The effects of task characteristics and sub-unit structure on dimensions of information processing

information Processrng & Managemen/ Printed in Great Britain.

Vol. 29. No. 6. pp. 703.719.

1993 Copyright 0

THE EFFECTS OF TASK CHARACTERISTICS SUB-UNIT STRUCTURE ON DIMENSIONS INFORMATION PROCESSING

0306-4573/93 $6.00 + .Ml 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd.

AND OF

RACHID M. ZEFFANE Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Commerce, University of Newcastle, Rankin Drive, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia

and FERDINAND A. GUL Department of Accountancy, Faculty of Business Administration, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong

(Received 6 February 1992; accepted in final form 14September 1992)

Abstract-Using survey responses from 1300 full-time employees in the Australian Telecommunications Industry, this paper explores the relative effects of task characteristics and sub-unit structure on aspects of information processing. Results of multiple regressions revealed that task characteristics have a greater impact on amounts and timeliness of information. In contrast, structural characteristics have greater effects on the degree of openness and accuracy of information. More specifically: (a) task variety and task analyzability were found to increase the amount and timeliness of information; (b) greater sub-unit size tends to reduce openness and accuracy of information, while greater participation and formalization tend to increase these. Further scrutiny of these effects revealed that (a) the impact of structural characteristics on information accuracy and openness (i.e., section-level information processing) were strongly moderated by sub-unit size and (b) the effects of task characteristics on amounts and timeliness of information (i.e., individual-level information processing) were strongly moderated by the nature of the job, as strong differences between administrative, managerial, technical, and engineering positions were discovered in this regard.

INTRODUCTION

is processed and distributed in organizational settings remains a topic of prime importance and significant research interest (O’Reilly, 1982; Schick ef al., 1990; Saunders & Jones, 1990; Kim & Lee, 1991). This importance has been enhanced by the organizational dynamics and complexities of contemporary organizations and the increasing potential of information processes to assist in addressing these complexities (Galbraith, 1973; Kim & Lee, 1991). The management of complexity is viewed as the cornerstone of managerial activities and decision makers are often faced with the dilemma of matching their information-processing capacity to the information space dictated by their tasks and associated responsibilities (Campbell, 1988; Espejo 8~ Watt, 1988). On the whoJe, two intrinsic motives seem to have guided the growth in research interest in this area. First, because information is seen as vital to effective decision making (Espejo & Watt, 1988), the study of those conditions which promote effective information processing could constitute a prime element of organizational survival and success (Streufert, 1973; Taylor, 1975; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Second, because information processing is the ‘life-blood’ of organizational dynamics (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), the identification of aspects that might affect the volume and direction of information flows per-se has been regarded as fundamental for any reasonable understanding of these dynamics (Shannon & Weaver, 1949; Galbraith, 1973). There has, unfortunately, been more research emphasis on the former concern and much less on the latter.

The way information

Note: This paper was presented at the United Nations Centre, July 1991, Vienna,

11th EGOS (European Austria. 703

Group

for Organization

Studies) conference,

704

R.M. ZEFFANE and F.A. GUL

Within this latter wave of concern, a substantial amount of research has been invested in attempts aimed at highlighting the effects of task characteristics on various aspects of information processing (Tushman, 1978; Tushman & Nadler, 1978; Griffin, 1983; Thomas & Griffin, 1983; Daft & Macintosh, 1981). In contrast, very few studies have sought to identify the effect of structural characteristics on the amount and flow of information (O’Reilly & Roberts, 1977; Schick et al., 1990). More importantly, only a handful of research attempts have been made to consider both task and structural characteristics as they relate to aspects of information processing (Tushman & Nadler, 1978; Thomas & Griffin, 1983; Schick et al., 1990). Hence, although previous research has been able to show that both the nature of the tasks and aspects of structure tend to affect information processing requisites, it has not been possible to weigh and compare these effects in a single platform of search. The study reported here is an attempt to overcome this drawback. That is, our investigation considers both task characteristics and structural variables and their relative effects on dimensions of information processing, in a single platform of search. Since our study is essentially exploratory, we have not set up any formal hypotheses for testing, but rather suggest some tentative relationships based on the rather undeveloped literature in the area which may provide the basis for more formal hypothesis testing in future research. Moreover, previous studies have tended to focus either on a specific group of employees (managers, for example) or on a cross section of the work-force. In either case, it is not possible to determine whether or not the above characteristics affect information processing requisites, in the same way, for all categories of employees, or whether job categories (as such) tend to moderate these effects. The evidence to date on the relationships between dimensions of information processing and task characteristics and organization structures remains fragmented and tentative (Daft & Macintosh, 1981, O’Reilly & Roberts, 1977). The theory therefore remains undeveloped and unclear. In this light, the present study seeks to provide additional evidence on plausible relationships which may furnish grounds and avenues for future research in this area. More specifically, this exploratory study seeks to shed some light on the following research questions: 1. Do task characteristics, in terms of the degree of variety, analyzability, and interdependence, have any effects on information processing behaviour of individuals in organizations? If so, is this relationship moderated by variables such as job category ? 2. Does organizational structure, in term of size, participation, and formalization, have any effects on information processing behaviour of individuals in organizations? If so, is this relationship moderated by variables such as sub-unit size? INFORMATION

PROCESSING

The concept of information processing may be defined as the process of gathering, interpreting, and synthesizing information in the context of organizational decision making (Tushman & Nadler, 1978). It is a multidimensional concept (Schick et al., 1990) which has been most frequently explored in the context of organizational communication (Zmud, 1978; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). A review of the most recent literature on communication reveals that among the different facets of information processing are: (a) the amount of information; (b) the timeliness of information; (c) the accuracy of information, and (d) the openness of information. These facets have been awarded varying importance. By and large these aspects have been studied either at individual (or job) level (see Rivera et al., 1981) or at the sub-unit level (O’Reilly & Roberts, 1977; Tushman, 1978; Daft & Macintosh, 1981; Chenhall & Morris, 1986). In the present study, the concepts of information processing amounts and timeliness are treated as job (individual) level characteristics, while the concepts of information accuracy and openness focus on the sub-unit. In previous studies, a focus on sub-unit meant that measures obtained through individual responses were subsequently aggregated in order

