Computer-Mediated Communication for Intellectual Teamwork: An Experiment in Group Writing

Contingency theory predicts that using computer-mediated communication to accomplish complex collaborative work will be difficult, especially for tasks that require interactive, expressive communication. This proposition was examined in an experiment in which 67 three-person groups of MBA students completed two collaborative writing projects under either Computer Only, Computer + Phone or Face-to-Face communication conditions. The effects of these manipulations on group processes and performance were examined using data obtained from questionnaires and scores on the projects themselves. Although communication modality did not affect project performance, being restricted to computer-mediated communication made completing the work more difficult and diminished the participants' satisfaction with their work and with the other members of their work groups. The results also provide partial support for the idea that tasks that require more intensive communication, such as project planning, were more difficult than those that can be completed more independently, but this premise was not consistently confirmed. Taken together, these findings tend to confirm the contingency hypothesis regarding the difficulty of accomplishing work that involves ambiguous goals, multiple perspectives, and information that is susceptible to multiple interpretations without an interactive multiperson communication medium, such as face-to-face meetings. However, the results also suggest that modifications of contingency theory are required to incorporate the evidence that individuals can, to some extent, adapt to restricted communication channels. Further research designed to examine patterns of adaptation under various task/technology combinations is recommended.

[1]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  An Attribute Space for Organizational Communication Channels , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

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

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

[4]  R. W. Root,et al.  Informal Communication in Organizations: Form, Function, and Technology , 1990 .

[5]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Toward a “Critical Mass” Theory of Interactive Media , 1987 .

[6]  Lisa Ede,et al.  Singular Texts/Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative Writing , 1990 .

[7]  R. Daft,et al.  A Tentative Exploration into the Amount and Equivocality of Information Processing in Organizational Work Units. , 1981 .

[8]  Janis Forman Novices Work on Group Reports , 1991 .

[9]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Task Requirements and Media Choice in Collaborative Writing , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[10]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Book Reviews : Online Communities: A Case Study of the Office of the Future , 1984 .

[11]  J. Hayes,et al.  A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing , 1981, College Composition & Communication.

[12]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Computer-mediated communication and collaborative writing: media influence and adaptation to communication constraints , 1992, CSCW '92.

[13]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..

[14]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[15]  Michael L. Tushman,et al.  Technical Communication in R & D Laboratories: The Impact of Project Work Characteristics , 1978 .

[16]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[17]  M. Horton,et al.  The impact of face-to-face collaborative technology on group writing , 1991, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[18]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization , 1991 .

[19]  R. Daft,et al.  Understanding Managers' Media Choices: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective , 1990 .

[20]  W. Orlikowski,et al.  Genres of Organizational Communication: A Structurational Approach to Studying Communication and Media , 1992 .

[21]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[22]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations , 2011 .

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

[24]  R. Rosenthal Estimating effective reliabilities in studies that employ judges' ratings , 1973 .

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

[26]  Lester Faigley,et al.  What We Learn from Writing on the Job , 1982 .

[27]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Organization and environment , 1967 .

[28]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Usage and Outcomes of Electronic Messaging at an R&D Organization: Situational Constraints, Job Level, and Media Awareness , 1989 .