CHI 97 Electronic Publications: Late-Breaking/Interactive Posters
The Influences of Communication Media and Decision-Making Technique on Team Decision Outcomes: A Critical Assessment of the Stepladder Approach
Lori L. Foster and Michael D. Coovert
Department of Psychology, and
Institute for Human Performance, Decision-Making, and Cybernetics
University of South Florida
4202 E. Fowler Avenue
Tampa, FL 33620-8200 USA
+1 813 974 0482
ABSTRACT
The stepladder technique is a method for improving face-to-face
(FTF) team problem solving. The purpose of this study was to determine whether
or not the stepladder technique benefits computer-mediated (CM) teams of
individuals. Hypotheses addressed the effects of communication media and
decision making technique on team decision quality, decision variability, time
to make a decision, and team member satisfaction. Eighty 4-person teams worked
on a decision making task using one of the following group structures: FTF
conventional, FTF stepladder, CM conventional, or CM stepladder. The results
revealed fundamental differences between FTF and CM teams of decision makers.
Keywords
Team decision making, computer-mediated decision making, computer-mediated communication
© 1997 Copyright on this material is held by the authors.
INTRODUCTION
Decision making plays an integral role in every work organization.
Today, many organizational decisions are moving from the individual level to
the group or team level. A number of techniques have been devised in order to
help groups and teams make more effective decisions and devise better problem
solutions [1, 4]. Many techniques are process interventions, which are
typically designed to help group members overcome losses in productivity that
are due to faulty group processes. The stepladder technique is one such
popular intervention [4]. The stepladder technique, which was designed for
face-to-face teams, requires each team member to separately enter the group and
present independent solutions to the problem at hand. Team discussion and
final decisions are purposely delayed until all members have individually
entered the group and presented their ideas and solutions.
Electronic mail has been successfully introduced
into many organizations; it allows team members to send information to one
another within seconds, with no regard for geographic location or time. As
e-mail and similar technology continues to impact the world of work, we can no
longer assume that teams of decision makers will collaborate in the once
traditional face-to-face manner.
No previous study has attempted to determine the interaction between
computer-mediated (CM) communication and a specific group process intervention.
Given what is known about the effects of CM communication on group processes
and outcomes [2, 3, 5, 6], it is reasonable to expect that the stepladder
technique may have differential effects in a face-to-face (FTF) versus a CM
setting.
HYPOTHESES
Based on the literature, our hypotheses focused on four areas relative
to team decision making. The first is related to overall decision
quality. We hypothesized that the stepladder technique will improve FTF
team decision making, but it will not affect CM decision making. Second,
because each intervention layered on team processes can introduce
variance, we expected CM teams to exhibit more variability, in terms of
decision quality, than their FTF counterparts. We also hypothesized that
stepladder teams will be more variable than conventional teams of decision
makers and that CM stepladder teams will display the most variability of all.
Third, we expected decision making time to follow the same pattern as solution
variability, such that CM teams will take more time than FTF teams,
stepladder teams will take more time than conventional teams, and CM stepladder
teams will take the most time to reach a team decision. Fourth, we
hypothesized that, overall, FTF teams will be more satisfied than CM
teams. This effect was expected to occur regardless of the decision making
technique (conventional versus stepladder) that was used.
DESIGN AND PROCEDURE
Two decision making techniques (conventional and stepladder) were
crossed with two levels of communication media (FTF and CM). Accordingly,
teams were randomly assigned to one of four conditions (FTF conventional, FTF
stepladder, CM conventional, or CM stepladder). Eighty 4-person teams
participated in the study. Teams worked on the "Desert Survival Situation" - a
task that required them to read a brief scenario and then rank-order twelve
items according to their importance for survival when stranded in the desert.
(The task is used in hundreds of organizations for training related to
managerial decision making). Participants first perform the task, and then
reanalyze the problem with their team members. Solution scores are determined
by the difference between participant rankings and predetermined expert
rankings. One index of solution quality consisted of the team's raw solution
score (TEAMSCORE). The other measure of solution quality was computed by
subtracting the TEAMSCORE from the average of the four members' individual
solution scores. This measure was termed IMPROVEMENT. After finishing the
task, all participants completed a questionnaire that was designed to assess
team member satisfaction.
