M.E. Sharpe, Inc

The Impact of Group Support Systems on Group Conflict and Conflict Management
Author(s): Shaila M. Miranda and Robert P. Bostrom

Source: Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 10, No. 3, Organizational Impact of
Group Support Systems, Expert Systems, and Executive Information Systems (Winter,
1993/1994), pp. 63-95
Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40398068 .
Accessed: 12/10/2013 08:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Management Information Systems.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 197.0.93.246 on Sat, 12 Oct 2013 08:42:18 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The
Impact
of
Group Support Systems
on
Group
Conflict and Conflict
Management
SHAILA M. MIRANDA AND ROBERT P. BOSTROM
Shaila M. Miranda is Assistant Professor of Decision and Information
Systems
at
Florida Atlantic
University's College
of Business. She received her Ph.D. in
manage-
ment information
systems
from the
University
of
Georgia
in 1991. Her research
interests are in the areas of
group support systems
and
global
information
systems.
Robert P. Bostrom is Associate Professor of MIS at the
Department
of
Manage-
ment, University
of
Georgia.
He holds a B.A. and an M.B.A. from
Michigan
State
University,
an M.S. in
computer
science from SUNY at
Albany,
and a Ph.D. in MIS
from the
University
of Minnesota. Besides numerous
publications
in
leading
academic
and
practitioner journals,
he has extensive
consulting
and
training experience
in the
areas of MIS
management,
MIS
design, group support systems, organizational
devel-
opment,
and
high-performing
MIS
professionals.
His current research interests are
focused on
high-performing
individuals, user-designer relationships, group support
systems,
end-user
computing,
and effective
design
of
organizations
via
integrating
human/social
and
technological
dimensions.
Abstract: This article
proposes
a model for
examining
the
impacts
of
group support
systems (GS S)
on conflict and conflict
management,
based on literature on GSS
, group
conflict,
and structuration
theory.
It
reports
on a
study
of the
impacts
of GSS use on
group
conflict and conflict
management.
A total of 25
groups participated
in the
study.
After an initial
training
session, groups
met for four
decision-making
sessions
requir-
ing
a consensus decision from each
group. Subjects reported
their
perceptions
on
group
conflict,
conflict
management strategies
used,
and the
productivity
of
conflict, using
scales
developed
for this
study.
Overall, GSS-supported groups perceived
lower
amounts of issue-based and
interpersonal
conflict than did control
groups.
There were
no
significant
differences for
reported
use of conflict
and
perceived productivity
of conflict. The authors
explore possible
reasons for these
results and
propose
future research issues related to conflict and conflict
management
within a GSS environment.
Key words and phrases:
conflict,
conflict
management, group
decision
support
systems, group support systems.
Group conflict and the management of this conflict are
important aspects
of
group dynamics.
A lack of conflict can lead to
grouplhink, predisposing catastrophic
Acknowledgment:
A
preliminary
version of this article was
presented
at the 26th Hawaii
International Conference on
Systems
Sciences. The article has since been revised
substantially.
J rournal
oj 'Management Information Systems
I 'Winter 1993-94,
Vol.
10,
No.
3, pp.
63-95
Copyright
M.E.
Sharpe.Inc,
1994
64 SHAILA M. MIRANDA AND ROBERT P. BOSTROM
decisions
[16]. Inappropriate
or
poorly managed
conflict is also
dysfunctional [5, 40].
It inhibits effective
problem solving,
results in
participants'
dissatisfaction with the
process
and
outcomes,
and can lead to the
disintegration
of the
group [17].
This article examines the
impact
of
group support systems (GSS)
on
group
conflict
and conflict
management.
The
objective
of GSS is to
provide support
to
groups
involved in collaborative activities such as idea
generation, communication,
or
plan-
ning [31].
Much of
past
GSS research has examined the success of GSS
meetings
in
terms of
improved
decisions and user satisfaction
[30].
While this research
points
to
improved
outcomes for
groups using
GSS
technology,
the results have been
equivocal.
Rao and
Jarvenpaa [36] propose
that the
group
itself is an
important contingency
factor
in
determining
the success of GSS use.
Aspects
of
group dynamics
can be
important
mediators of
meeting
success.
Further,
in the case of
groups
that are
required
to interact
with each other over a
period
of
time,
the
development
of effective
interpersonal
behaviors are
equally important
outcomes.
Inappropriate group dynamics
can erode
groups' trust, morale,
and cohesiveness.
This article examines the role
played by
GSS in
influencing
the
development
and
management
of conflict. Based on
existing
literature on
GSS, group
conflict and
structuration
theory,
a model of GSS
impacts
on conflict and conflict
management
is
developed. Specific
research
hypotheses
are drawn from this model. The research
hypotheses
were
empirically
tested in a
study involving
25
groups,
each of which met
for five sessions. The results of
hypothesis testing
are
presented
and discussed.
Study Background
Prior research has indicated an increased amount of conflict
among groups
using group support systems [29].
This is not
necessarily good
or bad.
According
to
Rahim
[34],
conflict should not be
reduced, eliminated,
or
avoided,
but
properly
targeted
and
managed.
Deutsch
[8]
identified two dimensions of conflict: issue-based
and
interpersonal.
GSS research has not
distinguished
between the
types
of conflict
that occur in
groups.
Issue-based
conflict,
which focuses on task-related
issues,
is
very
desirable as it surfaces issues and
helps groups develop
better solutions
[20]. Interper-
sonal
conflict,
targeted
at
persons
within the
group,
detracts attention from the task
and can be detrimental to
group functioning [20].
This research addresses these
dimensions of
group
conflict in the context of GSS
usage.
People
use
varying styles
in
responding
to conflict. Sillars
[38]
identified three
common
patterns
of conflict resolution.
Integrative
behavior
attempts
to
identify
and
achieve outcomes that are
mutually satisfying
to both
parties.
Distributive behavior
emphasizes
the achievement of the outcomes of one
party
over those of the other. Such
a
strategy
relies on
power plays
to reach a solution. Avoidance is failure to confront
or
attempt
to resolve conflict. This demonstrates low concern for the outcomes of
either
party.
While no
single
conflict resolution
strategy
is
universally effective,
the
integrative
approach
is considered suitable for
strategic types
of
problems [35].
The
emphasis
of
the
integrative approach
is on
problem solving.
When the
objective
of a
group meeting
GSS AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 65
is to arrive at a
decision,
the
integrative approach
is the most
appropriate
in
responding
to issue-based conflict. It ensures that all
opposing points
of view are
clearly spelled
out and
addressed,
thereby reducing
the
possibility
of
catastrophic oversights
in
decision
making.
This research examines conflict resolution
styles
used
by
technol-
ogy-supported meeting groups
versus those used
by
traditional
groups.
If conflict is not
appropriately managed,
it can lead to
hostility
within the
group [5]
and
poor
motivation and
morale,
resulting
in
poorer
decisions
[40].
Other conse-
quences
of
poorly managed
conflict are
stress,
misallocation of
resources,
and dimin-
ished
performance [15].
Various researchers have examined the effect of GSS on conflict and conflict
management.
Poole, Holmes,
and DeSanctis
[32]
examined the
impact
of
technology
usage
on conflict levels in
groups,
conflict
management strategies used,
and the
resulting productivity
of conflict. The conflict
examined were
integrative, distributive,
and avoidance behaviors. Productive conflict was
operation-
alized as the occurrence of the
following
behaviors:
exploration
of
alternatives,
clarification of roles and
procedures,
use of
voting,
focus on
personal relations, equal
participation,
reliance on written
media,
and
expression
of affect. The results of the
study
indicated that not all
GSS-supported groups appropriated
the
technology
in a
productive
fashion,
and the manner in which
groups
used the
technology
mediated
positive impacts by
the
technology.
The authors
suggest
that the failure of some
groups
to
appropriate
the
technology productively may
be
attributed,
in
part,
to the unfamil-
iarity
of the
technology [32]. Groups' appropriation
of the
technology may improve
if
meeting participants
are trained and
provided
with an orientation on the features and
purpose
of GSS. Poole et al.
[32] suggest
that
training
in conflict
management
procedures
would assist
productive
conflict
management.
Sambamurthy
and Poole
[37] explored
the influence of GSS on the
"degree
of
confrontiveness" in the conflict
management process,
and the
impact
of the
degree
of
confrontiveness on the
quality
of
group
outcomes. Three levels of confrontiveness
were studied. As described
by
the
authors,
these three levels
equate
to
avoidance,
distributive,
and
integrative
behaviors. The researchers
provided
two levels of
sup-
port
-
communication
support,
and communication and consensus
support.
Consen-
sus
support
was
provided
via a criteria-based evaluation tool. The researchers found
more
integrative
behaviors
among groups
that were
provided
with both communica-
tion and consensus
support
than communication
support
alone. These researchers also
concluded that
groups appropriated
GSS structures in different
ways. Thus,
the use of
the same GSS structures
yielded
different
patterns
of confrontiveness. The authors
report
that
higher
levels of confrontiveness resulted in
higher postmeeting
consensus.
Adopting
a more
longitudinal perspective,
Chidambaram
[2]
examinedGSS
impacts
on
group development
over four sessions.
Longitudinal
studies,
such as
this, provide
a more holistic
picture
of
technology
effects
[3].
Chidambaram
[2]
found that after an
initial
lag, groups using
GSS
appeared
better able to
manage
conflict than their
counterparts
in the control condition.
This research
adopted
the
developmental perspective
of
group
management,
rather than the
snap-shot perspective adopted
in some of the earlier
research
[32, 37].
It builds on
prior
work
[2, 32, 37]
on the
impacts
of GSS on
group
conflict. The
methodology
used in this
study
is
essentially
the same as that used
by
Chidambaram
[2],
This contributes to the
development
of a cumulative
tradition,
sometimes felt to be
lacking
in IS research
[18].
This
study attempted
to assess
conflict-related variables
through self-report
measures. This
may
have had an
impact
on the results of the
study,
as discussed later.
However,
unlike the Chidambaram
[2]
study,
this research used multi-item scales
developed
for this
study.
This research also
attempted
to address the
groups' unfamiliarity
with
technology
and conflict
management techniques
noted in the Poole et al.
[32] study,
and the
lag
effect noticed in Chidambaram's
[2] study by training
each
group. During
the
training
session,
the trainer informed the
groups
about
productive meeting
behaviors. This
helped
establish the
necessary
structures to
promote productive
conflict
management.
Groups
in the GSS condition were also trained in the use of the
technology.
The
following
sections
develop
a research model that articulates the
expected
impacts
of GSS use on various
aspects
of conflict. These
expectations
are examined
further in the
light
of structuration
theory
and
specific
features of
group support
systems, leading
to the formulation of
hypotheses.
The results of the
empirical study
examining
the
impacts
of GSS on
group
conflict are then
presented
and discussed.
Research
Hypotheses
and Model
Much of the earlier research on GSS and conflict is consistent with the
resource utilization
perspective [43].
This
perspective
views
technology
as a
resource,
the use of which has a determinable
impact
on users'
performance
and outcomes.
However,
Weick
[42]
describes
postindustrial technology
as stochastic. He
proposes
that the events
occurring
in the context of such
technology require
that we
pay
attention
to structuration and
structuring.
Structuration
theory
is useful in
helping
us understand
how GSS can affect
group
outcomes of conflict and conflict
management.
The notion of structuration was
originally
advanced
by
Giddens
[12, 13].
He
employed
this term in
proposing
that
technologies
and institutions
configure
each
other. Structuration refers to the
production
and
reproduction
of a social
system
through
members' use of rules and resources
[42].
The
concept
of structuration is
furthered
by
Poole and DeSanctis
[31]
in their
adaptive
structuration
theory (AST).
AST states that the outcomes of a
meeting
are not
directly impacted by
the
technology,
but rather
by
how the
technology
is
appropriated
and used
[31].
Poole and DeSanctis
[3 1]
visualize GSS as a sociotechnical
system.
This
system
consists of the
technology,
the
meeting group,
and their
physical
and social environment. Structuration
theory
recognizes people
as
cognizant agents
whose actions result in intended and unintended
consequences [13].
Resources are viewed as structured
properties
of social
systems
that are used and
reproduced by knowledgeable agents
in the course of interaction
[13].
Structuration
theory complements
the resource utilization
perspective.
The combination of these
two
perspectives
leads us to
postulate
that users of
technology,
as
knowledgeable
agents,
will
attempt
to
appropriate
its useful resources. The use of these resources
may
not
always
have the
anticipated positive
outcomes,
as
unexpected
circumstances can
mitigate
these outcomes.
Further,
the
availability
of the
technology
does not neces-
sarily
lead to full use of the resources
provided by
the
technology. Unfamiliarity
with
the
technology may preclude proper
use of some resources. On the other
hand,
experience
with the
technology may
enable users to choose which resources
they
appropriate.
These behaviors can affect the achievement of successful
meeting
out-
comes.
GSS
provide
the
group
with resources that facilitate the creation of certain structures
in a
meeting system.
Structures are defined as rule-resource sets that are involved in
the articulation of social
systems [13].
Bostrom and Anson
[1]
identified five dimen-
sions of structures related to GSS use:
anonymity,
simultaneous
input, process
structuring,
extended information
processing,
and electronic
recording
and
display.
GSS users are not
required
to use GSS resources in a fashion that
generates
these
structural dimensions.
Groups may
elect to
operate
in a
non-anonymous
mode or
may
choose to elicit members'
opinions
in a round-robin fashion. The rules
applied
to GSS
resources then
may
not
permit
the
generation
of the
anticipated group
outcomes. If
groups
are made aware of the benefits of
resulting structures, they
are more
likely
to
use GSS resources in a fashion that
produces
desirable structures. The absence of GSS
does not
preclude
the
development
of
productive
outcomes. The use of
GSS, however,
does foster the
generation
of these outcomes. When
groups
use GSS resources in a
fashion that is consistent with the
spirit,
or
intention,
of the
technology, they
have
accomplished
a faithful
appropriation
of the
technology.
Use of GSS resources in a
manner not consistent with the
spirit
of the
technology
results in an ironic
appropria-
tion of the
technology [31].
The model
presented
in
figure
1 indicates the
expected impact
of GSS use on the
various
aspects
of
group
conflict. As
displayed
in the
model,
there are two
types
of
conflict: issue-based and
interpersonal
conflict.
Groups may
resolve this conflict
using
one of three
strategies: integrative
behaviors,
distributive
behaviors,
or avoidance of
the conflict. The manner in which the conflict is resolved affects the
productivity
of
current and future
group
interactions.
This model
proposes
that GSS use
produces
structures of
anonymity, simultaneity,
electronic
recording
and
display, process structuring,
and extended information
pro-
cessing.
These
structures,
in
turn, promote
the
development
of
positive
outcomes such
as issue-based conflict or
integrative
conflict
resolution,
and foster the
experience
of
productive
conflict. The model also
argues
that GSS structures will inhibit the
development
of
negative
conflict
dynamics
such as
interpersonal conflict,
and distrib-
utive or avoidance behaviors that detract from
productive
conflict
management.
GSS has the
potential
to
promote
the
development
of
productive group outcomes,
such as issue-based conflict and
integrative
behaviors.
However,
groups
have to be
aware of these
structures,
and must want to create them. Awareness of how GSS can
contribute to the
development
of these structures will also
help groups develop
them.
If this does not
happen,
GSS resources
may
not be
appropriated productively. Training
is therefore critical to the
development
of
productive group
outcomes. Predefined
meeting agendas
and
meeting
facilitation can further reinforce these
productive
CO
fi
LU *-
2 .S?
O
-
O

