What the differences in conflict between online and face-to-face work groups mean for hybrid groups: A state-of-the-art review

IF 6.3 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Jessica A. Kahlow, Hanna Klecka, Erin K. Ruppel
{"title":"What the differences in conflict between online and face-to-face work groups mean for hybrid groups: A state-of-the-art review","authors":"Jessica A. Kahlow, Hanna Klecka, Erin K. Ruppel","doi":"10.12840/ISSN.2255-4165.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Conflict has been a topic widely studied in communication and management studies literature. How groups handle conflict can affect group performance, satisfaction, and commitment (Martínez-Moreno, González-Navarro, Zornoza, & Ripoll, 2009; Pazos, 2012; Staples & Webster, 2007; Workman, 2007). Much of this literature focuses on online, task-oriented work groups, and how these groups differ from face-to-face (F2F) groups. However, hybrid groups (i.e., those that work both F2F and online) are increasingly common. To better understand conflict in hybrid groups, we review 68 articles regarding online, hybrid, and F2F groups that highlight the differences between F2F and online groups and consider what these differences mean for hybrid groups. In doing so, we identify several emergent themes related to how conflict is managed in online and hybrid groups. The literature suggests that there are many benefits to online and hybrid groups, such as the ability to assemble more diverse teams and work asynchronously, but that conflict is also more common in online than F2F groups. Strong norms and leadership behaviors that encourage trust and cohesion appear to reduce conflict and its effects on group performance and decision making, especially in online groups. These findings suggest that in hybrid groups, F2F meetings might be used to quickly establish group norms, trust, and cohesion, which can then improve online group interactions. However, more research is needed to understand how conflict occurs and is managed in hybrid groups. Future communication research should focus on examining conflict management in hybrid groups using computer-mediated communication perspectives.","PeriodicalId":43364,"journal":{"name":"Review of Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Communication Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12840/ISSN.2255-4165.023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Conflict has been a topic widely studied in communication and management studies literature. How groups handle conflict can affect group performance, satisfaction, and commitment (Martínez-Moreno, González-Navarro, Zornoza, & Ripoll, 2009; Pazos, 2012; Staples & Webster, 2007; Workman, 2007). Much of this literature focuses on online, task-oriented work groups, and how these groups differ from face-to-face (F2F) groups. However, hybrid groups (i.e., those that work both F2F and online) are increasingly common. To better understand conflict in hybrid groups, we review 68 articles regarding online, hybrid, and F2F groups that highlight the differences between F2F and online groups and consider what these differences mean for hybrid groups. In doing so, we identify several emergent themes related to how conflict is managed in online and hybrid groups. The literature suggests that there are many benefits to online and hybrid groups, such as the ability to assemble more diverse teams and work asynchronously, but that conflict is also more common in online than F2F groups. Strong norms and leadership behaviors that encourage trust and cohesion appear to reduce conflict and its effects on group performance and decision making, especially in online groups. These findings suggest that in hybrid groups, F2F meetings might be used to quickly establish group norms, trust, and cohesion, which can then improve online group interactions. However, more research is needed to understand how conflict occurs and is managed in hybrid groups. Future communication research should focus on examining conflict management in hybrid groups using computer-mediated communication perspectives.
在线和面对面工作小组之间冲突的差异对混合小组意味着什么:最先进的审查
冲突是传播学和管理学文献中广泛研究的一个话题。群体如何处理冲突会影响群体绩效、满意度和承诺(Martínez-Moreno, González-Navarro, Zornoza, & Ripoll, 2009;Pazos, 2012;史泰博,2007;工人,2007)。这些文献大多关注在线的、以任务为导向的工作组,以及这些工作组与面对面(F2F)工作组的不同之处。然而,混合型团体(即既能在线工作又能在线工作的团体)越来越普遍。为了更好地理解混合群体中的冲突,我们回顾了68篇关于在线、混合和F2F群体的文章,这些文章强调了F2F和在线群体之间的差异,并考虑了这些差异对混合群体的意义。在此过程中,我们确定了几个与如何在在线和混合群体中管理冲突相关的新兴主题。文献表明,在线和混合团队有很多好处,比如能够组建更多样化的团队和异步工作,但这种冲突在在线团队中也比在F2F团队中更常见。鼓励信任和凝聚力的强有力的规范和领导行为似乎可以减少冲突及其对团队绩效和决策的影响,特别是在在线团队中。这些发现表明,在混合群体中,F2F会议可以用来快速建立群体规范、信任和凝聚力,从而改善在线群体互动。然而,需要更多的研究来了解在混合群体中冲突是如何发生和管理的。未来的传播研究应侧重于使用计算机媒介传播的视角来研究混合群体的冲突管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Review of Communication Research will publish an annual volume with comprehensive and authoritative reviews of the current state of the main topics and the most significant developments in the field of Communication. These comprehensive critical reviews will summarize the latest advances in the field, but also will root out errors and will provoke intellectual discussions among scholars. The journal seeks both evaluative (theorical) and quantitative (meta-analysis) papers that make a state of the art of issues in scientific communication. Integrative review articles that connect different areas of research are of special interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信