exploring the dominant media

http://job.sagepub.com/

CommunicationJournal of Business

http://job.sagepub.com/content/43/3/220The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0021943606288772

2006 43: 220Journal of Business CommunicationO'Pell

Jeanine Warisse Turner, Jean A. Grube, Catherine H. Tinsley, Cynthia Lee and CherylOrganizational Norms and Affect Performance?

Exploring the Dominant Media : How Does Media Use Reflect

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Business Communication

can be found at:Journal of Business CommunicationAdditional services and information for

http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://job.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://job.sagepub.com/content/43/3/220.refs.htmlCitations:

at Universiteit Antwerpen on October 7, 2010job.sagepub.comDownloaded from


http://job.sagepub.com/content/43/3/220

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.businesscommunication.org

http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://job.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://job.sagepub.com/content/43/3/220.refs.html


EXPLORING THEDOMINANT MEDIA

How Does Media Use Reflect Organizational Normsand Affect Performance?

Jeanine Warisse TurnerGeorgetown University

Jean A. GrubeMedical College of Wisconsin

Catherine H. TinsleyGeorgetown University

Cynthia LeeNortheastern University

Cheryl O’PellGeorgetown University

This research provides strong support for the existence of dominant media norms within organizationsand describes their influence on employees’ (a) perceptions of organizational norms, (b) reportedmedia use, and (c) performance evaluations. Survey results demonstrate the presence of strong orga-nizational norms for instant messaging (IM) and e-mail use within a large, high-tech organization.These norms, as well as supervisory behavior, may influence employees’ use of IM and e-mail andeven more so when employees have strong polychronic orientations. In addition, employees whoreportedly followed organizational norms by using IM and e-mail were awarded higher performanceratings by their supervisors, with 30% of the variance explained. The authors support the survey find-ings with in-depth interviews with participants exploring media use.

Keywords: media use; organizational norms; polychronicity; performance

I get to work and turn on my computer [and buddy list] to let everyone know I amhere. Then I usually start getting IMed [receiving instant messages]. I sometimeshave four or five instant messages going at once. Then I will take a phone call andwhile I am in that conversation I will reply to my instant messages and then openmy e-mail. I always have at least three things going at once. . . . That is how it isaround here.

—Employee, High-Tech Communications

Journal of Business Communication, Volume 43, Number 3, July 2006 220-250DOI: 10.1177/0021943606288772© 2006 by the Association for Business Communication



Turner et al. / EXPLORING THE DOMINANT MEDIA 221

Communication technologies enable new forms of interaction within organiza-tions. For example, with full-time connectivity to the Internet, presence within anorganization can be indicated by connecting to an instant messaging (IM) system.1

This establishment of a virtual presence is growing. According to one estimate bythe Radicati Group, IM is being used in 85% of all companies worldwide (Perey,2004). Presence can now be identified not through a person’s actual appearance inan office setting but rather his or her online appearance through IM availability andthe use of IM and e-mail. This new dynamic creates an interesting opportunityto explore how organizational norms might influence use of these newer media, aswell as how the use of these media influence performance. Responsiveness tocommunication through the availability of multiple media options becomes a newway to generate “face time” within an organization.

Our research extends the literature oncommunication technology use byexploring organizational norms andproviding a better understanding of theembedded nature of communicationtechnology use.

Considerable research has explored employees’ communication behaviorsregarding the use of communication technologies. Research has explored the influ-ence of message characteristics (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Daft, Lengel, & Trevino,1987), situational constraints (Trevino, Lengel, & Daft, 1987), media perceptions(Carlson & Zmud, 1999), and personality factors (Reinsch, Steele, Lewis, Stano,& Beswick, 1990; Russ, Daft, & Lengel, 1990; Trevino, Lengel, Bodensteiner,Gerloff, & Muir, 1990).

Research has also embedded the use of communication technology within thesocial situation. Starting with the investigation of workgroup norms (Fulk, 1993;

Jeanine Warisse Turner (PhD, The Ohio State University) is an assistant professor in the McDonoughSchool of Business at Georgetown University. Jean A. Grube (PhD, University of Wisconsin–Madison)holds adjunct faculty positions in the Department of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison,Virginia Commonwealth University, and the Medical College of Wisconsin. Currently, she is vice presi-dent of research design and strategies at MyInnerView, Wausau, Wisconsin. Catherine H. Tinsley (PhD,Northwestern University) is an associate professor in the McDonough School of Business at GeorgetownUniversity. Cynthia Lee (PhD, University of Maryland) is a professor in the College of BusinessAdministration at Northeastern University. Cheryl O’Pell (MBA, Georgetown University) currently worksas a marketing manager in New Jersey. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toJeanine Warisse Turner, Georgetown University, McDonough School of Business, G-04 Old North,Washington, DC 20057; e-mail: [email protected].



222 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Fulk, Steinfield, Schmitz, & Power, 1987), researchers have explored the impactof social relationships on media use, suggesting that communication technol-ogy is socially constructed and embedded within the fabric of an organization(DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; Fulk, 1993; Orlikowski, Yates, Okamura, & Fujimoto,1995; Yates & Orlikowski, 1992). Although not specifically explored, the socialnature of communication technology suggests that media use would be influ-enced by organizational norms for such use. However, research exploring socialinfluence theory has been equivocal (Kraut, Rice, Cool, & Fish, 1998; Rice,1993; Rice & Aydin, 1991), leading Rice and Gattiker (2001) to argue that socialinfluence is one microprocess in a complicated system governing an organiza-tion’s adoption and implementation of communication technologies. Theyencouraged future research on social influence to contextualize the conditionsunder which adoption and implementation are affected.

In this study, we explored participants’ media use of IM and e-mail as a func-tion of how they perceived that their supervisors used media and their perceptionsof organizational use. We then examined media use and employee performanceratings by supervisors. We also identified two individual factors (commitment tothe organization and polychronic orientation) that may moderate the influence oforganizational norms on media use. In doing so, we created a multilevel study thatexamined organizational and individual factors simultaneously influencing com-munication technology use, while linking this use to performance. To triangulatethe survey results, we provide an analysis of interviews with organizational mem-bers describing communication media norms within the organization surveyed.Our research extends the literature on communication technology use by explor-ing organizational norms and providing a better understanding of the embeddednature of communication technology use.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

Organizational Context and Media Choice

The social influence model of technology use (Fulk, Schmitz, & Steinfield, 1990;Fulk et al., 1987), which draws on social information processing theory (Salancik &Pfeffer, 1978), social learning theory (Bandura, 1986), and symbolic interactionism(Mead, 1934), suggests that media perceptions and use are influenced by (a) directstatements by coworkers in the workplace, (b) vicarious learning, (c) norms for howmedia should be evaluated and used, and (d) social definitions of rationality (Fulk &Boyd, 1991).

Taking a similar perspective, Zack and McKenney (1995) argued that a group’ssocial structure is influenced by its social context. Their research showed that twoorganizations performing similar tasks in different social contexts appropriatedtechnology in different ways. This research suggests that the social context pro-vides clues to organizational members as to how communication technologies




should be used (Zack & McKenney, 1995). Social learning theory (Bandura, 1986)posits that there are many sources of modeling within and outside an individual’simmediate social network. Using social influence theory and social contextresearch as a framework, we explored the organizational context by assessing boththe influence of the supervisor and the norms of the organization on employees’use of communication media.

Many communication norms in place within organizational environments providerules for employees to follow. For example, a face-to-face norm might involve mak-ing eye contact during a meeting. A telephone norm might involve specific rituals foropening and closing a conversation. These norms often transcend specific organiza-tions because these communication media have been in place for a long time.However, new media may not be as tightly embedded within individual communica-tion behaviors as are more traditional media (Markus, 1994). For example, individu-als tend to have stable norms for how the telephone is used (when and for whatpurpose) within an organization, whereas norms for e-mail or IM may be emerging.In such a case, influential members within a workgroup may support certain commu-nication behaviors over others (Fulk et al., 1990; Markus, 1994). One specific indi-vidual who may model media use is the supervisor. Research has found that managers’support of certain types of communication technology may influence use withinorganizations (Igbaria & Chakrabarti, 1990; Stevens, Williams, & Smith, 2000).

