465181

urnal of Business CommunicationPazos et al.

JOB50110.1177/0021943612465181Jo

Instant Messaging as a TaskSupport Tool in Information

Technology Organizations

Journal of Business Communication

50(1) 6886
2013 by the Association for
Business Communication
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0021943612465181
http://jbc.sagepub.com

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
1

Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

TransUnion, LLC, Chicago, IL, USA
3
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
2

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

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

69

Pazos et al.

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 communication.
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 attention 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 managing 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 accomplished. In particular, we seek to identify differences in IM use to support collaboration 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 Organizations
Prior 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

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

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 multitasking 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, physicians, 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 multitasking (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 Foundation
The type of task at hand is known to shape a persons choice of media for collaboration and communication pertaining to the task. With the continuing development of
communication technologies, scholars have developed a number of theoretical explanations 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 participants 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-toface communication provides the greatest degree of presence, followed by videoconferencing, 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 presence 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 presence 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

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

71

Pazos et al.

than group interests (Walton & McKersie, 1965) and difficulties in arriving at mutually agreeable decisions (Sia et al., 2002).
One limitation of social presence as a construct is that it is not a fully tangible quality of a communication media (Short et al., 1976). An additional limitation that was
highlighted in recent studies was that social presence provides a deterministic description 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 process 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 characteristics, as those that have higher capability to transmit cues (e.g., gesture, movement, 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 supported 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 characteristics not included in the media richness framework are important in understanding the effects of media use on the ability to communicate and process information
(Dennis & Kinney 1998; Rice & Steinfield, 1993).

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

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 categorization of tasks to help understand the role of communication media in supporting
completion based on the task type. The tasks described by McGraths circumplex are
meant to represent those typically encountered by people working collaboratively.
McGraths group task circumplex classifies group work tasks based on two dimensions. 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 McGraths
circumplex, collaboration tasks include intellective tasks (solving problems with a
known correct answer), creativity tasks (generating ideas or solutions), planning (generating 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 differing 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 uncovering 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 presence 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 McGraths (1984) taxonomy, can be considered low-ambiguity
and less complex communication acts, whereas conflict tasks can be considered highambiguity and more complex communication acts. We hypothesize that the use of IM

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

73

Pazos et al.

will be more frequent for tasks that involve collaboration than those that involve cognitive conflict.
Hypothesis 1: Individuals are more likely to use IM for collaboration than for
conflict tasks.

Research Methodology
We 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 quantitative and qualitative data collection using a survey that included closed- and openended 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 information, 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 company. 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
McGraths (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 identified from the interviews. The table describes the task types and provides specific
examples of each.

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

74

Journal of Business Communication 50(1)

Table 1. Task Descriptions Based on McGrath Taxonomy and Interviews

Type

Description

Sample Scenario

Collaboration
tasks

Plan and coordinate tasks for a

project deliverable

Develop a shared solution or

approach for work problem
or task with a known correct
answer
Work on a problem or task
without a known correct
answer or solution

Using instant messaging (IM) to

coordinate the testing dates for
software release
Using IM to help me identify a problem
with a system bug

Conflict tasks

Resolve a disagreement with

someone with the same goal
and objectives

Using IM to help determine the feature

list for a new product or to discuss
business requirements for a new
system.
Using IM to discuss whether modifying
existing processes or implementing
a new system will increase the
departments efficiency

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 participants within three large IT companies in the Midwest. The requirement to participate 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 professionals participated in an online survey. Because of incomplete data, only 68 participants 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 multitasking, 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.

Variables
We evaluated IM use with two types of tasks, cooperative tasks and conflict tasks. Task
definitions were based on McGraths (1984) task circumplex. McGraths task circumplex is a widely accepted classification of tasks in computer-mediated communication
environments and it has a strong theoretical foundation built on prior theories. The circumplex provides a classification of tasks that fully aligns with the goals of this study.
McGraths circumplex defines a collaboration task as one involving collaboration

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

75

Pazos et al.
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 someone
10. Preference to multitask
11. Use of multitasking in work tasks
12. Degree of IM use in multitasking
13. Perceived organizations multitasking preference

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 validated 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 (McGraths circumplex) 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
McGraths typology of tasks. Estimates of scale reliability were calculated respectively at = .74 and = .79.
The remaining survey items addressed individual and environmental factors related
to IM use. These factors were aimed at providing descriptive information about individual 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.

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

76

Journal of Business Communication 50(1)

Table 3. Instant Message Descriptive Analysis

Instant Message
Experience with instant messaging (IM)
Proficiency with IM
IM adoption level in company

Mean

SD

4.6
4.8
4.5

0.8490
0.4211
0.8330

Individual Factors
IM experiencehow long an individual has used IM
IM proficiencyan individuals perceived level of proficiency with IM use
Preference for multitaskingan individuals reported preference for multitasking.

Environmental Factors
Previous 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 adoptionoverall level of adoption of IM for supporting work
tasks
Companywide multitasking preferencemultitasking as a general preference
for employees in the company
Multitasking peer influenceperceived degree of influence of peers multitasking preference on respondents own work.

Analysis and Results

We 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, proficiency 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 experience 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

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

77

Pazos et al.
Table 4. Estimated Means for Paired-Sample t Tests
Type of Task
Cooperative task
Cognitive conflict task

Mean Difference

SD

3.77
3.10

1.18
1.38

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 additional 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 McGraths 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 cognitive 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.

