An examination of e-mail use among fortune 500 companies.

Brandenburg, Maryanne ; Wasson, Lynn E. ; Woodall, Karen L. 等

INTRODUCTION

The use of electronic mail (e-mail) as a communication tool for businesses coincides with the rapid expansion of computers in the workplace. A review of literature associated with communication practices indicates that the acceptance and use of e-mail have grown significantly from the inception of e-mail to the present. During this growing phase, email has been viewed by many experts as having both positive and negative impacts on communication practices in organizations both large and small. Evidence also suggests that email standards and practices may differ widely among companies. The purpose of this survey research was to investigate among leading corporations the shared standards and practices of email use.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Literature pertinent to the topic addresses e-mail pervasiveness, effects on corporate culture, benefits and drawbacks, uses and abuses, and factors that contribute to the quality of email messages for business purposes.

Pervasive Use of E-Mail

At least 1.1 billion business e-mail messages are sent per day by 90 million U.S. workers, according to International Data Corporation (IDC). IDC further estimates that 130 million workers will send 2.8 billion messages daily by the year 2000 (Hawkins, 1999). For an increasing number of these people, e-mail is a way of life, not just a way to communicate. Email is a basic component of corporate culture.

The Wall Street Journal estimates that the yearly number of e-mails in the U.S. surged to nearly 4 trillion messages in 1998, as compared to the 107 billion pieces of first-class mail delivered by the U.S. Postal Service (Quick, 1999). On a daily basis, Sklaroff (1999) reports a recent figure of 2.2 billion e-mail messages versus 293 million pieces of first-class mail. The rise in the amount of communication can perhaps be attributed to the attempts by many organizations to achieve a paperless office, along with the innovations in technology that permit quicker and more efficient communications than ever before (Hunt, 1996). In 1996, for example, Microsoft was using e-mail in place of telephoning (Kinsley, 1996). And, according to a study conducted of personal computer users by Industry Analysts, Inc., e-mail applications have replaced database applications to become ranked second only to word processing applications as important to computer users (1998 Personal Computer User Survey).

Reynolds (1997) states that more than 90 percent of major U.S. companies use e-mail; and over 70 percent of foreign-owned and -based companies communicate via this medium. An Ernst & Young LLP poll of 400 executives revealed that 36 percent of those attending the American Management Association's Human Resources Conference used e-mail more frequently than any other communication tool (Galbreath, Booker, Werner & Smitty, 1998).

Effects of E-mail on Corporate Culture

Executives now find themselves in public arenas communicating with shareholders, customers, and front-line staff In the past, hierarchical chains of command did not require every employee to be a highly skilled communicator. Today, however, companies need the input and commitment of empowered employees. To that end, communication lines are becoming interactive rather than one-sided, as corporate leaders recognize how essential communication is to today's changing corporate climate (Hunt, 1996).

A social advantage of e-mail, therefore, is its equalitarianism that contributes to a new corporate culture in which executives keyboard their own messages rather than dictate them or develop drafts for another to keyboard (Kinsley, 1996). E-mail has contributed to the flattening of the corporate structure, enabling individuals to communicate interactively with everyone, internally or externally. E-mail combines the immediacy of the telephone or face-to-face interaction with the planning and preparation of writing. The technology allows staff to be spread over wide areas of the country and the world without being out of daily, and often hourly, communication. As such, communicators must now consider the diversity of their audiences. Whereas executives once communicated primarily with the corporate inner circle, they now find themselves communicating with people who possess a level of technical knowledge they, themselves, may not have (Hunt, 1996).

These claims of e-mail pervasiveness, inclusiveness, and effects on corporate culture suggest a specific question; that is, what are the specific business circumstances where an e-mail message would be selected over other channels of messaging, such as memorandums or telephone interaction?

Benefits and Drawbacks of E-mail

Changing trends in corporate communications are understandable given e-mail's many reported benefits to office productivity. These benefits, however, must be weighed against email's drawbacks.

Benefits include the following. (a) E-mail is fast. E-mail lets companies communicate instantaneously with anyone on Earth who has access to the Internet. (b) E-mail is reliable. If it's undeliverable, it's automatically returned to the sender. (c) E-mail is inexpensive. The service comes along with your Internet access fee, but is sometimes available separately. It pays for itself over postage, stationery, etc. (d) E-mail saves time. It permits the simultaneous transmission of messages instantaneously anywhere to everyone with e-mail access, permitting collaboration among employees. (e) E-mail can be programmed to perform certain tasks automatically. Auto responders are inexpensive and practical for automating the task of sending specific types of information. Customers can get information about a company's products and services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without the need for human intervention (Foley, I 999).

Despite e-mail's many benefits, however, some aspects of e-mail are negative. For example, because e-mail is fast and easy, recipients are regularly bombarded with junk e-mail. A recent study by Worldtalk Corporation (McDonald, 1999) reports that almost one-third, or 31 percent, of corporate e-mail is junk. Of this 31 percent, 14 percent contained bulk or junk mail, 9 percent disclosed confidential information or violated corporate policy, and 8 percent contained profanity, jokes, or viruses.

This junk mail is causing financial loss and service interruption. In fact, according to M. Welles, president of EdWel & Co., in commenting on the results of a study of the Fortune 500 companies, "... it isn't uncommon for an e-mail user to spend a quarter of the day reading and responding to internal communications" (Frazee, 1996, 23). Employees spend, on average, 30 to 60 minutes a day sifting through their deluge of e-mail. Unsolicited messages from unknown senders (spam-mail) can cost a 5,000-person organization more than $12,000 per day to process (The Mess Made, 1999). As a result of these detriments, the following question is appropriate: Do companies have a chief executive officer (CIO) to manage e-mail and Internet systems so as to minimize possible drawbacks?

Many companies, though, choose to ignore the detrimental effect e-mail has on office productivity and continue to use it anyway (You've Got Mail, 1999). According to a survey conducted by the Institute of the Future and sponsored by Pitney Bowes, 60 percent of executives, managers, and professionals felt overwhelmed by the flood of daily e-mail. While employees at every level felt overwhelmed by the flood of communication to varying degrees, the higher up the organizational ladder, the more overwhelmed the individual felt (Galbreath, et al., 1998).

D. Fluss, a research manager at Gartner Group Inc. in Stamford, Connecticut, stated that companies themselves are often responsible for this flood of unwanted e-mail because they do not provide adequate information on their Web sites. This situation can be addressed by using email response management systems that route and track e-mail through an organization or that apply case-based reasoning to customer queries and then send back automated responses (Fusaro, 1998).

Abuse or Misuse of E-mail

Since e-mail is used so extensively by people around the world because of its novelty and ease of use, it is often abused, misused, or misunderstood. People frequently misdirect e-mail to inappropriate audiences (recipients) by inputting the wrong e-mail addresses or replying to all recipients when a reply to the original sender was intended. Additionally, messages are created spontaneously, often in anger or with humorous intent, and then sent immediately without review, thus leading to writer's remorse. People often fail to realize that their messages may be forwarded to many others for whom the original message was never intended. They often fail to consider who may be reading the mail and what is appropriate for those persons (The Ins and Outs, 1998).

Another complicating factor in producing effective e-mail may be messages that are too informal, lacking in clarity, or simply too long and disorganized. The tendency to attach long or multiple files to e-mail messages already long and unclear further complicates speedy transmission and handling. Plus, the formats of many attachments created by the sender are often incompatible with the system formats of the receiver.

Without question, the anonymity of e-mail often contributes to wordiness, many times encouraging (or at least permitting) the writer to give more information than is normally divulged using other forms of communication. Anonymity can contribute to water-cooler gossip and rumors and/or the circulation of profane, sexist, or discriminatory issues. And since e-mail messages are considered documents, they can be used against a company in court. Consider that one major American corporation in 1995 paid $2.2 million to settle a sexual-harassment lawsuit filed by four of its female employees; among the evidence were e-mails listing sexist jokes (Vassallo, 1998).

