Can Computer-Mediated Communication Democratize the Workplace?
by Nerissa Nelson
Can technology democratize the workplace? Does it give employees more of a voice? Does it provide equal access to information for all employees? These questions have been the subject of much debate. The prevailing position is that technology has democratized the workplace. The dissenting view suggests that technology reinforces existing hierarchies within organizations, or at least does nothing to break them down. For librarians, especially those in the corporate environment, the question of whether technology may or may not democratize the workplace has much relevance for two reasons: As implementers of information technology, we may consider ourselves as corporate and social do-gooders helping to break down status and power-related barriers by providing access to information to anyone in the company. As employees, and thus users of new technology, we may believe that our voices have a further reach and that our input is taken more seriously. In this article, I argue that there is a limited basis, at best, for the belief that computer-mediated communication has democratized the workplace.
The information technology referred to above is well recognized by information professionals. Collectively known as computer-mediated communication (CMC), it includes e-mail, teleconferencing, electronic bulletin boards, Internet/Intranet access, Internet relay chats, and group decision support systems (GDSS).
Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler are among the most vocal proponents of the thesis that CMC has democratized the workplace. In their book, Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization (MIT Press, 1991), they argue that computer-mediated communication reduces information gaps by providing a tool for peripheral employees (employees that are removed from the core management structure) to be connected to all people within the organization. They examine passive and active connections in the CMC environment. Passive connections is where employees choose to be an observer only of messages being posted to distribution lists or e-mail. Active connections is where employees partake in the electronic interchange and discussions posted on listservs or e-mail. The benefit of computer-mediated communication, suggest Sproull and Kiesler, is that it gives a "voice to the voiceless," and, therefore, increases "emotional and informational connections" among employees by creating more active participation in exchanging messages and establishing collaborations in electronic discussion groups. Giving people a "voice," the authors suggest, is part of our democratic culture. Information in organizations now flows more freely in the CMC environment and employees are more willing to participate beyond their stated duties.
Libby Bishop and David Levine, in their article "Computer-mediated communication as employee voice: a case study" (Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 1999), also examine the "employee voice through computer-mediated communication," supporting some of the findings of Sproull and Kiesler. They conclude that CMC creates easier access to people and information and provides a new vehicle for employees to address concerns to management in the hopes of resolving problems or effecting change. They examine the effects of CMC at a high-tech firm that was an early user and advocate of computer-mediated communication. After collecting data and conducting interviews over a two-year period, their findings suggested that technology had eroded the hierarchical structure of management and gave employees more of a voice in the decision making process of the organization.
But has the impact of computer-mediated communication really democratized the workplace? Has it weakened or softened the hierarchical structure of organizations? Are librarians now free to interact and exchange information at all levels within or beyond the organization? And do librarians have a more "active voice" in the virtual environment in being part of the decision making process that they did not have in the past? Some researchers contend that CMC does not lead to a democratized workplace.
Control over Technology
Susan Herring, in her study, "Gender Participation in Computer-Mediated Linguistic Discourse" (1992), was one of the first to challenge the position that modern information technology opens the communication path to a more egalitarian communication structure. Focusing on gender participation in the CMC environment, she observed two electronic discussion lists at an academic institution. She examined two issues for her study: 1) to see if the communication process was democratic in the electronic environment, and 2) to determine if computer-mediated communication increased gender equality. Herring focused primarily on the degree to which males and females participated on these discussion lists. Her findings revealed that there was a difference between the female to male participation ratio. Male participation showed minimal interest in female postings, which resulted in a decline of female participation. Female postings to the discussion lists tended to be brief or ignored if certain subjects were not of interest or topics discussed did not encourage female participation. Herring concluded that "...although the medium theoretically allows for everyone with access to a network to take part and to express their concerns and desires equally, a very large community of potential participants is effectively prevented by censorship, both overt and covert." In this particular academic environment, computer-mediated communication was found to be male dominated, power-based and hierarchical.
Like Herring, Giuseppe Mantovani is critical of the egalitarian democratic effect of CMC. Focusing on a corporate, rather than an academic environment, he explores the conditions under which CMC may or may not promote democratic patterns. He challenges the arguments made by Sproull and Kiesler in his article, "Is computer-mediated communication intrinsically apt to enhance democracy in organizations?" (Human Relations, 1994). Much of how CMC is used depends on the culture of the organization, rather than just the technology itself. He suggests CMC is effective in overcoming physical barriers (geographic location), but not social barriers (structure of the organization). Social inequalities that exist in organizations are not solved by integrating technology. Computer-mediated communication, Mantovani believes, is determined by an organization's history and the rules that are implemented by management. Taking this into consideration, he says, CMC "does not generally foster democracy in organizations."
A more recent study by Frank Symons examines how traditional hierarchical structures are now reproduced electronically. In his article, "Virtual department, power, and location in different organizational settings" (Economic Geography, 1997), he says that technology gives management even more power than they had before by tracking production and efficiency with greater accuracy, less margin of error, and increased monitoring of employees' activities at work. Hierarchy in the electronic realm depends on the degree to which organizational members have access to the Internet or company Intranet, electronic files or databases. To test the relationship between hierarchy, power, and location, Symons conducted a 10-year study that examined virtual departments in various organizational settings of firms with 3,000 to 5,000 full-time employees. Out of this research emerged three to seven different hierarchical categories, which were characterized by the complexity of the information that was accessible or shared among different departments. The question he raised was whether traditional hierarchies are really being eradicated by virtual departments, or are they merely being changed under the guise of technology. Symons concludes that hierarchical models still exist in many organizations and are now just electronically reinforced. He notes that organizations practicing different management styles, such as centralized vs. decentralized, still show evidence of hierarchical structures because management holds the power in how the technology will be used, despite geographic location.
