Computer focused communication: changes and challenges for the contemporary organization

Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

Computer focused communication: changes and challenges for the contemporary organization Janice M. Barrett a,* , Douglas S. Turtz b a

College of Communication, Boston University, 640 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, MA 02215, USA b Towers Perrin, 500 Boylston St., Boston, MA 02116-3734, USA

Abstract Many changes in organizations are based on communication developments, the most prevalent of which currently is the expanding nature of electronic communication media. The use of electronic communications leads to changes in other areas. Manager and employee relationships rely on organizational structure, type of technology, group work and task, and employee empowerment and organizational attitude. This paper explores the communication changes by comparing components of the traditional, hierarchical organization with the modern, spherical or ¯at organization. A synthesis of the literature concerning this topic is presented. From this, a survey instrument was developed, and a pretest was run. The information presented here gives managers certain insights about the impact of new communication technologies on the evolving modern organization. # 1999 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The explosion of computer-focused communication over the past 17 years has brought about numerous changes in the work place. Much of the present literature and research on this topic focuses on computer-mediated communication (CMC), i.e. communication using electronic media, but it is void of focus on a human component. Some examples of such communications are electronic mail (e-mail), computer conferencing, shared databases, and Intranets. With these modes of interaction, one ®nds systems capable of two-way communication being used in an incomplete manner. While the opportunity for two-way communication exists, one-way communication is the prevailing style in which these media are used. Thus, conclusions *Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-617-353-6421; fax +1-617-353-4370; e-mail: [email protected] 0736-5853/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S073 6-5853(99)0000 3-9

276

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

on this topic are hard to pinpoint and generalize from. The majority of the time the computer-mediated communication (CMC) acts mainly as a paper memo would, and the receiver does not have a necessity or responsibility to respond with more than a note signaling reception (Finholt and Sproull, 1990). In transforming the CMC into Computer Focused Communication (CFC), one ®nds communication as electronically centered with some level of interpersonal interaction that cannot be viewed separately from the communication process. Interpersonal interaction is of great importance when analyzing the changes in manager±junior relations. Managerial theory (Schein, 1987) points to high levels of face time as a determinant of managerial success. Continuing, it places high importance on a boss who makes the subordinates feel they can solve their own problems. CFCs have brought about the network ®rm (Miles and Snow, 1995). The changing structure of organizations, coupled with new communication practices, raises questions about how managers and juniors function in the modern organization. When making change, a three step process is outlined by Schein (1987): 1. Unfreezing of the organization, 2. The transitional stageÐwhere many organizations are today, 3. Refreezing the organization. The transitional period may never end with regard to the new technologies, but measures on e€ects and how to handle the new modes of communication can be established. In designing a methodology to explore the use of CFCs in organizations, this literature review analyzes the relationships among employees in four areas. This literature review covers these broad themes: Organizational structureÐa comparison between the traditional, hierarchical organization and the modern, spherical organization is presented. The modern organization places information sharing and boundary spanning as democratic. Type of technologyÐan analysis of the most prevalent communication technologies is presented. E-Mail, voice mail, video conferencing, the Internet and on-line conferencing are compared. Group type and taskÐthe modern organization functions based on groups and teamwork. This section explores communication channels with regard to type of work, type of group, available technologies and training. Empowerment and organizational attitudeÐan analysis of employees is presented. Top managers lead the changes in organizational attitude, and allow employees to perceive empowerment, a major component in developing trust. Trust creates the foundation for inclusive decision making, goal development and shared responsibility for outcomes. Additionally, these issues are explored: 1. How does each of these factors a€ect manager±junior behavior? 2. How is structure a€ected by electronic communication systems? 3. How does the organizational hierarchy become ¯atter as a result of CFCs? 2. Computer focused communication: a literature review 2.1. Organizational structure The idea of the network company surfaced over a decade ago. It was a sharp move away from the hierarchical, in¯exible pyramid structure that permeated organizations

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

277

for years (Miles and Snow, 1995). Stevensen and Gilly (1993) carried out an experiment and noted, ``Organizational structure, through the creation of positions and procedures, is a means of creating problem solving networks (p.93).'' Relating this back to Miles and Snow's (1995) theory on the spherical organization is imperative. The spherical ®rm looks like an atom (with a de®nite center, but many forces circulating around this center). It has the ability to move quickly by taking teams with unique resources and skills and applying them to a central goal. Miles and Snow (1995) write that traditional organizations are based on an up-down ¯ow of information. Decision making authority comes from a CEO and is carried out by the di€erent ranks of the organization. Issues that arise, no matter the level, are immediately routed to the top for consideration. The traditional organization fails to realize this information. The ®nal aspect on traditional organizations is that resources are set through speci®c budgets. In contrast to this, the spherical ®rm is ¯atter in structure. A ¯at ®rm looks to wide spans of control, central authority, lessening of levels, and is fast and ¯exible (Robbins, 1998). The team concept permeates the organization, allowing ¯exibility, rapid response, and immediate and open access to resources (Miles and Snow, 1995). Stevensen and Gilly (1993) write that the spherical organization is composed of many groups with limited [few] boundaries. In a traditional hierarchical organization employees of more than one level away can have contact, but it usually focuses on undermining power (Pieper, 1992). In the spherical organization, all are accessible, if not approachable, because of a formal structure based on electronic networks (Stevensen and Gilly, 1993). The structural change, spurred by electronic communication, is an integral element of discursive organizational development (OD). Pieper (1992) outlines discursive OD as designing and initiating a communication process that allows the organization to function with a set of norms and values. Jurgen Habermas (Habermas, 1981) describes these norms and values as an organization's culture. Pieper's (1992) expanded discursive OD theory points to a connection between the structure (spherically based) and the culture (people based). Hinds and Kiesler (1995) examined the structure±communication relationship by surveying 176 employees across four units of an organization. Hinds and Kiesler (1995) found that hierarchical and informal networks have always existed side by side, but now the informal networks are becoming the formal method for communication. Speci®cally, they write, ``Increasing technization of work implies an emphasis on horizontal structure and collaborative, lateral ¯ows of communication'' (p.388). Hinds and Kiesler found communication using electronic means was 30% horizontal, 42% vertical, and 28% diagonal [across departments] (Hinds and Kiesler, 1995). Bush and Frohman (1991) looked at how the change to a spherical, networked organization means changes for managers. Starting with the sequential model, a model developed for the Apollo NASA program, technology was viewed as a supporter of the hierarchical network. It could either realize an opportunity or counter a threat (Bush and Frohman, 1991). The sequential model shows technology as subservient to the rules and regulations that dictate hierarchies.