Effects

of task characteristics

and sub-unit structure

705

to derive global measures allowing for comparisons across sub-units. This is comprehensible when the emphasis is solely on the sub-units (or work units). However, when attempts are made to weigh and compare the relative impact of individual (or job-level) and sub-unit characteristics, it is less plausible to proceed to such aggregations. This is because a subunit aggregation of individual responses on information accuracy (say) cannot be set side by side with responses from the same individuals on aspects of timeliness of information, for the purpose of comparisons. This constraint is reinforced by the fact that the independent variables also refer to varying levels of foci. That is, while task characteristics variables emphasise aspects relating job-levels, structural characteristics refer to more global aspects. To overcome these constraints, we based all our measures of information processing on individual responses. Where sub-unit measures are considered (such as accuracy or openness), the emphasis was more on how individuals (per se) perceived these within their respective sub-units. THE INFLUENCE OF TASK CHARACTERISTICS Recent empirical research has shown that task characteristics constitute important determinants of information processing (Tushman, 1979; Daft & Macintosh, 1981). The main underlying argument is that complex, non-routine tasks tend to set greater information processing requirements than simple, routine tasks (Tushman, 1978, 1979; Bryce, 1990). This is explained through the tight inter-relation that exists between information processing and varying levels of uncertainty (Bryce, 1990). That is, greater task simplicity and routineness minimizes uncertainty, which in turn reduces information processing requirements (Tushman, 1978; Daft & Macintosh, 1981). Drawing from the work of Perrow (1967), some have equated simplicity and routineness with aspects of task variety and task analyzability (Daft & Macintosh, 1981). More specifically, the assumptions and findings indicated that high task variety and analyzability tend to trigger greater uncertainty, which in turn affects the amount of information processing. Individuals in organizations must work together to a varying degree. Task interdependence reflects the degree to which individuals need to work with other individuals in order to accomplish their task(s) (Hrebiniak, 1974; Tushman, 1978; Kiggundu, 1981). Greater task interdependence calls for greater coordination, greater joint decision making, and problem solving. Previous research has not identified precise linkage between interdependence and the amount of information processing. However, some empirical research did indicate that interdependence tends to affect the flow of communication (Tushman, 1979). Greater communication flow, in turn, determines the amount of information processing. THE INFLUENCE OF STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS Organization structure has an important impact on both information requisites (Tushman & Nadler, 1978) and on the ability to deal with such requisites (Tushman, 1979). However, some researchers have contended that structural forms should be viewed as responses to information requisites (Tushman & Nadler, 1978). Others have argued that structural characteristics, as such, tend to influence patterns of information processing (Galbraith, 1973). For instance, Tushman and Nadler (1978) see the role of sub-unit structure as a framework of information capacity designed to respond to specific information processing requirements. In contrast, Galbraith (1973) sees aspects of structuring as ways of containing information flows. However, while there is agreement that structure indeed affects the nature of information processing, the direction of these effects is much less clear. For instance it could equally be argued that larger unit (or sub-unit) size tends to enhance requisites for information (Lal, 1991). This argument underlines requisites imposed by complexity and multiplicity of interactions set by increased size. On the other hand, size could also be viewed as reducing information processing requirements. The argument here would be that larger size involves a greater number of information processing participants and would hence reduce overall requirements through information sharing (Lal, 1991). This argument also supIPM 29:6-C

706

R.M. ZEFFANE and F.A. Cur

poses that larger units have greater capacity to accumulate slack resources, which in turn will act as buffers for information processing requirements (Galbraith, 1973). Also, the varying degree of participation (in decisions) that different structures allow could affect the nature (and degrees) of information processing in different ways (Zeffane, 1989). Greater participation could be synonymous with greater involvement in processing and distributing information. This would signal a tendency for greater information processing, in terms of the degree of accessibility to information by various participants. At the same time, greater participation could also be equated with increased information sharing, which in turn might reduce the overall requisites for information processing, in terms of the amounts. Formalization, or the structural orchestration of rules and regulations (Pugh & Hickson, 1976) might also have varying effects on information processing. Greater rule usage might establish a more standardized framework of interactions, which might limit the intrinsic amount of information flow between participants. MODERATING EFFECTS In considering the effects of job characteristics and structure on information processing, there has been a tendency to focus on uniform samples of managerial (Taylor, 1975; Rivera et al., 1981; Saunders & Jones, 1990) or non-managerial (Tushman, 1979; O’Reilly, 1982) employees or on a cross-section of employees including managerial and non-managerial workforce (O’Reilly & Roberts, 1977; Daft & Macintosh, 1981). In either case, conclusions were drawn from consideration of global samples alone. No attempts have been made to compare patterns of information processing across different job categories. Job categories may or may not be harnessed by consideration of aspects of task characteristics. However, this may be more apparent in the case of comparisons of managerial and non-managerial employments, in general. It is much less evident when categories featuring jobs with administrative, technical, and engineering profiles are entered into the equation. For instance, would the effects of job variety on information processing be the same in the case of each of these job categories? These categories could have an important moderating effect in the relationship between task characteristics and information requirements. We believe that this effect illuminates the job-context variants and is worthy of exploration. These moderating effects (Arnold, 1982; James & Brett, 1984) bear more on the impact of task characteristics than on the relationships involving structure. Also, sub-unit size might moderate the effect of structural characteristics on information processing (Lal, 1991). This moderating effect is most apparent when sub-unit size is transcribed into a discrete (non-continuous) variable, hence allowing for further diagnoses (and comparisons) of these effects across units of varying sizes. Previous studies which have considered the effects of structure (of sub-units) on information processing requirements have not systematically explored these moderating effects (Tushman, 1979; Daft & Macintosh, 1981). Figure 1 shows the exploratory framework of this study. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Setting and sample The data focuses on the Queensland region of a large Australian Public Sector Telecommunication Organization (APSTO). The overall organization is structured on a divisional basis, emphasising types of customers. It operates with four main divisions represented in each region (or State). Three of these are actual end-product/service divisions and the fourth division is made up of a number of shared resource units designed to offer specialised support to the other three. The three main divisions are split on the following basis: Division 1 has the monopoly on the corporate (or large) customers’ market; division 2 focuses on serving customers in the metropolitan areas; and division 3 serves customers based in the outback or country areas. Because of the structural complexity of the organization, it was difficult to pin down a central level which would award official (and effective) authorisation to conduct the

Effects of task characteristics

and sub-unit structure

707

SECTION-LEVEL INFORMATION PROCESSING

Fig.

