Project success used to be measured solely in terms of efficiency metrics such as scope, cost and time; however, there are proposals that more attention should be paid to process-related performance factors such as communication. The advent of email has significantly impacted the way the world communicates.
This study investigates the preference of email communication relative to other communication mediums in project environments and the effect of email communication on feelings of stress and overload in the workplace.
A survey with 430 responses was conducted to determine the communication preferences of project practitioners in a typical project. The average rank and frequency response methods were used to analyse the data.
The findings indicate that the communication preferences of project practitioners still support the media richness theory and that face-to-face communication is the preferred communication medium in most situations. Despite email being disruptive and a cause of stress, the respondents did not indicate being overloaded because of email.
Even though there has been a dramatic shift towards email and electronic communication in projects, face-to-face communication is still the most preferred communication type for most situations. Furthermore, email is perceived as an effective tool to delegate, can be used to build and develop relationships and trust, and is an efficient and effective tool that contributes to project communication success.
Project management and project management principles are increasingly applied in the execution of projects and other endeavours not previously managed as projects (Crawford & Nahmias
The advent of electronic mail (email) has significantly changed the way the world communicates and how communication media are defined. The immediacy of email and other electronic mail formats like text messaging is blurring the boundaries between synchronous and asynchronous media (Den Otter & Emmitt
The acceptance and use of email for conveying information that is both low and high in equivocality (this term is discussed later on in this paper) is greying the lines drawn by the theory of media richness and questions the measures used to define media richness. As project teams are often geographically dispersed, email is used to initiate and build relationships between project team members who will potentially never meet face-to-face (Cheshin et al.
It is clear that communication is playing an increasingly important role in projects and project success (Ksenija & Skendrovic
Given the changes in the perceived importance of communication in projects, and the uncertainty surrounding the characteristics and impacts of email communication in the work environment, an opportunity exists to study the use and impact of electronic messages on individuals in the project environment. This study explores communication preferences, describes how individuals manage their email and gauges the impact of email communication on individuals, their relationships, efficiency and effectiveness in the project environment. Six hypotheses are proposed: (1) email is replacing other types of media in the project management environment; (2) email is disruptive; (3) users experience stress and overload because of email; (4) email is an effective tool to delegate tasks; (5) email supports building relationships and trust; and (6) email creates conflict.
The study provides insight into communication preferences and the use of email communication in projects. The perceived ‘disruptive’ impediments of email communication as well as email’s impact on individual and project performance are investigated in more detail. The findings contribute to a better understanding of how modern communication media impact practitioners and projects. This information is useful for practitioners and academics as they grapple to understand the role and the do’s and don’ts of electronic communication in project environments.
Teams are formed to work on projects, and team members need to work together to ensure successful project completion. Among the various aspects of how team members should work together are issues regarding communication and, more specifically, communication regarding tasks and coordination (Chiocchio
The emphasis on communication as it applies to project management may be understood as part of two interrelated trends. Firstly, teams are used more frequently because of the requirement for tasks to be performed using complex systems and processes where it is difficult to achieve success without teamwork (Kahai, Sosik & Avolio
Cserháti and Szabó (
Experts interested in transforming organisations and also project management maintain that a large number of projects can fail because of shortcomings or errors in communication (Elovitz
Face-to-face communication is the richest medium and is preferred for highly equivocal tasks as it provides immediate feedback and allows that interpretation can be checked. Electronic media is generally believed to be leaner in richness and is preferred for non-equivocal tasks (Robert & Dennis
Mintzberg (
If managers perceive email as higher in richness than the richness theory suggests, they might substitute email for some, possibly much of their telephonic communication. Media richness theory will therefore underestimate a manager’s use of email to the extent that managers perceive email as higher in richness (Markus
Email is both written and asynchronous, although with the speed of modern computer technology and the email habits of users it is becoming a more synchronous communication medium. According to Renaud, Ramsay and Hair (
The use of email for equivocal communication can largely be attributed to social behaviours that created richness by increasing the speed of email, rather than the capabilities of the medium itself (Markus
Multi-addressability can cause mistrust. Müller (
Another potential consequence of multi-addressability is the fact that email is not a collective means of communication, because senders choose to whom they send messages (Chiocchio
Formal reports are perceived to be the most credible source of information (Johnson 1993 in Turner & Müller [
Bond-Barnard, Steyn and Fabris-Rotelli (
The explosion in the use of email by all levels in organisations, including senior management, for a multitude of tasks including tasks with high equivocality, would suggest that the richness of email according to the richness theory is wrong. Workers conduct much of their business via email, because it is perceived to be less time-consuming, more reliable and efficient than phoning or meeting face-to-face (Berghel 1997 in Renaud et al. [
The aspects of email that made it popular in the first place, that is, brevity and accessibility to superiors, seem to cause some problems once email become ubiquitous in business (Ramsay & Renaud
Email lacks the personal connection allowed by face-to-face and telephonic communication. Renaud et al. (
Whitaker and Sidner 1996 in Dredze, Blitzer and Pereira (
Sproull and Kiesler 1991 in Renaud et al. (
Dabbish and Kraut (
An opposing view is raised by Kushlev and Dunn (
The almost immediate delivery of messages has created a response expectation or pressure in the minds of the communicators. A response time much closer to synchronous media is expected (Renaud et al.
