Multi-communicating
Template:Infobox Communication Theory
Multicommunicating, or MC, is the practice of engaging in more than one conversation at a time. The concept of MC was coined by Turner, Reinsch and Tinsley,[1] who posit that simultaneous conversations can be conducted using an ever increasing array of media including face-to-face, phone and email tools for communication. While MC is not uncommon as a social practice, the majority of academic research focuses on its professional implications and outlines a number of key factors shaping the act of MC. For instance, the flexibility of communication tempo, the compartmentalization of conversations, and the topics and intensity of interactions are all contributing factors toward a person’s choice of engaging in MC as well as his or her ultimate success with the practice.
Notably, many people – also referred to as ‘presence allocators’[2] within the context of MC – engage in multiple conversations as a direct response to the requests of others. Employees frequently believe that MC increases their productivity and work efficiency, however in-depth interviews about the practice of MC have often revealed some mixed results. Research has also shown that the most commonly-used combinations for MC are the telephone and email, followed by the telephone and text-based messaging (text message, instant message, etc.).[3]
A History of MC
As a concept, MC primarily builds off Hall’s work on polychronicity, Goffman’s theory of the presentation of self, and Daft and Lengel’s notion of media richness; MC is also similar in nature to the notion of multitasking. However, where MC departs from all of these previous concepts is that it refers specifically to managing multiple conversations, people and media - not just tasks - at the same time. Stephen, Cho and Ballard elucidate this distinction in a 2011 paper which compares dovetailing (sequential communication) with mutlicommunication (simultaneous interactions).[4] In addition, MC often occurs unbeknown to one's communication partners.
MC is closely related to Hall’s 1959 work on polychronicity; in fact, MC was initially called ‘polychronic communication’ in one of Turner and Reinsch’ first scholarly presentations of the concept to the wider academic community.[5] In his 1959 book The Silent Language Hall coined the term polychronicity and in subsequent works developed the argument that polychronicity is a measure of a culture’s preference toward engaging in several activities at a time. An important conceptual transition then occurred in the late 90’s, when Bluedron[6] became one of the first scholars to adapt the term polychronicity from the cultural context and to apply it to the workplace.
Goffman’s theory of the presentation of self, which suggests that people engage in a world of multistage dramas, also plays an informing role in the construction of MC. The notion that we tailor our behavior to suit our environmental contexts and situations is indeed, true in conversations, too. Nonetheless, where MC differentiates itself from Goffman’s theory of the presentation of self is that a ‘presence allocator’ picks up their appropriate behavior cues from the interaction and the medium itself as opposed to the ‘actor’, who picks up his or her cues for appropriate behavior from their physical environment.
Daft and Lengel’s research on media richness theory or, how employees choose which technologies to use in the workplace, is another important concept for MC. Similar to McLuhan’s notion of ‘the medium is the message’, Daft and Lengel argue that different media have varying qualities that make them more or less suited for certain interactions. For example, a relatively complex interaction, such as an important conversation with a new business partner, will likely be carried out with as rich a medium as possible. This rich medium would be a communication technology, like Skype or even a face-to-face conversation, which would allow for maximum information and submersion in the interaction. Conversely, a more casual and routine conversation, such as the making of lunch plans with a co-worker, could easily be carried out over a less contextually rich medium like an office chat or a text message.
MC takes the medium selection concept from media richness theory and examines the same choice process across multiple, simultaneous conversations. Naturally, the process of selection becomes more complex since multiple simultaneous conversations are involved. Additionally, the choice of a first communication medium potentially also becomes one of the factors governing the choice of subsequent communication mediums.
