Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Management
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (26)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dennis, A. R.
Right arrow Articles by Valacich, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Group, Sub-Group, and Nominal Group Idea Generation: New Rules for a New Media?

Alan R. Dennis

University of Georgia

Joseph S. Valacich

Indiana University

How should a group organize itself to generate ideas? Should all group members work together as one intact group, should they form several smaller sub-groups that work independently, or should all members work separately as individuals without communicating? Research with verbal media presents a clear answer: all members should work separately without communicating. This paper examines this question for computer-mediated idea generation. In two separate studies, intact groups generated more ideas (with higher quality) than those working as individuals or in several smaller sub-groups. We attribute these differences to reduced blocking, and different social processes adopted in the different sized groups.

Journal of Management, Vol. 20, No. 4, 723-736 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/014920639402000402
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics SocietyHome page
C. C. Dornburg, S. M. Stevens, S. M. L. Hendrickson, and G. S. Davidson
Improving Extreme-Scale Problem Solving: Assessing Electronic Brainstorming Effectiveness in an Industrial Setting
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, August 1, 2009; 51(4): 519 - 527.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
L. Zhou and D. Zhang
A Comparison of Deception Behavior in Dyad and Triadic Group Decision Making in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication
Small Group Research, April 1, 2006; 37(2): 140 - 164.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Organization ManagementHome page
E. R. Balotsky and E. W. Christensen
Educating a Modern Business Workforce: An Integrated Educational Information Technology Process
Group Organization Management, April 1, 2004; 29(2): 148 - 170.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
H. Barki and A. Pinsonneault
Small Group Brainstorming and Idea Quality: Is Electronic Brainstorming the Most Effective Approach?
Small Group Research, April 1, 2001; 32(2): 158 - 205.
[Abstract] [PDF]