Introduction
The concepts of group process and Group Support Systems are not well understood by people. Kim (2006) noted that the group process enables leaders to develop interventional measures that can be applied to change the less desirable attributes showcased by different members of an organization. According to Kilgour (2010), Group Support System (GSSs) is “a set of techniques, software, and technology designed to focus and enhance the communication, deliberations, and decision-making of groups (p. 19)”. Meetings play a pivotal role in all organizations (Hoffman & Parker, 2006). This study will review the advantages and disadvantages of GSSs. This will provide leaders and managers alike with adequate information needed to select the most convenient and appropriate system for their organizations. This knowledge will further assist them to come up with efficient collaborative measures that specify the roadmap to organizational goals, obstacle reduction, prevent members from attaining the set group goals, and increase group and individual satisfaction towards achieving the set goals and objectives.
Background
According to Kilgour (2010), in various field and experimental studies, GSSs have proven to be effective tools to use in ensuring that meetings exhibit efficient, reliable, and quality group decision-making processes. Hoffman and Parker (2006) stated that in most cases, planning and executing meetings often consume too much time. The surveys on group efficiency indicate that most employees are often inattentive
during meetings and most meetings lack adequate planning regarding the topics to be discussed (Cusella, 2009). Recent studies show that most companies spend more times on meetings than they do on actual work (Hoffman& Parker, 2006). According to Hoffman and Parker (2006), meetings have very little positive effect on productivity and they waste valuable time that could otherwise be channeled to more productive activities.
Today’s businesses lie in the reduction and control of operational costs, global competition, improved quality and customer service and acceleration of the production life-cycle (Kilgour, 2010). Effective and efficient decision-making processes are not only desirable, but also necessary if challenges are to be averted. Policies, operational and budgetary plans among other organizational tasks often involve discussion-based tasks and meetings between different members of the organization.
According to Niederman, et al.,( 2008), collaboration between different members and groups within an organization is significant since it promotes knowledge sharing, teamwork and increases productivity. Meetings play a pivotal role in the facilitation of collaborative efforts within different organizations. Recent studies have indicated that in the past few decades, meetings have been the main source of contentions and conflicts in organizational settings (Hoffman & Parker, 2006). As indicated by other secondary studies, the productivity of the firms is highly influenced by the degree of responsiveness and accountability of the directors, managers, and all the leading parties in key decision making role in a firm. Therefore, it is worth noting that meetings are convened to discuss the progress, performance and productivity of the firm. However, notably, the duration spent in such meetings significantly affects the operation and productivity of the organization.
Problem Statement
The main concern with respect to resource management and maximization is that top management meeting are convened at a very regular interval, a sign of ineffective resource management. In addition, such meetings tend to last longer than stipulated, hence, unproductive. According to Niederman, et al.( 2008), in the information technology domain, and particularly with regard to GSS, it is widely held that technology alone cannot create a predictable, useful, repeatable improvement in meeting and organizational outcomes. Mainly due to ‘process losses’, which refer to communication, teamwork and workgroup inefficiencies that result from variations in status between members of any given meeting (Hoffman & Parker, 2006). While groups form an integral part of an organization’s structure, the impact of individual members of an organization should not be undermined. In some cases Hoffman and Parker (2006), noted that group judgments are inferior in comparison to individual judgments due to complexities in groupthink processes.
The specific problem is ineffective meetings in an organizational setting contribute to low levels of productivity, job satisfaction and motivation exhibited by members. According to Hoffman and Parker (2006), Yin (2008) and Crowe et al (2011), it was identified that most managers spend more than 60% of their time in meetings, the time used in meetings results in reduced productivity in most companies. In most meetings, members spend a significant amount of time arguing instead of finding solutions to problems (Hopffman & Parker, 2006). Niederman, et al.( 2008) said, “May not force but will perhaps induce group members to create an agenda prior to a meeting and stimulate behaviors consistent with particular norms or rules”. Hoffman and Parker, 2006 noted decisions are made based on employee ranking, rather than applicability and the ineffectiveness levels exhibited in meetings negatively affect productivity, motivation, job satisfaction and trust among individuals and groups. This is because there are organizations that have these systems in place but lack the necessary skills and knowledge required to make them work towards their advantage.
Purpose of the study
This qualitative case study intends to provide a deeper insight and understanding of the group support systems with respect to productivity and performance of mangers. Besides, this proposed study aims at assessing whether the application of GSSs would prevent the negative effects meetings have on productivity, and to establish how effective is the GSSs in contributing to job satisfaction, motivation and communication among members of an organization. Qualitative case study is an appropriate design for the study because it allows précised and accurate data collection within a restricted short period of time. Besides, quantitative case study approach to research is fundamental in providing a detailed statistical and inferential analysis of the problem under study. Finally, it provides an in-depth and descriptive account for the problem (Yin, 2008). “The case study approach allows, amongst other things, critical events, interventions, policy developments and program-based service reforms to be studied in detail in a real-life context” (Crowe et al 2011, p. 8).
Population and Sample
Participants sampled using the following steps: (i) organizations that are independent of any subsidiaries and other businesses, (ii) subsidiary organizations are eliminate (iii) organizations lacking GSSs and are willing to test its applicability will select (2 companies), (iv) DoD and Federal Agencies with a GSSs considered as ineffective will select (4 organizations); and (v) organizations with an effective GSSs will select (4 organizations).
Eight to ten organizations from a similar industry will select using the criteria mentioned above. According to Peloso and Lunetta, (2011, p. 64), this represents a population that lack substantial disparities in regard to sub-population, all selection methods that are provide and having “similar power and appropriate Type 1 error for association.” The organizations selected fully represented this population based on the selection criteria. According to Duncan (2008), proponents of non-random selection of participants argue that it is the best approach. Past researches and experiences show that random-sampling provides better and more accurate results. Mixture of random and non-random sampling to select the participants of this study would be conduct.
Importance of the Study
According to Webne-Behrman (2008), the term group process refers to the procedures implemented by closely working member of an organization, in order to come up with viable solutions to common organizational problems. Kim (2006) stated that group processes enables leaders to develop interventional measures that can be applied to change the less desirable attributes showcased by different members of an organization.
Organization theory views an organization as a group of people who work together to accomplish set goals and objectives (Cusella, 2009). From this description, it can be argued that groups play a pivotal role towards the success of any organization (Hoffman & Parker, 2006). Research will set out to further our understanding of this theory and the applicability of GSSs in an organizational setting.
The concept of group support systems (GSSs) is relatively new. GSS are a promising vehicle for better managing groups (Wilson, et al., 2010). The study of Group Support Systems (GSS) as an aid to group decision-making in organizations is important to organizational researchers for practical and scientific reasons (DeSanctis and Gallupe, 1987, Huber et al., 1993, Wilson, et al., 2010). Elfvengreen (2008) asserted that GSSs provide an avenue through which meetings can be held without necessarily wasting valuable time and employees’ productivity. A gap exists between the significance of Group Support Systems and their applicability in resolving productivity issues that stem from ineffective meetings (Kilgour, 2010).
Much of the GSS research published to date does not report the configuration specifics of GSS: the exact instructions given to the group, the guidelines, constraints, and ground rules by which they worked; and the step-by-step mechanics of how their work proceeded (Briggs, Vreede, and Nunamaker, 2003, Santanen, 2005, Niederman, 2008). There is a lot of documented literature regarding teamwork and group dynamics, but little information is available on the effects of GSSs in improving meetings and group efficiency, as well as in many sources, meetings have been cited as tools to enhance teamwork and productivity of an organization.
Leader in the same field of study care about solving the problem because the result of the research will enable leaders in organizational settings understand that: (i) the objective of Group Support Systems, (ii) meetings should be designed to support the organizational strategic objectives, (iii) ineffective meetings increases an organization’s chance to incur losses and reduced productivity, and (iv) important to have a comprehensive Group Support System that promotes teamwork, commitment and motivation among employees, all the while enabling managers to make decisive decisions regarding the operational activities of the organization.
