|
This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Jan 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Group communication, technology and college newspaper editors
1
2
ABSTRACT
Although numerous studies have looked at the impact of technology on
organizations in general, fewer have looked at the impact on media as
organizations. This
study is a step in that direction. About 50 student editors at
college newspapers in Texas
were asked to complete a portion of the Downs-Hagen Communication Satisfaction
Questionnaire and other measures of group satisfaction and work group
cohesiveness.
The audit includes statements of the frequency of use of various
kinds of media as well as
measures of how effective the respondent finds organizational communication.
Respondents also completed a series of questions regarding
communication episodes and
the technology used for them. Finally , respondents gave demographic
information such
as number of hours worked, number of co-workers, etc. Interesting
findings include that
both overall number of communication episodes and episodes of written
communication
were both low, but satisfaction with the communication at the
publication was generally
high. This paper will look at components of organizational
communication satisfaction
and how they are related to overall communication patterns and to
communication using
technology.
INTRODUCTION
Newsrooms are a peculiar form of organization that share some characteristics
with other organizations and are unique in other characteristics.
Like many organizations,
newsrooms are heavily dependent on technology. The history of media technology
stretching back to Gutenberg suggests that emerging technologies
affect both how often
news appears and what can be included in it. Technology affects the
editor's job both in
3
the job of pagination and in the need for communication with those
both inside and
outside the newsroom. Newsrooms share communication characteristics
with multi-office
organizations in that the copy editors generally work a rather
different shift from the
reporters. A difference would be that since they are physically
located in the same area,
their paths can cross more often than workers on the two U.S. coasts,
for example. This
difference in shifts means that editors are required to rely on
technologies such
telephones, pagers and e-mail in order to access other workers on
whom the editors are
interdependent. Editors, writers and photographers work with others
to create an object -
the newspaper - and their ability to communicate is crucial to the
object's success.
Another important difference is public scrutiny. Journalists present
their work to
the public for inspection daily and are expected to be receptive to
that public. A
communication error leading to a fact problem might mean a reprimand
from a superior
in a corporate environment. The same problem at a newspaper could
mean a loss of
credibility for the entire publication and/or for the writer. Also,
the deadline-oriented
nature of journalistic work means that in many ways, the slate is
wiped clean after each
day's issue (long-term projects not withstanding). Each day for the
editor represents a
new set of challenges, and, as deadline approaches, a new set of
stresses. Many other
organizations have been studied to see what effect technology has on
them. Because of
the interesting characteristics of newsrooms, this paper attempts to
examine the effects of
technology on organizational communication in newsrooms.
Many authors have looked at the impact of technologies on education in
journalism and in other fields. A 1996 survey of college computing
services revealed that
one in four colleges use e-mail and use of other multi-media
communication tools were
4
on the rise (Deloughry 1996). Prior to the survey, several other
studies suggested the use
of e-mail in the classroom leads to greater collaborative efforts and
cohesion among
students. These studies asserted this lead to self-paced, independent
workers, increased
performance on exams, and perceived quality of the course and
effectiveness of the
instructor (Coulehan, Williams, and Naiser, 1995; Krooneberg 1995;
McCombs, 1994;
Beauvois, 1995; Elasmer and Carter, 1996; McCollum, 1997; Guardo and
Rivinius, 1995;
and Zack, 1995). Hunter and Allen and Schmitz and Fulk (1991) also
found that user
satisfaction and frequency of e-mail use can be predicted by the
"media richness" model.
But less work has been done on the impact of technology on student
publications.
RELATED WORK
Organizational Communication Satisfaction
Communication satisfaction within organizations is presently conceptualized as
multi-dimensional with aspects including horizontal communication, vertical
communication and organizational factors such as communication climate (Downs,
1988). Several researchers have found that the context - for example
the setting or the
technological substitute for the setting - in which a group interacts
affects both process
and outcome (Bettenhausen, 1991). Context is important in determining
expectations
which ensure the success of the communication (Kluger, 1991).
