age = 22). Most students were either currently working full- or part-time or had previous work experience. Approximately 90% of the students considered themselves Caucasian, and 41% were male. Class content included the analysis of team development, process losses and gains, conflict resolution, creativity, communication, power and influence, leadership, creativity, and decision making within a team context. Students engaged in small-group activities to demonstrate various concepts, and students participated in a project team throughout the semester (4-6 members each) in which groups worked as consultants to meet actual client needs. At the end of the semester, groups presented their clients with a proposal and competed against the other groups to “win” the clients over. Consequently, students had the opportunity to share a common project team experience to guide reflective discussions of class content applications both in class and within a final paper.

Students were either already familiar with social networking or online meeting tools, or they became familiar with different communication technologies over the course of the semester. For example, during the semester, students in the Teams class used Blackboard, Facebook, and class blogs as information dissemination and discussion mediums. Students gained familiarity using Facebook Groups as they viewed class-related interviews, responded to class event invitations, followed links to online assessments and articles related to course content, shared course commentary, and uploaded images related to class discussion points. Students also learned to use Blackboard effectively to view class notes and slides, gain access to handouts, and upload assignments. They were frequently asked to download files and post to different discussion boards and blogs.

Day 1: Virtual Teams Lecture

In the first lecture concerning virtual teams, the instructor presented material on the justification for, benefits of, and the general practice of using different types of virtual teams at work with varying degrees of virtualness (i.e., the extent to which members interacted virtually compared with face-to-face). The textbook (Levi, 2007) introduced the students to the concept of same time different place meetings. Baecker, Grudin, Buxton, and Greenberg (1995) also use this term as an abbreviation for real-time meetings where members are in different places. By the time the class began to review material on virtual teams, the project teams had met with their clients, familiarized themselves with their team members, and created team contracts. The student groups were aware that they would have to present an oral and written proposal to their clients and compete with other teams to be chosen as the clients’ favorite consulting team. The next step was to decide the groups’ plans of action. A virtual meeting held during the following scheduled class time would provide groups an opportunity to discuss ideas, make decisions, etcetera, at a time they all had available.

Thus, at the end of Day 1, each group had the opportunity and autonomy to choose a familiar communication technology in order to conduct a virtual group meeting during the next class period. Group members were asked to make sure they were in different physical locations to conduct this meeting in order to experience a purely virtual meeting. To minimize ambiguity, the instructor suggested several virtual meeting options. These options included the following: Blackboard discussion boards, Blackboard chat, Facebook Group discussion boards, AIM (AOL’s instant messenger), Twitter lists, Skype, Google Wave, and e-mail. These mediums were suggested because of the students’ familiarity with the technology and the instructor’s ability to view the meetings. Descriptions of these technologies/mediums at the time of the described exercise are included in Appendix B.

Student groups were told to create their own meeting agendas. They could use the virtual meeting to discuss their client projects, to get organized, and/or to discuss any other team-related information. Essentially, student groups could choose to use the meeting to make decisions or for idea generation. Of the 14 virtual groups (7 groups for two semesters), 1 group chose AIM group chat (first semester), 1 group chose Google Wave (second semester), 2 groups chose Facebook Group discussion boards (1 group per semester), 2 chose Blackboard discussion boards (1 group per semester), and the remaining groups chose Blackboard chat with access to an online whiteboard (a common virtual area for individuals to share links or draw pictures).

From the class lecture and discussion on Day 1, and given the knowledge that the groups were still generating ideas rather than making decisions, a familiar technology medium that allows for synchronous communication and record keeping during the idea generation process should have been chosen for the meeting. Surprisingly, most groups chose a medium that they had never used before for group work (Blackboard chat, AIM, Google Wave), they had no way to document the discussion (Blackboard chat), and they had not pretested or practiced. Thus, the instructor predicted that the students would struggle and be frustrated with their choices; however, after the in-class lecture, the instructor did not further coach the student groups to reconsider a particular technology over another.

