Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Group Gender Composition on Group Performance in an Electronic Meeting System Setting: A Study of Group Gender Composition

  • Conference paper
Recent Developments in Decision Support Systems

Part of the book series: NATO ASI Series ((NATO ASI F,volume 101))

  • 144 Accesses

Abstract

Electronic Meeting System (EMS) research conducted to date has produced inconsistent findings. Field studies have tended to yield more positive results than laboratory studies. Factors such as group composition, task, and organizational context may affect group outcomes, and should be explored to develop “contingency theories to identify the best fit between functions provided by EMS and various classes of groups, tasks, and organizations [30].” Research in non-EMS settings has shown that group gender composition affects group processes. This paper reports the results of a study designed to assess the effect of group gender composition on group process and performance in an EMS setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, V.D., and Thoits, P.A., (1985), “Token Achievement: An Examination of Proportional Representation and Performance Outcomes,” Social Forces, 64, 332–340.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Argyris, C., (1970), Intervention Theory and Method, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Business Week, Staff,(1990), “Women Friendly Companies,” Aug. 6, 48–55.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Campbell, D. and Stanley, J., (1963), Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs For Research, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chidambaram, L., (1989), “An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Computer Performance on Group Development and Decision Making Performance,” Unpublished Dissertation, Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Craig, J.M. and Sherif, C.W., (1986), “The Effectiveness of Men and Women in Problem-Solving Groups as a Function of Group Gender Composition,” Sex Roles, 14, 7 /8, 453–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dennis, A.R., (1989), “Effects of Varying the Level of Electronic Meeting Support on the Decision Making Performance of Different Sized Groups,” Unpublished Dissertation Proposal, University of Arizona, Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dennis, A., Nunamaker, J. and Vogel, D, (1989), “GDSS Laboratory and Field Studies: Closing the Gap,” in the Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kona, HI.

    Google Scholar 

  9. DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, R.B., (1987), “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems,” Management Science, 33, 5, 589–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. DeSanctis, G., D’Onofrio, Sambamurthy, V., and Poole, M.S., (1989), “Comprehensiveness and Restrictiveness in Group Decision Heuristic: Effects of Computer Support on Consensus Decision Making,” ICIS Proceedings, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dickson, G., Robinson, L., Heath, R., and Lee, J., (1988), Observations on GDSS Interaction: Chauffeured, Facilitated, and User-driven Systems, University of Minnesota Working Paper, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dickson, G., Robinson, Lee, J., and Brouellette, C., (1990), “Exploring Modes of Interaction with Group Decision Support Technology”, University of Minnesota Working Paper, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eskilson, A. and Wiley, M.G., (1976), “Sex Composition and Leadership in Small Groups,” Sociometry, 39, 184–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fellers, J, (1989), The Effect of Group Size and Computer Support on Group Idea Generation for Creativity Tasks: “an Experimental Evaluation Using a Repeated Measures Design,” Unpublished Dissertation, Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fennel, M., Barchas, P., Cohen, A., and Hildebrand, P., (1981), “An Alternative Perspective on Sex Differences in Organizational Settings: The process of Legitimation”, Sex Roles, 7, 87–95.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fortune, Staff, (1990), “Why Women Still Aren’t Getting to the Top,” July 30, 40–66.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gallupe, B., DeSanctis, G., and Dickson, G., (1988), “The Impact of Computer-Based Support on the Process and Outcomes of Group Decision Making,” MIS Ouarterly, 12, 2, 277–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hackman, J. and Morris, C., (1975), “Group Tasks, Group Interaction Process, and Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Integration”, in Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 8, New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hall, J. and Watson, W.H., (1970), “The Effects of a Normative Intervention on Group Decision-Making Performance,” Human Relations, 23, 4, 299–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Huber, G.A., (1984), “Issues in the Design of Group Decision Support Systems,” MIS Ouarterly, 8, 3, (1984), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Izraeli, D.N., (1983), “Sex Effects or Structural Effects? An Empirical Test of Kanter’s Theory of Proportions,” Social Forces, 62, 1, 153–165.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jessup, L., Connolly, T., and Tansik, D., (1990), “Toward A Theory of Automated Group Work: The Deindividuating Effects of Anonymity”, Small Group Research, 21, 3, 333–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Johnson, RA., and Schulman, G.I., (1989), “Gender-Role Composition and Role Entrapment in Decision-Making Groups,” Gender and Society, 3, 3, Sep., 355–372.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kanter, R.M., (1977a), “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women,” American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kanter, R.M., (1977b), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, NY, NY,.