1. Hypothetical

framework

of the study.

study. To overcome this, letters were sent to all divisions and shared resource units asking for permission to conduct the survey. In many cases, the divisional managers and managers in charge of specific shared resource units (branch managers) passed our query downwards to other branch managers and managers in charge of specific business locations pertaining to the division. In all cases, interviews were held with the relevant branch or regional managers and when permission was given (officially), questionnaires were distributed. The process of data collection was spread over a period of seven months (i.e., from July, 1989 to January, 1990). APSTO (Queensland, Australia) has a full-time workforce of over 16,000 employees. Our aim was to obtain a sample sufficiently representative of the different activities in the regions. Most of the divisions conduct similar activities in different locations within their respective region. For instance the largest division which focuses on the metropolitan customers (markets) has 5500 employees. However, only approximately 700 of these are in distinct, non-replicated activities. The rest of the workforce is distributed across five main locations undertaking similar activities. Where this was the case, we focused on the unique activities and considered the entire workforce of the non-duplicated activities. In most cases, this meant that we had to concentrate on one location within each division (i.e., the location which was most representative of the range of activities of the division). When permission was given, assistance was sought to use the registry (mail distribution) centre of each division as a means of dispatching the questionnaires. The respondents were reassured of confidentiality and were not asked to reveal their identity. They were offered the choice of either returning the completed questionnaire to their divisional registry (addressed to us) or directly to us at our University address. The questionnaires sent to the registry were collected by us. In total, 1300 completed questionnaires were returned for an average response rate, across the four divisions, of 56 (56Vo). Two hundred and thirty-eight (238) of these were from section managers; thirty (30) were from branch managers and three (3) were from divisional managers, the remainder being from other non-managerial work-force, Seventytwo percent (72%) of the employees classified as non-managers (on this basis) were male employees (for 28% females) and eighty-eight percent (88%) in the category of managers were males (for 12% females). APSTO uses a formal grid for classifying its employees into Administrative, Managerial, Engineering, Technical, and Other (including line workers) grades. That classification does not fully reflect ranks on the formal hierarchical structure. That is administrative, engineering, and technical categories also include people we referred

R.M.

708

ZEFFANE and

F.A.

GUL

to as managers, above (i.e., section-heads and branch-heads). In other words, the job categories serve an administrative purpose (such as pay grades) and do not always reflect role attributions in strict hierarchical terms. Table 1 shows the distribution of our sample, by sex and by job classifications. Over 13% of the above responses were from employees of division one (13.66%); almost fifty percent were from division two (48.94%); almost fourteen percent were from division three (12,85%) and the remainder were from the shared resource units (24.55%). This spread of responses across the divisional units is consistent with the relative divisional sizes. The absolute number of responses obtained for each division are representative of the range of activities (and hence types of jobs) carried out, allowing for the above noted duplications. A total of ninety (90) different branches and one hundred and ninety seven (197) sections, operating within the four divisions, are represented in the sample. Not all section and branch heads responded to our questionnaire. We had no control over that since the questionnaires were dispatched from a central level (i.e Divisional or Regional quarters) and were sent directly to the respondents. This is why the number of managers (i.e section-heads, branch-heads and divisional-heads) differs from the number of sections, branches and divisions. The mean section size (in terms of the number of full-time employees) is 20, with a minimum size of 8 and a maximum of 33. The mean age of the respondents is 36. Seventy seven percent (77%) of the respondents are males against 23% females. Just over four percent (4.48%) of the respondents have been in the organization for less than a year while over fifty percent (57.29%) have been in the organization for over twelve and a half years. Measures 1. Structural characteristics. Three structural aspects were assessed in the study. These are: (a) the size of the section (in terms of the number of full-time employees); (b) the degree of participation (in decisions); and (c) the degree of formalization. The participation construct was borrowed from the work of Hrebiniak (1974). It provides a measure of the degree of involvement that the individual employee has in deciding about issues affecting his/her work-group or department. A list of eight typical work decisions were used (Hrebiniak, 1974) and respondents were asked to indicate the amount of involvement they normally/usually have in each decision. A five-point Likert type scale was used for this purpose. The scale ranges from no involvement (scored 0) to full involvement (scored 4). The type of decisions listed were: (a) determining the goals of the section; (b) determining the goals of the branch/department; (c) selecting means or methods to achieve the goals of the section; (d) selecting means or methods to achieve the goals of the branch/department; (e) determining deadlines for section or branch projects; (f) planning for facility expansion and other changes bearing on section and its performance; (g) hiring, firing, or promoting individuals in the section or branch; and (h) altering the administrative procedures, rules, and other controls affecting the section. Formalization refers to the extent to which rules and regulations are used to guide activities and work behaviour within the organization. Previous research on this concept has focused on the total organization (Pugh & Hickson, 1976; Zeffane, 1989). This was

Table 1. Sample distribution by sex and job categories Percentage (of Total Sample)

Actual Job categories Administrative staff Management staff Engineers Technicians Other (include line workers) Total