Caldwell & Taha (1993)
found that interacting over technology actually makes users feel more
lonely and isolated.
If the medium does form the context, shaping the interactions, it
could have a real impact
on the functioning of organizational groups and in particular their
group process. It is
therefore important to address the role that particular communication
technologies will
play in modifying important group interaction variables. This affects
the quality of the
5
work. As Downs (1988) notes, "Monitoring of how well employees are
communicating is
particularly important for organizations because their very survival
depends on their
ability to coordinate and exchange information."
Group Satisfaction
Work on the concept of work group satisfaction has been sketchy, although
researchers have reported that satisfaction as a construct has
important impacts on group
performance. Many studies have included satisfaction as a single
variable concept.
Keyton (1991) did some research into the dimensions of satisfaction
and notes that work
group satisfaction may be a multi-dimensional construct with global
and situational
components and satisfiers and dissatisfiers.
Group satisfaction also affects group outcomes. When Dorfman, (1984) studied
business students working on a decision-making project, he found that
groups that
reported higher satisfaction spent more effort on the project and
made better decisions.
Hagen (1985) suggests that continuing in a group depends on how
rewarding the group
activity is. Satisfaction also increases the chance that divergent
ideas will be brought up
because the divergers trust the other members. Other studies have
found a correlation
between satisfaction and positive outcome. Savicki (1996) extends
this by noting that
satisfaction with group processes via CMC may be related to whether
or not users can use
CMC to communicate effectively. Straus (1996) had a conflicting
finding that although
media didn't affect performance over CMC, using CMC lowered group
satisfaction.
Group processes can be an important determinant of group satisfaction. When
Hornsby (1994) compared group problem solving using the Nominal Group
Technique
and the Delphi Method, he found that groups had different levels of
satisfaction
6
depending on the technique used. Valacich (1992) found that smaller
groups and groups
in which members knew each other were more satisfied. And Wall Jr.
(1987, 1987a)
found that conflict and its management was related to satisfaction.
Satisfaction was found
to be negatively related to presence of conflict (1987). Integrative
conflict management
styles led to greater work group satisfaction (Wall Jr, 1987a)
leading to the conclusion
that "satisfaction with a group's decision making is significantly
related to the strategies
and tactics group members use in their management of conflict."
Work group satisfaction is likely to be influenced by technology and work
scheduling in two ways - the loss of face-to-face time and the use of
technological
mediation in communication. For example, if the members of the group
find that it takes
longer for them to negotiate difficulties and resolve conflicts when
they do not see each
other, it may lead to lower satisfaction. Spending time apart may
also mean that group
members have less opportunity to get to know each other. This can lead to
misunderstandings and therefore dissatisfaction. Also, technological
mediation has been
shown to lengthen decision-making time and make it harder to reach common
understanding/consensus (Walther, 1992). The limited bandwidth of
some media could
also cause the same problems, with members not knowing each other well.
Group Cohesion
Researchers have speculated on a number of possible definitions for
cohesiveness.
Research, dating back to the 1930s, has included attitudinal and
affective dimensions of
cohesiveness (Cartwright & Zander, 1968). For example, Carron (1995) defines
cohesiveness as "the dynamic property that is reflected in the
tendency for a group to
stick together and remain united in goals and objectives."
Friedlander notes (1987) that
7
"Group cohesion refers to the degree to which work group members form a strong
collective unit and are drawn inward to the centrality of the group.
Cohesion is related to
the willingness of members to commit energy and resources to the
group." Tziner et al.
(1986) draw their definition of cohesion from both similarity theory
- how similar group
members are to each other, and equity theory - how well outcomes are
distributed. Stokes
(1983) examines three constructs thought to be related to cohesion:
1) attraction to
individual members of a group, 2) the instrumental value of the
group, and 3) risk-taking
behaviors that occur in the group. Stokes notes that the Gross
Cohesion Scale investigates
these constructs and is the most widely used measure in the literature.
