Introduction
Managers spend a considerable part of their work time in meetings participating in group decision making. Group support systems (GSSs) are adopted in a variety of group settings—from within-organization team to multi-organization collaboration teams (Ackermann, Franco, Gallupe, & Parent, 2005)—to aid the decision-making process (Briggs, Nunamaker, & Sprague, 1998). A key characteristic of GSSs is anonymity, which improves various aspects of group performance, including improving group participation and communication, objectively evaluating ideas, and enhancing group productivity and the decision-making process (Nunamaker, Dennis, Valacich, Vogel, & George, 1991; Pinsonneault & Heppel, 1997; Postmes & Lea, 2000). Anonymity, as a distinct aspect of GSSs, was expected to increase productivity by reducing the level of social or production blocking, increasing the number of interpersonal exchanges, and reducing the probability of any one member dominating the meeting (Newby, Soutar, & Watson, 2003). For example, Barreto and Ellemers (2002) manipulated two aspects of anonymity separately: visibility of respondents (i.e., participants could or could not see who the other group members were) and visibility of responses (participants could or could not see the responses givenby other group members). Results show that when group identification is low, anonymity manipulations affect group members' effort. Similarly, in their experiment, Reinig and Mejias (2004) found that anonymous groups produced more critical comments than identified groups did at the group level of analysis.
Numerous empirical findings have suggested that the use of anonymity and process structure in electronic brain-storming (EBS) generally promotes a positive effect on the number of ideas generated (Jessup, Connolly, & Galegher, 1990; Gallupe, Bastianutti, & Cooper, 1991) and quality of ideas achieved in decision making (Zigurs & Buckland, 1998). However, the anonymity function inherent in multi-workstation GSSs has been found to heighten conflict as members tend to communicate more aggressively because they tend to be more critical (Connolly, Jessup, & Valacich, 1990; Jessup, Connolly, & Tansik, 1990; Valacich, Jessup, Dennis, & Nunamaker, 1992), to have no effects on inhibition (Valacich, Dennis, & Connoly, 1994; Valacich et al., 1992), to increase group polarization (Sia, Tan, & Wei, 2002), and to have no effects on group performance (Valacich et al., 1994). Other studies show that, in terms of effectiveness, nominal brainstorming may be equal to (Gallupe et al., 1991; Cooper, Gallupe, Pollard, & Cadsby, 1998; Barki & Pinsonneault, 2001) or sometimes less than (Valacich et al., 1994; Dennis & Valacich, 1993) electronic brainstorming, indicating that at least as far as laboratory studies are concerned, empirical investigations have been inconclusive.
background
Ferraro (1998) provides a succinct definition of culture as follows: "Culture is everything that people have, think, and do as members of their society." Culture has been defined as the collective programming of the mind, which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another (Hofstede 1991; Tan, Watson, & Wei, 1995). Culture involves the beliefs, value system, and norms of a given organization or society, and can exist at national, regional, and corporate levels. In fact, even information systems theories and research are heavily influenced by the culture in which they were developed, and a theory grounded in one culture may not be applicable in other countries (Tan et al., 1995; Triandis, 1987). The theories explaining the effects of GSSs have come mainly from a North American perspective and may need adjustment for appropriate explanation of the same phenomenon in different contexts. Therefore, in order to incorporate a global dimension, theories and models that attempt to explain the effectiveness of technology will need to take into account the cultural background of the group being examined.
Hofstede (1991) identifies five dimensions of national culture based on his IBM study in 72 different countries:
• Power distance focuses on the degree of equality, or inequality, between people in a society. A high power distance ranking indicates that inequalities of power and wealth have been allowed to grow within that society. Similar societies—with high power distance—are more likely to follow a caste system that does not allow significant upward mobility of its citizens. A low power distance ranking indicates that a society deemphasizes the differences between citizens' power and wealth. In these types of societies, equality and opportunity for everyone is stressed. Individuals in societies with low power distance cultures (e.g., the United States) may be more inclined to adopt technologies that reduce power distance (Reinig & Mejias, 2003). However, power distance effects can be helpful for some phases of group decision making but harmful for others (Tan, Watson, Wei, Raman, & Kerola, 1993).
