The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Conflict Management in a Computer-Supported Meeting Environment
Abstract
Computer systems to support decision-making, planning, and negotiation in groups have the potential for wide-ranging application. However, knowledge of their effects is sparse, particularly for difficult situations such as group conflict. This study reports a laboratory experiment to examine how a general purpose group decision support system (GDSS) influenced conflict management in small groups making a budget allocation decision. The study tests a model that posits that GDSS impacts on conflict outcomes are mediated by group interaction processes, particularly how the GDSS enters into group interaction. The model posits seven potential impacts—some positive and some negative—that GDSS technology might have on conflict interaction processes. The impacts do not automatically occur, but depend on the nature of the GDSS and how the group applies it. Hence, a given GDSS might result only in a subset of the seven impacts. Among other things, the model predicts that the particular combination of GDSS impacts that materializes differs across groups and that the balance of these impacts, positive or negative, determines positive or negative conflict outcomes. Groups using a particular GDSS, the Software Aided Meeting Management (SAMM) system, were compared to groups using a manual version of the same decision structures built into SAMM and to unsupported groups. Results indicated that there were differences in the level of conflict in SAMM-supported versus manually-supported and unsupported groups, and in conflict management behaviors adopted by the different conditions. Moreover, there were differences in the impacts of SAMM for different groups, and there is some evidence that these contributed to consensus change. Overall, the theoretical model was supported by the study. This model and approach used in this study seem useful for designing future studies concerning the impacts of computer technology on group judgment and choice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.2.121 · Cited by 3,879
Self-citationVirtual Teams: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here?
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002 · Cited by 1,314
1 Constitutional Amendments: “Materializing” Organizational Communication
Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520903047186 · Cited by 731
Introduction to the Special Issue: Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations
DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.6.693 · Cited by 495
Self-citationLeonardi, P. M. (2013) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2013/37.3.04 · Cited by 444
Metadata
- Authors
- Poole, M. S., Holmes, M., & Desanctis, G.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1991-08
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 926-953
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2144091389
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 40.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.