Improving media richness theory: A study of interaction goals, message valence, and task complexity in manager-subordinate communication

Media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984, 1986) predicts that managers, driven by the instrumental goal of task efficiency, choose media based on the match-up of message equivocality and media richness. This study proposes that relational and self-presentational goals are also relevant in manager-subordinate interactions, particularly when messages differ in valence. The sample consists of one hundred and seven managers from various organizations in Hong Kong. Findings with respect to traditional media show (1) media richness theory holds when messages are positive, (2) selfpresentational goals are the most powerful predictor of media choice when messages are negative, (3) relational goals have some impact on managers' media choice, and (4) complexity is a sensitive predictor of media choice. Thus, media richness theory can be improved by incorporating a broader consideration of relevant interaction goals and the constructs of message valence and complexity. Improving Media Richness Theory 2 Media richness theory is one of the most widely studied models of media choice in management communication and has received mixed results over the years (e.g., Mennecke, Valacich, & Wheeler, 2000). In an attempt to improve this theory, the current study suggests and tests a conceptual expansion by replacing the original instrumental goal with multiple goals as the base of managers’ media choice for task accomplishment. Media Richness Theory and Managerial Communicative Goals Assuming the rationality of human behavior as striving for efficiency and effectiveness, media richness theory (MRT) focuses on media richness as the basis for managers’ choice of media for communicative tasks. The richness of a medium depends on, (1) the availability of instant feedback; (2) the use of multiple cues, such as physical presence, voice inflection, body gestures, and graphic symbols, etc.; (3) the use of natural language, which can be used to convey an understanding of a broad set of concepts and ideas; and (4) the personal focus of the medium. The more a medium displays these attributes, the richer it is. Otherwise, it is leaner. Face-to-face is the “richest” medium because it has the capacity for immediate feedback, carries multiple cues, and uses natural language. The rank order of a few common media from the richest to the leanest is face-to-face, telephone, personal written text (letters, notes, memos), formal written text (documents, bulletins), and formal numeric text (computer output, statistical reports)(Daft & Lengel, 1986). Later, researchers added electronic messaging between the telephone and personal written text (e.g., Trevino, Lengel et al. 1990). The original MRT (Daft & Lengel, 1984, 1986) predicts that managers' choice of medium depends upon the richness of the medium and the equivocality of the task, defined as the existence of multiple interpretations about an organizational situation. Efficient and effective managers will select media with information richness matching the level of equivocality of the Improving Media Richness Theory 3 communication task. For an equivocal task managers are likely to resort to a richer communication medium; while for a clearly defined task, they will use a leaner communication medium. New media have highlighted a challenge to the MRT for its unidimensionality (e.g., Carlson & Zmud, 1999; Rice, D'Ambra, & More, 1998), which is also seen in its focus on instrumental goal in communication tasks. The match-up of message equivocality and media richness assumes that managers are motivated by task efficiency (i.e., the instrumental goal) alone. Such a single-minded goal orientation is rarely the case in social interactions, for there are always competing demands and considerations. To improve media richness theory and better explain managers’ media choice, we believe, the inclusion of multiple goals offers an alternative. Human communication is presumably purposeful or goal-oriented, and generally involves three types of goal: instrumental, relational, and self-presentational goals (Canary & Cody, 1993). Communicators strive to simultaneously achieve multiple goals, which are often hierarchically ordered and vary in salience due to perceived demands or constraints (e.g., Bavelas, 1990; Dillard, 1997; Dillard & Solomon, 2000). Such is the case for managers minding the interrelated aspects of productivity and people management in any given organization. The manager's responsibilities include such things as giving directions, providing/seeking feedback and assigning jobs etc. to subordinates, where the focus is primarily on the task (i.e., instrumental goals). Not to be neglected is the important role of relational and self-presentational goals in the tasking setting. The supervisor and the subordinate are interdependent by the definition of their jobs: success of one ultimately depends on the other. Inevitably, managers are motivated to maintain a good relationship with and to present a positive or desirable image in front of subordinates so as to secure their cooperation if not respect. Good relations and good self-image tend to be rewarding and would also be preferred over poor relations and poor self-image, hence Improving Media Richness Theory 4 the motivation for good relationship and self-presentation. Thus, manager-subordinate communication and media choice should involve instrumental, relational, and self-presentational goals for both parties. Communicative Goals, Complexity and Equivocality Task equivocality is a major factor affecting task performance. It is conceptualized as the