MANAGEMENT SCIENCE Vol. 20, No.

4, Deoember, Part II, 1973

Printed in U.S.A.

COMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE*

DAVID W. CONRATHt University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada This paper is concerned with the relationships between modes of communication, the commimication environment and organizational structure. This is a very neglected area of organizational analysis, which is surprising considering the possible implications of such relationships. A framework is pr^ented within which the above relationships can be identified and studied. Field research methodology is essential to the effort and ia discussed in some detail, along with the associated problems of measure and measurement of organizational communications behaviour and organizational structure. An empirical study is described, and some initial propositions tested. Distance appears to be a dominant factor in the mode of communication chosen, and it strongly influences the association of formal structural relations with modes of communication. Such conclusions are tentative, however, as we are describing an on-going research effort.

Communication systems historically have been either government operated or government regulated. The user of the system generally accepted its characteristics for what they were and attempted to make the b e t use of them p>ossible. If one wanted hard copies transmitted he used the mails, sending it air mail if he wished speedier delivery. If one wanted real time feedback he used the telephone, hoping the other party was available to receive the call. If one wanted to have a meeting of a group of people, the persons were expected to travel to a common place. The telephone companie were probably the first in the communications field to provide some variety in their services. One could have a key telephone on which several lines could be placed. This provided him with several communication alternatives such as multi-party calls and ease of call transferthat did not exist previously. Today a much wider range of device and system alternatives are available, and these are not limited to those provided by the telephone companie. Computer communication systems exist, and one can hold a conference via computer with participants at many remote locations. One can transmit a xerox-type picture using the telephone system. Video communication systems and other forms of visual service have been developed, though they have not yet seen widespread use. Thus an organization is no longer just faced with the problem of how many telephones to install, where to install them, and who should get the colored and key telephone (usually allocated on the basis of status), but with the broader quetion of what type of "communications environment"* should be structured within the organization and for each member of that org^inization, so that one can perform his job as efficiently and effectively as pebble.
* Received May 1972; revised January 1973 and March 1973. t Financial support from the Canada CouncU and Bell-Northern Research is most gratefully acknowledged, as is the collaboration of Gordon Johnson. The author also would like to thank the referees and Chad Haberstroh for many helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. > The tenn "communieations environment" is used to convey a broader meaning that the terms "communications system" or "communications network". The "communications environment" iscludes not only telecommunication equipment and networks, but such things as the physical qtace in wluch we are located (e.g. the size and privacy of an office), tlw internal and federal mail ayitems, the computer based information iuid eonuniuucations system, and the use of mewengen
S86
, The Iartitute of KbHuaemart Siteiw

COMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT

587

This question has not been asked as yet in such a broad context. Though it could be, organizations have been sufficiently conditioned that they respond to the problem of communications as they have in the past. They still order telephones by quantity, and the major problem seems to be where to install them to minimize the probability of moving the installations over time. This situation is exemplified by the kind of services being offered by the new "interconnect" communications companies^ in the United States. While they now have the opportunity to sell and service communications devices for the on-premise use of a commercial customer, they essentially compete against the telephone companies on price. They have done little to service the communication needs of an organization; rather they view service primarily as ensuring that the devices work properly from a technical standpoint. The concept of the "interconnect" company has considerable relevance for the Canadian scene. First, there is the very real possibility that a similar situation will arise in Canada. Decisions affecting the telecommunications industry in the United States frequently have been followed by similar decisions made by the Canadian government. At present the Department of Communications is studying the issue of interconnection to determine what aspects of the communications industry ought to be open to competition. Secondly, no barriers exist to prevent Canadian companies from entering the U.S. interconnect market. Opportunities exist for a new approach to selling communication devices and systems, and these involve matching the services represented by the communications hardware to the needs of the absorbing organization. Such an approach might be seen as analogous to the software business aspect of computer systems. Third, from a federal policy standpoint, an understanding of the communications environment as it interrelates with organization structure may lead to both equipment and network implications of major significance. For example, if broad band visual systems are shown to be highly effective for many organizational (interpersonal) tasks, then networks should exist to handle broadband transmission and switching. These involve a tremendous investment for the country as a whole. On the other hand, if a visual system technology can use the existing telephone network and appear capable of meeting most organizational needs, then the government would have little interest in allowing competition to the existing communications systems, especially since economies of scale exist. The general question we pose is: What are the relationships which exist between the "communications environment" and properties of organizational structure? An answer to this question is a necessary first step toward developing the ability to "service" organizations by matching organizational needs with the design of an appropriate communications environment. To this end we describe some of the insights and results obtained from an on-going research effort. In the next section we present a framework within which the question posed can be approached and then describe the empirical methodologies associated with the frameand the like. The "communications environment" is that part of our physical environment that clearly affects our interpersonal communications behavior. Precisely what comprises this environment ia an empirical qu^tion that is as yet unaiuiwered. * These companies arose as the rrault of the landmark Carterphone decision handed down by the United States Supreme Court in 19^. The decision indicated that it was peimiaeible forfirmsother Uian the r^;ulated telephone companira to attach their own equipment to tl telephone syst^n. This means that one could buy or lease phonra and other equipment from various suppliers rather than having to lease such equipment from A.T. & T. or a comparable company.