Different studies have suggested that group cohesion may have a number of
benefits to organizations. For example, Dailey (1977) suggests that
cohesiveness has
been shown to affect group productivity, the maintenance of group
membership, member
conformity and group loyalty. Productivity and cohesiveness have been
shown to be
interrelated. In Evans' 1980 review article, cohesion is cited to
contribute to various
group processes, including conformity, productivity, and behavior
change. It has been
related to the maintenance of membership and the success a group
enjoys in achieving the
goals it sets for itself. O'Keefe's studies in 1975 suggest that
cohesion makes groups more
likely to try new innovations. His studies further suggest that if
cohesive groups have a
norm of high performance, it pushes all members to higher personal
performance, such
that members of cohesive groups work harder towards group goals, a
finding shared by
Dobbins (1986) and Kraus (1980). Further, O'Keefe suggests,
cohesiveness and quantity
of communication both internally and externally are related
positively, so cohesive
groups accept more new ideas.
8
Researchers have also speculated on the effects of cohesiveness on
group process.
Wright (1986) cites studies which suggest that there is a
relationship of cohesiveness to
good outcomes from group. Dobbins (1986) further claims that cohesive
groups are more
productive because they devote less of their energy to group
maintenance issues while
Kraus (1980) found that when a task needs problem solving, a cohesive
structure results
in more achievement. Evans (1986) found that cohesiveness is linked
to a number of
group outcomes including retaining members, attending regularly, and
contributing to
group discussion. However, the relationship between cohesiveness and
group process
works both ways. Carron (1995) reported that group size generally had
an effect on
cohesiveness. Gully (1995) suggests evidence for the relationship of
cohesion and
productivity are mixed. But, Friedlander (1987) notes that cohesion
is important because
it affects how the group interfaces with the larger system of which
it is a part.
Scientists who have studied group effects in general and cohesion in
particular
have cautioned against carelessly choosing the level of analysis.
Evans (1980) found that
in spite of the importance that has been placed on cohesion in
different kinds of groups,
both its definition and its measurement are unclear. Measuring
cohesion generally
involves measuring individual group members and averaging them. "This
technique
assumes, with little justification, that the whole is little greater
than the sum of its parts,"
she reports. Friedlander's 1987 work adds that groups need to be seen
as subsystems of
the larger organization when studied. "A work group, like any other
system, adapts,
learns and changes by receiving feedback both from within its
boundaries and from the
larger organizational environment," he notes. Gully (1995 ) suggests
that "researchers
have often operationalized the cohesion construct at the individual
level and generalized
9
findings to the group level. Alternatively, in an attempt to assess
cohesion as a grouplevel
construct, many researchers have measured cohesion by aggregating individual
level responses. Although aggregated individual data may be an
appropriate way to
assess group cohesion, it is first necessary to examine the degree of
consensus at the
individual level. Only when there exists an acceptable degree of
consensus can individual
data be aggregated to form a group-level construct." In this study,
rather than looking at
the actual cohesion in the group, which the above researchers indicate may be
problematic, the researcher instead looked at how cohesive the
individuals perceive their
group to be. Many of the beneficial aspects of cohesive groups such
as improving
performance, increasing loyalty and improving productivity will be true
Impact of technology
Technology affects certain aspects of organizational structure and coworker
relations, and organizational communication, may be altered.
Therefore, group outcome
variables may be influenced. Culnan & Markus (1987) further this
notion, suggesting that
"introducing new technologies that alter communication activities can
influence key
aspects of organizational structure and process." Gibbs (1994) concluded that
technological variables are stronger predictors of social roles than
environmental
variables.
Technology can also affect the social world by changing the
relationships of those
in the organization. For example, researchers have looked at the
effect of others, one's
social network, in influencing technology adoption and use decisions.
Fulk found that
work members share patterns of meaning and action concerning communication
technology (Fulk, 1993). Her study of e-mail use among scientists and
engineers found
10
that technologies are problematic for researchers because they can be
interpreted in
multiple ways. Theories of social construction say "interactions with
social agents control
the technologies and their effects and attitudes towards and uses of
technologies converge
in social systems." However, the construction is not limited to
physical characteristics,
but can evolve through the "joint sensemaking within social systems."
