skip to main content
research-article

My Team Will Go On: Differentiating High and Low Viability Teams through Team Interaction

Published:05 January 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Understanding team viability --- a team's capacity for sustained and future success --- is essential for building effective teams. In this study, we aggregate features drawn from the organizational behavior literature to train a viability classification model over a dataset of 669 10-minute text conversations of online teams. We train classifiers to identify teams at the top decile (most viable teams), 50th percentile (above a median split), and bottom decile (least viable teams), then characterize the attributes of teams at each of these viability levels. We find that a lasso regression model achieves an accuracy of .74--.92 AUC ROC under different thresholds of classifying viability scores. From these models, we identify the use of exclusive language such as 'but' and 'except', and the use of second person pronouns, as the most predictive features for detecting the most viable teams, suggesting that active engagement with others' ideas is a crucial signal of a viable team. Only a small fraction of the 10-minute discussion, as little as 70 seconds, is required for predicting the viability of team interaction. This work suggests opportunities for teams to assess, track, and visualize their own viability in real time as they collaborate.

References

  1. Rob Abbott, Marilyn Walker, Pranav Anand, Jean E Fox Tree, Robeson Bowmani, and Joseph King. 2011. How can you say such things?!?: Recognizing disagreement in informal political argument. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Languages in Social Media. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Kelsey Allen, Giuseppe Carenini, and Raymond Ng. 2014. Detecting disagreement in conversations using pseudomonologic rhetorical structure. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 1169--1180.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Pranav Anand, Marilyn Walker, Rob Abbott, Jean E. Fox Tree, Robeson Bowmani, and Michael Minor. 2011. Cats Rule and Dogs Drool!: Classifying Stance in Online Debate. In Proceedings of the 2Nd Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity and Sentiment Analysis (Portland, Oregon) (WASSA '11). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 1--9. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2107653.2107654Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Caroline Aube and Vincent Rousseau. 2005. Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: the role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 9, 3 (2005), 189.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Murray R Barrick, Greg L Stewart, Mitchell J Neubert, and Michael K Mount. 1998. Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of applied psychology 83, 3 (1998), 377.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Murray R Barrick, Greg L Stewart, Mitchell J Neubert, and Michael K Mount. 1998. Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of applied psychology 83, 3 (1998), 377.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Sigal G. Barsade. 2002. The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and Its Influence on Group Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly (2002), 644--675. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Daniel J Beal, Robin R Cohen, Michael J Burke, and Christy L McLendon. 2003. Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of applied psychology 88, 6 (2003), 989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kristin J Behfar, Randall S Peterson, Elizabeth A Mannix, and William MK Trochim. 2008. The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of applied psychology 93, 1 (2008), 170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Suzanne Bell and Brian Marentette. 2011. Team viability for long-term and ongoing organizational teams. Organizational Psychology Review 1 (11 2011), 275--292. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611405876Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Suzanne T Bell. 2007. Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology 92, 3 (2007), 595.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Suzanne T Bell and Brian J Marentette. 2011. Team viability for long-term and ongoing organizational teams. Organizational Psychology Review 1, 4 (2011), 275--292.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Bret H Bradley, Bennett E Postlethwaite, Anthony C Klotz, Maria R Hamdani, and Kenneth G Brown. 2012. Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology 97, 1 (2012), 151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Hancheng Cao, Zhilong Chen, Fengli Xu, Tao Wang, Yujian Xu, Lianglun Zhang, and Yong Li. 2020. When Your Friends Become Sellers: An Empirical Study of Social Commerce Site Beidian. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 14. 83--94.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Sybil Carrère and John Mordechai Gottman. 1999. Predicting divorce among newlyweds from the first three minutes of a marital conflict discussion. Family process 38, 3 (1999), 293--301.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Wayne Cascio and Ramiro Montealegre. 2016. How Technology Is Changing Work and Organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 3 (03 2016), 349--375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevorgpsych- 041015-062352Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Zhilong Chen, Hancheng Cao, Fengli Xu, Mengjie Cheng, Tao Wang, and Yong Li. 2020. Understanding the Role of Intermediaries in Online Social E-commerce: An Exploratory Study of Beidian. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jessica Nicole Cooperstein. 2017. Initial Development of a Team Viability Measure. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Glen Coppersmith, Mark Dredze, and Craig Harman. 2014. Quantifying mental health signals in Twitter. In Proceedings of the workshop on computational linguistics and clinical psychology: From linguistic signal to clinical reality. 