Males 234 111 128 476 41 1000

Females 277 10 4 13 6 300

Total

Males

Females

Total

511 121 132 489 47

18.85 8.54 9.85 36.62 3.15 77.00

20.46 0.77 0.30 1.00 0.46 23.00

39.31 9.31 10.15 37.62 3.62 100%

1300

Effects of task characteristics and sub-unit structure

709

made possible through targeting chief executives who could provide an organization-wide view of the extent of formalization. This is clearly not the case for individual employees, who could, at most, only provide information relevant to their work-group (i.e., section) or department. The shortcoming of the formalization construct as used in studies focusing on the entire organization is even more pronounced when one considers the size and complexity of the organization under study. In this case, it is virtually impossible to expect individual employees to provide an accurate assessment of the extent of formalization relevant to the entire organization. To overcome this shortcoming, we borrowed the formalization construct from the work of Oldham and Hackman (1981). It focuses on work-group (section or department) levels. A list of six statements (based on the above authors’ work) was provided and respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree that each statement describes patterns of communication and the general climate in the work-group (section). The actual statements used were (a) this section has a very large number of written rules; (b) a rules and procedures’ manual exists and is readily available within the section; (c) there is a complete written job description for most jobs in this section; (d) the organization keeps a written record of nearly every section member’s job performance; (e) there is a formal orientation program for most new members of the section and 60 supervisor(s) in this section always insist(s) that we follow standard practices in work. 2. Task characteristics. Three measures of task characteristics, borrowed from previous research, were assessed in the study. These were Task Variety, Task Analyzability, and Task Interdependence. The operational measures of the concepts of Task variety and analyzability were borrowed entirely from the work of Daft and Macintosh (1981). These concepts originate from the seminal work of Perrow (1967). Task variety refers to the “frequency of unexpected and novel events that occur in the conversion process. . . . Low variety means that participants experience considerable certainty about the occurrence of future activities; high variety means that participants typically cannot predict problems or activities in advance” (Daft & Macintosh, 1981). Task analyzability is concerned with “how individuals respond to problems that arise.” When the conversion process is analysable, participants typically follow an objective, computational procedure to resolve problems. A correct response can usually be identified. However, some work is not analysable, so no objective, computational procedure will tell a person exactly how to respond. Participants may have to spend time thinking about what to do, and they may actively search for solutions beyond normal procedures (Daft & Macintosh, 1981). Both task variety and analyzability were measured on five questionnaire items (statements) and each item was weighed against a five-point scale denoting the extent to which respondents agree or disagree that the statements describe their day-to-day work. The scales ranged from strongly disagree (scoring 1) to strongly agree (scoring 5). The extent to which the nature of the task puts greater demand on collective actions is generally referred to as task interdependence (Hrebiniak, 1974; Tushman, 1979). Recent research identified two main aspects of task interdependence: identified and received interdependence (Kiggundu, 1981). Initiated task interdependence refers to the degree to which work flows from a particular job to one or more other jobs. Received task interdependence refers to the extent to which a person’s job is affected by the workflow from one or more other jobs. In this study, it is the latter concept of task interdependence (i.e., received) which was of greater relevance. The reason for this is that the concept of initiated task interdependence has more to do with the overall sequencing of operations which in turn may be more reflective of the type of technology in use rather than the nature of tasks being performed (Lilic, 1990). Our concern is geared towards the nature of the tasks (as in the case of variety and analyzability, above) and less on the technologically determined aspects of work. For this purpose, the operational measure of the concept of Task Interdependence was borrowed from the work of Hrebiniak (1974). It refers to the amount of work (normal job activities) which require checking or working with others. As in the work of the above researcher, this construct was measured on a single questionnaire item and on a five-point Likert scale. The scale ranged from no work requiring checking or

710

R.M.

ZEFFANE

and F.A.

GUL

working with others (scored 0) to the entire work requires checking or working with others (scoring 4). 3. Information processing. The concept of information processing originates from the works of Shannon and Weaver (1949). It became more popular in the late fifties. Four aspects of information processing were assessed: amount of information processing, timeliness of information, openness of information, and accuracy of information. The operational measure designating the Amount of Information Processing was borrowed from the scale developed (and used) by Daft and Macintosh (1981). The concept of timeliness (Zmud, 1978) of information (and its operational measure) was inspired by the work of Chenhall and Morris (1986). The concept refers to whether it is important that (a) information needed (by the respondent) in his/her normal course of work-activities arrives immediately when requested; (b) such information is supplied to him/her automatically (without request) as soon as it is completed and becomes available; and (c) one or several written report(s) is (are) provided frequently on a systematic regular basis. Respondents were asked to state the extent to which they agree (or disagree) that the above three questionnaire items (formulated in the format of statements) describe their day-to-day activities. Five-point scales were used for this purpose. The overall measure of timeliness was arrived at by aggregating the scores of the three questionnaire items. The concepts of information accuracy and openness were borrowed from the work of O’Reilly and Roberts (1976). As in the case of the above measures, respondents were provided with a number of statements and were asked to indicate (on a five-point scale) to what extent they agree that each statement represents communication in their work groups. The statements (questionnaire items) used were of the following types: “Communication in this section is very open” (openness); “I can think of a number of times when 1 receive inaccurate information from others in this section.” Both information accuracy and information openness were measured by aggregating five questionnaire items. Unlike “amount of information processing” and “timeliness, ” which were based on the individual assessment of his/her daily activities, these two concepts asked respondents to refer fo the nearest group (i.e., the section). Reliability tests Tests of internal consistency were performed on all composite scales. The criterion considered was that each item should have a correlation coefficient with its relevant composite scale (including that item) at least equal to the reciprocal of the square root of the number of items in the scale (i.e., r > l/root of (N - 1)). This method of testing for validity has been found to produce results quite similar to those derived by way of computing the alpha-Cronbach coefficient (Payne & Mansfield, 1977). All of the composite scales were found to be consistent with the above requisite. That is, test on each item showed that they were sufficiently convergent with their relevant composite scale. The mean correlation coefficients between items and scales were: 0.74 for Participation; 0.65 for Formalization; 0.66 for Task Variety; 0.76 for Task Analyzability; 0.80 for Amount of Information Processing; 0.75 for Timeliness of Information; 0.75 for Information Accuracy and 0.77 for Information Openness. To verify the above coefficients, alpha Cronbach coefficients were also computed for each of these constructs. The coefficients obtained were consistent with the above mean-correlation coefficients and were respectively: .71 (participation), .68 (formalization), .64 (task variety), .74 (task analyzability), .83 (amount of information processing), .78 (timeliness of information); .72 (information accuracy), and .75 (information openness). Appendix 1 reports the inter-correlations (matrix) between the main constructs, for the entire sample.

ANALYSESANDRESULTS

Analysis of variance In order to tease out differences that might be tied to (a) the nature of the job and (b) the size of the section, we performed analyses of variance. With regard to job categories,

711

Effects of task characteristics and sub-unit structure

compared administrative, managerial, engineering, and technical staff. The fifth, hybrid, category (i.e., the category labelled “other” in our sample, see Table 1) was not considered in these comparisons, the reason being that it does not feature any distinct job category that might warrant the same treatment as the other categories. With regard to section size, we split our sample into small and large sections. The criterion used for this split was the median size (i.e., 13 employees). Respondents from sections with 13 employees or less were considered to pertain to a small section. Respondents from sections with more than 13 employees were considered to pertain to large sections. Although not central to the arguments of this paper, the results of the analysis of variance allowed us to appreciate similarities and differences, on both the independent and dependent variables, across different job categories and the two categories of section-sizes. The results are shown Tables 2 and 3. These show, quite clearly, that differences on structure (section size excepted) and task characteristics are quite significant across the four categories of employment. However, except for the degree of perceived openness of information, all of the other aspects of information processing are not significantly different across these categories. Given the organizational setting of the present study, managerial and engineering staff tend to participate more in decision making than either administrative or technical staff. Administrative and managerial staff tend to perceive their immediate sub-units (or sections) as being more formalized than engineers and technicians do. Managerial and engineering jobs tend to be more varied (in content), but (surprisingly) administrative and technical jobs tend to demand (or be perceived to demand) greater analyzability. As one would expect, managerial jobs call for greater interdependence. It is quite interesting to note that when comparisons were made between respondents from small and large-size sub-units, aspects of information processing which showed most significant statistical differences were “accuracy of information” and “openness of information.” These aspects are more closely related to sub-unit level processing than are aspects pertaining to “information amounts and timeliness.” The only task characteristic which showed significant variation across small and large sub-units is “task analyzability.” On aspects of structure, respondents from larger sub-units have tended to report less participation and greater formalization.

