The Impact of Group Gender Composition on Group Performance in an Electronic Meeting System Setting: A Study of Group Gender Composition

Electronic Meeting System (EMS) research conducted to date has produced inconsistent findings. Field studies have tended to yield more positive results than laboratory studies. Factors such as group composition, task, and organizational context may affect group outcomes, and should be explored to develop “contingency theories to identify the best fit between functions provided by EMS and various classes of groups, tasks, and organizations [30].” Research in non-EMS settings has shown that group gender composition affects group processes. This paper reports the results of a study designed to assess the effect of group gender composition on group process and performance in an EMS setting.

[1]  D. Campbell,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENT Al DESIGNS FOR RESEARCH , 2012 .

[2]  Jay Hall,et al.  The Effects of a Normative Intervention on Group Decision-Making Performance , 1970 .

[3]  Chris Argyris,et al.  Intervention Theory and Method. , 1974 .

[4]  J. Hackman,et al.  Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration , 1975 .

[5]  M. Wiley,et al.  Sex composition and leadership in small groups. , 1976, Sociometry.

[6]  R. Kanter.  Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  Allen C. Bluedorn,et al.  Men and Women of the Corporation , 1978 .

[8]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping. , 1978 .

[9]  Eve Spangler,et al.  Token Women: An Empirical Test of Kanter's Hypothesis , 1978, American Journal of Sociology.

[10]  E. Cohen,et al.  An alternative perspective on sex differences in organizational settings: The process of legitimation , 1978 .

[11]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Computer Support for Group Versus Individual Decisions , 1982, IEEE Trans. Commun..

[12]  C. Ridgeway,et al.  Status in Groups: The Importance of Motivation. , 1982 .

[13]  D. Izraeli.  Sex Effects or Structural Effects? An Empirical Test of Kanter's Theory of Proportions , 1983 .

[14]  P. Y. Martin,et al.  Transcending the Effects of Sex Composition in Small Groups , 1983 .

[15]  W. Wood.  Sex Differences in Group Interaction and Task Performance. , 1983 .

[16]  J. McGrath.  Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[17]  George P. Huber,et al.  Issues in the Design of Group Decision Support Systems , 1984, MIS Q..

[18]  P. Thoits,et al.  Token Achievement: An Examination of Proportional Representation and Performance Outcomes , 1985 .

[19]  Edward A. Mabry,et al.  The Effects of Gender Composition and Task Structure on Small Group Interaction , 1985 .

[20]  Robert D. McPhee,et al.  Group decision‐making as a structurational process , 1985 .

[21]  C. Sherif,et al.  The effectiveness of men and women in problem-solving groups as a function of group gender composition , 1986 .

[22]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  The Impact of Computer-Based Support on the Process and Outcomes of Group Decision Making , 1986, ICIS.

[23]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[24]  James N. Baron,et al.  So happy together? The impact of gender segregation on men at work. , 1987 .

[25]  C. Bonjean,et al.  Sex Differences in Support for Organizational Advancement , 1987 .

[26]  Mark S. Silver,et al.  User Perceptions of Decision Support System Restrictiveness: An Experiment , 1988, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[27]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences , 1988, MIS Q..

[28]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making , 1988, MIS Q..

[29]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Computer-Based Support for Group Problem-Finding: An Experimental Investigation , 1988, MIS Q..

[30]  B. E. Wynne,et al.  The effect of group size and computer support on group idea generation for creativity tasks: an experimental evaluation using a repeated measures design , 1989 .

[31]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Comprehensiveness and restrictiveness in group decision heuristics: effects of computer support on consensus decision making , 1989, ICIS '89.

[32]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  An empirical investigation of the impact of computer support on group development and decision-making performance , 1989 .

[33]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  GDSS laboratory experiments and field studies: closing the gap , 1989, [1989] Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume III: Decision Support and Knowledge Based Systems Track.

[34]  Gary W. Dickson,et al.  Observations on GDSS interaction: chauffeured, facilitated, and user-driven systems , 1989, [1989] Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume III: Decision Support and Knowledge Based Systems Track.

[35]  G. I. Schulman,et al.  GENDER-ROLE COMPOSITION AND ROLE ENTRAPMENT IN DECISION-MAKING GROUPS , 1989 .

[36]  William R. King,et al.  An Evaluation of the Role and Performance of a Decision Support System in Business Education , 1990 .

[37]  T. Connolly,et al.  Toward Atheory of Automated Group Work , 1990 .

[38]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Electronic meeting systems , 1991, CACM.

[39]  Varghese S. Jacob,et al.  Organizational Decision Support Systems , 1992, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..