Five strategies for improving group effectivenessdownload.clib.psu.ac.th/datawebclib/e_resource/trial_database/... · The need to improve group performance is ... are not comfortable

Elspeth McFadzeanand Andrew O'LoughlinHenley Management College, Greenlands,Henley-on-Thames, Oxon RG9 3AU, UK

Five strategies forimproving groupeffectiveness

The purpose of this paper is to present®ve strategies that can helporganizations improve productivity indecision making and problem solvinggroups. These strategies are:

. Developing and building teams withthe appropriate participants.

. Undertaking techniques that willimprove and enhance teamcreativity.

. Coaching the team members andtraining them to improve theirbehaviour, communication andthinking skills.

. Planning the team event andsupporting the meeting by usingeffective facilitation techniques andinterventions.

. Utilizing the appropriate technologyin order to improve communication,idea generation and group memory.Copyright # 2000 John Wiley &Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

The need to improve group performance isof longstanding concern to organizations,managers and researchers, as well as havingstrong practical relevance. Historically, therehas been a long tradition of group research,which has tended to focus on improving

communication, productivity and a variety ofgroup level ef®ciencies in an attempt toenhance group effectiveness (Osborn, 1957;Diehl and Stroebe, 1987; DeSanctis andGallupe, 1987).

The aim of this paper is to investigate someof the processes, tools and techniques thathave been used to improve group performance

Strategic Change

Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, Mar±Apr 2000

Strat. Change, 9, 103±114 (2000)

and to develop a framework that will helpteams to become more effective. In addition,the paper also discusses the relative merits, aswell as the functional weaknesses of thesetechniques. The next section of this paperdiscusses a number of strategies for improvinggroup effectiveness.

Improving group effectiveness

Team productivity can be in¯uenced by anumber of factors. Briggs and Nunamaker(1996), for example, suggest that the produc-tivity of groups is affected by the followingvariables:

. Goal congruenceÐparticipants developthe same goals so that they can pull inthe same direction at the same time.

. DeliberationÐparticipants must learn tore¯ect, think and calculate effectively andin a structured and creative manner.

. CommunicationÐparticipants must beable to talk and to listen effectively.

. Information accessÐparticipants must beable to capture information effectively.

. DistractionsÐdistractions can severelyaffect the productivity of the group. Theyshould therefore be kept to a minimum.

McFadzean (1998a) and McFadzean et al.(1999) have made two additions to this list,namely process congruence and trust. Thewhole group must reach an agreementregarding the tools and techniques that are tobe utilized during the meeting. Members whoare not comfortable in using certain creativeproblem solving techniques or certain piecesof technology, for example, will tend to utilizethem inappropriately, and thus ineffectively, orwill not use them at all. In addition, high-performing groups must develop a high degreeof trust and commitment. This will ensure thatthe participants will communicate openly andhonestly and will be willing to utilize tech-niques that may be seen as uncomfortable.

In order to develop an effective team and ahigh quality product, therefore, the aforemen-tioned variables must be actively manipulated.

This can be achieved by developing the peopleinvolved, improving the group process andforming an appropriate culture. The followingvariables, therefore, need to be explicitlymanaged by the organization:

. Building an effective team

. Utilizing creative problem solving tech-niques

. Using process consultation and coaching

. Facilitating and supporting the team

. Utilizing the appropriate technology

These are discussed in more detail.

Team building

The concept of team building can locate itsorigins in the evolutionary changes that wereoccurring in organizational development inthe early part of the twentieth century(DeSanctis and Gallupe, 1987). Team buildingwas seen as an attempt to ful®l the twinobjectives of meeting organizational goalswhile also satisfying individual needs(McKenna, 1996).

In team building, attempts are made toimprove group functioning by helpingmembers to learn to work together throughchanging structural factors such as norms,patterns of interaction and roles. Dyer (1987)notes that team building is not a single actionbut should be conceived of as a holisticprocess.

In its development a group is believed topass through four main stages in a set sequence,with each stage containing both task-relatedand social considerations (Tuckman, 1965).The four stages are:

1. Forming: At this stage the group's primaryconsideration is to focus on the objectivesand establish how best to achieve themwith the available resources. Socially,members begin to develop behaviourmost suited to managing the task andachieving the objectives.

