↓ Skip to main content

Getting with the times: a narrative review of the literature on group decision making in virtual environments and implications for promotions committees

Overview of attention for article published in Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Getting with the times: a narrative review of the literature on group decision making in virtual environments and implications for promotions committees
Published in
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40037-018-0434-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anita Acai, Ranil R. Sonnadara, Thomas A. O’Neill

Abstract

Concerns around the time and administrative burden of trainee promotion processes have been reported, making virtual meetings an attractive option for promotions committees in undergraduate and postgraduate medicine. However, whether such meetings can uphold the integrity of decision-making processes has yet to be explored. This narrative review aimed to summarize the literature on decision making in virtual teams, discuss ways to improve the effectiveness of virtual teams, and explore their implications for practice. In August 2017, the Web of Science platform was searched with the terms 'decision making' AND 'virtual teams' for articles published within the last 20 years. The search yielded 336 articles, which was narrowed down to a final set of 188 articles. A subset of these, subjectively deemed to be of high-quality and relevant to the work of promotions committees, was included in this review. Virtual team functioning was explored with respect to team composition and development, idea generation and selection, group memory, and communication. While virtual teams were found to potentially offer a number of key benefits over face-to-face meetings including convenience and scheduling flexibility, inclusion of members at remote sites, and enhanced idea generation and external storage, these benefits must be carefully weighed against potential challenges involving planning and coordination, integration of perspectives, and relational conflict among members, all of which can potentially reduce decision-making quality. Avenues to address these issues and maximize the outcomes of virtual promotions meetings are offered in light of the evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Master 8 10%
Professor 5 6%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 27 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 13 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 12%
Psychology 7 8%
Computer Science 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 31 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2020.
All research outputs
#2,687,165
of 25,608,265 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#123
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,707
of 344,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#6
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,608,265 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.