William Wresch, like Symons, supports the notion that management has power over technology. In his book, Disconnected: Have and Have Nots in the Information Age (Rutgers University Press, 1996), he discusses how information technology in many organizations has become the old "panoptican - an optical instrument that allowed an observer in the middle of a prison to see into all the cells yet remain unseen." In the context of organizations today, this is how upper management controls the use and implementation of information technology - by the type of network administration software to be used, which is dependent on the server and connection an organization has, and who will administer and run these systems. Because of this control, Wresch states there is no "semblance of privacy" for employees anymore. Managers can physically be located anywhere and still have the ability to monitor and track organizational activities. He describes this control over technology as being very powerful for management since they now have tools to put employees under blind surveillance. The issue of power, technology and rights to privacy in the workplace is hotly debated today.
Discussion
In my opinion, studies supporting the democratizing impact of CMC are flawed. From the very outset, they fail to consider how the power structure in organizations controls how CMC is implemented and to what extent it is used or what restrictions are placed on it. There is an assumption that all information flows from top-down or vice versa, and that all employees are on the same level playing field as management in the virtual world. Although technology provides us with a new method to transmit messages as senders and receivers, it does not ensure that these messages are heard or even considered. The reality is that technology, for the most part, has not changed behavior. In most companies, traditional power structures are still in place; messages can be ignored, and electronic activity is monitored.
Issues that confront librarians in an environment that is not democratized through CMC could include: e-mails ignored by upper management, monitoring Internet sites visited and e-mails sent, limiting access to information for certain employees, and information that should be posted in a visible location is buried under layers of directories and files that makes it difficult to find. Who has not personally experienced or heard from colleagues about suggestions repeatedly e-mailed to superiors that are ignored? Who has not encountered management's disapproval in one of its various forms from mild resistance to clear prohibition in response to an attempt to make company information accessible to all employees? And who has not heard about frightening reports of management monitoring Internet sites visited and e-mail traffic?
Technology itself does not shape the culture of an organization, as Mantovani states, although it is certain to have an impact on day-to-day transactions. There is no doubt that technology has changed how business processes and decisions are acted upon in organizations. However, the organizational culture is embedded by the vision of its leaders, and therefore, technology is adapted to "fit" into the culture--not the other way around. Computer-mediated communication has given employees a virtual illusion that there are fewer boundaries and less control placed upon them. Computer-mediated communication is said to "enhance" and "empower" employees, but they cannot see how management exercises its power by controlling, maintaining and directing the use of technology. Under what conditions, then, can computer-mediated communication be a means in democratizing the workplace? Librarians need to be active participants in attempting to change the way in which existing power structures use technology. Much of how we leverage knowledge and disseminate information will depend on the culture in which we work. Our desire to help in breaking down barriers is only successful if it is supported by the organization that employs us. In a setting where the power structure controls much of how the technology will be used and our input in the decision making process is not considered, our jobs as librarians is more difficult in trying to serve and meet the needs of our clients and, unfortunately, there are no quick fix answers.
What can librarians do in their organizations to realize some of the potential of computer-mediated communication for democratization within a more traditional hierarchical structure? The answer again depends on the organizational culture. One way to create more of a "voice" in a controlled and closed-communication setting is to establish a group or coalition of clients that support and value the services we provide for them. As a collective group, we have better leverage and can form a more powerful informal network that may have a greater impact in getting management to listen to our concerns. Another consideration in realizing the potential of CMC for a democratized workplace is that it will take time. More face-to-face communication is necessary in proving our value and stating our concerns or goals to management. Also, providing information to management illustrating, for example, the difference between abusing the Internet and using the Internet for information seeking purposes and better decision making may eventually open the door to more equal access to information for everyone in the organization.
According to the literature, it seems that computer-mediated communication has increased in organizations, but hierarchical structures still dominate because ultimately those in power control and determine how technology will and will not be used. Computer-mediated communication, therefore, has not weakened or softened the structure. Technology has allowed for free exchange of messages and information at any level in an organization, but whether these messages or information are heard and acted upon is a different matter. Until further research or evidence proves otherwise, it appears that computer-mediated communication has not democratized the workplace.
Works Cited:Bishop, Libby, and David I. Levine (January 1, 1999). "Computer-mediated communication as employee voice: a case study." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 52(2), p. 213-233.
Herring, Susan (January 9-12, 1992). "Gender and Participation in Computer-Mediated Linguistic Discourse." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America (Philadelphia).
Mantovani, Giuseppe (January, 1994). "Is computer-mediated communication intrinsically apt to enhance democracy in organizations?" Human Relations, 47(1), p. 45.
Sproull, Lee, and Sara Kiesler (1991). Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Symons, Frank. (October 1, 1997). "Virtual department, power, and location in different organizational settings." Economic Geography, 73(4), p. 427.
Wresch, William C. (1996). Disconnected: Have and Have Nots in the Information Age. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Nerissa Nelson is an information specialist at Advantage Learning Systems. She may be reached at nlnelson@advlearn.com.
SLA Home Page | Join SLA Now | Feedback | Search
Copyright © 2000 SLA. All rights reserved.
RSS
Feedback form