Further complicating the effectiveness of e-mail is personal use of e-mail at work. Within many corporations, employees' use of e-mail for personal use is acceptable, providing it doesn't interfere with productivity and that it conforms to acceptable usage standards. Many employees, however, fail to understand that e-mail messages created for personal or business uses are not private and that something deleted can be recovered from routine backups.

Because of an increasing number of abuses, many companies have implemented monitoring systems. While monitoring is not a simple procedure and may require increased staff to do nothing but monitor e-mail, the number of U.S. companies who say they monitor e-mail continues to increase from 35 percent in 1997 to 45 percent in 1998, according to the results of a study by the American Management Association (McDonald, 1999). The lack of privacy, or the ability to intercept, obtain, or just read others' e-mail, requires management to develop policies governing the use of electronic messaging. Filtering mechanisms and etiquette conventions, if not already in place, may also need to be developed (Kinsley, 1996). Incorporating such procedures would undoubtedly contribute to increased costs, at least in the short term.

While the need for policy, filtering mechanisms, and/or etiquette conventions is clear, the question remain: Are companies actively establishing controls to govern the use of electronic messaging?

Despite the potential speed, ease, and efficacy of e-mail, several negative factors highlight a lack of professionalism in many e-mail messages (Reynolds, 1997). Although e-mail usage continues to increase, the number of ineffective and poorly written messages remains high. Much e-mail appears as if it were produced by elementary school writers. It contains either all capital or all lower-case letters and no punctuation. Lack of attention to detail may be a key reason why almost 60 percent of all e-mail messages leave the receiver unable to act, without first getting more information. Users cite lack of organization; poor construction, sentence structure, grammar, and punctuation; and misinformation as common e-mail problems (You've Got Mail, 1999). An additional danger is that disregard for the rules of good writing could spread and eventually become the norm.

Understanding that different people respond differently to the same information also requires stronger communication skills than were needed in the past. E-mail loses its effectiveness as a tool for communication when incorrect grammar, wrong spelling, or missing or improperly used punctuation makes the message difficult to read. Although the beauty of email may center on its simplicity, its efficiency, and its immediacy, no reason exists to abandon the standard English fundamental rules. Poorly written e-mail wastes time because it compels the recipient to read the message several times or to contact the sender for clarification.

Companies often lose business because of misunderstandings. D. Bagin, publisher of Communication Briefings, a business-communication newsletter in Alexandria, Virginia, says ... an employee who is a poor writer could embarrass you and your organization." He adds, "Poor writing could lose a potential client or alienate a current one" (as cited in Maynard, 1995, 12).

In view of the overwhelming use of e-mail in the corporate communication culture with its many reported benefits and concerns, the need for quality communication skills is essential. A 1997 survey by Robert Half International of the 1,000 largest employers in the U.S. reported that 96 percent say employees must have good communication skills to get ahead. And several detailed studies have shown a clear correlation between literacy and income (As cited in Fisher, 1998).

Because the purpose of e-mail is to communicate ideas and information, messages that require the recipient to read and reread, to return the e-mail for clarification, or to make a phone call to gain understanding defeat the purpose of e-mail. Standard English rules are necessary for efficient and effective communication (Romei, 1997).

Factors that Contribute to the Quality of E-mail

While an input-and-send approach contributes to quick communication, it can also contribute to factors that obscure clear, correct, and concise communication. To achieve both speedy and understandable communication, elements associated with quality content and format must be considered in e-mail message development.

Factors that contribute to the quality of the content of e-mail messages include tone, courtesy, conciseness, clarity, and correctness.

Tone refers to the use of positive, or at least neutral, language presented in a conversational style, much as one would talk. According to Vassallo (1998, 195), "What you write is half the game; how you write it is the other half." Obtaining the desired response from an e-mail message, therefore, often depends on the positive, friendly tone with which the message was written.

Courtesy includes using "Please" and "Thank you" when appropriate (Galbreath, et al., 1998) and demonstrating a sincere interest in the reader by using the "you" approach (Forman, 1999). Respectful acknowledgment of the receiver's needs and wants reflects beneficially on the writer (Vassallo, 1998).

