Communication media choices in a knowledge-workorganisation: A case study on the factors hinderingefficient communication

Marketing

Master's thesis

Laura Aaltonen

2010

Department of Marketing and ManagementAalto UniversitySchool of Economics

Communication media choices in a knowledge-work organisation: A case study on the factors hindering efficient communication

Master’s thesis Laura Aaltonen Fall 2010 Marketing

Approved by the head of the Department of Marketing and Management

__ / __20__ and awarded the grade

______________________________________________________

2

ABSTRACT

MotivationfortheresearchandobjectivesThestudyoriginatedfromtheassumption,thatthefulladvantagesgainedfromICTusageareyettobeachieved.Itiscriticaltounderstandhowefficientorganisationalcommunica‐tionandICTimpactsonthecompany’soverallsuccessandproductivity:thefirststepistounderstandthecurrentstateofmediausageinknowledge‐work.Thus,thestudyaimedtoclearlyestablishthefactorshinderingefficientcommunicationandmediausageinorgani‐sation. The phenomenonwas approached from the individualworker’s perspectivewiththeaidof two subquestions:what are the factors influencingon communicationmediachoicesinknowledge‐work,andwhatisexperiencedaschallenginginorganisationalcom‐munication.TheresearchstrategyandmethodologyThis studyadoptedabductive case research strategy,whichmade itpossible toexaminetheissuewithoutseparatingitfromitscontext.Researchbuiltonprevioustheoriesrelatedtocommunicationmediausageandselection,aswellasresearchonproblemsrelatedtocommunicationandknowledge‐work.ThecaseorganisationwasTeliaSonera:morespecifi‐callytheunitBusinessServicesFinlandduetoitsspecialcharacteristicsandrequirementsforseamlessinformationflowinsellingcomplexservicesolutions.Mainempiricalevidencewascollectedfrom10semi‐structuredinterviewsandsupportedwithotherevidencelikeintranet survey (sent to220employees, 113 responds) anddocuments in caseorganisa‐tion. Question and topic categories for the interviews were formed based on previoustheories.Inadditiontocase‐specificmaterial,asurveyregardingmediachoiceswassenttoalargenumberofFinnishsmallandmediumsizedcompaniestoestablishtheextentoftheissues.Thisstudyformedapartofabroaderresearchprojectexaminingtheproductivityandmodernwork.ResultsThe results of this study indicate that employees choose communicationmediabasedonmultiple different factors; it is rare, that the choicewould be solely basedon theoreticalcommunication efficiency resulting from task‐media fit. Challenges like information over‐loadand interruptionsareexperienced indailywork.Theaimwastoclearlyestablishthefactorshinderingefficientcommunicationinorganisation;thefactorsfoundwereclassifiedintothreecategories:individual’sattitudes,motivesandbackground;organisationalcoordi‐nationandmanagement;andfinallysituationalfactors.Examiningandconcentratingespe‐ciallyontheindividual‐andorganisation‐relatedfactorscouldimprovecommunicationeffi‐ciency in organisation. However the individual employee has a very restricted chance toimproveon inefficientcommunicationalone,duetofactthattheproblemisprimarilytheoneofthewholeorganisation.Thusorganisationhasacentralrole in influencingoncom‐munication culture, habits and skills of theworkers,with theaidof trainingand clear in‐structionsformediausage. Whencommunicationisefficientandmedia isusedappropri‐ately,itmayinturnhavetheabilitytoimprovedecisionqualityoforganisation.KeyTermsCommunication Medium, ICT, Information Overload, Organisational Communication,KnowledgeWork,CommunicationBehaviour

3

TIIVISTELMÄTutkimuksentaustajatavoitteetMotivaatio tutkimukseen syntyi oletuksesta, että kaikkia tieto‐ ja viestintäteknologia‐investointien potentiaalisia hyötyjä ei ole vielä saavutettu. On tärkeää ymmärtää, mitentietoteknologia ja yrityksen sisäinen viestintä vaikuttavat koko yrityksen tuottavuuteen jasuorituskykyyn.Aihettalähestyttäessäensimmäinenaskelonselvittää,kuinkajamitävies‐tintävälineitätietotyössäkäytetääntällähetkellä.Tämätutkimuksentavoitteenaolimääri‐tellä,mitkätekijätestävättehokastaviestintääjaviestintävälineidenkäyttöäorganisaatios‐sa.Ilmiötälähestyttiinyksilönnäkökulmastaseuraavienalakysymystenavulla:Mitkätekijätvaikuttavatviestintävälineenvalintaantietotyössä?Mikäkoetaanhaastavaksiorganisaationviestinnässä?Toteutustapa,menetelmätjaaineistotTutkimus toteutettiin tapaustutkimuksena käyttäen abduktiivista lähestymistapaa, jolloinilmiötäolimahdollistatutkiaerottamattasitäkontekstistaan.Tutkimuspohjautuuaiempiinteorioihin viestintävälineen valinnasta ja tietotyön‐ sekä viestinnän haasteista. TutkimussuoritettiinTeliaSoneranBusinessServicesFinland–yksikössä, jonkaerikoispiirteetsopivathyvintutkimusongelmaan.Yksikölläonkorkeatarvetehokkaaseentietovirtaansilläsemyyasiakkaillemonimutkaisiapalveluita joidentuottamiseentarvitaansaumatontayhteistyötätyöntekijöidenvälillä.Empiirinenaineistokerättiinpuolistrukturoitujenhaastattelujenmuo‐dossa,joitatehtiinkymmenenkappaletta.Nointunninkestäneethaastattelutsuunniteltiinteoriapohjaanperustuen. Laadullistaaineistoa tuettiinerilaisindokumentein sekäkyselyin(lähetetty220:lle,113vastausta).Jottaaiheenjasentärkeydenlaajuustunnistettaisiin,suo‐ritettiinlisäksikyselytutkimuslukuisissasuomalaisissapk‐yrityksissä.Tämätutkimusoliosalaajempaatutkimuskokonaisuutta,jokakeskittyituottavuuteenjatietotyöhön.TutkimuksentuloksetTulostenperusteellayksilötvalitsevatviestintävälineenmoniineri tekijöihinperustuenor‐ganisaationsisäisessäviestinnässä.Viestintävälinettäeiuseinkaanvalitapelkästäänteoreet‐tisen tehokkuuden tai tehtävään soveltuvuuden perusteella. Haasteet, kuten tietotulva jajatkuvatkeskeytykset,ovatjokapäiväisiätietotyössä.Tutkimuksentavoiteoliselvittääteho‐kastaviestintääestävättekijät.Löydetyttekijätjaettiinkolmeeneriluokkaan;yksilönasen‐teet, motiivit ja tausta; organisaation koordinointiin sekä hallintoon liittyvät tekijät; sekäviimeisenätilannetekijät.Jottaviestinnäntehokkuuttavoitaisiinparantaa,tulisiensisijaisestikeskittyämonitahoisiin yksilöön ja organisaatioon liittyviin tekijöihin. Tulosten perusteellayksittäisellä työntekijällä on hyvin pienet mahdollisuudet vaikuttaa viestinnän tehokkuu‐teen;ongelmatnäyttävätesiintyvänorganisaatiotasolla jasiellänetulisimyöskorjata.Or‐ganisaatiollaonkeskeinenvastuuyhteisten toimintatapojenkehittämisessä jahenkilöstönkouluttamisessa viestintävälineiden käyttöön liittyen, jotta viestintää voitaisiin tehostaa.Kun viestintävälineitä käytetään oikein, saattaa myös organisaation päätöksenteon laatuparantua.AvainsanatViestintäväline, tieto‐ ja viestintäteknologia, tietotulva, organisaation viestintä, tietotyö,viestintäkäyttäytyminen

4

Tableofcontents

1.INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1. BACKGROUND FOR THE RESEARCH...............................................................................................................71.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS .............................................................................111.3. THE CONTENTS OF THE STUDY AND DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS .............................................................14

2.LITERATUREREVIEW ............................................................................................................................................ 16

2.1. COMMUNICATION MEDIA CHOICES AND USAGE ........................................................................................162.1.1. Review of Communication Media Research.......................................................................................172.1.2. Media Synchronicity Theory ..............................................................................................................23

2.1.2.1. Convergence and conveyance in relation to synchronicity.......................................................................... 242.1.2.2. Media Capabilities ....................................................................................................................................... 262.1.2.3. Media Appropriation.................................................................................................................................... 29

2.1.3. Communication Media Repertoires....................................................................................................312.1.3.1. Perceived Media Repertoires ....................................................................................................................... 322.1.3.2. Institutional and Situational Factors influencing the Media Choice............................................................ 34

2.2. CHALLENGES RELATED TO COMMUNICATION IN KNOWLEDGE WORK.......................................................372.2.1. Electronic media, interruptions, overload and task performance......................................................372.2.3. Link between communication media choices and decision quality....................................................40

2.3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................................432.3.1. Factors influencing on media choices in knowledge-work ................................................................442.3.2. Challenges experienced in organisational communication ...............................................................47

3.METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................................................... 52

3.1. THE RESEARCH STRATEGY, APPROACH AND DELIMITATIONS......................................................................523.2. DATA COLLECTION.....................................................................................................................................553.3. DATA ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................................................58

3.3.1. Survey data analysis...........................................................................................................................583.3.2. Interview data analysis.......................................................................................................................59

3.4. PROCESS DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................................62

4.CASEDESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................... 63

4.1. TARGETS AT CORPORATE LEVEL .................................................................................................................634.2. INTERESTS OF BUSINESS SERVICES FINLAND..............................................................................................65

5.EMPIRICALFINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................... 67

5.1. COMMUNICATION MEDIA IN TELIASONERA BUSINESS SERVICES FINLAND ...............................................675.1.1. Communication media available in organisation ..............................................................................675.1.2. Usage rates, choices and problems related to media.........................................................................71

5

5.1.2.1. Email ............................................................................................................................................................ 725.1.2.2. Intranet ......................................................................................................................................................... 745.1.2.3. Tele Presence & Video Conferencing.......................................................................................................... 755.1.2.4. Phone calls and Tele Conference ................................................................................................................. 765.1.2.5. Text Messaging ............................................................................................................................................ 775.1.2.6. Instant Messaging......................................................................................................................................... 785.1.2.7. Web conference............................................................................................................................................ 795.1.2.8. Document Sharing........................................................................................................................................ 795.2.1.9. Work support systems .................................................................................................................................. 80

5.2. FACTORS INFLUENCING ON MEDIA CHOICES IN KNOWLEDGE-WORK...........................................................825.2.1. Active and perceived media repertoires.............................................................................................825.2.2. Theoretical Media Capabilities and Communication Process Efficiency..........................................835.2.3. Appropriation factors and personal factors.......................................................................................845.2.4. Organisations influence .....................................................................................................................855.2.5. Location and usability of media .........................................................................................................865.2.6. Situational and task related factors ...................................................................................................87

5.2.6.1. Partners behaviour, availability and familiarity ........................................................................................... 875.2.6.2. Task type, familiarity and urgency............................................................................................................... 885.2.6.3. Incoming medium ........................................................................................................................................ 88

5.3. CHALLENGES IN ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION ................................................................................895.3.1. Difficulties in coping with information overload and media .............................................................89

5.3.1.1. Filtering relevant information and email dominance ................................................................................... 895.3.1.2. Low trust and unclear responsibilities.......................................................................................................... 90

5.3.2. High level of interruptions and difficulties in concentration on task.................................................915.3.3. Challenges related to knowledge flow and management ...................................................................92

5.3.3.1. Low efficiency of formal systems and availability issues related to personal networks ............................. 925.3.3.2. Matrix organisation and lack of common tools............................................................................................ 93

5.4. EXAMPLE PROFILES.....................................................................................................................................945.5. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE...............................................................................................................................96

5.5.1. Communication media choice criteria ...............................................................................................965.5.2. Challenges in Business Services Finland...........................................................................................99

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 102

6.1. REVISED FRAMEWORK ..............................................................................................................................1026.1.1. Factors influencing on media choices - altered strengths and relationships...................................1026.1.2. Challenges experienced – new problems found ...............................................................................1056.1.3. The combined framework - media choice, challenges and their relationship..................................107

6.2. FACTORS HINDERING EFFICIENT MEDIA USAGE.........................................................................................1106.2.1. Organisational coordination and management ...............................................................................1116.2.2. Individual’s attitudes, motives and background...............................................................................1146.2.3. Situational factors ............................................................................................................................117

6.3. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ....................................................................................................................119

6

6.4. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ......................................................................................................1216.5. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................................123

ListofTables

TABLE 1. COMMUNICATION PROCESS CHARACTERISTICS AND SYNCHRONICITY REQUIRED (DENNIS ET AL. 2008)26TABLE 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF SYMBOL SETS. ADJUSTED FROM DENNIS ET AL. 2008 .........................................27TABLE 3 .COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MEDIA AND THEIR CAPABILITIES. (DENNIS ET AL. 2008) ...........................28TABLE 4 PROCESS DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................62TABLE 5. COMMUNICATION MEDIA INCLUDED TO STUDY: COMPARISON OF SURVEY RESULTS, INTERVIEWEE

RESPONDS AND INTRANET INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS ......................................................................70TABLE 6. MEDIA USAGE OF INTERVIEWEES CLASSIFIED TO HIGH, MODERATE AND LOW USAGE ............................71TABLE 7. DIFFERENT COMMUNICATOR TYPES IN TELIASONERA BUSINESS SERVICES FINLAND ............................94TABLE 8. CHOICE CRITERIA COUNTED FROM TS AND SME SURVEYS ....................................................................97TABLE 9. DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMUNICATORS AT TELIASONERA BUSINESS SERVICES FINLAND: SURVEY

RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................98TABLE 10 THE AMOUNT OF RESPONDENTS: DIFFERENT MEDIA CHOICE ORIENTATION PROFILES IN TS AND SME

SURVEY .........................................................................................................................................................99TABLE 11. CLUSTER SUMMARY............................................................................................................................100TABLE 12. FACTORS HINDERING EFFICIENT COMMUNICATION MEDIA USAGE ......................................................110TABLE 13. MEDIA WITH LOW USAGE RATES AND REASONS LISTED ......................................................................120

ListofFigures

FIGURE 1. MEDIA SYNCHRONICITY THEORY (DENNIS ET AL. 2008) ......................................................................24FIGURE 2 PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR INVESTIGATING COMMUNICATION MEDIA REPERTOIRES (WATSON-

MANHEIM & BELANGER 2007) .....................................................................................................................32FIGURE 3 INVERSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROCESSING ABILITY AND MOTIVATION (ROBERT & DENNIS, 2005)41FIGURE 4. FRAMEWORK 1 - AACTORS INFLUENCING ON MEDIA CHOICE.................................................................46FIGURE 5 FRAMEWORK 2 - AHALLENGES EXPERIENCED IN KNOWLEDGE-WORK....................................................49FIGURE 6 LINK BETWEEN MEDIA CHOICES AND PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED..............................................................50FIGURE 7. THE MEANS OF MEDIA USAGE IN BUSINESS SERVICES FINLAND (LIKERT SCALE 1 (I USE THE MEDIA

VERY SELDOM ) TO 5 (I USE THE MEDIA VERY OFTEN) ..................................................................................68FIGURE 8. SENT AND RECEIVED EMAILS DAILY IN BUSINESS SERVICES FINLAND ..................................................99FIGURE 9. REVISED FRAMEWORK .........................................................................................................................108FIGURE 10. LINK BETWEEN MEDIA CHOICES AND CHALLENGES - LOW COMMUNICATION EFFICIENCY IN

ORGANISATION............................................................................................................................................109

ListofAppendixes

APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE………………………………………………………………………………. 131 APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW QUESTIION CATEGORIES………………………………………………………………. 134 APPENDIX 3: DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMUNICATORS………………………………………………………….. 137 APPENDIX 4: FACTOR COMPARISON………………………………………………………………………………… 140 APPENDIX 5: CLUSTER ANALYSIS………………………………………………………..………………………… ...141

7

1.Introduction

1.1. Background for the Research

Duringtherecentyears,knowledge‐workorganizationshavefacedachallengingparadox;

even though technological development is rapid, and natural resources are used exten‐

sively, productivity has not always improved in an expectedmanner. Regardless of this

decliningtrend,productivitygrowthinFinlandisstillhighbyinternationalstandards(Poh‐

jola2008).Theexplanationtothedifferencesbetweentheobservedproductivitytrendsis

generally regardedtobe informationandcommunicationtechnology (Jorgenson,Hoand

Stiroh2005,inPohjola,2008).Newtechnologyshouldaccelerateproductivityalsothrough

there‐organisationofproductionandnewwaysofoperating,however,therehasnotyet

beenobservationsofstatisticallysignificantimpactsifICT(Pohjola,2008).

Theeconomyandwork ismoreandmorebasedonknowledge(Otala&Pöysti2008,13)

andgrowthissearchedfromthenewwaysofworkingandoperating(Pohjola,2008).There

isthusahighneedformoresustainableproductivityandconcentrationonknowledgeasa

resourceatmacroeconomiclevel.TheissuehasnotonlybeentheinterestofTheResearch

Instituteof theFinnishEconomy,butalso thatofEuropeanCommission. On6thofApril

2005theEuropeanCommissionadoptedaproposalforanewEUprogrammeforResearch.

TheproposalprovidesnewimpetustoincreaseEurope’sgrowthandcompetitiveness,re‐

cognisingthatknowledgeisEurope’sgreatestresource(MEMO/05/114,TheEU’snewRe‐

searchFrameworkProgramme2007‐2013).

Atthemicroeconomic level,permanentcompetitiveadvantageofcompanies isbasedon

thewillingnessofemployeestoachieveobjects,strategy,missionandvisionoforganisa‐

tion(Bottazzo,2005).Cooperationandknowledge‐buildingtogetherseemtobethebasis

forproductivity inknowledgework (Otala&Pöysti2008,14).Bottazzo (2005)alsonotes

thatpeoplewillmore andmoredevote their knowledge toorganisations, and it is clear

thatinnowadayscomplexbusinessenvironmentmanagementcan’talonecopewithquick

8

changesandproblemswithoutcontributionofemployees.Communicationistheessence

oforganizations,andtechnologyispartandparcelofthatcommunication(Germonprez&

Zigurs2009).

Recent innovations inorganizational forms, suchasdelayeredmanagement,empowered

workers, telework, and ad hocwork groups, definitely have created the need to secure

efficient informationexchangeandcommunicationbetweendispersedworkersandwork

groups(Straub&Karahanna,1998,Otala&Pöysti2008,16).Also,thereisneedformore

environmental friendlyworkpractices. Themovement toward a less cohesiveworkplace

suggestsaneedtodeploycomputer‐basedmedia,butitisnotclearwhichmediashouldbe

deployedandunderwhatcircumstances(Straub&Karahanna,1998).

Usage of multiple, new communicationmedia in complex work environments can have

significant implications for productivity and efficiency of individuals and organisations

(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger,2007).Ithasbeenshownthataftercontrollingforindustry

andtimeeffectsaswellas labourandotherfirm‐levelcharacteristics,theexcessproduc‐

tivityofICT‐equippedlabourrangesfromeighttoeighteenpercent(Maliranta&Rouvinen

2003).Overall,MalirantaandRouvinen’s(2003)reportthatconcludesthefirstpreliminary

phase of “The economic effects of information and communication technology” research

project,suggeststhattheICT‐inducedexcessproductivityseemstobesomewhathigherin

servicesthaninmanufacturing.InFinland,ICTsectorhasevenbiggerinfluenceontheec‐

onomy,thanintheothercountriesonaverage(Pohjola,2008).Thus,ICTcanbethekeyto

successatmicro‐andmacroeconomiclevel.However,itseemsthatthefullpotentialand

advantageshasnotbeenreachedquiteyet.

PossibleexplanationsfortheissuescanarisefromtheICTusageandmanagementatmi‐

croeconomiclevel.Provisionofappropriatecommunicationtoolstosupportneworganiza‐

tional formswill continue to be a factor in organizational success (Straub& Karahanna,

1998).Giventheadvantages,organisations increasinglyrelyoncommunicationtechnolo‐

gies to support their business, andbetter connect teamswith geographically distributed

co‐workers(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger,2007;Venkatesh&Speier,2000), butunfortu‐

9

natelyoftenthere isaserious lackofprofessionalplanningandmanagementofthenew

media and tools. Managers often fail to think explicitly about strategies for electronic

communication;instead,choicesforelectroniccommunicationareoftenmadebydefault

andpeopleusethelowestcommondenominatorormostfamiliartools,regardlessofwhat

theyaretryingtocommunicate(Germonprez&Zigurs2009).Consequently,thechallenge

ishowtomanagetheadoptionofnewtoolsandtheoverallcommunicationasacoherent

portfolio to enhanceorganisationalcommunicationperformance.

According to Straub andKarahanna (1998), investigationof these important issuesmust

begin with insights into why knowledge workers choose particular media for particular

tasks in the firstplace.Even thoughthenumberof technologiesavailable foremployees

constantlyincreases(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger,2007),increasedusedofdifferentme‐

dia isnotonlyapositivething;already intheyear2003a largesurveyconductedbythe

AustralianPsychologicalSociety(APS2003)foundthat80percentofworkersspentmore

than 20 per cent of their day dealing with emails. Users complain about feeling over‐

whelmedbythevolumeofmessagestheyreceiveandtheyalsoseemtohavedifficultiesto

organizeandmanagetheiremaildata(Whittaker,2005).AccordingtoTayloretal.(2008),

acommoncomplaintofemailusersisitsimpactontheirworkload.Newtechnologicalin‐

novationsprovideopportunities for frequent interruptions,whichmaybedetrimental to

work productivity (Taylor et al. 2008). Continuous interruptions are especially common

amongstknowledge‐andserviceworkers(Työ&Terveys2006).

But it is not the email alonewhat increases the amount of difficulties.Nowadays people

receivemoreandmore information fromdifferent sourcesandchannels, and it feels like

the reasonable amount for processing has been passed a long time ago. As Rogers and

Agarwala‐Rogers(1975,inJones,RavidandRafaeli2004),describeinformationoverloadis

definedasastageofanindividualorsystem,inwhichnotallcommunicationinputscanbe

processedandutilized.This leads to inevitablebreakdown.Peoplephysically can’thandle

the amount of information anymore, whichmeans reduced productivity. An interesting

explanationforadirectlinkbetweencopingandloadissuggestedinresearchdemonstrat‐

10

ingthatoften‐repeatedandwell‐learnedactionsmaybeengagedinarelativelyautomatic

ormindlessfashion(Langer,BlankandChanowitz1978inKirmeyer,1988).

Asdescribedabove,efficientknowledgeflowbetweendispersedworkersisextremelyim‐

portant for company’s success. Electronic communicationmedia is adopted to enhance

communication,butitisnotalwaysproblemfree.Inworstcase,itmightmakeemployees

lifeevenharderandmorestressful.Finally,itiscriticaltounderstandhowefficientorgani‐

sational communication and ICT impacts on the company’s overall success and produc‐

tivity.

11

1.2. Objectives of the study and research questions

Thisstudyaimstogainunderstandinginmediausageofemployeesandestablishthefac‐

torshinderingefficientcommunicationintheorganisation.Fromtheviewpointofbusiness

studiesandscience,researchershavelongstudiedtheeffectsofsocialpresenceandmedia

richnessonmediachoiceandtheeffectsofmediause.

Variety of scholars can provide valuable viewpoints in understanding the ICT usage and

media choices in organisations. Social presence theory andmedia richness theory have

been themost dominant theories used to explain the rationalmedia choices (Robert&

Dennis,2005).Muchresearchhasbeendoneregardingperceivedmediacapabilitiesand

communicationperformance aswell as the social influence and situational factors (Kock

2004),buttheseapproacheshavenotbeenefficientlycombined(Webster&Trevino1995;

Kock 2004).Media richness, which long was the dominant theory, has been challenged

becauseofconflictingresults(Carlson&Zmud,1999;Lee,1994;Te’eni,2001).AsDennis,

FullerandValacich (2008)describe,explicationof thiscomplex issuewouldbebeneficial

notonlytomediaresearch,butinresearchthatconsiderstheimpactofmediacapabilities

astheyinfluenceforexampleknowledgeexchangeinavarietyofcontexts.Thus,theambi‐

tionofthisstudytofurtherdevelopthesetheoriesisnotonlyadvantageousforthefieldof

mediaresearch,butalsohasapossibilitytoprovideinsightstotheissuesofproductivityof

ICTusage.

In the polarized media research field, multiple researchers have suggested that rational

technology theories and social theories should complement each other (Webster and

Trevino, 1995, Trevinoet al. 2000; Kock, 2004). However, these studies usually focuson

selectionofonecommunicationmediumoroncomparisonsbetweentwomedia.Thefocus

onselectionoruseofasinglecommunicationmediumlimitsunderstandingofcurrentme‐

diausageinorganisations,andmaynotcapturethecomplexitiesofcombiningmedia(Wat‐

son‐Manheim&Belanger,2007).Theresultsofpriorresearchsuggestthatthecapabilities

and appropriateness of use of a communicationmedium are perceived differently under

differentcircumstances;however,therearemanyquestionsstilltobeansweredabouthow

12

differentperceptionsandusagepatternsdevelop (Watson‐ManheimandBelanger,2007).

Thechoiceofmediainpreviousstudiesisusuallyisolatedfromtheongoingworkpractices

ofusers,whichlimitstheunderstandingofthemediausageindifferentsituations(Watson‐

Manheim & Belanger, 2007). Consequently, there is a need to examine multiple media

usageinorganisationwithoutseparatingthephenomenonfromitscontext.Inrecentlitera‐

ture,Watson‐ManheimandBelanger’s(2007)studyisoneoftheonlyonesrepresentingthe

varietyofmediachoicesinthiscontext.

Thetreatmentofemployeesasarecourseisastartingpointforconsideringthesuccessof

the companyand internal communication (Bottazzo,2005), thus it is important tounder‐

standhowindividualemployeesexperienceorganisationalcommunication.Theresearchto

datehasnotpaidsufficientattentiontoincreasingtheunderstandingonthecognitivepro‐

cesses of communication (Robert & Dennis, 2005). Cognitive Model of Media Choice

(Robert&Dennis,2005)presentsarichnessparadoxinmediacapabilitiesintermsofindi‐

vidual’sabilitytoprocessinformationversusmotivationtoengageintocommunication

There is a need for combining the recent theories efficiently, in the right context. Thus,

when rationalmedia choice theory likeMedia Synchronicity (Dennis et al. 2008) is com‐

plementedwith theories,which take contextual factors into consideration,more under‐

standingofmediausage,selectionsandconsequencescanbegained.Byadoptingthecog‐

nitivemodelofmediachoiceasapartofatheoreticalmodelgivesmore insightstoeffi‐

ciencyandproblemsofcommunication.Thisstudyaimstoincreasetheunderstandingof

thepossiblebarriershinderingefficientcommunicationwithinaknowledge‐workorganiza‐

tion.Thefollowingresearchquestionisposedtobeansweredbythestudy:

“Whatarethefactorshinderingefficientcommunicationinknowledge‐workorganization?”

Previousliteraturehasnotexplainedthefactorshinderingefficientmediausageinorgani‐

sational communication or the interrelations between the choice factors and challenges.

Thus,themainresearchquestionistobeansweredwiththeaidofthetheoriesrelatedto

the subquestions.Hence, thepresent study sheds light onhowdo individuals select the

13

communicationmediatoaccomplishtheirwork.Followingsub‐questionshelpunderstand‐

ingtheissue:

‐ Whatarethefactorsinfluencingonindividuals’mediachoicesinknowledge‐work?

‐ Whatisexperiencedaschallenginginorganisationalcommunication?

Themainfocusofthepresentstudyislaidonindividualemployees:Howdotheindividuals

in professional organisations perceive the challenges related to communication? It is im‐

portant todiscoverwhether thechallengesexist inorganisation tobeable tounderstand

thefactorshinderingefficientcommunication.Theseissuesareexploredinknowledge‐work

contextthroughasinglecasecompanyTeliaSonera,amajorplayer intheNordictelecom‐

munication field. Interest in the issue is theoneof themanagementofBusiness Services

Finlandunit of TeliaSonera. Business Services unit provides a fertile context for exploring

theissuesduetoitscharacteristics;unithasahighneedforco‐operationandcommunica‐

tionbetweenworkersduetocomplexservicessoldtocustomers.

Thisstudyadoptsabductivecaseresearchstrategy,whichmakesitpossibletoconsiderthe

issuewithoutseparatingitfromitscontext.Casematerialissupportedwithotherevidence

toestablishtheextentoftheproblemsinFinnishorganisationsingeneral.Thisstudyforms

apartofabroaderresearchprojectexaminingtheproductivityandmodernwork1.Ongoing

communicationpracticesinorganisationandthechangesinworkhabit,smadepossibleby

newcommunicationmediatools,arethe interestoftheproject. Inadditiontothisthesis,

thesesconductedbytwootherresearchers2complementtheresearchprojectandprovide

insights to phenomenon from the perspectives of task technology fit, organisation pro‐

cesses,andusabilityaswellasadoptionofnewtechnology.

1 Uuskasvua ymmärtämässä – kutsu kestävään tuottavuuteen. Grönroos/ Sonera, 2010 2 Simo Hakkarainen, Aalto University School of Technology, 2011 Kimmo Pekkanen, Aalto University School of Economics, 2011

14

1.3. The Contents of the Study and Definitions of Key Terms

Tostartwith,literaturereviewispresentedinthesecondchapter.Theoriesrelatedtocom‐

municationmediachoicesandchallengesarepresented,andtheorieschosenforthisstudy

discussedmore in detail. In the end of the second chapter, conceptual framework is pre‐

sented.

In the thirdchaptermethodologicalchoicesandapproachesof this studyarediscussed. In

thefourthchapter,thecaseorganisationisdescribed.Empiricalfindingsarepresentedinthe

chapterfive.Inthelastchapter,revisedframeworkanddiscussion,limitationsaswellasfu‐

tureresearchdirectionsandconclusionsarediscussed.

Thedefinitionsofkeytermsandconceptsofthestudyaredefinedasfollows:

CommunicationMedia:OxfordEnglishDictionarydefinesmediumas”ameansorchannelof

communicationor expression”. Thus, in this study communicationmedia refers to all the

toolsandchannelsfromtechnicalsolutionstoface‐to‐facemeetings.Mediausedforinter‐

nalcommunicationinorganisationisinfocus.

ICT: Thedefinitionfor IT isasfollows:”Thebranchoftechnologyconcernedwiththedis‐

semination,processing,andstorageofinformation,esp.bymeansofcomputers”(Oxford

EnglishDictionary).Inthisstudy,thetermICTisusedinstead,whichmeansinformationand

communicationtechnology,thusreferringespeciallyITsolutionsrelatedtocommunication.

CommunicationBehaviour: In this study, the termrefers to Individuals choices,behaviour

patternsandactionsrelatedtoorganisationalcommunicationbetweencolleagues.

OrganisationalCommunication:Communicationconductedwithinorganisationsbyemploy‐

eesforwork‐relatedissues,influencesonefficientflowofknowledgeandinformation.

15

InformationOverload:OxfordEnglishDictionarydefinesthetermas“exposuretoorprovi‐

sionoftoomuchinformation;aproblematicsituationorstateofmentalstressarisingfrom

this”.Thus, informationoverloadmeans thepointwhere individual’sability toprocess in‐

formation is low due to too large amount of information. Rogers and Agarwala‐Rogers

(1975,inJones,RavidandRafaeli2004),describeinformationoverloadasastageofanindi‐

vidualorsystem,inwhichnotallcommunicationinputscanbeprocessedandutilized.

KnowledgeWork: Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as follows: “workwhich in‐

volveshandlingorusinginformation”.Inthisstudy,highusageofinformationtechnologyis

stronglyrelatedtothisterm.Using,sharing,processingandcreatingknowledgeisessential.

MediaSynchronicity:Theorydefiningtheperformanceofcommunication,aimingtomatch

thecommunicationprocesswithappropriatemediacapabilities,referringtorationalmedia

usage(Dennis,Fuller&Valacich2008).

Cognitive Model of Media Choice: Theory based on elaboration likelihood, assumes that

different media provide different possibilities for individual to process information effi‐

ciently.(Robert&Dennis2005)

CommunicationMediaRepertoires:Watson‐ManheimandBelanger(2007)definetheterm

as the collection of communication channels and identifiable routines of use for specific

communicationpurposeswithinacommunity.Thisinotherwordsreferstothemediaavail‐

ableandused inorganisation. Inthisstudy, thecommunicationmediarepertoires isused

forreferringthetheory(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger2007)wherethechoiceisbasedon

mediaavailableaswellasstructuringconditionslikeinstitutionalandsituationalfactors.

16

2.LiteratureReview

Inthischapter,previousliteratureisstudiedfirstrelatedtocommunicationmediachoices,

usageandefficiency.Thesetheoriesareneededwhentryingtoanswerthesubquestionof

the study; “What are the factors influencing on individuals’media choices in knowledge‐

work”.Firstchapterincludesthereviewofrecentmediaresearch,afterwhichtherelevant

theoriesselectedforthisstudyarepresented.Thesecondpartofthechapterisrelatedto

thesubquestion“Whatisexperiencedaschallenginginorganisationalcommunication”.In

thispart,challenges inknowledgeintensiveworkrelatedtocommunicationaswellasthe

theoreticalbackgroundfortheoriginsandconsequencesofthechallengesarediscussed.

2.1. Communication Media Choices and Usage

Inthisstudy,communicationmediaisdefinedasachannel,toolordevice,whichisusedto

conduct a communicativeact, including technological solutionsandpersonalmeetings. In

thefirstpartofthischapter,previousresearchinthefieldofcommunicationmediausageis

presentedandcriticallyevaluated.Theoriesexplaininghowandwhencommunicationme‐

dia is used can bemainly classified as media trait theories and social influence theories

(Carlson&Davis1998).

