Exploratory study finds recall accuracy differs for individual versus team feedback in virtual teams, suggesting new management approaches.
Just as organizations begin to appreciate the synergistic effect that teams can have on productivity, problem solving, and creativity, the concept “team” is taking on a new face. Virtual teams are the latest wave of structural innovations in organizations. While opportunities exist for teams to explore new horizons, virtual teams may present challenges to traditional methods of selecting, training, and evaluating team members. This exploratory study examines how virtual team members react to traditional forms of performance feedback. Drawing from research findings on cognitive processes and feedback processes, hypotheses were developed for recall accuracy and attributions of performance feedback in a virtual team setting. One of five hypotheses on recall accuracy was fully supported; partial support existed for two of the five hypotheses. Recall of individual feedback was more accurate immediately following receipt of feedback; immediate recall of team feedback was no different than delayed. Limited support existed for the hypothesis that positive feedback would be recalled more accurately than negative. This was true only for individual feedback after a delay. Contrary to the hypothesis, negative team feedback was actually recalled more accurately after a delay. Two of six hypotheses about attributions were supported. Positive team feedback resulted in increased attributions to the other team member, though attributions were not made to the team (as a whole) for positive feedback; and, positive individual feedback did not result in attributions to the individual. Attributions were not made to the team immediately following feedback, but attributions were made to the team after a delay (opposite of the hypothesis). A team-centric bias existed for delayed attributions. The over-recall of individual and under-recall of team performance feedback are discussed as well as the team-centric bias. Recommendations for managers and implications for future research and practice are offered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hartenian et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: