Process Performance Feedback and Quality Goal Setting as Sources of Process Restrictiveness and Behavior Guidance in Electronic Brainstorming

  • Received : 2017.04.19
  • Accepted : 2017.09.19
  • Published : 2017.12.31


Purpose Through the provision of real time performance information about who is contributing and who is not in Electronic Brainstorming, prior studies evidenced a significant performance gain. However, it has been observed that the quantity-based performance feedback alone does not have enough restrictiveness to guide the performance behavior throughout the idea generation session. We included the notion of goal setting into the process performance feedback mechanism in an effort to regulate performance behavior and to better understand why individuals in Electronic Brainstorming are not obtaining enough stimulation benefits in the group interaction process. Design/methodology/approach We had developed real-time visual process performance feedback and modified to include goal setting. This mechanism visually displays individuals' performances two-dimensionally (quality for each idea vertically and quantity of ideas horizontally along with their goals). As individuals' contributions accumulate, the mechanism reveals performance histories by connecting the sequence of ideas in a time-series format, telling stories of individuals' performances. Then, we compared the performance outcome from this study with the outcomes from two prior studies (i.e., Jung et al., 2010 and Jung, 2014). Findings The results showed that the inclusion of goal setting into the process performance feedback solved the issue in the previous study. That was the lower than expected magnitude of performance enhancement of process performance feedback when compared to that of quantity-based feedback. It appears that goals as a motivational technique provide standards for systematic self-evaluation, serving as a cue to regulate performance behavior by strengthening the linkage between effort and performance. Thus, goals seem to set up a self-fulfilling prophecy, preconditioning better performance. However, the outcome still showed that its performance magnitude is unsatisfactory because the outcome of this study turned out to be close to the outcome of just quantity-based performance feedback in Jung et al.'s (2010) study.


Idea Generation;Process Performance Feedback;Goal Setting


  1. Garfield, M. J., Taylor, N. J., Dennis, A, and Satzinger, J. W., "Research Report: Modifying Paradigms - Individual Differences, Creativity, Techniques, and Exposure to Ideas in Group Idea Generation," Information Systems Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2001, pp. 322-333.
  2. Gray, P., Mandviwalla, M., Olfman, L., and Satzinger, J., "The user interface in group support systems," in Group Support Systems: New Perspectives, Jessup, L. M. and Valacich, J. S. (eds.), Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993, pp. 192-213.
  3. Hackman, J. J., and Morris, C. G., "Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Academic Press, 1975, pp. 45-99.
  4. Joo, J., Shin, M. M., and Eom, M. T., "Business Ecosystems as a New Source of Competitiveness and a Role of Social Capital," The Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2014, pp. 93-117.
  5. Jung, J. H., "The Effects of Objective Self-Awareness and Ostracism on Reducing Junk Comments in Computer-Based Idea Generation," Journal of Business Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2010, pp. 313-336.
  6. Jung, J. H., "The Effects of Frivolous Comments on the Performance of Computer-Mediated Group Idea Generation," Journal of Business Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2012, pp. 195-217.
  7. Jung, J. H., "The Effect of Real-Time Individual Process Performance Feedback on Computer-based Group Idea Generation," The Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2014, pp. 91-107.
  8. Jung, J. H., "A Re-analysis of the Effects of Individual Personality and Idea Stimulation on Idea Generation Performance," The Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2015, pp. 133-154.
  9. Jung, J. H., Schneider, C., and Valacich, J., "Enhancing the Motivational Affordance of Information Systems: The Effects of Real-Time Performance Feedback and Goal Setting in Group Collaboration Environments," Management Science, Vol. 56, No. 4, 2010, pp. 724-742.
  10. Jung, S. L., Lee, J. W., and Jo, L. H., "ERP Success Factors in Perspective of IS Success Model and TAM: Focused on Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Industry," The Journal of Internet Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2013, pp. 85-103.
  11. Austin, J. T., and Bobko, P., "Goal setting theory: Unexplored areas and future research needs," Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 58, No. 4, 1985, pp. 289-308.
  12. Carver, C. S. "Self-Regulation of Action and Affect," in Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications, Baumeister, R. F., and Vohs, K. D. (eds.), The Guilford Press, 2004, pp. 13-39.
  13. Kim, N. R., Hong, S. G., Kim, J. K., and Park, S. H., "Study on the behavioral model of co-creation by customers," Journal of the Korea Industrial Information Systems Research, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2016, pp. 59-72.
  14. Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P., "Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey," American Psychologist, Vol. 57, No. 9, 2002, pp. 705-717.
  15. Locke, E. A., Saari, L. M., Shaw, K. N., and Latham, G. P. "Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 90, No. 1, 1981, pp. 125-152.
  16. Luthans, F., Organizational Behavior, Mcgraw-Hill, 2002.
  17. Osborn, A. F., Applied Imagination (Rev. ed.), Scribner, 1957.
  18. Paulus, P. B., and Brown, V. R., "Ideational creativity in groups: Lessons from research on brainstorming," in Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration, Paulus, P. B., and Nijstad, B. (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 110-136.
  19. Pinsonneault, A., Barki, H., Gallupe, R. B., and Hoppen, N., "The Illusion of Electronic Brainstorming Productivity: Theoretical and Empirical Issues," Information Systems Research, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1999, pp. 378-380.
  20. Pinsonneault, A., and Heppel, N., "Anonymity in Group Support Systems Research: A New Conceptualization, Measure, and Contingency Framework," Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1998, pp. 89-108.


Supported by : Daegu Catholic University