Electronic Brainstorming: The Illusion of Productivity

Electronic brainstorming (EBS) has been proposed as a superior approach to both nominal brainstorming (working alone) and face-to-face brainstorming (verbal). However, existing empirical evidence regarding EBS's superiority over nominal brainstorming is weak. Through a comprehensive examination of the process gains and process losses inherent to different brainstorming approaches, this paper explains past results. The paper also suggests that the process gain versus process loss advantages of EBS technologies may not be large enough to enable EBS groups to outperform nominal groups. In an effort to find alternate ways of using EBS more productively, three conditions thought to increase EBS's process gains and decrease its process losses (thus improving its productivity) are identified. A laboratory experiment designed to compare the productivity of ad hoc and established groups using four brainstorming technologies (nominal, EBS-anonymous, EBS-nonanonymous, verbal), generating ideas on socially sensitive and less sensitive topics, in the presence and absence of contextual cues, is then described. The results of the experiment showed that overall, groups using nominal brainstorming significantly outperformed groups using the other three brainstorming approaches. Further, even under conditions thought to be favorable to EBS, nominal brainstorming groups were at least as productive as EBS groups. The paper explains these results by suggesting that the process gains of EBS may not be as large as expected and that the presence of four additional process losses inherent to EBS technologies impair its productivity. It is also argued that the prevailing popularity of group brainstorming (verbal or electronic) in organizations may be explained by the perceived productivity of those approaches. These perceptions, which are at odds with reality, create the illusion of productivity. A similar misperception may also cause an illusion of EBS productivity in the research community, especially when perceptual measures of group performance are used.

[1]  A. Pinsonneault,et al.  The effects of electronic meetings on group processes and outcomes: An assessment of the empirical research , 1990 .

[2]  L. R. Hoffman.  Group Problem Solving1 , 1965 .

[3]  M. E. Shaw.  Group dynamics : the psychology of small group behavior , 1971 .

[4]  Mary T. Dzindolet,et al.  Social influence processes in group brainstorming. , 1993 .

[5]  Anit Somech,et al.  Is Group Productivity Loss the Rule or The Exception? Effects of Culture and Group-Based Motivation , 1996 .

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

[7]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  Developmental Processes in Group Decision Making , 1996 .

[8]  Carolyn M. Callahan,et al.  Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality as a Function of Group Size , 1974 .

[9]  A. Rothenberg,et al.  Artistic creation as stimulated by superimposed versus separated visual images. , 1980, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Group Decision Support Systems on Group Development , 1990, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Robert Albanese,et al.  Rational Behavior in Groups: The Free-Riding Tendency , 1985 .

[12]  J. Hackman,et al.  Interventions into group process: An approach to improving the effectiveness of groups , 1974 .

[13]  Joel R. Levin,et al.  New developments in pairwise multiple comparisons : some powerful and practicable procedures , 1991 .

[14]  W. P. Dixon,et al.  BMPD statistical software manual , 1988 .

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

[16]  P. Paulus,et al.  The Role of Social Anxiousness in Group Brainstorming , 1995 .

[17]  Philip E. Slater,et al.  Microcosm: Structural, Psychological and Religious Evolution in Groups. , 1967 .

[18]  K. Williams,et al.  Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing , 1979 .

[19]  Wilfred R. Bion,et al.  Experiences in Groups: VII , 1951 .

[20]  E. Berscheid,et al.  Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior. 3rd ed. , 1981 .

[21]  E.,et al.  GROUPS : INTERACTION AND PERFORMANCE , 2001 .

[22]  E. Tory Higgins,et al.  Accessibility of interrelational constructs: Implications for stimulus encoding and creativity. , 1980 .

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

[24]  John F. Feldhusen,et al.  The Effects of Environmental Scanning On Creativity , 1978 .

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

[26]  E. Salas,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. , 1991 .

[27]  J. J. Seta,et al.  The Impact of Comparison Processes on Coactors' Frustration and Willingness to Expend Effort , 1991 .

[28]  T. M. Amabile.  The social psychology of creativity , 1984 .

[29]  Alain Pinsonneault,et al.  Anonymity in Group Support Systems Research: A New Conceptualization, Measure, and Contingency Framework , 1997, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

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

[31]  R. Cialdini.  Influence: Science and practice, 3rd ed. , 1993 .

[32]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Participant Satisfaction in Group Support Systems Research , 1996, ICIS.

[33]  E. Vonesh,et al.  Linear and Nonlinear Models for the Analysis of Repeated Measurements , 1996 .

