Evolution From Human Virtual Teams to Artificial Virtual Teams Supported by Artificial Intelligence. Results of Literature Analysis and Empirical Research

• Authors: Olaf Flak , Adrian Pyszka

Title variants

PL

Ewolucja zespołów wirtualnych od złożonych z ludzi do wspieranych przez sztuczną inteligencję. Wyniki analizy literatury i badań empirycznych

Abstracts

PL

Cel: w artykule podjęto problem badawczy dotyczący nowej rzeczywistości organizacyjnej, w jakiej znajdą się hybrydowe zespoły wirtualne, w których członkami będą zarówno ludzie, jak i sztuczne obiekty, a zadania zarządcze lub role przywódcze przejmie sztuczna inteligencja. Celem artykułu jest wstępna odpowiedź na cztery pytania badawcze: (1) jakie są cechy zespołów wirtualnych w dobie inteligentnych technologii; (2) jaka jest rola technologii w zmianie relacji człowiek – maszyna; (3) w jakim stopniu sztuczna inteligencja może zastąpić człowieka w zespole wirtualnym; (4) w jaki sposób członkowie zespołu mogą być zastępowani przez sztuczną inteligencję w zespole wirtualnym. Metodologia: metodą badawczą był przegląd literatury oraz badania empiryczne dotyczące nowej rzeczywistości organizacyjnej z hybrydowymi zespołami wirtualnymi. Dane badawcze zostały zgromadzone w wyniku długookresowej obserwacji zespołu wirtualnego, która została przeprowadzona w czerwcu 2021 roku wśród grupy studentów pracujących 36 godzin z wykorzystaniem narzędzi zarządzania online w TransistorsHead.com i MS Teams. Wyniki: badania wykazały, że zespoły wirtualne wymagają różnych sposobów komunikacji, a konsekwencje pracy w takim zespole zmieniają rodzaje zadań, czas spędzony na wspólnej pracy jako grupa oraz społeczne aspekty współpracy pomiędzy członkami zespołu. Eksperyment wykazał, że proces decyzyjny oparty na sztucznych bytach może spełnić wymagania zespołów wirtualnych, które mogą być traktowane jako członek zespołu (Team As A Software – TAAS). Możliwe jest również naśladowanie menedżera podobnego do człowieka (Manager As A Software – MAAS) lub jego wyższej ewolucyjnej kopii „wyrafinowanej nadludzkiej maszyny”. Ograniczenia/implikacje badawcze: przedstawione wyniki badań są przykładem badań prowadzonych od 2012 roku z wykorzystaniem menedżerskich narzędzi online nad pracą zespołów wirtualnych i możliwością zastąpienia menedżera-człowieka menedżerem-robotem. Odpowiedzi na pytania badawcze można odnosić tylko do badanej grupy studentów i nie można uogólniać dla wszystkich zespołów. W przyszłości prowadzone będą badania w szerszej grupie respondentów. Oryginalność/wartość: oryginalność przedstawionych wyników badań polega na tym, że dane zgromadzone w czasie badań przedstawiają realne czynności podejmowane przez menedżera i członków jego zespołu podczas 36 godzinnej pracy nad zadaniem, a nie są tylko deklaracjami tych czynności przez respondentów.

EN

Purpose: The paper addresses the research problem of the new organizational reality which will include hybrid virtual teams, where both humans and artificial agents will be members and management tasks or leadership roles will be assumed by artificial intelligence. The objectives of the paper are to initially answer 4 research questions: (1) what are the characteristics of virtual teams in the era of intelligent technology, (2) what is the role of technology in changing the human-machine relationship, (3) to what extent can artificial intelligence replace humans in a virtual team, (4) how can team members be replaced by artificial intelligence in a virtual team. Design/methodology/approach: The research method is a literature review and our own empirical research concerning the new organizational reality with hybrid virtual teams consisting of humans as well as artificial agents. The research data was the results of a long-term observation of a virtual team which was conducted in June 2021 in a group of students who worked 36 hours using online management tools in TransistorsHead.com and MS Teams. Findings: The research has shown that virtual teams require different ways of communication and that consequences of working in such a team change the types of tasks, time spent working together as a group and social aspects of cooperation between team members. This experiment has shown that the decision-making process based on artificial entities can fulfill the requirements of virtual teams and that such entities can be considered as teammates or teams (Team As A Software – TAAS). It is also possible also to imitate a human-like manager (Manager As A Software – MAAS) or its higher evolutionary copy, namely a “sophisticated superhuman machine”. Research limitations/implications: The research results presented here are an example of research conducted from 2012 on, by means of online managerial tools, concerning the work of virtual teams and the opportunity to replace a human manager with a robot one. The answers to the research questions can only be applied to the studied group of students and cannot be generalized for all teams. Future research will be conducted with a wider group of respondents. Originality/value: The originality of the presented research results lies in the fact that the data collected during the research represents the real activities undertaken by the manager and his/her team members during the 36-hour work on the task concerned rather than being mere declarations of these activities by the respondents.