• Individualism focuses on the degree in which a society reinforces individual or collective achievement and interpersonal relationships. This is opposed to collectivism, which implies a preference for a tightly knit social framework in which individuals can expect their relatives and clan to protect them in exchange for loyalty. A high individualism ranking indicates that individuality and individual rights are paramount within the society. Individuals in these societies may tend to form a larger number of looser relationships. A low individualism ranking typifies societies of a more collectivist nature with close ties between individuals. These cultures reinforce extended families and collectives where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. The people of collectivistic-culture societies (e.g., Hong Kong) tend to sustain group harmony and agreement, which exhibits less critical comments than those of individualistic-culture societies (e.g., the United States) in using group support systems (Reinig & Mejias, 2004). Likewise, Chinese participants, whose culture leans strongly toward collectivism, are more prone to follow the view of the majority, while Americans, whose culture leans strongly toward individualism, is less prone to follow the view of the majority (Zhang, Lowry, & Fu, 2006).
• Masculinityfocuses on the degree in which the society reinforces, or does not reinforce, the traditional masculine work role model of male achievement, control, and power. On the contrary, femininity implies a preference for relationships, modesty, caring for the weak, and quality of life. A high masculinity ranking indicates that the country experiences a high degree of gender differentiation. In these cultures, males dominate a significant portion of the society and power structure, with females being controlled by male domination. A low masculinity ranking indicates the country has a low level of differentiation and discrimination between genders. In these cultures, females are treated equally to males in all aspects of the society.
• Uncertainty avoidance focuses on the level of tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity within the society, that is, unstructured situations. A high uncertainty avoidance ranking indicates the country has a low tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity. This creates a rule-oriented society that institutes laws, rules, regulations, and controls in order to reduce the amount of uncertainty. A low uncertainty avoidance ranking indicates the country has less concern about ambiguity and uncertainty, and more tolerance for a variety of opinions. This is reflected in a society that is less rule oriented, more readily accepts change, and takes more and greater risks. • Long-term orientation focuses on the degree the society embraces, or does not embrace, long-term devotion to traditional, forward-thinking values. High long-term orientation ranking indicates the country prescribes to the values of long-term commitments and respect for tradition. This is thought to support a strong work ethic where long-term rewards are expected as a result of today's hard work. However, business may take longer to develop in this society, particularly for an "outsider." A low long-term orientation ranking indicates the country does not reinforce the concept of long-term, traditional orientation. In this culture, change can occur more rapidly, as long-term traditions and commitments do not become impediments to change.
It is interesting to note that power distance and individualism are found to be inversely related (Hofstede, 1991; Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994; Triandis, 1995). Many Western countries such as the United States, Great Britain, and Australia have been described as individualistic, low power distance cultures, while many Asian countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and China have been described as collectivistic, high power distance cultures (Hofstede, 1991).
More recently, Srite and Karahanna (2006) examined the influence of national culture on individual behavior and extended the Technology Acceptance Model by incorporating espoused national cultural values (masculinity/femininity, individualism/collectivism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance) into the model. With respect to the impact of individualism/collectivism value on behavior for example, and because of the growing "virtualness" of collaborative teams, these authors call for further research investigating the acceptance of technologies used by teams composed of individuals from different national cultures.
culture and anonymity in gss studies
Although a GSS is a socio-technical system that involves not only computer and communication technologies but also a group of participants, culture was not specifically considered as an important dimension in the early studies of GSSs.
However, with globalization it is becoming increasingly important to adapt this tool to the cultural background of the organization or group that intends to use it effectively. These dimensions have been investigated in cross-culture GSS studies (such as Robichaux & Cooper, 1998; Tan, Wei, Watson, Clapper, & McLean, 1998; Tung & Quaddus, 2002; Watson, Ho, & Raman, 1994). Among the five dimensions, power distance and individualism have been shown to have impacts on group behavior and group outcomes (Tan et al., 1998; Watson et al., 1994). This is because the anonymity and simultaneous input features of GSSs support low power distance and individualistic cultural norms of desirable group behavior (Watson et al., 1994).
Watson et al. (1994) later provided empirical support for the inclusion of culture as a dimension of GSSs to add to DeSanctis and Gallupe's (1987) dimensions of group size, member proximity, and task type. Their study examined American and Singaporean cultures using GSSs, and the findings suggested that Singaporean groups tended to have a higher pre-meeting consensus and less change in consensus than the U.S. group. This may be explained with reference to the collectivist nature of Singaporean culture, as collec-tivists have a tendency towards group consensus (Mejias, Shepherd, Vogel, & Lasaneo, 1997).
