@article{LogemannAritzCardonetal.2022, author = {Logemann, Minna and Aritz, Jolanta and Cardon, Peter and Swartz, Stephanie and Elhaddaoui, Terri and Getchell, Kristen and Fleischmann, Carolin and Helens-Hart, Rose and Li, Xiaoli and Palmer-Silveira, Juan Carlos and Ruiz-Garrido, Miguel and Springer, Scott and Stapp, James}, title = {Standing strong amid a pandemic: How a global online team project stands up to the public health crisis}, series = {British Journal of Educational Technology}, volume = {53}, journal = {British Journal of Educational Technology}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1111/bjet.13189}, pages = {577 -- 592}, year = {2022}, abstract = {The annual instructional virtual team Project X brings together professors and students from across the globe to engage in client projects. The 2020 project was challenged by the global disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper draws on a quantitative dataset from a post-project survey among 500 participating students and a qualitative narrative inquiry of personal experiences of the faculty members. The findings reveal how innovative use of a variety of collaboration and communication technologies helped students and their professors in building emotional connection and compassion to support each other in the midst of the crisis, and to accomplish the project despite connectivity disruptions. The results suggest that the role of an instructor changed to a coach and mentor, and technology was used to create a greater sense of inclusion and co-presence in student-faculty interactions. Ultimately, the paper highlights the role of technology to help the participants navigate sudden crisis affecting a global online instructional team project. The adaptive instructional teaching strategies and technologies depicted in this study offer transformative potential for future developments in higher education.}, language = {en} } @article{CarradiniGetchellCardonetal.2023, author = {Carradini, Stephen and Getchell, Kristen and Cardon, Peter and Fleischmann, Carolin and Aritz, Jolanta and Stapp, James}, title = {Evidence-based recommendations for recorded meetings policies}, series = {Business Horizons}, journal = {Business Horizons}, doi = {10.1016/j.bushor.2023.08.003}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Virtual meeting recordings have become a common part of virtual and hybrid workplace environments. Meeting recordings offer potential benefits (speedy transcript production, expedited information sharing, searchable information, inclusion of visual and tonal expressions) and drawbacks (difficulty discussing sensitive issues, employee privacy, limited off-the-record capabilities, and employee concerns over sharing recordings). Given this variance, policies for virtual meetings are a necessity. Managers can successfully implement a policy by co-creating policy preferences with employees in open-ended and nonjudgmental conversations that openly discuss potential benefits, drawbacks, and employee concerns. Topics such as when to record, when not to record, how to gain consent, and who will have administrative and sharing rights should be covered. Accessibility concerns, use or rejection of software features, for how long and where meeting recordings should be stored, and emerging issues such as use of virtual reality meetings and AI tools are areas of less urgency that may be part of the conversations. Managers should deliver policy preferences to a group of representatives from Human Resources, Information Technology, and the executive team to compose the policy, request a legal review, then introduce and implement it in the organization.}, language = {en} } @unpublished{CardonGetchellCarradinietal.2023, author = {Cardon, Peter W. and Getchell, Kristen and Carradini, Stephen and Fleischmann, Carolin and Stapp, James}, title = {Generative AI in the Workplace: Employee Perspectives of ChatGPT Benefits and Organizational Policies}, doi = {10.31235/osf.io/b3ezy}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Research Questions • What attitudes do professionals hold towards the impact of AI on society and their jobs? How do early adopters of ChatGPT differ in their attitudes towards the impact of AI on society and their jobs? • In what ways are professionals using ChatGPT? How do these uses differ by managerial status? • What do professional perceive as benefits of generative AI? How do they differ in these views based on level of ChatGPT adoption and managerial status? • What do professionals perceive as the benefits of organizational policy for the use of generative AI? How do these views differ based on level of ChatGPT adoption and managerial status? Samples • Study 1 involved 148 working adults in the United States who had heard of ChatGPT • Study 2 involved 395 working adults in the