Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Concerns around the time and administrative burden of trainee promotion processes have been reported, making virtual meetings an attractive option for promotions committees in undergraduate and postgraduate medicine. However, whether such meetings can uphold the integrity of decision-making processes has yet to be explored. This narrative review aimed to summarize the literature on decision making in virtual teams, discuss ways to improve the effectiveness of virtual teams, and explore their implications for practice.
In August 2017, the Web of Science platform was searched with the terms ‘decision making’ AND ‘virtual teams’ for articles published within the last 20 years. The search yielded 336 articles, which was narrowed down to a final set of 188 articles. A subset of these, subjectively deemed to be of high-quality and relevant to the work of promotions committees, was included in this review.
Virtual team functioning was explored with respect to team composition and development, idea generation and selection, group memory, and communication. While virtual teams were found to potentially offer a number of key benefits over face-to-face meetings including convenience and scheduling flexibility, inclusion of members at remote sites, and enhanced idea generation and external storage, these benefits must be carefully weighed against potential challenges involving planning and coordination, integration of perspectives, and relational conflict among members, all of which can potentially reduce decision-making quality.
Avenues to address these issues and maximize the outcomes of virtual promotions meetings are offered in light of the evidence.
Caverzagie KJ, Nousiainen MT, Ferguson PC, et al. Overarching challenges to the implementation of competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2017;39:588–93. CrossRef
Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing SR, Frank JR, International CBME Collaborators. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32:676–82. CrossRef
Andolsek K, Padmore J, Hauer KE, Holmboe E. Clinical competency committees: a guidebook for programs 2015 Available from: https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/ACGMEClinicalCompetencyCommitteeGuidebook.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2018.
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Competence committees n.d. Available from: http://www.royalcollege.ca/rcsite/cbd/assessment/competence-committees-e. Accessed January 2, 2018.
UK Foundation Programme. Foundation annual review of competence progression (ARCP). 2017. http://www.foundationprogramme.nhs.uk/pages/curriculum-eportfolio/foundation-ARCP. Accessed January 2, 2018.
Donato AA, Alweis R, Wenderoth S. Design of a clinical competency committee to maximize formative feedback. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2016;6(6):33533. CrossRef
Hauer KE, ten Cate O, Boscardin CK, et al. Ensuring resident competence: a narrative review of the literature on group decision making to inform the work of clinical competency committees. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8:156–64. CrossRef
Curşeu PL, Schalk R, Wessel I. How do virtual teams process information? A literature review and implications for management. J Manage Psychol. 2008;23:628–52. CrossRef
Munro AJ, Swartzman S. What is a virtual multidisciplinary team (vMDT)? Br J Cancer. 2013;108:2433–41. CrossRef
Acai A, Cupido N, Weavers A, Sonnadara RR. Ready or not, here they come: early perceptions and experiences of competence committee implementation at a Canadian postgraduate medical training centre. In press 2018.
Green EP, Gruppuso PA. Justice and care: decision making by medical school student promotions committees. Med Educ. 2017;51:621–32. CrossRef
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:91–108. CrossRef
Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5(3):101–117. CrossRef
Lepsinger R, DeRosa D. Virtual team success: a practical guide for working and leading from a distance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2010.
Maruping LA, Agarwal R. Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: a task-technology fit perspective. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89:975–90. CrossRef
Hackman JR. Leading teams: setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press; 2002.