Inthesecondandthirdpart,theorieschosenforthisstudyarediscussed.MediaSynchro‐

nicity(Dennisetal.2008)ischosentoexplaintherationalsideofindividual’smediachoices;

the essence of the theory is communication performance. CommunicationMedia Reper‐

toires(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger2007)isthesecondtheorytobeappliedinadditionto

MST to better understand the complexity of themedia choices;many other factors than

expectedcommunicationperformance influenceon individual’smedia choice. This theory

dealswithstructuringconditionlikesituation,andorganisationalnormsinrelationtomedia

choices.Tounderstandwhybothofthesetheoriesareusedandpartlycombined,it is im‐

portant first tounderstand thedifferent theoreticalpolarizationof communicationmedia

research.

17

2.1.1.ReviewofCommunicationMediaResearch

The fieldof communicationmedia research is highlypolarized.Multiple researchershave

paidattention to thesemedia trait‐andsocial influence theoriespublishingexcellentand

critical reviewsduring thepastyears (Carlson&Zmud,1999;Kock,2004;Te’eni2001). In

addition,structurationalmodels(YatesandOrlikowski,1992)havebeennotedasusefuland

populartheories.

Mediatraittheoriesassumethatdifferenttechnologieshaverelativelystaticandobjective

characteristics.Thechoiceofcommunicationmediaisassumedtoberational;usersmatch

thestabilecharacteristicsofamediumtoaspecifictaskorcommunicationobjective.How‐

ever,findingsfromthesetheorieshavebeeninconsistent(Carlson&Zmud,1999;Lee,1994;

Te’eni,2001).Still,MediaRichnessTheory(Daft&Lengel,1986)canbeconsideredasone

ofthemostknownmediatraittheory.

DaftandLengel(1986)proposethattherearetwoforces,whichinfluenceonorganisation’s

informationprocessing;uncertaintyandequivocality.Communicationmediavary in terms

ofcapacitytoprocessrichinformation;face‐to‐faceisthemediumprovidingmostpossibili‐

tiesforrichinformationprocessing,afterthattelephone,personaldocuments,andtheleas

richmediumisunaddressedwrittendocuments(Daftetal.1987,Daft&Lengel1986).The

richnessofeachmediumisbaseduponfourcriteria:feedback,multiplecues,languagevari‐

etyandpersonalfocus(Daftetal.1987,Daft&Lengel1986)StudybyDaftetal.(1987)was

conductedtoexplainmanagers’selectionofcommunicationmedia.Thus,MRTisnotame‐

diaorcommunicationperformance,butmediachoicetheoryrelatedtomanagerspreferred

choices.

Managersseemtopreferrichmediaforambiguouscommunicationsandlessrichmediafor

unequivocalcommunications(Daftetal.1987).Also,accordingtoMRT,highlyratedman‐

agersseemtodisplayedsensitivitytothedifferentmediarequirements(Daftetal.1987),

whichindicatestheimportanceofmediaselectionsinbusiness.EventhoughMRTcan’tne‐

cessarilybeappliedintonewmedia, itstillprovidesimportantinsightstomediaselection,

preferencesandmanagerialperformance,aswellasmediacapabilities.

18

However,Watson‐ManheimandBelanger(2007)claimthattherearesomestudiesindicat‐

ing the featuresofmediaaremoredynamic thanassumed in trait theories.Forexample,

the same medium can be considered rich or lean depending on situational factors like

normsandrulesforinteractionwithinaparticularworkenvironment(Fulk1993)orcontex‐

tualfactors(CarlsonandZmud1999;CarlsonandDavis1998;Lee1994).

AccordingtoMarkus(1994),mediarichnesstheoryhasbeenchallengedforfailuretotake

intoaccountsituationalfactorsthatmightinfluencebehaviour,andsocialfactorsthatmight

shapeperceptionsofmedia.Asaresult,thetheoryhasbeenrevisedandelaboratedinvari‐

ousways(Markus1994).Forexample,Trevinoetal.(1987)extendedmediarichnesstheory

beyonditsoriginalcoreconcernswithinformationprocessingrequirementstoincludetwo

othermediaselectioncriteria:situationalconstraints(e.g.,timeandplace)andsymbolic

considerations(e.g.,desiretoconveyauthority).

Thetask‐technologyfit(TTF)frameworkwassuggestedbyGoodhueandThompson(1995).

ItproposesmatchingICTcharacteristicswithtaskcharacteristics,hasbeenappliedtocom‐

municationinordertoprescribeeffectiveuseofcommunicationmedia(Hungetal.2008).

Communication theories based on the TTF framework, includingmedia capacity theories,

haveprovidedgreatinsightsintomediaselection,ICTadoptionanduse,andICT‐mediated

communications(Hungetal.2008).

TobroadenthenarrowviewpointofMRT,CarlsonandZmud(1999)havepresentedchannel

expansiontheoryasanextensionofmediatrait theories.Theorysuggests thatan individ‐

ual’sexperiencewithmedia,topic,andacommunicationpartnerinfluencesperceivedrich‐

nessofamedium.Theyalsonotethatperceptionsaboutthemediachangeovertime.(Carl‐

sonandZmud,1999)

AccordingtoWatson‐ManheimandBelanger(2007),differenttomediatraittheories,Social

influencetheoriesarestressingtheroleofasocialactorinmediausage.Oneofthemajor

contributionsofthesocialinfluencemodeltocommunicationtechnologyusageliteratureis

emphasizingtheimportanceofsocialinfluences,suchasorganizationalnorms,haveonhow

19

communicationtechnologies inusage(Stephens&Davis2009;Fulk&Boyd1991).The in‐

fluenceoforganizationalnormsoncommunicationsmediausehasbeendemonstratedina

varietyofstudies (Fulk,1993;Markus,1994;Watson‐Manheim&Belanger,2007;Yates&

Orlikowski,1992).

Media trait theories and Social influence theories presented are based on very different

backgroundsandviews.AsHungetal.(2008)claim,thattheoreticalrevisionsareneededto

improvetheexplanationpowerofmediacapacitytheories.Itischallengingtodefinemedia

capacitybasedonobjectivemediacharacteristics,andrecenttheoreticaldevelopmentthat

incorporatestemporalandsocialfactorsseemstobemovingintherightdirection(Hunget

al.2008).

Theoretical polarization regardingmedia choices has led to some problems (Kock, 2004).

Kock(2004)criticizesgenerallabelsgivenformediatheoriestobemisleading;oneofthese

labels is thatof “rational choice” theories (Markus1994,Webster andTrevino1995).Ac‐

cording to Kock (2004), this misleading label is arguably generic enough to include any

theory that emphasizes the role of rational responses to technology in determining com‐

municationmedia choice behaviour, and that places little emphasis on the role of social

influences(Kock2004).

AsKock(2004)explains,itisproblematicthatsocialtheoristsoftenrejectthetheorieslabel‐

ledas“rationalchoice theories”even though these theories seemtoexplaincommunica‐

tionmediaperceptionsandchoiceinlimited,specificcircumstances(Daftetal.1987,Straub

andKarahanna1998).Timmerman(2002)notesthatmediaselectionresearchoftenfailsto

conceptualizemedia use as an activity that occurswithin larger, ongoing communication

process. However, it might be possible to overcome this problem. Thus, rational choice

theories seem to have some explanation power. That is why there is justification for at‐

tempts to expandand refine them (Carlsonand Zmud1999) aswell as to combine them

withsocialtheories(Trevinoetal.2000).

20

The second reasonwhat rejecting rational theories isproblematic, is that the1990shave

seenthedevelopmentoftheoriesstressingtheinfluenceoftechnologyfeaturesonmedia

choicebehaviourthathavelittletodowiththesocialpresenceandmediarichnesstheories

(Kock, 2004). Example of these theories is the task‐technology fit theory (Goodhue and

Thompson1995).Thussaid,noneofthetheoriesshouldberejected,instead,moreunified

view is needed. Classifications may restrict the examination of the phenomenon in the

widerscaleandcontext.

Previouslydescribedproblemsprove,thatnoneofthecommunicationmediatheoriescan

aloneexplainthemediachoicescompletely.Muchresearchhasbeendoneregardingper‐

ceivedmediacapabilitiesandcommunicationperformanceaswellasaboutsocialinfluence

and situational factors (Kock 2004), but these approaches have not been efficiently com‐

bined(Webster&Trevino1995;Kock2004).Multipleresearchershavesuggestedthatra‐

tional technology theories and social theories complement each other (Webster and

Trevino,1995,Trevinoetal.2000;Kock,2004).

Eventhoughbeingcriticized,traditionalmediatheoriesare includedtothisstudy insome

degree;MediaSynchronicitytheory’s(Dennisetal2008)backgroundisonmediatraittheo‐

ries,thoughMSTprovideschangesandimprovementsfor increasedreliabilityandexplan‐

ation power.Media synchronicity theory builds onmany of the ideas proposed in other

models;themedium‐centricperspectiveofMediarichnesstheory(Daft&Lengel,1986)and

ChannelExpansionTheory(CarlsonandZmud1999),aswellasthecontextualaspectsofthe

cognitivemodelofmedia (Robert&Dennis,2005).RelevantpartsofMediaSynchronicity

Theory(Dennisetal2008)areusedas“rationalmediachoice/performancetheory”inthis

study.Keepingthepreviouslypresentedcritiquetowardsrationaltheory–labels,itmustbe

saidherethattheterm”rational”isonlyusedfordescribingthetheoreticalefficiencyofthe

mediausage.

Anotheractiveareaofresearchrelatedtocommunicationmediachoiceshasbeenonthe

influenceofcontextualfactors(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger,2007)whichhavebeenfound

tosignificantlyinfluencethedecisiontouseacommunicationmedium(orexample,urgency

21

of thecommunicationevent influences thechoiceofmedium(Trevinoetal.1987). (Wat‐

son‐Manheim&Belanger,2007)Inthisstudy,contextualfactorsareincludedbyexamining

CommunicationMediaRepertoirestheory(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger,2007).

AccordingtoOrlikowski(2000),thepastdecadehasalsoseenthedevelopmentofanumber

ofstructurationalmodelsoftechnology,whichhavegeneratednumerousinsights intothe

role and influence of technologies in organizations (DeSanctis and Poole 1994). Business

professionalsandresearchersareoftendisappointedwiththefactthatadvancesincomput‐

ing technologyhavenotbroughtabout remarkable improvements inorganizationaleffec‐

tiveness(Orlikowski2000).Structurationmodelsareappealingbecausetheyemphasizethe

interplaybetweentechnologyandthesocialprocessoftechnologyuse,demonstratinghow

multipleoutcomescanresultfromadoptionofthesametechnology(Orlikowski2000).

OlrikowskiandYates (1992) investigatecommunicativepracticesthroughtheanalytic lens

ofthe"communicativegenres"enactedwithinacommunity.Theyhavepreviouslydefined

genresoforganizationalcommunicationassociallyrecognizedtypesofcommunicativeac‐

tions—such as memos, meetings, expense forms, training seminars—that are habitually

enacted bymembers of a community to realize particular social purposes (Yates andOr‐

likowski, 1992). CommunicationMedia Repertoires (Watson‐Manheim & Belanger, 2007)

buildsonOrlikowskiswork,anddefinestheperceivedmediaoptionsavailableforemploy‐

eesinthisstudy.Giventhefactthatmediaselectionmayoccurunderconditionsofobjec‐

tivereality,but italsocanbesubjectto lessobjectivesocial influences(Saunders&Jones

1990),communicationmediarepertoires(Watson‐Manhein&Belanger2007)bringsalong

theoreticalperspectiveoforganisationalnormsandpracticesinthisstudy.

Itneedstobenoted,thateventhoughcommunicationmediaisperceivedtohavecertain

capabilities,thereisarecognizedparadoxbetweeninformationprocessingabilityandmoti‐

vation,whenchoosingtheefficientmedia.Rationalorsocialtheoriesalonearenecessarily

notabletodescribeall thefactors influencingthemediachoicesandcommunicationper‐

formance. Informationoverloadposesa significantproblem for communication inprofes‐

sionalorganisations,anditisunclearinwhichdegreeindividualsrationallychoosetheme‐

22

dia.Timmerman(2002)hassuggestedthattraditionalmediacapabilitytheories,likeMedia

Richness,explainonlyaround35%ofmediachoices.Tocopewiththeoverload,employees

havetoprioritizeworktasksandapplysimpleheuristicstocommunication.Thereissimply

notenoughtimetodeeplyconcentrateoneverysinglemessagereceived.Thus,ithastobe

remembered, that the explanationpower of the theories is incompletewithout including

theexpectationofmindfulnessofdecision‐makingprocess.

Asnotedpreviously,manystudieshavefoundmixedorconflictingresultswhentestingra‐

tionalMediaRichnesstheoryempirically (Carlson&Zmud,1999;Lee,1994;Te’eni,2001).

Also, according to Timmerman (2002), when collapsing across the mindlessness/mindful

conditionse.g.choiceisnotactivelyprocessedinindividualsmind,MediaRichness,acom‐

mainly used theory in the field of communication behaviour research, explanations accu‐

ratelypredictedonly37%oftheparticipants’mediause.Hrastinski(2008)mentionsCogni‐

tivemodelofmediachoicetobeoneofthetheoriesexplainingconflictingresults.Cognitive

model of media choice can provide insights in understanding the consequences of com‐

municationmediachoices,forexamplethedifferentlevelsofprocessingabilityanddecision

qualityoccurringand theparadoxbetween them. In this study, cognitivemodelofmedia

choiceisgoingtobeconsideredwhendiscussingthechallengesrelatedtocommunication.

Tosummarize;MediaSynchronicityTheory(Dennisetal.2008) is tobeappliedasamain

theoryinthisstudyandcompletedwithMediaRepertoires(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger,

2007.MSTconsidersdifferentmediatohavedifferentcapabilities,whichinfluenceoneffi‐

ciency of media choice in different situations. These capabilities are considered to be

matched to communication process type; conveyance or convergence, which leads into

task‐media fit and efficient communication performance. In this study, communication

MediaRepertoires–theorycomplementsMST intermsofsituationaland institutional fac‐

tors.Italsoenablestheapproachinwhichthemediaperceivedavailableisconsideredasa

factor influencingoncommunicationbehaviourandchoices.Oftenresearchershavebeen

examiningonlyoneortwomediausedinorganisations.ByadoptingMediaRepertoiresthis

narrowviewpointcanbeovercame.

23

2.1.2.MediaSynchronicityTheory

Media Synchronicity Theory (MST) is used in this case study provide insights to efficient

usageofcommunicationmediaassumingthatmediaischosenrationallybasedoncapabili‐

ties andmessage purpose. Thus, it presents one factor influencing on individual’smedia

choice.AsDennisetal.(2008)explain,onthecontrarytomostofthepriortheories,Media

SynchronicityTheory(MST)isatheoryofcommunicationperformance,notmediachoice.It

doesnotaddressthefactorsinfluencinghowpeoplechoosedifferentmedia,althoughthe

desiretoachievesharedunderstandingislikelytobeafactorinfluencingonchoice.

Inthebeginningofthechapter,communicationprocessesandsynchronicityarepresented,

followedbymediacapabilities.MSTisprovidedbyDennisetal.(2008),andisextensionof

thepreviousMSTpresentedbyDennisandValacich(1999).MediaSynchronicityisdefined

as the extent to which the capabilities of communication medium enable individuals to

achievesynchronicity.Fitofmediacapabilitiestothecommunicationneedsofthetaskin‐

fluencetheuseofmedia(seefigure1),whichinturninfluencecommunicationperformance

(Dennisetal.2008).

MST recognizes the effect of appropriation factors on communication performance (see

figure1),andthusdoesnotclaimtheefficiencyresultingtotallybasedonmediacapability‐

communicationprocessmatch.Theseappropriationfactorsarepresentedintheendofthis

chapter.

MST(Dennisetal2008)buildsonmediatrait theories, thoughprovidingchangesand im‐

provements for increased reliability and explanation power. As described in the previous

chapter, MST successfully combines the relevant parts of theories like Media richness

theory (Daft& Lengel, 1986) and the contextual aspectsof the cognitivemodelofmedia

choice(Robert&Dennis,2005)amongstothers.

24

Figure 1. Media Synchronicity Theory (Dennis et al. 2008)

2.1.2.1.Convergenceandconveyanceinrelationtosynchronicity

InMediasynchronicitytheory(MST),communicationisarguedtobecomposedoftwopri‐

maryprocesses;conveyanceof informationandconvergenceofmeaning. Inordertoper‐

form conveyanceor convergence, individualmust engage in two individual processes; in‐

formationtransmissionandprocessing(Dennisetal.2008).

MSTproposesthatforconveyanceprocesses,useofmediasupportinglowersynchronicity

shouldresultinbettercommunicationperformance.Forconvergenceprocesses,useofme‐

dia supporting higher synchronicity should result in better communication performance

(Dennisetal.2008).OnofthetheoriesusedwhenMSTwasformedisCognitivemodelof

25

media choice, which explains howmedia based on their levels of social presence, either

supportorhindermotivationandtheabilitytoprocess(Robert&Dennis,2005).

Dennisetal.(2008)state,thatbecausethegoalistounderstandother’sinterpretationsof

information, theabilityof themedium toprovide synchronicity is extremely important in

convergence communication. Usage of media low in synchronicity can negatively impact

convergenceprocessesby increasingdelaysthat impedetherapiddevelopmentofshared

understanding(Dennisetal.2008).Asaresult,itcanbesaidthatsynchronousmediashould

beusedforconvergencecommunicationtoensurethehighperformance(seetable1).

Inconveyancecommunication,whichistypicallytransmittinginformationandenablingthe

analysistypicalofconveyance,individualsdonotneedtoworktogetheroratthesametime

(Dennisetal.2008).Ifthemessageiscomplex,individualswillrequiremoretimetoassess

anddeliberateontheinformation(Dennisetal.2008).Mediathatsupporthigherlevelsof

synchronicitycangenerateexpectationsofrapidinteraction,whichcaninterferewithdelib‐

erationprocesses (Dennis et al. 2008).Usingmediawithhigher synchronicity for convey‐

anceprocessesmayimpairdevelopmentofunderstandingbecauseindividualswillnothave

thetimerequiredtofullyprocesstheinformation(RobertandDennis2005).Thismaycause

agreatercognitiveloadontheindividual(Te’eni2001).Thus,asynchronousmediaisbetter

suitableforconveyancecommunicationascanbeseenfromtable1.

As is tobedescribed in thenext chapter,Dennis et al. (2008) identify five capabilities of

media (symbolsets,parallelism, transmissionvelocity, rehearsability,andreprocessability)

that influence the development of synchronicity and thus the successful performance of

conveyanceandconvergencecommunicationprocesses.

Thesuccessfulcompletionofmost tasks involvingmorethanone individual requiresboth

conveyanceandconvergenceprocesses,thuscommunicationperformancewillbeimproved

when individuals use a variety ofmedia to perform a task, rather than just onemedium

(Dennisetal.2008;Robert&Dennis2005;Dennis&Valacich1999).Whenthefamiliarityof

26

the task, individuals and communicationmedia increases, the need formedia supporting

highsynchronicityisreduced(Dennisetal.2008).

CommunicationProcess

InformationTransmissionCharacteristics

InformationProcessingCharacteristics

MediaSynchronicityRequired

Conveyance

HigherQualityVariousFormatsMultipleSources

RetrospectiveSlower

Lower

Conveyance

LowerQualitySpecificFormatSpecificSourcesFaster

VerificationAdjustmentNegotiationFaster

Higher

Table 1. Communication process characteristics and synchronicity required (Dennis et al. 2008)

2.1.2.2.MediaCapabilities

Differentmediahavedifferentcapabilities,whichhaveinfluenceonthedegreeofsynchro‐

nicityof themedia.Dennisetal. (2009)havedefineda specified listofqualificationsand

featuresofdifferentcommunicationmediumintermsoftransmissionandprocessingcapa‐

bilities,whicharegoingtobeexaminednext.Thesefeaturesaresomewhatbasedonme‐

dium‐centric perspectives of Media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Each feature

eitheraddsorreducessynchronicityprovidedbymedium(Dennisetal.2008).

ShannonandWeaver’s(1949)theoryisabaseforthecapabilityclassificationbyDenniset

al.(2008)Dennisetal.(2008)argue,thatthreeprimarymediacapabilitiesareimportantin

deriving a medium’s ability to support information transmission: transmission velocity

(channel capacity), parallelism (number of frequencies), and symbol sets (symbol types).

Twomedia capabilitiesbuildonShannonandWeaver’sencodinganddecodingprocesses

andareimportantforinformationprocessing:rehearsability(encoding)andreprocessability

(decoding).Table2introducesthecharacteristicsofsymbolsetsmoreindetail.

27

TransmissionVelocity

Parallelism

SymbolSets

Rehearsability

Reprocessability

RapidityoffeedbackInteractivity

Numberofsimulta‐neoustransmissions

Waysofencoding,Multiplicityofcues:languagevariety,phys‐ical,verbal,visualcues(similartomediarich‐ness)

Possibilitytore‐hearseorfinetunemessagebeforesending

Possibilitytore‐examinemessage

Enablessharedfocus

Enhancesmultidirec‐tionalcommunica‐tionLowerssharedfocus

Naturalsymbolsets(visual,verbal,phys‐ical)facilitatepreciseencodinganddecisionmakingWrittentextfastertodecode

Facilitatespreciseencodingandde‐coding,CancreatedelaysLowerssharedfocus

Importantinnew/largeamountofinformationimportantinconveyancepro‐cessesCancreatedelays.Lowerssharedfocus

Increasessynchronicity

Reducessynchronicity

Naturalsymbolsetsincreasesynchronicity

Reducessynchronicity

Reducessynchronicity

Table 2. Characteristics of symbol sets. Adjusted from Dennis et al. 2008

Theinabilitytotransmitcertainsymbolssets(e.g.,physical,visual,andverbalsymbols)may

havesomeeffectonthedevelopmentofsocialperceptions(DaftandLengel1986)Although

DaftandLengel(1986)definedpersonalness(andsocialpresence)asacharacteristicofme‐

dia,Dennisetal.(2008)portraytheseassociallyderivedoutcomesofcommunicationpro‐

cessesthatmaybemoderatedbythemedia’scapabilitytodelivercertaincuesinacertain

way.

Intable3,Dennisetal.(2008)presentseveralcommonlyusedmediaonthesefivecapabili‐

ties,andtheresultingimpactoninformationtransmission,informationprocessing,andsyn‐

chronicity.Tabledoesnotsuggestthatindividualsmustusecertainmediaincertainways;it

just presents conclusions about the resulting capabilities when media are used in these

ways(Dennisetal.2008).Itisimportanttonotice,thatnotanysinglemediumhasthebest

valuesforbothinformationtransmissionandinformationprocessing,sonosinglemedium

couldbelabelledasmostappropriateforatask(Dennisetal.2008).

Table3alsoreinforcestheconclusionsthatthereisaninherentparadoxbetweeninforma‐

tiontransmissionandinformationprocessing(RobertandDennis2005),whichisgoingtobe

28

describedmoreindeepinthenextchapter.Mediathathavestrongcapabilitiestosupport

informationtransmissiontypicallylackstrongcapabilitiestosupportinformationprocessing

(Robert andDennis 2005).Of course, theory does not include newmedia like social net‐

working tools even though it takes instantmessaging into consideration. Thus, in theory,

newmediamighthavepossibilitiestoovercometheparadox.

TransmissionVelocity

Parallelism

SymbolSets

Rehearsa‐bility

Repro‐cessability

InformationTransmission

InformationProcessing

Synchroni‐city

F2F

High

Medium

Few‐Many

Low

Low

Fast

Low

High

VideoConference

High

Medium

Few‐Many

Low

Low

Fast

Low

High

TeleConference

High

Low

Few

Low

Low

Fast

Low

Medium

InstantMessaging

Medium‐High

Low‐Medium

Few‐Medium

Medium

Medium‐High

Medium

Low‐Medium

Medium

WebConference

Medium

High

Few‐Medium

Medium‐High

High

Medium‐Slow

Medium‐High

Low‐Medium

Email

Low‐Medium

High

Few‐Medium

High

High

Slow

High

Low

Fax

Low‐Medium

Low

Few‐Medium

High

High

Slow

High

Low

Documents

Low

High

Few‐Medium

High

High

Slow

High

Low

Table 3 .Comparison of different media and their capabilities. (Dennis et al. 2008)

Asdescribedintable3,emailisconsideredtobelowintermsofsynchronicity,whichmakes

itmoreappropriateforconveyancecommunication(Dennisetal.2008).Thishasbeenalso

notified in TaskClosure theory (Straub&Karahanna, 1998),whichalso classifies email as

lowsynchronicitymedium.

Dennisetal.(2008)proposethatthe“bestmedium”foragivensituationmaybeacombi‐

nationofmedia.Theuseofmixedmediaormediaswitchingcanavoidthedisadvantagesof

29

bothhighsocialpresencemediaand lowsocialpresencemediawhilecapitalizingontheir

advantages(RobertandDennis,2005).AlsoSaundersandJones(1990)suggestthatavari‐

etyofmediaareneededatdifferentstagesinthedecisionmakingprocessandthatdecision

makers should manage the information flow via media selection to prevent information

overload. Dennis andValacich (1999) agree;media switching could provide the best per‐

formance for a task that requires both information dissemination and convergence on a

decision(Dennis&Valacich1999).

2.1.2.3.MediaAppropriation

Inaddition tomedia–communicationprocess fit, it is important toconsiderother factors

influencingoncommunicationperformance. It isnotsolely themediaor theircapabilities

thatdirectlyinfluencecommunicationperformance,butalsothewayinwhichtheyareap‐

propriated andused (Dennis,Wixom&Vandeberg 2001;DeSanctis&Poole 1994). Three

factors that influence the relativeamountof conveyanceandconvergenceprocesses: the

familiaritythatindividualshavewitheachother,withthetask,andwiththecommunication

mediatheyuse(Dennisetal.2008).Thesethreefactorsholdimportantimplicationsforthe

impactofmediauseoncommunicationperformance(CarlsonandZmud1999;Kock2004).

Appropriationfactorsareclaimedtoimproveprocesssatisfactionandincreasethenumber

of ideas,whenappliedtogetherwithappropriatetask‐technology fit in thegroupsupport

systemusage.Thesefactorswereoriginallyexaminedinrelationtogroupsupportsystems

(Dennisetal.2001).Oncethereisatask‐technologyfit,theprovisionofappropriationsup‐

porttoaidtheincorporationoftheGSSintotheworkprocesses improveefficiencybyre‐

ducing time needed to perform the task, and improve participant’s satisfaction with the

process(Dennisetal.2001).

Groupsupportsystemisasocialtechnology,sothewayinwhichagroupchoosestoit, is

affected not only by task‐technology fit, but also by the fit of the technology with the

group’s habitual routines‐the social structures that evolve slowly over time (DeSanctis &

Poole,1994)Mediathatfituserneedswellaremorelikelytobefaithfullyappropriatedand

30

used;mediathatdonotfittheneedsoftheuserverywellarelesslikelytobefaithfullyap‐

propriatedandused(Dennisetal.2008).

Appropriation isalso influencedbyotherfactors(Dennisetal.2008);positivepastexperi‐

enceandsocialnormscaninfluencethelikelihoodthatthemediawillbeappropriatedfaith‐

fully(DeSanctisandPoole1994).Alsofamiliaritywithandtrainingontheuseofthemedia

canincreasethelikelihoodthatthemediawillbeappropriatedfaithfully(Dennisetal.2001;

DeSanctisandPoole1994).

Theneedforsynchronicityprovidedbymediaisinfluencedbyleveloffamiliaritywithcom‐

municationpartners,withthetask,andwiththemedia(Dennisetal.2008).Thus,Denniset

al.(2008)suggest,thatindividualsworkingtogetherwithwellestablishednormsworkingon

familiar tasksusing familiarmediahave lower requirements for synchronicityprovidedby

medium.Thus,ifthecommunicationpartnerandtaskarefamiliar,mediadoesnotneedto

bethatsynchronisedandgoodcommunicationperformancelevelcanstillbeachieved.

Appropriationsupportcanbeprovidedintheformoftraining,facilitation,priorgroupex‐

periencesandgrouporganisationalpoliciesandnorms.Itisexpectedthatagoodfitwithout

theneededappropriationsupportislesslikelytoleadtoimprovedperformance.(Denniset

al.2001)

31

2.1.3.CommunicationMediaRepertoires

Watson‐Manheim and Belanger (2007) present CommunicationMedia Repertoires as the

lensthroughwhichmediausagebyindividualsincomplexcommunication‐basedworkset‐

tings can be explored. Their research aimed to explore howworkers use communication

mediasimultaneouslyorsequentially,tocompleteinteractionwithcolleagues.MediaRep‐

ertoiresisusedinthisstudyfordescribingthefactors,otherthanpotentialcommunication

performance,influencingonmediachoicesinorganisationalcommunication.Thesefactors

influenceforexampleorganisation’sinfluenceaswellassituationalfactorsasdescribedin

figure 2. Central concept is the one ofmedia repertoires ‐ the variety of communication

mediaavailableinorganisation,whichisgoingtobeintroducedinthefirstpartofthischap‐

ter.

CommunicationMedia Repertoires complementsMedia Synchronicity Theory by defining

theperceivedmediaoptionsavailable foremployees.Given the fact thatmedia selection

maybesubjecttolessobjectivesocialinfluences(Saunders&Jones1990),communication

mediarepertoires(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger2007)bringsalongtheoreticalperspective

of organisational norms andpractices in this study.WatsonManheim&Belanger (2007),

posit that organizational members select a communicationmedium or a combination of

media fromtheircommunicationmediarepertoire foruse in interactionswithcolleagues,

ascanbeseenfromfigure2.Theseinstitutionalandsituationalfactorsaregoingtobedis‐

cussedinthesecondpartofthischapter.

Othermedia selection theories usually examine the usage of one, singlemedia,which is

verylimiting(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger2007).ByadoptingWatson‐ManheimandBer‐

anger’s(2007)approach,valuableinsightsofmultiplemediausagecanbegained,whichis

importantconsideringthewiderepertoireofdigitalcommunicationmediaavailable.

32

Figure 2 Proposed framework for investigating Communication Media Repertoires (Watson-Manheim &

Belanger 2007)

2.1.3.1.PerceivedMediaRepertoires

Perceivedmediarepertoires limitanddefinetherangeofcommunicationmediaselection

foremployee.Watson‐ManheimandBelanger (2007)definemediarepertoireas“thecol‐

lectionofcommunicationchannelsandidentifiableroutinesofuseforspecificcommunica‐

tion purposes within a defined community”. Proposed CommunicationMedia Repertoire

approachisadaptedfromgenrerepertoire(Orlikowski&Yates,1994).Tobeabletochoose

media,individualhastoexpectthatitisavailable.

AccordingtoOrlikowskiandYates(1994),community'sgenrerepertoireindicatesitsestab‐

lishedcommunicativepractices.Onceacommunityhasestablishedagenrerepertoire,that

repertoire structuresmembers' communicative actions, evenasmembers continue to re‐

inforceandchangethegenresthatconstituteit(Orlikowski&Yates1994).Orlikowskiand

Yates (1994)describe thatagenreoforganizational communication, suchas thebusiness

letter,shareholders'meeting,orreport,isadistinctivetypeofcommunicativeaction,char‐

acterizedbyasociallyrecognizedcommunicativepurposeandcommonaspectsofform.

33

Whenacommunityisformed,itsmemberscometosomeunderstanding,aboutthesetof

genrestheywillusetointeractasacollectively;this initialsetofgenresisoftenbasedon

members' communicativeexperiencesandgenreknowledgegained inother communities

(Orlikowsi&Yates1994).Ongoing interactionbymembersof thecommunitywill tend to

drawon and reinforce the genres establishedwithin the community, and, over time, the

genrerepertoirewillbecomeincreasinglytakenforgrantedasanaspectofthecommunity's

organizingprocess(Orlikowsi&Yates1994).

OrlikowskiandYates(1994)claimgenrerepertoirepossiblytobeparticularlyusefulforin‐

vestigatingtheintroduction,use,andinfluenceofnewmediainorganizations.Byexamining

the structuringof communicativepractices indetail, it shouldbepossible togain insights

intothetypesofchangesthatmayoccurasaresultof introducingnewmedia(Orlikowski

andYates1994).Thegenresthroughwhichinformationisshapedandsharedforparticular

purposesarenolongermerelyanaspectoforganizationalwork;rather,theyaretheorgani‐

zationalwork(OrlikowskiandYates1994).

Basedongenrerepertoireresearch,Watson‐Manheim&Belanger(2007),suggestthator‐

ganizational members select a communication medium or a combination of media from

theircommunicationmediarepertoireforuseininteractionswithcolleagues.Theyconsider

the repertoire to include the collection of communication media used by organizational

members,asaccordingtoOrlikowskiandYates(1994),theconceptofarepertoirealsoin‐

cludes the existence of socially established rules regulating the use of different genres

within thecommunity. Thus theorganisational cultureandhabitsmayhave strong influ‐

enceonindividual’smediausageandtherepertoiresetheyperceivetobeavailable.

Watson‐Manheim&Belanger(2007)drawonatechnologyin‐practiceperspectivewhereby

rulesregulatinguseof technologyaredevelopedthroughrecurrentuseof thetechnology

(Orlikowski2000).Fromthisperspective,employeesdevelopanunderstandingofhowand

when to appropriately use particular media for organizational communication purposes

suchascoordinatingorsharingknowledge(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger2007).

34

Intheirstudy,Watson‐ManheimandBelanger(2007)foundevidencethatinbothfirmsme‐

diawasusedconcurrently,eithertoconductparalleldiscussionsorperformadditionalwork

(i.e.,multitasking).Soforexampleemployeesmightsendemailthenfollowupwithavoice

mail,andthenwithatextmessage(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger,2007).Thisisconsistent

withtaskclosuretheory(StraubandKarahanna1998),whichclaimsthatiftrustislow,peo‐

pleexpresslessconfidenceinthepromisesmadeandthusconductmultiplecommunicative

acts.

