姝 Academy of Management Review
2008, Vol. 33, No. 2, 391–403.
MULTICOMMUNICATING: A PRACTICE WHOSE
TIME HAS COME?
N. LAMAR REINSCH, JR.
JEANINE WARISSE TURNER
CATHERINE H. TINSLEY
Georgetown University
We offer the concept of multicommunicating to describe overlapping conversations,
an increasingly common occurrence in the technology-enriched workplace. We define
multicommunicating, distinguish it from other behaviors, and develop propositions
for future research. Our work extends the literature on technology-stimulated restructuring and reveals one of the opportunities provided by lean media—specifically, an
opportunity to multicommunicate. We conclude that the concept of multicommunicating has value both to the scholar and to the practicing manager.
viewed Trina and several other experienced
multicommunicators during the preparation of
this paper.)
The preceding examples point to an emerging
trend in workplace communication—the use of
technology to participate in several interactions
at the same time (Cameron & Webster, 2005). We
call this practice “multicommunicating” (cf.
Turner & Tinsley, 2002), which we define as engaging in two or more overlapping, synchronous
conversations. The first scenario shows how
multicommunicating can contribute to performance; the second points to problems, including
inefficiency, irritation, and mistakes.
Multicommunicating is facilitated by technologies, particularly chat software. But technologies do not determine behavior. They are, as
Barley explains, only “occasions that trigger social dynamics” (1986: 81). Management scholars,
therefore, have drawn on structuration theory
(Giddens, 1979, 1984) to explore technologyinfluenced changes (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994;
Orlikowski, 2000; Orlikowski, Yates, Okamura, &
Fujimoto, 1995; Yates, 1989, 2005; Yates & Orlikowski, 2002b).
Prior research has focused on how a single
technology—for example, a new X-ray technology (Barley, 1986), a new database management
technology (Orlikowski, 2000), or a new planning
technology (Boudreau & Robey, 2005)— offers an
occasion for restructuring at a single workplace.
Our research begins with an emerging practice
rather than a technology—a practice that transcends a single technology or a single workplace (Giddens, 1984: 181). The practice of mul-
Scenario 1: At five o’clock in the afternoon
(local time), a crew drilling for oil in Indonesia
encounters a problem. The field engineer contacts a twenty-four-hour-a-day technology center in Texas (local time, four o’clock in the morning). The engineer in Texas—with access to
multiple communication technologies—interacts with two other engineers while responding
to queries from Indonesia. Within forty-five minutes the engineer in Texas has worked out a
solution and communicated it to the crew in
Indonesia (Amin et al., 2001). The company estimates that such practices save the company
more than $200 million per year (Smith et al.,
2001).
Scenario 2: While supervising employees and
receiving occasional calls from friends, a manager, Trina, has to respond to complex questions
from executives engaged in legally binding negotiations. “What commonly happens for me [is]
I’m typing an email and the phone rings so I’ll
take the conversation [and] while I’m on the telephone . . . [also send a chat message to] somebody at the same time. So you have like three
things going at once. In some cases . . . [I lose
track] of what the person on the phone is saying
and they can be irritated . . . [because] they have
to repeat themselves.” Trina added that a mistake “could be very detrimental.” (We inter-
The work of Professor Reinsch on this project was partially supported by a grant from the C. R. Anderson Research
Fund. The authors thank Robert Grant, Rebecca Heino, Patricia Hewlin, John Mayo, Janet Reinsch, and AMR’s anonymous reviewers.
391
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
392
Academy of Management Review
ticommunicating shows how individuals may
combine two or more technologies to meet their
needs and how their choices restructure interactions. We elaborate the mediating process between technology and human behavior, showing that humans both adapt technology in use
and also adapt themselves to it (Giddens, 1979,
1984). By emphasizing conscious selection, we
call attention to the role that human agency
plays in technology use.
Furthermore, our analysis enriches the understanding of “lean” media (Daft & Lengel, 1984,
1986; ElShinnawy & Markus, 1997; Markus, Bikson, ElShinnawy, & Soe, 1992; van den Hooff,
Groot, & Jonge, 2005). Scholars have sometimes
treated face-to-face interaction (the richest medium) as the ideal, but several researchers have
questioned that assumption, arguing that
“sometimes less is more” (Burgoon et al., 2002:
670; Markus, 1994; O’Sullivan, 2000; Walther,
1994). For example, team members interacting
by audioconference with a client can use chat to
conduct a second, concurrent discussion among
team members. The team members can—in their
concurrent chat interaction— develop strategies
and coach one another during the client meeting. And the benefits gained from the chat interaction may outweigh the information lost from
meeting with the client by audioconference
rather than face to face.
In the following section we define multicommunicating, identify factors that contribute to its
intensity, and distinguish it from other practices. We then review precepts of structuration
theory (Giddens, 1979, 1984) and identify multicommunicating as a structuring process. In the
sections that follow, we describe some of the
antecedents and consequences of multicommunicating and offer propositions to guide future
research. We conclude by considering implications for scholars and managers.
MULTICOMMUNICATING
Multicommunicating is the practice of participating in two or more conversations or “speech
events” (Hymes, 1972) using nearly synchronous
media, such as face-to-face speech, telephone
calls, videoconferencing, chat, and email.
We refer to media traditionally labeled synchronous as nearly synchronous in interactivity
(cf. Burgoon et al., 2002) to note that all interaction proceeds across a spatial and temporal gap
April
(Giddens, 1979: 103). Even face-to-face speech is
delayed, if only briefly, as sound waves move
through the air, impressions are conveyed by
the receiver’s auricular nerve, and words and
phrases are interpreted in the receiver’s brain.
Thus, we prefer to think in terms of a continuum
(degree of synchronicity), rather than a dichotomy.