Day 2: The Virtual Group Meeting

Most teams met for the entire class meeting time (75 minutes), but some groups ended their meetings early. Several groups experienced technical difficulties that resulted in meetings starting late or without one or two members. For example, some members did not have Java updated/downloaded on their machines to use Blackboard chat (which affected three groups), some members were unfamiliar with the mediums they were using (e.g., AIM or Google Wave) and took time in the first part of the meeting to acclimate themselves to the technology (15-20 minutes). Students chose to use computers in their homes, in computer labs, in hotels as they were traveling, or in common areas on campus. Two individuals did not join their respective group meetings for undisclosed reasons.

During the meeting, the instructor periodically checked in with the students to help them resolve technical issues. All students had been informed of this minimal monitoring during the previous class period, and the instructor offered to help groups troubleshoot when they had technical difficulties getting the meeting online. Depending on the technology chosen, the groups may or may not have known when the instructor came to check-in on the virtual meeting. For example, in the Blackboard chat option, Blackboard would announce to the group every time a participant entered or exited the room. However, in all other options, the instructor’s presence was not acknowledged until she directly spoke to the group to ask if there were any issues.

Day 3: Debriefing

The instructor told students that the following class period would be used to discuss the effectiveness of the virtual meetings. Because the consulting projects were competitive, they were told that the class would only talk about the meeting process rather than the outcomes of their meetings. Students moved their desks into a circle, and groups reported on the experiences they’d had, including frustrations and perceived triumphs, while meeting virtually. Several questions guided the enthusiastic conversation between groups, members, and the class as a whole. A list of the questions used to guide the discussion is included as Appendix C, and a summation of student assessments is described below. Questions were formed to meet the previously identified exercise objectives. Specifically, the instructor wanted to foster discussion concerning the consequences of technology choice (both negative and positive) and students’ assumptions about their technology fluency. Since the discussion was not recorded, we provide direct quotations from individual reflection papers.

Benefits and drawbacks of technology choice

Although no groups reported being completely satisfied by their group virtual meeting, members of the groups reflected on the benefits and drawbacks for choosing specific meeting technology to accomplish their chosen objectives. Certain technologies allowed for immediacy or record keeping while, at the same time, requiring significant learning curves. Significant frustrations arose within groups when individual members were late, when individual members had Internet connection disruptions, when page “refreshing” became cumbersome, when individuals wanted to review chats later, and when individuals from other teams found and entered other meeting sites/rooms and interrupted communications.

Chat

First, the groups that chose chat technology voiced that they liked the immediacy of the communication, but some said it was difficult to keep up with the conversation and maintain professionalism (e.g., writing style and commentary). “It was very hard to keep track of the conversation because there were multiple subconversations going on and also at a very rapid pace” (Semester 2, Group 3). Chatting groups also talked about how frustrating it was when a group member was unexpectedly disconnected. Specifically, when this happened, the disconnected member could not see the chat record once reconnected. “Members were being ‘kicked off’ of the chat, some couldn’t open posted links, and some messages were time delayed” (Semester 2, Group 3). Someone in the group had to make sure to record the conversation outside of the chat room.

I was unable to log on with my computer at all. I had to use my roommate’s computer. This meant I was late to the discussion, so when I finally got on I was lost . . . . If you login late, you cannot see what was previously said, you could only see what was said at that time you login and after that point. So my group had to spend a lot of time catching me up on what was previously said, instead of working on the project. (Semester 2, Group 2)

Next, groups that used Blackboard chat in the first semester complained about an individual from a competing group who entered their chats uninvited and began to offer offensive commentary and post obscene pictures.

The last problem we encountered using the chat was an inconsiderate person, who was not in our group, and kept logging into our chat. It was very rude and I think that person logging into our chat threw our group off topic a couple of times. (Semester 1, Group 3)

Groups using AIM group chat were not interrupted because only “invited” members could contribute to the group chat room, but they also experienced a lot of frustration with inexperienced AIM users having trouble initially accessing the group chat.

