Communication Media and Group Cohesion in Organizational Teams: An Analysis of Differences Between Supervisors and Team Members

Full text

!Journal!of!Interdisciplinary!Business!Studies!
Communication!Media!and!Group,!Page!1!
Communication Media and Group Cohesion in
Organizational Teams: An Analysis of Differences Between
Supervisors and Team Members
Harrison, Sarah J.
Honors Graduate, University of Nevada-Las Vegas
McAllister, Daniel
University of Nevada-Las Vegas
Alder, G. Stoney
University of Nevada-Las Vegas
Abstract
Organizational teams require various communication media to aid in information transmission.
Despite the widespread use of communication technologies, there remain unanswered questions
about how they affect group cohesiveness. This paper explores how communication media usage
can influence measures of group cohesiveness in organizational teams. The media investigated
in this paper include face-to-face communication, email, phone conversations, instant
messaging, text messaging, and handwritten notes. Thirty-five respondents—composed of both
team members and supervisors—who frequently work on team projects completed a survey that
measured communication media usage and measures of group cohesiveness. Indicators of group
cohesiveness used in this paper include perceived team member support, comfort communicating
with team members, and desire for future collaboration with team members.
When data for supervisors and team members were combined, the frequency of instant
messaging and handwritten notes was positively associated with perceived team member
support. Additionally, the frequency of instant messaging and text messaging were both
associated with an increased desire for future collaboration with team members. However, when
analyzed separately, supervisors’ and team members’ results differed substantially. For
supervisors, perceived team member support was associated with a higher usage of email,
instant messaging, and text messaging with their team members. Additionally, supervisors’
desire for future collaboration with their teams was associated with a higher usage of email and
instant messaging. Analysis of data for team members indicated that when they communicated
among themselves via handwritten notes they were more likely to have higher reported levels of
comfort communicating with their team members and more perceived team member support.
Also, text messaging among team members was positively associated with a desire for future
collaboration. Additional results and implications for managers are discussed.

! ! Journal!of!Interdisciplinary!Business!Studies!
!
! ! Communication!Media!and!Group,!Page!
!2!
Introduction
Communication media have proliferated within the past decade. Whereas communication media options
once were limited to face-to-face communication, phone, and email, they now include video
conferencing, blogging, social networking utilities, and text messaging, to name a few. These new
communication technologies enable people to stay updated and in contact with people despite time and
geographical differences. Consequently, many business professionals utilize them.
Face-to-face (FTF) communication and computer-mediated communication (CMC) are both found to
have benefits and drawbacks concerning organizational team communication. The purpose of this
research is to provide an exploratory approach towards understanding the relationship between
communication media usage and aspects of group cohesiveness in organizational work teams. For the
purposes of this research, an organizational work team will be defined as three or more people who
perceive themselves as working together on a specific project within their organization. The sample in
this study was composed of primarily city government employees as well as professionals employed at
private and government organizations. The communication media this research addressed include face-to-
face (in person) communication, email, phone, text messaging, instant messaging, and handwritten notes.
Whereas many forms of electronic communication are being utilized due to geographical constraints, this
research focused on organizational work teams that are primarily communicating with team members
who also work locally within their organization. Thus, for most of these organizational work teams, face-
to-face communication was possible and not hindered by considerable geographical dispersion.
The hypotheses are as follows:
H1: Teams that utilize FTF communication frequently will report higher levels of measures of group
cohesiveness than teams that use FTF communication less frequently.
H2: Teams that utilize new forms of media, such as instant messaging, text messaging and handwritten
notes, will report higher levels of measures of group cohesiveness than teams that use the media less
frequently.
Literature Review
Note that while the sample in this study is composed of professionals who work on teams to complete
projects, literature regarding communication media usage in both team and group settings will be covered
due to their similarities.
Group cohesiveness is described as an individual’s attraction to their group and their desire to collaborate
with the group in the future (Straus, 1997). Beal, Cohen, Burke, and McLendon (2003) argued that group
cohesiveness consists of interpersonal attraction, task commitment, and group pride. Group cohesiveness
has important implications for group performance and interpersonal interaction. Mullen and Copper
(1994) found a highly significant, yet small magnitude, relationship between group cohesiveness and
performance. They argue that the effect is mostly due to task commitment as opposed to group pride and
interpersonal attraction. Narayanan and Nath (1984) found that highly cohesive work groups displayed
more positive relationships among coworkers and superior-subordinate relationships as well as improved
flexibility and productivity. Yoo and Alavi (2001) highlighted that cohesive groups’ increased task
performance is due chiefly to improved task-related communication.

