Development in electronically-supported groups: a preliminary longitudinal study of distributed and face-to-face meetings

Abstract

This longitudinal pilot study compared the developmental patterns of groups in three different electronically supported meeting modes: face-to-face, dispersed-synchronous and dispersed-asynchronous. Comparkons along several behavioral and sociotechnical dimenswns which influence the group development process indicate that face-to-face groups experience more effective leadership and coordination competence over time compared to the distributed groups. However, dispersed groups did not differ from their face-to-face counterparts in cohesiveness and equality of participation. Moreover, groups in all three modes performed the task equally well. These results suggest that electronically distributed work groups --with adequate time and training --can become cohesive and perform effectively.

Generating quality open content: A functional group perspective based on the time, interaction, and performance theory

“…In another review intended to show the differences between electronically-supported GDSS and face-to-face meetings, equality of participation did not differ. A longitudinal study that compared the developmental patterns of groups in three different electronically supported modes (face-toface, dispersed asynchronous, and dispersed-synchronous) found no particular difference among the three modes [6]. Furthermore, another project found that greater inhibition occurs in face-to-face groups leading to the potential for less equality of participation than in distributed EMS groups while more equal participation was observed [20].…”

Assessing Shared Strategic Understanding

“…The direct communication in smaller teams provides an environment where individual members have the opportunity to become acquainted with each other. For example, when comparing face-to-face teams with distributed teams, face-to-face teams were found to have better internal leadership and coordination than virtual teams (Burke & Chidambaram, 1994;Eveland & Bikon, 1988). This can be because a distributed team's ability to handle non-verbal communication cues is severely limited and this can increase misunderstanding among members (Warkentin et al, 1997).…”

Research on Process Structure for Distributed, Asynchronous Collaborative Writing Groups

“…Since CW is a significant form of group work, as distributed group work increases, distributed CW will also likely increase in usage. By 1998, over 17% of industry meetings involved remote participants (Simons, 1998), and it is likely to increase in prevalence over time (Burke & Chidambaram, 1994).…”