9708156172

8/8/2019 9708156172

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/9708156172 1/24

Richness of E-Mail Comm unication

Communication

Richness inElectronic Maii:Criticai Sociai Theoryand the Contextuaiityof i\/ieaning^

By: Ojelanki K. Ngwenyam a

University of iUlichigan Business

Schooi

Ann Arbor, iUlichigan 48109-1234

U.S.A.

[email protected]

Aiien S. Lee

Facuity of iUianagement

iUicGiii University

iUiontreal, Quebec H3A1G5

CANADA

[email protected]

Abstract

information Richness Theory (IRT) has

enjoyed acceptance b y information systems

researchers throughout the last decade, but

recent unfavorable empiricai evidence has pre-

cipitated a shift aviiay from it and a search for a

new theory. Because of this shift, a new defini-

tion of comm unication richness is needed to

succeed the iRT definition. Since its inception,

IS research on comm unication richness has

been iimited to the perspective of positivism

and, more recentiy, interpretivism. In this

communication, criticai sociai theory (CST), is

introduced. The paper outiines (1) a CS T-

based definition of comm unication richness

and compares it with positlvist and interpre-tivist definitions of comm unication richness

and (2) a CST-based social action framewori<

for empiricai study of organizationai communi-

cation in any media u se situation. The CST

definition a nd framewori< are used in an inten-

sive investigation of an episode of the man-

agerial use of eiectronic maii in a company to

iilustrate how research on communication rich-

ness can be conducted from the CST perspec-

tive. This illustration aiso points out the usefui-

ness of the CS T perspective in recognizing

instances of communication richness in elec-

tronic mail communications that would escape

detection in not just the iRT perspective in par-

ticuiar, but aiso positivist and interpretive per-

spectives in general. Finaiiy, the paper con-

dudes by outiining the potentiai for future IS

research on organizationai communication and

information technology from the CST perspec-

tive, in addition to the specific contribution to

the deveiopment of a new theory of communi-cation richness in electronic media, this study

aiso contributes an example of CST research

on IS and extends the domain of the CST-iS

research program.

K e y w o r d s : C o m p u t e r m e d i a t e d c o m -

munication, crit ical sociai theory, media

r i chness , qua l i t a t i ve resea rch , o r -

ganizational communication.

iSRL C ategories: ADO518, AiO803, HAO801,

DD02, AI00118

Introduction

Research on managerial and organizat ional

use of information technoiogies has been cen-tral to the f ieid of information systems (IS)

since its inception. An important l ine of this

8/8/2019 9708156172


Rictiness of E-Mail Communication

serve as communication media and (2) man-

agerial use of these media can be described

and expiained by this intrinsic property. Since

1986 , IRT has been inf luent ia l in both ISresearch and practice. iViany IS doctoral stu-

dents have researched it and many IS practi-

tioners have used it as a basis for their com-

munications technologies adoption decisions.

However, recent empirical studies have pre-

sented evidence that calls into question the

validity of IRT and its framework for manageri-

al decision making about electronic communi-

cation media (El-Shinnawy and fVlarkus 1992;

Kinney and Watson 1992; Lee 1994; f\/larkus

1 9 9 4 ; Rice 1992) . As Markus (1994) has

a rg u e d : " [T]he weight of in formed opin ion

seems to be shift ing [away from IRT] in the

d i rec t i on o f soc ia l de f i n i t i on theo r i es . "

Consequently, IS researchers are confronted

with the need to replace the IRT perspective

on communicat ion r ichness with a new one.

The importance of this endeavor cannot be

overstated because one of the primary objec-

tives of IS research is to provide sound theo-

retical foundations upon which organizationscan make decisions about the management

and use of information technologies (Zmud

1995). In this regard, this paper offers a new

perspective on how richness occurs in man-

agerial communication that uses information

technology and an approach to empirical stud-

ies on this issue,

A critical social ttieory (CST) perspective onc o m m u n i c a t i o n r i c h n e s s i s i n t r o d u c e d .

Although several studies have been conductedon com m un ic a t i on r i chne ss in e l ec t ron i c

media, they can all be classified as instancesof positivist research or, more recently, inter-

pret ive research. This s tudy is the f i rs t to

approach research on communication richnessin computer mediated communication from a

CST perspective. It is motivated by an interestin clarifying how richness occurs in managerial

communica t ion conduc ted v ia in fo rmat ion

technology and in contributing to the develop-ment of a valid theory of communication rich-

need to question the fundamental and impli

assumption that pervades much (although n

all) IS research^ on communication richne

which ho lds (1) that the processing of data ininformation is primarily, if not exclusively, t

job of computer hardware and software and (

that the primary role of hum an beings is that

"users" of both the output and the richne

produced by the hardware-software syste

Empirical material will illustrate that the prima

"processing" of data into information, at least

the arena of managerial communication invol

ing an electronic mail system, is performed n

by the hardware or software, but by the humabeings themselves. It is through the process

enactment that people, not electronic comm

nication media, bring about the richness th

they expe r i enc e in t he i r co mm un ica t i on

(Weick 1969).

The remainder of the paper is organized as fo

lows. The next section provides a review an

cri t ique of information r ichness theory. Th

third section outlines the basic ideas and limtations of the positivist and interpretivist pe

spectives of current IS research on commun

cation richness. The fourth section outlines th

CST perspective on communication richne

and explains what distinguishes it from pos

tivist and interpretive perspectives. In this se

t ion, a new definit ion of communication r ic

ness from the CST perspective is offered an

an outline of a theoretical framewo rk for stud

ing communication richness from this perspe

tive is presented. In the fifth section, the usfulness of this CST approach to recognizin

instances of people's enactment of cohere

meaning in thei r communicat ion wi th eac

other—instances that would escape detectio

in not just an IRT perspective in particular, b

also positivist and interpretive perspectives

general—is demonstrated. In this paper, th

approach to this analysis and illustration is a

intensive invest igat ion (Weick, 1984) of a

episode of the managerial use of electron

mail in a compan y. The final section conclude

with impl icat ions for future IS research o

8/8/2019 9708156172


Richness of E-Mail Com munication

this perspective gained wide acceptance

asis for both iS research on and decision

making about eiectronic communication media.

For practitioners, iRT has served as a norma-

edia, it provided a conceptuai framework for

ranking media from the richest to the ieanest.

in this framework, the richness of any medium

and its ranking in the overaii richness scaie is

ixed, regardless of any and ali differences inthe individuals who use it and the organization-

a i contex ts where i t i s used. For iS

researchers, IRT has served as a predictive

theory for empiricai studies on how managers

make communicat ion media choices, in this

later role, IRT's ranking of media on a richness

scale ailowed for the derivation of predictions

about peopies' media choices. IRT posits that

individuals wouid choose media higher in rich-

ness for those manager ia i tasks h igher in

equivocaiity or ambiguity. The foiiowing quota-t ion from the originai formuiat ion i i iustrates

iRT's theoretical perspective:

Information richness is defined as the abilityof information to change understanding withina time interval. Communication transactionsthat can overcome different frames of refer-ence or clarify ambiguous issues to changeunderstanding in a timely manner are consid-ered rich. Communications that require a long

time to enable understanding or that cannotovercome different perspectives are lower inrichness. In a sense, richness pertains to the

are (1) face-to-face, (2) telephone, (3) person-al documents such as letters or memos, (4)impersonal written documents, and (5)

numeric documents. The reason for richnessdifferences inciude the medium's capacity forimmediate feedback, the number of cues andchannels utilized, personalization, and lan-guage variety. . . . Face-to-face is the richestmedium because it provides immediate feed-back so that interpretation can be checked.Face-to-face also provides muitipie cues viabody language and tone of voice, and mes-sage content is expressed in natural lan-guage. Rich media facilitate equivocality

reduction by enabling managers to overcomedifferent frames of reference and by providingthe capacity to process complex, subjectivemessages.. . . Media of low richness processfewer cues and restrict feedback, and are lessappropriate for resoiving equivocal issues.However, an important point is that media oflow richness are effective for processing wellunderstood messages and standard data.[Daft and Lengel 1986, p. 560]

Although Daft and Lengel originaiiy formulated

and proposed IRT to help address the question

of why organizations process information, the

focus of iRT graduaiiy shifted away from the

organizationai context toward individual man-

agers, their media choices, and the messages

they exchange. Markus (1994) observes that

even though it has evolved, "Information rich-

ness theory remains an individual-level rational

cho ice exp lanat ion o f behav ior " (p . 523) .

indeed, iRT has been tested by focusing on the

behaviors of individuals in laboratory experi-ments, where the use of information techno iogy

is abstracted completely from any real life orga-

nizationai setting. However, the results of the

numerous empir ical tests conducted on iRT

have not been favorabie. f\/larkus (1994) can be

credited with what is arguably the most impres-

sive empirical refutation of iRT to date. Based

on both quantitative and qualitative evidence

that she collected on the behaviors of man-

agers whom she observed at her f ield si te,Markus summarizes that "their actuai media

8/8/2019 9708156172


Richness of E-Mail Communication

a manner that the theory regards as ineffective

and hence unlikely" (p. 518).

