Abstract
Alumni are an underutilized resource for input on the oral presentation skills employees need at work and what should be taught in oral-presentation-focused business communication courses. Yet they are in a unique position to assess the utility of what they learned and recommend coursework changes. In survey responses, 1,610 business alumni who make oral presentations two or three times per month on average recommended more instruction on how to present business data visually, more impromptu presentations, more help dealing with difficult audiences and with nervousness, and three to five presentations assigned in oral presentation courses for business students.
Business communication professors regularly seek input from employers and other faculty on what communication skills employees actually utilize at work. Likewise, their input is sought on what should be taught in managerial and other business communication courses. There are also regular surveys of syllabi and instructors of U.S. general public speaking courses to assess content and teaching approaches. In a few instances, undergraduates have been queried about their perceptions and preferences. But the students who have taken our classes—and those who elected not to—are almost never asked for feedback after graduation. While we may assume, along with employers and faculty, that presenting is an important business communication skill, we do not know how frequently our alumni are actually making presentations, and this information is surely of interest. Alumni are also in a unique position to assess the usefulness and features of courses they took; identify what, in hindsight, they wish they had learned; and reflect on their own presentation practices. Specifically, alumni can give insights about the ways they present at work, including their use of visual tools. They are in a unique position to reflect on what has proven to be most and least useful about the courses they took as undergraduates that offered instruction in making oral presentations. Comparing responses from alumni who took a presentation-skills-focused class, like Effective Speaking (ES) or Managerial Communication (MC), with those from alumni who did not take such courses may reveal the benefits course takers (CTs) seek, and the extent to which they learned them in those courses.
This article explores the responses of 1,610 alumni of Bentley University, a business-focused, private university in the Northeastern United States, regarding their experiences presenting in professional settings, advice for oral-presentation-focused coursework, and recommendations for what business communication faculty should be including in their courses. These alumni also reported on the ways they use presentation software in their organizations and their advice for approaching the visual aspects of presentations.
Research on Employer, Faculty, and Student Preferences and Perceptions
There has been a good deal of research that reports what employers feel are the most important skills for their new hires, including technical, general business, communication, and other proficiencies. Oral communication skills consistently rank high. While the need to increase development of listening skills has been established byGray (2010)in New Zealand andBrink and Costigan (2015)in the United States, a solid case remains for the importance of oral presentation skills in business. Marketing employers surveyed byMelaia, Abratt, and Bick (2008)in South Africa put the strongest priority on oral and written communication skills, emphasizing the high level at which they are required for marketing managers. In information management,Kesner (2008)in the United States reviewed employers’ preferences for undergraduates in long-term work placements. “Interpersonal and communication skills” were ranked higher than academic or functional knowledge of the field, GPA, or knowledge of relevant technology. In the United Kingdom,Archer and Davidson (2008)reported that, for the 233 employers of companies from one to over 1,000 employees included in their study, all ranked communication skills as the top of the top 10 they listed. This was true for companies with both domestic-only and international dealings.Casner-Lotto and Barrington (2006)analyzed employers’ preferences for high school and 2-year and 4-year college graduates for the U.S. Conference Board, and they placed oral communication as among the top three preferences for all three groups. They wrote that “for four-year college graduates, the five most frequently reported applied skills considered ‘very important’ are: Oral Communications (95.4 percent), Teamwork/Collaboration (94.4 percent), Professionalism/Work Ethic (93.8 percent), Written Communications (93.1 percent), and Critical Thinking/Problem Solving (92.1 percent)” (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006, p. 20).Gray and Murray (2011)described oral communication proficiency as a “distinguishing feature” among New Zealand accounting graduates in the view of employers. Their respondents perceived the ability to make presentations with or without visuals as less important in new graduates when such skills were narrowly defined. However, interview results indicated that the ability to orally present well was seen by some as essential as employees “move[d] up the ranks” (Gray & Murray, 2011, p. 286). In India,Deepa and Seth (2013)similarly reported that employers in six major Indian cities viewed communication and other “soft” skills, such as interpersonal communication and teamwork, as indispensable. Specifically, 85% agreed that improving these skills during college would improve the workforce.
Employers view oral presentation skills as important as well.Robles (2012)found that 100% of executives he surveyed listed “communication—oral, speaking capability, written, presenting, listening” as extremely important.Stevens (2005)found that both “improved oral skills” and “public speaking skills—general” were rated highest among the 104 Silicon Valley employers she surveyed.Winsor, Curtis, and Stephens (1997)also found top rankings for oral presentation skills in their study of 1,000 human resource managers. Additionally,Jackson (2010), in perhaps the most comprehensive international review of reports of employer preferences of industry-relevant competences, found communication skills, including making oral presentations, a “distinguishing” competence, whereas written communication is a “threshold” competence.Stowers and White (1999)reported on how employers perceived the weaknesses in accounting graduates’ communication skills. They also noted that, while some studies have reported that oral presentation skills are often less important for new graduates, they are critical for career advancement (Gray & Murray, 2011;Jackling & De Lange, 2009).
