performance

I found the theory of over all better production of groups in CMC to be fascinating. I agree and disagree at the same time. If the group is one that requires bonding of group members or is group related to and involved in compassionate projects, I  disagree that that can be done just as well via CMC if given enough time. I think part of success is timing. If a group is considered success full upon being given more time than necessary to complete a task, then the adverse might be true of F2F communication. What I mean to say is that it is never discussed whether f2f groups would perform as good as CMC groups is given more time to work it out. It seems like confirmation bias on the part of the theory.

I do think that there are many tasks in which f2f could waste time because we require pleasantries when we meet in person and this could be quite distracting also. There are many situations where things could be worked out quicker and more efficiently simply because our human nature is to compete and judge based on false attribution that more often occurs in f2f groups. I like both forms of groups and think we could be better at both if we did both more often, not just out of practice but out of appreciation for their fundamental purposes.