1 / 55

Or…You plus Me less Them = US

Groupware. Old wine in new bottles. Or…You plus Me less Them = US. Agreement. Many real life tasks are “equivocal”, i.e. have no best or correct answer Unless the group “enacts” agreement, it cannot act So agreement is a critical group output Distinct from task performance.

agamemnon-elena
Download Presentation

Or…You plus Me less Them = US

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Groupware Old wine in new bottles Or…You plus Me less Them = US

  2. Agreement • Many real life tasks are “equivocal”, i.e. have no best or correct answer • Unless the group “enacts” agreement, it cannot act • So agreement is a critical group output • Distinct from task performance brianwhitworth.com

  3. Why is agreement important? No Group Action The Group Acts! brianwhitworth.com

  4. Computer Mediated vs FTF Groups • Task performance as good or better than FTF • Generally less agreement than FTF • Generally less decision confidence • Slower acting (take longer) • Lower process satisfaction brianwhitworth.com

  5. Media Richness Theory • A physical approach, i.e. rich communication requires a high physical bandwidth for high information transfer • Ambiguous social situations require high information transfer to “disambiguate” them • CMI agreement is low because “rich” social influence cannot squeeze through the “lean” electronic channel brianwhitworth.com

  6. Aims • Examine assumptions behind media richness approach • Propose an alternative “cognitive” or human process based perspective • Explore some implications brianwhitworth.com

  7. Assumptions of MR I. Media richness defines communication richness II. Richness is a primary property of media III. Information exchange reduces ambiguity IV. Personal interactions give group cohesion brianwhitworth.com

  8. Task Information Social Information I. Media richness defines communication richness • Computer channels are too “narrow” to transmit rich social influence Computer Channel brianwhitworth.com

  9. Findings • Lean, text based e-mail is very friendly • -Email can be more friendly than face-to-face • Online groups behave like face-to-face groups (norms, jargon, roles, identity) • Some CM groups report more agreement than face-to-face • CM groups polarize brianwhitworth.com

  10. A cognitive perspective • Meaning is a cognitive overlay on physical reality Cognitive Process Physical signal Meaning A lean message can have a rich meaning brianwhitworth.com

  11. Contentanalysis He is not angry I AM NOT ANGRY! Context analysis He is angry Multi-Threading • Multiple cognitive processes can operate on one physical signal Messages carry content and context (sender) information brianwhitworth.com

  12. II. Richness is a primary property of media • That media can be classified according to their richness or bandwidth • Often audio is the most efficient • E-mail is preferred to telephone for some tasks • Media cannot be arranged along a single dimension for all tasks brianwhitworth.com

  13. Many properties of media • Number of channels • Channel bandwidth • Interactivity • Synchrony/asynchrony • Transmission cost • Linkage Comparing FTF & Computer interaction is to confound variables brianwhitworth.com

  14. Incomparability of environments • Groupware is a communication environment • The FTF environment is the physical world • Cannot judge one environment by the criteria of another • Often cannot convert activities from one environment to another • We adapt to environments brianwhitworth.com

  15. Underwater • Translate: Walking - slow • Adapt: Swimming - better • Invent: Flippers - best ... brianwhitworth.com

  16. No “best” environment • No best groupware configuration • Different configurations favor different purposes (contingency theory) • Implies need for software flexibility, which people can adapt to their needs brianwhitworth.com

  17. III. Information exchange reduces ambiguity? • “Equivocal” tasks are invariably those where personal relationships are important (e.g. getting to know someone, resolving a personal disagreement, negotiating, firing someone) brianwhitworth.com

  18. Relating • Involves the cognitive entity “relationship” • Operates differently from task information analysis • Interactive - turn based, time sequential • Signed - not anonymous • Genuine and spontaneous • Ambiguity brianwhitworth.com

  19. Relating and ambiguity I hate McDonalds In relating, ambiguity is a social lubricant Maybe Want to go out to McDonalds? Great! Or perhaps Luigi’s? brianwhitworth.com

  20. An unexpected conclusion • Maintaining relationships may be as important as task analysis & completion • Face-to-face interaction may be preferred in situations where relationships are important because it allows more ambiguity, rather than less • Cannot just consider task purpose brianwhitworth.com

  21. B A D C IV. Personal interaction creates cohesion Group cohesiveness involves interpersonal attraction, social presence, and hence rich cues (Hogg, 1992) brianwhitworth.com

  22. Two processes - Bales IPA Socio-emotional • Interpersonal influence • Message contexte.g. voice tone Task resolution • Informational influence • Message content One communication can contain both (McGrath 1984) Group interaction has both task and social outputs brianwhitworth.com

  23. Serious problems • Large groups are as cohesive as small ones • Cohesive group members may all dislike each other • Bales’ SE factor splits (social & emotional) • Distributed CM groups agree less when FTF • Anonymous CM groups polarize • Reducing social presence does not increase anti-normative behavior brianwhitworth.com

