tel. (39)-6-85225781/741; fax. (39)-6-8845252; EM

lbiggier@luiss.it
http://www.luiss.it/facolta/economia/biggiero

1. Introduction

Electronic communication, especially under the forms of email (EM), are part of computer-mediated communication (CMC), and represent the most diffused form of advanced information supports, aiding for group decision making and for social communication in organizations. While it is widely accepted that advanced communication technologies are changing the size and forms of organizational structures as well as social patterns of communication, power distribution and the structure and competencies of internal and external labor markets, it is still debated and unclear why, how, where and when such changes take place (Markus 1994a). Even though it is commonly accepted that there is a sort of reinforcing mechanism between networking processes within (and between) organizations and the adoption of CMC devices, and between network firms and firm networks (Biggiero 1999a), it is not clear how it occur, whether it concerns more complex tasks, whether it increases organizational participation, whether they can fully replace face-to-face (FtF) interactions, how local (organizational or group specific) social context constraints and orient CMC adoption, what is the role played by technological mediators in the use and appropriation of CMC technologies, what is the influence of time flow in recurrent-repeated interactions, and, finally, what is the pattern of the complex interactions between all these aspects.

A number of theories address the explanation of some of these issues, generally applying general theories to the specific field of CMC in organizations: information richness theory (Daft & Lengel 1984), critical mass theory (Markus 1987, 1990; Oliver, Marwell & Teixeira 1985), social information processing theory (Walther 1992), structuration theory (Barley 1986; Orlikowski & Robey 1991; Poole & DeSanctis 1992; Yates & Orlikowski 1992; Orlikowski & Yates 1994), adaptive structuration theory (DeSanctis & Poole 1994; Gopal et al. 1993; Poole et al. 1991; Poole & DeSanctis 1990; Zack & McKenney 1995), social constructionism and actor-network theory (Bijker, Hughes & Pinch 1987; Bijker & Law 1992; Callon 1997; Law 1991; Lea, O’Shea & Fung 1995), neo-institutionalism (Powell & DiMaggio 1991; Meyer & Scott 1983; Scott 1987, 1995; Zucker 1977, 1987, 1988), cues-filtered-out approaches (Culnan & Markus 1987; Dubrovsky et al. 1991; Lea et al. 1992; Siegel et al. 1986; Sproull & Kiesler 1986), traditional structural network approach (Rice & Aydin 1991; Rice et al. 1990), organizational ethnography (Cecez-Kecmanovic, Moodie, Busuttil & Plesman 1999; Denzin 1997; Schwartzman 1993), political interactionist theory (Markus 1994a, 1994b; Pliskin et al. 1993; Romm & Pliskin 1999; Romm et al. 1991), and second order cybernetics (Foerster 1982; Paetau 1999; Urlich & Probst 1984). We propose to use social constructionism and actor-network theory (SCANT) and adaptive structuration theory (AST) as main theoretical frameworks, integrated by political interactionist theory (PIT) and by second order cybernetics (SOC).

2. Research Goals and General Framework

Until now researches have been not conclusive about nearly all issues concerning organizational consequences of CMC adoption and diffusion. Likely it depends also from the number of theories in play and the methodologies used. Among many factors, which will be discussed in §3, we believe that there are three main methodological orientation, which vary empirical findings:

1. laboratory versus field research. Although the former is very important to stimulate further research and build sound theories, its results systematically differ a lot from field research, likely due to the high complexity of these issues;
2. statistical versus longitudinal research. The former allows for extensive inquiry lowering the number and the details of variables, while the latter does vice versa. Because of different reasons, both have limits to generalizability and problems of reciprocal comparability;
3. static versus evolutionary research. The former, neglecting all learning and dynamic effects, does not fit with results of evolutionary approaches.

In this project we choose the second methodological orientation for any of the three questions: field and longitudinal research, referred to 2-3 years of organizational life. We identify 7 organizational consequences of EM adoption and diffusion in 3 types of organizations. For many inconsistencies between empirical researches, besides the selection of what are pertinent and significant organizational consequences, are merely related to the extent to which organizational consequences occur, we introduce 6 explaining variables to understand such differences. In other words, this project has two main goals. The first one is to study and measure 7 organizational consequences of EM adoption, and the second one is to explain why the characteristics and the size of such consequences vary between the three types of organizations.

