...constraints as time pressure or the geographic distribution of team members. A partial answer in overcoming some of these constraints may be computer-mediated asynchronous communication (CMAC). CMAC enables increased and more equal team member participation, offers flexibility over time and distance, creates time for additional reflection and thought by participants, and archives a permanent record of all discussion. CMAC overcomes some of the drawbacks common to face-to-face communication in some circumstances, thus enhancing organizational communication, team collaboration, and decision-making effectiveness.

Keywords: asynchronous communication; computer-mediated communication; team processes, decision making

**********

The strategic landscape of business was described as "wicked" over 20 years ago (Mason & Mitroff, 1981). Today's business environment is even perhaps more wicked because of the even quicker pace of global commerce that often demands fast decision making and more team collaboration in an increasingly fragmented context. Time pressures, however, have deleterious effects on team processes, decision outcomes, and communication effectiveness generally (Perlow, 1999; Rudolph & Repenning, 2002; Waller, Zellmer-Bruhn, & Giambatista, 2002). Complicated linkages among organizational elements, including dynamic and uncertain social, political, and economic environments, ambiguous and incomplete information, and conflicting internal organizational interests, also contribute to less effective communication processes. Constantly changing communication technology adds to this complexity, creating both opportunities and constraints. Effective communication is critical to business success and in coping with an increasingly complex environment, yet individuals, teams, and organizations are often challenged in finding processes that enable effective communication practices.

This article examines 25 years of business communication and management literature to reach an understanding of how computer-mediated asynchronous communication (CMAC) can improve organizational communication, team processes, and decision making, in some instances. For the purpose of this article, "effective communication processes" means that intended recipients accurately receive messages in a time-efficient manner. This article examines how time pressures affect and change organizational communication and decision-making processes. The characteristics of traditional face-to-face communication are briefly examined and compared with the characteristics of CMAC. CMAC may be a solution in overcoming some of the problems frequently found in face-to-face communication because effective CMAC encourages team communication and collaborative sense making and allows team members to be in different locations or time zones, thus enabling quick decision making without compromising quality. CMAC is not suggested as a solution to all communication problems, and these limitations are acknowledged. The article closes with suggestions for needed research regarding CMAC in organizations.

TEAM COMMUNICATION AND THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Decision making, team processes, and communication effectiveness are influenced by various organizational characteristics, including organizational structure, culture, information technology systems, and leadership style (Chu & Spries, 2001; Hedlund, Ilgen, & Hollenback, 1998). Communication, therefore, is embedded in social process (Orlikowski & Yates, 2002) and is central to the organizing process (Weick, 1987). Paradoxically, the possibility of effective organizational communication is becoming both easier and more difficult. This article focuses on organizational decision making as a subset of organizational communication process generally, because the problems and issues found in decision making are often illustrative of the issues evident in business communication. If the business environment is dynamic and unstable (Schneider & Shanteau, 2003), decision making can be especially difficult because historical decision-making patterns and traditional communication processes are likely less effective (Beach & Lipshitz, 1993).

The use of teams both aids and hinders effective and efficient organizational decision making. Teams are ubiquitous in organizational settings because they can provide broad expertise and can increase the acceptability of organizational decisions, especially if the teams are consulted during the decision-making process (Orasanu & Salas, 1993). Teams can also solve the problem of having too much information for any one person to collect or understand, although teams do incur coordination costs. However, teams often have trouble finding sufficient or convenient times to schedule meetings, finding competent communication systems to enable the sharing of information, and coordinating and synthesizing the contributions from team members. Teams, if diverse, often raise perspectives unique to specific and various areas of expertise or geography, and this also results in added difficulty for some teams in reaching consensus (Hedlund et al., 1998).

The Decision-Making Process

Decision making is central to teamwork (Glaser, 1996) but also serves as a useful lens for examining the communication process itself. Regardless of the communication medium, or whether the decision is an individual or team decision, the decision-making process follows a relatively predictable and rational format (Nutt, 1998). Initial framing and problem definition provide focus for the rest of the decision-making process, so problem definition needs to be clear and accurate before decision makers move on to subsequent stages. Prioritizing goals is common prior to identifying alternative decision choices. Goal prioritization is often problematic because goal identification and evaluation can change as additional data are found or as the perspectives of new or different stakeholders are considered. The maximization of expected utility usually overshadows all other decision-making criteria, however this maximization is defined, although common evaluation criteria include measurable costs, timeliness, and the acceptability of the decision to significant stakeholders (Beach & Mitchell, 1996).

The rightness of a decision and the effectiveness of eventual implementation are significantly affected by the communication processes used between the organizational stakeholders most affected by the decision (Schneider & Shanteau, 2003). Although final decisions can be only as good as the best alternatives considered, critical data may not be available to decision makers in a timely manner, or information from significant stakeholders may be ignored, and so viable or superior alternatives may be missed altogether. Involvement may be the most important form of participation in decision making (Hartley, 1997), and the communication process chosen affects involvement.

Team Decision Making

Teams often form the basic unit of organizational decision making because they are believed to lead to better corporate performance in terms of increased effectiveness (Coopman, 2001). Team decisions are often perceived to have superior quality compared with individual decisions because teams are able to process greater amounts of information, have collective knowledge and expertise not always available to individuals, and have strength and synergy from a collection of diverse talents. Because of this broader knowledge and expertise, teams are able to define problems more accurately and generate and examine a greater number of alternatives. Teams sometimes have stronger influence over their collective environment than individuals, and this greater influence often enables easier implementation. Numerous disciplines or functional areas may be involved on any given organizational decision-making team, partly because of the interdependence of these areas (Sullivan, 1998) but also to enhance the ease of implementation. Teams sometimes create synergistic effects that result in superior decision making as members correct and amplify one another's ideas. The decision-making process includes subsidiary outcomes such as individual satisfaction and productivity because of involvement and listening affects (Coopman, 2001).

The disadvantages of team decision making follow from the difficulties common to group process, including social pressures to conform and minority domination. Given the time constraints found in most organizations, the major drawback of team processes may be the amount of time required for team members to meet and work together. For example, face-to-face meetings often run out of time for the examination of all alternatives, and many good ideas go unheard simply because adequate time to explore options is unavailable. Team members may not have time to reach consensus, especially if goals or objectives are ambiguous or conflicting (Schmitt & Klein, 1998), negating an expected benefit of team decision making. Typically, the larger...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.