we

Multiple regressions We subjected the data to multiple regressions, for the overall sample and for each of the above (job-categories and section-size) sub-samples. Consideration of the sub-samples was aimed at testing for potential moderating effects (Arnold, 1982) that differences in the

Table 2. Analysis of variance by iob categories Administrative staff (N= 511) Dependent variables Structure Section-size Participation Formalization Task characteristics Task variety Task analyzability Task interdependence Information processing Amount of info processing Timeliness of information Accuracy of information Openness of information *Degrees of Freedom = 3.

Managerial staff (N= 121)

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

19.71 8.70 17.93

9.62 7.62 4.41

20.86 9.87 20.04 7.92 17.38 4.89

16.26 18.85 2.28

3.52 3.96 0.96

13.06 9.74 15.16 18.40

3.07 2.47 3.65 3.60

Engineers (N= 132) Std.

Mean

Significance level (Prob)

Std.

F Ratio

19.89 9.52 10.98 7.95 16.36 4.92

19.26 9.19 7.62 6.61 16.91 4.08

0.96 77.06 4.50

.411 .OOO .004

18.46 3.23 16.72 4.52 2.76 0.91

18.08 3.19 17.65 4.10 2.48 0.99

17.62 3.09 18.68 3.54 2.60 0.89

18.39 9.37 13.77

.ooo .ooo .ooo

12.53 10.16 15.84 19.51

13.03 3.10 13.24 3.00 9.81 1.94 9.81 2.34 16.01 3.88 15.61 3.57 19.37 2.80 18.85 3.22

1.32 0.75 1.94 3.86

,267 522 .122 .009

3.09 2.05 3.29 2.93

Mean

Technicians (N=489)

R.M. ZEFFANEand F.A. GUL

712

Table 3. Analysis

of variance

Sections with 13 employees or less (small N = 667) Dependent

variables

by section

size

Sections with more than 13 employees (Large N = 633)

Significance level (Prob)

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

F ratio

Structure Section size Participation Formalization

11.35 10.21 16.90

2.35 7.58 4.67

27.97 9.32 17.70

5.98 8.75 4.12

4303.87 2.76 7.02

Task characteristics Task variety Task analyzability Task interdependence

17.41 18.03 2.47

3.31 4.21 0.91

17.12 18.78 2.49

3.47 3.63 0.98

8.56 0.16

,203 .004 .686

Information processing Amount of info processing Timeliness of information Accuracy of information Openness of information

13.29 9.76 15.77 19.15

2.99 2.26 3.65 3.34

12.88 9.91 15.23 18.41

3.09 2.36 3.56 3.29

4.17 0.94 4.92 10.75

,041 .33 .027 ,001

13 Employees is the median size of sections. Degrees of freedom = 1. Sub-samples indicate number of respondents

1.62

,000 ,097 ,008

from ‘small’ and ‘large’ sections.

nature of the job (i.e., job-category) and differences in section-size might incur. Each of the four aspects of information processing (i.e., amount, timeliness, accuracy, and openness; as dependent variables) was regressed against the entire set of structural and task characteristics. The results are shown in Tables 4 and 5. The results of the multiple regressions on the overall sample appear in the last column of these tables. These results show quite clearly that structural characteristics have a greater impact on information openness and accuracy than do task characteristics. In sharp contrast, task characteristics have a greater impact on the amount of information processing and the timeliness of information. This distinction was not clearly made in previous research and suggests that structure and tasks affect different facets of information processing (Kim & Lee, 1991; Lal, 1991). More specifically, task variety and analyzability tend to increase information requirements both in terms of amounts and timeliness. Greater participation tends to call for greater information accuracy and openness. These results vary greatly when sub-samples featuring different job categories are considered, particularly with respect to information amounts and timeliness. The impact of task variety on amounts and timeliness of information processing is significant only in the case of administrative and technical staff. In contrast, task analyzability has a much greater effect on amounts of information processing in the case of managerial employees. When we compare responses from small and large sections, the impact of structural variables on information accuracy and openness also differ. Section-size affects information accuracy positively in small sections and has a reverse effect on that variable in larger sections. This points to curvilinearity between size and accuracy. It may also point to a threshold size-level above which increases in the number of participants tends to reduce the degree of precision of information flow. Participation has a significant positive impact on accuracy, but only in the case of larger sub-units. Interestingly, respondents in positions requiring greater task interdependence, and those in larger sections in particular, have tended to report lower degrees of information accuracy in their work groups. Not surprisingly, greater participation in either small or large sub-units tends to increase information openness, while formalization tends to increase information openness, but only in larger sub-units.