Other empirical studies have also reported evi-dence that contradicted IRT's arguments. For

example, evidence of e-mail communications

that, even according to IRT's own criteria, are

r ich, not lean, has been presented (Markus

1991). No support has been found for IRT's

assumptions of symmetry and nonmonotonici-

ty and only mixed support for i ts "general

hypothesis that task analyzabil i ty influences

the re lat ionship between media usage and

performance components" (Rice 1992, p. 493).No empirical support has been found for IRT's

prediction that "[i]ndividuals will prefer to com-

municate via V-mail than e-mail in situations

requ i r i ng the exchange o f i n fo rma t i on to

resolve equivocality" (El-Shinnawy and Markus

1992, p. 97). Instead, evidence to the contrary

has been found: that is, the individuals pre-

ferred e-mail (El-Shinnawy and Markus 1992,

p. 99). No ev idence was found to support

IRT's prediction that "differences in decision

time and consensus, change as a function ofthe interaction of medium and task" (Kinney

and Watson 1992). Although not specifically

performing a test of IRT, one study (Zuboff

1988) repor ted the presence o f r i chness

("sociality that infuses professional exchange,"

p. 376) in communication that uses e-mail and

computer conferencing—a richness that IRT

would predict not to occur. Evidence has also

been presented of how managerial communi-

cation using e-mail was still capable of being

r ich, despite the fact that e-mail has all the

lean media characteristics that IRT predicts

would lead to lean communication (Lee 1994).

These are (1) lack of capability for immediate

feedback; (2) a single channel which filters out

significant cues from the message's author; (3)

impersonality and reduced language variety.

Another sign that IS researchers are shifting

away from IRT is the alternative theoretical per-

spectives that some of them have advanced toexplain the richness observed in so-called lean

as IRT, social definition theories such as stru

turation, social construction of technology a

institutional theories, emphasize the emerge

properties or social determinants of behav

(cf. Markus 1994, p. 508). Other social defi

tion theories that have been proposed for t

study of communication richness are the "soc

influence model" (Fulk et al. 1990); the "eme

gent network perspect ive" (Contractor a

Eisenberg 1990); and the "genre theory" (Yat

and Orlikowski 1992). Recently, yet anoth

altemative, the "channel expansion theory" h

been o f fe red (Car lson and Zmud 1994

Common to these alternative explanations their rejection of the idea that communicati

richness is an invariant, objective property

the communication medium itself, independe

of the social context where the communicati

takes place. On the contrary, these alternati

explanations all regard communication richne

or leanness as following not from the properti

of the communication medium alone, but

emerging from the interact ions between t

people, and the organizational context.

As stated in the int roduct ion, a l l prev io

research on communication richness in ele

tronic media can be classified as instances

pos i t i v i s t and i n te rp re t i v i s t resea rch . A

overview the underlying theoretical foundatio

of these two research perspectives is presen

ed before outlining the CST perspective. Th

overview is relevant because a description

these two research perspectives will help cla

fy how the CST perspective differs from the

It wil l also help explain how CST can assi

researchers in developing a new theory

communicat ion r ichness in electronic med

that overcomes the weaknesses of the post iv ist and interpret iv ist perspectives. Sinc

8/8/2019 9708156172


Richness of E-Mail Co mm unication

hat uses information technoiogy.

Ttie positivist perspective on

communication riciiness

Positivism is aiso known as the "naturai-science

modei of social-science research" because it

proceeds to impiement, in social science, the

image of how research proceeds in physics,

biology, and other natural sciences. Like natur-

a l -sc ience theor ies, soc ia i -sc ience theor iesbased on this model must conform to the rules

of formal logic (of which the rules of mathemat-

ics are a subset) and, the ruies of experimentai

and qu asi-experimental design. The rules of for-

mal logic govern how a researcher may relate

the formal p ropo si t ions of a theory to one

another.3 j ^ e rules of experimentai and quasi-

experimentai design govern how a researcher

may relate the propositions, not so much to

each other, but to the empiricai reaiity they are

intended to expiain. These rules of experimen-tai design pertain to procedures for testing pre-

dictions and hypotheses, where examples of

these procedures are those associated with lab-

oratory experiments, fieid experiments, statisti-

ca l exper iments , and natura l exper iments .

Whether the propositions are quantitative (tak-

ing the form of mathematicai statements) or

qual i tat ive (taking the form of verbal state-

ments), they typically depict the subject matter

in terms of independent and dependent vari-ables. It Is by satisfying these two sets of ruies

that positivist social-science research conforms

to the naturai-science m odel.

Almost ali of the past empiricai studies of iRT

have been conducted from the positivist per-

spective of the naturai-science modei. In these

studies the phenomenon of manageriai com-

munication that uses information technology is

framed in terms of quanti f iable independent

and dependent variabies, and hypothesis test-ing, typicaiiy invoiving iaboratory experiments

ness, "[i]nformation richness is defined as the

ability of information to change understanding

within a time interval" (Daft and Lengei 1986

quoted above), is conducive to the study ofmanagerial communication from a quantitative,

positivist perspective. Consistent with the nat-

urai-science modei, communication in iRT is

conceptuaiized as a physicai process of trans-

porting meaning from one person to another.

This conceptuaiization has been iabeied the

" c o n d u i t " m e t a p h o r o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n

(Contractor and Eisenberg 1990). According to

iRT, a communication medium operates iike a

conduit that transports meaning from one per-

son to another, as if the meaning were some-

thing physicai. Further, it hoids that any differ-

ence in the meaning received couid not be an

improvement but only a ioss, due to noise,

interference, or other deterioration in the °sig-

nai" dur ing the course of i ts t ransmiss ion.

Where the conduit takes the form of text (such

as e-maii), deterioration in the signai wouid be

said to occur from (1) the iack of immediate

feedback , needed to cor rec t e r ro rs in the

transmiss ion; (2) the f i i ter ing out of soc ia icues; (3) the confinement to a singie channel;

(4) the lack of personal izat ion; and (5) the

reduction in ianguage variety. Based on these

considerat ions, iRT considers face-to- face

interactions to be the richest medium and doc-

uments (including e-maii) to be the ieanest. As

a "conduit," the face-to-face medium is consid-

ered superior to documents for transport ing

meaning from the sender to the receiver with-

out any ioss in the "signai" (for instance, ioss

of facial expressions and o ther sociai cues).