! ! Journal!of!Interdisciplinary!Business!Studies!
!
! ! Communication!Media!and!Group,!Page!
!3!
Considering the importance of group cohesion, it is beneficial to consider how it relates to
communication media choices. Burgoon, Bonito, Bengtsson, and Ramirez Jr. (2000) found that FTF
communication fostered more receptivity among members than CMC communication, which may enable
the members to have more beneficial long term interactions. Knight, Pearson, and Hunsinger (2008)
conducted a study of student teams communicating exclusively via FTF, WebCT (live online meetings),
or email. They found that FTF groups reported the highest cohesion at both the start and end of the
project, while email groups reported the lowest cohesion. Despite the fact that FTF teams reported higher
levels of group cohesiveness, CMC groups may benefit from a faster speed of improvement in group
cohesiveness. Pazos and Beruvides (2011) noted that FTF teams reported higher average cohesiveness
than CS teams, but team cohesiveness improved at a faster rate in CS teams.
While computer mediated communication may enable people to communicate more equally, it can also
have negative effects for group cohesiveness. Kiesler, Siegel, and McGuire (1984) conducted experiments
that analyzed communication disparities between FTF and CMC groups. They found that group members
using CMC participated more equally than they did when communicating FTF. However, their results
also showed that people in CMC groups were more likely than people in FTF groups to act uninhibited,
meaning that they had a higher frequency of rude and hostile comments. Additionally, Sproull and Kiesler
(1986) found that people preferred to use email to deliver bad news and they were more likely to send an
offensive or angry message in an electronic message.
Yoo and Alavi (2001) found that in established groups, group cohesion had a larger influence than
communication media for measures of task participation and social presence. Furthermore, they found
that group cohesion influenced how group members perceived communication media in established
groups. Yoo and Alavi also argued that group cohesion can sometimes help to improve the richness of
lean media. The authors cited several studies (Olsen et al. 1995; Stephenson et al. 1976; and Phillips and
Santoro 1989) that found that lean media can aid users in avoiding irrelevant topics and focusing more on
the task at hand. Additionally, Walther (1995) found that contrary to existing literature, FTF
communication was not more sociable than CMC over time.
Burke, Aytes, and Chidambaram (2001) analyzed two different studies of groups that utilized electronic
meeting systems and found that even the leanest media permit growth in cohesion and process
satisfaction. Consequently, they argue that there are not substantial differences in media concerning their
ability to facilitate cohesion or process satisfaction over time. However, other research noted that
interpersonal attraction was found to differ between media choices. Weisband and Atwater (1999) found
that group members liked each other more in FTF groups and that this liking caused significant variance
in respondents’ ratings of others in FTF groups. However, this relationship did not occur in electronic
groups.
Communication media choices may also influence people’s satisfaction with their team processes.
Timmerman and Barger (2004) examined whether choice of communication media influenced group
members’ satisfaction with the group’s processes by studying students participating in group projects.
They discovered that students were more satisfied with interpersonal processes when they utilized FTF
communication. However, students’ satisfaction with action processes, such as coordination activities and
monitoring progress, was associated with increased email utilization.
Some researchers posited that computer-mediated communication can lead to increased de-individuation
among group members by reducing the number of channels that are used for interaction. De-individuation
is described as the process one encounters when they become submerged in a group and they lose their
sense of individual identity (Barkhi et al., 1999). Other researchers (Festinger, Pepitone, & Newcombe,

