Page 300 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups 283

The audioconference includes telephone conference calls and is probably the
most routine teleconference. Audioconferencing requires speakerphone equipment
that has become readily available and inexpensive; it can be set up in any office.
While easy and available, you need to keep in mind the lack of social presence in this
kind of conferencing due to the lack of nonverbal cues. If managed well, though, you
49
can equalize participation.
The videoconference requires specialized equipment. It most resembles face-to-
face interaction, allowing members to see and hear each other. Applications such as
Skype and GoToMeeting are easily accessible and allow multiple users to connect at
the same time.
Computer conferences are becoming increasingly sophisticated and accessible,
with a number of companies developing their own specialized software for employ-
ees linked to a network that lets them work simultaneously on a variety of tasks.
Decisions made by computerized conference groups are just as good as ones made
by face-to-face groups, but computer groups are less likely to come to agreement.
50
The type of computerized technique seems to make a difference. The window
method, which permits each participant to see the responses of all other participants
at once (which is more like face-to-face communicating), produced higher decision
quality than a message system that required participants to complete a message
51
before they could interact. Some studies, in fact, have found that computer confer-
ences can provide advantages over face-to-face meetings. Electronic mail confer-
52
ences minimized inequalities due to status and expertise. Computer programs
permitting anonymity may help create greater and more equal participation. On
53
the other hand, computer- mediated group decision making leads to more delays,
more outspoken advocacy, and more extreme decisions (i.e., group polarization)
54
than face-to-face meetings. Although research on the effectiveness of computer
conferences may be mixed, it remains a very popular way for groups to conduct the
business of problem solving. The mixed findings should not surprise you, given we
have argued that computer- mediated communication is its own unique medium of
communication with its advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face com-
munication. In the first study of its kind, Jonassen and Kwon took a look at actual
problem-solving processes in computer conferences and face-to-face meetings. The
55
computer conference problem-solving groups using asynchronous messaging actu-
ally rated their process higher and were more satisfied with it than when they prob-
lem solved face-to-face. Yes computer conference messages were longer, contained
more ideas and perspectives, involved more agreements and disagreements, and
their total process took four to six days compared to one hour for the face-to-face
problem solving. However, the group members preferred computer conferencing
because they could reflect on each other’s messages, think about what to say next,
and change their own comments in private before they sent out their comments. In
an interesting way, although computer- mediated communication formats (like com-
puter conferencing) do restrain users, those very restraints can actually foster greater
critical reflection.
In general, teleconferences, like most computer tools, work best when you under-
stand how they are meant to work best. For instance, instant messaging allows quick

gal37018_ch10_259_290.indd 283 3/30/18 11:14 AM