Renaud et al. (
Adler and Benbunan-Fich (
It is clear that communication is playing an increasingly important role in projects and project success. The transformation of communication because of the arrival of new electronic communication media formats is noted, but the impact it has on organisations is unclear. The growing use of email as a preferred communication medium in the workplace and in project environments is noted by practitioners and academics; however, its impact on individual and project performance is not clearly understood. Scholars are still trying to pin down the characteristics of email within previously accepted communication media frameworks. In the process, previously held beliefs about communication in the workplace are being challenged.
This study explores communication preferences, describes how individuals manage their email and gauges the impact of email communication on individuals, their relationships, efficiency and effectiveness in the project environment. Six hypotheses are proposed:
The study goes some way in providing insight into the communication preferences of project practitioners. Furthermore, the findings regarding the use of email communication in projects will assist project managers and team members to better understand the role of communication in the project and the impact of email communication on individuals and their relationships in the project environment.
There are various opinions on how project success can be defined and what measures should be used to qualify as a successful project (Cooke-Davies
In this study, a post-positivist perspective was taken as described by Tashakkori and Teddlie (
This study uses a deductive approach and cross-sectional questionnaire to test the following six hypotheses: (1) email is replacing other types of media in the project management environment; (2) email is disruptive; (3) users experience stress and overload because of email; (4) email is an effective tool to delegate tasks; (5) email supports building relationships and trust; and (6) email creates conflict. Purposive and self-selection sampling was used to conduct the web-based survey. It was important that the right sample group receives the email and self-selected sampling was used so that respondents that are familiar with the research topic respond.
A questionnaire was developed based on questions relating to the hypotheses and the underpinning literature. Two types of questions were used: ranking questions where respondents were asked to rank different types of communication media in order of communication medium preference for different situations and questions where respondents had to indicate their level of agreement with statements. A four-point Likert scale was used for the latter with the following levels: 1 – strongly disagree; 2 – disagree; 3 – agree; and 4 – strongly agree.
The questionnaire was distributed in two separate campaigns. In the first campaign, email invitations to participate in the survey were sent to project practitioners and all current students and alumni of masters’ projects and engineering management programmes in the Graduate School of Technology Management at the University of Pretoria. One hundred and thirty responses were obtained during this first campaign.
The second campaign made use of an external consultancy that specialises in assisting researchers to obtain survey responses. The company distributed the survey to individuals of their project management database. The survey was closed after 300 responses were received.
In total, 430 responses were received. A small number of responses were not complete, possibly because of connectivity issues while respondents were completing the survey. Incomplete surveys were accepted. The response rate could not be calculated as the population that received the invitation is not known.
Questions were grouped according to the different hypotheses. An average rank was calculated for the ranking questions and the frequency of responses for the specific group of questions compiled. The valid dataset was analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.
Face-to-face communication was selected as the respondents’ first preference across a range of questions, with an average rank of 1.80. This was followed by email (2.28), telephone calls (2.47), text messages (4.01) and written notes (4.44), where 1 was strongly agree and 4 strongly disagree.
Respondents indicated a preference for frequent informal feedback rather than formal progress reports (63.5% vs. 36.5%). They placed slightly more trust in the information contained in formal reports than email (53.3% vs. 46.7% agreeing with the statement), but substantially less trust in telephone calls compared with email (only 18.7% agreeing).
Four Likert scale questions were posed in the survey to address this hypothesis. The highest response frequency was at 2.5 (33.4% of responses). The average response was 2.6, with a maximum of 4. The highest response frequency and average response indicate a response between agreeing and disagreeing with the hypothesis. It can, therefore, not be strongly concluded that email is replacing other types of communication media in the project environment.
Four Likert scale questions were posed in the survey to address this hypothesis. The highest response frequency was at 3 out of a maximum of 4, where 1 was strongly agree and 4 strongly disagree. It can be concluded that email is disruptive.