The social
influence model of technology use Fulk describes (1993) posits that multiple
psychological processes explain group-defined patterns of utility and
use for a
technology.
Media richness has gone from the darling of communication technology research
to a big question mark. The media richness idea (Daft and Lengel,
1984) borrows from
information theory to claim that technologies have inherent
capability to transmit
information The capability depends on the type of technology. These
technologies can
be arrayed along a continuum of richness, usually ranging from mass
mailings (low) to
face-to-face (high).
Some authors note that electronic media are difficult to reconcile
with present
conceptualizations of richness. Sullivan notes (1995) that simply the
change in the
technology could make media richness difficult to accept. "The
concepts of social
presence, media richness, and media appropriateness assume that the
range of material is
fairly well defined, with "rich" or "lean" characteristics. When
computer-based media
such as electronic mail are introduced, though, the communication
attributes of the
channel can become less clear."
Ultimately, media richness may suffer because it fails to take into
account the
ability of the motivated communicator to put the cues in that the
medium may take out.
11
As Morris and Ogan note (1996) "Clearly, there is room for more work
on the social
presence and media richness of Internet communication. It could turn
out that the Internet
contains a very high degree of media richness relative to other mass
media, to which it
has insufficiently been compared and studied." The authors also note
that networked
communication still has social control through things like flaming.
More recent studies have confirmed an uncertainty about the characteristics of
media as pertain to communication. For example, Waldeck, Seibold and
Flanagin (2004)
found that face-to-face communication and technology use were both
important in
helping new members of an organization assimilate into the
organization's culture.
Similarly, van den Hooff (2004) found that a combination of personal
and technological
attributes were important. The difference may come on the human side
of the equation,
DeRosa et al. found (2004), as they concluded "humans remain the most
complex and
flexible part of the communication system." Also, Yoo and Alavi
(2001) found that the
cohesion of the group was more important than the technology employed
in encouraging
consensus among group members.
But the interaction between technology and its users remains an important and
underresearched area. Tanis and Postmes (2003), for example, found
that mediated
communication does forward fewer social cues, but that this may not
matter. Ducheneuat
and Bellotti (2003) suggest that the task at hand matters, also. They
found that e-mail was
superior to face-to-face communication for discussing objects.
Similarly, Bouwman and
Van de Wijngaert (2002) found that medium choice by people who have
one depends on
the task they are trying to do.
Fortunately standardized scales exist that consider matters of both group
12
communication and technology factors. Within the newsroom, clearly both
communication and technological mediation factors are important and
the researcher is
particularly interested in the following research questions:
RQ1: What communication technologies do editors choose to use
RQ2: What communication technologies are linked with the greatest
organizational
communication satisfaction
RQ3: What communication technologies are linked with the greatest group
communication satisfaction
RQ4: What communication technologies are linked with the greatest group
communication cohesion
METHODS
The Downs-Hagen Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (Downs, 1988)
was used to measure satisfaction with organizational communication
relationships. This
measure was designed to provide a way, cross-organizationally to
study employee
satisfaction with their communication relationships at work. This
questionnaire has been
used and validated in the US and internationally in several types of
organizations.
Through pretesting, Downs and Hagens identified 8 dimensions of
communication which are represented as subscales in the instrument including:
1. Satisfaction with communication climate
2. Satisfaction with superiors
3. Satisfaction with organizational integration (how much information
the individual
13
receives about the larger organization)
4. Satisfaction with media quality (how good are particular channels)
5. Satisfaction with horizontal and informal communication
6. Satisfaction with Organizational Perspective (overall goals,
policies and financial
health of the organization)
7. Satisfaction with subordinates
8. Satisfaction with personal feedback (knowing how you are being judged)
In subsequent use of the questionnaire in numerous organizations, researchers
found adequate intra-scale consistent and tested validity through
comparing results on the
measure with other measures of organizational satisfaction. Although
the scale was
originally tested with 7-point Likert-type scales, the authors
suggest using the instrument
offering participants a 10-point choice to provide a greater choice
to respondents. The
scale was used exactly in this way including instructions as shown in
Downs (1988). A
total of 38 questions that relate to satisfaction were used.