Tan et al. (1995) suggested ways that different cultures can be studied with other important variables such as task type and group size. The study focused on finding a way to examine the robustness of previous and current GSS research across different cultures and to add a cultural perspective to existing GSS knowledge. Hofstede's dimension of power distance was examined in relation to GSSs, and the possible impacts of a GSS intervention in both high and low power distance countries were explored.
In studies examining only Singaporean groups (Tan et al., 1995), the use of a GSS resulted in a decreased impact of status and normative influences on decision making. These findings showed that change in consensus was greater in American groups than it was in than Singaporean groups, and influence was more equal in Singaporean groups than it was in American groups. The higher power distance of Singaporean groups may explain the differences between these two meeting outcomes, and the study supports the proposition that a GSS can overcome the effect of high power distance on group meetings.
A study comparing North American and Mexican groups participating in GSS sessions showed differences in terms of perception of consensus and satisfaction levels of group members (Mejias et al., 1997). American and Mexican groups were also studied for GSS effects on participation equity, with Mexican groups reporting higher participation equity levels than American GSS groups (Mejias et al., 1997). It was suggested that high power distance cultures benefit from GSSs, and that these findings indicate that culture has a significant bearing on crucial aspects of GSS meeting outcomes.
When members interact at different locations and at different times, GSS teams are considered virtual teams. Globalization implies that virtual collaborative teams are often made up of participants with different backgrounds (national culture, spoken language, and value system). Carte and Chidambaram (2004) suggested that GSS features can reduce the negative effects of cultural diversity (i.e., communication difficulties, misunderstandings, decreased cohesion, and increased conflict) early in the life of a culturally diverse team. Based on these findings, Staples and Zhao (2006) provided evidence that cultural diversity effects are different depending on the communication mode used between members (e.g., face-to-face vs. virtual-electronic) and specifically that the performance of heterogeneous teams using electronic channels of communication was higher than heterogeneous teams using face-to-face communication. The findings could have implications for the design and use of anonymity features in GSS-supported meetings.
Based on Hofstede (1991), Shin and Higa (2005) investigated the attitude of people with a particular cultural background toward different scheduling approaches. They found that face-to-face coordination led to higher group satisfaction than automated approaches did. Extending the implications of their study, their findings suggest that organizational cultures that show strong collectivism and social interactivity may hinder adoption and use of virtual technologies such as GSSs.
The feature of anonymity in GSSs facilitates group processes by moderating those participants who dominate group discussions, by hiding the identities of the participants to eliminate the influence of authority, and by removing the reliance on nonverbal cues in communication between group members. Some researchers have hypothesized that anonymity enhances group member participation by reducing inhibitions. For example, Wilson and Jessup (1995) found that groups interacting under anonymity generate more total comments and unique ideas, more ideas of higher rarity, and more critical comments than groups interacting without anonymity.
In his study of the effect of individuals' personality characteristics on their participation in a decision-making meeting, Hartmann (2001) investigated also the moderating effect by anonymity. It is found that anonymity allows the disagreeable persons (i.e., those who are less willing to help others) to participate more and provide more on-task comments with a high level of anonymity than they would with a low level of anonymity in a GSS-supported meeting. However, groups with agreeable individuals will perform better, but anonymity will allow the disagreeable individuals to participate more and therefore create more conflict, resulting in poor performance from the group.
Limayem, Khalifa, and Coombes (2003) conducted a study to explain the different effects of anonymity on the behavior of Hong Kong and Canadian groups during GSS sessions. In the Hong Kong Chinese culture, group interactions tend to emphasize harmony, conformance, and reciprocal respect rather than openness and spontaneity. However, the Canadian group's culture, which frequently exhibits openness and spontaneity, will usually allow individuals to deviate from the norm. Anonymity was found to have more significant positive effects for Hong Kong groups. With anonymity, the performance of the Hong Kong group improved significantly in terms of number of contributions, quality of contributions, and perceived level of participation. No significant differences in the performance were found for the Canadian groups, except for the quality of contributions, which deteriorated with anonymity. A qualitative analysis of this negative effect revealed social loafing and lack of accountability as possible causes. This finding is consistent with the previous study that anonymity induces social loafing and flaming, reduces accountability, and ultimately may decrease participation (Er & Ng, 1995; Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 1990).
