- Email: [email protected]
Organization technology and the media and purpose dimensions of organization communications
Organization Technology and the Media and Purpose Dimensions of Organization Communications W. Alan Randolph,
University of South Carolina
Data collected from field research using structured observations indicate for task communications significant relationships between organization technology certainty (using Perrow’s typology) and use of verbal and sign media and no significant relationship with use of object and written media. These data also indicate relationships between technology certainty and stimulus and problem solving communications purposes, Directionality of communications moderates these technology-purpose relationships, even exposing some additional relationships. The last section of this article proposes a reconceptualized model of organization communications, considering technology certainty, member mobility, and leadership style as independent variables and directionality as a moderating variable.
A considerable amount of research has been directed at understanding task communications among people in small groups, but these studies have not attempted to account for organizational variables that affect small groups found in organizational settings [c.f. 3, 10, 171. Since as Litterer [181 and Seiler [28] point out, an organization is a system of many interacting components, one must conclude that laboratory research on communications in small groups is incomplete as applied to organizations [24]. Organization theories of task communications must, to be complete, incorporate the impact of variables such as organization/ environment unit technology, structure, size, and institutional [ 8,33,34]. This article focuses on the relationship between organizational communications and the organization’s technology, which is defined as the process for executing the organization’s task, including plant, machines, tools, and procedures, and also the rationale and knowledge underlying their utilization [ 18, 21, 23, 28, 3 1, 371. Veblen [ 351 postulated over 70 years ago that technology is related to the social structure of an organization. Address correspondence to: Dr. A. Randolph, College of Business Administration, Universityof South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina29208. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 6 (1978), 231-259 0 Elsevier North-Holland,
Inc., 1978
0148-2963/78/0006-0237$1.75
231
238
W. Alan Randolph
After 10 years of studying organizations, Woodward [37, 381 suggested that technology is causally related to structural and behavioral variations in organizations, and Guest [9] and Walker and Guest [36] hypothesized that the basic factor affecting the rate and quality of worker-supervisor interaction was the techDubin [6] agreed in saying that nology of mass production. technology may be the most important single determinant of working behavior. Finally, Meissner [21] found that the literature had focused on the demands of production technology separate from the social organization of the workers and the emergent rules of conduct. The research outlined above, along with small group network research has, however, tended to deal only with certain aspects of the relationship betweeen technology of the task and task communications; therefore, the relationship remains unclear [ 241. Several research efforts have considered the relationship between organization technology and/or structure and the directionality dimension of communications [3,4, 5, 11-14, 16, 21, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 371. Basically, these studies have indicated a positive relationship between technology certainty and vertical communications, but Simpson [29] and Randolph and Finch [26] found a negative relationship when controlling for frequency. Randolph and Finch also found a positive relationship between horizontal communications and technology certainty (using Perrow’s typology [23]) and no relationship with interdepartmental communications. No studies have, however, considered the moderating effect of directionality on the relationship between the purpose of communications and organization technology. In fact, few studies have distinguished among communications in various technologies on the basis of purpose at all [ 21, 231, and few studies have considered the media for communications [ 21, 341. Meissner’s study [2 1 ] was the most thorough in analyzing both purpose and media. He employed case studies of production settings reported in the literature, and his findings can be summarized as follows. As the technology increases in certainty, the media employed shifts from objects (i.e., the work piece itself) and verbal to objects, signs, and signals and finally to signals and written. Regarding communication purpose as technology certainty increases, communications are first required and continuous permitted communications, and then required and
Organization Technology and Communications
239
intermittent permitted communications, and then only required communications, and finally are again required and continuous permitted communications. These purpose categories are rather general, and thus Meissner’s results of studying communications media and purposes as related to technology do not offer the kind of detail needed for theory building. Van de Ven et al. [34] do take a step forward in developing a theory relating technology and communications media. Their study in an employment security agency found that as task uncertainty increased, there was a greater use of unscheduled and scheduled meetings and a lesser use of rules and plans in the coordination efforts of the units. Their analysis and focus at the unit level is the type of research needed for theory building about communications and technology, for at present there is no good model to guide research in the area of technology and media and purpose of communications [27]. Hence, this article focuses on the purposes and media of organization communications as they relate to technology and generates insights into the nature of these relationships. DEFINITIONS
OF CONCEPTS
Technology The independent variable in this study was organization technology. A number of possible typologies of “technology” were available [ 2 1, 23,3 1,371. Perrow’s typology (see Fig. 1) was chosen because it seems to encompass the typologies of Meissner, Thompson, and Woodward, is applicable to many organization situations, and is operational for research purposes. In addition this definition of technology is not confined to describing an entire organization. In fact, in this study Perrow’s typology was applied to the tasks of departments, thus allowing a more accurate representation of an organization by viewing the technologies of the subunits rather than trying to average to achieve a total organization measure of technology. Communications Media, Purposes, and Directionality The dependent variables in the study were communications media and purposes. Directionality was considered as a moderating variable for communications purposes. The media typology of task communications included the following distinctions [ 1, 2 1] : 1.
Verbal use of words, which includes face-to-face, meeting, discussion with several people, etc.
telephone,
240
W. Alan Randolph FEW EXCEPTIONS
MANY EXCEPTIONS /
UNANALYZABLE PROBLEMS
/-.
Craft Industry
ry.roli&e _.c
I ANALYZABLE PROBLEMS
‘-r
Increasing Technological Certainty’
.&
.. Routine
Engineering
,A-)) I Source:
Charles Belmont.
*added
FIGURE
2. 3. 4. 5.
by this
Perrow, Ca.
Organizational
: Wadsworth,
Analysis. 1970,
p.78
author
1: Perrow’s Two-Dimensional
Technology
Construct.
Written use of words, which includes letters, rules, procedures, manuals, reports, memorandums, periodicals, etc. Signs, e.g., body movements, arm movements, whistling. Signals, e.g., dials, horns, lights. Objects, e.g., the work piece for the task can be passed from one person to another with nothing said, but still communication has occurred.
The purpose typology follows [ 201 :
of communications
was delineated
as
activities, i.e., social. 1. Conducting nonprogrammed 2. Initiating and establishing programs, including adjustments to existing programs, i.e., problem solving. 3. Obtaining data for execution of programs, i.e., questions. 4. Evoking programs, i.e., providing stimuli for action. on results of activities, i.e., informa5. Providing information tion exchange. 6. Alerting people regarding the existence of a crisis. Communication directionality was categorized according to vertical up, vertical down, or horizontal, as determined by the within-unit hierarchy, and also according to interdepartmental, as determined by the department boundaries of the organization chart. HYPOTHESES Three hypotheses were based on the literature concerning organization technology and the literature on communications. The logic for each hypothesis follows its statement.
Organization
Technology
and Communications
241
Hypothesis 1 The correlations between an organization subunit’s technology certainty and the frequencies with which various task communications media are used are: (a) positive for written communications; (b) positive for signal communications; (c) negative for verbal communications; (d) negative for sign communications; (e) negative for object communications. It was predicted that a low certainty technology would utilize flexible communications media in order to effectively convey the complex ideas needed to solve the frequent and difficult problems encountered [ 21, 23, 341. Thus, a frequent usage of the verbal medium complemented with sign and object media was predicted, since signal and written media are too inflexible for many messages in the dynamic environment of a low certainty technology [ 21, 341. In a high certainty technology the infrequent and analyzable problems make for a rather static environment, and hence the more inflexible and sophisticated signal and written media can be effectively utilized [ 2 1, 341 . Hypothesis 2 The correlations between an organization subunit’s technology certainty and the frequencies with which subunit members communicate for various purposes are (a) positive for stimulus communications; (b) positive for social communications; (c) negative for information exchange communications; (d) negative for questions/problem solving communications. A low certainty technology encounters frequent and difficult problems, and thus, a greater number of problem solving and information exchange communications was predicted for the low certainty technology when compared to a high certainty technology [ 231. In a high certainty technology people should have a better idea of what must be done and be able to provide direct stimuli to perform necessary tasks [ 231. Also, because relatively few and simple problems are encountered in a high certainty technology, people should be able to perform their tasks and still communicate about nontask matters more frequently than is the case in a low certainty technology, where they must spend more time on task-related communications [ 21, 23, 261. Hypothesis 3 The directionality of communications will moderate the relationships between subunit technology certainty and the frequencies with which subunit members communicate for various purposes, more specifically, (a) the strongest positive correlation between technology certainty and stimulus purpose communications will be for downward vertical communications; (b) the strongest positive correlation between technology certainty and information exchange communications will be for upward
W. Alan Randolph
242
vertical communications; (c) the strongest positive correlation between technology certainty and social purpose communications will be for horizontal communications; (d) the strongest negative correlation between technology certainty and questions/problem solving communications will be for vertical communications. As the number of exceptions decreases and the problems become more analyzable (i.e., technology increases in certainty), the responsibilities of subunit members can be more clearly defined in a hierarchy [23]. Thus, it was predicted that stimuli to perform tasks would more often utilize the downward vertical direction in a subunit with a high certainty technology than in one with low certainty technology [23]. It was predicted that upward vertical communications would exhibit the most positive correlation between information exchange communications and technology certainty, since information for decisions must get to the top in order for stimuli to flow down [ 201. Also, drawing from Perrow [23], it was predicted that vertical communications would be used more frequently for questions/ problem solving in a low certainty technology than in a high certainty technology. This would be due to the complexity of the problems and hence the need for expertise found in superiors. On the other hand, horizontal communications would probably suffice for the simpler questions/problems of the high certainty technology. Finally, since the structured nature of the tasks in high certainty technologies requires little need for horizontal task-related communications, but allows more time for nontask communications [26], it was predicted that peers would communicate more for nontask reasons as the technology certainty increases. At this point, it should be noted that no hypothesis regarding the interdepartmental direction was included because there was little basis for speculation from the literature. Still, interdepartmental communications were observed and the results of communications purposes within this direction are reported in the results section so that future research can use these data to formulate hypotheses. Stated as a research question we may ask: What will be the nature of the purposes-technology certainty relationships if we look only at interdepartmental communications? METHODOLOGY Field research quite difficult
was chosen for this study, since it would have been to simulate in the laboratory the situation created
Organization Technology and Communications
243
by the technology in an ongoing organization. In addition organization communications have continuity through time that is difficult, if not impossible, to create in a laboratory [ 241 . The organization studied was a home for Subject Organization veterans of American wars located in a medium-sized city in Massachusetts. The home was a comprehensive health facility; even dental services and facilities for minor surgery were provided. The staff consisted of 300 people, 175 of whom were nursing personnel serving nine wards. The remainder of the staff consisted of resident physicians, laboratory technicians, physical maintenance personnel, kitchen personnel, housetherapists, keepers, laundry personnel, business office staff, and administrators. The home had 300 beds of which 280 were rountinely occupied by men and women averaging 70 years of age. Subject Units in the Organization Three departments in the home served to represent three different technologies in the framework of Fig. 1: 1.