o
1
?
Z
o-
A
4

is
-t: S
| |
J *
^
1 1 i 1
i-
2
-

^1
1
I jz
2
Z> o

o
_j
CO
co
-
co
O
lu
2
g
CO cd

LU
LLJ .2
*
LU -5 CO
.^
^
I
*^
I
5
f
^
1
"1
8 u
I
cd
Kg"!
o
- o
I
Z
u
cd o
- o Z
A
S =
^
S
^

?
o. s
"^

x O
^

^
ce
^
I I o 1
o
-S-
5
i-
-
_
-
2
|
I
_

I
?
co
:
CL
s
^
-
;
-
^
co
CL
^

5

s
S

-
E
1
I
l
S
ti.
68
structures. In this
study training
was used to
develop
an awareness of the value of the
group
outcomes discussed
above,
and to
promote
the use of
technology
such that these
structures were
developed. Meeting agendas
were constructed to
support
these struc-
tures,
and facilitation was
provided
to sustain the
meeting agendas.
These
techniques
were
designed
to assist
productive appropriation
of the
technology.
Research
Hypotheses
The research model in
figure
1
highlights
our interest in the direct
impacts
of GSS on
the nature of
conflict,
on conflict
management strategies,
and on the
subsequent
productivity
of conflict. This model
provides
the basis for the
hypotheses
articulated
below.
Literature on
group
conflict has identified a number of conditions that
predispose
appropriate
management among groups [19, 20, 33].
These
conditions are summarized as intermediate conditions in Tables
1, 2,
and 3. As
discussed
earlier,
GSS
provides groups
with certain structures. If the
technology
is
faithfully appropriated,
these structures will
promote
the
development
of
positive
conflict
dynamics.
GSS structures that influence the
development
of these intermedi-
ate
conditions,
and
subsequently
conflict-related behaviors are also reviewed in Tables
1-3. The
following
sections discuss the manner in which these resources influence
the
generation
of
productive conflict,
and articulate the research
hypotheses.
Research
hypotheses
are stated in terms of
group profiles
or
group
behaviors across
multiple
meetings.
Hypotheses
Related to the Amount of
Group
Conflict
As discussed
earlier,
issue-based conflict is a desirable structure
among problem-
solving groups. Interpersonal
conflict,
on the other
hand,
detracts attention from
meeting proceedings.
Table 1 identifies GSS structures that foster issue-based conflict
and inhibit
interpersonal
conflict.
Increased
group participation
in the
meeting process
is
likely
to
generate
a discussion
about issues relevant to the task
[20].
GSS facilitate
simultaneity
and
anonymity
conducive to wider and more active
participation.
These resources enable less domi-
nant
participants
to contribute to the discussion and
prevent any
fear of
reprisals.
Group heterogeneity provides
a wider
range
of ideas and
experiences [33]
and can
generate
more
conflict,
leading
to a richer solution.
However,
the
management
of such
a
group
is
likely
to be more difficult. GSS structures can assist in the
management
of
a
heterogeneous group. Open
and accurate communication and a task focus will tend
to
generate
more issue-based conflict. These conditions are fostered
by
GS S structures.
HI .1 :
Groups using
GSS
technology
will have
higher
issue-based
conflict profiles
across the
meeting
sessions than
groups
HI. 2:
Groups using
GSS
technology
will have lower
interpersonal conflict
profiles
across the
meeting
sessions than
groups
in the manual condition.
Table 1 Conditions
Determining
the Amount of Conflict
GSS structures Intermediate conditions Conflict outcomes
Simultaneous
input;
Increased
participation
More issue-based conflict
anonymity
Process
structuring; Improved ability
to
manage
More issue-based conflict
electronic
recording
and
group heterogeneity
display;
extended
information
processing;
simultaneous
input
Anonymity;
Electronic
Open
and accurate More issue-based conflict
recording
and
display;
communication
extended information
processing
Process
structuring ;
Task focus More issue-based
conflict;
electronic
recording
and Less
interpersonal
conflict
display
Table 2 Conditions
Determining
Choice of Conflict
Strategies
Extended information
Understanding opposing
More use of
integrative
processing;
electronic frames of reference
strategy;
Less use of
recording
and
display;
avoidance
strategy
simultaneous
input
Anonymity; Cooperative
climate More use of
integrative
simultaneous
input strategy;
Less use of
distributive
strategy
Anonymity;
Electronic
Open
and accurate More use of
integrative
recording
and
display;
communication
strategy;
less use of avoid-
extended information ance
strategy
processing
Hypotheses
Related to Conflict
Management Strategies
Rahim's
contingency
model
[34]
of
strategy
selection
proposes
that an
integrative
strategy
is an
appropriate
structure when the task is
complex,
when there are no
power
differentials
among group members,
and when a
single right
answer does not exist.
Given the nature of the tasks
being
used and the
type
of
subjects,
it would
appear
that
the
integrative strategy
would
generally
be the most
appropriate
for this
study.
During
conflict
resolution,
open
and accurate communication tends to facilitate the
use of an
integrative
conflict
strategy,
when there are shared
goals,
as
participants
become clear about
opposing arguments
and reasons for
disagreement [35].
An
Table 3 Conditions
Leading
to Productive Conflict
Process
structuring
Use of structured
process
More
productive
conflict
understanding
of
opposing
frames of reference will enable
meeting participants
to
address
disagreement
and will foster the
discovery
of a
mutually satisfying
solution.
Open
communication will also tend to inhibit avoidance behaviors. A
cooperative
climate will
promote group ownership
of
problems
and solutions and the use of
integrative
rather than distributive behaviors. These conditions are fostered
by
GSS
structures
presented
in Table 2. It is
expected
that the mode of conflict resolution for
groups
in the GSS condition will be more
integrative.
H2.1:
Groups using
GSS
technology
will use more
integrative approaches
to
conflict management
than control
groups.
H2.2:
Groups using
GSS
technology
will use less distributive
approaches
to
conflict management
than control
groups.
H2.3:
Groups using
GSS
technology
will demonstrate less avoidance behavior
than control
groups.
Hypothesis
Related to Productive Conflict
Management
Figure
1 indicates a direct
positive impact
of GSS use on the
productivity
of
group
conflict. The mechanism of this
impact
is indicated in Table 3 . Johnson and
Tjos
void
[20]
recommend a combined
process
of differentiation and
integration whereby
the
generation
of a
large
number of alternatives is
emphasized early
on,
and discussion of
these alternatives is deferred until later. Walton
[4 1] suggests
that a structured
meeting
process
will contribute to
productive
conflict. As indicated in Table
3,
GSS
process
structuring directly
influences the
productivity
of conflict.
H3:
Groups using
GSS
technology
will
perceive conflict
to be more
productive
than will the control
groups.
Research
Design
and Methods
This research focuses on the group processes in GSS and traditional decision-
making
environments. There were two treatment conditions.
Groups
in the first
treatment condition
(GSS-support)
were
supported by
a
group support system.
The
system
used in this
study
was
GroupSystems,
version 3.1.
GroupSystems
tools used
in the
study
were issue
identification (to generate ideas),
issue consolidation
(to
organize ideas),
and electronic
voting. Groups
in the control condition
(manually
supported)
did not use this
technology. They
received manual
support by way
of
flip
charts,
and
paper
and
pencil. Groups
met for a total of five
sessions,
the first of which
was a
training
session. A
repeated-measures design
was used to examine
group
development
over time. The research
design
is summarized in
figure
2.
Control
GROUP-

SUPPORT
Computer-
Supported

Training Meeting
1
Meeting
2
Meeting
3
Meeting
4
TIME
Figure
2. Research
Design
The tasks for this
study
were a series of four case studies
developed by
Chidambaram
[2].
These
problems
related to an international
winery
called Palo Verde Vintners
Incorporated (PVVI).
The four tasks were a series of
problems facing
the
company,
each
requiring
the immediate attention of the board of directors. These tasks are
classified as
decision-making
tasks that
inherently
involve conflict
[23, 24].
Each of
these
problems
was
independent, requiring only
the facts
presented
with that
particular
case. The order of
presentation
of the four tasks was varied across
groups
and balanced
across treatments. This
helped
control for
possible
contamination
through
task effects
across sessions. A fifth case was used for the
training
session.
The
purpose
of the
training
session was twofold.
First,
it
attempted
to
present
structures conducive to effective conflict behaviors to all
groups.
Second,
GSS
groups
were
provided
with the
opportunity
to become comfortable with the
technology prior
to the