Strict appiication of the positivist naturai-sci-

ence modei in social science research (inciud-

ing IS research) has restricted the subject mat-

ter of inquiry. A dimension of the subject matterthat sociai scientists examine, that naturai sci-

entists do not examine, is what the fieid of phe-

nomenoiogy caiis the "iifeworld." The iifeworid,

among other things, is the worid of conscious-

ness and humaniy created meanings. "Unlikeatoms, m olecules, and e lectrons, people create

8/8/2019 9708156172



not "mean" anything to each other (Schutz

1973). However, people—who are integral to

the subject matter of the social sciences—do

mean something to each other. In this way, theworld of humanly created meanings, however

"subjective" they may be, is an integral part of

the subject matter that the social scientist stud-

ies. Because of this, "the social scientist must

not only coliect facts and data describing purely

objective, publiciy observable aspects of human

behavior . . . but also the subjective meaning

this behavior has for the human subjects them-

selves"" (Lee 19 91 , p. 347). These subjective

meanings constitute a different subject matter

from objective facts and require research meth-

ods that have no counterparts among those of

the natural sciences. Consistent with this defi-

ciency of positivism's natural-science model is

the fact that almost none of the positivist IS

studies that have tested iRT through iaboratory

experiments either report or discuss, in any

detailed way, the content of what their research

subjects actually said or meant in the course of

their communications w ith one another.

The interpretivist perspective oncommunication richness

Recognizing some of the l imitations of posi-

t ivism, a few IS researchers have introducedinterpretivism to the study of richness in man-

agerial communication that uses informationtechnology. Interpretivism gives explicit recogni-

tion to the lifeworld, the very sub ject ma tter, that

does not fit positivism's natural-science model.It uses research methods such as those associ-

ated with ethnography, participant observation,and hermeneutics, al l of which give expl ic i t

recognition to the worid of consciousness andhumanly created meanings. A recent study of

communication richness employs the interpre-tive tradition of hermeneutics to interpret the

meanings that managers themselves enact in

their use of e-mail (Lee 1994). In another studymixes positivism (involving hypothesis testing)and interpretivism to examine what some man-

sages they sent to one another (Markus 199

But Lee goes beyond the positivist perspecti

by noting that communication that uses info

mation technology involves the creation ainterpretat ion of symbols by human being

rather than just the physical transporting of b

through a conduit. The interpretive perspecti

considers the capacit ies of the sender a

receiver to enact and apprehend richness

"messages" (signals) as central to the study

communication richness. As with most interpr

t ive approaches, the centra l idea in Lee

hermeneutic approach is "mutual understan

ing"—the phenomenon of one person's reacing an understanding of what another perso

means.

In summary, interpretive and positivist resear

invoke starkly contrasting images of the hum

beings who communicate with each other v

information technologies. The positivist IRT pe

spective, in depicting comm unication as a phys

cal process of transporting a material substan

from one person to another person through

conduit, treats the latter person as nothing mothan a passive receptacle of the transporte

symbols. In contrast, the interpretive perspectiv

(Lee 1994; iVIarkus 1994) treats a person n

merely as a passive receptacle, but as an intel

gent being in a shared social context who ca

transform whatever "lean" words and cues he

she receives into an understanding of what th

speaker or writer meant. IS research that take

a positivist IRT perspective conceptualizes com

munication richness as a function of channcapacity (i.e., the flow through a conduit), whi

IS research that takes an interpretive perspe

tive conceptualizes communication richness a

a function of mutual understanding (i.e., on

person's reaching an understanding of wh

another person means). The following sectio

examines how a third research perspective—

cri t ical social theory (CST)—conceptual ize

communication richness.

8/8/2019 9708156172


Ricfiness of E-f^ail Comm unication

and social research l i terature (e.g., Alvesson

and Willmott 1992; Hirschheim and Klein 1994;

Lyytinen and Hirschheim 1988; Lyytinen and

Klein 1985; Mumby 1988; Ngwenyama 1991;Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991; Tice and Slavens

1983; White 1988). We will not replicate those

reviews here, but we will outline some funda-

mental CST concepts and focus specifically on

Habermas' theory of communicative action, the

basis of this study. T he term "critical social the-

ory" was coined by Max Horkheimer who, in

the 1930s, set out to contrast the work of cer-

tain social theorists (Adorno, Fromm, Marcuse

and h imself) from that of traditional social theo-ry, which developed along the l ines the posi-

t i v i sm (c f . Berns te in 1976; Fr i sby 1972) .

Whereas traditional social theorists see them-

selves as observers of social situations whose

research is completed when they achieve a

sound explanation or understanding of it, criti-

cal social theorists believe that they cannot be

mere observers. CST researchers believe that,

by their very presence, they influence and are

influenced by the social and technological sys-

tems they are studying. Moreover, C ST, in con-trast to the positivist perspective, posits that (1)

there is a difference between observing nature

and observing people and (2) inquiry into social

act iv i ty should focus on understanding their

meanings from within the social context and

lifeworld of actors. For critical social theorists,

the responsibility of a researcher in a social sit-

uation does not end with the development of

sound explanations and understandings of i t,

but must extend to a cri t ique of unjust andinequitable condit ions of the si tuat ion from

which people require emancipation.

This study uses the cri t ical social theory of

Jurgen Habermas (1979, 1984, 1987). One

reason for working within Habermas' frame-

work is that his work has had a greater impact

on the IS discipline than any other CST school

of thought . By adopt ing Habermas' cr i t ica l

social theory, we wil l be building on a founda-

t i on tha t has a l ready ga ined recogn i t i onamong IS scholars (cf. Hirschheim and Klein

oped a theory about communication, the theo-

ry of comm unicative a ction. The C ST perspec-

tive on IS research differs from positivist per-

spective in the following wa ys:

1. It is sensitive to the lifeworlds of the organi-

zational actors and is oriented to interpret-

ing and mapp ing the mean ings o f the i r

actions from their p erspective.

2. It adopts pluralistic methods of inquiry such

as participation, observation, and the analy-

sis of contextual data.

3. It does not separate (as would the laborato-

ry experiments of positivism) the subjects of

inquiry from the organizational context with-

in which they are situated .

4. It recognizes that the organizational context

is not only important to meaning construc-

t i o n , but to soc ia l ac t i v i ty as we l l (c f .

Ngwenyama 1991),

Unlike the positivist perspective of IRT, CST

views people not as passive receptacles of

whatever data or information that is transport-

ed to them, bu t as in te l l i gen t ac tors who

assess the truthfulness, completeness, sinceri-

ty, and contextual i ty of the messages they

receive. For this reason, we agree with and will

use the CST terms, human actor and organi-

zational actor,when we refer to what positivist

IS research refers to as "users" and "human

subjects ." F inal ly , unl ike most in terpret ive

approaches (e .g . . Lee 1994), the CST per-

spective requires the researcher to attend not

only to the matter of mutual understanding, but

also the matter of the emancipation of organi-

za t iona l ac tors f rom fa lse or unwarran ted

beliefs, assumptions, an d constraints.^

8/8/2019 9708156172



Basic concepts of communicativeaction

Habermas' theory of communicat ive act ion

describes four main types of intentionai behav-

ior or social action: instrumentai, communica-

t ive, discursive, and strategic. Aithough each

action type has a specific focus and orienta-

t ion, together they represent different aspects

of human behavior in soc ia i set t ings. Wi th

regard to this study, the four social act ion

types are significant for the foiiowing reasons.

First, in contrast to the positivist perspective in

IRT's conduit metaphor, the four sociai action

types depict human beings as active proces-

sors or interpreters who are not mere recepta-

cies of meanings transported to them, but who

create or enact the meanings that they come

to hold. Second, in contrast to the interpretive

perspective, the four sociai action types recog-

nize that a p erson w ho reads, iistens to, or oth-

erwise receives a message need not restrict

her meaning for the message to just mutuai

understanding, but instead can be critical of it.From a CST perspective, communication rich-

ness is not a function of the channel capacity

as in IRT's positivist conception. Further, it is

not restricted to how weil one person comes to

understand what another person means as in

the interpretivist conception. In CST, communi-

cation richness invoives not only understand-

ing what the speaker or writer means, but the

testing of validity claims associated with the

action type enacted by the speaker or writer.

The results of the tests enabie the listener orreader to detect and analyze distorted commu-

n ica t ions . By d is to r ted communica t ion we

mean commun ica t i ve ac t s t ha t a re fa i se ,

i n c o m p l e t e , i n s i n c e r e , o r u n w a r r a n t e d .