Another group of studies on communication skills in general has focused singularly on the perceptions of one group, whether faculty, students, or business writers, and the importance of oral communication skills.Rundle-Thiele, Bennett, and Dann (2005)looked at marketing faculty views in New Zealand, whereasAgarwal (2008)asked students in India to assess the importance of different communication competences.Lynn and Faulk (2008)reviewed literature to ascertain the need for more listening pedagogy to be deployed in U.S. courses.
More frequently, however, studies compare the views of different stakeholders.Lin, Grace, Krishnan, and Gilsdorf (2010)compared the views of U.S. accounting students with those of employers regarding the importance of communication skills. Perhaps not surprisingly, they found employers placed greater emphasis on communication competence than students, including the statement that “being a capable public speaker will make an accountant more successful” (Lin et al., 2010, p. 65). In this study, the employers were alumni of the same university.Kavanagh and Drennan (2008)compared accounting student and employer views in Australia; likeJackling and De Lange (2009), they concluded that oral communication skills are central to both employability and career advancement.Alshare, Lane, and Miller (2011)compared information systems faculty and student perceptions of the importance of communication skills in the information systems curriculum. They concluded that at least one business communication course should be included in the program for information systems majors. Oral presentations were ranked second highest among 11 communication skills included in the survey.
Finally, two studies addressed the specific issues of “employability” and “readiness to present.”Andrews and Higson (2008)collected data on United Kingdom, Austrian, Slovenian, and Romanian employers’ and business graduates’ views on essential business-specific, interpersonal, and work-experience-based competences. They found that while their respondents learned how to write well at their university, the opposite was true for making oral presentations.Stowe, Parent, Schwartz, and Sendall (2012)in the United States looked specifically at readiness to make business presentations and compared the views of business students, faculty, and practitioners. They found that practitioners do not find new graduates to be confident in presenting and emphasized the need for developing skills in making individual presentations. Thus, the burden may fall on courses devoted to developing oral presentation skills rather than hoping that one or two group presentations in a business communication (or other) course will suffice to develop skills in making business presentations.
As with the more general communication competence/skill set research, questions about content and assignments that undergraduate business communication courses do and should include have been posed to educators and business professionals and examined via the business press (Jackson & Chapman, 2012;Keyton et al., 2013;Laster & Russ, 2010;Morreale, Hugenberg, & Worley, 2006;Morreale, Worley, & Hugenberg, 2010;Peterson, 1997;Reinsch & Shelby, 1997;Russ, 2009;Ulinski & O’callaghan, 2002;Waldeck, Durante, Helmuth, & Marcia, 2012;Waner, 1995;Wardrope, 2002).
Research on Alumni
While these studies make important contributions to what should be included in undergraduate business communication courses in general, they leave open two major areas of inquiry: (a) They have not engaged alumni as respondents and (b) they have not solicited feedback on how to improve coursework specifically intended to develop thebusiness presentation skill set. Alumni are in a unique position to offer such feedback. First, unlike undergraduates (and possibly faculty who teach these courses), alumni have fully experienced the classes in question as students and can reflect on their strengths and benefits from a somewhat greater distance. They are also in a position to give feedback on what, in retrospect, seems less useful or effective. Second, they are likely utilizing their business presentation skill set in the working environment, to a far greater extent than undergraduates do. They also have experienced the oral presentation skills of business colleagues in work settings to a far greater extent. Alumni work experience gives them a far deeper well of observations, about themselves and others, from which to draw. And third, unlike employers, alumni have the additional link of knowing what their actual coursework entailed and what they have retained, which helps them make recommendations for how specifically that classroom experience might be changed. In essence, they are the best link we have between the classroom and the professional world, and thus potentially an outstanding source of insights for business presentations instructors.
Several studies in a variety of fields have engaged alumni as a source of pedagogical and professional insights. Some U.S. studies have utilized alumni as a source of feedback and advice on undergraduate communication pedagogy and outcomes. HomerCox (1976)surveyed a group of alumni from the University of Colorado, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, and Bowling Green State University who had taken a business communication course about business writing.Pearson, Nelson, and Sorenson (1981)interviewed alumni about the basic communication course at their alma mater, and queried their preferences for the mix of content, delivery mode, book used, and class size. But there was no assessment of alumni’s current oral presentation practices nor advice for speaking assignments.Rice, Stewart, and Hujber (2000)surveyed alumni of a communication program about what constitutes an effective communication instructor.Scribner, Baker, and Howe (2003)compared perceptions of the value of team projects between marketing alumni and current marketing students.Silva and McFadden (2005)asked alumni of operations management and information systems how well their undergraduate programs had prepared them in terms of their technical and general business skills, including oral and written communication. Alumni ranked oral communication skills as second highest of 16 skills tested.Carr, Chua, and Perera (2006)asked alumni to review the accounting curricula they had experienced in New Zealand.Blythe, Lauer, and Curran (2014)surveyed alumni from a wide range of U.S. colleges and universities regarding the kinds of technical, professional, and other writing in which they engage. AndScott (2014)used a LinkedIn group to assess the transition from graduation to the first year of employment in a group of Scottish business graduates. While some of these researchers assessed the gap between the preferred competence and the degree to which it had been developed during the undergraduate years and others, likeBlythe et al. (2014), captured current practices, none solicited recommendations for oral presentation coursework or assignments.