ambiguity given rise by multiple interpretations of information available or the situation that is ill defined and with no quick answers (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Task messages that are routine, regular, simple and/or precise are unequivocal. Equivocality is a key to understanding the amount and type of information, the kind of interaction, and the communication media that are most effective for delivering the message (Trevino, Lengel, & Daft, 1987). In comparison, task complexity involves unpredictable human dimensions and emotional aspects of organizations, such that organizational tasks confronting managers vary from being simple to complex (Daft & Lengel, 1984). Complex tasks are neither objective nor computational procedures that clearly instruct managers what to do. Managers must exercise their own analysis and judgment to handle difficult and unpredictable, hence complex, tasks. The relationship between media richness and complexity is comparable to that between media richness and equivocality: managers use rich media for complex topics and lean media for simple topics. Even though complexity seems to be more subjective or perception-dependent than does equivocality, Daft and Lengel, as has been noted (e.g., Dennis & Kinney, 1998), do not clearly differentiate between eqivocality and complexity but often use the two concepts interchangeably. If the manager's only goal is task-efficiency (i.e., the instrumental goal), it is no problem operationally equating complexity with equivocality because the manager can process and assess Improving Media Richness Theory 5 information in terms of either or both to best accomplish the task. If the manager does, as a matter of fact, have simultaneous relational and self-presentational goals, a question arises as to whether messages with the same equivocality would be perceived as having the same difficulty and predictability, i.e., same complexity. Valence, the positivity or negativity of a message, for example, presents just such a problem. Take as an example supervisor feedback giving, a positive message creates an opportunity for the manager to enhance the relationship with the subordinate and project a good guy image. Numerous studies (e.g., Sheer & Weigold, 1995; Wayne & Kacmar, 1991) found that when the feedback was positive, supervisors perceived that they delivered the message more effectively, enjoyed giving the feedback, and communicated a higher degree of trust than when the feedback was negative. In contrast, when the manager is to bear bad news, he/she encounters a dilemma involving self-presentation and human relations: transmit the news and risk being blamed for the bad news and possible damages to the relationship as well as self-image. As a result, supervisors giving negative performance ratings tend to experience anxiety (Tetlock, 1985). Existence of multiple communicative goals as well as their possible interaction adds unpredictable human dimensions and emotional aspects to a task and increases task complexity. When relational and self-presentational goals are present alongside with task goals, task complexity differentiates itself from equivocality. Although equivocality and complexity are sometimes positively correlated, some tasks are likely to be perceived as less complex than others independent of the equivoclaity level. For example, informing a subordinate of the approval of a proposal by the subordinate is likely to be less complex than informing a rejection even though the equivocality levels of both messages are the same. The factor of message Improving Media Richness Theory 6 valence, however, has not been noted in past MRT studies (e.g., Daft & Lengel, 1984, 1986; Trevino, Daft, & Lengel, 2000), which tested only positive or neutral messages. Communicative Goals, Message Valence, and Choice of Media As multiple goals rather than the instrumental goal of task efficiency alone impact managers' communication activities, their choice of media is likely to be affected by task complexity as well as equivocality. The link between goals and media choice becomes clear with a careful examination of the mediating variables, media richness and message valence. Media richness varies with the presence and strength of nonverbal and verbal cues such as voice inflection, body gestures, clarity, directness, and instant feedback. These cues communicate pe

[1]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  K. M. Kacmar,et al.  The effects of impression management on the performance appraisal process , 1991 .

[3]  R. Daft,et al.  Media Symbolism, Media Richness, and Media Choice in Organizations , 1987 .

[4]  R. Daft,et al.  Information Richness. A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organization Design , 1983 .

[5]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[6]  Valerie Manusov,et al.  Interpersonal Communication: A Goals-Based Approach , 1994 .

[7]  R. Daft,et al.  Understanding Managers' Media Choices: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective , 1990 .

[8]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  The Effects of Media and Task on User Performance: A Test of the Task-Media Fit Hypothesis , 2000 .

[9]  R. Rice,et al.  Cross-Cultural Comparison of Organizational Media Evaluation and Choice. , 1998 .

[10]  P. Tetlock Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. , 1985 .

[11]  Denise Haunani Solomon,et al.  Conceptualizing Context in Message‐Production Research , 2000 .

[12]  K. Tracy Understanding Face-to-face Interaction : Issues Linking Goals and Discourse , 2013 .

[13]  P. Tetlock Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. , 1985 .

[14]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..