278

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

Bush and Frohman (1991) point to four failures of the sequential model. First, its procedure is often slow and cumbersome. Second, inappropriate programs are often selected because of inadequate emphasis on interactive decision making. Next, management fails to tap the creativity of many people in the organization due to the strict structure. Finally, a one-way, pass the baton style of communication may cause vital information to be missed. Bush and Frohman (1991) maintain the networked organization has the means to avoid these four failures. They say, ``Team members' ability to locate and apply relevant information will be critical to [organizational] success'' (p. 27). Team members will make the right moves if managed correctly. Bush and Frohman (1991) write that implementing the ®nal stage of the network model depends on managerial re-education. This ®nal stage determines an organization's forward thinking and change, or its regression to hierarchical ways. To avoid this regression, a manager must change. Bush and Frohman (1991) studied managerial practices used during the successes of NASA to the failing of the Challenger mission. From this, they determined spherical organizations would have employees with a variety of functions. Thus, managers must not see themselves as departmentalized. A traditional organization sees managerial success as measured by juniors' accomplishments. Therefore, managers must coordinate seniors and juniors in and e€ort to have the chain-of-command on the same top to bottom path. Bush and Frohman's (1991) study points to this consequence as a waste of time. Rather, managers must train the employees to do a job until a level of competence is reached. This level is tough to quantify, but Mishra and Morrissey (1990) point to a manager's ability to allow autonomous work as a determinant. Bush and Frohman (1991) continue advocating that, once employees reach the level of competence, managers should encourage coordination with other functional areas of the organization. In forming partnerships with other functional areas, two outcomes may arise. First, Bush and Frohman (1991) state, ``Coordination with other functions will allow workers to identify, frame, and anticipate problems, as well as develop comprehensive plans for resolution'' (p.31). Secondly, ``The manager will feel less necessary, less in control, and less informed'' [Bush and Frohman (1991), p.31]. In order to have con®dence in this scenario, managers must use a careful hiring process. The hiring process is essential for selecting appropriate people for correct positions (Bush and Frohman, 1991). This will complete a scenario in which the structure (electronic networks), managers, and juniors comprise a CFC system that functions in an organization. The research of Stevenson and Gilly (1993) examined how juniors used the network to pass and gather information. Exploring weak and strong ties in an organization, they hypothesize, ``Stronger ties (in terms of multiple bases) would be less successful than weaker ties in transmitting information across boundaries between social groups'' (p. 96). If this hypothesis holds true, then rules and regulations need to be rede®ned. Bush and Frohman (1991) write about rede®ning communication roles. They state that the most common fear among employees is when a new communication mode is introduced, it will favor some groups over others. Stevenson and Gilly (1993) found

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

279

when the practice was encouraged in a spherical organization, only 12% of juniors sent the information to their direct supervisor. ``Instead, there was an asymmetrical ¯ow of problems to managers, with forwarding initially not based on preexisting ties'' (p.102). From this, the authors concluded that weak ties in a spherical organization are e€ective in crossing organizational boundaries. 2.2. Type of technology Having presented a research based picture of how people and electronics form a structural form of CFCs, one must look at which speci®c technologies are shaping the spherical organization. The most prevalent types of electronic communication systems found in organizations are E-mail, voice mail, video conferencing, and fax. The overriding issue in using the electric type of communication is understanding the variance from verbal, face-to-face means. Hinds and Kiesler's (1995) survey notes that telephones are much like one-to-one face-to-face communications, only at a distance. Additionally, the telephone is not a novelty in organizations, so it will not be explored here. Valacich et al. (1993) argue that computer-mediated communication groups outperformed groups using verbal communication in creating unique ideas. They performed an experiment where the task was to develop as many ideas as possible in a ®xed amount of time. The face-to-face group was recorded on a scale from ``very poor idea'' to ``very good idea.'' Valacich et al. (1993) write, ``Groups using computer-mediated, electronic communication generated more unique and high-quality ideas (in a ®xed period of time) than groups using verbal communication'' (p. 263). It appears that using CFCs will raise the level of idea generation, and the spherical organization can be more creative than the traditional. The experimenters hypothesized that the verbal, face-to-face group would be more satis®ed with communication than the non-verbal, electronic group (Valacich et al., 1993). There were, however, no signi®cant di€erences in satisfaction. They point to the fact that verbal communication is a serial medium where only one person can e€ectively speak at a time (Valacich et al., 1993). This study makes an e€ective argument favoring electronic communication. However, when implementing the CFC approach, because technologies are not equally suited for all types of group work, an appropriate ®t between task and technology is needed for e€ective, satisfying work (Gutek, 1990). One of the systems being used most frequently by organizations is e-mail. Markus et al. (1992) write that electronic mail uses computer text processing to communicate through high-speed information exchange (p. 209). Feldman (1976) notes that organizations' primary means of socialization has traditionally been through faceto-face interactions with co-workers. With the development of CFCs, socialization is not reliant on interpersonal communications. Rice (1994) looks at e-mail as allowing diversity of communication, awareness of others' work, and understanding of more parts of the organization. E-mail can provide a means for workers to socialize with other people who have little, if any face-to-face relations.

280

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

Markus et al. (1992) evaluated the fundamental use of e-mail: e-mail users can send messages to individuals by typing and sending messages. The receiver can then read messages on-screen or through printout. Messages are typically displayed by date, subject, and sender. This gives the receiver insight about the message, and allows prioritizing to take place. Markus et al. (1992) writes, however, ``Electronic documentation distribution does not always ¯awlessly or easily transfer special formatting (e.g. page layout, graphics, spreadsheets). Because of its reliance on computer terminals as access devices, e-mail is not always available to people away from the oce'' (p. 209). Rice (1994) writes that e-mail can increase the amount of communication taking place. This increase should be approached cautiously, as ``e-mail users may experience information overload'' (Hiltz and Turo€, 1985). As workers face information overload and expand their communication realms, ``managers may lose direct touch with activities managed through e-mail'' (Rice, 1994, p.11). A second technology, which is prevalent in organizations, is voice mail. Markus et al. (1994) writes about voice mail. It is a computer-mediated communication technology that uses the phone as the input±output device. Voice mail can do several main functions, ``it can be used `actively' to record and send asynchronous voice messages to individuals or to a `distribution list''' (Markus et al., 1992, p. 209). The authors continue (1994) that voice mail is spoken and heard, making it easier than email for the non-typist or computer person. Also, voice mails are easily accessed by phone, making reception of messages easy. Lind and Zmud (1995) did a study of a manufacturing ®rm that uses independent dealerships throughout the United States. They hypothesized, ``Sales regions having access to voice mail will outperform sales regions not having access to voice mail'' (p. 448). The authors note: With the availability of voice mail, it is anticipated that the dyadic partners, the ®eld representative-sales manager pairs, will ®nd themselves revising their communication rituals such as their selection of communication media in ways which improve their overall communication e€ectiveness. It is expected that organizational performance as determined by dealership sales performance will improve along with overall communication e€ectiveness (p. 440). Lind and Zmud (1995) used the dyadic relationship between a ®eld representative his/her sales manager at the dealership as the unit of analysis. Field representatives worked in only a voice mail region or a non-voice mail region. After issuing a questionnaire and compiling the results, some interesting voice mail ®ndings surfaced. Lind and Zmud (1995) write, ``Voice mail produced a main e€ect on performance'' (p. 451). Voice mail directly enabled the dyadic partners to exchange messages in a more convenient and timely manner. Lind and Zmud (1995) conclude, ``As a result, it is likely that problems and opportunities are dealt with more successfully, resulting in increased sales performance'' (p. 454). Indirectly, they conclude that voice mail messages signal a need for communication episodes to occur, and that messages signal a need for use of a second medium, especially writing, to resolve a business event (Lind and Zmud, 1995).

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

281

Markus et al. (1992) studied an organization's managerial and technical subunits through the use of a questionnaire. Focusing on their voice mail ®ndings, they write about four types of voice mail use. These are ``answering machine use, asynchronous use, marking use, and extended work use'' (p. 216). Answering machine use is: letting voice mail answer when in or out of the oce, and sending a reminder to oneself. Asynchronous use is: more active, it involves recording and sending messages without phoning, recording and sending even when the recipient is available, replying to voice mail from inbox, and forwarding to a distribution list. Marking use is: attaching urgent, private, or return receipt. Finally, extending work is: use of voice mail at home, after hours at the oce, during travel, changing greeting while away, while in the car, or saving messages for later use (Markus et al., 1992). Lind and Zmud (1995) write, ``...the introduction of a communications technology into an interorganizational relationship a€ects communication behaviors and, hence, organizational pathways'' (p. 456). They continue that the ®rst pathway is that the new technology allows communication capabilities previously not available. The second pathway is that previously existing media will improve in conjunction with valued organization outcomes, making an indirect improvement in organizational e€ectiveness. Another technology helping to transform the hierarchical organization into the networked, spherical type is the fax. Markus (1992) de®nes fax machines as ``transmitting over phone lines compressed, digitized images of previously prepared print materials or electronic ®les to one or more people'' (p. 209). There are some advantages and disadvantages of fax dependency. Facsimile can handle graphics and strangely formatted items. Also, the availability of fax machines is spread throughout organizations and public places [hotels, service centers, etc.] making for easy access. However, faxes are hard copies, and, thus, it is impossible to reformat without retyping or scanning. Also, a fax machine cannot create messages or store messages (unless it is a computer fax linked by modems) (Markus et al., 1992). The ®nal technology, which is being used, is video conferencing. It is not being used widely. Wellman et al. (1996) write, ``Current trends supplement text with graphics, animation, video, and sound, increasing the social presence. However, this increases cost and requires good hardware and communication lines'' (p. 217). The most expensive of all the technologies is video conferencing. It will take time before video conferencing catches up to the other described technologies. Keeping all the technologies in mind, the foundation for the networked organization is in place. When an organization sets its sights on becoming spherical, it must ask itself three fundamental questions. First, what type of work do we do? Secondly, what technologies are accessible to us? Finally, organizations should ask themselves, how much training would be involved for our employees? One such example, concerning the uses of some of these technologies, was a survey of California telecommuting employees. Olszewski and Mokhtarian's (1994) survey found that the oce had 24 di€erent technologies. They broke these into ®ve categories: personal computing, conventional oce communications, advanced