Keywords

EN

virtual teams; artificial management and leadership; artificial teammates; evolution of virtual; teams; autonomous teams

PL

zespoły wirtualne; zarządzanie i przywództwo oparte na AI; roboty jako członkowie; zespołu; ewolucja zespołów wirtualnych; zespoły autonomiczne

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Problemy Zarządzania
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 20
• Issue: 2/2022 (96)
• Pages: 48-69

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

Olaf Flak

• Jan Kochanowski University of Kielce, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000000188151185

author

Adrian Pyszka

• University of Economics in Katowice, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000000249874185

References

• Ahuja, J., & Webster, J. (2001). Perceived disorientation: An examination of a new measure to assess web design effectiveness. Interacting with Computers, 14, 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(01)00048-0.
• Ale, E. N., Ahmed, S., & Taha, Z. (2009). Virtual R&D teams in small and medium enterprises: A literature review. Scientific Research and Essays, 4(13), 1575–1590.
• Alonso-Martín, F., Castro-González, A., Luengo, F., & Salichs, M. (2015). Augmented robotics dialog system for enhancing human-robot interaction. Sensors, 15, 15799– 15829. https://doi.org/10.3390/s150715799.
• Alonso-Valerdi, L. M, & Mercado-García, V. R. (2017). Enrichment of human-computer interaction in brain-computer interfaces via virtual environments. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6076913.
• Brajer-Marczak, R. (2016). Elements of knowledge management in the improvement of business processes. Management, 20(2), 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1515/ manment-2015-0063.
• Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016). Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1151–1177. https:// doi.org/10.1037/apl0000113.
• Butler, B., Sproull, L., Kiesler, S., & Kraut, R. (2002). Community effort in online groups: Who does the work and why. In S. Weisband (Ed.), Leadership at a distance: Research in technologically supported work (pp. 171–194). Taylor & Francis Group.
• Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Erlbaum.
• Carr, D. K., Hard, K. J., & Trahant, W. J. (1998). Zarządzanie procesem zmian. PWN.
• Chen, J. Q. (2019). Who should be the boss? Machines or a human?. In P. Griffiths & M. N. Kabir (Eds.), Proceedings of the European Conference on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (ECIAIR) (pp. 71–79).
• Chudoba, K. M., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2008). Shared communication practices and mental models in the virtual work environment. In Exploring virtuality within and beyond organizations (pp. 55–72). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1057/9780230593978_3.
• Chun-Ming, Ch., & Meng-Hsiang, H. (2016). Understanding the determinants of users’ subjective well-being in social networking sites: An integration of social capital theory and social presence theory. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(9), 720–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1141321.
• Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management S cience, 32(5), 554–571. https://doi. org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554.
• Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 318–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/24 9008.
• Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00061-8.
• de Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A metaanalysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1134–1150. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000110.
• de Laat, M., Joksimovic, S., & Ifenthaler, D. (2020). Artificial intelligence, real-time feedback and workplace learning analytics to support in situ complex problem-solving: A commentary. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 37(5), 267–277. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-03-2020-0026.
• DeCostanza, A. H., Marathe, A. R., Bohannon, A., Evans, A. W., Palazzolo, E. T., Metcalfe, J. S., & McDowell, K. (2018). Enhancing human agent teaming with individualized, adaptive technologies: A discussion of critical scientific questions (no. ARL-TR-8359). US Army Research Laboratory Aberdeen Proving Ground, United States.
• Derrick, D. C., & Elson, J. S. (2018). Automated leadership: Influence from embodied agents. In F. H. Nah & B. Xiao (Eds.), HCI in business, government, and organizations. HCIBGO 2018 (Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 10923). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91716-0_5.
• Dixon, K., & Panteli, N. (2010). From virtual teams to virtuality in teams. Human Relations, 63, 1177–1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709354784.
• Drucker, P. F. (1967, December). The manager and the moron. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/ the-manager-and-the-moron.
• Fiol, C. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (2005). Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: Untangling the contradictions. Organization Science, 16(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0101.
• Flak, O. (2013). Theoretical foundation for managers’ behavior analysis by graphbased pattern matching. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 12(4), 110–123.
• Flak, O. (2017). Methodological foundations of online management tools as research tools. In K. Lawlor & A. P. Buckley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies ECRM2017 (pp. 113–121). 16th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, 22–23 June 2017. Dublin Institute of Technology. ISBN 978-1- 911218-40-1.
