***** PHILLIPS & EISENBERG * EJC/REC Vol. 3, No. 2, 1993 ***

STRATEGIC USES OF ELECTRONIC MAIL IN ORGANIZATIONS

Steven R. Phillips
University of Montana


Eric M. Eisenberg
University of Southern California


        Abstract.  Scholars note the rise and projected
     increase in the use of electronic mail (email) in
     organizations (c.f., Rice, 1987).  The received
     view of email usage is that the medium is
     relegated to simple, mundane message transmission.
     Recent work (cf.  Schmitz & Fulk, 1991) has begun
     to suggest that other applications are possible.
     This study investigates some of these previously
     unexpected uses of email.

        The present paper reports the findings from a
     case study of a west-coast research institution
     which has used email for over seventeen years.
     The data collection included capturing private
     email messages, conducting interviews, engaging in
     participant observation, and actively soliciting
     actor verification.  Data analysis included a
     content-analysis of email messages and an
     interpretive analysis of information gathered from
     the interviews, participant observation, and actor
     verification.

        The data indicates that employees use email in
     equivocal as well as unequivocal situations.  The
     four specific strategies reported here include:  (1)
     direct requests; (2) indirect-implicit requests;
     (3) carbon-copying; and (4) message-forwarding.  In
     light of these data we suggest an extension of media
     richness theory which acknowledges that email may be
     used for strategic purposes.

     The 1980's has witnessed a dramatic upswing in the use
of computers for communication (Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff,
1987; Hiltz & Turoff, 1978; Rice, 1984; 1987).  Perhaps the
greatest proliferation of computer-aided communication has
been in organizations, typically via electronic mail
systems.  Electronic mail (email) is defined as "the
creation, editing, sending, receiving, storage, forwarding,
and printing of text--all facilitated by the computer" (Rice
and Bair, 1984, p. 191).

     An assumption of most of the early research on this
subject is that email has certain objective characteristics
which cause it to be used "primarily for its capacity to
transmit messages efficiently" (Trevino, Lengel, & Daft,
1987, p. 568; see also Schmitz, 1988).  Recently, this view
seems to be changing.  In this paper, we add to a growing
literature that recognizes the diverse and subtle ways in
which email can be used to accomplish a broad range of
communicative goals.  For some of these goals, email simply
offers an alternative way of communicating something that
could be communicated via another medium.  For other
situations, the unique characteristics of the email medium
create brand new possibilities for communicative strategies.

                E-Mail as an Efficient Tool

     In its initial formulation, media richness theory
(Daft & Lengel, 1984, 1986) posited that media vary in
richness and that media choice depends on the degree to
which a manager perceives equivocality in a communicative
situation.  A medium's richness is a function of its
availability for feedback, possibility for multiple cues,
and the type of language used.  "Equivocality means
ambiguity, the existence of multiple and conflicting
interpretations about an organizational situation" (Daft &
Lengel, 1986, p. 556).  The theory predicts that managers
will select media whose richness matches the degree of
perceived equivocality of the anticipated situation.

     Following this logic, media can be rank-ordered in
terms of richness.  According to Schmitz and Fulk (1991),
"the rank order of media in terms of richness is face-to-
face, telephone, email, personal written text (letters,
memos), formal written text (documents, bulletins), and
formal numeric text (computer output)" (p. 488).  Trevino et
al.  (1987) explain the significance of such an ordering for
communicative choices: "When meaning is ambiguous,
face-to-face communications will increase.  However, in
unambiguous situations, media such as memos, letters, and
electronic mail are sufficient to carry the message" (p.
557).  The main implication of media richness theory is that
when managers encounter equivocal situations, email will be
avoided in favor of richer media.  While some uses of email
suggested by media richness theory have been called
"strategic," they are only so in a limited way-- the
"strategy" refers to an employee's ability to select the
appropriate fit between a medium's richness and the amount
of perceived ambiguity in a message.

  Updating Media Richness Theory: Strategic Uses of Email

     Empirical research evaluating media richness theory has
yielded mixed results.  Three studies are notable in their
examination and extension of the theory.  First, Trevino et
al.  (1987) extended media richness theory by stating that
_symbolic_ factors, in addition to the perceived level of
equivocality in a situation, impact media choice.  For
Trevino et al., email is used symbolically when the choice
of the medium itself communicates something above and beyond
the content of the message.  For example, a manager who opts
to use email to send a routine message might also be trying
to indicate something about her innovativeness and
technological savvy.  Alternatively, a face-to-face meeting
may be called not because one is technically necessary due
to the equivocality of the situation but because the manager
wishes to communicate a degree of warmth and openness.

     A second important extension of the theory is found in
Markus' (1988) study of a large service organization, in
which she found the media richness approach to be lacking in
explanatory power.  In this case, she concluded that
managers' behavior was by and large rational, but _not_ in
ways suggested by the theory.  Actual uses of email were
more subtle.  For example, she states: "Individuals appear
to make media choices in part on the basis of the cues media
_fail_ to transmit, not just on the basis of the cues that
media pass through" (Markus, 1988, p. 24).  Furthermore,
employees were found to choose email in order to "utilize
capabilities that are present in [email] but are not found
in traditional communication media, like face-to-face, the
telephone, and paper mail" (Markus, 1988, p. 24).  The new
capabilities associated with email are discussed in detail
later in this paper.