! ! Journal!of!Interdisciplinary!Business!Studies!
!
! ! Communication!Media!and!Group,!Page!
!4!
1952; and Zimbardo, 1969) speculated that a group member’s obligation to the group norms frequently
leads to the weakening of social norms by reducing the social constraints on the individual. Further,
(Barkhi et al., 1999) found that CMC groups were more likely than FTF groups to exploit private
information. Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1989) highlighted other negative effects of de-individuation,
including decreased fear, guilt, and consideration for personal principles of decision making and ethics.
Considering the various ways in which communication media usage can influence group behavior and
outcomes, it is important to explore how specific media may affect aspects of group cohesiveness in
organizational work teams.
Methodology
Surveys were collected between July 2009-April 2010. The sample included employees who worked for
the city of Henderson and the city of Las Vegas as well as people who worked for various government
and private industries, ranging from marketing to architecture (the exact companies will not be named to
ensure privacy). The researcher was able to locate suitable respondents by contacting an individual at the
city of Henderson and receiving further recommendations from respondents that were interviewed.
The professionals in the sample had all recently finished a team project, and they had all worked on
several team projects recently in their careers. Additionally, they had all worked on internal team projects
with professionals who also worked in their organization. The survey questions focused on team
communication that occurred with team members who worked for the same organization as the
respondents (internal communication).
Procedure
A link to the survey was emailed to the respondents after they consented to the research and completed an
interview. The interview results will not be presented in this paper. A total of 35 of the 38 respondents
completed the survey, providing a response rate of 92%. Questions covered the following topics:
demographics, comfort communicating, communication media usage, the perceived efficacy of various
communication media, group cohesion, and project performance. Respondents were asked to measure
their communication media usage frequency on five point Likert scales, ranging from Very frequently to
Never.
Three aspects of group cohesiveness were measured in this study: perceived group member support,
comfort communicating, and desire for future collaboration. While face-to-face communication could
include any in person interaction among team members, the survey asked respondents to recall the
frequency in which the team used FTF communication for meetings. Consequently, the analysis focuses
on team interaction at meetings, rather than on interactions between a subset of a team.
Results
Statistical tests were performed using SPSS. The following results were analyzed by calculating
Spearman correlation coefficients for pairs of variables. One-tailed tests of significance were used.
Note that positive correlations represent that a particular communication medium is helpful for achieving
a specific result since they are measured on a Likert scale, e.g. if there is a positive correlation, an
increase in the frequency of email will result in an increase of desire for future collaboration.

! ! Journal!of!Interdisciplinary!Business!Studies!
!
! ! Communication!Media!and!Group,!Page!
!5!
Also, note the following abbreviations that will be used in the correlation tables.
Abbreviation
Meaning
I.M.
Instant messaging
Notes
Handwritten notes
Comfort
Respondent’s comfort communicating with team members
Support
Respondent’s perceived team member support
FutWork
Respondent’s desire for future collaboration with team members
Demographic Information
Respondents’ ages ranged from 27-61 (Mage=41.47). The majority of respondents were male, while 40%
were female. Approximately 45% of respondents reported that their highest education achievement was a
bachelor’s degree, while 43% of respondents reported earning a graduate degree. The majority of
respondents (66%) had been with their current employer for four or more years. Most (77%) respondents
reported that the team project under consideration for this study was over five months in length. Most of
the teams (80%) under consideration for this study had seven or more team members (including the
respondent). Nearly half of the respondents (49%) had worked with some members of their team prior to
the group project under consideration, while 46% of respondents had worked with the entire team
previously. Twenty respondents (57%) were team supervisors and fifteen respondents (43%) were team
members.
Communication Media & Their Effects
Face-to-face communication, email, and phone conversations were the most widely used communication
media in this study. Instant messaging and text messaging were used by a minority of respondents, as
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Frequency of Media Usage among Respondents
Communication Media
Percentage of respondents that
reported using the media
Instant messaging
20%
Text messaging
37%
Handwritten notes
57%
Phone conversations
97%
Email
100%
Face-to-face interaction
100%
Group Cohesiveness Results
The data for supervisors and team members were analyzed separately as well as combined and analyzed
together. Figure 2 displays the results for when supervisors’ and team members’ responses were

! ! Journal!of!Interdisciplinary!Business!Studies!
!
! ! Communication!Media!and!Group,!Page!
!6!
combined and analyzed together. While supervisors’ surveys asked them to report their communication
frequency with their team members, the team members’ surveys measured their communication with both
their supervisors and their team members. The team members’ survey results demonstrating differences
between outcome measures and their communication target (either other team members or their
supervisors) are displayed in Figure 4.
Figure 2: Supervisors and Team Members Combined: Correlations between Measures of
Group Cohesiveness & Frequency of Communication Media Usage
Comfort
FutWork
Support
Email
0.15
0.17
0.28
FTF
0.19
0.07
0.12
IM
0.11
0.38*
0.31*
Notes
0.27
0.20
0.43**
Phone
-0.02
0.19
0.20
Texts
0.27
0.35*
0.25
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
Explanation: The frequency of handwritten notes and instant messaging were found to have a significant
positive relationship with perceived team member support. Instant messaging and text messaging
frequency were found to have a significant positive relationship with respondents reported desire for
future collaboration with their team members.
Figure 3: Supervisors’ Correlations between Measures of Group Cohesiveness &
Frequency of Communication Media Usage
Comfort
FutWork
Support
Email
0.26
.48*
.53**
FTF
0.1
-0.21
-0.14
I.M.
0.31
0.44*
.69**
Notes
-0.09
0.09
0.33
Phone
0.02
0.37
0.29
Texts
0.18
0.2
0.39*
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
Explanation: Supervisors were more likely to want to collaborate in the future with their team members
when they communicated via instant messaging or email. Frequently using text messaging, instant
messaging, or email for communication was associated with higher levels of perceived team member
support.
Figure 4: Team Members’ Correlations between Measures of Group Cohesiveness &
Frequency of Communication Media Usage