Organizational consequences are the following:

1. degree of diffusion of EM communication;
2. degree of substitution between FtF and EM. Here the main questions are two: (1) whether EM can completely substitute FtF communication, and (2) what kind of messages are channeled through EM, once it enters the genre repertoire of the organization. The first question is partly related with that of trust formation and maintenance (see next point), and in the dispute Nohria & Eccles (1992), Handy (1995) argue that FtF can not completely substitute, while Walther (1995) holds that over time EM and FtF equal, and Smagt (1999) suggests that things change from a dyadic to a multi-parti dialogue: in the latter FtF is not so crucial. The second question concerns the different contents which FtF and EM can support: according to information richness theory, and more generally with cues-filtered-out approaches, Daft & Lengel (1984, 1986), Nohria & Eccles (1992) and Handy (1995) state that, being a poor channel of communication, EM can support merely simple messages and therefore can widely diffuse just in low complex tasks. Other authors, basically those sustaining AST (DeSanctis & Poole 1994; Gopal et al. 1993; Poole et al. 1991; Poole & DeSanctis 1990; Zack 1993; Zack & McKenney 1995) and SCANT (Lea, O’Shea & Fung 1995; Yates, Orlikowski & Okamura 1999), argue that both questions depends on the social context of appropriation of the technology, and on other contingent issues. Therefore nothing can be said without an accurate study of these influencing variables, which is just at the beginning;
3. degree of trust and identity formation. Trust is a very important concept in current managerial and sociological analysis, as is witnessed by recent works (Gambetta 1988; Kramer & Tyler 1996; Lane & Bachmann 1998), and it is a complex and multidimensional concept (Lane 1998; Tyler & Kramer 1996). Here it is seen as “an orientation toward society and toward others that has social meaning beyond rational calculations” (Tyler & Kramer 1996: 18). Among the three types of trust defined by Zucker (1986), what is more relevant for our research is that process-based, which is built on three sources: personal experience of recursive positive interactions, expectations based on reputation and identification processes with a group identity. Actually, in the literature on organizational identity (Abrahams & Hogg 1990; Albert & Whetten 1985; Ashforth & Mael 1989, 1996; Hogg & Abrahams 1988) trust is viewed as an outcome of strong identification processes. Biggiero (1999b), recalling concepts of second order cybernetics, shows that trust and group identity are connected in a positive feedback loop. Paetau (1999) develops the same perspective and wonders “to what extent the virtualization of organizations can take place without undermining their own identity and stability”. Out of that theoretical perspective, other authors relates group identity and stability with the impact of communication technology of the growth of trust. Although in nearly opposite directions, both Nohria & Eccles (1992), Jarvenpaa & Leidner (1998) and Meyerson, Weick & Kramer (1996) explicitly address these issues: the former argues that EM communication does not allow for trust formation and growth, while the latter, noting that many temporary groups, like virtual teams in research projects, “exhibit behavior that presupposes trust, without having any of the traditional sources of trust. This seeming paradox is resolved by the recognition of a new form of trust characteristic of such groups –swift trust. Such trust involves a series of hedges in which people behave in a trusting manner but also hedge to reduce the risks of betrayal. It also centers around the competent and faithful enactment of clear roles and their associated duties” (Tyler & Kramer 1996: 8);
4. formation and characteristics of groups of coalition, and/or political/power abuse of communication technology. Organizations are groups of coalitions which share some common goals but fight for internal power (Cyert & March 1963; March & Simon 1958; Pfeffer & Salancik 1978; Pfeffer 1983). Within any single coalition or department, the question of power reproduces, and it is influenced by communication technology (Markus 1994b);
5. formation and characteristics of a genre repertoire. Genres are considered “as socially recognized types of communicative actions –such as memos, metings, expense forms, and training seminars- that are habitually enacted by members of a community to realize particular social purposes. A genre may be identified by its socially recognized purpose and shared characteristics of form. The purpose of a genre is not the individual’s private motive for communicating, but a purpose constructed and recognized by the relevant organizational community, whether small or large. Form refers to observable aspects of the communication, such as communication medium (e.g., pen and paper, telephone, or face to face), structural features (e.g., text formatting devices such as lists and structured fields), and linguistic features (e.g., level of formality, specialized vocabulary, or graphic devices). A genre established within a particular community serves as an institutionalized template for social interaction -an organizing structure- that shapes the ongoing communicative action of members through their use of it for social interaction within the community. Despite the stabilizing influence of institutionalized genres, genres can and do change over time and with changing circumstances. A community’s genre repertoire reflects the common knowledge, expectations, and norms (derived from the organizational and broader cultural context) that members of a specific community share about communication (Yates, Orlikowski & Okamura 1999: 84);
6. degree of organizational participation to decision making (Heller, Pusic, Strauss & Wilpert 1998). Here we intend the forms of direct participation, that is, participation non-mediated by representatives of unions or other forms of collective representations. Decisional participation must be distinguished into two categories (Wagner 1995): 1) that happening between unchanged and that expresses basically in consulting leadership style (Locke, Alavi & Wagner 1997); 2) that implying delegation, that is, a substantial redistribution of power between hierarchical positions within and between organizational units (Leana 1987). The latter can be further distinguished between indirect participation (through union representations) and direct, which is negotiated without unions. The latter can be either formal or informal;
7. influence on GDSS (group decision support system).