     A third and final reformulation of media richness
theory was conducted by Schmitz and Fulk (1991).  In a
review of the literature, they present conflicting findings
regarding the predicted "match" between the equivocality of
a situation and the richness of the chosen media.  In about
half of the studies, the predicted association was found; in
half, it was not.  They explain this discrepancy by focusing
on the theory's reliance on "objective" characteristics of
the media as the main criterion for determining degree of
richness.  As an alternative, they argue that _perceptions_
of a media's richness are socially constructed and
subjective, and that it is these perceptions, and not
objective characteristics, that most impact actual patterns
of media use.  In their study of email use in a
technologically advanced research center, Schmitz and Fulk
conclude that perceptions of a medium's richness do indeed
vary across people and affect both assessments of the medium
and patterns of use.

     In summary, most contemporary discussions of media
choice in organizations move beyond simple assessments of
media characteristics and presumed efficiencies to
acknowledge communicators' multiple goals and inherent
conflicts of interests (Eisenberg, 1984; Morgan, 1986;
Riley, 1983).  It is well known that communicators select
strategies that strike a balance among their sometimes
conflicting goals.  For example, an employee may be
purposefully ambiguous in giving bad news to the boss in
order to simultaneously get the message across and to save
face.  What is less well understood is the role of media
choice in the design and implementation of such strategies.

     Email, used alone or in conjunction with other media,
has special properties that help employees accomplish their
goals.  Email is: asynchronous, low in typical
paralinguistic information, high in plasticity (the ability
to save and store messages), unlimited in potential audience
size, limited in contextual cues, and capable of crossing
functional and hierarchical lines without encountering
traditional gatekeepers (c.f., Culnan & Markus, 1987;
Rogers, 1986; and Sproull & Kiesler, 1986).  In addition to
the obvious uses of email (e.g., leaving a message for
someone so that you're sure they will get), these media
characteristics create new patterns of interaction and new
possibilities for communicative strategy as well (c.f.,
Contractor & Eisenberg, 1990; Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire,
1984).

     Some of these new strategies will be directed toward
increased efficiency, and others toward personal or
political ends.  For example, the "plasticity of 'soft
copy'" allows for easy storage, retrieval, and forwarding of
messages, each of which may be done for a variety of overt
and covert reasons (c.f., Markus, 1988).  Furthermore,
employees may choose email precisely because they do not
want others to hear the uncertainty in their voice, or
because they want to avoid having to meet someone
face-to-face.  A supervisor who wishes to maintain tight
control over subordinates can send messages via email that
let her know _that_ the messages were received and _when_
they were received.  Some especially Machiavellian email
systems even allow managers to "freeze" a recipient's
keyboard _until_ they respond.  On the more positive side,
much has also been made of the fact that email allows the
lowest ranking employee to reach the mailbox of the CEO;
most systems do permit this kind of access.

     In summary, it is our contention that the unique
features of email are used strategically by employees to
accomplish multiple goals.  Even with its various
adaptations and extensions, media richness theory
nonetheless focuses primarily on the application of email to
unequivocal situations.  The findings reported here provide
a further suggestion that email is used in highly
_equivocal_ situations to accomplish strategic goals.

                          Method

     Employees of a not-for-profit research institute
affiliated with a West Coast University provided the main
source of data.  The institute (hereafter referred to as
CRI), is a world leader in research addressing various
aspects of computer technology.  CRI employs over 200 people
and has used email since its inception over fifteen years
ago.  Nearly all of the employees are on-line.  Furthermore,
almost all employees have direct access to the email system
through their own terminal.  CRI is divided into two main
groups--administrative and research.  The administrative
divisions include accountants, payroll workers, government
contract overseers, purchasing officers and personnel
charged with obtaining and maintaining computers (as well as
providing user services).  The three research divisions are
involved in numerous projects dealing with such problems as
microchip research, artificial intelligence, and
computerized purchase services.

     The first author of this paper gained access to CRI
after initial contacts were made through a colleague whose
spouse worked at CRI.  After the author made contact with
the Acting Executive Director of CRI through several letters
and telephone conversations, the Acting Director approved
the project.  A manager in the Computer Services Division
later arranged for the author to be given an account on
CRI's email system.  The author was unpaid.  The only
request from CRI was that the author "do a good study."  Two
computer bulletin board announcements were sent out from the
Acting Executive Director's office which introduced the
researcher, briefly explained the project, and solicited
volunteers (see Phillips, 1989 for a full description).
While the Acting Executive Director approved the project,
our participants were to be obtained on a strictly volunteer
basis.

     We chose a multifaceted approach to data collection
which involved collecting actual messages from email users,
in-depth interviews, and participant observation.  We sought
to obtain detailed, specific explanations in the user's own
words of how email was being used at CRI.  Our research
question dictated the need for this much detail--whereas the
identification of simple, efficient communication can be
done mainly based on textual analysis, identifying
strategies requires much more information about the
communicative context.

     Once having made this choice, twelve primary
participants were enlisted voluntarily for the study.  These
employees represented a broad range of job types (e.g.,
shipping clerks, accountants, computer researchers), levels
(from departmental secretaries to the deputy director of the
business office), and email experience (from three months to
over ten years).

     Each of these primary participants was asked to suggest
two individuals with whom they regularly interacted via
email (hereafter referred to as _interactants_ in order to
distinguish them from participants).  Interactants were
asked to save the messages they sent _to_ the primary
participant during the period of email message collection
for that particular participant.  We felt this would provide
us with interactive communication episodes.  Five of the
participants could not think of anyone with whom they had
regular interaction via email.  One participant could only
think of one interactant (see Note 1).

     Email messages sent _by_ the primary participants were
captured over a three week period (see Note 2).  As
mentioned above, messages sent _to_ most of these
participants by key interactants were also captured where
possible.  In sum, we collected email messages from twelve
primary participants and thirteen interactants.  We obtained
over eight hundred and fifty email messages from the twelve
primary participants alone.

     Aside from collecting messages, we conducted in-depth
interviews with email users.  Two structured interviews were
conducted with each of the twelve primary participants (for
a total of 24 interviews).  The purpose of the initial
interview was to discover the employees' patterns of usage
and attitude toward email, with a special focus on
communicative strategies.  We specifically asked if there
were special email strategies they used when trying to
persuade someone to do something (see Appendices in
Phillips, 1989 for sample interview schedules).

     After the initial interviews, observation, message
collection, and preliminary data analysis, each of the
primary participants was interviewed again.  These second
interviews were conducted approximately two months after the
initial interviews.  Participants' reactions to the
researchers' analysis and tentative conclusions were
solicited.  A key feature of our study took place in the
second interviews.  During these interviews, participants
were also asked to reconstruct the context of one or two
episodes taken from their collected messages.  The
participants were asked to comment upon the episodes (i.e.,
"What was happening here?"; "Why did you use email?"; "How
did email help you (hinder you)?").  While asking in-depth
questions about every message was impossible, our inquiring
into the meanings of several episodes provided significant
insight into the contextual strategies reported on below.
The second interview thus obtained participant verification
concerning the study's findings and gained further insight
into the story behind several email exchanges.
Interviews/informal discussions were conducted with several
other employees at CRI.

     In order to bolster the validity and generalizability
of the findings, fourteen supplemental interviews were
conducted in three other organizations--a university
computing service, a city government, and a Federal
government institution.  The university computing service
employs over 250 people, is the primary source of computer
support for a West Coast university, and had utilized email
for fourteen years.  The city government employs over five
hundred individuals (including the police and fire
department), serves a city with a population of
approximately 80,000, and has used an email system for less
than a year.  The Federal institution employs over 200
people, represents one of five regional offices, and had
their email system installed less than four years ago.
These interviews followed a similar format to the initial
interviews with the primary participants at CRI (see
Phillips, 1989 for interview schedule).

     In sum, we conducted twenty-four interviews with the
primary participants (interviewing each participant twice--
approximately two months apart).  We also engaged in
informal interviews/discussions with several other CRI
employees and conducted fourteen supplemental interviews at
three different organizations.

     Aside from the collection of the email messages and the
interviews, we also sought to engage in participant
observation at CRI in order to more fully appreciate the
nuances in the role of email in this organization.  Our
observation, interviews, message collection, and informal
interaction with employees took place at CRI over an 80-day
period.  Field notes were taken during portions of the
observation.  In addition to more structured forms of
observation, the first author also engaged in virtual
participant observation by sending and receiving over 130
messages via CRI's email system.

Analysis

     We analyzed the data in two primary ways.  First, we
were interested in the strategies that could be identified
through careful textual analysis of the messages.  Toward
this end, we content-analyzed 422 of the collected messages.
The entire message was used as the unit of analysis (see
Note 3).

     The first step in our coding was, using the text of the
messages alone, to determine which were attempts at
persuasion and which were not (see Note 4).  Figure 1
explains the coding rules and provides examples.  After a
message was coded as persuasive, the message was then
further categorized according to type of persuasive strategy
(see Note 5).  The two categories which emerged from this
second coding along with the coding rules for the categories
are discussed in the results section.  An intercoder
reliability of 95.8% was achieved for the content-analysis
(see Note 6; also see Phillips, 1989 for full details).

===========================================================

Figure 1. Coding Rules and Examples for Initial Code

     The decision of whether or not each message was to be
coded as containing persuasive content (PC) or as not
containing persuasive content (NPC) was based upon whether
or not the coder felt the sender was trying to get someone
to do something.  If the coder felt that the sender was
simply stating facts, providing information, or asking for
information, the message was coded as nonpersuasive.
Examples from the data help explain:

Persuasive Content:

"Hi [Sally], do you handle little problems like the 9th
floor men's room has a sink leaking water on the floor? tnx,
[Bill]"

"Please return call to [Jill Wheaton, GPA]."

Nonpersuasive Content:

"[Bob] will be giving a meeting regarding Accounting
Packages.  It will be held at 1:30 this afternoon and will
be held in the 10th floor conference room."

"[Jim] will be in the office on Monday, 25 July only and
will not be back in the office until Monday, 22 Aug.  Who
are the other people involved in this meeting?"

============================================================

     Believing that a content-analysis of the text of the
collected messages would only provide insight into one facet
of the strategic nature of email usage, we engaged in a
qualitative, interpretive analysis of our field notes,
interviews and collected messages.  Our hope in moving
beyond the text to the context of the messages was to gain
an ability to read between the lines of the messages.  The
purpose of the interpretive analysis was to verify the
existence and nature of certain persuasive strategies (see
Note 7).