! ! Journal!of!Interdisciplinary!Business!Studies!
!
! ! Communication!Media!and!Group,!Page!
!7!
Communication w/ Team Members
Comfort
FutWork
Support
Email
0.02
-0.2
0
FTF
0.09
0.13
0.34
I.M.
-0.2
0.23
-0.26
Notes
0.58*
0.09
.58*
Phone
-0.31
-0.11
0.13
Texts
0.1
0.48*
0.08
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
Communication w/ Supervisors
Comfort
FutWork
Support
Email
0
0
0.23
FTF
0.15
-0.39
-0.03
I.M.
0.21
0.03
-0.16
Notes
0.3
-0.2
0.24
Phone
0.42
0.38
0.32
Texts
0.24
-0.01
-0.16
Explanation: Based on team members’ survey results, there were not any significant correlations between
measures of group cohesiveness and communication media usage for communication with their
supervisors. Team members who communicated amongst themselves via text messaging had a higher
desire for future collaboration with their teams. The frequency of using notes amongst team members was
associated with higher values of perceived team member support and comfort communicating with team
members.
Addressing Hypotheses-
H1: Teams that utilize FTF communication frequently will report higher levels of measures of group
cohesiveness than teams that use FTF communication less frequently.
This hypothesis was not supported by survey findings. The frequency of face-to-face communication did
not have any significant relationships with any of the measures of group cohesiveness in the survey data.
H2: Teams that utilize new forms of media, such as instant messaging, text messaging and handwritten
notes, will report higher levels of measures of group cohesiveness than teams that use the media less
frequently.
This hypothesis was often supported by the data. In the combined data set (for supervisors and team
members’ survey responses), the frequency of instant messaging and text messaging were both found to
have a significant positive relationship with respondents’ desire for future collaboration with their team
members. Additionally, in the combined data set, the frequency of handwritten notes was found to have a
significant positive relationship with respondents’ perceived team member support. When supervisors and
team members’ survey responses were analyzed separately, notes, text messaging, and instant messaging
also had positive significant relationships with measures of group cohesiveness. Having the ability to
communicate with these novel media may have caused respondents to feel that their teams are more
cohesive.
Discussion and Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, there are several suggestions that may be beneficial for organizational
work teams. In order to build group cohesiveness, it is recommended that teams consider utilizing more
handwritten notes due to their relationship with perceived team member support. Perhaps handwritten
notes enable team members to feel more support because they provide a more personalized way of
communicating. Another plausible explanation is that team members that are located in close physical
proximity to each other in the workplace may have higher levels of perceived team member support and
they may also be more likely to utilize handwritten notes.

