Group Support Systems in Organizational Meetings

Subject: Organizational Management
Pages: 6
Words: 1665
Reading time:
6 min
Study level: PhD

A Tale of Two Cities: Case Studies of GSS Transition in Two Organizations by Andres Agres, Gert-Jan de Vreede and Robert O. Briggs

This article is a piece of research carried out in two different cities; one in Rotterdam and the other in The Hague. In both places, behavioral patterns of various employees were monitored after undergoing some training on the use of GSSs and thus their response to the acceptance and transition of technology noted. This article implies that the various uses of technology are highly effective in easier management and prediction of formation and disband of successful group systems. Through the entire process, the significance of support systems was discovered and by using the group support systems, prediction of future economic and sociopolitical life of organizations could be determined. As a result, it would assist towards the prevention of undesired future events from occurring. It seems to borrow heavily from the behavioral school of management thought, specifically behavioral science which emerged in the fifties. However, these authors seem to be greatly influenced by McGregor’s ideas of group behavior.

In only 3 hours we’ll deliver a custom Group Support Systems in Organizational Meetings essay written 100% from scratch Get help

Deception: Toward an Individualistic View of Group Support Systems by Joey F. George, Kent Marett and Gabriel Giordano

This article examines deception from an individualistic point within any given group. The studies carried out involved different aspects which are usually common and found among different groups. In addition, the success rate of how deception coujld be detected was also determined. There was correlation of unwilling persuasion of group members upon deception detection when the groups were in face to face due to higher chances of success in lie detection. However, in GSS groups, detection of deception was extremely low as compared to FtF and thus persuasion of group members was easier and could be repeated and thus deceivers produced more lies in GSS than in normal face to face discussions implying easier and accurate management when done face to face. The author seems to have undergone influence from the contingency school of thought originally by Joan Woodward and Fred Fielder. The article highlights the fact that the cause of deception was largely tailored to preferences of the deceiver and thus is advantageous to the deceiver and thus contributes to significance of support systems through revealing of better group management skills. Here managers can tailor company needs to their preferences and thus achieve intended results as required of them.

Sampling and pooling of decision-relevant information: Comparing the efficiency of face-to-face and GSS supported groups by Ashraf I. Shirani

This article takes a case-study approach to find out how pooling and sampling of decision-relevant information affects information within a group. By consideration two different groups, a comparative study reveals the differences of sampling and pooling within groups through close examination of sampling and pooling in information sharing within groups. The study becomes specific with the examination of face to face information as applied within a group setting and how this information affects the group’s final decision. The study, through its findings, contributes to management theory by confirming that there is great inefficiency of information sharing in face to face groups especially as far as recall and exchange of unique group information is concerned. The article points out that these findings are in tandem with previous researches. On the other hand, the Group Support Systems elicited different results as compared to face to face. The difference was in the quality of recall and information exchange within groups. GSS groups showed quick sharing traits making them produce information early. They also brought into the table unshared information earlier than the previous face to face groups. However the article points out that the research could be limited since chosen groups were not as organized as groups within organizations and thus information sharing trends could be highly different. This article is heavily influenced by the school of thought of human relations and originally experimented by Hawthorne. Shirani seems to heavily borrow the original ideas of the experiment in construction of arguments in the article. However, there is need for information management in groups for instance, enhancing awareness within groups and identification of members of a group with sensitive information (Bateman & Snell, 2007). The article instills that many project failures can be greatly attributed to poorly communicated requirements. The DSM model indicated unsuccessful magnitude information sampling in groups but predicted the course of results without fail.

Comparison of the articles

Fan, Shen & Luo (2010) concur with Shirani (2006) that the presence of computer systems makes it easier to achieve group objectives and thus creation of great value in group operations. Decision making is also greatly influenced by the use of technology in organizations and thus management is made easier through the use of technology. Support systems produce fast and significant information that could be greatly influential in decision making in the management process. Again, the two articles correlate with each other on the significance of use of support systems in saving time in accomplishing organizational activities. This, the authors argue, creates more time for examination and evaluation of such activities to achieve the greatest levels of efficiency hence accuracy. Beside their argumentative stances, they also present similar schools of management thought in their ideas. Their ideas are heavily borrowed from behavioral school of management thought where management philosophy emphasizes managerial aspect from a human behavioral approach. Different individuals can not be treated in the same way since human differences experienced in character are greatly varying and the diversities thereby experienced can handled after an observatory effort has been employed in the process thus achieving efficiency in the work place.