A modified version of the Gross Cohesiveness Scale was used to measure group
cohesiveness. Researchers have defined cohesiveness, satisfaction and
trust as some
variables of interest in group functioning and process (Cartwright &
Zander, 1968;
McGrath et. al, 1984; Johnson & Fortman, 1988; Keyton, 1991;
Littlepage, Cowart &
Kerr, 1989; Zand, 1972). However, the literature has conflicting
conceptualizations and
measurement schemes for cohesiveness and satisfaction. Researchers
have noted (Cota,
Dion & Evans, 1993), though, that the Gross Cohesiveness Scale
(Gross, 1957) is one of
the most commonly used. This scale uses six four-point Likert-type
items to measure
cohesiveness as attraction to one's group. Several reviews and
retests of the scale were
14
positive, showing reliability, unidimensionality and concurrent
validity (Cota, Dion &
Evans, 1993). Items related to the affective component of
cohesiveness (Johnson &
Fortman, 1988) were modified for this experiment to make sense when discussing
computer technology using the method found in (Sturgill, 1998)
The concept of satisfaction has been less clearly explicated and an
agreed-upon
measure of group satisfaction was not found. Keyton did some scale
development work
(Keyton, 1991) beginning with participants' conceptions of
satisfaction and came up with
scale items that could be used to measure satisfaction. She noted
that satisfaction may be
a multidimensional construct with global and situational components
and satisfiers and
dissatisfiers. She generated test items for each combination of component and
satisfier/dissatisfier. Nine Likert-type items representing global
satisfiers were selected
and put into a scale for this research. Individual items relating to
each participant's desire
to continue to work with the same group were used as measures of
group sustainability.
The Gross Cohesiveness scale and a pre-tested version (Sturgill,
1998) of the Keyton
items were used.
The population of editors was drawn from copy editors at college
newspapers in a
southwestern state. This population was chosen in part because of
college students' early
adoption of communication technology, which helped to ensure that
those surveyed
would be familiar with the technologies about which questions were
asked. Also this
population was easy for the researcher to identify. Limitations of
this population will be
discussed later in the paper.
Contact with the editors began with contact with their advisers. In
the Spring of
2003, all advisers listed with the state Intercollegiate Press
Association (number of
15
schools approx 105) were sent a letter (see appendix) asking for
cooperation. Ten days
later, the advisers were contacted by telephone and asked if their
school will participate
and asked to give a number of survey instruments required. The
instruments were sent to
the advisers along with consent forms for the students and envelopes
for return. The
advisers distributed questionnaires to the students and collected
them in signed, sealed
envelopes. A total of 53 responses representing 14 publications were
coded and entered
into SPSS for analysis.
RESULTS
It is interesting to consider some overall rates as reported by the
editors. The
editors did not report much communication at work over the course of
a week, averaging
25 episodes. This includes face-to-face communication. But generally,
they were satisfied
with their communication at work, with a mean satisfaction of 8 out
of a possible 10
ranking. They were somewhat less satisfied with their communication
in their immediate
work group, ranking this a 3 out of 4. But the editors reported that
they were close,
ranking their cohesion as 22 out of 24.
As indicated in Table 1, editors chose a wide variety of communication methods
in the course of a week. Although the workers at a newspaper are
distributed, face-to-face
communication was still commonly used, with all respondents reporting
that they had at
least one meeting with two or more others during the week. E-mail was
also frequently
used for work communication, while telephone was used somewhat less.
Non-electronic
communication such as memos and faxes were infrequently used, as were
more complex
electronic communication such as a BBS or an Intranet.
