| This interview-based study has sought to understand the native significance of the available media and modes of communication by identifying, analyzing, synthesizing, and interpreting a code of communication used by 21 organizational members when they spoke of and about their communicative conduct. As the respondents talked about the strategic uses of the available communication media, they suggested that e-mail can and should be used as a means of “talking about meetings” and “keep[ing] a record,” whereas the telephone can and should be used as a means of arranging “to talk to that person in-person,” “going into explanations,” and “saying in a temporary way.” Furthermore, face-to-face interaction can and should be used “to get work done,” to “get information that's really complicated,” “to ask a lot more questions,” to “deal with people,” and to “keep on track”/“touch base.” Additionally, the respondents talked about paper as a part of a “a blitz of information,” “in an envelope,” “in my box,” and the implicit and explicit contrastive characterizations and qualities of paper and computer-mediated communication. In talking about the social aspects of their communicative behavior, the participants revealed that e-mail was connected with “get[ting] something done” and creating bonds of accountability, whereas the telephone was associated with “build[ing] a relationship.” Additionally, face-to-face interaction was related to both social and business relationships. Finally, the respondents' talk included a model of personhood in which they conceptualized the person as a bearer of a psychological state that was both revealed and concealed depending upon the medium or mode of communication used. The implications of this study are three-fold. First, this study identified a specific system of meaning that some interlocutors drew upon in making sense of their communicative conduct within the workplace. In this manner, this study provided insight into communicative conduct within an organizational context. Second, the findings of this study suggested that media richness theory is limited in scope. Third, this study proposed that Philipsen's (1992, 1997) speech codes theory can be used productively to understand the code of meaning relating to the use of any of the available media or modes of communication. |