George, Marett and Giordano (2008) and Andrés, Gert-Jan and Robert (2010) present similar views. They posit that the dynamics and models of support systems presented can change the perception of group members in final decision arrival. Certainly, the former argue that deception can be used as a tool in influencing group outcomes, the end results are less affected by it and thus play a limited role in management. The latter argue that the support systems provided can help in individual perception of economic and sociopolitical realities but have little impact in decision arrival. These arguments also coincide with the ideas of the systems school of management thought. They present the view that employing systems approach to organizational management is highly efficient in acquisition of the desired production of the organization. However, they note that acceptance and transition of systems within the work place could be slower and thus slacken the rate of productivity since transition of new technological models consumes time due to unobserved importance of the systems by group members. Thus employment of support systems is highly efficient in achievement of organizational results as desired.

Differences exhibited in the articles

Whereas Shirani (2010) argues that sampling and pooling of information from a group could be a great effort that might present inaccuracies in the application of support systems since group members are prone to give false information when using technological support systems, Fan, Shen & Luo (2010) argue that the use of support systems makes production become easier and highly efficient. With the thought processes of production going up through the claimed support systems, organizational meetings are thought to reach peak when these systems are employed in communication within the company. In the same argument, the former points out that accurate information is gained through face to face meetings and distant technological systems are bound to give wider platforms of lying since lie detection is hard to achieve. The latter argue that application of support systems in the running of group activities hence organizational activities is prone to achieve the greatest levels of accuracy hence efficiency of company activities. These are greatly contrasting ideas presented in the articles.

There are differences exhibited in different authors’ influences. For instance, Andrés, Gert-Jan and Robert (2006) borrow heavily from the behavioral school of management thought, specifically behavioral science which emerged in the fifties but the authors seem to be greatly influenced by McGregor’s ideas of group behavior whereas Shirani (2010) is influenced by the school of thought of human relations and originally experimented by Hawthorne whereby the original ideas of the experiment in construction of arguments in the article are evident. Elicitation of differences in the articles gives an indication of diverse employment of schools of thought in making managerial decisions in any organizations. With human relations school of thought employing a humanistic dimension in treatment of group members by consideration of individual strengths instead of focusing on weaknesses, the behavioral school of thought seeks to identify behavior and associate it directly with group outcome such that particular behavior could be subjected to suspicion. This contrasts the idea that instead of increased group participation leading to gathering of information vital for organizational transformation, accurate information in a behavioral approach may jeopardize these activities and thus make some group members become unwilling to give accurate information (Oliver, 2009).

Academic experts
We will write a custom Organizational Management essay specifically for you for only $16.00 $11/page Learn more


To recap it all, it is imperative to note that as vividly evident from the articles, there is great convergence towards the significance on use of support systems in increasing organizational meetings. Each article points to the fact that organizational meetings are a source of vital information in determining the right ideas for organizational improvements. Despite the fact that some articles present challenging views to the use of support systems in increasing organizational meeting, there is union of increased group member participation when technological support systems have been employed. Organizational meetings and employee participation in these meetings is critical in determination organization weak points hence fostering organization performances. Furthermore, challenging views have been presented by Shirani (2010) implicating inefficiencies in the use of support systems in yielding of accurate information necessary for organizational improvement but instantly supported through acknowledgement of freedoms found in support systems. As acknowledged, individual participation of group members through support systems increases. This gives a direct implication that support systems are highly significant in increasing meeting within many organizations (Oliver, 2009).


  1. Andrés, A. B., Gert-Jan, D. De V. & Robert, B. (2006). A Tale of two cities: Case studies of Group Support Systems. Transition Group Decision & Negotiation, 14(4), 267- 284.
  2. Bateman, T.S & Snell, S.A. (2007). Management: Leading and Collaborating in a Competitive World. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
  3. Fan, S. C., Shen, G. P. & Luo, X. (2010).Group Decision Support Systems in value management. Construction Management & Economics, 8(8), 827-838.
  4. George, J. F., Marett, K. & Giordano, G. (2008). Deception: Toward an individualistic view of Group Support Systems. Journal of Associations for Information Systems, 9(10), 653-676.
  5. Oliver, S (2009).The Philosophy of Management. London: BiblioBazaar.
  6. Shirani, A. I. (2006). Sampling and pooling of decision-relevant information: Comparing the efficiency of face-to-face and GSS supported groups. Information & Management, 43(4), 21-529.