Annotated Bibliography
Niederman, Fred; Briggs, Robert O.; de Vreede, Gert-Jan; Kolfschoten, Gwendolyn L.. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Oct2008, Vol. 9 Issue 10, p633-652, 21p, 2 Diagrams, 1 Chart
This paper explains and described how effort to boost meeting productivity and success, managers may employ trained group facilitators. They may also implement group support systems (GSS) for the same reason. The two approaches can be taken separately or together. In this study, in-depth interviews with 37 practicing facilitators provided their perspectives on critical factors that influence meeting success and potential benefits and concerns with the use of GSS. Respondents focused on a core of communication and group process skills as critical for facilitator success. Overall, the respondents observed or anticipated more efficient and effective task performance as benefits of GSS technology. Their concerns focused on technology-related issues: participant anxiety, systems inflexibility, and systems reliability. Views of facilitators with high and low levels of GSS experience are largely consistent. High-experience GSS facilitators viewed technical issues as more central to meeting success, while low-experience GSS facilitators focused more heavily on attributes of the group. The paper concludes by offering suggestions for identifying and training GSS facilitators and comments on key issues of importance to GSS designers, based on the facilitator’s perspective. However, there is a gap in addressing corporate governance and meeting ethics with respect to the nature systematic arrangement and group efficient.
Wilson, J. L.; Griffin, Thomas E.; Jessup, Leonard M.. Academy of Information & Management Sciences Journal, 2010, Vol. 13 Issue 2, p41-57, 17p, 4 Charts
In this study included professionals and managers participated in a field experiment to determine the effects of Group Support System (GSS) anonymity and status on group productivity and satisfaction. The book further asserts that managers and corporate governance body have not elaborately addressed the gap in productivity and resource management, hence, the concern for inefficiency in production and potential capacity of the firms. In GSS sessions, they discussed ways to solve the problem of insurance fraud within their industry. Groups of four and five members interacted either with or without anonymity, and either with equal status or unequal status. Anonymous groups generated more total comments, more unique ideas, and more ideas of higher rarity than did identified groups. Equal status group members were more satisfied than unequal status members.
Kilgour, D. M. (2010). Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. New York: Springer.
This study described Group Decision and Negotiation as the empirical, formal, computational, and strategic analysis of group decision-making and negotiation, especially from the points of view of Management Science and Operations Research. Group Decision and Negotiation crosses many traditional disciplinary boundaries, and has connections to business administration and business strategy, management science, systems engineering, computer science, mathematics, and law, as well as economics, psychology, and other social sciences. The Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation is intended to become the major reference in the field. The only current references are the highly successful journal Group Decision and Negotiation, as well as the books of the Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation series, and a few other journals. Researchers, students, and practitioners in this growing field sorely need a good general reference.
Methodology
The research design will consist of surveys and qualitative case studies. Using surveys as research design will enable to collect large amounts of data regarding different situations, practices and views using interviews and questionnaires. The survey approach supports the research design. “The case study approach allows, amongst other things, critical events, interventions, policy developments and program-based service reforms to be studied in detail in a real-life context” (Crowe et al., 2011, p. 8). By combining these research designs, the results derived from this study will be more accurate and comprehensive. This is because these designs allow a researcher to gather data that reflect real-life situations (Surveys) and compare current findings to results collected in previous studies that focused on the same issue (Case studies).
Participants were sampled using the following steps: (i) organizations that are independent of subsidiaries and other businesses, (ii) subsidiary organizations were eliminated (iii) organizations lacking GSSs and were willing to test its applicability were selected (2 companies), (iv) organizations with a GSS consider as ineffective will select (4 organizations); and (v) organizations with an effective GSS will select(4 organizations). In measuring the effectiveness of GSSs in facilitating effective and efficient business and professional meetings, ratios and intervals will be use. Kemp and Grace (2010) stated that ratios and interval scales “allow more precise and interesting relationships between variables to be discovered (P. 399).” This is especially important since the study will compare data from past studies as well as financial trends of the participating companies before and after using GSSs.