2.1.3.2.InstitutionalandSituationalFactorsinfluencingtheMediaChoice

Activeareaofresearchrelatedtocommunicationmediachoiceshasbeenontheinfluence

ofcontextualfactors,whichhavebeenfoundtosignificantlyinfluencethedecisiontousea

communicationmedium (Watson‐Manheim& Belanger, 2007). At the time of action the

communicationmedia repertoire, aswell as the individual understandingof the situation

andstructuringconditions, influencemediausagedecisions(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger

2007).Theexistingrepertoireofpracticesprovidesaframethroughwhichusagedecisions

are made (Watson‐Manheim & Belanger; Orlikowski and Yates 1994). However, changes

maybemadebasedontheunderstandingofthespecificsituationandeventsatthetimeof

the usage decision (Watson‐Manheim & Belanger 2007). According to Watson‐Manheim

andBelanger(2007(,structuringconditionshavetwocomponents: institutionalconditions

andsituationalconditions.Forexample,urgencyofthecommunicationeventinfluencesthe

choiceofmedium(Trevinoetal.1987).AlsoSaundersandJones(1990)investigateanum‐

ber of contextual factors (e.g., number of concurrent decisions tomake, time pressures,

perceivedimportanceofthedecision,valuepremises).

Institutionalconditions includebothphysicalandsocial structures;communitynorms,en‐

couragement for use, public social contexts, compensation practices, interpersonal trust

andphysicalworkplacestructure (Watson‐Manheim&Belanger2007).As thenumberof

mediaavailabletoemployeesincreases,ithaseffectsnotonlyonorganizationaltasksand

performance,butalsoonmediabehaviours(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger2007).

35

Particularlyimportantforunderstandingtheroutineuseofarangeofcommunicationme‐

diaintheperformanceofworkactivitiesarecommunitynorms,orsociallyestablishedregu‐

latingbehaviours(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger2007).Influenceofcommunicationnorms

andrulesforinteractionintheusageofmediawithinworkgroupshavebeenshowninpre‐

viousstudies (Markus1994).Behaviouralnormsshape theunderstandingof themedium,

andtheadvantagethatisgainedfromitsuse(Te’eni2001).Further,communicationmedia

users develop an understanding of a communicationmedium that has influence on their

perceptionofcapabilitiesofthemediumandconsequentusagebehaviour(Markus1994).

The influence of organizational norms on communications media use has been demon‐

stratedinmultiplestudies(Fulk,1993;Markus,1994;Watson‐Manheim&Belanger,2007;

Yates&Orlikowski,1992).Researchsuggeststhatstrongsocialandorganisationalencour‐

agementforuseofemailinfluencesthedecisiontousethismedium(Markus1994).Public

social contexts such as meetings can affect employees’ perceptions of appropriate work

behaviours as they observe how others use and talk about using ICT in various settings

(Stephens&Davis2009).Watson‐ManheimandBelanger (2007)alsonote, thatorganisa‐

tionalcompensationpracticesmayinfluenceonmediausage.

Watson‐ManheimandBelanger (2007)also remind that interpersonal trusthas important

implicationsforconductingorganisationalworkactivities,andpresentanewdimensionto

thisresearch;evidencewasfoundthatleveloftrustinfluencebehaviourandusagepatterns

ofthemedia.Insummary,Watson‐ManheimandBelanger(2007)presentthatinstitutional

factorslikephysicalstructureofworkunit,socialstructures(especiallyinterpersonaltrust)

andincentivesforuseofdifferentmediaappeartoinfluenceonemployeesmediapercep‐

tionsandusage.

Watson‐Manheim&Belangerdescribethatwhileinstitutionalfactorsinfluencepreference

for the use of communicationmedia repertoires both directly and indirectly, “employees

alsoreportvaryingtheuseofmediadependingontheirunderstandingoffactorsspecificto

a given communication undertaking”. Watson‐Manheim and Belanger (2007) label these

situationalfactors,whichaccordingtothemissimilartoMarkus(1994).AccordingtoMar‐

36

kus (1994), situational factors have also been argued by information richness theorists

(Trevinoetal.1987)toinfluencemediachoice,eventhoughtheywerenotincludedtothe

originaltheory.

Watson‐Manheim and Belanger (2007) define the following as situational factors: task

characteristics,messagecharacteristicsandurgency. Forexample,evidence is found that

when message is sensitive, face‐to‐face or phone interaction is preferred (Watson‐

Manheim&Belanger,2007).Watson‐ManheimandBelanger(2007)alsoelaborate,thatin

theirstudyemployeesmentionthedifficultyofconveyingasenseofurgencyinemailbe‐

causetherearetoomanyemailsandsomepeopledonotrespondtothem.

Ithas tobenoted, thatWatson‐ManheimandBelanger’s (2007) listdoesn’t coverall the

situational factors.AsStraubandKarahanna(1998)claim,thatrecipientavailability,when

comparedsimultaneouslywithothermediachoicedeterminants,provedtobeakeymedia

choice construct. People tend to choosehigh social presencemedia ifmessage isurgent.

(Robert&Dennis,2005)Studieshavefoundthatavailabilityiscloselyassociatedwithwhy

organizationmemberschoosecertainmediaortechnologies(Straub&Karahanna,1998).In

particular,thesestudieshaveindicatedthatasynchronousmediasuchasemailorvoicemail

are likelytobeusedwhenthe intendedrecipientsarenottemporallyavailable(Leeetal.

2009

Inaddition,Markus(1994)definesforexamplethelocationofsenderandreceiverasasitu‐

ationalfactor.Thus,thesefactorsshouldbeaddedtosituationalconditionsincommunica‐

tionmediachoices. Inaddition,othercontextualfactorsinfluencingonmediausagechoi‐

cesarefamiliaritywithtechnologyandtask(CarlsonandZmud1999;Fulk1993),groupsize

(Miranda and Saunders 2003), and the level of job pressure and task routineness (Fulk

1993). Timmerman (2002) suggests that incomingmediummayplay an important role in

determiningwhichmediumissubsequentlyselected. Assuch,the incomingmediummay

representanadditionalvariablethatmaymoderatewhethermediarichnessandsocial in‐

fluenceconstructsarepredictiveofmediause(Timmerman,2002).Thus,ithastobetaken

intoconsiderationassituationalfactorinthisstudy.

37

2.2. Challenges Related to Communication in Knowledge Work

Thetheoreticalperspectivesprovidelensesforthepresentstudytoinvestigatethechallen‐

gesrelatedtocommunicationexperiencedbyindividualsinknowledge‐workorganisation.It

is important tounderstandthechallenges tobeable todiscuss the factorshinderingeffi‐

cientcommunication.Thissectionsupportssolvingthesubquestion“What isexperienced

aschallenginginorganisationalcommunication”.

In this chapter, employeewelfare, downsides of electronicmedia in relation to interrup‐

tions,taskperformance,informationoverloadandstressarediscussed.Inthesecondpart

ofthechapter,Cognitivemodelofmediachoice(Robert&Dennis,2005)is introducedfor

describingthe linkbetweenthechallengesand inefficientmediachoices. MediaSynchro‐

nicitytheory(Dennisetal.2008)presentedearlierprovidesthegeneralunderstandingfor

theefficientuseofmedia,butCognitiveModelofMediaChoice (Robert&Dennis,2005)

provides deeper understanding for the possiblemechanisms how the problems origin in

organisationalcommunication;whatactuallyhappenswhenthewrongmediaischosen.

2.2.1.Electronicmedia,interruptions,overloadandtaskperformance

Electronicmediaandinformationoverloadseemtohavelinkagetowork‐relatedstressem‐

ployeesexperience.Thereare several theories trying toexplain the causesandeffectsof

theseproblemsinorganisations.StraubandKarahanna’s(1998)qualitativefindingssuggest

thatinabilitytobringtaskclosureresultsinincreasedstressformessageinitiators.Forex‐

ample,64%ofrespondentsindicatedthattheyexperiencedstresswhenevertheywerenot

abletocompleteacommunicationact,whichisconsistentwithfindingsthatsubjectsper‐

ceiving greater personal control overwork experience less anxiety (Perrewe andGanster

1989 inStraub&Karahanna,1998)AlsoKirmeyer (1988)hasnoticed, that the inability to

bringclosuretotasksequencesresultsinfragmentationofworkandhigherlevelsofstress.

38

The asynchronous quality of new media such as email, voicemail, and fax (Straub and

Karahanna1998;Dennisetal.2008)mayplayacriticalroleinenablingmessagesendersto

bringclosuretocommunicationact,meaningthat individualschooseasynchronousmedia

likeemailtoavoidhavingtoengage inrepeatedactsofmessagingtobringclosuretothe

communicationact.Useofnewmediamayserveasakeypsychologicalroleinsignificantly

loweringworkerstressandfrustration(Straub&Karahanna,1998).AlsoTayloretal.(2008)

andDennisetal.(2008)havearguedthatoneoftheadvantagesofemailcommunicationis

thatitallowsmessagestobesentwithoutinterruptingtherecipient.Theabilitytocontact

peoplewithoutinterruptingthemisafeatureofemailthatmayhaveanempoweringeffect

forpeoplewitharelatedanxiety(Tayloretal.2008).

However, it is noticed that interruptionsmay be disruptive to people engaged on a task

(Tayloretal.2008).Modernbroadbandtechnologyallowspersonalcomputerstocheckfor

newemaileveryminute,andtheapplicationcanbesettoprovideanalertuponreceiptofa

newmessage; these innovations provide opportunities for frequent interruptions, which

maybedetrimentaltoworkproductivity(Tayloretal,2008).

Interruptions seem to be an extensive challenge. According to Finnish research (Työ &

Terveys2006),halfoftheemployeeswereforcedtooftenorconstantlyinterrupttheircur‐

rentwork tasks togiveway tomoreurgent tasks.According to the same research,when

looking at the field specific numbers, interruptions are most typical in commercial work

(68%)andadministration‐andofficework(68%).Whenlookingintothenatureofthetasks,

mostinterruptions(61%)occurinknowledge‐work(Työ&Terveys2006).

Giventhetrend,closingtaskwithasynchronousmedialikeemailmighthaveturnedagainst

itself.Acommoncomplaintofemailusersisitsimpactontheirworkload.Alargesurveyby

the Australian Psychological Society (APS 2003) found that 80 per cent ofworkers spent

morethan20percentoftheirdaydealingwithemails. So,employeesmighttrytoclose

tasktoavoidstressbsendingemails,butactuallythiskindof logic increasesthemessage

loadandinterruptionstremendouslyinalongterm.

39

AccordingtoWhittakers(2005)study,usersoftencomplainaboutfeelingoverwhelmedby

thevolumeofmessagestheyreceiveandtheyalsoseemtohavedifficultiestoorganizeand

manage their email data (Whittaker, 2005). Email usage is problematic inmanyorganisa‐

tions; it isusedforsharing largeattachments,andafterawhilethere ismultipledifferent

versions,whichincreasestheriskthatsomeoneusesthewrongone(Otala&Pöysti,2008,

55)Employeeshavedifficulties inorganizingandmanagingtheiremaildata;most import‐

antly,theyhaveproblemsinusingemailtoexecute“collaborativetasks.”(Whittaker,2005)

Itisimportanttorecognize,thatemailwasneveraimedtobeagroupsupporttool(Otala&

Pöysti2008,28).Therearetoolsmuchbettersuitedforcooperationandfilesharingthan

email.AsOtalaandPöysti (2008,55)note, it isusefultoreplacepartofemail trafficwith

wikis,wherethelatestandcorrectinformationisalwaysavailableforalltheparticipants.

Inaddition,emailsareoftenpoorlytargeted.Intheirstudywithinalargeinternationalor‐

ganisation Kimble, Hildreth, andGrimshaw (1998) found that somemanagerswere over‐

loadedwithemailsbecauseoftheinappropriateuseofthecarboncopy(cc)function.Bur‐

gressetal.(2005)positthatemployeesmayoftencopyemailstotheirsuperiorssimplyto

‘‘covertheirownback’’.Theccfunctionisalsooftenusedtosendemailsthatareforinfor‐

mationonlyanddonotrequireaction;however,therecipientdoesnotknowthisandhas

tospendtimeprocessingthemessage(Burgessetal.2005).

Thus, it seems that in addition to constantly occurring interruptions, there is overload of

messages in organisation, which is especially caused by email usage. As Kirmeyer (1988)

posits,interestingexplanationforadirectlinkbetweencopingandloadissuggestedbyre‐

search demonstrating that often‐repeated andwell‐learned actionsmay be engaged in a

relatively automatic or mindless fashion (Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz, 1978 in Kirmeyer,

1988). Langer (1978) suggests thatwhen people process incoming information, they sys‐

tematically ignore information. Prior scripts are used in processing; scripts were written

when similar information really was once new, and then applied over and over again

(Langer,1978).Thus,thepartofinformation,whichisprocessed,isnotnecessarilythemost

importantpart(Langer,1978).

40

Itseemsthatemployeesaremorerushednowadays;betweentheyears2003and2006a

clearincreaseoccurredinFinland.Morethanahalfofemployeeshadtohurryoftenorvery

oftentogetthetaskscompleted(Työ&Terveys2006).Giventhefactthatemployeesfeel

rushed, it is very likely that a lot of informationmay be systematically ignored, because

theresimplyisnottimetogothroughalltheinformationreceived.

2.2.3.Linkbetweencommunicationmediachoicesanddecisionquality

The problems described in the previous chapter seem to indicate, that besides providing

advantages,mediaand technologybringalongmultiple challenges toorganisational com‐

munication.Tobetterunderstand,whytheseproblemslikedifficultiesdealingwithemails

origin, andwhy is it important to choose appropriatemedia for task, CognitiveModel of

MediaChoice–theory(Robert&Dennis,2005)isintroduced.

Theory isused inthisstudyfor linkingthemediachoicestoorganisationsand individual’s

communication efficiency and performance, highlighting the decision quality and produc‐

tivity. Theassumptionsof theCognitiveModelofMediaChoice, likeparadoxof richness,

arepresent inMediaSynchronicitytheory(Dennisetal.2008) insomedegree,butthe is‐

suesneedtobeemphasisedmoredeeplyinthischaptertobetterunderstandthepossible

challenges.Cognitivemodelofmediachoicetheoryanditsideascanbeseenasaresultof

mediachoicesintermsofelaborationlikelihood,butitalsoinfluencesonmediachoiceitself

insomedegree.

RobertandDennis (2005)argue that there is aparadoxembeddedwithin theuseof rich

media.Previousresearchseemstoconfirmthatindividualsprefermedialowinsocialpres‐

ence(asynchronouslikeemail)forprocessinglargeamountsofinformationandonthecon‐

trary,mediahighinsocialpresence(synchronouslikephone)forsmallamountsofinforma‐

tion(Robert&Dennis2005;Hrastinski2008).

41

RobertandDennisdescribe,thattheuseofsynchronousmediainducesincreasedmotiva‐

tionbutdecreasestheabilitytoprocessinformation,whiletheuseofasynchronousmedia

inducesdecreasedmotivationbutincreasestheabilitytoprocessinformation(seefigure3).

Whenamessageissentviaasynchronousmedium,thereceiverhasmoretimetocompre‐

hend the message (Robert & Dennis, 2005). Synchronous communication increases user

motivationbutmadeitharderforthemtoprocessinformation(Hrastinski2008;Robert&

Dennis2005).Ontheotherhand,asRobertandDennis(2005)andHrastinski(2008)argue,

thereceiverhadmoretimetocomprehendanasynchronousmessagesincetherewasno

needtorespondquickly.

RobertandDennis(2005)usetheelaborationlikelihoodmodel(ELM),oneofthedualpro‐

cesstheoriesofcognitionasthefundamentaltheoreticalframework.Elaborationlikelihood

modelposits that inorder to change someone’sunderstandingandattitude, the receiver

hastobemotivatedtothinkaboutthemessageandhastohavetheabilitytoprocessthe

message(Robert&Dennis,2005.)ELM,introducedbyPettyandCacioppo(1986)providesa

framework fororganizing, categorizing, andunderstandingbasicprocessesunderlying the

effectivenessorpersuasivenessofcommunication (Robert&Dennis2005).Thereare two

separate routes topersuasionwhichmightoccur; central andperipheral route (Robert&

Dennis2005). Petty andCacioppo (1986) claim thatmotivationand theability toprocess

theinformationdeterminewhichrouteindividualswillemploy.

Figure 3 Inverse relationship between processing ability and motivation (Robert & Dennis, 2005)

42

Butwhyisprocessingabilityandmotivationsoimportant?Theansweristheresultinglevel

ofdecisionquality,which is extremely important aspect in knowledgework. First,Robert

andDennis(2005)proposethat“theextentofelaborationispositivelyrelatedtodecision

quality”.Receiverswhoagreetousehighsocialpresencemediawillhavehighlevelsofat‐

tentionandbemotivatedtoprocessthemessage(Robert&Dennis,2005).Second,Robert

andDennis(2005)argue,that“individualswhoreceivecomplexmessagesentusingahigh

socialpresencemediumwill rejectthemessage,delaythedecision,or lookforperipheral

cues”.Onthecontrary,individualswhoarefacedwithacomplexmessagesentusingame‐

diumwithlowsocialpresenceandwhoaremotivatedwillelaborateonthemessage‐com‐

plex messages require a high ability to process because humans have limited extended

workingmemory (Robert andDennis 2005). Thus, usingwrongmedia forwrong purpose

maydelaythedecision‐makingor informationprocessing,or lowerthedecisionqualityof

employees. These suggestionsmay provide explanation to the challenges experienced in

knowledge‐work.

Unless individuals fully consider themessages they are presentedwith, they cannot con‐

stantlymakegooddecisionsbasedontheinformation(Robert&Dennis,2005).Highelabo‐

ration leads tobetterdecisionmakingbetween individualsperformingdecision,problem,

and judgment tasks within an organization/work team environment (Robert & Dennis,

2005).Inaddition,whensendersrequireanimmediateresponsefromthereceiver,theywill

chooseamediumwithahighersocialpresence(Robert&Dennis,2005).The“urgency”or

needforimmediateattention,coupledwiththetask,hasproventobeanimportantdeter‐

minantofmediumselection(Straub&Karahanna1998).Though,usingrichmediuminthis

caseismoreconvenientforthesender,butmaycauseproblemsandinconvenienceforthe

receiver,andlowerprocessingabilityofthemessage.Thismayincreasechallengesexperi‐

encedinorganisationalcommunication.

Ascritiqueitmustbesaid,thatCognitiveModelofMediaChoiceissomewhatdeterministic;

itis,afterall,theusersandnotthemediumthatdeterminewhetherasynchronousorsyn‐

chronous operation occurs (Hrastinski 2008). However, a medium might better support

synchronicitybecauseofitscharacteristics(Hrastinski2008).

43

2.3. Conceptual Framework

Todiscoverthefactorshinderingefficientcommunicationinknowledge‐workorganisation,

two sub questionswere presented. The frameworks are essentially created for these sub

questionsbasedoncombining resultsandmodels fromrecent literature.The results from

thesetwoframeworksareexpectedto lead intofindingthefactors,whicharepreventing

efficientcommunicationinorganisation.

Whatarethefactorsinfluencingonindividuals’mediachoicesinknowledge‐work?

Framework1:factorsinfluencingonmediachoices

Whatisexperiencedaschallenginginorganisationalcommunication?

Framework2:Challengesexperiencedinknowledge‐workorganisation

Framework1,Factorsinfluencingonmediachoices, isappliedasthemainresearchframe‐

workinthisstudy;allthefactorsinfluencingonmediachoicecanintheorybehinderingthe

efficientmediachoicesandcommunication.Thisframework(figure4)forempiricalresearch

ispresentedfirst,andiscreatedbytheresearcherbasedoncombinationofMediaSynchro‐

nicityTheory(Denniset.al,2008)andCommunicationMediaRepertoires(Watson‐Manheim

&Belanger.2007).

Next, second framework, Challenges experienced in knowledge‐work organisation, is pre‐

sented (figure 5). Framework is composed based on drawing together the findings of the

problemsandchallengesexperiencedinknowledge‐work.Itisimportanttounderstandthe

linkbetweenthemediachoiceandchallengesexperienced. In theendof thischapter, to‐

gether with the second framework, Cognitive Model of Media Choice (Robert & Dennis,

2005)isusedfordescribingthephenomenon.

44

2.3.1.Factorsinfluencingonmediachoicesinknowledge‐work

Suggestedframeworkonedescribesthefactorsperceivedtoinfluenceonindividualscom‐

municationbehaviourandchoices inaknowledge‐workorganisation.MediaSynchronicity

(Dennisetal.2008),andMediaRepertoires(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger2007)arecom‐

binedtogainacomprehensiveunderstandingofthemediachoicesandfactorsinfluencing

onthem.

Media Synchronicity Theory (Dennis et al. 2008) is considered being the “rationalmedia

choice”theory,giventheexpectedcommunicationperformanceduetoefficientfitbetween

task andmedia. Individuals areexpected tomatch the communicationprocessor task to

relevantmediabasedonmedia’scapabilities(Dennisetal.2008).Thisfitispresentedatthe

righthandsideinthefigure4.Relatedtothisarea,conveyanceandconvergenceprocesses

areconsideredinsomeextent.Frameworkalsoincludestheperceivedcapabilitiesdifferent

mediapossesses.Itispossible,thatemployeesperceivethecapabilitiesofthemediawrong

and thus arenot able tomatch the task tomedia,whichmightposebarriers to efficient

communication.Also,ithastobeclarifiedtowhichextenttheexpectedperformanceinflu‐

encesonmediachoice.

Ontheleftsideinframeworkone(seefigure4),structuringconditionsinfluencingoncom‐

municationbehaviourarepresented.Thispartpresentsthefactorsotherthanrationaleffi‐

ciency,whichpossiblyinfluenceonthemediachoice.Aswellasregardingtherationalme‐

dia choice, it is possible to find factors hindering efficient communication amongst these

structuringconditions.Eventhoughmediasynchronicityandefficiencywouldbeconsidered

rationally, these structuring factorsmay influence on choice and thus alter resulting effi‐

ciency. These structuring factors composedbya researcherof this study include features

fromCommunicationMediaRepertoirestheory(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger2007)aswell

asAppropriationfactorsadjustedfromMST(Dennisetal.2008).

CommunicationMediaRepertoires(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger,2007)providethetheory

withthefollowingfactors; Institutionalconditions(physicalstructures, interpersonaltrust,

45

organisationalincentivesandsocialnorms);situationalconditions(urgency,recipientavail‐

abilityand locations)andperceivedmedia repertoire theemployeehaspossibility touse.

Watson‐Manheim&Belanger(2007),positthatorganizationalmembersselectacommuni‐

cationmediumoracombinationofmediafromtheircommunicationmediarepertoirefor

use in interactionswith colleagues. The existing repertoire of practices provides a frame

through which usage decisions are made (Watson‐Mangeim & Belanger; Orlikowski and

Yates 1994).However, changesmaybemadebasedon theunderstandingof the specific

situationandeventsatthetimeoftheusagedecision(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger2007).

Thus it is important to investigate the influence of situational conditions as well as per‐

ceivedrepertoiresfurther.

Appropriationfactorsincludetrainingandpastexperiencewiththemediaaswellasfamili‐

aritywithmedia,partner,and taskathand. It isnot solely themediaor theircapabilities

that directly influence communication performance, but also the way in which they are

appropriatedandused(Dennisetal.2001;DeSanctis&Poole1994).Appropriationfactors

inMediaSynchronicitytheory (Dennisetal.2008) includesocialnorms inaddition,but in

the framework one (figure 4), institutional conditions already include it, so they are

excludedfromappropriationfactors.

Overall,inthisstudy,institutionalconditionsmoreemphasizenorms,practicesandculture,

which is not necessarily articulated clearly, but experienced by employees. Appropriation

factorsaremore related toexperiencesbeforeandoutsideorganisation,butalso include

formaltrainingforthemediausage. It isexpectedthatagoodfitwithouttheneededap‐

propriationsupportis lesslikelytoleadtoimprovedperformance(Dennisetal.2001).On

theotherhand,institutionalconditionsmoreinfluenceontheperceivedorganisationalap‐

provalandsilent, socialencouragement forusage,which forms throughunderstandingof

social norms. Thismayemerge for example as assumptionsof themost preferredor rel‐

evantmediainorganisation.

MediachoicefurthercontributestoElaborationLikelihoodeither inanegativeorpositive

manner.This isdescribed inCognitiveModelofMediaChoice (RobertandDennis,2005).

46

However,thereisalsoperceivedinfluencetotheotherdirection;ifelaborationlikelihoodis

low, e.g. information is not being processed or there is nomotivation/attention to com‐

munication,informationmightbemissedandmediachoiceconductedinamindlessstate.

According toTimmerman (2002),when collapsingacross themindlessness/mindful condi‐

tions,Media Richness, a commonly used theory in the field of communication behaviour

research,explanationsaccuratelypredictedonly37%oftheparticipants’mediause.Thisis

especially a problem in complex communication situations as well as when information

overloadispresentandemployeesdon’thavetimetoconcentrateproperly.Thismightfur‐

theraccumulate the inefficientmedia choices.Thus, also the roleof continuing the same

channel(incomingmedium)hastobetakenintoconsideration.

Figure 4. Framework 1 - Factors influencing on media choice

47

2.3.2.Challengesexperiencedinorganisationalcommunication

Sowhatkindsofchallengesoccurinorganisationalcommunication,ifmediaisnotchosen

efficiently? In this study,problemsexperiencedbyemployeesareexplored,but themain

emphasisisonthechallenges,whichmightoccurduetowrongkindofcommunicationme‐

diausage.Ifthemediachoiceandcommunicationisdoneinanefficientway,wheremedia

ismatchedtotask,andtheresult iscomprehendedmessageresulting inhighelaboration

likelihood, there isa theoretical linkage toqualitydecisionsandproductivityaccording to

RobertandDennis(2005).Alsonegativeeffectmayemerge,incaseswheremediachoices

arenotefficientandinformationoverloademerges.Thismightleadintohigherstresslevel

ofemployeesandunproductiveorganisation,whenemployeeshavedifficultiestodealwith

messagestheyreceive.Theseconsequencesandchallengesfromindividual’sviewpointare

empiricallyexamined.

Framework2 (figure5)presents the theoreticalproblemsemployeesmightexperienceor

face in theireverydayworkrelatedto inefficientcommunication.Figure5drawstogether

thedifferentfindingsfrompreviousresearch. Inefficientmediausageand lowelaboration

likelihoodseemtoleadintohighlevelofinterruptionsandinformationoverload.Itispos‐

sible,thatwhenindividualexperiencesoverloadandinterruption,stresslevelincreasesand

situationhastobecopedwithsomehow;taskclosureattemptsandmindlessnessinforma‐

tionprocessingandmediachoicesoccur.

When considering the disadvantages and excessive amount of emails knowledgeworkers

havetodealwith,itlookslikeTaskClosuretheory(Straub&Karahanna,1998)mightnotbe

aspositive as itwasbefore. Even though theproductivityof individualwould increase, it

seems that the overall productivity of the organisationmay actually decrease because of

lowerdecisionquality.Inaddition,theinabilitytobringclosuretotasksequencesresultsin

fragmentationofworkandhigher levelsof stress (Kirmeyer,1988). Asynchronousmedia

provides an option to close tasks while not interrupting recipient (Straub & Karahanna,

1998).However,alwaysonbroadbandandotherinnovationsmightincreaseinterruptions,

whichmaybedetrimental towork productivity (Taylor et al, 2008). Increased email load

48

may occur because of task closure attempts, whichmight accelerate due to information

overloadinknowledge‐workenvironment.

Kirmeyer(1988)hasbeenfocusingonmindlessnessfashionofprocessingthingswhenthey

areoftenrepeatedandwell learned.Whenprocessing incoming information,onlyamini‐

malamountof structural informationmaybeattended to,and that this informationmay

notbethemostusefulpart(Langer,1978).Thus, itseemsthatpeopletendsometimesto

forexamplereadandforwardemailsinmindlessstateofmindtocopewithoverload,which

mightleadintolowelaborationlikelihoodandinefficientinformationprocessing,whenthe

information is not processed in a fullmeaning, which has a negative impact on decision

quality. Also Timmerman’s research (2002) supports the theory; according to him,media

capabilitiesand social influence seem toexplain fewer than40%ofmedia choices,which

doesn’tleavemuchroomforrationalthinking.

AsRobertandDennis(2005)explain,incircumstanceswhereindividualsarenotmotivated

or donot have the ability to process information, theywill not allocateprocessing effort

towardareceivedmessageandwillnotfullyintegratetheinformationwiththeirprevious

knowledge.Whenthisoccurs,theelaborationlikelihoodisdescribedasbeinglow(Robert&

Dennis2005).

Asdescribed,therearepotentialchallengesinorganisationsrelatedorganisationsperform‐

ance. It isunclearandoutof thescopeof this study,what is therelationof these issues,

theircausesandeffectsinreal‐worldcontext.Though,thefollowingconceptualframework

ispresentedbasedontheorytoprovidesomedegreeofclaritytotheproblemsandtheir

relations.Itispossible,thatthesearetheproblematicissuesrelatedtolowelaborationlike‐

lihood,whichcouldbeimprovedbypayingmoreattentiontoefficientmediausageininter‐

organisationalcommunication.

Dopeoplethenactuallyexperienceproblemsintheirwork?Whatkindofissuesthereisin

work‐relatedcommunication? Arethereanynewfactors,whicharenotnoted intheories

49

influencing on or resulting from communication behaviour?With the aid of empirical re‐

searchitisexamined,iftheseproblemsareexperiencedincaseorganisation.

Figure 5 Framework 2 - Challenges experienced in knowledge-work

CognitiveModel ofMediaChoicehelps in understanding thephenomena and to indicate

theefficientusageofmedia.Figure6illustratestherelationofmediachoicesandchallen‐

ges experienced and their effects in knowledge intensive work. This is a combination of

CognitiveModelofMediaChoice (RobertandDennis,2005)presented in thechapter2.2

(Challenges)andMediaSynchronicityTheory(Dennisetal.2008).Mediaispresentedona

lineintermsofprocessingabilityanddegreeofmotivationaccordingtoMST(Dennisetal.

2008)

ThebasicaxesarefromCognitiveModelofMediaChoice;whenthesocialpresenceofme‐

diaishigh,motivationtoconcentrateoncommunicationishighandviceversa.Socialpres‐

enceandsynchronicitydefinitionsofdifferentmediamatch,soaccordingtoboththeories

themediasettledowntosamelocationonline.

50

Figure 6 Link between media choices and problems experienced

Thusinthefigure6thebasictheoreticalmodelandbackgroundisprovidedtodescribewhat

kindofcommunicationmediaintheoryisefficientinwhichcommunicationsituationandin

terms of elaboration likelihood/cognitive processing. Figure helps visually to understand

howthedifferentmediaare located to theparadoxicalmotivation‐processingability field.

BasedonthemodelofRobertandDennis(2005),elaborationlikelihoodislowwhenmedia

is used inefficiently, and lot of information is missed. Different challenges experienced,

whichare related toorganisationalcommunication,mayresultdue towrongmediaselec‐

tions. These problems, their possible causes and effectswere previously explained and il‐

lustratedintheframework2(figure5).

Intheory,mediashouldmematchedtotasksothatcommunicationperformancewouldbe

high.Insituations,whereinappropriatemediaisselectedpossiblyduetoinfluenceofstruc‐

turingconditions,lowelaborationlikelihoodisexpectedtoemerge,whichleadsintoineffi‐

51

cientsituationandproblemsexperiencedbyemployees.Thisisdemonstratedinthedown‐

lefthandcorner.Thearrowinthefigure6describesthepossibilitytoalterthemediachoi‐

ces of individuals and thus influence on the communication efficiency and outcomes. By

influencingonstructuringconditionandclarifyingtherationalmediachoice,management

maybeabletoimprovetheorganisationalefficiencyandlowerthebarriershinderingeffi‐

cient communication. Also, it has bee presented thatmedia switching or usage ofmixed

mediamightprovidethebestperformance(Dennis&Valacich1999;Robert&Dennis2005;

Saunders& Jones 1990) Processing capabilities and transmission capabilities,which form

MediacapabilitiesinMST(Dennisetal.2008)canbeconsideredasmoredetaileddescrip‐

tion for Cognitive models motivation and ability to process dimensions. Both Cognitive

ModelofMediaChoiceandMSTdefineemailasasynchronousmedia.

To summarize, according to Media Synchronicity and Cognitive Model of Media Choice,

there is an efficientmediawith different degree of synchronicity for particular task. It is

possible,thatthechallengesrelatedtocommunicationareexperienced,becauseindividuals

don’t choose themedia accordingly to purpose, or understand the theoretical efficiency.

Also, structuring conditions presented in framework one (figure 4) may provide explan‐

ationstotheinefficientmediausageandpossiblyoriginatingchallenges.

52

3.Methodology

Inthissection,theresearchstrategychoseforthisstudyispresented,afterwhichthedata

collection and analysis techniques are explained. The reliability and validity issues of the

studyarediscussedalongwiththesechapters.

3.1. The research strategy, approach and delimitations

Yin (2003, 5) has named three areas contributing to the choice of the research strategy;

typeof the researchquestionposed, theextentof thecontrol researcherhasoveractual

behavioural events and the degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to historical

events.Ithasbeenacknowledged,thattheexplanatorytypeofresearchquestionslikehow

andwhatare likely to favour theuseofcasestudies, fieldexperimentsandhistories.The

casestudyisalsopreferredinexaminingcontemporaryevents,butwhentherelevantfac‐

torscannotbemanipulated.Casestudyreliesonmanyofthesametechniquesashistory,

butdirectobservationof theeventsand interviewsof thepersons involved in theevents

canbeaddedassourcesofevidence.(Yin2003,5‐10)

Fieldexperimentswouldnotbepossibleinthisparticularcasestudygiventhecomplexityof

thecase,itwouldnotbepossiblefortheresearchertomanipulatebehavioursystematically

andincludeallthevariables,giventhecomplexityofphenomenon(Yin2003,6‐8).Giventhe

criteriaandguidelinesstatedabove,thecasestudyapproachwaschosenasthestrategyof

thisresearch.