Conciseness requires sticking to the point of the message and eliminating all but the necessary information. E-mail senders can achieve conciseness by writing "a specific, talking, eye-catching subject or entry line" (Reynolds, 1997, 8) and by positioning important information first. Since many e-mail readers may only read the beginning of messages, using an "umbrella opening" (Reynolds, 1997, 8) lets the reader know early what is contained in the message.

Clarity refers to using language that is specific, understandable, and clear. Planning and organizing before inputting an e-mail message improves clarity (Forman, 1999). In addition, avoiding a reply of one word or only a few words also improves clarity. For example, repeating an essential part of a previous message reminds the reader of why the reply was sent, thus improving clarity (Galbreath, et al., 1998).

Correctness in grammar, spelling, and punctuation makes an e-mail message, and other written messages, easier to read and understand. E-mail messages lacking correctness are often difficult to read and may cause the receiver to perform additional reading and study, may waste the reader's time and require follow-up requests for clarification, or may contribute to poor decisions based on misconstrued messages. Letting the ease, quickness, and informality of e-mail replace careful editing and proofreading nullifies salient benefits of e-mail (Reynolds, 1997).

Factors that contribute to the quality of format include personalization and identification, paragraph and sentence length, and layout.

Personalization and identification clarify who the sender and receiver of an e-mail message are and add to the message's conversational tone. Personalization of an e-mail message is achieved by putting the reader's name in a salutation or including the name of the reader in the first sentence or two. Identification means ending the message with the sender's name, work title, company name, and/or address (Galbreath, et al., 1998). Some e-mail systems provide such identification automatically when the message is sent.

Paragraph and sentence length improve the quality of e-mail messages when the lengths are kept short. Paragraphs should be no longer than five or six lines, according to Grazian (1996/1997), and no longer than seven or eight lines, according to Vassallo (1998), For average sentence length, authorities generally agree on 17 to 20 words per sentence. In addition, the average computer screen shows about 24 lines; so keeping the message to one screen prevents the reader's need to scroll to find important information (The Ins and Outs, 1998).

Layout includes conventions for use of capitals, white space, headings and subheadings, and font. Use of all capitals, for example, should be avoided because the capitals give the appearance of shouting the message. In addition, white space should be used effectively to improve ease in reading the message (Grazian, 1996/1997). For messages that require more than one screen, use of headings, subheadings, and listings can help the reader easily scroll to important information (Reynolds, 1997). Lastly, the use of a font that is easy to read as well as large enough to read-at least 12 point and preferably larger--improves the overall quality of a message's format (Vassallo, 1998).

Based on the information above, the quality of e-mail messages can be improved by following the guidelines listed here relative to content and format of e-mail messages. The question remaining, however, is: What qualities of content and format are evident in typical email messages of today's leading corporations?

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Based on the review of literature pertaining to the use of e-mail for business purposes, the following questions can be stated:

Research Q1: What are the specific circumstances where an e-mail message is preferred over a memorandum or a telephone call? A related question is:

Research Q1a: What percentage of corporate employees use e-mail on a daily basis?

Research Q2: Do corporations employ a CIO to direct and manage the corporation's electronic and Internet use among employees?

Research Q3: Do companies generally create a formal policy for employee use of e-mail and the Internet?

Research Q4: What standards are evident among businesses regarding qualities of e-mail content?

Research Q5: What standards are evident among businesses regarding qualities of e-mail format?

METHODOLOGY

To answer the research questions, Fortune 500 corporations of 1998 were surveyed by email. These corporations were selected because they are generally perceived to be models for business practices and communication standards across the nation. To quality as a Fortune 500 company (Fortune FAQS, 1999), companies must meet the following criteria.

(a) All companies must publicize financial data and report part or all of their figures to a government agency.

(b) Ranking on the Fortune 500 list depends primarily on comparative revenue for the period. Revenue figures for all companies include consolidated subsidiaries and exclude excise taxes.