• Flak, O. (2018). Układ wielkości organizacyjnych. Koncepcja metodologiczna badania rzeczywistości organizacyjnej. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego. ISBN 978-83- 226-3322-9.
• Flak, O. (2020). System of organizational terms as a methodological concept in replacing human managers with robots. In Advances in information and communication. Proceedings of the 2019 Future of Information and Communication Conference (FICC) (pp. 471–500). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12385-7_36.
• Flak, O. (2021). Level of similarity of team management with the use of system of organizational terms. In M. H. Bilgin, H. Danis, E. Demir, & S. Vale (Eds.), Eurasian business perspectives, Proceedings of the 29th Eurasia Business and Economics Society Conference (Part of the Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics book series (EBES, Vol. 16/2, pp. 19–35). Springer International Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-65085-8_2.
• Flak, O., Pyszka, A. (2013). Differences in perception of the participants in the management process and its real trajectory. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 9(4), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.7341/2013943.
• Flak, O., Yang, C., & Grzegorzek, M. (2017). Action sequence matching of team managers. In M. de Marsico, G. S. Di Baja, & A. Fred (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Pattern Recognition Applications and Methods ICPRAM. Vienna. https://doi.org/10.5220/0006189203860393.
• Franken, E., Bentley, T., Shafaei, A., Farr-Wharton, B., Onnis, L., & Omari, M. (2021). Forced flexibility and remote working: Opportunities and challenges in the new normal. Journal of Management and Organization, 27(6), 1131–1149. http://doi. org/10.1017/jmo.2021.40.
• Freire, M. N., & de Castro, L. N. (2021). E-recruitment recommender systems: A systematic review. Knowledge and Information Systems, 63(1), 1–20. http://doi. org/10.1007/s10115-020-01522-8.
• Gomez-Zara, D., Paras, M., Twyman, M., Lane, J. N., DeChurch, L. A., & Contractor, N. S. (2019, April). Who would you like to work with? In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. 659). ACM. https://doi. org/10.1145/3290605.3300889.
• Griffith, T., & Neale, M. (2001). Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 379–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23009-3.
• Griffith, T., Mannix, E., & Neale, M. (2002). Conflict and virtual teams. In S.G. Cohen & C.B. Gibson (Eds.), Virtual teams that work (pp. 335–352). Jossey-Bass.
• Griffith, T. L., & Meader, D. K. (2004). Prelude to virtual groups: Leadership and technology in semi-virtual groups. In D. Pauleen (Ed.), Virtual teams: Projects, protocols and processes (pp. 231–254). Idea Group. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1- 59140-166-7.ch010.
• Gunawardena, C., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970.
• Herschlag, D. (2020). The individual and the team in collaborative science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(28), 16116–16116. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.2006671117.
• Hertel, G. Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69–95. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.01.002
• Hess, T., Fuller, M., & Cambell, D. (2009). Designing interfaces with social presence: Using vividness and extraversion to create social recommendation agents. Journal of the Association of Information Systems, 10(12), 889–919. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00216.
• Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615–632. https://doi.org/10.1287/ orsc.14.6.615.24872.
• Hughes, J. A., O’Brien, J., Randall, D., Rouncefield, M., & Tolmie, P. (2001). Some ‘real’ problems of ‘virtual’ organisation. New Technology, Work and Employment, 1(16), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-005X.00076.
• Jang, C. Y., Steinfield, C., & Pfaff, B. (2000). Supporting awareness among virtual teams in a web-based collaborative system: The teamscope system. ACM Siggroup Bulletin, 3(21), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/605647.605652.
• Katja, G., John, S., Allan, D., Baobao, Z., & Owain, E. (2018, May 3). When will AI exceed human performance? Evidence from AI experts. arXiv:1705.08807v3.
• Kear, K., Chetwynd, F., & Jefferis, H. (2014). Social presence in online learning communities: The role of personal profiles. Research in Learning Technology, 22, https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.19710.
• Kelleher, J. D., Namee, B. M., & D’Arcy, A. (2015). Fundamentals of machine learning for predictive data analytics. MIT Press
• Kim, G. J. (2015). Human-computer interaction fundamentals and practice. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18071.
• Kolbjørnsrud, V., Amico, R., & Thomas, R. J. (2016). How artificial intelligence will redefine management. Retrieved from: https://www.pega.com/system/files/resources/2018-05/ hbr-how-ai-will-redefine-management.pdf.
• Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x.
• Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J. N., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. M. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1540-4560.00248.
• Larson, L., & DeChurch, L. (2020, February). Leading teams in the digital age: Four perspectives on technology and what they mean for leading teams. Leadersh Q, 31(1), 101377. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101377. Epub 2020 Jan 13. PMID: 32863679; PMCID: PMC7453931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101377.