Six Likert scale questions addressed this hypothesis in the survey. The highest response frequency was at 3 out of a maximum of 4. It can be concluded that users experience stress and overload because of email.
Face-to-face communication is the first preference of respondents, across the range of questions asked, with an average rank of 1.96. This preference is closely followed by email with 2.00, telephone calls with 2.52, text messages with 4.05 and written notes with 4.46. Four Likert scale questions were asked in the survey to address this hypothesis. The highest response frequency was at 3 out of a maximum of 4. The average response was 3.0, where 1 was strongly agree and 4 strongly disagree. It can be concluded that email is an effective tool to delegate tasks.
Six Likert scale questions were asked to test for conflict emanating from email. The highest response frequency was at 3. The average response was 2.9. It can be concluded that email communication supports building relationships and trust.
Four questions testing the ability to build and develop relationships and trust via email were asked. The highest response frequency was at 3 (out of a maximum of 4). The average response was 2.9. It can be concluded that email creates conflict.
The study was conducted in accordance with relevant national and international guidelines. Approval for all protocols followed in this study was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Pretoria under permit number EBIT/GSTM/138/2016.
The study and all its findings are based on the respondents’ perceptions regarding the subject matter and questions asked in the survey. Reliability was aided by a relatively large number (430) of responses received. Validity and reliability concerns were addressed in the study by utilising the services of a statistician for questionnaire design and data analysis. Key concepts and terms were defined upfront in the questionnaire so that all participants had a similar understanding of the topics being investigated. Furthermore, only close-ended questions were asked to reduce ambiguity and emotive responses.
Respondents indicated that face-to-face communication is their preferred communication medium for initial communication regarding project surprises (issues). This was followed by telephone calls with messages in the third place. Respondents preferred that further follow-ups be done either through face-to-face communication or by email (equal response frequency). Based on media richness theory, it can be assumed that face-to-face communication is preferred because of the nature of the message requiring high equivocality. This would also explain why telephone calls were indicated as the second highest preference. The use of email as a joint first choice for elaborating on the initial communication can be ascribed to the fact that email leaves a ‘paper trail’ for future reference, but also grants the author of the email the opportunity to construct his thoughts and explain the situation on his terms, without interruption.
This study found that, despite the convenience and prevalence of email, respondents appear to have an inherent understanding of the need for communication media richness when dealing with communication requiring high equivocality. Face-to-face communication was the preferred communication medium when dealing with minor and major disagreements and conflict. Email was the first preference only for the low equivocality task of requesting information from others. These findings support the work conducted by Robert and Dennis (
The study reported higher email volumes for senior managers. It is not clear whether this is a function of the higher communication volumes associated with management responsibilities or whether it is in conflict with the media richness theory. Email appears to be replacing telephonic communication because of the fairly narrow gap in preference between the two media for situations requiring richer media, although email does not yet exceed it.
Email is perceived as being a very disruptive communication method especially when visual and audible notifications inform you of every email as it is received. Of the respondents, 74% indicated that they have either a visual or audible notification that informs them of new messages arriving. The majority of respondents are, therefore, constantly aware of new messages arriving.
More than half of the respondents (55.3%) indicated that they tend to interrupt activities to read or respond to email. An almost similar percentage (54.4%) indicated that excessive email prevents them from structuring their day and executing tasks according to their own daily schedule. The number of respondents agreeing with the statement that excessive email queries prevent them from structuring their day and executing tasks according to their own daily schedule increased with an increase in email volume.
A large source of stress at work originates from information overload, and more specifically email overload (Bawden & Robinson
More than half of the respondents agreed that email is a contributor to stress at work. This increased with the number of messages received, with recipients of more email indicating higher levels of stress associated with email. This finding supports the research conducted by Jerejian et al. (
In total, 88.2% of respondents indicated that they respond to messages as quickly as possible to prevent messages from piling up in their inbox. It was interesting to note that the majority of the respondents (61.9%) agreed that the seniority of the sender is a significant determinant in the response time. The recipient’s opinion of the sender was found to have limited influence on the speed of response.
Email was found to be an easy and effective tool to request information, make demands and delegate tasks. It was the second most preferred communication medium for delegating tasks after face to-face communication (average rank 1.99 vs. 1.77 for face-to-face communication). The delegation of tasks did not result in abdication of ownership of the problem, despite requesting others for assistance or information regarding the problem.
