The aim of this research is to examine the role of information and communication technologies in the relationship between group effectiveness and group potency changes. A laboratory experiment compared 44 groups of four members, working in two communication media—face-to-face condition and computer-mediated communication (CMC). Groups developed a project during 4 weekly meetings during a 1-month period. No significant difference in group potency between communication media was found initially. However, different patterns of group potency development over time were identified. Group potency increased in the face-to-face condition, whereas it remained stable in the CMC condition. Results showed that group effectiveness has a positive effect on group potency. CMC groups that were higher in effectiveness presented higher levels of group potency than those lower in effectiveness, whereas group potency perceived by face-to-face groups remained stable over different levels of group effectiveness.
Baltes, B.B., Dickson, M.W., Sherman, M.P., Bauer, C.C., & LaGanke, J.S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 156-179.
2.
Burke, K., Aytes, K., & Chidambaram, L. (2001). Media effects on the development of cohesion and process satisfaction in computer-supported workgroups: An analysis of results from two longitudinal studies. Information Technology & People, 14, 122-141.
3.
Caplan, R.D., & Jones, K.W. (1975). Effects of workload, role ambiguity and type A personality and anxiety, depression and heart-rate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 713-719.
4.
Champoux, J.E., & Peters, W.S. (1987). Form, effect size and power in moderated regression . Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 243-255.
5.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Cronbach, L. (1987). Statistical test for moderator variables: Flaws in analysis recently proposed. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 414-417.
7.
Culnan, M.J., & Markus, M.L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420-443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233.
9.
Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1986): A proposed integration among organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-671.
Gibson, C.B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficiency and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 138-152.
12.
Gibson, C.B., Randel, A.E., & Earley, P.C. (2000). Understanding group efficacy: An empirical test of multiple assessment methods. Group and Organization Management , 25, 67-97.
13.
González, M.G., Burke, M.J., Santuzzi, A.M., & Bradley, J.C. (2003). The impact of group process variables on the effectiveness of distance collaboration groups. Computer in Human Behavior , 19, 629-648.
14.
Gully, S.M., Incalcaterra, K.A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J.M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819-832.
15.
Guzzo, R.A., Yost, P.R., Campbell, R.J., & Shea, G.P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87-106.
16.
Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R. & Wan, C.K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Jong, A., Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of group potency: A study of self-managing service teams. Management Science , 51, 1610-1625.
18.
Jung, D.I., & Sosik, J.J. (1999). Effects of group characteristics on work group performance: A longitudinal investigation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 279-290.
19.
Jung, D.I., & Sosik, J.J. (2003). Group potency and collective efficacy: Examining their predictive validity, level of analysis, and effects of performance feedback on future group performance. Group & Organization Management , 28, 366-391.
20.
Kuhn, T., & Poole, M.S. (2000). Do conflict management styles affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Human Communication Research, 26, 558-590.
21.
Lebie, L., Jonathan, R., & McGrath, J.E. (1996). Interaction process in computer mediated and face to face groups. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 4, 127-152.
22.
Lee, C., Tinsley, C.H., & Bobko, P. (2002). An investigation of the antecedents and consequences of group-level confidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 32, 1628-1652.
23.
Lester, S.W., Meglino, B.M., & Korsgaard, M.A. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed groups. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 352-368.
24.
Lindell, M.K. (2001). Assessing and testing interrater agreement on a single target using multi-item rating scales. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 89-99.
McGrath, J.E., & Berdahl, J.L. (1998). Groups, technology, and time: Uses of computers for collaborative work. In R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards , E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King, & J. Myers (Eds.), Social psychological applications to social issues: Theory and research on small groups (Vol. 4, pp. 205-228). New York: Plenum.
27.
McGrath, J.E., & Hollingshead, A.B. (1993). Putting the group back in group support systems: Some theoretical issues about dynamic processes in groups with technological enhancements. In L. M. Jessup & J. S. Valacich (Eds.), Group support systems: New perspectives (pp. 78-96). New York: Macmillan.
28.
McGrath, J.E., & Hollingshead, A.B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology: Systems, ideas, evidence and an agenda. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29.
Mennecke, B.E., Valacich, J.S., & Wheeler, B.C. (2000). The effects of media and task on user performance: A test of the task-media fit hypothesis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9, 507-529.
30.
Parker, L.E. (1994). Working together: Perceived self-and collective-efficacy at the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 43-59.
31.
Pearce, C.L., Gallagher, C.A., & Ensley.,M. D. (2002). Confidence at the group level of analysis: A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between potency and team effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 115-119.
32.
Plewis, I. (1985). Analysing change: Measurements and exploration using longitudinal data. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
33.
Porter, M.E. (1991). Toward a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategy Management Journal, 12, 92-117.
34.
Prussia, G.E., & Kinicki, A.J. (1996). A motivational investigation of group effectiveness using social-cognitive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81, 187-198.
35.
Rodríguez, I., Bravo, M.J., Peiró, J.M., & Schaufeli, W. (2001). The demands-control-support model and locus of control, and its effect on job dissatisfaction: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 15, 97-114.
36.
Shea, G.P., & Guzzo, R.A. (1987). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28, 25-31.
37.
Short, J.A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunication. London: Wiley.
38.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W.D., Avolio, B.J., & Jung, D.I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group & Organization Management, 27, 66-96.
39.
Sosik, J.J., Avolio, B.J., & Kahai, S.S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89-103.
40.
Sosik, J.J., Avolio, B.J., Kahai, S.S., & Jung, D.I. (1998). Computer-supported work group potency and effectiveness: The role of transformational leadership, anonymity, and task interdependence . Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 491-511.
41.
Walther, J.B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organizational Science , 6, 186-203.
42.
Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
43.
Walther, J.B., Anderson, J.K., & Park, D.W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication Research, 21, 460-487.
44.
Wright, B.M., Barker, J.R., Cordery, J.L., & Maue, B.E. (2003). The ideal participative state: A prelude to work group effectiveness. Journal of Business and Management, 9, 171-188.
45.
Zornoza, A.M., Orengo, V., Gosálvez, I., & González, P. (2002). Teamwork in different communication contexts: A longitudinal study. Psychology in Spain, 6, 41-55.
46.
Zornoza, A.M., Orengo, V., Ripoll, P., & González, P. (2003, May). The influence of time on socially oriented communication in groups that work in face to face and computer mediated communication . Paper presented at the 11th European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology, Lisboa, Portugal.
47.
Zornoza, A.M., Ripoll, P., & Peiró, J.M. (2002). Conflict management in groups that work in two different communication contexts face-to-face and computer-mediated communication . Small Group Research, 33, 481-508.