588

DAVID W. CONRATH

COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT

organizational communication behavior

FiGUBE 1. The framework.

work. We proceed to define some of the terms needed to discuss the research with a minimum amount of ambiguity, and indicate some approaches to the substantial problems of measure and measurement. A field study is described, and some preliminary rraults based on the processing of this data base are noted. These point the way for some of our future research. A Framework for Research Before developing the framework, another question deserves an answer: Why should one presume there is a significant relationship between an organization's communications environment and its structure and the consequent performance? While no coh ^ v e literature exists on the subject, a great many references could be given to support this presumption. We will state only two here. Chester Barnard, who might be regarded as the father of the behavioral science school of organization theory, stated [1, p. 91]: "In an exhaustive theory of organization, communication would occupy a central place, because the structure, extensiveness and scope of the organization are almc^t entirely determined by communication techniques." More recently Brewer [4, p. 479] succinctly described the position of the organizational sociologist Peter Blau: "communication flow in organizational hierarchies is the combined result (1) of the structurally induced communication needs of managers and operating personnel and (2) of the opportimities that the organization structure provides for communication between them." Given the positions of these two eminent students of or^mization it is surprisii^ that others have not paid more attention to the relation^ps among organizational communication behavior, organizational structure and the communications environment. The writings of Barnard and Blau, among many others (see Guetzkow [7] 1965, for examples), have led us to chMticterize the system under study as shown in Figure # 1. "People" refers to the members of the organization. "Task" refere to the interpersonal aspects of the tasks or jobs to be accomplished by the organization. Both the "people" and the "tasks" are assumed to be givens. An oi^mization would state what is to be done ami by whom.* In a normative model the "people" and the " t ^ k s " takm together would dictate the structuring of the commuiucati<ts environment. First, however, we f<^l that we must be f^le to describe casting rdbtiondiips. Tiivm the current res^rch ^ o r t is deigned to discover the nature of the ccanmunieations &x* (tee reeeareh oat|at, however, might be aa iodieatioD of abilitieB vnsus ecmmttmcataon do what in

to

COMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT

589

vironment and how it interacts with the characteristics of both "people" and "tasks". To this end we have applied the more pragmatic approaches of the management sciences, especially the emphases on the gathering of data in the field and on the processing of tjiese data. It is important that we note our major departure from the approaches typically taken by the behavioral sciences. We are not starting with a theory of organization or a theory of organizational communications behavior. In contrast, we expect to derive theory from an understanding of organizational structure and organizational communication gained from the data we can obtain in the field.* This stresses the importance of the collection of field data, both its reliability and its robustness. Thus, a study of data gathering instruments are as much a part of our research as the early empirical results based on some initial conjectures. It is in this vein that we believe that organizational communication data may be so important, both because a considerable amount of such data is feasible to obtain and because of its potential explanatory powers. Students of organization have noted the latter, but little attention has been paid to the first point. An appropriate organizational communication behavior data base should permit one to identify the commimication idiosyncracies of the members of the organization, some of the interpersonal communication characteristics of the tasks undertaken, and the communication environment in which the people accomplish the tasks. In turn, the data should provide us with insight into how we might characterize or classify people and tasks according to observable interpersonal communications behavior. Initially such data are to provide the basis for the descriptive modelling effort. Eventually the data collection procedures are to be used for normative purposes. Field data from an ongoing organization are not likely to be sufficient for normative modelling, ance they will only indicate how something is done and not how it should be done. This is particularly important when determining the effects of the communications environment variables, especially those not yet in widespread use, on commiinications behavior. Thus, laboratory experimentation will be required to observe isolated task elements imder different communication environments, both to observe task performance (the normative measure of success) and to underetand the interrelationship between task and environment for descriptive modelling purposes. Controlled experiments will also provide the means to factor out communication behavior which is unique to the individual versus that w hich is inherent in the task or the environment. FieM Data Collection Methodology Since organizational communications behavior is to provide the core of our empirical data, we first looked to those who had gathered and used similar data. The academic works which appeared to provide methodologies best suited for gathering several
* Most "theory" in the social sciences is based on the empirical or intuitive observations of others, those already in the literature. The primary deviation we make from this approach is that we are providing our own data base from which we expect to evolve theories of organizational communication behavior and of organizational structure. An extensive search of the literature on oqpmizations has been made, and we have found few works of direct relevance to the research we are undertaking (and most of these are referenced herein). The state of organization theory cannot be said to be very advanced, and at this point we do not see sufficient jtistification to purBoe inciemeatal additions to an existing body of knowledge. Rather we choose to seek different diieetioas, recognizing both the risk and the potential benefits that might be bad if our search proves trmttvi.

590

DAVID W. CONKATH

aspects of a large number of communication events (interpersonal interactions) were those of Lawler et al. [13] (1968) and Hesseling [10] (1970). Both procedures used a self recording devicethe subject recorded his own behaviorand both required several responses describing any given interaction. Personal experience in collecting field data,* however, indicated that even the Lawler et al. and the Hesseling instruments may be too complex for general usage. We discovered that if we were to collect data over several days (something other than a one shot questionnaire) about events as they occvirred, the participants typically were unwilling to spend more than a cumulative time of five to ten minutes per day completing forms. If the instrument required more effort, a common response was to treat it as a one shot questionnaire, recording all events at the end of the day or at other convenient times. This greatly reduced data reliability. While observer recorded data minimizes the effort required of the participants, such a method is not feasible if a large number of persons are to be observed simultaneously. This led us to the conclusion that an "objective" self-recording device should be used to collect data in the field, but one so simple that it demands little eflort on the part of the participant. Looking elsewhere than academe we found that these were also the requirements of the Quickbomer Team of Germany in their efforts to rationalize their office landscaping practice. Since they operate on the principle that office layout (one element in the communications environment) strongly affects intra-organizational communication, they believe they should understand existing commimication patterns to provide an appropriate landscaped office (Lorenzen, [16] 1969). Thus they have developed data collection procedures more appropriate to our requirements than any other approach we have uncovered in our search of the literature. Our modification of the Quickbomer procedure allows the participant to make a single checkmark to indicate several aspects of the commtinication event recorded fsee Appendix A). From the data base obtained we can determine who contacted whom, via what mode of communication, in the presence of how many, and for how long. We cannot, however, determine the sequence of events as they occurred over time. Nor is the content of the interaction available. The problem of obtaining reliable sequence data simply has not yet been resolved. Content data have been collected separately by means of a relatively simplistic self-recording device. Measurement and Measures, Problems and Procedures The procedures used to measure a concept define that concept in fact. To deny this is to ignore the fundamental problem of an empirical investigationthe transformation of a concept to its measure based on the data gathering instruments designed for it. While we do not wish to ignore the conceptual underpinnings of our study, we stress the procedures used to measure them as we recognize that our framework is only as strong and as valid as the measures upon which it is based. The peopk part of the system are those persons for whom communication (relations with another person) is essential if they are to accomplish their tasks. This is dependent upon an analysis of the commimication needs of the various tasks, but managerial and senior staff rolra are likely to be included; those who have jobs controlled by technology (e.g. men on the assembly line) are likely to be excluded. The identification of an individual only requires that we assi^ unambiguous labels to eajch. person.
is based on a variety of pilot studio testing various field research instnunents and on actual data collection efforts.

COMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT

591

The measurement of task has proved to be difficult. This is because the task or job classification scheme needs to serve two masters. It must be understandable and relevant from a management point of view if we are to get their cooperation and expect them to use our reults. The classification must also be able to distinguish the communications environment aspects of a task, a perspective at variance with current approaches. Existing job or task description are concerned with the elements internal to a job independently of how the functionary is required to relate to others. We have found little concern expressed in the literature for the communications content of a job, or even an awareness of its importance. The measurement of task, or more fully the task structure (how the tasks relate to each other), has two essential components from a communications standpoint. One is the relations aspect of task: with whom must one relate to accomplish his job. The other involves the substance of each relationthe required characteristics of the communication events between any two persons. Together these define a set of task networks, each of which can be based upon a given substance class. At the simplest level we have the authority structure. Several distinguishable work fiow structures are also likely to exist. Increasing the complexity we can try to identify the information system. Data are readily available on the simpler structures. Virtually every organization can provide a listing of reporting relationsthe authority structure. Work flow relations also are usually available, though they are more common for production than managerial processes. While we have implemented procedures for obtaining data to identify the more complex task relations networks, these have not proven to be satisfactory. Given that we have relations data, the measure of structure is yet another matter. This will be discussed in detail in the next section. The measurement of the communications environment is based on the quetion: Does the factor have a significant impact on commvmications behavior? Three general categories of environmental factors appear to: spatial relations between persons, the immediate physical environment of an individual, and the communications equipment available to him. Spatial relations have two aspects, distance and "inconveniences". Distance can be measured from floor layout drawings and maps. Inconvenience such as stairs, elevators, or having to go outside, are currently treated as 0, 1 variables. The important physical environment elements appear to be: 1) whether or not a person has an enclosed office, 2) how many persons share the office, 3) whether or not a secretary is available to intercept persons going into one's office, and 4) office size (the number of square feet per person). Communications equipment presently include: plain handset (telephone), key telephone, speaker-phone, Xerox (t3T)e) telecopier, computer terminal, and relevant special service provided by the telecommunications companie. Each is treated as a 0,1 variable. As the variety of communications hardware (and software, given computer controlled switching systems and the increased use of the computer as a communications device) increase we expect to transform the measurement scheme for equipment into a few basic dimensions along which we can categorize any specific device or service. Such a dimensionalized device characteristic space may also be required if we are to predict the usefulness of device and service yet to be provided. Organizational Communications Behavior measurement is to provide the basis for an identification of individual communication idiosyncracie, for a field study view of the communication content of task structure, and for a study of the environmental implications of organizational communication. Thus communications behavior data.

592

DAVID W. CONRATH

when combined with the other data bases we have mentioned, provide the materials with which we buUd our concepts of the relationships between organizational communication and organizational structure. Obviously, therefore, the procedures used for data collection and the measures developed to analyze the data will affect the nature of the results that can be obtained. While we recognize that fairly detailed data may need to be obtained on individual communication events, such detail is not feasible to obtain from a large sample over any extended period of time. Rather comprehensive samples are required, however, if we are to gain an adequate understanding of the structural properties of an organization. Since these are of prime importance, the first data collection procedures developed and the first data base obtained are of existing communication patterns, using the instrument shown in Appendix A. This provides data on who contacted the subject during the entire time period of the study, via what mode (telephone, face-to-face, written), the elapsed time of the event (less than 3 minutes, 3 to 15 minutes, over 15 minutes), the number of parties involved in a face-to-face interaction, and whether the written message was personally addressed (directed only to the recipient) or general. Since data exist on the direction and volume (frequency and elapsed time) of communication traffic, structures can be formed for various combinations of the situation variable (mode, number of parties, etc.). Organizational Structure The relations among people as they perform their tasks comprise organizational structures. The communication patterns are also indications of various structures. Since we wish to compare organizational with communication structures, and w ant to use communication patterns data to represent certain properties of structure as they exist in fact, we need to be able to measure structure. Numerous concepts of oi^anizational structure can be foimd in the literature (e.g. see March, [18] 1965). Unfortunately, few of these can be related to properties of communication, and those that can are primarily restricted to the study of small groups (e.g. Bavelas, (3], 1950; Leavitt, [14], 1951; Mackenzie, [17], 1973). The Uterature on the a n a l j ^ of communications patterns data in macro-organizations is rather limited (Bums, [5], 1954; Simpson, [21], 1959; Landsberger, [12], 1961; Weinshall, [24], 1966; Wickesbeig, [25], 1968; Hesseling, [10], 1970, are the prime example). In no case were the communications data used directly to evidence properties of structure. Neither was tJiere any representation of structure that w ould permit one to compare a variety of structural properties, particularly thcee that could be extracted from commxmication patterns datathe networks of messages between pairs of persons. Many structural properties of networks, however, can be suitably represented by m^ms of graph theory (Harary, et al., [9], 1965). Given our empirical data base, a digraph is particularly appropriate, eigiecially since we ^ e the basic elements of structure as the directional relationships which exist within dyads. The matrix representation of a digraph provide a means for a variety of analjiical manipulations. The cell entries {an) could indicate whether or not a direction^ linkage radsted, or was used, via a 0,1 measure. A more complete description of a structure m i ^ t require that the a,y be real numbers, the as^pnaait beiog based on the important^ of the rdatacm or the frequ^icy of its use. Our anpirical research effort k despied to pve us data sufficient fOT tiik purpose. While g n ^ tiwory has im>vided some us^ul c(mcepts of structure, th^e cmly mske use (rf 0,1 nwamz^ of dyad relations. As a consequea^ we have begun to develop otiier

COMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT

593

measures of structure, particularly to provide a general basis for comparison among structures. For example, as a starting point one could compare structure A with structure B by comparing each of, with the corresponding afy. One measure would be the number of times that afj > a', holds true, compared with the number of times afj > afj, over all i, j . This might provide an indication of the relative activity or importance of a structure. Based on the above, a measure of relative structural similarity (whether A is more similar to C than B is to C) could be considered as the number of times tliat | afy Oi} I < I of) afy I holds true in comparison with the number of times that the reverse strict inequality holds, for all i, j relations. If the former is larger than the latter we would say that A is more similar to C than B is to C. The above measure considers that each dyad relation plays a unique and equally important role in the concept of structure. Another class of measures treats each member of the organization as the basic entity, relying on some process of amalgamation of dyads across the individual to represent his role. A procedure based on this approach is the one used in the following section reporting on some preliminary empirical results. While the study of structure based on dyads or individuals as entities is of fundamental importance in understanding the relationship between communication environment and organizational structure, we expect that the knowledge gained from graph theoretic and similar approaches to structure will not be sufficient. Hence, we are developing other techniques for evaluating communication patterns and task relations data. One which appears to hold some promise we call "relational clustering". RelcUional Clustering: The purpose of relational clustering is to group or cluster together those persons who have a high volume of interaction (high valued relations) among themselves, relative to their interaction patterns with the other persons in the macro-structure. The process is distinct from the existing clustering techniques. These cluster together elements either by minimizing some weighted distance (from the diagonal of an interaction matrix) function or by minimizing the difference between the characteristics of the elements. The first technique (see Robinson, [20], 1951, and Miller ei al., [19], 1969) forces the relationships to be expressed in a two dimensional ^mce. The second (see Johnson, [11], 1967, or Tyron & Bailey, [23], 1970) a^umes a constant attribute space (each element is measured along the same set of dimensions) and thus is iinsuitable for analyzing interpersonal interactions. We have written a computer program which heuristically clusters persons who have relatively high valued relations with each other (we have used frequency of interaction). Basically the procedure finds two persons who interact frequently, and then search^ for a third who interacts with both of them relatively frequently. We keep adding persons to the cluster (trjdng a variety of permutations) imtil we find no more who interact relatively frequently with most of tlu^e already in the cluster. As yet, however, we have not been able to define conditions for an optimal set of clusters (a set which effectively reflects the propertira implied by the concept of "relational clustering") that we could readily defend as being both definitive and relatively indisputable. The first level clusters indicate the primary intra-group intea-dependencies. Some paOQS are in more than one cluster (they frequently are the links between two or more dust^is, see Iikal;, [15], 1961), and oikesra form "edn^e node" clusters. Once such dustacs bave hem. formed, e&^ can be treated as an entity a&d the relation v^ues mih tite oti^r dtist^s are tJie avera^ of the vdiues of the individ\ud dyadic relations that ot dMleretxt clusters. We agfta ai^ly tibe clustering tedmique.

594
CL178TER "A" BECOMES AN ELBHENT I N NEXT LEVEL OF CLUSTERING

DAVID W . CONRATH

CLUSTER "B" BECOMES AN ELEMENT IN NEXT LEVEL OF CLUSTERING

_ CLUSTER OF FIRST LEVEL CLUSTERS "^>. -^ nTnm>n n R n i r n r i n n T R R HIGHER ORDER CLUSTER

I THE HIGHEST j ORDER CLUSTER , ENCOMPASSES (EVERYONE IN \ T H E ORGANIZA'TION

FIGURE

2. An organization as a hierarchy of clusters.

forming new clusters which are in reality clusters of clusters. This process can be repeated until we conclude with a single large cluster, the macro-organization which is to be described (see Figure 2). Now we have a description of a structure based on interaction behavior. The hierarchy so developed, for example, can indicate the communication distances of members in the organization based on interaction needs rather than organizational assignment. In fact most of the analyses that are conducted on formal structures (e.g. span of control, problems of centrality, etc.) can also be conducted on the new structure created via relational clustering. An Early Empirical Study Data Collection: Since the raison d'etre of the research is the application of its results to the "real world", a data base obtained in the field is necessary to its development. Such a data base exists, and was collected in two stages. The first included the collection of communications patterns data on the forms shown in Appendix A. The second stage gathered communications content data. The participants in the communications network study were 384 members of a product line division of a major Canadian manufacturing and sales company. The sample included persons from five different subunits located in five different cities. The study involved all of the management and senior s t ^ persons of the division with one major exception. First line supervisors were sampled, approximately one-fourth of them being included. Instructions and sample forms were distributed prior to the study. The vast majority of the subjects attended one of a series of seminars designed to explain why the study was taking place, how the forms were to be completed, and to answer qu^ions from the floor. The seminars lasted between one and two hours, and were limited to about forty persons each. In addition, a person was on site for the first two days of the study at each location so that he could handle latent problems as they arose and to ensure that the data collection procedures were being executed properly. Data reliability also was aided by ii^uing new forms each morning of the study and coDecting them eiw;h evening so that tiiey could be analyzed at night for any inconastenci or ambiguities. Hiese were then straightened out the next day. The participimts were informed that they were to record all nontrivial coBoanunica-

COMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT

595

tion events (interpersonal interactions that involved other than just personal greetings or simple requests such as "please lend me your pen") that they received^ over a five day period.^ Upon receipt of a message, the subject was to write in the name of the sender (if he had not done so already that day) and then make a check on the row opposite that name according to the classification of the communication. If the sender was not also a participant in the experiment, the subject was to record the message received opposite one of the general categories of senders listed at the bottom of the "communication tally sheet". While an actual coimt has not been made, an estimated 30,0(X) to 40,000 events were recorded.* Data were also obtained on other relevant parameters. All reporting relations were determined as well as the organizational level of each of the participants. At three locations (273 persons) we were given ofiice layout drawings, locating the position of every individual in the sample. This provided a basis for calculating distance and "obstruction" effects. In addition we determined such things as office size, number of persons in the office, degree of privacy, etc. At one plant (115 participants) we received exceptional cooperation. A listing of communications equipment available to each subject at his work station was made. Personnel data such as age, education, time with the company, time on the job, were gathered. The task network was developed with the cooperation of the personnel department, indicating who must relate to whom as part of his job. Because of the richness of data pertaining to this particular group of subjects, this data set was the one used for our early empirically based analyses. The second stage of data collection, that looking at communication content, was gathered from a crcBS-section sample of 25 persons, all located at one plant. The procedures were simUar to those used for the first stage except that greater control was exercised to ensure an accurate and comprehensive response. Since an analysis of this data does not appear in this paper, we will not go into further detail into the data collection procedure.* Same Conjectures: Initially three "conjectures'"" were postulated to provide direc Subjects were not asked to record self-initiated communications. Had they done so we could have checked on data reliability, but at the same time such a procedure would have required an extra amount of time sufficient to substantially reduce data reliability. We admit this dilemma was resolved somewhat arbitrarily, but our solution also helped avoid the bias that might be introduced if one did not transmit a marginal message because of the extra effort required to record it. ' The five day period was the longest stretch of time we were permitted to collect data from production employees. We did obtain data from headquarters personnel (one-third of the total) over a nine day period. We would have preferred a longer period of time, or a random sampling of periods over time, but neither approach was acceptable to the management of the participating firm. The on-the-site observers estimated that the vast majority (at least 80 to 90 percent) of significant communications were recorded. This is partially supported by comparing the traffic volumes for persons who also participated in a later highly controlled content study. The average daily volumes for the two studies differed by less than 5 percent, the content study being the lower of the two. Further details can be had from the author in the form of working papers. This material has not yet been prepared for publication. TIM term "conjectures" has been used rather than the term "hypotheses" (despite the protests of three different referees) since their basis lies in observation rather than on any well founded theory. The need to appear "scientific" has taken a strong hold on the behavioral sciences, and hence the stress on "scientific language." This author, however, would prefer to use a vocabulary that is more appropriate to the level of rigor that exists in fact, rather than borrow the laaguage of the physical science which is based on their superior development in both theory and measurement.

596

DAVID W. CONRATH

tion to early efforts of data analysis. Since thee efforts were to invetigate the structural propertie of communications behavior, two of the conjectures concern relationships between communication patterns and aspects of formal organizational structure. The third associate a property of the communications environment with communications behavior. 1. Among various modes of communication, the pattern of written communication will m(t closely parallel the formal authority structure. 2. Among various mode of communication, the pattern of telephone contmiunication will most closely parallel the task or work flow structure. 3. Among various modes of communication, the face-to-face mode will be most influenced by physical proximity. The first conjecture was based on the observation that much written communication is in that form because of its storage and/or multiple copy capability, and this is a requisite of the authority structure (for example refer to the information systems literature). The second conjecture is related to the real-time feedback capability of the telephone, an important requirement for interdependent task relations (Thompson, [22], 1967, p. 58). The third conjecture has a documented empirical foundation. Not only is proximity the basis for office landscaping, but the research of Festinger ei al. [6], (1950), Gullahom [8], (1952) and Bamlund and Harland [2], (1963) yielded similar reults. Measures: The two conjecture relating formal properties of organizational structure to patterns of communication required a measure of the relative similarity among structure. Problems of data analysis" led us to view structure as a set of role, each member of the organization being treated as the smallet significant entity. An individual role was represented by a vector, /,-, with n entrie, a<,, describing his relationship writh each mnber of the organization. The authority stnudure was a set of n (the sample size) vectors, each of which contained only 0, 1 entries1 denoting a direct supervisory or subordinate relationship with the other party, 0 indicating otherwise. The task structure was similarly represented. Either a dir3t task relationship existed (1), or it did not (0). Communication patterns were denoted by n vectors with n-1 elements, each an indicating the number of interactions received by i from j , the vector usually being restricted to describing the pattern via a particular mode of communication. Each of the above three structure could have been represented by a different measure, but initially we chose the simplet one. To compare structures, first the elements in a pven vector were normalized, afy = af)/^j afj, for each structure "X" wid for every /,. This was done to avoid complications whieh would arise becau^ of data base containing elements based on differing scale, depending upon the structure in question. Secondly, to compare an individual's role in the authority structure (^1) with his communication {mttems (CT), we odculated: df^ =* Hi I o ~ <i l> foJ" every t = 1, , n. Takii^ communication patteras for two diff^f^it mode, ^ y telephcme (F) and face-to-face (F), we asked whether df ^ df , for each t. We counted t l ^ number of i " Problems arose wiieii attempting to teBt for statbtical sifptificanee of diffeieacee. l^e major aoea were a lack of iodepeD^nce ct observatioffii imd statktiM that were ut artifset cS tiw ilaiive uses of Uw data bama.

COMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT

597

for which df < df , and called this value D^^iP < F). Likewise we determined DHF < P). If D'f^iP < F) > D^{F < P), we said that the pattern of telephone communication more closely paralleled the authority structure than did the pattern of face-to-face communicationmore persons had a greater similarity betw een their authority roles and the frequency of telephone calls received than betw een their authority roles and the frequency of face-to-face contacts received. Tests for significant differences between empirically based D*{P < F) and D*{F < P) have been based on the normal distribution approximation of the binomial (two-tailed), the null hypothesis being that communication patterns of either mode being compared were equally likely to be more similar to the formal structure, for any individual. Therefore the "true" value of p was presumed to be 0.5. To evaluate the conjecture relating physical proximity to frequency of communication we had to use each dyad as the basis for considering structure, for distance between work stations is imique to a dyad, not to an individual. Since the distance from i toj is equal to the distance from j to i we only considered the entries above the diagonal of the organizational matrix, having set afj = afj + of, for each communications patterns matrix. Distances were divided into classes and we looked at the rank ordering of distances in comparison with the rank ordering of the average traffic flow per dyad channel in the stated distance class. Results: The following results are based on an analysis of the data taken at one plant location; the number of participants was 115. Table 1 presents the results relevant to the first conjecture. The conjecture was not supported. Face-to-face commimication patterns w ere significantly (at the 0.001 level) more similar to the authority structure than were either telephone or written patterns. More persons had written patterns of communication similar to their authority roles than telephone patterns, but just marginally so (28 versus 26, df^ = df for all other subjects). The results pertaining to the second conjecture are detailed in Table 2. The relationships between task structure and communication patterns by mode were similar to those indicated for the authority structure, again with Face-to-Face patterns the most similar. The pattern of telephone traffic, however, was more similar to task structure relations than w as the pattern of writtentraffic for slightly more than half the persons displaying a difference (34 versus 32). The second conjecture was also denied. Table 3 provides a little more insight into the communication traffic among the 115 participants. Note that w hile over 60 percent of the face-to-face interactions were associate with task relations, only about half of the telephone and written communications were. This difference is highly significant (x^ = 45.7, 2 d.f.). Not only was faceto-face traffic more likely to be associated with task relations, but it was the preferred TABLE 1
Communication Patterns Compared to the Authority Structure, by Mode
Writta versus Tdb Td^phone versus Face-to-Face Written versia Face-tivFace

< r ) - 26
nU

D (P < F) = 24 D^(F < P) = 62 level of significance 0.001 ( = 3.99)

D (W < F) = 17 D*(,F < JT) = 59 0.001 (z = 4.70)

DAVID W. CONKATH

TABLE 2 Comunication Patterns Compared to the Task Structure, by Mode

written versus Telephone Telephone versus Face-to-Face Written versus Face-to-Face

D'(W

<

P)

34 = 32

X)r(p < f ) = 32 level of significance 0.001 (z = 3.33)

26 J)T^p < JF) = 62 0.001 (2 = 3.73)

nil

TABLE 3 Count of lntra-Sample Communication Events

Face-to-Face Telet^one Written

Task Non task

1649 1051

269 257

425 435

mode for all interactions. Over 66 percent of all interactions among the participants at the plant were face-to-face (the percentage was 68.3 when communications received from others, especially non-participating subordinates, were included). The frequency of interactions per channel available at each of the various distances is noted in Table 4. Face-to-face traffic was quite clearly more frequent the shorter the distance. The Kendall rank correlation coefficient {K) is 0.436, significant at the 0.019 level (one-tailed test). If the distances are broken down into 25 feet intervals this becomes even more pronoimced over the short distances (face-to-face traffic per channel for the first eight such classes: 2.06, 2.91, 1.71, 1.32, 1.25, 0.52, 0.27 and 0.16; K = 0.929). Telephone traffic had virtually no discernible association with distance {K = 0.051). Written traffic, surprisingly, also decreased substantially as the distances got greater. The Kendall coefficient is 0.385, significant at the 0.034 level (one-tailed Discussion: The third conjecture found empirical support, but the first two clearly did not. While the latter had appeared to be based on reasonable observations, imdoubtedly other factors played a stronger role in affecting the use of a given mode for a particular formal structure than those initially suggested. For example, the strong association between formal structure and face-to-face communication may have been confounded by the fact that there was a strong correlation between face-to-face interaction and proximity, and people who are related to each in the formal organization are typically located near each other. In an attempt to remove the proximity effect we replicated the procedures used for the data on Table 2 (relating task structure to ccnnmimication mode), with the exception that we only considered interactions among dyads whose work stations were more than 100 feet apart. These data appear in Table 5. The r^ults are substantially different from those appearing in Table 2. Face-to-face communication no longer appears so dominant. Though no comparison between two modes is statistically significant, the pattern of telephone usage is now shown as more similar to task structure ihaa the patterns of miher written or face-to-face communication. This is consistent with our cai^aal conj^tiu^. A mmilar but l^s dramatic decline

COMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT

599

TALBE 4 Traffic Volume per Channel for Distance Between Work Stations, by Mode
Distance (in feet) Face-to-Face Traffic Volume Telephone Traffic Volume ToUl Per Channel ToUI Per Chanoel Written Traffic Volume Total Per Channel Number of CSiannels Available

0-100 100-MO 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 1000-1100 1100-1400 1400-2000

1407

413 325 116 83 78 68 34 49 44 28 32 23

2.0332 0.3930 0.2567 0.0966 0.1874 0.2210 0.2086 0.1210 0.1892 0.3077 0.1393 0.1584 0.1018

63 89 79 62 41 45 26 24 24 26 16 15 16

0.0910 0.0847 0.0624 0.0516 0.0926 0.1275 0.0798 0.0854 0.0927 0.1818 0.0796 0.0743 0.0708

191 157 172 99 41 45 34 23 8 17 38 19 16

0.2760 0.1494 0.1358 0.0824 0.0926 0.1275 0.1043 0.0819 0.0309 0.1189 0.1891 0.0941 0.0708