Explaining variables are:

1. task complexity. It is measured by the degree of uncertainty (variety) of problems which must be faced with. It is inversely related to the degree of standardization through quantitative parameters or rules/norms (Biggiero 2000);
2. degree of self-organization. The degree of self-organization of a group means the extent to which the group defines autonomously its goals and/or tasks and decisional rules, and it is also an index of hierarchy and network density: the more the network (system, group) is self-organizing, the more is dense and the less is hierarchical;
3. cultural diversity. It reflects the cultural differences existing in the organization or into the group. They can be linguistic, symbolic, behavioral, etc.;
4. social context, which “includes the culture, distribution of power, and the social norms, habits, practices, expectations and preferences held by a group regarding its present and past interaction (Zack & McKenney 1995: 396). Social context include aspects of physical environment and nonverbal behaviors that define the nature of the social situation and actors’ roles and relative status (Walther 1995: 188);
5. technology-use mediators are those “individuals who implement the technology, provide training, propose usage guidelines, and alter the technology to adapt it to changing conditions of use” (Yates, Orlikowski & Okamura 1999: 83);
6. geographical distance means the different spatial location which prevents organization members to be simultaneously in the same place.

Among the many kinds of CMC, EM has been chosen because it is widely diffused in large or hi-tech organizations, but at the same time it belongs to the set of advanced information technologies. Moreover most empirical researches in this field investigate just the impact of EM communication systems, and so it allows us to directly compare our findings with those. Finally, where mailing lists have been created it is possible also to employ also new analytical tools, like webometrics. Basically EM communication is contrasted principally to FtF and other forms of communication.

3. Theoretical Background

Structuration theory, social constructionism and neo-institutionalism can be grouped into the same class of social definition theories (Markus 1994), according to which

While in the very long run –in terms of decades- it is reasonable to expect, at least for interacting communities, a sort of uniformity of perceptions and uses of technology (Pinch & Bijker 1987; Yates & Orlikowski 1992), as happened in the case of telephone technology, in the short run any community or organization develop its own form of adoption, use and diffusion of the same technology, depending on its specific purpose, culture, social context, structure and even single individuals. Structuration theory, based on Giddens’ works (1979, 1984), allows for a more micro-level approach respect to neo-institutionalism, and for a more dynamic approach respect to social network analysis, even being compatible with both. The ways to perceive, appropriate and use technology depend on social context.

Social constructionism and actor-network theory (SCANT) derives from studies on the sociology of science and technology (Latour 1991) and studies on the epistemology of social sciences (Berger & Luckman 1966). While they are fully compatible with second order cybernetics (Biggiero 1998; Butts & Brown1989; Glasersfeld 1995; Twomwy Fosnot1996) and with some perspectives in post-positivist epistemology (Biggiero 1998; …), they developed independently. However current literature about organizational consequences of information technology neglects such consistencies and until now refers merely on sociological versions, which are just expressed by SCANT. Besides the common views concerning the relevance of social context for the many possible ways to adopt and diffuse technology, SCANT differs in some points from AST.

Basically, differences consist:

1. in breaking up the identification of the social dimension with the social context and of the technology with the content. At the opposite of AST, “we argue for definitions of content and context that recognize the technical and social composition of both, and which are sensitive to their essentially constructional nature. That is to say, the composition of content and context are not predetermined by technological design or by the prior existence of certain social groups, and not should the boundary between the two be legislated a priori by the analyst. Instead we argue that the heterogeneous composition of both content and context are variable and constructed in situ by the relevant actor-networks in the process of developing an organizational electronic communications project. A further corollary of this approach is that the boundary of contextual influences upon the communications project does not map on to the boundary of the organization in which it is situated, but may extend far wider as the actors engaged in the project mobilize the necessary resources to develop the project” (Lea, O’Shea & Fung 1995: 463);
2. in looking at structure and action as two reciprocal influencing forces, without a prevalence of the structure over the action. Social constructionism of technology “focuses on tracing the development of the forms and functions of technology through the construction of different meanings by pre-existing relevant social groups, such as different categories of end-user. Actor-network theory on the other hand argues that these social groups are themselves constructed in part by the technology; that the process of constructing technology and it users is a reflexive one in which both technology and social groups mutually elaborate each other” (Lea, O’Shea & Fung 1995: 464);
3. in giving the language and symbols a crucial role in the interplay between technology and society (organization). Particularly important are the language and behaviors of technology-use mediators Orlikowski et al. 1995), because they influence the way the technology of EM communication is adopted and diffused, and relevantly contribute to create a genre of EM communication (Yates, Orlikowski & Okamura 1999), which is specific of any organization (Yates & Orlikowski 1992), and is inserted into its genre repertoire (Orlikowski & Yates 1994).