Effects of task characteristics and sub-unit structure

713

Table 4. Multiple regressions (by job category)

Independent variables Timeliness of information as dependent variable Structure Section size Participation Formalization Task characteristics Task variety Task analyzability Task interdependence (Constant) (Multiple R) (F Ratio) Amount of info processing as dependent variable Structure Section size Participation Formalization Task characteristics Task variety Task analyzability Task interdependence (Constant) (Multiple R) (F Ratio)

Administrative staff (N= 511) Stand coeff

Managerial staff (N = 121) Stand coeff

Engineers (N= 132)

Technicians (N = 489)

Stand coeff

Stand coeff

Overall sample* (N = 1300) Stand coeff

-

26=

19c 21a

-

43b

12b 21=

(4.81) (.26) (3.66b)

(4%; (.39) (2.14b)

(4.44) (.50) (4.56=)

(5.24) (.25) (3.51”)

(5.08) (.26) (10.16=)

-14= -

-22= -4ob

-

-Ilb -1lb -

29a II’ (7.15) (.33) (6.41=)

-

37b

-

26= 18b

25= 15=

(13%) (-30) (I .38)

(7.29) (.30) (4?W)

(7.66) (.27) (10.89a)

50b (9.78) (.47) (3.56b)

148 21a

*Category of ‘other job’, N = 47 included in overall sample. Decimal points omitted for stand coefficients. Only those significant stand coefficients are shown.

ap < .001 b.001

FURTHER

ILLUMINATIONS

For further scrutiny of the data and in order to better highlight potential moderating effects, we ran bivariate regressions between selected sets of variables. The advantage of this mode of analysis is that it allows the graphical featuring and comparisons between the different regression lines. Its usefulness also rests upon its power to highlight the effects of single variables (taken in isolation) and test for the intrinsic effects of these. Such effects (and their comparisons) might be masked when more than one independent variable is considered. The results of this analysis are shown in Fig. 2. To construct the graphs featured in this figure, we drew on the above regression results. We selected those independent variables with the greatest degree of prediction of each of the four aspects of information processing. We then ran bivariate regressions between pairs of independent and dependent variables by job categories (for amounts and timeliness of information) and by section size (for accuracy and openness of information). The results indicate sharp contrasts of task and structural effects across different subgroups. Such contrasts are not clearly indicated in the above multiple regression results. The top left-hand graph shows quite clearly that the effect of task variety on amounts of information processing is positive in the case of administrative and technical staff, but negative for managers and engineers. The top right-hand graph shows that the positive effects of task analyzability on timeliness are sharper (i.e., regression slope is much steeper). Interestingly, this effect is minimal in the case of managers. The bottom left-hand graph shows that the impact of section size on information accuracy is different in small sections,

R.M. ZEFFANE and F.A. GUL

714

Table 5. Multiple

Independent

Sections with 13 employees or less Small sections (N = 667)

variables

Openness of information dependent variable Structure Section size Participation Formalization Task characteristics Task variety Task analyzability Task interdependence (Constant) (Multiple R) (F Ratio)

as

Accuracy of information dependent variable Structure Section size Participation Formalization

as

Task characteristics Task variety Task analyzability Task interdependence (Constant) (Multiple R) (F Ratio)

regressions

(by section

size)

Sections with over 13 employees Large sections (N = 633)

_ 22a

29a 17a

1oc

-

(14.02) (.31) (7.59a)

(14.63) (.37) (11.03a)

Overall sample (N = 1300)

-1Ob 25a lob OSb (15.0 (.34) (18.36a)

17a

-14b 17b -

-OSb lob -

-

-

-

(12.07) (.22) (3.43b)

-12b (17.62) (.24) (4.33a)

-07b (16.15) (.16) (3.79a)

“p < .OOl. b.001 < p < .05. c.05.

in comparison with large sections. This impact is positive in sections with 13 employees or less and positive in sections above that size. As already pointed out, this could signal a threshold section-size above which increases in number of participants (or employees) reduces information accuracy, or at least perceived accuracy of information. The bottom right-hand graph shows that the effect of participation on openness is positive in both small and large sub-units. This effect seems, however, to be slightly stronger in larger sub-units. The nature of organizational tasks and administrative structure in the organization studied (APSTO) may provide some clues and explanations for the above results. The administrative and technical problems facing this organization are often dealt with and resolved in terms of “two lines of defence.” For problems of a technical nature, the first line is represented by the technicians who are sent out to investigate complaints or problems at the grass roots level. These problems are often new, non-routine, and require reasonable variety in skills and knowledge. The tasks involved are often timely and problems often require timely responses and resolutions. The timeliness of the operations is often dictated by the fact that operations are based on telecommunication networks, and hence faults (or problems) in the network could trigger a chain reaction in faults and customer complaints. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is a significant relationship between task variety and amounts and timeliness of information for this category of employees. Since the technical problems have to be resolved, invariably, at the technical level, it is not surprising that technicians require more timely information in order to take appropriate actions. It also seems less apparent, in the case of technicians, what the cause-effect relationships are in the case of task analyzability. This might explain the relationship between task analyzability and amounts and timeliness of information for this category of employees. The causeeffect relationships seem, however, to be clearer in the case of engineers who are better

715

Effects of task characteristics and sub-unit structure Impact of TASK ANALYZABILITY on TIMELINESS OF INFORMATION

Impact of TASK VARIETY on INFORMATlON PROCESSING -NT

cJF INFORMATION

PFlOoa=l~

TIMELINESS OF HFORMATION 20

ZOlo-

mnk.lWt

-m 8T_

---EndnDn

I

16 -

14 t 12 ,o

________,--___

6 6 4 a-

2 v-+

6’0

I

s

20

15

10

0, 0

10

5

15

20

TASK VARIETY

1 ,/Impact of PARTICIPATION on INFORMATION OPENNESS

Impact of SECTION SIZE on INFORMATION ACCURACY

OPENNESS OF INFORMATION

ACCURACY OF INFORMATION 2or

34 32 30 26 2s 24

I

/

/

/

/’

/’

22 20 16

/’ /’

1st 14

t

l2t

6’0

L

1

I

5

10

15

a

20

I

25

1

30

SECTION SUE

’

35

I

40

45

50

60

5

10

15

20

25

’ 30

’ 35

’ 40

45

SO

SECTION SIZE

Fig. 2. Graphical representation of the task and structural effects.

qualified. Matters which are more policy-type in nature are passed on to the second line of defence represented largely by a corps of engineers. These problems tend to be relatively less varied than those that are dealt with by technicians. Similarly, administrative staff also lend a hand in the first line of defence before matters sift up to managers who deal more with policy type issues, in this context. Administrative staff tend to face more multifarious administrative problems (unfamiliar and unexpected events) which require a greater amount of information in a timely fashion (McIntosh, 1990). A typical and frequent problem that administrative staff have to deal with, in this particular context, is that of customer queries which often require inputs from technical sections to resolve. This, in turn, places a demand from technical staff for timely information. The need for more information which is timely for both administrative and technical staff is therefore expected (see McIntosh, 1990).

