Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

RELATIONSHIPS OF JOB CATEGORIES AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS TO USE OF COMMUNICATION CHANNELS, INCLUDING ELECTRONIC MAIL: A META‐ANALYSIS AND EXTENSION*

Rice, Ronald E., Shook, Douglas E.·1990·Journal of Management Studies

Abstract

This study tests hypotheses derived from information processing theory concerning relationships between individuals' job category, organizational level, and levels and patterns of media usage. Media studied include face‐to‐face, meetings, memos/letters, telephone and electronic mail. In the meta‐analysis of over 40 studies, usage of different media was significantly different for managers/executives versus others, and was highly correlated with organizational level. In the individual‐level analyses of four organizations, the majority of respondents were classified into their actual job categories, and according to distances between organizational levels, by a discriminant function involving only relative extent of media use, especially participation in meetings. Contrary to information richness theory, upper‐level respondents (managers) did not necessarily use electronic mail less than did lower‐level respondents (clerical workers). The article concludes by discussing implications for theories of organizational media use and implementation of electronic mail systems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1990.tb00760.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 264

Metadata

Authors
Rice, R. E., & Shook, D. E.
Venue
Journal of Management Studies
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1990-03
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
195-229
ISSN
  • 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6486
OpenAlex
W1974293918
Cited by
264
References
2
FWCI
59.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.