2.
3.
Kitchen-employing 28 people (19 on duty each day) who performed routine tasks of preparing set menus for approximately the same number of people each day. The technology was characterized by few exceptions and relatively analyzable problems (i.e., routine). See the discussion of measures below. Business Office-employing 11 people who performed such tasks as ordering supplies, handling payroll, and collecting payments, and who were exposed to unexpected events via mail, telephone, and people coming to the office. The technology served to link people and services and was characterized by a moderate number of exceptions and moderately analyzable problems (i.e., mediating and at the center point of Fig. 1). Chronic-Acute Patient Ward-employing 14 people (11 on duty each day) who cared for seriously ill patients with whom problems could arise at any time. The technology was characterized by many exceptions and relatively unanalyzable problems (i.e., nonroutine).
The assessments of the Home administrator and this researcher were that these departments were different in technology as defined by Perrow’s typology, and the researcher pretested these classifications via a questionnaire administered to each department member. Lynch’s [ 191 four-item questionnaire, based on Perrow’s technology construct, yielded an F ratio of 1.3, n.s., from the
244
W. Alan Randolph
Table 1: Average Response to Lynch Questionnaire Questionnaire in the Three Departments
and Randolph
Department
Question Lynch Lynch Lynch Lynch Lynch
#la #2a #3a #4a total
Randolph Randolph Randolph
l-4’
#lb #2b total 1-2b
a Higher number b Lower number
represents represents
Kitchen (n = 19)
Business Office (n = 11)
Ward (n = 14)
Ratio
P
3.8 3.8 3.5 3.5 14.6
3.6 3.2 3.1 3.2 13.1
3.9 3.1 2.3 3.5 12.8
.33 1.43 4.88 .21 1.30
.I2 .25 .Ol .I1 .29
2.3 1.9 4.2
2.8 1.9 4.1
3.8 2.1 6.5
9.96 3.55 5.40
.OOl .04 .Ol
greater greater
technology technology
F
certainty. certainty.
responses by the 44 department members, but the mean scores of the three departments did rank in the predicted order (i.e., Kitchen most certainty followed by the Business Office and then the Patient Ward-see Table 1). Also, these three departments represented three different technologies better than other combinations that were considered. Still one problem with Lynch’s questionnaire is that it was developed using library technologies and thus may not be completely applicable in other settings. Hence, two other technology questions based directly on Perrow’s two-dimensional typology were also included in the questionnaire [ 25 ] : 1. To what extent is your planned work frequently interrupted by unexpected problems? 2. To what extent do you need help to solve the unexpected problems you encounter? These two questions did discriminate among the three departments (F = 9.96, p < .OOl; F = 3.55, p < .04), as did the total of the two questions (F = 5.40, p < .O 1), and the mean scores of the departments ranked in the predicted order on both questions and on the total of the two (see Table 1). Thus, both measures of technological difference among the three departments yielded
Organization Technology
and Communications
245
similar rankings, which are consistent with the author’s and the home administrator’s assessments and were used as the nominal ranking for the subunit members in the analysis. Three departments within one organization were chosen for this study in order to control for nontechnology variables. It was assumed that departments in the same organization would, more so than departments in different organizations, be working toward the same overall organization goals, under the same top administration, in the same overall environment, and with people who were generally similar demographically. Still, the questionnaire administered to the subjects did address some of these variables. No statistically significant differences among department personnel were found in either age (F = 1.3, n.s.> or length of service (F = .4, ns.). Personnel were primarily female in the Ward and Business Office and primarily male in the Kitchen. As might be expected, differences were found in education level (F = 6.2, p < .004), with the Business Office and Ward being quite similar in level of education, and higher in education level than the Kitchen. Other research has indicated that technology and education level are typically correlated and that partialing out the effects of education level has little if any effect on the relationships between technology and structure [ 151. It appears that different technologies require people with different educational levels, the lower certainty technologies requiring people with more education. Therefore, the differences in education level may actually be part of the technology differences. Other measures adapted from Michigan Survey Research Center questionnaires addressed influence, satisfaction, and leadership 125, 301. No differences among department personnel were found in the influence employees perceive they have on what happens in their department (F = .007, ns.) or in their overall satisfaction with the job climate (F = 1.8, n.s.). Several questions on leadership style yielded p < .05, and the Kitchen and Ward were similar in demonstrating greater emphasis on the task, while the Business Office demonstrated greater concern for the people. Thus, while one cannot totally exclude the possibility that other variables besides technology might help explain the results of the study, the variables, except leadership style and education level, that might affect the media and purpose dimensions of organization communications are similar across the three departments while the technologies (using Randolph’s questions) are sufficiently different to justify this exploratory field study.
246
W. Alan Randolph
Data Collection and Analysis The data on communications were collected using structured observations in order to allow a systematic and in-depth study [22]. In all the researcher spent 30 days in the three departments and observed a total of 891 communication interactions involving 44 people (everyone in the three departments except in the kitchen where 19 of 28 people are on duty each day and hence 19 people were observed). The observer recorded on an observer sheet (Exhibit 1) each interaction involving the observee and categorized each communication according to media (verbal, telephone, sign, signal, or object), purpose (social, information exchange, stimulus, questions/ problem solving), direction (vertical down, vertical up, horizontal, or interdepartmental). Each person on duty in the three departments was observed one at a time for the same length of time. Also, the observer varied the day of the week spent in each unit so that each day of the week was equally represented in each unit. This design allowed a study of several different levels in the department structure and an in-depth understanding of the communications in the three units. In order to verify the observation representativeness and reliability, simultaneous and independent co-observers employing the observer sheet (Exhibit 1) were used on a spot-check basis throughout the data collection. These co-observers did not know the hypotheses being tested. The reliability of the observations with three different co-observers was calculated using Bales’ [2] method of testing the null hypothesis that the three observers categorized their observations in like manner. The reliabilities between observer and co-observer for the categories on the observer sheet ranged from .60 to .99, which as Bales [2] suggests is quite acceptable with observation data. Only observed frequencies of task communications by each department member were included in the analysis regarding media, whereas all communications observed (i.e., adding in social) were included regarding the purpose-directionality analyses. Also, the vertical/horizontal categories refer to the withindepartment structure, and the interdepartmental category refers to communications across department boundaries. The analysis itself used a nominal technology categorization of each individual based on the ranks of the mean technology scores for the three departments, and it employed the observed frequencies in each media and purpose category, converted to a percentage of total communications for each person to control for overall com-
Contact
Record:
and level of observee
Observee or Other
Initiator
End Time -Begin time Duration See notes below
Medium See notes below
Purpose
Date
Observee Is Giver or Receiver
Work station, superior office, other
Location
Attention Given (Hi-Med-Lo)
-
-
.,,
.I
_.
-
-
_..
_
I
-
- ., -- _ .- -
.
Notes: Medium may include: letter, memo, report, periodical, manual, rules, telephone, verbal one on one, discussion with several people, meeting (use of sociograms for these last two), signs (e.g., body movements), signals (e.g., dials), objects, other to be added as necessary. Purpose may include: exchange of information, advice exchange, stimulus to do certain tasks, problem solving, learning new tasks, alerting of a crisis (describe crisis), evaluative feedback on job, social, multiple if cannot list separately, others to be added as necessary.
Other party involved, name and position (manuals, rules included)
Position
Name of observee
Exhibit 1: Observer Sheet
248
W. Alan Randolph
munication frequency differences. As Hage et al. [ 131 point out, proportions on an individual basis are a most stringent test of a relationship, and the trends of these percentages for the 44 people were analyzed across the three technologies using Spearman rank correlations due to the sample size and ordinal nature of the data [7]. Also, for the media-technology relationships a stepwise multiple regression was performed to control for other media when examining each medium separately [ 341. RESULTS Communication Media and Technology Table 2 presents the results regarding the proportions of task-related communications employing five different media in the three technologies. Hypothesis 1 predicted that use of verbal medium would decline as technology increased in certainty, and the data did indicate a negative relationship between technology certainty and use of verbal medium (p = -.38, p < .006, beta = -.29). A greater percentage of the verbal communications in the Business Office (4%) utilized the six telephones for 11 unit members than in the Ward (3%), where there were two telephones for 11 unit members, and in the Kitchen (l%), where there were two telephones for 19 unit members. These data yielded a negative correlation between technology certainty and telephone use (p = -.25, p < .05, beta = -.14). When verbal and telephone communications were combined, the negative relationship was even more pronounced (p = -.44, p < .002). The data related to use of sign, object, and written media lend little support for Hypothesis 1. Sign use was positively related to increasing certainty of the technology (p = .35, p < .009, beta = .19) rather than negatively related as the hypothesis predicted. There appeared to be no relationship as far as object use was concerned (p = .05, ns., beta = .005). However, a closer analysis of the use of object medium showed the largest use of object communications in the Business Office (20% average), where files which constituted the work could be passed from one person to another with little or no verbal or written communication needed. Thus these data suggest that the relationship between object use and technology certainty may be curvilinear. The data related to use of written medium do not lend statistically significant support for the predicted relationship that technology certainty is directly related to the use of written communications (p = .06, n.s., beta = .005), but the departments do rank in the predicted order.