Table 1: Frequency of use of various communication methods,
percentage of respondents
reporting
Face-to-face, 2 people
Fewer than 1 per week
1 per week
2 or 3 per week
4 or 5 per week
6 or more per week
Face-to-face, more than 2 people
1 per week
2 or 3 per week
4 or 5 per week
6 or more per week
Telephone
Fewer than 1 per week
1 per week
2 or 3 per week
4 or 5 per week
6 or more per week
Memo
Fewer than 1 per week
1 per week
2 or 3 per week
4 or 5 per week
6 or more per week
Fax
Fewer than 1 per week
1 per week
2 or 3 per week
6 or more per week
16
1.9
5.7
22.6
17.0
52.8
7.5
32.1
24.5
35.8
25
18.9
28.3
5.7
20.8
37.7
23.5
17.6
9.8
9.8
82.7
5.8
5.8
5.8
Email
Fewer than 1 per week
1 per week
2 or 3 per week
4 or 5 per week
6 or more per week
Online BBS
Fewer than 1 per week
1 per week
2 or 3 per week
4 or 5 per week
Intranet
Fewer than 1 per week
1 per week
2 or 3 per week
4 or 5 per week
6 or more per week 9.6
Research questions 2-4 dealt with the relationship between technology
choice and
the organizational outcomes of organizational communication
satisfaction, group
communication satisfaction and group cohesion. Table 2 presents the
surprising results of
a correlation matrix among the technologies and these variables. As
the table indicates,
there were few significant relationships. Using face-to-face
communication (not really
even a technology) was related to a feeling of group cohesion, while
attending meetings
of more than a pair did not show the same effect. The other two
significant relationships
were negative. Using memos at work was negatively related to
satisfaction with one's
work group and using a BBS was negatively related to a feeling of cohesion.
13.2
17.0
34.0
11.3
24.5
86.0
6.0
4.0
4.0
61.5
13.5
11.5
3.8
17
18
Table 2: Correlation of communication satisfaction, group
communication satisfaction
and group cohesion with use of communication media (significance)
Group cohesion Group Satisfac. Org. Satisfac.
Face-to-face, 2 .115 (.45) -.019 (.9) .300 (.03)
Face-to-face, 3+ .188 (.21) -.065 (.67) .057 (.67)
Telephone .070 (.62) -.273 (.07) .084 (.59)
Memo -.048 (.76) -.428 (.00) -.195 (.18)
Fax .204 (.18) .011 (.94) .037 (.8)
Email .007 (.96) -.003 (.99) -.096 (.5)
BBS -.113 (.47) -.083 (.59) -.502 (.00)
Web -.125 (.41) -.039 (.8) -.016 (.91)
Intranet -.138 (.37) -.063 (.68) -.031 (.82)
DISCUSSION
Overall, college copy editors appear to be a solitary lot. In
general, they don't
communicate with others that much, yet they remain reasonably content
with their
communication situation and with their work groups. Although technology makes
available to them channels through which they can communicate, choosing one
technology or another does not seem to have an impact on the quality
of the work
communication. The number or quality of social cues presented through
the media, as
would be defined by media richness theory, also does not seem to have
much effect.
Although it would be possible to say that memos are negatively
related to group
satisfaction because they present communication that has limited
social cues and that
BBS use is negatively related to cohesion because the users have
found ways to include
the social cues, but in a bad way, these data are not really rich
enough to support such
assertions.
The relatively closed population of college copy editors, combined with the
19
difficulty of knowing the population size make this study's results
limited in their
generalizability. It would be interesting to extend this study to a
group of professional
copy editors. Also, although the Downs-Hagen audit has the advantage
of multiple tests,
which show its reliability, it has the disadvantage of being somewhat
dated and leaving
out newer technologies such as cell phones, pagers and instant
messages. A replication of
this study including newer forms of communication technology could be
useful in
fleshing out if college editors really don't communicate much, or if they are
communicating via other methods.