51--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Tugrul U Daim, Anita Ha, Shawn Reutiman, Brennan Hughes, Ujjal Pathak, Wayne Bynum, and Ashok Bhatla. 2012. Exploring the communication breakdown in global virtual teams. International Journal of Project Management 30, 2 (2012), 199--212.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Shelley D. Dionne, Hiroki Sayama, Chanyu Hao, and Benjamin J. Benjamin. 2010. The role of leadership in shared mental model convergence and team performance improvement: An agent-based computational model. (2010), 1035--1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.007Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Discourse. [n.d.]. This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion. ([n. d.]). http://bit.ly/1TM8K5xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Maeve Duggan. 2017. Online Harassment 2017. Pew Research Center (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Amy Edmondson. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly 44, 2 (1999), 350--383.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. R. M. Krauss. Fussell, S. R. 1992. Coordination of knowledge in communication: Effects of speakers? assumptions about what others know. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 (1992).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. John Mordechai Gottman and Robert Wayne Levenson. 2000. The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family 62, 3 (2000), 737--745.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Penelope S. Greenberg, Ralph H. Greenberg, and Yvonne L. Antonucci. 2007. Creating and sustaining trust in virtual teams. (2007), 325--333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2007.02.005Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. J Richard Hackman. 1980. Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology 11, 3 (1980), 445.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. J Richard Hackman. 2011. Collaborative intelligence: Using teams to solve hard problems. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Pamela Hinds. 2003. Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams. Organization Science 14 (11 2003), 615--632. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.6.615.24872Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Pamela J Hinds and Diane E Bailey. 2003. Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization science 14, 6 (2003), 615--632.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Helene V Hjalmarson and Margaretha Strandmark. 2012. Forming a learning culture to promote fracture prevention activities. Health Education (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Malte F Jung. 2016. Coupling interactions and performance: Predicting team performance from thin slices of conflict. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 23, 3 (2016), 1--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Ben Kirman, Conor Lineham, and Shaun Lawson. 2012. Exploring mischief and mayhem in social computing or: how we learned to stop worrying and love the trolls. In Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 121--130. https://doi.org/10.1145/2212776.2212790Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Aniket Kittur, Bongwon Suh, and Ed H. Chi. 2009. What? in Wikipedia? Mapping Topics and Conflict Using Socially Annotated Category Structure. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, Massachusetts, USA) (CHI '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1509--1512. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518930Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Steve WJ Kozlowski. 1998. Training and developing adaptive teams: Theory, principles, and research. (1998).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Steve WJ Kozlowski and Bradford S Bell. 2007. Team learning, development, and adaptation. In Work group learning. Psychology Press, 39--68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Steve WJ Kozlowski, Stanley M Gully, Earl R Nason, and Eleanor M Smith. 1999. Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development 240 (1999), 292.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Travis Kriplean, Michael Toomim, Jonathan Morgan, Alan Borning, and Andrew Ko. 2012. Is This What You Meant? Promoting Listening on the Web with Reflect. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1559--1568. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208621Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Christina N Lacerenza, Shannon L Marlow, Scott I Tannenbaum, and Eduardo Salas. 2018. Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork. American Psychologist 73, 4 (2018), 517.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Claus W Langfred. 2007. The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of management journal 50, 4 (2007), 885--900.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindsay Larson, Harrison Wojcik, Ilya Gokhman, Leslie DeChurch, Suzanne Bell, and Noshir Contractor. 2019. Team performance in space crews: Houston, we have a teamwork problem. Acta Astronautica 161 (2019), 108--114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Kristi M Lewis. 2000. When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 21, 2 (2000), 221--234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. M. Lewis. 2017. The Undoing Project: A Friendship that Changed the World. Penguin Books, Limited. https://books. google.ca/books?id=-ltNvgAACAAJGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Merce Mach, Simon Dolan, and Shay Tzafrir. 2010. The differential effect of team members? trust on team performance: The mediation role of team cohesion. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83, 3 (2010), 771--794.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Christina Maslach, Michael P Leiter, and Susan E Jackson. 2012. Making a significant difference with burnout interventions: Researcher and practitioner collaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33, 2 (2012), 296--300.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. John Mathieu, M Travis Maynard, Tammy Rapp, and Lucy Gilson. 2008. Team effectiveness 1997--2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of management 34, 3 (2008), 410--476.