Ordinarily, nearly synchronous conversations
are governed by “unspoken rules” (Taylor & Van
Every, 2000: 11), specifying, for example, that
participants (1) do not allow gaps of silence and
(2) do not intentionally overlap in speaking—
rules that require participants to (3) remain attentive in anticipation of their speaking turns
(Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). Conversation, like ballroom dancing, requires one to monitor the behavior of one’s partner in order to
coordinate with that partner (Clampitt, 2000).
When multicommunicating, however, a participant divides his or her attention among two or
more speech events, and this degrades coordination so as to delay some responses and create
gaps of silence. Multicommunicating has
emerged as a common practice, therefore, only
with the development of media that have two
features. First, they allow a communicator to
divide her or his attention unobtrusively so as to
be less likely to give offense to a partner; we
term this compartmentalization. Second, they
are objectively and socially constructed to allow
gaps of silence; we term this flexibility of tempo.
But even with media that have these features,
multicommunicating remains a cognitively demanding practice.
Intensity of Multicommunicating
Multicommunication can vary in intensity, depending on the number of open conversations,
the pace of each conversation, the integration of
social roles, and the number of topics being
discussed. We consider each of these factors in
turn.
Number of open conversations. Conversations
are marked by an opening—including a verbal
salute, such as “good morning”—and a closing—
including a terminal, such as “bye” (Fasold,
1990: 40 – 42). Circumstances that require people
to be copresent (e.g., working side by side) induce “a continuing state of incipient talk” (Schegloff, 2002: 284), in which talk can break out and
reach closure without explicit openings or clos-
2008
Reinsch, Turner, and Tinsley
ings (Schegloff, 2002; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973). In
the absence of explicit openings and closings, it
is still possible to identify a conversational
thread—a collaboratively built-up sequence of
speech acts that end when a task “has been
brought to a successful conclusion” (Murray,
1989: 332; Winograd & Flores, 1986). A person
who is multicommunicating will have begun to
participate in—and not yet exited from—at least
two conversations so that speaking turns from
the two conversations are “interleaved” (Murray,
1989: 326). Thus, the number of open conversations (facilitated by the use of media that allow
compartmentalization) is an index of the extent
to which a person has divided her or his attention among speech events (Gergen, 2002). We
posit that the multicommunicating experience
becomes more intense to the extent that a larger
number of conversations are initiated and not
yet concluded. For example, everything else being equal, conducting three overlapping conversations is a more intense form of multicommunicating than conducting two.
Pace of each conversation. Nearly synchronous media (i.e., face-to-face speech, telephone
calls, videoconferencing, chat, and email when
used like chat) allow— but do not require—an
interaction to move at a brisk pace, with a large
number of words per minute and very short gaps
between the end of one person’s speaking turn
and the initiation of the next speaker’s turn (Edwards, 2003: 332; cf. Miller, 1987; Reisman, 1989:
113; Thomas et al., 2006: 266 –268, 276). Thus, the
pace of each of several interactions may move
rapidly or more leisurely (facilitated by media
that allow flexibility of tempo). For example,
chat software (e.g., AOL Instant Messenger姞) allows written interaction at speeds limited only
by the electronic signal between two terminals
and the typing speed of the participants (using
the abbreviations and vocabulary characteristic of chat). Thus, chat can (and sometimes
does) proceed at a pace equivalent to face-toface or telephone interaction. However, the social construction (Fulk, 1993) of chat typically
gives each participant the freedom to delay a
response and, thus, to slow the pace of a conversation. We posit that the multicommunicating experience becomes more intense to the extent that the pace of the constituent interactions
moves briskly rather than leisurely. As the pace
at which an individual is communicating across
393
several conversations becomes more accelerated, the intensity of the experience increases.
Integration of social roles. Speech events,
such as conversations, evoke social roles (e.g.,
supervisor, subordinate, parent, spouse, friend),
depending on the relationship with the interlocutor (Perlman, 1968). Since a change in partner
requires a change in role, multiple interactions
require a communicator to make transitions between roles or subroles as the individual moves
among the conversations (Ashforth, Kreiner, &
Fugate, 2000). These transitions will be relatively easy— but not frictionless—when a person shifts among highly integrated subroles,
perhaps interacting with several different subordinates (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The transitions will be more difficult when a person moves
among more segmented roles (Ashforth et al.,
2000), perhaps simultaneously representing the
organization in an interaction with a supplier,
acting as a subordinate in response to a supervisor, and acting as a parent while exchanging
messages with a teenager. Role transitions, particularly among segmented roles, may produce
role conflict so that the greater the extent of
segmentation demanded by the roles, the more
intense the multicommunication will be.
Number of topics. Each conversation may also
be described as focused on a particular topic.
Topics may include organizational problems or
decisions about where to go for dinner or who
drives to soccer practice. Some topics (developing a new product’s marketing budget) will be
more cognitively demanding than others (discussing what to buy for dinner). Note, however,
that, unlike roles, the topic may remain fixed
across different interlocutors (as in the first, but
not the second, of the scenarios at the beginning
of this paper). As the number of topics and the
challenge of topics increase, so should the intensity of the multicommunication.
Thus, our definition identifies multicommunicating as a cluster of behaviors allowing for
variations in number, pace, social roles, and
topics. Observation suggests that these factors
combine to produce a level of experienced intensity. (The manner in which they combine—
perhaps by addition or by multiplication—is an
appropriate subject for future research.)
Experience and observation (supported by
empirical research [e.g., Carpenter, Miyake, &
Just, 1994]) show also that an individual is limited in the amount of information he or she can
394
Academy of Management Review
process within a given period of time. Miller
found that the relationship between input (receiving information) and output (responding to it
appropriately) for a person traced an inverted U
shape, with “output . . . rising as a more or less
linear function of input until channel capacity is
reached, then leveling off, and finally [at a
breaking point] decreasing in [a] . . . confusional
state” (1978: 164, 192, Figure 5-54; see also
Farace, Monge, & Russell, 1977: Chapter 5, and
O’Reilly, 1980). Since information processing is
an important component of multicommunicating, we expect that increasing levels of intensity
will, at first, enhance one’s performance (e.g.,
making one more effective or efficient), followed
by a leveling off and, finally, perhaps, a precipitous decline. In fact, several interviewees described themselves as good at “knowing when
to reduce . . . [the number of conversations] to
one” (Greg) or “being really good at knowing
how far I can get extended [as multicommunicating grows more intense]” (Tracy).