Beyond these studies, some research has been devoted to questions of how well the alumni of undergraduate business programs feel they are faring with respect to their overall presentation skill set postgraduation. ThaddeusMcEwen (1998)surveyed 82 managers who had graduated from a public Midwestern university. He found no correlation between level of business education (none, bachelor’s, or master’s degree) and communication competence. His respondents reported being weakest in public-speaking competence, but McEwen did not correlate competence with prior coursework. More recent surveys of alumni’s presentation skills have not been published, apart fromMarcel (2015). She reported that current levels of alumni confidence in presenting are overwhelmingly accounted for by how frequently alumni make presentations, above gender, age, undergraduate major, or coursework in effective presentations.
Method
A survey instrument was developed by the author to assess some specific elements of presentation pedagogy, as well as to ascertain patterns of practice in making oral presentations among alumni (see theappendix). The survey was designed to invite alumni to evaluate elements of oral presentation pedagogy that they would have experienced as undergraduates based on a review of syllabi for the courses they had taken. In order to capture as broad a range of advice as possible, the survey invited text answers to cover respondents’ suggestions and insights not captured by structured answers to questions. The choice of items was primarily influenced by the desire to test a seldomly researched correlation between the frequency of making presentations and greater self-reported confidence and competence in doing so. Alumni were asked how frequently they give presentations in their current positions, and to what audiences and levels. Questions regarding presenting business information visually arose from conversations with accounting and finance faculty as well as business graduate students, who frequently indicated their dissatisfaction with these elements of both student and professional presentations. Designing visuals for oral presentations, where text- or number-dense slides force listeners to choose between listening and reading, can be a problem when such slide sets will also be viewed asynchronously as written documents. Thus, a question to evaluate how alumni viewed this dilemma was added. Some parts of the survey, including a self-report of current levels of confidence in 12 aspects of preparing and delivering oral presentations, are analyzed elsewhere (Marcel, 2015). Demographic information collected included whether the respondent had completed a graduate degree, current industry and job title, and her or his age and gender.
Bentley University’s Registrar provided a list of all alumni who graduated between 2002 and 2012 with a bachelor’s degree, totaling 7,858 names. From these, the Alumni Association provided email addresses for 5,478 domestic alumni. The survey was administered via email between July and September 2013 to those alumni using Qualtrics software. The university’s institutional review board gave permission for research on human subjects.
Alumni could be grouped into four categories of those who had taken (a) only ES, a humanities course; (b) only MC, a business course; (c) both courses; or (d) neither course. These groups’ responses were aggregated, for some portions of the analysis, into CTs (those who had taken ES, MC, or both) and noncourse takers (NCTs). It is important to note that even those students who did not take either course were required to take two communication-intensive courses as undergraduates: one in their major and one in the remainder of their program. These courses had to be approved by the university’s Curriculum Committee according to its criteria and could focus either on oral or written communication elements.
Results
A total of 1,888 surveys were attempted, with 1,610 surveys completed, for a response rate of 29.39%. The survey asked over 70 questions. For the purpose of this analysis, which engages only some of the data collected, numbers of responses were taken on a per-item basis. Respondents who missed fewer than five answers were considered complete for this analysis. Since missing answers occurred randomly, numbers of responses on items sometimes differ from table to table.
Of the completed surveys, 801 respondents were women, 794 were men, and 15 supplied no answer to the question of gender. The distribution by age and sex is shown inTable 1. Approximately 24% were aged 20 to 24 years, about 54% were aged 25 to 30 years, and slightly more than 21% were aged 31 years or older. Alumni were asked to provide their current job title and the industry in which they worked. Responses were coded by two research assistants and the primary investigator. Results are shown inTables 2and3.
Demographics.
Industries.
Job Titles.
Nearly one third of respondents indicated they work in the finance, accounting, or banking fields. Another 12% work in the fields of information technology and user experience. Marketing, advertising, sales, and retail comprise another 13%, with health care and pharmaceuticals taking up about 7% of respondents, and insurance and benefits another 6%. Regarding titles, as an index of the level at which respondents are working, over 12% listed their titles as president, vice president, general manager, controller, managing director, director, or officer. Another 25% listed their titles as manager or administrator. Only 2.73% indicated that they were unemployed or provided too little information to classify.