Organization
Technology
and Communications
249
Table 2: Average Percentage of Organization Member Task-Related Communications Using Five Different Media in the Three Departments Plus Spearman Correlations between Media and Technology Certainty and Multiple Regression of Media on Technology (N = 44) High + Technology Certainty + Low Department
Media Verbal Telephone Verbal and telephone Sign Object Written
Kitchen
Business Office
Ward
P
P<
62% 1% 63% 8% 17% 12%
64% 4% 68% 4% 20% 8%
78% 3% 81% 1% 13% 5%
-.38 -.38 -.44 .35 *OS .06
.006 ,050 .002 .009 .375 .347
Technology Certainty as Dependent Variable Media as Independent Variables=
(std. beta)
R2
-.29 .19 -.14 .oos ,005
.15 .19 .21 .21 .21
Verbal Sign Telephone Object Written ’ Verbal-and-telephone verbal plus telephone.
is omitted
from
the regression
analysis
since it is the sum of
Communications Purpose and Directionality and Technology Table 3 presents the results regarding the proportions of communications for the four purposes in the three technologies. Hypothesis 2 predicted that the proportion of communications for information exchange and problem solving would be negatively related to technology certainty. The data supported the hypothesis with a negative correlation between problem solving communications and technology certainty (p = -.31, p < .022), but the negative correlation between information exchange communications and technology certainty was not significant (p = -. 16, n.s.>.
W. Alan Randolph
250
Table 3: Average Percentage of Organization Member Communications for the Four Purposes in the Three Departments (N = 44) High + Technology Certainty + Low Department
Purpose Social Information exchange Stimulus Questions/problem solving
Kitchen
Business Office
Ward
P
P<
22% 35% 33% 10%
29% 35% 15% 21%
17% 40% 27% 16%
.lO -.16 .26 -.31
,262 ,144 .044 .022
Hypothesis 2 also predicted a positive relationship between technology certainty and the proportion of communications for stimulus and social purposes. The data supported the hypothesis with a positive correlation between stimulus communications and technology certainty (p = .26, p < .044), but they indicated lack of statistical significance for the positive correlation between social communications and technology certainty (p = .lO, n.s.). The data related to Hypothesis 2 did not, however, take into account the directionality of the communications. Hypothesis 3 treats directionality as a moderating variable on the purposetechnology certainty relationship and as such adds additional understanding to the relationship. Downward Vertical Communications Hypothesis 3 predicted that as technology certainty increases, downward vertical communications tend to be used more exclusively for giving orders and instructions (i.e., for stimulus purpose). The data in Table 4 did not clearly support this hypothesis in that there was no significant relationship between technology certainty and use of downward vertical communications for stimulus purpose (p = .l 1, n.s.). This .I 1 correlation was, however, greater than the ones for upward vertical and horizontal communications, but not greater than the one for interdepartmental communications (p = .22, p < .lO). Within the downward vertical direction the strongest correlation was the negative correlation between technology certainty and questions/problem solving communications (p = -.2 1, p < .I O), as would be expected from the Perrow definition of technology used in this study.
Organization Technology and Communications
Table 4: Spearman Correlations and the Four Purposes of the Communications
Overall Purpose Social Information exchange Stimulus Questions/problem solving
P .lO -.16 .26b -.3lb
251
Between Technology Certainty as Moderated by Directionality (N = 44) Downward Vertical P
.OS .lO .ll -.21’”
Upward Vertical
Horizontal
P
P
.18 .14 .03
.24a -.17 .02
-.24”
.lO
Interdepartmental P
-.26b -.23a .22” -.16
ap < .lO. bp < .05.
Upward Vertical Communications The Hypothesis 3 prediction of a positive relationship between technology certainty and use of upward vertical communications for an information exchange purpose was not clearly supported (p = .14, n.s.), although this .14 correlation was the most positive correlation for information exchange communications in any direction, but not really greater than the .10 correlation in downward vertical. It seems that the vertical direction, including both up and down, is used more for information exchange communications as the technology certainty increases, whereas the horizontal (p = -.17, n.s.) and interdepartmental directions (p = -.23, p < .lO) are used less for this purpose. Also, as with the downward vertical communications, upward vertical communications showed a negative correlation between technology certainty and questions/ problem solving communications (p = -.24, p < .lO). Horizontal Communications Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between technology certainty and use of horizontal communications for social purpose. The data in Table 4 support this hypothesis (p = .24, p < .056); there were no significant positive correlations between technology certainty and social purpose in the other directions, and within the horizontal direction, the .24 correlation with social purpose was the only significant correlation with any of the purpose categories. Finally, although no specific Interdepartmental Communications hypothesis was stated, a number of interdepartmental communications were observed, and the data relevant to these communications are shown in Table 4 for interest to the reader and as pos-
252
W. Alan Randolph
sible input into future research. The use of interdepartmental communications was inversely related to technology certainty in the cases of social communications (p = -.26, p < .0.5) and information exchange communications (p = -.23, p < .lO). The use of this direction for stimulus communications was positively related to technology certainty (p = .22, p < .lO) and there was no significant relationship regarding questions/problem solving communications (p = .16, n.s.). In summarizing the results of Hypothesis 3, it appears that the moderating effects of communications directions do add some insight into the relationship between technology certainty and communications purpose. These data showed a negative correlation in the vertical channel between technology certainty and questions/problem solving communications. As predicted within the horizontal direction, social communications were positively correlated with technology certainty. Finally, the previously untested interdepartmental communications offered a great deal of potential insight. Within the interdepartmental channel, there was a negative correlation between technology certainty and social communications as well as information exchange communications and a positive correlation between technology certainty and stimulus communications.
DISCUSSION The results of this study support the prediction that the media employed vary across different technologies, thus providing support for a theory linking organization technology and communications media. For the range of technologies studied, it was found that the verbal medium became less predominant as the technology increased in certainty, especially if telephone communications were included with other verbal communications. Of note is the fact that most of the telephone communications in the Ward were made by one person and in the Business Office by two people, and none of these people were the top persons in the department hierarchy, but rather one level removed. Further research should address differences in media usage as moderated by level in the organization hierarchy. Secondly, the data raised the question of how to treat differences in member mobility. Member mobility is the degree to which a person must move about the unit to perform assigned
Organization
Technology
and Communications
253
tasks. The percentages for use of verbal medium were nearly equal in the Kitchen and Business Office, which can be explained by looking at member mobility and technology certainty. The greater mobility of people in the Kitchen tends to increase the use of verbal medium relative to the Business Office, whereas the greater technology certainty in the Kitchen tends to decrease the use of verbal medium relative to the Business Office. On the other hand, the degree of mobility is approximately equal in the Kitchen and Ward, and the greater use of verbal medium in the Ward can be attributed to the lower technology certainty in the Ward. Thirdly and contrary to the original prediction, the data revealed that use of sign medium was directly related to technology certainty. It appears that sign medium may be inadequate for the complex messages that must be conveyed in low certainty technologies, but adequate and efficient for the simple messages of high certainty technologies. Also contrary to the hypothesis was the finding of a curvilinear relationship with object medium. The object medium was most useful in a moderate certainty, mediating technology, with low member mobility. Of note was the finding that no signal communications were observed in this research. It is possible that signal communications become important only in technologies of greater certainty than the most certain technology in this study. Finally, these data indicated no relationship between written medium and technology certainty. One difficulty with the written communications in this study was that the job of people in the Business Office was handling written documents, and it was sometimes difficult for an observer to distinguish if the document was communication or the object of the person’s work. Thus, there was the possibility of inflating the number of written communications in such a situation, and a redefinition of written media on the basis of the immediacy with which it is used could help alleviate this problem. Written medium would be divided into those messages for immediate use and those messages for more distant use (e.g., letters to file). The data also supplied support for the prediction that the purpose of communications varies across technologies. Stimulus communications became more important in the high certainty technology, while questions/problem solving communications became less important. By moderating these relationships with the direction of the communications, some significant relation-
254
W. Alan Randolph
ships between technology certainty and the various purpose categories were isolated, even in some cases where the overall communications obscured the relationships. It was found that the positive correlation regarding stimulus communications was lodged primarily in interdepartmental communications, and to a lesser extent in downward vertical communications. The negative correlation regarding questions/problem solving communications was lodged primarily in vertical communications. In addition a positive relationship was found between social communications and technology certainty in horizontal communications, and the relationship for social communications was negative in interdepartmental communications. These interdepartmental communications also indicated a negative relationship between information exchange communications and technology certainty. An interesting observation, especially for those who study boundary roles, was the fact that many members of each unit participated in interdepartmental communications rather than one or a few certain people. In analyzing the data on purpose of communications, one may note that the Business Office shows the greatest use of social and questions/problem solving communications and the least use of stimulus communications (see Table 3). This suggests the influence of the leadership style of greater concern for people in the Business Office, as compared to both the Ward and Kitchen, where there is greater concern for the task. The differences in purpose of communications in the Kitchen and Ward can more easily be attributed to differences in technology certainty, since the leadership styles, as well as member mobility, are similar. For example, the fact that percentage of stimulus communications in the Business Office is less than in the Ward can be explained by the difference in leadership style (more concern for task in the Ward). Technology certainty would have produced the opposite result, as can be seen by comparing the stimulus percentages for the Kitchen and the Ward, where the leadership styles and member mobility are similar and the technology certainty is greater in the Kitchen. These findings suggest the need for considering the interplay of technology, member mobility, and unit leadership style in trying to explain the communications of the unit, but before attempting to reconceptualize the communications model, one problem should be mentioned. Since leadership style is determined by administering questionnaires, the nature of the communications
Organization Technology
and Communications
255
existing in the unit may influence the responses. Thus, it is difficult to determine if leadership style influences the nature of the communications observed or if the communications influence the member’s perceptions of leadership style or if the causality is in both directions. It is likely that the unit’s technology has an influence on both the leadership style used and the communications system that emerges, and this relationship will be addressed in the model below. Reconceptualized Model Since this study was exploratory and since a number of the findings were inconsistent with the hypotheses, one must consider how to incorporate plausible explanations for the findings into a new model of organization communications. Figures 2 and 3 provide a reconceptualization of the theory linking organization technology and communications media and purpose, as moderated by direction, and this model stands to be tested in future research. Figure 2 indicates the proposed new relationship regarding sign medium. The basic reason sign medium will be used in high certainty technologies is because the messages to be transmitted tend to be simple and structured and thus capable of being transmitted nonverbally. If written medium is modified to include only messages for immediate use, such as might be included in memos and letters, there should be a positive relationship between written medium and technology certainty. Essentially, Fig. 2 indicates a trade-off between media and technology regarding message complexity. In high certainty situations the technology handles the complexity, leaving simple messages to be communicated, and in low certainty technologies the reverse is true. Finally, Fig. 2 indicates the positive relationship between member mobility and use of verbal medium and the negative relationship between mobility and use of written medium. For example, member mobility in the Business Office is quite low since the members can sit at their desks and perform most tasks, while in the Ward members are constantly on the move as they attend to the patients. People constantly on the move will tend to communicate verbally rather than putting messsages in writing. Figure 3 shows the basic relationship between technology and purpose of communications. More communications are for stimulus purpose in high certainty technologies and more for problem solving purpose in low certainty technologies. The figure also indicates a positive relationship between a leadership style of concern for the task and stimulus purpose and a negative rela-
256
W. Alan Randolph High
Sign -/ Written (for immediate use)
Technology Certainty
LOW
FIGURE
Telephone Verbal
ligh 7
L
1
/ Member Mobility
*
2: Relationship between Technology Certainty and Communications Usage with Correlation of Member Mobility Considered.