decision-making
sessions. The
training agenda
for both treatment conditions
was
essentially
the same.
Groups
in both treatment conditions received a
general
orientation and were
provided
with
background
information about the
company. They
were asked to assume the role of the board of directors of PVVI.
Participants
were
then asked to introduce
themselves, keeping
in mind that
they
were the board of PVVI.
Groups
were informed about
group problem-solving
and
decision-making techniques,
and conflict resolution
strategies. Groups
then received an overview of the
process
to
be used in
problem solving
at future
decision-making
sessions. The
technology
was
briefly
introduced to
groups
in the
GSS-support
condition.
Groups
in both treatment
conditions were then walked
through
the
training
task,
GSS
groups using
the technol-
ogy,
and control
groups using flip
charts,
paper
and
pencil.
Process facilitation was
provided
to
groups
in both treatments. While the mechanism
of facilitation differed across treatment conditions
(GSS-support
versus
control),
the
role of the facilitator remained the same. Facilitation was
scripted
to
prevent
task-fa-
cilitation and to control for
process-facilitation
across facilitators and across sessions.1
Facilitator
assignment
was randomized within a treatment condition and balanced
across the two treatment conditions
(GSS-support
and
control).
The
participants
for this
study
were drawn from an
undergraduate
senior-level
capstone
business
policy
class. It was therefore
expected
that all
participants
would
have the same
degree
of
experience
in
case-study methodology.
There were 13
groups
in the
GSS-support
condition and 12
groups
Subjects
were
randomly assigned
to
groups,
and
groups
to treatment conditions. All
groups
were
zero-history groups,
formed for the
purpose
of the
study. Group
size was six or seven
members
per group.
Subjects
were not informed about the
purpose
of the
experiment
until the end of the
final
session,
at which time
they
were debriefed. At this
time,
the facilitator and
experimenter responded
to
any questions,
and obtained additional information from
them via a
debriefing questionnaire.
The two
groups
that
produced
the best decisions
were
provided
a cash award of $10
per group
member.
During
the
decision-making meetings, subjects
were
required
to abide
by
a
prede-
termined
agenda presented
at the
top
of each case. The
groups began by reading
the
case
assigned
to them for that session. Each
meeting
was a
multistage process
consisting
of idea
generation, evaluation,
and choice.
Groups
brainstormed for
prob-
lem solutions
-
either
electronically
or
manually. Thereafter,
groups
discussed the
ideas
generated
and voted on them. A consensus decision was
required
from the
groups.
The discussion and
voting
were
repeated
until a consensus was reached. After
the consensus decision was
reached, groups
in the control condition had the decision
recorded
by
a
group
member on a decision
report
sheet.
Groups
in the
GSS-support
condition called this decision out to the facilitator who recorded it
electronically, using
a full-screen editor. This decision was visible on the
public
screen while
being
recorded. The facilitators ensured that the
agenda prescribed
for each
meeting
was
followed.
The
procedures
described above were
designed
to control several
independent
variables. These were
task, meeting agenda, training,
facilitation,
individual differ-
ences,
and
group history.
A
major
source of variance noted in earlier studies was
structuration differences. In this
study,
faithful
appropriation
of the
technology
across
groups
was
promoted
via
training, meeting agendas,
and facilitation.
Training,
meet-
ing agendas,
and facilitation were
scripted,
and held constant across treatment condi-
tions. Since
group
size was not
controlled,
the data were
analyzed
to ascertain whether
size effects existed.
Preliminary
data
analysis yielded
no main effect for
group size,
and no interaction effects with the
group-support
or
time, indicating
no
contaminating
effects from this variable.
At the end of each
session, participants responded
to a
self-report
instrument that
assessed their
perceptions
with
regard
to the amount of conflict
experienced by
the
group,
the conflict resolution
strategies
used
by
the
group,
and the
productivity
of the
group's
conflict. These three instruments were
developed
for this
study.
A domain-
sampling approach
was used in the
development
of these scales
[11].
Scale items were
derived from an extensive review of literature on conflict and conflict
management
and were
pretested
in a
pilot study. Hypothesized
scale factors on multidimensional
scales were
subsequently
confirmed
using
factor
analysis.
Factor
analysis
of the instrument
measuring
the amount of conflict
yielded
two
factors
corresponding
to issue-based conflict and
interpersonal
conflict. Factor anal-
ysis
of the instrument
assessing
conflict resolution
strategies
used
by
the
groups
yielded
three
factors, corresponding
to
integrative
conflict
management,
distributive
conflict
management,
and avoidance behavior. The number of scale
items,
related
scale reliabilities,
and
sample
items for each of the above constructs are
presented
in
Table 4.
Reliability
of most of the instruments met
Nunally's
[28]
criteria of 0.70 for
exploratory
research.
Participants responded
to all items on
seven-point
Likert scales.
After
correcting
for
negatively
scored
items,
all items
corresponding
to a construct
were summed to
yield
a
composite
score for that construct.2
Higher
scores indicate
higher
levels of the construct
being
measured.
Results
The results of hypothesis testing are presented in three parts. The first
part
deals with the
hypotheses concerning
the amount of issue-based and
interpersonal
conflict
experienced by
the
groups.
The next addresses the
types
of conflict resolution
strategies
used to
manage
conflict. The third deals with the
productivity
of such conflict.
Hypothesis-testing
of the interaction of
group support
and time are
reported
as
profile
differences. In addition to
hypothesis testing
for main effects and
profile
differences, graphs
of
profile
differences are
presented
for each construct. T-tests for
differences at each session were
computed
and the results are
reported
at the bottom
of the
graphs. Graphical presentation
of
profile
differences include the
training
session,
but
hypothesis testing
for main effects and
profile
differences included
only
the four
decision-making
sessions. The
hypotheses regarding
differences in
profiles
across the four
meeting
sessions for
GSS-support
and control
groups
were tested
using
a
repeated-measures
nested
analysis
of variance
technique.
Since
group composition
was consistent across the four
experimental sessions,
this
approach
is
appropriate
for
the
design
of this
study
[26].
The SAS GLM
procedure
was used to run the
analysis
since there were an
unequal
number of
groups
in the two treatment conditions. Since
multiple hypotheses
were tested in this
research,
an
experimentwise acceptance
level
of 0.2 was set. This is considered an
acceptable
risk level for
planned comparisons
[21, p. 148].
This
experimentwise
level
yielded
an
acceptance
level of 0.033 for each
individual test
[see 21, pp. 140-141].
Amount of Conflict
The
following
sections
present
the results of
hypothesis testing regarding
the amount
of issue-based and
interpersonal
conflict
experienced by groups.
Table 5
provides
a
summary
of
descriptive
statistics related to amount of conflict.
Issue-based Conflict
Contrary
to
hypothesis
1.1,
GSS-supported groups experienced significantly
lower
amounts of issue-based conflict than manual
groups (|iG
=
36.04;
'x,M
=
36.76;
F
=
4.09;
df
=
24,1 14;
p
=
0.0001).
As can be seen in
figure 3,
these effects held across all but
the second and third
decision-making
sessions,
when
GSS-supported groups experi-
Table 4
Summary
of Scales
Construct Number of
Sample
item
Reliability
items
(Cronbach's a)
Issue-based conflict
8
The conflict
experienced by
the 0.84
group
was
directly
related to the
task.
Interpersonal
conflict
6
Altercations between
group
mem- 0.81
bers were based on
personality
differences.
Integrative
conflict
4
Group
members examined the 0.75
management
basis for
disagreements
and
attempted
to ensure that all criteria
were met.
Distributive conflict
4
In conflict situations some of the 0.63
management parties
involved
yielded
to the
other even
though they
didn't
agree
with the outcome.
Avoidance
5
Group
members
attempted
to 0.72
avoid
confronting
each other even
when
they disagreed
with
someone's
opinion.
Productivity
of con-
8
Future
group
interactions are
likely
0.79
flict to
improve
because of the conflict
experienced by
the
group today.
Table 5
Descriptive
Statistics on
Group
Conflict
Variable

