Conflict management and group decision support systems

ABSTRACT

Computers promise to change collaborative work in profound ways. They are likely to have special impact on processes which require fine judgments, foresight, and handling of large amounts of information, such as decision-making and strategic planning. Several authors (Huber, 1984; Kraemer and King, 1986) have discussed the potential benefits of decision support systems for organizational decision-making. Group decision support systems (GDSSs) combine communication, computer, and decision support technologies to support problem formulation and solution in group meetings. Communication technologies include electronic messaging, local and wide-area networks, teleconferencing, and store-and-forward facilities. Computer technologies include multi-user operating systems, fourth generation languages, databases, data analysis facilities, and data storage and modification capabilities. Decision support technologies include agenda-setting decision modelling methods (such as decision trees, risk analysis forecasting methods, and multiattribute utility functions), structured group methods (e.g., Nominal Group and Delphi Techniques), and rules for directing group discussion. DeSanctis and Gallupe (1987) have distinguished two levels of GDSS. A level 1 GDSS provides features to eliminate communication barriers, such as large screens for display of ideas, voting solicitation, and anonymous input of ideas and preferences. A level 2 GDSS provides problem-structuring techniques, such as automated planning tools, modelling packages, and information libraries. Level 2 thus represents an enhanced GDSS, as opposed to Level 1, which is a communication medium only. GDSSs can be tailored to tackle critical situations decision-makers face. One of the most ubiquitous and potentially troublesome situations is interpersonal conflict. Several features of GDSSs can play a key role in conflict management, including methods for the identification of conflict, structured agendas that guide the group through discussion of the conflict, utilities for clarifying the nature of the problem and for generating alternative solutions, and structures that promote members' participation. A few GDSSs have been specifically designed to manage conflicts (e.g., Sainfort, Gustafson, and Bosworth, 1987). However, these tend to be concerned with specific problem types, such as family conflict, and are not well-adapted for dealing with general conflicts. In this article we will focus on how a nonspecialized multipurpose GDSS influences conflict management in groups. It is this type of GDSS that groups will most often use to deal with conflicts. Groups will not always have the time or inclination to switch into specialized conflict management routines, and what routines there are will rarely fit the specific problems groups face. Moreover, to assume a special routine is needed to deal with conflicts is to assume conflict is somehow distinct from group decision-making. On the contrary, we believe conflict is part and parcel of all collaborative work. So we will study how varying levels of conflict emerge and are handled within a GDSS. The GDSS used for this search is a “generic”, level I system, version 1.0 of the University of Minnesota SAMM GDSS system (DeSanctis and Gallupe, 1987; Desanctis, Watson, and Sambamurthy, in press). The level 1 version of SAMM is designed to facilitate group communication and organize group interaction. It was purposely designed to embody a widely-used decision procedure, Dewey's Reflective Thinking Model, along with a few popular methods of deciding—rating, ranking, and voting. It purposely omits some of the more advanced features that could and would be incorporated in Level 2 systems (and are available in later versions of SAMM). This was done so we could compare work by groups using the GDSS with that of groups using manual versions of the same procedures. In the next section we will first consider the effects GDSSs are likely to have on conflict management and advance several research questions and predictions. Following this we will describe a study designed to ascertain these effects.