Media
tionship between this style and the purposes of social and questions/problem solving. Thus, the model suggests a consistent association with communications purposes so long as technology is high (low) in certainty and leadership style is high (low) in concern for the task. However, a high (low) technology certainty coupled with a low (high) concern for task will tend to create offsetting influences on communications purposes. Finally, the model in Fig. 3 indicates the significant relationship between technology certainty and the four purposes as moderated by communication directions. What is suggested is that the relation between purpose of communications and technology certainty varies depending on the communication direction considered. Communications Purposes’
Information Exchange Stimulus
_ __+
Direction”
-Interdepartmental
tlnterdepartmental
-Vertical
’ The + and - signs indicate the nature of the relationship between technology certainty and the indicated purposes and between concern for task leadership style and the indicated purposes. “The + and - signs indicate the nature of the relationship between technology certainty and the indicated purposes within the stated communications directions.
FIGURE
3: Correlations
between Technology Certainty, Leadership munications for the Four Purposes.
Style, and Com-
Organization
Technology
and Communications
257
SUMMARY The data collected in this nonindustrial field study offer insights into the development of a theory of organization communications. This research indicated the feasibility of studying multiple technologies within one organization. It also indicated that other variables besides technology (such as mobility of organization members and leadership style) will need to be included in the development of a clear understanding of organization communications. This study does not contend that technology is the only variable needed to explain organization communications, but it does contend that technology must be considered along with other variables such as leadership style, mobility of members, size and structure of unit, task interdependence, and interpersonal variables if the theory of organization communications is to be complete. Certainly follow-up studies need to be conducted to expand the sample size, to extend the range of technologies, to consider which media tend to be used for which purposes, to consider if different communication channels tend to be used more frequently at different levels in the organization, to include measures of organization effectiveness, as well as a host of other questions. This study was designed to generate initial insights into a virtually unexplored relationship, and it has provided a step toward a theory linking organization technology and communications. It remains for future studies to build upon this step. References J., Communication 1966): 1052-1060.
Patterns
in Applied
Psychol.
1.
Allen, Thomas 11 (November,
Technology,Am.
2.
Bales, Robert 1950.
3.
Bavelas, Alex, Communication Sot. Am. 22 (1950): 725-730.
4.
Bell, Gerald Management
5.
Child, J., and Mansfield, R., Sociology 6 (1972): 369-393.
Organization
Structure,
6.
Dubin, Robert, The Sociology of Industrial Relations, Prentice-Hall, Cliffs, NJ., 1959.
Englewood
1.
Ferguson, G. A., Statistical Analysis Hill, New York, 1966.
F., Interaction Process Analysis, Addison-Wesley,
D., The Control,J.
Patterns
in Task-Oriented
Cambridge,
Groups,
Influence of Technological Components Acad. Management 8 (1965): 121-132. Technology,
Size and
in Psychology
Mass.,
J. Accoust.
of Work
and Education,
Upon
McGraw-
W. Alan Randolph
258 8.
Ford, J. D., and Slocum, J. W., Jr., Size, Technology, Environment and the Structure of Organizations, Acad. Management Rev. 2 (October, 1977): 561-575.
9.
Guest, R. H., Of Time and the Foreman, Personnel 32 (May, 1956): 478-486.
10.
Guetzkow, Harold, and Simon, Herbert A., The Impact of Certain Communication Nets Upon Organization and Performance in Task-Oriented Groups, Management Sci. 1 (1955): 233-250.
11.
Harvey, E., Technology and the Structure of Organizations, Am. SocioZ. Rev. 33 (1968): 247-259.
12.
Hage, Jerald, and Aiken, Michael, Routine Technology, Social Structure, Organization Goals, Administrative Sci. Q. 14 (September, 1969): 366-376.
13.
Hage, Jerald, Aiken, M., and Marrette, C. B., Organization Structure and Communications, Am. Social. Rev. 33 (1971): 860-871.
14.
Hickson, J. D., Pugh, D. S., and Pheysey, D. C., Operations Technology and Organization Structure: An Empirical Reappraisal, Administrative Sci. Q. 14 (1969):
15.
and
378-397.
Hrebiniak, L., Job Technology, Supervision and Work Group Structure, Adminis1974): 395-410.
trative Sci. Q. 19 (September,
16.
Lawrence, Paul R., and Lorsch, Jay W., Developing and Action, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1969.
17.
Leavitt, H. J., Some Effects of Certain Communication formance,J. Abnorm. Sot. Psych. 46 (1951): 38-43.
18.
Litterer, Joseph A., The Analysis of Organizations, 2nd ed., John Wiley, New York, 1973.
19.
Organizations:
Diagnosis
Patterns on Group Per-
Lynch, Beverly P., An Empirical Assessment of Perrow’s Technology Construct, 1974): 338-356.
Administrative Sci. Q. 19 (September,
20.
March, J. G., and Simon, H. A., Organizations, John Wiley, New York, 1958.
21.
Meissner, Martin, Technology and the Worker, Chandler, San Francisco, 1969.
22.
Mintzberg, Henry, The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row, New York, 1973.
23.
Perrow, Charles, Organizational Analysis: Belmont, Calif., 1970.
24.
A
Sociological
Porter, L. W., and Roberts, K. H., Communications book
of IndustriaZ and Organizational Psychology,
View, Wadsworth,
in Organizations, in HandM. P. Dunnette, ed., Rand-
McNally, Chicago, pp. 1553-1589. 25.
Randolph, W. A. An In-Depth Analysis of Organizational Communication Patterns As Influenced by an Organization’s Technology, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1975.
26.
Randolph, W. A., and Finch, F. E., The Relationship Between Organization Technology and the Direction and Frequency Dimensions of Task Communications, Hum. Relations 30 (1977):
27.
1131-1145.
Roberts, K. H., and O’Reilly, C. A., III, Failures in Upward Communications in Organizations: Three Possible Culprits, Acad. Management J. 17 (June, 1974): 205-215.
Organization 28.
Technology
and Communications
259
Seiler, J. A., Systems Analysis in Organizational Behavior, Irwin, Homewood,
Ill.,
1967. 29.
Simpson, R. L, Vertical and Horizontal Communications tions, Administrative Sci. Q. 4 (1959): 188-196.
30.
Taylor, J. C., and Bowers, D. G., The Survey of Organizations, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1970.
31.
Thompson, James D., Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.
32.
Thompson,
in Formal Organiza-
J. D., and Bates, F. L., Technology, Organization and Administration,
Administrative
Sci. Q. 2 (1957):
325-343.
33.
Van de Ven, Andrew, A Framework for Organization Assessment, Acad. Manugement Rev. 1 (January, 1976): 64-76.
34.
Van de Ven, A., Delbecq, A. L., and Koenig, R., Jr., Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations, Am. Social. Rev. 41 (April, 1976): 322-338.
35.
Veblen, Thorstein, The Theory of Business Enterprise, Scribner, New York, 1904.
36.
Walker, C. R., and Guest, R. H., TheMan on the Assembly Line, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1952.
37.
Woodward, Joan, Industrial Organization: sity Press, London, 1965.
38.
Woodward, Joan, ed., Industrial Organization: University Press, London, 1970.