     The interpretive analysis was accomplished in three
steps.  First, in the early stages of the data collection we
searched for similarities and differences in the data from
the various sources.  For example, we might have realized
that several participants and interviewees had mentioned one
particular strategy.  In this period we tried to formulate
preliminary interpretations.  Second, in the follow-up
interviews with the primary participants we attempted to
gain actor verification (Bantz, 1983) of our initial
interpretations.  In other words, we presented the
preliminary findings to the participants and asked if these
interpretations were in alignment with their experience.
Third, and finally, we used the information from the second
participant interviews to refine our interpretations.  This
involved collapsing categories and/or reassessing the
importance of preliminary findings.  The findings from the
content-analysis and the interpretive analysis were then
integrated to provide an overall picture of the persuasive
uses of email at CRI.

                          Results

     Our data analysis uncovered a range of email
strategies, from simple, direct requests (consistent with
the original predictions of media richness theory) to more
complex maneuvering.  The four most common strategies are
listed and defined in Figure 2. They are: Direct Requests;
Indirect-Implicit Requests; Carbon-copying; and
Message-forwarding.  While the first two strategies are
identifiable from the text of a message, the last two
require an understanding of contextual factors.  Therefore,
we refer to the direct requests and indirect-implicit
requests as textual strategies and carbon-copying and
message-forwarding as contextual strategies.

============================================================

Figure 2. Email Strategies

Direct Requests: The sender directly asked or told someone
to do something.

Indirect-Implicit Requests: The sender provided information
which inferred some action from the target.

Carbon Copying: The sender either CCd their own boss,
someone else's boss and/or peers, or themselves in order to
increase the likelihood of compliance with their request.

Message Forwarding: The sender "electronically" attached a
prior message-- either a related message or a copy of a
first request-- along with a message.  The intent was again
to increase the chance of compliance to a request.

===========================================================

Direct and Indirect-Implicit Requests

     The data indicates that employees use two related
strategies, both of which are identifiable from reading the
text of the captured messages-- direct and indirect-implicit
requests.  As explained above, we content-analyzed 422 of
the captured messages.  Figure 3 explains the coding rules
for the two categories and provides examples from the data.
We found that 44% of the messages (185 out of 422) contained
either a direct or indirect-implicit request. 101 messages
were coded as direct requests and 84 were coded as
indirect-implicit requests.

     These direct and indirect-implicit requests are used
mainly to accomplish what one participant termed
"Administrivia" (administrative trivia).  The implication is
that email is a useful tool for helping keep the
organization afloat (i.e., scheduling meetings, leaving
messages concerning routine tasks, etc.).  In other words,
email is used to accomplish everyday, ordinary tasks which
could also have been accomplished via other media (e.g.,
phone, memos).


===========================================================

Figure 3.  Coding Rules and Examples of Direct Requests and
Indirect-Implicit Requests at CRI
------------------------------------------------------------

Direct Requests: The definition of direct requests used in
the content analysis was: a statement in which the agent
overtly asks or tells the target to do something.  Examples
include:

"Please return call to Joan--said she will be there for
awhile tonight."

"Do you have a list of other options for inclusion into [a
computer file]?  I wonder if I can have [an] automatic "cc"
(carbon copy) to a history] file. tnx"

"As far as I'm concerned, the first topic may be anything
you'd like it to be.  Perhaps you can discuss at your
meeting on the 15th or 22nd and let me know.  I won't be
here on the 29th, and would appreciate some advance notice."

The definition of indirect-implicit requests for the content
analysis was:  a message in which an agent provides
information to a target, inferring some action from the
target.  However, the agent did not come out and ask (or
tell) someone to do something.  With this category, the
coder felt there was a relatively strong implication for
action from the sender.  It was simply not made explicit.
Examples from the data include:

"Maureen of Inatell returned your call 407-921-9982 x387."

"At long last your business cards have arrived.  You can
pick them up from me."

"You have a FAX down here.  You can pick it up from me."

============================================================

Strategies Involving Carbon Copies (CCs)

Many of the contextual strategies revolve around who a
message is (or is not) sent to; often involving the "CC:"
line.  Specifically, the strategies in this category
include: CCing your own boss, CCing someone else's boss
and/or peers, CCing yourself, and utilizing blind CCs.

     As an example of CCing your own boss, one participant
explained:

          I can let [my boss] know what I'm doing by
     contacting somebody and letting [my boss] know
     what I'm requesting.  In a way, that's [my boss's]
     way of keeping track of what I'm up to and what
     another employee is up to as far as my
     supervision. . . . It lets her know that I'm still
     doing my job [as well as letting] someone else
     know what to do.

     As an example of CCing someone's boss and/or peers, one
interviewee explained:

          The typical tactic [for getting someone to do
     something] is to carbon copy the message to
     management.  Like, 'Please do this,' and it's
     carbon copied to both your managers.  Now you've
     got the force of the manager looking over your
     shoulders . . . . I don't do it, because I
     consider it extremely rude.  I would never do that
     to someone.

Other employees further explain:

          [Email] lets you know that everyone knows.
     It broadens the base. . . . [A strategy] that is
     used constantly here--if you tell someone to get
     you a particular item you quite often CC their
     boss. . . . For example, a young lady had a
     misunderstanding with [a person of high status]
     and he sent her a reply and CCd her supervisor.  A
     lot of people who saw it thought it was uncalled
     for because it should have just been between them,
     but he had let the supervisor know, [that they had
     a little 'to do'].

