Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design

Abstract

This paper answers the question, "Why do organizations process information?" Uncertainty and equivocality are defined as two forces that influence information processing in organizations. Organization structure and internal systems determine both the amount and richness of information provided to managers. Models are proposed that show how organizations can be designed to meet the information needs of technology, interdepartmental relations, and the environment. One implication for managers is that a major problem is lack of clarity, not lack of data. The models indicate how organizations can be designed to provide information mechanisms to both reduce uncertainty and resolve equivocality.information in organizations, structural design, organization structure

Personality similarity in negotiations: Testing the dyadic effects of similarity in interpersonal traits and the use of emotional displays on negotiation outcomes.

“…This may be even more critical in electronic negotiations such as the one negotiators performed in this study. Compared to face-to-face negotiations, negotiations via e-mail or smartphone "texting" present several challenges to successful negotiations, as the richness of information communicated is reduced because one loses both visual and auditory channels of communicating as one moves from face-to-face to audio (e.g., phone, skype) to email (c.f., Daft & Lengel, 1986).…”

Managerial information behaviour: Relationships among Total Quality Management orientation, information use environments, and managerial roles

“…Most higher level managers rely heavily on intuition (Agor, 1986) and oral communication (Rice & Shook, 1990) and show a tendency to base their decisions on available information without searching for more information (Feldman & March, 1981;Isenberg, 1986) or to use organizational information (and even the channels and sources used to obtain and interpret information) as a symbolic representation of the legitimacy and accountability of the decision (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983;Feldman & March, 1981;Katzer & Fletcher, 1996). Managerial information will therefore be contingent upon the organization's norms, beliefs, and values (Daft & Lengel, 1986;Dewhirst, 1970-71;Feldman & March, 1981).…”

“…In TQL, managers will prefer ambiguous, qualitative information, and avoid hard data which would narrow the problem definition or preclude sense-making. Thus, the emphasis shifts from managerial decisions and information to understanding managerial interpretations and information behaviors (Daft & Lengel, 1986;Glazer, 1998;Weick, 1995). However, making decisions based on the availability or legitimacy of information instead of its accuracy, relevancy, or quality -i.e., "satisficing" (March & Simon, 1958) --is not conducive to continuous improvement and innovation, acting as a barrier to the double-loop learning sought by TQL.…”

“…The use of rich media such as face-to-face and telephone interaction for monitoring and scanning (Auster & Choo, 1996, p. 265;Rice & Shook, 1990) is especially necessary for interpersonal negotiations and disturbance handling, as it enables managers to reduce information equivocality effectively (Daft & Lengel, 1986) and understand the complex organizational environment and personal meanings associated with TQL. But the use of printed sources also enables managers to "carry out a general, wide-area viewing of the external environment in an efficient manner" (Auster & Choo, 1996, p. 267), relevant to the roles of entrepreneur and disturbance handler.…”

Antecedents of project learning and time‐to‐market during new mobile service development

“…Companies have to encourage their employees on the one hand to employ these technical opportunities and on the other hand to acquire and share information more frequently (Davenport, 1994;Cross and Baird, 2000;Jarvenpaa and Ives, 1994). Therefore, we expect that the larger the fit between the information processing requirements and the information processing capabilities the more project team members will learn (Daft and Lengel, 1986;Tushman, 1979).…”