2. Storming: Initially the individual mayexperience a mismatch between the


104 Elspeth McFadzean and Andrew O'Loughlin

demands of the job and his/her inter-pretation of what the job entails. This cancreate `task resistance'. Socially, opinionsbegin to polarize, particularly on inter-personal issues, and individuals begin tofocus on their own needs above those ofthe group.

3. Norming: Begins with an open exchangeof views and opinions. The process ischaracterized by a willingness to cooperatewith other group members. Socially,normative standards begin to be devel-oped, and there is a conscious effort toharmonize the process and avoid con¯ict.

4. Performing: Solutions begin to emerge andobjectives are met. Socially, the groupdevelops a cohesive focus, with highlevels of support and ¯exibility. Thegroup's primary objective centres on prob-lem resolution.

A number of studies contest Tuckman's viewof team building, and suggest that there is verylittle evidence to show that groups develop orevolve in such a linear fashion (Dipboye et al.,1994). They also contest the deterministicnature of the model, by arguing that groupprogression may not be as clearly distinguish-able as proposed by Tuckman (Katz, 1982).Furthermore, many groups may never developpast the early stages of Tuckman's model, ormiss some stages out altogether (Gersick,1988). Woodcock (1979), for instance, envis-ages the process as being considerably more¯uid and interactive, as well as less determinis-tic, with groups moving freely between stages.

McFadzean (1998a) suggests that teams needto be developed through different stages if they

are to become high-performing teams. Themembers need to be attentive to the group'stask, the meeting structure, the roles andresponsibilities of the participants, the team'sdynamics and the emotions and feelings of the

group members. As each participant acquiresthese skills and develops trust, enthusiasm andcommitment, so the group will mature andbecome more effective. Most groups, however,never reach the heady heights of high-perform-ance, nor do they need to because their taskdoes not require them to be revealing, un-guarded and open. On the other hand, com-plex, novel and ambiguous challenges oftendemand highly creative solutions. In order togenerate these ideas, team members may berequired to undertake techniques that maymake them feel uncomfortable and uneasy.These creative problem solving techniques arediscussed in more detail.

Creative problem solvingtechniques

The work of McFadzean (1996, 1998b, 1998c)provides the framework for the developmentof a set of management tools, which areintended to refocus groups towards processmanagement, through the application ofvarious problem solving techniques. McFad-zean (1998b, 1998c) has categorized thesetechniques as paradigm preserving, paradigmstretching and paradigm breaking:

1. Paradigm preserving techniquesÐareanalytically oriented and do not requireparticipants to operate outside the para-meters of the problem. These techniquesgenerally utilize related stimuli and freeassociation (see Figure 1). In other words,group members use stimuli that are relatedto the problem. These stimuli are used togenerate new ideas that can be combinedand improved at will. In addition, ideas areexpressed using verbal or written com-munication. The use of related stimuli,free association and verbal/written com-munication are generally more comforta-ble for participants thus reducing thelikelihood that they will feel apprehensiveor confrontational regarding the use of thetechnique (McFadzean, 1998c). Paradigmpreserving techniques include, for exam-ple, brainstorming, brainwriting, force-

Teams need to be developedthrough different stages


Five strategies for improving group effectiveness 105

®eld analysis, hexagons, 5W � H andword diamond (see McFadzean, 1998d,for an explanation of these techniques).

2. Paradigm stretching techniquesÐlook atthe problem from a variety of differentperspectives, and participants are encour-aged to diversify their thinking in order toform new connections and associations.This is undertaken using unrelated stimuli,forced association and verbal/written com-munication. Participants are forced tostretch their paradigm by using stimulithat are completely unrelated to theproblem. For example, the group may beasked to use metaphors, descriptions ofdifferent types of objects or the forcedassociation of different words to generatenew ideas. These new ideas are then, inturn, forced back to the problem, wherenew solutions can be developed. Thesesolutions tend to be more creative thanthe ideas developed from paradigm pre-

serving techniques (McFadzean, 1996;Gar®eld et al., 1997). Examples of para-digm stretching techniques include objectstimulation, metaphors and rolestorming(McFadzean, 1998d).