Fuller RM, Vician CM, Brown SA. Longitudinal effects of computer-mediated communication anxiety on interaction in virtual teams. IEEE Pro Commun. 2016;59:166–85. CrossRef
Garrison G, Wakefield RL, Xu XB, Kim SH. Globally distributed teams: the effect of diversity on trust, cohesion and individual performance. Data Base Adv Inf Syst. 2010;41:27–48. CrossRef
Stasser G. A primer of social decision scheme theory: models of group influence, competitive model-testing, and prospective modeling. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999;80:3–20. CrossRef
Dennis AR, Fuller RM, Valacich JS. Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. Manag Inf Syst Q. 2008;32:575–600. CrossRef
Dennis AR, Wixom BH, Vanderberg RJ. Understanding fit and appropriation effects in group support systems via meta-analysis. Manag Inf Syst Q. 2001;25:167–93. CrossRef
Alnuaimi OA, Robert LP, Maruping LM. Team size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: a perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. J Manag Inf Syst. 2010;27:203–30. CrossRef
Baltes BB, Dickson MW, Sherman MP, Bauer CC, LaGanke JS. Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2002;87:156–79. CrossRef
Lu L, Yuan YC, McLeod PL. Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: a meta-analysis. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2012;16:54–75. CrossRef
Chidambaram L, Tung LL. Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Inf Syst Res. 2005;16:149–68. CrossRef
Minas RK, Potter RF, Denis AR, Bartelt V, Bae S. Putting on the thinking cap: using NeuroIS to understand information processing biases in virtual teams. J Manag Inf Syst. 2014;30:49–82. CrossRef
Chahine S, Cristancho S, Padgett J, Lingard L. How do small groups make decisions? A theoretical framework to inform the implementation and study of clinical competency committees. Perspect Med Educ. 2017;6:192–8. CrossRef
Mohammed S, Dumville BC. Team mentals models in a team knowledge framework: expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. J Organ Behav. 2001;22:89–106. CrossRef
Wegner DM. A computer network model of human transactive memory. Soc Cogn. 1995;13:319–39. CrossRef
Peltokorpi V. Transactive memory systems. Rev Gen Psychol. 2008;12:378–94. CrossRef
Maynard MT, Gilson LL. The role of shared mental model development in understanding virtual team effectiveness. Group Org Manag. 2014;39:3–32. CrossRef
Alavi M, Tiwana A. Knowledge integration in virtual teams: the potential role of KMS. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech. 2002;53:1029–37. CrossRef
Hollingshead AB, Mcgrath JE, O’Connor KM. Group task performance and communication technology: a longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Res. 1993;24:307–33. CrossRef
Huber GP, Lewis K. Cross-understanding: implications for group cognition and performance. Acad Manage Rev. 2010;35:6–26.
De Jong BA, Dirks KT, Gillespie N. Trust and team performance: a meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. J Appl Psychol. 2016;101:1134–50. CrossRef
Hambley LA, O’Neill TA, Kline TJB. Virtual team leadership: the effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2007;103:1–20. CrossRef
Jehn KA, Mannix EA. The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Acad Manage J. 2001;44:238–51.
Bell BS, Kozlowski SWJ. A typology of virtual teams: implications for effective leadership. Group Org Manag. 2002;27:14–49. CrossRef
Martinez-Moreno E, Zornoza A, Orengo V, Thompson LF. The effects of team self-guided training on conflict management in virtual teams. Group Decis Negot. 2015;24:905–23. CrossRef
Hemmer PA, Kelly WF. We need to talk: clinical competency committees in the key of c(onversation). Perspect Med Educ. 2017;6:141–3. CrossRef
Orlitzky M, Hirokawa RY. To err is human, to correct for it divine. Small Group Res. 2001;32:313–41. CrossRef
Lunenburg FC. Devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry: antidotes to groupthink. Int J Sch Acad Intellect Divers. 2012;14(1):1–9.
Swaab RI, Galinsky AD, Medvec V, Diermeier DA. The communication orientation model: explaining the diverse effects of sight, sound, and synchronicity on negotiation and group decision-making outcomes. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2012;16:25–53. CrossRef
Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.
Kennedy DM, Vozdolska RR, McComb SA. Team decision making in computer-supported cooperative work: how initial computer-mediated or face-to-face meetings set the stage for later outcomes. Decis Sci. 2010;41:933–54. CrossRef
Kanawattanachai P, Yoo Y. The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. Manag Inf Syst Q. 2007;31:783–808. CrossRef
Hill NS, Bartol KM, Tesluk PE, Langa GA. Organizational context and face-to-face interaction: influences on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors in computer-mediated groups. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2009;108:187–201. CrossRef
Majchrzak A, Malhotra A, Stamps J, Lipnack J. Can absence make a team grow stronger? Harv Bus Rev. 2004;82:131–7.