Communication richness in a CST perspective

is gauged not by channei capacity or by how

well a person recreates a meaning that anoth-

er person intends, but instead by how weil a

person, through her assessment of the vaiidity

claims made by the person communicating toher, succeeds in emancipat ing herseif from

the portrayal offered by iRT's positivist pe

spec t i ve and the in te rpre t i ve perspec t i v

Neither of these two perspectives addresse

the vaiidity of what is being communicated

the first piace, but this is exactiy what is co

sidered to be pivotal in the CST perspective o


Organizat ional Contextuai i ty

in CST, "sociai" in the term "sociai action" refe

to the orientation of a person's action to othindividuais and to the action being embedded

an organizationai context. Through its soci

and institutional structures, the organization

context defines, for all organizational actors, th

possibilities and potentiai for social action.

everyday interactions, an organization's po

cies, norms, and resources serve to enabi

constrain, and sometimes outright determin

what is proper and improper, and to lend mea

ing to the actions of individuais. The organiza

tional context also defines the power, authoritand status relationships of the individuals with

it. However, as inteiiigent and knowledgeab

agents, organizational actors can, within iimit

choose to act in accordance with or again

organizationai norms. To weii-socialized actor

the organizational context is a taken-for-grante

store of knowledge or a set of pre-interprete

patterns of meaning about the organizat ion

The organizationai context serves as a refe

ence schema that enables actors to act and tinterpret the actions of others. As actors med

ate act ion si tuat ions, they draw upon thes

stocks of knowledge, as well as material an

nonmateriai resources of the organization,

executing sociai actions, an actor relies upo

the fact that he or she shares every aspect o

the organizationai context with the other actor

involved in the action situation. Thus contextu

aiity of social action has numerous practic

consequences for daily organizational life an

for researchers who observe it. The foiiowinexampies shouid ciarify this issue.

8/8/2019 9708156172


8/8/2019 9708156172



discursive, and strategic. Aithough each sociai

action type has a specific focus and orienta-

tion, together they represent different aspects

of intent ionai human behavior in sociai set-t ings, in everyday organizat ionai l i fe, actors

easi ly shi f t f rom one socia i act ion type to

another as they seamiessly interact in a web of

sociai activity. IHowever, the theory of commu-

nicative action posits that when an actor exe-

cutes a specific sociai action type, he/she must

be ready to defend the validity claims associat-

ed with it. Tabie 1 summ arizes the action types

and validity claims.

Instrumental action is behavior that is oriented

to attaining rational objectives. When empioy-

ing this type of act ion, a person views her

opponent as if he were a mere object or orga-

nizational resource (rather than another actor)

and attempts to manipulate the opponent to

act according to her wishes. Depending on the

author i ty and status re iat ionships between

these two persons within the organizat ionai

context, she couid issue an order to him or useother means to obtain compiiance. in trying to

enact coherent meaning of the action and the

action situation, the person who is subjected to

instrumentai action wii i normally refiect upon

th e contextual i ty or appropriateness of the

action (i.e., a basic validity ciaim that is associ-

ated with this act ion type). The fundamental

question is: Does the organizationai relation-

sh ip make such ac t i on app rop r i a te? Fo r

instance, does the person who is issuing an

order to another person have the authority

standing within the organization to issue t

order in the first place? Validity ciaims to ef

ciency and effectiveness are aiso reieva

here. With regard to effectiveness, the conce

is : Does the person who is execut ing t

inst rumentai act ion have the resources

make the action stick? This person may al

ponder the question: is the action efficient f

achieving the required ends?

Communicative action is concerned wiachieving and maintaining mutual understan

ing (one person's coming to understand whanother person means) among ali those w

are involved in a coordinated organizat ion

s i tuat ion. Actors engage in communicat i

act ion to inform each other about states

affairs, organizational events, decisions take

and so on. Communicat ive act ion assum

that everyone in the action situation is an act

in a sociai context (rather than a person wh

does not share the context or a person who

as the positivist perspective in iRT's condmetaphor portrays, a passive and unreflecti

object in a physicai iandscape). Organization

ac to rs i nvo l ved in com m un ic a t i ve ac t i o

depend on a common ianguage and a shar

understanding of the organizationai context

order to enact meaning from each other's com

municative actions. When the iistener or rea

er of a communicative act (e-maii, memo, ie

ter, etc.) faiis to understand it, she wouid no

maiiy refiect upon it and try (again) to ena

Table 1 . Types of Social Action and App licable Validity Claims

Social

Action

Types

Instrumental

ActionCommunicative

Validity Claims

Completeness

Does

Truthfuiness

Does

SincerityClarity,

Comprehensibiiity

Does

Contextuality,

Appropriateness

Does

Apply

Can

Efficiency

Does

Apply

Effectivenes

Does

Apply

8/8/2019 9708156172


Richness of E-Mail Co mm unication

some coherent meaning for it. The process of

enacting coherent meaning from the "text" is a

critical reflection cycle in which the reader/lis-

tener tests the validity claims of clarity, com-

pleteness, contextuai i ty, and truthfulness

associated with this type of action. The listener

or reader would ponder questions such as: Is

the message clear; is there some jargon that I

don't understand? Is the message complete?

What is the context of this message; how does

it f i t within the wider organizational context?

From the speaker's or writer's own perspec-

tive, is his message true? If the reader or lis-

tener still does not enact a coherent meaningor is unsure that her enacted meaning is

shared by the speaker or writer, she would ini-

t iate a discourse (discursive action) with the

other person.

Discursive action is oriented toward achieving

or restoring agreement and redeeming validity

c la ims. Discurs ive act ion is in i t ia ted when

organizational actors need to achieve agree-

ment for joint action. In such a situation, the

individuals would generally engage each otherin a debate of the issues until they agree on a

course of action. The second general applica-

tion of discursive action is restoring agreement

in si tuat ions of breakdown. When questions

are ra ised about the val id i ty of a person's

actions, the mode of interaction of the actors

involved with these questions generally shifts

to discursive act ion. In such si tuat ions, the

shared aim is either to re-establish confidence

in what is being said or done or to find rational

explanations for the actions whose validity has

been called into question. This requires that

the actors suspend (if only momentarily) their

immediate object ives in order to search for

good reasons to justify or refute the validity

claims that are in question. Discursive activity

unfolds through critical debate and argumenta-

tion which forms the basis for joint decision

making and agreement. Participants of discur-

sive action draw upon a common medium of

communication, shared protocols for interac-t ion, and intuitive (a priori) knowledge of the

ground rules of discourse. Discursive action

Strategic action is concerned with an actor's

influencing and transforming the behaviors of

others so as to conform to the actor's desires

or goals. Like instrumental action, a person'sstrategic action is also oriented to attaining

rational objectives. However, the person who

engages in strategic action treats her oppo-

nent not as a mere object or organizat ional

resource (which is the case in instrumental

action), but as another actor—a person capa-

ble of intel l igent counteract ion. People who

execute strategic actions often try to exploit

and manipulate organizational influence, orga-

nizational processes, resources, and "the rulesof the game" to thei r advantage. Strategic

action may be open or covert, depending upon

whether the conflict situation is openly admit-

ted or hidden. A well known example of covert

strategic action in everyday organizational life

is "office polit ics." Typical examples of overt

strategic activity are negotiation and bargain-

ing. Participants in strategic activity utilize both

personal and organizational resources, such

as soc ia l s ta tus , au tho r i t y , and i t ems o f

exchange value (t ime, expert ise, etc.). Theyalso rely on knowledge of what is feasible to

achieve and knowledge of opponent's goals,

positions, and potential for counteraction. The

primary validity claim associated with strategic

act ion is c o n t e x t u a i i t y . The sub jec t o f a

strategic act would ponder: Is the action legiti-

mate, given the organizational context? Does

the person who is executing a strategic action

to change my behavior have the formal organi-

zational standing or the moral authority to doth is in the f irs t p lace? Stra tegic act io n is

deemed legitimate and valid when it conforms

to organizat ional norms, pol ic ies, author i ty

s t ruc ture , and " the unwr i t ten ru les o f the

game." When it does not conform, the person

who is subject to it can consider it "dirty tricks."