Alumni were asked to indicate whether they had completed a graduate degree, and 30.6% indicated that they had. Of these, about 10% had earned a law or other nonbusiness degree. About 35% had earned an MBA, while 25.7% had earned a master’s in accountancy, and 9.5% a master’s in taxation. About 7% had earned a finance or financial planning master’s, while about 12.3% had earned a master’s degree in a specific business discipline other than those mentioned, including management, marketing, and information technology.
Course Takers Versus Noncourse Takers
Respondents were proportional to their numbers in the study population. There were 581 ES respondents, 264 MC respondents, 217 “both course” respondents, and 548 “neither course” respondents.
Of those alumni who had taken the courses, some were required to do so. The MC course was required for 80.8% of the MC respondents and the ES course for 6.6% of those respondents. No student is required to take both. Thus, we have a mix of those who took courses by choice and those who had to take the courses as part of their business major. For those who took neither course, 72.9% said they learned how to present well in courses with group presentations, 25.2% said they learned how to present well by participating in campus activities and groups, and 16.1% said they felt well prepared coming out of high school. Multiple answers were permitted on this question. Additionally, 19% said they were too nervous to take a course with an emphasis on oral presentations, totaling 6.5% of all respondents. Only 2.9%, or less than 1% of all respondents, said they did not take an oral presentations class because they feared getting a bad grade.
Making Business Presentations
Frequency of Presenting
The survey asked respondents to report how frequently they make presentations in their current positions (Table 4). Answers were coded as follows:never= 1;less than once per month= 2;once per month= 3;two or three times per month= 4;once per week= 5;two or three times per week= 6;daily= 7. The percentages of those presenting less than once per month, one to three times per month, and one to five times per week are not statistically distinct when taking into account whether respondents had completed a graduate degree. The overall average frequency of making presentations for the entire cohort was 3.58 (SD= 1.72), meaning about two or three times per month. Only 78 women and 51 men, or 8% of respondents, indicated that they never make presentations.
Frequency of Making Oral Presentations.
Note. Frequency of presenting: 1 =never; 2 = <once per month; 3 =once per month; 4 =two or three times per month; 5 =once per week; 6 =two or three times per week; 7 =daily.
Information was not provided by some participants.
Use of Presentation Software
Responses to questions regarding the use of visual presentation software, such as PowerPoint and Prezi, were revelatory (Table 5). A majority (61.5%) said they use presentation software such as PowerPoint or Prezi at least 50% of the time when they present, while 25.3% reported rarely or never using it. But 77.7% reported finding such software either very or somewhat useful at achieving their goal. Alumni were asked to respond to three statements characterizing presentation software. A small minority (14.83%) agreed with the statement “I feel PowerPoint/Prezi/other is not a good tool, but it is company culture to utilize such tools.” A somewhat larger percentage (23.97%) agreed that they personally “would like more training around best practices for presentation visuals.” Nearly half (48.63%) stated that “I find that, in general, people at my company use presentation software effectively.”
Use of Presentation Visuals.
In addition, respondents were invited to elaborate further in a text box. Text answers from 259 respondents elaborated on a few themes in further detail. About 40% of these respondents wrote that people at their company either do not use presentation software effectively or could use help. They wrote about slides that are too full, wordy, or overly detailed, and suggested that PowerPoint and presentation software can be used as a “crutch,” distracting from the speaker’s message.
Too often people rely on PowerPoint to “get through” their presentation, often using it as a crutch when not thoroughly knowing or understanding their content. Presentation software is only as effective as those who use it and most people are terrible with visual aids. People use PowerPoint as a crutch turning it into an informational resource instead of just a visual aid by writing full sentences and plastering it with meaningless charts. I have mixed feelings on PowerPoint. It is definitely my company culture to use it, and used effectively, I think it can be an effective tool. It is good to have a slide deck to be able to go back and look at after a presentation. If the person who put the slide deck together didn’t know what they were doing, or the presenter is going to sit there and just read the slides to you, you’re in for a painful experience. I feel that many people lack the understanding of how and when to use visuals and may simply write out their whole presentation on slides. People respond to charts, graphs, and visual representation of the point. Walls of words are not effective.
Some respondents wrote about the quality of such presentations. About 11% expressed the idea that the presentation is only as good as the presenter and/or the thought that went into it, and that, when used well, such software is helpful. About 18% indicated that they take other approaches besides slides. Some use handouts, and some utilize interactive techniques instead, such as enabling others to view their screens as they navigate through a tool or product demonstration. Some indicated they use Excel or another spreadsheet-based tool, while others wrote that other tools besides the two mentioned are better for some kinds of presentations.