          I ask someone to do something that needs to
     be done and they don't do it.  So I keep a copy of
     what it is I've originally asked them to do.  A
     week later it's still not done, it's been a long
     enough time, I send them a message saying, 'Have
     you had a chance to do this yet?' and I tack on
     electronically the first message I sent them that
     has the first date, and if necessary I carbon
     their boss, so that their boss is seeing these
     messages.  You'd be surprised how efficient that
     can be!

          Your best bet [to get someone to do
     something] is to send them a message individually
     and if they don't respond within a certain amount
     of time or if it's urgent and if you haven't
     received anything back, send it again, different
     message, you copy a few people. [That makes them
     uncomfortable] because [they] know there are other
     people out there who know . . . [their]
     supervisor, and working associates, someone who's
     associated with the project--someone whose needs
     aren't being met.  So [when someone doesn't
     respond to a message that is keeping other
     people's needs from being met] I send the message
     to them, I copy [the people whose needs aren't
     being met], and myself, and that person's
     supervisor. . . . That way everyone knows what's
     been said.  It's been documented. . .

     Carbon copies may also be used when an employee wishes
to cover themselves.  Common in business long before the
advent of computers, CYA can now occur in new ways using the
capabilities of new media.  Employees use email to cover
themselves and to deflect questions about their competence.
A participant commented on this application of email:

          I'll send [my boss] a message saying 'This
     has been done.' Basically, it's to have it on
     record that the problem's been reported and
     solved.  So, if someone comes back later and says,
     'You didn't do this,' I can say, 'Ha!  It's here.'
     . . . You keep it on record."

Other employees help explain:

          Sometimes people will dispute what I've said
     in my message, and if I've saved it, I can send it
     [snaps fingers]. . . . You send it back and say,
     'See, here it is.' It's happened many times, and
     it's very helpful to retain those messages.

          [Email is great for letting everyone know
     that an item has arrived.] That's why email is
     great.  A phone call--maybe they're not there.  As
     long as it lands in their [email] box--that's the
     key thing--if there's ever a problem I can say it
     landed in your box as so and so time.  Here it is.

          If it's something that I'm working on that
     I'm waiting for a response from somebody I'll
     document it by sending them email.  That documents
     the date, and what I was requesting and when I
     need it by.

          I use [email] particularly if I want to make
     sure there's a [documentation] trail.  So that's a
     good part--I mean [there are] both good and bad
     about giving you a trail. . .

     Blind CCs occur when the recipient of a message is not
aware that the sender carbon copied a third party.  A
participant comments:

          I dislike blind CCs. . . . It's negative,
     deceptive.  To think it's only the two or three of
     you discussing something, and in the meantime,
     there are two or three [others] in on it.

     The common thread running throughout each of the
behaviors is that the employee has strategically utilized
the features of their email system in order to accomplish a
goal or set of goals.

     Obviously, these actions could be carried out face to
face or via the telephone.  However, imagine marching into
Person A's office, asking Person A to do something, telling
Person A you are also going to tell Person B (Person A's
boss) you asked them to do some task, then marching into
Person B's office and telling Person B that you asked Person
A to do something.  When the same task could have been
accomplished via email simply by hitting five to ten extra
strokes on a keyboard, it is easy to understand why
employees would choose email.

     Furthermore, it is much easier socially to accomplish
the task via email.  That is, going into Person B's office
(to tell them you have requested something of Person
A--their subordinate) is more awkward socially than doing so
via email.  Therefore, the agent is able to more easily
accomplish multiple goals--get Person A to do something and
avoid a socially awkward situation.  It should be noted,
however, that the CC may still be frowned upon by both
Person A and Person B. However, email appears to instantiate
somewhat different appropriateness norms, thereby allowing
employees to simultaneously achieve their primary and
secondary goals.

Strategies Involving Message Forwarding

     Another group of contextual strategies center around
employees sending an email message along with a prior
message.  The two strategies involve forwarding a related
message and forwarding the first request with the second
request.

     Two quotes concerning the forwarding of related
messages help explain:

          I think a lot of persuasion is intended when
     people forward copies of other people's messages
     to the extent, 'See, I really should be ticked off
     about something like that.  Look at what I just
     got.' [That] kind of thing.  It's that kind of
     persuasion technique that's usually used.

          I like being able to forward messages and I
     like being able to show what I've received and
     show what I'm responding to.  As opposed to
     paraphrasing something I can actually show the
     message in total. [This shows the other] person
     what I'm responding to.  So if I get a message
     from Person A and I want to send it to Person C, I
     can put Person A's message in it.  So, it
     contextualizes everything.  It shows my boss what
     I'm responding to, so I don't have to paraphrase
     anyone. . .

     During a second interview, a participant noted that
forwarding messages can be one of the really nasty
strategies used in email.  The participant suggested that if
you make someone mad due to an email message you have sent
them, they can easily forward that message to someone of
higher status.  The participant implied that you may never
know that they are mad or that they have forwarded your
message up the line.  The participant explained, "You don't
know that you've screwed up."  As an example of forwarding a
first request with a second request, recall a quote from the
previous section.  The participant explained that when she
has asked someone to do something and they have not done it,
she keeps a copy of the message.  Then, "A week later it's
still not done [so]. . . I send them a message saying, 'Have
you had a chance to do this yet?' and I tack on
electronically the first message I sent them that has the
date. . ."