3. Paradigm breaking techniquesÐalthough closely related to paradigmstretching methods, these techniquesrequire the participants to `break' withtraditional problem solving processes andsearch for obscure patterns and relation-ships, which can then be used to explorethe problem. The principal objective is toencourage participants to change theirperspective of the problem being invest-igated. This is undertaken by using un-related stimuli, forced association andmultiple methods of expression such asrole playing, drawing and dreaming. Para-digm breaking techniques include wishfulthinking, wildest ideas, rich pictures andimagining (McFadzean, 1998d).

Figure 1. Characteristics of the creativity continuum.



From McFadzean's work on paradigms hasevolved the `creativity continuum', which isused to visually explain both the relationship,as well as the differences, between theparadigms. McFadzean (1998d, p. 5) explainsthat:

People who use the paradigm preservingtechniques tend to enjoy using structuredmethods whereas participants who useparadigm breaking techniques tend tothrive on the unknown and are happy touse intuition, inspiration and imagination todrive them towards innovative ideas.

However, creative problem solving tech-niques must be used with great care. Paradigm

preserving techniques, for example, may notproduce highly imaginative ideas but they arecomfortable and safe to use. The use of freeassociation, for instance, will encourageparticipants to build on other people's ideasthus reducing the possibility of group processlosses such as cognitive inertia, groupthink andincomplete task analysis. Cognitive inertiaoccurs when the discussion moves along onlyone train of thought (Nunamaker et al., 1991).Thus, group members do not contributecomments that are not directly related to thecurrent discussion. Although this helps thegroup remain focused, it can also severelyreduce the group's creativity. Groupthinkoccurs when members become excessivelyclose and are therefore reluctant to criticallyevaluate the decisions made by the group(Janis, 1972). In addition, an incompleteanalysis and understanding of the task canresult in super®cial discussions and poordecisions (Nunamaker et al., 1991).

Using unrelated stimuli and multiplemethods of expression can reduce cognitiveinertia more effectively. In other words,

utilizing paradigm stretching and paradigmbreaking techniques can develop more imagi-native and novel ideas (Nagasundaram andBostrom, 1993; McFadzean, 1996). To usethese techniques effectively, however, thegroup must be enthusiastic and experienced.Moreover, the facilitator should also bepro®cient, competent and experienced andshould be able to develop a trusting rapportwith the group. Since paradigm stretching andparadigm breaking techniques utilize unrelatedstimuli and forced association, many moreperspectives can be explored. Thus, thesetypes of techniques are more likely to reducecognitive inertia, incomplete task analysis andgroupthink than paradigm preserving tech-niques. However, according to McFadzean (inpress),

Asking participants to use imagination andunfamiliar forms of expression can makethem feel uncomfortable, and thereforesuch techniques can be ineffective andmay cause animosity within the group. Itis therefore vital that only cohesive, experi-enced groups, whose members have highlevels of trust and commitment to eachother, should use these techniques.

Moreover, the facilitator must ensure that theteam has both goal and process congruence

(McFadzean et al., 1999; Briggs and Nuna-maker, 1996). In other words, the group as awhole must have the same goals in order toensure that all the participants pull in the samedirection at the same time. Likewise, processcongruence is important because if the part-icipants do not wish to undertake thesuggested techniques, then, at best, the non-cooperative group member will rely on theother participants to accomplish the goals, orat worst, he or she will become argumentativeor aggressive (McFadzean, in press).

Ensure that the team hasgoal and process congruence

Creative problem solvingtechniques must be used

with care



Process consultation (coaching)

Although closely associated with teambuilding, process consultation provides analternative method for improving team per-formance, by focusing on solving `process'problems. Process consultation essentiallyseeks to examine those `process' problemsthat a team is likely to encounter during thevarious stages of its development. A con-sultant or coach is employed to work with thegroup to identify, as well as assist in providingpotential solutions. Kaplan (1979, p. 347)de®nes process consultation as:

. . . a method for diagnosing and acting uponhuman processes of work groups. It is amechanism by which the parties in arelationship, usually with the assistance ofa consultant, attempt to discover and solveproblems in their work together.

The work of Schein (1969) has developed athree-stage model of process interventions:agenda setting, survey feedback and coaching:

1. Agenda setting: The attention of thegroup is focused on internal processesthat are critical to task success, but areusually ignored by the group.

2. Survey feedback: Involves the use of aquestionnaire or series of interviews togather data on how members see theirprocess. The results are then presented tothe group at a survey feedback meeting.Discussion of the results enables thegroup to identify problems and solutions.