Casestudyinvestigatesacontemporaryphenomenonwithinitsreal‐lifecontext,especially

whentheboundariesbetweenphenomenonandcontextarenotclearlyevident(Yin2003;

Dubois&Gadde,2002). Intheorganisationalcommunicationbehaviourresearchthephe‐

nomenoncan’tbeseparatedfromthecontext;itisessentialtoincludethesituationaland

contextualfactorsintoexamination.Forexample,theexperimentwouldseparatethephe‐

53

nomenon from its context, so that attention can be focusedon only a few variables (Yin

2003,13),whichwouldignoreimportantaspectsofthephenomenoninquestion.Surveys

cantrytodealwiththephenomenonandcontext,buttheirabilityto investigatethecon‐

textisextremelylimited(Yin2003,13).Thissaid;thecasestudystrategyseemedtobethe

rightchoiceforthisresearch.

In general, for case studies, theory development as part of the design phase is essential,

whetherthecase’spurposeistodeveloportestthetheory(Yin2003,31‐32).Theappropri‐

atelydevelopedtheoryisthedegreeinwhichtheresultscanbegeneralized;incasestudies,

instead of statistical generalization, analytical generalization is applied (Yin 2003, 31‐32).

Thus theproblemofgeneralisationcanbeovercome in this study.However, there isalso

anotherkindofapproachtotheorydevelopmentusedintheabductiveresearchapproach,

which is the chosen approach for this particular study.Dubois andGadde (2002) present

research approach called systematic combining, which is characterised by continuous

movementbetweenanempiricalworldandamodelworld.Thisapproach lets theoretical

framework,empiricalfieldworkandcaseanalysisevolvesimultaneously,andisusefulespe‐

ciallyfordevelopmentofnewtheories(Dubois&Gadde2002).Thesystematiccombiningis

anargumentforastrongerrelianceontheorythanitissuggestedbytrueinduction,butitis

alsoverydistantfromdeduction.Abductionisaboutinvestigatingtherelationshipbetween

everydaylanguageandconcepts,whichissimilarto induction;though,thelogicofabduc‐

tionisdifferent.(Dubois&Gadde,2002)

AccordingtoDuboisandGadde(2002),thetheorycannotbeunderstoodwithoutempirical

observationandvice versa; theevolving frameworkdirects the search forempiricaldata.

Empiricalobservationsmayresultinidentificationofunanticipatedbutrelatedissues.This

on theotherhandmaybring the furtherneed to redirect theoretical framework through

expansionorchangeoftheoreticalmodel(Dubois&Gadde,2002).Theobjectiveofanyre‐

searchistoconfronttheorywiththeempiricalworld,andinsystematiccombiningapproach

thisconfrontationismoreorlesscontinuousthroughoutresearchprocess(Dubois&Gadde,

2002).

54

Inregardtotheresearchframework,DuboisandGadde(2002)suggestatightbutevolving

framework.Theframework issuccessfullymodifiedpartlyduetoempiricalfindings,partly

thenewrelevanttheories(Dubois&Gadde,2002).Systematiccombiningbuildsonexisting

theories,notgenerateanewoneoutofnowhere,buttheobjectiveisstilltodiscovernew

things. (Dubois&Gadde, 2002) In this study, the chosen approach also ensures external

validity;thestrongtheorybackgroundandcarefullycomposedquestionsinresearchdesign

increaseexternalvalidity(Yin2003,33‐37).Investigatortriangulationfurtherincreasedthe

degreeofvalidity.

Ageandgenderareinfluencingoncommunicationbehaviour,butinthisresearchteyawere

leftoutofthescope.Communicationprocessesandtasksarenotthemainfocusofthere‐

search. They are necessary for gaining understanding of themedia usage and context in

relationtomediacapabilities,butarenotgoingtobedescribedindetail.

Specificusageofdifferentmedia indifferentcontext leadstheoreticallydifferentelabora‐

tion likelihood results. Thishelps inunderstanding thepossible linkbetweencommunica‐

tion behaviour and challenges occurring. However, within this scope it is impossible to

measure the processing ability and communication motivation of the employees empiri‐

cally,sothelinkageandexplanationbetweenthemediachoicesandexperiencedproblems

isgoingtobepurelytheoretical.Empiricallyexaminedfactorsinfluencingonmediachoice

decisions,thechallengesinorganisationalcommunicationandthekeyfactorshinderingthe

efficient communication resulting in challenges are presented, and as result it is possible

that by influencingon the factors identifiedmanagement can influenceonorganisational

efficiency.

55

3.2. Data Collection

Thecaseorganisationofthisstudy,TeliaSonera’sBusinessServicesFinlandunit,represents

well the contemporary knowledge‐work environment. The case has possibility to provide

interesting insights to occurring challenges, because in theory the unit should have all

possibilitiestoefficientcommunication,afterallwearetalkingaboutcompanyoperatingat

telecommunicationsfield,butstilltheorganisationalcommunicationisexperiencedaschal‐

lenging. The sampling framewas thus theBusiness Services Finlandunit. To increase the

reliabilityofthecasestudy,casestudydatabasewasestablished(Yin,2003,102).

As statedbyYin (2003,15), case studies canbeamixofquantitativeandqualitativeevi‐

dence.Though,Yin (2003,83)presentssix importantsourcesofevidence:documents,ar‐

chival records, interviews, direct observation, participant‐observation and physical arte‐

facts.

Externalvaliditycanbeachievedbyusingatheorybaseinresearchdesign(Yin2003,33‐37).

Inthisstudy,theinterviewquestionswerecomposedbasedonthemesandquestionsused

inrecentresearch(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger,2007;Dennisetal.2008),thusensuring

externalvalidity(seeappendix1&2).Whencollectingdata,constructvaliditytacticsinclude

usageofmultiplesourceofevidenceandestablishingchainofevidence(Yin2003,33‐37).

Withdatatriangulationthepotentialproblemsofconstructvaliditycanbeaddressed(Yin

2003, 99);multiple sources of evidence in this study are providingmultiplemeasures of

samephenomenon.Investigatortriangulationreferstomakinguseofdifferentinvestigators

withadifferentbackgroundin increasingconstructvalidity(Yin2003;98);theresearchers

of thisstudyhadverydifferentbackgroundsandperspectives,andallof thosehavebeen

incorporatedtotheinterviewquestions.Inthisstudy,theempiricalresultsareclearlylinked

tooriginalresearchquestions,andmultiplesourceofevidenceconsistsof:

56

Primarydatasources:

• Primarydata:10semi‐structuredinterviewswiththeemployeesofTeliaSoneraFinland

(businessunitinfocus)inJuly‐September2010

• Supporting data: Expert employee and trainer interviewed regardingmedia usage in

organisation.(Briefinterviewsforbackgroundinformation.)

• Supporting data: Communication Behaviour Survey conducted in TeliaSonera Finland

(businessunitinfocus)onJuly2010.(Surveysentto221employees,113responses;re‐

sponserate51%.)

• Supporting data: Communication survey conducted in small‐ and medium size com‐

paniesinFinlandonAugust2010byTeliaSoneraandresearchersofthisstudy,sentto

6030 companies, total 670 responses gained. 331 answers were gathered from the

openquestions,whichwas49%ofthefinishedanswerstothewholesurvey.

Secondarydatasources:

• Organisationalbrochures,documents,trainingmaterialsandpublications

• Employee Satisfaction Survey conducted in TeliaSonera Finland, Sweden andNorway

onMarch2010, (Invitationwas sent to 3417 ITusers, 1383persons tookpart in the

surveyresponseratebeing40,5%))

Themainmethodforattainingevidenceforthecasewasconductinginterviews.Thesam‐

pling frame iswasBusiness Services Finlandunit,which includes 220employees. Theeli‐

giblenumberofinterviewcandidateswasthus220,whichposedtherequirementforatwo‐

stagescreeningproceduresuggestedbyYin(2003,78).Thefirststageconsistsofcollecting

relevantquantitativedataabouttheentirepool(Yin200378),whichinthisstudyconsisted

of unit within TeliaSonera organisation. An internet‐based surveywas conducted to gain

understanding of the current situation and individuals attitudes towards communication.

Thegoalwastoreducethenumberofcandidatesinto10withtheaidofrelevantcriteria.

Thefirststagewastoseparatethecandidateswhoansweredthewholequestionnairefrom

theoneswhodidnotfinish;therespondentswhodidnotfinishwereexcludedbecausethey

arenotconsideredtobeasdevotedtothetopicastheoneswhofinished.However,ithas

tobenoticedthatthenon‐samplingerrormightoccuratthisstage;theemployeeswhodid

57

notanswer to thequestionnaire,or theoneswhodidnot finish,mightbedifferent from

thosewhodidanswer.

Afterthisstage,candidateswerecontactedrandomly.However,thetargetweretoensure

thattherearecandidatesfromvarietyofagegroups,workpositionsandsextogainanex‐

tensive insight to the area of study. Especially importantwas to include employeeswith

differentjobdescriptionstounderstandtheinfluenceofworktasksonthecommunication

mediausageandchallenges.Unfortunatelyduetobudgetandtimerestrictions itwasnot

possible to include candidates fromdifferent locations to the interviewprocess. Business

ServicesFinlandunitalsohasemployeesinfewothercitiesinFinlandinadditiontoHelsinki

headoffice,butoperationsaremainlyconcentratedtoHelsinkiarea.

Thesurveyservedalsoasquantitativedataevidenceinadditiontointerviews.Itclarifiesthe

currentsituationoftheorganisationandsupportsthe interviews. Italsoservedashelp in

drafting the relevant interviewquestion thanks to theopenquestions included to survey.

Expertandtrainerinterviewswereusedassupportingdata,andincreatingaclearpicture

ofacurrentstateoforganisationalcommunicationandmediausage,togetherwithsecon‐

dary data sources. Secondary data sources like organisational publications and intranet

wereusedassupportingevidencetogaindeep insightsofthecaseorganisationTeliaSon‐

era.

Thepilotcasewasconductedpriortotheactualinterviewstogainbetterunderstandingof

theissues,whichshouldbeincludedtothecasestudy,asYin(200379)proposes.Pilotcase

wasselectedbasedontheconvenientaccessamongstthepoolofcandidatesintheorgani‐

sational unit. The interview conducted was broad and general toned, which helped to

understand the different aspects of phenomenon experienced by individual employee.

Theseinsightshelpedtoguidethetheoreticalliteraturereviewintointerestingtracks.Pilot

casealsoconvincedtheresearcherthatoneortwopersonspresentintheinterviewinthe

actual studyare themaximum;otherwise situation couldbeuncomfortable for the inter‐

viewee.

58

3.3. Data Analysis

Inthedataanalysisphase, internalvaliditywasestablishedbyconstantlycombiningtheo‐

reticalviewpointswithconceptualframeworkandempiricalresults.Inaddition,theanalysis

wasaddressingthemostsignificantaspectsofthecasestudy.Rivalexplanationswerealso

addressedanddiscussedinconclusionschapter;recognisingrivalexplanationsisimportant

when addressing internal validity (Yin, 2003, 137). The beginning of the chapter provides

insights to survey data analysis, whereas the second part deals with analysing the data

gatheredfrominterviews.

3.3.1.Surveydataanalysis

Thesurveyconducted forgainingbackgroundandsupport informationwasanalysedwith

the aid of cluster analysis in terms of quantitative questions conductedwith the answer

scale from1to5.Therespondentswhodidnot finishthequestionnairewereeliminated.

Fiveclusterswereformedbasedonquestionsaboutchallengesrelatedtocommunication.

Also the frequency distribution was formed and medians and means counted. The fre‐

quencydistributionsandmeanswereconductedalsofordifferentgroupswerecaseswere

selectedon the basis of specific variable like IT skills or position in organisation. Though,

these results from different groups did not indicate significant differences amongst re‐

spondents,thustheyarenotpresentedinthisstudy,butareavailablebyrequestfromre‐

searcher.

Open questions included into surveywere coded based on themes, first the answers re‐

peatedoftenwererecognised,afterwhichtheywerecomparedanddividedintodifferent,

broaderthemes,andcategorizedintoprofiles.Forincreasingreliabilityandobjectivity,two

researchers coded the same evidence and the same findings were suggested. Using two

researchersinanalysingthedatamayincreasetheprecisionandobjectivityoftheanalysis

(EskolaandSuoranta,214).

59

3.3.2.Interviewdataanalysis

Themainempiricalevidence,semi‐structuredinterviewresults,wasanalysedwiththematic

analysisandcoding.AsEskolaandSuoranta(1998,174)describe,usuallythefistapproach

to data is usually conductedby dividing data to different categories, and it is possible to

bringupthemeswhichshedlightonthethemesofresearchproblem;asaresult,itispos‐

sibletocomparethefrequencieshowoftencertainthemesarepresent inthedata.Kvale

andBrinkmann(2001,201)describecodingandcategorizingtobeapproachestotheanaly‐

sisoftext;codinginvolvesattachingoneormorekeywordstotextsegmentwhereascate‐

gorizingentailsmoressystematicconceptualizationofastatement,openingitforquantifi‐

cation.Thesetermsareoftenusedinterchangeably,andKvaleandBrinkmann(2001,202)

explainthatcodinginitsvariousformsisakeyaspectofgroundedtheoryandcontentan‐

alysis.Thus,codingseemedtobearelevantmethodfor interviewdataanalysisgiventhe

abductiveresearchapproach.

Categorisationmeansreducinglonginterviewstatementsintofewsimplecategories(Kvale

&Binkmann2001,203).Anothertermindicatingsimilarapproachismeaningcondensation;

KvaleandBinkmann(200,205)definecondensationtoentailanabridgementofmeanings

expressed by the interviewees into shorter formulations. Both of these terms somewhat

describethemethodusedinthisstudy.

Intheanalysisof interviewdata,differentthemesweresearchedandorganisedintocate‐

gories.Conceptual frameworkwasusedasaguidingprinciple for categories,butwasnot

consideredasrestrictingelements;alsocategoriesfoundwhichwerenotincludedtoorigi‐

nalframework,weretakenintoaccount.Topicswithinthesecategorieswerefurthersum‐

marizedintosmallerentitiestobetterbeabletocomparetheanswers.Oncetheimportant

factors emerging in majority of interviews were found, the factors occurring often were

searched, to gain understanding of the factors influencing on choices and the challenges

experienced.Then,analysiswithineveryintervieweesrespondswasconducted.Aimwasto

60

clarify,whethercertaintypesemergewithinrespondents,andwhatistherelationshipand

connectionofdifferentfactorstoeachothers.Thishelpedtoclarify,whicharethefactors

hinderingefficientcommunicationandmediausage.

Thefollowingcoding/thematicprotocolhelpstoclarifytheprocessandtechniqueusedand

increasesreliability.Byusingtheseprotocols,theanalysiscouldeasilybeconductedagain:

A.Categorisinginterviewsbythemes,analysingthegeneralorientationofsinglere‐

spondentindifferentcategories

1.Interviewswerewrittendown,andthenre‐organisedintothemesbasedonthe

framework and the original question categories. Each theme category included

severalquestionsregardingthetopic.

2.Afterorganising the relevantanswers intocategories,a firstanalysiswascon‐

ductedbydrawingconclusionofthegeneraltypeoftheinfluenceonchoicebased

oneachtheme.Thetheoreticalbackgroundwasusedasaid,notasrestriction.

3. Then, the basic, dominant choice orientation of the interviewees was deter‐

minedineachcategory(E.g.orientedtoownconveniencewhenchoosingmedia,

tendencytofollowincomingchannel,generalattitudetowardsnewtechnologies).

Orientationwasnotconcludedbythetheoreticalframework,butmorebasedon

theoveralljudgementofresearcherbasedonalltheanswersandthemes.

B.Analysingsimilaritiesbetweenrespondentsbasedonthemecategories

4. The second stage of codingwas conducted. At this stage, the similarities be‐

tweenintervieweesweresearchedbasedonthetheorycategories.

C.Searchingfortherelationshipsamongstthefactors

5. When certain types were found among respondents, and factors within one

interviewwere examined, aswell as then comparing these types and factors to

eachotheramongstalltheinterviewees,theimportanceandrelationshipsofthe

61

factorsweredetermined.This stage isbasedon researcher’s judgementand the

relationshipsemergingwithintheinterviewees’responsesandcomparisons.

D.Confrontationoftheoreticalframework

6.Thefinalstepwastoconfronttheframework;eachcategoryoftheframework

wasexamined;wasthecomponentinfluentialinthemediachoiceornot.Someof

the theoretical factors/categorieswereclearlypresent in thechoiceprocess,but

oftentheirrelationshipwasverydifferenttotheonesinoriginalframework.Few

factors seemed tobe key factors in themedia choiceprocess, limiting the influ‐

ence possibilities of other factors. Also, few new factors, which were not con‐

sideredintheoriginalframework,seemtoinfluenceonindividualsmediachoices.

Thekeyfactorshinderingefficientcommunicationwereidentified.

D.Supportingtheresultswithsurveydata

At this stage, the resultswerealsocompared to theanswersandanalysisof sur‐

veysopenquestionregarding themediachoices. It seemsthat thesurveyresults

somewhatsupportthefoundtypes(fewdifferenttypesofindividualswhosechoi‐

cesandbackground ishomogenouswithin the typecategory,butheterogeneous

compared to other respondent types.) Survey results also highlight the extent of

thechallengesidentified.

62

3.4. Process Description

Presentedtable4providesreaderwithunderstandingoftheresearchprocessandactions

relatedtodifferentphasestoclarifytheprocess.

Steps Activity ThisResearch

Specifiedpopulation UnitwithinTeliaSonera:BusinessServicesFinland

SelectingCases

Specifiedresearchfocus Organisationalcommunicationandchallenges

Theoryreview CommunicationMediaUsageandChoicetheories

GettingStarted

Definitionofresearchquestion

Whatarethefactorshinderingeffi‐cientcommunication?

Composingtheframe‐work

Theories,nohypotheses MST,MediaRepertoires

Craftinginstrumentsandprotocols

MultipleDataCollectionMeth‐ods

Interviews,surveys,documents

Gatheringbackgroundinforma‐tion

Internetsurvey;clusteranalysis,frequencydistributionsandcodingwithopenquestions.Expertandtraininginterviews.

Enteringthefield

Flexible&opportunisticdatacollection

Semi‐structuredinterviewsandflex‐iblecodingmethods

Analyzingdata Within‐caseanalysis,multiplecases

Codingandcategorizingdatafrom10interviews

Confrontingliterature Comparisonwithliterature Originallydefinedconceptualframework

Researchclosure Re‐shapingtheframework,newtheories

Newfactorsadded.Relationshipsoffactorsmodified.Factorshinderingtheefficientcommunicationestab‐lished.

Table 4 Process Description

63

4.CaseDescription

Caseorganisation inthisstudy isTeliaSonera,a largetelecommunicationsorganisationof‐

feringservices in20countries.Theresearchwasconducted inBusinessServicesFinland–

the unit focusing on complex solutions sold to other companies. Communication media

usageandpractices,whichisthefocusofthisstudy,ismainlyprimarilytheinterestofBusi‐

ness Services Finlandunit. However, phenomenonhas also significance at the corporate

level,whichisgoingtobedescribedfirstwithgeneralviewtoorganisationunderstandthe

importanceofthestudyinbroadercontext.Inthesecondpartofthechapter,themotiva‐

tionandinterestforconductingthisstudyisatbusinessunitlevelarediscussed;description

ofcharacteristicsofBusinessServicesFinlandunithelps tobetterunderstand thecontext

thisstudycouldpossiblybeappliedtointhefuture.

4.1. Targets at corporate level

TeliaSoneraprovidesnetworkaccessandtelecommunicationservices in20markets inthe

NordicandBalticcountries,theemergingmarketsofEurasia, includingRussiaandTurkey,

andinSpain.Operationsareorganizedintothreebusinessareas:MobilityServices,Broad‐

bandServicesandEurasia.BusinessServicesFinland–unitco‐operatescloselywithMobility

ServicesandBroadbandServices,butexistsasaseparateunitforbusiness‐to‐businessser‐

vices in Finland and Sweden. In 2009, turnover of TeliaSonera groupwas 109161million

SEK (approx.11738MEUR),andnetprofit21280millionSEK (approx.2288MEUR).Teli‐

aSonerapresentstobeaWorld‐classServiceCompany,whichfocusareasaretosecurehigh

quality in its networks and to create a best‐in‐class cost efficiency. TeliaSoneras shared

valuesare;addvalue,showrespectandmakeithappen.

GovernanceofCorporateResponsibilityisintegratedtothegovernanceframeworkofTeli‐

aSonera.Adheringtoglobalprinciplesandstandards,TeliaSoneraactslocallytoaddressthe

relevantmarketrisks,challengesandopportunitiesaspartofourdailyoperations.In2009,

TeliaSonera took steps to re‐emphasize its global commitment to corporate responsibility

byintroducingagroupwideCodeofEthicsandConduct.TeliaSoneradependsontheskills,

64

knowledge and experience of its employees to ensure continued success, and therefore

puts a lot of effort into recruitment, employee training and competence development.

Modern communication technology can offer environmentally sound alternatives in the

day‐to‐day lives of people and companies. TeliaSonera strives to minimize the envi‐

ronmental impactof itsownoperationswhilehelpingcustomersbyprovidingsolutionsto

reducetheirenvironmentalimpact.TeliaSonerarecognisesmultiplecustomer‐andtechnol‐

ogytrends.Oneofthoseistheneedformoresustainableworkpatternsemergingthrough

moderntelecom.

“New technology provides opportunities tomanage and operate companiesmore

efficiently.Modern telecommunications contribute to reducing both long‐distance

travels,aswellascommuting.Workingoutofthehomeisbecomingmoreandmore

common.Reasonsforwantingtoworkfromhomeincludelesstravelandmoreflex‐

iblehours.”Sonera.fi

Thus,TeliaSorarecognisesthesignificancetobeabletoworkoutsideoftheofficewithse‐

cureaccesssolutions,andthattherearemanywaystosaveenergythroughgreenITsolu‐

tions.Also,asmentionedinthepreviouschapter,employeesarethekeyresourceofTeli‐

aSonera.Itisimportant,thattheyaresatisfiedandworkefficiently.

“Efficientandopencommunicationcultureisthebasisforemployeewelfare.”

(PetriNiittymäki,SVPTeliaSoneraFinlandinTeliaSoneraspublicationforcustomers,2010)

However,accordingtosatisfactionsurveyconductedinwholeTeliaSonerainthebeginning

of2010,thesatisfactionofemployeesoncommunicationhasbeendecreasingcomparedto

previousyears. Italsocomesup fromthesurvey that there isa lackof training regarding

technology solutions and communication.At themoment, it seems that there is no clear

communication culture or instructions in organisation. It is important that organisation

learnshowtoadoptandusenewmediainanefficientandorganizedmanner.

65

4.2. Interests of Business Services Finland

BusinessServicesFinlandunitwasinfocusinthisstudy.Theneedforfurtherexaminationof

communicationandworkpracticesoriginated from themanagementofBusiness Services

Finland. TheBusiness Services sales division is the TeliaSoneraGroup's commonbusiness

sales unit. Business Services is responsible formarketing and sales of TeliaSonera’s basic

telecom services andmanaged service solutions to business customers. Business Services

Finlandservesvarietyofcustomers;largecompanies,small‐andmediumsizecompaniesas

wellaspublicsector.220employeesworkintheunitinFinland.

Services and products sold to business customers consist of variety of basic services like

network connections and phone services, email servers and digital meeting services

amongst others.However, customers are also providedwithmore complex solutions like

unifiedcommunication‐,integratedknowledge‐,andteleworkservices.BusinessServices

Finlandunithashighneedforunderstandingthephenomenonofefficientcommunication

mediausageduetofollowingcharacteristics:

• Business Servicesunit’sbusiness logic is in transformation fromproduct‐dominant to

service‐dominantlogic.Theorganisationstructurehasonlyexistedinthepresentform

fromthebeginningoftheyear2010.

• Eventhoughtheorganisationstructureintheunitisquitenew,theaverageworkyears

ofemployeesintheorganisationingeneralishigh.

• Servicessoldtocustomersarecomplexinnature.Itisveryunlikelythatoneemployee

alonecould solve theproblemsatisfyingcustomer’sneeds.Thus,need forusingnet‐

worksandcooperatingwithcolleaguesindailyworkishigh.

The present situation is somewhat challenging. New organisation structure combined to

highemployeeyearsandcrucialneed forefficientcommunication flowandusageofnet‐

worksposeshighneedforefficientcommunicationmediausage.There isurgentneedfor

newwaysofworking anddeveloping individual’s sales skills further tobetterunderstand

customer’sneeds;exploitingtheknowledgeandskillsoftheunitaswholeisessential.

66

Communicationmediahasapossibilitytochangethecurrentworkpracticesandenhance

theinformationflowaswellasproductivity.TeliaSoneraismotivatedtobetterunderstand

thischange,thusitisimportanttoexplorethephenomenonmoredeeply.Atthemoment,

itseemsthatadvantagesdesiredfromcommunicationmediausagearenot insatisfactory

level.Asoneoftheexperts,longtermemployeeinterviewedquoted:

“InternalcommunicationinTeliaSoneraisatotalmess.Therearenocoordinatedprac‐

ticesormedia,andnoonetriestothinkthebigpicture”(Expertinterviewee,TeliaSonera)

Even though it is recognised, thatwith correct tools and communication practices better

companyperformancemightbeachieved,thereseemstobelackofunifiedcommunication

cultureandpractises inTeliaSonera.Varietyof tools isusedparallelbecausethereareno

clear instructions.Communicationseemsinefficientandnotveryproductive.Technologies

areusedinamanner,whichtheyfirstwereusedwhenadopted,andnew,possiblybetter

waysofcommunicatingandworkinghavenotbeendeveloped.

Thus, it is clear that there is room for improvements inBusiness Services communication

practices.Thisthesisispartoftheresearchconductedasco‐operativeprojectofthreere‐

searchers aiming to understand the phenomenon. Purpose of the whole project was to

understand the ongoing communication practices in organisation, new technology adop‐

tionsandtheireffectonorganisationsstructuresandprocesses.Theemphasisofthispar‐

ticularstudyisoncurrentcommunicationpracticesofemployeesandchallengesrelatedto

communicationinknowledge‐work.

Ithastobenotedhere,thattheissueisnotonlytheconcernofTeliaSonera,butalsothe

oneof thewhole society. TeliaSonera recognises theneed for change andwishes the in‐

sights gained from this study tobeadvantageousalso inbroader context. Thus, this case

study isalsopartofbroaderprojectandpublication3aimingtoraisediscussionrelatedto

communicationpractices,productivityaswellascompetitiveadvantagetheFinnishnation.

TeliaSonerawantstobetheleaderamongstoperatorsinunderstandingtheissue.

3 Uuskasvua ymmärtämässä – kutsu kestävään tuottavuuteen, Gröönroos/ TeliaSonera Finland Oyj, 2010

67

5.EmpiricalFindings

The first step for analysing the factors influencing on employees communication media

choices is to find out,whatmedia is available in organisation. The list of communication

mediaused inTeliaSonera ispresented in the firstpartof this chapter. Theactualmedia

usageoftheemployeesisthencomparedtothelistofmediaavailableintheory.Inthesec‐

ond part, factors influencing on employees’ communicationmedia choices are discussed

andclassified.Next, theproblemsoccurring inorganisationrelatedtocommunicationare

examined.Inaddition,fewexampleprofilesofemployeeswhocommunicateinaverydif‐

ferentmannerarepresentedtoillustratethephenomenon.Inthefinalpartofthechapter,

supportingevidencecollectedformsurveysispresentedtoelaboratetheextentofthechal‐

lengesfound.

5.1. Communication Media in TeliaSonera Business Services Finland

Exploring themediaemployeesuseordon’tuse is the first steptogain insightsofmedia

choices;howdoindividual’sexperiencethemedia?Inthischapter,thecommunicationme‐

diaavailableintheoryandinpracticeforTeliaSoneraBusinessServicesFinlandemployeesis

examined, and as a result themedia included to this study is determined. In the second

part,usageofthismediabyemployeesisexaminedmainlybasedoninterviewresults,and

supportedbysurveyresults.Theusage iscomparedagainstthecompany instructionsand

policiesbasedondocuments.

5.1.1.Communicationmediaavailableinorganisation

It seems that there is a large variety of communicationmedia available for TeliaSoneras

employees.TherelevancyofmediaforthisstudyinBusinessServicesFinlandunitisdefined

withtheaidofexpertinterviewsandintranetsurvey,andthegeneralinformationavailable

indocumentsfoundfromcompanyintranet.Duetolargevarietyofmedia,itwouldbetoo

68

complicatedtotakethewholevarietyintocloserexaminationinthisstudy,thusthelist is

limitedtothemostusedmedia.

Data indicatingthemediausageintheBusinessServicesunit levelwascollectedfromthe

internetsurveyregardingcommunicationbehaviourinorganisationinJuly2010.Question‐

nairewas sent to 220 employees, and gained 112 participants, response rate thus being

51%.Mostofthequestionswerecomposedasstatementswiththeresponsepossibilityat

LikertScale,from1to5(agree‐disagree).Surveyalsoincludedfewopenquestions.Results

are advantageouswhen examining the actualmedia usage rates in the Business Services

Unit(figure7)andthusgiveagoodstartingpointforanalysisforfurtheranalysis.

Figure 7. The means of media usage in Business Services Finland (Likert scale 1 (I use the media very seldom ) to 5 (I use the media very often)

Intranet contentwasexploredandanalysedbroadly. It seems that there is notone clear

place where themedia available would be listed, or instructions for communication and

mediausage,couldbefound.Bitsandpieceswerefoundunderseveraldifferenttopics.To

conclude,informationofmediatoolsisnoteasilyavailableforemployees.

69

Finally,expertinterviews,intranetsurveyresultsaswellastheinstructionsfoundfromin‐

tranetwereutilisedtogethertogainacomprehensiveunderstandingofthefullmediarep‐

ertoireavailableintheorganisation(table5).Themaincriteriaforincludingthemediafor

closerexamination,isthedegreeofusagewithintheBusinessServicesFinland.Mediawith

verylowusagedegreeiseliminated.Inaddition;fewmediawasnotincludedtotheoriginal

survey(figure7),butseemtoimportantpartofeverydaycommunicationintheunit,thus

theyareincludedtotheresearch.

List includes several different software, tools and channels, but only the oneswhich are

commonlyavailable,andat least inmoderateusage inorganisation,were includedto full

mediarepertoirelisttomaketheresultsandanalysisclearer.Basedonthisinformation,fax,

letter/memo, RSS, Web and podcasts, Social media, Blogs and virtual communities and

MicrosoftOCS integratorwere excluded from this study (see table 5). Document sharing

andworksupportsystemwouldbeexcludedaswellbasedonthesecriteria.However,dur‐

ing the interviewswork support systemsanddocument sharing seemtocomeupseveral

times. Thus, they are included to full repertoire, because their exclusionbasedonexpert

interview,surveyandintranetwouldnotbeappropriate;itmightbepossiblethattheusage

would actually have been high if the researcherwould have included thesemedia usage

levelsinthesurvey.

Face‐to‐faceinteractionisnotincludedtothismediacomparison;itisconsideredtobelong

toeveryone’smediarepertoire.Thiscomparisonstargetistoinvestigatedigitalcommuni‐

cationmediaavailable.Though,face‐to‐faceinteractionisessentialpartofthisresearchin

general and thus included to final analysis. Consequently, full electronicmedia repertoire

consideredavailableforemployeesinthisstudyincludes10media.Resultsfromtheinter‐

viewsarecomparedagainstthislist:email,phonecall,SMS,IM,Teleconference,Videocon‐

ference,Webconference, intranet,documentsharingandworksupportsystem(seetable

5).

70

Media

Expertinterview

Questionnaire

Intranet

Relevancyinthisstudy

Email

veryhighusage veryhighusage clearpolicies included

Intranet

highusage highusage instructions included

TelePresence

veryhighusage ‐ instructions

Video‐conference

‐ moderateusage greenpolicyen‐couraging

included

Phonecalls

‐ veryhighusage mentioned included

NetMeeting/Webex:webconfer‐ence

highusage mentioned included

Tele‐conference

veryhighusage ‐ greenpolicyen‐couraging

included

Textmessages

highusage highusage ‐ included

Face‐to‐facemeet‐ings

high/moderateusage

highusage meetingservicesmentioned

included,butnottomediareper‐toireslist!

IM

notinformaluse moderateusage mentioned included

Wiki

low/moderateusage

lowusage mentioned excluded

SocialMedia

notinformaluse low/moderateusage

‐ excluded

MicrosoftOCS

growingusage ‐ mentioned excluded

Documentsharing instructions

included

Worksupportsys‐temTellU

‐ mentionedinopenfeedback

mentioned included

TeleMeeting

‐ ‐ instructions excluded

Fax

‐ verylowusage mentioned excluded

Letter/Memo

‐ verylowusage ‐ excluded

RSS

moderateusage ‐ ‐ excluded

Web‐&Podcasts

lowusage ‐ ‐ excluded

Blogs

lowusage,man‐agementlevel

‐ ‐ excluded

Virtualcommunities(secondlife)

notinformalusage ‐ ‐ excluded

Table 5. Communication media included to study: comparison of survey results, interviewee responds

and intranet information and instructions

71

5.1.2.Usagerates,choicesandproblemsrelatedtomedia

Mediarepertoiresof respondentsweredefinedbydividingmediato followingcategories;

mostusedmedia,moderateusagemedia,lowusagemediaandmedianotinuse.Thiswas

basedontherespondsofinterviewees(whatmediaisavailableinorganisation,whatmedia

youusemost)aswellasmediamentionedrelatedtootheranswers inthequestionnaire.

Judgementofactiveusagewasmadebasedonresearcher’sjudgementoftheoverallinter‐

viewandmedialistedasmostused.