716

R.M. ZEFFANE and F.A. GUI

The results involving comparisons of different sub-unit sizes are consistent with the works of Zadeh (1973) and La1 (1991). These researchers found that the ability to make precise and meaningful statements about a system (or an organization) diminishes as the system (or the organization) becomes larger and more complex. That is, if a work environment is fuzzy, muddled, and indescribable, then an appropriate representation of the system also has to be fuzzy, muddled, and indescribable. Precise messages can oversimplify relatively more complex, ill defined events associated with larger sub-units. CONCLUSION

AND IMPLICATIONS

The aim of this study was to explore the relative effects of task characteristics and subunit structure on aspects of information processing. In support of previous research, our findings suggest that both task variety and sub-unit structure tend to affect requisites for information processing (Tushman, 1978, 1979; Daft & Macintosh, 1981; Thomas & Griffin, 1983). However, our findings strongly suggest that task characteristics affect certain facets of information processing more than others. Task variety tends to increase requisites for information processing (in terms of amounts) while analyzability increases the degree of timeliness. The impact of task variety relates to aspects of uncertainty on the job (Daft & Macintosh, 1981) and calls for greater information requirements to minimize such uncertainties. The impact of analyzability on timeliness underlines the fact that as the need to search for solutions (on the job) increases, the need to obtain illformation timely (shortterm requests) becomes more prevalent than the amount as such. Our findings also suggest that structural aspects (at sub-unit level) tend to impose ways in which information is made available to participants (namely, openness and accuracy), but have minor effects on information amounts and timeliness. There are both methodological and logical explanations to this. First, information amounts and timeliness are variables featuring individual (or job) related requisites for information and are hence more likely to relate to job (or task) characteristics. In contrast, openness and accuracy of information underline group-level information processing (as perceived by respondents) and would hence be expected to relate more strongly to group (or sub-unit) measures of structure. Second, degrees of information accuracy and openness are more likely to result from the overall nature of the interactions between participants in given groups than from how individual jobs are designed. Greater participation (in decisions) and greater formalization are more likely to encourage information openness than does task variety for instance. Our results lend strong support to this claim (Liberatore et al., 1989). By catering to different job categories and section sizes in our model, further scrutiny of the above relationships was made possible. In this light, the above task-related effects on amounts and timeliness of information were found to be non-uniform and varied across different job categories. This phenomenon has not been depicted in previous research. In conjunction with the hypothetical views outlined earlier (refer to Fig. 1) it appears that the effects of task characteristics on information processing are significantly moderated by nature of job. The notion of job categories is not strictly featured in task characteristics and should be given separate consideration in this regard. By catering to small and large subunit size the effects of structure on openness and accuracy were brought to a better light. The effect of size on accuracy was found to be curvilinear. That is, size increases accuracy in small sections while it reduces it in larger ones. Opinions that organizations per se should be viewed as information processing systems have been voiced by many researchers (Tushman & Nadler, 1978; Daft & Macintosh, 1981; Thomas & Griffin, 1983). The more recent empirical studies have clearly indicated that task attributes constitute a major source of variation in information processing requirements (Daft & Macintosh, 1981; Liberatore et al., 1989) and that sub-unit structures represent another source of that variation (Tushman & Nadler, 1978; Tushman, 1979; Lal, 1991). Although most of these opinions emphasise the contingency approach to organization design (Fry & Smith, 1987; Gresov, 1989; Kim & Lee, 1991) there has been a tendency to argue the notion of ‘fit or congruency’ in respect to either task-information-environment

Effects of task characteristics and sub-unit structure

717

(Tushman & Nadler, 1978; Liberatore et al., 1989) or structure-information-environment (Tushman, 1979; Lal, 1991). Where tasks were considered, structure was left out and vice versa (Liberatore et a/. , 1989). Further, despite wide recognition that information processing is pluri-dimensional @mud, 1978; Chenhall & Morris, 1986) models featuring the above notion of fit have had the tendency to emphasis volumes of information flows (or amounts, see for example Tushman &LNadler, 1978) at the expense of other dimensions such as timeliness, accuracy, and openness. The lessons that might be derived from our findings are that contingency models featuring information processing should encompass both task characteristics and structural aspects. Because these sets of independent variables bear varying impacts on different aspects of information, future research should attempt to highlight congruency more specifically. That is, by specifying the tasks-vs.-information and the structure-vs.-information relationships and their consequent effects on performance, that research would provide more precise grounds upon which the contingency model might encompass information processing, in varying contexts (see also Lal, 1991; Kim & Lee, 1991). Also, our findings show that information processing is not a uniform phenomenon. Different employment groups perceive, act (on), and respond differently to constraints imposed by job characteristics in this regard. This tendency has not been explored in previous research and further scrutiny of its relevance might prove valuable. The differences found here, in that regard, could signal the need to give greater consideration to the actions (or reactions) of different organizational sub-cultures (such as the engineering and the administrative sub-cultures) with respect to requisites for information processing (Bryce, 1990; McIntosh, 1990). Sub-cultures situated at boundary-spanning levels (such as management) react differently to uncertainty constraints imposed by lower job-routineness (or greater variety) then those sub-cultures further remote from those levels (such as the technical staff). Organizations today face an uncertain and unpredictable business environment as rapid changes in technology have forced many to make technological adaptations that have stretched the limits of financial and managerial resources (Lilic, 1990). An important determinant of the effectiveness of an organization’s information processing system is the decision maker’s information search behaviour. By defining authority relationships and communications networks, the internal design of the organization directs the flow of information through the system. While organizational design has long been recognized as the primary mechanism for coordinating and integrating the tasks of the organization, our study supports suggestions of other studies (Hrebiniak, 1974; Daft & Macintosh, 1981; Lord & Smith, 1983; Lewis & Fandt, 1989) and makes the implicit suggestion that the firm’s design may affect information search behaviour and subsequent decision making of organization members. The traditional bureaucratic design may be inappropriate for many organizations today, although some benefit from its stiff structure may be derived in some circumstances. Organizations must develop flexible internal designs that permit them to react to uncertain environmental conditions if they are to survive and prosper. Moreover, the introduction of modern information processing technology has substantially modified most administrative processes (Lilic, 1990), and the everyday tasks of administrative functionaries are being changed by new methods of decision making, information processing, and services (see for example McIntosh, 1990). REFERENCES Arnold, H.J. (1982). Moderator variables: A clarification of conceptual, analytic, and psychometric issues. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29(2), 143-174. Bryce, A. (1990). Knowledge organization in an information retrieval task. Information Processing & Manugement, 26(4), 535-542. Campbell, D.J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13(l), 40-52. Chenhall, R.H., & Morris, D. (1986). The Impact of structure, environment, and interdependence on the perceived usefulness of management accounting systems. The Accounting Review, LXI(I), 16-35. Daft, R.L., & Macintosh, N.B. (1981). A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organization work units. Administrufive Science Quarter/y, 26(2), 207-224. Espejo, R., & Watt, J. (1988). Information management, organization and managerial effectiveness. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39(l), 7-14.

