Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:02
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Communication in a Changing World:
Contemporary Perspectives on Business
Communication Competence
Jennifer Waldeck , Cathryn Durante , Briana Helmuth & Brandon Marcia
To cite this article: Jennifer Waldeck , Cathryn Durante , Briana Helmuth & Brandon Marcia (2012) Communication in a Changing World: Contemporary Perspectives on Business Communication Competence, Journal of Education for Business, 87:4, 230-240, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.608388
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.608388
Published online: 29 Mar 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1007
View related articles
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.608388
Communication in a Changing World: Contemporary
Perspectives on Business Communication
Competence
Jennifer Waldeck, Cathryn Durante, Briana Helmuth, and Brandon Marcia
Chapman University, Orange, California, USACommunication in and around business organizations has changed due to new technologies, the demand for intercultural communication skills, the changing person–organization rela-tionship, and the global nature of organizing. As a result, new communication competencies may be required. The author’s objective was to identify specific communication competencies important in the contemporary business and professional environment. Toward that objective, articles referring to communication from best-selling popular press and practitioner-oriented business periodicals were used as artifacts for a content analysis. Six inductively derived competencies represent a mix of traditional and contemporary communication skills. The in-fluence of collaborative communication and global interconnectivity permeated each theme. Furthermore, the competencies reveal the necessity of a skill set that transcends typical disci-plinary divisions—encompassing technology, intergroup relations, nonverbal and chronemic awareness, relational competence, and more. These competencies should be of interest to communication educators and trainers as they design curriculum and training plans for a contemporary audience.
Keywords: business communication, communication, communication competence, technol-ogy, workplace relationships
Scholars, corporate recruiters and managers, research firms, and business writers have argued for years that the ability to communicate effectively is a leading factor in professional success. Communication competence is widely regarded as the basis for many other behaviors important to a successful career, including teamwork, leadership, planning, organiz-ing, and more. However, numerous sources cite a lack of these critical communication skills in contemporary busi-ness contexts (cf. Kristof, 2008; Levinson, 2008; Paulsell, 2008; Wellner, 2005). Moreover, the modern professional environment is characterized by new forms of organizing, powerful communication technologies, frequent change, di-minishing boundaries between work life and personal life, an older and more diverse workforce, and a greater emphasis on globalism—and these changes impact business commu-nication in dramatic ways that students must have exposure to prior to entering the workforce.
Correspondence should be addressed to Jennifer Waldeck, Chapman University, Department of Communication Studies, One University Drive, Orange, CA 92866, USA. E-mail: jennifer.waldeck@gmail.com
The overriding aim of this study was to identify communi-cation competencies relevant to the contemporary workplace. Identification of these skills should aid business communi-cation educators in addressing practical concerns in their classrooms. Furthermore, this study should enable scholars to identify research topics and methods that enable them to “go beyond the knowledge discovery of the basic research enterprise to interpret and apply research outcomes . . . and develop practices for the betterment of everyday life” (Petro-nio, 2007, p. 215). To provide further rationale for this study, the review of literature that follows makes a compelling case for the importance of business communication competence, defines the construct, and argues for the emphasis on com-munication competence in business education.
Why Business Communication Competence?
Communication researchers have made the case for the importance of communication skills (Morreale, Osborn, & Pearson, 2000; Morreale & Pearson, 2008) for “succeeding in one’s career and in the business enterprise” (Morreale & Pearson, p. 225). Importantly, the truism that communication
matters is acknowledged beyond the communication disci-pline; Harvard Business School professors Kleinbaum, Stu-art, and Tushman (2008) wrote that “communication is cen-tral to the very existence of organizations” (¶1).
Communication is important in all kinds of industries, from traditional service-oriented areas such as travel, hos-pitality, real estate, and sales to highly technical fields such as medicine, design, and engineering. Andrew Burroughs, an engineer with Silicon Valley firm IDEO, commented, “We’re looking for employees who are very smart technical contrib-utors but who are also interesting, curious people who can communicate about a lot more than just technical matters” (as cited by Locke, 2007, p. A9)—demonstrating that the cross-functional nature of the modern workplace requires the communicators (e.g., sales, marketing, public relations, human resources positions) to have technical knowledge, and the tech people (e.g., engineers, programmers, designers) to have the social skills to meaningfully interact with others. Critical for students preparing to go on post-graduation in-terviews (Kristof, 2008) to chief-level executives (Alexan-der, 2008), effective communication is positively related to employee engagement, as well as a number of organization-level variables, including organizational performance, share-holder dividends, decreased turnover, and financial perfor-mance (Watson Wyatt Worldwide, 2007). In other words, communication is not just a soft skill.
What Is Contemporary Business Communication Competence?
To answer this question, we began by questioning the depth to which requisite business and professional communication skills have been articulated in academic and practitioner-oriented literature. Although communication skills are top-ranked requirements of employers (National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2010), little recent research has identified exactly which skills are most important and why. For example, the American Society for Training and De-velopment (ASTD; 2009) listed communication as one of 10 critical skills desired by employers—but goes on to fur-ther define the competency as simply involving listening and speaking. Because these skills are covered in 100-level com-munication courses which many college graduates complete, and because practitioners persist in reporting widespread deficiencies in workplace communication, we believe that a stronger, clearer delineation of specific communication-related business and professional requirements might be in order.
Next, expectations for effective and competent business communication have evolved. Pointing to the dramatic im-pact of communication technology and global organizing, Du-Babcock (2006) wrote that “our challenge is to cope with and communicate in this increasingly complex and diverse global, multidisciplinary environment” (p. 256). However, the last systematic examination of job performance criteria
from the communication discipline was conducted over 10 years ago (Winsor, Curtis, & Stephens, 1997). Since then, re-searchers have been overwhelmed with reports of the chang-ing nature of work—and provided with no real synthesis of what these developments mean in terms of necessary com-munication competencies. Understandably, none of the im-portant communication skills Winsor et al. identified for new graduates, experienced employees, or ideal managers in 1997 related to issues such as virtual work, digitally mediated or enhanced communication, global communication, or just-in-time information exchange. Thus, an updated spotlight on specific communication skills relevant to success in business and the professions is required.
In summary, researchers and practitioners have estab-lished that communication competence is central to an indi-vidual’s participation in organizational life, and, specifically, to business and professional success. However, no recent research indicates what specific skills are most important. Thus, this study was driven by the specific objective of iden-tifying these communication competencies germane to the contemporary business and professional environment.
METHOD
Content Analysis as a Research Design
In this study I employed a research method known as content analysis, used widely by communication researchers, social psychologists, sociologists, library scientists, linguists, and cybernetic scholars (Krippendorff, 2004) for the systematic and reliable analysis of messages. Berelson (1952) described content analysis as a “research technique for the objective, systematic, and quantitative description of the content of communication” (p. 18) such as conversation, public address, written texts, or mediated messages (e.g., film, television, In-ternet content). To be credible, content analysis methodology must rely on “the scientific method (including attention to objectivity, intersubjectivity, a priori design, reliability, va-lidity, generalizability, replicability, and hypothesis testing)” (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 10). To meet the definition and criteria for content analysis, the present study’s design has several key features prescribed by Neuendorf.
