Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,073

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electronic Mail as the Medium of Managerial Choice

Markus, M. Lynne·1994·Organization Science
DOI 10.1287/orsc.5.4.502
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As new technologies that support managerial communication become widely used, the question of how and why managers, especially senior managers, use them increases in importance. This paper examines how and why managers use electronic mail. Today, one of the more influential theories of media choice in organization and information science is information richness theory, which has stimulated much empirical research on media selection and has clear implications for how managers should use media. Despite numerous modifications and elaborations, information richness theory remains an individual-level rational choice explanation of behavior, and as such it differs fundamentally from theories that emphasize the social context of managers' communication and media choice behavior. While the weight of informed opinion seems to be shifting toward social theories of media selection and use, much empirical research continues to test individual-level rational choice models. A multi-method investigation was designed to assess the power of information richness theory, relative to alternative social theories, to explain and predict managers' use of email. Managers were found to perceive various media in ways that were relatively consistent with information richness theory, but to use email more and differently than the theory predicted. In particular, effective senior managers were found to use email heavily and even for equivocal communications tasks. These results cannot be explained by information richness theory or by simple modifications of the theory. Rather, they suggest that the adoption, use, and consequences of media in organizations can be powerfully shaped by social processes such as sponsorship, socialization, and social control, which require social perspectives to understand them. These processes can result in differences across organizations and other social units in the patterns of using traditional media like the telephone, but such differences are even more likely for new media, like electronic mail.

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 · 10.1287/orsc.5.4.502

Cites

5 of 5 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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Markus, M. L.
Venue
Organization Science
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
1994-11
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
502-527
ISSN
  • 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5455
DOI
10.1287/orsc.5.4.502
OpenAlex
W2042846381
Cited by
1,073
References
5
FWCI
92.52
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.