United States who had heard of ChatGPT Research Questions • What attitudes do professionals hold towards the impact of AI on society and their jobs? How do early adopters of ChatGPT differ from non-adopters in their attitudes towards the impact of AI on society and their jobs? • In what ways are professionals using ChatGPT? How do these uses differ by managerial status? • What do professionals perceive as benefits of generative AI? How do they differ in these views based on level of ChatGPT adoption and managerial status? • What do professionals perceive as the benefits of organizational policy for the use of generative AI? How do these views differ based on level of ChatGPT adoption and managerial status? Key Findings and Conclusions • Many US workers in this sample are using ChatGPT for professional purposes. Roughly the following percentages have already used ChatGPT in the following ways: o 42\% for researching a topic or generating ideas o 32\% for drafting messages o 26\% for drafting longer documents, such as reports o 22\% for editing text • Many US workers in this sample believe ChatGPT can help them become better communicators. This is particularly the case for executives and managers. Roughly two thirds of executives (67\%) and managers (64\%) believe generative AI can help them communicate more effectively. • Early adopters of ChatGPT in this sample hold much different views of generative AI than do non-users of ChatGPT. Early adopters hold the following distinctive views: o They are much more likely to think AI is good for society than non-users (64\% to 22\%) and believe it will make them more productive (82\% for early adopters; 26\% for non-users); however, they are also more likely to worry about the ethical implications of AI (68\% to 55\%) in the workplace and worry that their own job will be replaced by AI (41\% to 20\%). o They are much more likely to think generative AI will support them in their work. About 85\% of early adopters say that ChatGPT can help them generate ideas for work compared to about 50\% of non-users. About 73\% of early adopters say it can improve the quality of their work compared to 42\% of non-users. About 74\% of early adopters say it can help them communicate more effectively compared to 41\% of non-users. Executives and managers are slightly more likely to be enthusiastic about the benefits. • Employees in organizations with generative AI policies view these policies positively. Those who are aware of an organizational policy about generative AI generally believe it has supported more comfort in using ChatGPT for work, has improved trust, has improved efficiency, and has provided legal protections. Those who are early adopters are generally more positive about each of these benefits of organizational policy than those who are non-users of ChatGPT. • Most early adopters of generative AI in organizations without generative AI policies want more guidance about ChatGPT use. Most early adopters believe an organizational policy would make them more comfortable using ChatGPT (61\%), that it would increase trust (56\%), and that it would improve efficiency (66\%). Key Recommendations • Develop generative AI policies that support innovation and efficiency while putting into place legal safeguards for organizations and their employees. • Use a social contracts approach to develop generative AI policies.}, language = {en} } @article{CardonAritzFleischmannetal.2020, author = {Cardon, Peter and Aritz, Jolanta and Fleischmann, Carolin and Elhaddaoui, Terri and Getchell, Kristen and Helens-Hart, Rose and Iivonen, Kirsti and Insignares, Frank and Li, Xiaoli and Logemann, Minna and Palmer-Silveira, Juan Carlos and Ruiz-Garrido, Miguel and Shrivastava, Archana and Springer, Scott and Stapp, James and Swartz, Stephanie and Warren, Naomi and Woolstenhulme, Karen and Zemaitis, Eigirdas}, title = {What Happens to Global Virtual Teams When a Pandemic Hits? Maintaining Normalcy and Stability with Disruption All Around}, series = {The Western ABC Bulletin}, volume = {Spring 2020}, journal = {The Western ABC Bulletin}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Each year, the Virtual Business Professional (VBP) program brings together professors and students from across the globe to engage in client projects. The VBP program of 2020 occurred from the beginning of March through the middle of April. In this article, we share how the COVID-19 pandemic affected VBP participants and their teams. We present post-project survey results (completed by 440 of 530 participants for an 83 percent response rate), professor comments, and student comments to demonstrate how VBP participants overcame many of the pandemic disruptions to work effectively in virtual teams, develop compassion and empathy for one another, and foster more global mindsets.}, language = {en} }