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

78

Journal of Business Communication 50(1)

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

Multitasking Scenarios

Example

Obtaining additional information about

a project/task one is simultaneously
working on

Responding to queries about one

project/task while simultaneously
working on another project/task

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.
I am frequently in meetings pertaining to one
subject and I often receive IMs regarding others.

I manage a team of 7 people so am sometimes

helping to solve team members problems and
questions while putting the final touches on a
meeting agenda.
Being engaged in a low-intensity
Attending conference calls as an attendee and
task (one that does not require
working on other projects, meeting agendas, or
intensive focus) and completing small,
action items during the call
unrelated tasks simultaneously

Performing a software installation while reading new

email, or while responding to requests over IM

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 multitasking, multitasking as an accepted cultural norm, and multitasking behavior. See
Table 9 for the averages of these factors. Answers were anchored with a strongly disagree (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 individual 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

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

79

Pazos et al.
Table 6. Needs Met Through Instant Messaging (IM) Use
IM Use to Support
Multitasking

Example

Quickly communicate
information

Obtain information during a

communication with a third
party

Reach people who may be

unavailable through other
media

Obtain information from

multiple parties

Obtain information quickly in

order to complete a task

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.
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.
People at our office are frequently on site or work from
home. Its 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
To gather information from multiple peopleyou can have
several IM conversations going on simultaneouslyit 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.
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.

Discussion
This 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
Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

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
Generating plans
Generating ideas
Intellective task

Excerpts From Participant Response

On conference call with a client, I may IM a colleague to
stress a point or confirm an approach to take on a call.
I use IM all the time to run ideas by my boss and my
teammates when I am stuck on something.
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
Resolutions (any
conflict type task)

Initial or Postconflict
discussion

Not used for conflict

task type

Excerpts From Participant Response

While working on multiple tasks (e.g., email, document editing,
phone calls), I have communicated with colleagues regarding
differences of opinion on project direction.
Its a great tool when you have a conflict with an employee since
you dont 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
In a situation of a disagreement I always speak face to face. I may
use IM to get the associates 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.
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 . . .
exampleI will develop the questionnaire while you work on the
survey results template . . .

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

81

Pazos et al.
Table 9. Multitasking Descriptive Statistics
Multitasking
Respondents preference for multitasking
Overall preference for multitasking in company
Respondents extent of multitasking at work

Mean

Median

SD

3.2
4.6
4.4

3
5
5

1.204
1.18
0.699

understanding of media choice for task completion in the specific context of IT settings. 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), participants 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 individuals 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 conflict 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 mediums 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 users screen in real time). These features imbue IM with an informality 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 conversations 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).

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

82

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

.535**

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Question 5
Question 6
Question 7
Question 8
Question 9
Question 10
Question 11
Question 12

.581**
.392**

.339**
.452**
.265*

.657**
.628**
.236*
.418**

Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

.309*
.297*
.176
.118
.320**

.464**
.404**
.273*
.092
.398**
.658**

.342**
.348**
.194
.052
.260*
.499**
.658**

.228
.320**
.053
.149
.278*
.276*
.474**
.515**

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9

Table 10. Correlation Matrix of Quantitative Survey Items

.060
.049
.238*
.115
.039
.122
.104
.045
.085

Question 10

.104
.172
.015
.093
.016
.090
.139
.140
.163
.425**

Question 11

.488**
.443**
.123
.307*
.621**
.192
.412**
.311**
.285*
.061
.137

Question 12

.186
.187
.250*
.022
.077
.292*
.344**
.244*
.235
.084
.005
.119

Question 13

83

Pazos et al.

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 discussions. 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 Research

This research contributes to our knowledge of IM use in technology-intensive corporate 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 organizations 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 studys result is limited by the small sample size and by the
convenience sampling method used that selected an age group that might not be generalizable to other organizations. However, this study provides a preliminary description 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 = .74 and = .79) but the instrument
could be further validated with additional data collection and factor analysis. Future

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

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 technologies: 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 Computer 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 CHI02 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.

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

85

Pazos et al.

Maschke, P., & Goeters, K. M. (1999). Anforderungen an Flugschler in der Ab-Initio-Ausbildung im Vergleich zu aktiven Linienflugzeugfhrern [Job analysis of ab-initio flight students
in comparison with active line pilots]. (DLR Forschungsbericht 199916). Hamburg, Germany: Deutsches Zentrum fr 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 messaging in action. Paper presented at the 2000 ACM conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, Philadelphia, PA.
Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2003). Humancomputer interaction: Psychological aspects of the
human use of computing. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 491-516.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2002). Its 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 International Conference on System Sciences (p. 27.1). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
Rennecker, J., & Godwin, L. (2003). Theorizing the unintended consequences of instant messaging for worker productivity. Sprouts: Working Paper on Information Environments, Systems & 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 communication 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 communication: 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 making: Chinese and U.S. participants in face-to-face and instant-messaging interactions. Discourse Processes, 44(2), 113-139.

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015

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 conference, Cincinnati, OH.
Vickery, S. K., Droge, C., Stank, T. P., Goldsby, T. J., & Markland, R. E. (2004). The performance 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 examination 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.

Downloaded from job.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on August 14, 2015