8/8/2019 9708156172


Rlcfmess of E-Maii Communication

to enact coherent meaning from a "text," a lis-

tener or reader can go beyond achieving a

mutua l unders tand ing w i th the speaker o r

writer. The listener or reader accomplishes this

by critical reflection, that is, assessing one or

more vaiidity ciaims pertaining to what the

speaker or wr i ter expressed (c f . Table 1) .

Furthermore, a listener's or reader's reflection

can lead her not only to the ordinary outcome

in which she comes to understand what the

speaker or writer means (i.e., mutual under-

s tanding), but a lso the cr i t ica l outcome in

which she emancipates herself from distorted

comm unicative acts. An example of emancipa-t ion f rom dis tor ted communicat ive acts can

involve an instance of communicative action

where the listener does not accept the speak-

er's utterance at face value, but questions its

validity claims and sees that it is incomplete,

false, unclear, or inappropriate. Another exam-

ple can involve an instance of either instru-

mental or strategic action in which the reader

does not accept the writer's message at face

value, but q uestions its validity claim of contex-

tual i ty (appropr iateness) and sees that the

speaker has no formal organizational standing

to execute the action in question.

The concept of emancipat ion from distorted

communication distinguishes the CST defini-

t ion of communicat ion r ichness from earl ier

positivist and interpretive definitions. The posi-

tivist IRT perspective would recognize richness

to occur even when the l is tener or reader

assesses no validity claims and the communi-cation was intentionally distorted (i.e., incom-

plete, false, unclear, or inappropriate). This is

because IRT's conduit metaphor conceptual-

izes the listener or reader as a passive recep-

tacle even for any distorted communicat ion

that is transported to him or her. The interpre-

tive perspective in the hermeneutic approach

(Lee 1994) would recognize richness to occur

even when the l istener or reader achieves a

"mutual unde rstanding" of a com municative act

that is incomplete, false, unclear, or inappropri-ate. What CST research offers that positivist

social act ion types, and the set of val id

claims specific to each (cf. Table 1), descri

the si tuat ions where such assessments ctake place and communicat ion r ichness c

occur.

Two important points about this study's CS

definit ion of communication richness requ

elaboration. First, the CST perspective, as t

interpret ive perspective, conceptual izes t

role of social, cues (such as facial expressio

body language, and tone of voice) in a w

altogether different from the positivist IRT pspective. IRT has presumed that more su

cues automatically entail the consequence

more communication richness and that few

such cues au tomat ica l l y en ta i l the cons

quence of less communicat ion r ichness.

contrast, the CST and the interpretive perspe

tives make no presumption of any direct re

tionship between the quantity of social cu

a.nd the level of co m m un icat io n r ichn es

However, these two perspectives do acknowedge that social cues can contribute to co

munication richness, but that there is no a p

ori reason to suppose that facial expression

body language, tone of voice, or other soc

cues are necessary conditions for comm unic

t ion r ichness to readi ly occur. The seco

important point is that the CST definit ion

communication richness goes beyond both t

positivist IRT focus on features of the proce

of communicat ion (social cues and channcapacity) and the interpretivist focus on mutu

understanding (the listener's or reader's com

ing to understand what the speaker or writ

mean t ) . I n add i t i on , t he CST pe rspec t i

focuses on the listener's or reader's critique

the validity or rightness of what is being com

municated and, i f needed, the l is tener 's

reader's emancipation of herself from distort

communications. Table 2 summarizes the d

ferences among the three definit ions of communication richness. It also summarizes wh

8/8/2019 9708156172



11

lii

o1 1 a

0)

o

£

1c3

EoU"Sm

o

l l^ 8

• i ; «

ltliil i!

o c E ,S f ? 8 S is£ § • § . " "g .2

I nc

i -S "g. c TD & .£ Vi (0 Q . E

iill̂ tl

. S o

1 S E

i §

: I I i .11

o

.1m

(5a.ouoi.3*.o(B

0)

(0

M fU

>< '513 >

.5 "5

.1 S0) ^0) ^S > CO

a.XV

S E

a E cE 8 -2

8/8/2019 9708156172


Riciiness of E-Maii Communication

An empirical illustration ofcommunication richness

The empirical material used here is drawn from

a case s tud y o f a com pan y ca l l ed HCP

(Markus 1994, p. 510). Whereas this material

was used in the case study to investigate the

merits of IRT, the material will be used here to

invest igate how communicat ion r ichness, as

conceptualized from the CST perspective, can

emerge in the managerial use of e-mail. Table

3 should be studied before proceeding with the

rest of this section .

The illustration begins by turning our attention

to the meaning that Sheila enacts for 124, a

message that Ted sends to her. According to

CST, when one person interacts with another,

either can engage in any or all of the following:

communica t i ve ac t ion , ins t rumenta l ac t ion ,

strategic action, and discursive action, where a

set of validity claims (cf. Table 1) accompanies

each of these act ion types. In this vignette.

Shei la is engaging in communicat ive act ion.As explained earlier, communicative action is

concerned w i th ach iev ing and main ta in ing

m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g a m o n g i n d i v i d u a l s

engaged in coordinated organizational action.

In processing the validity claims accompanying

this communicative action. Sheila evolves her

own meaning for Ted's communicative act in

124. As explained in detail below, the result is

that communication richness, in this vignette,

involves not only the ord inary outcome inwhich Shei la successfu l ly "downloads" the

semantic content of the e-mail message that

o the r managers p rev ious l y "up loaded" t o

HCP's computer (as IRT's conduit metaphor

suggests). Rather, the result is that communi-

cation richness additionally involves (as CST

would explain) the crit ical outcome in which

Sheila undertakes actions to test the validity

claims of what is "downloaded" and, where

necessary, to redeem these claims.

Observations in this vignette are begun by not-

the message set is 124; at 21:16, it is 124-14

147-148-151; and at 21:49, it is 124-143-14

1 4 8-1 5 1 -1 6 1 . At each of these t imes, t

meaning that Sheila enacts for 124 is differe

To emphasize the changes or the develo

ment in the meaning that Shei la enacts

124, we ask the reader to v is i t Tables

through 3c, so as to view 124 as Sheila wo

view 124 at these succe ssive points in time .

For Shei la at t ime 16:23 (Table 3a), 1

begins with the meaning of a straightfonwa

and routine information request (about wheth

HCP has a particular tracking system) that Tmakes to her. As Sheila's response in the fo

of 143 (displayed in Table 3) a llows us to int

pret. Sheila's understanding of 124 at this tim

is that it is a routine matter and that there is

indicat ion of any serious problem requir i

more-than-routine attention.

However, at time 21:16 (Table 3b), Sheila n

on ly rece ives another message f rom T

(151), but also receives copies of two e-m

messages (147 and 148) that Mike had ju

sent privately to Ted and that Ted forwards

Sheila along with 1 51 . At this point, the m e

sage set for Sheila grows to 124-143-147-14

151. For Sheila, even though the set of wor

with which Ted composed 124 remains co

stant from t ime 16:23 to t ime 21:16, She

enacts a different meaning for 124 at the lat

time. The two forwarded messages, 147 a

148, and Ted's new m essage, 15 1, all pla

124 in a new light: 124 is no longer a straigfonward and routine information request, b

emerges with the meaning of a diplomatica

stated assertion from a regional vice preside

(Ted) that there is a ser ious problem th

requires more-than-routine attention. Also, t

additional messages 147, 148, and 151 pla

124 in a broader, organizational context; wh

124 means to Sheila at this point depends n

only on the words with which Ted compos

124, but also on the interests of other orga

zational actors (Ted as well as Mike), as e

denced in 147, 148, and 15 1.

8/8/2019 9708156172



Table 3. The Complete Set of Empirical Material fo r Investigation

Empirical Material from HCP, Inc. (Markus 1994)"

Mess. No.