My presentations are informal—as “Sprint reviews” in an agile environment. I usually just share my screen to demonstrate whatever it is I designed or developed. In the startup world the formalness of powerpoint is useless internally (unless it’s the leadership team presenting the projected business growth of the company). Since I do most of my presentations via telephone with clients, I use a program that allows the end user to view my screen. This allows me to take them through our platform and give them a first-hand look at how to maneuver around. . . . I feel that without giving them any type of visual, I would not be able to communicate as effectively. Powerpoint is a good way to pull together an overview but we are quickly seeing a shift in presentation and security of delivery via tablet based animation or interactive presentations. To be effective with these mediums there needs to be a comfort in understanding spatial abilities and how interactive data is rationalized versus printed data. Some find it confusing. At my current job we make presentations based on documentation provided or final results and/or findings and therefore we typically use excel to demonstrate our presentations.
Thus, while the majority of alumni report using presentation software regularly and finding it useful, we should be aware of the variety of software programs being used, as well as interactive approaches referenced in their business presentations. Likewise, a significant number (35%) use PowerPoint and Prezi less than half the time when they present. We could argue that this suggests the additional need for students to be able to present effectively with no visuals at all.
Suggestions to Improve Courses Teaching Presentation Skills
One unique aspect of alumni research is the chance to ask for reflections and suggestions about courses the respondents took themselves. In this section of the survey, all respondents could vote for any combination of nine improvements, as well as write in their own suggestions. The improvements included three questions about visual elements, three on numbers and types of presentations assigned, one on nervousness, one on handling difficult audiences, and one on the question of designing slide decks that would also be read asynchronously (Table 6). In the first column of the following tables, the language is taken directly from the survey statements.
Suggestions for Improving Coursework: Percentages.
Note.CTs = course takers; NCTs = noncourse takers.
Overall, the top suggestions for improving presentations coursework based on percentage means from all respondents were “Instruction on effective presentation visuals (slides),” affirmed by 24.8%, and instruction on “how to present business data in general,” endorsed by 24.2%. “Instruction on how to present financial or accounting data visually” was also emphasized, at 22.4%, as well as “Instruction on how to strike a balance between creating good slide decks for presentation versus slide decks that will be viewed/read only,” which was advocated by 21.7% overall. Impromptu presentations were suggested by 23.1%, while 18.6% suggested “Ungraded presentations with feedback.” Slightly more votes came in for increasing the number of required presentations above the current three to five in the two classes referenced, with 19% endorsing this change. Finally, 20.4% asked for more help “dealing with difficult audiences.” Thus, despite being given a number of choices, only between about one fourth and one fifth of respondents suggested that any of these changes would be a good idea.
Course Takers and Noncourse Takers
We may infer that students feel relatively satisfied with the courses as they are. However, the differences in perceptions between those who took courses and those who did not can tell us about what benefits CTs seek compared with NCTs. In all cases, CTs affirmed the listed changes in numbers greater than NCTs. The range of improvements recommended by NCTs was small for seven of eight changes, 16.4% to 14.1% from highest to lowest. The one exception was help with learning how to deal with difficult audiences; even fewer, 7.49% of NCTs, chose this change.
By contrast, eight of nine changes were affirmed at 21% or higher by CTs, with a total range of 29.5% to 19.7%. Suggestions centering on presentation visuals were the most emphasized, including more instruction on (a) effective presentation visuals at 29.5%, (b) presenting business data in general at 28.1%, (c) presenting financial or accounting data visually at 26.6%, and (d) striking a balance between slide decks for presentations versus those that will be read or viewed only at 24.4%. Concern over the last item surfaced as well in text answers noted above; the “walls of words” that may make sense in a document can be distracting and difficult to take in while also listening to a speaker.
In contrast to NCTs, 27.1% of CTs approved giving more help on dealing with difficult audiences. For CTs, this was the fourth highest change affirmed. Likewise, impromptu presentations were affirmed by 27.3%. More help in dealing with nervousness in making presentations was selected by 25.5%. By contrast, assigning more than three to five presentations and ungraded presentations with feedback were chosen least often, at 21.3% and 19.7%, respectively.
To discern whether different CTs had different suggestions, alumni were further grouped as follows: those who had taken ES, those who had taken MC, and those who had taken both courses. Alumni who had taken both courses were able to register answers separately for each course, and their responses were compared with those of alumni who had taken only one course. Additionally, respondents were given the opportunity to write in text answers for suggested changes. These answers were coded and results included with the preset suggestions where there was overlap. Other text answers are discussed below.
The two courses these alumni had taken differ in the number of presentations assigned, nature of topics, and whether presentation visuals are covered, based on a review of syllabi for these courses from 2002 to 2012. The ES course, taught in the English and Media Studies department, assigns five or six individual presentations and does not cover visuals or assign presentations using them. As a humanities course, the topics are also not business focused. Some instructors, for example, include poetry recitations and topics related to students’ personal experiences. The MC course, taught in the Information Design and Corporate Communication department, assigns one to three individual presentations and includes instruction on best practices for visuals. As a business course, all topics must be business related. Instruction in written business communication is also central to this course, but it was not analyzed in this study.