In a study exploring the usefulness of electronic brain-storming (a component of GSS), Dennis and Reinicke (2004) note that reinforcing the group culture is considerably more difficult, especially when brainstorming is anonymous. According to theses authors, adoption of such technologies depends on the relative importance of existing culture and power structures to key group members, because of the difficulty to identify and sanction those members who challenge current structures. Moreover, they suggest that if anonymity may improve performance, removing it may increase overall usefulness. They finally called for further research to predict adoption of GSS technologies with more refined versions of the Technology Acceptance Model.
In sum, studies investigating the use of GSS by people from different cultures have indicated that culture has a significant impact on GSS usage, and that cultural dimensions, such as those proposed by Hofstede (1991), have some relevance in explaining these differences. However, there is still uncertainty as to the specific impacts of culture on the performance of groups in anonymous GSS sessions, and therefore more must be done to clearly understand how different cultures respond to anonymity.
future trends
Migrating to the era of virtual organization, it is more and more common that cross-organization project teams rely on GSSs to accomplish their daily tasks. Since team members are often from different cultural backgrounds, the optimal performance of the GSS relies on the cultural context in which it operates. Hence, the practical implications of cultural studies in GSS research are of significant value not only to facilitators of GSS, but also to users of groupware applications, as well as many other inter-organizational electronic communication systems.
In the same vain, anonymity in GSSs per se involves no value judgment at all. One cannot simply judge that it is a favorable or an unfavorable feature, especially when participants with different cultural backgrounds are involved. The use of anonymity should depend on the cultural context in which it is applied. For example, the use of anonymity in GSSs is likely to result in better meeting performance in groups that do not emphasize status hierarchies, conformance, mutual obligation, and reciprocity than in groups that emphasize on these qualities. In the former situation, anonymity could even lead to negative outcomes such as social loafing due to the reduction in motivation and effort that occurs when individuals work in anonymous groups. Conversely, it may be beneficial to use anonymity for GSS-supported groups with cultures that normally exhibit higher levels of conformance pressure and evaluation apprehension.
In a broader sense, GSS and groupware designers and developers should pay special attention to the implementation of anonymity features. For example, they could make it easier for users to turn these features on and off to accommodate the culture of the groups using the systems. Finally, facilitators should remember that studies suggest that culture influences participation in the GSS environment (Tung & Quaddus, 2002). Therefore, facilitators should study the culture of the group using the technology before blindly using anonymity to generate or evaluate ideas.
conclusion
Culture is obviously an important factor affecting a group's response to anonymity in the GSS context. Cultural effect on group structure and evaluation apprehension is also an important consideration for designers, facilitators, and users of GSSs. Considering the rather rare number of studies investigating the impact of culture on GSSs, further research in this area is warranted. An interesting line of research in GSSs for the future would be to isolate the relative impact of anonymity in the context of different cultures engaged in different tasks and situations. The knowledge gained from this and other continuing studies will assist in the effective application of GSSs in increasingly diverse and global contexts.
key terms
Anonymity in GSS: The situation when participants' names are not made public in a GSS environment.
Culture: The collective programming of the mind, which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.
Group Support System (GSS): Any combination of hardware and software that enhances groupwork.
Individualism: A preference for a loose-knit social framework in a society in which individuals are only supposed to take care of themselves and their immediate families.
This is opposed to collectivism, which implies a preference for a tightly knit social framework in which individuals can expect their relatives and clan to protect them in exchange for loyalty.
Long-Term Orientation: The fostering of virtues oriented towards future rewards, in particular perseverance and thrift. Its opposite pole, short-term orientation, stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past and present, in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of 'face', and fulfilling social obligations.
Masculinity: A preference for achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and material success; as opposed to femininity, which implies a preference for relationships, modesty, caring for the weak, and quality of life.
Power Distance: The extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is unevenly distributed.
Uncertainty Avoidance: The degree to which a society feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations, which leads its members to support beliefs promising certainty and to maintain institutions protecting conformity.