REFERENCES
Beauvois, M. (1995). E-talk: Attitudes and motivation in
computer-assisted classroom
discussion. Computers and the Humanities, 28 (3), 177-190.
Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we
have learned and
what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17(2), 345-381.
Bouwman, H; Van de Wijngaert, L. 2002. Content and context: an
exploration of the
basic characteristics of information needs. New Media & Society 4
(3): 329-353.
Caldwell, B., & Taha, L. (1993). Starving at the Banquet: Social
Isolation in Electronic
Communication Media. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 1(1).
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Groups and Group Membership:
Introduction. In D.
Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics: Research and Theory
(pp. 45-62). New
York, NY: Harper and Row.
Cota, A., Dion, K., & Evans, C. (1993). A reexamination of the
structure of the Gross
Cohesiveness Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 499-506.
Coulehan, C, Williams, P. C, &• Naiser, C. (1995)."Using electronic
mail for small-group
curriculum in ethical and social issues." Academic Medicine, 79 (2), 158-160.
Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Communication Technologies. In
F. M. Jablin,
L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational
Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 420-443).
Newberry Park: Sage.
Daft, R.L. & Lengel, R.H. (1984). Information richness: a new
approach to managerial
20
behavior and organizational design. In: Cummings, L.L. & Staw, B.M.
(Eds.), Research
in organizational behavior 6, (191-233). Homewood, IL: JAI Press.
Dailey, R. C. (1977). The effects of cohesiveness and collaboration
on work groups: A
theoretical model. Group and Organization Studies, 2(4), 461-469.
Deloughrey, T.J. (November 22, 1996). "Campus computer use is
increasing but not as
fast as in previous years." The Chronicle of Higher Education, XLIII,
(13), A21-22.
DeRosa, DM; Hantula, DA; Kock, N; D'Arcy, J. 2004. Trust and
leadership in virtual
teamwork: A media naturalness perspective. Human Resource Management 43 (2-3):
219-232.
Dobbins, G., & Zaccaro, S. (1986). The effects of group cohesion and
leader behavior on
subordinate satisfaction. Group and Organization Studies, 11(3), 203-219.
Dorfman, P. W., & Stephan, W. G. (1984). The effects of group performance on
cognitions, satisfaction, and behavior: A process model. Journal of
Management, 10(2),
173-192.
Downs, C. (1988). Communication Audits. New York: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Ducheneaut, N; Bellotti, V. 2003. Ceci west pas un objet? Talking
about objects in email.
Human-Computer Interaction 18 (1-2): 85-110.
Elasmar, M. 6- Carter, M. (1996). "Use of e-mail by college students
and implication for
curriculum. "Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 51, (2), 46-54.
Evans, N. J., & Jarvis, P. A. (1980). Group cohesion: A review and
evaluation. Small
Group Behavior, 11(4), 359-370.
Friedlander, F. (1987). The ecology of work groups. In J. W. Lorsch
(Ed.), Handbook of
Organizational Behavior (pp. 301-314). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of
Management Journal, 36(5), 921-950.
Gibbs, B. (1994). The effects of environment and technology on
managerial roles.
Journal of Management, 20(3), 581-604.
Guardo, C. S- Rivinius, S. (1995). "Save before closing: Bringing
technology to the
liberal arts." Liberal Education, 22-27.
Hagen, B. J. H., & Burch, G. (1985). The relationship of group
process and group task
accomplishment to group member satisfaction. Small Group Behavior,
16(2), 211-233.
21
Hornsby, J. S., Smith, B., & Gupta, J. N. D. (1994). The impact of
decision-making
methodology on job evaluation outcomes: A look at three consensus
approaches. Group
& Organization Management, 19(1), 12-128.
Hunter, J. S- Allen, M. (1992). "Adaptation to electronic mail."
Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 20 (3), 254-274.
Johnson, M., & Fortman, J. (1988). Internal structure of the Gross
Cohesiveness Scale.
Small Group Research, 19(1), 146-152.
Keyton, J. (1991). Evaluating individual group member satisfaction as
a situational
variable. Small Group Research, 22(2), 200-219.