Effective Speaking Alumni
For ES alumni, results for the two course-taking groups (ES only and both ES and MC) show an expected pattern involving difficult audiences and presentation visuals (Table 7). Alumni who only took ES more heavily endorsed changes involving the coverage of presentation visuals; this would have been absent in their ES courses. These items include more instruction on effective visuals (slides), how to present financial or accounting data visually, how to present business data in general, and how to strike a balance between creating good slide decks for presentations versus slide decks that will be viewed/read only. Comparing the responses of those who only took ES versus those who took both courses, the latter group showed 8.3% to 13.1% less concern for these changes than those who had only taken ES. Presumably this is because they received this instruction in their MC class. Thus, despite the perhaps widespread belief among undergraduates that they “know” how to make good slides, alumni who did not have coverage of this topic in their classes confirmed, in hindsight, the value of such coverage. This finding demonstrates that students whohad instructionin these areas felt the need to ramp up this pedagogyless frequentlythan did those who did not receive it.
Suggestions From Effective Speaking Course Takers: Percentages.
Note.ES CTs = Effective Speaking course takers; BCTs = both course takers.
Also of interest is the recommendation of more help in dealing with difficult audiences. Both groups of ES alumni notably endorsed this change, at 25.09% and 24.1%, respectively. This change showed the highest percentage and closest concordance of all the choices given, and may reflect a true pedagogical need. Impromptu presentations were also chosen by both subgroups, at 23.5% and 19.5%, respectively. The least endorsed changes for ES-only alumni were for more presentations and ungraded presentations, which only 13.74% of respondents selected in both cases.
By contrast, those who had taken both courses least frequently endorsed more presentations and more instruction on how to present financial or accounting data visually, at 11% and 10.4%, respectively. CTs of both courses favored ungraded presentations with feedback at 17.3%, 3.6% more than ES-only alumni. Interestingly, on the question of help dealing with nervousness, 16.66% of ES-only CTs approved this change, whereas 21.8% of CTs who took both did. This is somewhat counterintuitive, since those who took both classes would be expected to have had coverage in at least one and likely both courses.
Managerial Communication Alumni
Alumni who had taken MC or both classes presented a different pattern of recommended changes (Table 8). Closest concordances came on three items: more instruction on how to present financial or accounting data visually, at 23.5% and 25.4% for MC only and both CTs, respectively; more instruction on how to present business data in general, at 19.1% and 19.5%, respectively; and more instruction on effective visuals, at 16.8% and 17.3%, respectively. More presentations were approved at 17.5% and 16.4%, respectively. The greatest differences resided with help dealing with nervousness. MC-only alumni endorsed this change at 20.5%, compared with alumni of both courses at 10.4%. Likewise, MC-only alumni recommended ungraded presentations with feedback at 19.4%, compared with 13.6% of alumni who took both, and impromptu presentations at 21.6% compared with 15.4%. Finally, those who had taken MC only favored more help dealing with difficult audiences at 19.8%, compared with 15% of alumni who took both courses.
Suggestions From Managerial Communication Course Takers: Percentages.
Note.MC CTs = Managerial Communication course takers; BCTs = both course takers.
By contrast, fewer MC-only alumni (14.5%) advocated more instruction on presentation slides versus slide decks for reading compared with 19.5% for alumni of both. So the pattern here appears to be that, in a managerial/business-communication-focused course, it is still very important to address handling nervousness and difficult audiences. Likewise, the need to present visual or accounting data effectively was also underscored; 80% of the students who take MC alone are corporate finance and accounting majors, which may account for this emphasis. Finally, the MC-only students may have been assigned as few as one presentation. The recommendation for impromptu speeches and ungraded speeches with feedback indicates preferences for what the additional assigned speeches could be.
When results for all alumni are combined, instruction in effective visuals and presenting business data in general are priorities. Likewise, impromptu presentations were favored sufficiently to rise to the third-most endorsed change overall. The notable difference in responses for help in handling difficult audiences and dealing with nervousness between those who took courses and those who did not may suggest an added benefit for students who elect to take our courses. Those who do not choose them appear to feel they have the requisite skills already, whereas those opting into our classes feel there is value in spending time on this area. And while impromptu presentations are perceived to bring value, simply adding more presentations and ungraded presentations were least recommended as improvements.
Alumni-Generated Suggestions
Open-text responses were also solicited for the question of changes to the course (Table 9). For all write-in answers in this and the final section, a total of 358 respondents made 455 written comments. Of these, any items which overlapped with preset categories were removed from the totals inTable 9and included inTables 7and8.
Text Answers to Course Improvements.
