in Technology the Work Force: A New Culture of Computer Mediated Norms and Business Relationships
COMM 3610: Communication, Technology, & Society Fall 2008
Technology has played a vital role in society for many centuries and continues to
2 affect the way we interact with one another on a daily basis. Our culture is constantly evolving as new forms of technology emerge adding to the wide variety of communication forms we choose to emerge ourselves in. The cell phone, one of the most popular forms of technological communication today, has ultimately changed the dynamics of interpersonal relationships. In addition, the computer has drastically affected the work force by creating an entirely new business environment for employees through mediated work. While advancements in the virtual world have provided a convenient way for businesses to communicate with employees in different time zones, it has also decreased the amount of face-to-face interaction in natural business settings. With computer mediated devices like e-mails, video conferencing, instant messaging, and the like, face-to-face interactions are no longer the primary source of communication within businesses. The computer screen replaces the formal business setting and employees no longer work directly with one another but instead with the computer. Technology has created a new form of work relationships; it has disregarded all previous norms and instead provides a setting for employees to hide behind the anonymity of the computer screen. While advances in technology can be beneficial to businesses, face-toface interaction is an integral building block for any business foundation and its constructive aspects cannot be met through virtual relationships. Mediated work has removed the positive aspects that are achieved through face-to-face relations and instead has instilled new work relationship norms promoting negative interpersonal comments, a lack of respect in information exchange, an absent presence of group identity, and an overall decrease in trust and satisfaction between group members. In the year 2000, nearly 80% of Fortune 500 companies were estimated to
3 structure at least half of their employees into teams. [Timmerman et al., p 108]. Generating different ways to obtain a goal is usually more successful in groups due to the vast array of ideas each member is able to contribute to the team. In addition, the dynamics of the group created through interpersonal member interaction builds a foundation of respect, trust, determination, and group identification. Thus, teamwork is often viewed as an important component of any business. However, the increasing amount of virtual teams along with mediated work, are defying the main aspect of group work face-to-face interactions. Virtual teams are highly prevalent in the work force due to the convenience they pose by removing the problem of time and space. Many changes in the work force have evolved as virtual teams are becoming more and more popular. As opposed to creating groups based upon their likeness and predicted cohesiveness, groups are now less thought out and structured and instead, thrown together in hopes that technology will link them together. A main consequence of these virtual groups is a significant increase in multiple types of conflict within the group as well as a new set of work norms. Innately, the lack of face-to-face interactions contributes to the underlying base of the new work norms - an initial interpersonal and relational conflict that can continue to progress to later stages of the groups development. Technology replaces intimate face-to-face communication by serving as a mediator between team members, ultimately affecting the communication styles, norms, and dynamics of the virtual groups. As a result, a lack of a formal business environment may trigger feelings in employees that regular work norms do not apply in virtual teams. Members are able to use the technology at hand as an excuse for a more relaxed work setting, disregarding face-to-face interaction norms. Communication with employees
4 then becomes less formal with technology posing an impression of anonymity that would not be present in face-to-face interactions. Due to the perceived distance, people might have the impression of being more secure against the unintentional transmission of verbal and non-verbal signal, which betray a lot about their psychic state (e.g. motives, emotions, fears, etc). Through this they could feel less exposed to their partners and perceive reduced risk [Muhlfelder et al., p 358]. As a result, the face-to-face norm of withholding negative interpersonal comments towards employees appears as less applicable with computer-mediated work. This significant increase in disrespect and negative comments could then lead to employee behavior polarizing it as a norm within the virtual group. CMC (computer-mediated-communication) participants were more likely to engage in negative interpersonal comments during initial interactions than were FTF (face-to-face) participantsThe higher levels of relationship conflict in CMC groups could be explained by the reduction in social norms in an anonymous setting [Hobman et al., p 457]. Although computer mediated communication can be an efficient and practical way of connecting members in different places, it also creates the norm of informality and disrespect when addressing other employees in the group that would not be present in a face-to-face environment. In addition, the anonymity that computermediated work poses to employees also contributes to an increase in task conflicts affecting information communication norms of members. Along with the benefits that computer mediated communication can bring to a team, there are also many technical limitations that it poses to virtual groups that face-toface groups do not encounter. The differences between CMC and FTF are due to the limitations of bandwidth, the number of cues available, and the absence of social context
5 and nonverbal cues in CMCtechnological features of CMC trigger psychological states and processes that result in a situation of weak norms and social constraints and more deregulated behavior in the form of uninhibited communication (Spears & Lea, 1992) [Hobman et al., p 442]. These restraints inherently affect the communication between members in that information exchange becomes misinterpreted more often due to the absence of signs only present in face-to-face interactions. Certain indicators that are only possible through nonverbal messages such as tone of voice, body motions, and facial expressions may alter information exchange and an increase in discrepancy between employees. Restraints directly linked with computer mediated work like different styles of typing, unequal typing skills, and bandwidth work in conjunction with the lack of nonverbal cues to intensify information communication conflicts and decrease clear information exchange during an allotted time which would not occur in a face-to-face interaction. Information exchange is thus less precise than in face-to-face groups which could then affect the work norms of providing a detailed explanation of information to teammates in the group. Interpersonal relations of employees then become less intimate and considerate of one another, using the mediated work as a safe guard to disregard previous face-to-face work norms. This problem can be taken to the extreme with e-mail communication patterns. In particular, e-mail is text-only and thus removes both, body language and aural cuesthe lack of synchrocity in e-mail communication can contribute to a reduced sense of immediacy in the interaction. Psychologically, there tends to be a greater sense of removal, or distance, from the other party when one cannot see or hear which them, is often referred to as a lack of social presence (taken together with) a greater sense of informality associated with the use of e-mail are unique features of this
