Voting before discussing Computer voting as social communication

Rational decision making Factual task information Persuasive arguments Review alternatives Rational decision making

Design Analyse alternatives Arguments Resolve contradictions Intelligence Generate ideas Brainstorm Exchange task information Rational choice Choose best alternatives Correct answer Rational voting RESULT Traditional rational group decision making model

Voting as a rational choice tool Formal - difficult to do Used once only Towards the end of the process As a groupware tool is rarely used (7%) Rational choice tool of last resort

Cognitive three-process model Resolving the task: Informational influence Relating to others: Personal influence Representing the group: Normative influence

Normative influence No task information exchange No arguments No review of options Individuals think not groups Group exchanges position information Social decision making

Social choice Choose group norm Acceptability Social voting Intelligence Generate ideas Brainstorm Exchange position information RESULT Normative group decision making model

E-Voting as a Social Choice Tool Informal - easy to do Dynamic - can change your mind Central rather than marginal A form of social communication E-voting is as different from face-to-face voting as is from letter writing

Advantages of normative decision making No need for discussion Avoids uncertainty Avoids personality clashes Works for non-rational tasks Quicker Safer for personal relations Better for group unity

Social choice Acceptability Social vote Intelligence Generate ideas Brainstorm Exchange task information RESULT Proposed voting- before-discussing group decision method FTF Discussion Arguments Analysis Rational choice

Expected benefits Avoids time wasted discussing proposals everyone already agrees with “Hopeless causes” are either avoided or proposer can prepare for opposition Avoids meeting getting bogged down in early disagreement Encourages group unity

Useful when Meetings are being sidetracked by personality conflicts Lack of group unity and agreement is causing a problem A lot of time is wasted discussing things that are already agreed

Method Subjects: Six marketing staff Task: Develop a marketing plan –Analyse current situation –SWOT analysis of organisation –Marketing objectives –Strategies Three sessions (6.5, 4 and 4 hours)

Software A communication environment Over 150 alterable “rules of interaction” No central facilitator End-users initiate actions e.g. Ss could stop voting and add a new idea - others were advised there was a new item for voting

Group Interaction Procedure Electronic brainstorming –Anonymous entry of ideas –Read other peoples ideas, and if you disagree suggest something better Electronic voting - reveals group position Face-to-face discussion –Clarification and removal of duplicates –Advocacy and discussion

Voting 1. Strongly disagree- Abstain 2. Disagree ? Don’t understand 3. Slightly disagree 4. In the middle 5. Slightly agree 6. Agree 7. Strongly agree

Vote information exchange 1555?6 Slightly agree Votes anonymous One person strongly disagreed, and one didn’t understand Group is slightly agree Item automatically raised for discussion

Results 75+% items did not need discussion Personality clashes reduced Helped cohesiveness Agreement could be fragile Still a need for discussion End product unpolished had to be reworked Overall subjects felt computer contribution was beneficial

Comments “I certainly think it helped our group in terms of our cohesiveness …” “I found we were more aligned and more thinking on the same track than … if I’d been asked prior to the event would have said.”

Conclusion 1 Despite predictions of media-richness and cues restricted theories... Computer mediated interaction can generate group agreement.

Conclusion 2 C3P model expands the possibilities of computer support beyond the simple task information exchange implied by one- process rational information exchange models, into the realm of group social influence.