! ! Journal!of!Interdisciplinary!Business!Studies!
!
! ! Communication!Media!and!Group,!Page!
!8!
Instant messaging and text messaging usage were both associated with a desire for future collaboration. It
is speculated that instant messaging and text messaging provide team members with a more urgent and
expedient way of communicating. In doing so, they may allow professionals to feel more capable of
engaging in communication with busy team members, leading them to prefer to work with team members
that utilize these forms of media in the future. Another important consideration is that team members that
are familiar with each other prior to their projects may choose to use instant messaging and text
messaging more frequently. It is recommended that teams attempt to use more instant messaging and text
messaging and see if it improves their sense of group cohesiveness.
Supervisors were more likely to want to collaborate in the future with their team members when they
communicated via instant messaging or email. Supervisors were more likely to report higher levels of
perceived team member support when they reported frequently using text messaging, instant messaging,
or email. Based on this analysis, it appears that the more forms of communication media a supervisor
utilizes to communicate with their team members on a project, the more likely they are to experience high
levels of group cohesiveness. Thus, it is recommended that supervisors are encouraged to use a variety of
media to contact their team members, specifically those that allow for rapid feedback. This may enable
supervisors to address urgent issues rapidly and feel that their teams are committed to the project’s
success.
Limitations
One of the primary limitations is the generalizability of the sample. It is unclear how respondents’ various
organizational climates and team settings influenced their communication media choices. Consequently,
one must use caution when applying these findings in different team and organizational settings. Another
potential limitation is the survey sample size, which was 35 respondents, as well as the small number of
respondents that used some of the media in the study. Without knowing why only a minority of
respondents reported using some of the media in the study, it is difficult to speculate on the benefits of
those particular media in various team settings. Furthermore, since respondents self-reported their
communication media usage they may have had difficulty recalling precisely what occurred during their
past project considering that the majority of the sample works on several team projects simultaneously.
Directions for Future Research
Further research should investigate teams’ communication media preferences; specifically how
organizational climate and the physical distance between team members’ offices affect media selection.
This is especially relevant in city government and large organizational settings where team members can
feasibly meet face-to-face, but may be pressured to communication via electronic communication due to
scheduling demands.
It is difficult to ascertain why only a minority of respondents used some of the media mentioned in this
study, such as text messaging and instant messaging. Further research should ascertain disparities
between teams that choose to use these media and those that do not in order to better understand why
these media appear to be beneficial for those that utilized them in this study.
Every organization has various factors that affect the efficacy of communication media, and the results
found in this study may only be applicable to local government and other similar organizations, rather
than generalizable to several distinct organizational settings. It is recommended that more of an emphasis
is placed on studying organizational teams, as opposed to ad hoc student teams that are often used in this

! ! Journal!of!Interdisciplinary!Business!Studies!
!
! ! Communication!Media!and!Group,!Page!
!9!
type of research. This may help to improve the understanding of how organizational settings and time
constraints influence media selection and effectiveness.

! ! Journal!of!Interdisciplinary!Business!Studies!
!
! ! Communication!Media!and!Group,!Page!
!10!
References
Barkhi, R., Jacob, V. S., & Pirkul, H. (1999). An experimental analysis of face-to-face versus
computer-mediated communication channels. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8(4), 325-347.
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and Performance in
Groups: A Meta-Analytic Clarification of Construct Relations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(6), 989-1004.
Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Bengtsson, B., Ramirez, A. J.., & et al. (2000). Testing the
interactivity model: Communication processes, partner assessments, and the quality of
collaborative work. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(3), 33-56.
Burke, K., Aytes, K., & Chidambaram, L. (2001). Media effects on the development of cohesion and
process satisfaction in computer-supported workgroups: An analysis of results from two
longitudinal studies. Information Technology & People, 14(2), 122-141.
Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., and Newcombe, T. (1952). Some consequences of deindividuation in a
group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated
communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123-1134.
Knight, M., Pearson, J., & Hunsinger, D.. (2008). The Role of Media Richness in Information
Technology-Supported Communication in Group Cohesion, Agreeability, and
Performance. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 20(4), 23-44.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An
integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210.
Narayanan, V. K., & Nath, R. (1984). The influence of group cohesiveness on some changes induced
by flextime: A quasi-experiment. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20(3), 265.
Pazos, P. & Beruvides, M. (2011). Performance patterns in face-to-face and computer-supported
teams. Team Performance Management, 17(1/2), 83-101.
Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. (1989). Deindividuation and the self-regulation of behavior. In Paul
Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence, (2nd ed., pp. 87-109). Hillsdale, NJ England:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational
communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492-1512.
Straus, S. G. (1997). Technology, Group Process, and Group Outcomes: Testing the Connections in
Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 227.

! ! Journal!of!Interdisciplinary!Business!Studies!
!
! ! Communication!Media!and!Group,!Page!
!11!
Timmerman, T., & Barger, B. (2004). Relationships between communication media and group
processes. Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Organizational Culture,
Communications and Conflict. Proceedings, 9(1), 89-92.
Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental
observations over time. Organization Science, 6(2), 186-203.
Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in
computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 828-846.
Weisband, S., and Atwater, L. (1999). Evaluating self and others in electronic and face-to-face
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 632-639.
Yoo, Y. & Alavi, M. (2001). Media and group cohesion: Relative influences on social presence, task
participation, and group consensus. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 371-390.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation,
impulse, and chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, (17) 237-307.