Because managers make up an integral part of workgroups, we argue that man-agers’ communication behaviors will influence others’ communication technologyuse through role modeling. In addition, because the supervisor assesses employ-ees’ performance, subordinates’ need to manage the impression that they make tomanagers will influence how they communicate, particularly with respect toupward communication (Goffman, 1961; Sosik & Jung, 2003). We extended socialinfluence theory and social context research by examining the influence individu-als’ perceptions of their immediate supervisors’ communication technology usehas on their own media use. Specifically, we hypothesized the following:

Hypothesis 1a: The more a supervisor is perceived to use e-mail, the more an employeewill use e-mail.

Hypothesis 1b: The more a supervisor is perceived to use IM, the more an employeewill use IM.

An organization as an entity can create a dominant media norm and influencemedia use. Specifically, organizations will promote their own norms for howemployees should communicate with one another with respect to types of con-versations that demand face-to-face conversations instead of electronic media.Feldman (1984) argued that group norms develop around activities that help agroup maintain its social relationships and manage tasks. Communication tech-nologies serve that function within organizations.

Past research on the implementation of new forms of communication within acommunity of users has demonstrated that groups create norms for interacting



(Yates, Orlikowski, & Okamura, 1999). Other researchers have even suggestedthat an organization itself is a language-based entity that emerges through conver-sation (Robichaud, Giroux, & Taylor, 2004). We suggest that the medium throughwhich conversation occurs serves as a metamessage that signals organizationalmembers as to the appropriate ways to interact. Research has demonstrated thatcontinuous interaction between human communication practices and institutional-ized practices of groups and organizations serves to influence one another (Yates& Orlikowski, 1992), suggesting that people look for organizational guidancein determining how to use communication media. We extended social influencetheory and social context research by examining the influence of individuals’ per-ceptions of their organizations on their media use. Specifically, we hypothesizedthe following:

Hypothesis 2a: The stronger the perceived organizational norms for e-mail, the morefrequently an employee will use e-mail.

Hypothesis 2b: The stronger the perceived organizational norms for IM, the morefrequently an employee will use IM.

Most of the support for the social influence model has come from studies ofgroups using e-mail. For example, Fulk (1993) found that individual technologyuse was predicted by workgroup technology use, especially among those individ-uals who were attracted to their workgroups. In addition, Fulk found that the pres-sure to conform to workgroup attitudes toward technology was a strong predictorof communication technology use, particularly when individuals were attracted totheir workgroups. In fact, attraction to a workgroup was more important thansocial or “ego” networks.

Fulk’s (1993) work makes an explicit link between members’ attraction totheir workgroups and their communication media use. We follow this researchstream on an organizational level, suggesting that organizational commitmentwill be an important variable influencing the compliance with organizationalnorms. Employees psychologically attached to their organizations want to remain(cf. Meyer & Allen, 1997) and therefore would be more likely to comply withorganizational norms, including those dealing with communication media use.Recent research has demonstrated that compared with employees with weak com-mitments, employees with stronger commitments engage in more compliantbehavior (Rogelberg, Luong, Sederburg, & Cristol, 2002). Thus, we offer thefollowing hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a: The relationship between perceived norms for e-mail use and reporteduse of this medium will be stronger for those who are more, rather than less, com-mitted to an organization.

Hypothesis 3b: The relationship between perceived norms for IM and reported use ofthis medium will be stronger for those who are more, rather than less, committed toan organization.




Polychronic Orientation and Media Choice

Although the social environment might exhibit some pressure to use media incertain ways, an individual must also have the ability to do so. Polychronicityreflects an individual’s preference for engaging in two or more tasks simultane-ously and the belief that this is the best way to accomplish tasks (Bluedorn,Kallaith, Strube, & Martin, 1999). Polychronicity describes the behavior of engag-ing in more than one activity apparently at the same time (Kaufman, Lane, &Lindquist, 1991) or treating unplanned interruptions as equal to planned activities(Bluedorn, Kaufman, & Lane, 1992). The research of Haase, Dong, and Banks(1979) extended the definition of polychronicity to measuring the extent to whichan individual can cope with “environmentally produced stress stemming fromstimulus-intense, information overload” (p. 271). This definition underscores theimportance of examining polychronicity in the context of the message environ-ment created by new communication technologies.

Hence, both e-mail and IM technologiesprovide new opportunities formultitasking managers.

Both e-mail and IM allow for individuals to either (a) do other things while theyare communicating or (b) communicate with multiple people at the same time.With IM, a message appears on a receiver’s screen the instant it is sent, and mul-tiple messages often appear at any one time. Hence, an individual can reply to oneinstant message and, while waiting for a response, reply to another. Therefore, theindividual is involved in more than one conversation at any one time. With e-mail,a message is sent, and it resides in an e-mail program until it is opened by thereceiver. Although a receiver may open many messages at once, he or she gener-ally replies sequentially to messages, suggesting multiple sequential conversations(rather than simultaneous conversations). Hence, both e-mail and IM technologiesprovide new opportunities for multitasking managers.

New communication technologies such as IM and e-mail produce a stimulusintense information environment. The polychromic orientation of an employeeshould affect how he or she copes in this environment. Previous research hasalternately described polychronicity as either a personality construct (Bluedorn,2002; Bluedorn et al., 1992, 1999) or an adaptive ability learned through culturalexposure (Hall, 1973, 1983). We believe that both concepts are correct.Polychronicity is an individual propensity, and therefore, some individuals will beinherently more inclined to multitask than others. As well, though, pressure tolearn or develop this skill can emanate from an organization when this skill is




viewed as valuable. However, an individual with a higher polychronic orientationmay find it easier to respond to organizational norms for using IM and e-mail thansomeone with a lower polychronic orientation. Thus, we expected that poly-chronic orientation would be a significant moderator between norms and use.

Hypothesis 4a: The relationship between perceived norms for e-mail use and reporteduse of e-mail will be stronger for those who identify themselves as having more,rather than less, of a polychronic orientation.

Hypothesis 4b: The relationship between perceived norms for IM use and reported useof IM will be stronger for those who identify themselves as having more, rather thanless, of a polychronic orientation.

The Link to Performance

Jablin and Sias (2001) suggested that communication competence in the infor-mation age requires an “understanding and ability to use computer-mediatedcommunication systems to send and receive messages and to obtain, process, andinterpret information at all levels of the organization” (p. 840). With more andmore jobs becoming “information based” (Andrews & Herschel, 1996), the skillto select the right media for the right situation becomes an important criterion forjudging overall performance. However, empirical research linking media use andperformance is scarce.

Studies of media choice suggest that individuals make media choices on thebasis of their perceptions that these choices will result in effective communication.One often-cited study supports a bold conclusion regarding media choice and per-formance. Following information richness theory, Daft et al. (1987) suggested thatmedia use reflects a match between the content of a message and the characteris-tics of the medium chosen. In that study, the investigators demonstrated that higherperforming managers were more sensitive to the needs of certain communicationsituations than their lower performing counterparts. That study is the only explicitlink between media use and performance within an organization. Other studieshave tried to replicate this link in laboratory experiments, with mixed results(Dennis & Kinney, 1998; Dennis, Kinney, & Hung, 1999; Sheffield, 1995; Suh,1999).