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Jessica R Mesmer-Magnus and Leslie A DeChurch. 2009. Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology 94, 2 (2009), 535.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Frank Mueller. 1994. Societal effect, organizational effect and globalization. Organization Studies 15, 3 (1994), 407--428.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Smaranda Muresan, Roberto Gonzalez-Ibanez, Debanjan Ghosh, and Nina Wacholder. 2016. Identification of nonliteral language in social media: A case study on sarcasm. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (2016), 2725--2737. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23624Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Thien Hai Nguyen, Kiyoaki Shirai, and Julien Velcin. 2015. Sentiment analysis on social media for stock movement prediction. Expert Systems with Applications 42, 24 (2015), 9603--9611.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Vlad Niculae and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil. 2016. Conversational markers of constructive discussions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07407 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Vlad Niculae and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil. 2016. Conversational Markers of Constructive Discussions. CoRR abs/1604.07407 (2016). arXiv:1604.07407 http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.07407Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Gary M Olson and Judith S Olson. 2000. Distance matters. Human--computer interaction 15, 2--3 (2000), 139--178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Michelle O'Daniel and Alan H Rosenstein. 2008. Professional communication and team collaboration. In Patient safety and quality: An evidence-based handbook for nurses. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011), 2825--2830.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. P. Nye P. V. Balakrishnan Purdy, J. M. 2000. The impact of communication media on negotiation outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management 11 (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Rebecca L Robinson, Reanelle Navea, and William Ickes. 2013. Predicting final course performance from students? written self-introductions: A LIWC analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32, 4 (2013), 469--479.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Antonette Shibani, Elizabeth Koh, Vivian Lai, and Kyong Jin Shim. 2017. Assessing the language of chat for teamwork dialogue. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 20, 2 (2017), 224--237.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Swapna Somasundaran and Janyce Wiebe. 2010. Recognizing stances in ideological on-line debates. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 workshop on computational approaches to analysis and generation of emotion in text. Association for Computational Linguistics, 116--124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Christine A Sprigg, Paul R Jackson, and Sharon K Parker. 2000. Production teamworking: The importance of interdependence and autonomy for employee strain and satisfaction. Human Relations 53, 11 (2000), 1519--1543.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Greg L Stewart. 2006. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of management 32, 1 (2006), 29--55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. J. E. McGrath Straus, S. 1994. Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (1994).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Susan G Straus. 1999. Testing a typology of tasks: An empirical validation of McGrath?s (1984) group task circumplex. Small Group Research 30, 2 (1999), 166--187.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Jim Suchan and Greg Hayzak. 2001. The communication characteristics of virtual teams: a case study. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication (2001), 174--186. https://doi.org/10.1109/47.946463Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Yla R Tausczik and James W Pennebaker. 2010. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of language and social psychology 29, 1 (2010), 24--54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Steven Vallas. 2003. Why Teamwork Fails: Obstacles to Workplace Change in Four Manufacturing Plants. American Sociological Review 68 (04 2003). https://doi.org/10.2307/1519767Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Ben Weidmann and David J Deming. 2020. Team Players: How Social Skills Improve Group Performance. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Mark E. Whiting, Allie Blaising, Chloe Barreau, Laura Fiuza, Nik Marda, Melissa Valentine, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2019. Did It Have To End This Way? Understanding The Consistency of Team Fracture. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 209 (Nov. 2019), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359311Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Mark E Whiting, Irena Gao, Michelle Xing, Junior Diarrassouba N'Godjigui, Tonya Nguyen, and Michael S Bernstein. 2020. Parallel Worlds: Repeated Initializations of the Same Team To Improve Team Viability. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW1, Article 67 (May 2020), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392877Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Mark E Whiting, Grant Hugh, and Michael S Bernstein. 2019. Fair Work: Crowd Work Minimum Wage with One Line of Code. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, Vol. 7. 197--206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Justine Zhang, Jonathan P Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Lucas Dixon, Yiqing Hua, Nithum Thain, and Dario Taraborelli. 2018. Conversations gone awry: Detecting early signs of conversational failure. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.05345 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. My Team Will Go On: Differentiating High and Low Viability Teams through Team Interaction

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!