  24. The influence of the group • Results can be resolved by extending Bale’s theory • Social identity theory reinvents “group” as a cognitive entity • Group influence is distinct from personal influence brianwhitworth.com

  25. Social identity theory • Identity - the idea of “self” (a cognition) • Behavior conforms to identity • Groups form a group identity, which group members take into their own identity • Common identity gives common behavior We identify with the group, not the people in it brianwhitworth.com

  26. Personal one-one discussion with a nutritionist for 25 minutes Directed discussion in a like group for 25 minutes Which has more effect? Radke & Klisurich, 1947 brianwhitworth.com

  27. Normative Process • Herd behaviour? - we are group animals • Individuals adjust to group position • Mental not physical positions • Must know only: • own position • group position (majority) brianwhitworth.com

  28. Multi-threaded communication Context: Sender state information Content: Task or factual information Position: Action or intention to act brianwhitworth.com

  29. Example “Thanks for the great party, man!” Content: Party was great Context: Happy Position: About to leave brianwhitworth.com

  30. Conclusions I. Meaning is a cognitive overlay II. Environments are multi-dimensional III. Relating is distinct from task information analysis IV. Group identification (which causes cohesion) is distinct from relating brianwhitworth.com

  31. Bipolar models Task vs Socio-Emotional (Bales) Interpersonal vs Normative (Social Identity Theory) Informational vs Normative (Deutsch & Gerard,1965) Task vs Interpersonal vs Normative brianwhitworth.com

  32. Cognitive three-process (C3P) model • Resolving the task: Informational influence • Relating to others: Personal influence • Representing the group: Normative influence All processes overlap in behavior brianwhitworth.com

  33. Resolving the task • Individual level • One-way, one-to-many • Task information • Gives task output • Can be anonymous • Work setting brianwhitworth.com

  34. Relating to Others • Dyadic level • Two-way, one-to-one • Sender information • Gives interpersonal output • Cannot be anonymous • Social setting brianwhitworth.com

  35. Representing the Group • Group level • Two-way, many-to-many • Group position information exchanged • Gives a result valuable to the group • Can be anonymous • Where group action required brianwhitworth.com

  36. Agreement conclusions • Media richness or bandwidth has little to do with generation of group agreement • Normative influence is the main generator of group agreement • Main requirement for normative influence is many-to-many linkage brianwhitworth.com

  37. Many-to many linkage • e.g. A choir singing • Each contributes to the group sound • The communication environment merges all into one sound • Each individual hears and is influenced by the whole group Singing groups go off key together brianwhitworth.com

  38. E-mail group discussion • Manager e-mails 20 people • Each replies to 20 people • After one interaction, could have 400 e-mails • After two rounds could have 800 • Information overload brianwhitworth.com

  39. Electronic Voting • Computer can merge group positions by calculation • One vote can replace 400 emails for the purpose of generating agreement • As different from a “formal” vote as e-mail is from a letter • Computer makes voting easy brianwhitworth.com

  40. An experimental test 2. Agreement requires: • No rich communication • No task information • No conflict resolution • No personal interaction 1. Agreement requires: • Rich communication • Task information • Conflict resolution • Signed interaction Enactment of agreement only requires the exchange of position information brianwhitworth.com

  41. Treatments I. Blind II. Group aware - exchanged position information III. Group and confidence aware - exchanged position and confidence information Computer-mediated vs altered CM design brianwhitworth.com

  42. Position information exchange AAABB Group Position: A • Three voted for A • Two voted for B • Anonymous voting brianwhitworth.com

  43. Confidence Symbols Very Confident !! Confident ! Fairly Confident Not Very Confident ½ Not Confident at All ¼ brianwhitworth.com

  44. Confidence information exchange A¼A¼A ¼B!!B!! Group Position: A • Three weak votes for A • Two strong votes for B brianwhitworth.com

  45. Design Repeated measures design - every subject under every treatment brianwhitworth.com

  46. Effect on Agreement 66% of votes unanimous 9% of votes unanimous brianwhitworth.com

  47. “I think I agreed with most of what the group decided” Key 1 = Strongly Disagree 4 = In the Middle 7 = Strongly Agree brianwhitworth.com

  48. Effect on Confidence Key 1 = Not confident at all 3 = Fairly confident 4 = Confident 5 = Very Confident Group position increased confidence brianwhitworth.com

  49. Agreement was enacted without • Rich communication medium • Rich information exchange • Reasons or arguments • Personal context or social presence • Any development of trust • Any surfacing or resolution of conflict • Signed interaction (i.e. anonymously) All that was required was the exchange of position information brianwhitworth.com

  50. Summary • C3P model suggests three purposes in group interaction: • To resolve task information • To maintain and develop interpersonal relationships • To maintain and develop group unity • The primary process generating group agreement is normative brianwhitworth.com

More Related