(c) Companies must also provide figures for profits, assets, and shareholder equity.

To gather data that would answer the research questions about e-mail use and standards among employees of these leading corporations, an e-mail message was created and sent by the researchers. The message followed basic guidelines of quality content and format (Forman, 1999; Galbreath, et al., 1998; Grazian 1996/1997; Reynolds, 1997; Vassallo, 1998). The message was concise (12 lines), made appropriate use of white space to increase readability, presented questions in a direct and courteous manner, and appropriately greeted the receiver and identified the researchers.

Three questions collected quantitative data regarding the presence of a CIO (yes or no), the existence of e-mail or Internet use policies (yes or no), and the percentage of employees using e-mail on a daily basis. A fourth question asked respondents to provide written information describing circumstances where e-mail messages were preferred over other message types. The remaining analyses consisted of content and format analysis of each e-mail response.

Type of response format was first categorized by whether the messages were "canned" or personal. Canned (automated) replies referred to those that were obviously form statements. They were typically off-target for the study and typically welcomed customers to the website, thanked the e-mail sender for the message, and stated how much the company valued customer communication. Personal replies were those that provided useable information in direct response to the survey questions, acknowledged receipt of the survey and included additional remarks (though they may not have answered the questions), or stated they referred the message to another person in the corporation.

Quality of response content was evaluated on a scale of 1 (high degree of presence), 2 (moderate degree of presence), to 3 (low degree of presence) for tone (being conversational and positive), courtesy (using please and thank you, and generally illustrating a reader focus within the content), conciseness (sticking to the point and eliminating all but necessary information), clarity (being specific, logical, and understandable), and correctness (displaying correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation).

Quality of format was evaluated on a scale of 1 (yes) and 2 (no) regarding evidence that the particular format quality was evident in the message. Format qualities included (a) personalization (message used the receiver's name), (b) identification (sender provided his/her name along with company name, position, or other business information), (c) paragraph and sentence length (paragraphs contained no more than 6-8 lines and sentences contained no more than 20 words), and (d) layout (caps and lower case, white space, headings and subheadings, and font were appropriately used). Additionally, the use of ads, logos, and slogans was noted.

Descriptive statistics as well as content analyses were used to interpret the results. Each e-mail message was directed to the Web Master or Information Officer of the corporation. When a corporation did not include an e-mail address among other information provided on the Fortune 500 listing, an Internet search was conducted to locate the URL address elsewhere. All e-mail addresses were eventually located, with the exception of nine corporations.

Internal and External Validity Considerations.

Content coding was based on established criteria by professionals in the field of business communication as well as on the cumulative university teaching consulting experiences of the three researchers. The researchers and a graduate assistant completed the coding process, and any disagreements were discussed and satisfactorily resolved. A validity threat may exist, however, regarding who answered the e-mail. The person responding by return e-mail may have been any number of individuals, ranging from the CIO to an entry-level employee hired to respond to "routine" messages. Additionally, whether the message was answered by someone at the headquarters, in a subsidiary of the company, or by a contracted sublet of the company hired for Web Master responsibilities was not distinguished in the data collected.

A limitation of the study is the communication context. Corporations responded to external constituents, the researchers. The content and formatting of messages intended only for internal constituents (other employees of the same company) are not represented in this study and may vary somewhat from the reported results. The study is also delimited by the inclusion of large successful corporations that are generally in the public's eye and which receive, by the nature of their visibility, many e-mail messages.

RESULTS

The response rate for the study was 29%; 110 corporations sent a return e-mail. E-mail responses were received within two business days in most cases. Not all companies, however, provided answers to all questions. Only 83 (75%) answered one, or more of the four survey questions, 16 (15%) of all messages were automated responses and off-target to the study. The remaining 11 (10 %) of the return messages were referred to another person. Regardless of the completeness of the message, each was analyzed for content and format qualities. Thank you email messages were sent to all corporations that responded, regardless of whether or not they agreed to participate.