• Lawless, W. F. (2021). Exploring the interdependence theory of complementarity with case studies. Autonomous human–machine teams (A-HMTs). Informatics, 8, 14. https:// doi.org/10.3390/informatics8010014.
• Levi, D. (2016). Group dynamics for teams (5th ed.). Sage.
• Lykourentzou, I., Antoniou, A., Naudet, Y., & Dow, S. P. (2016, February). Personality matters: Balancing for personality types leads to better outcomes for crowd teams. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 260–273). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819979.
• Ma, M. L., Fong, T., Micire, M. J., Kim, Y. K., & Feigh, K. (2018). Human-robot teaming: Concepts and components for design. In M. Hutter & R. Siegwart (Eds.), Field and service robotics (Springer proceedings in advanced robotics, Vol. 5). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67361-5_42.
• MacKenzie, I. S. (2013). Human-computer interaction: An empirical research perspective. Morgan Kaufmann.
• Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805–835. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002.
• McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2016). Human work in the robotic future: Policy for the age of automation. Foreign Affairs, 95(4), 139–150.
• Merritt, S. M., & Ilgen, D. R. (2008). Not all trust is created equal: Dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Human Factors, 50(2), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288574.
• Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (2006). Bridging distance: Empirical studies of distributed teams. In D. F. Galletta & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Human-computer interaction and management information systems: Applications. Advances in management information systems (1st ed.) (pp. 27–30). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315703626.
• Parry, K., Cohen, M., & Bhattacharya, S. (2016). Rise of the machines: A critical consideration of automated leadership decision making in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 41(5), 571–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116643442.
• Peifer C., Pollak A., Flak O., Pyszka A., Nisar M. A., Irshad M. T, Grzegorzek M., Kordyaka B., & Kożusznik B. (2021, September 8). The symphony of team flow in virtual teams. Using artificial intelligence for its recognition and promotion. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.697093.
• Pyszka, A. (2015) Modele i determinanty efektywności zespołu. Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, (230), 36–54. ISSN 2083-8611.
• Pyszka, A. (2018). The impact of e-HRM on efficiency in the public institution – Case study of local government. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 17(2), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.4467/24498939IJCM.18.022.8546.
• Riemer, K., & Vehring, N. (2012). Virtual or vague? A literature review exposing conceptual differences in defining virtual organizations in IS research. Electronic Markets, 22(4), 267–282. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-012-0094-2.
• Schaal, S. (1999). Is imitation learning the route to humanoid robots?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01327-3.
• Seeber, I., Bittner, E., Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, T., de Vreede, G.-J., Elkins, A., Maier, R., Merz, A. B., Oeste-Reiß, S., Randrup, N., Schwabe, G., & Söllner, M. (2020). Machines as teammates: a research agenda on AI in team collaboration. Information and Management, 57(2), 103174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103174.
• Serrat, O. (2017). Managing virtual teams. In Knowledge solutions. Tools, methods, and approaches to drive organizational performance. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 981-10-0983-9_68.
• Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons.
• Smith, A. M., & Green, M. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the role of leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 12(3), 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21605.
• Townsend, A., DeMarie, S., & Hendrickson, A. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1998.1109047.
• Treinen J.J., & Miller-Frost S.L. (2006). Following the sun: Case studies in global software development. IBM Systems Journal, 45(4), 773–783. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.454.0773.
• Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100.
• van der Vecht, B., van Diggelen, J., Peeters, M., Barnhoorn, J., & van der Waa, J. (2018). Social artificial intelligence layer for human-machine teaming. In Y. Demazeau, J. Bajo, & A. F. Caballero (Eds.), Advances in practical applications of agents, multiagent systems, and complexity (pp. 262–274) (Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, Vol. 10978). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94580-4_21.
• Waizenegger, L., McKenna, B., Cai, W.J., & Bendz, T. (2020). An affordance perspective of team collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(4), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 960085X.2020.1800417.
• Watson-Manheim, M. B., Chudoba, K. M., & Crowston, K. (2002). Discontinuities and continuities: A new way to understand virtual work. Information Technology & People, 3(15), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840210444746.
• Yang, C., Flak, O., & Grzegorzek, M. (2018). Representation and matching of team managers: An experimental research. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 5(2), 311–323. ISSN 2329-924X. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2018.2812825.

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/1644-9584.96.3

Biblioteka Nauki

2159231