Technology Use as a Status Cue: The Influences of Mundane and Novel Technologies on Knowledge Assessments in Organizations†

This study explores the relationship between the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and assessments of workers' knowledge and abilities in 2 knowledge-intensive organizations. Drawing on expectation states theory, the article argues that a worker's communication through mundane, widely diffused ICTs may lead to status assessments from colleagues that are different than when he or she communicates through novel ICTs. Data from interviews and observations at both organizations revealed that mundane ICT use influenced assessments about the general level of proficiency of workers, and use of novel ICTs influenced assessments about a specialist type of proficiency. Additionally, workers expressing communicative cues indicative of higher statuses played larger roles in organizational tasks than workers who were viewed as lower-status.

[1]  Malcolm Parks.  What Will We Study When the Internet Disappears? , 2009, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[2]  France Bélanger,et al.  Virtual Teams and Multiple Media: Structuring Media Use to Attain Strategic Goals , 2006 .

[3]  Sherry K. Schneider,et al.  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL INFORMATION: STATUS SALIENCE AND STATUS DIFFERENCES , 1995 .

[4]  B. Glaser.  Doing grounded theory : issues and discussions , 1998 .

[5]  Joseph Berger,et al.  Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical Research Program , 1981 .

[6]  Y. Connie Yuan,et al.  Access to Information in Connective and Communal Transactive Memory Systems , 2007, Commun. Res..

[7]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other? , 2001, MIS Q..

[8]  J. Stuart Bunderson,et al.  Recognizing and Utilizing Expertise in Work Groups: A Status Characteristics Perspective , 2003 .

[9]  R. Z. Norman,et al.  Status Characteristics and Social Interaction. , 1978 .

[10]  Víctor M. González,et al.  "Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness": managing multiple working spheres , 2004, CHI.

[11]  J. Levine,et al.  Shared Cognition in-Organizations: The Management of Knowledge , 1999 .

[12]  D. Wegner.  Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind , 1987 .

[13]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[14]  D. Urso.  Asthma in the Elderly , 2009, Current gerontology and geriatrics research.

[15]  L. Keister,et al.  The Origin of Influence Hierarchies : The Role of Visible and Obscure Status Characteristics in the Emergence of Elite Social Hierarchies , 2008 .

[16]  J. Pearce.  Status in Management and Organizations , 2010 .

[17]  Brian T. Pentland,et al.  Information systems and organizational learning: The social epistemology of organizational knowledge systems , 1995 .

[18]  Stuart J. Hysom,et al.  Creating Status Characteristics , 1998 .

[19]  Glenn E. Littlepage,et al.  Recognition and utilization of expertise in problem-solving groups: Expert characteristics and behavior. , 1997 .

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

[21]  R. Moreland.  Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. , 1999 .

[22]  Keri K. Stephens,et al.  The Successive Use of Information and Communication Technologies at Work , 2007 .

[23]  C. Marvin,et al.  Review: When Old Technologies Were New, by Carolyn Marvin, Oxford University Press , 1989 .

[24]  Chunke Su,et al.  Who Knows Who Knows What in the Group? The Effects of Communication Network Centralities, Use of Digital Knowledge Repositories, and Work Remoteness on Organizational Members’ Accuracy in Expertise Recognition , 2012, Commun. Res..

[25]  B. Mullen,et al.  Theories of group behavior , 1987 .

[26]  G. Stasser,et al.  Expert Roles and Information Exchange during Discussion: The Importance of Knowing Who Knows What , 1995 .

[27]  Andrea B. Hollingshead,et al.  Transactive Memory Systems in Organizations: Matching Tasks, Expertise, and People , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[28]  D. Wegner.  A Computer Network Model of Human Transactive Memory , 1995 .

[29]  A. Hollingshead,et al.  Cultural Stereotyping, Convergent Expectations, and Performance in Cross-Cultural Collaborations , 2010 .

[30]  Joseph Berger,et al.  New directions in contemporary sociological theory , 2003 .

[31]  Soong Moon Kang,et al.  The Organizational Selection of Status Characteristics: Status Evaluations in an Open Source Community , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[32]  Scott C. D'Urso,et al.  Connected to the Organization: A Survey of Communication Technologies in the Modern Organizational Landscape , 2009 .

[33]  J. March,et al.  Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol. , 1981 .

[34]  Janet Fulk,et al.  Features and Contexts in Technology Research: A Modest Proposal for Research and Reporting , 2009, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[35]  Joseph A. Bonito,et al.  A social relations analysis of participation in small groups , 2003 .

[36]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  Knowledge Management Technology as a Stage for Strategic Self-Presentation: Implications for Knowledge Sharing in Organizations , 2012, Inf. Organ..

[37]  M. Michael.  Between the Mundane and the Exotic , 2003 .

[38]  Lois W. Sayrs.  Interviews : an introduction to qualitative research interviewing , 1996 .

[39]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Theme issue on social interaction and mundane technologies , 2010, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[40]  D. Robey,et al.  The Persistence of Status Differentials in Computer Conferencing. , 1994 .

[41]  Jennifer L. Gibbs,et al.  The Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet Dating , 2006 .

[42]  S. Borgatti,et al.  Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social Network Analysis to Support Strategic Collaboration , 2002 .

[43]  A. Hollingshead,et al.  Gender Stereotypes and Assumptions about Expertise in Transactive Memory , 2003 .

[44]  Nancy K. Baym,et al.  A Call for Grounding in the Face of Blurred Boundaries , 2009, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[45]  T. Pinch.  The Invisible Technologies of Goffman's Sociology From the Merry-Go-Round to the Internet , 2010 .

[46]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  Slouching Toward the Ordinary: Current Trends in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2004, New Media Soc..

[47]  J. Reinsch,et al.  Multicommunicating: A Practice Whose Time Has Come? , 2008 .

[48]  J. Stuart Bunderson,et al.  Status cues and expertise assessment in groups , 2010 .

[49]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[50]  Andrew von Nordenflycht.  What Is a Professional Service Firm? Toward a Theory and Taxonomy of Knowledge-Intensive Firms , 2010 .

[51]  France Bélanger,et al.  Communication Media Repertoires: Dealing with the Multiplicity of Media Choices , 2007, MIS Q..