Proposition 1a: A multicommunicating
experience will be more intense for a
person to the extent that (a) the number of open interactions is larger, (b)
the pace of the interactions is more
rapid, (c) the person’s evoked social
roles are more numerous and more
segmented, and (d) the interactions
deal with more—and more cognitively
challenging—topics.
Proposition 1b: The shape of the relationship between the intensity of multicommunicating and a communicator’s performance will be curvilinear
(inverted U shape).
Distinguishing Multicommunicating from
Other Behaviors
We define multicommunicating as a behavior,
rather than a preference or attitude (although
preference and attitude are likely relevant), and
distinguish it from other behaviors. Sequential
conversations, for example, are closely spaced
but nonoverlapping speech events. Information
desk staff or telephone receptionists ask interlocutors to form a real or virtual queue (“Good
morning, Acme Corporation, please hold”) in order to produce sequential conversations. When
an interlocutor insists on interrupting an ongo-
April
ing interaction, the focal person either enforces
the queue (“Please wait your turn”) or accepts
the interruption and focuses on the interrupter
and completes that task before returning to the
interrupted interaction (Polanyi, 2003: 272). In an
environment of sequential conversations, an interruption might occasionally produce a brief
period of multicommunicating. But most of the
time the focal communicator uses a queue to
avoid multicommunicating.
Group interactions involve multiple communicators and can show complex speaking patterns. But group members share a single communicative space (either physical or virtual) and
work together to develop a single, evolving conversational thread. Interaction norms encourage
group members to coordinate their behaviors
with others (perhaps even with formal rules,
such as being recognized by a chairperson before speaking) and to be cognizant of the contributions of other group members. Furthermore, a
participant displays one social role to all group
members. In contrast, a multicommunicator typically engages with two or more persons who do
not have access to each other’s messages. The
interlocutors cannot coordinate their behaviors
or be cognizant of each other’s contributions.
The multicommunicator will change social roles
as she or he changes partners. And the topical
foci may diverge markedly.
Parallel conversations occur in group meetings conducted by means of an electronic meeting system (EMS)—software that allows everyone to see the keyboarded comments of others
“but without knowing who contributed what”
(Nunamaker, Dennis, Valacich, Vogel, & George,
1991: 43). EMS allows “all participants to work
simultaneously” (Nunamaker et al., 1991: 45, 43),
producing parallel conversations (Dennis & Valacich, 1999: 7) within the communicative space
of a group meeting. Parallel conversations and
multicommunicating are complementary concepts and may coexist. But parallel conversations consist of a number of simultaneous oneon-one interactions in a group setting—for
example, A with B, C with D, E with F. Each
person is participating in one speech event at a
time. Multicommunicating, on the other hand, is
not occurring until at least one individual begins participating in two or more one-on-one
conversations (e.g., A with B, A with C, and A
with D).
2008
Reinsch, Turner, and Tinsley
Multicommunicating can be thought of as a
special form of multitasking—an extremely demanding one (Crosson, 2000a,b) that is possible
only because humans can think more rapidly
than they can speak or type (Greene, 2000; Orr,
Friedman, & Williams, 1965). A person participating in one conversation engages in
(a) interpretation (e.g., defining the situation;
making attributions . . . noting relevant aspects of
the setting . . . ), which gives rise to (b) goal generation (forming intentions pertaining to . . . instrumental objectives . . . [and] relational and
identity objectives), which serves as the impetus
to (c) planning or action assembly . . . , which
eventuates in (d) enactments (executing behavioral plans . . . ), which is followed by (e) monitoring (observing and evaluating the outcomes . . . ),
the results of which may lead to (f) . . . recycling
processes b through e (Burleson & Planalp, 2000:
222).
To multicommunicate successfully, then, an
individual must cycle among two or more conversations, engaging in interpretation, goal
generation, planning, enactment, and monitoring for each of them in turn, and the individual
must do this on time schedules that are coordinated with each of the conversational partners.
An individual may experience significant cognitive load while multitasking to compose a report
and to analyze data in a spreadsheet. However,
the person need not worry about the impression
that the word processor derives from awkward
language in the draft report, nor must he or she
be concerned about eliciting censure from the
spreadsheet when taking a break. Multicommunicating, however, engages other persons who
do form impressions based on uncorrected language or periods of silence.
MULTICOMMUNICATON AS A STRUCTURING
PROCESS
Structuration theory emphasizes the duality of
structure—that is, viewing structure as both producing and produced by recurrent social practices (Giddens, 1996: 100 –101). The interplay of
“structure as both a product of and a constraint
on human endeavor” (Barley, 1986: 79) is called
the “process of structuring.” Multicommunicating is an example, since it is both shaped by
and, in turn, reshapes rules for discourse (Sacks
et al., 1974; Taylor & Van Every, 2000).
The unspoken rules that guide conversations
discourage multicommunicating. Thus, when
395
presented with two simultaneous face-to-face
interactions, most people will choose to converse with the two interlocutors either in sequential conversations or in a three-person
group conversation. Each of the alternatives allows the participant to focus attention on a single interaction and thereby to perform his or her
role effectively (no gaps, no overlaps). New communication technologies, however, may allow or
even encourage “slippage” (Yates & Orlikowski,
2002a) and so enable multicommunicating. The
growing practice of multicommunicating, then,
stresses the rules of interaction, producing evolutionary changes. Multicommunicating thus
provides an example of a structuration process
that can be situated in terms of both its antecedents and consequences.
ANTECEDENTS OF MULTICOMMUNICATING
Human agency and social structures interact
within three arenas or, as Giddens prefers, “modalities”: facilities, norms, and interpretative
schemes (Giddens, 1984: 28 –29). Facilities refer
to capabilities “over objects, goods, or material
phenomena” (Giddens, 1984: 33), including communication technologies (Giddens, 1979: 103).
Norms include rules for the “evaluation of conduct” (Bryant & Jary, 1991: 10). Interpretative
schemes are mental models used “to make
sense of what actors say and do” based on tacit
and implicit knowledge of prior action and the
current situation (Bryant & Jary, 1991: 10; Orlikowski, 2000). Two distinct features of multicommunicating— divided attention and delayed
responses (gaps of silence)— emerge from these
modalities as especially important for understanding where and when multicommunicating
is likely to occur.
Facilities (Communication Technologies)
Multicommunicating is facilitated by technologies that, by reason of objective characteristics
and social construction, provide supportive features. Perhaps the best example is chat software, which, while designed for nearly synchronous one-to-one interaction, has frequently been
a stimulus for multicommunicating. As previously mentioned, conversational interaction in a
face-to-face dyad or group is guided by rules
that call for no gaps of silence, no overlaps in
speaking, and a high level of attentiveness
396
Academy of Management Review
(Sacks et al., 1974; Taylor & Van Every, 2000);
these rules also guide interaction by telephone
(Hopper, 1992). But chat software facilitates multicommunicating by compartmentalizing interactions and allowing for flexibility of tempo.
We define compartmentalization as the extent
to which a medium restricts the concurrent
availability of communicative cues from an interaction to only those participating in the interaction. While negatively correlated with social
presence (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) and
media richness (Daft & Lengel, 1984, 1986), compartmentalization concerns the cross-conversational availability of cues, rather than the number and types of cues available within a single
interaction. Focusing on multiple, overlapping
interactions allows us to see that certain media
(typically those identified as lower in social
presence and richness, in part because they convey few nonverbal cues) allow interactions to be
conducted, as it were, within discrete compartments. Two overlapping chat interactions are
fully compartmentalized, with one nonfocal interlocutor (e.g., person B in an A–B interaction)
lacking access to the messages that are part of a
concurrent chat conversation (e.g., A with C).
Two overlapping telephone interactions (e.g.,
Buerk, 2006: 21; Caro, 2002: 587–589) are partially
compartmentalized, with a nonfocal interlocutor
(e.g., B in the A–B interaction) able to overhear
only one side of another interaction (A’s messages to C but not C’s messages to A). And two
overlapping face-to-face interactions are not at
all compartmentalized, since each interlocutor
has access to the verbal and nonverbal cues
from the other interaction. We see compartmentalization—with its apparent potential to allow
unobtrusive division of attention between more
than one interlocutor—as a key enabler of
multicommunicating. Of course, partial compartmentalization can be maintained when
combining a chat interaction with a telephone
conversation or even a face-to-face meeting.
We define flexibility of tempo as the extent to
which a participant may delay a response (allow a gap of silence) without giving offense or
disrupting an interaction. Once again, chat provides a clear example. Chat (like email) captures a message in an enduring form (unlike the
fading sounds of speech; Herring, 2003: 615),
which creates the possibility of delayed processing. Furthermore, chat allows overlap and
does not allow surveillance. Chat allows over-
April
lap since A and B do not have access to nonverbal turn-taking cues, and each may begin simultaneously to type a message to the other, or,
perhaps more to the point, A can send a message to B while simultaneously receiving one
from C. Lack of surveillance (Barry & Fulmer,
2004)— once again the absence of nonverbal
cues—means that the message sender cannot
be certain that the recipient is still at his or her
terminal when the message arrives. As one individual explained it, the people who send you a
chat message “don’t even know if you’re at your
desk. . . . You could be anywhere” (Alyson). Together, these (and perhaps other) factors create
a situation in which a message sender is likely
to tolerate delayed responses (gaps of silence).
As explained by one person, “If someone . . .
[sends a chat message to] you, you can put them
on hold for a minute, two minutes, not be considered rude, whereas on the phone you can’t”
(Brent). Of course, a communicator can maintain
a degree of flexibility of tempo by combining a
more flexible medium (e.g., chat) with a less
flexible one (e.g., telephone).
We posit, therefore, that the emergence of
multicommunicating in an organization or a
community depends on the availability of media
that compartmentalize interactions and allow
flexibility of tempo. We further believe that the
ongoing practice of multicommunicating—that
is, individual decisions to multicommunicate or
not in any given situation—will be influenced
by the availability of media with the same characteristics.
Proposition 2: The frequency and the
practice of multicommunicating
within an organization will be associated with the availability of media
(facilities) whose objective features
and social constructions provide compartmentalization and flexibility of
tempo.
Norms
Norms are guidelines for evaluating performance—identifying certain behaviors as more
or less appropriate (Bettenhausen & Murnighan,
1985; Bryant & Jary, 1991). Norms shape a communicator’s understanding of behavioral expectations within a particular organization and,
therefore, the likely reactions of interlocutors to
multicommunicating.
2008
Reinsch, Turner, and Tinsley
Openly multicommunicating could be regarded as inappropriate or even rude by one’s
conversational partners, who receive only divided attention and experience gaps in their
interactions. Yet some organizational norms
may allow or even encourage divided attention
and active management of tempo. For example,
an organizational norm for productivity or efficiency—particularly when performance requires up-to-the-minute information—may encourage an individual to accept that others are
juggling multiple conversations. Thus, if a person senses that a norm for productivity outweighs the norms for full attention or immediate
response, he or she is more likely to participate
in multicommunication. One respondent told us,
for example, that he expected delayed responses to chat messages because of an understanding that “this person is probably doing a
lot of other things” (Faisel). Another respondent
explained that a new employee—not yet familiar with the organizational culture—would
sometimes make the mistake of waiting for a
response to a chat inquiry, “instead of opening
up and responding to some emails” (Tracey).
Some of our interviewees also called attention
to norms related to organizational membership
and hierarchical status. One manager felt that a
conference call with persons outside the company should preclude additional chat interactions, because the sound of typing “is . . . rude”
(Ann). Another individual said that she would
usually accept a chat inquiry during a face-toface conversation unless she was “having an
important conversation with . . . [her] boss”
(Maria). This sentiment was echoed by several
others, who felt that they should be constantly
accessible to a supervisor and, when interacting
with a supervisor, should focus on the supervisor’s agenda. Sometimes focusing on the supervisor’s agenda meant declining other conversations, and sometimes it meant initiating
multiple interactions in order to secure information for the supervisor.
Proposition 3: The frequency and practice of multicommunicating within an
organization will be shaped by norms
perceived as justifying (or perhaps
limiting or precluding) multicommunicating when interacting with various interlocutors.
397
Schemata
Schemata (interpretative schemes) guide the
interpretation of behavior, based on prior experience and knowledge (Bryant & Jary, 1991; Fiske
& Taylor, 1991). Schemata shape a person’s understanding of the impact and, therefore, the
likely effectiveness of multicommunicating for a
specific task. Thus, schemata reflect the role of
task in a person’s decision to multicommunicate
(Turner & Reinsch, 2007). For example, some interviewees said that they multicommunicated to
quickly gather information from multiple
sources (as in our opening vignette) or to deliver
a more complete answer to a superior or customer. As Dennis and Valacich (1999) explained,
most business communication tasks can be described as occasioned by lack of information
(requiring conveyance of information) or lack of
shared understanding (requiring convergence of
views). Our interviews suggest that the task of
information conveyance seems to evoke schemata that interpret multicommunicating in a favorable light—signaling that people are being
thorough when gathering information and remaining accessible even while communicating
with others.
However, the task of achieving convergence
appears to evoke schemata that interpret multicommunicating less positively. When seeking
convergence, people desire prompt and multifaceted feedback (Barry & Fulmer, 2004; Dennis
& Valacich, 1999). A person who desires prompt,
multidimensional feedback is likely to prefer
modes of communication that discourage divided attention and delayed responses.
As another example, interpersonal tasks, such
as “therapeutic” conversations (Hunt & Lichtman, 1969; Ruesch, 1961), also appear to evoke
schemata that interpret multicommunicating as
inappropriate. One manager told us that he
would not multicommunicate when having a
“personal” conversation that involved “career
guidance,” because “you need to give them your
full attention” (Andrew). Another interviewee
said that she wanted an interlocutor’s “undivided attention” on those occasions when she
was “frustrated with something that’s going on”
(Laura).
Proposition 4. The frequency and
practice of multicommunicating by
employees will be shaped by their
schemata, which identify multicom-
398
Academy of Management Review
municating as more (or less) effective
for certain communicative tasks.
OUTCOMES OF MULTICOMMUNICATING
Just as the practice of multicommunicating is
shaped by technologies, norms, and schemata,
it also shapes them in turn. As previously noted,
multicommunicating is facilitated by tolerance
for slippage in conversational practices. When
slippages are small and rare and can be subsumed under (or assimilated into) the current
institutional context, they do not constitute
change (Meyer, 1982). But as the slippages are
replicated, the context does change (Barley,
1986). For example, when one person in a community multicommunicates, his or her interlocutors may allow for some slippage. But when
those persons— or a critical number of them
(Markus, 1990)—also become multicommunicators, slippage becomes the pattern rather than
an exception. Incongruity between multicommunicating practices and the institutional context
will exert pressure to socially reconstruct technologies and to change institutional norms and
schemata. As an example, consider a phenomenon we call “connected time”—a new “temporal
structure” (Orlikowski & Yates, 2002). Temporal
structures are socially constructed frameworks
that organization members use to understand,
organize, and allocate time; they shape what
people do and when they do it (Orlikowski &
Yates, 2002). Sometimes a temporal structure
has societal backing (e.g., the fiscal year), sometimes it has managerial support (e.g., a “casual
Friday” policy), and sometimes it has emerged
from employee practices (e.g., the work breaks
described by Roy, 1968).
At one site where we conducted exploratory
interviews, many employees seemed implicitly
aware of an altered temporal structure and had
given it a name that we paraphrase as “connected time.” Multiple persons described being
connected and available for text messaging as
“like breathing.” We heard many persons speak
about “living,” “being,” or “working” either “on”
or “in” a special form of time— connected time.
Our informal observations suggested that
connected time had both objective and subjective dimensions. Objective dimensions included
the physical act of getting connected (logging
into the chat messaging system) in the morning
and of disconnecting at the end of the individu-
April
al’s workday, along with a sharp awareness of
whether or not one was, at any given moment,
connected. Subjective dimensions included the
meaning assigned to connection (“like breathing”) and the appropriateness—indeed, the expectedness— of multicommunicating in connected time, since this behavior was interpreted
as being “alive” (i.e., available for information
exchange).
Since text messages were sometimes exchanged during group meetings or conference
telephone calls, an individual working in connected time was not required or expected to
focus all of his or her attention on a single interlocator or a single group interaction. In connected time a person was assumed to be capable of interacting with multiple individuals, and
was likely to be doing so. In fact, achieving
interaction among disconnected individuals required assembly in a special place—an unwired
meeting room—and rules prohibiting the use of
portable electronic devices. Just as the temporal
structure (Orlikowski & Yates, 2002a) of “banana
time” (Roy, 1968) allowed otherwise proscribed
acts (e.g., the daily “theft” of a banana), the
temporal structure of connected time allowed
individuals to participate in several simultaneous interactions. When we asked how many
conversations each person typically participated in, the most common answer was four
chat interactions and one additional interaction
either face to face or by telephone, for a total of
five. Such comments suggested that the people
working in connected time had a new understanding of appropriate conversational behavior—more overlap, longer gaps (flexibility of
tempo), and divided attention (compartmentalization). One interviewee described his supervisor as simultaneously able to conduct an interaction by text message, an interaction by
telephone, and a face-to-face interaction. He
added, “That’s why she gets promoted” (Rick).
As implied by Rick’s comment, some communicators on some occasions do not disguise the
fact that they are multicommunicating. This
raises the issue of the extent to which nonfocal
individuals are aware of and approve of multicommunicating. It seems likely that the engineer in Indonesia (the first scenario at the beginning of the paper) would expect the engineer
in Texas to multicommunicate. Despite the general practice of multicommunicating at Trina’s
workplace (second scenario), it is questionable
2008
Reinsch, Turner, and Tinsley
whether the executives relying on Trina for information would recommend that she accept
conversations with friends or family while answering their questions. And members of a consulting team who conduct a chat interaction
among themselves while audioconferencing
with a client team would know that the client
team may be doing the same thing—the consultants tacitly tolerate that possibility in order to
maintain their own opportunity to multicommunicate. Finally, when Rick interacts with his supervisor face to face, he is unavoidably aware
that she is exchanging text messages or telephone comments with other communicators
(and she knows that Rick knows this). These
phenomena suggest that there is a continuum of
tolerance for multicommunicating, ranging from
circumstances in which it is frowned upon (and,
consequently, hidden when it occurs) to circumstances in which it is so accepted that it need be
only partially compartmentalized, if that, and
might even be flaunted. We suggest that
changes in the tacit or overt tolerance for multicommunicating may serve as a marker (or even
a mechanism) by which a temporal structure
such as connected time emerges in an organization.
We should note, however, that almost no one
in the organization where we conducted our interviews perceived connected time as an unmixed good. Several persons acknowledged the
increased risk of content errors, such as misunderstanding a message, misstating one’s own
message, or sending a message to the wrong
recipient. Other interviewees complained about
the excessive gaps during interaction with multicommunicators, and one described her considerable frustration when people in another department would “talk [pause] so [pause] slow
[pause] like their pauses . . . [and] I can hear
them typing and they’re typing on something
totally different than what I’m talking about”
(Alyson). And a few challenged the ability of
their fellow employees to keep multicommunicating at an appropriate (moderate) level of intensity.
Proposition 5a: Multicommunicating
behavior stresses the preexisting social constructions of media, norms,
and schemata, exerting pressure for
change.
399
Proposition 5b: Shifts in behavior can
produce a new temporal structure in
which multicommunicating becomes
a frequent behavior within an organization.
Proposition 5c: The emergence of a
temporal structure that supports multicommunicating will be marked by
transitions in the tacit and overt approval of those interacting with a multicommunicating individual.
Proposition 5d: Errors and other unintended effects of multicommunicating
may produce a subsequent wave of
stresses on media, norms, and schemata, perhaps stimulating efforts to
curb or regulate multicommunicating.
CONCLUSION
Concept identification and explication play a
major role in scholarship and are critical to the
advancement of science (Chaffee, 1991; Lee,
2004). In this paper we have introduced the concept of multicommunicating to describe an
emerging communication practice arising from
human/technological interaction (Giddens,
1984). Multicommunicating is an example of an
unintended use of technologies that emerges
from (1) new technologies such as chat and
email that enable compartmentalization and
flexibility of tempo, (2) norms such as productivity and efficiency that— by encouraging speed
and interpersonal accessibility— create a tolerance for divided attention and delayed responses, and (3) schemata that interpret divided
attention and delayed responses as effective or
even desirable when addressing certain communicative tasks.
This concept of multicommunicating contributes to the study and practice of management in
several ways. First, multicommunicating offers
another example of a technology-stimulated
process of structuration—an example that differs in some significant ways from previous
ones. Past research has explored the communication practices emerging from the use of one
technology (Barley, 1986; Boudreau & Robey,
2005; Orlikowski, 2000). We extend the literature
by identifying a structuration process that
emerges from the use of multiple technologies.
As people select various combinations of tech-
400
Academy of Management Review
nologies, they demonstrate the role of human
agency in structuration processes. This practice
moves beyond using a predesigned technology
and points to a socially constructed practice as
people attempt to balance their need for communication efficiency and effectiveness.
Second, the concept of multicommunicating
may offer a fresh perspective on some research
streams. For example, management scholars
and practitioners have increasingly recognized
the importance of work teams and distributed
cognition (e.g., Hutchins, 1990; Weick & Roberts,
1993). Since some descriptions of distributed
cognition refer to rich communication environments in which persons exchange messages
with several team members (Heath & Luff, 1998:
119; Hutchins & Klausen, 1998: 15–16), we suggest
that multicommunicating may prove to be a previously unrecognized component of some forms
of distributed cognition. As another example,
management scholars have often explored
leaner media, calling attention to their presumed limitations in comparison to richer media. The practice of multicommunicating, however, reveals a new use for lean media—a use
that capitalizes on their ability to compartmentalize and encourage flexibility of tempo. Finally, managers have increasingly noted the importance of time (e.g., Ancona, Okhuysen, &
Perlow, 2001; Bluedorn, 2002), including an important distinction between objective time (chronos) and the subjectively appropriate time or
moment (kairos) for an act to be performed
(Miller, 1992; Yates & Orlikowski, 2002a). Multicommunicating—motivated by a desire to use
time (chronos) efficiently—is apparently an activity that is appropriate at some times (kairos)
but not others, and so provides a new lens for
exploring these dimensions of time within an
organizational context.
Third, the concept of multicommunicating
provides a foundation for further research on
workplace interaction—research of interest to
scholars and potentially of great value to practitioners. Future studies might aim at identifying the individual differences in multicommunicating ability and the factors (whether innate or
learned) that explain these differences. Other
studies might focus on multicommunicating
communities to understand the “collective
rather than the individual character of media
use” (Markus, 1994: 523). Finally, researchers
might explore how the various dimensions of
April
multicommunicating combine to contribute to
its intensity and seek to identify the “breaking
points” for various individuals and situational
contexts.
Additional research should make it possible
to develop appropriate guidelines and training
programs. To our knowledge, few training programs address issues of multicommunicating,
and they do so only from a negative and narrow
perspective (e.g., “Turn off your cell phone before a sales call”). A better understanding of the
phenomenon—along with a delineation of potential benefits, recognition of the circumstances in which benefits can be achieved, and
sensitivity to its limitations—will help practicing managers make wise decisions about deploying and managing information technologies.
Multicommunicating requires a special skill
set. In addition to knowing how to operate the
features of the technology, the communicator
also needs to recognize the sensitivity associated with certain audiences and tasks. Training
people to multicommunicate effectively (when
appropriate) will be critical, since people need
to make decisions about messages (tone, audience, content, emphasis, etc.) relatively quickly.
Moreover, because communication does not exist in a vacuum, mistakes made in one interaction may influence future interactions. Many of
our interviewees believed they could multicommunicate better than most others, suggesting
that honest audience feedback about a multicommunicator’s effectiveness will be critical for
improving performance.
Multicommunicating seems to be a spreading—and sometimes polarizing—practice. But
while it is spreading in some organizations, we
cannot yet say with confidence whether it is a
practice that abuses time or a practice whose
time has come.
REFERENCES
Amin, A., Bargach, S., Donegan, J., Martin, C., Smith, R.,
Burgoyne, M., Censi, P., Day, P., & Kornberg, R. 2001.
Building a knowledge-sharing culture. Oilfield Review,
13(1): 48 – 65.
Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. 2001. Taking
time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review, 26: 512–529.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. 2000. All in a day’s
work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy
of Management Review, 25: 472– 491.
2008
Reinsch, Turner, and Tinsley
Barley, S. 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring:
Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 78 –108.
Barry, B., & Fulmer, I. S. 2004. The medium and the message:
The adaptive use of communication media in dyadic
influence. Academy of Management Review, 29: 272–292.
Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J. K. 1985. Emergence of
norms in competitive decision-making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 350 –372.
Bluedorn, A. C. 2002. The human organization of time: Temporal realities and experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Boudreau, M.-C., & Robey, D. 2005. Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science, 16: 3–18.
Bryant, C. G. A., & Jary, D. 1991. Introduction: Coming to
terms with Anthony Giddens. In C. G. A. Bryant & D. Jary
(Eds.), Giddens’ theory of structuration: A critical appreciation: 1–31. London: Routledge.
Buerk, R. 2006. Breaking ships: How supertankers and cargo
ships are dismantled on the beaches of Bangladesh. New
York: Chamberlain Bros./Penguin Group.
Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Ramirez, A., Jr., Dunbar, N. E.,
Kam, K., & Fischer, J. 2002. Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and
nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52: 657– 677.
Burleson, B. R., & Planalp, S. 2000. Producing emotion(al)
messages. Communication Theory, 10: 221–250.
Cameron, A. F., & Webster, J. 2005. Unintended consequences
of emerging communication technologies: Instant messaging in the workplace. Computers in Human Behavior,
21: 85–103.
Caro, R. A. 2002. Master of the Senate: The years of Lyndon
Johnson, vol. 3. New York: Knopf.
Carpenter, P. A., Miyake, A., & Just, M. A. 1994. Working
memory constraints in comprehension: Evidence from
individual differences, aphasia, and aging. In M. A.
Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics: 1075–
1122. San Diego: Academic Press.
Chaffee, S. H. 1991 Explication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clampitt, P. G. 2000. Communicating for managerial effectiveness (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Crosson, B. 2000a. Systems that support language processes:
Attention. In S. E. Nadeau, L. J. Gonzalez Rothi, &
B. Crosson (Eds.), Aphasia and language: Theory to practice: 372–398. New York: Guilford Press.
401
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. 1986. Organizational information
requirements, media richness, and structural design.
Management Science, 32: 554 –571.
Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. 1999. Rethinking media richness: Towards a theory of media synchronicity. In R. H.
Sprague, Jr. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual Hawaii
international conference on system sciences: 1–10. Los
Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. 1994. Capturing the complexity
in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5: 121–147.
Edwards, J. A. 2003. The transcription of discourse. In
D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The
handbook of discourse analysis: 321–348. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
ElShinnawy, M., & Markus, M. L. 1997. The poverty of richness
theory: Explaining people’s choices of electronic mail
vs. voice mail. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46: 443– 467.
Farace, R. V., Monge, P. R., & Russell, H. M. 1977. Communicating and organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fasold, R.. 1990. The sociolinguistics of language. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Fiske, S. D., & Taylor, S. E. 1991. Social cognition (2nd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fulk, J. 1993. Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 921–950.
Gergen, K. J. 2002. The challenge of absent presence. In J. E.
Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance: 227–241.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giddens, A. 1979. Central problems in social theory: Action,
structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the
theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. 1996. In defense of sociology: Essays, interpretations and rejoinders. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member
exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219 –247.
Greene, J. 2000. Evanescent mentation: An ameliorative conceptual foundation for research and theory on message
production. Communication Theory, 10: 139 –155.
Crosson, B. 2000b. Systems that support language processes:
Verbal working memory. In S. E. Nadeau, L. J. Gonzalez
Rothi, & B. Crosson (Eds.), Aphasia and language: Theory to practice: 399 – 418. New York: Guilford Press.
Heath, C., & Luff, P. 1998. Convergent activities: Line control
and passenger information on the London Underground.
In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and
communication at work: 96 –129. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. 1984. Information richness: A new
approach to managerial information processing and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6: 191–233.
Herring, S. C. 2003. Computer-mediated discourse. In
D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The
handbook of discourse analysis: 612– 634. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
402
Academy of Management Review
Hopper, R. 1992. Telephone conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hunt, R. G., & Lichtman, C. M. 1969. “Counseling” of employees by work supervisors: Concepts, attitudes, and practices in a white-collar organization. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16: 81– 86.
Hutchins, E. 1990. The technology of team navigation. In
J. Gallegher, R. E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual
teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work: 191–220. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. 1998. Distributed cognition in an
airline cockpit. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.),
Cognition and communication at work: 15–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and
social life. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Ed.), Directions in
sociolinguistics: 35–71. Oxford: Blackwell.
April
Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. 2002. It’s about time: Temporal
structuring in organizations. Organization Science, 13:
684 –700.
Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. 1995.
Shaping electronic communication: The metastructuring of technology in use. Organization Science, 6: 423–
444.
Orr, D. B., Friedman, H. L., & Williams, J. C. C. 1965. Trainability of listening comprehension of speeded discourse. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(3): 148 –156.
O’Sullivan, P. B. 2000. What you don’t know won’t hurt me:
Impression management functions of communication
channels in relationships. Human Communication Research, 26: 403– 431.
Perlman, H. H. 1968. Persona: Social role and personality.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, K. M. 2004. Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14: 27–50.
Polanyi, L. 2003. The linguistic structure of discourse. In
D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The
handbook of discourse analysis: 265–281. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Markus, L. M. 1990. Toward a critical mass theory of interactive media. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations
and communication technology: 194 –218. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Reisman, K. 1989. Contrapuntal conversations in an Antiguan village. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (2nd ed.): 110 –124.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Markus, M. L. 1994. Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organizational Science, 5: 502–527.
Markus, M. L., Bikson, T. K., ElShinnawy, M., & Soe, L. L. 1992.
Fragments of your communication: Email, vmail, and
fax. Information Society, 8(4): 207–226.
Roy, D. F. 1968. “Banana time”—Job satisfaction and informal
interaction. In W. G. Bennis, E. H. Schein, F. I. Steele, &
D. E. Berlew (Eds.), Interpersonal dynamics: Essays and
readings on human interaction (revised ed.): 539 –556.
Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Meyer, A. 1982. Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 515–537.
Ruesch, J. 1961. Therapeutic communication. New York: Norton.
Miller, C. R. 1992. Kairos in the rhetoric of science. In S. P.
Witte, N. Nakadate, & R. D. Cherry (Eds.), A rhetoric of
doing: Essays on written discourse in honor of James L.
Kinneavy: 311–327. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest
systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50: 696 –735.
Miller, J. G. 1978. Living systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, J. L. 1987. Rate-dependent processing in speech perception. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of
language, vol. 3: 119 –157. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Murray, D. L. 1989. When the medium determines turns: Turntaking in computer conversation. In J. A. Fishman (Series
Ed.) & H. Coleman (Vol. Ed.), Contributions to the sociology of language. Volume 52: Working with language: A
multidisciplinary consideration of language use in work
contexts: 319 –337. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., &
George, J. F. 1991. Electronic meeting systems to support
group work. Communications of the ACM, 34: 40 – 61.
O’Reilly, C. A., III. 1980. Individuals and information overload in organizations: Is more necessarily better? Academy of Management Journal, 23: 684 – 696.
Orlikowski, W. 2000. Using technology and constituting
structures: A practice lens for studying technology in
organizations. Organization Science, 11: 404 – 428.
Schegloff, E. A. 2002. Beginnings in the telephone. In J. E. Katz
& M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance: 284 –300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8: 289 –327.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. 1976. The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.
Smith, R., Åbø, E., Chipperfield, L., Mottershead, C., Old, J.,
Prieto, R., & Stemke, J. 2001. Managing knowledge management. Oilfield Review, 13(1): 66 – 83.
Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. 2000. The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Thomas, G. F., King, C. L., Baroni, B., Cook, L., Keitelman, M.,
Miller, S., & Wardle, A. 2006. Reconceptualizing e-mail
overload. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20: 252–287.
Turner, J. W., & Reinsch, N. L., Jr. 2007. The business communicator as presence allocator: Multicommunicating,
equivocality, and status at work. Journal of Business
Communication, 44: 36 –58.
2008
Reinsch, Turner, and Tinsley
Turner, J. W., & Tinsley, C. 2002. Polychronic communication:
Managing multiple conversations at once. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver.
van den Hooff, B., Groot, J., & Jonge, S. D. 2005. Situational
influences on the use of communication technologies: A
meta-analysis and exploratory study. Journal of Business Communication, 42: 4 –27.
Walther, J. 1994. Anticipated ongoing interaction versus
channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 40: 473–501.
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357–381.
Winograd, T., & Flores, F. 1986. Understanding computers
403
and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Yates, J. 1989. Control through communication: The rise of
system in American management. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Yates, J. 2005. Structuring the information age: Life insurance
and technology in the twentieth century. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. 2002a. Genre systems: Chronos
and kairos in communicative systems. In R. Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of
genre: Strategies for stability and change: 103–121.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. 2002b. Genre systems: Structuring
interaction through communicative norms. Journal of
Business Communication, 39: 13–35.
N. Lamar Reinsch, Jr. ([email protected]) is a professor at the McDonough
School of Business, Georgetown University. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of
Kansas. His research focuses on interpersonal communication, with a particular
emphasis on new technologies.
Jeanine Warisse Turner ([email protected]) is an associate professor in the
Communication, Culture, and Technology Program, Georgetown University. She
earned her Ph.D. from The Ohio State University. Her research focuses on the social
and organizational uses of new media technologies.
Catherine H. Tinsley ([email protected]) is an associate professor at the
McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University. She earned her Ph.D. from
Northwestern University. Her research focuses on how people make decisions, communicate, and negotiate. She studies how perceptions of risk influence decision
making and how culture and reputations influence communication and negotiation.