Question 1 of the study asked: "Does your company have a Chief Information Officer (CIO)?" Of the 110 companies responding to the survey, 23 companies (21 percent) answered yes to this question and 87 companies (79 percent) answered no or left the item blank, as shown in Table 1.

A disproportionately large number of companies indicated they did not have a CIO. A person by another title, however, could have been performing CIO responsibilities. The survey question was not worded so the respondent would be encouraged to consider an alternate title.

Question 2 asked: "Does your company place restrictions on employee use of e-mail or the Internet? Please describe." Of the 100 respondent companies, 21 answered yes, 5 companies answered no, and 27 forwarded this question to another person for response. However, further responses were not received. The remaining 57 companies did not answer this item, as indicated in

Some of the 21 companies indicating they had e-mail policies stated their policies were formal written documents; others companies may have had policies that were merely word-of-mouth understandings. The survey question did not ask for a distinction between the two. One company forwarded an entire six-page document as evidence of a rigorous policy by e-mail (over 2,000 words in 10-point font). As further indicated in Table 2, a disproportionately high number of company respondents did not have policies or did not know whether policies existed.

Question 3 stated: "Please estimate what percentage of your employees use e-mail on a daily basis." Only 24 (22%) of the 110 companies answered this question. As Table 3 indicates, 13 (12%) of the companies stated that between 76 percent and 100 percent of employees used e-mail on a daily basis, 3 (3%) of the companies stated daily use between 51 % and 75% of their employees, and 8 (7%) of the companies stated daily use by 50 percent or fewer of their employees. Several corporations not providing estimates for daily use inserted comments such as "We have no idea," or "too hard to estimate."

Based on these results, only 16 percent of employees within the major corporations, on the average, used e-mail on a daily basis.

Question 4 stated: "Please describe circumstances where e-mail messages are preferred over the use of hard copy memos and/or telephone calls." Of the 100 corporations responding, 35 provided information for this item. Since the item required a written statement, the responses were categorized into four areas: (a) general message conveniences (13 companies); (b) economical reasons (3 companies)--(c) special conveniences (attachment options and time zone advantages--5 companies); and (d) organizational culture, meaning, "It's just the way things are done around here" (9 companies). Additional information gleaned from Question 4 results was that e-mail messages were not used for lengthy documents, complex documents, documents requiring signature or notarization, or documents containing sensitive or confidential information. The implication was that e-mail is preferred over other message types for a wide variety of reasons. Answers to Question 3 regarding percentage of employees using e-mail on a daily basis counters the results for Question 4. The stated conveniences may reflect what employees thought was expected to be true, rather than the reality of the work place.

Coded Analysis

All e-mail messages were analyzed for content and formatting qualities. Content qualities were evaluated by the following criteria, using a scale of 1 (high degree of presence), 2 (moderate degree of presence), and 3 (low degree of presence):

* Tone-was conversational and positive

* Courteous-used please and thank you and was reader centered

* Conciseness-eliminated unnecessary verbiage

* Clarity-was specific, logical, understandable

* Correctness-used correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation

As shown in Table 4, 80 percent of the companies rated high, overall. The most frequently occurring high ratings were for the criteria of Clarity (104 companies) and Conciseness (89 companies). Criteria most lacking was Tone (74 companies illustrated conversational and positive tone, but 36 did not). Clipped, staccato tone, abbreviated messaging, and grammatical short cuts were not evident, as only 6 percent overall included these characteristics.

Formatting qualities were evaluated by the following criteria, using a 1 (yes) or 2 (no) rating:

* Personalization: used name of receiver in the opener or early in the message

* Identification: provided sender name and company affiliation, position, or other information

* Paragraph and sentence length: had paragraphs between 6-8 lines and sentences with 20 or fewer words.

* Layout-used capitalization and lower case, white space, headings and subheadings, and font size for ease of reading and understanding.

As shown in Table 5, most companies demonstrated high-quality formatting features and very seldom included ads, logos, or slogans. Overall, e-mail messages contained the same high quality formatting standards expected for more formal, hard-copy business messages.