Second order cybernetics (SOC) provides a very useful perspective to study holistic and feedback aspects of organizations, and problems of system (group) identity and recursive interactions (Foerster 1982; Ulrich & Probst 1984). Constructivism (Glasersfeld 1995) is the underlying epistemology, and it is consistent with social constructionism (Biggiero 1998). The roots of cybernetics, which are just into the mathematical theory of information and in computer science, make second order cybernetics a privileged candidate for studying virtual organizations, and facing issues concerning the creation and maintenance of system identity. “At some point in the course of their history virtual enterprises reach a crossroad, where they have to decide between maintaining their unity (autopoiesis) and accepting a transformation from a virtual organization into an enterprise organized in accordance with classic means (i.e. organized by others), or they will keep their virtual character with a concurrent loss of social entity, leading to a loosely related networked organization” (Paetau 1999: 41).

Political interactionist theory (PIT) “predicts that information systems would be resisted by potential users if they cause a re-distribution of power that either conflicts with the organizational structure (objective definition) or with the interests of individuals who are likely to lose power as a result of the implementation (subjective definition)” (Romm & Pliskin 1999: 28). Starting from Markus’s warnings about negative social uses of EM communication technology, Romm & Pliskin (1999) claim that “EM can lend itself to deliberate abuse by individuals who take advantage of its unique technical features to promote their political agenda (1999: 29). Besides the “petty tyranny” acted by a single individual, in more general terms we can suppose that different groups of coalitions (Pfeffer & Salancik 1978) can take place, creating sub-networks within the organizational intranet or externally through internet. We argue that the group diversity can enhance the structuring of coalitions.

4. Research Design

General research framework (tab. 1) is structured comparing three types of organizations between themselves and between different countries, which are those involved as research partners. The three types of organizations are European research groups, national research institutes and corporate accounting departments. The former are chosen among those financed by European research programs, like TSER, ESPRIT, etc. These organizations are supposed to be characterized by high task complexity, high degree of self-organization, the nature of group of peers, an international culture and a high geographical distance. At the opposite the latter are supposed to be characterized by low task complexity, low self-organization, a strong hierarchy, local (organizational, or even departmental) culture, and low geographical distance. National research institutes are supposed to be in the middle between the other two, that is, to show a medium degree of task complexity and of self-organization, a weak hierarchy, a national culture and a medium geographical distance.

In this section we discuss how explaining variables can affect the relationship between EM introduction/adoption/diffusion and a set of organizational consequences (tab. 2). Note that not every explaining variable affects all organizational consequences.

Task complexity. The differentiation of task complexity is useful to understand whether CMC is more (or solely) effective in communication related to low task complexity, as information richness theory predicts (Daft & Lengel 1984, 1986). According to March (1990), Nohria & Eccles (1992) and Weick (1995), even the degree of ambiguity declines with the decrease of complexity, and trust is not significantly requested (Bradach & Eccles 1989; Gambetta 1988). According to cues-filtered-out approaches (Culnan & Markus 1987; Daft & Lengel 1984, 1986; Dubrovsky et al. 1991; Lea et al. 1992; Nohria & Eccles 1992; Siegel et al. 1986; Sproull & Kiesler 1986) trust can be supported merely with FtF communication, because it is the richest of cues media and allows also for touch (Handy 1995). Therefore, if those approaches are right, we should find low trust and EM diffusion highly correlated in low task complexity. At least, developing the analysis at a very micro-level, we should find that, ceteris paribus, the content of messages exchanged through EM are much less complex than those through FtF. This analysis can be compared with that previously realized by Markus (1994), Jarvenpaa & Leidner (1998), and especially with that made by Walther (1995), where the time variable is explicitly take into account, because trust and EM effectiveness could change over time.

It is also interesting to study how task complexity affects negative or political abuse of EM communication (Cezec-Kecmanovic et al. 1999; Pliskin et al. 1993; Romm & Pliskin 1999; Romm et al. 1991) . When considered as an open-end technology (Weick 1990), EM could allow equivocality and hence distort usage more in high than in low complex tasks. Moreover, the formation and characteristics of a group’s genre repertoire can vary depending on task complexity: it can be expected that the more complex the task, the wider the genre repertoire. Finally, even the supposed effect of EM communication of increasing the degree of participation in decision making can vary strongly with tasks’ levels of complexity: high complex tasks imply per se a higher degree of participation (Shetzer 1993), so its possible increase would be much more significant in low complex tasks. In general terms, both communication media and task complexity affect the group decision support system.

Degree of self-organization. The possible equivalence between FtF and EM communication, in the short and in the long run, is expected to be influenced by the degree of self-organization, because the lower it is the lower is the need of communication, and particularly of rich communication. Another aspect is that of trust, which is also less requested in hierarchical (low self-organizing) groups. Thus, if trust cannot be supported by EM communication, this latter should be more diffused in groups where trust is less requested.