The majority of respondents indicated that they can build new work relationships with project members via email (60.3%). Even a greater proportion of the respondents (85.8%) agreed that they can maintain existing work relationships with project team members via email. Both these findings contribute to the work conducted by Cheshin et al. (
Email can be manipulated to manage the flow of information by selecting the email recipients carefully. In total, 68.5% of respondents indicated that they exclude certain individuals from the distribution list to prevent negative consequences stemming from the contents of the email. The selective distributions lists can result in conflict, with 80.9% of respondents indicating that email creates conflict when they are excluded from email distribution lists on subjects that involve them. In addition, 64.7% of respondents agreed that email creates conflict when the sender and recipient’s superior is copied in on messages.
The respondents were evenly divided regarding the need to follow up on messages to resolve misunderstandings arising from the original message and, as such, the risk of an ambiguous and poorly written message resulting in conflict did not materially realise. However, the tone of messages was found to have a much greater propensity to cause conflict; 80.4% of respondents indicated that conflict is created because of the tone of the email that some recipients deem to be offensive. Despite the confirmation that email causes conflict, this did not impact the ability to build and maintain relationships via email. The finding that the tone of an email can create conflict supports the research conducted by Turner and Müller (
Respondents indicated a slightly higher level of trust for information contained in formal reports when compared with information provided in an email, this aligns with Turner and Müller (
In total, 65.4% of respondents indicated that project communication by email increases the level of trust between the respondent and project team members. Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that email facilitates collaboration between them and the project team. Despite this, 92.3% of respondents indicated that they archive the majority of their mail as evidence in case of future disputes.
Responses supported the notion that email is an efficient communication medium, with more than 85% of respondents indicating that email allows them to efficiently perform their duties, irrespective of the number of messages they receive each day. This percentage was independent of the number of messages received daily for the respondents receiving less than 25 messages per day, between 25 and 49 and between 50 and 74 messages per day (88.8%, 85.3% and 87.1%).
The vast majority of respondents indicated that email contributes more to successful project execution and success than hampering it (91.6%).
The study did not consider the age or computer literacy of respondents. Both these factors could potentially impact the participant’s perception and preferences regarding email.
The survey made use of convenience sampling. The industries in which the respondents are working in were not surveyed, and a potential relationship between industry and responses was not investigated. The localities of respondents are not certain, although it can be assumed that the majority of the respondents are based in South Africa, and the results can therefore not necessarily be extrapolated to other countries or regions.
The study focused on communication preferences but did not measure actual experience of which communication media were used for the different situations.
The last two decades have witnessed an unprecedented shift in project communication from face-to-face conversations to email, short message service (SMS), instant messaging and video conferencing. The aim of this study was to assess current communication preferences of project practitioners to determine if and how these preferences have changed in comparison with literature from 20 years ago. The following hypotheses were tested in the study in order to address the aim of the study: (1) email is replacing other types of media in the project management environment; (2) email is disruptive; (3) users experience stress and overload because of email; (4) email is an effective tool to delegate tasks; (5) email supports building relationships and trust and (6) email creates conflict. The study found that communication media higher in richness than email are still preferred for most situations, especially for communication requiring higher equivocality. This supports the media richness theory. The findings indicate that email has replaced telephonic communication only for general communication, which is low in equivocality. Respondents also place more trust in information contained in messages than telephone calls.
The study found that email is indeed disruptive, but the majority of respondents allow themselves to be disrupted by using email notifications and also electing to disrupt other activities to read and respond to messages.
Email is a cause of stress in the workplace, and higher levels of stress are correlated with an increase in the number of email messages received. However, the majority of respondents indicated that they can cope with the number of messages that they receive and as such do not report to be overloaded by email.
Email is an effective tool to delegate work and was not found to be associated with abdication of accountability.
Email communication assists in building and maintaining project team relationships, despite agreement that email and specific uses of email can lead to conflict. Even though there was consensus that email communication creates trust, most respondents agreed that they archive the majority of their mail as evidence in case of future conflict. All the hypotheses except hypothesis 1, which states that email is replacing other types of media in the project management environment, are supported by the findings of the study.
Despite the disruptive nature of email and stress resulting from email, the respondents agreed that email contributes to task efficiency and effectiveness. The study found that email contributes more to project success than hampering it.
It is suggested that future studies should investigate whether project practitioner preferences correlate with their actual communication experiences. The demographical data did not include age, and it would be worthwhile to investigate whether a participant’s perception of email, especially with regard to relationships and trust, is correlated with age.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
M.C.S. conceptualised the study topic, carried out the research and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. T.J.B-B. reviewed and critiqued the paper several times. She was responsible for putting the paper in the correct journal format and acting as the corresponding author. H.S. is M.C.S.’s supervisor for his master’s mini dissertation. He also reviewed and critiqued the paper several times. I.F-R. assisted with questionnaire design and was responsible for performing all statistical calculations.