An a priori design. In a process described in the next section entitled “Data Identification,” before assessing the content, the researchers agreed on the content to be coded, the parameters of a useful unit of analysis, and the coding procedures to be used.
Evidence of interrater reliability. This study’s design employed multiple coders to ensure the scientific reliability of findings. The procedures used to arrive at intercoder reli-ability estimates are described subsequently. Furthermore, to avoid contamination of the dataset by the subjective
observations of singular coders, the research team met fre-quently to engage in structured discussion on the nature and meaning of the data they identified (cf. Neuendorf, 2002, on intersubjectivity).
Replicability. The study’s design and the coding proce-dures utilized were conceived and are reported subsequently in such a way that the study can be replicated using the same or future published content.
Generalizability. The publications analyzed in this investigation were chosen using specific criteria described subsequently. These criteria were designed to maximize the likelihood that references to communication competence identified within the publications chosen would mirror or apply to other similar cases (i.e., publications) not chosen for analysis.
Appropriateness of Content Analysis for the Present Investigation
Neuendorf (2002) reported that content analysis is widely and routinely used for assessing mass messages (e.g., those created for a large audience) such as newspaper, magazine, radio, and television content. Because the goal of this project involved generating practical findings which could be used in applied settings, and which reflect contemporary advance-ments in business and organizing, the present analysis fo-cused on references to communication in recent nationally and internationally circulated popular press and practitioner-oriented serial business magazines. These magazines are widely read and influential on the thinking, behavior, and decisions of practitioners from a diversity of fields, job posi-tions, cultural orientaposi-tions, and geographic locations; further, these publications routinely report, directly and indirectly, on the general strengths and weaknesses of business com-municators today (Fell, 2010). A description of the methods employed is described in the next section.
Data Identification
Identifying and narrowing the field of publications to code. For this content analysis, the research team focused on a core set of publications that met specific criteria. Only the material that appeared in the print version of these publi-cations was analyzed (although that material also may have appeared online). Most business publications offer a great deal of additional online content that does not appear in their print versions. The research team determined that a systematic identification and reliable analysis of online-only content was an unrealistic and unmanageable project, and consequently decided to focus on the print versions of se-lected publications.
Using procedures similar to Lewis, Schmisseur, Stephens, and Weir (2006)—who used content analysis in examining
best selling business books—the authors selected serial pub-lications that were rated as top 10 best-sellers in theBusiness Managementcategory on Amazon.com as of September 1, 2009. This particular category of magazines was most appro-priate because publications within it focus on management and leadership, rather than (or in addition to) other areas of business, such as finance or investing—and therefore were most likely to contain content relevant to the objective of identifying communication competencies. The publications chosen for inclusion in the content analysis wereForbes,Fast Company, Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan Manage-ment Review,Training,T+D,Entrepreneur,Inc,HR Maga-zine, andBusiness Week.
To identify references to communication, the research team examined all issues of the eight monthly publications. For the two weeklies (Business Week andForbes), the is-sues published in the first and third weeks of the month were coded. To be selected for this study, an article, interview, or essay had to referenceone or more specific communication behaviors relevant to the business enterprise. The research team began the process of data identification with the first published issue of 2005 for each magazine. That particu-lar year coincides with the emergence of Web 2.0 interac-tive communication technologies in organizational settings, which have had a profound and documented impact on all or-ganizing behavior (Lazar, 2007; O’Reilly, 2005). Thus, 2005 was an appropriate starting point for identifying skills im-portant in the contemporary workplace. Once the core field of publications was narrowed and identified, the researchers then began the next step of content analysis, unitizing the data.
Unitizing the data. Unitizing involves identifying dis-crete units of analysis that pertain specifically to the research objective. After an initial one-week period of data identifi-cation, the researchers met to discuss the nature of the ar-ticles they had collected and the units identified. The lead researcher read each article and then the team collectively discussed the extent to which each article pertained to the re-search topic of communication competence in contemporary business settings. Some articles mentioned communication in only a brief or tangential way. The authors decided that a brief mention of a communication skill without some depth of explanation or logical argument about its centrality to the business enterprise did not warrant inclusion in the study. Using this discussion as a guide for further article identi-fication, the process of data collection, identiidenti-fication, and unitizing continued.
Coding procedures and establishing intercoder relia-bility. The research team identified 347 articles published in issues of the 10 magazines for the period January 2005–June 2010. The publication featuring the greatest number of ar-ticles discussing communication was HR Magazine (n = 84), followed by Entrepreneur (n = 56) and Fast Com-pany (n = 44). The publications with the fewest articles
referencing communication wereForbes(n=11) andMIT Sloan Management Review(n=7). Employing generally ac-cepted content analysis procedures described by Potter and Riddle (2007), a random selection of 25% of the sampled ar-ticles was coded for communication skill reference by two of the four authors to create an overlap that could be used to test reliability. First, the unitizing was tested and there was agree-ment 97% of the time with the yes–no decision of whether to include the article. Second, the percentage of agreement on the identification of units (skills) was assessed. Percentage of unit-by-unit agreement ranged from 94% to 100% depending on the article. Based on these reliability samples, due to the large amount of data amassed, the research team proceeded with single coder unitization (utilizing all four of the au-thors) of the rest of the articles (Krippendorff, 2004). When all unitizing was complete, the research team had identified 625 total units of data (references to specific communication skills)—an average of 1.8 per article.
After articles had been identified and coded for their ref-erence to communication, the resulting 625 communication skill descriptions were included in the remaining four stages of the content analysis. Using a ground theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), in Stage 1, two coders (the first and second authors) placed each skill unit into conceptually similar categories. In Stage 2, both coders reread all of the skill descriptions within each of the categories to check for internal consistency. Tentative labels were then assigned to each category. In Stage 3, the same two coders reread the skill descriptions in each category, discussed discrepancies, and made adjustments and revisions. Stage 4 involved two additional coders who had not participated in data identifi-cation, and who were trained in content-analytic procedures.
These individuals recategorized a sample of units randomly selected from each of the categories. The percent of unit-by-unit agreement between the original coders and the two addi-tional coders ranged from 84% to 100%. Interrater reliability among all coders, using Cohen’s kappa, was .87 (Wrench, Thomas-Maddox, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2008). Any cat-egorizations on which the secondary and initial raters did not agree were discussed and recategorized. Through this pro-cess, the initial and additional coders reached 100% agree-ment on the categorization of the 625 communication skills mentioned in the 347 articles into six primary competencies.