Control GSS
support
Means
(standard deviation, n)
Issue-based conflict 36.76 36.04
(6.15, 65) (6.70, 74)
Interpersonal
conflict 12.87 11.05
(4.66, 67) (3.85, 77)
enced
significantly
more conflict than the control
groups.
The test for an overall difference
in
profiles
also
yielded significant
results
(Wilk's
F
=
5.55;
df
=
72,336; p
=
0.0001),
indicating
different
development patterns
over time for the two sets of
groups.
Interpersonal
Conflict
Overall, GSS-supported groups reported
a
significantly
lower level of
interpersonal
conflict
('iG
=
11.05;
'iM
=
12.87;
F
=
3.46;
df
=
24,119; p
=
0.0001), supporting
39 r -' 39
35, r--

/'
-
35
33
-
;;-''
-
33
/'
(c =0.0030*)
(p-o.ooov) (p-o.ooor)

(p-o.ooor)

(p-o.ooor)
31
~
31
T 1 2 3*4
Session
-~-
Control;
-
-
GSS;
-
*^~
Training-Control,
~e~
Training-GSS
scale
range: 8(low conflict)
-
56(high conflict)
*
significant
Figure
3 . Amount of Issue-B ased Conflict
hypothesis
1 .2.
Figure
4
presents
the
profiles
for
interpersonal
conflict for
groups
in
the two treatment conditions. It indicates that
groups using
GSS
technology reported
less
interpersonal
conflict than
groups
in the manual treatment
condition,
in all but the
training
session. The test for an overall difference in
profiles
also
yielded significant
results
(Wilk's
F
=
3.00;
df
=
72,351;
p
=
0.0001), indicating
different
developmental
patterns
for the two sets of
groups.
Conflict Resolution
Strategies
The
following
sections
present
the results
regarding
the
impact
of GSS on the choice
of conflict resolution
strategies.
Table 6
provides
a
summary
of
descriptive
statistics
related to the three conflict resolution
strategies.
Integrative
Conflict Resolution
There was no
significant
difference across the two treatment conditions on the use of
an
integrative
conflict resolution
strategy
(|iG
=
21.72;
|lim
=
21.15;
F
=
1.48;
df
=
24,120;
p
=
0.0859). Thus, hypothesis
2. 1 was not
supported.
Nor was there a
significant profile
difference
(Wilk's
F
=
1.14;
df
=
72,354;
p
=
0.2230). However,
the
graph
of these
profiles, presented
in
figure 5,
indicates that
GSS-supported groups
tended to
report
use of
integrative
conflict resolution more
frequently
after the
training
session than
did
groups
in the manual treatment condition. These differences were
marginally
significant during
the last two
decision-making
sessions.
15

1 15
1 4
-
--S-
-| 4
13
-
^1;:::;:::^
./ _
1 3
1 2
- -
v

^
-
1 2
(CO. 0911) (p-00546) (P-0.0007-) (p-0.0001*)
(p-O.OOOV)
10
' ' ' '
10
T 1 2 3 4
Session
- ' -
Control;
-

-
GSS;
*
Training-Contro*;
o
Training-GSS
scale
range: 6(!ow conflict)
-
42(high conflict)
*
significant
Figure
4. Amount of
Interpersonal
Conflict
20-
/
-
2 0
/
1 9
-/'
-
1 9
o
(p
=
0.000r) (p-0.9337) (p-0.1436) (p-0.0519) (p-00113)
18
' ' ' ' '
18
T 1 2 3 4
Session
- " -
Control;
-

-
GSS;
*
Training-Control;
-
e-
Training-GSS
scale
range: 4(low
use of
ICR)
-
28(high
use o
ICR)
*
significant
Figure
5. Use of
Integrative
Conflict Resolution
Table 6
Descriptive
Statistics on Conflict Resolution
Strategies
Variable

Control GSS
support
Means
(standard deviations, n)
Integrative
conflict resolution 21.15 21 .72
(2.47, 68) (2.47, 77)
Distributive conflict resolution 1 4.29 1 3.73
(3.10, 66) (2.95, 78)
Avoidance behavior 1 2.56 1 2.43
(3.13, 66) (3.54, 76)
Distributive Conflict Resolution
There was a
slight
main effect for distributive conflict resolution across the two
treatment
conditions,
with
GSS-supported groups reporting
less
frequent
distributive
behaviors than control
groups ('iG
=
13.73;
[iM=
14.29;
F
=
1.70;
df=
24,119;
p
=
0.0329).
This indicates some
support
for
hypothesis
2.2. The test for an overall
difference in
profiles
was
significant (Wilk's
F
=
2.94;
df
=
72,351; p
=
0.0001).
A
graph
of these
profiles, presented
in
figure 6,
indicates lower amounts of distributive
behaviors for
than for control
groups during
the
first, second,
and fourth
decision-making
sessions.
Avoidance
GSS-supported
and control
groups
did not
report
a
significantly
different amount of
perceived
avoidance behavior in
response
to
group
conflict
QiG
=
12.43;
'iM
=
12.56;
F
=
1.43;
df
=
24,117;
p
=
0.1099). Thus,
there was no
support
for
hypothesis
2.2.
However,
the test for an overall difference in
profiles
was found to be
significant
(Wilk's
F
=
1.67;
df
=
72,345;/?
=
0.0014), indicating
different
developmental profiles
for
the two sets of
groups
on avoidance behavior. These
profiles
are
presented
in
figure
7.
Productivity
of Conflict
Overall,
there was no
significant
difference between
GSS-supported
and control
groups
on the
productivity
of conflict
(jlig
=
45.46;
'xM
=
44.84;
F
=
1.43;
df
=
24,1 14;
p
=
0.1089).Thus, hypothesis
3 was not
supported. However,
the interaction of this
effect with time was found to be
highly significant (Wilk's
F
-
2.09;
df
=
72,336;
p
=
0.0001), indicating
that
groups
in the two treatment conditions had different
profiles
for the
reported productivity
of
group
conflict.
Descriptive
statistics on this scale are
presented
in Table 7.
Figure
8
presents
the two
profiles
for
productive
conflict
management.
Conflict
experienced by GSS-supported groups appeared
more
productive during
the first three
decision-making
sessions.
However,
the statistical differences were
marginal.
15 i
71
15
/,-
//
q
//
14
>?-._ V'

...^^^rrr^...