We suggest that media use, in addition to reflecting objective norms asreflected in media richness research, may also reflect the subjective norms ofan organization. Employees are rewarded for adhering to the norms of an orga-nization, particularly if such behaviors are consistent with the values of theorganization or those conducting performance appraisals. For example, person-organization fit has been used to explain individual success within organizations,as well as long-term organizational effectiveness (Jablin, 2001). According to thisframework, the more an individual shares the values, interests, and attributes ofan organization, the more effective that individual will be within the organization(Kristof, 1996). In part, information reflecting the extent to which an employee




shares values is gleaned from behaviors, including those of communication mediachoice. In this study, we suggest that supervisors will rate employees’ performancehigher when employees’ communication media use is consistent with organiza-tional norms. Because the dominant media within the context of this study are IMand e-mail, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5a: There will be a positive association between employees’ reported useof e-mail and their performance evaluations.

Hypothesis 5b: There will be a positive association between employees’ reported useof IM and their performance evaluations.

To address these hypotheses, we used both quantitative and qualitative meth-ods. First, we generated items to measure employees’ perceptions of their use,their supervisors’ use, organizational norms, organizational commitment, poly-chronic orientation, and performance. Next, using a sample of surveyed employ-ees, we conducted in-depth interviews to develop additional support for thenorms of the communicative work environment within a high-tech telecommuni-cations company. These data brought additional richness to the survey data and ameans of triangulating survey responses. We have separated the study into twophases. Phase 1 describes our hypothesis testing, and Phase 2 explores the con-text of communication technology use within the organization.

PHASE 1: HYPOTHESIS TESTING

Method

Data and Sample

We obtained management approval to distribute a survey to all 115 employeeswithin two areas of the interactive marketing division of High-Tech Communica-tions (a pseudonym). High-Tech employs 19,000 people worldwide and providestelecommunication services to more than 30 million members. In addition to usingIM and e-mail for intercompany communication, High-Tech pioneered many ofthe products associated with computer-mediated communication (e.g., browsers,IM systems, computer conferencing formats). This suggested that High-Techwould have strong core values for using IM and e-mail.

The specific areas within the division we investigated were finance and oper-ations. Following standard organizational protocol for information gathering, adirector within the division sent an e-mail to employees describing the study andencouraging their participation. One day later, employees received an e-mail witha hyperlink embedded within it directing them to the survey. The survey tookapproximately 20 minutes to complete. Employees were given 1 week to respond.At the end of the week, a reminder e-mail was sent out. We received 88 e-mail




responses (a 76% response rate). Fifty-three percent of the respondents were male.The average age of the respondents was 29 years. Seventy-eight percent of the respon-dents had at least a college education. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents camefrom non-White ethnic backgrounds. The average organization tenure was 4 years.

In addition to the Web-based survey, we also asked each supervisor withineach division to fill out an assessment of each of their employees’ performance.One-hundred percent of the supervisors returned performance appraisals on theiremployees.

Measures

General polychronic orientation. General polychronic orientation was mea-sured using the Inventory of Polychronic Values (Bluedorn et al., 1999), a 10-item,Likert-type scale assessing an individual’s preference for polychronic behaviors.Scale items included “I like to juggle several activities at the same time” and“I prefer to do one thing at a time” (reverse coded). The response scale ranges from1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α, a measure of internalreliability, was .76 for the items in this scale.

Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment was measured withnine items from Mowday, Steers, and Porter’s (1979) organizational commitmentquestionnaire, which measures affective commitment. Some examples of itemsfrom this scale included “I am proud to tell others that I am a part of this organi-zation,” “I find that my values and the organization’s values are similar,” and“I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally expected inorder to help this organization be successful.” The response scale ranged from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α was .89 for this scale.

Communication media use. Communication media use was measured withsingle items asking respondents about the extent to which they used IM ande-mail during a typical day (1 = never, 5 = all of the time). For comparisonpurposes, we also collected data on telephone and face-to-face communication.

Organizational norms and supervisor media use. Perceived organizationalnorms for media use were measured with single items asking respondents to indi-cate the extent to which the organization valued the use of IM and e-mail (1 = doesnot value, 5 = strongly values). In addition, respondents were asked to indicate theextent to which their supervisors used IM and e-mail to communicate with themduring a typical workday (1 = never, 5 = all the time).

Performance. Performance ratings for each employee were provided by theirrespective supervisors. Separate from the initial survey, supervisors were given anevaluation tool (approximately 2 months after the initial survey was completed) to





specifically assess the performance of each of their employees. The instrumentconsisted of six items measured on a 7-point, Likert-type scale asking supervisorsto evaluate overall performance, the quality of work, the effectiveness of work,and communication and to compare employees with respect to other employees.Sample items included “How effective is this employee in his or her job?” “In gen-eral, how would you characterize the performance level of this employee?” and“Please rate the quality of work this employee produces.” With the exception ofthe communication item (“Please rate the appropriateness of this employee’s useof communication media to communicate with you”), the content of the perfor-mance scale (e.g., quality, effectiveness, overall satisfaction) is similar to the con-tent of measures used in many empirical studies examining job performance (e.g.,(Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989; Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez,1998). Exploratory factor analysis supported a single factor, and Cronbach’s α forthis scale was .88.

Control variables. To reduce biased relationships, we included control vari-ables within the survey. Specifically, we controlled for reported hours worked andorganizational commitment when regressing performance on employees’ use ofIM and e-mail. Hours worked would be expected to increase IM and e-mail usebecause of an increase in the opportunity to use these media given the extra hoursof work. It would also be a visible behavior that may influence supervisors’ per-formance ratings. Because we hypothesized that committed employees would bemore likely to follow norms regarding dominant media use and because thereis past empirical support linking organizational commitment and performance,we also controlled for commitment.

We controlled for tenure, age, sex, race, education, and supervisors’ media useto reduce “noisy relationships” (Schwab, 2005) because there are studies suggest-ing that demographics and “similar-to-me bias” can influence performance ratings(cf. Bernardin, Hennessey, & Peyrefitte, 1995; Ford, Kraiger, & Schechtman,1986; Pulakos, White, Oppler, & Borman, 1989).

We also controlled for education when regressing employees’ use of IM ande-mail on model variables because past research has demonstrated a relationshipbetween education and polychronicity, and it is likely that education also influ-ences the use of IM and e-mail.

Analyses

Hierarchical regression was used to test the hypotheses. Predictors in the inter-action terms were centered before forming the interaction term. Because our sam-ple size was small (n = 88), missing values analysis (MVA) using SPSS wasconducted to (a) determine if the values were missing randomly; (b) estimatemeans and standard deviations using listwise, pairwise, expectation-maximization,and regression methods; and (c) impute missing values with estimated values toevaluate the effects on the regression results.




MVA was conducted for all variables. Overall, with the exception of hoursworked and performance, very few data were missing. Of the 15 variables, onescale item was missing in fewer than 5% of the cases, and two scale items weremissing in fewer than 10% of cases. Hours worked (a control variable) was miss-ing in 17% of the cases, and supervisors’ assessments of employees’ performancewere missing in 27% of the cases. Randomness was examined using Little’smissing-completely-at-random test, which had a chi-square value of 197.05 (df = 166,p = .05; Little & Schenker, 1995). Although just significant, this indicated that thevalues for some variables were not missing completely at random. Inspection ofseparate variances suggested variables responsible for departure from random-ness. Specifically, tenure was greater for those subjects reporting hours workedthan for those not reporting hours worked (t = 2.1). In addition, hours worked wasgreater for those reporting organizational commitment than for those who hadmissing values for some scale items for organizational commitment (t = 2.1).Thus, it appeared that the missing values may be conditionally missing at random.Hours worked seemed to be the common link and had a much larger percentageof missing values than either tenure or organizational commitment. In fact, whenhours worked was dropped from the MVA, Little’s missing-completely-at-random test was nonsignificant. Because hours worked was a control variable, itwas possible to test models with and without this particular control variable to seeif the results were differentially affected. Overall, the means and standard devia-tions were remarkably similar across all methods. Thus, it seemed reasonableto impute missing values with expectation-maximization values for all variablesexcept performance. Thus, we had a sample size of 88 except for the analysis ofperformance, for which we had a sample size of 64.