Review of the Literature
Primary data will be collected from interviews and surveys. An informed consent form will be signed by all participants to ensure that the research is done in an ethical manner. Secondary data will be collected from the university library, credible journal articles, books and internet sites that shed some light on this topic. Data collected will be analyzed and the results used to answer the designed research questions.
The study includes some group process and development concepts. Tuckman’s model of team development seeks to explain how teams are developed over time (Parker, 2011). The model suggests that there are five stages that all groups follow before they become a unified decision-making and problem-solving unit (Parker, 2011). Using a GSS in meetings ensures that meetings follow these stages with little to no complications. This ensures that the meetings are less time consuming, more productive and foster participation from majority of members.
Organization theory (OT): the theory views an organization as a group of people who are connected by common goals and objectives (Cusella, 2009). Organization theory be described as the study of organizations so as to identify common patterns that promote effective problem-solving and decision-making processes, efficient execution of organizational tasks, productivity and satisfaction of clients’ and stakeholders’ needs. That involves the study of individual, group and organizational processes (Cusella, 2009).
Research Questions
This study is:
- to understand the group support systems and group/individual productivity,
- if application of GSSs would prevent the negative effects meetings have on productivity and;
- how GSSs contribute to better levels of job satisfaction, motivation and communication among members of an organization.
Answering the following questions will be the primary focus of this study:
- How effective should the GSS be applied in order to improve business and professional meeting processes in an organizational setting?
- What role does GSSs play in enhancing job satisfaction, motivation and productivity in a business setting?
Data analysis will include analysis of data studies and survey results will be conducted so as to measure the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies used.
References
Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1): 100 – 108.
Cusella, L. P. (2009). Conceptual issues in organizational communication research: Elements of a model of conceptual authenticity. Communication Quarterly, 32(4): 293 – 300.
Briggs, R.O., Vreede, G.J. de, Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., and David, T.H. (2001). ThinkLets: Achieving Predictable, Repeatable Patterns of Group Interaction with Group Support Systems. Paperpresented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Los Alamitos.
DeSanctis, C. & R.B. Gallupe (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, (33) 5, 589-609.
Duncan, G. J. (2008). When to promote, and when to avoid, a population. Demography, 45(4): 763 – 784.
Elfvengreen, K. (2008). Group Support System for Managing the Front End of Innovation. USA: VDM Verlag.
Hoffman, R., & Parker, G. M. (2006). Meeting excellence: 33 tools to lead meetings that get results. Boston: John Wiley and Sons.
Huber, G.P., J.S. Valacich & L.M. Jessup (1993). A theory of the effects of group support systems on an organization’s nature and decisions. In Group Support Systems: New Perspectives. New York: Macmillan. Kilgour, D. M. (2010). Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. New York: Springer.
Kilgour, D. M. (2010). Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. New York: Springer.
Kim, Y. (2006). Supporting Distributed Groups with Group Support Systems: A Study of the Effect of Group Leaders and Communication Modes on Group Performance. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 18(2): 20 – 38.
Niederman, F. B., Robert O.,de Vreede, G. Kolfschoten, L. (2008). Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Oct2008, Vol. 9 Issue 10, p633-652, 21p, 2 Diagrams, 1 Chart
Peloso, G. M., & Lunetta, K. L. (2011). Choice of population structure informative principal components for adjustment in a case-control study. BMC Genetics, 12(1): 64 – 73.
Parker, G. M. (2011). Team Players and Teamwork: New Strategies for Developing Successful Collaboration. Boston: John Wiley and Sons.
Webne-Behrman, H. (2008). The Practice of Facilitation: Managing Group Process and Solving Problems. USA: IAP.
Wilson, J. L., Griffin, T. E. & Jessup, L. M. (2010) Academy of Information & Management Sciences Journal, 2010, Vol. 13 Issue 2, p41-57, 17p, 4 Charts
Yin, K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publications.