Those writing comments included 28.8% who had completed a graduate degree; this compares with 31.7% of the entire cohort of respondents. The majority of comments (41.9%) were written by alumni who reported making presentations themselves one to three times per month. Of those making presentations less than once per month or never, 29.4% wrote text answers, as did 27.1% of those who present weekly to daily. Additionally, 77% of write-in answers responded to one of three requests for suggestions, whereas 4.5% responded to all three requests and 18.5% responded to two of three requests. Text writers were 51.1% female and 48.9% male, which tracks closely with the proportions of the total respondent cohort for the study.
Nonoverlapping comments for elements not included in all sections of current classes are reflected inTable 9. Some distinct findings were 8.9% of text answers independently advocating the need for preparation to handle tough question-and-answer sessions and 7.8% suggesting instruction on and presenting in different environments, including phone, roundtable, informal settings, and information technology demos. Other suggestions included more audience analysis, more audience interaction, and bringing detailed analytics together in a meaningful story.
Communication Challenges Facing the Business World
A final group of questions asked alumni to assess the greatest communication challenges faced by people in their organization and the business world now. These items largely reiterated elements currently included in at least some sections of these courses; in essence, these items were designed to assess where oral presentation skills would be ranked compared with other topics frequently covered in business communication courses. Alumni were once again given a set of responses to recommend, as well as a text box to write in their own answers. Differentiation among items was much more marked in this set of responses. The range of percentage affirming for all respondents ran from a high of 71.4% to a low of 32% across eight items.Table 10shows these responses, grouped by CTs, NCTs, and all responses with overlapping text answers included.
Responses to Challenges: Percentages.
Note.CTs= course takers; NCTs = noncourse takers.
The most endorsed challenge was inefficient and ineffective use of group meetings, at 71.4% overall. Second, at 53.9%, was the need to improve writing skills. The differences between CTs and NCTs on these two items were 3.7% and 1.4%, respectively. The next highest item, email issues, was chosen by 49.1% of all respondents. But the gap between CTs and NCTs is the highest for this item (8.2%), with NCTs only affirming at 42.4%, while CTs agreed at 50.6%. The same overall percentage (49.1%) endorsed the need to improve presentation skills, with a gap of only 1.3% between CTs and NCTs. Next was knowing how to make effective charts, graphs, and graphic representations of data, affirmed at 41.5% with a gap of 3.9% between CTs and NCTs. Thus, oral presentation skills were affirmed by slightly less than half of respondents, with the more traditional concerns of inefficient use of group meetings, inadequate writing skills, and email issues outweighing this challenge.
Two issues which might have been expected to rank higher were handling social media, selected by 35.8% (3.7% gap), and cultural considerations for communication within a diverse/global workforce, chosen by 33.0% with a 0.1% gap. The least endorsed challenge, “political or cultural challenges (plays for power, one-upmanship, etc.),” was still affirmed by 32.0%, with a gap of 0.57%.
It is striking to note that none of the items related to changing the courses were favored by more than 24.8% of the entire body of respondents, yet every item regarding challenges in the business world and alumni’s own organizations was advocated by over 32% of respondents.
Text answers were also given by 171 respondents. These were coded, and those which overlapped with the first eight categories given in the survey were added to those numbers.Table 11contains the remaining answers given in more than 1% of text answers.
Text Answers on Challenges.
Some of these issues were stated concisely: I’m finding that people are relying too much on email and IM and less on more personal communication, which is irreplaceable. Building relationships is paramount in business, and you can’t do that through electronic communication. [P]eople underestimate the one on one conversations they have and how these can have a direct impact on how the person is feeling, the ideas that can be brought up, and the productivity of people who think that their fellow workers actually care about them and not just their work. Etiquette in the business environment as far as emailing and instant messaging are concerned. Sometimes people are too lazy to call. Sometimes they don’t have respect for other people’s schedule and they harass them and don’t let them work. [C]ommunication wise, I think people need to be taught how to take things less personally, but also how to be able to provide negative feedback more effectively. . . . Negative feedback is equally important (if not more so), and it’s damaging when people are unprepared to deal with it. As a side note - every [university] student should learn about customer development, and should read “the four steps to the epiphany.” Social media is overstated in my opinion. I see the biggest threat/opportunity both internally and in my industry is the changing demographic of the workforce and how they learn/work. Not just the technical divide, it’s bigger than that. Also, I’d like to see more training/exposure to process driven/threaded communication. Email is dead in my company as we try to leverage threaded discussion tools to manage projects. With the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now with many companies, it is even more important to ensure companies are stressing the importance of effective English communication as offices are being created in countries such as China & India where English is not the first language. I understand the difficulties of ensuring proper English communication first hand as I have been stationed in an offshore office within China for the past 4.5 years.
These comments, which relate to topical coverage and approaches in business communication courses not solely focused on oral presentation skills, address a range of issues experienced by alumni working in different sectors, from their own start-ups to multinational companies. They suggest a wariness over the replacement of face-to-face conversations and phone calls with emails, and an awareness of the vibrancy and value of in-person conversations, whether they convey caring or constructive criticism.