Resp. Mostusedmedia Moderateuse Lowuse Medianotinuse

0 emailphone

intranet IM

1 emailphone

IMTeleconferencingSMSDocumentsharing

videoconference(usedbefore,butstoppedbe‐causeofdifficulties)

2 emailphoneIM

TeleconferencingIntranetWorksupportsystems

DocumentsharingVideoconference(difficultieswithbookings)

3 emailphone

SMSWorksupportsystemsWebconferencingTeleconferencing

IMVideoconferenceIntranet

4 emailphoneSMS

TeleconferencingWebconferencongVideoconferencingIntranetSharepoint

IM

5 emailphone

SMS(deleteswithoutreading)WebconferencingIntranet

6 emailIMsharepointwebconferencingphone

intranet(goodandbadsides)vdeoconferencing(train‐ings)

7 emailphonewebconferencing

videoconferenceSMS

Intranet(hardtofindanything)IM(soinformal)Documentsharing(criticalmass)

8 emailworksupportsystemsteleconferencingphoneIM

intranetdocumentsharing(criticalmass)

videoconferencing

9 emailphone

intranetdocumentsharingvideoconferencing(train‐ings)

worksupportsystems(slow,soherathercalls)

IM(heistootraditional)

Table 6. Media usage of interviewees classified to high, moderate and low usage

3

6

6

7

2

8

6

6

5

5

9

8

7

7

9

7

5

9

8

4

72

Ascanbeseenfromthetable6,majorityoftherespondentsusemostlyonlytwoorthree

medium. The overall amount ofmedia recognised to be available in the company varied

between4and9.

Totaketheanalysis further, it seemsthat there isadifferencebetweenmediarepertoire

perceived tobeavailable in the companyagainst themedia repertoire,which isusedac‐

tively.Bothmoderateandmostusedmediaisincludedtoactivelyusedmedia,becauseitis

difficult to make clear distinction or definition of the degree of mostly used media and

moderateusage.Intervieweesarebettercomparablewhenthesecategoriesarecombined.

Thus,repertoiresaredefinedasfollows:

Activemediarepertoire=mostusedmedia+moderateusagemedia

Perceivedmediarepertoire=activemediarepertoire+lowusagemedia+medianotinuse

Active and perceivedmedia repertoire total numbers aremarked to the table 6. At this

stage, it is very important to note, that not even one respondent included all themedia

availableinthecompany(10)totheirrepertoire.

Next, themediausedbyemployees isexaminedmore indetailbasedon intranet instruc‐

tions,expertinterviewandinterviewresults.Theperceptionsofthemedia,reasonstouseit

ornot touse it aredescribed. These insights further aid finding theunderlying factors in

mediachoicesandusage.

5.1.2.1.Email

EmailseemstobeoneofthemostusedcommunicationmediainTeliaSonera.Accordingto

expert’s interviewandsurvey, it isverycommontouseemailalsoviamobiledevicesand

outsideoftheworkplace.TeliaSoneraprovidesemployeesbothofthesepossibilities.

“TSMobileMailisapushemailservice,whichenablestheusertoreceiveemails,con‐

tactandcalendarinformationtomobiledeviceinrealtime.” Intranetinstructions

73

Alltheinterviewedemployeesnamedemailasmostusedmediainorganisation,anditwas

also included to everyone’s actively used media repertoire. The expert interviewee de‐

scribes email to be extremely common in use, therewas also amentionofmanagement

pushingemployeestouseemail,anditseemsthatitisalmostamustforemployeestouse

it. Problematic with emails is long contact lists, which increase the amount of received

emails.

Tominimize the capacity requiredby email on servers, automatic cleanup is in usage at

TeliaSonera.Thismeans,thatreceivedemailsaredeletedautomaticallyafter90days,and

sentmailsafter30days.Companyguidelinesalsoincludethemention,thatthepurposeof

emailisnotdocumentingandsavinginformation.Though,itispossibletostoreinformation

todifferent subfolders. Still,basedon survey results (TS2010),16%of respondentsmen‐

tionedneed for documenting as themain reason for selecting email as a communication

media.Emailiscommonlyseenasagoodtoolfordataarchiving.Alsointerviewresultsindi‐

catethestrongemphasisondocumentingpossibilitywhenchoosingemailasacommunica‐

tionmedia.Thefollowingcommentselaboratethephenomena:

“Iwouldsaythattheamountofarchivedemailsinmyfoldersisapproximately20000.

Ihavedifferentcustomersindifferentfolders.Itisagoodwayofarchiving;Icanthen

searchforspecificinformationbyusingoutlook’sfinder.” Interviewee3

“Emailisgoodinprovingthings;therearenomisunderstandingsorroomformistake

whatwasagreedonorsaidabouttheissue;everyonecanreaditfromtheemail.”

Interviewee8

Employeesinterviewedstrugglewithlargeamountofemailseveryday.Emailisexperienced

asamajorfactor increasing information load.Differenttechniquesfor inboxmanagement

havebeendevelopedamongstemployees,forexampleorganisingcarboncopyemails(cc’s)

toown folder and ignoring themand someare just trying to find theemails relevant for

specificprojectsamongstotheremails,anddealwiththerest later. Employeesalsomen‐

tionthatunfortunatelyemailisoftenusedindecision‐makingprocesses,andproblemsoc‐

74

cur. Few employeeswhowere interviewedmentioned that it happens sometimes that a

longconversationviaemailisconducted,butnoresolvefortheissueseemstobeachieved.

Insomesituations,itisamusttochangefromemailintoaricherchannel,likephone.

Many interviewees admit turning the email program off or simply not checking it in few

hours,when theyneed toconcentrateonother tasks.Email isexperiencedasoneof the

source of constant interruptions. The result from survey conducted in TeliaSonera in July

2010showthatemployeesuse2hoursfromtheirworkdayforprocessingemails.Alsocar‐

boncopyproblemsseemtobe largelypresent inorganisation.Majorityoftheemployees

interviewedmentionedaproblemwithccmails.Theyreceivemailswithnocluewhyitwas

senttothem,orwhatismessageabout.Inaddition,peopledon’tseemtotrustthatenough

otherpeopleusetoolslikedocumentsharing,andthususeemail.

5.1.2.2.Intranet

IntranetinTeliaSoneraconsistsofseveraldifferentareas:news,workroom,employeeser‐

vices and general information. In general information section, information regarding Teli‐

aSoneraorganisation,projectsandprojectmanagement,measurementsandreports,poli‐

cies and governance, vision and strategy, branding as well as corporate responsibility is

availableforemployees.Employeeservicesincludesusefulinformationandtoolsregarding

career development, meetings, vacation periods, invoices, and travelling, purchases, se‐

curityandemployeewelfare. Inthethirdarea,workroom,workrelatedtoolsforbusiness

areprovided,butitalsoincludesforexamplenewsandmenusforrestaurants.

Inshort,businessrelatedinformationandpoliciesareavailableingeneralinformationsec‐

tion,practicaladvisesandtoolsinemployeeservicesandworkroomsections.Though,itis

notalwaysobviouswhichsection includeswhat information. In thenewssection,current

news regarding TeliaSonera are provided,most of the information is announcedwhen it

comesavailableforgeneralpublic.Asoverall,pageseemstobemorebuiltforinternalpro‐

motionandimage/culturebuildingpurposes.

75

Accordingtoexpertinterviewed,IntranetinTeliaSoneraislikeanenormouspoolofknow‐

ledge,thoughthereiswaytoomucholdandirrelevantinformation.Easinessofusageisat

lowlevel,anditisexpectedthathardlyanyoneusesit.Asintervieweequoted:

“ThemostefficientwaytosecureinformationisdownloadingittoIntranet–nooneis

evergoingtofindit”(Expertinterviewee,TeliaSonera)

Intranet is used atmoderate level according to survey (TS2010). Amongst the employees

interviewed, theopinionseemstobe that intranet isusedatTeliaSonera insomedegree,

butitisnotexperiencedasefficient.Informationishardtofindandfunctionalityisnotlogi‐

cal.Fiveoutoftenemployeesintervieweduseintranetatthemoderatelevel,nooneusesit

as“mostusedmedia”.Inaddition,threeemployeesuseitatthelowlevelandoneperceives

itasavailableinorganisation,butisnotusingit.Itseemsthatintranetisexperiencesuseful

in finding some information, but usually personal networks are rather used instead. One

interviewedemployeeexperiencesintranetasanecessity;itisaboutcreatingthecommon

corporateculture.

5.1.2.3.TelePresence&VideoConferencing

Accordingtoinformationavailableintheintranet,therearetwovideoconferencingsystems

in usage at TeliaSonera; TelePresence and Videoconference. TelePresence conferencing

serviceenablesaconferencewith30participantsaroundonevirtualtablesothatinreality

there are 6 participants sitting infive separatemeeting rooms. TelePresence conferences

canbe arrangedbetween five rooms in TeliaSonera. The videoconference equipment en‐

ablesconferencesbetween2‐8 locationsat thesametime.Theprimaryreason forvideo‐

conferencingusageseemstobetoreducetravellingandtherebysavetheenvironmentas

wellasenablemoreefficientuseoftimewhenthetimeformerlyusedfortravellingcanbe

usedforworking.Itisalsomentionedintheintranet,thatvideoconferenceservicescould

andshouldbeusedmore.

76

“TheuseofvideoconferenceandTelePresenceconferenceserviceshasraisedalongthe

number of locations has increased. However, the systems are not fully utilized and

thereisplentyofroomtoincreasetheusage.Only32%oftherespondentsdeclaredto

haveusedtheservicesoccasionally(30%in2008)andupto52%havenoexperience

what soeverof the services.However, there isa significant raiseas70%of the re‐

spondentshadnotusedtheservicesin2008.” (ITusersatisfactionsurvey2010)

According to TS2010background survey, videoconferencing is inmoderate usage in Busi‐

nessServicesFinlandunit.Amongstemployeesinterviewedonlyfourusesvideoconference

actively (highormoderate level). Twooutof these fouruse it especially for trainingpur‐

poses.Oneemployeewouldliketousevideoconferencing,butclaimsthatitisnotavailable

inorganisation.Fouremployeeseitherusevideoconferenceonlysometimes,ornotatall,

butperceivedittobeavailable.Reasonsforlowusagearebadpastexperiences(connection

did notwork), small amount of videoconference rooms (difficulties in booking) or that it

doesnot givemuchextra value in addition tophone calls (one respondent claimed this).

Difficultieswiththesystemresultedinrejectingtheusageofvideoconferencinginthecase

of one employee.Most of the respondents seem tohave somewhat positive attitude to‐

wards videoconferencing, and they think that in some cases it can replace face‐to‐face

interaction. Sometimes videoconference is also used amongst employees interviewedbe‐

causeitisamust–forexamplewhenthelongdistancebetweenthecommunicationpart‐

nerslimitstheoptions.

“Face‐to‐facecommunicationistheonlywaytoestablishrelationships”Interviewee5

5.1.2.4.PhonecallsandTeleConference

Teleconferencingisaverypopularmediumaccordingtoexpertinterviewee,andastandard

routineintheboardmeetings.Mostoftheadvantageisgainedininformationsharingand

routinemeetings.Phone is themostusedmediumafteremailwithin thebusinessunitat

hand inTeliaSonera (TS2010).Tenemployees interviewedmentionphone tobe themost

77

andactivelyusedmedia,inadditiontoemail.Thus,itisdiscoveredfromeveryone’sactive

mediarepertoire.

Teleconferenceisslightlylessused;itcanbefoundfromfivepeople’sactiverepertoire,but

mostlyonmoderatelevelofusage.Noonementionsteleconferencingtobenotinuseorat

lowlevel,which indicatesthateveryonemightuse it,butperceive itaspartofphoneuse

/similartophonecalls,andthusdon’tmentionitasaseparatecommunicationchannel.

Phoneisperceivedasagoodmedium,whenthingsgettoocomplicatedtobedealtwithvia

email. Couple of interviewed employees elaborate, “sometimes the conversation just

doesn’tleadtoanyresolution,andthephonecallhastobedonetoclarifythings”.Some

employees tend touseemail insteadofphone,becausephonecall can’tbedocumented.

Oneemployeeespeciallyseemsworriedthat thecontentofconversationcan’tbeproved

afterwards,whichmightindicatelowtrustinorganisation.Perceptionsofavailabilityofthe

partner seem also to limit phone usage. Quotes form employees interviewed like “some

peopleneveranswerthephone”highlightthisperception.Itisalsocommon,thatinsteadof

phonecallemailissentfirst,eitherbecauseofthedesirenottodistracttherespondentor

tobookatimeforthephonecallduetolowexpectationofavailability.Ingeneral,phoneis

experiencesasfastmedium,anditissometimesusedtoshortcuttheformalprocesseslike

worksupportsystems.

5.1.2.5.TextMessaging

Itcameupduringtheexpertinterview,thattextmessagingisusealotinTeliaSonera.Itis

alsousedasaparallelcommunicationmediumduringface‐to‐facemeetings;it iscommon

thatemployeessittinginthemeetingmessageeachothereveninthesameroom.Accord‐

ingtosurvey(TS2010)Textmessagingisinhighusage,theusagelevelisthesamethanwith

face‐to‐facemeetingsand intranet.However,only fouroutof ten interviewedemployees

activelyusesSMS(moderateormostused).Inaddition,oneemployeeperceivesSMStobe

available,butdeletesthemwithoutreadingthem.It isalsopossiblethatsomeoftheem‐

ployeesforgottomentionSMSbecausetheyperceiveittobeapartofphoneusage.

78

SMSisperceivedtobespeedymediumandgoodforconductingsmallchecks.Longerissues

arethendealtwithviaemail.FewpeopleexperienceSMSasgoodmedium,whichensures

thatmessagegoesthrough.Ontheotherhand,somepeopledon’tevenuseSMS.Thecon‐

trastcanbeseenfromthefollowingstatements;

“Peoplereadsmsduringthemeetings,whichistheculture.Thatiswhysmsalways

reachesthereceiver.” Interviewee1

“IdeleteSMS’onceaweekwithoutreadingthem,Idon’thavetime.” Interviewee5

Toconclude,SMSseemstobepreferredforsmallandurgentissues,likechecksornotifica‐

tions.RespondentsseemtouseSMSbecauseofgoodexpectedavailabilityofthereceiver.

5.1.2.6.InstantMessaging

InstantMessaging (IM)wasplanned tobe integrates intoTeliaSonera formal communica‐

tiontools,butthesecurityrisksweretoobigatthetime,explainstrainerinterviewed.Thus,

systemwas only integrated for internal usage, though now it seems like no one uses it.

Trainerintervieweedescribesthecommonsituationandapplicationuseless,thoughadmits

that someof the teamsmightbe able to take advantageof it. Intranetdoesnotprovide

specifiedinformationaboutInstantMessagingoptionsforemployeesprovidedbythecom‐

pany.

According tosurvey (TS2010) IM is inmoderateusage inBusinessServicesFinland,at the

approximately same level than videoconferencing. At themoment, only four of the em‐

ployeesintervieweduseIMactivelyoratthemoderatelevel.Activeusersseeitasimport‐

ant tool in team communication, and experienced it efficient especially for ad hoc ques‐

tions.Veryfewinterviewedemployeesunderstandthepossibilitytosaveconversationhis‐

torywithIM.Duringtheinterviews,coupleofrespondentsmentionedIMtobeveryinfor‐

mal, and theydonotuse it forwork related communication. Fewof respondentsdonot

evenperceiveIMtobeavailableinorganisation

79

“Partnerinfluencesonmymediachoices,Iusealotofmessengerwithsomepeople,and

thelanguageisthenveryslang‐like.Emailsaremoreformal.” Interviewee2

ReasonsfornottouseIM,areperceptionofhighdegreeofinformalityandthelackofin‐

formation aboutotherpossibleusers, amongstothers. Few respondents know that some

colleaguesareusingit,buttheyjusthavenotstartedtouseitthemselves,eithertheycon‐

siderthemselvestootraditional,ortherearesomeotherbarriers.AttitudestowardsIMare

somewhatpositive.

5.1.2.7.Webconference

WebconferenceisusedasatermforNetMeetingandWebex,whichmanufacturer‐related

terms (Microsoft). As described in the intranet,NetMeeting should be usedwhenhaving

conferences between TeliaSonera employees (internal meetings). WebEx should only be

usedwhenthereareexternalparticipants inthemeeting. IntervieweementionsthatNet‐

Meetingisaverycommontoolwithinthecompany;itisusedforexampleforinternaltrain‐

ingpurposes.

Onthecontrary,onlyfouroftheinterviewedemployeesusewebconferenceactively(high

ormoderatelevel). Inaddition,oneperceivedwebconferencetobeavailableinorganisa‐

tion,butdoesnotuseitatall.Thelevelofnetmeetingusageamongstintervieweesseems

tobeonasamelevelthan instantmessagingusage,though;onlyoneoftherespondents

uses both. One interviewed employee finds web conference especially handy in training

sessions.

5.1.2.8.DocumentSharing

InBusinessServicesFinlandunit,SharepointandTeamroomarethegroupsupportsystem

toolsusedmainlyfordocumentsharing.Inthisstudy,documentsharingisusedasaterm

for all team room and share point activities described by interviewees. As instructed in

company’sintranet,TeliaSonera’sTeamroomprovidesweb‐basedtoolsforsupportingown

workandknowledgemanagement,aswellasforprojectmanagementandgroupwork.The

80

serviceisbasedonMicrosoft’sSharePointtechnology.Instructionsencourageemployeesto

useteamroomfordocumentsharing,archivingandcooperation.Thesiteprovidespossibili‐

tiesforindividualandteambasedusagewithvarietyofdifferentlevelsofaccessrights.The

advantage isaccesstoup‐to‐datematerialcentralized inoneplace.Accordingto intranet,

usageshouldreduceemailattachments.

Sevenoutoftenoftheinterviewedemployeesareusingdocumentsharingatsomelevel,

and four have included it to activemedia repertoire (most usedormoderately usedme‐

dium).Though,onlyone lists itasmostusedmedia,so itcanbeexpectedthattheusage

level ingeneral isnotveryhigh.Employeesunderstandtheadvantagesofdocumentshar‐

ing,butitseemstobeverycommonthatitisnotusedbecausetheydon’tknowifenough

otherpeopleuseit.Thereseemstobeassumption,thattherearenotenoughotherusers.

Inproject‐based teams, it isverycommontoestablishdocumentsharinggroupor folder,

whichisthenquiteactivelyused.

“Wehavethearchive,butIdon’tknowifanyonevisitsit” Interviewee8

Few people experience themanagement of folder, like granting access rights, so compli‐

cated, that there isnouse tousedocumentsharing inall thework tasks. Oneemployee

interviewedmentioned theadvantageofdocumentsharing tobe theeasilyaccessible in‐

formation,whichispossibletoreviewaccordingtotimelineandhistory.Theresponsibilities

ofpersonsinvolvedareclear,andthelatestinformationisalwaysavailable.Fewuserstell

the advantageof document sharing to beminimizing attachments sent via email, though

they then remember that they usually can’t be sure if everyone then visits document‐

sharingfolder.

5.2.1.9.Worksupportsystems

TellU,theworksupportsystemusedinBusinessServicesFinlandisbusinessprocessman‐

agement software, which supports sales and accountmanagement processes. Tellu soft‐

wareusedinTeliaSoneraisIBMLombartTeamworks,whichisoneoftheleadingbusiness

81

processmanagementtools.Asintranetdescribes,theadvantageisbettercontrolandvisi‐

bility for customer based informationwhen theworkers dealingwith project produce in‐

formation for common usage. The support requests from sales to support personnel are

channelledthroughTellU,whichenablesbetterknowledgemanagement–theissueissent

torightperson,whoreallyknowsaboutit.TellU’sprocessescanbedescribedasachain;

sales strategy planning, prospect analysis, offer preparation, sales negotiation and finally

resultingcontract.Accordingtointranet,TellUisnotCRMsoftware,butitactsasaninter‐

mediate between people and different applications replacing a bunch of formerly used

tools. Even thoughTellU isnot traditionally seenasacommunication toolorchannel, it

seemstobeessential inenablingBusinessServices‐unitsdailycommunicationflow,espe‐

ciallyduetocomplexityofservicessoldandthehighdemandforco‐operationamongstco‐

workers.

Basedontheinterviews,worksupportsystemsareusedinorganisation,especiallybyem‐

ployeeswhoareindirectcontactwithcustomer,orsupportcustomerresponsibleperson‐

nel.Fewemployeeshaverecognisedthatusageofworksupportsystemmayminimizethe

emailload.Oneemployeementionsthedownsideofsupportsystemstobeslowspeed;the

phone isquicker,which isoftenused insteadof formalworksupport systemtospeedup

thework task. The employee interviewed, who receiveswork requests via work support

system,alsomentionsthatcustomerresponsiblepersonsaretryingtoshortcuttheformal

systemandtryingtogettheirownrequestsfirstinline.Personworkingonthissidefindsit

stressfulandannoying.

Thus,itseemsthatworksupportsystemshavepossibilitytodecreasetheemailload,butit

isoftenshortcutbythepersonwhomakestherequestbymakingaphonecall.Thisisagain

experienced stressful by thepersonwho should receive the task via support system. The

speed(orslowness)seemstobepreventingtheusage.

82

5.2. Factors influencing on media choices in knowledge-work

Basedon thediscussion related toeach individualmedia inorganisationaswell asother

factors that came up during the interviews, the factors influencing onmedia choices are

examined as guided by the conceptual framework. Empirical data is classified and cate‐

gorized loosely according to the framework, but also includes new factors. The factors

foundseemtohavevarietyofdifferenttypesandstrengthsofinfluencebasedontheinter‐

viewsconducted.

5.2.1.Activeandperceivedmediarepertoires

Basedon thediscussion related tousageof thedifferentmedia, it canbeconcluded that

mediarepertoires,bothperceivedandactiverepertoires,hassignificantimpactonindivid‐

ual’smediachoices.Asdescribedearlier,activerepertoirereferstothemediaactivelycon‐

sideredwhenchoosingmedia.Perceivedrepertoireinitsbehalfreferstotherangeofme‐

dia,whichemployeeexperiences tobeavailable inorganisation.There isabigdifference

betweenthemediaavailableinorganisationversusthemediaactuallyusedbyemployees.

Thereisalsoavarietyofperceptionsofwhichmediaisavailableinorganisation,inemploy‐

eesopinion.

“Inpractice,onlymediawehaveavailableisphone,emailandmouth” Interviewee5

Eventhoughmediacapabilitiesandcharacteristicsareunderstoodwell,mediaisnotusedif

ithasnotbeenperceiveavailable,or,mostimportantly,ifitisnotincludedtoactivelyused

mediarepertoire. Organisationhasstrongconnectiontoemployee’smediarepertoires; it

lookslikeTeliaSonerahasfailedtocommunicateavailablemediatoemployees,becausenot

even single interviewee listedall themedia,which in reality is available. Mostof the re‐

spondentshasmid‐rangerepertoire,butactiverepertoiresvariedalot.Email,whichisthe

most popularmedium, was found from everyone’s active repertoire. All the interviewed

83

employees do not actively use new tools, like IMor videoconference, and someof them

don’tevenperceivethemtobeavailable.

Based on empirical evidence, media repertoire together with organisations influence

maybeconsideredoneofthemajorfactorsinfluencingonemployeesmediachoices.Ifme‐

dia isnotactivelyused, it isnotactivelyconsideredwhenchoosingmediafortaskeither.

Factors like situationoravailabilityareapplicableaschoicecriteriaonlyaftermedia is in

activeuse.

5.2.2.TheoreticalMediaCapabilitiesandCommunicationProcessEfficiency

Based on the interviews, it seems that media capabilities have some impact on media

choice and they are understoodwell. However, the influence does not seem to be very

strong.Capabilitieswerealsomisusedinsomedegree,likeinthecaseofemail(document‐

ing). Intranet instructions and the opinions of employees are highly different from each

other.Alltherespondentsunderstandmediacapabilitiesandfeaturesinaverysimilarway.

(Perceptions are well in line withMedia Synchronicity theory’s media‐task descriptions).

People acknowledge, that decision‐making processes should not be conducted via email,

howevermanyrespondentsadmitthatunfortunatelyoftenithappens.Respondentrecog‐

nisethefeaturesandcapabilitiesofsynchronizedandasynchronizedmediaandtheimport‐

anceofsynchronizedmediaininteractionandrelationshipcreationextremelywell.

“Instantmessagingitgoodwhenteleworking,andhavetoasksomethingquicklyfrom

colleague” Interviewee8

“WhenIcommunicatewithcolleaguesearlyinthemorning,IsendanemailbecauseI

don’twanttodistractorwakethemup.” Interviewee0

In termsofcomplex informationsharing, thereseemstobesomemisunderstandingsand

differingpreferences,thoughthismightoccurbecausepeoplelearnnewinaverydifferent

ways (e.g. visual, verbal…) People recognise the features and capabilities in a clear con‐

84

tinuum,e.g. face2faceprovidesbestpossibilities for interactionandmultiple cues, and in

somecases itcanbereplacedwithvideo‐conferencingand innextcasewithphone.They

alsorecognisethespeedandreprocessabilitypossibilitiesofmediawell(emailgoodforre‐

processabilityandsmsquick)Perceptionsasemailasagreat tool fordocumentingseems

somewhatoverlyemphasized.

5.2.3.Appropriationfactorsandpersonalfactors

IndividualbackgroundandITskillsandtrainingseemtohavesomeinfluenceonchoices.IT

skillsmayinfluencemainlythroughperceivedmediarepertoires;lowskillsmightlimitper‐

ceivedmediarepertoireandthus limitchoicesonlyto fewmedium.Onthecontrary,em‐

ployeeswithhigh ITskills seemtoperceive therepertoireavailableaswide,eventhough

wouldnotbeactivelyusingit.

It seems that few people,who have had some training in organisation related tomedia

usage, have widest media repertoire, both actively used and the media assumed to be

availableinorganisation.Thus,trainingseemstohavesomeinfluencedirectlyontheactive

media repertoire. In general, very few people in organisation have received any kind of

training.Themostcommontypeofstatementregardingtrainingforcommunicationmedia

seemstobe:“Theremighthavebeensometrainingoffered,butIhaveneverbeenpartici‐

pating.”Interestingisthatthishasbeenstatedbyseveralintervieweesalmostasidentical

sentencestructure.

Olddevelopedusagehabitsseemtoinfluenceontheadoptionandusageofnewsystems,

andnegativepastexperiencesmayhindertheadoptionandusageofnewtools.Thus,they

mayhavedirectinfluenceonactivemediarepertoires.Therehavebeensomewhatunsuc‐

cessfulmedia/softwareadoptions inorganisationduring the recent years, and several re‐

spondentshavementionedtheirattitudetowardsnewtechnologiestobepositive,butthey

admit being sceptical towards adoptions because of past experiences. These past experi‐

encesmight have influence onwhy certainmedia is not adopted to activemedia reper‐

toires,eventhoughitwouldbeavailable inorganisation.Severalrespondentshaveelabo‐

85

rated that adoption could be more efficient, if advantages were understood and train‐

ing/clearinstructionsprovided.Traininghasbeenexperiencedtootechnicallyorientated.

“Idon’tfeelanxietywhenadoptingnewtools,butifitdoesnotprovidemewithad‐

vantages,Iamnotusingitthen” Interviewee3

“Ourtrainingsaretootechnicalorgeneric,thetargetaudienceandpurposeshouldbe

betterconsidered.” Interviewee1

5.2.4.Organisationsinfluence

Organisation’sinfluenceonindividual’smediachoicesandcommunicationbehaviourseems

to be very strong. Organisation’s communication culture has high impact on individual’s

choices,eventhoughitisnotarticulatedbutmoresotacitknowledgeandhabits,whichare

developedovertime.Asmentionedinearlierchapterregardingmediarepertoires,itseems

that organisationhasnot communicated themedia available clearly enough; thuspeople

don’tunderstandtheoptionsavailable.Thusthemediaperceivedavailablehasmainlyde‐

velopedthoughuncontrolledcommunicationcultureandsocial influences.Everyrespond‐

ent namedemail as themost used andpopularmedium in theorganisation,which gives

signalsofexisting,commonhabits.Especially in thecaseofnewemployee,organisation’s

influenceseemsstrong.Organisationcultureandsocial influenceare tightlyconnected to

eachother,andcan’tbeclearlyclassifiedintodifferentcategories.Perceptionsofthepopu‐

larityofmedium inorganisationaccelerateusageof certainmediums likeemail. It seems

thattherearedoubtsexistingregardingtheusagelevelofdocumentsharing.

“Internally,Isendemails,tocustomersIcall.Thisismoresolearnedhabit,Idoitbe‐

causeothersdoeventhoughanotherwaywouldbemorecomfortableforme.”

Interviewee0

86

5.2.5.Locationandusabilityofmedia

Locationaswellasusabilityofmediaseemstoinfluenceonmediachoices.Locationhasa

minorinfluenceonavailablemediarepertoire,butusuallynotdirectlyonchoices.Respond‐

ents ingeneral think, that locationhasno influenceontheirchoices.Theonlymentioned

factoristhattheydon’thavepossibilitytousevideo‐conferencing,whenworkingathome.

This factor is connected to location,but it hasmore todowithmedia repertoire; limited

media repertoire is the factor influencing on the decision not to use video‐conferencing,

becauseitsimplyisnotavailable.

Locationmayhaveinfluenceontherepertoireavailablealsobyotherroute;whenworking

inanopenoffice,peoplehavepossibilitytousemoreface‐to‐facecontactandadhocques‐

tions.Distancebetweenthecommunicationpartnersmayforcethemtousevideoconfer‐

ence,andinthiscaselocationisagaininfluencingonchoiceviamediarepertoireavailable

Locationofthepartnerisnotperceivedasanactivechoicefactor.

Usability,or convenienceofmedium, influencesonmedia choices. Ithasabig impacton

choices,howeasythemediaisperceiveintermsofusage.Ownconvenienceseemstoguide

decisionsofmany interviewees,especially inanenvironmentwhere informationoverload

andinterruptionsexists.

“Phone is thenumberonemedia forme,writingemails takeseffortso it iseasier to

justmakeaphonecall” Interviewee9

Oftenitseemstohappenthatperceptionsoflowusabilityordifficultiesinusingthesystem

hinder theusageandadoptionofmedium.Thishashappenedespeciallywithnewmedia

like videoconferencing or integrative services. Some interviewees have experienced that

thereistoofewvideoconferencingroomsavailable,anditisdifficulttobookthem.

87

5.2.6.Situationalandtaskrelatedfactors

Situationalfactorsareonlyconsidered,afterotherfactorssettheframeforpossiblemedia

selection.Somerespondents,whohadverynarrowmediarepertoireandnotrainingorex‐

tensiveITskills,mightneverreachthislevel.Theirchoicesaresolimitedattheearliersteps

likemediarepertoiresandpersonal factors, thatsituational factorshaveonlyminimalef‐

fect.Intervieweeswhorecognisedtheimportanceofefficientcommunicationandtheim‐

portance,orbettersaidlackofcommonmediausagehabitshadbetterpossibilitiestoin‐

cludesituationalfactorstotheirdecisionprocess.Theseemployeeshadwidemediareper‐

toires,whichgivethemmoremediatochoosefrombasedonsituationalincentivesorcon‐

straints.Thus,thisfactorcategorycanbeconsideredasafinalmediachoiceinfluencer.

5.2.6.1.Partnersbehaviour,availabilityandfamiliarity

Partner influenceson choiceswithmostpeople; partner’s familiaritymakes it possible to

useleanermedia,butalmostalltherespondentsseeface2faceinteractionasamustwhen

establishing relationship. If partners’ communication behaviour (learned over time) is

known,itinfluencesonmediachoices.Especiallytheexpectationofavailabilityseemstobe

important.What is interesting isthatpeopleseeavailabilitymoresoasastaticfeatureof

thepartner,notasatemporarystatus.Hardlyanyonechecksavailabilityforexamplefrom

IM’sstatusupdates(though,thismightberelatedtolowusagerateifIM).Thus,availability

isseenasastaticstate.Ingeneral,manyoftherespondentshavementionedthedifficulty

withphonecontacts,partnerisoftentoobusytoanswerortalkandthatiswhyasynchron‐

ousmediaissometimespreferred.

9outof10intervieweesseeavailabilityaslearnedbehaviourpatterns,andconsideritwhen

choosingmedia“heneveranswersthephone”.Onlysituation,whereavailabilityisinfluen‐

tialonchoicedirectlyasadynamicfeature,iswhensittingatopenofficeandvisualcontact

topersonexists.Ifthepersonistalkingonaphone,asynchronousmedialikeemailisused.

88

5.2.6.2.Tasktype,familiarityandurgency

Urgencyseemstoinfluenceonmediachoices.Mostoftheinterviewedemployeesincluded

urgencyofthetasktotheiractivechoicecriteria.Urgencyinsomecaseshinderstheusage

ofworksupportsystems(perceivedasslow)andemphasisestheusageofspeedymedium

likephone.Fewintervieweesalsomentionurgencyalterstheirdecisionmakingprocesses;

“Whenbusy,Ichoosethemediumintuitively.Idon’tthink.” Interviewee6

Taskhassomeimpactonmediachoices.Partofemployeesincludedtaskintotheirchoice

criteria..Eventhoughmanyrespondentsdidnotnamethetaskathandasinfluentialfactor

intheirmediachoices,task isoftenregardedat least insomedegree. Itseemsthateven

thoughtaskandtheirappropriatelytocertainmediausageisacknowledgedasstatedinthe

chapterdealingwithunderstandingofmediacapabilities,oftenother factors likeurgency

andorganisationscommunicationcultureoverwritestherationaltaskperceptions.

5.2.6.3.Incomingmedium

Incomingchannel influencesonchoices; it seemsverycommon, thatpeoplecontinuethe

same channel, where they received themessage. Channel is changed only, if issue then

seemstoocomplexorurgenttodealwithinacertainchannel,whichthenhappensasup‐

grading(fromemailtophonecallorface‐to‐face).Downgradingofthechannelseemsnotto

bedoneoften(fromphonecalltoemail).

89

5.3. Challenges in organizational communication

Severalproblemsexperiencedbyemployeescameupduringtheinterviews.Thesechallen‐

gesarepartlysupportedbythedatacollectedinthesurveys.Challengesareheredividedto

differentcategoriestoclarifytheproblems.

5.3.1.Difficultiesincopingwithinformationoverloadandmedia

Sixoutofteninterviewedemployeesexperienced,thattheydon’thavepossibilitiestoget

toknowall the informationtheyneed.According to the intranetsurvey,71%of theem‐

ployeesofTeliaSoneraexperiences, that theyhaveno time/possibility toget toknowthe

informationtheyreceiveduringtheworkday.