282

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

telecommunications, video and computer conferencing, and mobile communication technologies. Olszewski and Mokhtarian (1994) write, ``The results indicate that telecommuters in this sample have a higher usage of personal computing'' (p. 282). They continue that traditional oce communications, such as face-to-face conversations, internal mail, and text processing, declined once telecommuting started. They report, ``The use of advanced telecommunication (voice mail, e-mail, paging, phone and fax) methods is increasing strongly with time and there is no di€erence between the two groups [telecommuters and everyday oce workers]'' (p. 281±282). Telecommuters used video and computer conferencing more, but they were used far less frequently than the personal and advanced technology groupings. Finally, mobile communications (external overnight mail, cellular phone, and outside database searching) were used surprising less by telecommuters. Olszewski and Mokhtarian (1994) conclude, ``A person working at home does not need to use these as much as people in the oce who are more likely to be on the move'' (p. 282). Group type and task. The next factor that plays a major role in CFC analysis is group type and task. The work group involved and task at hand examine the more human side of CFCs. Finholt and Sproull (1990) argue, ``Groups, not individuals, are the fundamental unit of work in modern organizations'' (p. 41). Barua et al. (1995) write there is a ``growing importance of the team as the basic unit in an organization, and the increasing use of electronic networks as the team work space and communication channel provide the motivation to explore how incentives and information systems should be designed to promote productivity'' (p. 487). In thinking about forming groups to meet organizational goals, one must re¯ect back to questions posed earlier: What type of work do we do? What technologies are accessible to us?; What level of training do employees need to use the technologies? Keeping the structural and technological arguments in mind, as well as the three fundamental questions, one can really examine group and task. Finholt and Sproull (1990) explain that social groups in organizations are composed of two or more people, and group members provide information, emotional resources, and identity support. Also, Barua et al. (1995) explain in favor of the networked ®rm that ``a close relationship among team members leads to the possibility of mutual monitoring [far less expensive than traditional, hierarchical means] and peer pressure with signi®cant impacts on team productivity'' (p. 487). Team productivity in the traditional organization is di€erent from the networked, spherical organization. Finholt and Sproull (1990) indicate that the most fundamental di€erence is that traditional group behavior is based on face-to-face methods of work, while the modern group at work is electronically supported, if not entirely dependent on new media. Finholt and Sproull (1990) explain the conventional organization as having four group attributes: 1. Shared physical settings. 2. Known member characteristics. 3. Membership criteria. 4. Task type. These attributes lead to three processes: 1. Synchronous interaction. 2. In¯uence bases on multiple social cues. 3. Identity maintenance based on physical and social cues. The outcomes for the organization

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

283

are three-fold: 1. Participation, i.e. o€ering information and monitoring behaviors. 2. Performance, i.e. making workers coordinate e€orts to meet organizational goals. 3. Learning, i.e. face-to-face training and asking for input about areas a group member is information de®cient. The modern organization contains some similar and di€erent facets. Finholt and Sproull (1990) write about the electronic group, ``There are no shared physical settings, there are invisible members, and membership criteria may be discretionary'' (p. 43). McLeod (1992) adds that group size is an important determinant in how the group will use technologies. She writes: Large groups may gain more eciency than do small groups with electronic group support systems. This might lead to higher satisfaction with group process and shorter decision times in large electronic groups support systems than in non-electronically supported groups (p. 274). Continuing, McLeod (1990) adds that increased task focus, equal participation, and improved decision making quality result from electronically supported groups. A ®nal area of variance between the conventional and the electronic group is the incentive system. Barua et al. (1995) write that there is an increased interest in team/ group based incentive systems, and more and more social rewards [praise, recognition] are directed towards the whole group. The authors warn, however: Technology expands the scope of incentive design, and di€erent situations, such as identi®cation of a members comments for all group members including the supervisor, identi®cation only for the supervisor, or a subgroup of peers, etc, may warrant di€erent incentive and reward systems for each case (Barua et al., p. 500). Dennis et al (1990) conducted a laboratory experiment to study group size and its e€ects on performance and satisfaction. They explain that past research shows that in non-electronic groups, as size increases, performance does not increase. Mosvick and Nelson (1987) write about face-to-face meetings that experience of leadership shows less production and less satisfaction as group size increases. Looking at the nature of electronic groups, Dennis et al. (1990) hypothesized, ``Idea-generation performance will increase with groups size, i.e. large groups will outperform medium groups, who will outperform small groups'' (p. 1051). Also they hypothesize that members of electronic groups of di€erent size will report similar levels of satisfaction. Dennis et al. (1990) found that their ®rst hypothesis held true. They write, ``There were statistically signi®cant di€erences among the di€erent sized groups for both the number of unique ideas (p<0.001) and the quality of ideas (p<0.001)'' (p. 1053). They found mean scores for number of unique ideas to be 10.14 (S.D. 1.95), 26.20 (S.D. 1.14), and 26.20 (S.D. 1.92) for small, medium, and large respectively. The quality of ideas also increased with group size.

284

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

The second hypothesis about member satisfaction did not hold true. Dennis et al. (1990) report, ``There were signi®cant di€erences in satisfaction with the meeting process (p<0.05)'' (p. 1054). First, the authors note, ``reduced satisfaction found in larger non-supported groups could be partially attributed to decreased performance and to a lack of opportunity to participate'' (p. 1055). Since non-supported groups communicate through linear, face-to-face means, only one person can speak at a time causing possible frustration as group size augments. Dennis et al. (1990) describe electronic large groups as having the channels to allow similar person participation. The second explanation of the discrepancies in satisfaction is based on knowledge and skill. ``Logically, large groups have a wider range of knowledge and skills than any one person in the group. For idea-generating tasks, there is greater probability of redundant ideas being suggested in logically small groups than in logically large groups'' (p. 1055). Thus, the small group may face a limited spectrum causing worker satisfaction to decline. 2.3. Groups in the spherical ®rm This paper will now address the issue of how groups function in to the spherical, networked ®rm. Rice (1994) explains that groups who cross boundaries in the organization usually have better performance. The groups that work in this networked category are cross-functional and interorganizational. Zack and McKenney (1995) write, ``An underlying assumption is that organization structure and form can be de®ned in terms of communication linkages among a set of organizational units [one of which is groups]'' (p. 394). These units link di€erent parts of the organization in terms of information exchange networks. Zack and McKenney (1995) purpose that the network represents the overall interaction patterns of each group. They conducted research on two daily morning newspaper organizations focusing on frequency of interaction and structure (hierarchical and ¯at). One newspaper was medium sized, while the other was large. Using questionnaire data, Zack and McKenney (1995) found that the larger newspaper group was more apt to stray from the formal hierarchy. They write, ``At Regional (the large newspaper) individual knowledge and expertise were highly respected and relied upon'' (p. 407). This raises important questions about task, leadership, communication, and technologies. Zack and McKenney (1995) state, ``The task process was essentially the same at both organizations'' (p. 400). Thus, leadership becomes a major factor in determining an organization's ability to stray from the hierarchy. The managing editor of Statewide (the smaller paper) inserted himself into most day-to-day news decisions, overrode the news director, and took over meetings involving budgets. This style limited the group's ability to stray from the formal structure. The two newspaper groups also di€ered in communication climate. Zack and McKenney (1995) found that Regional group members felt encouraged to share information, and felt they could do so openly. Juxtaposed, the Statewide group members" felt sharing information was either encouraged or discouraged, but they felt openness was lacking. Finally, technologies such as e-mail, voice mail, and fax were equally available to all group members.