R.M. ZEFFANEand F.A.

718

GUL

Fry, L.W., & Smith, B.A. (1987). Congruence, contingency and theory building. Academy ofManagement Review, 17(l), 117-132. Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex organizations. London: Addison-Wesley. Gresov, C. (1989). Exploring fit and misfit with multiple contingencies. Administrative Science Quarter/y, 34(3), 431-453.

Griffin, R.W. (1983). Objective and social sources of information in task redesign, Administrative

Science Quar-

terly, 28(2), 184-200.

Hrebiniak, L. (1974). Job technology, supervision and work-group structure. Administrative

Science Quarterly,

I9(3), 395-410.

James, L.R., & Brett, J.M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journalof

Applied Psychol-

ogy, 69(2), 307-321.

Kiggundu, M.N. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Academy of Management Review, 6(l), 499-508. Kim, S.H., & Lee, J., (1991). A contingent analysis of the relationship between IS implementation strategies and IS success. Information Processing & Management, 27(l), 111-128. Lal, M. (1991). Organizational size, structuring of activities, and control information system sophistication levels: An empirical study. Management International Review, 31(2), 101-l 13. Lewis, P.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989). Organizational design: Implications for managerial decision-making. Advanced Management Journal, 54(4), 13-16. Liberatore, M.J., Titus, G.J., Varano, M.W., & Dixon, P.W. (1989). Experimental investigation of the effects of some information system design variables on performance, preference, and learning. Information Processing & Management, 25(5), 563-577. Lilic, S. (1990). Information technology and public administration in Yugoslavia: The citizen’s influence. Information Age, IZ(l),

9-14.

Lord, R.G., & Smith, J.E. (1983). Theoretical, information processing, and situational factors affecting attribution theory models of organizational behavior. Academy ofManagement Review, 8(l), 50-60. McIntosh, S.S. (1990). Clerical jobs in transition. HR Magazine, 35(9), 70-72. Oldham, G.R., & Hackman, J.R. (1981). Relationships between organizational structure and employee reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks. Administrative Science QuarterIy, 26(l), 66-83. O’Reilly, Ill, C.A. (1982). Variation in decision makers’ use of information sources: The impact of quality and accessibility of information. Academy of Management Journal, 25(4), 756-771. O’Reilly, Ill, C.A., & Roberts, K.H. (1976). Relationships among components of credibility and communication behavior in work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(l), 99-102. O’Reilly, Ill, C.A., & Roberts, K.A. (1977). Task group structure, communication, and effectiveness in three organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(6), 674-681. Payne, R.L., & Mansfield, R. (1977). Relationships of perceptions of organizational climate to organizational structure, context and hierarchical position. In D.S. Pugh & R.L. Payne (Eds.), Organizational structure in its context: The Aston programme III (pp. 134-148). London: Saxon House. Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32(2), 194-208. Pugh, D.S., & Hickson, D.J. (1976). Organization structure in its context. London: Saxon House. Rivera, G.U., Braunstein, D.N., & Hall, P.D. (1981). Managerial information processing: A research review. Administrative

Science Quarterly,

26(2), 116-134.

Roberts, K.H., & O’Reilly, Ill, C.A. (1974). Measuring organizational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 321-326.

Salancik, G.R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative

Science Quarterly,

23(2), 224-253.

Saunders, C., & Jones, J.W. (1990). Temporal sequences in information acquisition for decision making: A focus on source and medium. Academy of Management Review, IS(l), 29-46. Schick, A.G., Gordon, L.A., & Haka, S. (1990). Information overload: A temporal approach. Accounting, Organizations & Society, I5(3), 199-220.

Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematicaI theory of communication, Urbana II: University of IIlinois Press. Streufert, S.C. (1973). Effects of information relevance on decision making in complex environments. Memory and Cognition,

I(3), 224-228.

Taylor, R.N. (1975). Age and experience as determinants of managerial information processing and decision making performance: Academy of Management Journal, 18(l), 74-81. Thomas, J., & Griffin, R. (1983). The social information processina model of task desian: A review of the literature. Academy.of Management Review, 8(4), 672-682. Tushman, M.L. (1978). Technical communication in R&D laboratories: The impact of project work characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 21(4), 624-645. Tushman, M.L., & Nadler, D.A. (1978). Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design, Academy of Management Review, 3(4), 613-624. Tushman, M.L. (1979). Work characteristics and sub-Unit communication structure: A contingency analysis. Administrative

Science Quarterly,

Zadeh. L.A. (1973). Outline of a new

24(l),

82-97.

aDDrOaCh

to the analvsis of comolex systems and decision mocessors. IEEE

Transactions on Engineering Management,

SMC(3), 28-45.

-

_

Zeffane, R.M. (1989). Computer use and structural control: A study of Australian enterprises. Journal of Management Studies, 26(6), 621-648.

Zmud, R.W. (1978). An empirical investigation of the dimensionality of the concept of information, Decision Sciences, 9(2), 187-195.

Effects

of task characteristics

and sub-unit

APPENDIX Intercorrelations Matrix

structure

719

1 (Pearson) Statistics

Sl

S2

S3

Tl

T2

T3

I1

I2

I3

14 Mean Std.

Structure Sl-Section size SZ-Participation S3-Formalization

-06’ 08b -03

-

19.59 9.46 9.77 8.19 17.29 4.42

Task Characteristics Tl-Task variety TZ-Task analyzability T3-Task interdependence

47a -17a -05 08b -22a 50a -27a 19” -06’ 23= -002 01

17.26 3.39 18.40 3.95 2.48 0.94

Information Processing I l-Amount 12-Timeliness 13-Accuracy I4-Openness

--lob 01 -09b -1lb

“p < .OOl b.OOl

-02 07b 12b 31=

06c 12= -04 07=

16a 12b lib 19” 08b -06c 2oa -04

04 09b -04 lla

24= -02 -09b 04 03 49= -

13.09 9.83 15.51 18.79

3.05 2.31 3.61 3.34