Results

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations are presented in Table 1. As sug-gested, organizational norms for IM and e-mail appeared strong, as judged by thereported frequent use of these communication media and relatively small variance.For comparison purposes, we examined information on IM and e-mail use in a typ-ical day from 235 M.B.A. students at an eastern university. The mean for IMuse for the student sample was 2.32 (SD = 1.45), compared with a mean of 4.78for subjects in this study (t = 18.36, p ≤ .001). For e-mail use, the mean was 4.70(SD = 0.72), compared with a mean of 4.67 for the study sample (t = 0.29). Thus,employees in our firm looked different from the “average” employee with respectto the use of IM but not necessarily e-mail.

We further reasoned that IM and e-mail would be the dominant media in thisorganization. We collected data on telephone and face-to-face communication. Meanphone (M = 3.83, SD = 0.85) and face-to-face (M = 3.61, SD = 0.90) communica-tion by employees was significantly lower than employees’ use of IM and e-mail,with greater variance. Similarly, supervisors’ use of phone (M = 2.76, SD = 1.43)and face-to-face (M = 3.80, SD = 1.09) communication on a daily basis was



231

Ta

ble

1.

De

sc

rip

tiv

e S

tati

sti

cs,

Co

rre

lati

on

s,

an

d C

ron

ba

ch

’s αα

Co

eff

icie

nts

(n

=88)

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

15

1. A

ge28

.58

5.40

—2.

Gen

der

(1=

fem

ale,

2=

mal

e)—

—.1

5—

3. R

ace

——

.12

.27

—4.

Edu

catio

n—

—.0

2–.

12.2

8—

5. T

enur

e (m

onth

s)21

.51

13.8

2.2

3–.

03.0

8.0

9—

6. F

requ

ency

of

IM u

se b

y em

ploy

ee4.

780.

51–.

20.1

5–.

19–.

08–.

08—

7. F

requ

ency

of

IM u

se b

y su

perv

isor

4.16

1.04

–.18

–.09

–.08

.05

–.01

.50

—8.

Org

aniz

atio

n’s

valu

e fo

r IM

4.71

.62

.05

.03

.01

.07

–.01

.20

.12

—9.

Fre

quen

cy o

f e-

mai

l use

by

4.67

0.64

–.15

.03

–.05

.03

–.15

.55

.32

.11

—em

ploy

ee10

. Fre

quen

cy o

f e-

mai

l use

4.

270.

85–.

36–.

05–.

20–.

03–.

20.3

3.4

9.0

1.5

8—

by s

uper

viso

r11

. Org

aniz

atio

n’s

valu

e fo

r e-

mai

l4.

740.

51.0

5.0

9–.

09.0

8–.

01.2

2.1

6.7

3.2

6.1

5—

12. O

rgan

izat

iona

l com

mitm

ent

4.26

0.64

–.01

.06

–.07

–.04

–.12

.24

.16

.10

.27

.13

.19

.89

13. P

olyc

hron

icity

3.29

0.59

.02

–.05

.21

.13

.08

.01

–.01

.22

.06

–.06

.30

.12

.76

14. P

erfo

rman

ce r

atin

gs (

n=

64)

5.47

0.85

–.16

–.07

–.09

.10

.04

.31

.12

–.05

.25

–.01

–.13

.29

–.01

.88

15. H

ours

wor

ked

50.2

25.

94.1

9–.

00.0

4.1

2–.

01–.

15–.

01.0

1.1

6–.

20–.

02.2

0.2

1.3

4—

Not

e:C

ronb

ach’

s α

coef

fici

ents

app

ear

on t

he d

iago

nal.

Cor

rela

tions

gre

ater

tha

n .2

1 w

ere

(in

abso

lute

val

ue)

sign

ific

ant

at p

< .0

5; t

hose

gre

ater

tha

n .2

6 w

ere

sign

ific

ant

at p

< .0

1; t

hose

gre

ater

tha

n .3

6 w

ere

sign

ific

ant

at p

< .0

01. E

xpec

tatio

n-m

axim

izat

ion

was

use

d to

est

imat

e m

issi

ng (

mea

n) v

alue

s ex

cept

for

per

-fo

rman

ce r

atin

gs. I

M=

inst

ant m

essa

ging

.




significantly less than their use of IM and e-mail. Finally, the value the organizationplaced on phone (M = 4.22, SD = 0.72) and face-to-face (M = 4.26, SD = 0.80) con-tact was significantly lower than values for IM and e-mail, although the differenceswere less striking. These results suggested that IM and e-mail were identified asdominant communication media in this organization.

The results of the hierarchical regression on employees’ communication use aredisplayed in Table 2. The relationship between supervisors’ use of IM and e-mailand subordinates’ use of e-mail and IM was statistically significant, thus supportingHypothesis 1a and 1b.

The relationship between employees’ use of IM and e-mail and the perceivedvalue the organization placed on use of these media was significant at the .10level, demonstrating marginal support for Hypotheses 2a and 2b. These relation-ships were moderated by organizational commitment, but the nature of thatinteraction was not as hypothesized. As Figure 1 depicts, as norms for IM ande-mail strengthened, media use by individuals with low levels of organizationalcommitment increased. When norms for media use were strong, there was littlechange for employees with high commitment. In fact, the line for high commit-ment is virtually parallel to the x-axis for IM use. Thus, although there was mar-ginal support for Hypotheses 2a and 2b, the interactions between commitmentand use were not in the predicted direction. Thus, Hypotheses 3a and 3b werenot supported.

Table 2. Results of Hierarchical Regression Predicting InstantMessaging (IM) and E-Mail Use (n = 88)

Model 1: IM Use Model 2: E-Mail Use

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Education –.064 –.084 –.048 .029 .039 .077Supervisors’ use of IM (e-mail) .231† .217† .407† .399†

Organization’s value for IM (e-mail) .112* .245*** .159* .214**Polychronicity –.021 –.062 .022 .002Organizational commitment .123** .147*** .189** .196***Polychronicity × Organization’s .354*** .318**

Value for IM (E-Mail)Organizational Commitment × –.619† –.395***

Organization’s Valuefor IM (E-Mail)

R2 .006 .302 .509 .001 .401 .454∆R2 .006 .296 .207 .001 .400 .053F 0.560 7.10† 7.49† 0.071 10.97† 8.76†

Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients are shown. All significance tests were one tailed formain effects and interactions and two tailed for controls.*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01. †p < .001.




4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2E

-mai

l Usa

ge

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

IM U

sag

e

low high

Low CommitmentHigh Commitment

Low CommitmentHigh Commitment

Organization’s Value for E-mail

highlow

Organization’s Value for IM

Figure 1. Interaction Between Commitment andOrganization’s Value for E-Mail and InstantMessaging (IM)




We also proposed that polychronicity would moderate the relationship betweenorganizational value for media and employees’ use of the media. Our resultsdemonstrated that when polychronicity was high, the magnitude of the relation-ship between the organization’s value of IM and e-mail and employees’ use ofthese media was greater than when polychronicity was low (see Figure 2). In fact,there appeared to be almost no relationship for the low-polychronicity situation;the “slope” is virtually parallel to the x-axis. Hypotheses 4a and 4b were thereforesupported.

Table 3 displays the results of the regression on performance. In support of theHypotheses 5a and 5b, employees’ use of IM and e-mail was associated withhigher supervisory assessments of performance after controlling for demograph-ics, supervisors’ media use, hours worked, and organizational commitment.(Removing hours worked from the equation did not influence the results.)Approximately 30% of the variance in performance was explained by the model.This explanation of the variance in performance was considerable. Thus,Hypotheses 5a and 5b were supported.

