Can Computer-Mediated Communication Democratize the Workplace?

Information Outlook, June, 2000 by Nerissa Nelson

Like Herring, Giuseppe Mantovani is critical of the egalitarian democratic effect of CMC. Focusing on a corporate, rather than an academic environment, he explores the conditions under which CMC may or may not promote democratic patterns. He challenges the arguments made by Sproull and Kiesler in his article, "Is computer-mediated communication intrinsically apt to enhance democracy in organizations?" (Human Relations, 1994). Much of how CMC is used depends on the culture of the organization, rather than just the technology itself. He suggests CMC is effective in overcoming physical barriers (geographic location), but not social barriers (structure of the organization). Social inequalities that exist in organizations are not solved by integrating technology. Computer-mediated communication, Mantovani believes, is determined by an organization's history and the rules that are implemented by management. Taking this into consideration, he says, CMC "does not generally foster democracy in organizations."

A more recent study by Frank Symons examines how traditional hierarchical structures are now reproduced electronically. In his article, "Virtual department, power, and location in different organizational settings" (Economic Geography, 1997), he says that technology gives management even more power than they had before by tracking production and efficiency with greater accuracy, less margin of error, and increased monitoring of employees' activities at work. Hierarchy in the electronic realm depends on the degree to which organizational members have access to the Internet or company Intranet, electronic files or databases. To test the relationship between hierarchy, power, and location, Symons conducted a 10-year study that examined virtual departments in various organizational settings of firms with 3,000 to 5,000 full-time employees. Out of this research emerged three to seven different hierarchical categories, which were characterized by the complexity of the information that was accessible or shared among different departments. The question he raised was whether traditional hierarchies are really being eradicated by virtual departments, or are they merely being changed under the guise of technology. Symons concludes that hierarchical models still exist in many organizations and are now just electronically reinforced. He notes that organizations practicing different management styles, such as centralized vs. decentralized, still show evidence of hierarchical structures because management holds the power in how the technology will be used, despite geographic location.

William Wresch, like Symons, supports the notion that management has power over technology. In his book, Disconnected Have and Have Nots in the Information Age (Rutgers University Press, 1996), he discusses how information technology in many organizations has become the old "panoptican - an optical instrument that allowed an observer in the middle of a prison to see into all the cells yet remain unseen." In the context of organizations today, this is how upper management controls the use and implementation of information technology - by the type of network administration software to be used, which is dependent on the server and connection an organization has, and who will administer and run these systems. Because of this control, Wresch states there is no "semblance of privacy" for employees anymore. Managers can physically be located anywhere and still have the ability to monitor and track organizational activities. He describes this control over technology as being very powerful for management since they now have tools to put employees under blind surveillance. The issue of power, technology and rights to privacy in the workplace is hotly debated today.