[34]  J. Darley,et al.  Social Comparison Theory: Self-Evaluation and Group Life , 1987 .

[35]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  A Study of Collaborative Group Work With and Without Computer-Based Support , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[36]  B. E. Wynne,et al.  The Implications of Group Development and History for Group Support System Theory and Practice , 1992 .

[37]  N. Kerr,et al.  Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects , 1983 .

[38]  R. Cialdini.  Influence: Science and Practice , 1984 .

[39]  Helmut Lamm,et al.  Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency , 1973 .

[40]  David R. Maines,et al.  Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. , 1989 .

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

[42]  R. Gallupe,et al.  Unblocking brainstorms. , 1991, The Journal of applied psychology.

[43]  J. Valacich,et al.  Idea Generation in Computer-Based Groups: A New Ending to an Old Story , 1994 .

[44]  John K. Brilhart,et al.  Effects of different patterns on outcomes of problem-solving discussion. , 1964 .

[45]  Terence Connolly,et al.  On the Effectiveness of Group Brainstorming , 1993 .

[46]  Michael Diehl,et al.  The Illusion of Group Effectivity , 1992 .

[47]  J. Neter,et al.  Applied Linear Statistical Models (3rd ed.). , 1992 .

[48]  S. Harkins,et al.  Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. , 1982 .

[49]  S. Wheelan,et al.  Validation Studies of the Group Development Questionnaire , 1996 .

[50]  M. Ross,et al.  Egocentric Biases in Availability and Attribution , 1979 .

[51]  E B Gurman,et al.  Creativity as a Function of Orientation and Group Participation , 1968, Psychological reports.

[52]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  ELECTRONIC BRAINSTORMING AND GROUP SIZE , 1992 .

[53]  A. M. Greca,et al.  Can Children Remember to Be Creative? An Interview Study of Children's Thinking Processes. , 1980 .

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

[55]  K. Williams,et al.  Identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. , 1981 .

[56]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Getting a Clue , 1996 .

[57]  Frank Coppieters,et al.  Performance and Perception , 1981 .

[58]  M. Diehl,et al.  Why Groups are less Effective than their Members: On Productivity Losses in Idea-generating Groups , 1994 .

[59]  A. Paul Hare.  Groups, Teams, and Social Interaction: Theories and Applications , 1992 .

[60]  R. Zajonc.  SOCIAL FACILITATION. , 1965, Science.

[61]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Implications for problem‐solving groups of empirical research on ‘brainstorming’: A critical review of the literature , 1978 .

[62]  P. Slater,et al.  Microcosm: Structural, Psychological and Religious Evolution in Groups. , 1966 .

[63]  T. Bouchard,et al.  Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. , 1970, The Journal of applied psychology.

[64]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm , 1996 .

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

[66]  Karl E. Weick,et al.  The Life Cycle of Groups: Group Developmental Stage Theory , 1981 .

[67]  Marc D. Street.  Groupthink , 1997 .

[68]  J. George,et al.  Ad hoc versus established groups in an electronic meeting system environment , 1990, Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

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

[70]  William C. Ward,et al.  Creativity and environmental cues in nursery school children. , 1969 .

[71]  Michael H. Zack,et al.  Interactivity and Communication Mode Choice in Ongoing Management Groups , 1993, Inf. Syst. Res..

[72]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Social influence processes in computer brainstorming , 1996 .

[73]  Karl J. Krayer.  Exploring Group Maturity In The Classroom , 1988 .

[74]  W. Bennis,et al.  A Theory of Group Development , 1956 .

[75]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Social cognition, 2nd ed. , 1991 .

[76]  P. Paulus,et al.  Performance and Perceptions of Brainstormers in an Organizational Setting , 1995 .

[77]  B. Tuckman.  DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[78]  Roy B. Lacoursiere,et al.  The Life Cycle of Groups: Group Developmental Stage Theory , 1980 .

[79]  Michael Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. , 1991 .

[80]  Mary T. Dzindolet,et al.  Perception of Performance in Group Brainstorming: The Illusion of Group Productivity , 1993 .

[81]  I. Benbasat,et al.  The Effects of Group, Task,Context, and Technology Variables on the Usefulness of Group Support Systems , 1993 .

[82]  M. J. Noruésis,et al.  SPSS-X advanced statistics guide , 1985 .

[83]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Process Structuring in Electronic Brainstorming , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[84]  R. Baumeister,et al.  Personal narratives about guilt: Role in action control and interpersonal relationships. , 1995 .