PHASE 2: ORGANIZATIONALCOMMUNICATION NORMS

Phase 1 of our research showed the perception of IM and e-mail as dominantmedia within the organization and supported a relationship between use of thesedominant media and performance. We also found a positive correlation betweenpolychronic orientation, or the ability to multitask, and the reported use of IM ande-mail. We hypothesized this connection because these media lend themselvesto participation in multiple conversations at any one time. In Phase 2, we usedin-depth interviews with survey participants to explore the extent to which thesefindings resonated with the way employees described their communication tech-nology use and its value within the organization. We asked the following researchquestions:

Research Question 1: Are IM and e-mail the dominant media used within theorganization?

Research Question 2: How are these media used within the organization?Research Question 3: Is the use of IM and e-mail rewarded by the organization?

Method

Data Collection

As recommended for qualitative research (Eisenhardt, 1989), we used theoret-ical sampling to identify interviewees for participation. In theoretical sampling,cases are chosen on the basis of their theoretical categories to provide examplesof polar types rather than generalization to a larger population. Using the surveys




Figure 2. Interaction Between Polychronicity andOrganization’s Value for E-Mail and InstantMessaging (IM)

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

E-m

ail U

sag

e

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

Organization’s Value for IM

IM U

sag

e

High Polychronicity Low Polychronicity

High Polychronicity Low Polychronicity

low high

low high

Organization’s Value for E-mail




received, we identified participants to ensure a mix of our variables of interest:polychronic orientation (high and low, determined by location above and belowthe mean) and performance (high and low, also determined by location above andbelow the mean). A total of 20 interviews were conducted in October 2001(approximately 6 months after the survey data collection). Interviews were con-ducted in person in a room away from the participants’ work areas to preventinterruptions and ran between 45 and 90 minutes in length. The interviews weresemistructured to provide some consistency while allowing participants to raiseissues as appropriate. The interview protocol included questions about mediause, norms for communication within High-Tech, and the managing of multipleconversations at one time.

Said another participant, “Being onlineis like breathing, I mean, you have tobe there.”

Data Analysis

All of the interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and checked for accuracyby the interviewer. For this study, we focused on how participants describednorms for communication within High-Tech. We explored which media were

Table 3. Influence of Media Use on Performance Ratings(n = 64)

IM E-Mail

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Age –.158 –.088 –.174 –.189Gender –.044 –.116 –.058 –.074Race –.159 –.144 –.162 –.196Education .131 .132 .123 .071Tenure .199 .185 .193 .152Hours worked .234** .266** .234** .200Organizational commitment .268** .239** .274** .209Supervisors’ media use .046 –.146 –.043 –.316**Use of IM (e-mail) by employees .358** .376**R2 .231 .313 .230 .297∆R2 .231 .082 .230 .067F 2.06** 2.73*** 2.05** 2.53**

Note: Standardized coefficients are shown. All significance tests are one tailed.**p < .05. ***p < .01.




used most often, the pace of communication within High-Tech, and the pressuresassociated with communication technology use.

Results

Analyses of the interviews support the survey data that the primary modes of com-munication as reported within High-Tech involved IM and e-mail. The interviewsalso provided a window into the communication environment within High-Tech toprovide additional support to the potential benefits of a polychronic orientation andthe potential connection between communication media use and performance.

Dominant Communication Norms

Consistent with the survey results, participants reported that IM and e-mailwere the primary modes of communication within High-Tech. As one participantdescribed it, “People are relying so much on e-mail or instant messages. A lot ofpeople just forget that they can just pick up the phone.” Said another, “Since Istarted working here, IM has become like the backbone of what we do here andhow we communicate. . . . I feel that without IM we would be so paralyzed justbecause we’ve gotten so used to it.” Said another participant, “Being online is likebreathing, I mean, you have to be there.”

Not only did IM and e-mail emerge as dominant media choices for communi-cation, participants also reported that they felt the pressure to manage multipleconversations at the same time, or communicate polychronically.

Polychronic Communication

The participants reported the benefits surrounding IM and e-mail that allow acommunicator to manage multiple conversations at any one time. In fact, IM wasequated with participating in multiple conversations at one time because partici-pants usually had more than one IM session open (in progress) at any one time.Said one participant, “I’d say pretty much everyone engages in multiple instantmessaging. All the time.” The primary benefit of this type of communication wasthe efficiency. Said one participant,

A lot of times you instant message someone just for the convenience of being ableto talk to them and to someone else at the same time. You can do other things whileyou instant message. . . . I would say the majority of people that I work with wouldrather talk over instant message just for the same reasoning that they can get moredone instead of having to be bogged down on the telephone going back and forth.

Another participant underlined the importance of multitasking: “You have to beable to multitask around here.” Another participant talked about the benefits ofmultitasking:




I can talk to five different people at once and pay attention while doing like five dif-ferent IM. . . . it gets really hectic when you are trying to do your busy work on topof an Excel or whatever document you’re working in and on top of that switch itback and forth to an Excel and browser so you can IM people but it really doesn’tbother me that much. I’ve gotten used to it so it’s a norm.

Phase 1 indicated that those with low polychronic orientations would be less ableto follow the norms of the organization through their use of IM and e-mail.Interviewees with both high and low polychronic orientations referenced thestress associated with participating in multiple conversations at one time. Saidone participant with a low polychronic orientation,

I think some people get very stressed out when a lot of things happen around them.If they have people IMing them, people on the phone, people e-mailing. I don’tthink they know how to handle that situation where you got to decide what’s themost important thing going on.

Said another with a high polychronic orientation, “Sometimes it’s stressful whenI have five [instant messages at once]. It’s usually end of the quarter. Everyone’sfrantic.”

However, strategies participants reported using when engaging in multiple con-versations at once seemed different. For example, participants with low polychronicorientations might engage in multiple conversations at once if they all involved IMbut would not mix different types of media. For example, one participant with a lowpolychronic orientation said,

If I get a phone call, I try to stop [IM]. . . . People can hear you typing when you’reon the phone with them and I don’t like that. . . . Even though that is done by otherpeople if that’s your personal preference I guess. . . . Sometimes I feel like I’m onthe phone with someone and I can hear them typing. I’m like, “Are they listening towhat I’m saying?”

Participants with high polychronic orientations also mentioned the disruptivenature of trying to participate in multiple conversations at once but were morelikely to do so if the other individuals could not see them. Therefore, face-to-faceconversation required total focus on the other individuals, but the telephone pro-vided an opportunity for multiple conversations through IM and e-mail becausethese conversations could not be readily observed. For example, a participant witha high polychronic orientation said,

If you’re there face-to-face with somebody I think you should be giving him or herall your attention. That’s why I don’t mind being on the phone and IMing someonetoo much. That doesn’t bother me. But if someone walks in my office or I’m in ameeting, that’s when I draw the line.




The challenge that some of the participants with low polychronic orientationsnoted when trying to switch modes of communication may reflect the difficultiesassociated with switching tasks. IM still required participants to switch conversa-tions, but switching conversations and modes of conversation appeared to be easierwith a polychronic orientation. Also, the comments of participants with highpolychronic orientations regarding their concerns associated with mixing face-to-face and other modes of communication were based not so much on the difficultyof carrying on the conversation but on their concern that observers might thinkthat they lacked focus.

The need to manage multipleconversations at once was connectedto participants’ perceptions of theirfrenetic work environment.

These qualitative findings that further detail the differences experienced bythose with low polychronic orientations versus those with high polychronic ori-entations suggest that it was harder for those with low polychronic orientations tofollow the norms for high IM and high e-mail use (Hypotheses 4a and 4b). IMnecessarily demands polychromic abilities because it often involves multiplemessages at any one time. E-mail supports the polychronic management of timebecause it also allows an individual to perform multiple tasks at once (talk on thephone while answering e-mail or instant messages). These communication tech-nologies contribute to a message environment that could be overwhelming tosomeone with a low polychronic orientation but stimulating to someone with ahigh polychronic orientation.