Discussion boards

Groups using Blackboard and Facebook Group discussion boards appreciated that they had a record of the conversation to review at a later time, but the groups were annoyed at having to refresh the page constantly to see new comments. “It was difficult to have a fluent conversation with my teammates because we were constantly hitting the ‘refresh’ button” (Section 2, Group 7). Members using discussion boards discussed how Twitter could also document conversation, but Twitter comments are limited to 140 characters, and groups did not choose this option because they felt they would be unable express the same detail in their conversations as they did on discussion boards. Google Wave (Google suspended development in August 2010, but Wave was adopted by the Apache Incubator in November 2010 and continues as Apache Wave) offered both a record and immediacy, but the newness of the technology provided a steep learning curve to some students; the meeting started 30 minutes late, and one member was actually behind the real-time conversation because she inadvertently hit a button delaying her view of the conversation. “Technology does not always cooperate as one plans. For example, ‘Lindsay’ accidentally hit a wrong button, and she was 20 minutes behind our group conversation online” (Section 2, Group 1).

Videoconference

Students commented on how Skype has the added richness of video and audio, but because these class groups see each other at least two times a week, groups did not predict that they would need the richness added by the video and did not choose to use it for their virtual meetings. It was revealed later that groups may not have chosen Skype because they were not actually familiar with the technology, although they were reluctant to reveal their unfamiliarity during class.

I asked my group members if they would be willing to do meetings over Skype. Using Skype would have been very convenient for me because it would allow me to meet with them in different physical location as my teammates [since I live an hour from campus]. They told me they didn’t want to use Skype because they [simply] did not know how to use it. (Section 2, Group 6)

This resistance to change with respect to new technology has been found in other research with students (e.g., Clark & Gibb, 2006).

Challenged assumptions of technology fluency

Individuals varied in their opinions of the usefulness of the virtual meeting. Some individuals were genuinely surprised to discover that they really did not like meeting virtually. Although students initially voiced that they did not think they needed richer mediums—“We are a generation that has grown up with technology and the need to communicate face to face is increasingly becoming less and less important” (Section 1, Group 1)—they said they did not like the virtual meeting because they could not see facial expressions, and they felt they could not fully articulate and communicate their professional ideas in writing: “I determined that I like meeting in person better. With face-to-face interaction, you obtain nonverbal cues that are critical to the message” (Section 1, Group 3). Some individuals also voiced distrust and said that they did not know if members were focused on the conversation or multitasking (some people admitted doing laundry during the meeting, watching TV, or surfing other online sites): “One thing I liked about it was the ability to multitask. I don’t know if that is beneficial to the group as a whole, but it was to us as individuals” (Section 1, Group 3).

Finally, students voiced that since they had used different technologies for other purposes, they assumed that using the technology effectively for a client-related project meeting would not be a problem. Thus, their frustration was a surprise: “This technology was new and foreign to me and I feel like this was the hardest part of the virtual meeting” (Section 2, Group 1). Overall, the majority of students were more frustrated with the meeting than impressed with their teams’ functioning: “Our virtual team meeting was one of our worst experiences when becoming a cohesive team. Halfway through the meeting, we were getting upset with one another and ended up getting off a little early” (Section 2, Group 7).

Choice of communication technology

There were some groups that preferred this computer-mediated meeting to their face-to-face meetings. These groups had an agenda of brainstorming rather than making plans or decisions. These students thought the quantity of ideas and quality of the conversation about the project was much improved over face-to-face meetings that waste time, not only in the setup but also in unnecessary socializing: “I enjoyed the virtual group meeting because I was more comfortable expressing my ideas and opinions” (Section 2, Group 1).

All students identified the necessity of using chat mediums with recording abilities during real-time meetings, instead of discussion boards, because of the synchronous capabilities of chat functions. They liked technology with the ability for immediate feedback when their goal was to generate ideas: “[Chat] proved to be effective for generating and brainstorming ideas while engaging in instant feedback. It provided a sense of social presence” (Section 1, Group 1). Real-time meetings require more immediacy; therefore, for brainstorming purposes, chat mediums are more appropriate. The class elaborated on the usefulness of virtual brainstorming over face-to-face techniques. Students related their feelings and reported outcomes (regarding the amount of number of ideas shared) to empirical research comparing traditional brainstorming with computer-mediated brainstorming. Research suggests that traditional face-to-face brainstorming is frequently used in business, but its effectiveness is low with regard to idea generation compared with individuals working alone (Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991; Parks & Sanna, 1999). Individuals tend to like being face-to-face for the immediacy, but not as many ideas are shared and evaluation apprehension serves as more of a blocker of information in face-to-face meetings rather than during computer-mediated meetings (Dennis & Valacich, 1993; Diehl & Stroebe, 1987): “The [virtual meeting] could generate more ideas than a traditional meeting because team members are more inclined to contribute” (Section 2, Group 7).

