Virtual groups meet via the Internet every day. When such groups confront large
bodies of information in decision making, the group process often becomes con
fused and chaotic. Process structuration (Giddens, 1979, 1984; Poole, Seibold, &
McPhee, 1985) provides a theoretical framework by which we can understand
group processes and outcomes. This study examines the effects of process struc
turation by means of a training video on maintenance behavior and outcomes in
55 different student virtual decision-making groups from two universities. Results
show that trained groups had higher levels of social support, greater participation
rates, and greater satisfaction with the group; wasted less time and energy; and
made significantly more accurate judgments. We discuss implications for the
impact of this type of training on virtual groups and suggest further research.
Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men: Research in human relations (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.
2.
Barley, S.R., & Tolbert, P.S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies , 18, 93-117.
3.
Ball, J. (1999, Aug. 24) Your career matters: DaimlerChrysler's transfer woes— Workers resist moves abroad—and here. The Wall Street Journal, B1.
4.
Benbasat, I., & Lim, L. (1993). The effects of group, task, context, and technology variables on the usefulness of group support systems: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Small Group Research, 24, 430-462.
5.
Bostrum, R.P., Anson, R., & Clawson, V.K. (1993). Group facilitation and group support systems. In L. Jessup and J. Valacich (Eds.), Group support systems: New perspectives (pp. 146-169). New York: Macmillan
6.
Clark, R.D., III. (1971). Group-induced shift toward risk: A critical appraisal . Psychological Bulletin, 76, 251-270.
7.
Clark, T. (1998). Teaching students to enhance the ecology of small group meetings. Business Communication Quarterly, 61, 40-52.
8.
Comer, D.R. (1995). A model of social loafing in real work groups . Human Relations, 48, 647-667.
9.
Dickson, G.W., Partridge, J.L., & Robinson, L.H. (1993). Exploring models of facilitative support for GDSS technology. MIS Quarterly, 17, 173-194.
10.
Duarte, D.L., & Snyder, N.T. (1999). Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools, and techniques that succeed . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
13.
Janis, I.L. (1982). Groupthink: Pyschological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin .
14.
Kaiser, H.F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415.
15.
Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
16.
Partridge, J.L. (1992). An empirical investigation of task and interactional facilitator intervention in the use of group decision support systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota.
17.
Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R., & McPhee, R.D.1985. Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102.
18.
Schrage, M. (1995). No more teams!New York: Currency/Doubleday.
19.
Shaila, M., & Bostrum, R.P. (1999). Meeting facilitation: Process versus content interventions . Journal of Management Information Systems, 15, 89-114.
20.
Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
21.
Wheeler, B., & Valacich, J. (1996). Facilitation, GSS, and training as sources of process restrictiveness and guidance for structured group decision making: An empirical assessment. Information Systems Research, 7(4), 429-450.