RESULTS
Analysis of the data identified using the procedures described previously revealed six communication competencies impor-tant within the contemporary business environment. What follows is a description of each communication compe-tency, with examples of related behaviors, and—to enhance reader understanding of each competency—representative citations and quotes from articles analyzed. Table 1 provides an overview of the competencies.
Competency 1: Relationship and Interpersonal Communication
The 191 references to relationship and interpersonal com-munication skills constituted 31% of the instances in which communication was mentioned. Relationship and interper-sonal communication skills represented the most frequently discussed communication competency in the sample. This
TABLE 1
Business Communication Competencies (n=625)
Competency and examples n %
1. Relationship and interpersonal communication 191 31 Assist individuals in initiating, maintaining, or disengaging from interorganizational and external relationships.
e.g., civility, conflict management, small talk, conversation management, rapport building.
2. Mediated communication 183 29
Assist individuals in using communication technologies effectively and appropriately. e.g., online interaction etiquette, online social networking
skills, willingness and ability to engage in online training and learning
3. Intergroup communication 97 15
Assist individuals in communicating within and across groups. e.g., intergenerational communication, intercultural sensitivity
4. Communication of enthusiasm, creativity, and entrepreneurial spirit 73 12 Assist individuals in expressing enthusiasm and passion for their jobs, companies, products, and ideas.
e.g., communicating a positive attitude, creativity, motivation
5. Nonverbal communication 52 8
Assist individuals in managing a diversity of nonverbal behaviors important in the workplace. e.g., time management, use of space, dress
6. Speaking and listening 29 5
Assist individuals in public presentation and active listening tasks in the business context. e.g., facilitation, public speaking, listening to others’ ideas
competency referred to communication skills that assist in-dividuals in initiating, maintaining, or disengaging from two types of work-related relationships: interorganizational (e.g., collegial friendships and mentorships) and external (e.g., re-lationships with clients, vendors, competitors, venture cap-italists). Examples of critical communication skills drawn from the sample of articles which comprised this competency included the themes of decency, civility and honesty (Davies & Chun, 2007; Diener, 2005a; Sulkowicz, 2005, 2007a; Torres, 2005b; Wolter, 2005), networking (Casciaro & Lobo, 2007; Kawasaki, 2007), conflict management skills (Diener, 2005b; Hasson, 2007; Sulkowicz, 2007c), communication in relationships with a power differential (Sulkowicz, 2007d; Weinstein, 2006c), small talk and rapport building (Farber, 2005; Raines & Ewing, 2006), negotiation skills (Diener, 2005a, 2007; Sulkowicz, 2007b), balancing friendships in the workplace with the need for professionalism (Sulkowicz, 2007d; Wilbert, 2007), and communicating comfort and so-cial support in the workplace (Salzhauer, 2005; Sulkowicz, 2007c).
The concepts of civil, decent, and honest communica-tion have been cited in a noteworthy number of articles. Sweeney, Stone, and Cossack (2007) highlighted the problem of employees who conduct themselves in “a manner which is disrespectful and unprofessional to managers, coworkers, or customers ...” (p. 50), and engage in abusive, vulgar, or rude language; constant complaining; excessive gossip; and insubordination. Welch and Welch (2007) underscored the importance of communication behaviors which “preserve the dignity” (p. 147) of others in the workplace, particularly during the separation phase of employment.
Authors referred to the importance of communicating so-cial support during colleagues’ personal crises such as illness or the death of a family (Sulkowicz & Stead, 2007). In non-crisis contexts, the communication of social support may be equally important. Farber (2005) noted that salespeople who possess empathy and the ability to communicate re-spect for their customers’ problems tend to be top perform-ers within their companies, and highly regarded by clients and prospects. Additionally, articles pointed out the need to build interpersonal relationships with colleagues in telework and virtual work situations, to avoid isolation and loneliness (Pentilla, 2006).
Competency 2: Mediated Communication
Skills in this category (n = 183, 29% of the sample) re-fer to individuals’ ability to use communication technolo-gies appropriately and effectively. Examples mentioned in the sample included willingness and ability to participate in online training (Dolezalek, 2006; Gordon, 2006; Jarven-taus, 2007), using interactive media (e.g., podcasts, blog-ging, video; Dahl, 2006; Karrer, 2007; Kooser, 2006a; Lyons, 2005; Moran, 2007a, 2007b; Post, 2007; Wells, 2005), fol-lowing the rules of etiquette when using technology (Kooser,
2006b), using online social networking appropriately to fa-cilitate work (Fine, 2007; Kooser, 2006a; Prince, 2005; Schramm, 2007a), and balancing stress and productivity while digitally connected (Henricks, 2005a; Tischler, 2005). Authors in our sample offered advice for using technol-ogy related to work with great frequency. The bulk of arti-cles referenced in this competency category referred to Web 2.0 collaborative communication technologies, such as inter-active e-learning, blogs, social networking, and viral video, over more traditional communication technologies such as e-mail and presentation software. For example, Moran (2007a) commented that people who use the Internet to share relevant video contribute to the capture of a marketing advantage for their companies. Schramm (2007a) noted that, on a macro-scopic level, “the use of social networking . . . may become important for organizations to establish their brands, espe-cially among young people” (p. 176) and that, as a result, people need to become skilled at using these media. Simi-larly, Scoble (2007) drew readers’ attention to the popularity and usefulness of the business networking and blogging ap-plication Twitter, and others like it. A number of authors indicated that web-based training and education, once seen only in the most progressive organizations, should be ex-pected by nearly everyone entering the workforce or hoping to advance (“Education,” 2005).
In contrast to those articles emphasizing the benefits of mediated communication, another common theme ref-erenced in this category reflects authors’ concerns about the impact of technology use on workers’ stress levels. Lyons (2005) discussed the damage caused by misunderstood me-diated messages, flaming, and cyber-bullying in organiza-tional environments. Other articles emphasized the pitfalls of overreliance on tech and the importance of communication management skills to avoid burnout—such as prioritizing mediated communication tasks, learning to disconnect from work by turning off cell phones during nonbusiness hours, and only checking e-mail at several designated times dur-ing the work day (“Technology spurrdur-ing stress, decreasdur-ing productivity?,” 2006).
Competency Three: Intergroup Communication
The third most frequently cited communication competence (n=97; 15% of the sample) involved intergenerational com-munication skills (Berfield, 2007), cross-cultural commu-nication ability (Fraze, 2007), team effectiveness (Duboff, 2007), bilingual skills (Henricks, 2005b), and sensitivity to the global nature of organizing (Wunker & Pohle, 2007). In general, the study of intergroup communication focuses on how communication within and across groups affects social relations among members of those groups (Interna-tional Communication Association, 2010). Most frequently mentioned was the importance of engaging in intergenera-tional communication competently: Pomeroy (2005) pointed out that almost half of the respondents in an international
survey of 2,000 executives planned to work past the age of 65. Accordingly, authors in the sample stressed the impor-tance of valuing older workers. For example, Pomeroy argued that embracing the older employee “provides organizations with more opportunity to leverage senior talent and migrate institutional and experiential knowledge to younger workers” (p. 20).
