|
Article Excerpt
Abstract
This paper reports the results of a field study of six medical project teams that worked together in meetings over a seven-week period to develop plans to improve customer service within a hospital. Half the teams used a group support system (GSS), while the other half used traditional processes that were the habitual norms for this organization. In the teams using traditional project team processes, the leaders defined the teams' project goal, directed discussions, recorded and controlled the teams' notes, assigned tasks to team members, and prepared and presented the teams' report. In the GSS teams, the leaders faced leadership challenges or abdicated, regular members participated to a greater extent, the project goal emerged from team discussion, and the teams' notes were open and widely distributed. In short, processes in the GSS teams were more participatory and democratic. At first, teams found the GSS-based meeting processes very uncomfortable and returned to traditional verbal discussion-based process es. Once they returned to these traditional processes, however, they found them uncomfortable and moved back to include more electronic communication-based processes. Participants' attitudes (satisfaction, perceived effectiveness, and cohesiveness) were initially lower in GSS teams, but gradually increased, until they equaled those of the traditional teams. There were significant differences in overall project outcomes: traditional teams developed conservative projects that met the unstated project agenda perceived by the team leaders. In contrast, GSS teams developed projects more closely aligned to the interests of team members.
Keywords: Group support systems, adaptive structuration theory, project teams, participation, appropriation, participative management, technology adoption
ISRL Categories: AC0402, HA0301, AA0903, A10703
Introduction
Group support systems (GSS) are being adopted by a small but growing number of organizations (Briggs et al. 1997). Most organizations have used GSS in day-long meetings with many participants (Grohowski et al. 1990; Van Genuchten et al. 1997). But, the pattern of GSS use is gradually changing as it is incorporated into the normal routines of project teams (e.g., Briggs et al. 1998; DeSanctis et al. 1991).
Initial research suggests modest success for appropriately used GSS in one-time meetings (Dennis et al. 2001). There is a paucity of evidence, however, on how project teams adopt GSS over time in field settings and if it is useful in ongoing projects (Christensen and Fjermestad 1997; Fjermestad and Hiltz 2000; Pervan 1998). As the use of GSS by project teams increases, it is important to understand how GSS use affects their processes and outcomes.
This paper reports on a field study of six project teams, of which three used a GSS and three used traditional meeting processes. We focus on the participativeness of work processes, and how that participativeness impacted work products. While there is evidence that GSS use can increase the equality of participation in quantitative terms (e.g., number of comments; Fjermestad and Hiltz 1998), there is no indication that such increased participation results in more participative processes or products that more strongly incorporate the contributions of team members. Our primary analyses are qualitative (e.g., using observations, interviews, and transcripts), but following the advice of Mingers (2001), who advocates multiple methods, we also use quantitative and statistical analyses (e.g., questionnaires, project ratings).
Previous Theory and Research
This research focuses on how a GSS can impact project teams over time. Project teams are brought together for a limited time to address a specific task through a series of meetings. Work is frequently accomplished outside of meetings and when not all members are present (McGrath 1991). Project teams tend to be of moderate size (between 5 and 10 members) and comprised mostly of peers, some of whom work together on a daily basis (Kinney and Panko 1996; McGrath 1984). The task is often to develop plans to solve a problem (Kinney and Panko 1996).
GSS Effects on Work Processes and Project Outcomes
Much prior GSS research has been guided by the process gains and losses framework (Steiner 1972). Simply put, communication among team members introduces factors that act to improve performance (process gains) and factors that act to impair performance (process losses) relative to individuals working independently. GSS attempt to alter the way in which teams work (DeSanctis and Gallupe 1987; Nunamaker et al. 1991) to change the balance of forces between process gains and losses (Connolly et al. 1990, Pinsonneault et al. 1999), so that teams experience more gains than losses. GSS may also inadvertently introduce new process losses. There are many different types of GSS, but one common distinction is between single-user GSS, in which only the facilitator uses the GSS, and multiuser GSS, in which computers are provided to every participant so they can use electronic communication in addition to, or instead of, verbal communication (Ackermann and Eden 2001). A multiuser GSS can also be used in single user mode--t ermed chauffeured use--when one member (typically a facilitator) captures comments as the members discuss the issues verbally.
A GSS can affect the way in which teams work through both its structural features and its spirit.
Structural features are the specific components of the GSS, their capabilities, and the "specific types of rules and resources, or capabilities, offered by the system" (DeSanctis and Poole 1994, p. 126). For example, structural features such as anonymity can influence how information is discussed in a multiuser GSS, while a single-user GSS does not enable anonymity. The spirit of the technology is the general intent of its structural features, and is broadly defined to include the system design, its features, user interface, and training materials (DeSanctis and Poole 1994). This holistic view is more open to interpretation than are the structural features because both the designer's intentions and the users' perceptions influence the spirit.
