please read the below article and please read this article by Baltes et al. (2002) on computer-mediated communication and group decision making and discuss one thing that you have learned from this article.

i will place part of the article please check it and if you need more of this article you have the name and everything plrase search for it

Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis Boris B. Baltes, Marcus W. Dickson, Michael P. Sherman, Cara C. Bauer, and Jacqueline S. LaGanke Wayne State University A meta-analysis of research comparing decision making in faceto-face versus computer-mediated communication groups was conducted. Results suggest that computer-mediated communication leads to decreases in group effectiveness, increases in time required to complete tasks, and decreases in member satisfaction compared to face-to-face groups. All of the moderators tested (anonymity in the group process, limited versus unlimited time to reach decisions, group size, and task type) were significant for at least one of the dependent variables. The article concludes with cautions about the unbridled rush by organizations to adopt computer-mediated communication as a medium for group decision making and implications of the present findings for theory and research on computer-mediated communication and group

Face-to-face meetings are no longer the sole communication method used by small groups within organizations to discuss problems and make decisions. Over the past 20 years, the integration of computers and communication technologies has revolutionized communication and made possible new and expanded forms of group work. In fact, for many people, electronic messaging and computer conferencing are becoming more commonplace than using the postal service or even the telephone. The increased use of computer networks to conduct business has been stimulated by decreasing costs; increased accessibility of information; and the rapid exchange of documents, databases, and messages (Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986). Not surprisingly, as Portions of this article were originally presented at the 107th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association in Boston, MA, August 2024, 1999. The third through fifth authors contributed equally. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Boris B. Baltes, Psychology Department, 71 W. Warren, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202. E-mail: bbaltes@sun.science.wayne.edu. 156 0749-5978/01 $35.00 q 2001 Elsevier Science All rights reserved. CMC AND GROUP PERFORMANCE 157 national and local computer networks proliferate, computer-mediated communication (CMC) has become an integral component of organizational communication (Abdul-Gader, 1996; Straus & McGrath, 1994; Zeffane & Cheek, 1995) and provides new ways to support work in groups distributed by time and space. Although current electronic communication technologies make collaboration between dispersed groups more convenient and less expensive than traveling to meet face-to-face, questions arise as to whether CMC enhances or debases group processes or outcomes and whether there are any negative consequences associated with reliance upon CMC. Researchers have very quickly begun to focus on the question of how computer-mediated communication affects various outcome variables such as group performance and member satisfaction. While the research findings have been unequivocal in some areas (e.g., computer-mediated groups take longer to make a decision), inconsistent results have also been found (e.g., quality of group decision has been found to both increase and decrease). Furthermore, to date the only attempts to consolidate and summarize the research on CMC have been narrative literature reviews (e.g., Bordia, 1997). To better understand the extant literature, we conducted a meta-analysis in an attempt to quantify the effects of CMC on several outcome variables: decision quality, time to decision, and member satisfaction. COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION It is becoming quite common to see advertisements in business periodicals for computer systems and software designed to allow organizational members to communicate and hold meetings. These advertisements typically focus on the time and dollar savings of an electronic meeting versus a face-to-face meeting, which would require plane fares, hotels, rental cars, and so on. In fact, as it becomes more common for organizations of various sizes to conduct business across national boundaries, meeting face-to-face may be neither economically feasible nor the most effective mode of communication. It can also be challenging logistically to arrange meeting times and locations when members of organizations are dispersed throughout geographical locations. Thus, many organizations have implemented various forms of computer conferencing systems as a means of augmenting or replacing face-to-face meetings among geographically dispersed groups of people (Perry, 1992). Unfortunately, the advertisements that tout the convenience and savings associated with electronic communication systems pay little to no attention to questions about the quality of the decisions made using these computer systems or to differences in the ways in which people interact with each other online versus face to face. We believe that these are important issues for managers to understand before making decisions (and investments) affecting the ways in which their organizational members communicate. Recognizing the need for greater understanding of the dynamics of CMC, researchers have very quickly begun to focus on these questions. In a synthesis of the experimental literature comparing face-to-face and computer-mediated 158 BALTES ET AL. communication, Bordia (1997) points out that researchers have looked at CMC to study social psychological effects, organizational influences, human factors assessments, and educational use. Of the experimental studies conducted, many have examined the impact of communication media on group processes and outcomes. Within the domain of CMC research, however, a wide range of dependent variables have been considered, including quality of decisions made using CMC (assessed objectively), quality of decisions made using CMC (assessed subjectively), satisfaction of users with the CMC system, length of time to reach a decision using CMC, number of ideas generated using CMC, decision confidence in the CMC setting, quality of interaction among CMC participants in group decision making, and patterns of influence in CMC groups. Additionally, subsumed under the realm of computer-mediated communication research, there is a wide range of communications media examined, including synchronous, text-based communication (i.e., chat); asynchronous, textbased communication (i.e., e-mail); videoconferencing; group decision making with and without a Group Decision Support System; and group decision making with and without verbal interaction in addition to the computer-mediated interaction. Further, in some studies the participants are students and in others they are practicing managers, in some studies the participants are people of equivalent status and in others people of differential levels of status, and there are many other variations in sample characteristics as well. The studies also differ in the nature of the group task, the assessment of the groups performance (objective vs subjective ratings), the time allotted to complete the task, and the degree of anonymity in the CMC condition. These myriad dependent variables, conditions, participant pools, and study features have made it difficult to interpret the large number of findings in recent research, especially when at first glance the findings appear to be inconsistent. Our review of the literature does, however, reveal one general point of consistency, though it was often expressed in differing ways across studies.