Simultaneously, authors cautioned that older workers must become comfortable with being managed by younger ones. In terms of communication, Sulkowicz (2007f) rec-ommended avoiding condescension and unnecessary advice when dealing with a younger supervisor. Citing data col-lected at organizations which pair younger employees with older, more experienced ones for job sharing and mentoring, Berfield (2007) concluded that encouraging intergenerational interaction may result in improved retention rates and job sat-isfaction for younger and older employees.
A few articles referencing the intergroup communication competence mentioned the advantage of being bilingual in the contemporary workplace (Campanelli, 2005; Henricks, 2005b). Several stressed intercultural communication com-petence (which encompasses more than the ability to speak other languages) as a necessary condition, for example, for working and traveling overseas (Schramm, 2006). Javidian (2007) provided a new perspective on team effectiveness by suggesting that the degree to which a group reflects cultural forward thinking in its interactions and behaviors (e.g., de-laying gratification, planning, investing in the team’s future) is important.
Competency Four: The Ability to Communicate Enthusiasm, Creativity, and an Entrepreneurial Spirit
This competency (n=73, 12%) encompassed skills that en-able individuals to communicate their enthusiasm and pas-sion for their jobs, companies, and products or ideas. Specific examples of behaviors which further illustrate this compe-tency include engaging others to embrace new ideas (Torres, 2007; Weinstein, 2006a); right-brain thinking (the ability to generate and articulate, orally and in writing, creative and innovative nonlinear ideas; Meisinger, 2007); communicat-ing a lifelong desire to learn, grow, and develop in the career (Meisinger, 2005; Wolter, 2005); demonstrating a positive attitude and willingness to innovate (Daniel, 2005); and the ability to motivate others (Ayres & Nalebuff, 2007; Erickson & Gratton, 2007; Staver, 2006).
In a survey of human resource professionals, 73% of re-spondents ranked passion” as the most important quality of a leader and 65% ranked “ability to motivate others” as the second most important quality (Pomeroy, 2006). Yet, Far-ber (2005) argued that a lack of enthusiasm and passion is endemic to many industries.
In representative articles drawn from the sample, Wolter (2005) urged readers to “use passion as your foundation” (p.
124) and employ communication to “demonstrate that you do what you love and excel at it.” Other articles offered strate-gies for communicating passion: rely on creative venues such as improv comedy classes for adding energy to presentations and meetings (Thilmany, 2007); develop the ability to present information in the form of a story, complete with intriguing characters, tension, a hero, drama, and humor (Torres, 2007); let others know, explicitly, that you have the energy and will-ingness to take on extra work (Daniel, 2005); be dependable and flexible (Sull & Spinosa, 2005); and participate in con-tinuing education (“Education,” 2005).
Competency Five: Nonverbal Communication
The 52 communication skill references that support this cate-gory highlight the importance of chronemics in the workplace (Hoge, 2007; Robinson, 2007), nontraditional work schedul-ing (e.g., flex time; Harris, 2007; Jossi, 2007), clear and ac-curate written communication (Shulman, 2005), appropriate dress (Grischke, 2005), physical arrangement of workspace (Buchanan, 2006), and the use of humor (Chafkin, 2007; Weinstein, 2006c).
Time management and punctuality were the primary themes of this category. Over half of the citations compris-ing this competency this category referenced an individual’s ability to use time appropriately. DeLonzor (2005), for ex-ample, suggested that corporate culture is often to blame for employee tardiness and recommended that meetings start on time. He further suggested that as technology has enabled individuals to multitask, that they have become less sensitive to the big picture of their projects, and more likely to miss deadlines. Lost in miniprojects and answering e-mail, and less attuned to their overall progress on major projects, De-Lonzor argued that American workers have lost the valuable skill of project management. Individuals should use their calendaring program to schedule reminders and tasks in an effort to be punctual, and not underestimate the amount of time necessary for accomplishing tasks.
Arguing that contemporary business communicators lack writing skills, Shulman (2005) wrote, “The written word and the writing process itself are powerful tools that can have a real, strategic impact on business” (p. 28). However, authors in this sample disagreed on whether the educational system is solely responsible for teaching excellent writing, or if work-related training could address deficiencies (Henricks, 2007). Henricks concluded that “there is no three-step program to becoming a great writer” (p. 86), and he urged students to work on developing these skills under the tutelage of their college professors.
The importance of the physical arrangement of workspace and selecting the appropriate location for particular work-related communication tasks was emphasized in several ar-ticles within this category. For example, Kirkpatrick (2006) noted that the open layout of many office spaces can raise privacy concerns. In a case study of an office in which
employees have little respect for physical boundaries, Buchanan (2006) concluded that employees must be sen-sitive to when casual conversation at work is appropriate and when it may be disruptive. A number of authors, while un-derscoring the positive effects of humor in the workplace, discussed the need to use humor carefully and appropriately in professional settings to avoid misunderstandings and even legal action (Chafkin, 2007). One argued, for instance, that the use of too much humor as a way of correcting low morale can be insulting to organizational members (“Fun,” 2007).
Competency Six: Speaking and Listening
Mentioned only 29 times in the sample of 347 popular press and practitioner-oriented serial business publications, the least frequently mentioned communication competency was speaking and listening. The bulk of the articles in this category focused on listening over speaking: specifically, the importance of active listening during conversation (Pomeroy, 2007; Vilaga, 2005; “Where is the love?,” 2006 ) and over-all, the more holistic skill of letting others’ concerns, ideas, needs, and suggestions be known, or heard, in the work-place (Gnamm & Neuhaus, 2005; Meisinger, 2006; Nelson, 2006; Nunes, 2005; Wolter, 2007). Other skill references included facilitation (either of group discussions or meet-ings; Hartley, 2006; Smith, 2005), public speaking (Kirby, 2007; Marquart & Sorden, 2007), and related visual support (Sulkowicz, 2005e; Weinstein, 2006b).
Jay (2005) wrote that “the most effective communica-tors know when to stop talking and start listening. This is especially important when emotions are high, in team situa-tions, and when employees are sharing ideas” (p. 87). Numer-ous other authors echoed the importance of listening skills: Meisinger (2006) reported the results of a study demonstrat-ing a substantial correlation between employee perceptions that others in the organization, particularly managers, listen to them, and low turnover rates. And, authors suggested that listening to others outside of the organization—particularly customers—is critical (“Where is the love?,” 2006).