Theory and Practice, Oxford UniverBehavior and Control,
Oxford
University of South Carolina
Data collected from field research using structured observations indicate for task communications significant relationships between organization technology certainty (using Perrow’s typology) and use of verbal and sign media and no significant relationship with use of object and written media. These data also indicate relationships between technology certainty and stimulus and problem solving communications purposes, Directionality of communications moderates these technology-purpose relationships, even exposing some additional relationships. The last section of this article proposes a reconceptualized model of organization communications, considering technology certainty, member mobility, and leadership style as independent variables and directionality as a moderating variable.
A considerable amount of research has been directed at understanding task communications among people in small groups, but these studies have not attempted to account for organizational variables that affect small groups found in organizational settings [c.f. 3, 10, 171. Since as Litterer [181 and Seiler [28] point out, an organization is a system of many interacting components, one must conclude that laboratory research on communications in small groups is incomplete as applied to organizations [24]. Organization theories of task communications must, to be complete, incorporate the impact of variables such as organization/ environment unit technology, structure, size, and institutional [ 8,33,34]. This article focuses on the relationship between organizational communications and the organization’s technology, which is defined as the process for executing the organization’s task, including plant, machines, tools, and procedures, and also the rationale and knowledge underlying their utilization [ 18, 21, 23, 28, 3 1, 371. Veblen [ 351 postulated over 70 years ago that technology is related to the social structure of an organization. Address correspondence to: Dr. A. Randolph, College of Business Administration, Universityof South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina29208. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 6 (1978), 231-259 0 Elsevier North-Holland,
Inc., 1978
0148-2963/78/0006-0237$1.75
231
238
W. Alan Randolph
After 10 years of studying organizations, Woodward [37, 381 suggested that technology is causally related to structural and behavioral variations in organizations, and Guest [9] and Walker and Guest [36] hypothesized that the basic factor affecting the rate and quality of worker-supervisor interaction was the techDubin [6] agreed in saying that nology of mass production. technology may be the most important single determinant of working behavior. Finally, Meissner [21] found that the literature had focused on the demands of production technology separate from the social organization of the workers and the emergent rules of conduct. The research outlined above, along with small group network research has, however, tended to deal only with certain aspects of the relationship betweeen technology of the task and task communications; therefore, the relationship remains unclear [ 241. Several research efforts have considered the relationship between organization technology and/or structure and the directionality dimension of communications [3,4, 5, 11-14, 16, 21, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 371. Basically, these studies have indicated a positive relationship between technology certainty and vertical communications, but Simpson [29] and Randolph and Finch [26] found a negative relationship when controlling for frequency. Randolph and Finch also found a positive relationship between horizontal communications and technology certainty (using Perrow’s typology [23]) and no relationship with interdepartmental communications. No studies have, however, considered the moderating effect of directionality on the relationship between the purpose of communications and organization technology. In fact, few studies have distinguished among communications in various technologies on the basis of purpose at all [ 21, 231, and few studies have considered the media for communications [ 21, 341. Meissner’s study [2 1 ] was the most thorough in analyzing both purpose and media. He employed case studies of production settings reported in the literature, and his findings can be summarized as follows. As the technology increases in certainty, the media employed shifts from objects (i.e., the work piece itself) and verbal to objects, signs, and signals and finally to signals and written. Regarding communication purpose as technology certainty increases, communications are first required and continuous permitted communications, and then required and
Organization Technology and Communications
239
intermittent permitted communications, and then only required communications, and finally are again required and continuous permitted communications. These purpose categories are rather general, and thus Meissner’s results of studying communications media and purposes as related to technology do not offer the kind of detail needed for theory building. Van de Ven et al. [34] do take a step forward in developing a theory relating technology and communications media. Their study in an employment security agency found that as task uncertainty increased, there was a greater use of unscheduled and scheduled meetings and a lesser use of rules and plans in the coordination efforts of the units. Their analysis and focus at the unit level is the type of research needed for theory building about communications and technology, for at present there is no good model to guide research in the area of technology and media and purpose of communications [27]. Hence, this article focuses on the purposes and media of organization communications as they relate to technology and generates insights into the nature of these relationships. DEFINITIONS
OF CONCEPTS
Technology The independent variable in this study was organization technology. A number of possible typologies of “technology” were available [ 2 1, 23,3 1,371. Perrow’s typology (see Fig. 1) was chosen because it seems to encompass the typologies of Meissner, Thompson, and Woodward, is applicable to many organization situations, and is operational for research purposes. In addition this definition of technology is not confined to describing an entire organization. In fact, in this study Perrow’s typology was applied to the tasks of departments, thus allowing a more accurate representation of an organization by viewing the technologies of the subunits rather than trying to average to achieve a total organization measure of technology. Communications Media, Purposes, and Directionality The dependent variables in the study were communications media and purposes. Directionality was considered as a moderating variable for communications purposes. The media typology of task communications included the following distinctions [ 1, 2 1] : 1.
Verbal use of words, which includes face-to-face, meeting, discussion with several people, etc.
telephone,
240
W. Alan Randolph FEW EXCEPTIONS
MANY EXCEPTIONS /
UNANALYZABLE PROBLEMS
/-.
Craft Industry
ry.roli&e _.c
I ANALYZABLE PROBLEMS
‘-r
Increasing Technological Certainty’
.&
.. Routine
Engineering
,A-)) I Source:
Charles Belmont.
*added
FIGURE
2. 3. 4. 5.
by this
Perrow, Ca.
Organizational
: Wadsworth,
Analysis. 1970,
p.78
author
1: Perrow’s Two-Dimensional
Technology
Construct.
Written use of words, which includes letters, rules, procedures, manuals, reports, memorandums, periodicals, etc. Signs, e.g., body movements, arm movements, whistling. Signals, e.g., dials, horns, lights. Objects, e.g., the work piece for the task can be passed from one person to another with nothing said, but still communication has occurred.
The purpose typology follows [ 201 :
of communications
was delineated
as
activities, i.e., social. 1. Conducting nonprogrammed 2. Initiating and establishing programs, including adjustments to existing programs, i.e., problem solving. 3. Obtaining data for execution of programs, i.e., questions. 4. Evoking programs, i.e., providing stimuli for action. on results of activities, i.e., informa5. Providing information tion exchange. 6. Alerting people regarding the existence of a crisis. Communication directionality was categorized according to vertical up, vertical down, or horizontal, as determined by the within-unit hierarchy, and also according to interdepartmental, as determined by the department boundaries of the organization chart. HYPOTHESES Three hypotheses were based on the literature concerning organization technology and the literature on communications. The logic for each hypothesis follows its statement.
Organization
Technology
and Communications
241
Hypothesis 1 The correlations between an organization subunit’s technology certainty and the frequencies with which various task communications media are used are: (a) positive for written communications; (b) positive for signal communications; (c) negative for verbal communications; (d) negative for sign communications; (e) negative for object communications. It was predicted that a low certainty technology would utilize flexible communications media in order to effectively convey the complex ideas needed to solve the frequent and difficult problems encountered [ 21, 23, 341. Thus, a frequent usage of the verbal medium complemented with sign and object media was predicted, since signal and written media are too inflexible for many messages in the dynamic environment of a low certainty technology [ 21, 341. In a high certainty technology the infrequent and analyzable problems make for a rather static environment, and hence the more inflexible and sophisticated signal and written media can be effectively utilized [ 2 1, 341 . Hypothesis 2 The correlations between an organization subunit’s technology certainty and the frequencies with which subunit members communicate for various purposes are (a) positive for stimulus communications; (b) positive for social communications; (c) negative for information exchange communications; (d) negative for questions/problem solving communications. A low certainty technology encounters frequent and difficult problems, and thus, a greater number of problem solving and information exchange communications was predicted for the low certainty technology when compared to a high certainty technology [ 231. In a high certainty technology people should have a better idea of what must be done and be able to provide direct stimuli to perform necessary tasks [ 231. Also, because relatively few and simple problems are encountered in a high certainty technology, people should be able to perform their tasks and still communicate about nontask matters more frequently than is the case in a low certainty technology, where they must spend more time on task-related communications [ 21, 23, 261. Hypothesis 3 The directionality of communications will moderate the relationships between subunit technology certainty and the frequencies with which subunit members communicate for various purposes, more specifically, (a) the strongest positive correlation between technology certainty and stimulus purpose communications will be for downward vertical communications; (b) the strongest positive correlation between technology certainty and information exchange communications will be for upward
W. Alan Randolph
242
vertical communications; (c) the strongest positive correlation between technology certainty and social purpose communications will be for horizontal communications; (d) the strongest negative correlation between technology certainty and questions/problem solving communications will be for vertical communications. As the number of exceptions decreases and the problems become more analyzable (i.e., technology increases in certainty), the responsibilities of subunit members can be more clearly defined in a hierarchy [23]. Thus, it was predicted that stimuli to perform tasks would more often utilize the downward vertical direction in a subunit with a high certainty technology than in one with low certainty technology [23]. It was predicted that upward vertical communications would exhibit the most positive correlation between information exchange communications and technology certainty, since information for decisions must get to the top in order for stimuli to flow down [ 201. Also, drawing from Perrow [23], it was predicted that vertical communications would be used more frequently for questions/ problem solving in a low certainty technology than in a high certainty technology. This would be due to the complexity of the problems and hence the need for expertise found in superiors. On the other hand, horizontal communications would probably suffice for the simpler questions/problems of the high certainty technology. Finally, since the structured nature of the tasks in high certainty technologies requires little need for horizontal task-related communications, but allows more time for nontask communications [26], it was predicted that peers would communicate more for nontask reasons as the technology certainty increases. At this point, it should be noted that no hypothesis regarding the interdepartmental direction was included because there was little basis for speculation from the literature. Still, interdepartmental communications were observed and the results of communications purposes within this direction are reported in the results section so that future research can use these data to formulate hypotheses. Stated as a research question we may ask: What will be the nature of the purposes-technology certainty relationships if we look only at interdepartmental communications? METHODOLOGY Field research quite difficult
was chosen for this study, since it would have been to simulate in the laboratory the situation created
Organization Technology and Communications
243
by the technology in an ongoing organization. In addition organization communications have continuity through time that is difficult, if not impossible, to create in a laboratory [ 241 . The organization studied was a home for Subject Organization veterans of American wars located in a medium-sized city in Massachusetts. The home was a comprehensive health facility; even dental services and facilities for minor surgery were provided. The staff consisted of 300 people, 175 of whom were nursing personnel serving nine wards. The remainder of the staff consisted of resident physicians, laboratory technicians, physical maintenance personnel, kitchen personnel, housetherapists, keepers, laundry personnel, business office staff, and administrators. The home had 300 beds of which 280 were rountinely occupied by men and women averaging 70 years of age. Subject Units in the Organization Three departments in the home served to represent three different technologies in the framework of Fig. 1: 1.