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

285

These ®ndings are encouraging as Regional transforms what are typically termed CMCs into CFCs. Thus, the group's work style becomes tantamount to the spherical, networked organization. Zack and McKenney's research exempli®es the move away from the hierarchy, as it comprises task and technology with the human aspects of communication, climate and leadership. Carey and Kacmar (1997) examined other characteristics of electronic groups. Group members of electronic groups can participate from varied locals at varied times; multiple messages can be transmitted simultaneously; and low-status or shy members may feel empowered to engage in addressing the task. Carey and Kacmar (1997) explore the idea that complexity occurs when the decision environment is any or all of the following: very large, very heterogeneous, very abstract, or very interconnected. They write, ``as task complexity increases, solution con®dence decreases'' (p. 30). Continuing, the authors note that use of electronic communication for important interactions and problem solving may be problematic. One reported problem was ``information'' overload with electronic communication as compared with face-to-face. 2.4. Empowerment and organizational attitude Throughout history, the ``bottom line'' in organizations has been pro®t. Today, pro®t is as important as ever, but the journey to success has evolved. Organizational success relies on employee empowerment. Sachs (1994) writes that the organizational trend is away from centralized, hierarchical organizations emphasizing control, top down communications and di€erences in reward and status toward decentralized, ¯at organizations founded upon commitment, open communications and equality of rewards and status. Employees are the key to this change. Randolph (1995) writes: It is not until top management begin to share information about the company's market share and growth opportunities, as well as the competition's strategies that employees begin to act as empowered participants in the company (p. 22). It is a question of trust. Top-level people must ask themselves the question; do we trust our employees? If they do, then sharing information acts as a link to trust. Mishra and Morrissey (1990) write that trust is at the core of all relationships. Mishra and Morrissey's (1990) survey found that 93.5% of respondents felt ``belief in the integrity, character, and ability of others'' exempli®ed trust. Continuing 91.2% perceived trust as a feeling of con®dence and support (p. 443). Randolph (1995) writes, ``By opening the books to all employees, management begins to let them know `we are all in this thing together''' (p. 22). Mishra and Morrissey (1990) state that their survey results indicate four factors are trust breeding: 1. Open communication (96.4% of respondents) 2. Increasing the amount of shared decision-making (90.4%) 3. Sharing critical information (87.5%) 4. True sharing of perceptions and feelings (85.4%). Sachs (1994) notes that trust is

286

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

fundamental to a process where everyone in the organization is an important member of a mutual relationship with collaboration and sharing. Mishra and Morrissey (1990) point to trust as developing improved communication, greater predictability, dependability and con®dence, a reduction in employee turnover, openness, willingness to listen and accept criticism non-defensively, repeat business and a reduction of friction. Juxtaposed, they found that 97% of respondents agreed that the biggest disadvantage of trust was a loss of managerial authority (p. 444). This speaks to the spherical, networked organization in that the employee at any level is not an isolated entity, but rather a resource. Sachs (1994) describes this type of organization as democratic. He writes, ``it's an organization that operates with a high degree of employee participation in decision making'' (p. 35). Decision-making and trust, it is argued by Randolph (1995), are two parts of a much larger plan that exemplify the new organization. More and more, leadership declares the change to collaboration and empowerment, but this does little. If leaders want to empower employees, they must listen to Randolph's (1990) advice. Randolph (1995) writes that the ®rst step toward empowerment and collaboration is information sharing. ``People need information to know how they and the company are doing, and if their actions are making a di€erence... with information they [employees] are almost compelled to act with responsibility'' (p. 22). In an empowered organization there will be changing roles and, eventually, a changed structure. Randolph (1995) calls it a paradox, that in the move to create a more democratic organization, managers ®rst must implement more controls. The scenario works, according to Randolph (1995), when leaders show the way, people are taught new skills, and new parameters are clearly de®ned and known. Initially, this creates more structure and control. As trust, information sharing, and management move toward empowerment, structure is needed to coordinate involved parties. Once organizations understand the new system ``the need for structure will lessen'' (Randolph, p. 25). The attention paid to organizational structure gives employees a direction in which to work within the new, democratic organization. Randolph (1995) writes that the new organizational structure is composed of more than the organizational chart. Vision statements, establishing goals, decision processes, and training become the keys to creating the new democratic organizational structure. Sachs (1994) notes that employees need to feel they are part of the company's direction. This means that managers and employees must translate the vision statement into action using small pieces. Randolph (1990) writes that all levels of employees must work with clear little pictures. This gives employees a piece of the larger vision, and they know the vision in terms of their particular jobs. Each job needs to have known goals. This forms a more abstract approach to structure. Randolph (1995) writes, ``E€ective goal setting establishes a collaborative partnership between informed employee and manager, and eventually among peers in teams...'' He continues, ``Goals should not be viewed as ends, but as milestones of progress'' (p. 26).

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

287

Decision-making is a process, too. Randolph (1995) notes that employees need to break the hierarchical thinking which uses a ``manager tell±employee act'' approach. The new process is based on the spherical organization where functional teams become e€ective decision-makers. Randolph (1995) notes, ``Managers continue to make strategic decisions, leaving only operational decisions for employees'' (p. 26). Decisions about scheduling work, evaluating co-workers, serving customers and the like, are assumed as employees feel more empowered (Randolph, 1990, p. 26±27). The ®nal key to employee empowerment through a changing structure is training. Randolph (1995) notes, ``Employees must unlearn bureaucratic habits'' (p. 27). Sachs (1994) places a premium on training. Training must be about learning participatory values. Taking this a step further he adds, ``The values include a concern for the interests and views of everyone involved in the work process because everyone is a€ected by the acts of everyone else'' (p. 37±38). Randolph says this kind of training includes negotiation, con¯ict resolution, budgeting, leadership, and technical expertise (Randolph, 1995, p. 27). As organizations adopt the spherical structure, a premium is placed on groups. Randolph (1995) writes, ``Many of today's complex decisions require input from a collection of peopleÐindividuals acting alone are not as e€ective'' (p. 28). If teams assume the responsibility of not only idea design and some decisions, but also, implementation and accountability, managerial roles change. Randolph (1995) says, ``Managers tend to feel their control is threatened. Ironically, through the development of teams as a replacement for the hierarchy, managers can more easily assume their new empowering roles as coach, mentor, and team leader'' (p. 28). 2.5. What does this mean? The challenge facing leaders in the modern organization is making a spherical, networked, democratic work place, basing it on e€ectively applying new technologies, incorporating cross-functional groups as information centers within it, and allowing employees to become empowered. Achieving these goals takes considerable commitment from managers, and buy-in from juniors. Ho€man and Zaki (1995) surveyed 40 business ®rms' (service and manufacturing) di€erent levels of management to test the e€ects of hierarchical level on receiver and sender. They report, ``The frequency of disseminating or summarizing information is a€ected more by the status level of receiver of managerial communication'' (p. 229). Since the spherical ®rm looks to even out levels of status, it is likely that information will be disseminated more widely. The collaborative ®rm approach is used in an indirect manner within the hierarchical ®rm. Ho€man and Zaki (1995) write, ``...top managers used more external information while lower level managers exhibited di€erences in disseminating information to receivers at di€erent status levels'' (p. 236). Firms linked by technologies, using the collaborative approach, will see external information being used more evenly throughout the organization. Clearly, the hierarchical ®rm does not a€ord the equal opportunity to access information for all employees.