'X;^^

..y
_
T4

y^--"
13

13
(p
=
0 3496) (p
=
0.0302) (p-0.0429) (p-O.OOOT) (p-0.0018*)
12
' ' ' ' '
12
T 1 2 3 4
Session
- -
Control;
-

-
GSS;
-
*-
Training-Control,
-
-
Training-GSS
scale
range: 4(low
use of
DCR)
-
28(high
use of
DCR)
*
significant
Figure
6. Use of Distributive Conflict Resolution
Strategy
17 i
-
-i 17
1 6
(
V

-
1 6
15
-
'

-
15
14
-
'
-
14
'
13

'

r-
-
-^^^

-^^-^'13
(p-C.OOOr) (p-0.1102) (p-0.0044*) (p-0.2559) (p-0.1944) (p-C.OOOr)
11
'
(p-0.1102)
'
(p-0.0044*)
'
(p-0.2559)
'
(p-0.1944)
ri1
T 1 2 3 4
Session
- -
Control;
-

-
GSS;
x
Training-Control;

Training-GSS
scale
range: 5(low
use of
ACR)
-
35(high
use of
ACR)
*
significant
Figure
7. Use of Avoidance Conflict
Management Strategy
Table 7
Descriptive
Statistics on
Productivity
of
Group
Conflict
Variable

Control GS S
-support
Means
(standard deviations, n)
Productivity
of conflict 44.84 45.46
(4.31, 63) (4.59, 76)
4 7 r 1
4 7
46
-
yzr

^<

-^^^^^
-
4 e
45
-
yZ

/

^'^__:_:::::::^

.^^^
4 4
-
..
"'
;/'
^.-44
/
4 3
-
/

-43
4 2
-
/

-42
4 1 /
-
4 1
e )
(p=C.OO18*) (p-0.1126) (p-0.0129) (p-0.0110) (p-0.2035)
40
i 1 1 1 1
40
T 1 2 3 4
Session
- --
Control;
-
'
-
GSS;
*
Training-Control,

Training-GSS
scale
range: 8(low productivity)
-
56(high productivity)
*
significant
Figure
8.
Productivity
of
Group
Conflict
Implication
of Results
The impacts of GSS on conflict and conflict management are summarized in
figure
9,
which
recaps
the
hypothesized direction,
in
parentheses,
of GSS
impacts
on
each conflict
dynamic,
indicates the observed direction of the
impact,
and the
signif-
icance of the
impact (displayed
as
p values).
For
example,
GSS use was found to
negatively impact
the
development
of issue-based
conflict,
counter to the
predicted
positive impact.
The
p
value indicates that this
impact
of GSS use on issue-based
conflict was
highly significant.
As shown in
figure 9,
with the
exception
of GSS
impacts
on issue-based conflict and avoidance
behaviors,
GSS
impacts
on conflict-re-
lated behaviors were in the
anticipated
direction.
However,
only
three of the six
impacts
were
statistically significant:
effects on issue-based
conflict, interpersonal
conflict,
and distributive conflict resolution. The next sections
explore
these results
and discuss their
implications.
co
m
ssi
*5
-
PE
O r
-
O

T3
O 5
1
S

=i
o

LL Z. Cl
Z
_ >
O

A t

~
I
a
(1 I co
I
I . .
J
-
S o
O
5
U|
>
|
1-2
(O OD
O
3
2
S
-
w

=rrr^
"
o
S

O
_
-
i o
o
CO rn
_
H w'O)m>>~
b
i^^r i
s
LU i
i
"I
*
?
S

!
8
1
s

2
* 1
r LJ o
!
LL
5
O
3

75
LL "O
^
I
I

C
Z
-- C1
- ^
^

8 1-8
-i
'

.
'
9 ?