5.3.1.1.Filteringrelevantinformationandemaildominance

Theamountofemailsseemstobeunbearable,80%oftheTeliaSoneraemployeeswhore‐

sponded the survey receive over 25 emails per day. (17% receives even more than 51

emailsperday.)Similarproblemsoccurredalsoduringtheinterviews.

“Iuse6hoursperdaydealingwithemails.Ialsocheckemailsathomeintheevening

toeasethenextmorningatwork,eventhoughmyfamilyexperienceitdistracting.I

trytogettheamountofemailsininboxbelow50whenIfinishmyday,otherwiseit

generatesstress.” Interviewee3

Mostoftheintervieweestendtothinkthatemail isusedtoomuchinorganisation.When

receivingsuchnumbersofemails,peopleencounterproblemsinmanagingtheiremailtraf‐

ficandinbox.Filteringrelevantinformationisexperiencedaschallenging.Intervieweestend

toseektherelevantemailsfromtheirinbox,andconcentrateontherestlater.

“Ihavenotimetogothroughallinformation;ItrytofiltertheinformationIreally

need.Ofcourse,sometimesrelevantinformationismissed” Interviewee2

90

Someof theemployees filteremailsevenmoreroughly;all thecc’emailsgostraight into

ownfolder,andtheyarenecessarilyeverred.Problemsoccurwhenpracticesdon’tmatch

andpeoplesendimportantissuesasccemail.Emailseemstobeamajorcauseforinforma‐

tion overload. Few employees recognise the positive influence of instant messaging and

worksupportsystems.Itisexperienced,thatwiththeaidofthesenewtoolstheemailload

canbedecreased.Ontheotherhand,fewemployeesrecogniseemailasproblematic,but

can’tseeanyoptionsforit.Theextremecaseisthatfewemployeesperceivethatemailis

usedaccordinglyinorganisation.

Thehabitofusingemailhasbeenemergingwithoutanycontrol,andmanyemployeesmiss

commonlyestablishedpractices.Ontheotherhandsomeofthenewmediaisexperienced

challenging;forexampleearlierdifficultieswithvideoconferencingposerestrictionsforfu‐

tureusage.Newmediaadoptionsandimplementationsarealsoexperiencedtimeconsum‐

ing.

5.3.1.2.Lowtrustandunclearresponsibilities

Thereseemstobesomewhatnegativeattitudestowardsmanagementinlowerlevelofor‐

ganisation,which indicates low level of trust. Few of the interviewed employees experi‐

enced,thatpeoplesendolotofccemailsinhopethatsomeonewouldreacttothem.One

intervieweehighlightstheproblemofunclearauthoritiesandresponsibilitiesasfollows;

“People shouldbe told their jobdescriptions–everyonehas responsibilitiesbutno

authority.Peopleavoidmakingdecisions,whichiswhyquestionissentto100people

viamail inhopethatsomeonewouldtakeresponsibility.Usuallynoonedoes,and

thenthecustomergetsanxious.” Interviewee5

Emailusagetendstobeemphasizedalsoinsituations,wherechangesinorganisationstruc‐

turesemergeandsomepeoplearepossiblyfired,tryingtodemonstratethattheyarevalu‐

ablefororganisation.Supervisorsareincludedtoemailchainsinthesekindsofsituationsin

wrongreasons.Theissueofusingcc’fieldinawrongmannerproblemsatmanylevels.Im‐

portantinformationcanbemissedbecauseemailsarepoorlytargeted.

91

5.3.2.Highlevelofinterruptionsanddifficultiesinconcentrationontask

Asmentionedinthepreviouschapters,itisverycommonthatpeopletrytouseemailforall

typesofcommunication.Othertools likedocumentsharingandinstantmessagingarenot

usedextensively.Phonecallsaremadeeventhoughthepersonsitsjustaroundthecorner.

It iscommonthatsynchronisedmedia likeface‐to‐facecommunicationisseenastheonly

wayfortrulyefficientcommunication.Itisagreedamongstinterviewees,thatpersonalcon‐

tact isessentialwhencreatingrelationships.Advantagesofalternativemediaarenotfully

recognised.Thus,peopleusuallychoosethemostinteractivemediaavailable,whichisusu‐

allywalkingtothecolleague’sdeskortalkingintheopenoffice.

Thisontheotherhandleadsintohighlevelofinterruptionsexperiencedinopenofficeen‐

vironment. Almost all the interviewees experience, that it is impossible to do any task

whichrequireconcentrationattheoffice;theyratherworkathome.Inextremecaseeven

teammanagerhasencouragedteammemberstogoandworkathome,iftheyneedtodo

somethingwhatrequiresconcentration.

“Interruptionsareconstantanddistracting” Intervieweee8

SomeemployeesinterviewedexperiencedthatIMstatususagewouldhelp(available/busy)

sothatwouldn’thavetodistracteveryonewhensearchingforavailablecolleaguewhen

needinginformation

Itiscommon,thatmultiplemediausedforsametask.Unrealisticemailresponsetimeex‐

pectationincreasetheamountofcommunicativeacts;iftheresponsetoemaildoesnot

arrivequicklyenough,aphonecalliseasilymadetospeedupthings.Employeesarecon‐

ductingseveralworktasksduringtheday,andsometimesitishardtoreturnbacktotask

afterdoingsomethingelse.Ingeneral,multitaskingisexperiencednormalandnotdistract‐

inginbiggerscale

92

5.3.3.Challengesrelatedtoknowledgeflowandmanagement

Intervieweeshavecomplainedthatpeopledon’treadtheemailsproperly.Itdoesnotmat‐

ter,ifmaterialsaresentbeforethemeeting,noonestillreadsthem.Thus,knowledgeisnot

managedveryefficientlyinorganisation.

“Itdoesnotmatterwhatkindofamessageyouwrite,peopledon’treaditanyway.As

en example; there oncewas a training sessionwith buffet. Everyone ate before the

eventbecausetheydidnotknowthatfoodwasavailable–eventhoughitwasclearly

stated in the invitation. People just flick messages through, looking at the like the

headingandtopic(training,I’vebeeninthesebefore,thisisforme)andthenpressac‐

cept….Thistellsalotofourcommunicationculture.” Interviewee2

5.3.3.1.Lowefficiencyofformalsystemsandavailabilityissuesrelatedtopersonalnetworks

Ithasbeennoticed, that lotof time iswasted insearchingfor information. Intranet isex‐

periencedinefficient,andpeopletendtousepersonalemailforarchiving.

“Iwouldsaythattheamountofarchivedemailsinmyfoldersisapproximately20000.

Ihavedifferentcustomersindifferentfolders.Itisagoodwayofarchiving;Icanthen

searchforspecificinformationbyusingoutlook’sfinder.” Interviewee3

Almostalltheintervieweesmentionpersonalnetworkstobethemostimportantchannel

ininformationsearch.MostoftheemployeeshaveworkedinTeliaSoneraforalongtime,

andhaveestablishedcontacts.However,theemployeewhohasonlyrecentlystartedinthe

organisation encounters difficulties in finding information. It is hard to knowwho to ask

from.Usuallytheinformationhastobereceivedfromapersoninsteadofformalsystems,

becauseofpersonalemail archives. Inaddition, formalwork support systemsareexperi‐

encedasslowandoftenshortcutbymakingaphonecall.

93

Highusageofpersonalnetworksisrelatedtoavailabilityproblems.Whenaspecificperson

isnotavailable,delaysoccurinconductingtasks.Peopletendtousedifferenttechniquesto

copewiththeinformationoverload,forexampleturningtheemailoffforhourswhencon‐

centratingonothertasks.Whenalltheemployeeshavedifferenthabits,itisimpossibleto

knowhowtoreachwhoandwhen.Thefollowingcommentselaboratetheproblem;

“Toknowhowtoreachaperson,communicationhabitsandmostusedmediashould

beknown” Interviewee7

“Peopledon’trespondandIcan’tproceedwithtasks.Itgeneratesstress.” Interviewee1

5.3.3.2.Matrixorganisationandlackofcommontools

In general, employees are longing for unified communication culture and common prac‐

tices.Thehabitshaveemergedovertime,andpeoplehavetheirownwaysofcommunicat‐

ing.Whenco‐operatingwithnecessarysubsidiariesandotherbusinessunits,thereisalways

notevencommontoolsforcommunicating;exceptemailandphonenaturally.Alotofwork

isdoneinproject‐basedteams.Forexampleitishardtoknowwhousesinstantmessaging,

whohasvideoconferencingetc.Inextremecases,ithashappenedthatemployeeshaven’t

beenabletoevenacquirethephonenumbersoftheco‐workerstheyneed,becausethey

belonged to different business entity, a subsidiary. Unified culture has been the wish of

manyemployees;

“Itwouldbegoodtoestablishcommonpracticeshowtocommunicate.” Interviewee2

94

5.4. Example profiles

Whencomparingresultsfromthedifferentinterviews,thereseemtobefewdifferenttypes

of employees in terms of their communication habits. The distinctive types presented to

illustratethepolarizedcommunicationbehaviourinTeliaSoneraaredescribedintable7.

Type1Advancedcommunicators

Type2Traditionalcomfortseekers

Type3Newemployeeunderorganisationsinfluence

Choiceorienta‐tion

Orientatedtotaskandseveralfactorswhenchoosingmedia

Orientatedtoeasinessofusageandownconvenience

ReceiverspreferencesinfluenceifknownOrganisationalhabitshavebiginfluenceoncommunicationbehav‐iour

Mediareper‐toires

Activemediarepertoiremorethanfive

Activemediarepertoirelessthanfive

Activemediarepertoirelessthanfive

ITskills,trainingandatti‐tudes

BasictohighlevelITskills,eventrainingreceived

AverageITskills,notrainingreceived

GoodITskillsanpositiveattitudes

Table 7. Different communicator types in TeliaSonera Business Services Finland

The full analysis and type tables canbe foundas anappendix (appendix3). Factors com‐

paredwere communicationmedia repertoires,mainorientationwhen choosingmedia, IT

skills,andtrainingreceived,attitudesandpartnersinfluenceonmediachoices.Alsothejob

descriptionwasincludedintermsofdailycustomercontact.Interruptionsandtheirdegree

ofdistractionaswellasproblemsexperiencedarealsoexaminedintermsofrelevantparts.

Thecomparisontableofthesefactorscanbefoundasanappendix(appendix4).

Likelihoodofcontinuingthesamechannelseemsnottohaveanythingincommonwithdivi‐

sion of groups; it varies across the groups and within them. Problems in organisational

communication also seem pretty similar. Physical work setting is pretty much the same

amongstalltherespondents,exceptwithone:respondent9hasownoffice,andbelongsto

thegroup2.Locationdoesnotseemtoinfluenceonchoicesmuch.

95

Allgroupsperceivemedia/toolscapabilitiesinasimilarway;itdoesnotseemtoinfluence

onchoicemuch.Eventhoughtheemployeesinterviewedknowwhichtoolisgoodforwhich

task, they don’t use themaccordingly. Every interviewee hasmentioned that dominating

communicationtool/channel inorganisation isemail,andemailcanbe foundfromevery‐

one’s active media repertoire. Thus, it seems that organisations communication prac‐

tices/culturehasstrong influenceonemployee’smediachoices,eventhoughcommon in‐

structionsarenotarticulated,butmoresodevelopedovertimeastacitknowledge.Espe‐

ciallynewemployee,workedintheorganisationunderoneyear,ishighlyinfluencedbycol‐

leagues’ communicationpracticesandmediachoices.Sheuseschannelswhatothersuse,

andhaslearnedthesewaysfromcolleagues.HighITskillsandnotrainingseemtoemerge

togetherwithnarrowmediarepertoiresandorientationtoownconvenienceandurgencyin

mediachoices.

It seems thatevidence fromsurveysconducted inTeliaSoneraandhundredsof smalland

mediumsizedcompaniessomewhatsupporttheseresults.Whenopenquestionswereana‐

lysed, four groups were found; own convenience –orientated, situation‐orientated, task‐

media ‐orientated and receiver‐orientated employees. This survey‐based data and results

aregoingtobepresentedinthenextchapter.

96

5.5. Supporting evidence

SurveyresultsfromtheoneconductedwithinTeliaSoneraBusinessServicesorganisation,as

wellastheoneconductedamongstSmall‐andmediumsizeFinnishcompaniessupportthe

qualitative data findings. Factors influencing onmedia choice was explored both in Teli‐

aSonera survey and Small‐ and medium size company survey. The challenges related to

communicationwere investigatedonly in TeliaSoneraquestionnaire. Findings support the

challengesfoundduringinterviews,aswellasthedifferenttypesofcommunicatorsfound

amongstemployees.ResultsalsohighlightthepossiblelowtrustinTeliaSonera.

5.5.1.Communicationmediachoicecriteria

Findingsfromopenquestionsfrombothquestionnairessupportthetwoextremetypesof

communicators found during the interview process; advanced communicators and tradi‐

tionalcomfortseekers.Oneendofthecontinuumseemstobe“selfishmotives”whereasin

the other end several factors are actively considered. Thus, the facts that people choose

mediabasedonownconvenienceseemstobeacommonproblemalsooutsidethisorgani‐

sation.ResultsfromopenquestionsinTeliaSoneraalsosupporttheissueoflowtrust,which

cameupduringtheinterviewprocess.Needtodocumentationseemtobedisproportionally

highlighted in TeliaSonera, when considering the criteria for media choises. In the other

organisations,needtodocumentismuchlower.

Oneof theopenquestions in thesurveyaskedemployeestodescribehowtheychoosea

communicationtoolforcertaintask.Questionnairewassentto220employeesinTeliaSon‐

era,and69answersweregatheredforthequestion,responseratebeing31%.Tosupport

the result, the similar analysiswas conducted to the results fromSmall andmedium size

company ‐survey;331answersweregathered,whichwas49%of the finishedanswers to

thewholesurvey.

97

Theresults indicatethatmostdecisionsaresomewhatirrational,whichsupports including

situationalandotherconditionsintotheoryframework.Therespondentswerecategorized

intofourgroupsbasedoncodingoftheshortanswers.Codingwasconductedbytwosepa‐

rateresearchers,whichincreasesthereliabilityofthefindings.First,themostcommoncri‐

teriaformediaselectionweregathered(seetable8).

Criteria TS SMEs

Speed(savingtime,efficiency,urgencyoftask) 31 96

Needtodocument(Blackonwhite,leavesatrace) 11 15

Mediumcharacteristics(easiness,usability,functionality,flexibility,stability) 19 129

Taskandsituation(noturgency;content,complexityandimportance) 19 168

Receiver(familiarity,skills,amount,availability) 24 62

Ownmotives(stress,ownhabits,locations,pastexperienceandfeeling) 14 38

Table 8. Choice Criteria counted from TS and SMe surveys

SpeedwasmentionedmostoftenatTS(31).Taskandsituationwasmentionedmostoften

atSmallandmediumsizecompanies (168).Themain factors influencingonmediachoice

wereverysimilarinbothsurveys.Speedandsituationalfactorsareintopthreeinbothsur‐

veys.Interestingis,thatwhenthenumbersofdifferentcriteriaarecomparedtomostused

criterion, documentation seems to beonmuchhigher level on TeliaSonera than at Small

andMediumsizecompanies.(11vs31 inTS,15vs168inSMEs).Thehighneedfordocu‐

mentationmight be an indicator of low trust and unclear responsibilities. In addition, six

respondentsinSMEsmentionedthecurrentpracticesasacriterion,whereasinTeliaSonera

noonementionedthem.

In the choice criteriapresentedabove, theprinciplewas thatone respondentmentioned

multipledifferentcriteria.At thenextstepofanalysis,basedon factorspresentedabove,

similarities and often‐repeated factor combinationswere searched amongst respondents.

Basedonthemfourmainprofileswereformedbycombiningthesimilartypeofresponses

(seetable9).Theprofileswereaimedtobeformedinawaythatprofilewouldconsistof

personswhoclearlyorientatestronglyononefactor.Therationality(task‐mediaefficiency)

inchoiceisgrowingalongeverynewgroup;inthefirstchoiceisonlybasedonownmotives,

98

whereasinthelast,fourthgroupthemedia,situationandalsoreceiversunderstandingare

considered.Media Synchronicity theorywas used as guiding principlewhen forming pro‐

files.

Receiver‐orientatedgroup

Media‐taskorientatedgroup

Situationorientatedgroup

Ownmotivesorientatedgroup

Thisgroupclearlycon‐siderswhichisthebestmediumtodeliverthemessage,sothatre‐ceiverwouldunder‐standitclearlyandhaveanappropriateinteractionwithsender.Task‐andmediachar‐acteristicsarecon‐sideredaswellassitu‐ationalfactors,butthegroupclearlydemon‐stratestheadvancedunderstandingoftheimportanceofprocess‐ingabilitiesofthesenderinrelationtotaskandmedia.

Importantcriteriaaretheperceivedusefulnessofthemediaindeliver‐ingparticularmessage.Thecharacteristicsofthemediaarewellrecog‐nised.Thisgroupalsoincludessomesitu‐ationalfactorsasselec‐tioncriteria,butem‐phasisisclearlymoreonmedia‐taskfit

Situationalconditionshaveastronginfluenceondecisionmaking;urgencyofthetask,availabilityofrespondentetc.Characteristicsoftheme‐diaareincludedinsomedegree,liketheperceivedspeedofthemediaascommunicationtool,butnotconsideredtobetheessentialcriteria.

Thechoiceismadebasedonownexperiencesandperceptions.Habitsareimportant,noothercriteriaisincludedwhenselectingmedia

Table 9. Different types of communicators at TeliaSonera Business Services Finland: survey results

Inaddition,asmallgroupofrespondentsfallsinbetweenthecategoriesanddoesn’tprofile

clearly inanyof them. Theamountofemployeeschoosingmediabasedonownmotives

likeconvenienceaswellastheoneswhoareorientedtosituationalconstraintsisalarmingly

high.Itseemsthatnotmanypeoplechoosemediabymaximizingtheefficiency.Theresults

fromSmallandmedium–sizecompaniesindicatesimilarsituation(table10),eventhought

hesamplesizeismuchlarger.Thus,itispossiblethatproblemmightbelargelypresentalso

in other companies. Though, this analysis does not provide specific understanding of the

respondents’media choices,because thedataandanalysis is constructedon thebasisof

shortopenquestionnairesintheinternetsurvey.Thesamplesizeisalsorelativelysmallin

the open question,which raises the question if non‐sampling error emerging;would the

respondentswhodidnot fill in theanswer responddifferently fromtheones thatdid re‐

spond.However,theresultsupportsthedifferentcommunicatortypesfoundbasedonthe

interviews.

99

Table 10 The amount of respondents: different media choice orientation profiles in TS and SMe survey

5.5.2.ChallengesinBusinessServicesFinland

When looking into theaverageworkdayatTeliaSoneraBusinessServicesbasedonsurvey

results(TS2010),meetingsseemtotaketwohours.Ascanbenoticedfromthegraphbelow

(figure8)thenumberofreceivedemailsishigherthanthenumberofsentones.Thismay

resultfromhighnumberofcarboncopies(CC’s)andconfirmationemails.Itispossible,that

theamountishighduetolowleveloftrustinorganisation

Survey(TS2010)highlightssimilarchallengesthantheonesfoundduringtheinterviewpro‐

cess.Respondentsagreedorstronglyagreedintermsofthefollowingstatements:

• 80%experiencesinterruptionsastypicalintheirwork

• 65%experiencescontinuousinterruptionsasdistractingintheirwork

• 71%doesnothavetimetogettoknowtheinformationtheyreceivethoroughly

Receiver Media‐task Situation Ownmotives

SME 12 75 92 54

SME% 3,6% 22,7% 27,8% 16,3%

TS 5 16 18 10

TS% 7,2% 23,2% 26,1% 14,5%

Figure 8. Sent and received emails daily in Business Services Finland

100

Further,basedonsurveydataaclusteranalysiswasconductedtoclarifytheproblemsex‐

perienced. Thequestions anddata included to analysis consistedof following statements

andquestions;(1)IgettheinformationIneedattherighttime,(2)Icancontinuethenext

10yearsinasimilarmanneratwork,(3)Iusuallycan’treachthepersonI’mtryingtogetin

touchwith,(4)Continuousinterruptionsaretypicalinmywork,(5)Iexperienceworkrelated

communication challenging and as a burden, (6) Work related communication takes too

muchtime,(7)Idon’thavetimetogettoknowalltheinformationIreceive,(8)Interruptions

aredistractingmydailywork,(9)Communicationmediahasahighimpactonmeaningful‐

nessofmywork.Theclustermeanscanbefoundasanappendix(5).

5clusterswereformedandnamedasfollows;(1)Successfulcommunicators,(2)Communi‐

cators in risk, (3) Sufferers, (4) Adapters and (5) Efficient communicators. The number of

employees belonging to each cluster was divided somewhat evenly across the clusters

(table11).Clustersindicatedifferentprofilesamongstemployees;perceptionsofworkand

communicationrelatedproblemsaredifferentbetweentheclusters.Theremightbeseveral

reasonsbehind thedifferent viewpoints,which cannotbearticulated in the scopeof this

study. However, the profiles and experienced problems support the challenges identified

basedontheinterviewdataanalysis.

Cluster Summary

Cluster Frequency RMS Std

Deviation

Maximum

Distance

from Seed

to Observa-

tion

Radius

Exceeded

Nearest

Cluster

Distance

Between

Cluster Cent-

roids

1: Successful communicators 26 0.7213 3.4976 5 2.2678

2: Communicators in risk 30 0.7499 3.0464 3 2.1434

3: Sufferers 23 0.6356 3.0288 2 2.1434

4: Adapters 13 0.6730 3.1142 2 2.4535

5: Efficient communicators 21 0.6738 3.1869 1 2.2678

Table 11. Cluster summary

101

Thefirstgroup,Successfulcommunicators,areintoptwogroupsbasedoneveryquestion,

top group meaning here successful communication and low degree of problems experi‐

enced.Thisgroupdoesnot findworkandcommunicationchallenging,andexperienceno

constantordistractinginterruptions.Theemployeesbelongingtothisgroupgettheinfor‐

mationtheyneedontime,andfeelthattheyhavetimetogettoknowtheinformationthey

receive.

Thethirdgroup,Sufferers, is theexactopposite for the firstgroupbasedonalmostevery

questionresult.Thisgroupclearlyhasproblemswithcopingwitheverydayworkandcom‐

munication. Employees in this group experience constant interruptions and distractions,

andtheydon’tgettheinformationontime.Workandcommunicationisexperiencedchal‐

lenging.Availabilityofcolleaguesisalsoanissue,andpossibilitiestogettoknowtheinfor‐

mationflowwaslow.

The second group, Communicators in risk,experience almost all the sameproblems than

sufferers,butnotasstrongly.Thisgroupisprobablyonawaytosamedirection,thansuf‐

ferers.Thefourthgroup,Adapters,findinformationflowandinterruptionstodistracttheir

dailywork,buttheavailabilityandinformationgatheringisnotaproblem.Theyalsothink

theycancontinueatworkwiththesamepaceforthenexttenyears. Itseemsthatthese

peopleconsider informationoverloadand interruptionsasnecessary“bad”they justhave

toadaptthemselvesto.

Thelastgroup,Efficientcommunicators,seemtobebestinreachingthecolleaguestheyare

trying toget in touchwithandacquire the information theyneed.Theydon’texperience

communicationaschallenging,andeventhoughtheyexperience interruptions, theydon’t

consider themdistracting.Theconstant interruptionsare the factor separating thisgroup

fromSuccessful communicators,whoon theirbehalfdon’tevenexperience interruptions.

Thus,therearesignificantdifferencesinexperiencingthechallenges.

102

6. Discussion and Conclusion

Inthischapter,theconceptualframeworksaregoingtobeconfrontedbytheempiricalfind‐

ingsfromthecaseorganisation.Withtheaidofrevisedframeworks,thefactorshindering

efficient communicationandmediausagearepresentedanddiscussed. In theendof the

chapter,managerialimplicationsandlimitationsofthestudyarepresented,andfuturere‐

searchdirectionssuggested.

6.1. Revised framework

Theresearchframeworksarerevisedbasedonempiricalobservations,asthefindingsindi‐

cate somewhat different interconnectionswith the analysed factors thanwhatwas origi‐

nallyexpectedbasedonliteraturereview.Thecommentsforrevisedframeworkregarding

factors influencingonmediachoicearepresentedfirst,afterwhichthechallengesexperi‐

encedrelatedtocommunicationinknowledgeworkarediscussed.

6.1.1.Factorsinfluencingonmediachoices‐alteredstrengthsandrelationships

Severalfactorsinfluenceonindividualsmediachoices.Employeesintheorganisationseem

torealisethetheoreticalefficiencyofmediafordifferenttasks.AmongstTeliaSoneraBusi‐

ness Services Finlandemployees,media capabilities aredescribed in linewith capabilities

presentedinMediaSynchronicityTheory(Denniseta.2008).However,theactualchoices

madeareoftenverydifferent.Intheeverydaysituationsmediaischosenbasedonvariety

of factors, like situational constraints (task, partner, incomingmedium) butmost import‐

antly,tobeabletomakethesechoicesbetweenmediums, individualmusthaveaccepted

themediatopersonal,activemediarepertoire.Thismediarepertoireresultingfromseveral

factors isa listofdifferentmedia,which isactivelyconsideredasanoptionwhenmaking

mediaselections.

103

Watson‐Manheim & Belanger (2007) suggest that organizational members select a com‐

municationmedium from their communicationmedia repertoire in interactions with col‐

leagues.Theexistingrepertoireofpracticesprovidesaframethroughwhichusagedecisions

aremade(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger;OrlikowskiandYates1994).Theresultsfromthe

empirical analysis indicate the same kindof phenomena.However, in this study it seems

that in addition to socially emerged structures,media repertoires are also influenced by

otherfactors like individual’s ITskills,attitudes,trainingandpastexperiences. Inaddition,

repertoireswereclassifiedintotwocategories;activemediarepertoires(themediawhichis

activelyconsideredwhenchoiceismade)andperceivedrepertoires(individualknowsthat

themedia isavailable,butdoesnotuse it for somereason). Themajoreffectbehind the

choiceisalsotheoneofperceivedmediarepertoires;whichmediaisseenasavailableand

acceptable to use in organisational communication in the organisation. Perceived media

repertoireisresultingfromorganisationculture,structureandhabitsaswellasnorms.Me‐

diarepertoires,bothactiveandperceived,organisations influenceaswellaspersonalfac‐

torslikeITskillshavecomplexrelationship.Thus,theconceptualframeworkhastobemodi‐

fied;communicationmediarepertoiresisnotsolelyformedbasedonorganisationalnorms

andhabitsas claimedbyWatson‐ManheimandBelanger (2007),butalsobasedonother

factors,ascanbeseenfromfigure9.

In conceptual framework, organisational influence (institutional condition), aswell as ap‐

propriation factors andmedia repertoireswere expected to be equal factors included to

structuring conditions influencing on media choices together with media capabilities de‐

scribedinMST(Dennisetal.2008).However,basedontheempiricalevidenceitseemsthat

theconceptualframeworkhastobealteredinthiscasestudyregardingtheroleofrational

choiceandstructuringconditions.Employeesunderstandthetheoreticalcapabilitiesofthe

media, but organisational factors,media repertoires; appropriation factors and individual

factorsposerestrictionstochoice.Thesefactorsseemtohavemuchstrongerinfluenceon

choice than expected communication efficiency in theory and situational constraints. Or‐

ganisationanditsnormsseemtohavemajorinfluenceonchoice;ifmediaisnotperceived

tobeusedinorganisation,itisnotconsideredasanoption.

104

Further,individualfactorslikelowITskillsandattitudesinfluenceonmediachoices.These

areclassifiedasadifferentfactorseparatefromappropriationfactors.Dennisetal.(2008)

classifyfamiliaritywiththemediumtobeappropriationfactor.Though,basedonempirical

evidenceinthisstudyitseemsthatgenerallevelofITskillscanbeinfluentialonchoice.Atti‐

tudesandITskillsinthisstudyareconsideredasindividual’scharacteristics,whichareorigi‐

natedmainlyoutsidetheorganisation.

Appropriationfactors liketrainingprovidedandpastexperiencesofmediainwork‐related

usagehave influenceonchoiceaswell.Dennisetal. (2001)defined trainingandpastex‐

periencewiththemediaaswellas familiaritywithmedia,partnerandtaskathandtobe

appropriationfactors.However,thefactorsaredifferentlyclassifiedinthisstudybasedon

empiricalevidence.Partnerandtaskrelatedfactorsareclassifiedassituationalfactors,in‐

fluential only after other factors presented in earlier chapters. However, the assumption

thatagoodfitwithouttheneededappropriationsupportislesslikelytoleadtoimproved

performance(Dennisetal.2001),getssupportbyempiricalevidence.Trainingandexperi‐

encewithmediaaswellasindividualfactorslikeITskillshaveinfluenceonthemediaselec‐

tions.

Locationandperceivedusabilityofmediuminadditionlimitstheoptionsandinfluenceson

mediachoice.InUTAUT(UnifiedTheoryofAcceptanceandUseofInformationTechnology)

ithasbeensuggestedthatperformanceexpectancy,effortexpectancyandsocialinfluence

haveeffectontheadoptionandusageof informationtechnology(Venkateshetal.2003).

Thistheoryhasnotbeenconsideredinconceptualframework,butseemstobeimportant

whenselectingmedia.Activemediarepertoire,onwhichsituationalconditionsfurther in‐

fluenceisresultingfromthesepreviouslymentionedfactors.

Situationalfactorsareclassifiedasfinal influencer inrevisedframework(figure9).Factors

relatedtocommunicationpartner, likeavailability,familiarityandbehaviourseemtohave

influenceonmediachoicebasedonempiricalevidence.Availabilityaschoicecriteriaseems

tobemorerelatedtofamiliarityofthecommunicationpartner,thanpreviouslyexpected.

StraubandKarahanna(1998)suggestavailabilitytobeoneofthekeyconstructs inmedia

105

choices. However, the results from this case study indicate availability to be more con‐

nectedtolearnedbehaviourofcommunicationpartner,thusitisnotadynamicfeature.Of

course,insomesituations,availabilityasatemporaryfeatureinfluenceonmediaselection.

Employees in case organisation tend to continue the communication via same channel

wheretheyoriginallyreceivedthemessage.Thisfinding,indicatingthelowmindfulthinking

whenchoosingmedia insomesituations, isconsistentwithearlier theories (Langer,1978;

Kirmeyer,1988;Timmerman,2002).Inrevisedframework,taskrelatedfactorslikeurgency,

typeandfamiliarityareclassifiedassituationalfactorsaswell.Assuggestedbefore(Dennis

etal.2008), familiarityofacommunicationpartner influencesonmediachoice.Denniset

al.(2008)definetask‐mediafitasinfluentialfactor.However,thisstudyindicatesthateven

though task‐media fit is recognized in theory, the typeof task,or communication, isonly

influentialaftertheotherchoicefactorslikeorganisationalinfluenceandindividualfactors.

Therevisedchoice‐frameworkisgoingtobepresentedinnextchapter,combinedtochal‐

lenges‐framework.

6.1.2.Challengesexperienced–newproblemsfound

Thechallengesexperiencedweresimilartotheonesexpressedinconceptualframeworkin

somedegree, thoughalso somenewchallengesemerged.Constant interruptionsand in‐

formationoverloadwerechallengesexperienced inknowledgework incaseorganisation,

likewasanticipatedinconceptualframework.However,basedonempiricalevidenceinter‐

ruptionsarenotalwaysexperiencedasdistracters,but taken forgranted.Thus, interrup‐

tions,taskclosureattemptsandstressdon’tseemtobethatcloselytiedtoeachotherthan

suggestedbyconceptualframework.

Itisinteresting,thatincaseorganisationinterruptionssometimesseemtobetakenasnor‐

mal and compulsorypartofworkday; theyareexperienced tooccur, and it is everyone’s

ownproblemtominimize them.Some intervieweesdidnotevenexperiencethemasdis‐

tracting,butasnormalpartofworkday.Theresultsfromsurveyindicatethesimilarexperi‐

106

ences;80%experiencesinterruptionsastypicalintheirwork,whereasonly65%findsthem

distracting.Resultsfromclusteranalysisfurthersupportthisphenomenon.Themembersof

theclustersfoundwhenanalysingsurveydataexperiencecommunicationandchallengesin

averydifferentmanner,eventhoughworkinginthesameorganisation.Interruptionsseem

tobeproblemalso inbroadercontext,assuggestedin literaturereview;accordingtoFin‐

nish research (Työ& Terveys 2006), half of the employeeswere forced to often or con‐

stantlyinterrupttheircurrentworktaskstogivewaytomoreurgenttasks.

Informationoverloadandtheburdenofnumberofemailsarelookingtobethemostwidely

experienced problem amongst the interviewed employees. The survey data supports the

finding;71%doesnothave time toget toknowthe information they receive thoroughly.

Especiallyfilteringrelevantinformationisexperiencedchallenging,andsometimes,import‐

antinformationismissed.Findingisconsistentwithprevioustheories;asWhittaker(2005)

suggests, employees have difficulties in organizing andmanaging their email data.When

processinginformation,onlyaminimalamountofinformationmaybeattendedto(Langer,

1978) Mindless processing may occur especially with well‐learned and familiar things

(Kirmeyer1988).

Attemptstoclosetaskandconnectiontowork‐relatedstresswasnotasevidentbasedon

empiricaldata,asassumedbasedonprevioustheories.Though,theassumptionofclosing

taskswithemailhappensinsomedegree.Assuggestedinpreviousresearch,asynchronous

media provides an option to close tasks while not interrupting recipient (Straub &

Karahanna,1998).Increasedemailloadmayoccurbecauseoftaskclosureattempts,which

might accelerate due to information overload in knowledge‐work environment. Based on

empirical evidence it cannot be stated that task closure attemptswoulddirectly increase

information overload. Though, they might increase interruptions when employees check

theiremail constantly (Tayloretal,2008).However, theamountofemailsandorganising

themininboxingeneralwasexperiencedstressfulbasedonempiricalevidence.Also,high

usageofcarboncopyemailsincreasestheload.