288

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

Rice (1994) summarizes, that communications across departments and between superiors and subordinates are examples of how to increase knowledge, coordination, and collaboration with organizations. He continues, ``Individuals who become more central to the overall network are more likely to experience increased in¯uence, and, in turn, satisfaction with and performance from the collaborative process'' (p. 11). The spherical, networked organization and the collaborative process are a combination of structure, technologies, and people. 3. The instrument This study is particularly concerned with exploring the perceptions of managers and juniors with regard to structure, technologies, interaction (electronic v. face-toface), and empowerment. Also, the frequency of communication technologies' used, di€erent departments, and locations of co-workers (same place v. remote locations) are examined. Based on the assessment, a research instrument to test the relationships was developed to test this hypothesis: That in a hierarchical organization that has communication technologies, as managers empower employees and juniors perceive empowerment, they will use the technologies frequently and to cross department boundaries. Thus, this hierarchical organization will move closer to the ¯atter, spherical model. A second avenue, which will be explored by this instrument, will address the in¯uence of face-to-face and electronic interactions on the uses of technologies, the role in determining empowerment, and opinions on structure. 3.1. The survey The study design (See the Appendix) begins by asking about the amount of time spent using the reviewed technologies (e-mail, voice mail, fax, internet, on-line conferencing, and video conferencing). The next section asks about experience in remote-work or work-from-home programs. This question is designed to ®nd di€erences between those who work in the oce and those who work in remote settings. The study variables then focus on opinions about the aforementioned technologies. Using a 5-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree the instrument rates how respondents think concerning certain aspects of each technology. The instrument asks about e-mail ®rst. Six questions about e-mail stem from the literature: 1. E-mail helps me attain information relevant to my work. 2. E-mail saves me time in doing my job. 3. E-mail allows me to have more input in the decision making process. 4. E-mail makes the decision making process at work easier. 5. E-mail makes the decision making process at work faster. 6. E-mail helps me work with other departments in my company. The instrument then gives two statements about voice mail. First, voice mail helps me attain information relevant to my work. Second, voice mail helps me work with

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

289

other departments in my company. Voice mail is not used for group meetings, and, thus, statements concerning decision-making are not applicable. Fax statements establish two ®ndings. First, faxes help me attain information relevant to my work. Second, faxes I receive are longer than e-mails I receive. The instrument then establishes personal opinions about on-line conferencing. Using three statements, the instrument gives insight about organizations when scheduled electronic meetings occur. First, on-line conferencing helps me attain information relevant to my work. Second, on-line conferencing makes decision making faster. Finally, on-line conferencing makes decision making more inclusive. Although previous ®ndings show limited use of video conferencing in organizations, its use should grow. Three statements are provided to address video conferencing: 1. Video conferencing helps coordinate information relevant to my work. 2. Video conferencing makes decision making faster. 3. Video conferencing makes decision making more inclusive. The ®nal technology, which the survey instrument establishes opinions about, is the Internet. Two work-related statements provide insight about the Internet. First, Internet helps me attain information relevant to my work. Secondly, Internet saves me time in doing my job. The instrument then shifts from personal feelings to factual data. Variables about e-mail, fax, and voice mail establish where messages are coming from. As subjects break down message reception by percentage, communication patterns develop. At this point, the instrument shifts to di€erences between management and juniors. Subjects are asked to rate their role in the organization as either manager or junior. Depending on the response, the instrument sends the respondent to a ``manager'' or ``junior'' section. The manager section begins by asking managers to approximate the number of people in their span of control. The instrument then asks managers to rate the frequency they use the electronic media for certain tasks. The tasks are rated on a ®vepoint scale ranging from never to very often. A second section asks when interacting with employees you manage, how often do you do each of the following tasks using face-to-face communication? A list of tasks is provided. This research allows for a comparison between electronic and face-toface interactions. Using a ®ve-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, the instrument's variables focus on personal opinions. Two statements deal with structure. First, the instrument states: My organization is based on clearly de®ned levels of status, where there is a clearly understood top-down chain-of-command. The second statement is: My organization is based on evening levels of status, where the chain-of-command is ¯atter and encourages input from all employees. The focus on personal opinions shifts to statements about the perceptions managers have of themselves. Four statements address these perceptions: 1. I encourage interdepartmental communication and interaction as part of my managerial role. 2. I ensure that my juniors are involved in all decisions a€ecting our department. 3. I empower employees to develop means of reaching organizational goals. 4. One of my main roles is seeing that juniors carry out tasks I assign for them in the manner I decide is best.

290

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

The junior section asks the same questions as the manager section. The statements are worded to attain information about juniors' perceptions of management. Perceptions are the main di€erence between the two sections: juniors and managers. Four statements address these perceptions: 1. My manager(s) encourage interdepartmental communication and interaction. 2. My manager(s) ensure that I am involved in all decisions a€ecting our department. 3. My manager(s) empower me to develop means of reaching organizational goals. 4. My manager(s) sees that I carry out tasks assigned to me in the manner he/she/they decide is best. The ®nal section of the instrument asks for demographic information. All respondents should provide the number of years with the organization, their gender, and their department within the organization. Note: The survey in its entirety is found in the Appendix. 4. The pretest A pretest of the instrument was run. Although it is not statistically signi®cant, it presents a preliminary test of the reviewed issues. 4.1. Methodology After designing the instrument and ®nding an anonymous organization that willingly wanted to explore the questions at hand, subjects from three functional areas of an organization were approached. The organization will be referred to as XTECH. Each XTECH participant was given a survey, distributed via e-mail. Subjects were given 20 days to complete the form that contained 81 questions. Two reminders were sent out. 4.2. Participants The organization provided access to three functional areas. These are training, technology, and ®nance. Thirty-six people were contacted, 12 in each area. A response rate of 33% resulted. Participants were either contacted directly by the researcher, or they were brought on board by their respective managers. In preliminary discussions, some participants reported having experience with the spherical, ¯at type of organization. 5. Results 5.1. Structure The starting point analyzed the take on structure by managers and juniors. One question asked managers to rate if the organization was hierarchical. Managers

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

291

(N=5) reported a mean of 3.8 (S.D. 0.447). The 3.8 mean on a ®ve point Likert scale places managers between neutral=3 and agree=4, but closer to agree. A second structural question asked about the organization as a ¯atter, democratic organization. Managers reported a mean of 3.6 (S.D.. 1.5). Unfortunately, this result has a wide spanning standard deviation, attributable to the low response rate. This mean, however, is close to the hierarchical mean. It is seemingly contradictory that an organization can be both hierarchical and ¯at, but this result should be stressed theoretically. An organization needs direction and that can come from the set hierarchy, but the information sharing and participatory processes, which exist across departments, can move the organization simultaneously towards the ¯atter model. The juniors' (N=5) take on the hierarchy resulted in a mean of 3.8 (S.D. 1.1). The ¯atter, democratic result was a mean of 3.6 (S.D. 1.1). The means of managers and juniors concerning structure were identical; this can be attributed to the small sample size. Despite the small sample, the identical responses concerning structure need to be explored. The study asked both managers and juniors to assess the use of e-mail. Six questions about e-mail's relevance to work (attaining information, saving time, input in decision making, making decision making easier, making decision making faster, and dealing with other departments) resulted in a reliability of 0.8520. Similar tests were done on voice mail, on-line conferencing, video conferencing and the Internet. Voice mail questions had a reliability of 0.7943, on-line conferencing 0.8175, and the internet 0.6437. Video conferencing questions were thrown out as only one respondent had used this medium. 5.2. Frequency of technology use An important issue that was explored concerned the frequency of technology use. The breakdown for managers went as follows: 39% of the time e-mail is used, 39% voice mail, 15% on-line conferencing, 6% internet, and 1% video conferencing (although this comes from 1 respondent using video conferencing 5% of the time). Juniors reported: e-mail is used 48.8% of the time, voice mail 28.8%, on-line conferencing 9.8%, internet 13.4%, and video conferencing 0%. 6. An analysis of correlations for the speci®c research question shows 6.1. Managers Starting with managers, the relationship between the frequency of electronic communication use and empowerment by the managers was explored. A Pearson Correlation revealed a positive relationship: r=0.759, p>0.05. The sample size is too small to draw a statistically signi®cant result. However, keeping it in the theoretical realm it makes sense that: Since electronic communications allow for autonomy and crossing departments and opening lines of communication, the more