o' o

D
e
w
a . -
co
w w
M

O
ti.
81
Amount of Conflict
As
anticipated,
the use of GSS
technology
resulted in
significantly
lower amounts of
interpersonal
conflict than
experienced by groups
in the manual condition.
Thus,
GSS
use
effectively
mediated the occurrence of
unproductive
conflict. This
finding implies
that GSS use did indeed
help
create the structures
required
for
groups
to maintain a
task focus.
Again,
this
explanation
was
supported by participants'
comments
during
debriefing. Participants reported
that GSS was
"very
useful in controversial situations"
because it
helped "prevent
conflict based on
personalities."
There is a noticeable
increase in the amounts of
interpersonal
conflict for
groups
in both conditions after
the
training
session
(figure 4).
This could be
explained by
the increased
familiarity
of
group
members over time.
Overall,
GSS-supported groups reported significantly
less issue-based conflict than
the control
groups.
This
appears
to contradict earlier research
[29] reporting greater
levels of
group
conflict
among GSS-supported groups
than traditional
groups.
How-
ever,
the levels of
reported
issue-based conflict for
GSS-supported groups,
as shown
in
figure 3,
were not lower than those of the control
groups
across all four sessions. It
appears
that GSS use failed to
support
issue-based conflict in the first and fourth
sessions.
During
the first
session,
it is
possible
that GSS
groups
had not
yet
successfully appropriated
the
technology.
This
may
have interfered with their
ability
to surface and
manage
conflict. The lower amount of issue-based conflict
among GSS-supported groups
in the final session could have been the result of a
competing, yet productive, meeting dynamic
-
deferring
to a
knowledgeable
group
member.
Alternatively, GSS-supported groups might
have used the technol-
ogy
to avoid conflict
during
the final
meeting.
These
competing explanations
are
explored
below.
According
to Hackman and Morris
[14],
assessing
the skills and
knowledge
of
members and
utilizing
individual abilities are
important
activities for
group
success.
Depending
on the
requirements
of the task and the nature of the
group's dynamics,
a
group may
decide to
operate
at the level of its most
competent member,
its
average
member,
or its least
competent
member. It is
likely
that
groups
were able to
identify
the relative
strengths
and weaknesses of each of their members
by
the final session.
Because
they
were more
task-focused,
members in
were
perhaps
more
likely
to defer to
knowledgeable
members
during
the
groups'
evaluation
phase
than were
groups
in the control condition. For
example,
one
high-performing
group
in the
GSS-support
condition deferred the decision on the takeover task to one
of the
group
members with
significant knowledge
about takeovers. On the other
hand,
with a relative
deemphasis
of task-related
goals,
it is
likely
that dominant members or
dominant factions in
groups
in the control condition won the
support
of these
groups.
Thus,
GSS-supported groups may
have not resulted in the
anticipated
outcome of
issue-based conflictbecause a
competing
outcome
-
such as
deferring
to
aknowledge-
able member
-
was
perceived
as more
productive.
It is also
possible
that
groups using
GSS
technology
circumvented the consensus
model in favor of a democratic model or a
majority
rule
[27] by ceasing
discussion
when a
majority agreed
on a decision. This
explanation
for lower amounts of
issue-based conflict is consistent with an earlier
report [32]
that the GSS
voting
tool
was often used to cut off discussions. This action would enable the
groups
to avoid a
great
deal of conflict. While this structure
may
have the
advantage
of shorter
meetings,
it is
potentially dangerous. Suppression
of conflict can
engender groupthink [6, 25],
or lead to a solution to which all
group
members are not committed. An examination
of the
profiles
for avoidance behavior
appears
to
support
this
explanation.
The lower
amounts of
reported
issue-based conflict in
meetings
one and four
appear
to coincide
with
heightened
avoidance behaviors
(figure 7).
This
may
be a
misappropriation
of
the GSS
resource, resulting
in
unproductive group
outcomes.
Authors
[35] report
that the conflict
management process
evolves
through
two
stages
-
distributi ve behaviors and
integrative
behaviors. GSS
tools,
such as electronic
brainstorming, provide support
for the first
stage.
Electronic
voting provides
a
snap-
shot of the
groups' opinions,
but
may
not
really support integrative
behavior. It
may
promote premature consensus-building attempts
when
conflicting viewpoints
have not
yet
been addressed. Such a decision does not reflect true
consensus,
but a
willingness
of
group
minorities to
go along
with the
group majority. Sambamurthy
and Poole
[37]
suggest
that the use of GSS tools that focus
groups'
attention on criteria
may
foster
real
consensus-building.
This
study
used a
ranking
tool
during
the evaluation
phase.
This tool does not focus
groups'
attention on criteria. This has obvious
implications
for
meeting managers during
tool selection.
Conflict Resolution
Strategies
Used
The difference between
GSS-supported
and control
groups
was not
statistically
significant
with
respect
to
integrative
behaviors.
However,
some
interesting patterns
were noted across the four sessions. While
groups using
GSS
technology
demonstrated
decreased amounts of
integrative
behaviors across the four
decision-making sessions,
they consistently
showed
greater
amounts of
integrative
behavior than did the control
groups during decision-making
sessions
(figure 5).
This
appears
to
provide
some
credence to the
expectation
that GSS use would foster
integrative
conflict
manage-
ment.
Similarly,
the statistical difference between the two sets of
groups
was
marginal
with
regard
to distributive conflict
management.
The
profile
difference was
highly signif-
icant. The
profiles
in
figure
6 indicate that
manifested lower
amounts of distributive behaviors than did the control
groups
in all but the third
decision-making
session.
Experimental
research on conflict resolution
[39]
has demonstrated that attribution
of
responsibility
for conflict to the other
person,
as
opposed
to one's
self,
results in
more
frequent
use of distributive than
integrative
conflict resolution
strategies.
The
high
level of
interpersonal
conflict
in the control condition
may
lead us to believe that these
groups
attributed
responsibility
for conflict to other
members,
as
opposed
to
assuming responsibility
for it themselves. This
may
have
predisposed
the use of more distributive conflict
management styles
in
groups
in this
treatment condition. This
appears
to indicate that GSS use can inhibit
unproductive
structures such as distributive conflict
management.
Similar
profiles
were noticed for avoidance behaviors. This
profile
difference was
statistically significant. Figure
8 indicates that the
only significant
difference across
the two sets of
groups
occurred in the second
decision-making session,
where
demonstrated fewer avoidance behaviors than the control
groups.
In the first and fourth
decision-making sessions, GSS-supported groups
reported slightly
more avoidance behaviors. As indicated
above,
this coincides with
the
profiles
on issue-based
conflict, indicating
that GSS use did not
always
result in
the
production
of structures considered desirable in this research.
Overall,
the
findings
of this research on conflict
management styles appears
consis-
tent with
prior reports [32,37], Though
indicative of some
gains
in
productive
conflict
management
with the use of
GSS,
there were variations in conflict
management styles
among
GSS users across
groups
and over time. These variations
obviously
coincided
with variations in the manner in which the
technology
was
appropriated.
Productivity
of Conflict
While the overall
perceptions
of conflict
productivity
did not
appear
to be
statistically
different across the two
treatments,
there was a
significant profile
difference. The
study
indicated different
developmental profiles
for
groups
in the two treatment
conditions with
regard
to the
productivity
of
group
conflict. As is evident in
figure 8,
after the initial
training session,
groups
in both conditions
began
with
very
similar
perceptions
about the
productivity
of the
groups'
conflict. Over the next two
sessions,
groups
not
using
GSS
technology appeared
to feel that the conflict was
markedly
less
productive.
This
pattern
was reversed
during
the last
session; however,
the difference
was not
significant.
These
findings support
Chidambaram's work
[2] indicating
that
groups using
GSS
technology surpassed
control
groups
after an initial
lag
in
development.
This
lag
was
noticed
during
the first
decision-making
session in Chidambaram's
study [2].
In this
study, training
was used as an intervention to
prevent
this
lag
from
occurring during
decision-making
sessions. The results indicate that
training
does
help
to
diminish,
but
does not
prevent,
the
lag
effect with
regard
to the
productivity
of conflict.
Again,
the
diminished
productivity
of conflict
among
GSS
groups during
the last
meeting,
while
not
significantly
different from the control
groups,
tends to
support
the belief that
technology appropriation
was not faithful
during
this
meeting.
Group
Transitions
Figures
3 to 8 demonstrate
interesting patterns
of
group development.
These
patterns
are
easily
understood in the
light
of structuration
theory.
Resources are
produced
and
reproduced
to
generate
structures. This is obvious from the
profiles
for the two sets of
groups. Initially,
there is a
lag
in all
profiles
for
until the
appropriation
of the
technology
is stabilized. These
lags
sometimes extend
past
the
training
session
(Figures 3, 7,
and
8).
This indicates that
though
the
training
session
did
help
the
groups appropriate
the
technology,
it did not
sufficiently help groups
overcome an initial
productivity lag following
the
adoption
of the
technology.
This
problem
was
captured by
a
participant
who remarked
during de-briefing
that
appro-
priation
of the
technology "only
came after
repeatedly using [the system]."
Figures
3 to 8 also indicate that structures
changed
across the four
meetings
as other
concerns took
precedence
over the structures that were reinforced
during
the
training
session. Some of these concerns are discussed
by
Gersick
[9, 10]
in her works on time
transitions. Gersick
postulates
that
groups undergo periodic
transitions. These transi-
tions
may
be motivated
by potential
exhaustion of
group resources,
groups'
lack of
satisfaction with status
quo,
and a desire for
change.
These
changes
could result in
concern about the achievement of
group goals
and a
re-analysis
of the
group's
work
strategy.
Transitions could be manifested in functional or
dysfunctional
behaviors.
Functional behaviors
ultimately help groups
achieve their
goals
and
objectives.
If the
group
notices that their modified behaviors do not take them closer to
achieving
their
goals, they may modify
their behaviors
again.
It is
apparent
that
groups
underwent some transitions. There
appears
to be a
fairly
strong
transition
among
control
groups during
the third
decision-making
session.
During debriefing,
some
participants
in these
groups reported
that
they
were bored. It
is
possible
that, being
bored or
disillusioned,
these
participants
felt it
necessary
to do
something dramatically
different as
they
entered the final session. This transition was
evidently
successful as it was
generally
manifested in more
productive group
out-
comes
(figures
3, 7,
and
8).
None of the
participants
in GSS
-support groups reported
boredom. Some did
mention that
they expected
more of the
technology
at the start of the
experiments
than
they
did at the end. These
groups experienced
some frustration with the
technology
due
to a
build-up
of
expectations
that
they
realized would not be met. This disenchantment
with the
technology
could have
spilled
over into their satisfaction with the
group process,
since the
strongest impact appears
to be on
experienced
conflict
productivity (figure 8).
Alternatively,
it could have resulted in diminished
appropriation
of the