3. Coaching: Finally, the consultant coachesthe group concerning the implementationof the agreed changes.

An important aspect of team development isthat it cannot be undertaken without, or iso-lated from, an organization's culture. Cultureaffects the performance and development ofthe team by establishing many of the processesby which groups operate (Hambrick andMason, 1984; Katzenbach and Smith, 1993).For example, some groups have moreempowerment than others. Groups that are

highly autonomous, for instance, can choosetheir own members and develop their ownprocesses. In addition, highly empoweredgroups may develop their own reward struc-tures and training programmes. It is, there-fore, important to note that organizationalculture has very real implications for groupperformance.

The role of the facilitator

Building an effective team is only the begin-ning of a very long process. A number ofstudies suggest that team building on its ownis not enough to ensure that group produc-tivity will be enhanced (Nunamaker et al.,1991; Frey, 1995; Dipboye et al., 1994;McKenna, 1996). They cite evidence to showthat for often inexplicable reasons, when agroup is left to its own devices it begins to¯ounder and perform less effectively.

Mosvick and Nelson (1987) contend thatinef®cient groups can become a costly exercisefor organizations. They report that in one com-pany alone, inef®cient group meetings haveadded over $71 million, in one year, to theorganization's overall costs. It was discovered,rather belatedly, that the principal reason forsuch high level inef®ciencies was that many ofthe groups lacked guidance in meeting theirobjectives. Although in this case the ®nanciallosses might seem exceptional, it is not un-common for group members to report dis-satisfaction with meeting processes, andexcessive waste in terms of resources (Katzen-bach and Smith, 1993; Chidambaram and Jones,1993; McClelland et al., 1993; Woolley, 1998).

One of the ways in which group produc-tivity can be increased is through the introduc-tion of a facilitator. There is general agreementamong researchers about why group facilita-tion procedures should improve meetingprocesses. It has been suggested that byfocusing and guiding group members' com-munication and decision making processes in astructured manner, a facilitator can, at leastpotentially, reduce the chances of engaging infaulty process and harness the strengths of thegroup (Phillips and Phillips, 1993; Anson et al.,



1995; Wheeler and Valacich, 1996; Lewe, 1996;Nelson and McFadzean, 1998).

Frey (1995) has identi®ed at least nine waysin which a facilitator can enhance the group'seffectiveness:

a. Develop procedures to coordinate mem-bers' thinking.

b. Provide a set of objective ground rules.c. Protect groups against their own bad

habits.d. Capitalize on the strengths of the group.e. Balance member participation.f. Help manage con¯icts.g. Give groups a sense of closure in their

work.h. Make groups re¯ect on their meeting

process.i. Empower groups.

A facilitator can help to enhance a group'sprocess but there are a number of concernsthat need to be addressed concerning the roleof the facilitator especially in highly dysfunc-tional groups. For example, while many groupsdo not use effective meeting procedures intheir daily interactions, which is why thefacilitator has been asked to assist, attempts atresistance are common practice among groupswho have been labelled as `inef®cient'. Facili-tators also need to be aware that groups oftenperceive the role of the facilitator as being littlemore than a thinly veiled disguise for increasedmanagement control. On the positive side,external facilitators may in fact present them-selves as a better solution because they are nothampered by the group's or organization'scultural problems.

Another problem for facilitators concernsthe issue of professional ethics. Facilitatorshave a capacity to impact on people's lives, aswell as in¯uence the environment withinwhich they work (Fuller and Trower, 1994).Anything that has the potential to adverselyaffect this process should be eliminated. Onoccasions it may not be automatically apparentwhere a facilitator's responsibilities and obliga-tions begin and end. This highlights probablythe most dif®cult of dilemmas for facilitators.How should a facilitator retain their `distance'

from a group, while at the same time exhibitinga high level of commitment to the task? Onemethod of achieving this is to agree with thegroup participants the roles and respons-ibilities that each member, including thefacilitator, should take (McFadzean, 1998a). Inaddition, ground rules can be developed anddisplayed on the wall so that all the participantswill know what is expected of them (Schwarz,1994; McFadzean, 1998d).