292

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

managers use electronic communications for certain tasks, the more managers feel they empower employees. Juxtaposed, there was a large negative correlation between face-to-face frequency for certain tasks and empowerment at: r=ÿ0.580, p>0.05. Thus, where empowerment has the component of spanning departmental boundaries face-to-face frequency may negatively a€ect juniors' feelings. A next step in answering the research question looked at the link between empowerment and structure. There was a positive correlation r=0.885, p<0.05. Once again, the sample size limits this result, but as a pretest, it seems that as managers believe they empower, the more they view their organization as ¯at. The boundary spanning aspect of empowerment was correlated with each of the electronic technologies used. Positive correlations were found between crossing departmental lines and e-mail, voice mail, fax, and on-line conferencing. Also, a positive correlation existed between the frequency of managerial electronic communication use and encouraging interdepartmental communication. There was a negative correlation between Internet use and crossing boundaries and a negative correlation between face-to-face frequency and crossing departmental boundaries. The ®nal aspect of managers that the study explored links frequency of electronic communication use to the ¯atness of the organization at: r=0.948, p<0.05. Theoretically, this pretest shows that as managers use electronic communication more for certain tasks, they will rate their organization as ¯at. In support of the need for electronic communication as a means to the ¯at organization, a negative correlation surfaced between frequency of face-to-face communication for certain tasks and the ¯at organization at: r=ÿ0.493, p>0.05. 6.2. Juniors Similar relationships were explored through questioning of juniors. The ®rst result that needs exploration is the relationship between frequency of electronic communication and empowerment. A positive correlation resulted with r=0.639, p>0.05. This pretest suggests that the more juniors use electronic means of communication for certain tasks they will perceive increased empowerment. A second correlation was run to test the relation between frequency of face-to-face communication and juniors' empowerment. The correlation was negative at: r=ÿ0.563, p>0.05. Perhaps, juniors feel frequent face-to-face interactions equates to excessive managerial contact, which could limit autonomy, a big component of empowerment. A second avenue of empowerment was explored in this study. It concerns the view of empowerment and structure. Juniors resulted in a negative correlation of r=ÿ0.049, p>0.05 between empowerment and feeling that the organization was ¯at in structure. This was a surprise as empowerment is a component of a ¯at organization, thus more research with a statistically signi®cant sample is recommended. The relationship between empowerment and the hierarchy resulted in a more negative correlation. The relationship was r=ÿ0.153, p>0.05. This expected result

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

293

shows that the more ingrained the hierarchy the less the feeling of empowerment by juniors. Turning away from empowerment and to the frequency of communicationÐ structure relationship, the research question was further broken down. First, the frequency of electronic communication use and structure was explored. A positive correlation between electronic frequency and organizational ¯atness resulted at: r=0.638, p>0.05. This pretest shows that the more juniors use electronic communication for certain tasks the more they will feel the organization is ¯at. A larger sample could make this result statistically signi®cant. The test between frequency of electronic communication and the feeling on hierarchy resulted in a negative correlation: r=ÿ0.142, p>0.05. Unfortunately, this is not statistically signi®cant either. In theory, it works with the research question showing that, as electronic use increases, the opinion about the hierarchy's impact lessens, moving the organization toward the ¯at model. The structure was also tested against face-to-face communication frequency. First, frequency of face-to-face communication and feeling about ¯atness of the organization were correlated. The result for juniors was negative at: r=ÿ0.580, p>0.05. Juxtaposed, frequency of face-to-face communication and feeling about the organizational hierarchy were correlated. The result for juniors was positive at: r=0.213, p>0.05. Both tests are not statistically signi®cant. In this pretest, they support the research question showing that as juniors perceive more face-to-face communication they also perceive the organizational structure to be a hierarchy rather than ¯at. 7. Discussion and conclusions of pretest A case study of 36 people o€ers a solid pretest concerning the role of empowerment, structure, technology, and interactions in determining the di€erences between managers and juniors. The research had to change due to the low response rate. Twelve of 36 surveys were returned a 33% response rate. Two of the responses could not be used. Also, the low response rate limited the research to one functional group, rather than the three originally sought. Finally, 90% of the respondents had previous experience with work-from-home programs making research, about virtual oce versus actual oce impossible. The pretest showed that the ¯at organization could co-exist with a hierarchy. Managers and juniors both rated their organizations as having both structures. The ¯at structure was in¯uenced by frequency of technology use. Both managers and juniors reported a positive correlation between the electronic communication use and feeling the organization was ¯at. This should not be a surprise, as electronic communications allow access to people otherwise unreachable in terms of level and department, access to information, and access to decision making. Juxtaposed, faceto-face communication showed a negative correlation in relation to the ¯at organizational structure.

294

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

A second part of the research question looked at the role of empowerment as it related to electronic communication and the structure. Managers and juniors both resulted in positive correlations between frequency of electronic communication and increased empowerment. It must be remembered that managers were asked to rate themselves about empowering habits. This might result in managers praising themselves. Since the sample was composed of managers and juniors who worked together, juniors were asked their opinions about how well managers empowered them. Thus, the junior results check the managerial results. In this study, the link between empowerment and the ¯atness of organizations was explored. The results showed that the more managers rated themselves as empowering juniors, the more they felt the organization was ¯at. A surprise result surfaced when empowerment and organizational ¯atness was examined in the junior realm. A negative correlation resulted between feeling empowered and feeling the organization was ¯at. This ®nding lacked statistical signi®cance, which can be attributed to the small sample size. Further research must be done on this relationship, because a positive correlation was expected. In looking at some of the speci®c technologies, few di€erences surfaced. Managers and juniors reported close to zero contact with video conferencing. E-mail, voice mail, Internet, on-line conferencing, and fax were collapsed to give insight about manager/junior di€erences with each respective technology. Using a t-test to examine means, no signi®cant di€erences were found between managers and juniors in voice mail, Internet, or fax. However, managers and juniors di€ered on two facets of e-mail. Asked the question of whether ``e-mail saves me time in doing my job,'' managers had a mean 3.4 (S.D. 894) and the juniors' mean 4.8 (S.D. 0.447). Managers resulted in a mean of 2.8 (S.D. 0.836) and juniors a mean of 4.2 (S.D. 1.30) when asked to rate if ``E-mail makes the decision making process at work easier.'' These means are on a ®ve-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Agree=5 to Strongly Disagree=1. Managers and juniors di€ered in feeling about whether ``on-line conferencing helps me attain information relevant to my work.'' Managers were very close to strongly agree with a mean 4.8 (S.D. 0.447), and juniors reported a mean of 4.0 (S.D. 1.41). Although both are on the ``agree'' side, managers might feel a real need for regular on-line conferencing, while juniors might have limited exposure to this technology. In this limited sample managers reported using on-line conferencing as 15% of all their technological use, while juniors used it only 9.8% of the time. There are relationships between technology, empowerment, and structure. When the relationships were explored, a link between each aspect and its impact on human conditions was considered. Much research focuses on the roles of systems (such as email, voice mail, etc.) and structures and applying past research to human perceptions is the next logical step. This will bridge the gap from computer mediated communication (CMC) into computer focused communication (CFCs), where human perception and interaction play as important a role as the communication systems being used and the organizational structure.