Pressure to Perform

The need to manage multiple conversations at once was connected to partici-pants’ perceptions of their frenetic work environment. Participants referred to the“need for availability,” the “need to respond,” and the “need to prioritize” associ-ated with a desire to answer the questions and concerns presented to them as soonas possible. Participants wanted to be viewed as responsive. Some of this pressureto be responsive stemmed from “escalation,” a term used by a few participants.Escalation refers to a situation in which a person needs an answer to a question.If the person does not receive an answer within a reasonable amount of time (asubjective construct), the person is encouraged to “escalate” the issue to a super-visor. Explained one participant, “If you need the answer within the day and thatperson hasn’t gotten back with you then you escalate it.” Escalation created an




environment in which participants were concerned if they did not respond to mes-sages quickly enough, before the other communicators could notify their super-visors. If a supervisor received too many such notifications, the participant mightbe perceived as ineffective.

The sense of urgency within High-Tech also led individuals to use multiplemeans of communicating to communicate the same message. Said another, “Imight use three at once. . . . If there is information that I need by a certain timeI’ll do whatever I can. I’ll bug the heck out of them.”

Many participants linked the ability to participate in multiple conversations atonce to the ability to be successful at High-Tech. Said one participant,

It’s [communicating in several forms at once] a very important skill to have to workin our department. I wouldn’t say that if you can’t you won’t fit in but they sort offorce you to learn. I think she [my supervisor] values it. You need to have that capa-bility to be flexible and being able to communicate better or communicate in sev-eral different forms.

The interviews underlined the important role that IM and e-mail played within thecommunication environment of High-Tech. It also reinforced the potential bene-fit of a polychronic orientation and the link between communication andperformance, as suggested by the findings supporting the connection betweene-mail and IM use and performance. The interviews suggest that the environmentat High-Tech demanded that individuals be able to process multiple messages atone time and to be comfortable processing messages online.

DISCUSSION

This research contributes to the literature in three main ways. First, it inte-grates past research of communication media use with performance evaluation.Second, it demonstrates how communication media use is embedded within theorganizational culture. Finally, consistent with social influence theory, the resultsdemonstrate how organizations can promote dominant communication norms.These norms, combined with individual personality characteristics, in this casepolychronic orientation, may influence media use within the organization. Wediscuss each of these contributions in turn.

Theoretical Implications

Performance Evaluation

Few connections have been made between communication media use andemployees’ performance as evaluated by supervisors; this study addresses thisconcern. In addition to showing that individuals match their communication use to




their perceptions of an organization’s norms and supervisors’ norms, this researchalso suggests that such matching may influence supervisors’ assessment of per-formance. It further suggests that the evaluation of media use may be a sociallyconstructed process, complementing previous performance-based research basedon media richness theory.

Thus, communication choices are bothproducts of dominant organizationalnorms and symbolic reinforcements ofthese norms.

Conceptually, we argued that normative pressure to use the dominant mediawould influence the use of these media and subsequent performance evaluations.However, in addition to compliance with norms, the appropriate use of mediawithin the context of the job may also influence performance evaluations. Forexample, past research connecting performance to media choice found that man-agers who were sensitive to the equivocality needs of messages and matched thosemessages to richer media were also found to be better performers, as indicated byperformance review information (Daft et al., 1987). This finding suggests thatmanagers who are sensitive to communication task needs perform better.

Similarly, we would expect that appropriately matching media use to thedemands of the job would influence performance evaluations. As part of the initialsurvey, we asked respondents to indicate the average number of e-mails theyreceived on a typical day. We would expect that receiving a large number of e-mailseach day would require more time using e-mail to send responses to coworkers,supervisors, customers, and so on. Conversely, relative to high receivers, thosewho received less e-mail would have less reason to spend time using e-mail. Thosewho match use with the demand of the e-mails received would likely receivehigher performance evaluations. We explored this on a post hoc basis by addingthe interaction to the e-mail model depicted in Table 3. As suspected, matchinge-mail use to the number of e-mails received influenced performance. The inter-action between the reported number of e-mails received and e-mail use wassignificant (B = .03, p < .05) and explained an additional 4% of variance in per-formance beyond the initial model. Specifically, performance evaluations werehigher when those who reported receiving many e-mails also reported highere-mail use and when those who reported receiving few e-mails also reported lowere-mails use. Performance ratings were lower when e-mail use was reported low butthe number of e-mails received was reported high. Figure 3 depicts the relation-ship. This finding makes sense. Certainly, coworkers and customers might com-plain to supervisors about a lack of response to their e-mails. In fact, participants




referred to this problem specifically in their discussion of escalation. This problemwould not likely be true for those who receive few e-mails but have high use ofe-mail. One might speculate that in this case, such use was nonproductive andtherefore led to lower performance evaluations.

Our study situates media use within the norms of organizations. It suggeststhat the ability to match the content of a message to the right medium may be rel-ative to the organization in which the message takes place. For some organizations,IM may be valued, whereas in other organizations, face-to-face communicationcould be the norm.

Media Use and Culture

Little research attention has explored the idea that the communication mediumitself may serve as a meaningful organizational symbol (Sitkin, Sutcliffe, &Barrios-Choplin, 1992). Our study examined the use of IM and e-mail in the con-text of supervisors’ use. In doing so, it suggests that an individual’s use of mediamay be an important factor to consider in addition to his or her actual messagecontent when assessing performance. It is not just what is said but also how it issaid and through what channels that contribute to communication competence.Thus, communication choices are both products of dominant organizationalnorms and symbolic reinforcements of these norms.

Although our research explored only one organization, the finding that individ-uals within an organization recognize dominant norms of media use speaks to the

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Per

form

ance

Eva

luat

ion

s

low high

E-mail Usage

Receive Many E-mails Receive Few E-mails

Figure 3. Interaction Between E-Mails Received and E-MailsSent on Performance




visibility of communication behavior. It also suggests that communication mediause is an integral part of an organization’s culture. The next intuitive conclusionwould be that employees would recognize the norm and then try to follow it.Judging from the high mean use of IM and e-mail and the low variance, this maybe true for this organization. Furthermore, it is possible that compliance with thesenorms would be rewarded with higher supervisor assessments of performance.

This finding builds on social influence theory that an organization supportsdominant communication norms. Social influence theory suggests that individu-als look to their immediate work environments for cues to model behavior. Ourresearch suggests that organizations may develop dominant media use norms thatinfluence the overall work environment. Therefore, organizational norms are acritical element to unpacking the various influences directed toward individualsas media choices are made.

The nature of the interaction between perceived norms and commitment wasunexpected. We hypothesized that organizational norms for IM and e-mail wouldhave a greater influence on reported use of these media for those who were highlycommitted to the organization. In fact, the opposite occurred. Those with lowcommitment increased their use of media norms as the strength of the normsincreased. There was no significant change in media use levels for those with highcommitment. In fact, in the case of IM use, there was virtually no slope. A likelyexplanation is that media use, particularly IM, in the highly committed group wasalready extremely high. These individuals may be committed to the technologyand might use it regardless of where they are employed. Therefore, it is possiblethat these employees were highly committed to the organization because of thetechnology from the onset of their employment. Also, it could be that in a typicalday, there is only so much time an employee can spend on IM and e-mail, so therewas no room for growth. On the other hand, the basis of commitment for theemployees with low commitment may be something other than the technology,and their increase in use reflected compliance with norms.