     Similar to the strategies involving CCs, one benefit of
using email for these strategies is the relative ease with
which they can be accomplished.  If Person A was verbally
asking Person B to do something and was passing along
pertinent information from Person C, portions of Person C's
message would undoubtedly be lost in the translation.
However, if Person A can send an email request to Person B
and forward the pertinent comments from Person C (in their
original form), virtually nothing is lost.  The date, the
time, and the exact wording from Person C are right in front
of Person B, along with Person A's request.

     An episode uncovered during a second interview with a
participant provides an example of message forwarding.  A
participant received a message from a high-ranking manager
in another department asking, "When will I receive all the
data to generate the July billings?"  One of the
participant's coworkers was working on this information, but
had not completed the task.  The participant suggested to
the first author that she felt pressure from the manager to
get the information.  Therefore, rather than simply tell her
co-worker that the manager was putting pressure on her to
get the data (she had told her co-worker verbally before),
she chose to forward a copy of the message from the manager
to her co-worker.  She attached a message which said, "How
are the [figures coming]?  Do you have some sort of time
frame that I can tell [the manager]?"

     The implication is that by utilizing email in this way,
the participant put pressure on her co-worker by making it
clear that she was getting pressure from above, thereby
accomplishing her primary goal.  Furthermore, the
participant avoided having to be pushy (at least in person!)
by her ability to forward the manager's message.  This
allowed the participant to maintain a pleasant working
relationship with her co-worker.

                        Discussion

     We have reported on two textual strategies--direct
requests and indirect-implicit requests, and two contextual
strategies--carbon-copying and message-forwarding.  The data
suggest that employees' email usage is not relegated to
simple, direct tasks with low levels of equivocality.  While
email _is_ used for many mundane functions in organizations,
it is _also_ employed toward persuasive ends and in highly
strategic ways.  Furthermore, two of the strategies
uncovered in our analysis were subtle and context-dependent.
Had we not taken an interpretive approach, which required us
to spend time interacting with email users, we would have in
all likelihood missed them altogether.

     In fact, the phenomena of CCing and message-forwarding
provide a good illustration of how "local," context-
dependent knowledge is essential in interpreting email
messages.  That is, it exemplifies how it is often literally
impossible to make sense of a message from simply viewing
the text.  For example, if an employee were to send a
message that read, "Please call Peter.  He is upset about
the report," we might say this employee utilized a direct
request ("call Peter"), politeness ("please"), and
supporting explanation ("He is upset").  But it would be a
mistake to stop the analysis there.  A look toward the
context might reveal the employee has: (1) CCd him/herself
to document that the request had been sent (engaged in CYA),
(2) CCd the target's boss (to put additional pressure on the
target), (3) CCd Peter (to let Peter know the target has
been asked to call), (4) forwarded a message from Peter
showing how mad he was about the report, and (5) forwarded
the initial request for the target to call Peter (we find
out this is a second request!).

     Given this evidence, we conclude that at least in one
respect, media richness theory is correct about the uses of
electronic mail by managers and employees--organizational
members at CRI do use email sometimes for "administrivia"
(i.e., for routine, unequivocal tasks).  The accomplishment
of this "administrivia" often entails the usage of direct
requests and indirect-implicit requests.

     But there is more to the use of email than these
mundane applications.  Carbon-copying and message forwarding
are genuinely new strategies made possible by unique
characteristics of the medium.  And the "objective
characteristics" of the technology that are key to media
richness theory seem less important than the ways in which
these characteristics are interpreted and used by managers.
There is no such thing as "pure" technology--all
applications are social--and individuals "appropriate" a
given medium to their own peculiar character and motivation
(Contractor & Eisenberg, 1990; Poole & DeSanctis, 1990).
Communication media are open to being used in "ironic" ways
which are very different from how they were "objectively"
designed or intended (Poole & DeSanctis, 1990).

     Our analysis further leads us to claim that email can
be used to simultaneously accomplish multiple goals.  For
example, an employee may send a supervisor an elaborate
justification for changing a policy or procedure.  The
choice of email to transmit the message may simultaneously
be: (1) _efficient_ (it saves time for both the superior and
the subordinate to send it this way, avoiding phone tag and
unread piles of paper on desks); (2) _symbolic_ (the
employee may be demonstrating that he is innovative,
responsive, and computer literate; (3) _strategically taking
advantage of the cues the system does not send_ (i.e., by
choosing to send a email message the employee may mask
nonverbal indicators which would indicate that they have
"stretched" the facts in some places); and (4)
_strategically taking advantage of unique features of the
email system_ (i.e., the employee may also benefit by having
a copy of the message on the computer so the boss cannot
"conveniently" lose the message or claim that he or she did
not receive it).

