CHAPTER 12 – Applying Social Psychological Theory to the Problems of Group Work

In the work arena, groups are a major mechanism for organizations to tackle problems that are too large or complex for individuals to solve alone. For example, modern software packages, like Microsoft's Excel tm , consist of million of lines of computer code, while a good programmer typically writes a few thousand lines of code a year (Somerville, 2001; see Boehm et al, 1995, for more precise estimates of productivity in software engineering). To construct these massive applications, companies bring together individuals with skill in such disparate topics as interviewing, requirements skills in each of these areas. Thus, both the scale and the scope involved in building large software applications demand group effort of some sort. The sub-field of Human-Computer Interaction known as Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) attempts to build tools to help groups of people to more effectively accomplish their work, as well as their learning and play. It also examines how groups incorporate these tools into their routines and the impact that various technologies have on group processes and outcomes. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, as a sub-field, grew out of dissatisfaction with the individualistic emphasis in early research in Human-Computer Interaction, with its overwhelming concern with single individuals using computers to perform routine tasks. This individualistic emphasis contrasts with the everyday observation that much paid work is done by interdependent individuals who collaborate (or compete) on ill-structured tasks. We try to create technology to support groups for two primary reasons—to support distributed groups and to make traditional, collocated groups more effective. First, we want to get the benefit of groups in settings and for tasks where they had not previously been practical. Distributed work has existed since at least the days of the numbers of interdependent teams whose members are located in different locations is a modern phenomenon, brought about by consolidation, acquisition, and globalization in corporations and enabled by improvements in telecommunication and computing 2 Groups chapter 8/5/03 Page 3 technology. For example, engineering teams building modern aircraft have designers in multiple locations around the world. (Argyres, 1999). Teams building large telecommunications software systems have members in North American, Europe and Asia. Large consulting firms are likely to draw upon experts drawn from multiple offices scattered around the globe to get advice. These are not isolated examples. A recent study of a large telecommunication corporation showed that about 50% of the project teams in this company …

[1]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  The Need for Psychology in Research on Computer Supported Cooperative Work , 1998 .

[2]  Jay R. Galbraith Organization Design , 1977 .

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

[4]  A. Ingham,et al.  The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance , 1974 .

[5]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Small Group Design Meetings: An Analysis of Collaboration , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[6]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Electronic brainstorming: Theory, research, and future directions. , 2003 .

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

[8]  J. French,et al.  Overcoming Resistance to Change , 1948 .

[9]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations , 1976 .

[10]  S. Kiesler,et al.  The kindness of strangers: on the usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice , 1996 .

[11]  L. Perlow The Time Famine: Toward a Sociology of Work Time , 1999 .

[12]  Muzafer Sherif,et al.  A study of some social factors in perception. , 1935 .

[13]  I. Janis Victims of Groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. By Irving L. Janis. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972. viii + 276 pp. Map, illustrations, chart, notes, sources, bibliography, and index. Cloth, $7.95; paper $4.50.) , 1973 .

[14]  Jonathon N. Cummings WORK GROUPS AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN A GLOBAL ORGANIZATION. , 2001 .

[15]  Joan Harman,et al.  A Quantitative Integration of the Military Cohesion Literature , 1999 .

[16]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Relationships and Tasks in Scientific Research Collaboration , 1987, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[17]  Peter D. Bricker,et al.  The role of audible and visible back-channel responses in interpersonal communication. , 1977 .

[18]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Distance Matters , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[19]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. , 1997 .

[20]  G. Grisetti,et al.  Further Reading , 1984, IEEE Spectrum.

[21]  Solomon E. Asch,et al.  Opinions and Social Pressure , 1955 .

[22]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Distributed Work over the Centuries: Trust and Control in the Hudson's Bay Company, 1670–1826 , 2002 .

[23]  James D. Thompson Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[24]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Diagnosing groups : Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams , 1996 .

[25]  H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in Communication', 127-149 in Resnick LB, Levine JM and Teasley SD , 1991 .

[26]  G. W. Hill Group versus individual performance: are n + 1 heads better than one?" psychological bulletin , 1982 .

[27]  J. Valacich,et al.  Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups , 1990 .

[28]  G. D. Weeks,et al.  Studies in Interactive Communication: I. The Effects of Four Communication Modes on the Behavior of Teams During Cooperative Problem-Solving , 1972 .