An influence of the degree of self-organization on the relationship between EM communication and petty tyranny or groups of coalitions can also be hypothesized. Due to asynchronicity, EM is an easier way of communication, respect to FtF, which requests the simultaneous presence of interacting parts. When the degree of self-organization is high can be supposed that an easy way of communication can favor the formation of groups of coalitions within the organization. Thus we could expect that in high self-organizing organizations the rate of creation of groups of coalitions is higher than in organizations with a lower degree of self-organization. By definition, the higher the degree of self-organization, the higher the degree of participation, because the less hierarchical is the system.

Cultural diversity. Cultural diversity between organizational members can limit the degree of substitution between FtF and EM, and hinder the formation of trust and identity. It is reasonably to expect also that cultural diversity enhance the formation of groups of coalition and allows for political or power use of EM communication, while hinders the degree of participation. Moreover, it is likely that, at the increasing of cultural diversity, the type of GDSS is oriented toward more formal types.

Social context. The characteristics of social context of organizational members affect the same consequences of the cultural diversity variable, even if possibly in different directions, depending just on the kind of characteristics. Moreover, they influence also the degree of diffusion of EM communication and the formation and structure of genre repertoire.

Technology-use mediators (and leaders). It is likely to expect that technology-use mediators and leaders affect all the seven organizational consequences, because “the use of a new electronic medium within a community is strongly influenced not just by users but also by those individuals who implement the technology, provide training, propose usage guidelines, and alter the technology to adapt it to changing conditions of use” (Yates, Orlikowski & Okamura 1999: 83).

Geographical distance. The geographical distance seems to have main effects on the first three kind of organizational consequences: positively on the degree of diffusion of EM communication and on the degree of substitution between FtF and EM, and negatively on the formation of trust and identity.

European research groups can be selected in order to have those which created a mailing list, and therefore used a mix of communication media, ranging from most advanced, like videoconferencing, to the most traditional, like FtF. The characteristic of using mailing lists allows for employing new quantitative and qualitative analytical tools, like webometrics (see below at §5). Compared with the other two kinds of organizations, European research groups have also the peculiarity to be projects, and therefore to be temporary and small sized. These peculiarities are very interesting, because allow us to understand the complete life cycle of the group, and hence to explore the full potential of all forms of communication. Usually the time span ranges over 2-3 years of collaboration. Moreover, people likely did not know each other until the start up of the projects, and thus the dynamics of interaction patterns emerge in a pure way, that is, not influenced by previous reciprocal knowledge. Consequently, the potentiality and the nature of the various communication channels can manifest in a full way. European research groups are kinds of organizations fully comparable with global virtual teams (Jarvenpaa & Leidner 1998), which are characterized by no common past or future, culturally diverse and geographically dispersed, and electronic communicating. These characteristics seem to hinder, if not prevent, trust formation, but empirical findings show that where trust was high teams were “more capable of managing the uncertainty, complexity and expectations of the virtual environment” (Jarvenpaa & Leidner 1998: 27). Previous researches dealt with the same issue (Capron, Massart & Nauelleau 1999), pointing at the crucial role played by information technologies in virtual teams.

5. Research Methodology

Research methodologies are centered on the longitudinal analysis of the three organizations in each country. The field research is constituted by interviews with organization members, focused on structures and differences between FtF and CMC communication. A special attention is paid to the time dimension, in order to understand how both ways of communication evolved over time, and particularly what changed from the beginning of the introduction of EM. Likely, in national research institutes and accounting departments, the problem of members’ turnover should be faced, because it affects organizational memory. Besides interviews, documents will also used, to evidence group decision support systems (GDSS) and relational patterns. To this aim, written paper documents, like meetings’ agendas and reports, will be analyzed, with a special use of the innovative tool of webometric analysis, which is allowed by mailing lists. In short, it is possible, through the archive of each mailing list, to analyze the structure and the style of the communication. Beyond the issue of exploring the content of communication, in terms of personal/professional, formal/confidential, etc., this analysis allows for the understanding of meaning and genre creation and change, and of the role played by technological users and group leaders in such an evolutionary process.