     An interesting question that is raised in this study is
whether email allows managers or employees to get away with
acts of power, discipline, or intimidation that would be
less likely to be communicated via other media.  Related
research on the electronic surveillance of employees reveals
some surprising contradictions; while some employees hate
it, others appreciate the visibility and subsequent
accountability and rewards associated with being closely
watched (Bell-Detienne, 1991).  While far from conclusive on
this point, our data suggest that some of the features of
email encourage co-workers (but not so much supervisors) to
put pressure on their peers and to use the publicness of the
information to force accountability.  It was interesting to
note that many of the influence attempts which were seen as
strong, opprobrious, or rude were situations which involved
peers or coworkers attempting influence.  On the one hand,
the ability to forward a message or send a blind CC
increases the likelihood of embarassment; on the other,
there are some remaining appropriateness norms that cause
other organizational members to see such actions as
unjustifiably dirty.  But these norms are by no means stable
nor do we expect them to be the same across all or even most
organizations.

     We recognize that our work at CRI only begins to
explore the communicative strategies available to employees
via email.  Other aspects of the medium, such as the use of
subject headers and distribution lists, have obvious
strategic implications.  Furthermore, it is important to
note that email systems vary in terms of the features they
possess.  We expect that employees will eventually come to
strategically utilize many of the features their particular
system possesses.  As the use of email increases worldwide,
we should expect even more creativity both in the pragmatics
of usage and the growing capabilities of systems.
Furthermore, as additional communication media enter the
organizational arena, we would expect even more situations
where employees routinely use multiple media in varying
sequences to accomplish strategic goals.

     In summary, we have argued in this paper that
traditional conceptions of email in organizations have been
unnecessarily limited to simple, unequivocal uses.  Even
considering recent extensions, media richness theory takes
an overly narrow view of the communicative strategies for
which certain media may be used.  Through analysis of email
usage in a west-coast research institute, we identified four
email strategies: (1) direct requests; (2) indirect-implicit
requests; (3) carbon-copying; and (4) message forwarding.
Media richness theory should be revised and extended to move
beyond considering "strategic fit" of a medium's
characteristics to the amount of equivocality in a message.
Scholars should also consider the strategic applications to
which any medium might be applied by the creative user
balancing among multiple goals.

     Finally, we argue that several aspects of our
methodology allowed us to obtain findings that would have
otherwise been missed.  Specifically, the content-analysis
of the messages showed us how the actors actually used email
(as opposed to relying on self-report measures).  The
captured messages also provided insight into the actual
content of private email messages rather than simply
counting the flow of messages between nodes.  Finally, the
interviews, especially those where we sought actor
verification, gave us a rich, "behind the text" look at
several exemplary messages.  We believe this multimethod
approach provided us with the necessary context in order to
more fully understand email usage at CRI.

                           Notes

[1]  This should not suggest that these participants do not
     use email.  They simply had difficulty thinking of
     particular employees with whom they _regularly
     interacted_.  For example, they may interact with
     someone via email for two weeks, then not send them
     email for another six months.


[2]  Many of the participants were able to automatically
     save a copy of the messages they sent.  After the data
     collection period, they were given the opportunity to
     strike through any message they felt was too
     confidential.  In this way, the participants' right to
     privacy was protected and informed consent was
     obtained.  All of the primary participants signed
     consent forms as well.

          Some participants did not collect data for a full
     three weeks.  One participant--due to a combination of
     someone failing to program the participant's email
     properly and the participant being gone to
     conventions--only collected one week's worth of
     messages.  Another cut off the data collection early on
     the last day.  Other participants missed one or more
     days due to company travel, holiday, or days off.
     Several others saved and submitted messages which they
     had sent before or after the 'official' data collection
     period.  These "extra" message were generally not
     included in the content analysis.

[3]  We chose the message as the unit of analysis for
     several reasons.  The primary reason is the nature of
     the medium itself.  Since email is normally only
     interactive in an asynchronous manner, the entire
     transmission should be counted as one conversational
     "turn."  Therefore, if any part of that "turn" is
     persuasive, we must argue that the "turn" itself was
     persuasive.

          Furthermore, many of the messages were very short
     in nature.  Therefore, to use the sentence as the unit
     of analysis would have unduly weighted the findings
     toward the extremely long transmissions of one or more
     pages.  Since many of the messages were only several
     sentences long, the use of the paragraph as the unit of
     analysis would have been tantamount to using the entire
     transmission in many cases.

          In the end, we do not believe the analysis would
     have been meaningfully altered if another unit of
     analysis would have been chosen.

[4]  For the content analysis our operationalization of the
     term "strategic" is similar to what other literatures
     might refer to as "persuasion," or more specifically
     "compliance-gaining."  That is, as stated in Table 1, a
     message was coded as persuasive (i.e., strategic), if
     the coder felt the sender was trying to get someone to
     do something.

[5]  Although strategies existing in the compliance-gaining
     literature provided a conceptual starting point (c.f.,
     Bettinghaus & Cody, 1986; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson,
     1980), we allowed the categories for the textual
     strategies to emerge inductively from the data,
     refining, deleting, or adding categories where
     necessary to best describe the data.

[6]  The coder was familiar with the project.  The first
     author had read over the messages, preliminarily
     attempting to settle on the coding categories.  When
     the decision was made to engage another coder to check
     for intercoder reliability, the coding scheme was
     simplified somewhat and decision rules were
     established.  The first author then randomly sampled
     25% of each of the ten participant's messages (two
     participants sent less than ten messages within CRI and
     were therefore dropped from the content analysis).  The
     first author recoded these messages, attempting to
     apply the new coding scheme.

