Can Computer-Mediated Communication Democratize the Workplace?

Information Outlook, June, 2000 by Nerissa Nelson

Can Technology Democratize the Workplace? Does It Give Employees More of a Voice? Does It Provide Equal Access to Information for all Employees?

THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF MUCH DEBATE.

The prevailing position is that technology has democratized the workplace. The dissenting view suggests that technology reinforces existing hierarchies within organizations, or at least does nothing to break them down. For librarians, especially those in the corporate environment, the question of whether technology may or may not democratize the workplace has much relevance for two reasons: As implementers of information technology, we may consider ourselves as corporate and social do-gooders helping to break down status and power-related barriers by providing access to information to anyone in the company. As employees, and thus users of new technology, we may believe that our voices have a further reach and that our input is taken more seriously. I argue that there is a limited basis, at best, for the belief that computer-mediated communication has democratized the workplace.

The information technology referred to above is well recognized by information professionals. Collectively known as computer-mediated communication (CMC), it includes e-mail, teleconferencing, electronic bulletin boards, Internet/Intranet access, Internet relay chats, and group decision support systems (GDSS).

Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler are among the most vocal proponents of the thesis that CMC has democratized the workplace. In their book, Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization (MIT Press, 1991), they argue that computer-mediated communication reduces information gaps by providing a tool for peripheral employees (employees that are removed from the core management structure) to be connected to all people within the organization. They examine passive and active connections in the CMC environment. Passive connections is where employees choose to be an observer only of messages being posted to distribution lists or e-mail. Active connections is where employees partake in the electronic interchange and discussions posted on listservs or e-mail. The benefit of computer-mediated communication, suggest Sproull and Kiesler, is that it gives a "voice to the voiceless," and, therefore, increases "emotional and informational connections" among employees by creating more active participation in exchanging messages and establishing collaborations in electronic discussion groups. Giving people a "voice," the authors suggest, is part of our democratic culture. Information in organizations now flows more freely in the CMC environment and employees are more willing to participate beyond their stated duties.

Libby Bishop and David Levine, in their article "Computer-mediated Communication as Employee Voice: A Case Study" (Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 1999), also examine the "employee voice through computer-mediated communication," supporting some of the findings of Sproull and Kiesler. They conclude that CMC creates easier access to people and information and provides a new vehicle for employees to address concerns to management in the hopes of resolving problems or effecting change. They examine the effects of CMC at a high-tech firm that was an early user and advocate of computer-mediated communication. After collecting data and conducting interviews over a two-year period, their findings suggested that technology had eroded the hierarchical structure of management and gave employees more of a voice in the decision-making process of the organization. But has the impact of computer-mediated communication really democratized the workplace? Has it weakened or softened the hierarchical structure of organizations? Are librarians now free to interact and exchange information at all levels within or beyond the organization? And do librarians have a more "active voice" in the virtual environment in being part of the decision making process that they did not have in the past? Some researchers contend that CMC does not lead to a democratized workplace.

Control over Technology

Susan Herring, in her study, "Gender Participation in Computer-Mediated Linguistic Discourse" (1992), was one of the first to challenge the position that modern information technology opens the communication path to a more egalitarian communication structure. Focusing on gender participation in the CMC environment, she observed two electronic discussion lists at an academic institution. She examined two issues for her study: 1) to see if the communication process was democratic in the electronic environment, and 2) to determine if computer-mediated communication increased gender equality. Herring focused primarily on the degree to which males and females participated on these discussion lists. Her findings revealed that there was a difference between the female to male participation ratio. Male participation showed minimal interest in female postings, which resulted in a decline of female participation. Female postings to the discussion lists tended to be brief or ignored if certain subjects were not of interest or topics discussed did not encourage female participation. Herring concluded that "...although the medium theoretically allows for everyone with access to a network to take part and to express their concerns and desires equally, a very large community of potential participants is effectively prevented by censorship, both overt and covert." In this particular academic environment, computer-mediated communication was found to be male dominated, power-based and hierarchical.