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

295

8. Conclusions Organizational structure is the backbone of the company. The traditional hierarchy calls for a top to bottom organization focused on set human roles. The spherical model brings about change by allowing the electronic communication systems and the people to form a new structure. In this area, managers must understand the issues that determine how the structure can function as a communication system. This new structure a€ords management a chance at ¯exibility and increased interaction. Boundary spanning gives employees insight about the entire organization, a sharp contrast with the hierarchical model. The increased communications a€orded by electronic communications may make the organization's employees cross-functional. In the long-run, this structure will bridge the gap to quicker response to issues, better understanding of functional areas within the company, a feeling of empowerment, and the ¯exibility to handle change. The uses of electronic media play a major role in determining the e€ectiveness of the functional areas. The systems commonly determine the frequency and type of inhouse and external communication. Managers can help establish the role these systems will play. Electronic communication allows creation of more unique ideas during a set period of time. In addition, using electronic interactions does not seem to lead to a drop in employee satisfaction. In fact, it may help socialize those who do not have a chance to interact using face-to-face means. Finally, electronic technologies allow communication, previously not possible, to exist. Electronic communication needs monitoring, however. A period of evolution in the communication patterns typically follows the initial implementation. Also, managers must watch for increased information availability versus the negatives of information overload. A ®nal aspect, which monitoring electronic systems will enhance, is when the electronic message signals the need for a more detailed communication session. Today, groups, not individuals, function as the catalysts during communication sessions in organizations. The type of work, technology and training help determine what type of group is best suited for a particular task. Groups can lend support, engage in mutual monitoring, and exhibit healthy peer pressure, which may lead to increased productivity. Productivity is also in¯uenced by group size. In face-to-face groups, as size increases, productivity and satisfaction decline. In electronic groups, increases in membership lead to increased productivity for certain tasks. As size increases, skills and knowledge become more diverse. Electronic systems give all group members an equal chance at input, while face-to-face groups are linear, and, thus, limited. Groups in the networked, spherical ®rm become units for information exchange. They cross boundaries and share information that functional teams use to make decisions more attuned to the entire organization. This collaborative approach to information sharing, taken with an understanding of available systems and people, may lead to increased productivity. Leadership, however, in¯uences how far the group can move from the formal structure to the spherical model.

296

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

Empowerment stems directly from leadership and perceptions in organizations. However, certain approaches enhance employees' feelings concerning their respective roles in the organization. The spherical organization calls for commitment and rewards. If managers want to use this structure to empower, they must set an action plan, not simply declare the change. This plan must look to increase trust among employees. A shift from the traditional form of competition and secrecy to con®dence, openness, mutual goal setting, and training helps develop trust. This makes employees feel linked to the organization. As the link strengthens, communication will increase, turnover will lessen, dependability will increase, friction will lessen, and organizational consistency will arise. Finally, empowerment will lead to group autonomy, and managerial roles will shift toward coaching and mentoring the cross-functional teams. The task for management is to create a better workplace. This means creating a link among people, structure and technology. There are limitations of the hierarchical ®rm, and the spherical ®rm is a positive alternative. Using collaboration and disseminating information to involved parties, the networked ®rm gives management a ¯exible, modern approach to running an organization. Using the ®ndings of literature in the ®eld and the developed instrument for further exploration and study, a deeper understanding of the electronic communications and human relationship, i.e. computer-focused communications can become evident. Appendix Please complete all questions as best you can. Complete all questions based on your personal experiences. This survey will explore relationships among organizational structure, communication technologies, and position in the organization. Thank you for participating. 1. If 100% represents all the electronic communications you use at work, how is that percentage broken down in your case? Please give an approximate percentage to each of the following types of communications according to how often you use it. For example, if you only use E-mail then E-mail will be allocated 100%. If you use E-mail and Voice Mail equally then each will be allocated 50%, and so on. Please make sure that the total percentages you allocate do not exceed 100%. E-mail______________ Voice Mail______________ Fax______________ Internet______________ On-Line Conferencing______________ Video-Conferencing______________ 2. Mark an ``X'' next to the answer. Have you ever been involved in a work-fromhome, remote-work, or ¯exi-time program? 1. YES_____ 2. NO_____

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

297

For Questions 3±20 mark an ``x'' next to the best answer based on the statement. If you haven't used a method make no ``x''. Use The Following Key For Your Answers: Strongly Agree(SA) Agree(A) Neutral(N) Disagree(D) Strongly Disagree(SD) 3. E-mail helps me attain information relevant to my work: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 4. E-mail saves me time in doing my job: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 5. E-mail allows me to have more input in the decision making process: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 6. E-mail makes the decision making process at work easier: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 7. E-mail makes the decision making process at work faster: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 8. E-mail helps me work with other departments in my company: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 9. Voice Mail helps me attain information relevant to my work: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 10. Voice Mail helps me work with other departments in my company: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 11. Faxes help me attain information relevant to my work: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 12. Faxes I receive are longer than E-mails I receive: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 13. On-line Conferencing helps me attain information relevant to my work: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 14. On-line Conferencing makes decision making faster: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 15. On-line Conferencing makes decision making more inclusive: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 16. Video Conferencing helps coordinate information relevant to my work: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 17. Video Conferencing makes decision making faster: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 18. Video Conferencing makes decision making more inclusive: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 19. Internet helps me attain information relevant to my work: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 20. Internet saves me time in doing my job: SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ For questions 21±23 think about the messages you receive and answer on the lines as best you can.

298

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

21. If 100% represents all the E-mail you receive, approximately what percentage of your E-mail do you receive from the following? Please make sure that the percentages add up to 100%. Peers_____________ Seniors_____________ Juniors_____________ Members of other organizations____________ Others_____________ 22. If 100% represents all the faxes you receive, approximately what percentage of your faxes do you receive from the following? Please make sure that the percentages add up to 100%. Peers_____________ Seniors_____________ Juniors_____________ Members of other organizations_____________ Others_____________ 23. If 100% represents all the Voice Mail you receive, approximately what percentage of your Voice Mail do you receive from the following? Please make sure that the percentages add up to 100%.? Peers_____________ Seniors_____________ Juniors_____________ Members of other organizations_____________ Others_____________ The following section will explore some of your feelings based on the position you hold in the organization. Please answer as best you can. 24. Make an ``x'' next to the word which best describes your role in the organization? 1. Manager____ 2. Junior____ If you marked MANAGER please complete questions 25±51. If you marked JUNIOR please complete questions 52±78. Thank You. MANAGERS MANAGERS MANAGERS MANAGERS MANAGERS MANAGERS Please Complete questions 25±51 then skip to 79±81. Thank You 25. Approximately how many juniors are in your span-of-control? _________

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

299

When interacting with employees you manage, how often do you do each of the following tasks using electronic communication (i.e. using any of these technologies: E-mail, Voice Mail, Fax, On-line Conferencing, Video Conferencing) Mark ``X'' Next To The Best Answer 26. SCHEDULE MEETINGS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 27. ATTEND MEETINGS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 28. DISCUSS PROBLEMS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 29. DISCUSS PROPOSALS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 30. DISCUSS ADVANCEMENT (raises, promotions, etc.): NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 31. DISCUSS ON-GOING WORK: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 32. RECEIVE FEEDBACK: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 33. PROVIDE FEEDBACK: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 34. INITIATE PROJECTS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 35. PASS ON INFORMATION: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____

VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY

When Interacting With The Employees Whom You Manage, How Often Do You Use Face-to-Face Contact For The Following Tasks: Mark ``X'' Next To The Best Answer 36. SCHEDULE MEETINGS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ VERY OFTEN_____ 37. ATTEND MEETINGS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ VERY OFTEN_____