107

Inadditiontochallengespresentedinconceptualframework,newchallengescameupfrom

theinterviewdata;inefficiencyinknowledgemanagementinorganisation,difficultiesposed

bymatrix organisation and unclear responsibilities/authorities, and lack of common com‐

municationtoolsancultureaswellasproblemswithavailabilityofcolleagues(seefigure9).

6.1.3.Thecombinedframework‐mediachoice,challengesandtheirrelationship

Asexplainedinthepreviouschapters,thestrengthandrelationshipsofthefactorsinfluen‐

cingon individual’smedia choiceshavebeen altered. Similarly, the frameworkdescribing

thechallengesneededtoberevisedaswell.Basedonempiricalfindings,individual’smedia

choice behaviour and factors behind it don’t directly seem to influence on the problems

he/sheexperiences.Moreso,inefficientmediachoicesofgroupofemployeescommunicat‐

ingtogether(orthewholeorganisation)seemtocauseproblemslikeinformationoverload,

business,poorknowledgemanagementandinterruptions.Theconnectionbetweenchoices

andchallengesisatorganisationallevel,andsingleindividualhasminorpossibilitiestoim‐

provethesituation.Fromindividual’sperspective,thechallengeisconnectedtothewhole

organisationsunifiedcommunicationpolicies,orinlackofthem.

Thebarriertoefficientcommunicationstillliesintheinefficientmediachoicesofindividu‐

als, when sum up together. These inefficient media choices then accumulate and cause

problemsforthewholeorganisationandtoalltheindividualworkers.

Thecombinedframeworkanswersthefollowingresearchquestions:

‐ Whatarethefactorsinfluencingonindividuals’mediachoicesinknowledge‐work?

‐ Whatisexperiencedaschallenginginorganisationalcommunication?

108

Figure 9. Revised framework

109

Robert andDennis (2005) suggest, that in circumstanceswhere individuals are notmoti‐

vatedor donot have the ability to process information, theywill not allocate processing

efforttowardareceivedmessageandwillnotfullyintegratetheinformationwiththeirpre‐

vious knowledge.When this occurs, the elaboration likelihood is described as being low.

(Robert&Dennis2005)TheaccuracyoftheassumptionofRobertandDennis(2005)incase

organisationcan’tbeevaluated,becauseinthescopeofthisresearchitwasimpossibleto

examineelaborationlikelihoodempirically.Though,lowelaborationlikelihoodandmindless

information processing seems to be evident in situations where information overload is

present.Also,basedonthe fact thatemployeesdon’talwayschoosethemediabasedon

theoreticalefficiency,itcanbestatedthatprocessingabilityandmotivationarenotalways

ashighas theyshouldbe to reachhighelaboration likelihood incaseorganisation,which

leadsintolowdecisionquality.

Figure 10. Link between media choices and challenges - low communication efficiency in organisation

Basedonindividualsbehaviour,lookslikethecommunicationinorganisationismostlyatinefficientarea

110

6.2. Factors hindering efficient media usage

Asstated inpreviouschapter, itseemsthat individuals incaseorganisationdonotalways

choosemedia in an efficientmanner. Other factors than theoretical communication per‐

formance,likemediarepertoiresandorganisationalinfluenceamongstothersseemtohave

astrongimpactonchoices.Eventhoughemployeesunderstandthecapabilitiesandadvan‐

tagesofdifferentmedia, theyarenotusedaccordingly. Factorspresented in this chapter

givepossibleexplanationstothephenomenon.Barriershinderingefficientcommunication

arefoundbasedonthechallengesexperiencedandchoicefactorsfoundfromindividual’s

perspective.Thischapterthusanswerstothemainresearchquestionposited;

“Whatarethefactorshinderingefficientcommunicationinknowledge‐workorganization?”

Genericcategoriesofhinderingfactors ConsequenthinderingfactorsOrganisationalco‐ordinationandman‐agementStronginfluenceInfluencesonIndi‐vidualandSitu‐ationalconditions

‐Uncontrolledcultureandhabits‐Matrixstructure‐Lowleveloftrust‐Inefficientknowledgemanagement‐Lackoftraining‐Inefficientadoptions

‐Narrowmediarepertoires‐Highusageofpersonalnetworks

andlowusageofformalsys‐tems

‐Perceptionsoflowamountofusersdominatingemailcul‐ture

Individual’satti‐tudes,motivesandbackground Stronginfluence

‐LowlevelofITskills‐Negativeexperiences‐Negativeperceptionsofusability‐Strongoldhabits

‐Narrowmediarepertoires‐Dominatingemailculture‐Misuseofmediacapabilities

SituationalfactorsFinalinfluencer:con‐sideredafterotherfactorssettheframeforpossiblemediaselection

‐Perceptionsofavailability:people

seeavailabilityasstaticfeature‐Urgency‐Informationoverload‐Incomingmedium‐Constantinterruptions

‐Feelingofbeingbusyandavail‐

abilityproblems‐Copingtechnique,interruptions“ownchoice”‐Intuitiveandirrationalmedia

choices‐Compulsoryinformationfiltering

Table 12. Factors hindering efficient communication media usage

111

Factorsareclassifiedtogenericcategoriestoclarifytherelationships;individual’sattitudes,

motives and background; organisational coordination and management and finally situ‐

ationalfactors.Allthefactorspresentedinthetablehaverestrictingeffectonefficientme‐

dia usage and communication as stand‐alone factors but also has complex relationships

withotherfactors.Mediacapabilitiesandcharacteristicsarenotclassifiedasfactorshinder‐

ingefficientcommunication;moreso,usabilityandcapabilityofthemediaareperceptions

tied to individualand individuals’ attitudes.The followingdiscussionclarifies the relation‐

shipsandoverlappingfactorstogivedeeperunderstandingofthe influenceofthefactors

presentedinthetable12.

6.2.1.Organisationalcoordinationandmanagement

Organisationhassignificantroleininfluencingonindividual’smediachoices.Therearesev‐

eral different aspects related to organisational influence as follows; uncontrolled culture

andhabits,lowleveloftrust,inefficientknowledgemanagement,lackoftraining,andinef‐

ficienttechnologyadoptions.Majorityofthefindingsarewellinlinewithprevioustheories

andfindings.

Firstly,Organisation’s communicationculture hashigh impacton individual’s choices. Em‐

ployees mainly use the media what others use as well. The influence of organizational

norms on communications media use has been demonstrated in multiple studies (Fulk,

1993;Markus,1994;Watson‐Manheim&Belanger,2007;Yates&Orlikowski,1992).Estab‐

lished communication practices structure community’s members actions; members also

reinforcethepractices(OrlikowskiaddYates(1994).Thus,itseemsthatorganisationculture

and established communication habits have significant influence on individual’s media

usage,andthushinderefficientcommunicationincaseorganisation.

Matrix organisation structure poses problems in terms of communication; almost all re‐

spondentswork inapermanent team,whichmembersmainlydo theirown tasksanddo

notworkmuchtogether.Onthecontrary,lotofinformationsharingandcommunicationis

neededacrosstheunitandteamboundaries,andmanyintervieweesoftenparticipateinto

112

projectteams.Thus,problemoccurringfrombadlycoordinatedbusinessunitcommunica‐

tionacrossboundariesmightbeevenmorecommonproblemthanitseems.Lowtrust,re‐

sponsibilitiesandauthoritiesseemtobeconnectedtoindividual’smediachoices.Thisfind‐

ingisconsistentwithWatson‐Manheim&Belangers(2007)findingsregardinginstitutional

conditionswhichinfluenceoncommunicationmediausage;interpersonaltrustandphysical

workplacestructureareclaimedtosignificantlyinfluencethedecisiontouseacommunica‐

tionmedium.

Ifknowledgemanagement isnotstrategicandefficient inorganisation, ithasnegative in‐

fluence on communication and information flow amongst others. High usage of personal

networks has connection to availability problems; personal email archiving increases the

needtoaskaboutthe issuefromacolleague,when information isnotavailablefromfor‐

mal, commonly used sources. Thismight lead into availability problems. Usage of formal

informationmanagementsystemsislow,whichisalsoduetotheperceptionsofslowness.

Highusageofpersonalnetworks is confusing fornewemployees,and increases themes‐

sageload.Personalarchivingisinefficientknowledgemanagement(Kaario&Peltola,2008;

Otala&Pöysti,2008).It issurprisingthatemployeesdon’talwaysusetheformalinforma‐

tionmanagementsystems,even though they recognise theadvantages.Previous theories

highlightthesocialinfluenceandappropriatenessfortask;groupsupportsystemisasocial

technology,sothewayinwhichagroupchoosestoit,isaffectedbythefitofthetechnol‐

ogywiththegroup’shabitualroutines(DeSanctis&Poole,1994).Theproblemmighthave

connectionalsotobadlyorganisedimplementation.

Whenadoptingnewmedia,well‐organisedimplementationisimportant.Whatitcomesto

training, it is alarming that majority of interviewees haven’t received training regarding

communication media usage. Training seems to have impact on perceived media reper‐

toiresinorganisation.Ithasbeensuggestedthatfamiliaritywithandtrainingontheuseof

themediacanincreasethelikelihoodthatthemediawillbeappropriatedfaithfully(Dennis

etal.2001;DeSanctisandPoole1994). AsDennisetal. (2001)posit it isexpectedthata

good fitwithout theneeded appropriation support is less likely to lead to improvedper‐

formance.

113

UnifiedTheoryofAcceptanceandUseofInformationTechnology(UTAUT)(Venateshetal.

2003)seemstoprovideimportantinsightstothetopicaswell.Theorywasnotincludedto

literature review and conceptual framework, however, seems that it isworthwhile to in‐

clude it toexamination.Facilitatingconditionsdefined inUTAUT influenceonadoptionas

well;theyaredefinedasadegreetowhichanindividualbelievesthatanorganisationaland

technical infrastructure exists to support the use of the system,which includes guidance

andinstructionsavailable(Venkateshetal.2003).Basedonempiricalevidence,trainingsin

TeliaSoneraareeithertootechnical,orthereisnone.Thusthelackoftraininginorganisa‐

tionandwell organised implementationprocessesmaypose significant barriers hindering

efficient communication, because the tools are not used accordingly even though they

wouldbeappropriateforthetaskintheory.

Traininghasalsoimpactontheperceivedmediarepertoires.Mediaoptionsmightbevery

limited, if individual’sactiverepertoireisverynarrow.Eventhoughmediacapabilitiesand

characteristicsareunderstoodwell,mediaisnotusedifithasnotbeenperceiveavailable,

or,mostimportantly,ifitisnotincludedtoactivelyusedmediarepertoire.Interactionbe‐

tweencolleagueshaseffectonmediachoices(Watson‐Manheim&Belanger,2007).Social

influencealsohaseffectonadoptionandusageandinformationtechnology(Venkateshet

al.2003)Notevensingleintervieweelistedallthemediawhichinreality isavailable;Teli‐

aSonerahasnot succeeded incommunicating themediaoptionsavailable foremployees.

Without clear instructions,media is notusedappropriately andperceptionsof lowusage

ratesofcertainmediummayaccelerateothermediumusage(email).

Thus,mediarepertoiretogetherwithorganisationsinfluencemaybeconsideredoneofthe

majorfactorshinderingemployeesefficientmediachoices.Ifmediaisnotactivelyused,itis

notactivelyconsideredwhenchoosingmediafortaskeither.Factorslikesituationoravail‐

abilityareapplicableaschoicecriteriaonlyaftermediaisinactiveuse.

114

6.2.2.Individual’sattitudes,motivesandbackground

Aspresentedintable12,thefollowingfactorsareincludedtothiscategory;levelofITskills,

oldusagehabitsandpatterns,pastexperiences,perceptionsofusability,andownmotives.

These findings were not extensively considered in conceptual framework, and have not

beenpartofthemajordirectionsofrecentcommunicationmediaresearch.

Findingsfromthisstudyshowthat lowITskills limittheperceivedandactivecommunica‐

tionmediarepertoiresofemployees.Alsoexpectationsofusabilityofthemedium(related

closelytoattitudesandpastexperiences)influenceonusage.Usefulnessandexpectations

of usability have been proven to influence on technology usage significantly. Davis 1989

suggeststhatperceivedusefulnessisastrongcorrelateofuseracceptanceandshouldnot

be ignored when attempting to design or implement successful technology and systems

(Davis1989).

Performanceexpectancyandeffortexpectancyhaveeffecton theadoptionandusageof

informationtechnology(Venkateshetal.2003).Theprimaryreasontoadoptanapplication

isthefunctionsitperforms,andthesecondaryreasonishowharditistogetthesystemto

performthosefunctions(Davis1989).Thus,ifexpectationsarenegative,ithinderstheme‐

diausageand thusefficient communication in caseorganisation.Todemonstrate the sig‐

nificanceofthefinding, ithastobenotedthatalsoDennisetal.(2008)havepositedthat

mediaappropriationisinfluencedbypositivepastexperienced.Asmentionedwhendiscuss‐

ing therevised framework, theroleofusabilitywasaddedto therevised framework.The

factorsseemtobeimportantwhentryingtoestablishfactorshinderingefficientcommuni‐

cationmediausageinorganisation.

Developedhabitsseemtohinderusageandlimitsactivemediarepertoire.Eventhoughcer‐

taincommunicationmediumwouldbeavailableinorganisation,itisnotadoptedtoactive

mediarepertoireifoldhabitsarestrong.Theinitialsetofcommunicationmediarepertoires

is often based onmembers' communicative experiences and genre knowledge gained in

othercommunities(Orlikowsi&Yates1994;Watson‐Manheim&Belanger,2007).Therole

115

of negative experiences should also be carefully considered; past negative experiences

hinder usage and limit active communicationmedia repertoires. Sameaswith developed

habits;negativeexperiencesofthemediummaypreventtheadoptiontoactivecommuni‐

cationmediarepertoire,whichfurtherlimitsthevarietyofmediatochoosefrom.

ItseemsthatlowusabilitycombinedwithlowITskillsandnotrainingishinderingtheusage

ofcertainmedia.Itcanbeassumed,thattraining,ITskillsaswellasusagebackground(atti‐

tudesandexperiences)determinewhetherapersonadoptsamediumtoactivemediarep‐

ertoire (ownmedia portfolio) and to perceivedmedia repertoire (what is available in or‐

ganisation).TrainingandITskillsseemtobeconnectedtoperceptionsofusabilityinsome

degree.Oftenitseemstohappenthatperceptionsoflowusabilityordifficultiesinusingthe

systemhindertheusageandadoptionofmedium.Withappropriatetraining,thisproblem

couldbeovercome.

Basedonthefindings,perceptionofthemediacapabilitiesmightbecomeabarriertoeffi‐

cientmediausageifthecapabilitiesofthemediaareunderstoodincorrectly.Thisproblem

ispresentwithcomplexinformationsharingtaskswithinanorganisation.AccordingtoMe‐

dia Synchronicity Theory (Dennis et al. 2008) complex information shouldbe sharedwith

asynchronisedmedium, likeemailordocument sharing,whichgives the receiver thebest

possibilitiesforinformationsharing.However,duringtheinterviews,gettingtoknowcom‐

plex information; combination of interaction andwrittenmediawas themost commonly

preferredway,onthecontrary toParadoxofRichness–theory.RobertandDennis (2005)

suggestthatwrittenmedia/asynchronisedmediaisbestsuitedforcommunicationconvey‐

ingcomplexinformation.Inthecaseorganisationhowever,someemployeespreferredplain

writtenmaterial,someplainverbaltraining.Thus,RobertandDennis’s(2005)theoryisnot

fullyinlinewithfindings;itmightbethatpeoplelearnindifferentways,andthismightalter

thepossibilitiesforefficientinformationprocessing.

On theotherhand, it is interesting thatoften thereweredifferencesbetween themedia

theywouldusetodelivercomplexinformationandthewaytheyprefertoreceiveinforma‐

tion.Itseemsthatcomplexityoftheinformationsendmaynotinfluencethatmuchonme‐

116

diachoicefromtheviewpointofpartnersunderstanding,butmoresoitissendinamedia

which provides the sender best possibilities to compose and deliver thematerial. People

tendtochoosemediamuchbasedontheirownmotivesandconvenienceincaseorganisa‐

tion.ThusRobertandDennis’s(2005)pointsregardingbestpossibilitiestoprocessinforma‐

tionmightstillbevalid,butjustnotconsideredenoughfromtheviewpointofactualinfor‐

mationprocesserincaseorganisation.

Wronglyexploitedmediacapabilitiescombinedtolowtrustexplainedinthepreviouschap‐

terseemtobeemphasisingtheemailusage ionorganisation,andthushinderingtheeffi‐

cient usage of alternativemedia. According to Dennis et al. (2008), email provides good

possibilitiesforreprocessability,andthesecapabilitiesareverywellrecognisedinTeliaSon‐

era. Though, need for documenting seems to be overly emphasised in organisation, and

unfortunatelyemailisseenasagoodwaytodothis.Peopleseemtohavehighneedtore‐

tain “proofs” from certain acts, but they don’t recognise the low efficiency of email for

documenting, especially from the viewpoint of whole organisations knowledge manage‐

ment. Need to use email as proof has been suggested also in previous studies; Kimble,

Hildreth, and Grimshaw (1998) found that somemanagers were overloaded with emails

becauseof the inappropriateuseof thecarboncopy (cc) function. Burgressetal. (2005)

posit thatemployeesmayoftencopyemailstotheirsuperiorssimplyto ‘‘covertheirown

back’’.Thus,emailscapabilitiesarerecognisedwellincommunication,buttheyaremisused

intermsofknowledgeretaininganddocumenting.Eventhoughemailprovidespossibilityto

documentingasDennisetal.(2008)elaborate,itdoesnotmeanthatitisabestwaytodo

it.EmaildocumentationhinderstheusageofdocumentsharinginTeliaSonera,thoughalso

thelackofdocumentsharingusagemightaccelerateemaildocumenting.Incaseorganisa‐

tion,lackofITskillsandtrainingmightaccelerateemailusagefordocumentingpurposesvia

limitedmediarepertoire.Also,perceivedlackofotheruserscanposerestrictionsforusage

ofalternativemedialikedocumentsharing.

117

6.2.3.Situationalfactors

Basedontheempiricalevidence,situationalfactorsareonlyconsidered,afterotherfactors

settheframeforpossiblemediaselection.Eventhoughnotbeingtheprimarybarrier,situ‐

ational factors can be considered constraints to efficientmedia usage and organisational

communication. In this study, situational factors foundhinderingefficient communication

foundwere perceptions of availability, urgency, information overload, incoming channel,

andconstantinterruptions.

EmployeesinTeliaSoneraseeavailabilitymostlyasastaticfeatureofthepartner,notasa

temporary and dynamic status. This is interesting because in previous media literature,

availability isdefinedasa temporalstatus,andnotsomuchrelatedto familiarityofpart‐

ner’sbehaviourpatterns in termsofcommunicating. StraubandKarahanna(1998)claim,

thatavailabilityiscloselyassociatedwithwhyorganizationmemberschoosecertainmedia

ortechnologies.Studieshaveindicatedthatasynchronousmediasuchasemailorvoicemail

are likelytobeusedwhenthe intendedrecipientsarenottemporallyavailable(Leeetal.

2009).However,incaseorganisationavailabilityisexperiencedasastaticfeatureofcom‐

municationpartner.Expectedavailabilityproblemshindertheactiveuseofmedia,evenin

case ofmedia which would bemost efficient option for the task at hand. These factors

mightevendropthemediaofffromtheactiverepertoire.

Availabilitybecomesabigissuealsoinsituationswherepeopleusediffering“copingtech‐

niques” to survive from information overload and interruptions. Based on empirical evi‐

dence, individualstendtoturnofcertaindevicesforaperiodoftimewhenconcentrating

onothertasks.Thisisconsistentwithpreviousfindings;Jacksonetal.(2001)suggestthatit

is possible for employees to becomemore efficient if they change the duration inwhich

their email application checks for new email. Overload and interruptions seems to have

connectiontocopingincaseorganisationingeneral;peoplehavetoturndevicesoffwhen

tryingtoconcentrate,whichfurthergivescertainimagetoothersabouttheiravailability.

118

Urgency insomecaseshinders theusageofworksupportsystems,because theyareper‐

ceivedasslow,andemphasisestheusageofspeedymediumlikephone.Fewinterviewees

alsomentionurgencyalters theirdecisionmakingprocesses. Timmerman (2002)has sug‐

gestedthat incomingmediummayplayanimportantroleindeterminingwhichmediumis

subsequentlyselected.Thisseemstobetrueincaseorganisation;employeestendtocon‐

tinuethesamechannel.Strongorganisationalcommunicationhabitsmayreinforcetheim‐

pactof incomingchannel;emailusage isoverlyemphasized inorganisation,andhabitsof

colleagues influence on choices. Thus the channel is easily selected according to these

habits,especiallyiftheoriginalmessagewasreceivedthroughemail.Consequently,incom‐

ingchannelmightalsoposebarriershinderingefficientmediachoices.

Informationoverloadseemstobeacommonstateinorganisation.Employeesexperience,

that theydon’t have time to go through the information they receive. The issueof using

carboncopyemail field inawrongmannercausesproblemsatmany levels. Important in‐

formationcanbemissedbecauseemailsarepoorlytargeted.Cc’mailsincreaseinformation

overload.Thefactthatpeoplesimplydon’thavetimetogothroughtheinformationinflu‐

ences on communication efficiency. Information overload also has strong connection to

media repertoire andwhichmedia is used actively; somemediahaspossibility to reduce

overload(worksupportsystems,IM).

Low levels of trust and need to document as well as habits, which are formed by them

selves,accumulateoverusageofemail;haveinfluenceoninformationoverloadandstress.

Advantagesofalternativemediaarenotfullyrecognisedintermsofoptionsforface‐fo‐face

interaction.Thus,peopleinmanycaseschoosethemostinteractivemediaavailable,which

is usually walking to the colleague’s desk or talking in the open office. This leads to in‐

creasedinterruptionsinopenofficeenvironment,evenregardingissues,whichcouldeasily

becommunicatedviaintranet,documentsharingorinstantmessaging.

119

6.3. Managerial implications

ThereisroomforimprovementintermsofcommunicationinTeliaSoneraBusinessServices

Finland.Theorganisationhaspossibilitiestoimproveinternalcommunicationefficiencyby

influencing individual‐relatedandorganisational level factors, and thus impactingon situ‐

ationalconstraintsandevolvingchallenges.Themanagementshouldpaymoreattentionto

theorganisations communicationculture, andaim to controlemerginghabitsandnorms.

TrainingemployeesisveryimportanttoensureasufficientlevelofITskills.ITimplementa‐

tions have a very central role aswell; adoption process should be carefully planned and

conducted. The organisation should ensure that every employee is aware of the media

availableinorganisation,andhassufficientskillstouseit;atthemomentnoneoftheinter‐

viewedemployeeswereawareofallthemediaoptionsavailable.

From theorganisationsperspective, itmightbedifficult to influenceon situational condi‐

tions, like availability.However, if practices formedia usagewereunified, the availability

expectationshouldbemorepositive.Othersituationalconstraintslikefamiliarityofpartner

andurgencyofthetaskmaybenotbeinfluencedbyorganisation.Though,issuesrelatedto

information overload and interruptions can possibly beminimized by using the rightme‐

diumforthetask.

Oneofthemostcentralissuesistheoveruseandemphasisofemail,andlowusageratesof

othermediainBusinessServicesFinland.Itseemsthatguidinguserstousealternativeme‐

diaandminimizetheunclearcarboncopyusagewouldhelptoovercomethemultiplechal‐

lengespresentintheorganisationscommunication,likeinformationoverloadwhichmainly

occursduetoexcessiveemailsandhavingtodealwiththem.Alsotheknowledgesharing

wouldbemoreefficient, ifmoretools likedocumentsharingwereused.Decreasingemail

archivingalsohasaconnectiontoavailabilityissues;availabilityisessentialinBusinessSer‐

vicesFinlandduetocomplexservicessoldandthehighneedforco‐operation. If informa‐

tion really can’t be acquired from document sharing, then adopting new media like IM

wouldaid thesituation.Thus theworkerswouldnothave tocalleveryonewhenneeding

120

information,buttheywouldseewhoisavailableatthemoment.Thus,alsotheamountof

interruptionswoulddecrease.Thevarietyofreasonsforlowusageratesofcertainmediain

BusinessServicesFinlandisdemonstratedinthetable13.

Medium Currentstatus ReasonIM lowusage Experiencedas informal.Perceivedlackofotherusers,

attitudestowardssocialmediavideoconference

lowusage Technical difficulties, lack of IT skills, usability issues,perceptionsoff2finteractionastheonlyrightway

documentsharing(SharePoint)

lowusage Perceivedlackofotherusers,experiencedlowusabilityandcomplexity,advantagesnotclear

worksupportsystem(TellU)

moderateusage Perceivedslowness,advantagesnotclear

intranet

lowusage Perceivedas inefficient and confusing, advantagesnotclear

Table 13. Media with low usage rates and reasons listed

Generatingthecommonrules formediausage is important,sothateveryemployeedoes

notpracticetheirowncopingtechniqueanduseofdeviceswithoutclearcommonpractices.

It shouldalsobe remembered, that face‐to‐face interaction isnot always theonlyoption

even for complex problem solving; by ensuring the skills of employees and availability of

videoconferencingservices,thisalternativecouldbeusedmore.Itisvital,thatemployees

really know what media is available for them to use. Email, phone call and face‐to‐face

interactionarenottheonlyoptions–mediashouldbeusedappropriatelyandmatchedto

thetaskathand.

121

6.4. Limitations and future research

Thisstudyaimedtoexplorethefactorshinderingefficientcommunicationinorganisation.

Limitationsandsuggestionsforfutureresearchdirectionsarenowdiscussedinbrief.Firstly,

duetocasestudymethod,onlyanalyticalgeneralizationcanbedonebasedontheresultsof

thisstudy.Tobeabletogeneralizethefindingsmorebroadly,thefactorsfoundandframe‐

works shouldbe tested inotherorganisations. It is possible, that the relationshipsof the

factorswouldbedifferentinotherorganisations.Especially,theneedtodocumentandlow

trustmightnotbepresentelsewhere,likethesurveyconductedinsmallandmediumsize

companiesindicated.

Secondly, the different types of communicators (profiles) in the organisation should be

examined further, andexplored in relation to theproblemsexperienced; itmightbe that

certainproblemshaveconnectionstocommunicationhabits,butthisareawas impossible

toexamineinthescopeofthisstudy.Furtherresearchontopiccouldhelpinestablishing

whydodifferentindividualsexperiencethechallengesinknowledge‐workandcommunica‐

tiondifferently,evenwhenworkinginthesameorganisationandunderthesameculture?

Theclusteranalysisconductedwasaimedtobeanalysedfurther,but itwas impossibleto

proceedwithcross tabulations for theclusters,basedonother factors likeworkposition,

due to small sample size. However, when tested, it seemed that the fact that individual

works in daily customer contact has connection to higher amount of challenges experi‐

enced.Thisfindingthoughwasnotconfidentduetosmallsamplesizeandinabilitytouse

crosstabulation,butshouldbeinvestigatedfurther.

Thirdly,main empirical evidencewas collected in the formof semi‐structured interviews,

thus the possibility of bias has to be taken into consideration. There is also possibility of

samplingerror;theemployeesinterviewedmaynotrepresentthepopulationperfectly.Due

tobudgetlimitationsitwasnotpossibletointerviewemployeesfromotherofficelocations.

The backgrounds of employees were not extensively examined, which further limits the

understandingofchoicecriteriaandrestrictionstoefficientcommunication.

122

Inaddition, inthescopeof thestudy,newmedia likewikisandblogscouldnotbeexam‐

ined,which limits the comprehensiveunderstandingofmedia selectionsandcommunica‐

tion efficiency. In TeliaSonera, thesemediawere not used extensively, and consequently

theseshouldbeexaminedinotherorganisations.Afterall,itispossiblethatsomeorganisa‐

tion use newmedia extensively. The age andwork years of TeliaSonera employeeswere

high, which might pose restrictions on new media usage and strengthen the developed

habits andemerged communication culture. Thesenewmedia solutions shouldbeexam‐

inedinsimilarkindofresearchsettinginthefuture.Itwouldbealsoadvantageoustoclear,

inwhichscopeelectronicmultitaskingisdone,andhowdoesitinfluenceonmediachoices.

Finally,asRobertandDennis(2005)believethattobetterunderstandhowmediaeffectsa

change inunderstanding,anapproachbasedoncognitivepsychologycanofferadditional

insightstothoseofferedbymoretraditionalapproachessolelybasedonsocialpsychology.

Thisareawasonlydiscussedattheoreticallevelinthisstudy.Thepresentedparadoxposes

aseriousprobleminorganisationalcommunication; itshouldbeinvestigatedinthefuture

howmuchimportantinformationismissedbecausesimplythereisnotenoughcapacityto

processtheinformation,orthereceiverwasnotengagedtoconcentrate.Interestingfactis,

thatincaseorganisationitseemsthattheproblemsarenotalwaysidentified,andchallen‐

gestakenforgrantedincaseofsomeemployees.

123

6.5. Conclusion

Thisstudyoriginatedfromtheassumption,thatfulladvantagesgainedfromICTusageare

yet tobeachieved (Pohjola2008). Especially in knowledge‐work ICT could reallyprovide

advantages (Watson‐Manheim & Belanger, 2007). However, if managed poorly, in some

cases itcouldmakethesituationworse.Email,amongstothers,haspossibilityto increase

information overload, thus the right way in which to actually use communicationmedia

shouldbeconsidered.Itisespeciallyimportantistounderstandthemotivesandproblems

fromtheindividual’sperspective.Afterall,asGermonprez&Zigurs(2009)elaborate,com‐

municationistheessenceoforganizations,andtechnologyispartofthatcommunication.

Resultsofthisstudyindicatethatemployeeschoosecommunicationmediabasedonmulti‐

pledifferentfactorsandrarelysolelybasedontheoreticalefficiency.Atthesametimechal‐

lengeslikeinformationoverloadandinterruptionsareexperiencedindailywork. It ispos‐

sible,thatthechallengesareexperienced,becauseindividualsdon’tchoosethemediaac‐

cordingtothepurpose. Itseemspossiblethat inadditiontothecaseorganisation,the is‐

suesmightbepresentinotherFinnishcompaniesaswell.Thisstudyaimedtoclearlyiden‐

tifythefactors,whichhindertheefficientcommunicationinorganisation;thefactorsfound

in case organisation were classified into individual’s attitudes, motives and background;

organisationalcoordinationandmanagement;andfinallysituationalfactors.

Examiningandconcentratingon the individual‐andorganisation‐related factorscould im‐

provecommunicationinorganisation.Itmaynotbealwayspossibletoimpactonsituational

factors, thoughthese factorscanpossiblybealteredviaorganisationaland individual fac‐

tors.The individualemployeehasavery restrictedchance to improveon inefficientcom‐

municationalone,duetofactthattheproblemisprimarilytheoneofthewholeorganisa‐

tion.Thusorganisationhasacentralroleinprovidingsatisfyingworkingconditionsforem‐

ployeesbyinfluencingcommunicationculture,andthehabitsandskillsoftheworkerswith

theaidoftrainingandclearinstructionsformediausage.Whencommunicationisefficient

andmediaisusedappropriatelyforthepurpose,ithastheabilitytoimprovethedecision‐

makingqualityoftheorganisation.

124

References

Bhattacherjee,A.andSanford,C.“InfluenceProcessesForInformationTechnologyAcceptance:An

ElaborationLikelihoodModel,”MISQuarterly(30:4),2006,pp.805‐825

Bottazzo,V,“Intranet:Amediumofinternalcommunicationandtraining”InformationServicesand

Use25(2005)pp.77‐85

Burgess,A.,Jackson,T&Edwards,J.“Emailtrainingsignificantlyreducesemaildefects”Interna‐

tionalJournalofInformationManagement25(2005)71–83

Carlson,J.R.,andZmud,R.W.“ChannelExpansionTheoryandtheExperientialNatureofMedia

RichnessPerceptions,”AcademyofManagementJournal(42:2),1999,pp.153‐170.

Carlson,P.J.,andDavis,G.B.“AnInvestigationofMediaSelectionamongDirectorsandManagers:

From‘Self’to‘Other’Orientation,”MISQuarterly(22:3),1998,pp.335‐362

Daft,R.L.,Lengel,R.H.,andTrevino,L.K.“MessageEquivocality,MediaSelection,andManager

Performance:ImplicationsforInformationSystems,”MISQuarterly(11:3),1987,pp.355.

Daft,R.L.,Lengel,R.H.,“Organizationalinformationrequirements,mediarichnessandstructural

design,”Manage.Sci.,vol.32,no.5,pp.554–571,1986

Davis,F.“PerceivedUsefulness,PerceivedEaseofUseanduseracceptanceofinformationtechnol‐

ogy”MISQuarterly,Vol.13,No.3,Sep.1989,pp.319‐340

Dennis,A.R,Wixom,B.H.andVandenberg,R.J.“Understandingfiteffectsingroupsupportsystems

viametaanalysis” MISQuarterly,Vol.25No.2,June2001.

Dennis,A.R.andKinney,S.T.“Testingmediarichnesstheoryinnewmedia:Theeffectsofcues,

feedback,andtaskequivocality,”Inform.Syst.Res.,vol.9,no.3,pp.256–274,1998.

DennisA.R.andValacich,J.S.“Rethinkingmediarichness:Towardatheoryofmediasynchronicity,”

inProc.32thAnnu.HawaiiInt.Conf.Syst.Sci.,LosAlamitos,CA,1999,pp.1–10.

125

Dennis,A.R,Fuller,R.M.andValacich,J.S.“Media,TasksandCommunicationProcesses:ATheory

ofMediaSynchronicity”MISQuarterlyVol.32No.3,pp.575‐600/September2008

DeSanctis,G.andPoole,M.S.“Capturingthecomplexityinadvancedtechnologyuse:Adaptive

structurationtheory”.OrganisationScience5(2)121‐147,1994.

Dubois,A.&Gadde,L.E,“SystematicCombining:anAbductiveApproachtoCaseResearch,”Journal

ofBusinessResearch55(2002)553‐560

Eskola,J.&Suoranta,J.“Johdatuslaadulliseentutkimukseen”Vastapainos;Gummerus,2009Jy‐

väskylä.