However, students then spoke of the benefits of discussion boards for occasions when members cannot meet at the same time and for teams seeking to meet decision-making objectives. Discussion boards are also useful when the amount of information to be disseminated is greater. Specifically, groups noted that if information needed dissemination among members before decisions are made, discussion boards or e-mail threads may be more ideal than chat options: “Despite the various ideas that were developed through Blackboard chat, it was difficult to reach a decision” (Section 1, Group 1).

Finally, groups spoke about how the choice of technology sends its own message to members and leaders, and they also spoke about the appropriateness of different mediums for different agendas (e.g., whether the object of the meeting is idea generation or decision making). First, members talked, in general, about the risks of using social networking websites for professional work meetings. For example, coworkers who use Facebook only for dating and sharing silly videos or pictures of drunken moments may not take a Facebook virtual meeting seriously or professionally:

I would use Facebook again for teams with members around my age but would choose a different technology for older people. This is because I feel like Facebook is a very personal way to communicate that I would not feel comfortable using with an older generation, or people above me in an organizational structure. (Section 2, Group 4)

However, learning the capabilities of new technology to conduct virtual meetings could create so much frustration that “more professional” technology may not get used effectively or efficiently. Groups acknowledged that virtual teams need to make sure that the technology does not get in the way of task accomplishment, and it is best to choose a medium everyone is comfortable using.

Fulfillment of Class Exercise Objectives

During the in-class discussion of the virtual meetings, individuals and groups commented on how they would hold their next meetings differently. No one group found the virtual meeting to be perfectly effective or efficient, but as a whole, the class combined their experiences to suggest how an ideal real-time virtual meeting should be set up and facilitated. Immediately following the class discussion, the groups decided to use one of the technologies tried during this process to meet virtually throughout the rest of the semester. This implementation and use of virtual meetings was not a course requirement. Some chose a different technology from the one they had experimented with, whereas others used the same medium but modified the process. Specifically, half the groups began using Blackboard or Facebook Group discussion boards to document and share information regarding their client projects. This meeting option was used when team members simply could not meet at the same time or the same place because of scheduling conflicts or long commutes. Face-to-face meetings were set up to finalize and practice presentations or when issues became complex. Consequently, the client projects were all finished on time, and they were all professionally presented. Clients were pleased with the output of these student-consulting teams.

At the end of the semester, students were required to submit an approximately 30-page individual reflection paper (referenced in Day 3’s debriefing description) relating their group experiences to each of the topics addressed in the course. Students reflected on how their experiences fit with theory on group dynamics. Within that assignment, students spent time writing about their experience with the required virtual meeting experience and the degree to which their teams engaged virtually after the exercise. Basically, students responded to the same debriefing questions offered on Day 3 of the virtual team series (their responses served as the sources for the student quotations included in the present article). After reviewing notes from the Day 3 debriefing session and individual reflection papers at the end of the semester, it seemed that all learning objectives of the exercise were met (for most students). They reflected on the similarity of virtually accomplishing student group objectives to virtual team meetings in the workplace, they commented on the factors needed to consider before choosing a technology for virtual meetings, and some admitted their overestimation of technology fluency. Although not all students liked meeting virtually, they all voiced appreciation for the required practice, and each acknowledged that virtual meetings may only be necessary or ideal in very specific situations.

