A construal-level approach to understanding individual-level contributions to distributed teamwork

© 2019 Andre William GulyasThis study addresses the limited understanding of distributed team (DT) members’ individual-level contributions to teamwork. In DTs, team members work together from geographically separate locations. DTs offer many benefits, but teamwork in these teams is challenging to the point where high-profile organisations have previously banned their use. However, abandoning DTs is premature because we can address their challenges by clarifying how their fundamental attributes – i.e., the spatial distance between team members and how they communicate – influence individual team members’ teamwork contributions (i.e., cooperation, coordination, and conflict). Our understanding of how these attributes influence teamwork contributions is limited because their mediating mechanisms are under-theorised. This literature indicates two theoretical perspectives for developing a model of individual team member processes in DTs: construal-level theory (CLT), which has been recently introduced to DTs to theorise around psychological distance in DTs, and social identity theory (SIT). Identifying how these mediating mechanisms work together at the individual level in DTs has been theoretically and empirically challenging. I aim to clarify these mechanisms by integrating core tenets of CLT and SIT to address challenges for distributed teamwork. I address two questions to examine these challenges: i) How do the socio-cognitive processes of psychological distance and social identification work together to influence individual team members’ contributions to distributed teamwork?; and, ii) How can communication and associated technologies be used to improve the socio-cognitive processes that determine perceptions of other team members and subsequent teamwork in DTs? To answer the first research question, I propose that spatial distance matters because it can generate psychological distance, which then reduces the degree to which individuals identify themselves and others as members of their DT. This psychological distance and weaker social identification, in turn, leads individuals to dehumanise others in their DT. I frame this process of dehumanisation as an example of construal of others – a concept central to CLT and the effects of psychological distance in DTs. To answer the second research question, I develop an additional model predicting the direct effects of communication frequency and particular media (i.e., face-to-face, video CMC, phone and text-based computer-mediated communication), on psychological distance and social identification, and their moderating effects on the influence of spatial distance. I test the hypotheses with path analyses and multiple regression analyses using two waves of survey data obtained from employees currently working in DTs located in Australia. These analyses indicate overall support for the primary theoretical model. This evidence demonstrates that psychological distance and DT identification are more critical than spatial distance for contributions to distributed teamwork. The study supports the role of dehumanisation as an instance of construal of other people, which operates as a shared mechanism for the effects of psychological distance and social identification. It also demonstrates that social identification and dehumanisation are dual mechanisms for psychological distance’s effects in DTs. However, the data also demonstrate mixed support for the second theoretical model regarding the influence of communication media. Overall, we must consider DT members’ perceptions in addition to their physical separation to better understand and address challenges for individual-level contributions to teamwork