6. Open Problems

A number of problems are left open by this research project and should be worked out through one year of collective work, funded and supported by Accompanying Measures option within the V Framework Programme. It is supposed that four meetings along one year could drive to prepare a sound and complete project. Main problems are the following:

1. better focusing compatibility and incompatibility between four theoretical approaches implied (SCANT, AST, PIT and SOC);
2. to identify precisely a set of “experimentum crucis”, in order to falsify other theoretical approaches and to choose between SCANT and AST. In this latter case the main question is how to show that there is no superior technology in absolute sense and how technology is modified and shaped by social use;
3. to rigorously operationalize concepts and methods of the four theoretical approaches, and to formulate precise research questions and hypotheses;
4. to specify the exact research methodology, in terms of data set, interviews, documents, etc.
5. to understand if and how explaining variables reciprocally interact. For instance, task complexity can influence also the relationship between social context and consequences of EM communication, because it could be supposed that high complex tasks are associated and performed by people belonging to different social context respect to people working in low complex tasks. Even the role of technology-use mediators in EM communication may vary a lot depending on task complexity: it is reasonably to expect that the openness and versatility associated with high task complexity give more relevance to technology-use mediators;
6. to discuss whether two couples of explaining variables –task complexity/degree of self-organization and cultural diversity/social context- can be simplified to two singles;
7. to identify broader expected research fallout;
8. to suggest normative implications for organizations and social systems.

Abrams D. & M.A. Hogg (Eds.) 1990. Social Identity Theory: Constructive, Critical Advances. NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Albert S. & D.A. Whetten 1985. Organizational Identity. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior. (Vol.7) 263-295. Greenwich (CT): JAI Press.

Adrianson L., E. Hjelmquist 1991. Group Processes in Face-to-face and Computer-mediated Communications. Behavior and Information Technology. 10: 281-296.

Ashforth B.E. & F. Mael 1989. Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of Management Review. 14: 20-39.

Ashforth B.E. & F. Mael 1996. Organizational Identity and Strategy as a Context for the Individual. In J.A.C. Baum & J. Dutton (Eds.). Advances in Strategic Management. (Vol.14) 19-64. Greenwich (CT): JAI Press.

Barley S.R. 1986. Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observation of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments. Administrative Science Quarterly. 31: 78-108.

Barley S.R. 1990. The Alignment of Technology and Structure, through Roles and Networks. Administrative Science Quarterly. 35: 61-103.

Bijker W.E., T.P. Hughes & T.J. Pinch (eds) 1987. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Bijker W.E. & J. Law (eds) 1992. Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Biggiero L. 1998. Faces of Constructivism: Steps toward an Epistemology of Management. Paper presented at SOEIS meeting in Bielefeld. http://www.luiss.it/facolta/economia/biggiero

Biggiero L. 1999a. Markets, Hierarchies, Networks, Districts: A Cybernetic Approach. Human Systems Management. 18: 71-86.

Biggiero L. 1999b. Identity and Diversity in Inter-organizational Relationships. Paper Presented at Annual Meeting of British Academy of Management. Manchester.

Biggiero L. 2000. Complexity and Organization. In M. Zeleny (ed) The IEBM Handbook of Information Technology in Business. pp. 249-257. London: Thomson.

Bradach J.L. & R.G. Eccles 1989. Markets versus Hierarchies: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms. Annual Review of Sociology. 15: 97-118.

Butts R.E. & J.R. Brown (eds) 1989. Constructivism and Science. Essays in Recent German Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Callon M. 1997. The Laws of the Market. Oxford: Blackwell.

Capron A., C. Massart & G. Nauelleau 1999. How Informal Communication Impact Human Interactions and Group Dynamics in Virtual Teams. The Case of EC Collaborative Projects. Paper Presented at Tilburg Conference on

Carter G.M., M.P. Murray, R.G. Walker & W.E. Walker 1992. Building Organizational Support Systems. Cambridge: Academic Press.

Cecez-Kecmanovic D., D.Moodie, A. Busuttil & F. Plesman 1999. Organizational Change Mediated by E-mail and Intranet. An Ethnographic Study. Information Technology & People. 12: 9-26.

Connolly T., M. Jessup & J.S. Valacich 1990. Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone on Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups. Management Science. 36: 97-120.

Daft R.L. & R.H. Lengel 1984. Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organizational Design. Research in Organizational Behavior. 6: 191-233.

Daft R.L. & R.H. Lengel 1986. Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design. Management Science. 32: 554-571.

Daft R.L., R.H. Lengel & N.B. Macintosh 1981. A Tentative Exploration into the Amount and Equivocality of Information Processing in Organizational Work Units. Administrative Science Quarterly. 26: 207-224.

Davidow W.H. & W.S. Malone 1992. The Virtual Corporation. NY: Harper Collins.

Denzin N.K. 1997. Interpretive Ethnography. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

DeSanctis G. & M. Scott Poole 1994. Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science. 5: 121-147.

Dubrovsky V.J., S. Kiesler & B.N. Sethna 1991. The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-mediated and Face-to-face Decision-making Groups. Human-Computer Interaction. 6: 119-146.

Finholt T. & L.S. Sproull 1990. Electronic Groups at Work. Organization Science. 1: 61-64.

Foerster von H. 1982. Observing Systems. Seaside: Intersystems Publications.

Fulk J. & B. Boyd 1991. Emerging Theories of Communication in Organizations. Journal of Management. 17: 407-446.

