Placement of Authority and Communication Pattern in Workplace Groups --- the Consequences for Innovation

Group discussion is typically made up of a series ofpairwise conversations. Using a corpus of workplace meetings in which decision-making authority is placed either in one individual or in the group as a whole, we demonstrate that both kinds of discussions are dominated by such conversations. However, in the groups with one authoritative individual, the same pairings recur, some people say more than others, and the authoritative individual dominates and controls the discussion, no matter how many people are present. In the groups that hold authority jointly, participation is more equal and more pairings are represented, but these properties degrade as discussion size increases. Current management theory about teams suggests that groups that have joint authority make better and more innovative decisions but that teams should be kept small. The theory of output/input coordination links these suggestions with the communication pattern differences observed.

[1]  D. Boden The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action , 1995 .

[2]  R. Barry Ruback,et al.  The process of brainstorming: An analysis with individual and group vocal parameters. , 1984 .

[3]  S. Feldstein,et al.  Rhythms of dialogue , 1970 .

[4]  A. Hare,et al.  Group Size , 1981 .

[5]  L. H.,et al.  Communication Networks , 1936, Nature.

[6]  A. Hare A Study of Interaction and Consensus in Different Sized Groups , 1952 .

[7]  R. Bales,et al.  Channels of communication in small groups. , 1951 .

[8]  Garold Stasser,et al.  Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. , 1991 .

[9]  Bengt Oreström Turn-taking in English conversation , 1983 .

[10]  Steven G. Rogelberg,et al.  The Stepladder Technique: An Alternative Group Structure Facilitating Effective Group Decision Making , 1992 .

[11]  K. Parker,et al.  Speaking turns in small group interaction: A context-sensitive event sequence model. , 1988 .

[12]  B STEINZOR,et al.  The spatial factor in face to face discussion groups. , 1950, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[13]  Richard A. Guzzo,et al.  Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[14]  W. D. Halls,et al.  Conflict and Consensus: A General Theory of Collective Decisions , 1994 .

[15]  Michael A. West,et al.  The social psychology of innovation in groups. , 1990 .

[16]  Norbert L. Kerr,et al.  Effects of group size, problem difficulty, and sex on group performance and member reactions. , 1978 .

[17]  S. Garrod,et al.  Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination , 1987, Cognition.

[18]  P. Slater Contrasting Correlates of Group Size , 1958 .

[19]  Frederick F. Stephan,et al.  The Distribution of Participation in Small Groups: An Exponential Approximation , 1952 .

[20]  F. Damanpour,et al.  Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of "organizational lag." , 1984 .

[21]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Contributing to Discourse , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  J. M. Dabbs,et al.  Dimensions of Group Process: Amount and Structure of Vocal Interaction , 1987 .

[23]  S. Finkelstein,et al.  Top Management Team Size, CEO Dominance, and firm Performance: The Moderating Roles of Environmental Turbulence and Discretion , 1993 .

[24]  S. Garrod,et al.  Conversation, co-ordination and convention: an empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions , 1994, Cognition.

[25]  Thomas A. Mahoney,et al.  Managerial Models of Organizational Effectiveness. , 1969 .

[26]  Robert H. Guest,et al.  Organizational change : the effect of successful leadership , 1962 .

[27]  Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon,et al.  The Reliability of a Dialogue Structure Coding Scheme , 1997, CL.

[28]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[29]  Garold Stasser,et al.  Computer simulation as a research tool: The DISCUSS model of group decision making , 1988 .

[30]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Understanding by addressees and overhearers , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[31]  A. Kendon Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. , 1967, Acta psychologica.

[32]  G. Stasser,et al.  Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. , 1989 .

[33]  L. Berkowitz Sharing leadership in small, decision-making groups. , 1953, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[34]  M O'Hagan Lobb Seating arrangement as a predictor of small group interaction. , 1982, Journal of advanced nursing.

[35]  E. Chapple,et al.  "Measuring Human Relations: An Introduction to the Study of the Interaction of Individuals." , 1941 .

[36]  S. Duncan,et al.  Some Signals and Rules for Taking Speaking Turns in Conversations , 1972 .

[37]  Joseph Berger,et al.  STATUS ORGANIZING PROCESSES , 1980 .

[38]  E. Schegloff Discourse as an interactional achievement : Some uses of "Uh huh" and other things that come between sentences , 1982 .

[39]  C. Cherry,et al.  On Human Communication: A Review, a Survey, and a Criticism. , 1957 .

[40]  M. West,et al.  Innovation and creativity at work::Psychological and organizational strategies , 1992 .

[41]  J. Katzenbach,et al.  The discipline of teams. , 1993, Harvard business review.

[42]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[43]  Lauri Carlson Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis , 1982 .

[44]  K. Dunbar HOW SCIENTISTS REALLY REASON: SCIENTIFIC REASONING IN REAL-WORLD LABORATORIES , 1995 .

[45]  Steven D. Silver,et al.  Status Differentiation and Information Exchange in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Idea Generation* , 1994 .