Mention of meeting and discussion facilitation in several articles reflected the changing nature of this important com-munication skill. For example, in an article on web-based conferencing, Hartley (2006) noted that “there are many dif-ferences between facilitating an event using a web conferenc-ing tool and facilitatconferenc-ing an event in a room” (p. 22). Excellent public speakers, teachers, and meeting leaders must also be good at coping with technical difficulties, and comfortable with the mediated aspects of the presentation. Smith (2005) cautioned that as organizational members become more in-formed due to on-demand news and research, they are ask-ing questions, challengask-ing one another, and assumask-ing the role of expert with an increasing frequency. Consequently, facilitators must be hyperaware of their strengths and weak-nesses, prepared to deal with challenges and disagreements,
and willing and able to integrate diverse viewpoints into for-mal business conversation.
Although some articles reminded readers of the impor-tance of basic public speaking proficiency, such as choos-ing strong vocabulary and eliminatchoos-ing speech dysfluencies (Danigelis, 2006), others suggested that the qualities of a great presentation are changing. Because audience mem-bers’ information processing habits may be changing, authors stressed the importance of using visual and other sensory im-ages (meaningful audio and video, and even hands-on simu-lations) rather than traditional text-heavy PowerPoint to sup-port presentations (“Present with panache,” 2007). Because contemporary business audiences may have little tolerance for lectures and talking heads (Kovaleski, 2007), the popular press recommended engaging audience members with ap-propriate self-disclosure, a cohesive and relevant story, real-world case studies and examples, and enthusiasm (Kirby, 2007; Marquart & Sorden, 2007). In general, anyone who presents information in a business and professional setting needs to think of themselves less as a speaker and more as a teacher, preparing and executing their presentations with a greater understanding of how adults learn (Sims, 2006). In-corporating audience interaction, simulations and role-plays, and peer-to-peer dialogue into a traditional one-to-many presentation may be critical to contemporary presentation success.
DISCUSSION
Pink (2006) posited that the future belongs to a person with a different kind of mind than the linear, logical one that baby boomers and their parents were encouraged to develop. Flex-ibility, the capability of simultaneous right- and left-brain thinking, a sense of creativity, and the ability to innovate will separate those who succeed and those who don’t—and com-munication is key to demonstrating these capacities. How-ever, many Americans find themselves on the job feeling un-prepared for the communicative challenges they face. This study identified specific skills that will prepare more people thrive in the modern workplace. In this section, the findings of the study are reviewed, important themes highlighted, and implications for scholarship and practice discussed.
In this analysis of 10 popular publications, among them press and practitioner-oriented business periodicals, 347 ar-ticles that referred to communication were identified. Across these articles, there were 625 references to a particular com-munication skill. These skill references were then submitted to content analytic procedures, and six contemporary busi-ness communication competencies were inductively derived as a result: (a) relationship and interpersonal communica-tion competence; (b) mediated communicacommunica-tion competence; (c) intergroup communication competence; (d) the ability to communicate enthusiasm, creativity, and an entrepreneurial
spirit; (e) nonverbal communication competence; and (f) speaking and listening competence
The six categories represent a mix of both traditional and contemporary skills, but in all categories, content revealed new applications for traditional skills. The importance of col-laboration and interconnectivity permeated each theme. Fur-ther, the competencies revealed the necessity of a skill set that transcends typical disciplinary divisions—encompassing technological concerns, intergroup relations, nonverbal and chronemic awareness, relationship competence, and more. One clear message resulting from this study is that if busi-ness and communication educators and scholars are to ad-equately prepare students for the modern business environ-ment, they must be careful not to exist in silos, relying only on the theories and research findings of their own areas of the discipline. As the academy moves toward interdisciplinarity (Redden, 2007), communication specialists also must work to build bridges between subareas of the field (e.g., interper-sonal communication and organizational communication) to enhance understanding of the role of communication in the entire human experience (Waldeck & Myers, 2007).
The most frequently referenced communication skill fo-cused on facilitating relationships. A key theme that emerged in this category focused on civility in the workplace as a means of building positive connections with others and avoiding unnecessary conflict. This theme is consistent with Sypher’s (2004) work on desk rage and the effects of of-fensive communication on morale, productivity, stress, and burnout.
Another theme suggested by this competency is the need to cultivate skills for communicating social support in profes-sional contexts. Pentilla (2006) noted, “We work long hours that leave us too tired to call old friends” (p. 102)—leaving people to determine how to confide in their colleagues ap-propriately. Interpersonal communication researchers (Al-brecht & Burleson, 1992; Burleson, Holmstrom, & Gilstrap, 2005) have studied support; researchers in the areas of or-ganizational and business communication could address the concerns about providing social support in the workplace evident in the present analysis by adapting the theories and research methods used in the study of intimate relationships. Overall, the relationship and interpersonal communica-tion competence illustrates that communicacommunica-tion is a key factor in the kinds of relationships that people make in and around the workplace, and the ease with which they finesse diffi-cult business situations. Moreover, the frequency with which this competency was mentioned is evidence that the ability to build rapport, and to initiate, sustain, and withdraw from relationships competently is critical. As Kawasaki (2007) noted, “it is much easier to make a sale, build partnerships, create joint ventures . . . if you establish a relationship be-fore you need it. And the key to that is mastering the art of communication” (p. 46).
The second most frequently mentioned category was me-diated communication competence. Technology has defined
the direction and pace of contemporary society. Articles in re-ferring to mediated communication competence emphasized leveraging the power of online social networks, as well as collaborative media, for branding, selling, learning, and in-novating. This competency suggested that to succeed in the contemporary business environment, it is necessary to not only possess technical skills for using digital technologies, but also have an understanding of the power of these applica-tions for innovating, building business, and forging connec-tions with others. However, this study revealed concern for the stress that constant connection can create for users of busi-ness communication technologies. Gurchiek (2006) summa-rized the need to use communication technologies appropri-ately: “Round-the-clock connectedness to work—thanks to technology—may seem like an employers’ dream but could morph into a nightmare for both employer and worker if em-ployees find themselves unable to unplug and manage their mediated communications strategically” (p. 38).
The third competency, intergroup communication, illumi-nated the increasingly diverse workplace and the importance of adapting one’s communication skills. The U.S. Census Bu-reau predicted that White individuals will comprise less than half of the U.S. population by 2042, resulting in “big changes for the nation’s workforce” (Dougherty, 2008, p. A3). As a result, continued emphasis on intercultural communication competence and learning to avoid ethnocentric attitudes and behaviors in an individual’s interactions with others will be important. As life expectancies increase and the stability of the financial markets remains uncertain, people are working well past traditional retirement age. Consequently, intergen-erational communication skills are critical. The articles ana-lyzed in this study mirrored the concern of McCann and Giles (2006) that ageist communication, and the deeper attitudes that lie beneath ageism, are counterproductive to the benefits that older workers may offer. Persons of all ages must be comfortable collaborating with one another. In general, as the companies we work for and with diversify and develop increasingly global ties, employees must learn and become sensitive to the communication norms and lifestyles of others. Fraze (2007) argued, “expansion into international markets will become imperative for U.S. companies . . . as will the importance of individual employees knowing the culture and practices of the countries where you have commercial ties” (p. 100).