technology.
There is a noticeable
consistency
across the issue-based
conflict,
avoidance behav-
iors,
and
productive
conflict
profiles (figures
3, 7,
and
8)
with
regard
to the fourth
session. It seems that the lower amount of issue-based conflict coincides with
greater
avoidance
behavior,
and less
productive
conflict. Since
do not
significantly
differ from the control
groups
on these
dynamics during
the fourth
session,
we cannot conclude that the
technology appropriation during
this
meeting
was ironic.
However,
there does
appear
to be cause for concern and for further
investigation
of this
phenomenon.
Contributions, Limitations,
and
Suggestions
for Future Research
This research explored GSS influences on conflict-related behaviors. A
model of GSS
impacts
on
group
conflict,
choice of conflict
management strategies,
and
productivity
of conflict was
developed
based on literature on GSS and
group
conflict and structuration
theory.
These
hypothesized relationships
were tested in a
laboratory study, using groups
who met for a
training
session and four decision-mak-
ing
sessions.
Laboratory
research is often criticized for its
artificiality
in the use of
zero-history-zero-future groups. Requiring groups
to meet five times
promoted
the
development
of a
group history,
and enabled a more realistic
study
of conflict
dynamics.
The results of the
study appeared
to indicate that GSS use fostered the
development
of some
productive group
outcomes.
Notably,
GSS use led to diminished
personan' ty-
based conflict and distributive behaviors. While no conclusive statements can be made
about the
experienced productivity
of the
groups'
conflict,
there did
appear
to be some
positive
influence of GSS structures on
productive
conflict
management during
the
second and third
decision-making
sessions.
The
findings
of this research with
regard
to the amount of issue-based conflict
appear
to contradict earlier research
[29]. Further,
as has been established
earlier,
there are
two
competing explanations
for the lower amounts of issue-based conflict
experienced
by electronically supported groups:
successful identification of
group experts
and
suppression
of
group
conflict.
Suppression
of
group
conflict is a
strong
determinant of
groupthink [6].
If GSS use
is tied to
suppressed
issue-based
conflict,
this is a
potential problem.
There is a need
for future research to confirm or disconf irm the
findings
of this research on the amount
of conflict
experienced by technology-supported groups. Perhaps
alternative research
paradigms
that are more resilient to
response
bias need to be used to assess amounts
of issue-based conflict. If
confirmed,
the reasons for this lower amount of issue-based
conflict should be
empirically explored and,
if
appropriate,
remedies
investigated.
Though
the results of this
study
indicate
statistically significant
effects for the
amount of conflict
constructs,
the actual differences across the two treatment
profiles
are rather
slight.
This
precludes any strong
conclusions about the
impact
of GSS on
any aspect
of
group
conflict.
A
major problem experienced
at the start of this research was the lack of instruments
available for
assessing aspects
of
group
conflict. To overcome this
problem,
a set of
instruments were
developed
for this
study. However,
further
development
of these
instruments is warranted. While
Nunally [28]
considers
reliability
levels of 0.70
acceptable
for
exploratory research,
he recommends that scales
attempt
to meet a level
of 0.80. Enhanced scale
reliability
would
greatly improve
the
accuracy
of
experi-
mental results.
The
validity
of these
self-report measures,
as
surrogate
measures of conflict-related
behaviors,
needs to be
explored.
Individuals' recollection of conflict-related
phenom-
ena
may
not
always
be accurate and
may
be colored
by
other
experiences.
For
example,
GSS-supported groups may
have
reported
less issue-based conflict than
actually
occurred. Since the electronic channel is a
sparser
medium
[7],
disagreements
occur-
ring through
or around this medium
may
not be as
emotionally loaded,
and
may
be
experienced
as a
great
deal milder than conflicts that occur face-to-face. In
fact,
groups
may
have failed to
perceive
these differences in
opinion
as
conflict,
since it did not
appear
to involve two
persons,
but rather an individual and an electronic medium. Use
of the electronic medium
may
have
separated
the conflict from the
people
involved.
Participants
in the GSS condition
may
have felt that
they
were
observing,
rather than
participating in,
conflict. This
explanation
is
supported by participants'
remarks
during
debriefing.
Several
participants reported
that
they
didn't feel that
they disagreed
with
other
group
members because
they
were
mostly addressing
issues that
appeared
on
the
public
screen via the electronic channel.
Further,
research on
memory
and recall has indicated that
people
tend to have a
better recall of situations that have not been
satisfactorily
resolved or
completed [4,
22].
In the context of this
research,
it is
possible
that when asked to
report
on conflict
that occurred within the
group
members had a better recollection of unresolved conflict
than
they
had of conflict situations that had been
satisfactorily
resolved. It is therefore
possible
that
self-report
measures of
group
conflict were a reflection of unresolved
conflict,
rather than conflict
per
se.
An alternative to the use of
self-report
instruments is
process coding technique
used
by
some researchers
[37]
.
However,
this is a
time-consuming
method and
requires
the
use of
sophisticated recording equipment.
If the instruments
developed
in this research
are validated
against group protocols,
the validated instruments would be an
important
contribution to future researchers.
The use of student
subjects
is a
pragmatic
choice for controlled
experimental
research.
However,
this choice
poses
a few
problems.
In this
study,
an obvious
problem
was student motivation.
Working
in an artificial
environment,
students do not
expe-
rience the same level of motivation as would real
groups.
Ethical concerns about
human
subjects usually prevent
the
integration
of student motivators
-
such as
grades
-
into the
experiments. Consequently,
the
objective
of most students was to
complete
their
assigned
tasks in as little time as
possible.
This
emphasis
on time
seriously impairs
the
ability
of a
group
to surface and resolve conflict. Observation of
real-world
groups might produce
clearer contrasts in conflict
dynamics
across tradi-
tional and
GSS-supported groups.
One of the
objectives
of this
study
was to examine the
impact
of GSS use over a
period
of time.
However,
this
yielded
a
possible
contamination from
group
transitions.
Transitions
experienced by
the two sets of
groups
tended to cloud the differences
across the
GSS-supported
and control
groups.
These transitions also made it difficult
to discern clear
developmental patterns.
Research that varies the
life-span
of
groups
may help parse
out,
or
provide
a better
understanding
of,
transition effects.
A
logical
extension of this
study may
be to
attempt
to create conflict within
study
groups by assigning group
members
conflicting
roles. This method is
likely
to
exaggerate
the overall amounts of conflict
-
computer-sup-
ported
or traditional
-
and
may
therefore
provide
a clearer view of differences across
environments. Further
study
of conflict and conflict
management
in a field
study
is
also warranted.
Similarly,
the use of
judgmental
tasks that
inherently provoke
more conflict
may
produce
clearer results in the future. The
objective
of this research was to build on
existing
work
[2].
This
required
the use of
prior
tasks.
However,
the tasks
developed
by
Chidambaram,
and used in this
research,
are
categorized
as
decision-making
tasks.
While
they
do evoke some amount of
conflict,
McGrath
categorizes
them as moder-
ately conflict-provoking. Judgmental tasks,
on the other
hand,
are
highly
conflictual
in nature.
As with
prior
research
[32, 37],
the results of this
study
indicate the
importance
of
groups' appropriation
of
technology
and the
subsequent impacts
of GSS on
group
processes
and outcomes. This
study attempted
to
promote
faithful
appropriation
of the
technology through training, meeting agendas,
and facilitator
scripts.
It is evident that
these efforts were not
totally
successful. Future research needs to
explore
stricter
design controls, perhaps
the use of
experimental
confederates rather than full
groups.
An alternative
approach
is to track
groups'
structuration
processes using process
coding techniques
as conducted
by Sambamurthy
and Poole
[37].
This
approach
would
provide
us with
insights
on the kind of
appropriation
that leads to more
productive group
outcomes.
Sambamurthy
and Poole
[37] suggest
that GSS structures that focus attention on
criteria
may
surface more conflict. This needs to be
explored
further. If it is the
case,
tools that
explicitly
address decision criteria should be used more
frequently
to
support
meetings
where
multiple viewpoints
are
expected.
Future research efforts should also
be directed at
producing structures,
through
mechanisms such as
training,
that
promote
productive appropriation
of GSS
technology.
Conflict,
and the resolution of
conflict,
is an
integral part
of
group interactions,
and
has
important
effects on task- and other
group-related
outcomes. This
study provided
insights
into the
impact
of GSS use on the
development
of
group
management. However,
this
represents
a
very preliminary attempt
at
determining
the
influence of GSS use on these behaviors and related outcomes. Given its critical
nature,
this
topic
merits additional
investigation
that addresses the
problems experi-
enced
by
this research. The research model
developed
in this article
provides
a clear
separation
of the different conflict-related constructs and
may
be used in future
research.
NOTES
1.
Training
materials and facilitator
scripts may
be obtained from the first author.
2.
Complete
scales and the detailed
analysis
of these scales are available in the
appendix.
REFERENCES
1.
Bostrom, R.P.,
and
Anson,
R.G. The face-to-face electronic
meeting:
a tutorial. In R.P.
Bostrom,
R.T.
Watson,
and S.T.
Kinney (eds.), Computer Augmented
Teamwork. New York:
Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1992,
16-33.
2.
Chidambaram,
L. An
Empirical Investigation of
the
Impact of Computer Support
on
Group Development
and Decision
Making Performance. Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation,
Indiana
University,
1989.
3.
Chidambaram, L.; Bostrom, R.P.;
and
Wynne,
B.E. A
longitudinal study
of the
impact
of
group
decision
support systems
on
group development.
Journal
of Management Information
Systems, 7,
3
(Winter 1991),
7-25.
4.
Collins, J.E.,
and
Clark,
L.F.
Responsibility
and rumination
-
the trouble with under-
standing
the dissolution of a
relationship.
Social
Cognition, 7,
2
(Summer 1989),
154-173.
5.
Coser,
L. The Functions
of
Social
Conflict.
New York: Free
Press,
1956.
6.
Courtwright,
J.A. A
laboratory investigation
of
groupthink.
Communication Mono-
graphs,
45
(1978),
229-246.
7.
Daft, R.L.;
Lengel,
R.H.; andTrevino,
L.K.
Message equivocality,
media
selection,
and
manager performance: implications
for information
systems.
MIS
Quarterly, 11,
3
(September
1987),
355-366.
8.
Deutsch,
M. Conflicts:
productive
and destructive. In
Jandt,
F.E.
(ed.), Conflict
Resolu-
tion
through
Communication. New York:
Harper
and
Row,
1969.
9. Gersick,
C. J. Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of
group develop-
ment.
Academy of Management
Journal, 31,
1
(March 1988),
9-41.
10.
Gersick,
C.J.
Marking
time:
predictable
transitions in task
groups. Academy of Manage-
ment
Journal 23,
2
(June 1989),
274-309.
11.
Ghiselli, E.E.;
Campbell,
J.P.;
and
Zedeck,
S. Measurement
Theory for
the Behavioral
Sciences. San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman,
1981.
12.
Giddens,
A. Central Problems in Social
Theory:
Action,
Structure and Contradiction in
Social
Analysis.
London:
Macmillan,
1979.
13.
Giddens,
A. The Constitution
of Society:
Outline
of
the 1
heory of
Structuration.
Berkeley:
University