Discussion

Personal Reflections

Although we do not normally celebrate the discomfort of others, one of the best parts of this exercise was watching students struggle with the choices the groups made. The students became extremely frustrated, and almost immediately, many became overly critical of the technology choice or the requirement of meeting virtually. Students may curse the instructors’ names, they may give up, they may cheat, and they may slack off. Instructors who like to be in complete control of assignments or who take personal offense to students’ negative comments about an activity may hesitate to use this exercise, but we believe that a certain level of discomfort is productive within the classroom. We found that the level of engagement from all student participants was worth the frustrations. Students were eventually grateful for experiencing the exercise, and groups were able apply the exercise conclusions to their future meetings. Following the exercise, more groups prepared meeting agendas, and discussion boards, chat rooms, and face-to-face meetings were used more appropriately. Additionally, students left the semester able to express their understanding of how computer-mediated meetings can hinder or help virtual team performance.

Applications for Instructors

There is well-established understanding that working in class project groups prepares students to enter the workplace, where teams are increasingly used to accomplish work (Colbeck, Campbell, & Bjorklund, 2000; Eastman & Swift, 2002; Ready et al., 2004). Teamwork and group meetings are entrenched elements of an increasingly global environment, and by collaborating more effectively in school, students will be better prepared to collaborate effectively in the workplace (Eastman & Swift, 2002; Kaiser, Tullar, & McKowen, 2000). Although more business organizations are using technology to facilitate group meetings, working as a virtual team may not be as well understood or used in classrooms. Using virtual meetings and virtual groups can address three basic learning goals in any management class: (a) empower students, (b) improve student communication skills, and (c) develop students’ ability to work collaboratively. Finally, using virtual meeting technologies offers an additional teaching benefit. They are very useful in documenting student effort and accountability for fair contribution (Eastman & Swift, 2002). For example, acquiring transcripts from online discussions may help instructors differentiate individual efforts in virtual group work.

Considering the instructor’s role

Although the instructor did not see herself as a team leader in this exercise, groups saw the instructor role as a type of enforcer, and groups reported that they censored conversations when she entered their discussions or chats. This finding is important to note for several reasons. First, an instructor needs to be aware of his or her potential influence on student virtual team meetings to the same degree that a directive leader needs to use caution before asserting his or her opinion in group meetings (e.g., causes of groupthink; Janis, 1972). Second, it is imperative that the instructor be absolutely clear about his or her role before the meetings are set up. Groups need to know that the instructor is not acting as an enforcer; rather, the instructor is only there to make sure the technology is working properly. However, instructors should acknowledge student perceptions of their roles (i.e., an enforcer) and possibly recruit either a graduate assistant or a professional technical support staff member to monitor the meetings. This alternative may take more time to set up, but groups may feel more autonomous and free to engage.

Exercise application within different types of courses

The present class exercise was designed to give student groups autonomy in the choice of medium and the agenda of their meetings. The exercise described in this article was used in a team dynamics class, but the exercise itself, adaptations of the exercise, or conclusions from the exercise can be used in a variety of other management classes. For example, one of the authors required her MBA students to prepare a case analysis and 30-minute case presentation and discussion solely using virtual meeting space. Like the described exercise, the instructor suggested a particular familiar technology, but groups were allowed to choose other technology-mediated mediums. After completing the presentations, the students analyzed technology choice as a benefit or a hindrance. In another class, MBA students were required to complete a small group negotiation exercise completely virtually (using only e-mail). After the negotiations were completed, the class discussed the communication pitfalls associated with the technology choice requirement and timing.

Instructors teaching international management or managerial communication skills may choose to implement an adaptation of this exercise to demonstrate how different interpretations can be formed concerning team member activity. Classes can discuss issues related to communication quality, amount of exchange, frequency of communication, and language or jargon used in virtual meetings when members have different experience, values, and cultural norms. The instructor or graduate-assistant could role-play other group members from different countries or regions. Additionally, questions about the perception of using certain technologies would be useful to add when addressing managerial communication choices (e.g., what message does the use of a certain technology send?). Instructors could require students to analyze cases, brainstorm project ideas, or make decisions virtually as a part of these classes. Afterward, instructors can facilitate discussions regarding how the technology choice helped or hindered the meetings or group relations.