The fourth competency revealed by this study suggested that organizational members should be engaged and enthusi-astic, feel connected to the mission and vision of their orga-nizations, and have a sense of pride—and make these quali-ties apparent in their communication with others. Meisinger (2007) noted that, “creativity, passion, and innovation will be the most important factors in establishing and maintain-ing a competitive advantage. Logic, linear thinkmaintain-ing, and rule-based analysis will remain important, but are no longer suf-ficient to succeed in the global economy” (p. 10). Educators should promote increased participation in the classroom, and
encourage students to be collaborative and creative in their academic endeavors as a way of preparing them for their pro-fessional futures, where passion for what they do, creative and innovative thinking, and near-constant collaboration will be normative.
Fifth, this study revealed that a series of nonverbal com-munication skills are highly valued in the contemporary workplace—especially those relating to chronemics and physical space. As individuals have a growing array of re-sponsibilities, time management and the ability to multitask are more critical than ever. In response to economic con-straints and doing business globally (and the chronemic dif-ferences that accompany that shift), businesses are promot-ing more job sharpromot-ing, flexible schedulpromot-ing, and virtual work to meet market demands. For example, companies such as Best Buy, IBM, and Google have experimented with unique ar-rangements that allow employees to work virtually anywhere and any time they want to work (Conlin, 2006). Scholars should continue to pursue the agenda established by Ballard and Seibold (2006) and Ballard and Gossett (2007), who examined the experience of time in traditional and nontra-ditional work environments, and discuss the implications of this work in their classrooms.
Surprisingly, the least frequently referenced communica-tion competence was that of speaking and listening. Arti-cles focusing on these basic communication skills revealed the need for business communication proficiencies that are anything but basic. Organization members must acquire new skills for telling the story of a product or an idea story—often via new media forms such as podcasts, webcasts, and tele-conferences. Authors pointed out that what works in a live face-to-face sales presentation, for example, is likely to be highly ineffective in a webinar.
Moreover, as society has become more immersed in all that technology and rich media have to offer, audiences have changed. People spend so much of their time in a media-rich existence that offers dynamic, attractive, on-demand, and addictive content that they no longer have the tolerance for a boring presentation accompanied by PowerPoint slides that they once did. Audiences demand more—they crave a presentation that is easy to understand (yet substantive), very relevant, interactive, and media-rich. This mandate in-volves more than just teaching students to incorporate me-dia into the public presentation, it involves rethinking the whole public speaking process based on how media expo-sure has influenced the way audiences listen, think, and relate to information. Despite the shift in the popular press from business speaking as public address to creating and telling a story which engages participants (Atkinson, 2005; Reynolds, 2008) very little work in the communication discipline has focused on how to acquire these critical contemporary pub-lic speaking competencies. Communication scholars should heed the call to embrace “the emergent norms of an elec-tronic era” (Cyphert, 2007, p. 187) in the ways they teach, practice, and study presentational speaking.
CONCLUSION AND NEW DIRECTIONS
The contemporary organizational and business environment demands much of business and communication educators and scholars. To keep pace, scholars and educators must be aware of the dynamic changes taking place in practice, stretch the limits of their creativity, and embrace new theoretical paradigms and research methods. The changing nature of so-ciety, and of the business enterprise in particular, challenges those who study business and organizational communication to expand the scope and depth with which they approach the study of communication competence. The communication competencies identified in this study provide a synthesized starting point for designing a new business and organizational communication scholarly agenda. Such an agenda would em-brace the reality of practice, and provide theoretical and sys-tematic empirical substance to the observations and claims made in the popular press about the modern workplace. Fi-nally, teachers must take their responsibility to develop ap-propriate business communication competencies in students very seriously. As a result, this study and the future work it may generate serve as a response to the National Commu-nication Association’s (2006) mandate that scholars “work harder to generate solutions to everyday problems” (p. 1).
REFERENCES
Albrecht, T. L., & Burleson, B. B. (1992). Meaning and method in the study of communication and social support.Communication Research, 19, 149–153.
Alexander, S. (2008, February 22). Communication for managers 101. Retrieved from http://www.managesmarter.com/msg/content display/ presentations/e3i09b57ed04d93841932a0efba1fb98c7e
ASTD. (2009).Bridging the skills gap:New factors compound the grow-ing skills shortage. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Traingrow-ing and Development.
Atkinson, C. (2005).Beyond bullet points: Using Microsoft PowerPoint to create messages that inform, motivate, and inspire. Seattle, WA: Mi-crosoft.
Ayres, I., & Nalebuff, B. (2007, March 12). For the love of the game.Forbes, 179(5), 54.
Ballard, D. I., & Gossett, L. M. (2007). Alternative times: Temporal percep-tions, processes, and practices defining the nonstandard work relationship. In C. Beck (Ed.),Communication Yearbook,31(pp. 274–320). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ballard, D. I., & Seibold, D. R. (2006). The experience of time at work: Re-lationship to communication load, job satisfaction, and interdepartmental communication.Communication Studies,57, 317–340.
Berelson, B. (1952).Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Berfield, S. (2007, September 17). Bridging the generation gap: Employment agency Randstad teams newbies with older staff to great effect.Business Week,4050, 60–61.
Buchanan, L. (2006). The office.Inc,28(4), 160–161.
Burleson, B. B., Holmstrom, A. J., & Gilstrap, C. M. (2005). “Guys can’t say that to guys”: Four experiments assessing the normative motivation account for deficiencies in the emotional support offered by men. Com-munication Monographs,72, 468–501.
Campanelli, M. (2005). Minority rules.Entrepreneur,33(5), 48–50.
Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. (2007). Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social networks. Harvard Business Review, 83(6), 92–99.
Chafkin, M. (2007). That’s not funny, that’s actionable.Inc,29(8), 93. Clement, B. (2001, November 5).Help wanted: Workforce development
and the new economy. Retrieved from http://www.publicforuminstitute. org/activities/2001/tn/index.htm
Conlin, M. (2006, December 11). Smashing the clock.Business Week,4013, 60–68.
Cyphert, D. (2007). Presentation technology in the age of electronic elo-quence: From visual aid to visual rhetoric.Communication Education, 56, 168–192.
Dahl, D. (2006). The end of e-mail.Inc,28(2), 41–42.
Daniel, L. (2005). On the job development.HR Magazine,50(7), 91–96. Danigelis, A. (2006, May). Like, um, you know.Fast Company,105, 99. Davies, G, & Chun, R. (2007). To thine own staff be agreeable.Harvard
Business Review,86(6), 30–32.