Closely connected to media richness theory is also the notion of Channel Expansion Theory,[7] which suggests that as an individual becomes more familiar with a specific technology, his or her perception of its capabilities and richness expands. Thus, somebody who is very comfortable with a certain chat site may perceive it to be richer in contextual nature than somebody who is only familiar with its most basic functionalities. This contributes to our understanding of MC in the sense that a persons’ experience with various media may make them more adept at picking up contextually-rich conversation signals as well as more prepared for handling certain communication technologies. However, even though Channel Expansion Theory implies there are positive effects associated with the familiarity of a technology, this does not necessarily suggest that as a person’s perception of media richness increases, the process of MC becomes simplified.
Specific Characteristics of MC
Research suggests that there are two characteristics which help to determine a person’s choice of communication media when engaging in MC: compartmentalization and flexibility of tempo.
Compartmentalization
Compartmentalization refers to the ability and ease of cross-conversations. For instance, an online chat allows one to relatively freely move from one conversation to another. In this case, the ability to hide conversations from the multiple communication partners is an important factor of compartmentalization, too.
Flexibility of Tempo
Flexibility of tempo refers to the amount of time a person has to respond to a certain message. Face-to-face communication often allows for less flexibility of tempo than does a text message.
Most typically, users choose to combine media technologies such as the telephone (described as non-flexible in tempo and partially compartmentalized) with those such as electronic text (described as high in both flexibility and compartmentalization capabilities). Of course, sometimes presence allocators do not have a choice about one or more of the media they engage with. However, specific combinations of communication media may contribute strongly toward the success or, lack thereof, one has with MC.
Successful and Unsuccessful instances in MC
To multicommunicate or not to multicommunicate – what is it that makes an MC episode successful? Several factors, including intensity, topic of conversation, equivocality, and the presence allocator themselves may help to determine the outcomes of an episode of MC.
Intensity of communication is one of the key factors in MC because it helps to predict the amount of attention and importance a specific conversation holds. Typically, conversation intensity increases with more, simultaneous conversations, a faster pace of conversion, a broader range of topics, and a wider mix of social roles. Overly high intensity has sometimes been reported as a factor for unsuccessful MC.
The topics or themes of episodes of MC are another key factor determining overall success. Put simply, the more alike the themes of the simultaneous conversations, the more congruent an experience and easier a time the presence allocator has in information processing and conversation-switching. Similarly, the more divergent the topics or themes of conversation, the bigger the cognitive strain on the presence allocator and the higher the chance for confusion or conversation mix-ups.
The notion of equivocality is closely related to topic or theme of communication and is another key factor, which may help to determine the success of MC. Equivocality refers to the possibility for misinterpretation and studies suggest that the higher the potential for equivocality in a conversation, the more likely an individual is to pick a medium of communication that is rich in contextual cues, or that has high media-richness. The possibility for equivocality extends to episodes of MC, too, and could potentially be compounded if one has to switch their attention between media – or does not engage in rich-media conversations when necessary.
The reason why MC is possible from a physiological and cognitive perspective is because humans, or presence allocators, are typically able to think faster than they are able to talk or type.[8] Nonetheless, most neuroscience studies imply that we are not truly cognitively capable of multitasking; we are just able to switch between tasks. This means that those of us who are most adept at apparent multitasking, or MC, are essentially very quick at juggling our attention(s) between messages.[9] Of course, this impacts out ability to deeply concentrate and depending on the presence allocator, can eventually reach a point of cognitive overload.
Overall, research advocates that presence allocators have the most successful experiences with MC episodes when engaged in multiple conversations with contextually-appropriate media around similar topics. Likewise, the frequent reports of unsuccessful MC episodes include a sense of high intensity, equivocality and theme confusion. In those cases, information overload can occur to the point where a conversation slows down, becomes confounded or altogether stops.
Implications
While the study of MC is still in its emergent stages, it appears to be increasingly relevant to a fast-paced, multitasking society. Some implications of MC and suggestions for further studies include:
Productivity
Most people indicate that they multicommunicate in order to become more efficient however, this goal of efficiency has received some mixed results. Despite the notion that getting several things done at once makes us more productive, research has indicated that polychronicity is negatively correlated with deadlines.[10] More specifically, when it comes to communication and multiple conversations many people reveal a breaking point, at which they can no longer juggle synchronous messages. Significant numbers of research subjects also indicate that they prefer to stay away from MC altogether when it comes to important conversations which require strong attention.