6 form of communication that may influence the dynamics of interaction between individual group members [Naquin et al., p 472]. As a result, members of the business team lack a clear exchange of information with other employees of the team. Without the formality and intimacy of face-to-face interactions, the work norm takes on a new form of communication between employees. Information exchange thus becomes less detailed, clear, and urgent, and instead is replaced by informal messages. While the mediated work form of e-mailing removes all bodily cues which affects how the receiver deciphers and interprets the message, video conferencing is a form where one is able to view the other member but there are still many setbacks to it. The mutual social perception is impaired due to technical constraints, too. The limitation of bandwidth allows only a relatively poor quality video picture. Even more influential is the limited capacity of the camera to change the focus from high-resolution near-sight view to wide range visual angle to catch a little bit more of the background. This makes the visual input quite unfamiliar, in comparison with the constantly changing focus of the human eye [Muhlfelder et al., 352]. In addition to information communication conflicts, the ambiguity that virtual groups facilitate for all members change not only the norms regarding employee interpersonal relationships and norms but also an employees salience of his or her group membership. It is important that an employee considers himself or herself as an integral part of the team in order to be a positive contributor to the business. Daily face-to-face interaction in a tangible work environment provides such a feeling for employees in that a sense of belonging and importance is present when one is able to closely interact with coworkers and view completed projects. However, members of virtual teams lack that vital
7 component that allows them to visually affirm their group membership on a day-to-day basis. The Social Identification/Deindividuation (SIDE) Theory defined by Lea & Spears, confirm that the anonymity associated with being in a CMC group can act to highlight the salience of group membership and the influence of group normsCMC groups expressed a lot of relationship conflict, suggesting they developed a norm accepting of relationship conflict. In comparison, FTF groups exhibited less relationship conflict, and the variability across groups was lower. This result is congruent with the idea that a salient group identity is not as relevant in FTF groups due to the fact that this setting has a wealth of individuating information about group members (Walther, 1997) [Hobman et al., p 458]. Without a sense of belonging, an employee may feel as though his or her contribution is not recognized or is disregarded by others in the group. The form of mediated work through computers detracts from physical interaction of teammates due to the amount of time spent working with only the computer screen which ultimately leads to an absent feeling of group identity. While some forms of mediated work allow you to view co-workers, such as video conferencing, salient group identity can still be a significant problem. You can never look into the eyes of your partner because of the distortion of the visual angle caused by the fact that the camera is on top of the monitor and not inside the screen where the picture of the partner is displayed [Muhlfelder et al. p 352]. The face-to-face interaction of typical work environments replaced by the computer screen restrains members from forming intimate relationships with fellow employees. Because they are unable to view who they are communicating with, constructing any feelings of group identity is nearly impossible. Salience cannot be achieved in that members are unable to obtain the face-to-face dynamics that create a
8 sense of group identity. Without a feeling of group identity and cohesiveness, along with an increase in negative interpersonal relationships and informal communication information exchange, a fundamental trait of any successful group is lost throughout the process trust. The final variable is the observable behaviour of the persons involved. According to the definition by Krumboltz and Potter (1980), specific verbal and non-verbal act, e.g. frequent here-and-now statements, self disclosing statements, wish for or reenforcement or self disclosing statements of others, asking for and giving feedback, asking for help when having a problem, spontaneous engagement and mutual reenforcement, can be observed and taken as a measure for quantity of trust by their frequencies and intensities (which cannot be viewed or experienced through mediated work) [Muhlfelder et al., 352]. All the latter changes in norms contribute to the main decrease of trust within virtual business groups. As a result, a lack of trust of members becomes the norm within the group. In addition, with the new set of negative work norms and ethics, as well as decrease trust of members, outcome efficiency and satisfaction as a whole is greatly affected. People interpret the situation differently when they get to know somebody directly (FTF), as compared to a video-conference (VMC). Working online results in less efficient outcomes, as the difficulties faced in communicating and coordinating efforts mount. Decisions made by online groups also tend to be more risky than those made by face-to-face groups, and consensus on difficult or complex issues is harder to reach [Naquin et al., 472]. Mediated work has brought upon a threat of diminishing personal and intimate face-to-face interactions, especially in business teams. While it can be a positive
9 contributor and aide in certain aspects of businesses, it should not be taken to the point where it overrules all face-to-face group interaction. The multiple forms of virtual communication ultimately have negative affects on work relationships as well as creating destructive work norms. Personal face-to-face interaction is an integral building block for any business foundation and cannot be achieved through virtual teams. While virtual teams do have their benefits, such as the ability to work with anyone regardless of where they are, it has also changed the dynamics of group interaction for the worse. Mediated work can be beneficial to a certain extent, such as when it poses the convenience of a quick chat with an employee to discuss urgent issues. However, it should not entirely replace group interaction on a physical level. Although mediated work is inevitable, it can still play a constructive role in businesses if not used to entirely replace the dynamics of face-to-face groups.
References
Frohlich, N., & J. Oppenheimer. (1998). Some consequences of e-mail vs. face-to-face communication in experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
10 35. 389-404. Hobman, E.V. et al. (2002). The expression of conflict in computer-mediated and faceto- face groups. Small Group Research, 33, 439-468. Muhlfelder, M. et al. (1999). Teams without trust? Investigations in the influence of video-mediated communication on video-mediated communication on the origin of trust among cooperating persons. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18, 349-360. Naquin, C.E., T.R. Kurtzberg & L.Y. Belkin. (2008). E-mail communication and group cooperation in mixed motive contexts. Social Justice Research, 21, 470-489. Timmerman, C.E. & C.R. Scott. (2006). Virtually working: Communicative and structural predictors of media use and key outcomes in virtual work teams. Communication Monographs, 73, 108-136.