DeLonzor, D. (2005). Running late.HR Magazine,50(11), 109–112. Diener, M (2005a). Shark repellant: Keep bullies at bay with these
negoti-ating tips.Entrepreneur,33(8), 77.
Diener, M. (2005b). Great debate: How to disagree without being disagree-able.Entrepreneur,33(11), 102.
Diener, M. (2007). Talk the talk.Entrepreneur,35(8), 68.
Dolezalek, H. (2006). The state of e-learning.Training,43(10), 39–40. Dougherty, C. (2008, August 14). Whites to lose majority status by 2042.
Wall Street Journal, A3.
Du-Babcock, B. (2006). Teaching business communication: Past, present, and future.Journal of Business Communication,43, 253–264. Duboff, R. S. (2007). The wisdom of (expert) crowds.Harvard Business
Review,85(9), 28.
Education. (2005).Inc,27(11), 147–148.
Erickson, T. J., & Gratton, L. (2007). What it means to work here.Harvard Business Review,85(2), 72–83.
Farber, B. (2005). Right on target: Hit the mark with prospective customers by learning how to find their hot buttons.Entrepreneur,33(2), 65–66. Farber, B. (2007). Listen and learn.Entrepreneur,35(2), 76–77.
Fell, J. (2010).Battered business magazines look to a bounce back. Retrieved from http://www.foliomag.com/2010/battered-business-magazines-look-bounce-back
Fine, J. (2007, September 17). O.K. (Sigh), I’ll join Facebook.Business Week,4050, 24.
Fraze, M. (2007). Show all employees a wider world.HR Magazine,52(6), 98–102.
Fun. (2007).Inc,29(8), 84.
Gnamm, J., & Neuhaus, K. (2005). Leading from the factory floor.Harvard Business Review,83(11), 22.
Gordon, J. (2006). Seven revelations about e-learning. Training, 43(4), 28–31.
Grischke, M. (2005, December 13). Bowing to tradition.Forbes,176, 85. Gurchiek, K. (2006). Techno-Addicts problem for employers.HR Magazine,
51(11), 38.
Harris, P. (2007). Flexible work policies mean business.T+D,61(4), 32–36. Hartley, D. (2006). Beyond the virtual meeting.T+D,60(9), 22–23. Hasson, R. (2007). How to resolve board disputes more effectively.MIT
Sloan Management Review,48(1), 77–80.
Henricks, M. (2005a). Falling behind: Has dependence on tech made us less productive?Entrepreneur,33(2), 19–20.
Henricks, M. (2005b). Como se dice?: Break down the language barrier between you and your employees.Entrepreneur,33(12), 113–114. Henricks, M. (2007). Pen to paper.Entrepreneur,35(7), 85–86.
Hoge, S. K. (2007, October 8). My 60 hour work week.Forbes,180(27), 86–93.
International Communication Association. (2010). Intergroup commu-nication description. Retrieved from http://www.icahdq.org/sections/ secdetinfo.asp?SecCode=DIV20
Jarventaus, J. (2007). The new virtual classroom: Evidenced-based guide-lines for synchronous e-learning.T+D,61(7), 83.
Javidian, M. (2007). Forward-thinking cultures.Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 20.
Jay, J. (2005). On communicating well.HR Magazine,50(1), 87–90. Jossi, F. (2007). Clocking out.HRMagazine,52(6), 46–50.
Karrer, T. (2007). Learning and networking with a blog.T+D,61(9), 20–22. Kawasaki, G. (2007). Get in good.Entrepreneur 35(10), 46.
Kirby, J. (2007). Stay on the Q&A defensive.Harvard Business Review, 85(4), 25.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2006). Performance appraisals and training—are they related?T+D,60(9), 44–45.
Kleinbaum, A. M., Stuart, T. E., & Tushman, M. L. (2008, July 31). Communication (and coordination?) in a modern, complex organiza-tion. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge. Retrieved from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5991.html
Kooser, A. C. (2006a). Mod pod.Entrepreneur,34(1), 50. Kooser, A. C. (2006b). Missed manners.Entrepreneur,34(12), 24. Kovaleski, D. (2007). Education grows up.Association Meetings,19(2),
16–22.
Krippendorff, K. (2004).Content analysis: An introduction to its methodol-ogy(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kristof, K. M. (2008, May 4). New graduates have plenty to learn about work etiquette.Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www. latimes.com/business/la-fi-perfin4-2008may04,0,4799164,full.column Lazar, I. (2007). Creating enterprise 2.0 from web 2.0.Business
Communi-cation Review,37, 14–16.
Levinson, M. (2008, August). To telecommute or not to telecom-mute?Network World. Retrieved from http://www.networkworld.com/ news/2008/081108-to-telecommute-or-not-to.html?hpg1=bn Lewis, L. K., Schmisseur, A. M., Stephens, K. K., & Weir, K. E. (2007).
Advice on communicating during organizational change: The content of popular press books.Journal of Business Communication,43, 113–137. Locke, M. (2007, December 10). Engineering students learn people skills.
Orange County Register, A9.
Lyons, D. (2005, November 14). Attack of the blogs.Forbes,176(10), 128–138.
Marquart, M., & Sorden, A. (2007). Put down the script.T+D,61(4), 26–28. McCann, R. M., & Giles, H. (2006). Age differentiated communication in organizations: Perspectives from Thailand and the United States. Com-munication Research Reports,24, 1–12.
Meisinger, S. (2005). Lifelong learning: The key to professional and personal fulfillment.HR Magazine,50(7), 8.
Meisinger, S. (2006). To keep employees, talk—and listen—to them!HR Magazine,51(8), 10.
Meisinger, S. (2007). Creativity and innovation: Key drivers for success. HR Magazine,52(5), 10.
Moran, G. (2007a). Now see this: Online video can breathe new life into your business.Entrepreneur,35(7), 30.
Moran, G. (2007b). Keep them posted.Entrepreneur,35(10), 39. Morreale, S. O., Osborn, M. M., & Pearson, J. C. (2000). Why
communi-cation is important: A rationale for the centrality of the study of commu-nication.Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 29, 1–25.
Morreale, S. P., & Pearson, J. C. (2008). Why communication education is important: The centrality of the discipline in the 21st century. Communi-cation EduCommuni-cation,57, 224–240.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2010, January). Em-ployers rank communication skills first among job candidate skills and qualities. Retrieved from http://www.naceweb.org/Press/Releases/ Employers Rank Communication Skills First Among Job Candidate Skills and Qualities %281–21-10%29.aspx
National Communication Association. (2006, December). Promoting the study, criticism, research, teaching, and application of the principles of communication.Spectra,42(12), 1.