Alternatively, instructors who do not have the time to adapt this exercise in their classrooms could still use the student feedback from this exercise to inform their administrative decisions when designing online group work within their traditional or online classes. Although instructors have used asynchronous technology to facilitate group work in online classes (Clark & Gibb, 2006; E. A. Williams et al., 2006), synchronous virtual meetings may add some valuable learning and mitigate the isolation that causes some distance students to become demotivated (E. A. Williams et al., 2006). First, instructors of online courses could design group project meeting space in their course management systems to allow for different virtual meeting objectives. They could either offer a choice of technology as a part of a group assignment, or the instructors could require the use of a particular technology to mediate all communication. Depending on the purpose of the group work, the instructor may want to guide the groups toward specific technologies.

Next, instructors can share the findings of this exercise and research on virtual meetings with their students to offer alternatives to groups that find meeting face-to-face challenging. For example, the results of the student discussions on the virtual meetings were shared with a related, introductory management course. Since many management classes also work in semester-long project teams, the technologies that the teams’ students found to be the most effective were shared and students were encouraged to meet virtually when schedules and time constraints prevented face-to-face meetings. The instructor of the introductory courses volunteered to set up different online chat rooms, discussion boards, etcetera, and took time to describe to the students when each medium would be more appropriate and what downloadable software or add-ons were needed. As a result, approximately 33% of the groups asked the instructor to set up virtual meeting places for groups within Blackboard, and other groups set up their own virtual meetings via Facebook. Meeting virtually was not required for these courses, but student groups found virtual meetings to be beneficial as they compiled ideas toward their projects. The number of complaints at the end of the semester from the introductory management classes regarding individuals failing to participate in or attend meetings exponentially decreased. Specifically, after this option was included, only one complaint was filed with the instructor (8% of groups) regarding members not being available to meet, but other semesters have reported up to 10 (83%) complaints.

Using technology for technology’s sake

Advanced information and communication technology is viewed as a key resource in management education (Alavi & Gallupe, 2003). Occasionally, these learning experiences may even be considered a competitive advantage or a strategic differentiator of specific courses or programs. Most important to the success of technology-mediated learning initiatives is their implementation in support of explicit teaching and learning strategies (Alavi & Gallupe, 2003). Technology should not be used for its own sake:

There will always be a role for the lecture format, and there are learning situations in which computer use is totally inappropriate. The goal must be to match the appropriate use of technology with the content, the instructor’s personal style, and the students’ learning style. (Frand, 2000, p. 24)

Instructors should mindfully choose technologies and exercises that offer the capabilities necessary for a learning task. Just as the students learned within the described class exercise, the decision to use technology to communicate is a choice that should be carefully considered based on the objective of the current task. Some classes may benefit from the incorporation of a virtual team meeting exercise, but using a virtual team meeting to address certain class learning objectives may be inappropriate. Traditional lectures or face-to-face work are often needed to demonstrate different concepts. We suggest this exercise be used as a demonstration tool and a vehicle to stimulate thoughtful discussion and reflection on technology choice. We also encourage instructors to be patient as satisfaction with technology may increase as users become more comfortable with the mechanical limitations (Yoo et al., 2002).

Conclusion

There is a disconnect between the technology requirements used in the workplace and in management education. The process of choosing appropriate technology for a specific task is something that students rarely experience but is frequently required at work. Instructors should mindfully and deliberately choose and incorporate technology in a way that satisfies course objectives and prepares students for a workplace increasingly dependent on virtual teams and virtual team meetings. The experience with the exercise described in this article indicates that all students and instructors, not just those studying teams, could benefit from incorporating virtual meetings into student group work. Furthermore, allowing time for group reflection relating virtual experiences to a variety of practical topics, including the appropriateness of technology choice, assumptions about technology fluency, and the role of virtual meetings in a professional context, helps students apply and make sense of their experiences.