Polychronic Orientation

However important organizational norms are, as the competence literaturereminds us, individuals vary in their ability to accommodate the norms and valuesof an organization as they relate to communication behavior (Gilsdorf, 1998). Onepersonality trait or proclivity that appears to modify the ability to adapt to the com-munication environment is polychronic orientation. The results of our study sug-gest that those individuals with high polychronic orientations were most flexiblein their ability to adapt to the communication needs of the organization. Similarly,those with low polychronic orientations seemed unable to adapt to the organiza-tion’s communication media norms. The slope of the interaction terms was essen-tially flat across varying levels of organizational communication media use. Thislack of slope may reflect the fact that the polychronicity trait is somewhat stable.Therefore, a person with a low polychronic orientation may be unable to change




or match his or her communication use despite organizational norms. As a result,under conditions of low norms for IM, low-polychronic individuals may use IMmore than high-polychronic individuals. (In fact, the bottom panel of Figure 2 sug-gests that low-polychronic individuals instant messaged more than polychronicindividuals during low-norm conditions). On the other hand, those with high lev-els of polychronicity seemed to be able to match their own use to that expected bythe organization. It could be that use of IM was seen as part of a communicationstrategy by high-polychronic individuals, whereas low-polychronic individuals wereless sensitive to context demands. High-polychronic individuals might be savvyenough to adjust their use, whereas low-polychronic individuals were perhaps notas sensitive to context needs and therefore could not adjust their use.

The interviews support this finding and provide interesting implicationsregarding media switching through multiple conversations. Individuals with lowpolychronic orientations reported having a difficult time switching modes of con-versation. They might be able to participate in multiple conversations at once ifthey were all instant messages but not when they involved telephone and instantmessages. All of the participants noted that it took time to get used to the pace ofcommunication within High-Tech. However, each individual reported developingtheir own strategies for handling the onslaught of conversations.

Managerial Implications

Our research demonstrates a positive correlation between media use byemployees and the performance ratings they received from their supervisors. Ourstudy does not determine a cause-effect relationship. For example, does mediause affect performance ratings, or do employers receive more messages torespond to because their performance is highly valued? If it is determined thatmedia use by employees affects performance ratings, then this evaluation crite-rion should be made visible, and “rules” regarding use should be explicit to befair to employees. IM and e-mail use was not an explicit part of the performanceevaluation criteria used in this organization despite the fact that these media arecore products the company sells as important to the productivity and efficiency ofother businesses.

The strategy of explicitly invoking media use as a criterion for performance eval-uation, however, is not without drawbacks. Our research also suggests that an ori-entation toward polychronicity moderates the relationship between the use ofe-mail and IM and perceived organizational norms. Therefore, if an organizationdoes explicitly formalize rules regarding communication preferences, does it alsocreate an unfair bias toward certain methods of communication that are not “nat-ural” to some employees? Are some employees more productive using other meansof communicating? By making certain communication norms explicitly tied to per-formance, managers may be limiting some of their employees’ true potential.

Finally, if organizations communicate dominant media norms, managers must beaware of the potential influence of these norms and the extent to which information




is filtered. For example, at the organization at which we conducted the presentresearch, individuals were known to participate in IM and e-mail conversationsthroughout the day with persons located in the cubicles next to them. If each wouldhave stood up, they could have had face-to-face conversations. The dominant use ofmedia that lack visual and tonal cues necessarily leaves out information that couldbe relevant for some decisions. The extensive use of IM and e-mail at the expense offace-to-face communication could cancel out many of the benefits of working withinthe same organization rather than telecommuting. Also, research has suggested thatindividuals use limited-cues channels differently to represent themselves (Walther,1996). If an organization moves too extensively to relying on limited-cues media forthe majority of decisions, it can be missing important information.

Limitations

As with all studies, there are limitations associated with this investigation thatcan provide some direction for future research. In this investigation, we examinedpolychronic orientation and the use of IM and e-mail to determine the extent towhich a polychronic orientation was associated with use of these media. Althoughthese media provide the opportunity to communicate polychronically, there is noguarantee that individuals use them in this manner. Therefore, future measures ofpolychronic orientation need to capture both simultaneous and general use. Inaddition, it would be useful to establish which communication media are mostfrequently paired during simultaneous use.

The study involves a relatively unique firm and technology, particularly withrespect to IM. Thus, these findings regarding communication media may not gen-eralize to other organizations in the same or different industries. However, its dis-tinctiveness in its use of IM and e-mail made it particularly rich for examining ourresearch questions.

Because performance data originated from a different source and at a differenttime than other data collected, it seems unlikely that common method bias influ-enced the performance results, but it may have inflated the observed relationshipsbetween employees’ media use and supervisors’ use. The small sample size pro-hibited us from conducting a confirmatory factor analysis to address the issue ofmethod variance. However, we did conduct an exploratory factor analysis on itemsfor measures of polychronicity, employees’ use of e-mail and IM, supervisors’ useof e-mail and IM, and the value the organization placed on e-mail and IM use. Thescree test appeared to support five factors (there were seven components witheigenvalues greater than 1). These five factors explained approximately 62% of thevariance, with all loadings exceeding .40. Overall, the rotated solution supportedthe various scales. Polychronicity had two factors (negatively and positivelyworded items), and organizational values for IM and e-mail loaded separately fromemployees’ and supervisors’ use of e-mail and IM. Although Harman’s single-factor test has limitations, it offered some support that the findings were not merelyreflection of common method bias.




Given the cross-sectional nature of our data, we cannot conclude that mediause caused performance rating to change. In fact, as one reviewer commented, itcould be that better performance leads to the more frequent use of e-mail and IM.If one employee is perceived to be more knowledgeable than another, thatemployee is probably also considered to be a better performer. As a knowledge-able employee, this person may be sought (through e-mails and instant messages)for answers to questions. Therefore, more use of IM and e-mail might be a symp-tom of a better employee rather than the cause of higher performance ratings. Wetried to control for this phenomenon by examining the match between e-mails andinstant messages sent and e-mails and instant messages received. The nature ofe-mail and IM use is knowledge exchange, so someone with “better” knowledgeshould necessarily be at the center of IM and e-mail exchanges. Finally, we askedrespondents about their IM and e-mail use, but we never tracked their actual use.Therefore, our knowledge of their use is limited to self-reported data.

Future Research

We initially suggested that communication media use becomes a way ofexhibiting presence within organizations. This study’s link between communica-tion media use and performance suggests that a virtual presence may be a factor inperformance evaluation. Future research should further explore how characteris-tics of certain communication media provide the opportunity to communicatepresence and examine how supervisors’ assessments of performance are connectedto assumptions about virtual presence.

This research study also suggests that certain communication media within anorganization can become the dominant norm. Future research might explore otherways that dominant media influence organizational practice. In what ways mightadhering to a dominant communication norm be potentially damaging to an orga-nization? For example, IM and e-mail may be effective as a dominant norm for asmall, entrepreneurial organization but not as effective as the organization getslarger and more bureaucratic. When an organization is small, there is the likeli-hood that individuals know one another and meet face to face on a regular basis.In this situation, information gathered through other interactions can help fill inthe gaps created by the leaner media of e-mail and IM. As an organization getslarger, richer opportunities for interacting are less likely. Future research mightlook at the complementary nature of both message characteristics and organiza-tional norms in evaluating media performance.

A future research step should be an assessment of the extent to which com-munication media use is a valid indicator of actual productivity and improvedwork quality. This step is particularly important given that the correlationbetween subjective and objective performance has been shown to be modest(Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 1995). Given the nature ofthe findings on commitment, future research on communication media shouldallow for measures of commitment that include technology as one commitment




focus to better elucidate relationships. In light of the findings regarding perfor-mance, it would be important to ascertain if new members can be socialized intoa polychronic culture, if this socialization changes the strength of their poly-chronic orientations, and what this socialization looks like. Testing this assertionwould require a longitudinal study that tracks polychronicity from the time of“attraction” and “selection” through socialization.

Finally, as this research study indicates, the polychronic use of communicationmedia or polychronic communication (Turner & Tinsley, 2002) or multicommu-nicating (Reinsch, Turner, & Tinsley, 2005) is a critical means through whichmessages are processed in organizations today. How individuals are able to par-ticipate in simultaneous message exchanges involving different topics is animportant area to understand as more organizations rely on communication toolsthat support a multicommunicating environment.