02 7

124

138

143

147

148

151

161

162

Date/Time

7/31 16:30

8/6 16:23

8/6 17:54

8/6 20:03

8/6 20:13

8/6 20:21

8/6 21:16

8/6 21:49

8/6 22:20

From

Mii(e

Te d

Mike

Sheila

Mii<e

Mii(e

Te d

Siieiia

Siieila

To

Ted

Sheila,Mii<e

T e d

Ted,Mike

Te d

Ted

Sheiia

DirectSubor-dinate

Ted

TeKt

We are not adhering to the state iaw that requires payment w/i [within] 30days uniess proper notification is given of valid delays.

Sheila, 1 presume you are aware that the state o f . . . requires that we paywithin thirty days. The [branch] is reporting that we are not adhering tothis. Do you have a system in piace to keep track of this? Is there anyinformation you need from us? P iease iet me know? Thn aks! Ted

Thank you thank you thank you

Ted, yes, we were aw are of the 30 day requirement. We iook at thiseveryweek to insure comp liance. The oniy exceptions should be . . . .Will give you an aging [accounting report] tomorrow. Sheiia

Ted, something is wrong. 1 am not saying She iia is not correct, a ill [ali i]am saying is that you and 1 are signing a iot of second and third requestsas priority processing and Kathy [one of Mike's subordinates] says . . .and Kathy is usuaiiy not wrong about this type of thing. Could it be thatthe problem is that ciaims are just not getting ioged [iogged] in upoo[upon] receipt? in my auditing days . . . we found this to be com monwhen reports showed 'ai i ok"?

Ted, the more 1 think abo ut this, the more it bothers me , just look at ali ofthe recent 2nd and 3rd requests and all of the over 60days foi iouwpsfrom Kathy. i am going to have K athy sum marise the iast 60 days, i wii inot indicate toKathy the specifics of why i am requesting. This couid be a

serious com pany wide probiem. Wil l you check (when ypur [you] receiveyour aging) with Sheila to see if they have ciaims in hourse that do/arenot reflected in her aging. Thanks.

Sheiia, 1 dont agree [with Mike] that is [claims are being] received but notentered, although it could be, you wou ld know, i tend to think some ofthese are ap [accounts payable] problems, we w ii i have to iook at whatthey [Mike and Kathy] can send us for examp les, the way i look at it weare iookoinga t a probiem that might be there proactiveiy. we wiii iookand see if we can find a problem or at ieast come to agreement onstatus, wil l keep youpsoted [you posted].

{Note: Ted forwards copies of 147 and 148 when sen ding 151.}

FYi [with previous m essages attached]

{Note: Sheiia forwards copies of 124,1 43 ,14 7,1 48 , and 151 whensending 161.}

Ted, given the additionai expianation.... and the fact that i agree, Kathyis seldom w ro n g .. . . i wi l l see what i can see from this end. i ['m] surenone of us want another $14,000 interest charge! Sheiia

Markus states: The messages have been reproduced with only minor omissions and with actual spelling and typing errors. Proper nameshave been changed." Square braces, [ ], contain Markus' additions. The other braces, {), contain additions by the authors of this study. Aiiomissions ("...") appear in Markus' own presentation of the messages. Markus offers the foiiowing descriptions of Ted , Mike, and S heiia:

Ted Josephs (a pseudonym) was one of eight Regionai Vice Presidents (RVP) who reported directly to the CEO of HCP. Ted was responsibiefor approximately 400 empioyees in three remote districts located as far as 2,500miles from Headquarters. In this position, he had the author-

ity and responsibility to understand the organization as a who le.. . Ted was one of the first occupants of the RVP position when it was estab-lished three years prior to data collection. According to those I interviewed at HCP, his superiors, peers, and subordinates regard him as an

8/8/2019 9708156172


Richness ofE-Mail Communication

Tabie 3a. The iMessage Set for Sheiia at Time 16:23

Mess. No.

124

Date/Time

8/6 16:23

From

Ted

To

Sheila

Mike

Text

Sheila, 1 presume you are aware that the state of. . . requires that wepay within thirty days. The [branch] is reporting that we are not adherinto this. Do you have a system in place to keep track of this? Is there aninformation you need from us? Please let me know? Thnaks! Ted

Table 3b. The Message Set for Sheiia at Time 21:16

Mess. No.

124

143

147

148

151

Date/Time

8/616:23

8/6 20:03

8/6 20:13

8/6 20:21

8/6 21:16

From

Ted

Sheila

Mike

Mike

Ted

To

Sheila,Mike

Ted,Mike

Ted

Ted

Sheila

Text

Sheila,1

presume you are aware that the state of. . . requires that wepay within thirty days. The [branch] is reporting that we are not adherinto this. Do you have a system in place to keep track of this? Is there aninformation you need from us? Please let me know? Thnaks! Ted

Ted, yes, we were aware of the 30 day requirement. We look at thiseveryweek to insure compliance. The only exceptions should be . . . .

Will give you an aging [accounting report] tomorrow. Sheila

Ted, something is w rong. 1 am not saying Sheila isnot correct, alll [all am saying is that you and 1 are signing a lot of second and third requeas priority processing and Kathy [one of Mike's subordinates] says . . .

and Kathy isusually not wrong about this type of thing. Could it be thatthe problem is that claims are just not getting loged [logged] in upoo[upon] receipt? In my auditing days . . . we found this to be commonwhreports showed "all ok"?

Ted, the more 1 think about this, the more itbothers me, just look at althe recent 2nd and 3rd requests and all of the over 60days follouwpsfrom Kathy. 1 am going to have Kathy summarise the last 60 days. 1 wnot indicate toKathy the specifics of why 1 am requesting. This could bserious company w ide problem. Will you check (when ypur [you] receivyour aging) with Sheila to see if they have claims In hourse that do/arenot reflected in her aging. Thanks.

Sheila, 1 dont agree [with Mike] that is [claims are being] received but nentered, although it couldbe, youwould know, i tend to think some of

these are ap [accounts payable] problems, we will have to look at whatthey [Mike and Kathy] can send us for examples, the way i look at it we

are lookoinga t a problem that might be there proactively. we will lookand see ifwe can find a problem or at least come to agreement on

status, will keep youpsoted [you posted].

{Note: Ted forwards copies of 147 and 148 when sending 151.}

she sends her own message 161 to her direct

subordinate (so that the message set grows to

124-143-147-148-151-161). In copying 124,

fonArarding it, and appending two other mes-

sages to it. Sheila is appropriating 124 to suit

her own purposes and hence, in this way, can

even be described as joining Ted as its co-

ond, this is a serious problem for which s

accepts responsibility (as evidenced by h

delegation of it to her direct subordinate). A

confirming this interpretation is that, at ti

22:20, Sheila sends a new message to T

(162) in which her statement, "/ wiii see wh

8/8/2019 9708156172


Ricfiness of E-Maii Communication

Table 3c. The Message Set for Sheila at Time 21:49

Mess. No.124

143

147

148

151

161

Date/Time8/6 16:23

8/6 20:03

8/6 20:13

8/6 20:21

8/6 21:16

8/6 21:49

FromTed

Sheila

Mike

Mike

Ted

Sheila

ToSheila,Mike

Ted,Mike

Ted

Ted

Sheila

DirectSubor-dinate

TextSheila, 1 presume you are aware that the state o f . , . requires that wepay within thirty days. The [branch] Is reporting that we are not adheringto this. Do you have a system in place to keep track of this? Is there anyinformation you need from us? Please let me know? Thnaks! Ted

Ted, yes, we were aware of the 30 day requirement. We look at thiseveryweek to insure compliance. The only exceptions should be , , . .Will give you an aging [accounting report] tomorrow. S heila

Ted, something is wrong , 1 am not saying Sheila is not correct, alll [all 1]am saying is that you and 1 are signing a lot of second and third requestsas priority processing and Kathy [one of Mike's subordinates] says , , ,and Kathy is usually not wrong about this type of thing . Could it be thatthe problem Is that claims are just not getting loged [logged] in upoo[upon] receipt? In my auditing days , , . we found this to be commonwhenreports showed "all ok"?