The spirit of many multiuser GSS is to promote a meeting process that is fair and participative (Ackermann and Eden 1994; DeSanctis et al. 1991; de Vreede and de Bruijn 1999). Often, the spirit is to promote what Habermas terms ideal speech:
to ensure that (a) all voices in any way relevant can get a hearing, and that (b) the best arguments we have in our present state of knowledge are brought to bear, and that (c) disagreement or agreement on the part of the participants follows only from the force of the better argument and no other force (Habermas and Nielsen 1990, p. 104).
The extent to which participants influence outcomes should be affected by the extent to which they are informed, correct, or have evidence, not their rank.
Multiuser GSS provide many tools that contain structural features (2) to guide how the team interacts (DeSanctis and Poole 1994; Orlikowski 1992; Orlikowski and Robey 1991). Most multiuser GSS enable electronic communication, which can provide three structural features that may promote more participative interaction: parallelism, anonymity, and meeting memory (Nunamaker et al. 1991; Zigurs and Buckland 1998). We consider each feature separately, but in practice they blend together to affect how a team uses a GSS (DeSanctis et al. 1993).
The first, parallelism, is the ability for members to exchange information simultaneously. Everyone can type at the same time, so no one needs to wait for others before contributing as they would in a single-user GSS. This mitigates production blocking (Gallupe et al. 1994; Valacich et al. 1994) and more equal participation.
The second structure, anonymity, enables members to make contributions without attaching their names which is not possible when contributions are made verbally (i.e. , using single-user GSS). Anonymity affects participation primarily through social influence (Jessup et al. 1990; Pinsonneault and Heppel 1997). If participants believe their comments are truly not identifiable (cf., Hayne and Rice 1997), evaluation apprehension, the fear of negative evaluation that can cause individuals to withhold opinions and information (Lamm and Trommsdorff 1973), may be reduced. Anonymity may reduce the reluctance to challenge the views of those in power, but may also increase free riding (Nunamaker et al. 1991; Tyran et al. 1992). Anonymity only has significant effects on participation when the importance of social evaluation is high (Pinsonneault and Heppel 1997); most laboratory studies with students have found few effects (Pinsonneault and Heppel 1997), but field studies suggest that anonymity can be important (e.g., Jo nes and de Vreede 2000; Tyran et al. 1992; van den Herik and de Vreede 2000).
The third structure, meeting memory, means that all typed comments are stored. Such a public memory can be used by all members to document decisions and remind themselves of what others have said (Nunamaker et al. 1991)so that they do not overlook information (Harari and Graham 1975; Maier 1970). The storage of comments is a physical feature that may impact participation, but is socially dependent on how a team utilizes it. Meeting memory may increase the equality of participation because every comment that is entered is saved unless explicitly deleted; the team as a whole owns its memory instead of having one person take notes and be in charge of the collection, documentation, and distribution of the meeting memory.
The spirit and structural features of a GSS cannot force ideal speech because their impact depends on their appropriation into the teams social structures. The ways in which a GSS affects work are not always consistent across teams (e.g., Markus 1992; Zack and McKenney 1995). It is the interaction between the structures and spirit of the GSS, the habitual norms of the team, and the way in which the team uses the GSS that result in changed work processes (DeSanctis and Poole 1994). Teams may appropriate the GSS faithfully (in accordance with the "spirit and structural feature design" of the GSS [DeSanctis and Poole 1994, p. 130]), or unfaithfully. For example, one way to unfaithfully appropriate a multiuser GSS is to use it in single-user mode during idea generation, allowing only one person to type into the meeting memory at a time.
Significant prior research shows that when teams faithfully appropriate a multiuser GSS, there is an increase in overall participation and equality of participation in terms of the raw quantitative number of comments, both in ad hoc groups studied in laboratory experiments and in organizational groups in the field (e.g., Bikson 1996; Davison 2000; Fjermestad and Hiltz 1998; Kelsey 2000; Kremar et al. 1994; Majchrzak et al. 2000; Tan et al. 1999; Tyran et al. 1992; Williams and Wilson 1997).
While more equal participation may be one goal (Habermas 1984; Habermas and Nielsen 1990), it is the improved performance from the more participative processes of ideal speech that is often the ultimate goal (Collins 1997; Magjuka 1989; Wagner 1994). Participative processes are those in which "influence is shared among individuals who are otherwise hierarchical unequals" (Wagner 1994, p. 312, emphasis added). In participative processes, lower ranking participants influence outcomes, not just have more opportunity to contribute. One might argue that more equal participation should lead to more participative processes and outcomes; after all, increased participation should bring more information, resulting in improved processes and outcomes that reflect that additional information (Ess 1996; Kelsey 2000). However, empirical evidence shows that the increased participation and equality of participation from GSS use does not always--or often--result in more equal influence or different outcomes, particularly in fi eld settings where power is important (e.g., Dennis et al. 1997; Ess 1996; Hiltz and Turoff 1993; McLeod et al. 1997; Niederman and Bryson 1998; Parent and Gallupe 2001; Tan et al. 1999; Weisband et al. 1995; Zack and McKenney 1995).
