This article explores the assumption that most group decision support systems (GDSSs) tend to equalize influence in groups. Several past studies suggest that random groups interacting in a computer-mediated environment have more equal influence than face-to-face groups. This study, however, examined variations in perceived influence and communicative influence strategies among individual members of an intact group using a GDSSfor decision making. Although results indicate that perceived influence is more equal during GDSS interaction than immediately prior to such interaction, other results question the claim of equal influence. Findings suggest that historically high- and low-influence individuals are still perceived as such even in the GDSS meetings; furthermore, historically high- and low-influence members all use influence messages, but they use different tactics and employ them in varied amounts. Thesefindings question the influence equalization assumption of GDSSs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A methodfor the study of small groups. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Baron, R. A. , & Byrne, D. (1984). Socialpsychology: Understanding human interaction (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
3.
Beauclair, R. A. (1987). An experimental study of the effects of specific GDSS applications on small group decision making (Working paper). Louisville, KY: University of Louisville.
4.
Bettenhausen, K. L. , & Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The development of an intragroup norm and the effects of interpersonal and structural challenges. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 20-35.
5.
Chidambaram, L. , Bostrom, R. P., & Wynne, B. (1991). A longitudinal study of the impact of group decision support systems on group development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7,7-25.
6.
Clapper, D. L. , McLean, E. R., & Watson, R. T. (1991). An experimental investigation of the effect of a group decision support system on normative influence in small groups. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Information Systems, 12, 273-282.
7.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
8.
Crowell, L. , & Scheidel, T. M. (1961). Categories for analysis of idea development in discussion groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 155-168.
9.
Dennis, A. R. , George, J. F., Jessup, L. M., Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., & Vogel, D. R. (1988). Information technology to support electronic meetings. MIS Quarterly, 12, 591-618.
10.
DeSanctis, G. , & Gallupe, B. R. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33, 589-609.
11.
Dubrovsky, V. J. , Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146.
12.
Easton, A. (1988). An experimental investigation of automated versus manual supportfor stakeholder identification and assumption surfacing in small groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
13.
Easton, G. K. (1988). Group decision support systems vs. face-to-face communication for collaborative group work: An experimental investigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
14.
Ellis, D. G. , & Fisher, B. A. (1994). Small group decision making: Communication and the group process (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
15.
Falk, G. , & Falk, S. (1981). The impact of decision rules on the distribution of power in problem-solving teams with unequal power. Group and Organization Studies, 6, 211-223.
16.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 47-53.
17.
Glaser, B. G. , & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
18.
Hirokawa, R. Y. , & Pace, R. (1983). A descriptive investigation of the possible communication-based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision making. Communication Monographs, 50, 363-379.
19.
Ho, T. H. , & Raman, K. S. (1991). The effect of GDSS and elected leadership on small group meetings. Journal of Management Information Systens, 8, 109-133.
20.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1993). Information, influence, and technology in group decision making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
21.
Hollingshead, A. B. , McGrath, J. E., & O'Connor, K. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 307-333.
22.
Huber, G. P. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Academy of Management Review, 15,47-71.
23.
Hurwitz, J. I. , Zander, A. F., & Hymovitch, B. (1968). Some effects of poweron the relations among group members. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (pp. 291-297), New York: Harper & Row.
24.
Jarvenpaa, S. L. , Rao, V. S., & Huber, G. P. (1988). Computer support for meetings of groups working on unstructured problems: A field experiment. MIS Quarterly, 12, 645-666.
25.
Keys, B. , & Case, T. (1990). How to become an influential manager. Academy of Management Executive, 4, 38-51.
26.
Kipnis, D. , & Schmidt, S. M. (1982). Profile of organizational influence strategies. San Diego, CA: University Associates.
27.
Kipnis, D. , Schmidt, S. M., Swaffins, C., & Wilkinson, J. (1984). Patterns of management influence: Shotgun managers, tacticians, and bystanders. Organizational Dynamics, 12(3), 58-67.
28.
Kraemer, K. L. , & King, J. L. (1988). Computer-based systems for cooperative work and group decision making. ACM Computing Surveys, 30, 115-146.
29.
Lea, M. , & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283-301.
30.
Lewis, F. L. (1982). Facilitator:A micro computerdecision supportsystemsforsmall groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.
31.
Lippitt, R. , Polansky, N., Redl, F., & Rosen, S. (1968). The dynamics of power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.) Group dynamics: Research and theory (pp. 236-250). New York: Harper & Row.
32.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction andperformance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
33.
Mennecke, B. E. , Hoffer, J. A., & Wynne, B. E. (1992). The implications of group development and history for group support system theory and practice. Small Group Research, 23, 524-572.
34.
Miller, K. (1995). Organizational communication: Approaches andprocesses. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
35.
Poole, M. S. , & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 175-195). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36.
Poole, M. S. , & DeSanctis, G. (1992). Microlevel structuration in computer-supported group decision making. Human Communication Research, 19, 5-49.
37.
Poole, M. S. , Holmes, M., Watson, R., & DeSanctis, G. (1993). Group decision support systems and group communication: A comparison of decision making in computer-supported and nonsupported groups. Communication Research, 20, 176-213.
38.
Putnam, L. L. (1981). Procedural messages and small group work on climates: A lag sequential analysis. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 331-350). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
39.
Saunders, C. S. , Robey, D., & Vaverek, K. A. (1994). The persistence of status differentials in computer conferencing. Human Communication Research, 20, 443-472.
40.
Scott, C. R. (1993, May). Individual level differences as an explanation for variations between computer-supported and face-to-face group interaction. Paper presented at International Communication Association, Washington, DC.
41.
Scott, C. R. (1994, February). A rationale for declining benefits associated with repeated usage of group decision support systems for organizational decision making. Paper presented at Western States Communication Association, San Jose, CA.
42.
Scott, C. R. (1995, May). Group decision support systems and organizational identification: The effects of anonymity andfacilitation. Paper presented at International Communication Association, Albuquerque, NM.
43.
Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-325.
44.
Spears, R. , & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computermediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459.
45.
Tan, B. C. , Wei, K., &Raman, K. S. (1991). Effects of supportandtasktypeongroupdecision outcome: A study using SAMM. Proceedingsfrom Annual Meeting of IEEE, 4, 537-546.
46.
Watson, R. T. , DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1988). Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: Some intended and unintended consequences. MIS Quarterly, 12, 463-477.
47.
Weisband, S. P. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 352-380.
48.
Wiseman, R. L. , & Schenck-Hamlin, W. (1981). A multidimensional scaling validation of an inductively derived set of compliance-gaining strategies. Communication Monographs, 48, 251-270.
49.
Zigurs, I. , Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. L. (1988). A study of influence in computer-mediated group decision making. MIS Quarterly, 12, 625-644.
