Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Perspectives on Medical Education
Published in: Perspectives on Medical Education 3/2018

Open Access 01-06-2018 | Review Article

Getting with the times: a narrative review of the literature on group decision making in virtual environments and implications for promotions committees

Authors: Anita Acai, Ranil R. Sonnadara, Thomas A. O’Neill

Published in: Perspectives on Medical Education | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Discussion

Avenues to address these issues and maximize the outcomes of virtual promotions meetings are offered in light of the evidence.
Literature
1.
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
2.
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
3.
4.
5.
6.
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
7.
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
8.
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
9.
Munro AJ, Swartzman S. What is a virtual multidisciplinary team (vMDT)? Br J Cancer. 2013;108:2433–41.CrossRef
10.
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.
11.
Green EP, Gruppuso PA. Justice and care: decision making by medical school student promotions committees. Med Educ. 2017;51:621–32.CrossRef
12.
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
13.
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
14.
Lepsinger R, DeRosa D. Virtual team success: a practical guide for working and leading from a distance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2010.
15.
Maruping LA, Agarwal R. Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: a task-technology fit perspective. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89:975–90.CrossRef
16.
Hackman JR. Leading teams: setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press; 2002.
17.
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
18.
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
19.
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
20.
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
21.
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
22.
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
23.
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
24.
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
25.
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
26.
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
27.
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
28.
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
29.
Wegner DM. A computer network model of human transactive memory. Soc Cogn. 1995;13:319–39.CrossRef
30.
Peltokorpi V. Transactive memory systems. Rev Gen Psychol. 2008;12:378–94.CrossRef
31.
Maynard MT, Gilson LL. The role of shared mental model development in understanding virtual team effectiveness. Group Org Manag. 2014;39:3–32.CrossRef
32.
Alavi M, Tiwana A. Knowledge integration in virtual teams: the potential role of KMS. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech. 2002;53:1029–37.CrossRef
33.
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
34.
Huber GP, Lewis K. Cross-understanding: implications for group cognition and performance. Acad Manage Rev. 2010;35:6–26.
35.
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
36.
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
37.
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.
38.
Bell BS, Kozlowski SWJ. A typology of virtual teams: implications for effective leadership. Group Org Manag. 2002;27:14–49.CrossRef
39.
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
40.
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
41.
Orlitzky M, Hirokawa RY. To err is human, to correct for it divine. Small Group Res. 2001;32:313–41.CrossRef
42.
Lunenburg FC. Devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry: antidotes to groupthink. Int J Sch Acad Intellect Divers. 2012;14(1):1–9.
43.
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
44.
Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.
45.
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
46.
Kanawattanachai P, Yoo Y. The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. Manag Inf Syst Q. 2007;31:783–808.CrossRef
47.
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
48.
Majchrzak A, Malhotra A, Stamps J, Lipnack J. Can absence make a team grow stronger? Harv Bus Rev. 2004;82:131–7.
49.
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
50.
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
51.
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.
52.
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
53.
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
54.
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
55.
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
56.
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
57.
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.
58.
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
59.
Hambley LA, O’Neill TA, Kline TJB. Virtual team leadership: perspectives from the field. Int J E Collab. 2007;3:40–64.CrossRef
60.
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.
61.
Drescher G, Garbers Y. Shared leadership and commonality: a policy-capturing study. Leaders Q. 2016;27:200–17.CrossRef
62.
Hoch JE, Kozlowski SWJ. Leading virtual teams: hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. J Appl Psychol. 2014;99:390–403.CrossRef
63.
Hoegl M, Muethel M. Enabling shared leadership in virtual project teams: a practitioners’ guide. Proj Manag J. 2016;47:7–12.CrossRef
64.
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
65.
Tuckman BW. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull. 1965;63:384–99.CrossRef
66.
Mittleman DD, Briggs RO, Nunamaker JF. Best practices in facilitating virtual meetings: some notes from initial experiences. Group Facil. 2000;2:5–14.
67.
Clawson VK, Bostrom RP, Anson R. The role of the facilitator in computer-supported meetings. Small Group Res. 1993;24:547–65.CrossRef
68.
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
Metadata
Title
Getting with the times: a narrative review of the literature on group decision making in virtual environments and implications for promotions committees
Authors
Anita Acai
Ranil R. Sonnadara
Thomas A. O’Neill
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Published in
Perspectives on Medical Education / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 2212-2761
Electronic ISSN: 2212-277X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0434-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Perspectives on Medical Education 3/2018 Go to the issue

Show and Tell

The Massive Online Needs Assessment (MONA) to inform the development of an emergency haematology educational blog series

PhD Report

A multiple-perspective approach for the assessment and learning of ultrasound skills

Original Article

Constructing critical thinking in health professional education

Commentary

The script concordance test: an adequate tool to assess clinical reasoning?

Original Article

Characterizing the literature on validity and assessment in medical education: a bibliometric study

Original Article

When to trust our learners? Clinical teachers’ perceptions of decision variables in the entrustment process