The ®nal consideration is that of con®denti-ality. It is important for the facilitator tomaintain high ethical standards in terms ofcon®dential and impartial behaviour in orderto retain the group's con®dence and trust. Anyreduction in con®dentiality is very likely tohave a signi®cant impact upon group perform-ance (Frey, 1995).

Technology and the group

As organizations move into the post-industrialera they have experienced an informationexplosion accompanied by increased com-plexity and turbulence in their environments(Haeckel and Nolan, 1993). The need forgroup decision making has never been soimportant. Evidence from a number of studiessuggests that a single person's perspective andexpertise may be too narrow to address themore complex and knowledge intensive pro-blems faced by organizations (DeSanctis andGallupe, 1987; Eden, 1990; Dennis andValacich, 1993).

In order to improve meeting processesresearchers have been exploring ways toexploit evolving information technologies.Among these are teleconferencing, computerconferencing, group support systems (GSS),computer supported cooperative work(CSCW), collaborative work and Groupware(for example, e-mail and Lotus Notes).

These technologies offer a number ofbene®ts for two particular types of teamÐself-managed and quality teams. Many organiza-tions are now moving toward self-managedteams in an attempt to create greater ¯exibilityand responsibility (Anderson et al., 1990;Katzenbach and Smith, 1993; McKenna,



1996). Although recognizing the contributionthat the other technologies make to groupprocesses, this paper will concern itself onlywith developments in GSS.

The primary objective of a GSS is to supportcollaborative activities, such as idea generation,message exchange, project planning, docu-ment preparation, mutual product creation,joint planning and decision making (Denniset al., 1990; Martz et al., 1992). The meetingsmay take place on a face-to-face basis, fromdispersed or remote locations, or in an asyn-chronous format with members logging on tothe system at different times.

GSS offers a number of potential advantagesin terms of enhancing group effectiveness.Historically, however, much of the researchhas tended to centre on three particularthemes, evaluation apprehension, productionblocking and free riding (Jarvenpaa et al.,1988; Dennis and Valacich, 1993; Gallupe andCooper, 1993; Licker, 1997; Fjermestad andHiltz, 1997; Tyran and Shepherd, 1998; Briggset al., 1998).

Evaluation apprehension occurs whenparticipants are afraid of expressing theirideas for fear of ridicule or punishment(Jessup et al., 1990). A GSS is designed tocounter this problem by providing an environ-ment where information can be inputanonymously. Anonymity has the additionalbene®t of making it less likely that an indi-vidual will dominate a meeting (Sosik et al.,1997).

Production blocking occurs when only oneperson at a time can put their views forward(Diehl and Stroebe, 1987). A GSS overcomesthis problem by allowing groups to participatesimultaneously. Parallel participation alsoallows for a substantial increase in group size.Groups of 10±20 participants are mostcommon but groups as large as 55 have beenrecorded (Gallupe et al., 1992).

Free riding usually occurs when groupmembers expect their ideas to be pooled andanalysed at the group level. A participant mayfeel tempted to ride on the effects of others ifthey are not being observed (Dipboye et al.,1994). A GSS provides a facility wherebyindividual participation can be monitored and

reviewed. Evidence from a number of studiessuggests that group members who expect theirproductivity to be monitored usually see nopossibility of evading participation (Diehl andStroebe, 1987; Licker, 1997).

GSS also provides a number of otherpotential bene®ts. For example, the results ofa meeting can be fed-back to the participantsquickly and without signi®cant time delays(Dennis et al., 1990). Improvements in meet-ing structure can also be achieved by usingstandardized frameworks to make the meetingmore understandable (Dennis et al., 1988).This may be particularly important formanagers who have to approve an agenda.Moreover, information-handling tools can berun spontaneously to provide comparativeassessments of ideas and solutions (DeSanctiset al., 1994).

In spite of the apparent bene®ts of using aGSS, there are a number of signi®cant dis-advantages. There is a distinct possibility thatconfusion may occur as a result of complexinterrelationships evolving over a period oftime. This confusion may in turn result inincreased levels of hostility, the polarization ofconsensus in terms of risk shift, cautious shiftand groupthink, all of which serve to extendthe time taken to make a decision (Zigurs andKozar, 1994; McKenna, 1996).

