Revisiting Media Choice

Abstract

How do managers select media for communication and collaboration? Previous research has identified a myriad of contextual factors, individual characteristics, social factors, and the fit between medium characteristics and task requirements as influencing media choice. An implication from the cumulative research base is that managers must consider a large number of factors in the process of media selection, but task contingencies may not allow for the assessment of numerous criteria. Based on a behavioral decision-making perspective, this study proposes that task contingencies in the form of complexity, importance, and urgency influence the extent to which individuals evaluate various factors for media selection. The authors utilize data from a survey of managers in a financial organization. Under conditions of high task complexity and/or importance, managers are found to extensively appraise information for media selection. However, if the task is urgent, the extent of information evaluation during medium choice is constrained. Further, to the extent that managers’ appraisal is limited, their actual medium choice diverges from the optimal choice. The results indicate that a behavioral decision-making view can provide a fresh perspective and enhance understanding of how managers actually select media for their communication and collaboration activities.

Factors Enabling Communication-Based Collaboration in Interprofessional Healthcare Practice

“…The research finds that the healthcare professionals choose several media for communication such as face-to-face, telephone, computer (e-mail, or specific software), etc. The complexity of the healthcare situation, importance and urgency of the message are the factors influencing the selection of media for communication (Bok et al, 2012). Therefore, the healthcare professionals must be able to balance the face-to-face meetings and technology enabled communications in the context of communicating sensitive and complex information.…”

Enhancing Enterprise Frontiers Through E-Collaboration with a Three-Dimensional Model Based on Web 2.0 Technology Use

“…The 99 interviews allowed creating a database of the tools regular use, yes or no, and interest or probability of use if it were available, rated 0 (Cova and White, 2010) BVA2: Help to increase personal collaborative productivity (Patten and Keane, 2011) BVA4: Help to become performers with mutual help on product use, improvements, and co-creation (Harwood and Garry, 2010) BVA6: Visibility on objectives, steps, evidence of achievements (Marion and Schumacher, 2009) BVA8: Customer participation and joint problem solving (Bonner, 2010) BVA11: Co-creation of personalized experience (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004) BVA17: Electronic performance commitment monitoring (speed, frequency, and value of posts, responses, comments; Auger, 2012) BVA20: Staking, milestoning, badging, documenting community engagement (Schau et al, 2009) BVA26: Self managing teams and facilitator leadership: goal co-setting, task co-design, team-based incentives (Hertela, Geisterb, and Konradt, 2005) BVA27: Monitoring information delivery format with task urgency (Bok et al, 2012) Virtual community social interaction management (member satisfaction) BMS2: Information and activity transparency (Leroy, 2008) BMS5: Share of experience and building representations (Stevens, Kärkkäinen, and Lampala, 2009) BMS7: Facilitation of collective interactions (Leroy, 2008) BMS10: Variety of team collective events and rituals (Hamilton et al, 2008) BMS17: Empathizing, governing social networking (Schau et al, 2009) …”

Emotion and Interaction Control: A Motive-Based Approach to Media Choice in Socio-Emotional Communication

“…Media choice, just like behavior in general, is highly dependent on contextual factors [4,28,29]. A universal distinction that can be used to categorize human behavior is that of approach and avoidance motives: approach motives promote behavior that is directed towards desired end-states, while avoidance motives activate a tendency to avoid undesired end-states [30].…”