As a final part of the survey, respondents were encouraged to provide additional comments. Only a few companies added information at this point, but typical expressions by those companies included the following:

"Immediate interaction is best accomplished by phone."

"The corporate office use of e-mail is very high, but in the field it is not so much."

"We receive between 800 and 1,000 e-mail messages a day and answer each one personally with a return e-mail response."

"The software used for our e-mail system is Lotus Notes."

"Our company is trying to foster a paperless office."

"A new phenomenon for our company is the use of interactive pagers, which have a keyboard, a seven-line display of words, radio communications, and operates on one AA battery."

DISCUSSION

As expected, e-mail messages were claimed to be a part of the corporate culture.-It's just the way we do things around here! The conveniences of economy, speed, wide-range contacts, and file transfers were frequently cited as major benefits. These claims agree with the studies conducted by Hawkins (1999), Quick (1999), Hunt (1996), and others. However, the claims of use and report of actual use did not coincide. Only 16 percent of employees use e-mail on a daily basis (See results shown in Table 3). Additionally, a disproportionately large number of respondents failed to confirm the presence of a CIO (only 23 of the 110 companies) or the existence of an e-mail usage policy (only 21 companies).

Perhaps the person responsible for managing e-mail and Internet use was identified by some other title or specified within some other job description. Future studies should ask this question in a manner that would incorporate the responsibilities of e-mail and Internet use. Future studies may also find a higher number of CIOs by title alone as technology and information system issues become increasing more challenging.

The lack of a formal and well-publicized usage policy would suggest that companies could face problems in terms of productivity loss and misuse of electronic messaging by employees. In light of the complaints launched by corporations regarding improper use of e-mail or the Internet, the absence of a formal policy is risky in terms of efficiency and productivity. Results of this study suggest that e-messaging may be out of control within corporations, as based on comments that some respondents had no idea how many employees daily used e-mail or that the information was too difficult to calculate and that most respondents were not aware of any messaging restrictions.

The study results were also expected to show an abundance of short, abbreviated, staccato messages. Instead, standard content and format criteria, as used in other more formal, hard-copy business messages, were evident. The results do not agree with earlier literature (Romei, 1997) which suggests a "dressing down" of standards for e-mail because of its speed, ease, breadth, and inclusiveness.

For educators, this finding is important. The study has been important for identifying the specific uses and current practices of major corporations, thus educators can better prepare students to meet the expectations of their potential employers.

Similar studies are recommended in the future and should be conducted on a regular basis. Periodic studies would be instrumental in identifying trends and shifts in electronic messaging practices and preferences among corporation. Educators would then have the opportunity to keep abreast of electronic messaging issues in a quickly evolving area of corporate communication. Accordingly, students will be better prepared for their workplace responsibilities.

A change recommended for future studies is to clarify the question regarding a CIO and allow other titles or positions which may incorporate the responsibilities of managing e-mail and Internet use among employees. Additionally, the question regarding restrictions for employee use of e-mail and Internet should clarify the existence of formal, written policy statements; word-of-mouth understandings; or other policy enforcements. More specificity in the survey could add to the clarity and understanding of specific corporate preferences, expectations, and actual use of e-mail and Internet among employees.

REFERENCES

1998 personal computer user survey.(1998, December). The Office Products Analyst, 22(12), 1-11.

Beer, M. (1999, January 15). Sometimes, snails are faster. San Francisco Examiner. Retrieved 15 January 1999 from <http:abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/dailynews/customeremail/990115.html>.

Coleman, R. (1999, March 30). Texas professor studies Internet culture. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 23 April 1999 from <http://www.dallasnews.com>.

Fisher, A. (1998, December 7). The high cost of living and not writing well. Fortune, 138(11), 244.

Foley, M. (1999). The marketing advantages of e-mail. Internet Business Guide. Retrieved 18 January 1999 from <http://www.ibguide.com/articles/e-advantages.huh>.

Forman, E. (1999). Teacher shows managers how to communicate. Sun-Sentinel, South Florida. Retrieved 23 April 1999 from <http://www.sun-sentinel.com>.