Gambetta D. (ed.) 1988a. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Gambetta D. 1988b. Can We Trust Trust? In D. Gambetta (ed) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Pp. 213-237. NY: Blackwell.

Giddens A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Giddens A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Glasersfeld von E. 1995. Radical Constructivism. A Way of Knowing and Learning. London. The Falmer Press.

Goodman P., M. Bazerman & E. Conlon 1980. Institutionalization of Planned Organizational Change. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2: 215-246.

Gopal A, R.P. Bostrom & W.W. Chin 1992-1993. Applying Adaptive Structuration Theory to Investigate the Process of Group Support Systems Use. Journal of Management Information Systems. 9: 45-69.

Handy C. 1995. Trust and the Virtual Organization. Harvard Business Review. 73: 40-50.

Heller F., E. Pusic, G. Strauss & B. Wilpert (Eds) 1998. Organizational Participation. Pp. 8-39. NY: Oxford UP.

Hogg M.A. & D. Abrams 1988. Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Group Processes. London: Routledge.

Huber G.P. 1990. A Theory of the Effects of Advanced Information Technologies on Organizational Design, Intelligence, and Decision Making. Academy of Management Review. 15: 47-71.

Jarvenpaa S.L. & D.E. Leidner 1998. Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Journal of CMC. 3: 1-39.

Kiesler S. & L.S. Sproull 1992. Group Decision Making and Communication Technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making Processes. 52: 96-123.

Kramer R.M. & T.R. Tyler (Eds.) 1996. Trust in Organizations. London: Sage.

Lane C. & R. Bachman (Eds.) 1998. Trust within and between Organizations. NY: Oxford UP.

Latour B. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Law J. 1991. A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination.. London: Routledge.

Lea M., T. O’Shea & P. Fung 1995. Constructing the Networked Organization: Content and Context in the Development of Electronic Communications. Organization Science. 6: 462-478.

Leana C.R. 1987. Power Relinquishment versus Power Sharing: Theoretical Clarification and Empirical Comparison of Delegation and Participation. Journal of Applied Psychology 72: 228-233.

Locke E.A., M. Alavi & J.A. Wagner III 1997. Participation in Decision Making. Research in Personnell and Human Resources Management. 15: 293-331.

Mantovani G. 1994. Is Computer-mediated Communication Intrinsically Apt to Enhance Democracy in Organizations? Human Relations. 47: 45-62.

March J.G. 1988. Decisions and Organizations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

March J.G. & H.A. Simon 1958. Organizations. NY: Wiley.

Markus M.L. 1987. Toward a “Critical Mass” Theory of Interactive Media: Universal Access, Interdependence and Diffusion. Communication Research. 14: 491-511.

Markus M.L. 1990. Toward a “Critical Mass” Theory of Interactive Media. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (eds) Organizations and Communication Technology. Pp. 194-218. Newbury Park: Sage.

Markus M.L. 1994a. Electronic Mail as the Medium of Managerial Choice. Organization Science. 5: 502-527.

Markus M.L. 1994b. Finding a Happy Medium: Explaining the Negative Effects of Electronic Communication on Social Life at Work. ACM Transactions on Information Systems. 12: 119-149.

Markus M.L. & D. Robey 1988. Informational Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research. Management Science. 34: 583-594.

Meyer J.W. & W.R.Scott (eds) 1983. Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Meyerson D., K.E. Weick & R.M. Kramer 1996. Swift Trust and Temporary Groups. ? In R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations. Pp. 166-195. London: Sage.

Nohria N. & R.G. Eccles 1992. Face-to-face: Making Network Organizations Work. In N. Nohria & R.G. Eccles (eds) Networks and Organizations. Pp. 288-308. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Oliver P., G. Marwell & R. Teixeira 1985. A Theory of Critical Mass. I. Interdependence, Group Heterogeneity, and the Production of Collective Action. American Journal of Sociology. 91: 522-556.

Olson M.H. (ed) 1989. Technological Support for Work Group Collaboration. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Orlikowski W.J. & J. Yates 1994. Genre Repertoire: The Structuring of Communicative Practices in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly. 39: 541-574.

Orlikowski W.J., K. Okamura & M. Fujimoto 1995. Shaping Electronic Communication: The Metastructuring of Technology in Use. Organization Science. 6: 423-444.

Paetau M. 1999. Can Virtual Enterprises Build up an Own Identity? Cybernetics & Human Knowing. 6: 39-53.

Pfeffer J. 1982. Power in Organizations.

Pfeffer J. & G. Salancik 1978. The External Control of Organizations. NY: Harper & Row.

Pinch T. & W.E. Bijker 1987. The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. In W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes & T. Pinch (eds) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Pp. 17-50. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Pliskin N. 1989. Interacting with Electronic Mail Can Be a Dream or a Nightmare: A User’s Point of View. Interacting with Computers. 1: 259-272.