2.
3.
Kitchen-employing 28 people (19 on duty each day) who performed routine tasks of preparing set menus for approximately the same number of people each day. The technology was characterized by few exceptions and relatively analyzable problems (i.e., routine). See the discussion of measures below. Business Office-employing 11 people who performed such tasks as ordering supplies, handling payroll, and collecting payments, and who were exposed to unexpected events via mail, telephone, and people coming to the office. The technology served to link people and services and was characterized by a moderate number of exceptions and moderately analyzable problems (i.e., mediating and at the center point of Fig. 1). Chronic-Acute Patient Ward-employing 14 people (11 on duty each day) who cared for seriously ill patients with whom problems could arise at any time. The technology was characterized by many exceptions and relatively unanalyzable problems (i.e., nonroutine).
The assessments of the Home administrator and this researcher were that these departments were different in technology as defined by Perrow’s typology, and the researcher pretested these classifications via a questionnaire administered to each department member. Lynch’s [ 191 four-item questionnaire, based on Perrow’s technology construct, yielded an F ratio of 1.3, n.s., from the
244
W. Alan Randolph
Table 1: Average Response to Lynch Questionnaire Questionnaire in the Three Departments
and Randolph
Department
Question Lynch Lynch Lynch Lynch Lynch
#la #2a #3a #4a total
Randolph Randolph Randolph
l-4’
#lb #2b total 1-2b
a Higher number b Lower number
represents represents
Kitchen (n = 19)
Business Office (n = 11)
Ward (n = 14)
Ratio
P
3.8 3.8 3.5 3.5 14.6
3.6 3.2 3.1 3.2 13.1
3.9 3.1 2.3 3.5 12.8
.33 1.43 4.88 .21 1.30
.I2 .25 .Ol .I1 .29
2.3 1.9 4.2
2.8 1.9 4.1
3.8 2.1 6.5
9.96 3.55 5.40
.OOl .04 .Ol
greater greater
technology technology
F
certainty. certainty.
responses by the 44 department members, but the mean scores of the three departments did rank in the predicted order (i.e., Kitchen most certainty followed by the Business Office and then the Patient Ward-see Table 1). Also, these three departments represented three different technologies better than other combinations that were considered. Still one problem with Lynch’s questionnaire is that it was developed using library technologies and thus may not be completely applicable in other settings. Hence, two other technology questions based directly on Perrow’s two-dimensional typology were also included in the questionnaire [ 25 ] : 1. To what extent is your planned work frequently interrupted by unexpected problems? 2. To what extent do you need help to solve the unexpected problems you encounter? These two questions did discriminate among the three departments (F = 9.96, p < .OOl; F = 3.55, p < .04), as did the total of the two questions (F = 5.40, p < .O 1), and the mean scores of the departments ranked in the predicted order on both questions and on the total of the two (see Table 1). Thus, both measures of technological difference among the three departments yielded
Organization Technology
and Communications
245
similar rankings, which are consistent with the author’s and the home administrator’s assessments and were used as the nominal ranking for the subunit members in the analysis. Three departments within one organization were chosen for this study in order to control for nontechnology variables. It was assumed that departments in the same organization would, more so than departments in different organizations, be working toward the same overall organization goals, under the same top administration, in the same overall environment, and with people who were generally similar demographically. Still, the questionnaire administered to the subjects did address some of these variables. No statistically significant differences among department personnel were found in either age (F = 1.3, n.s.> or length of service (F = .4, ns.). Personnel were primarily female in the Ward and Business Office and primarily male in the Kitchen. As might be expected, differences were found in education level (F = 6.2, p < .004), with the Business Office and Ward being quite similar in level of education, and higher in education level than the Kitchen. Other research has indicated that technology and education level are typically correlated and that partialing out the effects of education level has little if any effect on the relationships between technology and structure [ 151. It appears that different technologies require people with different educational levels, the lower certainty technologies requiring people with more education. Therefore, the differences in education level may actually be part of the technology differences. Other measures adapted from Michigan Survey Research Center questionnaires addressed influence, satisfaction, and leadership 125, 301. No differences among department personnel were found in the influence employees perceive they have on what happens in their department (F = .007, ns.) or in their overall satisfaction with the job climate (F = 1.8, n.s.). Several questions on leadership style yielded p < .05, and the Kitchen and Ward were similar in demonstrating greater emphasis on the task, while the Business Office demonstrated greater concern for the people. Thus, while one cannot totally exclude the possibility that other variables besides technology might help explain the results of the study, the variables, except leadership style and education level, that might affect the media and purpose dimensions of organization communications are similar across the three departments while the technologies (using Randolph’s questions) are sufficiently different to justify this exploratory field study.
246
W. Alan Randolph
Data Collection and Analysis The data on communications were collected using structured observations in order to allow a systematic and in-depth study [22]. In all the researcher spent 30 days in the three departments and observed a total of 891 communication interactions involving 44 people (everyone in the three departments except in the kitchen where 19 of 28 people are on duty each day and hence 19 people were observed). The observer recorded on an observer sheet (Exhibit 1) each interaction involving the observee and categorized each communication according to media (verbal, telephone, sign, signal, or object), purpose (social, information exchange, stimulus, questions/ problem solving), direction (vertical down, vertical up, horizontal, or interdepartmental). Each person on duty in the three departments was observed one at a time for the same length of time. Also, the observer varied the day of the week spent in each unit so that each day of the week was equally represented in each unit. This design allowed a study of several different levels in the department structure and an in-depth understanding of the communications in the three units. In order to verify the observation representativeness and reliability, simultaneous and independent co-observers employing the observer sheet (Exhibit 1) were used on a spot-check basis throughout the data collection. These co-observers did not know the hypotheses being tested. The reliability of the observations with three different co-observers was calculated using Bales’ [2] method of testing the null hypothesis that the three observers categorized their observations in like manner. The reliabilities between observer and co-observer for the categories on the observer sheet ranged from .60 to .99, which as Bales [2] suggests is quite acceptable with observation data. Only observed frequencies of task communications by each department member were included in the analysis regarding media, whereas all communications observed (i.e., adding in social) were included regarding the purpose-directionality analyses. Also, the vertical/horizontal categories refer to the withindepartment structure, and the interdepartmental category refers to communications across department boundaries. The analysis itself used a nominal technology categorization of each individual based on the ranks of the mean technology scores for the three departments, and it employed the observed frequencies in each media and purpose category, converted to a percentage of total communications for each person to control for overall com-
Contact
Record:
and level of observee
Observee or Other
Initiator
End Time -Begin time Duration See notes below
Medium See notes below
Purpose
Date
Observee Is Giver or Receiver
Work station, superior office, other
Location
Attention Given (Hi-Med-Lo)
-
-
.,,
.I
_.
-
-
_..
_
I
-
- ., -- _ .- -
.
Notes: Medium may include: letter, memo, report, periodical, manual, rules, telephone, verbal one on one, discussion with several people, meeting (use of sociograms for these last two), signs (e.g., body movements), signals (e.g., dials), objects, other to be added as necessary. Purpose may include: exchange of information, advice exchange, stimulus to do certain tasks, problem solving, learning new tasks, alerting of a crisis (describe crisis), evaluative feedback on job, social, multiple if cannot list separately, others to be added as necessary.
Other party involved, name and position (manuals, rules included)
Position
Name of observee
Exhibit 1: Observer Sheet
248
W. Alan Randolph
munication frequency differences. As Hage et al. [ 131 point out, proportions on an individual basis are a most stringent test of a relationship, and the trends of these percentages for the 44 people were analyzed across the three technologies using Spearman rank correlations due to the sample size and ordinal nature of the data [7]. Also, for the media-technology relationships a stepwise multiple regression was performed to control for other media when examining each medium separately [ 341. RESULTS Communication Media and Technology Table 2 presents the results regarding the proportions of task-related communications employing five different media in the three technologies. Hypothesis 1 predicted that use of verbal medium would decline as technology increased in certainty, and the data did indicate a negative relationship between technology certainty and use of verbal medium (p = -.38, p < .006, beta = -.29). A greater percentage of the verbal communications in the Business Office (4%) utilized the six telephones for 11 unit members than in the Ward (3%), where there were two telephones for 11 unit members, and in the Kitchen (l%), where there were two telephones for 19 unit members. These data yielded a negative correlation between technology certainty and telephone use (p = -.25, p < .05, beta = -.14). When verbal and telephone communications were combined, the negative relationship was even more pronounced (p = -.44, p < .002). The data related to use of sign, object, and written media lend little support for Hypothesis 1. Sign use was positively related to increasing certainty of the technology (p = .35, p < .009, beta = .19) rather than negatively related as the hypothesis predicted. There appeared to be no relationship as far as object use was concerned (p = .05, ns., beta = .005). However, a closer analysis of the use of object medium showed the largest use of object communications in the Business Office (20% average), where files which constituted the work could be passed from one person to another with little or no verbal or written communication needed. Thus these data suggest that the relationship between object use and technology certainty may be curvilinear. The data related to use of written medium do not lend statistically significant support for the predicted relationship that technology certainty is directly related to the use of written communications (p = .06, n.s., beta = .005), but the departments do rank in the predicted order.