    Google Scholar 

  26. King, W.R., Premkumar, G., and Ramamurthy, K., (1990), “An Evaluation of the Role and Performance of a Decision Support System in Business Education,” Decision Sciences, 21, 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mabry, E., (1985), “The Effects of Gender Composition and Task Structure on Small Group Interaction,” Small Group Behavior, 16, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Martin, P.Y., and Shanahan, KA., (1983), “Transcending the Effects of Sex Composition in Small Groups,” Social Work with Groups, Fall-Win, 19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  29. McGrath, J.E., (1984), Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nunamaker, J.F., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Vogel, D.R. and George, J.F., (1990), “Electronic Meeting Systems To Support Group Work: Theory and Practice at Arizona,” University of Arizona Working Paper, Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Poole, M.S., and DeSanctis, G., (1989), “Understanding the Use of Decision Support Systems: the Theory of Adaptive Structuration,” In C. Steinfield and J. Fulk (Eds,), Perspectives on Organizations and New Information Technology, Beverly Hills, CA., Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R. and McPhee, R.D., (1985), “Group Decision-Making as a Structurational Process,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ridgeway, CL., (1982), “Status in Groups: The Importance of Motivation”, American Sociological Review, 47, 76–82.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Silver, M.S., (1988a), “On the Restrictiveness of Decision Support Systems,” In R.M. Lee, A.M. McCosh, and P. Migliarese (Eds) Organizational Decision Support Systems, North-Holland, Elsevier Science, 259–270.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Silver, M.S., (1988b), “User Perceptions of Decision Support System Restrictiveness: An Experiment,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 5, 1, 51–65.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. South, S.J., Markham, W.T., Bonjean, C.M., and Corder, J., (1987), “Sex Differences in Support for Organizational Advancement,” Work and Occupations, 14, 261–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Spangler, E., Gordon, M.A., and Pipkin, R.M., (1978), “Token Women: An Empirical Test of Kanter’s Hypothesis,” American Journal of Sociology, 84, 160–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Taylor, S.E., Fiske, S.T. Etcoff, N.L., and Ruderman, AJ., (1978), “Categorical and Contextual Bases of Person Memory and Stereotyping,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 778–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Turoff, M., and Hilt; S.R., (1982), “Computer Support for Group Versus Individual Decisions,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol. Com-30, (1), 82–90.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Watson, R.T., (1987), “The Impact of a Computer System on Individual Behavior and Collective Decision Making in a Group Meeting,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Watson, R.T., DeSanctis, G., and Poole, M.S., (1988), “Using GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences,” MIS Ouarterly, 12, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wharton, A.S. and Baron, J.N., (1987), “So Happy Together? The Impact of Gender Segregation on Men at Work,” American Sociological Review, 52, 574–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wood, W., (1983), “Sex Differences in Group Interaction and Task Performance,” Paper Presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Zigurs, I., Poole, M.S. and DeSanctis, G.L., (1988), “A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making,” MIS Ouarterly, 12, 4, 625–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bryan School of Business, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, 27412, USA

    Richard Herschel

  2. Indiana University Graduate School of Business, Bloomington, Indiana, 47405, USA

    Bayard E. Wynne & Tim Noel

Authors
  1. Richard Herschel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bayard E. Wynne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tim Noel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Kentucky, Business and Economic Bldg., Room 317, 40506-0034, Lexington, KY, USA

    Clyde W. Holsapple

  2. Department of Management Science and Information Systems, CBA 5.202, Graduate School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, 78712-1175, Austin, TX, USA

    Andrew B. Whinston

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Herschel, R., Wynne, B.E., Noel, T. (1993). The Impact of Group Gender Composition on Group Performance in an Electronic Meeting System Setting: A Study of Group Gender Composition. In: Holsapple, C.W., Whinston, A.B. (eds) Recent Developments in Decision Support Systems. NATO ASI Series, vol 101. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02952-7_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02952-7_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-08147-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-02952-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation