The Journal of Information Systems (한국정보시스템학회지:정보시스템연구)

Korea Association of Information Systems (한국정보시스템학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Real-Time Individual Process Performance Feedback on Computer-based Group Idea Generation

  • Jung, J.H. (College of Economics and Business, Catholic University of Daegu)
  • Received : 2014.06.01
  • Accepted : 2014.06.24
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In computer-mediated idea generation where contributions can be anonymous, the ability to accurately monitor performances is limited, inducing social loafing. Prior research has suggested that social loafing is likely an important factor in reducing task performance. Researchers have theorized that loafing could be minimized if clear performance feedback is provided. Our prior study evidences a substantial performance gain by the provision of real time performance information about who is contributing and who is not. However, our prior study incorporated the quantity feedback only to create a larger pool of ideas based on the long-standing assumption (i.e., quantity breeds quality), not considering the quality feedback. As a result, taking advantage of anonymity in the form of pseudonymity, individuals in almost all groups exhibited a tendency of self-presentation by capitalizing on ideas of which quality was low and even frivolous (i.e., junk comments) toward the later stages of the session. Thus, we have learned that the quantity performance feedback alone does not have enough restrictiveness to consistently control the performance behavior throughout the session. Since a process chart allows participants to monitor process variation by comparing new performance data to past performance data, we incorporated real-time visual process performance feedback to reveal performance histories by connecting the sequence of idea quality scores in a time-series format. Using this environment, a laboratory experiment was conducted with five-member groups that examined the influence of both identifiability (i.e., anonymity versus pseudonymity) and process performance feedback (i.e., yes or no) in a $2{\times}2$ factorial design. The result showed that groups in the process performance feedback treatment outperformed groups in the no feedback treatment. Additionally, process performance feedback and identifiability interacted such that groups in the process performance feedback/pseudonymity treatment had the highest performance. The implications of these findings for future research, as well as the implications for the design of group idea generation procedures are discussed.

Keywords

References

  1. Austin, J. T. and Bobko, P. "Goal setting theory: Unexplored areas and future research needs," Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 58, 1985, pp. 289-308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1985.tb00202.x
  2. Ashford, S. J. and Cummings, L. L. "Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 32, 1983, pp. 370.398. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90156-3
  3. Cacioppo, J. T. and Petty, R. E. "The need for cognition," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 42, 1982, pp. 116-131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
  4. Connolly, T. Jessup, L. M. and Valacich, J. S. "Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone on Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups," Management Science, Vol. 36, 1990, pp. 689-703. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.6.689
  5. Davis, F. D. Bagozzi, R. P. and Warshaw, P. R. "User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models," Management Science, Vol. 35,1989, 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
  6. Dennis, A. R. Valacich, J. S. Connolly, T. and Wynne, B. E. "Process Structuring in Electronic Brainstorming," Information Systems Research, Vol. 7, 1996, pp. 268-277. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.7.2.268
  7. DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, R. B. "A foundation for the study of decision support systems," Management Science, Vol. 33, 1987, pp. 589-609. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.33.5.589
  8. Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. "Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, 1987, pp. 497-509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497
  9. Eisenberger, R. "Learned Industriousness," Psychological Review, Vol. 99, 1992, pp. 248-267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.248
  10. 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, 2001, pp. 322-333. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.3.322.9710
  11. Goncalves, P. C. T. and Tavares, J. M. R. S. "A GUI for a Software that Analyses a Composite Bolted Joint," International Journal on Human-Computer Interaction. Vol. 1, 2008, pp. 25-41.
  12. Hackman, J. R. and Morris, C. G. "Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration," Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 8, 1975, pp. 45-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60248-8
  13. Hiltz, S. R. and Turoff, M. "Structuring Computer-Mediated Communication Systems to Avoid Information Overload," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 28, 1985, pp. 59-85.
  14. Hull, C. L. Principles of Behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1943.
  15. 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, 2010, pp. 313-336.
  16. Jung, J. H. "The Effects of Frivolous Comments on the Performance of Computer-Mediated Group Idea Generation," Journal of Business Research, Vol. 27, 2012, pp. 195-217.
  17. Jung, J. H. "Effect of Total-Identification on the Performance of Computer-Mediated Group Idea Generation," Journal of Business Research, Vol. 28, 2013, pp. 27-50.
  18. 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, 2010, pp. 724-742. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1129
  19. Landry, C. and Bianchini, F. The Creative City, Demos, 1995.
  20. Luthans, F. Organizational Behavior. Mcgraw-Hill, 2002.
  21. Nelson, D. L. and Quick, J. C. Organizational Behavior: The Essentials. West Publishing, 1996.
  22. Locke, E. A. and Latham, G. P. A Theory of Goal Setting and Performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1990.
  23. McGrath, J. E. Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice Hall, 1984.
  24. McGregor, D. M. "An Uneasy Look at Performance Appraisal," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 35, 1957, pp. 89-94.
  25. Michener, H. A. and DeLamater, J. D. Social Psychology(4th ed.), Harcourt Brace College Publisher, 1999.
  26. Mullen, B. "Operationalizing the Effect of the Group on the Individual: A Self-Attention Perspective," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 19, 1983, pp. 295-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(83)90025-2
  27. Nijstad, B. A. Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. "Cognitive Stimulation and Interference in Idea-Generating Groups," in Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration, Paulus, P. B. and Nijstad, B. A. (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 110-136.
  28. Osborn, A. F. Applied imagination, Scribner, 1957.
  29. Parks, C. D. and Sanna, L. J. Group performance and interaction, Westview Press, 1999.
  30. Paulus, P. B. and Brown, V. R. "Enhancing Ideational Creativity in Groups: Lesson From Research on Brainstorming," in Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration, Paulus, P. B. and Nijstad, B. A. (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 110-136.
  31. 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, 1998, pp. 89-108.
  32. Porter, L. W. and Lawler, E. E. Managerial Attitudes and Performance. RD Irwin, Homewood, 1968.
  33. Roy, M. C. Gauvin, S. and Limayem, M. "Electronic Group Brainstorming: The Role of Feedback on Productivity," Small Group Research, Vol. 27, 1996, pp. 215-247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496496272002
  34. Shaw, M. E. Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior, McGraw-Hill, 1981.
  35. Simkin, D. and Hastie, R. "An Information-Processing Analysis of Graph Perception," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 82, 1987, pp. 454-465. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1987.10478448
  36. Steiner, I. D. Group process and productivity. Academic Press, San Diego, 1972.
  37. Tan, J. K. H. and Benbasat, I. "Processing of graphical information: a decomposition taxonomy to match data extraction tasks and graphical representation," Information Systems Research, Vol. 1, 1990, pp. 416-439.
  38. Valacich, J. S. Jung, J. H. and Looney, C. A. "The Effcets of Individual Cognitive Ability and Idea Stimulation on Idea-Generation Performance," Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 10, 2006, pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.10.1.1
  39. VanGundy, A. B. Idea Power: Techniques and Resources to Unleash the Creativity in Your Organization, AMACOM, 1992.

Cited by

  1. A Re-analysis of the Effects of Individual Personality and Idea Stimulation on Idea Generation Performance vol.24, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5859/KAIS.2015.24.3.133