Organization
Technology
and Communications
249
Table 2: Average Percentage of Organization Member Task-Related Communications Using Five Different Media in the Three Departments Plus Spearman Correlations between Media and Technology Certainty and Multiple Regression of Media on Technology (N = 44) High + Technology Certainty + Low Department
Media Verbal Telephone Verbal and telephone Sign Object Written
Kitchen
Business Office
Ward
P
P<
62% 1% 63% 8% 17% 12%
64% 4% 68% 4% 20% 8%
78% 3% 81% 1% 13% 5%
-.38 -.38 -.44 .35 *OS .06
.006 ,050 .002 .009 .375 .347
Technology Certainty as Dependent Variable Media as Independent Variables=
(std. beta)
R2
-.29 .19 -.14 .oos ,005
.15 .19 .21 .21 .21
Verbal Sign Telephone Object Written ’ Verbal-and-telephone verbal plus telephone.
is omitted
from
the regression
analysis
since it is the sum of
Communications Purpose and Directionality and Technology Table 3 presents the results regarding the proportions of communications for the four purposes in the three technologies. Hypothesis 2 predicted that the proportion of communications for information exchange and problem solving would be negatively related to technology certainty. The data supported the hypothesis with a negative correlation between problem solving communications and technology certainty (p = -.31, p < .022), but the negative correlation between information exchange communications and technology certainty was not significant (p = -. 16, n.s.>.
W. Alan Randolph
250
Table 3: Average Percentage of Organization Member Communications for the Four Purposes in the Three Departments (N = 44) High + Technology Certainty + Low Department
Purpose Social Information exchange Stimulus Questions/problem solving
Kitchen
Business Office
Ward
P
P<
22% 35% 33% 10%
29% 35% 15% 21%
17% 40% 27% 16%
.lO -.16 .26 -.31
,262 ,144 .044 .022
Hypothesis 2 also predicted a positive relationship between technology certainty and the proportion of communications for stimulus and social purposes. The data supported the hypothesis with a positive correlation between stimulus communications and technology certainty (p = .26, p < .044), but they indicated lack of statistical significance for the positive correlation between social communications and technology certainty (p = .lO, n.s.). The data related to Hypothesis 2 did not, however, take into account the directionality of the communications. Hypothesis 3 treats directionality as a moderating variable on the purposetechnology certainty relationship and as such adds additional understanding to the relationship. Downward Vertical Communications Hypothesis 3 predicted that as technology certainty increases, downward vertical communications tend to be used more exclusively for giving orders and instructions (i.e., for stimulus purpose). The data in Table 4 did not clearly support this hypothesis in that there was no significant relationship between technology certainty and use of downward vertical communications for stimulus purpose (p = .l 1, n.s.). This .I 1 correlation was, however, greater than the ones for upward vertical and horizontal communications, but not greater than the one for interdepartmental communications (p = .22, p < .lO). Within the downward vertical direction the strongest correlation was the negative correlation between technology certainty and questions/problem solving communications (p = -.2 1, p < .I O), as would be expected from the Perrow definition of technology used in this study.
Organization Technology and Communications
Table 4: Spearman Correlations and the Four Purposes of the Communications
Overall Purpose Social Information exchange Stimulus Questions/problem solving
P .lO -.16 .26b -.3lb
251
Between Technology Certainty as Moderated by Directionality (N = 44) Downward Vertical P
.OS .lO .ll -.21’”
Upward Vertical
Horizontal
P
P
.18 .14 .03
.24a -.17 .02
-.24”
.lO
Interdepartmental P
-.26b -.23a .22” -.16
ap < .lO. bp < .05.
Upward Vertical Communications The Hypothesis 3 prediction of a positive relationship between technology certainty and use of upward vertical communications for an information exchange purpose was not clearly supported (p = .14, n.s.), although this .14 correlation was the most positive correlation for information exchange communications in any direction, but not really greater than the .10 correlation in downward vertical. It seems that the vertical direction, including both up and down, is used more for information exchange communications as the technology certainty increases, whereas the horizontal (p = -.17, n.s.) and interdepartmental directions (p = -.23, p < .lO) are used less for this purpose. Also, as with the downward vertical communications, upward vertical communications showed a negative correlation between technology certainty and questions/ problem solving communications (p = -.24, p < .lO). Horizontal Communications Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between technology certainty and use of horizontal communications for social purpose. The data in Table 4 support this hypothesis (p = .24, p < .056); there were no significant positive correlations between technology certainty and social purpose in the other directions, and within the horizontal direction, the .24 correlation with social purpose was the only significant correlation with any of the purpose categories. Finally, although no specific Interdepartmental Communications hypothesis was stated, a number of interdepartmental communications were observed, and the data relevant to these communications are shown in Table 4 for interest to the reader and as pos-
252
W. Alan Randolph
sible input into future research. The use of interdepartmental communications was inversely related to technology certainty in the cases of social communications (p = -.26, p < .0.5) and information exchange communications (p = -.23, p < .lO). The use of this direction for stimulus communications was positively related to technology certainty (p = .22, p < .lO) and there was no significant relationship regarding questions/problem solving communications (p = .16, n.s.). In summarizing the results of Hypothesis 3, it appears that the moderating effects of communications directions do add some insight into the relationship between technology certainty and communications purpose. These data showed a negative correlation in the vertical channel between technology certainty and questions/problem solving communications. As predicted within the horizontal direction, social communications were positively correlated with technology certainty. Finally, the previously untested interdepartmental communications offered a great deal of potential insight. Within the interdepartmental channel, there was a negative correlation between technology certainty and social communications as well as information exchange communications and a positive correlation between technology certainty and stimulus communications.
DISCUSSION The results of this study support the prediction that the media employed vary across different technologies, thus providing support for a theory linking organization technology and communications media. For the range of technologies studied, it was found that the verbal medium became less predominant as the technology increased in certainty, especially if telephone communications were included with other verbal communications. Of note is the fact that most of the telephone communications in the Ward were made by one person and in the Business Office by two people, and none of these people were the top persons in the department hierarchy, but rather one level removed. Further research should address differences in media usage as moderated by level in the organization hierarchy. Secondly, the data raised the question of how to treat differences in member mobility. Member mobility is the degree to which a person must move about the unit to perform assigned
Organization
Technology
and Communications
253
tasks. The percentages for use of verbal medium were nearly equal in the Kitchen and Business Office, which can be explained by looking at member mobility and technology certainty. The greater mobility of people in the Kitchen tends to increase the use of verbal medium relative to the Business Office, whereas the greater technology certainty in the Kitchen tends to decrease the use of verbal medium relative to the Business Office. On the other hand, the degree of mobility is approximately equal in the Kitchen and Ward, and the greater use of verbal medium in the Ward can be attributed to the lower technology certainty in the Ward. Thirdly and contrary to the original prediction, the data revealed that use of sign medium was directly related to technology certainty. It appears that sign medium may be inadequate for the complex messages that must be conveyed in low certainty technologies, but adequate and efficient for the simple messages of high certainty technologies. Also contrary to the hypothesis was the finding of a curvilinear relationship with object medium. The object medium was most useful in a moderate certainty, mediating technology, with low member mobility. Of note was the finding that no signal communications were observed in this research. It is possible that signal communications become important only in technologies of greater certainty than the most certain technology in this study. Finally, these data indicated no relationship between written medium and technology certainty. One difficulty with the written communications in this study was that the job of people in the Business Office was handling written documents, and it was sometimes difficult for an observer to distinguish if the document was communication or the object of the person’s work. Thus, there was the possibility of inflating the number of written communications in such a situation, and a redefinition of written media on the basis of the immediacy with which it is used could help alleviate this problem. Written medium would be divided into those messages for immediate use and those messages for more distant use (e.g., letters to file). The data also supplied support for the prediction that the purpose of communications varies across technologies. Stimulus communications became more important in the high certainty technology, while questions/problem solving communications became less important. By moderating these relationships with the direction of the communications, some significant relation-
254
W. Alan Randolph
ships between technology certainty and the various purpose categories were isolated, even in some cases where the overall communications obscured the relationships. It was found that the positive correlation regarding stimulus communications was lodged primarily in interdepartmental communications, and to a lesser extent in downward vertical communications. The negative correlation regarding questions/problem solving communications was lodged primarily in vertical communications. In addition a positive relationship was found between social communications and technology certainty in horizontal communications, and the relationship for social communications was negative in interdepartmental communications. These interdepartmental communications also indicated a negative relationship between information exchange communications and technology certainty. An interesting observation, especially for those who study boundary roles, was the fact that many members of each unit participated in interdepartmental communications rather than one or a few certain people. In analyzing the data on purpose of communications, one may note that the Business Office shows the greatest use of social and questions/problem solving communications and the least use of stimulus communications (see Table 3). This suggests the influence of the leadership style of greater concern for people in the Business Office, as compared to both the Ward and Kitchen, where there is greater concern for the task. The differences in purpose of communications in the Kitchen and Ward can more easily be attributed to differences in technology certainty, since the leadership styles, as well as member mobility, are similar. For example, the fact that percentage of stimulus communications in the Business Office is less than in the Ward can be explained by the difference in leadership style (more concern for task in the Ward). Technology certainty would have produced the opposite result, as can be seen by comparing the stimulus percentages for the Kitchen and the Ward, where the leadership styles and member mobility are similar and the technology certainty is greater in the Kitchen. These findings suggest the need for considering the interplay of technology, member mobility, and unit leadership style in trying to explain the communications of the unit, but before attempting to reconceptualize the communications model, one problem should be mentioned. Since leadership style is determined by administering questionnaires, the nature of the communications
Organization Technology
and Communications
255
existing in the unit may influence the responses. Thus, it is difficult to determine if leadership style influences the nature of the communications observed or if the communications influence the member’s perceptions of leadership style or if the causality is in both directions. It is likely that the unit’s technology has an influence on both the leadership style used and the communications system that emerges, and this relationship will be addressed in the model below. Reconceptualized Model Since this study was exploratory and since a number of the findings were inconsistent with the hypotheses, one must consider how to incorporate plausible explanations for the findings into a new model of organization communications. Figures 2 and 3 provide a reconceptualization of the theory linking organization technology and communications media and purpose, as moderated by direction, and this model stands to be tested in future research. Figure 2 indicates the proposed new relationship regarding sign medium. The basic reason sign medium will be used in high certainty technologies is because the messages to be transmitted tend to be simple and structured and thus capable of being transmitted nonverbally. If written medium is modified to include only messages for immediate use, such as might be included in memos and letters, there should be a positive relationship between written medium and technology certainty. Essentially, Fig. 2 indicates a trade-off between media and technology regarding message complexity. In high certainty situations the technology handles the complexity, leaving simple messages to be communicated, and in low certainty technologies the reverse is true. Finally, Fig. 2 indicates the positive relationship between member mobility and use of verbal medium and the negative relationship between mobility and use of written medium. For example, member mobility in the Business Office is quite low since the members can sit at their desks and perform most tasks, while in the Ward members are constantly on the move as they attend to the patients. People constantly on the move will tend to communicate verbally rather than putting messsages in writing. Figure 3 shows the basic relationship between technology and purpose of communications. More communications are for stimulus purpose in high certainty technologies and more for problem solving purpose in low certainty technologies. The figure also indicates a positive relationship between a leadership style of concern for the task and stimulus purpose and a negative rela-
256
W. Alan Randolph High
Sign -/ Written (for immediate use)
Technology Certainty
LOW
FIGURE
Telephone Verbal
ligh 7
L
1
/ Member Mobility
*
2: Relationship between Technology Certainty and Communications Usage with Correlation of Member Mobility Considered.
