面对面与虚拟团队:我们到底学到了什么?

IF 0.6 Q3 Business, Management and Accounting
Radostina K. Purvanova
{"title":"面对面与虚拟团队:我们到底学到了什么?","authors":"Radostina K. Purvanova","doi":"10.1037/MGR0000009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present article reviews results from the rich experimental literature on virtual teams and compares them with results from emerging field research on virtual teams. The experimental literature has largely reported negative results for virtual teams, whereas field investigations and case studies of real virtual teams employed by business organizations report positive outcomes for virtual teams. One potential reason for this discrepancy may be that experimental research tends to lack ecological validity, as it has generally failed to simulate the conditions under which real virtual teams work well. Despite the wide differences in results reported by experimental versus field studies, and despite the general lack of ecological validity in experimental studies, however, the present article notes that both literatures have revealed negative attitudes toward virtual communication media.","PeriodicalId":44734,"journal":{"name":"Psychologist-Manager Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1037/MGR0000009","citationCount":"98","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Face-to-face versus virtual teams: What have we really learned?\",\"authors\":\"Radostina K. Purvanova\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/MGR0000009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The present article reviews results from the rich experimental literature on virtual teams and compares them with results from emerging field research on virtual teams. The experimental literature has largely reported negative results for virtual teams, whereas field investigations and case studies of real virtual teams employed by business organizations report positive outcomes for virtual teams. One potential reason for this discrepancy may be that experimental research tends to lack ecological validity, as it has generally failed to simulate the conditions under which real virtual teams work well. Despite the wide differences in results reported by experimental versus field studies, and despite the general lack of ecological validity in experimental studies, however, the present article notes that both literatures have revealed negative attitudes toward virtual communication media.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44734,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychologist-Manager Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1037/MGR0000009\",\"citationCount\":\"98\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychologist-Manager Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/MGR0000009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Business, Management and Accounting\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychologist-Manager Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/MGR0000009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 98

摘要

本文综述了丰富的虚拟团队实验文献的结果,并将其与新兴的虚拟团队实地研究结果进行了比较。实验文献大多报告了虚拟团队的负面结果,而商业组织使用的真实虚拟团队的实地调查和案例研究报告了虚拟团队的积极结果。造成这种差异的一个潜在原因可能是,实验研究往往缺乏生态有效性,因为它通常无法模拟真实的虚拟团队良好运作的条件。尽管实验研究和实地研究的结果存在很大差异,尽管实验研究普遍缺乏生态效度,但本文指出,两篇文献都揭示了对虚拟传播媒体的负面态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Face-to-face versus virtual teams: What have we really learned?
The present article reviews results from the rich experimental literature on virtual teams and compares them with results from emerging field research on virtual teams. The experimental literature has largely reported negative results for virtual teams, whereas field investigations and case studies of real virtual teams employed by business organizations report positive outcomes for virtual teams. One potential reason for this discrepancy may be that experimental research tends to lack ecological validity, as it has generally failed to simulate the conditions under which real virtual teams work well. Despite the wide differences in results reported by experimental versus field studies, and despite the general lack of ecological validity in experimental studies, however, the present article notes that both literatures have revealed negative attitudes toward virtual communication media.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychologist-Manager Journal
Psychologist-Manager Journal PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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