RESULTS
Decision Quality
T-tests were computed to
compare conventional and stepladder TEAMSCOREs and IMPROVEMENT scores, within
the FTF and CM conditions respectively. FTF stepladder teams outperformed
conventional teams in terms of both their TEAMSCOREs [t (38) = 1.97,
p<.10; Mstepladder = 45.00; Mconventional =
49.70][1] and IMPROVEMENT scores [t (37)
= -1.76, p<.10; Mstepladder = 5.01;
Mconventional = 1.45]. In the CM condition there were no
differences between conventional and stepladder TEAMSCORES [t (38) =
.47, n.s.; Mstepladder = 49.20; Mconventional =
50.60]1, and there were no differences between conventional and
stepladder IMPROVEMENT scores [t (38) = .22, n.s.;
Mstepladder = 1.68; Mconventional = 2.15]. These findings
support the hypothesis that the stepladder technique is only effective in the
FTF condition.
Variability
The variability hypotheses also received some
support, with the CM stepladder teams displaying more variability in their
TEAMSCOREs than FTF conventional teams [F (19,19) = 2.40,
p<.05; CMstepladder = 111.33; FTFconventional =
46.43].
Time to decision
A 2 (decision making technique:
conventional, stepladder) X 2 (communication medium: FTF, CM) MANOVA and
Tukey's HSD post hoc tests were computed on time and questionnaire responses.
Overall, CM teams spent more time devising solutions than FTF teams [F
(1,75) = 393.16, p < .001; MCM = 80.58 minutes;
MFTF = 40.31 minutes] and stepladder teams took more time than
conventional teams [F (1,75) = 24.71, p<.001;
Mstepladder = 65.43 minutes; Mconventional = 55.85
minutes]. Although FTF stepladder teams took longer than FTF conventional
teams [F (1,75) = 5.71, p<.05; MFTFstepladder =
47.55 minutes; MFTFconventional = 32.68 minutes], CM stepladder and
CM conventional teams took about the same amount of time as one another
(MCMstepladder = 77.85 minutes; MCMconventional = 83.30
minutes).
Satisfaction
Consistent with our hypothesis, FTF team
members were more satisfied, overall, than CM team members [F (1,76) =
9.62, p<.05; MFTF = 5.93; MCM = 5.31].
Further, FTF team members were more likely to believe that other members
listened to and understood their ideas [F (1,76) = 30.19,
p<.001; MFTF = 5.58; MCM = 4.72]. Also, as
compared to CM team members, FTF team members felt that they had more
influence on their team's decision [F (1,76) = 9.77,
p<.05; MFTF = 5.03; MCM = 4.60]. Notably, FTF
and CM teams did not differ in terms of decision commitment [F (1,76) =
2.04, n.s.; MFTF = 5.61; MCM = 5.35].[2]
IMPLICATIONS
This study has important implications for implementing computer-mediated
team decision making systems in organizations. Our results indicate that there
is an interaction between communication media and team decision making
interventions such as the stepladder technique. Using the stepladder technique
in a CM situation does not increase team decision quality; however, it does
increase the variability of a CM solution. These findings suggest that
managers and scientists should be cautious about the unilateral generalization
of FTF team research findings to CM teams of individuals and that in certain
situations, decision makers should follow a more conventional approach when
arriving at decision consensus.
REFERENCES
1. Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H., and Gustafson, D.H. Group
techniques for program planning. Scott, Foresman, and Company, Glenview IL,
1975.
2. Kiesler, S., Siegel, F., and McGuire, T.W. Social psychological aspects of
computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39 (1984),
1123-1134.
3. McLeod, P.L. An assessment of the experimental literature on electronic
support of group work: Results of a meta-analysis. Human-Computer
Interaction, 7 (1992), 257-280.
4. Rogelberg, S.G., Barnes-Farrell, J.L., and Lowe, C.A. The stepladder
technique: An alternative group structure facilitating effective group
decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 (1992), 730-737.
5. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., and McGuire, T.W. Group processes
in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 37 (1986), 157-187.
6. Straus, S.G. Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and
information distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated
and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 27 (1996), 115-142.
[1] Lower TEAMSCOREs indicate better
performance.
[2] Questionnaire items were rated on a 1 to 7
scale.
CHI 97 Electronic Publications: Late-Breaking/Interactive Posters