Nelson, N. C. (2006). Good grievances.HRMagazine,51(10), 113–116. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002).The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Nigol, R. (2006, October). Creating a culture of compliance. Break-through Briefing. Retrieved from http://elearncampus.com/breakBreak-through- http://elearncampus.com/breakthrough-briefing/newsletter-2006–10-20.aspx
Nunes, P. (2005). The risks of consumer intimacy.MIT Sloan Management Review,47(1), 15–18.
O’Reilly, T. (2005).What is Web 2.0?Retrieved from http://www.oreilly. com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Paulsell, M. (2008, August 8). Engineers, entrepreneurs synony-mous with diversity and solid communication. Columbia Busi-ness Times. Retrieved from http://www.columbiabusiBusi-nesstimes.com/ 1723/2008/08/08/engineers-entrepreneurs-synonymous-with-diversity-and-solid-communication
Pentilla, C. (2006). Me, myself, and I.Entrepreneur,34(12), 102–103. Petronio, S. (2007).JACRcommentaries on translating research into
prac-tice: Introduction. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 215–217.
Pink, D. H. (2006).A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York, NY: Penguin.
Pomeroy, A. (2005). They keep going (and going...).HR Magazine,50(6),
20.
Pomeroy, A. (2006). Business leaders lack critical skills.HR Magazine, 51(1), 14–16.
Pomeroy, A. (2007). Leaders should listen, spend time on the “right stuff.” HR Magazine,52(8), 12.
Post, T. (2007, May 7). The power of networks.Forbes,179(10), 49. Potter, W. J., & Riddle, K. (2007). A content analysis of the media effects
literature.Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,84, 90–104. Present with panache. (2007).T+D,61(7), 18.
Prince, C. J. (2005). Working the net.Entrepreneur,33(7), 56–58. Raines, C., & Ewing. L. (2006). The art of connecting.T+D,60(4), 28–29. Redden, E. (2007, July 25). Institutionalizing interdisciplinary re-search. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered. com/news/2007/07/25/interdis
Reynolds, G. (2008).Presentation zen: Simple ideas on presentation design and delivery. London, England: New Riders Voices That Matter/Pearson. Robinson, J. (2007, May). The red zone.Fast Company,115, 15. Salzhauer, A. (2005). Is there a patient in the house?Harvard Business
Review,83(100), 32.
Schramm, J. (2006). Overseas attractions.HRMagazine,51(12), 128. Schramm, J. (2007a). Internet connections.HRMagazine,52(9), 176. Schulman, J. (2005). Revaluing writing.Harvard Business Review,83(12),
24–28.
Scoble, R. (2007b, September). The next e-mail.Fast Company,118, 72. Sims, R. M. (2006). Five strategies for cracking the code of adult learning.
Training,43(1), 40–41.
Smeltzer, L. R. (1993). Emerging questions and research paradigms in busi-ness communication research.Journal of Business Communication,30, 181–190.
Smith, A. (2005, February). Maintaining effectiveness.Training, 43, 32–35. Staver, M. (2006). Leadership isn’t for cowards.T+D,60(6), 65–66. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990).Basics of qualitative research: Grounded
theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sulkowicz, K. J. (2005, August). Why are we so obsessed with PowerPoint? Fast Company,97, 86.
Sulkowicz, K. J. (2007a, January 15). When you’re the abusive boss’s pet. Business Week,4017, 14.
Sulkowicz, K. J. (2007b, April 9). The psychology of the deal.Business Week,4029, 14.
Sulkowicz, K. J. (2007c, April 23). Me, me, me, me, me.Business Week, 4031, 14.
Sulkowicz, K. J. (2007d, June 4). (Not) the life of the after-work party. Business Week. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/ magazine/content/07 23/b4037012.htm
Sulkowicz, K. J. (2007e, August 6). Nobody loves a tattletale.Business Week,4045, 14.
Sulkowicz, K. J. (2007f, August 20). My boss, the whippersnapper.Business Week,4047, 16.
Sulkowicz, K. J., & Stead, D. (2007, February 12). When “get well soon” isn’t enough.Business Week,4021, 16.
Sull, D. N., & Spinosa, C. (2005). Using commitments to manage across units.MIT Sloan Management Review,47(1), 73–81.
Sweeney, J., Stone, A., & Cossack, N. (2007). HRSolutions: Skills data, retirement benefits, and difficult employees.HR Magazine,52(1), 49–50. Sypher, B. D. (2004). Reclaiming civil discourse in the workplace.Southern
Communication Journal,69, 257–269.
Technology spurring stress, decreasing productivity? (2006).HR Magazine, 41(5), 14.
The ivory tower grays. (2007).Nature Chemical Biology,3, 69. Thilmany, J. (2007). Acting out.HR Magazine,52(1), 95–100.
Tischler, L. (2005, April). Extreme jobs (and the people who love them). Fast Company,93, 55–60.
Torres, N. L. (2005c). Shout it from the rooftops. Entrepreneur, 33(5), 98.
Torres, N. L. (2007). Biz 101: Story hour. Entrepreneur, 35(4), 92–96.
Vilaga, J. (2005, June). Let the customer drive design.Fast Company,95, 45.
Waldeck, J. H. & Myers, K. K. (2007). Organizational assimilation theory, research, and implications for multiple areas of the discipline: A state of the art review. In C. Beck (Ed.),Communication yearbook31 (pp. 322–367). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Watson Wyatt Worldwide. (2007). Secrets of top performers:How com-panies with effective communication differentiate themselves. Retrieved from http://www.watsonwyatt.com/research/resrender.asp?id = 2007-US-0214&page=1
Weinstein, M. (2006a). Literary lessons.Training,43(4), 37.
Weinstein, M. (2006b). What the class of 2006 might tell you to do with that PowerPoint presentation.Training,43(7), 12.
Weinstein, M. (2006c). The difference between boys and girls...at the
office.Training,43(11), 8.
Welch, J., & Welch, S. (2007, March 26). The right way to say goodbye. Business Week,4027, 144.
Wellner, A. S. (2005). Lost in translation.Inc,27(9), 37–38.
Wells, M. (2005, June 20). The men in the grey flannel suits.Forbes,175(13), 99–100.
Where is the love? (2006).T+D,60(5) 17
Wilbert, C. (2006, July/August). You schmooze, you win.Fast Company, 107, 109.
Winsor, J. L., Curtis, D. B., & Stephens, R. D. (1997). National preferences in business and communication education: A survey update.Journal of Applied Communication Research,3, 170–179.
Wolter, R. (2005). Popularity puzzle: How to be the entrepreneur everybody wants to do business with.Entrepreneur,33(5), 124–125.
Wolter, R. (2007). Shut up and listen.Entrepreneur,35(9), 138–139. Wrench, J. S., Thomas-Maddox, C., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C.
(2008).Quantitative research methods for communication: A hands-on approach.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Wunker, S., & Pohle, G. (2007, November 12). Built for innovation.Forbes, 180(10), 137–143.