[29]  R. Gallupe,et al.  Some Liberating Effects of Anonymous Electronic Brainstorming , 1998 .

[30]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  The Determinants of Goal Commitment , 1988 .

[31]  P. McLeod,et al.  The eyes have it : Minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion , 1997 .

[32]  E. Aronson,et al.  The Social Animal , 1973 .

[33]  M. Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. , 1987 .

[34]  C. Cramton The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration , 2001 .

[35]  B. Latané,et al.  Spatial clustering in the conformity game: Dynamic social impact in electronic groups. , 1996 .

[36]  H. Tajfel,et al.  Social categorization and intergroup behaviour , 1971 .

[37]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Coordination in Large Scale Software Development , 1990 .

[38]  Alberto Leon-Garcia,et al.  Communication Networks , 2000 .

[39]  Prasun Dewan,et al.  Composable collaboration infrastructures based on programming patterns , 2000, CSCW '00.

[40]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  --Understanding Effects of Proximity on Collaboration : Implications for Technologies to Support Remote Collaborative Work , 2001 .

[41]  Allen Newell,et al.  The psychology of human-computer interaction , 1983 .

[42]  R. W. Rogers,et al.  Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. , 1982 .

[43]  I. Steiner Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[44]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[45]  S. Asch,et al.  The doctrine of suggestion, prestige and imitation in social psychology. , 1948, Psychological review.

[46]  L. Argote Input uncertainty and organizational coordination in hospital emergency units. , 1982, Administrative science quarterly.

[47]  S Milgram,et al.  Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority , 1965 .

[48]  M. Tushman Work Characteristics and Subunit Communication Structure: A Contingency Analysis. , 1979 .

[49]  W. Orlikowski Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations , 2000 .

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

[51]  Kipling D. Williams,et al.  PROCESSES Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration , 2022 .

[52]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict and Performance , 1999 .

[53]  T. Judge,et al.  The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[54]  Thomas A. Finholt,et al.  The Need for Psychology in Research on Computer Supported Cooperative Work , 1998 .

[55]  S. R. Hiltz Online communities , 1983 .

[56]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Understanding Effects of Proximity on Collaboration: Implications for Technologies to Support Remote Collaborative Work , 2002 .

[57]  M. Macy Learning to Cooperate: Stochastic and Tacit Collusion in Social Exchange , 1991, American Journal of Sociology.

[58]  R. Hastie,et al.  Proper analysis of the accuracy of group judgments , 1997 .

[59]  David A. Kravitz,et al.  Ringelmann rediscovered: the original article , 1986 .

[60]  Tom Rodden,et al.  Moving out from the control room: ethnography in system design , 1994, CSCW '94.

[61]  H. Reis,et al.  Attraction and close relationships. , 1998 .

[62]  M. Sherif An experimental approach to the study of attitudes. , 1937 .

[63]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Attention-Sensitive Alerting , 1999, UAI.

[64]  H. Leavitt Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. , 1951, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[65]  M. Olson,et al.  The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. , 1973 .

[66]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Basking in Reflected Glory: Three (Football) Field Studies , 1976 .

[67]  N. Triplett,et al.  The Dynamogenic Factors in Pacemaking and Competition , 1898 .

[68]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Relationships and tasks in scientific research collaborations , 1986, CSCW '86.

[69]  J. Hackman,et al.  The design of work teams , 1987 .

[70]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Cost models for future software life cycle processes: COCOMO 2.0 , 1995, Ann. Softw. Eng..

[71]  J. Valacich,et al.  Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. , 1993 .

[72]  A. Mintz,et al.  Non-adaptive group behavior. , 1951, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[73]  L. McKay Overcoming resistance to change. , 1993, Canadian journal of nursing administration.

[74]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Office procedure as practical action: models of work and system design , 1983, TOIS.

[75]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Connective and Communal Public Goods in Interactive Communication Systems , 1996 .

[76]  H. H. Clark,et al.  References in Conversation Between Experts and Novices , 1987 .

[77]  Nicholas Argyres,et al.  The Impact of Information Technology on Coordination: Evidence From the B-2 , 1999 .

[78]  Michael A. Hogg,et al.  Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes , 2001 .

[79]  S. Fiske,et al.  Social Psychology , 2019, Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences.

[80]  Elliot Aronson,et al.  The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. , 1959 .

[81]  H. H. Clark Arenas of language use , 1993 .