Computer-Mediated Communication for Intellectual Teamwork: An Experiment in Group Writing

Abstract

Contingency theory predicts that using computer-mediated communication to accomplish complex collaborative work will be difficult, especially for tasks that require interactive, expressive communication. This proposition was examined in an experiment in which 67 three-person groups of MBA students completed two collaborative writing projects under either Computer Only, Computer + Phone or Face-to-Face communication conditions. The effects of these manipulations on group processes and performance were examined using data obtained from questionnaires and scores on the projects themselves. Although communication modality did not affect project performance, being restricted to computer-mediated communication made completing the work more difficult and diminished the participants' satisfaction with their work and with the other members of their work groups. The results also provide partial support for the idea that tasks that require more intensive communication, such as project planning, were more difficult than those that can be completed more independently, but this premise was not consistently confirmed. Taken together, these findings tend to confirm the contingency hypothesis regarding the difficulty of accomplishing work that involves ambiguous goals, multiple perspectives, and information that is susceptible to multiple interpretations without an interactive multiperson communication medium, such as face-to-face meetings. However, the results also suggest that modifications of contingency theory are required to incorporate the evidence that individuals can, to some extent, adapt to restricted communication channels. Further research designed to examine patterns of adaptation under various task/technology combinations is recommended.

Research on Proximity Choices for Distributed, Asynchronous Collaborative Writing Groups

“…Moreover, case research in synchronous CW found outcomes were improved if the participants first met in person (Sasse & Handley, 1996). This supports Galegher and Kraut's (Galegher & Kraut, 1994;Kraut, Galegher J., Fish, & Chalfonte, 1992) claim that F2F work in CW planning and revising activities was critical to asynchronous group success, because these activities require the most amount of interactive communication.…”

“…(Galegher & Kraut, 1994) emphasized the importance of communication in CW by stating that "open-ended problems requires interactive, expressive communication" (Galegher & Kraut, 1994) p. 112. On this basis, they used Structural Contingency Theory 2 to predict that CMC groups performing complex collaborative tasks would have more difficulty performing their work because of the lack of interactive communication, compared to F2F groups, because CMC is perceived to have low ability to support interactive, expressive communication (Galegher & Kraut, 1994;Zmud, Lind, & Young, 1990). They stated the importance of a rich communication media:…”

“…These results clearly indicate the nature of the task, combined with work mode can result in different levels of consensus and overall results. For example, given these claims, it appears the research by Adkins, Romano, and Galegher (Adkins et al, 1999;Galegher & Kraut, 1994;Romano et al, 1999) may have focused on preference writing tasks. Clearly, it can be argued that CW tasks can involve preference tasks, intellective tasks, and decision-making tasks depending on the nature of the writing experience.…”

Information sharing systems and teamwork between sub-teams: a mathematical modeling perspective

“…The data observed in 4 years of operating presented a decrease in grievances and increase in final quality. Galegher and Kraut (1994) studied contingency theory to prove the difficulties of computer-based communication in order to reach complex collaborative work. A group of 67 MBA students was considered to do two writing projects in three different conditions; Computer, Computer plus Phone, and Face-to-Face.…”

Innovative Project Idea Maturation: An Important Part of Governance

“…Donaldson (2001, p.5) defines contingency theory in the following way: "At the most abstract level, the contingency approach says that the effect of one variable on another depends on some third variable ..." The core of the situational theory, therefore, is that organizations that want to work optimally need to take account of the situation; it is the factors of the situation that determine what the best approach would be. Contingent models have, for example, been applied in vague and ambiguous situations, where the information available could be interpreted in many ways depending on perspective (Galegher & Kraut, 1994). Contingency factors have included leadership style (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, 1981, communication support, process structuring and information processing (Zigurs & Buckland, 1998;Zigurs, Buckland, Connolly, & Wilson, 1999), as well as task complexity and whether the technology is appropriate for the task ( Van de Ven & Drazin, 1985).…”