More importantly, there are a number ofchallenges that GSS has not adequatelyaddressed. The biggest problems centre onhow GSS groups manage information overload(Licker, 1997). Many GSS are only able toprovide support to a fairly basic level. GSSprogrammes range from being highly auto-mated (for example, the idea generation phase)to being overly mechanical and labour inten-sive (for example, the consolidation of alarge number of ideas in a short space oftime). In addition, unless a clear favourite ideaor solution emerges, the group may spendmany more hours debating the advantages anddisadvantages of the other ideas (Gallupe et al.,1992).

There are also some more immediate pro-blems. The software to run group sessionsis still very expensive, with prices in excessof £6,000, and the cost of providing net-



worked meeting facilities can run to severalthousands of pounds (Martz et al., 1992).Licker (1997, p. 231) highlights another cost,that of `time':

Facilitators are needed, and every meetinghas to be set up, at some cost in time. Oneuniversity . . . has found that every four-hourmeeting requires about four hours to setup,takedown and report. Longer meetings orsequences of meetings have much largeroverheads.

From an individual manager's perspectivethese are all considerable costs in terms ofeffort, time and expense. It is therefore essen-tial that before embarking on a programmewhich has the potential to incur such highoverheads, managers address the question as towhether a GSS can really satisfy the return onany investment made, which could not berealistically achieved by other less expensivemethods.

Discussion

Team productivity and creative thinking doesnot just occur. Organizations must continue todevelop their employees. The facilitator andthe team members can directly affect theoutput of the group. A poor facilitator orinappropriate participants will only tend toproduce mediocre results. In addition, theprocess of communication, deliberation andinformation access must be developed. Afacilitator or coach can help the group togain cohesion and improve its dynamics. He orshe can also help the group to choose theappropriate problem solving strategies, toolsand techniques. A group support system, forexample, may help larger groups to commu-nicate more effectively. Likewise, an appro-priate creative problem solving technique canhelp the group participants explore theirsituation in more detail or encourage themto develop more creative solutions (seeFigure 2). An experienced and well developed

Figure 2. Improving team productivity.



team will be able to utilize paradigm trans-forming techniques and thus produce morecreative solutions. Whatever technique isused, however, the group must continue tolearn in order to enhance its development.

Therefore, there should always be some formof feedback between the output (the product)and the input (the people).

Effective groups should also be developed inan organizational climate that will supportteam work and creativity. There are a numberof ways of improving the climate within anorganization so that the creative energies of theemployees can be released. These include:

. A secure environment where risk takingis tolerated and where failure does notresult in job losses or other threats toadvancement.

. Willingness by management to take risksin the targeted areas so that creativity andinnovation can be encouraged.

. A portion of time that can be set aside foremployees to explore and develop newideas.

. An organizational culture that makes itboth attractive and easy for employees todevelop new ideas or explore problemseasily.

. Senior management who actively encou-rage creativity and the communication ofideas, thoughts and solutions.

. Resources such as money, time andinformation as well as assistance andcooperation from the appropriate people.

. Formal and informal training courses increativity, team building and facilitationskills.

. Goal clarity and a shared vision which willinclude long-term goals and the actionplans that employees are expected tofollow.

. Trust in people's ideas, competencies andabilities to perform to their potential.

In summary, therefore, managers must ac-tively develop and train participants in groupwork and facilitation. They must learn to usethe appropriate tools and techniques for theevent and to continue the developmentprocess by evaluating the group sessions andthe team's output.

Biographical notes

Dr Elspeth McFadzean is a member of theinformation management faculty at HenleyManagement College. She has publishednumerous papers and is the author of thebook The Creativity Tool Box: A Practical

Guide for Facilitating Creative Problem Solv-

ing Sessions.

Andrew O'Loughlin is a PhD student at HenleyManagement College. He is currently studyingthe role of the facilitator in problem solvinggroups.

References

Anderson, N., Hardy, G. and West, M. (1990).Innovative teams at work, Personnel Manage-

ment, pp. 48±53 (Sept).Anson, R., Bostrom, R. and Wynne, B. (1995). An

experiment assessing group support systems

and facilitator effects on meeting outcomes,Management Science, Vol. 41, No. 2,

pp. 189±208.Briggs, R. O. and Nunamaker, J. F. (1996). Team

Theory of Group Productivity and its Appli-cation to Development and Testing of Group

Support Systems. CMI Working Paper SeriesWPS-96-1, University of Arizona.