          After training, the selected messages were coded
     by the coder.  A reliability of approximately 75% was
     achieved.  The coding scheme was again simplified and
     the decision rules were spelled out more clearly.  The
     coder and the first author recoded the messages,
     resulting in an overall reliability of around 85%.
     After deciding to throw out one category on this round
     of coding, a reliability of around 90% was achieved.
     At this point, the coder and the first author had high
     agreement on six of the ten participants' messages (had
     either zero or one disagreements).  Viewing each
     participant as a category, a sample of a participant's
     messages were not recoded after a high reliability was
     achieved (zero or one disagreements).  On one
     participant, the coder and the first author had only
     missed one message dealing with the category later
     thrown out.  Therefore, the participant was counted as
     having zero disagreements.

          Another random sample (of 20%) was obtained from
     the four participants' messages who had more than one
     disagreements.  After again discussing the problems and
     clarifying the decision rules, the new sample of these
     four participants' messages were coded by both the
     coder and the researcher.  This time, a high
     reliability was achieved on two of the participants'
     messages.  After again discussing problems, the coder
     recoded the remaining two participants' messages.

          Finally, dividing the number of agreements by the
     number of agreements and disagreements (combined from
     each participant after an acceptable reliability was
     established for their messages) resulted in an overall
     reliability of 95.8%.  Due primarily to the relatively
     small number of messages available from some of these
     participants, a small number of messages which were
     used in coder training and discussions wound up being
     chosen in the random sample and coded.  The resulting
     coding scheme was applied to the remainder of the 422
     messages.

[7]  That is, while it was possible to perform a content
     analysis of the 422 messages from merely reading the
     text, a detailed account of the situation surrounding
     each of the 422 messages would have been required to
     obtain a quantitative count of the contextual
     strategies used.  As mentioned above, such in-depth
     analysis of that many messages would have worn out the
     researchers' welcome with the most patient of
     participants.  Furthermore, we believe that the mere
     existence of the contextual strategies, not their
     quantifiable occurrences, is the true point of interest
     at this juncture.  Finally, it can be seen from the
     number of quotes presented that the phenomena are
     certainly not scarce.


                           References

Bantz, C. R. (1983).  Naturalistic research traditions.  In
     L. Putnam and M. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and
     organizations: An interpretive approach, (pp. 55-71).
     Beverly Hills: Sage.

Bell-Detienne, K. (1991).  The control factor: An empirical
     investigation of employee's reaction to control in an
     organizational work environment.  Unpublished doctoral
     dissertation, University of Southern California.

Bettinghaus, E. P., & Cody, M. J. (1987).  Persuasive
     communication, 4th Ed.  NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Contractor, N, & Eisenberg, E. (1990).  Communication
     networks and new media in organizations.  In J. Fulk &
     C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication
     technology (pp. 143-172).  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987).  Information
     technologies.  In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts, &
     L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
     communication, (pp. 420-43).  Beverly Hills: Sage.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984).  Information richness:
     A new approach to managerial information processing and
     organizational design.  In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings
     (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6,
     pp. 191-233).  Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986).  Organizational
     information requirements, media richness, and
     structural design.  Management Science, 32,
     554-571.

Eisenberg, E. (1984).  Ambiguity as strategy in
     organizational communication.  Communication
     Monographs, 51, 227-42.

Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1987).  Experiments
     in group decision making: Communication process and
     outcome in face-to-face versus computerized
     conferences.  Human Communication Research, 13,
     225-52.

Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978).  The network nation:
     human communication via computer.  Reading, MA:
     Addison-Wesley.

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, W. (1984).
     Social-psychological aspects of computer-mediated
     communication.  American Psychologist, 39,
     1123-34.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980).
     Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in
     getting one's way.  Journal of Applied Psychology,
     65(4), 440-52.

Markus, M. L. (1988).  Information richness theory,
     managers, and electronic mail.  Paper presented at the
     meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim,
     California.

Morgan, G. (1986).  Images of organization.  Beverly
     Hills: Sage.

Phillips, S. R. (1989).  Electronic persuasion: The uses of
     electronic mail for interpersonal influence in
     organizations.  Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
     University of Southern California.

Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990).  Understanding the use
     of group decision support systems: The theory of
     adaptive structuration.  In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield
     (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology
     (pp. 173-193).  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rice, R. (1984).  The new media: Communication, research,
     and technology.  Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rice, R. (1987).  Computer-mediated communication and
     organizational innovation.  Journal of Communication,
     37(4), 65-94.

Rice, R., & Bair, J. H. (1984).  New organizational media
     and productivity.  In R. E. Rice (Ed.), The new media
     (pp. 185-215).  Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Riley, P. (1983).  A structurationist account of political
     cultures.  Administrative Science Quarterly, 28,
     414-37.

Rogers, E. M. (1986).  Communication technology: The new
     media in society.  NY: Free Press.

Schmitz, J. (1988).  Electronic communication: A
     longitudinal view.  Paper presented at the meeting of
     the Academy of Management, Anaheim, California.

Schmitz, J., & Fulk, J. (1991).  Organizational colleagues,
     media richness, and electronic mail: A test of the
     social influence model of technology use.
     Communication Research, 18, 487-523.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986).  Reducing social context
     cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication.
     Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.

Trevino, L. K., Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1987).  Media
     symbolism, media richness, and media choice in
     organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective.
     Communication Research, 14, 553-74.

------------------------------------------------------------
                      Copyright 1993
   Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, Inc.