Pliskin N. & C.T. Romm 1997. The Impact of E-mail on the Evolution of a Virtual Community During a Strike. Information & Management. 32: 245-254.

Pliskin N., L.D. Ball & K.F. Curley 1989. Impediments to Proliferation of Electronic Mail: A Study from the User’s Perspective. Human Systems Management. 8: 233-241.

Pliskin N., C.T. Romm & R. Markey 1997. E-mail as a Weapon in an Industrial Dispute. New Technology, Work & Employment. 12: 3-12.

Poole M.S. & G. DeSanctis 1990. Understanding the Use of Group Decision Support Systems: The Theory of Adaptive Structuration. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (eds) Organizations and Communication Technology. Pp. 173-193. Newbury Park: Sage.

Poole M.S., D.R. Seibold & R.D. McPhee 1985. Group Decision-Making as a Structuration Process. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 71: 74-102.

Poole M.S., M. Holmes & G. DeSanctis 1991. Conflict Management in a Computer-Supported Meeting Environment. Management Science. 37: 926-953.

Powell W.W. & P.J. DiMaggio (eds) 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: Chicago UP.

Rice R.E. & C. Aydin 1991. Attitudes Towards New Organizational Technology: Network Proximity as a Mechanism for Social Information Processing. Administrative Science Quarterly. 36: 219-244.

Rice R.E., A. Grant, J. Schmitz & J. Torobin 1990. Individual and Network Influences on the Adoption and Perceived Outcomes of Electronic Messaging. Social Networks. 12: 27-55.

Romm C.T. & N. Pliskin 1988. Electronic Mail as a Coalition-Building Information Technology. ACM Transactions on Information Systems. 16: 82-100.

Romm C.T., N. Pliskin & R.J. Clarke 1997. Virtual Communities and Society: Toward an Integrative Three-phase Model. International Journal of Information Management. 17: 261-270.

Romm C.T., N. Pliskin & W. Rifkin 1996. Difusion of E-mail: An Organizational Learning Perspective. Information and Management. 31: 37-46.

Romm C.T. & N. Pliskin 1999. The Office Tyrant: Social Control Through E-mail. Information Technology & People. 12: 27-43.

Schwartzman H.B. 1993. Ethnography in Organizations. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Scott W.R. 1987. The Adolescence of Institutional Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly. 32: 493-511.

Scott W.R. 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Shetzer L. 1993. A Social Information Processing Model of Employee Participation. Organization Science: 4: 252-268.

Smagt van der T. 1999. Enhancing Virtual Teams: Social Relations vs. Communication Technology. Industrial Management & Data Systems. Forthcoming.

Sproull L.S. & S. Kiesler 1986. Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication. Management Science. 32: 1492-1512.

Sproull L.S. & S. Kiesler 1991a. Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Sproull L.S. & S. Kiesler 1991b. Computers, Networks and Work. Scientific American. 265: 84-91.

Twomey Fosnot C. (ed) 1996. Constructivism. Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. NY: Teachers College Press.

Tyler T.R. & R.M. Kramer 1996. Whither Trust? In R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations. Pp. 1-15. London: Sage.

Ulrich H. & G.J.B. Probst (eds) 1984. Self-organization and Management of Social Systems. Berlin: Springer.

Wagner J.A. III 1995. On Beating Dead Horses, Reconsidering Reconsiderations, and Ending Disputes: Further Thoughts About a Recent Study of Research on Participation. Academy of Management Review 20: 506-509.

Walther J.B. 1992. Relational Aspects of Computer-mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time. Organization Science. 6: 186-203.

Weick K.E. 1990. Technology as Equivoque: Sensemaking in New Technologies. In P.S. Goodman, L.S. Sproull & Associates (eds) Technology and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Yates J. & W.J. Orlikowski 1992. Genres of Organizational Communication: An Approach to Studying Communication and Media. Academy of Management Review. 17: 299-326.

Yates J., W.J. Orlikowski & K. Okamura 1999. Explicit and Implicit Structuring of Genres in Electronic Communication: Reinforcement and Change of Social Interaction. Organization Science. 10: 83-103.

Yin R.K. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park (CA): Sage.

Zack M.H. & J.L. McKenney 1995. Social Context and Interaction in Ongoing Computer-supported Management Groups. Organization Science. 6: 394-422.

Zucker L.G. 1977. The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence. American Sociological Review. 42: 726-743.

Zucker L.G. 1987. Institutional Theories of Organization. Annual Review of Sociology. 13: 443-464.

Zucker L.G. 1986. Production of Trust: Institutional Sources of Economic Structure, 1840-1920. Research in Organizational Behavior. 8: 53-111.

Zucker L.G. (ed) 1988. Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment. Cambridge: Ballinger.

Back to the CommOrg Page