Footnotes

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix A

Comparison of Virtual Meeting Communication Technologies

	Defined	Advantages	Disadvantages	Examples
Audio-conference, videoconference	Synchronous Technologies that allow for verbal (and/or visual) interaction among individuals at a distance	Can allow for file exchange and collaborative work Show graphics Allow for paralinguistic cues and nonverbal communication	Technologically challenging for those without expertise Require high-speed connection	Cisco TelePresence, Polycom PVX, Skype
Chat	Synchronous text-based communication Allow for same-time meetings, regardless of place Transcripts are maintained only as long as a participant is “connected”	Immediacy Connectedness, Active involvement in learning Less confident participants may be less inhibited Need for brevity encourages precise idea articulation	Technical requirements (Java) Slow responses (thinking, typing) can affect participation Disjointed (multiple conversation strands exist in the same chat) Does not encourage critical thinking Contributions are limited to 2-3 lines in length Difficult to maintain professionalism	Google Chat, Yahoo Chat, AIM Chat Room
Discussion boards	Also known as threaded discussions Threads may be established by instructors or students Course management systems archive the threads and track student use	Flexible (links and attachments may be added) Allow for a variety of instructional strategies Allow students time to compose thoughts Record of the conversation is maintained	Fail to capture richness of face-to-face Constant “refreshing” required for immediacy	Blackboard discussion board, Facebook discussion board, intranet discussion boards
Instant messaging	Synchronous Send real-time text message to an individual or to a group Similar capabilities to chat	Immediacy Easy to use	Different instant messaging technologies do not work together Privacy and security concerns (hijacking and eavesdropping are possible) Contributions are limited to 2-3 lines in length	AOL Instant Messenger, Google Talk, Yahoo Messenger
Hybrid mediums	Many current technologies offer capabilities of different mediums to be both synchronous or asynchronous	Users decide what capabilities to use Conversations can be stored Immediacy is an option	Use of capabilities dependent on user familiarity Learning curve may not attract new users	Google Wave, Chat Rooms with video or audio capability

NOTE: Information in this table comes from student discussions of virtual meeting technology and is augmented by several sources (Kirkwood & Price, 2005; Kvavik, 2005; Levi & Rinzel, 1998; Repman, Zinskie & Carlson, 2005).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Gail S. Russ for her mentorship and the editors and anonymous reviewers for helping us with precision.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alavi

Gallupe

R. B.

(2003). Using information technology in learning: Case studies in business and management education programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2, 139-153.

Baecker

R. M.

Grudin

Buxton

Greenberg

(1995). Readings in human-computer interaction: Toward the Year 2000 (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Caldwell

Uang

(1994). Interactions of situation, social, and technological constraints in information technology use in organizations. In Bradley

G. E.

Hendrick

H. W.

(Eds.), Human factors in organizational design and management (Vol. 4, pp. 531-536). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

Caruso

J. B.

Kvavik

R. B.

(2005). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2005: Convenience, connection, control and learning. Boulder, CO: EDUCASE.

Clark

D. N.

Gibb

J. L.

(2006). Virtual team learning: An introductory study team exercise. Journal of Management Education, 30, 765-787.

Colbeck

C. L.

Campbell

Bjorklund

S. A.

(2000). Grouping in the dark: What college students learn from group projects. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 60-83.

Cramton

C. D.

Orvis

(2003). Overcoming barriers to information sharing in virtual teams. In Gibson

C. B.

Cohen

S. G.

(Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 214-230). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Daft

R. L.

Lengel

R. H.

(1996). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571.

Dennis

A. R.

Fuller

R. M.

Valacich

J. S.

(2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 32, 575-600.

10.

Dennis

A. R.

Valacich

J. S.

(1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 531-537.

11.

Diehl

Stroebe

(1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497-509.

12.

Dineen

B. R.

(2005). Teamxchange: A team project experience involving virtual teams and fluid team membership. Journal of Management Education, 29, 593-616.

13.

D’Souza

G. C.

Colarelli

S. M.

(2010). Team member selection decisions for virtual versus face-to-face teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 630-635.

14.

Dubrovsky

V. J.

Kiesler

S. A.

Sethna

B. N.

(1991). The equalization phenomenon: status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146.

15.

Eastman

J. K.

Swift

C. O.

(2002). Enhancing collaborative learning: discussion boards and chat rooms as project communication tools. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(3), 29-41.

16.

Frand

J. L.

(2000). The information-age mindset: Changes in students and implications for higher education. EDUCASE Review, 35(5), 15-24.

17.