We believe that inducing more equal participation is necessary but not sufficient to create more participative outcomes (Burdett 2000). Increased participation or equality of participation may have little real effect on project outcomes when those in power hold different opinions. While GSS processes may encourage more participation, those in power may choose to ignore it, so that the outcomes remain unchanged. Participativeness is reflected in the extent of influence exerted by leaders and team members in the leadership and decision-making processes enacted by the team (Collins 1997; Magjuka 1989; Wagner 1994). Teams are more participative only when those in power choose to listen to and act on the participation; leadership has a strong moderating impact on the link between more participative processes and more participative outcomes and can enhance or stifle participation (Lim et al. 1994; Parent and Gallupe 2001; Sosik 1997; Zack and McKenney 1995). As such, a true understanding of participativeness may on ly be reflected in what happens after the project is complete; that is, does participation have an impact or is it ignored?
Teams may have two sources of leadership: the leader and a facilitator. The leader focuses on the content of the discussions, while the facilitator focuses on work processes. There are many ways of examining leadership (e.g., participative, directive, transactional, transformational) (Bass 1999; Sosik 1997); our focus is on participative and directive leadership. Directive leadership occurs when those in power closely control how a task is done (Muczyk and Reimann 1987; Sagie et al. 2002). When leadership is directive, team performance depends to a greater extent on the ability and knowledge of the team leader; when leadership is participative, performance depends more on team members' ability and knowledge (Murphy and Fielder 1992; Sagie et al. 2002). While the leader's individual characteristics will influence leadership style, organizational culture is also important (House and Aditya 1997).
In traditional non-GSS teams, leaders exercise dominance by controlling verbal queues, talking more often than others, preempting conversations, using nonverbal cues such as eye contact, and physically setting themselves apart from others (e.g., sitting at the head of the table) (Hiltz et al. 1991; Hovells and Becker 1962). In GSS's electronic communication, many patterns of leadership--or the first advocacy often used to claim leadership--are weakened (Weisband et al. 1995) and thus leaders face greater challenges in exerting power (Eveland and Bikson 1988). When GSS are used in decision rooms, verbal discussion frequently augments electronic communication (Nunamaker et al. 1991; Tyran et al. 1992), so traditional leadership behaviors can still be used (de Vreede and de Bruijn 1999; Parent and Gallupe 2001). The leader shapes participants interaction (de Vreede and de Bruijn 1999; Parent and Gallupe 2001). Strong leadership can negate the participative structures and spirit of the GSS (DeSanctis et al. 1993; Lim et al. 1994; Parent and Gallupe 2001), so that GSS become "agents of phony democracies' (Parent and Gallupe 2001, p. 416).
Both single user and multiuser GSS often include a facilitator who can also provide leadership (Ackermann 1996; Bostrom et al. 1996; Niederman et al. 1996; Nunamaker et al. 1991). Where as a team leader may set project goals and focus the content of discussions, a facilitator focuses on processes (Phillips and Phillips 1993). Facilitators play many roles: designing and maintaining agendas, matching GSS tools to the task and team, helping the team to adopt the GSS, clanfying and focusing on meeting objectives, and asking challenging questions (Ackermann 1996; Bostrom et al. 1996). As such, the facilitator helps the team to appropriate the GSS and create an environment for more equal participation (Ackermann 1996; Bostrom et al. 1996; Clawson et al. 1993; Niederman et al. 1996; Nunamaker et al. 1991). The facilitator is the living embodiment of the participative spirit and can significantly affect use (Batenbung and Bongers 2001; Schuman and Rohrbaugh 1991).
In summary, it is the structural features of the GSS (parallelism, anonymity, memory) that create the opportunity for and induce the team to more equal participation. It is the participative spirit of the GSS, often fostered by a facilitator, that can impel the team to the more participative processes and outcomes of ideal speech. While we can offer no study providing a clear link between the use of GSS with facilitators and more participative outcomes, one case study found that users of a facilitated GSS perceived that they had more impact on the outcomes than in non-GSS meetings (Bikson 1996), and a recent meta-analysis found that GSS teams with facilitators produced better decisions and were more satisfied with the processes than those without facilitators (Dennis et al 2001). Of course, no facilitator or GSS can cause more participative processes if the team or team leader does not wish to create them (cf., Parent and Gallupe 2001). We hypothesized
H1a: If teams faithfully appropriate a GSS, work processes will be more participative.
H1b: If teams faithfully appropriate a GSS, the products they produce will reflect the more participative nature of their work processes.
GSS Appropriation
We have qualified our arguments by assuming that teams successfully appropriate GSS. Most GSS research has examined special-event meetings in which participants work on a task for one meeting, whether in the laboratory or field (Dennis and Gallupe 1993; Dennis et al. 2001; Fjermestad and Hiltz 1998, 2000). Far fewer studies have examined GSS use over time on the same project. Most studies over time have examined series of special-event meetings, with new tasks at each meeting (e.g., Chidambaram 1996; Hollingshead et al. 1993), or series of special-event meetings for large groups (e.g., Ackermann and...
|