Paul S, Samarah IM, Seetharaman P, Mykytyn PP. An empirical investigation of collaborative conflict management style in group support system-based global virtual teams. J Manag Inf Syst. 2004;21:185–222. CrossRef
Paul S, Seetharaman P, Samarah I, Mykytyn PP. Impact of heterogeneity and collaborative conflict management style on the performance of synchronous global virtual teams. Inf Manage. 2004;41:303–21. CrossRef
Montoya-Weiss MM, Massey AP, Song M. Getting it together: temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Acad Manage J. 2001;44:1251–62.
O’Neill TA, Hoffart GC, McLarnon MMJW, et al. Constructive controversy and reflexivity training promotes effective conflict profiles and team functioning in student learning teams. Acad Manag Learn Edu. 2017;16:257–76. CrossRef
Lowry PB, Nunamaker JF, Curtis A, Lowry MR. The impact of process structure on novice, virtual collaborative writing teams. IEEE Pro Comm. 2005;48:341–64. CrossRef
Ellwart T, Happ C, Gurtner A, Rack O. Managing information overload in virtual teams: effects of a structured online team adaptation on cognition and performance. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2015;24:812–26. CrossRef
Penarroja V, Orengo V, Zornoza A, Sanchez J, Ripoll P. How team feedback and team trust influence information processing and learning in virtual teams: a moderated mediation model. Comput Human Behav. 2015;48:9–16. CrossRef
Konradt U, Schippers MC, Garbers Y, Steenfatt C. Effects of guided reflexivity and team feedback on team performance improvement: the role of team regulatory processes and cognitive emergent states. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2015;24:777–95. CrossRef
O’Neill TA, Lewis RJ, Hambley LA. Leading virtual teams: potential problems and simple solutions. In: Beyerlein S, Bradley L, Beyerlein MM, Nemiro J, editors. The handbook of high performance virtual teams: a toolkit for collaborating across boundaries. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008. pp. 213–38.
Varty CT, O’Neill TA, Hambley LA. Leading anywhere workers: a scientific and practical framework. In: Blount Y, Gloet M, editors. Anywhere working and the new era of telecommuting. Hershey: IGI Global; 2017. pp. 47–88. CrossRef
Hambley LA, O’Neill TA, Kline TJB. Virtual team leadership: perspectives from the field. Int J E Collab. 2007;3:40–64. CrossRef
Muethel M, Hoegl M. Shared leadership functions in geographically dispersed project teams. In: Cattani G, Ferriani S, Frederiksen L, Taube F, editors. Project-based organizing and strategic management. Advances in strategic management. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing; 2011. pp. 289–321.
Drescher G, Garbers Y. Shared leadership and commonality: a policy-capturing study. Leaders Q. 2016;27:200–17. CrossRef
Hoch JE, Kozlowski SWJ. Leading virtual teams: hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. J Appl Psychol. 2014;99:390–403. CrossRef
Hoegl M, Muethel M. Enabling shared leadership in virtual project teams: a practitioners’ guide. Proj Manag J. 2016;47:7–12. CrossRef
Johnson SD, Suriya C, Yoon SW, Berrett JV, La Fleur J. Team development and group processes of virtual learning teams. Comput Educ. 2002;39:379–93. CrossRef
Tuckman BW. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull. 1965;63:384–99. CrossRef
Mittleman DD, Briggs RO, Nunamaker JF. Best practices in facilitating virtual meetings: some notes from initial experiences. Group Facil. 2000;2:5–14.
Clawson VK, Bostrom RP, Anson R. The role of the facilitator in computer-supported meetings. Small Group Res. 1993;24:547–65. CrossRef
Friedman KA, Raimo J, Spielmann K, Chaudry S. Resident dashboards: helping your clinical competency committee visualize trainees’ key performance indicators. Med Educ Online. 2016;21:29838. CrossRef
- Getting with the times: a narrative review of the literature on group decision making in virtual environments and implications for promotions committees
Ranil R. Sonnadara
Thomas A. O’Neill
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum