Journal of Business Communication 50(1) 68 –86

© 2013 by the Association for Business Communication

Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0021943612465181http://jbc.sagepub.com

465181 JOB50110.1177/0021943612465181Journal of Business CommunicationPazos et al.

1Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA2TransUnion, LLC, Chicago, IL, USA3Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

Corresponding Author:Pilar Pazos, Old Dominion University, 241 Kaufman Hall, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA Email: mpazosla@odu.edu

Instant Messaging as a Task-Support Tool in Information Technology Organizations

Pilar Pazos1, Jennifer M. Chung2, and Marina Micari3

Abstract

Fast-paced organizational environments and growing needs for permanent and fast connectivity have steered the adoption of technologies such as instant messaging (IM) for organizational communication. However, the use of IM as a communication tool to support task completion is not well understood. This article reports on an exploratory mixed methods study investigating the use of IM as a communication tool to support task completion and multitasking in information technology organizations. The main purpose was to investigate IM use to support two types of tasks: collaboration and conflict tasks. We used a mixed methods approach incorporating quantitative and qualitative data from interviews and survey instruments. Results from the quantitative analysis suggest a significantly greater use of IM for collaboration tasks than for cognitive conflict tasks. The qualitative data helped in identifying specific tasks in the information technology corporate environment whose completion is supported by IM use. Those tasks were mapped into an existing task framework and analyzed using qualitative methods. Results from the qualitative analysis were used to complement and support the quantitative findings. A secondary goal of this article was to explore the use of IM to support multitasking. Descriptive results on use of IM to multitask are presented. The article concludes with a discussion of the main implications of this study for communication managers.

Keywords

organizational communication, channel/media choice, instant messaging, electronic communication, multitasking

Pazos et al. 69

Introduction

With the increased need for permanent connectivity, technology is taking a leading

role in supporting communication and task completion in organizations. Tools such

as e-mail, teleconferencing, and more recently corporate instant messaging (IM), are

becoming ubiquitous in the workplace. IM provides the ability for virtual real-time

communication through an exchange of text. IM has changed the contemporary work

environment by facilitating engagement in more than one activity simultaneously,

also termed multitasking. This study focuses on the role of IM in organizational com-

munication.

While reports of IM use in organizations vary, data suggest that corporate IM use

is significant and growing (Nardi, Whittaker, & Bradner, 2000). A recent in-depth

study on IM adoption by the Radicati Group (2009) reported that IM accounts will rise

from 1.8 billion dollars in 2008 to more than 3.7 billion dollars by 2012. Approximately

45% to 50% of U.S. firms currently support IM use by their employees for business

purposes (Glass & Lee, 2010). Gartner (2007) also predicted that by the end of 2011,

IM will be the de facto media for voice, video and text communication, adding that

95% of workers in leading global organizations will use IM as their primary source for

real-time communication by 2013. However, IM has only recently captured the atten-

tion of organizational researchers (Cameron & Webster, 2005; Olson & Olson, 2003;

Zweig & Webster, 2002). As a result, we have limited understanding of the nature of

IM use in organizations and, in particular, its use to support multitasking as well as the

implications to organizations (Isaacs, Kamm, Schiano, Walendowski, & Whittaker,

2002; Isaacs, Walendowski, Whittaker, Schiano, & Kamm, 2002; Nardi et al., 2000).

A better understanding of how employees use IM will assist organizations in manag-

ing communications while uncovering methods for effectively using IM to support

business goals.

This article is aimed at increasing our understanding of IM use as a task-support

tool in high-tech corporate environments and, in particular, how the tool is used to

support multitasking behaviors. In particular, we present the results of a preliminary

study exploring the differences in IM use based on the type of task being accom-

plished. In particular, we seek to identify differences in IM use to support collabora-

tion and conflict tasks, and to understand how this communication media is used for

task completion in both task scenarios.

Instant Messaging Use and Multitasking in OrganizationsPrior research has recognized that a technology such as IM can influence the way in

which individuals perceive and use time in organizations (Orlikowski & Yates, 2002).

IM in particular seems to be changing the ways in which people accomplish tasks and

communicate (Cameron & Webster, 2005; Turner & Tinsley, 2002). The popularity

70 Journal of Business Communication 50(1)

of IM has been attributed to factors such as its support for parallel communication,

ability to detect presence of others, and enabling of silent turn-taking in conversations

(Rennecker, Dennis, & Hansen, 2006).

In particular, IM supports work on multiple tasks at the same time, or multitasking,

as when an individual is engaged in a specific work task, such as writing a document,

while responding to questions from a colleague on another topic. The concept of mul-

titasking is closely related to the emergence of technologies such as IM. Many jobs

require multitasking, and for some, such as pilots and air traffic controllers, physi-

cians, and firefighters, multitasking is a critical skill (Fleishman, Constanza, &

Marshall-Mies, 1999; Maschke & Goeters, 1999).

Prior research into IM in an organizational context has focused on differences

between user groups (Isaacs, Walendowski, et al., 2002), consequences of cognitive

overload (Rennecker & Godwin, 2003), and individuals’ decisions to engage in multi-

tasking (Turner & Reinsch, 2007). However, we know little about how IM is used for

carrying out different kinds of tasks, nor do we know how multitasking plays a role in

users’ experiences of carrying out work tasks through IM.

Theoretical FoundationThe type of task at hand is known to shape a person’s choice of media for collabora-

tion and communication pertaining to the task. With the continuing development of

communication technologies, scholars have developed a number of theoretical expla-

nations of media choice (Fulk & Boyd, 1991; Simon, 2006; Webster & Trevino,

1995). This study draws on social presence theory and media richness theory. Both

theories evaluate the role of media in the communication process.

Social presence theory posits that media have varying levels of “social presence,”

defined as the degree to which a medium conveys the physical presence of the partici-

pants and provides cues necessary to develop interpersonal relationships (Short,

Williams, & Christie, 1976). This theory addresses the relationship between the type

of task being accomplished and the need for social presence. The more cues available

to individuals, the more presence. According to research on social presence, face-to-

face communication provides the greatest degree of presence, followed by videocon-

ferencing, audio conferencing, and then text (Short et al., 1976). Social presence

theory argues that communication is effective when the medium provides enough

social presence to effectively accomplish the task at hand. More complex tasks, such

as resolving a conflict or engaging in a negotiation, require media with higher levels

of social presence.

Initial research on communication media (Short et al., 1976) described social pres-

ence as a critical factor related to the media that can influence the communication

process. Short et al. (1976) suggested that communication media that are high in social

presence encourage enhanced social interaction. Changes in the level of social pres-

ence have been found to affect group communication (Sia, Tan, & Wei, 2002). For

example, a reduction in social presence may result in the pursuit of self-interests rather

Pazos et al. 71

than group interests (Walton & McKersie, 1965) and difficulties in arriving at mutu-

ally agreeable decisions (Sia et al., 2002).

One limitation of social presence as a construct is that it is not a fully tangible qual-

ity of a communication media (Short et al., 1976). An additional limitation that was

highlighted in recent studies was that social presence provides a deterministic descrip-

tion of media that associates each medium with fixed levels of social presence

(Walther, 1995). Some have argued against this deterministic view of social presence

(Carlson & Zmud, 1999) indicating that levels of social presence can actually increase

through a process of social construction. More recent research suggests that social

group membership may increase the level of social presence over time through a pro-

cess of social construction (Carlson & Zmud, 1999; Walther, 1995).

Media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986) reaches similar conclusions by

explaining media choice as shaped by the characteristics of the communication

medium and the content of the message. Richer media are defined, among other char-

acteristics, as those that have higher capability to transmit cues (e.g., gesture, move-

ment, voice inflection) and high immediacy of feedback. The theory suggests that

richer media would lead to superior performance for ambiguous tasks, whereas leaner

media would be superior for unequivocal tasks (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Proponents of

media richness theory explain media choice as a rational process that will select richer

or leaner media based mainly on task ambiguity.

Studies conducting empirical tests of media richness theory have not fully sup-

ported its presumed predictive ability of media use (Dennis & Kinney, 1998;

Mennecke, Valacich, & Wheeler 2000; Vickery, Droge, Stank, Goldsby, & Markland,

2004). These studies highlight that media richness theory was not actually developed

to predict how users were going to use media but rather to identify which media would

be more effective (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Dennis & Kinney, 1998). One limitation of

media richness theory is that most research studies on it have assessed perceptions of

media use and fit rather than assessing actual measures of media use (Dennis &

Kinney, 1998). Typically in these studies, managers have been asked to choose a

medium through which to send a set of hypothetical messages. The researchers then

determine whether those choices fit the predictions of media richness theory (e.g.,

Trevino, Lengel, Bodensteiner, Gerloff, & Muir, 1990). Empirical studies on media

richness have resulted in mixed evidence, with some researchers arguing that media

choice is affected by factors beyond richness (Rice & Shook, 1990; Timmerman,

2002). For instance, Timmerman (2002) presents the construct of mindlessness/

mindfulness as a moderating factor in the relationship between media richness theory

and actual media use behavior. Prior research has shown that additional media char-

acteristics not included in the media richness framework are important in understand-

ing the effects of media use on the ability to communicate and process information

(Dennis & Kinney 1998; Rice & Steinfield, 1993).

72 Journal of Business Communication 50(1)

The Role of Task Type on Media Choice

The type of task has been recognized as a key factor influencing media choice (Daft

& Lengel, 1986; Simon, 2006). McGrath (1984) led the efforts to create a categoriza-

tion of tasks to help understand the role of communication media in supporting

completion based on the task type. The tasks described by McGrath’s circumplex are

meant to represent those typically encountered by people working collaboratively.

McGrath’s group task circumplex classifies group work tasks based on two dimen-

sions. Based on the first dimension, tasks can be collaboration or conflict. Based on

the second dimension, tasks can be conceptual or behavioral. This study will focus on

the first dimension of collaboration versus conflict. Collaboration tasks are defined as

requiring individuals to work together on a common solution. Based on McGrath’s

circumplex, collaboration tasks include intellective tasks (solving problems with a

known correct answer), creativity tasks (generating ideas or solutions), planning (gen-

erating plans), and performance-oriented tasks (psychomotor tasks performed against

absolute standards). Conflict tasks refer to situations in which the success of any one

individual will usually result on someone else failing or falling behind (McGrath,

1984). Tasks in the conflict category include decision-making tasks (task for which

there is not a known correct answer), cognitive conflict tasks (resolving different

viewpoints), mixed motive tasks (resolving conflict involving personal interests), and

competitive tasks (competing for victory).

One characteristic of work tasks that has been highlighted in prior research is task

ambiguity, sometimes referred as task equivocality (Daft & Macintosh, 1981). Task

ambiguity has been defined as the extent to which information about the task lends

itself to different and perhaps conflicting interpretations about the context (Daft &

Macintosh, 1981). Task ambiguity refers to those tasks for which multiple acceptable

and possibly conflicting solutions might exist, as perceived by those with different

frames of reference (Argote, 1982). Conflict tasks involve disagreement among the

communicating parties and usually include conflicting views or approaches and differ-

ing interpretation of the context. On the other hand, collaboration tasks involve a

group of individuals working together to accomplish a goal. Conflict tasks tend to be

higher in ambiguity than collaboration tasks because of their inherent focus on uncov-

ering differing perspectives on an issue.

This study investigates IM use for collaboration and conflict tasks, and how this

communication media is used to support task completion. Based on both social pres-

ence theory and media richness theory, we would expect individuals to choose IM, a

low-presence, lean medium, for less complex communication tasks (social presence

theory) and for tasks involving low ambiguity (media richness theory). Collaboration

tasks, as defined in McGrath’s (1984) taxonomy, can be considered low-ambiguity

and less complex communication acts, whereas conflict tasks can be considered high-

ambiguity and more complex communication acts. We hypothesize that the use of IM

Pazos et al. 73

will be more frequent for tasks that involve collaboration than those that involve cog-

nitive conflict.

Hypothesis 1: Individuals are more likely to use IM for collaboration than for

conflict tasks.

Research MethodologyWe used a mixed-methods sequential design consisting of an initial qualitative data

collection using interviews and subsequent analysis of the data. The qualitative phase

led to identification of specific sample task scenarios in the information technology

(IT) environment that were used in the next phase. A thorough literature review was

conducted to identify critical contextual factors that have the potential to influence IM

use. Those factors were further explored in the interviews and related items were also

included in the quantitative survey. The second phase was a combination of quantita-

tive and qualitative data collection using a survey that included closed- and open-

ended questions. The closed-ended questions addressed the specific variables of

interest, whereas the open-ended questions were focused on identifying additional

tasks that were supported within the IM environment.

The IM tools used by the selected participating companies were available to the

whole organization and they were mostly used internally. Some of the features of the

IM tools include text-based communication (no voice or video features), status infor-

mation, and document transmission capabilities. The initial qualitative phase of the

study consisted of a series of four interviews. The purpose of this phase was to support

the design of the online survey. In particular, results were used to identify specific

examples of actual tasks performed by IT professionals using IM as well as to depict

relevant contextual and individual factors that may influence IM use (e.g., proficiency

with the tool). Four IM users were selected as interview participants using purposive

sampling from the population of IT professionals from a midsize Midwestern com-

pany. Semistructured interviews were conducted one-on-one with each participant and

were between 20 and 30 minutes in length. A set of general questions were used to

guide the interview and, to identify examples of specific tasks in the IT corporate

environment that were supported through IM use and factors that might influence IM

use in general. Interview questions were reviewed by two experts in collaboration and

communication and pilot-tested before delivery. Based on pilot testing, several items

were reworded for clarity.

The sample task scenarios identified during the interviews were mapped onto

McGrath’s (1984) task circumplex and later used in the survey to provide real examples

of collaboration and cognitive conflict tasks in IT environments. Table 1 provides

specific examples of collaboration and conflict tasks in the IT work environment iden-

tified from the interviews. The table describes the task types and provides specific

examples of each.

74 Journal of Business Communication 50(1)

The second phase of the study consisted of a survey addressing a range of questions

related to IM use for task completion. Convenience sampling was used to select par-

ticipants within three large IT companies in the Midwest. The requirement to partici-

pate was that individuals use IM to support their work tasks. Individuals who had not

used IM within the past 6 months were considered nonusers. Eighty-five IT profes-

sionals participated in an online survey. Because of incomplete data, only 68 partici-

pants were included in the final survey analysis. Two additional participants were also

excluded for not meeting the survey criteria of IM use in the past 6 months. The age

range of the participants was between 26 and 35 years.

The online survey was delivered using the Survey Monkey tool and consisted of 22

questions. The survey protocol was composed of study participant consent, 5-point

Likert-style scale questions anchored with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree

(5), open-ended questions to identify specific tasks when using IM and/or multitask-

ing, and basic demographic information. Some background questions assessed IM

proficiency and experience of use (IM experience). Table 2 provides a description of

the quantitative items on the survey, excluding the demographic questions.

VariablesWe evaluated IM use with two types of tasks, cooperative tasks and conflict tasks. Task

definitions were based on McGrath’s (1984) task circumplex. McGrath’s task circum-

plex is a widely accepted classification of tasks in computer-mediated communication

environments and it has a strong theoretical foundation built on prior theories. The cir-

cumplex provides a classification of tasks that fully aligns with the goals of this study.

McGrath’s circumplex defines a collaboration task as one involving collaboration

Table 1. Task Descriptions Based on McGrath Taxonomy and Interviews

Type Description Sample Scenario

Collaboration tasks

Plan and coordinate tasks for a project deliverable

Using instant messaging (IM) to coordinate the testing dates for software release

Develop a shared solution or approach for work problem or task with a known correct answer

Using IM to help me identify a problem with a system bug

Conflict tasks Work on a problem or task without a known correct answer or solution

Using IM to help determine the feature list for a new product or to discuss business requirements for a new system.

Resolve a disagreement with someone with the same goal and objectives

Using IM to discuss whether modifying existing processes or implementing a new system will increase the department’s efficiency

Pazos et al. 75

toward a solution that will benefit all parties equally. The cognitive conflict task is

described as resolving a disagreement on a work problem or task. Note that cognitive

conflict does not involve an interpersonal friction but rather a difference in opinions as

to how to accomplish a task (Thompson, 2008).

The authors conducted a thorough review of instruments and did not find fully vali-

dated constructs that addressed the role of IM in task completion and multitasking

considering the task at hand. The quantitative survey items used in the analysis were

based partly on the results of the initial interviews as well as the literature review on

multitasking and IM use. The development of survey items was built on interview

results and incorporated a broadly accepted task categorization (McGrath’s circum-

plex) to help us identify relevant task types and the relationship between type of task

and IM use.

The two main constructs evaluated with the survey and used in the analysis were

extent of IM use in collaboration tasks and extent of IM use for cognitive conflict

tasks. The first construct was assessed with Survey Items 6 and 7 whereas the second

was assessed using Items 8 and 9. The selected task categories were based on

McGrath’s typology of tasks. Estimates of scale reliability were calculated respec-

tively at α = .74 and α = .79.

The remaining survey items addressed individual and environmental factors related

to IM use. These factors were aimed at providing descriptive information about indi-

vidual and contextual factors related to IM use. They were not used in the main

hypothesis test but were included because the literature supported their role in IM use.

Table 2. Quantitative Survey Items

Survey Questions

1. Instant message (IM) proficiency 2. Frequency of IM use 3. Experience using IM (in length of time) 4. IM adoption level at organization 5. IM use for work tasks 6. Degree of IM use to plan and coordinate tasks for a project deliverable 7. Degree of IM use to solve a problem with a known solution 8. Degree of IM use to reach consensus on a decision 9. Degree of IM use to resolve a disagreement about the task with someone10. Preference to multitask11. Use of multitasking in work tasks12. Degree of IM use in multitasking13. Perceived organization’s multitasking preference

76 Journal of Business Communication 50(1)

Individual Factors• IM experience—how long an individual has used IM

• IM proficiency—an individual’s perceived level of proficiency with IM use

• Preference for multitasking—an individual’s reported preference for multi-

tasking.

Environmental FactorsPrevious research identified the existence of factors in the environment that have

potential influence on media choice and use. We assessed participants’ perception on

the following factors related to IM use for task support and for multitasking:

• IM corporate adoption—overall level of adoption of IM for supporting work

tasks

• Companywide multitasking preference—multitasking as a general preference

for employees in the company

• Multitasking peer influence—perceived degree of influence of peer’s multi-

tasking preference on respondent’s own work.

Analysis and ResultsWe first provide a descriptive analysis of variables related to IM use. Table 3 shows

the average values and standard deviation for participants’ experience using IM, pro-

ficiency with the tool, and overall adoption of IM within the company. The answers

were on a 5-point Likert-type scale anchored with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5). Results indicate that participants have high levels of proficiency and expe-

rience with the tool.

Next we tested the main hypothesis. We used a paired t test to compare extent of

IM use for cognitive conflict tasks with use for collaboration tasks. A collaboration

task was defined as a task involving collaboration toward a solution that will benefit

all parties equally. The cognitive conflict task involves resolving a disagreement on a

work problem or task. Extent of IM use in collaboration tasks was assessed with

Survey Items 6 and 7 whereas extent of IM use for cognitive conflict tasks was assessed

using Items 8 and 9. Participants reported statistically significantly greater use of IM

for collaboration than for solving cognitive conflict tasks (t = 4.987, p = .0001). Table 4

Table 3. Instant Message Descriptive Analysis

Instant Message Mean SD

Experience with instant messaging (IM) 4.6 0.8490Proficiency with IM 4.8 0.4211IM adoption level in company 4.5 0.8330

Pazos et al. 77

indicates the mean scores and standard deviation for IM use in collaborative tasks and

cognitive conflict tasks.

Qualitative data were analyzed to determine the kinds of multitasking participants

reported engaging in with IM. Respondent answers the following question: “Please,

describe a situation in which you might use IM to work on more than one task at a

time.” Participants’ responses were analyzed thematically to pull out common themes

occurring across responses.

Respondents described three main uses of multitasking with IM: (a) obtaining addi-

tional information about a project/task on which they were simultaneously working,

(b) responding to queries about one project/task while simultaneously working on

another project/task, and (c) being engaged in a low-intensity task (one that does not

require intensive focus) and completing small, unrelated tasks simultaneously. See

Table 5 for examples.

Responses from another open-ended question were also analyzed qualitatively. The

question was stated as follows: “Please describe some scenarios where you use IM to

help you with your work.”

Responses suggest five general themes: (a) quickly communicate information, (b)

obtain information during a communication with a third party, (c) reach people who

may be unavailable through other media, (d) obtain information from multiple parties,

and (e) obtain information quickly in order to complete a task. These themes have

been outlined in Table 6 along with illustrative quotes.

The examples participants offered of the ways in which they use IM to multitask

were analyzed in light of McGrath’s Task Circumplex. Fifty-five percent (35) of the

participants reported scenarios that mapped to specific collaboration tasks. They

reported using IM to multitask for three types of collaboration tasks such as generating

plans, generating ideas, and intellective tasks. Table 7 indicates the general themes of

collaboration tasks obtained from participants along with specific quotes illustrating

each. In general, participants specifically pointed to task complexity as a reason for

not using IM for solving a work-related task. See Table 7 for the resulting themes and

examples of quotes that illustrate each category.

Thirty-seven percent (25) of the participants provided specific examples of IM use

for conflict tasks. When asked about specific scenarios involving conflict tasks for

which they use IM, respondents indicated use of IM to discuss differences of opinion.

Some participants reported preferring other communication media to deal with cogni-

tive conflict tasks, such as face-to-face, phone, or e-mail. Table 8 indicates the general

themes of cognitive conflict tasks obtained from participants along with specific

quotes illustrating each.

Table 4. Estimated Means for Paired-Sample t Tests

Type of Task Mean Difference SD

Cooperative task 3.77 1.18Cognitive conflict task 3.10 1.38

78 Journal of Business Communication 50(1)

Furthermore, participants’ open-ended comments revealed a desire to use IM for

multitasking only when the nature of the communication is relatively straightforward

and quick: “[I use IM] in answering quick questions that are simple and have very little

ambiguity. Usually quick, close-ended requests that foot traffic or waiting for an email

check from my co-worker are simply added overhead in the conversation”; “[I use IM

for] quick questions that use ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses”; “[I use IM for] quick questions

that are simple and have very little ambiguity”; “It does not help me with larger tasks

requiring delegation or instruction.”

As part of the descriptive analysis, we present the results related to IM use to support

multitasking. We include descriptive data on overall trends on preference for multi-

tasking, multitasking as an accepted cultural norm, and multitasking behavior. See

Table 9 for the averages of these factors. Answers were anchored with a strongly dis-agree (1) and strongly agree (5). Interestingly, the mean value of multitasking as a

cultural norm is 4.6 out of 5, which indicates that most participants feel strongly about

multitasking being widely used in their organizations. On the other hand, average indi-

vidual preference for multitasking was only 3.2. Although only descriptive in nature,

these results appear to indicate a widespread trend to multitask as a cultural norm that

contrasts individual preferences. Individuals’ multitasking behaviors seem to be driven

by cultural norms rather than their personal preference. This lack of alignment could

Table 5. Uses of Instant Messaging (IM) for Multitasking

Multitasking Scenarios Example

Obtaining additional information about a project/task one is simultaneously working on

“While creating a course, I had a few questions about its creation. Rather than stop, write an email and wait for the response, I used IM to get an answer while continuing in the 1st task.”

“[I may be] on a call with a customer . . . investigating an issue, and trying to obtain documentation or ask a question of the expert without interrupting the call.”

Responding to queries about one project/task while simultaneously working on another project/task

“I am frequently in meetings pertaining to one subject and I often receive IM’s regarding others.”

“I manage a team of 7 people so am sometimes helping to solve team member’s problems and questions while putting the final touches on a meeting agenda.”

Being engaged in a low-intensity task (one that does not require intensive focus) and completing small, unrelated tasks simultaneously

“Attending conference calls as an attendee and working on other projects, meeting agendas, or action items during the call”

“Performing a software installation while reading new email, or while responding to requests over IM”

Pazos et al. 79

Table 6. Needs Met Through Instant Messaging (IM) Use

IM Use to Support Multitasking Example

Quickly communicate information

“When I need to speak with someone about . . . something unrelated I need to get done soon”

“For quick updates” “I can get a quick question answered and move on faster.”Obtain information during a

communication with a third party

“Ask quick questions of an expert while on a call with a customer eliminating the need to call the customer back”

“I will be on the phone with a client regarding a specific timeline or scenario they have encountered and need to ask the person tied to that role, what has been happening and it gives me real time information.”

Reach people who may be unavailable through other media

“People at our office are frequently on site or work from home. It’s easy to get in touch with people over IM.”

“To ask a brief question of someone when they may be in another meeting and cannot answer their phone”

Obtain information from multiple parties

“To gather information from multiple people—you can have several IM conversations going on simultaneously—it is often much more efficient than making phone calls to those individuals”

“When on a conference call with a vendor, when there are multiple people from my company on the same call. It gives us the opportunity to chat via IM and have a unified message back to the vendor on the phone, without having to have any debate or discussions in front of the vendor.”

Obtain information quickly in order to complete a task

“When working to finalize a client proposal or prepare for a client meeting, I frequently use IM to ask outstanding questions of co-workers.”

“Asking for a piece of information to use in something I am creating (budget, presentation, etc.)”

have implications on their attitudinal and behavioral response to multitasking requests

if the cultural norm is not widely understood or accepted.

Table 10 depicts the correlation matrix corresponding to the qualitative survey

items. The table includes the Pearson correlation coefficient along with the level of

significance of the correlations.

DiscussionThis study focused on examining IM use for collaboration and conflict tasks in the

workplace. The main goal of the study was to shed some light on actual use of IM in

current organizations and the role of IM tools on multitasking. This study adds to our

80 Journal of Business Communication 50(1)

Table 7. Cooperation Task Themes When Using Instant Messaging (IM) to Support Task Completion

Themes From Cooperation Tasks Excerpts From Participant Response

Generating plans “On conference call with a client, I may IM a colleague to stress a point or confirm an approach to take on a call.”

Generating ideas “I use IM all the time to run ideas by my boss and my teammates when I am stuck on something.”

Intellective task “Asking folks to see if they have tried a given course of action to resolve a technical issue before I try to find resources to pursue that path.”

“When IT production support issues arise, I will often use IM to communicate with a Database Administrator and an Application Developer as we analyze the issue and work to resolve it.”

Table 8. Conflict Task Themes When Using Instant Messaging (IM) to Multitask

Themes From Conflict Tasks Excerpts From Participant Response

Resolutions (any conflict type task)

“While working on multiple tasks (e.g., email, document editing, phone calls), I have communicated with colleagues regarding differences of opinion on project direction.”

“It’s a great tool when you have a conflict with an employee since you don’t have to talk out loud. I use it to apologize if I was too forward or to discuss concerns with team members privately.”

“I have used IM to express an opinion in conflict with a co-worker, but I prefer to have these conversations in person”

Initial or Postconflict discussion

“In a situation of a disagreement I always speak face to face. I may use IM to get the associate’s attention and ask if they have time to speak but then I either call them or get together with them to talk through the issue.”

“After the disagreement to see if there is a problem that requires a face to face or a walk to get coffee. It is a way to see if someone wants to talk.”

Not used for conflict task type

“The thought process used to determine an approach for a work problem or . . . too complex to try and use IM.”

“I prefer to have these types of conversations in person since determining an approach tends to be collaborative but we have talked about how to approach aspects of work over IM . . . example—I will develop the questionnaire while you work on the survey results template . . .”

Pazos et al. 81

Table 9. Multitasking Descriptive Statistics

Multitasking Mean Median SD

Respondent’s preference for multitasking 3.2 3 1.204Overall preference for multitasking in company 4.6 5 1.18Respondent’s extent of multitasking at work 4.4 5 0.699

understanding of media choice for task completion in the specific context of IT set-

tings. The results supported the hypothesis that individuals are more likely to use IM

for collaboration than for conflict tasks.

Consistent with previous research (Nardi et al., 2000; Stone & Posey, 2008), par-

ticipants frequently reported IM use for coordination behaviors such as clarifications,

scheduling and status updates, and for general efficiency. Participants’ higher levels of

IM use for collaboration than for conflict tasks make sense in light of previous research

and theory. Research in media choice, for instance, indicates that social cues (Short

et al., 1976) influence an individual’s preference for a specific communication

medium. Results from this study support this argument, with participants indicating

that social cues were not sufficiently present through IM to effectively solve conflict

tasks. In this way, individuals appeared to intuitively know that IM would not be an

effective medium for addressing conflicts. Indeed, previous research has found that

teams which rely heavily or exclusively on electronic communication experience

increased conflict (Mortensen & Hinds, 2001), in part because of the leanness of the

medium (as predicted by media richness theory). Individuals also may feel that IM

does not allow for the planning required to craft an effective communication in a con-

flict situation (as in “The thought process . . . too complex to try and use IM”), opting

for other media that enable more preparation (Stewart, Setlock, & Fussell, 2004).

It may also be that the IM medium’s symbolic value prompts users to steer away

from it for conflict-oriented communications. Based on symbolic interactionist theory,

Trevino, Daft, and Lengel (1990) have noted that individuals in organizations make

media choices in part based on the symbolic value that those media hold and convey

in the conversation. By its very nature, the IM medium is quick (does not require

repeated login or even change of computer screen), secondary to the main task (the

text normally appears at the bottom corner of the screen), and to some degree ethereal

(although it is generally possible to view a transcript, the conversation appears and

disappears from the user’s screen in real time). These features imbue IM with an infor-

mality that does not lend itself well to situations in which people anticipate conflict. In

this study, the small number of people who did report using IM for conflict tasks may

use them grudgingly (as with the person who said, “I prefer to have these conversa-

tions in person”), or may use them for smoothing purposes after a conflict has already

occurred (as in “after the disagreement to see if there is a problem that requires a face

to face or a walk to get coffee”).

82

Tab

le 1

0. C

orre

latio

n M

atri

x of

Qua

ntita

tive

Surv

ey It

ems

Que

stio

n 2

Que

stio

n 3

Que

stio

n 4

Que

stio

n 5

Que

stio

n 6

Que

stio

n 7

Que

stio

n 8

Que

stio

n 9

Que

stio

n 10

Que

stio

n 11

Que

stio

n 12

Que

stio

n 13

Que

stio

n 1

.535

**.5

81**

.339

**.6

57**

.309

*.4

64**

.342

**.2

28.0

60.1

04.4

88**

.186

Que

stio

n 2

.392

**.4

52**

.628

**.2

97*

.404

**.3

48**

.320

**−

.049

.172

.443

**.1

87Q

uest

ion

3.2

65*

.236

*.1

76.2

73*

.194

.053

.238

*−

.015

.123

.250

*Q

uest

ion

4.4

18**

.118

.092

.052

.149

.115

−.0

93.3

07*

−.0

22Q

uest

ion

5.3

20**

.398

**.2

60*

.278

*.0

39.0

16.6

21**

.077

Que

stio

n 6

.658

**.4

99**

.276

*.1

22.0

90.1

92.2

92*

Que

stio

n 7

.658

**.4

74**

.104

.139

.412

**.3

44**

Que

stio

n 8

.515

**.0

45.1

40.3

11**

.244

*Q

uest

ion

9−

.085

.163

.285

*.2

35Q

uest

ion

10−

.425

**.0

61.0

84Q

uest

ion

11.1

37.0

05Q

uest

ion

12.1

19

*p <

.05.

**p

< .0

1.

Pazos et al. 83

Apart from IM use, participants in this study reported high multitasking use even

when it was not a preference for them. These results suggest that multitasking might

be driven more by environment than preference.

Self-reports of IM use and IM use for multitasking emphasized task-in-progress or

work task support. Participants used IM to multitask to seek information or expertise

to complete an existing task as well as engage in initial discussions or posttask discus-

sions. Previous research has focused on task completion; future studies should focus

on IM use as a facilitator to task-in-progress scenarios.

In this study, IM is conceptualized as both an information-transmission channel

and an interaction tool. Task completion typically involves both transmission and

processing of information as well as interaction between the parties involved in

the task.

Limitations and Future ResearchThis research contributes to our knowledge of IM use in technology-intensive corpo-

rate environments by increasing our understanding of the complex relationships

between IM use and task completion. The study focused on participant perceptions of

IM use but did not measure actual use. Further research should include field studies

that evaluate actual IM use by corporate participants. The study also did not include

measures of satisfaction and performance related to the task. These are two recurring

attributes in IM literature. Additional research should test for these factors using the

task types and scenarios established in this study. In future studies, research could

focus on the impact of situational factors versus individual factors and whether one or

the other is more influential on media choice. Examples of situational factors could

include organizational culture while individual factors could include span of control,

organizational level, and expertise with communication technologies among others.

Future research could also take an experimental approach to evaluating the efficiency

of IM as a support tool for task completion by comparing different sets of tasks and

evaluating communication processes, efficiency, and performance.

The results presented in this study have limited external validity as a result of the

experimental design. For instance, results may not be generalizable to all organiza-

tions as the study participants were selected to be frequent IM users. Results can be

more applicable to IT organizations that use IM broadly.

Generalizability of this study’s result is limited by the small sample size and by the

convenience sampling method used that selected an age group that might not be gen-

eralizable to other organizations. However, this study provides a preliminary descrip-

tion of IM use as a tool for task completion and multitasking in technology-intensive

corporate environments. An additional limitation of this study relates to the survey

items used in the quantitative analysis. The two main constructs used in the hypotheses

tests show acceptable levels of reliability (at α = .74 and α = .79) but the instrument

could be further validated with additional data collection and factor analysis. Future

84 Journal of Business Communication 50(1)

research plans by the investigators include the use of exploratory and confirmatory

factor analyses.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of

this article.

References

Argote, L. (1982). Input uncertainty and organizational coordination in hospital emergency

units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 420-434.

Cameron, A., & Webster, J. (2005). Unintended consequences of emerging communication tech-

nologies: Instant messaging in the workplace. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 85-103.

Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of

media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 153-170.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness,

and structural determinants. Management Science, 32, 554-571.

Daft, R. L., & Macintosh, N. B. (1981). A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality

of information processing in organizational work units. Administrative Science Quarterly,

26, 207-224.

Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The

effects of cues, feedback and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9, 256-274.

Fleishman, E. A., Costanza, D. P., & Marshall-Mies, J. (1999). Abilities. In N. G. Peterson,

M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, & E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), An occupational information system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET (pp. 175-195). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Fulk, J., & Boyd, B. (1991). Emerging theories of communication in organizations. Journal of Management, 17, 407-446.

Gartner, Inc. (2007, June 21). Gartner predicts instant messaging will be de facto tool for voice, video and chat by the end of 2011. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/it/page.

jsp?id=507731

Glass, R., & Lee, S. (2010). Social influence and instant message adoption. Journal of Com-puter Information Systems, 51(2), 24-30.

Isaacs, E., Kamm, C., Schiano, D. J., Walendowski, A., & Whittaker, S. (2002). Characterizing

instant messaging from recorded logs. In CHI’02 extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 720-721). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Isaacs, E., Walendowski, A., Whittaker, S., Schiano, J., & Kamm, C. (2002). The character,

functions, and styles of instant messaging in the workplace. In Proceedings of the 2002

ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York,: Association for

Computing Machinery.

Pazos et al. 85

Maschke, P., & Goeters, K. M. (1999). Anforderungen an Flugschüler in der Ab-Initio-Ausbil-dung im Vergleich zu aktiven Linienflugzeugführern [Job analysis of ab-initio flight students

in comparison with active line pilots]. (DLR Forschungsbericht 1999–16). Hamburg, Ger-

many: Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Mennecke, B. E., Valacich, J. S., & Wheeler, B. C. (2000). The effects of media and task on

user performance: A test of the task-media fit hypothesis. Group Decision and Negotiation,

9, 507-529.

Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. J. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed

teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 212-238.

Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant mes-saging in action. Paper presented at the 2000 ACM conference on Computer Supported

Cooperative Work, Philadelphia, PA.

Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2003). Human–computer interaction: Psychological aspects of the

human use of computing. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 491-516.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2002). It’s about time: Temporal structuring in organizations.

Organization Science, 13, 684-700.

Radicati Group. (2009, January 7). Radicati Group releases Instant Messaging Market 2008-2012: An in-depth analysis of market for instant messaging solutions [Press release]. Retrieved from

http://www.radicati.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/im-market-2008-press-release.pdf

Rennecker, J., Dennis, A. R., & Hansen, S. (2006). Reconstructing the stage: The use of instant

messaging to restructure meeting boundaries. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii Inter-national Conference on System Sciences (p. 27.1). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.

Rennecker, J., & Godwin, L. (2003). Theorizing the unintended consequences of instant mes-

saging for worker productivity. Sprouts: Working Paper on Information Environments, Sys-tems & Organizations, 3, 137-168.

Rice, R. E., & Shook, D. (1990). Relationships of job categories and organizational levels to

use of communication channels, including electronic mail: A meta-analysis and extension.

Journal of Management Studies, 27, 195-229.

Rice, R. E., & Steinfield, C. (1993). Experiences with new forms of organizational communica-

tion via electronic mail and voice messaging. In J. H. Andriessen & R. Ro (Eds.), Telematics and work (pp. 109-138). London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Sia, C. L., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (2002). Group polarization and computer-mediated com-

munication: Effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity. Information Systems Research, 13, 70-90.

Simon, A. F. (2006). Computer-mediated communication: Task performance and satisfaction.

Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 349-379.

Stewart, C., Setlock, L., & Fussell, S. (2004). Conversational argumentation in decision mak-

ing: Chinese and U.S. participants in face-to-face and instant-messaging interactions. Dis-course Processes, 44(2), 113-139.

86 Journal of Business Communication 50(1)

Stone, N. J., & Posey, M. (2008). Understanding coordination in computer-mediated versus

face-to-face groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 827-851.

Thompson, L. L. (2008). Making the team: A guide for managers. Upper Saddle River, NJ,

Prentice Hall.

Timmerman, C. E. (2002). The moderating effect of mindlessness/mindfulness upon media

richness and social influence explanations of organizational media use. Communication Monographs, 69, 111-131.

Trevino, L. K., Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1990). Understanding managers’ media choices: A

symbolic interactionist perspective. In J. Fulk & C. W. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 71-94). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Trevino, L. K., Lengel, R. H., Bodensteiner, W., Gerloff, E., & Muir, N. K. (1990). The richness

imperative and cognitive style: The role of individual differences in media choice behavior.

Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 176-197.

Turner, J. W., & Reinsch, N., Jr. (2007). The business communicator as presence allocator.

Journal of Business Communication, 44, 36-58.

Turner, J. W., & Tinsley, C. (2002, October). Managing multiple conversations: Executive skill or managerial chaos? Paper presented at the Association for Business Communicators con-

ference, Cincinnati, OH.

Vickery, S. K., Droge, C., Stank, T. P., Goldsby, T. J., & Markland, R. E. (2004). The perfor-

mance implications of media richness in a business-to-business service environment: Direct

versus indirect effects. Management Science, 50, 1106-1119.

Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental

observations over time. Organization Science, 6, 186-203.

Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiation. New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Webster, J., & Trevino, L. (1995). Rational and social theories as complementary explanations

of communication media choices: Two policy-capturing studies. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1544-1572.

Zweig, D., & Webster, J. (2002). Where is the line between benign and invasive? An examina-

tion of psychological barriers to the acceptance of awareness monitoring systems. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 605-633.

Bios

Pilar Pazos is an Assistant Professor at the Engineering Management and Systems Engineering

Department, Old Dominion University. She received a PhD in industrial engineering from

Texas Tech University.

Jennifer M. Chung is an international strategy and business planning consultant at TransUnion.

She received a master of science degree in learning and organizational change from Northwestern

University.

Marina Micari is Associate Director at the Searle Center for Teaching Excellence, Northwestern

University.

Copyright of Journal of Business Communication is the property of Association for Business Communicationand its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyrightholder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.