Organizational Norms and Perceptions
Another important factor to consider with MC is the organizational context and the perception of others.[11] Often, people hide the fact that they are multicommunicating from their conversational partners because they report an underlying perception of rudeness or partiality of conversational investment associated with MC. Study participants have also reported a sense of embarrassment in being caught or in mixing up messages between conversational partners. Depending on the organizational culture, this can become particularly crucial and bear negative effects in a professional or office setting. Conversely, research suggests that employees who follow organizational communication norms receive higher performance ratings than those who don’t therefore, if MC were considered an organizational ‘norm’, its practice could also bring positive feedback.[12]
While MC can be a controversial topic in research and practice, it is an increasingly common organizational realty. Further research into cognitive abilities, organizational settings and expanding virtual work opportunities, as well as technology will likely carry significant findings for our personal and professional lives.
Further reading
Gibson, C.B., Gibbs, J.L., Stanko, T.L., Tesluk, P., & Cohen, S.G. (2011). Including the “I” in Virtuality and Modern Job Design: Extending the Job Characteristics Model to Include the Moderating Effect of Individual Experiences of Electronic Dependence and Copresence. Organization Science (22) 1481-1499.
Stephens, K. (2007). The Successive Use of Information and Communication Technologies at Work. Communication Theory 17(4), 486-507.
Cameron, A. (2007). Juggling multiple conversations with communication technology: towards a theory of multi-communicating impacts in the workplace. Doctoral Dissertation, Retrieved Online http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1329737. March 17, 2012.
See also
References
- ^ Turner, J. W., Lamar R., & Tinsley, C. (2008). Multicommunicating: A practice whose time has come? Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 391-403.
- ^ Turner, J. W., & Reinsch, L. (2007). The Business Communicator as Presence Allocator: Multicommunicating, Equivocality, and Status at Work (2007). Journal of Business Communication, 44(1), 36-58.
- ^ Turner, J. W., & Reinsch, L. (no year). Multicommunicating and Interpersonal Presence: Developing New Constructs for Studying New Phenomena.
- ^ Stephens, K., Cho, J., & Ballard, D. (2012). Simultaneity, Sequentiality, and Speed: Organizational Messages About Multiple-Task Completion. Human Communication Research, 38(1), 23-47.
- ^ Turner, J. W., & Reinsch, L. (2005). Polychronic Communication in the Workplace: The Temporal Structure of “Connected Time”. Paper Presented at the National Communication Association Conference, Boston, MA, November, 2005.
- ^ Bluedorn, A. C., et al. (1999). Polychronicity and the inventory of polychronic values (IVP): The development of an instrument to measure a fundamental dimension of organizational culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(3/4), 205-230.
- ^ Carlson, J., & Zmud, R. (1995). Channel Expansion Theory and the Experiential. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 153-170.
- ^ ibid. Turner, J. W., Lamar R., & Tinsley, C. (2008). Multicommunicating: A practice whose time has come? Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 391-403.
- ^ Ocasio, W. (2011). Attention to Attention. Journal of Organizational Science, 22(5), 1-11.
- ^ Kaufman, C.F., Lane, P.M. and Lindquist, J.D. (1991). Exploring More than 24 Hours a Day: A Preliminary Investigation of Polychronic Time Use. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 392–401.
- ^ Cameron, A., & Webster, J. (2010). Relational Outcomes of Multicommunicating: Integrating Incivility and Social Exchange Perspectives. Organizational Science, 22(3), 754-771.
- ^ ibid. Cameron, A., & Webster, J. (2010). Relational Outcomes of Multicommunicating: Integrating Incivility and Social Exchange Perspectives. Organizational Science, 22(3), 754-771.