Kluger, A. N., Alder, S., & Fay, C. (1991). Computerized Feedback
Effects on Feedback
Seeking, Performance and Motivation. In x (Ed.), IFIP WG 9.1 Working
Conference on
Human Jobs and Computer Interfaces, (pp. North Holland, Elsevier).
Tampere, Finland:
North Holland, Elsevier.
Kraus, W. A. (1980). Collaboration in organizations: Alternatives to
Hierarchy. New
York: Human Sciences Press.
Kroonenberg, N. (1995). "Developing communicative and thinking skills
via electronic
mail." TESOL Journal, 4 (2), 24-27.
Littlepage, G., Cowart, L., & Kerr, B. (1989). Relationships between
group environment
scales and group performance and cohesion. Small Group Behavior, 20(1), 50-61.
McCoIIum, M. (February 21, 1997). "A professor divides his class in
two to test value of
on-line instruction." The Chronicle of Higher Education XLII (24), A23.
McComb, M, (1994). "Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college
courses." Communication Education, 43 (2), 159-170.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Morris, Merrill, and Christine Ogan, 1996. The Internet as a Mass
Medium. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 1, No. 4.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/annenberg/vol1/issue4/morris.html (2 Sep. 1997)
O'Keefe, R. D., Kernaghan, J. A., & Rubenstein, A. H. (1975). Group
cohesiveness: A
factor in the adoption of innovations among scientific work groups.
Small Group
Behavior, 6(3), 282-292.
Savicki, V., Kelley, M., & Lingenfelter, D. (1996). Gender and group
composition in
small task groups using computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human
22
Behavior, 12(2), 209-224.
Schmitz.J. Fulk,]. (1991). "Organizational colleagues, media
richness, and electronic
mail." Communication Research, 18 (4), 487-523.
Stokes, J. P. (1983). Components of group cohesion: Intermember attraction,
instrumental value, and risk taking. Small Group Behavior, 14(2), 163-173.
Straus, S. G. (1996). Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and
information distribution on participation and performance in
computer-mediated and
face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 27(1), 115-142.
Sturgill, Amanda. (1998) (Mis) Communication across boundaries of
space: The effects
of telecommuting on group communication. International Communication
Association,
Organizational Communication Division, July 20-24, Jerusalem, Israel.
Sullivan, C. B. (1995). Preferences for electronic mail in
organizational communication
tasks. Journal of Business Communication, 32(1), 49-64.
Tanis, M and Postmes, T. 2003. Social cues and impression formation
in CMC. Journal
of Communication 53(4): 676-693.
Tziner, A. E. (1986). Group composition effects on task performance:
A theoretical
analysis. Small Group Behavior, 17(3), 343-354.
Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Group size
and anonymity
effects on computer-mediated idea generation. Small Group Research,
23(1), 49-73.
van den Hooff, B. 2004. Electronic coordination and collective
action: use and effects of
electronic calendaring and scheduling. Information & Management 42
(1): 103-114.
Waldeck, JH; Seibold, DR; Flanagin, AJ. 2004. Organizational assimilation and
communication technology use. Communication Monographs 71 (2): 161-183.
Wall Jr., V., & Nolan, L. L. (1987). Small group conflict: A look at
equity, satisfaction,
and styles of conflict management. Small Group Behavior, 18(2), 188-211.
Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational Communication in Computer-
Mediated Interaction. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50-88.
Wright, T. L., & Duncan, D. (1986). Attraction to group, group
cohesiveness and
individual outcome: A study of training groups. Small Group Behavior,
17(4), 487-492.
Yoo, Y; Alavi, M. 2001. Media and group cohesion: Relative influences
on social
presence, task participation, and group consensus. MIS Quarterly 25
(3): 371-390.
23
Zack, M. (1995). "Using electronic massaging to improve the quality
of instruction."
Journal of Education for Business. 70 (4), 202-206.
Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving.
Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17, 229-239
|