Fortune 500/FAQ (1999). Retrieved 18 August 1999 from <http://www.Pathfinder.com/fortune/fortune5OO/faqs.html>.

Frazee, V. (1996, November 16). Is e-mail doing more harm than good? Personnel Journal, 75(5), 23.

Fusaro, R. (1998, November 16). Companies struggle to answer web-site e-mail. Computerworld, Retrieved 28 April 1999 from <http://web5.searchbank.com/>.

Galbreath, S. C., Booker, J. A., Werner, P. D. & Smith, M. L. (1998). Make your e-mail powerful. CPA Journal, 68(12), 58.

Grazian, F. (1996/1997). Getting more mileage from e-mail. Public Relations Quarterly, 41(4), 40.

Hawkins, D. (1999, March 22). Office politics in the electronic age, US News & World Report, 126(11),59-61.

Hunt, E. J. (1996, Summer). Communicating in the information age. Canadian Business Review, 23(2), 23.

The ins and outs of e-mail. (1998, August). USA Today Magazine, 127(2639),12.

Jones, V. A. (1998, October). Developing an e-mail policy. OfficeSystems98, 38-43.

Kinsley, M. (1996, December 2). The morality & metaphysics of email. Forbes, 158(13), 113.

Maynard, R. (1995, December). Is your worker's writing creating wrong impressions? Nation's Business, 83(12), 12.

McDonald, J. (1999, April 25). An eye on e-mail. The Springfield News-Leader, 11B.

The mess made for business by junk e-mail. (1999, April 19). Business Week.--Retrieved 28 April 1999 from <http://web5.searchbank.com/itw/>.

Quick, R. (1999, January 18). Infinite number of employees mistype their e-mail. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 18 January 1999 from <http://www.azcentral.com/computing/news/>.

Reynolds, S. (1997, June/July). Composing effective e-mail messages. Communication World, 14(6 & 7), 8.

Romei, L. K. (1997, February). Ee cummings was a punk! Managing Office Technology, 42(2), 9.

Sklaroff, S. (1999, March 22). E-mail nation. U. S. News & World Report, 126(11), 54-55.

Vassallo, P. (1998). U-mail, i-mail--more effective business e-mail. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 55(2), 195.

You've got (way too much) mail. (1999, February). Workforce, 78(2), 30.

Maryanne Brandenburg, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Lynn E. Wasson, Southwest Missouri State University

Karen L. Woodall, Southwest Missouri State University

Table 1

Answer to Survey Question #1

 Yes No, or Did not
 Answer this Item

Does your company have a CIO? 23 (21%) 87 (79%)

Table 2

Answer to Questions # 2

 Yes No

Restrictions on employee use of 21(19%) 5(4%)
e-mail or the Internet?

 Referred to No Response
 another for for this item
 response provided

Restrictions on employee use of 27(25%) 57(52%)
e-mail or the Internet?

Table 3

Answer to Survey Question # 3

Daily Usage 0-25% 2(2%)

 26-50% 6(5%)

 51-75% 3(3%)

 76%-100% 13(12%)

 Had no idea, or left 86(78%)
 item blank

Table 4

Qualities of Content

 Rating 1 Rating 2 Rating 3
 (high) (moderate) (low)

Tone-conversational 74 23 13
& positive

Courteous/polite 89 11 10

Conciseness 91 15 4

Clarity 104 6 0

Correctness-grammar, 85 20 5
punctuation, spelling

Total, Categorical % of 443 (80%) 75 (14%) 32(6%)
all ratings

Table 5

Qualities of Format

 Yes No

* Personalization (for receiver) 73 (66%) 37 (34%)
and identification (of sender)

* Paragraph length (within 5-8 lines) 110 (100%) 0

* Sentence length (having 20 or 99 (90%) 11 (10%)
fewer words)

* Layout (use of capitalization and 99 (90%) 11 (10%)
lowercase, white space, headings
and subheadings, 12 pt. or larger
font.

* Use of ads, logos, or slogans 9 (8%) 101 (92%)