Flanagin,A.J,Pearce,K.&Bondad‐BrownB.A.“Thedestructivepotentialofelectroniccommunica‐

tiontechnologiesinorganisations”inBookDestructiveorganisationalcommunication.Editedby

Lutgen‐SandvikP.&SypherB.D.Routledge2009,NewYork

Fulk,J.“SocialConstructionofCommunicationTechnology,”AcademyofManagementJournal

(36:5),1993,pp.921‐934.

Fulk,J.&Boyd,B.“EmergingTheoriesofCommunicationinOrganisations”JournalofManagement,

Vol.17,No.2,407‐446,1991

Germonprez,M&Zigurs,I.“Task,technology,andtailoringincommunicativeaction:Anin‐depth

analysisofgroupcommunication”InformationandOrganization19(2009)22–46

Goodhue,D.L.&Thompson,R.L.“Task‐technologyfitandindividualperformance”MISQuarterly,

June1995,pp.213‐236

Hrastinski,S.”Thepotentialofsynchronouscommunicationtoenhanceparticipationinonlinedis‐

cussions:Acasestudyoftwoe‐learningcourses”Information&Management45(2008)499–506

126

Hung,Y.C,Duyen,N.T.T,Kong,C.K.&Chua,A.“ReexaminingMediaCapacityTheoriesUsing

WorkplaceInstantMessaging”IEEETransactionsonProfessionalCommunication,Vol.51NO.4,

December2008

Jackson,T.W.,Dawson,R.J.,&Wilson,D.“Thecostofemailinterruption”TheJournalofSytems

andInformationTechnology”,5(1),81–92,2001.

Jones,Q.,Ravid,G.andRafaeli,S.“InformationOverloadandtheMessageDynamicsofOnline

InteractionSpaces:ATheoreticalModelandEmpiricalExploration”InformationSystemsResearch

Vol.15,No.2,June2004,pp.194–210

Jorgenson,D.W.,Ho,M.S.andStiroh,K.J.“InformationTechnologyandtheAmericanGrowthRe‐

surgence”MITPress2005,Cambridge,Ma.(InPohjola2008)

Kaario,K&Peltola,T.“Tiedonhallinta–avaintietotyöntuottavuuteen”WSOYpro,2008,Porvoo.

Kimble,C.,Hildreth,P.,&Grimshaw,D.“Theroleofcontextualcluesinthecreationofinformation

overload,matchingtechnologywithorganisationalneeds”ProceedingsofthethirdUKAISconfe

ence,Lincoln,UK,pp.405–412,1998

Kock,N.“NewTheoryofComputer‐MediatedCommunicationBasedonDarwinianEvolution”

OrganizationScience15(3),pp.327–348,©2004INFORMS329.

Kvale,S.&Brinkmann,S.“Interviews–LearningtoCraftofQualitativeResearchInterviewing”SAGE

Publications,2009,California.

Langer,E.“TheMindlessnessofOstensiblyThoughtfulAction:TheRoleof"Placebic"Informationin

InterpersonalInteraction”JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology1978,Vol.36,No.6,635‐642

Lee,A.S.“ElectronicMailasaMediumforRichCommunication:AnEmpiricalInvestigationUsing

HermeneuticInterpretation,”MISQuarterlyVol18:2,1994,pp.143‐157.

Lee,C.S,Goh,D.H,Chua,A.Y.K,Luyt,B.“Choosingcommunicationportfoliostoaccomplishtasks:

Theeffectsofindividualdifferences”Computers&Education53(2009)1167–1176

127

MALIRANTA,MIKA;ROUVINEN,PETRI.Tieto‐javiestintäteknologianvaikutuksetsuomalaisessa

liike‐elämässä.Helsinki:ETLA,ElinkeinoelämänTutkimuslaitos,TheResearchInstituteof

theFinnishEconomy,2003,42s.(Keskusteluaiheita.DiscussionPapers,No.852).

Markus,M.L.“ElectronicMailastheMediumofManagerialChoice,”OrganizationScience(5:4),

1994,pp.502‐527.

Miranda,S.M.,andSaunders,C.S.“TheSocialConstructionofMeaning:AnAlternativePerspective

onInformationSharing,”InformationSystemsResearch(14:1),2003,pp.87‐106.

Nantz,K.S.,&Drexel,C.L.“Incorporatingelectronicmailintothebusinesscommunicationcourse”

BusinessCommunicationQuarterly,58,45–51,1995

Orlikowski,W.J.,andYates,J.“GenreRepertoire:TheStructuringofCommunicativePracticesin

Organizations,”AdministrativeScienceQuarterly(39:4),1994,pp.541‐575.

Orlikowski,W.J.&Yates,J.“Genresoforganizationalcommunication:Astructurationalapproachto

studyingcommunicationandmedia."AcademyofManagementReview,1992,17:299‐326.

Orlikowski,W.J.“UsingTechnologyandConstitutingStructures:APracticeLensforStudyingTech‐

nologyinOrganizations,”OrganizationScience(11:4),2000,pp.404‐428.

Otala,L.&Pöysti,K.WikimaniaaYrityksiin–Yritys2.0tuottamaan.WSOY,Porvoo2008.

Pohjola,M“Tieto‐javiestintäteknologiatuottavuudenkasvunlähteenä”Teknologiateollisuusry,

Helsinki2008.

Petty,R.E.andCacioppo,J.T.“Theelaborationlikelihoodmodelofpersuasion,”inAdvancesin

ExperimentalSocialPsychology,L.Berkowitz,Ed.Orlando,FL:Academic,1986,vol.19,pp.123–205.

Petty,R.E.andCacioppo,J.T.“Theelaborationlikelihoodmodelofpersuasion,”inAdvancesinEx‐

perimentalSocialPsychology,L.Berkowitz,Ed.Orlando,FL:Academic,1986,vol.19,pp.123–205.

128

Petty,R.E.andCacioppo,J.T.“CommunicationandPersuasion:CentralandPeripheralRoutesto

AttitudeChange.”NewYork:Springer‐Verlag,1986.

Robert,L.P.andA.R.Dennis,“ParadoxofRichness:ACognitiveModelofMediaChoice,”IEEE

TransactionsonProfessionalCommunication,Vol48,No.1,March2005.

Rogers,E.M.,R.Agarwala‐Rogers“Organizationalcommunication.”G.L.Hanneman,W.J.McEwen,

eds.CommunicationBehaviour.AddisionWesley,Reading,MA,218–236,1975.(inJones,Ravidand

Rafaeli2004)

Saunders,C.andJones,W.J.“Temporalsequencesininformationacquisitionfordecisionmaking:A

focusonsourceandmedium,”Acad.Manage.Rev.,vol.15,no.1,pp.29–46,1990.

Stephens,K.K.&Davis,J.“TheSocialInfluencesonElectronicMultitasking”ManagementCom‐

municationQuarterly200923:63originallypublishedonline8June2009

Straub,D.,andKarahanna,E.“KnowledgeWorkerCommunicationsandRecipientAvailability:To‐

wardaTaskClosureExplanationofMediaChoice,”OrganizationScience(9:2),1998,pp.160‐175.

Taylor,H.Fieldman,G.&Altman,Y,“Emailatwork:Acauseforconcern?Theimplicationsofthe

newcommunicationtechnologiesforhealth,wellbeingandproductivityatwork”JournalofOrgani‐

sationalTransformationandSocialChangeVolume5Number2

Trevino,LindaK.,RichardL.Daft,andRobertH.Lengel(1987)"MediaSymbolism,MediaRichness,

andMediaChoiceinOrganizations:ASymbolicInteractionistPerspective,"CommunicationRe‐

search,14,5(October),553‐574.

Te’eni,D..“Review:ACognitive‐AffectiveModelofOrganizationalCommunicationforDesigningIT,”

MISQuarterly(25:2),June,pp.251‐312,2001

Trevino,K.,Webster,J,Stein,E.W.“MakingConnections:ComplementaryInfluencesonCommunica‐

tionMediaChoices,Attitudes,andUse”ORGANIZATIONSCIENCEvol.11,No.2,March‐April2000

129

Timmerman,C.E.“Themoderatingeffectofmindlessness/mindfulnessuponmediarichnessand

socialinfluenceexplanationsoforganisationalmediause.Communicationmonographs,Vol.69,No.

2,June2002,pp.111‐131

Timmerman,C.E.&Scott,C.R.“VirtuallyWorking:CommunicativeandStructuralPredictorsofMe‐

diaUseandKeyOutcomesinVirtualWorkTeams”CommunicationMonographsVol.73,No.1,

March2006,pp.108‐136

Trevino,L.K.,Lengel,R.H.,andDaft,R.L.“MediaSymbolism,MediaRichness,andMediaChoicein

Organizations,”CommunicationResearch(14:5),1987,pp.553‐574.

Venkatesh,W,Morris,M,Davis,G,Davis,F.“UserAcceptanceofInformationTechnology:Towarda

UnifiedView.MISQuarterlyVol.27No.3,pp.425‐468,September2003.

Venkatesh,V.&Speier,C.“Creatinganeffectivetrainingenvironmentforenhancingtelework”Int.J.

Human‐ComputerStudies(2000)52,991}1005

Watson‐Manheim,M.B.,andBélanger,F.“CommunicationMediaRepertoires:Dealingwiththe

MltiplicityofMediaChoices,”MISQuarterly(31),2007,pp.267‐293.

Webster,J,Trevino,L.K.“RationalandSocialTheoriesasComplementaryExplanationsofCommuni‐

cationMediaChoices:TwoPolicy‐CapturingStudies”AcademyofManagementJournal1995.Vol.

38.No.e.1544‐1572.

Whittaker,S.“SupportingCollaborativeTaskManagementinEmail”HUMAN‐COMPUTER

INTERACTION,2005,Volume20,pp.49–88

Yin,R.K,CaseStudyResearch.DesignandMethod.ThousandOaks:SagePublications,2003.

130

Internetsources:

TyöjaTerveys2006,luku3

http://www.ttl.fi/fi/verkkokirjat/tyo_ja_terveys_suomessa/Sivut/default.aspx

MEMO/05/114,Brussels,7April2005,EUresearch–BuildingKnowledgeEurope:TheEU’snewRe‐

searchFrameworkProgramme2007‐2013

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?aged=1&format=HTML&guiLanguage

=en&language=EN&reference=MEMO/05/114

OxfordEnglishDictionary

http://dictionary.oed.com/

131

Appendix 1: Interview structure • First,wewouldliketoconfirmthatyouareOKwithrecordingthisinterview?• WeareAaltoUniversitystudentsworkingonourthesis.Wearestudyinginternalcommunica‐

tionpracticesinorganisationincooperationwithTeliaSonera.Aninternetsurveywascon‐ductedduringthepreviousmonths,andnowwearecontinuingwithinterviews.

• Interviewisconfidential,andrespondentcan’tberecognizedformanyofthereports.• Istheresomethingyouwouldstillliketoask?1. Firstwewouldlikeyoutotellusaboutyourworkdescriptionandbackground• Whatisyourjobdescription?• Describeyourtypicalworkday?• Areyouincontactwithcustomersonadailybasis?• Whatisyourworksetting?Office?Location?• Howoftenareyouatanotherlocation?• HowlonghaveyoubeenworkingforTeliaSonera?• Hasthejobdescriptionchanged`duringthattime?• DescribeyourITskills?2. Now,wearecontinuingwithcommunicationmediaanditscapabilities • DescribethecommunicationtoolsinusageinTeliaSonera

‐ Whatmedia/toolsyouusemost?‐ Isthereanythingelseavailableinaddition?

• Howwouldyoudescribethecapabilitiesofcommunicationmedia?‐ Describethemostusedmedia,whatcapabilitiesandadvantagesitprovides?‐ Whatisyourbackgroundinusingthetwopreferredmedia?

• Wenowlistfewcapabilities.Whichmediahasthefollowingcapabilities?‐ Rapidityoffeedback‐ Interactivity‐ Parallelisme.g.Simultaneoustransmissions‐ Multiplicityofcues:languagevariety,physical,verbal,visualcues‐ Rehearsability:isthemeaningconveyedcorrectly?‐ Reprocessability:possibilityfordocumentation

• Domediaenhanceyourproductivityatwork?How?• Wouldyouliketohavenewmedia/tools?Elaborate.• Whatisyourattitudetowardsadoptingnewcommunicationtools/mediaatworkplace?

3.Nextwearethinkingofcommunicationmediachoices• Describehowyouchoosewhichcommunicationmediatouse?• Doesthetaskathandinfluenceonthechoice?How?• Whatcommunicationmediainyouropinionisbestfor:

‐ informingothers/distributingknowledge Whatmediaispreferredwhensharinginformationandgettingfamiliarwith

complexinformation?‐ifemail,isthereanythingelseinaddition?‐ Solvingproblemsanddecision‐making

Whatmediaischosenfortaskswhichrequirehighsynchronicity,e.g.insituationswheredecisionshavetobemadeandconflictssolved?

‐ generatingknowledgeandcoordination

132

‐ creatingrelationships

• Isthereanymediawhichcouldreplacethese?• Describehowdoessituationinfluenceonthemediachoice,inadditiontopreviousfactors?

‐ Howdoyoudecidewhomtoincludeorask?‐ Doyouconsiderrecipientwhenchoosingthemedia?Whatabouthis/hersprefer‐

ences?‐ Howdoeslocationinfluenceonyourmediachoices?Yours?Receivers?‐ Whenyoucommunicate,doyouusedifferentmediawithdifferentpartners?Does

thisvary?

• Isitnormaltocontinuethesamechannelwhereyoureceivedthemessagefrom?• Whatkindofinformalcommunicationdoyouhave?• Doyoucombinedifferentmediatosolveatask?How?Inwhatkindofsituations?4.Then,traininginyourworkorganisation• HaveyoureceivedtrainingorinstructionsonmediausageatTeliaSonera?Describe.

‐ Technicalorusageorientated?‐ Whatkindoftrainingwouldyouliketoreceive?‐ Haveyoutriedtoobtaininformationindependently?‐ Haveyourcolleaguesinstructedyou?

5.Nowewouldliketoknowmoreabouttheteamyouworkwith• Describethecommunicationwithintheteamsofwhichyouareamember?

‐ Describetheteamsofwhichyouareamember(orrecentones).‐ Howaregoalsdeterminedandagreedonandaccepted?Howareresourcesob‐

tained?‐ Stability:Doestheprojectteammaintainthesamemembershipoverthelifeofthe

project?‐ Howisinformationdistributedtoteammembers?‐ Describethecommunicationpracticesandinstructionsofyourteam.‐ Whatkindofthingsyoucommunicateabout?‐ Whatisthemostcommonreasonfororganisingaface‐to‐facemeeting?

6.WhataboutthecommunicationcultureatcompanylevelinTeliaSonera• DescribethecommunicationcultureandpracticesinTeliaSonera

‐ Isthereexpectedreplyspeed/timeforemails?Elaborate.‐ Whatarepreferredcommunicationmediawithinthecompany,inyouropinion‐ Isemailusedcorrectly?Doyoureceiveirrelevantemails?Why?Wouldtherebean‐

otherwaytotakecareoftheseissuesthanemail?‐ Howdoyougenerallygettheinformationyouneed?Isthissatisfactory?Wasitpro‐

ductive?‐ Howdoyougenerallygetinformationthatisnotformallyavailable‐ Doyouusedifferenttechnologiesforobtaininginformationfromoutsideyourwork

‐group/unit?‐ Isthatsimilartowhatotherteammembersdo?

133

6.Now,wewouldliketoknowmoreaboutyourworkday• Doyouhaveenoughtimetocompleteyourtasksproperly?

‐ Doyouhavetimetogettoknowalltherelevantinformationyoureceive?Howdoesthisinfluenceonyourwork?

‐ Areinterruptionstypicalinyourworksetting?Aretheydistracting?Canyoucomeupwithideashowtoreducethem?

‐ Howlongisyourworkday?Doesitcontinueathome?Doyouhavetodothecre‐ativeworkathome?

‐ Describeyourworkday:usuallyitisexperiencedthat2hoursisreservedbymeeting,2hoursfordealingwithemails,whatabouttherestofit?

‐ Describehowyouprioritizeworktasks?‐ Whenareyouatmostproductive?Elaborate?Docommunicationtoolsinfluenceon

that?‐ Whatdoyoufeelarethebiggestchallengesandproblemsfacedbyindividualslike

youwho‐workgivenyourdistributedworkenvironment?‐ Whatisstressfulatwork?‐ Wouldyouliketocontinueinthiskindofworkenvironmentforthenext10years

(7.Finally,wearetalkingaboutOCSandorganisationalchange)• HowdoyouexpectOCS‐tooltoinfluenceonyourwork?Whatkindofexpectationsyouhave?.

‐ DoyoubelievethatOCSisgoingtoprovideyouthepossibilitytoworkfaster?‐ DoyoubelieveOCSisgoingtoenhanceyourproductivity?‐ DoyoubelieveOCStomakeyourworkeasier?‐ HowdoyouthinkOCSiscontributingtothequalityofyourwork?‐ CouldOCSgiveyoubettercontroloveryourwork?‐ HowflexibledoyouthinkOCSwillbe?

• Howeasywilltheadoptionbe/howmucheffortyouthinkitisgoingtotake?Whichfactorsin‐

fluenceonthis?‐ Isitusuallydifficultforyoutolearnnewapplications?Whatdoyoubelievethe

situationwithOCSisgoingtobe?‐ Howeasilyyourememberthethingsyoulearned?Doyoubelievethatitisgoingto

beeasytogetbacktoOCSusageevenafterabreak?‐ HoweffortlessyoubelievetheusageofOCStobe?‐ Howdoyouexperiencethemistakesyoumakewithapplicationsandtools?How

importantitisthattheapplicationisquicklyusableagainaftererrors?

• Dothepreviousfactorsandexpectationshaveinfluenceonyourwillingnesstoadoptnewtools?

• Isthereanywaystheseexpectationscouldbealtered?‐ Training?Whatkind?Playful,entertaining,serious…?tuki‐ Motivating?Rolemodels?

Closing • Doyouhaveanyothercomments,orissuesyouwouldstillliketotalkabout?Thankyou!

134

Appendix 2: Interview question categorized according to theories (basis for interview and analysis) A.Mediasynchronicity:fromcapabilitytheoriesandtaskfittheoriesMatchingcommunicationprocesstomediacapabilities:1.Generalmediachoice:• Describehowyouchoosewhichcommunicationmediatouse?2.Capabilities:• Howarecapabilitiesperceived?

‐Describethemostusedmedia,whatcapabilitiesandadvantagesitprovides?‐Describehowdifferentcapabilitiesofmediainfluenceonmediachoice.‐Whichmediasenable“synchronous”communicationwithpartner?Why?

‐Whichmediahasthefollowingcapabilities? Rapidityoffeedback Interactivity Parallelismeg.Simultaneoustransmissions Multiplicityofcues:languagevariety,physical,verbal,visualcues Rehearsability Reprocessability

‐Howwouldyoudescribethepossibilitiesofnewmedia,likevideoconferencing?3.Task:• Doesthetaskathandinfluenceonthechoice?How?

‐Whatmediaischosenfortaskswhichrequirehighsynchronicity,e.g.insituationswheredecisionshavetobemadeandconflictssolved?

‐Whatmediaispreferredwhensharinginformationandgettingfamiliarwithcomplexinformation?

‐Whatkindofmediaisbestforacquiringinformation? ‐Whatarethemostcommonreasonsforhavingaformalmeeting?

B.MediaRepertoires1.FormalMediainusage:Listthecommunicationmediayouuse.• Isthereanythingelseavailableinaddition?• Whatmediayouusemost?Why?Describethem?2.Informalmedia:Whatkindofinformalcommunicationdoyouhave?3.Combiningmedia:Doyoucombinedifferentmediatosolveatask?• How?Inwhatkindsofsituations?4.Newtools:Wouldyouliketohavenewmedia/tools?Elaborate.

135

C.Appropriationfactors:fromolderappropriationresearch?1.UsageBackground:• Whatisyourbackgroundinusingthetwopreferredmedia?

2.Newmediaattitudes:• Whatisyourrelationtonewmedia/socialmedia?Usageatthefreetime?

‐Howdoyouexperiencelearningnewtechnologies?Whatisproblematic?3.Training:• Haveyoureceivedtrainingorinstructionsonmediausage?Describe. ‐Whatkindoftrainingwouldyouliketoreceive? ‐Areinstructionsfortheusageofmediaeasilyavailable?Elaborate.

‐DescribetheTeliaSoneratechsupportandhelpdeskpractices.4.Familiarity:• Whenyoucommunicate,doyouusedifferentmediawithdifferentpartners?Doesthisvary?• Whatmediadoyouuseineverydayroutinetasks?Doesthischangewhenconductingunfa‐

miliartasks?

D.SituationalandInstitutionalConditions:frommediarepertoires1.Physicaljobsetting:• Describeyourjob

‐Areyouincontactwithcustomersonadailybasis?‐Whatisyourworksetting?Office?Location?‐Howoftenareyouatanotherlocation?Doyouhaveachoiceinlocation?

2.Interpersonaltrust:• Describethecommunicationwithintheteamsofwhichyouareamember?

‐Describetheteamsofwhichyouareamember(orrecentones).‐Howaregoalsdeterminedandagreedonandaccepted?Howareresourcesob‐

tained?‐Stability:Doestheprojectteammaintainthesamemembershipoverthelifeoftheproject?‐Whatistheaveragelifeofaproject?

‐Howisinformationdistributedtoteammembers?3.OrganisationalIncentives:• DescribethecommunicationcultureandpracticesinTeliaSonera

‐Whatistheexpectedreplyspeedforemail?etc.‐Whatarepreferredcommunicationmediawithinthecompany,inyouropinion?‐Whatkindofthingsdoyouneedtocommunicateabout?‐Howdoyougenerallygettheinformationyouneed?Isthissatisfactory?Wasitpro‐ductive?‐Howdoyougenerallygetinformationthatisnotformallyavailable?‐Doyouusedifferenttechnologiesforobtaininginformationfromoutsideyourwork‐group/unit?

136

‐Howoftendoyouusethesetechnologies?Isthatsimilartowhatotherteammem‐bersdo?

4.Situation:• Describehowdoessituationinfluenceonthemediachoice?(excludingtaskathand)

‐Howdoyoudecidewhomtoincludeorask? ‐Howdoeslocationinfluenceonyourmediachoices?Yours?Receivers?

‐Doyouconsiderrecipientwhenchoosingthemedia?Whatabouthis/hersprefer‐ences?

E.Elaborationlikelihoodandstress/problems1.Mindlessness:• Doyouhaveclearsimplepatternswhichcommunicationpractisesandmediatoapplyin‐

certainsituations?Describe?• Isitnormaltocontinuethesamechannelwhereyoureceivedthemessagefrom?2.Doyouhaveenoughtimetocompleteyourtasksproperly?• Doyouhavetimetogettoknowalltherelevantinformationyoureceive?• Areinterruptionstypicalinyourworksetting?Aretheydistracting?• Howlongisyourworkday?Doesitcontinueathome?• Doyouhavetodealwithmultipletasksinyourwork?Describehowyouprioritizeworktasks?

3.Productivityandsuccess:• Whatfactorswouldyousayaremostimportanttosuccess?4.Challenges:• Whatdoyoufeelarethebiggestchallengesandproblemsfacedbyindividualslikeyouwho‐

workgivenyourdistributedworkenvironment?Inateam?• Whatisstressfulatwork?• Wouldyouliketocontinueinthiskindofworkenvironmentforthenext10years

137

Appendix 3: Different types of communicators in TeliaSonera Type1:Advancedcommunicators

Interviewees4,6and8Characteristics:

• Highactivecommunicationmediarepertoire,• Advancedskillsincommunication,seecommunicationasimportant• Orientatedtotaskandseveralfactorswhenchoosingmedia• 2outofthreehasreceivedtraining• Nodirectcustomercontact• Differentbackgroundandtasksandage

MediaChoiceOrientation

• Theyareorientedtotask,andinaddition,toeasinessofusage,urgency(andlearnedhabitsofpartner’shabits)

• Respondent 8 is highly orientated to documenting purposes, which em‐phasizesemailusageinthemediarepertoire.

• Even thoughmedia isusedwell ingeneral,hurryandbusinesshindereffi‐cientchoices;interviewee6admitsthatwhenbeingbusy,mediaischosein‐tuitively.

MediaReper‐toires:activereper‐toiresmorethan5

• Respondent4:activerepertoire8,fullperceivedrepertoire9• Respondent6:activerepertoire7,fullperceivedrepertoire7• Respondent8:activerepertoire6,fullperceivedrepertoire9• Respondent4istheextremecase;thismightbefullperceivedmediareper‐

toire (10) if sales support system is not in usage in her team. Sheuses asmuchas8mediaactively.,butnotIM.Though,respondent6uses5mediumoftenand8uses6mediumoften,respondent4onlyuses3mediumoften.

• Respondent6and8use IM(inactiverepertoire)andrespondents4and6usedocumentsharing.

Training,atti‐tudesandITskills:

• Respondents4and8havereceivedtraining!• TheirITskillsvaryfrombasictohighlevel.• Thisgroupiscomfortableinusingnewmediasolutions• Respondent4recognisesthehinderingeffectofoldusagehabits,andwants

instructions for usage. Considers also receivers preferences inmedia choi‐ces,ifknown

Comments:

• Media options and capabilities are perceived very well, but lack culture,business or love to some specificmedium/dominating effectmight hinderefficientmediausageandcommunication.

• Thefactthatothersdon’tusemediumisalsolimitingfactor(4doesnotuseIMand8usesdocumentsharingatlowratebecauseperceivedlackofcriti‐calmass).

Quotes: “Iexperienceinstantmessagingasagoodwaytocommunicate–statusupdatetellsisapersonispresentandavailableforquestions”Interviewee6“Informationshouldflowbetterandfasterinacompanythisbig.”Interviewee6 “Thereisaneedforbasictraininginhouse‐,Ihavenoticedthateveryonecanuseemail,butpeoplehavedifficultieswithothermedia”Interviewee4“Emailisusedveryinefficientlyinourorganisation;Igetlotsofccemailswithnocluewhywasitsenttome.Therewouldberoomforimprovement.”Interviewee4

138

Type2:Traditionalcomfortseekers

Interviewees5and9Characteristics:

• Lowcommunicationmediarepertoirelimitspossibilitiestousemedia• Orientatedtoeasinessofusageandownconvenience• Traditionalworkerswithestablishedpractices,communicationnotinstra‐

tegicrole• Botharecustomerresponsible,dailycustomercontact• Differentbackgroundandage,

MediaChoiceOrientation

• Theymainlyorientedtoeasinessofusage/ownconvenience/ownhabits,whichhindersefficientmediausage.

• Respondent5hasverystrongcommunicationpatterns,andhedoesnotcarehowothersarecommunicating.Respondent9isoftenchoosingrichmedia,andhesaysthatlazinessinwritingmainlyguideshisdecisionsre‐gardingmediachoice.

MediaReper‐toires:activereper‐toireslessthan5

• Respondent5:activerepertoire2,fullperceivedrepertoire5• Respondent9:activerepertoire5,fullperceivedrepertoire7• Respondent5hasextremelylowmediarepertoire,bothactiveandfull.This

personisalsotheonlyrespondentwhoclaims,thattherearenovideo‐conferencingavailableinorganisation.

Training,atti‐tudesandITskills:

• ITskillsareonaveragelevel,notrainingreceivedforcommunicationmedia

Comments:

• Respondent5istheextremecase,heistheonlyoneamongstallinter‐viewedpersons,whoadmitsthatpartnerorhis/herhabitshasnoinfluenceonhismediachoices,hedoesnotcarewhatothersdo,hehashisownprac‐tices.Respondent9experiencesproblemswithinformationsharing;hethinksthatbusinessunitsareseparate,andcommontoolsandpracticesaremissing,informationflowisbad.Though,hethinksthatcommunicationme‐diaisaccordinglyusedatthemoment,hedoesnotexperiencebigproblemswithpractices.

• Respondent5experienceslowtrustinorganisation,hethinksthatrespon‐sibleandauthoritiesareextremelyunclear,whichincreasesemailoverloadwhennoonewantstotakeresponsibility.

Quotes: “I havemy own practices andway of communicating; I amnot interested howothersaredoingthings”Interviewee5“WhenmessageissentthroughTellU, itmaytake5daysbeforesomeonewillprocess it inthesupportfunction,eventhoughtheissuewouldbeveryurgent‐so,insteadofformalsystem,thephonecallismadetogetthroughquicker.Un‐fortunatelythisisthewayhowitgoes.“Interviewee9

139

Type3:Newemployeeunderorganisationalinfluence

Interviewee0Characteristics:

• Highlyinfluencedbyorganisationspracticesandculture• Modern,youngcommunicator,butorganisations influencelimitsperceived

options• Notindailycontactwithcustomers

MediaChoiceOrientation

• Receiverspreferencesinfluenceifknown• Organisationalhabitshavebiginfluenceoncommunicationbehaviour

MediaReper‐toires:activereper‐toireslessthan5

• Respondent0:activerepertoire3,fullrepertoire4• Eventhoughfullmediarepertoire is low in thisstudy’sscale, it is stillvery

highingeneraluseoutsidework.Socialmediaandwikiareincludedineveryday.However,thismedia isnot includedtothisstudy,andshedidnotgetclosetofullrepertoireintermsofthedeterminedlist.

Training,atti‐tudesandITskills:

• Hasnotreceivedanytraining,buthasgoodITskills• Hasextensiveknowledgeofnewmedia,andisdifferentgeneration(much

younger)thanothers.• Positiveattitudes

Comments:

• Only interviewee, who has worked in the organisation only a short time,comparedtoeveryoneelsewhohavebeenworkingover10years.

• Doesnotfeelbusy,orhavetroubleingettingtoknowinformationflow• Experiences interruptionsasnormalandnotdistracting.Thinks that inter‐

ruptions/openofficeisefficientcommunicationandworkplace• Hasproblemsinfindinginformationneeded,maybeduetothelackofper‐

sonalnetworksinhouseQuotes: ‘I amnotanxious inadoptingnew tools.However, it is important that theold

toolsareincontrolandhandledwellbeforetakingnewonesalong.” “Communicationcultureinthecompanyisold‐fashioned;everyonesendsemails,noonemakesaphonecall.” “Noonehasevertoldmeanythingaboutcommunicationhabitsorwhatmediashouldbeused.Ihavelearnedmyself,Idowhatothersdo” “Ican’tfindtheinformationIneed;Idon’tknowwhotoaskfrom.“

140

Appendix 4: Factor comparison

Mediarepertoire(full=10)

Resp Mediachoiceorienta‐tion

active

full

Hasreceivedtraining

Hasworkedinthecom‐panyover10years

LevelofItskills

Continuestypicallysamechan‐nel

Dailycustomercontact

Partnerslearnedbe‐haviourinflu‐encesonchoices

Mediainactiveusage(high+moderate),doesnotincludelowornotusedme‐dia

Perspectivetointerrup‐tions

Stressandchal‐lenges

0 receiverspreferences,receiversfamiliarity,organisationshabits

3 4 no high yes no yes email,phone+intranet normal,noneedtominimize

informationsharing/seeking

1 Task,receivershabits,prefersrichmedia

6 7 yes yes low ‐ no yes email,phone+Im,teleconferencing,SMS,documentsharing

normal ccemails,nocommonculture,unclearresponsi‐bilities

2 Task,urgencyandpart‐nersavailability,ownpractices

6 8 yes high canswitch no yes email,phone,IM+Teleconfrrencing,worksupportsystem,intranet

normal ccemails,nocommonculture.nocommontools

3 Urgency,task(extent),partner(botheringcustomers)

6 9 yes high yes yes yes/no email,phone+SMS,worksupportsystem,netmeeting,teleconferenfig

distracting emailoverload,ccmails,nocommonculture

4 Partnershabits,task(urgencyandimport‐ance),culture

8 9 yes yes basic ‐ no yes email,SMS,phone+teleconferencing,netmeeting,videocoferencing,intranet,documentsharing

distracting ccmails,informa‐tionsharing,nocommonculture

5 Ownpracticesandconvenience,urgency,(+taskandfamiliarity)

2 5 yes basic ‐ yes no email,phone distracting unclearauthoritiesandresponsibili‐ties,ccmails,emailload

6 Task,availability,intu‐ition,IMdominates

7 7 yes basic yes no yes/no email,IM,phone,netmeeting,documentsharing+intranet,videoconferending

normal,noneedtominimize

informationdistri‐bution,nocommonculture,emailload

7 Speed,availab‐ility=learnedbehaviourofpartner

5 8 yes basic yes yes yes email,phone,netmeeting+videoconference,SMS

normal informationman‐agementandsharing

8 easinessofuse,task(extent),documentationimportant

6 9 yes yes high yes no yes email,worksupportsystem,teleconferencing,IM,phone+0

distracting filteringrelevantinformation,emailload

9 Easinessofusageandconvenience,richmediadominates,availab‐ility=learnedhabits

5 7 yes basic ‐ yes yes email,phone+intranet,documentsharing,videoconference

notmuchinterruptions

informationflow,separatebusinessunitsandtools

141

Appendix 5: Cluster analysis

Cluster Means

Cluster I get the information I need at the right

time

I can continue the next

10 years in a similar manner at work

I usually can’t reach

the per-son I’m trying to

get in touch with

Continuous interruptions are typical in

my work

I experience work related

communication challenging

and as a bur-den

Work related communication

takes too much time

I don’t have

time to get to

know all the in-

formation I receive

Interruptions are distract-ing my daily

work

Communication media has a high impact on mean-ingfulness of my

work

1 4.0388 4.07692 2.50000 2.84615 1.84615 2.03846 2.68000 2.15384 4.46153

2 2.6333 2.93333 3.50000 4.37931 2.48275 3.03333 3.83333 3.96666 4.53333

3 2.7395 1.91304 3.52173 4.78260 3.69565 4.08695 4.52173 4.47826 4.78260

4 4.0769 4.23076 3.23076 4.46153 3.38461 4.00000 4.38461 4.30769 4.46153

5 4.1904 3.61904 2.19047 4.14285 2.28571 2.19047 3.76190 3.42857 4.80952