of California Press,
1984.
14.
Hackman, J.R.,
and
Morris,
C.G.
Group
tasks,
group
interaction
process,
and
group
performance
effectiveness. Small
Groups
and Social
Interaction,
1
(1983),
331-345.
1 5 .
Jandt, F.E.,
and
Gillette,
P. Win-Win
Negotiating
-
Turning Conflict
into
Agreement.
New
York: John
Wiley,
1985.
16.
Janis,
I.L.
Groupthink: Psychological
Studies
of Policy
Decisions and
Fiascoes,
2d ed.
Boston:
Houghton
Mifflin,
1982.
17.
Janis, I.L., andMann,
L. Decision
Making:
A
Psychological Analysis of Conflict,
Choice,
and Commitment. New York: The Free
Press,
1978.
18.
Jarvenpaa,
S.L.; Dickson, G.W.;
and
DeSanctis,
G.
Methodological
issues in
experimen-
tal IS research:
experiences
and recommendations. MIS
Quarterly,
9,
2
(June 1985),
141-156.
19. Johnson, D.W.,
and Johnson,
R.
Cooperative, competitive,
and individualistic
learning.
Journal
of
Research and
Development
in
Education, 12,
1
(Fall 1978),
3-15.
20.
Johnson, D.W.,
and
Tjosvold,
D. Constructive
controversy:
the
key
to effective decision-
making.
In D.
Tjosvold
and D.W. Johnson
(eds.),
Productive
Conflict Management: Perspec-
tives
for Organizations.
New York:
Irvington
Publishers,
1983.
21.
Keppel,
G.
Design
and
Analysis:
A Researcher s Handbook.
Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice-Hall,
1982.
22.
Martin,
L.L. Set/reset
-
the use and disuse of
concepts
in
impression
formation. Journal
of Personality
and Social
Psychology,
51
(1986),
493-504.
23. McGrath,
J.E.
Group:
Interaction and
Performance. Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-
Hall,
1984.
24. Mennecke, B.E.,
and Wheeler,
B.C. Task matters:
modelling group
task
processes
in
experimental
CSCW research. 26th Annual Hawaiian International
Conference
on
Systems
Sciences. Hawaii
(1993),
vol.
4,
71-81.
25. Miranda,
S.M. Avoidance of
groupthink: meeting management using group support
systems. Working Paper,
DIS -WP92-01. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic
University,
1992.
26. Miranda, S.M.; Watson, R.T.;
and
VanOver,
D. Statistical
analysis
or
group
data.
Working Paper, Department
of
Management.
Athens:
University
of
Georgia,
1990.
27. Mosvick, R.K.,
and Nelson,
R.B. We've Got to Start
Meeting
Like This! A Guide to
Successful
Business
Meeting Management.
Glenview,
IL:
Scott, Foresman,
1987.
28.
Nunally,
J.C.
Psychometric Theory.
New York: McGraw-Hill,
1978.
29. Nunamaker, J.F.; Applegate,
L.M.;
and
Konsynski,
B.R.
Facilitating group creativity
with GDSS. Journal
of Management Information Systems,
3,
4
(Summer 1987),
5-19.
30. Pinsonneault, A.,
and
Kraemer,
K.L. The
impact
of
technological support
on
groups:
an
assessment of the
empirical
research. Decision
Support Systems,
5
(June 1989),
197-216.
3 1 .
Poole, M.S.,
and DeSanctis,
G. Use of
group
decision
support systems
as an
appropriation
process.
IEEE
(1989),
149-157.
32.
Poole, M.S.; Holmes, M.;
and DeSanctis,
G. Conflict
management
in a
computer-sup-
ported meeting
environment.
Management
Science, 37,
8
(August
1991),
926-953.
33.
Rahim,
A. The
management
of
intraorganizational
conflict: a
laboratory study
with
organizational design. Management
International
Review, 19,
1
(1979),
97-106.
34.
Rahim,
A. A
strategy
of
managing
conflict in
complex organizations.
Human
Relations,
38,
1
(1985),
81-89.
35.
Rahim,
A.
Managing Conflict
in
Organizations.
New York:
Praeger,
1986.
36.
Rao, V.S.,
and
Jarvenpaa,
S.L.
Computer support
of
groups: theory
-based models for
GDSS research.
Management Science, 37,
10
(October 1991),
1347-1362.
37.
Sambamurthy,
V.,
and
Poole,
M.S. The effects of variations in
capabilities
of GDSS
designs
on
management
of
cognitive
conflict in
groups. Information Systems
Research, 3,
3
(September 1992),
224-251.
38.
Sillars,
A.L. Attributions and communication in roommate conflict. Communication
Monographs. 47,
3
(August 1980),
180-200.
39.
Sillars,
A.L. The
sequential
and distributional structure of conflict interactions as a
function of attributions
concerning
the locus of
responsibility
and
stability
of conflicts. Com-
munication
Yearbook,
4
(1983),
217-235.
40.
Tjosvold,
D.,
and
Johnson,
D.W. Productive
Conflict Management: Perspectives for
Organizations.
New York:
Irvington Publishers,
1983.
4 1 .
Walton,
R.E.
Managing Conflict- Interpersonal Dialogue
and
Third-Party
Roles. Read-
ing,
MA:
Addison-Wesley,
1987.
42.
Weick,
K.E.
Technology
as
equivoque: sensemaking
in new
technologies.
In P.S.
Goodman,
L.S.
Sproull
and associates
(eds.), Technology
and
Organizations.
San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1990,
1-44.
43.
Zigurs, I.; DeSanctis, G.;
and
Billingsley,
J.
Adoption patterns
and attitudinal
develop-
ment in
computer- supported meetings:
an
exploratory study.
Journal
of Management Informa-
tionSystems, 7,
4
(Spring 1991),
51-70.
APPENDIX: Instruments and Scale
Analysis
Amount of Conflict Scale
Amt_Confl:
The
group
tended to
disagree
over alternatives.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Amt_Conf2:
The conflict
experienced by
the
group
was
directly
related to the task.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Amt_Conf3:
Group
members debated at
length
over some of the alternatives.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Amt_Conf4:
Group
members
disagreed
over alternative solutions
proposed.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Amt_Conf5:
During
the
group meeting,
members advocated different
points
of
view.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Amt_Conf6:
The differences
experienced by
the
group
were task-related.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 345 67
Amt_Conf7:
Members confronted each other on
personal
matters.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Amt_Conf8: Group
members made
negative
remarks about other
persons
in the
group.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Amt__Conf9:
The conflict
expressed by group
members was
targeted
at
particular per
son(s)
in the
group.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Amt_Conf
10: Altercations between
group
members were based on
personality
differ-
ences.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 345 67
Amt_Conf
1 1:
During
conflict,
some
group
members tended to ridicule others.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 345 67
Amt_Conf
12:
Group
conflict tended to be
interpersonal
in nature.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Amt_Conf
13: The
group experienced
conflict
during
the
meeting.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Amt_Confl4:
To what extent did the
group
members
acknowledge
and confront
conflict
openly?
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 345 67
Conflict Resolution
Strategies
Scale
Conf_Resl: Group
members
attempted
to avoid
confronting
each
other,
even when
they disagreed
with someone's
opinion.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Factor
Analysis:
Amount of Conflict
Items Factorl
(Issue-Based)
Factor2
(Interpersonal)
Amt_Conf1
0.68193 0.10316
Amt_Conf2
0.70035 -0.24453
Amt_Conf3
0.63929 0.25343
Amt_Conf4
0.61153 0.28648
Amt_Conf5
0.62192 0.04091
Amt_Conf6
0.70804 -0.22937
Amt_Conf7
-0.08800 0.62831
Amt_Conf8
0.19975 0.76546
Amt_Conf9
0.10246 0.74635
Amt_Conf10
0.10766 0.76152
Amt_Conf
1 1 0.041 1 8 0.72350
Amt_Conf12
-0.02779 0.4691
Amt_Conf13
0.67417 0.33196
Amt_Conf14
0.53843 -0.03052
Cronbach's a 0.8391 0.8061
Conf_Res2: Group
members did not
acknowledge
and confront conflict
openly.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 345 67
Conf_Res3: Group
members
ignored
others who
expressed
a different
point
of view.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Conf_Res4: During
the
group meeting,
members avoided
taking
controversial
posi-
tions.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Conf_Res5: During disagreements, group
members examined
most,
but not
all,
of the
criteria of the members involved.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Conf_Res6:
Conflict was resolved so as to
satisfy most,
but not
all,
of the
objectives
of the
conflicting parties.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
ConfRes7:
The solutions to
group
conflict situations
attempted
to
satisfy
some of the
criteria of each of the
parties
concerned.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Conf_Res8:
When
resolving
conflict,
members
attempted
to
integrate
the
objectives
of all
conflicting parties
into the solution.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Conf_Res9: Group
members examined the basis for
disagreements,
and
attempted
to
ensure that all criteria were met.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
ConfJReslO:
Conflict was resolved to the satisfaction of all members involved.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
ConfJResll: During conflict,
members
attempted
to
get
all issues and concerns out
in the
open.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Conf_Resl2:
In conflict
situations,
some of the
parties
involved
yielded
to the
other,
even
though they
didn't
agree
with the outcome.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Conf_Resl3:
Some
group
members dominated others
during disagreements.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Conf_Resl4: During arguments,
some members
attempted
to win their
positions.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Conf_Resl5:
The solutions of some conflict situations satisfied criteria of
only
some
of the
parties
involved.
Never
Very Rarely Rarely
Sometimes Often
Very
Often
Always
12 3 4 5 6 7
Productivity
of Conflict Scale
Prod_Conf
1: The conflict
experienced improved
the final decision of the
group.
To an ex- To a
very
lit- To a little To some To a
large
To a
very
To an ex-
tremely
little tie extent extent extent extent
large
extent
tremely large
extent
extent
12 3 4 5 6 7
Prod_Conf2:
The
group
handled conflict
experienced productively.
To an ex- To a
very
large
To a
very
To an ex-
tremely
large
extent
tremely large
extent
extent
12 3 4 5 6 7
Factor
Analysis:
Conflict Resolution Scale
Items Factorl Factor2 Factor3
(Avoidance) (Distributive) (Integrative)
Conf_Res1
0.67519 0.06015 0.10998
Conf_Res2
0.70682 0.02381 0.01062
Conf_Res3
0.54106 0.37709 -0.08327
Conf_Res4
0.55795 0.01152 0.15626
Conf_Res5
0.19440 0.02378 0.65790
Conf_Res6
0.24989 0.09551 0.61300
Conf_Res7
-0.24780 -0.22166 0.62031
Conf_Res8
-0.51903 0.02655 0.40766
Conf_Res9
-0.54830 -0.12122 0.46019
Conf_Res10
-0.35131 -0.52139 0.36548
Conf_Res11
-0.64812 -0.01873 0.18598
Conf_Res12
0.27385 0.67569 0.08669
Conf_Res13
0.02637 0.65943 0.01775
Conf_Res14
-0.20973 0.68001 0.11781
Conf_Res15
0.04168 0.66184 -0.02656
Cronbach'scc 0.7235 0.6320 0.6902
Prod_Conf3:
The conflict
experienced
had a
negative
effect on the final solution.
To an ex- To a
very
large
To a
very
To an ex-
tremely
large
extent
tremely large
extent extent
12 3 4 5 6 7
Prod_Conf4:
The conflict
experienced
inhibited
group
communication.
To an ex- To a
very
large
To a
very
To an ex-
tremely
large
extent
tremely large
extent extent
12 3 4 5 6 7
Prod_Conf5:
Future
group
interactions are
likely
to
improve
because of the conflict
experienced by
the
group today.
To an ex- To a
very
large
To a
very
To an ex-
tremely
large
extent
tremely large
extent extent
12 3 4 5 6 7
Prod_Conf6:
Future
group
interactions are
likely
to deteriorate because of the conflict
experienced by
the
group today.
To an ex- To a
very
large
To a
very
To an ex-
tremely
large
extent
tremely large
extent extent
12 3 4 5 6 7
Prod_Conf7:
The conflict
experienced
caused a
great
deal of confusion.
To an ex- To a
very
large
To a
very
To an ex-
tremely
large
extent
tremely large
extent extent
12 3 4 5 6 7
Prod_Conf8:
The conflict
experienced improved group
communication.
To an ex- To a
very
large
To a
very
To an ex-
tremely
large
extent
tremely large
extent extent
12 3 4 5 6 7
Cronbach's a
=
0.79

M.E. Sharpe, Inc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

M.E. Sharpe, Inc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of Group Support Systems on Group Conflict and Conflict Management

Author(s): Shaila M. Miranda and Robert P. Bostrom

You might also like