Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Team Spirit: The Influence of Psychological Collectivism on the Usage of E-Collaboration Tools

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of information technologies in virtual teams has become common, but little is known about how psychological factors may affect future usage decisions in this context. Our study focuses on psychological collectivism, which is an individual-level form of collectivism (an individual trait capturing people’s “team spirit” or psychological attachments to groups) and investigates how this trait affects team members’ rational decision making processes. Partial Least Squares analysis applied to data collected from 120 team members suggest that psychological collectivism influences both team-referenced perceptions (confidence in one’s team’s capability) and system-referenced perceptions (the perceived usefulness of the e-collaboration tool), and these factors together affect future usage intentions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal R, Prasad J (1999) Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies?. Decis Sci 30(2): 361–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akgun AE, Keskin H, Byrne J, Imamoglu SZ (2007) Antecedents and consequences of team potency in software development projects. Inf Manag 44(7): 646–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajwa DS, Lewis LF, Pervan G, Lai VS (2005) The adoption and use of collaboration information technologies: international comparisons. J Inf Technol 20(2): 130–140. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. W.H. Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown HG, Poole MS, Rodgers TL (2004) Interpersonal traits, complementarity, and trust in virtual collaboration. J Manag Inf Syst 20(4): 115–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown SA, Dennis AR, Venkatesh V (2010) Predicting Collaboration Technology Use: Integrating Technology Adoption and Collaboration Research. J Manag Inf Syst 27(2): 9–53. doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222270201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cable DM, Yu KYT (2006) Managing job seekers organizational image beliefs: The role of media richness and media credibility. J Appl Psychol 91(4): 828–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chidambaram L, Tung LL (2005) Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Inf Syst Res 16(2): 149–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW (1997) Overview of the PLS method. vol 2005. University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW (1998) The Partial Least Squares approach for Structural Equation Modeling. In: Marcoulides A (eds) Modern methods for business research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwa, N.J., pp 295–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW, Gopal A (1995) Adoption intention in GSS: relative importance of beliefs. Data Base Adv Inf Syst 26(2–3): 42–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt JA, Hollenbeck JR, Ilgen DR, LePine JA, Sheppard L (2002) Computer-assisted communication and team decision-making performance: the moderating effect of openness to experience. J Appl Psychol 87(2): 402–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton CD (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ Sci 12(3): 346–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curseu PL (2006) Emergent states in virtual teams: a complex adaptive systems perspective. J Inf Technol 21(4): 249–261. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manage Sci 32(5): 554–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Lengel RH, Trevino LK (1987) Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: implications for information systems. MIS Quart 11(3): 355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta S, Granger M, McGarry N (2002) User acceptance of e-collaboration technology: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Group Decis Negot 11(1): 87–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis F (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart 13(3): 319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci 35(8): 982–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desanctis G, Poole MS (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organ Sci 5(2): 121–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong A, de Ruyter K, Wetzels M (2005) Antecedents and consequences of group potency: A study of self-managing service teams. Manag Sci 51(11): 1610–1625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Fuller RM, Valacich JS (2008) Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. Mis Quart 32(3): 575–600

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Kinney ST (1998) Testing media richness theory in the new media: the effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Inf Syst Res 9(3): 256–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford DP, Connelly CE, Meister DB (2003) Information systems research and Hofstede’s culture’s consequences: an uneasy and incomplete partnership. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 50(1): 8–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Market Res 18(1): 39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman RA, Currall SC (2003) Conflict escalation: dispute exacerbating elements of e-mail communication. Human Relat 56(11): 1325–1347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller MA, Hardin AM, Davison RM (2006) Efficacy in technology-mediated distributed teams. J Manag Inf Syst 23(3): 209–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Rose GM, Warkentin M, Pavlou PA (2005) Cultural diversity and trust in IT adoption: a comparison of potential e-voters in the USA and South Africa. J Glob Inf Manag 13(1): 54–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Straub D (2005) A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: tutorial and annotated example. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 16: 91–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau MC (2000a) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 4(7): 1–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Straub DW, Boudreau MC (2000b) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 4(7): 1–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg J (1987) The college sophomore as guinea pig: setting the record straight. Acad Manag Rev 12(1): 157–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Gully SM, Incalcaterra KA, Joshi A, Beaubien JM (2002) A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. J Appl Psychol 87(5): 819–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo RA, Yost PR, Campbell RJ, Shea GP (1993) Potency in groups: articulating a construct. Br J Soc Psychol 32(1): 87–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harman HH (1967) Modern factor analysis, 2 edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedlund J, Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR (1998) Decision accuracy in computer-mediated versus face-to-face decision-making teams. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 76(1): 30–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds PJ, Mortensen M (2005) Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organ Sci 16(3): 290–307. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Igbaria M, Iivari J, Maragahh H (1995) Why do individuals use computer technology? A Finnish case-study. Inf Manag 29(5): 227–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson CL, Colquitt JA, Wesson MJ, Zapata-Phelan CP (2006) Psychological collectivism: a measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. J Appl Psychol 91(4): 884–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE (1999) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ Sci 10(6): 791–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns G (2006) The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Acad Manag Rev 31(2): 386–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi KD, Sarker S (2007) Knowledge transfer within information systems development teams: Examining the role of knowledge source attributes. Decis Support Syst 43(2): 322–335. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2006.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilgour DM, Eden C (2010) Handbook of group decision and negotiation, vol 4. Advances in group decision and negotiation. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kim SS (2009) The integrative framework of technology use: an extension and test. MIS Quart 33(3): 513–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim SS, Son JY (2009) Out of dedication or constraint? A dual model of post-adoption phenomena and its empirical test in the context of online services. MIS Quart 33(1): 49–70