CONCLUSION

This article extends the literature on media use by examining organizationaland individual factors that influence an individual’s media selection. It also con-nects these factors to performance ratings. In doing so, we have embedded com-munication media use within the organization from a performance-basedperspective and enhanced our understanding of the microprocesses that con-tribute to the organizational structuring of media use. By exploring the interactionbetween individual communicative characteristics and the factors within the work-place, we have been able to strengthen our understanding of how communicationchannel choices are made.

NOTE

1. An IM system provides the opportunity to communicate in nearly real time chat mode with mul-tiple individuals at the same time.

REFERENCES

Andrews, P. H., & Herschel, R. T. (1996). Organizational communication: Empowerment in a tech-nological society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Bernardin, H., Hennessey, H., & Peyrefitte, J. (1995). Age, racial, and gender bias as a function of cri-

terion specificity: A test of expert testimony. Human Resource Management Review, 5(1), 63-77.Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time: Temporal realities and experience. Stanford,

CA: Stanford University Press.Bluedorn, A. C., Kallaith, T. J., Strube, M. J., & Martin, G. D. (1999). Polychronicity and the inven-

tory of polychronic values (IVP): The development of an instrument to measure a fundamentaldimension of organizational culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(3/4), 205-230.




Bluedorn, A. C., Kaufman, C. F., & Lane, P. M. (1992). How many things do you like to do at once? Anintroduction to monochronic and polychronic time. Academy of Management Executive, 6, 17-26.

Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the inter-changeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A metaanalysis.Personnel Psychology, 48, 587-605.

Carlson, J., & Zmud, R. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of mediarichness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 153-170.

Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, andstructural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.

Daft, R., Lengel, R., & Trevino, L. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and managerperformance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 355-367.

Dennis, A., & Kinney, S. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues,feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 256-274.

Dennis, A., Kinney, S., & Hung, Y. (1999). Gender differences in the effects of media richness. SmallGroup Research, 30(4), 405-437.

DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use:Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-147.

Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,14(4), 532-550.

Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of ManagementReview, 9, 47-53.

Ford, J. K., Kraiger, K., & Schechtman, S. L. (1986). Study of race effects in objective indices andsubjective evaluations of performance: A meta-analysis of performance criteria. PsychologicalBulletin, 99(3), 330-337.

Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal,36, 921-950.

Fulk, J., & Boyd, B. (1991). Emerging theories of communication in organizations. Journal ofManagement, 17, 407-446.

Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Steinfield, C. (1990). A social influence model of technology use. In J. Fulk& C. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 71-94). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Fulk, J., Steinfield, C., Schmitz, J., & Power, J. G. (1987). A social information processing model ofmedia use in organizations. Communication Research, 14(5), 529-552.

Gilsdorf, J. W. (1998). Organizational rules on communicating: How employees are and are not learn-ing the ropes. Journal of Business Communication, 35, 173-201.

Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Haase, R. F., Dong, Y. L., & Banks, D. (1979). Cognitive correlates of polychronicity. Perceptual andMotor Skills, 49, 271-282.

Hall, E. T. (1973). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Anchor.Hall, E. T. (1983). The dance of life: The other dimension of time. Garden City, NY: Anchor.Igbaria, M., & Chakrabarti, A. (1990). Computer attitudes and anxiety toward microcomputer use.

Behavior and Information Technology, 9, 229-241.Jablin, F. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F. Jablin & L. Putnam

(Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, andmethods (pp. 732-818). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jablin, F., & Sias, P. (2001). Communication competence. In F. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The newhandbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 819-864). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kaufman, C. F., Lane, P. M., & Lindquist, J. D. (1991). Time congruity in the organization: A pro-posed quality of life framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 6, 79-106.

Kraut, R., Rice, R., Cool, C., & Fish, R. (1998). Varieties of social influence: The role of utility andnorms in the success of a new communication medium. Organization Science, 9(4), 437-453.




Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.

Little, R.J.A., & Schenker, N. (1995). Missing data. In G. Arminger, C. C. Logg, & M. E. Sobel,(Eds.), Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 39-75).New York: Plenum.

Markus, L. (1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organization Science, 5,505-527.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Meyer, J., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, L., Goffin, R., & Jackson, D. (1989). Organizational commitment

and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 74, 152-156.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. M. (1979). The measurement of organizational commit-ment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Orlikowski, W., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic communication:The metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization Science, 6(4), 423-443.

Perey, C. (2004). If you can’t beat IM join IM. Network World, 21, 33-35.Pulakos, E. D., White, L. A., Oppler, S. H., & Borman, W. C. (1989). Examination of race and sex

effects of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 770-778.Reinsch, L. N., Jr., Steele, C. M., Lewis, P. V., Stano, M., & Beswick, R. (1990). Measuring telephone

apprehension. Management Communication Quarterly, 4(2), 198-221.Reinsch, N. L., Turner, J. W., & Tinsley, C. (2005, November). Polychronic communication in the work-

place: The temporal structure of connected time. Paper presented at the National CommunicationAssociation conference, Boston.

Rice, R. (1993). Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media.Human Communication Research, 19, 451-484.

Rice, R., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity asa mechanism for social information processing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 219-244.

Rice, R., & Gattiker, U. (2001). New media and organizational structuring. In F. Jablin & L. Putnam(Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, andmethods (pp. 544-581). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Robichaud, D., Giroux, H., & Taylor, J. (2004). The metaconversation: The recursive property oflanguage as a key to organizing. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 617-634.

Rogelberg, S., Luong, A., Sederburg, M., & Cristol, D. (2002). Employee attitude surveys: Examiningthe attitudes of noncompliant employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 284-293.

Russ, G., Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1990). Media selection and managerial characteristics in organiza-tional communications. Management Communication Quarterly, 4(2), 151-175.

Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and taskdesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-252.

Schwab, D. P. (2005). Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Sheffield, J. (1995). The effect of communication medium on negotiation performance. Group

Decision and Negotiation, 4(2), 159-179.Sitkin, S., Sutcliffe, K., & Barrios-Choplin, J. (1992). A dual-capacity model of communication media

choice in organizations. Human Communication Research, 18(4), 563-598.Sosik, J., & Jung, D. (2003). Impression management strategies and performance in information tech-

nology consulting. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(2), 233-268.Stevens, P. M., Williams, K. P., & Smith, M. (2000). Organizational communication and information

processes in an Internet-enabled environment. Psychology and Marketing, 17(7), 607-630.Suh, K. (1999). Impact of communication medium on task performance and satisfaction: An exami-

nation of media richness theory. Information and Management, 35(5), 295-312.



Trevino, L., Lengel, R., Bodensteiner, W., Gerloff, E., & Muir, N. K. (1990). The richness imperativeand cognitive style: The role of individual differences in media choice behavior. ManagementCommunication Quarterly, 4(2), 176-197.

Trevino, L., Lengel, R., & Daft, R. (1987). Media symbolism, media richness, and media choice inorganizations. Communication Research, 14, 553-574.

Turner, J. W., & Tinsley, C. (2002, August). Polychronic communication: Managing multiple conver-sations at once. Paper presented at the Academy of Management conference, Denver, CO.

Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonalinteraction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.

Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity andanalysis of theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 540-555.

Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: An approach to study-ing communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 299-326.

Yates, J., Orlikowski, W., & Okamura, K. (1999). Explicit and implicit structuring of genres in elec-tronic communication: Reinforcement and change of social interaction. Organization Science,10(1), 83-103.

Zack, M., & McKenney, J. (1995). Social context and interaction in ongoing computer-supportedmanagement groups. Organization Science, 6(4), 394-422.




exploring the dominant media

Documents

email use

media use reflectpublished

cherylorganizational

instant messages

instant messaging im

b reportedmedia use

organizational normsand

strong support