Efectos de la interdependencia de tarea y la sincronía en las tecnologías de comunicación sobre el rendimiento de los equipos virtuales de trabajo

Referencias bibliográficas

• Aiken, L.S., y West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Alcover, C.M., Gil, F., y Barrasa, A. (2004). Aprendizaje de equipo: adaptación en una muestra española de las escalas de actividades de aprendizaje, Psicothema, 16(3), 378-383.
• Ancona, D.G., y Caldwell, D.F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-665.
• Anderson, S.E., y Williams, L.J. (1996). Interpersonal, job and individual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 282-296.
• Baltes, B.B., Dickson, M.W., Sherman, M.P., Bauer, C.C., y LaGanke, J.S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 156-179.
• Bell, B.S., y Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group and Organization Management, 27(1), 14-49.
• Bouas, K.S., y Arrow, H. (1996). The development of group identity in computer and face to face groups with membership change. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 4, 153-178.
• Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., y Higgs, A.C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.
• Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246.
• Cohen, S.G., y Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-290.
• Cohen, S.G., y Gibson, C.B. (2003). In the beginning: Introduction and Framework. In Gibson, C.B. y Cohen S.G. (eds.): Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 1-13). NY: John Wiley & Sons.
• Cummings, T.G. (1978). Self-regulation work groups: A socio-technical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 3, 625-634.
• Daft, R., y Lengel, R. (1986). Infomation richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In B. Straw y L. Cummings (eds.): Research in organizational behavior (pp. 191-223). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
• DeSanctis, G., y Poole, M.S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-147.
• Duarte, D.L., y Tennant, S. (2001). Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools and techniques that succeed. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Wiley.
• Dunlap, W.P., Burke, M.J., y Smith-Crowe, K. (2003). Accurate test of statistical significance for rwg and average deviation interrater agreement indexes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 356-362.
• Fernández-Ríos, M., Rico, R., San Martín, R., y De la Corte, L. (2005). Spanish firms flexibility. Psicothema, 17(4), 620-626.
• Farmer, S.M., y Hyatt, C.W. (1994). Effects of task language demands and task complexity on computer-mediated groups. Small Group Research, 25(3), 331-366.
• Gersick, C.J. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 274 -309.
• Gibson, C.B., y Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 202-239.
• Goodhue, D.L., y Thompson, R.L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19, 213-236.
• Goodman, P.S. (1986). Impact of task and technology on group performance. In P.S. Goodman (ed.): Desining effective work groups (pp. 120-167). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• González-Romá, V., Peiró, J.M., y Tordera, N. (2002). An examination of the antecedents and moderator influences of climate strength. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 465-473.
• Guzzo, R.A., y Shea, G.P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette y L.M. Hough (eds.): Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 269-313). Palo Alto, CA: Psychological Press.
• Hertel, G., Geister, S., y Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69-95.
• Hollingshead, A.B., y McGrath, J.E. (1995). Computer-assisted groups: A critical review of the empirical research. In R.A. Guzzo y E. Salas (eds.): Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 46-78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Huang, W.W., Wei, K.K., Watson, R.T., y Tan, B.C. (2003). Supporting virtual team-building with a GSS: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems, 34(4), 359-367.
• Jarvenpaa, S.L., Knoll, K., y Leidner, D.E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29-64.
• Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P.E., y Gibson, C.B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face to face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 175-192.
• León, O.G., y Montero, I. (2003). Métodos de investigación en Psicología y Educación (3ª ed.). Madrid: McGraw-Hill.
• Levine, J.M., y Moreland, R.L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585-634.
• Lipnack, J., y Stamps. J. (2001). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time and organizations with technology (2nd ed.). NY: John Wiley.
• Maruping, L.M., y Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: A task-technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 975-990.
• Maznevski, M.L., y Chudoba, K.M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11(5), 473-492.
• McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• McGrath, J.E. (1990). Time matters in groups. In J. Galegher, R.E. Kraut y C. Egido (eds.): Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 23-62). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• McGrath, J.E. (1991). Time, interaction and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research, 22, 147-174.
• McGrath, J.E., y Hollingshead, A.B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology: Systems, ideas, evidence and an agenda. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Montoya-Weiss, M.M., Massey, A.P., y Song, M. (2001). Getting it Together: Temporal Coordination and Conflict Management in Global Virtual Teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1251-1262.
• O’Connor, K.M., Gruenfeld, D.H., y McGrath, J.E. (1993). The experience and effects of conflict in continuing work groups. Small Group Research, 24(3), 362-382.
• Ocker, R., Fjermestad, J., Hiltz, S.R., y Johnson, K. (1998). Effects of four modes of group communication on the outcomes of software requirements determination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(1), 99-118.
• Olson, G.M., y Olson, J.S. (2003). Human-computer interaction: Psychological aspects of human use of computing. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 491-516.
• Rico, R., y Cohen, S.G. (2005). Effects of task interdependence and type of communication on performance in virtual teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20 (3/4), 261-274.
• Ripoelle, K., Gluesing, J.C., Alcordo, T.C., Baba, M.L., Britt, D., McKether, W. Monplaisir, L., Ratner, H.H., y Wagner, K.H. (2003). Context, task and the evolution of technology use in global virtual teams. In Gibson, C.B., y Cohen S.G. (eds.): Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (239-264). NY: John Wiley & Sons.
• Rocco, E., Finholt, T., Hofer, E.C., y Herbsleb, J. (2000). Designing as if trust mattered. CREW Tech. Rep. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
• Roch, S.G., y Ayman, R. (2005). Group decision making and perceived decision success: the role of communication medium. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 9(1), 15-31.
• Shea, G.P., y Guzzo, R.A. (1987). Group Effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28(3), 25-31.
• Stewart, G.L., y Barrick, M.R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 135-148.
• Straus, S.G. (1996). Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and information distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 27(1), 115-142.
• Straus, S.G., y McGrath, J.E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87-97.
• Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action. NY: McGraw Hill.
• Townsend, A.M., De Marie, S.M., y Hendrickson, A.R. (1996). Are you ready for virtual teams? HR Magazine, 41(9), 122-126.
• Turoff, M., Hiltz, S.R., Bahgat, A.N.F., y Rana, A.R. (1993). Distributed group support systems. MIS Quarterly, 17(4), 399-417.
• Valacich, J.S., Dennis A.R., y Connolly, T. (1994) Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 57(3), 448-467.
• Van de Ven, A.H., Delbecq, A.L., y Koenig, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41, 322-328.
• Van der Vegt, G.S., Emans, B.J., y Van de Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54, 51-69.
• Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145-180.
• Warkentin, M., Sayeed, L., y Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28(4), 975-996.
• Watson, R.T., DeSanctis, G., y Poole, M.S. (1988). Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences. MIS Quarterly, 12(3), 462-479.