The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Attribute Space for Organizational Communication Channels
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to identify the perceptual dimensions used by 158 managers and their professional staff at a single large manufacturing firm in differentiating fourteen distinct communication channels available in the firm. Six candidate criteria for differentiating these channels were examined (channel accessibility, information quality, immediate feedback, cue variety, personalization, and receiver accessibility) using multidimensional scaling. A secondary objective involved assessing whether communication direction influenced perceptions. Responses were obtained for two intraorganizational communication directions: lateral and downward. Results indicated that these individuals applied a perceptual framework involving three dimensions: information feedback, accessibility, and quality. Further, a perspective shift from the “message sender” to the “message receiver” was observed in moving from lateral to downward communication. The observations of directional differences demonstrate the inappropriateness of either ignoring communication direction in research designs and of directly transferring research models and instruments that pertain to one communication direction to another direction. Taken together, these results may prove helpful in developing a richer theoretical basis for exploring task/media relationships, which in turn may lead to future research findings providing recommendations for improving individual and organizational performance.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 · Cited by 9,868
Organization design: an information processing view
Galbraith, J. R. (1974) · Interfaces · doi:10.1287/inte.4.3.28 · Cited by 2,451
Cited by
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2004) · Omega · doi:10.1016/j.omega.2004.01.006 · Cited by 2,025
Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity1
Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148857 · Cited by 1,511
Electronic Mail as the Medium of Managerial Choice
Markus, M. L. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.4.502 · Cited by 1,073
Hollan, J., & Stornetta, S. (1992) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '92 · doi:10.1145/142750.142769 · Cited by 640
Toward a Theory-Based Measurement of Culture
Straub, D., Loch, K., Evaristo, R., Karahanna, E., & Srite, M. (2002) · Journal of Global Information Management · doi:10.4018/jgim.2002010102 · Cited by 572
Metadata
- Authors
- Zmud, R. W., Lind, M. R., & Young, F. W.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 1990-12
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 440-457
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W2075503584
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 63.00
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Attribute Space for Organizational Communication Channels. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/isre.1.4.440
- The paper
- Zmud, R. W., Lind, M. R., & Young, F. W. (1990). An Attribute Space for Organizational Communication Channels. Information Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1.4.440
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.