    Google Scholar 

  • King WR, He J (2006) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manag 43(6): 740–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kock N (2005) Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward e-communication tools. IEEE Trans Profess Commun 48(2): 117–130. doi:10.1109/tpc.2005.849649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee C, Tinsley CH, Bobko P (2002) An investigation of the antecedents and consequences of group-level confidence. J Appl Social Psychol 32(8): 1628–1652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leidner DE, Kayworth T (2006) Review: a review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. Mis Quart 30(2): 357–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester SW, Meglino BM, Korsgaard MA (2002) The antecedents and consequences of group potency: a longitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups. Acad Manag J 45(2): 352–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim KH, Benbasat I (2000) The effect of multimedia on perceived equivocality and perceived usefulness of information systems. Mis Quart 24(3): 449–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limayem M, Hirt SG, Cheung CMK (2007) How habit limits the predictive power of intention: the case of information systems continuance. MIS Quart 31(4): 705–737

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohmoller J-B (1989) Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzak A, Rice RE, Malhotra A, King N, Ba SL (2000) Technology adaptation: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. Mis Quart 24(4): 569–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML (1994) Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organ Sci 5(4): 502–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May A, Carter C (2001) A case study of virtual team working in the European automotive industry. Int J Ind Ergonomics 27(3): 171–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maznevski ML, Chudoba KM (2000) Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organ Sci 11(5): 473–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath JE (1991) Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): a theory of groups. Small Group Res 22(2): 147–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngwenyama OK, Lee AS (1997) Communication richness in electronic mail: critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning. MIS Quart 21(2): 145–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostroff C, Harrison DA (1999) Meta-analysis, level of analysis, and best estimates of population correlations: Cautions for interpreting meta-analytic results in organizational behavior. J Appl Psychol 84(2): 260–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman D, Coon HM, Kemmelmeier M (2002) Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychol Bull 128(1): 3–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauleen DJ, Yoong P (2001) Relationship building and the use of ICT in boundary-crossing virtual teams: a facilitator’s perspective. J Inf Technol 16(4): 205–220. doi:10.1080/02683960110100391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petter S, Straub D, Rai A (2007) Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. Mis Quart 31(4): 623–656

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice RE, Shook DE (1990) Relationships of job categories and organizational levels of use of communication channels, including electronic mail—a meta analysis and extension. J Manag Stud 27(2): 195–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson RM, Smith SW (2007) The influence of high/low-context culture and power distance on choice of communication media: Students’ media choice to communicate with Professors in Japan and America. Int J Intercult Relat 31(4): 479–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarker S (2006) Technology adoption by groups: a test of twin predictions based on social structure and technological characteristics. In: IGADIT Workshop, international conference on information systems (ICIS), Milwaukee, WI, Dec 2006

  • Sarker S, Valacich JS, Sarker S (2005) Technology adoption by groups: a valence perspective. J Assoc Inf Syst 6(2): 37–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn N (2003) ‘Doing IT for the kids’: re-examining children, computers and the ‘information society’. Media Cult Soc 25(3): 351–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Shivers-Blackwell SL (2004) Reactions to outdoor teambuilding initiatives in MBA education. J Manag Dev 23(5): 614–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun H, Zhang P (2006) The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. Int J Human Comput Stud 64(2): 53–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Te’eni D (2001) Review: a cognitive-affective model of organizational communication for designing IT. Mis Quart 25(2): 251–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis HC (1995) Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Turel O (2010) Interdependence issues in analyzing negotiation data. Group Dec Negot 19(2): 111–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Yuan Y (2007) User acceptance of web-based negotiation support systems: the role of perceived intention of the negotiating partner to negotiate online. Group Decis Negot 16(5): 451–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Zhang Y (2010) Does virtual team composition matter? Trait and problem-solving configuration effects on team performance. Behav Inf Technol 29(4): 363–375. doi:10.1080/01449291003752922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Zhang Y (2011) Should I e-collaborate with this group? A multilevel model of usage intentions. Inf Manag 48(1): 62–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Serenko A, Bontis N (2007) User acceptance of wireless short messaging services: deconstructing perceived value. Inf Manag 44(1): 63–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Serenko A, Bontis N (2010) User acceptance of hedonic digital artifacts: a theory of consumption values perspective. Inf Manag 47(1): 53–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine G, Holloway SL (2002) Cyberkids? Exploring children’s identities and social networks in on-line and off-line worlds. Ann Assoc Am Geograph 92(2): 302–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Davis F (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2): 186–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart 27(3): 425–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster J, Staples S (2006) Comparing virtual teams to traditional teams: An identification of new research opportunities. In: Martocchio JJ (eds) Research in personal and human resources management, vol 25. Elsevier, Boston, pp 181–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisband SP (1992) Group discussion and 1st advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 53(3): 352–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteoak JW (2007) The relationship among group process perceptions, goal commitment and turnover intention in small committee groups. J Bus Psychol 22(1): 11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wixom BH, Todd PA (2005) A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Inf Syst Res 16(1): 85–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi MY, Fiedler KD, Park JS (2006) Understanding the role of individual innovativeness in the acceptance of IT-based innovations: comparative analyses of models and measures. Decis Sci 37(3): 393–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang DS, Lowry PB, Zhou LN, Fu XL (2007) The impact of individualism—collectivism, social presence, and group diversity on group decision making under majority influence. J Manag Inf Syst 23(4): 53–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ofir Turel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turel, O., Connelly, C.E. Team Spirit: The Influence of Psychological Collectivism on the Usage of E-Collaboration Tools. Group Decis Negot 21, 703–725 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-011-9245-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-011-9245-7

Keywords

Navigation