Ted, the more 1 think about this, the more it bothers m e, just look at all ofthe recent 2nd and 3rd requests and all of the over 60days follouwpsfrom Kathy, 1 am going to have Kathy summarise the last 60 days, 1 willnot indicate toKathy the specifics of why 1 am requesting. This could be aserious company wide problem. Will you check (when ypur [you] receiveyour aging) with Sheila to see if they have claims in hourse that do/arenot reflected in her aging. Thanks,

Sheila, 1 dont agree [with Mike] that is [claims are being] received but notentered, aithough it couldbe, youwould know, i tend to think some of these

are ap [accounts payable] problems, we will have to look at what they[Mike and Kathy] can send us for examples, the way i look at it we arelookoinga t a problem that might be there proactively. we will look and seeif we can find a problem or at least come to agreement on status, will keepyoupsoted [you posted],

{Note: Ted forwards copies of 147 and 148 when sending 151.}

FYI [with previous messages attached]

{Note: Sheila forwards copies of 12 4,14 3,14 7,14 8, and 151whensending 161.}

In other words, in what CST would call

communicative action of trying to

However, at time 21:16, the validity claims of

124 are, in Sheila's eyes, called into question.

Whereas initially (at time 16:23) it appeared to

Sheila that Ted was making a simple informa-

tion request about whether HCP has a particu-

lar tracking system (The [brancfi] is reporting

that we are not adfiering to this. Do you have a

system in piace to i<eep traci< of this"). Sheila

experienced a breakdown in her initial under-

s tanding of 124 when, at t ime 21:16, she

received messages 147, 148, and 15 1. Anunderstanding of 124 as a simple information

8/8/2019 9708156172



given a full answer (143: Ted, yes, we were

aware of the 30 day requirement. We iook at

this everyweek to insure compliance.") to whatseemed to be a simple information request

(124: "Do you have a system in place to keep

track of this?') or (2) especially, why Ted per-

sists in his dialogue with her on this matter by

his forwarding copies of 147 and 148 to her—

messages that a seemingly unrelated th i rd

party (Mike) had composed and sent privately

to Ted. In other words, these two behaviors by

Ted, which were no less observable to Sheila

than they are to us, served to bring about a

breakdown in the meaning that Sheila had ini-tially enacted for 124. As explained earlier, a

breakdown in unders tand ing can ca l l i n to

question, in the case of communicative action,

a message's validity claims pertaining to any

or all of the followin g: com pleteness, truthful-

n e s s , c l a r i t y , a n d c o n t e x t u a i i t y . In the

instance of 124, Ted's two behaviors call into

question the validity claims of completeness,

clarity, and contextuaiity.

By raising the possibility that there was more

to 124 than just a routine information request

from Ted about whether HOP has a particular

t rack ing system, the breakdown cal led into

question the completeness of what Ted was

saying in 124 (i.e., what more did he have to

say on this topic?). By raising the possibil i ty

that this was not a straightforward statement

from Ted asking for information (i.e., what CST

would call a communicative action by Ted), but

a diplomatically phrased statement from Tedfor Sheila to act on a serious problem falling

under her responsibility (i.e., what CST would

call a strategic action by Ted), the breakdown

cal led into question the clarity of what Ted

was saying in 124 (i.e., what was the topic in

the first place?).

Through raising the latter possibility (that 124

could be a strategic action by Ted, rather than

a communicat ive act ion by Ted), the break-down also served to change or better establish

the organizational context or the contextuaiity

president and, therefore, as someone to

answered to?). Final ly, Shei la succeeded

resolving or redeeming the validity claimscomple teness , va l id i ty , and contex tua i

Consider the action that Sheila initiates: "I

see what I can see from this end" (162). T

act ion ref lects Shei la 's comple t ion of

understanding of 124, by acknowledging th

rather than only asking about whether H

has a particular tracking system, 124 was a

asking her about what act ion she would

taking to correct a part icular problem. T

action also reflects Sheila's clarification of

understanding of 124, by realizing that Tetopic in 124 was not so much about a track

system at HCP as it was about Ted's conc

for her to carry out her responsibilities. La

this action also reflects Sheila's contextu

i z a t i o n of her unders tand ing o f 124,

acknowledging that 124's sender was not j

any HCP employee making an informat

request, but a regional vice president that s

needed to answer to and for whom she had

adjust her behavior. For Sheila, it is this ncontext that raises for her the possibility o

new meaning for 124 as a strategic act i

rather than a com municative action, by Ted.

Far f rom being a passive receptac le for

fixed-form message that is transported throu

a conduit to her. Sheila was an intelligent ac

able to interpret the received text so as

complete, clarify, and contextualize this co

municative act. On the one hand, IRT wo

lead to the (incorrect) conclusion that no comunication richness occurs in this instan

First, IRT's conduit metaphor would expl

that Shei la 's understanding of 124 can nothing more than what Ted had ostensib

intentionally, and publicly expressed throu

his words in 124. Second, because IRT co

ceptualizes richness as a direct function of

quantity of social cues (such as facial expr

sions, body language, and tone of voice) in

process of communication, IRT would pred

that the total absence of such cues in Ted's

mail to Sheila would lead to little or no comm

8/8/2019 9708156172


Ricf)ness of E-Maii Com munication

by assessing 124 against certain validity

( i .e. , her examin ing and redeeming o f

unications (which were distorted in terms

ote that the above illustration of this study's

ife, communication richness can also arise in

inst rumental act ion, s t rategic act ion,

nd discursive action. Three speculations are

r ie f ly ment ioned. Fi rs t , for an instance of

nst rumental act ion, one might develop annterpretation in which Mike, by sending 147

nd 148 to Ted, was t reat ing Shei la as an

ccompl ished through Ted). Second, for an

nstance of strategic action, one might develop

n interpretat ion in which Ted, in appending

147 and 148 (the message s Mike sent private-

l y to Ted) to 151 (Ted 's own message to

Sheila), was treating Sheila as an intell igent

actor whom he sought to manipulate so that

he would comply wi th h is u l ter ior mot ive

(which was to have Sheila begin investigating

and correcting her own operations). Third, for

an instance of discursive act ion, one might

develop an interpretat ion in which Mike, by

aying Ted, som ething is wrong . . . " i n 147

and "Ted, the more i thinl< about this. . ." in

148, is revealing that he realizes that Ted (and

Sheila) might not have yet achieved a mutualunderstanding with him on the significance of

hat he himself earlier meant, in 027, regard-

ment on the signi f icance of this matter. To

move these three examples from mere specu-

la t ion to fu l l documenta t ion , a researcher

would need to document, for each of the three

cases, not only any val idi ty claims that the

actors themselves actually call into question,

but a lso any subsequent cyc les of cr i t ica l

reflection in which an actor tests the claims

and emancipates herself from those instances

of distorted communicat ions that her test ing

detects. In general , as organizat ional actors

shift naturally from one social action type to

another, they seamlessly interact in a web of

social activity that, to them, is daily organiza-t ional l i fe and, as such, rout ine ly presents

opportuni t ies for communicat ion r ichness to

occur.

Discussion and

Conclusions

The motivation for this study was to contributea new perspective to the discourse and search

for a new theory of r ichness in managerial

communication that is mediated by information

technology. As IS researchers shift away from

information richness theory, we need to devel-

op a successor theory in order to inform the

work of IS professionals who design and man-

age informat ion technology to support man-

agerial communicat ion. This paper does not

attempt to complete the entire task of estab-l ishing all aspects of a new theory on commu-

nication richness, but takes a step toward the

development of such a theory by offering a

new definition of communication richness. The

paper's definition is based on a CST research

perspective, the significance of which was clar-

ified by comparing and contrasting it to earlier

def in i t ions of communicat ion r ichness that

emerged f rom the research perspect ives of

positivism and interpretivism. The first two sec-

tions of the paper presented a critical review ofthe limitations of IRT and outlined its current

8/8/2019 9708156172



tive theoretical foundations of current research

on comm unication richness. The fourth section

outlined the theoretical perspective of the CSTapproach and a social act ion framework for

empirical analysis. The fifth section presented

an empirical analysis of details about the asyn-

ch ronous , phys i ca l l y d i spe rsed compu te r

mediated communicat ion among Ted, Mike,

and Sh eila.