Briggs, R. O., Nunamaker, J. F., Reinig, B. A.,Romano, N. C. and Sprague, R. R. (1998). Group

Support Systems: A Cornucopia of ResearchOpportunities. Proceedings of the 31st Annual

Hawaii International Conference on Systems

Sciences, Vol. II, pp. 495±504.

Chidambaram, L. and Jones, B. (1993). The impactof communication medium and computer sup-

port on group perceptions and performance: acomparison of face-to-face and dispersed

meetings. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 4,

pp. 465±491.Dennis, A. R., George, J. F., Jessup, L. M.,

Nunamaker, J. F. and Vogel, D. R. (1988).

The group must continueto learn



Information technology to support electronicmeetings, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.

591±624

Dennis, A. R., Nunamaker, J. F., Paranka, D. andVogel, D. R. (1990). A new role for computers in

strategic management, Journal of Business

Strategy, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 38±43.

Dennis, A. R. and Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computerbrainstorms: more heads are better than one,

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, No. 4,pp. 531±537.

DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, R. B. (1987). A founda-

tion for the study of group decision supportsystems, Management Science, Vol. 33, No. 5,

pp. 589±609.DeSanctis, G., Snyder, J. R. and Poole, M. S. (1994).

The meaning of the interface: a functionaland holistic evaluation of a meeting software

system, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 11,pp. 319±335.

Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss

in brainstorming groups: toward a solution of ariddle, Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 497±509.Dipboye, R. L., Smith, C. S. and Howell, W. C.

(1994). Understanding Industrial and Organ-

izational Psychology: An Integrated Approach,

Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Orlando,Florida.

Dyer, W. G. (1987). Team Building: Issues and

Alternatives, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massa-chusetts.

Eden, C. (1990). Strategic thinking with compu-ters, Long Range Planning, Vol. 23, No. 6,

pp. 35±43.

Fjermestad, J. and Hiltz, S. R. (1997). ExperimentalStudies of Group Decision Support Systems: An

Assessment of Variables Studied and Method-ology. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences,Vol. II, pp. 45±65.

Frey, L. R. (1995). Innovations in Group Facili-

tation: Applications in Natural Settings, Hamp-

ton Press Inc, Cresskill, New Jersey.

Fuller, M. A. and Trower, J. (1994). Facilitation,Systems, and Users: The Complete Socio-Tech-

nical System. Proceedings of the 27th Annual

Hawaii International Conference on Systems

Sciences, Vol. IV, pp. 82±91.Gallupe, R. B. and Cooper, W. H. (1993). Brain-

storming electronically, Sloan Management

Review, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 27±36.

Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H.,

Valacich, T. S., Bastianutti, L. M. and Nunamaker,

J. F. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and groupsize, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35,

No. 2, pp. 350±369.

Gar®eld, M., Satzinger, J., Taylor, N. and Dennis, A.(1997). The Creative Road: The Impact of the

Person, Process and Feedback on Idea Genera-tion. Proceedings of the Third Annual Con-

ference of the AIS, Indianapolis, Indiana.Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work

teams: toward a new model of group develop-ment, Academy of Management Journal,

Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 9±41.

Haeckel, S. H. and Nolan, R. L. (1993). Managingby wire, Harvard Business Review, pp. 122±132

(Sept±Oct).Hambrick, D. C. and Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper

echelons: the organisation as a re¯ection of itstop managers, Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 193±206.

Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psycho-

logical Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and

Fiascos, Houghton Mi¯in, Boston.Jarvenpaa, S. L., Rao, V. S. and Huber, G. P. (1988).

Computer support for meetings of groupsworking on unstructured problems: a ®eld

experiment, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 4,pp. 645±665.

Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T. and Galegher, J. (1990).

The effects of anonymity on GDSS group processwith an idea-generating task, MIS Quarterly,

Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 313±321.Kaplan, A. (1979). The conspicuous absence

of evidence that process consultation enhancestask-performance, Journal of Applied Beha-

vioural Science, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 346±360.

Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevityon project communication and performance,

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27,No. 1, pp. 81±104.

