The Influence of Real-Time Identifiability and Evaluability Performance Feedback on Group Electronic Brainstorming Performance

This study addresses the question of how to mitigate productivity losses in Electronic Brainstorming (EBS) due to social loafing. This article posits that loafing in the context of EBS may occur due to the combined effect of random group composition and anonymity in conjunction with unregulated individual performance behavior, not anonymity per se, and presents real-time, objective performance feedback as a plausible solution to combat social loafing. An automated real-time performance feedback system was incorporated into an existing EBS system and its effect on performance was empirically examined. Consistent with the suggestions of prior loafing research, in a controlled laboratory experiment groups given the identifiability treatment outperformed other treatments. Similarly, groups given the evaluability treatment outperformed other treatments. Furthermore, groups in the Identifiability and Evaluability treatment showed competitiveness among participants, promoting upward social comparison, and in turn outperforming all other groups in terms of idea quality.

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

[2]  S. Ashford.  Feedback-Seeking in Individual Adaptation: A Resource Perspective , 1986 .

[3]  Leonard M. Jessup,et al.  The deindividuating effects of anonymity on automated group idea generation. , 1989 .

[4]  D. Myers.  Social psychology, 4th ed. , 1993 .

[5]  Robert B. Zajonc,et al.  The Effects of Feedback and Probability of Group Success on Individual and Group Performance , 1962 .

[6]  M. Turner.  GROUPS AT WORK: THEORY AND RESEARCH , 2002 .

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

[8]  Lyman W. Porter,et al.  Managerial attitudes and performance , 1968 .

[9]  S. Karau,et al.  Social loafing and social compensation: the effects of expectations of co-worker performance. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

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

[12]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  The effects of individual cognitive ability and idea stimulation on idea-generation performance , 2006 .

[13]  R. B. Payne,et al.  Effect of psychological feedback upon work decrement. , 1955, Journal of experimental psychology.

[14]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations , 1988 .

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

[16]  Bernard A. Nijstad,et al.  Persistence of Brainstorming Groups: How Do People Know When to Stop? , 1999 .

[17]  A. L. Beaman,et al.  Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. , 1976 .

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

[19]  M. Zuckerman,et al.  Determinants of information-seeking behavior , 1979 .

[20]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[21]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Creativity In Context: Update To The Social Psychology Of Creativity , 1996 .

[22]  E. Weldon,et al.  Felt dispensability in groups of coactors: The effects of shared responsibility and explicit anonymity on cognitive effort , 1988 .

[23]  S. Harkins,et al.  Social Loafing and Self-Evaluation With a Social Standard , 2004 .

[24]  D. Eden,et al.  Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of its parts? , 1985 .

[25]  Dent,et al.  Cognitive Load and the Equality Heuristic: A Two-Stage Model of Resource Overconsumption in Small Groups. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[26]  L. Festinger.  A Theory of Social Comparison Processes , 1954 .

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

[28]  N. Kerr.  Motivation losses in small groups: a social dilemma analysis , 1983 .

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

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

[31]  William J. Kettinger,et al.  Pragmatic Perspectives on the Measurement of Information Systems Service Quality , 1997, MIS Q..

[32]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. , 1994, The Journal of applied psychology.

[33]  Vincent R. Brown,et al.  Enhancing ideational creativity in groups: Lessons from research on brainstorming. , 2003 .

[34]  Vincent R. Brown,et al.  Modeling Cognitive Interactions During Group Brainstorming , 1998 .

[35]  Marie Christine Roy,et al.  Electronic Group Brainstorming , 1996 .

[36]  Monica J. Garfield,et al.  Modifying Paradigms: Individual Differences, Creativity Techniques and Exposure to Ideas in Group Idea Generation , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[37]  Monica J. Garfield,et al.  Research Report: The Effectiveness of Multiple Dialogues in Electronic Brainstorming , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[38]  R. Merton.  The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy , 1948 .

[39]  B. Nijstad,et al.  Group creativity : An introduction , 2003 .

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

[41]  J. Shepperd.  Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. , 1993 .

[42]  Esther E. Klein,et al.  The role of computer support tools and gender composition in innovative information system idea generation by small groups. , 2000 .

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

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

[45]  Kim S. Cameron,et al.  Developing management skills. , 1998, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[46]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  1001 Unanswered Research Questions in GSS , 1997, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[47]  L. L. Cummings,et al.  FEEDBACK AS AN INDIVIDUAL RESOURCE: PERSONAL STRATEGIES OF CREATING INFORMATION , 1983 .

[48]  L. Festinger,et al.  Some consequences of de-individuation in a group , 1952 .

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

[50]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[51]  S. Karau,et al.  Understanding individual motivation in groups: The collective effort model. , 2001 .

[52]  Vincent R. Brown,et al.  A Simple Dynamic Model of Social Factors in Group Brainstorming , 1996 .

[53]  L. Festinger,et al.  Some consequences of deindividuation in a group. , 1952, Journal of abnormal psychology.

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

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

[56]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Invoking Social Comparison to Improve Electronic Brainstorming: Beyond Anonymity , 1995, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[57]  S. Harkins,et al.  The Role of Evaluation in Eliminating Social Loafing , 1985 .

[58]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  Facilitation, GSS, and Training as Sources of Process Restrictiveness and Guidance for Structured Group Decision Making: An Empirical Assessment , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[59]  D. van Knippenberg,et al.  How a group goal may reduce social matching in group performance: shifts in standards for determining a fair contribution of effort. , 2002, The Journal of social psychology.

[60]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  How to kill creativity. , 1998, Harvard business review.

[61]  A. Dennis,et al.  When a Group Is Not a Group , 1993 .

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

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

[64]  Lyman W. Porter,et al.  Managerial Attitudes and Performance. , 1969 .

[65]  Patrick R. Laughlin,et al.  Individual versus tetradic performance on a complementary task as a function of initial ability level , 1972 .

[66]  P. Zimbardo.  The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. , 1969 .

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

[68]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[69]  Dennis J. Devine,et al.  Do Smarter Teams Do Better , 2001 .

[70]  Lawrence J. Sanna,et al.  Group Performance And Interaction , 1998 .

[71]  J. Valacich,et al.  Group Size and Anonymity Effects on Computer-Mediated Idea Generation , 1992 .

[72]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group decision making and communication technology , 1992 .

[73]  Alain Pinsonneault,et al.  Electronic Brainstorming: The Illusion of Productivity , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..

[74]  David A. Nadler,et al.  The effects of feedback on task group behavior: A review of the experimental research , 1979 .

[75]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  Group and individual performance on a complementary task as a function of initial ability level , 1966 .

[76]  V. Vroom.  Work and motivation , 1964 .

[77]  Leonard M. Jessup,et al.  The Effects of Anonymity on GDSS Group Process with an Idea-Generating Task , 1990, MIS Q..

[78]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making, 3: disinhibition, deindividuation, and group process in pen name and real name computer conferences , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

[79]  Joey F. George,et al.  Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Group Support Systems Research , 1997 .

[80]  Bruce J. Avolio,et al.  Effects of Source and Participant Anonymity and Difference in Initial Opinions in an EMS Context , 1998 .

[81]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Structuring computer-mediated communication systems to avoid information overload , 1985, CACM.

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

[83]  Richard T. Herschel,et al.  Exploring numerical proportions in a unique context: The group support systems meeting environment , 1994 .