Media
tionship between this style and the purposes of social and questions/problem solving. Thus, the model suggests a consistent association with communications purposes so long as technology is high (low) in certainty and leadership style is high (low) in concern for the task. However, a high (low) technology certainty coupled with a low (high) concern for task will tend to create offsetting influences on communications purposes. Finally, the model in Fig. 3 indicates the significant relationship between technology certainty and the four purposes as moderated by communication directions. What is suggested is that the relation between purpose of communications and technology certainty varies depending on the communication direction considered. Communications Purposes’
Information Exchange Stimulus
_ __+
Direction”
-Interdepartmental
tlnterdepartmental
-Vertical
’ The + and - signs indicate the nature of the relationship between technology certainty and the indicated purposes and between concern for task leadership style and the indicated purposes. “The + and - signs indicate the nature of the relationship between technology certainty and the indicated purposes within the stated communications directions.
FIGURE
3: Correlations
between Technology Certainty, Leadership munications for the Four Purposes.
Style, and Com-
Organization
Technology
and Communications
257
SUMMARY The data collected in this nonindustrial field study offer insights into the development of a theory of organization communications. This research indicated the feasibility of studying multiple technologies within one organization. It also indicated that other variables besides technology (such as mobility of organization members and leadership style) will need to be included in the development of a clear understanding of organization communications. This study does not contend that technology is the only variable needed to explain organization communications, but it does contend that technology must be considered along with other variables such as leadership style, mobility of members, size and structure of unit, task interdependence, and interpersonal variables if the theory of organization communications is to be complete. Certainly follow-up studies need to be conducted to expand the sample size, to extend the range of technologies, to consider which media tend to be used for which purposes, to consider if different communication channels tend to be used more frequently at different levels in the organization, to include measures of organization effectiveness, as well as a host of other questions. This study was designed to generate initial insights into a virtually unexplored relationship, and it has provided a step toward a theory linking organization technology and communications. It remains for future studies to build upon this step. References J., Communication 1966): 1052-1060.
Patterns
in Applied
Psychol.
1.
Allen, Thomas 11 (November,
Technology,Am.
2.
Bales, Robert 1950.
3.
Bavelas, Alex, Communication Sot. Am. 22 (1950): 725-730.
4.
Bell, Gerald Management
5.
Child, J., and Mansfield, R., Sociology 6 (1972): 369-393.
Organization
Structure,
6.
Dubin, Robert, The Sociology of Industrial Relations, Prentice-Hall, Cliffs, NJ., 1959.
Englewood
1.
Ferguson, G. A., Statistical Analysis Hill, New York, 1966.
F., Interaction Process Analysis, Addison-Wesley,
D., The Control,J.
Patterns
in Task-Oriented
Cambridge,
Groups,
Influence of Technological Components Acad. Management 8 (1965): 121-132. Technology,
Size and
in Psychology
Mass.,
J. Accoust.
of Work
and Education,
Upon
McGraw-
W. Alan Randolph
258 8.
Ford, J. D., and Slocum, J. W., Jr., Size, Technology, Environment and the Structure of Organizations, Acad. Management Rev. 2 (October, 1977): 561-575.
9.
Guest, R. H., Of Time and the Foreman, Personnel 32 (May, 1956): 478-486.
10.
Guetzkow, Harold, and Simon, Herbert A., The Impact of Certain Communication Nets Upon Organization and Performance in Task-Oriented Groups, Management Sci. 1 (1955): 233-250.
11.
Harvey, E., Technology and the Structure of Organizations, Am. SocioZ. Rev. 33 (1968): 247-259.
12.
Hage, Jerald, and Aiken, Michael, Routine Technology, Social Structure, Organization Goals, Administrative Sci. Q. 14 (September, 1969): 366-376.
13.
Hage, Jerald, Aiken, M., and Marrette, C. B., Organization Structure and Communications, Am. Social. Rev. 33 (1971): 860-871.
14.
Hickson, J. D., Pugh, D. S., and Pheysey, D. C., Operations Technology and Organization Structure: An Empirical Reappraisal, Administrative Sci. Q. 14 (1969):
15.
and
378-397.
Hrebiniak, L., Job Technology, Supervision and Work Group Structure, Adminis1974): 395-410.
trative Sci. Q. 19 (September,
16.
Lawrence, Paul R., and Lorsch, Jay W., Developing and Action, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1969.
17.
Leavitt, H. J., Some Effects of Certain Communication formance,J. Abnorm. Sot. Psych. 46 (1951): 38-43.
18.
Litterer, Joseph A., The Analysis of Organizations, 2nd ed., John Wiley, New York, 1973.
19.
Organizations:
Diagnosis
Patterns on Group Per-
Lynch, Beverly P., An Empirical Assessment of Perrow’s Technology Construct, 1974): 338-356.
Administrative Sci. Q. 19 (September,
20.
March, J. G., and Simon, H. A., Organizations, John Wiley, New York, 1958.
21.
Meissner, Martin, Technology and the Worker, Chandler, San Francisco, 1969.
22.
Mintzberg, Henry, The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row, New York, 1973.
23.
Perrow, Charles, Organizational Analysis: Belmont, Calif., 1970.
24.
A
Sociological
Porter, L. W., and Roberts, K. H., Communications book
of IndustriaZ and Organizational Psychology,
View, Wadsworth,
in Organizations, in HandM. P. Dunnette, ed., Rand-
McNally, Chicago, pp. 1553-1589. 25.
Randolph, W. A. An In-Depth Analysis of Organizational Communication Patterns As Influenced by an Organization’s Technology, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1975.
26.
Randolph, W. A., and Finch, F. E., The Relationship Between Organization Technology and the Direction and Frequency Dimensions of Task Communications, Hum. Relations 30 (1977):
27.
1131-1145.
Roberts, K. H., and O’Reilly, C. A., III, Failures in Upward Communications in Organizations: Three Possible Culprits, Acad. Management J. 17 (June, 1974): 205-215.
Organization 28.
Technology
and Communications
259
Seiler, J. A., Systems Analysis in Organizational Behavior, Irwin, Homewood,
Ill.,
1967. 29.
Simpson, R. L, Vertical and Horizontal Communications tions, Administrative Sci. Q. 4 (1959): 188-196.
30.
Taylor, J. C., and Bowers, D. G., The Survey of Organizations, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1970.
31.
Thompson, James D., Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.
32.
Thompson,
in Formal Organiza-
J. D., and Bates, F. L., Technology, Organization and Administration,
Administrative
Sci. Q. 2 (1957):
325-343.
33.
Van de Ven, Andrew, A Framework for Organization Assessment, Acad. Manugement Rev. 1 (January, 1976): 64-76.
34.
Van de Ven, A., Delbecq, A. L., and Koenig, R., Jr., Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations, Am. Social. Rev. 41 (April, 1976): 322-338.
35.
Veblen, Thorstein, The Theory of Business Enterprise, Scribner, New York, 1904.
36.
Walker, C. R., and Guest, R. H., TheMan on the Assembly Line, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1952.
37.
Woodward, Joan, Industrial Organization: sity Press, London, 1965.
38.
Woodward, Joan, ed., Industrial Organization: University Press, London, 1970.
Theory and Practice, Oxford UniverBehavior and Control,
Oxford