692 1051 1266 1201 443 353 326 281 259 143 201 202 226

TABLE 5 Communication Patterns over Distances of Greater Than 100 Feet Compared to the Task Structure> by Mode
Written versus Telephone Telephone versus Face-to-face Written versus Face-to-face

2)r(p < JT) = 28 D'iW < P) = 23 nil

2)r(p < F) = 37 D'^iF < P) = 34 level of significance nil

2>r(jf < F) = 28 jr)r(F < ly) = 38 nil

in the association of face-to-face communication patterns with authority structure relations was also found for distances greater than 100 feet. The sample size was so small, however, that the data axe of questionable value. From Table 4 we see that face-to-face communication was used far more often than other modes for interaction between persons located near (say less than 200 feet) each other. Since many were situated in proximity of one another because of task relations (especially peers who had to work together) we found a strong association between face-to-face interaction and the task structure. Obviously the feedback characteristics of face-to-face interaction are better than those of the telephone. Therefore, if the perceived cost is low (if one need not walk far), one will use the face-to-face mode. The only exception would appear to be messages which require documentation and/or need to be stored. For this the written mode is preferred. The explanation of why written communication was inversely associated with distance remains a puzzle. The written mode was roughly equivalent to the telephone for both the task and authority structures, and yet written communication was used relatively more frequently over short distances. It is pt^sible that people pass written notes to each other just because they are in proximity of one another. More likely, is the supposition that those work relations which involve a lot of paper flow were intentionally located n ^ each other. Unfortunately we have no data that can either support or deny this.

600

DAVID W. CONRAIH

The heavy emphasis on face-to-face communications was clearly a norm for the plant vmder study. The plant manager and other senior management personnel made a point of conducting much of their business via face-to-face, and as a consequence most others followed suit. Thus we may not find the strong association between face-to-face communication and formal structure in other locations. This will be one of the tests which we will conduct on the remaining data base of some 268 subjects. Conclusions The most obvious conclusion is that the work has just begun. The paper describes an ongoing research effort, and the empirical analysis is in its early stages of development. Several activities are currently in process. A more thorough analysis of the effect of distance on the volume of communication by mode is being imdertaken, particularly with rrapect to discovering what other factors in association with distance appear useful in explaining intoraction patterns. The authority structure and peer relations are being investigated more closely, especially with regard to the direction of communication within and across the hierarchy, and taking into accoimt not only communications between immediate subordinates and superiors, but persons once and twice removed in the hierarchy as well. In addition we are developing more effective procedures for collecting task relations and task contont data before we obtain further communications behavior data from the field. Laboratory experimental work is being conducted to test the impact of various communication devices, especially visual communication systems, on interpersonal task behavior. We are also attompting to create a mathematical algorithm that can be used to determine whether or not we have achieved an "optimal" relational clustering. The current research effort points to the position that the many interdependencies that exist among the variables we have been discussing must be better understood if we are to fully appreciate the role of or^nizational communications, and the part that the communications environment plays in shaping that role. We feel that we have developed and t^ted a data collection and measurement methodology that is sufficiently rich in information about organizational structure that an important first step toward imderstanding the complexities of the impact of the organizational communications environment has been taken. We ako believe that the problem area is of suflScient importance and of sufficient promise that it warrants considerably more r^ewch effort, especially from multidisciplinary man^ement scientists, than it has seen in the imst. To this end we hope this paper opens up a few more communication chaonels.

Instructions for the Communication Tally

Why have a tally? Mr. G. Johnson of The System Engineering Department and Professor D. Conrath of the University of Waterloo are conducting a series of intra-organizational communication studio. These are designed to enable us to better understand organization^ communication processes, and as a consequence, to aid us in the development of t^propriate apparatus for this large segment of our market. When will the tallying be done? The tally will begin with work on Monday, November 30 and close with the end of the work day on Friday, De^mber 4. On the morning of November 90. you ree e h ^ from your ^partmental r^reseatative your first t&Dy dbeet. At the beginaiag of each day duril^! the tally period, tl^ pivioiw dmy's tally sheet will be collected and new btuJa will be distributed. Please ensure tiiat your nune and the date are entered on your sew blank one.

COMMUNICATIONS ENVIBONMENT

601
DM*

HMtf^ MnMfcMiM M VM An

VUlar
4OT

lil
INvMen DMiien DivWaa TliiWiM Coi|paffttto CAB O t h n )

111

(Man

What is tallied? The following contacts (communications) are to be tallied: 1) All telephone calls directed to you. 2) All personal (face-to-face) visitors received (formally or informally). 3) All paper matter receivedletters, memos, requisitions, reports, periodicals, instructions, IBM cards, etc. Each batch from one source is considered as one contact regardless of the number of p^es. Personal visits received (any face-to-face conversation in your work space) and face-to-face conference are divided into three categories: visits by one person, by two or three, or by four or more. Paper communications are divided into two categories: personally addressed, herein defined as those written communications intended for you and only you; and all other matter. Only personal letters, memos, and notes will be in the first category. All communications, except those categories involving 4 or more visitors and personally addrrased paper matter, are further sub-divided according to time classifications: less than 3 minute, from 3 to 15 minutes, and longer than 15 minutes. These time classifications refer to the period of time spent engi^ed in the communication event. In the case of communications involving paper received, record the amount of time spent reading it only and not the total time spent acting upon it. How is the tallying done? After you have received a phone call, a personal visit, or paper matter from some one person (the sender of a written message is the one who signs it; if unsigned, then the one who is listed as it being "from"), first record the identification of that person in the left hand colxunn. If the person belongs to the apparatus division (no matter what location) then record that person by nune. If the person does not belong to this group, the recording of the communication should be done in the row opposite the appropriate grouping listed at the bottom of the tally foim. If a person has already contacted you on a given day, then you should have them listed in the left hand column and you need not do so again. Flease make sure you have identified the person unambiguously by name so that he or she cannot be confused with any other person (please be sure to state your name to make it easier and faster for ti^ receiving party to record the communication). Record by person (name) if he is

602

DAVID W. CONRATH

a member of the apparatus division (any location) and by organizational grouping (listed at the bottom of the tally sheet) if he is not. To the right of the person's name communicating with you place a mark/in the appropriate columndenoting phone calls, 1 personal visitor, 2 or 3 personal visitors, 4 or more visitors, personally addressed paper, or all other matter, also being aware of the length of time involved in the contact. A mark ought to be made in the appropriate column for each distinct communication that you receive. Non-workspace business contacts (those where business is discussed at lunch, in the elevator, in the hall, in washroom, etc) during the work day should be recorded by all parties, as if they received a vistor (or vistors). In the appropriate visitor column mark with an X, rather than a/. When a conference or committee meeting is called, only the person calling it records the names of the persons, and the relevent marks in the appropriate personal visitors column. Note, each person attending the meeting shoxild have a mark beside his name, even though it might appear in the "4 or more" column. If it is not clear as to who is visiting whom, among two or more persons who are tallying, the person who is nearest his work space should record the contact. When you are an intermediary in a communication, you should not record it. Examples would be someone transferring a call to the intended party, or receiving mail just to deliver it to someone else, or directing a person to someone else's office. It is not required that a secretary and her manager record communication with each other. A secretary should record only those communications that are intended for her, and not for her manager (unless she actually handles the communicatione.g. answering a question even though the call might have been intended for her manager). She should not record those communications coming directly from her manager. Likewise the manager should tally those communications directed to him, but exclude those from his secretary. If you are a shop section chief you should group your subordinates as one entry on your tally sheet. If there are not enough rows on your tally sheet for a given day, please get another tally sheet from your departmental representative. Absence: If you are absence from the building either because of a business trip, illness, or holidays, the fraction of the day that you are gone should be recorded below. Date Business Trip Illness, Holiday Remaining questions: If you still have any questions, please contact your departmental representative who distributes and collects your tally sheets. We thank you. We are dependent upon you for the success of the study. Please help us by tallying as accurately as possible. 1. 2. S. 4. 5. 6. 7. References BARNARD, CHESTER I., The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Vieaa, 1938. BARNLUNS, DKAN C. AND HARLAND, CABBOLL, "Propinquity uid Pr^tige as Determinants of Communication Networks," Sociometry, JW (1963), pp. 467-479. BAVELAS, AIX, "Communication Patterns in Task Oriented Groups," Jovmal of < e AcamsA tical Society of America, St (1960), pp. 72&'73O. BBEWEE, JOHN, "Flow of Communications, }xpert Qualifications and Organizational Authority Structures," American Sociological Bemew,S6 (1971), pp. 475-^4. BvRNS, TOM, "The Directions of Activity and Communication in a D^artmental Executive Group," Human Relations, 7 (1%4), pp. 79-9T. FEsnNaER, LEON, ScHAcrais, STANUST & BACK, KUBT, Social Prmswes in Informal Qroupt, Stanford, Calif.: SUatord U. PresB, 1^>. GvETZKOW, HAROu>,"Cammunicatioas iaOq^aiuzatioDS,", iaMiffeh, 1965, pp. 534-573.

COMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT

603

8. GuLLAHOBN, JoHN T., "Distance and Friendship as Factors in the Gross Interaction Matrix," Sodometry, IS (1952), pp. 123-134.
9. HARAKY, FRANK, NORMAN, ROBERT Z . AND CARTWRIGHT, DORWIN, Structural Modelsi An In-

troduction to the Theory of Directed Graphs, New York: Wiley, 1965. 10. HESSEUNO, PJOTR, "Communication and Organization in a Large Multi-National Company," in Heald, Gordon (ed.). Approaches to the Study of Organizational Behavior, London: Tavistock Publications, 1970, pp 40-70. 11. JOHNSON, STEPHEN C , "Hierarchial Clustering Schemes," Psychometrika, SH (1967), pp. 241254. 12. LANDSBEEGER, HENRY A., "The Horizontal Dimension in Bureaucracy," Administrative Science Quarterly, 6 (1961), pp. 299-332.
13. LAWLER, EDWARD E . I l l , PORTER, LYMAN W . AND TENNENBAUM, ALLEN, "Managers' Atti-

tudes Toward Interaction Episodes," Journal of Applied Psychology, SB (1968), pp. 432-439. 14. LEAVITT, HAROLD J., "Some Effects of Certain Communication Patterns on Group Performance," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 4S (1951), pp. 38-50. 15. LiKBRT, RENSIS, New Patterns of Management, New York: McGaw-Hill, 1961. 16. LoRENZEN, HANS J., "The Office Landscape: A Management Tool," Journal of Systems Management, October, 1%9. 17. MACKENZIE, KENNETH D., A Theory of Group Structure, New York: Gordon Braech, (forthcoming). 18. MARCH, JAMES G . (ed.). Handbook of Organizations, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965.
19. MILLER, WILLIAM R . , KHACHOONI, VAHE AND OLSTEN, JAMES, "Matrix Method for Grouping

an Interrelated Set of Elements," Proceedings: Environmetal Design Research Association Conference, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, June, 1969. 20. ROBINSON, W . S., " A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits," American Antiquity, 16 (1951), pp. 293-301. 21. SIMPSON, Richard L., "Vertical and Horizontal Communication in Formal Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, 4 (1959), pp. 188-196. 22. THOMPSON, JAMES D . , Organizations in Action, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
23. TRYON, ROBERT C . AND BAILEY, DANIEL E . , Cluster Analysis, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.

24. WEINSHALL, THEODORE D . , "The Communicogram", in Lawrence, J. R. (ed.). Operational Research and the Social Sciences, London: Tavistock Publications, 1966, pp. 619-633. 25. WicKESBERO, A. K., "Communications Networks in the Business Organization Structure," Academy of Management Journal, 11 (1968), pp. 253-262.