Gallaway

(1996). Facilitating the utilization of information resources in an organization through a sociotechnical systems approach. In Brown

Hendrick

H. W.

(Eds.), Human factors in organizational design and management (5th ed., pp. 95-100). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

18.

Gaudes

Hamilton-Bogart

Marsh

Robinson

(2007). A framework for constructing effective virtual teams. Journal of E-Working, 1, 83-97.

19.

Hackman

J. R.

Morris

C. G.

(1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 45-99). New York, NY: Academic Press.

20.

Hertel

Geister

Konradt

(2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69-95.

21.

Hollingshead

A. B.

McGrath

J. E.

O’Connor

K. M.

(1993). Group task performance and communication technology. Small Group Research, 24, 307-333.

22.

Ilgen

D. R.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Johnson

Jundt

(2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-543.

23.

Janis

I. L.

(1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin.

24.

Kaiser

P. R.

Tullar

W. L.

McKowen

(2000). Student team projects by internet. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 75-82.

25.

Kalliath

Laiken

(2006). Use of teams in management education. Journal of Management Education, 30, 747-750.

26.

Kirkwood

Price

(2005). Learners and learning in the 21st century: What do we know about students’ attitudes and experiences of ICT that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 30, 257-274.

27.

Kolb

D. A.

Rubin

I. M.

McIntyre

J. M.

(1984). Organizational psychology: Readings on human behavior in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

28.

Kvavik

R. B.

(2005). Convenience, communications, and control: How students use technology. In Oblinger

D. G.

Oblinger

J. L.

(Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 7.1-7.20). Boulder, CO: EDUCASE.

29.

Levi

D. J.

(2007). Group dynamics for teams (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30.

Levi

D. J.

Rinzel

(1998). Employee attitudes toward various communications technologies when used for communicating about organizational change. In Vink

Koningsveld

Dhondt

(Eds.), Human factors in organizational design and management (pp. 483-488). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

31.

Malhotra

Majchrzak

Rosen

(2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 60-69.

32.

McLeod

P. L.

Baron

R. S.

Marti

M. W.

Yoon

(1997). The eyes have it: Minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 706-718.

33.

Mullen

Johnson

Salas

(1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3-23.

34.

Nelson

B. M.

(2010). Improving the success of IT projects through web-based communication technologies. Duluth, MN: The College of St. Scholastica.

35.

Nemiro

J. E.

(2002). The creative process in virtual teams. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 69-83.

36.

Parks

C. D.

Sanna

L. J.

(1999). Group performance and interaction. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

37.

Prensky

(2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

38.

Ready

K. J.

Hostager

T. J.

Lester

Bergmann

(2004). Beyond the silo approach: Using group support systems in organizational behavior classes to facilitate student understanding of individual and group behavior in electronic meetings. Journal of Management Education, 28, 770-789.

39.

Reichwald

Goecke

(1994). New communication media and new forms of cooperation in the top-management area. In Bradley

G. E.

Hendrick

H. W.

(Eds.), Human factors in organizational design and management (4th ed., pp. 511-518). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

40.

Repman

Zinskie

Carlson

R. D.

(2005). Effective use of CMC tools in interactive online learning. Computers in the Schools, 22, 57-69.

41.

Schiller

S. Z.

(2010). Communication openness in the workplace: The effects of medium (F2F and IM) and culture (U.S. and China). Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 13(2), 37-75.

42.

Sproull

Kiesler

S. A.

(1992). Connections: new ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

43.

Swenson

D. X.

(2001). You’ve just been hired—now what? A team-based business simulation for an introduction to management course. Journal of Management Education, 25, 579-589.

44.

Williams

E. A.

Duray

Reddy

(2006). Teamwork orientation, group cohesiveness, and student learning: A study of the use of teams in online distance education. Journal of Management Education, 30, 592-616.

45.

Williams

K. D.

Govan

C. L.

Croker

Tynan

Cruickshank

Lam

(2002). Investigations into differences between social- and cyberostracism. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 65-77.

46.

Yoo

Kanawattanachai

Citurs

(2002). Forging into the wired wilderness: A case study of a technology-mediated distributed discussion-based class. Journal of Management Education, 26, 139-163.