Information Richness Theory
Daft, R. L., and R. H. Lengel. (1984). “Information Richness – a New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organizational Design.” Research in Organizational Behavior 6 : 191-233.
Information Richness is the foundation of media richness theory, which I addressed in a September 2009 post and again in March 2010. While those two posts (particularly the first one) provide a good overview of the theory, I want to add a few points directly from the 1984 article that is the genesis for this topic.
The article looks at communication in the workplace and discusses models of organizational communication and how organizations meet the need for certain types/methods of communication for specific purposes. However, the root of the theory is not specific to workplace or hierarchical communication, but rather regards the differences in the way information is received from different communication methods.
The authors cite a 1979 Daft and Wiginton article in which they postulate that there are high and low variety languages. High variety languages do not restrict symbol use, communicate a wide range of ideas, and are open to subjective interpretation, such as with art and music. Low variety languages include restrictive symbols, communicate a narrower range of ideas, and are factual and not open to interpretation, such as with mathematics and statistics. (195).
Daft and Wiginton argued that high variety languages were appropriate for communicating about difficult, ephemeral, social phenomena. Low variety languages communicate effectively about well understood, unambiguous topics. (195).
Therefore, similar to the point that richer communication is not necessarily better, but rather may be better for certain settings and types of communication, high and low media are each better for specific purposes.
The authors define richness as, “the potential information-carrying capacity of data” (196). Furthermore, communication media determine, and vary in, the richness of information processed. They put forth a five-level “Communication Media and Information Richness” structure that hierarchically places any communication medium on a richness scale from highest (face-to-face communication) to lowest (numeric formal). They based their rankings on feedback capability, communication channels utilized, source, and language. I detailed this more in the September 09 post.
In this structure, I place synchronous video communication just below FtF communication with asynchronous video communication appearing next. The placement of these two new communication methods is that synchronous video communication, like FtF communication, allows the participants to receive multiple cues, including tone/volume of voice, body language and gesture, facial expression, etc., and is also natural and immediate. However, it is not actually FtF, so it lacks the potential for smell and haptic experiencing. Asynchronous video includes all of the characteristics of synchronous with the exception of immediacy of feedback.
The authors also address a determined–through various scholars’ studies–preference for oral modes of transfer.
Mason and Mitroff (1973) argued that mode of presentation influences preference. Landendorf (1970) found that interpersonal modes were preferred to written communication because interpersonal modes can be refined, adapted and evaluated to precisely fit the problem. Generally, oral information allows for rapid feedback and resolution of complex problems, and is often easier to gain access to. The importance of oral communication, especially face-to-face, is reflected in the impact of nonverbal signals. Eye contact, body movement, and facial expression communicate meaning beyond the verbal message. In one study of face-to-face communication, only seven percent of the content was transmitted by verbal language. The remaining ninety-three percent of information received was continued in the tone of voice and facial expression (Mehrabian, 1971). A sarcastic versus enthusiastic tone of voice conveys as much meaning as the specific statements processed between managers. (203)
Therefore, one can see that there are a number of studies that show the extent to which information is transferred and received through methods beyond just verbal content. The greater majority of information from a message is received through a combination of the other modes. In this way, one can see the value of Daft and Lengel’s hierarchy. A phone call, in which participants have immediate oral feedback and the advantage of voice intonation and volume will appear higher on the scale than will a textual exchange, which does not offer these modal signals, yet the phone conversation appears lower on the scale than does a video or FtF conversation, which includes the visual, non-verbal signals.
Jul 9, 2014 at 7:29 AM /
[…] of what I’ve had to present here stems from a concept termed “Information Richness Theory” or “Media Richness […]