The unexpected results from our studies comparing virtual team collaboration in virtual worlds to that in instant messaging (see previous post in which we discussed this) have prompted me to rethink the value of virtual worlds for virtual team collaboration. I have so far been focusing on the potential of virtual worlds to add value during the collaboration event itself. Examples of collaboration events might include meetings, problem-solving discussions, submissions of one’s document for review, or anything that involves interaction between team member to move the team’s project forward. Some of our earlier posts (e.g., Building Trust in Virtual Teams) as well as some of the articles I re-read recently reminded me that the happenings BETWEEN collaboration events also may add value to virtual team collaboration and that I should focus on such happenings as well. The happenings between collaboration events include casual conversation, observation of team members as they interact with others on matters unrelated to the team’s work, or any other interactions that don’t pertain to the team’s task or don’t move the team’s task forward.

One does not usually think about what happens between collaboration events in virtual teams because interactions among virtual team members are typically about the project and, thus, collaboration-oriented. It is atypical for a virtual team member to call or email another member just to chat. Interactions tend to be deliberate, focusing on the team’s tasks and moving the project forward. However, in a traditional setting (i.e., one in which team members are physically located in the same place), there may be interaction between collaboration events in the form of social chit-chat, observation of team members, etc. These interactions facilitate future work and help build relationships, and it is possible for virtual worlds to enable such interactions. Before we explore that possibility, let us briefly look at the work of Marjorie Sarbaugh-Thompson and Martha Feldman, who discuss these interactions in their paper “Electronic Mail and Organizational Communication: Does Saying ‘Hi’ Really Matter?.”

Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman say that in a traditional setting, there are two types of interactions between collaboration events. The first type is the casual social conversations. Social conversations may occur, for example, when we happen to meet someone in the hallway. One aspect of such interactions is that we signal to our communication partner that we are available or interested in having such interaction with her/him. Without such a signal, an engaging social conversation would not be possible. The second type of interaction that occurs between collaboration events consists of those in which we don’t wish to be engaged or it is not appropriate for us to be engaged. This may happen, for instance, when we are in somebody’s office talking and that individual receives a phone call. In such a situation, we signal our lack of interest in the conversation (the authors refer to this as signaling our unavailability) by looking outside the window. One thing common to both types of interactions that occur between collaboration events is that they tend to be unplanned and brief.

Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman argue that both types of interaction are crucial for team building and collaboration. Casual, unplanned conversations provide opportunities for organizational members to expand their network of contacts and their knowledge about other members. They enable gossip, which opens up channels that can be used for substantive work in the future. They are also important for socializing organizational members into an organization’s culture. In short, these casual, unplanned conversations are useful for facilitating work and social relationships in an organization. The researchers argue that such conversations are not possible in electronic media, such as electronic mail and discussion boards, because they (the electronic media) require planning or intent to communicate with someone, even if that someone is unknown or unplanned.

While casual, unplanned conversations are often recognized as valuable, the other type of interaction that Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman talk about is typically not even discussed. I believe a key point in Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman’s work is that interactions in which we don’t wish to be engaged or in which it is not appropriate for us to be engaged make an important contribution to collaboration, though in a less direct way. The researchers argue that how we signal our lack of interest in being engaged or engaging further is critical to the formation of our trustworthiness as communication partners. We may use a variety of nonverbal behaviors, such as appearing rushed in the hallway, remaining standing during a meeting, or edging towards the door to signal our unavailability for an engagement or to signal our wish to end an engagement. When, as we are passing by, we see A engaged in a conversation with B we may signal lack of our interest in that conversation through cues such as avoiding eye contact or scanning over a document that we are holding. By signaling our unavailability or lack of interest in engagement in a socially accepted way, we establish our social reputation (to those who can observe us) as trustworthy and valuable communication partners.

Based on their analysis of interactions that take place between collaboration events, Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman say (note their point about signaling unavailability):

We encourage managers to treat opportunities for casual contact as an important part of work. Our research suggests some reasons that the casual contact that occurs not only at conference resorts but also at such places as the coffee pot, the lounge, the hallway and the company picnic is important in building trust. Not only do such settings encourage casual conversation, but they also place people in circumstances in which they must signal that they are not available to chat. The ability to do so in ways that do not unduly embarrass the potential partner is an essential element in social interaction.

However, the interactions that Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman encourage are not possible in electronic mail, discussion boards, telephone/web conferencing, or shared folders, all of which are technologies that are commonly used by virtual teams. One is not a witness to the behaviors or activities of others in between the planned interactions enabled by these media. Could virtual worlds help us overcome this limitation of electronic media that are typically used by virtual teams?

Information in popular press about the use virtual worlds by virtual teams (e.g., see interview with Nicole Yankelovich, primary investigator or Sun Microsystem’s virtual world, MPK20) suggests that virtual worlds may enable useful interaction between collaboration events (see a video of Sun Microsystem’s MPK20, which demonstrates the informal encounters possible in virtual worlds used in an organizational setting). Virtual worlds may enable casual bumping into a team member and sharing reactions to last night’s championship game. If there is a gathering in the hallway that you should not interrupt, you may be able to show disinterest tactfully. Or, if you are having a meeting with someone, you may be able to shoot a quick “I will get back to you via email” to a team member who stops by looking for an answer s/he had requested earlier. Sure, some of the informal encounters in virtual worlds may help you conduct useful task exchanges and directly build relationships as has been previously recognized (see results of a survey on the use of virtual worlds for collaboration), but in others you may simply be signaling your unavailability for or lack of interest in engagement in a socially acceptable way. When these signals repeat over a period of time, they may contribute to the formation of an impression of you as someone who adheres to social norms and can be expected to carry out her/his role expectations and, thus, they may contribute to the formation of trust and collaboration within the team.

It may be interesting for researchers and designers of media for virtual teams to explore the combination of virtual worlds with social networking technology. Social-networking technology can provide transparency about what others have been doing between formal meetings or collaboration events. This may show how well an individual follows social norms when that individual engages others virtually. While virtual worlds rely on synchronous events to learn about others, social-networking technologies don’t and, therefore, may be an interesting complement to virtual worlds for teams that span distant time zones. However, it is not clear how signaling of unavailability when one is present occurs in social-networking technology, what it means, and what impact it has on the formation the impression of someone as worthy of communicating and working with. We need systematic research studies to evaluate the benefits of informal encounters enabled by virtual worlds and the increased transparency of others’ behaviors/activities enabled by social-networking technology to be able to arrive at useful prescriptions about which technology to use when. What this means is that it is time for me to get back to research!