A recently published university study of virtual teams at first seems hard to apply to the real world, but actually parallels some real-world teams. Teams of undergraduates were asked to provide solutions to a campus problem communicating only through a computer tool intended to help with group decision-making. Though they had met the other team members, the tool kept their comments anonymous. Each team had a "plant"—someone working with the researchers—who was labeled the "leader" and played the role of either an order-giving manager ("directive" style) or one who encouraged collaboration in decisions ("participative" style). Teams tackled either a narrow issue of how to evaluate professors, or a broader one of how to improve the university's prestige.
Participation in the decision-making improved group performance, but not members' satisfaction with the team experience. This was especially true for the easier problem. Participation probably enabled "a more thorough consideration of each problem's potential set of solutions." But because the computer tool was not good at helping people focus on the best ideas, it likely made greater participation a frustrating experience due to the larger number of ideas the team had to sift through. Meanwhile, perceived leadership style had different effects on the different problems: directive style (predictably) hurt performance on the more complex problem, but participatory style hurt on the easier problem. The writers suggest that since members probably feel they can handle an easy problem, the added complexity of participatory decision-making seems redundant.
The authors point out, "The temporary nature of the groups in this study and the short duration of the group's task correspond to conditions often observed in focus group meetings and task forces…"
Source: Kahai, S., J. Sosik, and B. Avolio (04), "Effects of Participative and Directive Leadership in Electronic Groups," Group & Organization Management 29(1):67.