REFERENCES

• 1: Gerardine Desanctis , R. Brent Gallupe, A foundation for the study of group decision support systems, Management Science, v.33 n.5, p.589-609, May 1987 [doi>10.1287/mnsc.33.5.589]
• 2: DeSanctis, G. and Dickson, G. (198"/) GDSS: A shell system in support of a program of research. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences.
• 3: DeSanctis, G., Sambamurthy, V. and Watson, R. (in press) Compdter-supported meetings: Building a research environment. Large Scale Svstems.
• 4: Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1981) GettinR to yes. Hammondsworth: Penguin.
• 5: Folger, J.P. and Poole, M.S. (1983) WorkinR Through conflict. Glenwood, IL: Scott, Foresman.
• 6: Paul Gray, Group decision support systems, Decision Support Systems, v.3 n.3, p.233-242, Sept. 1987 [doi>10.1016/0167-9236(87)90178-3]
• 7: Hiltz, S.R., Johnson, K., and Agle, G. (1978) Replicating Bales's problem solving experiments on a computerized conference: A pilot study. (Research report no. 5) Newark, N.J.: New Jersey Institute of Technology Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center.
• 8: Hiltz, S.R., Johnson, K., and Turoff, M. (1986) Experiments in group docisionmaking: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, , 225-253.
• 9: Hiltz, S.R., Turoff, M., and Johnson, K. (1985) Mode of communication and the "risky shift': A controlled experiment with computerized conferencing and anonymity in a large corporation (Research report no. 21) Newark, N.J.: New Jersey Institute of Technology Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center.
• 10: Huber, G.P. (1984) Issues in the design of group decision support systems. MIS Ouarterly , 195-204.
• 11: Robert Johansen , Jacques Vallee , Kathleen Spangler, Electronic Meetings: Technical Alternatives, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1979
• 12: Killman, R. and Thomas, K. (1975) Interpersonal conflict-handling behavior as reflections of Jungian personality dimensions. Psychological Reoorts. 37, 971- 980.
• 13: Kenneth L. Kraemer , John Leslie King, Computer-based systems for cooperative work and group decisionmaking: status of use and problems in development, Proceedings of the 1986 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, December 03-05, 1986, Austin, Texas [doi>10.1145/637069.637115]
• 14: Poole, M.S. and Roth, J. (1988) Decision development in small groups IV: A typology of group decision paths. Manuscript, University of Minnesota, Department of Speech-Communication.
• 15: Poole M.S. and Desantis G(1987) Group decision making and group decision support systems. MIS Research Center Working Paper 88-02.
• 16: Putnam, L.L. and Poole, M.S. (1987) Conflict and negotiations. In F. Jablin, L.
• 17: Putnam, K. Roberts, and L. Porter, Handbook of Organizational Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage.
• 18: Rice, R. (1984) The new media: Communication, research, and technoloRv. Beverly Hills: Sage.
• 19: Sainfort, F., Gustafson, D.H. and Bosworth, L.K. (1987) Experimental evaluation of a computer-based conflict resolution program. Paper presented at TIMS/ORSA Joint Meeting, New Orleans, LA, May 6-8.
• 20: Siegal, J., Dubrovsky, V., Keisler, S., and McGuire, T.W. (1986) Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-167.
• 21: Siliara, A. (1980) Sequential and distributional structure of conflict interactions as a function of attributions concerning the locus of responsibitily and stability in conflicts. In D. Nimmo (Ed.) Communication Yearbook. Vol. IV, New Brunswick, N J: Transaction BOoks.
• 22: Sillars, A., Colletti, S.F., parry, D., and Rogers, M.A. (1982) Coding verbal conflict tactics: Nonverbal and perceptual correlates of the ":ivoidancedistributive-integrative" distinction. Human Communicalion Research. B3-95.
• 23: M. Stefik , D. G. Bobrow , S. Lanning , D. Tatar , G. Foster, WYSIWIS revised: early experiences with multi-user interfaces, Proceedings of the 1986 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, December 03-05, 1986, Austin, Texas [doi>10.1145/637069.637107]
• 24: Walton, R.E. (1969) Interoersonal oeacemaking: Confrontations and third oartv consultation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• 25: Watson, R. (1987) A study of group decision support system use in three and four-person groups for a preference allocation decision. Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Management Sciences Department.
• 26: Richard T. Watson , Gerardine DeSanctis , Marshall Scott Poole, Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: some intended and unintended consequences, MIS Quarterly, v.12 n.3, p.463-478, Sept. 1988 [doi>10.2307/249214]
• 27: Weeks, G.D. and Chapanis, A. (1976) Cooperative versus conflictive problem-solving in three telecommunication modes. Perceotual and Motor Skills, 42, 879-917.
• 28: Williams, E. (1977) Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review, psvcholoRical Bulletin, 80, 963-976.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.4 INFORMATION SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS
      H.4.2 Types of Systems
          Subjects: Decision support (e.g., MIS)

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.4 INFORMATION SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS

  K. Computing Milieux
  K.6 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
      K.6.1 Project and People Management
          Subjects: Management techniques (e.g., PERT/CPM)

General Terms:
Human Factors, Management, Performance