The empirical material analyzed in this study

served to highlight the major concepts in this

new CST perspective. In the Ted-Mike-Sheila

communicat ion, we saw how communicat ionr ichness emerged in the fo rm o f She i la 's

emancipation of herself from Ted's distorted

comm unications, w hich followed her judging of

the validity or rightness of what Ted was say-

ing. In contrast, by conceptualizing richness as

a function of channel capacity, the positivist

iRT perspective would not have predicted

richness to occur in the Ted-Sheila-Mike com-

munication (owing to the thinness of the chan-

nel capacity of e-mai l) . Also, by restr ict ingcommunication richness to Sheila's achieving

a mutual understanding of a message from

Ted (even when it was distorted communica-

tion), the interpretive perspective would have

missed the richness arising from Sheila's dis-

tancing and emancipation of herself from Ted's

dis tor ted communicat ions. Remarkably , nei -

ther IS research on communication richness

from the positivist nor interpretive perspectives

has addressed the validity or rightness of what

is being communicated, but this is exactly whatthe CST perspective considers to be pivotal to


Another, related dimension that distinguishes

the CST perspec t i ve presented here f rom

posi t iv is t and interpret ive perspect ives on

communicat ion r ichness is the emphasis on

people, who, as actors in a sociai or organi-

zational context, themselves "process" data

into inform ation. This image stands in contrastto the assumption of most IS research, that

the processing of data into information is pri-

spective is instructive for showing how orga

zational members are more than just know

subjects; they are also actors—people ware more than just passive receptacles

data or meanings that are somehow t ra

ported or downloaded to them. They act

contextuaiize a message by placing it wit

institutional arrangements in which they f

themselves: "People act in terms of their o

and not the observer's definition of the sit

t ion" (Schutz 1964). In general, the CST p

spective points us toward a r ich, mult i - l

ered, contextual ized formulat ion of comm

nicative interaction in electronic media. Whpeople communicate, they do not send m

sages as e lectronical ly l inked senders a

receivers. They perform social acts in act

situations that are normatively regulated

and already have meaning within, the orga

zationai context. As organizat ional acto

they simultaneously enact exist ing and n

relationships with one another as they co

municate. This CST approach is phenomen

logically sensitive to the shaping and readof act ion as meaningfu l . I t does not t re

meaning construct ion as a d isembodied

apolitical activity. The CST perspective allo

us to invest igate how organizat ional acto

formulate and reformulate their communic

tions to achieve specific outcomes in acti

situations. It also enables us to look closely

the "how" and "what" of communicative pra

t ice, in any type of m edia use situation.

Future CST studies of computer mediatcommunication can investigate: (1) how orgnizational actors use electronic media in f

mulat ing and engaging in di f ferent types

socia l act ion; (2) what types of e lectron

media enable and constrain specific types

action; (3) how power and status relationsh

are reproduced in electronic media; (4) h

the ne twork o f negot ia ted mean ings up

which organ iza t iona l work and in te rac t i

depend is constructed and maintained in ele

tronic communicat ion. From a CST perspe

t i ve , researchers can a lso invest igate h

8/8/2019 9708156172


8/8/2019 9708156172


Richness of E-Maii Communication

fi/larkus, M. L "Is Information Richness TheoryRich Enough? or. How Managers UsingEmail Cope with Lack of Richness,"Anderson Graduate School ofManagement, tJniversity of California, LosAngeles, 1991.

Markus, M. L. "Electronic Mail as the Mediumof Managerial Choice," OrganizationScience (5:4), 1994, pp. 502-527.

Mills, C. W. The Socioiogicai imagination,Oxford University Press, London, 1977.

Mingers, J. C. "Toward an Appropriate SocialTheory for Applied Systems Analysis:

Crit ical Social and Soft SystemsMethodology," Journai of Appiied SystemsAnaiysis (7:1), 1981, pp. 41-49.

Mumby, D. K. Communication and Power:

Discourse ideoiogy and Dom ination, Ablex,NJ, 1988.

Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R., Fitzgerald, G.,and Wood-Harper, T, (eds,). Researchf[/lethods in information Systems, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 1985.

Ngwenyama, O. Fundamentai issues ofKnowiedge Acquisition: Toward a i-iuman

Action Perspective of Knowiedge Systems,

unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, WatsonSchool of Engineering, State University ofNew York, Binghamton, NY, 1987.

Ngwenyama, O. "The Critical Social TheoryApproach to Information Systems:Problems and Challenges," in informationSystems Research: ContemporaryApproaches and Emergent Traditions, H.

E. Nissen, H. Klein and R. Hirschheim(eds.). North Holland, Amsterdam, 1991,pp, 267-280.

Ngwenyama, O. and Lyytinen, K. "GroupwareEnvironments as Action Consti tutiveResources: A Social Action Framework forAnalyzing Groupware Technologies,"Computer Supported Cooperative WoricThe Journai of Coiiaborative Com puting(6:1), 1997, pp. 1-23.

Nissen, H,-E., Klein, H, K., and Hirschheim, R,(eds.) information Systems Research:Contemporary Approaches and Emergent

information Systems Research (2:1), 1991, pp. 1-28.

Rice, R. E. "Task Anaiyzabiiity, Use of NMedia, and Effectiveness: A Multi-SExploration of Media RichnesOrganization Science (3:4), 1992, p475-500.

Schutz, A, Coiiected Papers (2), MartinNijhof, The Hague, 1964,

Schutz, A. Coiiected Papers (1), MartinNijhof, The Hague, 1973.

Tice, T. and Slavens, T. "Phenomenolog

Hermeneutics, and Critical Theory," Research Guide to Phiiosophy, T. TicT. Slavens (eds.), American LibraAssociation, Chicago, 1983, pp. 285-301

Truex, D. P. information SystemDeveiopment in the Emergent Organiunpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, WatsSchool of Engineering, State University New York, Binghamton, NY, 1993.

Weick, K, E. The Sociai Psychoiogy Organizing, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1969.

Weick, K. E. "Theoretical Assumptions aResearch Methodology Selection" in Tinformation Systems Research ChaiF. W. McFarlan (ed,). Harvard BusineSchool Press, 1984, pp. 115-126.

White, S. The Rece nt Wori< of Jurgi-iabermas: Reason, Justice and Mod

Cambridge University Press, CambridgEngland, 1988.

Wybo, M. D. and Lee, A. S. "ManagerUnderstanding as Data IntegratiTechnology," Working paper. Faculty Management, McGill University, 1996.

Yates, J. and Orl ikowski, W. "Genres Organizat ional Communicat ion: Structurational Approach to StudyiCommunication and Media," Academy

Management Review {M.2), 1992, p299-326.

8/8/2019 9708156172


Richness of E-Maii Communication

Abou t the Authors •

is assistant profes-

ty of Jyvaskyla, Finland. He is a critical

cal understanding of the social construction

Transforming

ons With Information Technoiogy,

nformation Systems from The Thomas J.

niversity of New York; an MBA from

Syracuse University; an M.S. in Computer andInformation Science from Roosevelt University;and baccalaureate degrees in engineering andcomputer science.

Ailen S. Lee is the Paul Par6 Professor of MISin the Faculty of Management at McGillUniversity. He was an associate editor for M/SQuarterly from 1990 to 1994 and has been asenior editor since then. His publications advo-cate for the use of intensive research (includ-ing quali tative, interpretive, and caseapproaches) in information systems. He is a

senior editor of MIS Quarteriys upcoming spe-cial issue on this topic. As an undergraduate,he studied civi l engineering at Cornel lUniversity and as a graduate student, he stud-ied city planning at the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology and the University of California,Berkeley.

8/8/2019 9708156172


9708156172

Documents

Transcript of 9708156172