Katzenbach, J. R. and Smith, D. K. (1993). Thediscipline of teams, Harvard Business Review,

Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 111±120.Lewe, H. (1996). Computer Support and Facilitated

Structure in MeetingsÐAn Empirical Compari-

son of their Impact. Proceedings of the 29th

Annual Hawaii International Conference on

System Sciences, Vol. III, pp. 24±33.Licker, P. S. (1997). Management Information

Systems: A Strategic Leadership Approach, TheDryden Press, Orlando, Florida.

Martz, W. B., Vogel, D. R. and Nunamaker, J. F.(1992). Electronic meeting systems: results from

the ®eld, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 8,

No. 2, pp. 141±158.



McClelland, S. B., Harbaugh, N. R. and Hammett, S.(1993). Improving individual and group effec-

tiveness, Journal of Management Develop-

ment, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 48±58.

McFadzean, E. S. (1996). New Ways of Thinking:

An Evaluation of K-Groupware and Creative

Problem Solving. Doctoral dissertation. Henley

Management College/Brunel University, Henley,Oxon.

McFadzean, E. S. (1998a). The Attention Wheel:How to Manage Creative Teams. Working Paper

No. 9823, Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon.

McFadzean, E. S. (1998b). The creativity con-tinuum: towards a classi®cation of creative

problem solving techniques, Creativity and

Innovation Management, Vol. 7, No. 3,

pp. 131±139.McFadzean, E. S. (1998c). Enhancing creative

thinking within organisations, Management

Decision, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 309±315.

McFadzean, E. S. (1998d). The Creativity Tool Box:

A Practical Guide for Facilitating Creative

Problem Solving Sessions, TeamTalk ConsultingLtd, Milton Keynes.

McFadzean, E. S. (In press). Creativity in MS/OR:

choosing the appropriate technique, Interfaces.McFadzean, E. S., Somersall, L. and Coker, A.

(1999). A framework for facilitating groupprocesses, Strategic Change, Vol. 8, No. 7,

pp. 421±431.McKenna, E. (1996). Business Psychology and

Organisational Behaviour, Psychology Press,Hove.

Mosvick, R. K. and Nelson, R. B. (1987). We've Got

to Start Meeting Like This, Scott-Foresman,

Glenview, Illinois.Nagasundaram, M. and Bostrom, R. P. (1993). The

Structuring of Creative Processes Using GSS: AFramework for Research. Working Paper No. 81,

University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.Nelson, T. and McFadzean, E. S. (1998). Facilitating

problem-solving groups: facilitator competen-cies, Leadership and Organization Develop-

ment Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 72±82.

Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. F., Valacich, J. S., Vogel,D. R. and George, J. F. (1991). Electronic meeting

systems to support group work, Communi-

cations of the ACM, Vol. 34, No. 7, pp. 40±61.

Osborn, A. (1957). Applied Imagination, Scribner,

New York.Phillips, L. D. and Phillips, M. C. (1993). Facilitated

work groups: theory and practice, Journal of

the Operational Research Society, Vol. 44, No. 6,

pp. 533±549.Schein, E. H. (1969). Process Consultation: Its

Role in Organizational Development, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

Schwarz, R. M. (1994). The Skilled Facilitator:

Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective

Groups, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J. and Kahai, S. S. (1997).

Effects of leadership style and anonymity ongroup potency and effectiveness in a group

decision support system environment, Journal

of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 1,

pp. 89±103.Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Development sequence in

small groups, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63,pp. 384±399.

Tyran, C. K. and Shepherd, M. (1998). GSS and

Learning Research: A Review and Assessment ofEarly Studies. Proceedings of the 31st Annual

Hawaii International Conference on System

Sciences, Vol. II, pp. 470±479.

Wheeler, B. C. and Valacich, J. S. (1996). Facilita-tion, GSS, and training as a source of process

restrictiveness and guidance for structuredgroup decision making: an empirical assess-

ment, Information Systems Research, Vol. 7,No. 4, pp. 429±450.

Woodcock, M. (1979). Team Development

Manual, Gower Publishing, Farnborough.

Woolley, A. W. (1998). Effects of interventioncontent and timing on group task performance,

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 34,No. 1, pp. 30±46.

Zigurs, I. and Kozar, K. (1994). An exploratorystudy of roles in computer-supported groups,

MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 277±297.



Documents

Five strategies for improving group effectivenessdownload.clib.psu.ac.th/datawebclib/e_resource/trial_database/... · The need to improve group performance is ... are not comfortable