300

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

38. DISCUSS PROBLEMS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 39. DISCUSS PROPOSALS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 40. DISCUSS ADVANCEMENT (raises, promotions, etc.): NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 41. DISCUSS ON-GOING WORK: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 42. RECEIVE FEEDBACK: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 43. PROVIDE FEEDBACK: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 44. INITIATE PROJECTS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 45. PASS ON INFORMATION: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____

VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY

For Questions 46±51 please mark ``x'' next to the answer that best represents your personal feelings about the given statement. Use The Following Key For Your Answers: Strongly Agree(SA) Agree(A) Neutral(N) Disagree(D) Strongly Disagree(SD) 46. My organization is based on clearly de®ned levels of status, where there is a clearly understood top-down chain-of-command. SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 47. My organization is based on evening levels of status, where the chain-of-command is ¯atter and encourages input from all employees. SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 48. I encourage interdepartmental communication and interaction as part of my managerial role. SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 49. I ensure that my juniors are involved in all decisions a€ecting our department. SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 50. I empower employees to develop means of reaching organizational goals. SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 51. One of my main roles is seeing that juniors carry out tasks I assign for them in the manner I decided is best. SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

301

MANAGERS SKIP TO QUESTIONS 79±81. Thank You. JUNIORS JUNIORS JUNIORS JUNIORS JUNIORS JUNIORS JUNIORS Please complete questions 52±78 then go to 79±81. 52. How many managers do you consider direct supervisors? _________ When interacting with managers you work with, how often do you do each of the following tasks using electronic communication (i.e. using any of these technologies: E-mail, Voice Mail, Fax, On-line Conferencing, Video Conferencing) Mark `X' Next To The Best Answer 53. SCHEDULE MEETINGS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 54. ATTEND MEETINGS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 55. DISCUSS PROBLEMS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 56. DISCUSS PROPOSALS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 57. DISCUSS ADVANCEMENT (raises, promotions, etc.): NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 58. DISCUSS ON-GOING WORK: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 59. RECEIVE FEEDBACK: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 60. PROVIDE FEEDBACK: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 61. INITIATE PROJECTS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 62. PASS ON INFORMATION: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____

VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY

When Interacting With The Managers Whom You Work With, How Often Do You Use Face-to-Face Contact For The Following Tasks: Mark ``X'' Next To The Best Answer

302

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

63. SCHEDULE MEETINGS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 64. ATTEND MEETINGS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 65. DISCUSS PROBLEMS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 66. DISCUSS PROPOSALS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 67. DISCUSS ADVANCEMENT (raises, promotions, etc.): NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 68. DISCUSS ON-GOING WORK: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 69. RECEIVE FEEDBACK: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 70. PROVIDE FEEDBACK: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 71. INITIATE PROJECTS: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____ 72. PASS ON INFORMATION: NEVER____ RARELY_____ SOMETIMES_____ OFTEN_____ OFTEN_____

VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY

For Questions 73±78 please mark ``x'' next to the answer that best represents your personal feelings about the given statement. Use The Following Key For Your Answers: Strongly Agree(SA) Agree(A) Neutral(N) Disagree(D) Strongly Disagree(SD) 73. My organization is based on clearly de®ned levels of status, where there is a clearly understood top-down chain-of-command. SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 74. My organization is based on evening levels of status, where the chain-of-command is ¯atter and encourages input from all employees. SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 75. My manager(s) encourage interdepartmental communication and interaction. SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

303

76. My manager(s) ensure that I am involved in all decisions a€ecting our department. SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 77. My manager(s) empower me to develop means of reaching organizational goals. SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ 78. My manager(s) sees that I carry out tasks assigned to me in the manner he/she/ they decide is best. SA___ A___ N___ D___ SD___ JUNIORS GO TO QUESTIONS 79±81. Thank You. 79. How many years have you worked at the organization? _____________ 80. Mark an ``X'' next to your gender: 1. Male____2. Female____ 81. What department do you ocially work in? ___________________________ References Barua, A., Lee, Sophie C.H, Whinston, A.B., 1995. Incentives and computing systems for team-based organizations. Electronic communication and changing organizational forms. Organization Science 6 (4), 487±504. Bush, J.B., Frohman, A.L., 1991. Communications in a network organization. Organizational Dynamics 20 (2), 23±36. Carey, J.M., Kacmar, C.J., 1997. The impact of communication mode and task complexity on small group performance and member satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior 13 (1), 23±49. Dennis, A.R., Valachich, J.S., Nunamaker, J.F., 1990. An experimental investigation of group size in an electronic meeting environment. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 20 (5), 1049±1057. Finholt, T., Sproull, L.S., 1990. Electronic groups at work. Organization Science 1 (1), 41±64. Feldman, D., 1976. A practical program for employee socialization. Organizational Dynamics 6, 64±80. Gutek, B.A., 1990. Work group structure and information technology: a structural contingency approach. In: Intellectual Teamwork: The Social and Technical Bases of Cooperative Work. Lawerence Erlbaum Publishing, Hillsdale, N.J. Habermas, J., 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen handelns, 2 vols. Frankfurt. Hiltz, S.R., Turo€, M., 1985. Structuring computer mediated communication systems to avoid information overload. Communication of the ACM 28 (7), 680±689. Hinds, P., Kiesler, S., 1995. Communication across boundaries: work, structure, and use of communication technologies in a large organization. Organization Science 6 (4), 373±393. Ho€man, R., Zaki, A.S., 1995. The e€ect of hierarchical level and receiver status on managerial communications. Journal of Managerial Issues 7 (2), 222±240. Lind, M.R., Zmud, R.W., 1995. Improving interorganizational e€ectiveness through voice mail facilitation of peer-to-peer relationships. Organization Science 6 (4), 445±461. Markus, M., Bikson, T., Maha, E., Soe, L., 1992. Fragments of you communication: e-mail, v-mail, and fax. Information Society 8 (4), 207±226. McLeod, P.L., 1992. An assessment of the experimental literature on electronic support of group work; results of a meta analysis. Human Computer Interaction 7 (3), 257±280. Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., 1995. The new network ®rm: a spherical structure built on a human investment philosophy. Organizational Dynamics 23 (4), 5±18. Mishra, J., Morrissey, M.A., 1990. Trust in employee/employer relationships: a survey of West Michigan managers. Public Personnel Management 19 (4), 443±486. Mosvick, R.K., Nelson, R.B., 1987. We've got to start meeting like this. New York: Scott Foresman and Company.

304

J.M. Barrett, D.S. Turtz / Telematics and Informatics 15 (1998) 275±304

Olszewski, P., Mokhtarian, P., 1994. Telecommuting frequency and impacts for state of California employees. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 45 (3), 275±286. Pieper, R., 1992. Discursive OD: an alternative to management of organizational culture. Organizational Development Journal 10 (2), 39±47. Randolph, W.A., 1995. Navigating the journey to empowerment. Organizational dynamics 23 (4), 19±32. Rice, R., 1994. Relating electronic mail use and network structure to R and D work networks and performance. Journal of Management Information Systems 11, 9±27. Robbins, S.R., 1996. Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, and Applications. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. Sachs, S., 1994. Building trust in democratic organizations. Psychology A Journal of Human Behavior 31 (2), 35±44. Schein, E.H., 1987. Process Consultation Lessons for Managers and Consultants, Vol. II. Addison Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA. Stevenson, W.B., Gilly, M.C., 1993. Problem solving networks in organizations: intentional design and emergent structure. Social Science Research 22 (1), 92±113. Valacich, J.S., Paranka, D., George, J.F., Nunamaker, J.F., 1993. Communication concurrency and the new media: a new dimension for media richness. Communication Research 20 (2), 249±276. Wellman, B., Sala€, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., 1996. Computer networks as social networks: collaborative work, telework, and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology 22, 213±238. Zack, M.H., McKenney, J.L., 1995. Social context and interaction in ongoing computer supported management groups. Organizational Science 694, 394±422.