On the single question that asked, if they were to begin a master’s degree program today, how important it would be to take a graduate-level course in effective presentations and business communication, 55.8% respondedvery importantand 29.1%somewhat important. Just over 8% wereneutral, 3.4% saidsomewhatorvery unimportant, and 1.3% gave no answer.
Discussion
This study, which focused on pedagogical as well as topical changes and improvements to oral-presentation-centered communication classes, reveals some relevant and expected findings, as well as some novel suggestions.
These business alumni underscored the importance of effectively using presentation visuals, while also expressing reservations about how PowerPoint and other presentation software can get in the way of the speaker’s message. Likewise, a significant minority of alumni (27.5%) reported using such software less than 25% of the time, and 35% use it less than half the time. This underscores the need for students to learn how to present effectively without it, or using other visual means. More specifically, alumni affirmed that instruction on presenting business data effectively was an important component of preparing effective visual content. Thus, instructors should consider including instruction on presenting data more effectively from spreadsheets, for example, and other dense numeric formats when they are to be projected.
Morreale et al. (2006)reported that 79.1% of instructors in their study of the basic communication course included instruction in using computer programs to generate presentation visuals; in 2010, the same authors found that, on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 5 indicating most extensive coverage, the average score on the extent to which instructors in business communication courses teach students to design and use visual aids was 3.99, and 3.8 for communication courses surveyed (Morreale et al., 2010).Russ (2009), using the same Likert-type scale, reported a 3.91 out of 5 for business communication instructors’ ranking of visual elements coverage. So, while coverage does seem to be occurring, the element of presenting data asks for our further attention. Over 42% of alumni respondents endorsed the idea that knowing how to make effective charts, graphs, and graphic representations of data was a major challenge facing their organizations. With the current rush into big data use by many companies, the need for better data visualization techniques, including for presentations, will only continue to evolve and create new challenges, as well as pedagogical opportunities.
Another pedagogical challenge calling for attention has to do with the use of PowerPoint slide decks as records of presentations, intended for both previewing and postviewing. This is an information design challenge, since projected slides in oral presentations in general need to be less dense and focus on keywords, versus documents which are intended to convey all relevant information absent a speaker. “Walls of words” tend to sink a presentation, but may be expected as a takeaway. Developing best practices and approaches for handling this dual-use dilemma seems apt.
Other questions elicited what might be construed as affirmation of the status quo. In the current study, less than one in six respondents, among both CTs and NCTs, recommended requiring more than the three to five presentations currently assigned.Russ (2009)reported that 55% of business communication courses required one or two presentations, while 34% required three or more. AndMorreale et al. (2010)reported that in the basic public speaking course in the United States, 43.4% of instructors assigned one to three graded speeches and 34.9% assigned four (though these numbers may include group presentations). However, since there is evidence which suggests a correlation between more frequent presenting and reduced levels of communication anxiety (Marcel, 2016), we would encourage instructors to err on the side of more rather than fewer presentations where possible. And making at least one of those presentations an impromptu is also a recommendation put forward by alumni. Learning to prepare and present in the moment appears to have real value for alumni currently working in a variety of fields.
By far the most confirmed challenge, however, was inefficient or ineffective meetings. A total of 71.4% of all alumni respondents endorsed this as the greatest challenge facing their organizations and the business world currently. In reviewing coverage of this topic in current business communication courses, we see that academics are addressing at least basic elements.Laster and Russ (2010)indicated that participating in and leading meetings were covered at about a 3.5 out of 5 level on a 5-point scale, with 5 being most extensively covered. Similarly,Jackson and Chapman (2012)indicated that both Australian and U.K. academics ranked the importance of “facilitat[ing] meetings according to an agenda and meet[ing] agreed objectives,” and communicating effectively in them, at 4.7 and 4.4, respectively on a 7-point scale. However, meetings comprised many elements: who is invited, who controls the agenda, the frequency of routine meetings, the effectiveness of facilitators, and so on. This area likely deserves more exploration among business communication faculty, both with regard to problem areas and corrective pedagogy.
There does persist the need, in eyes of these alumni, to better teach how to use email effectively, including when to call or have a face-to-face conversation instead, and being cognizant of not including recipients who do not need to be included. These concerns were reiterated in text answers.
Three areas which were less noted as challenges were handling social media, cultural considerations for communication within a diverse/global workforce, and political or cultural plays for power. This might seem surprising, as these are certainly issues faced in the working world. However, perhaps they are less challenging to alumni who grew up with social media, and to students whose lives and educational experiences have taken place in a more diverse and globally integrated world. It is relevant to note that the university’s undergraduate population in these years ran only at approximately 15% domestic minority students and 10% to 13% international. So we should interpret these results with some caution.
Finally, the need to improve presentation skills remains—a challenge confirmed by 49% of alumni respondents. We may take this as an endorsement for the continuing need to ensure that business students learn how to present well before graduating, and for allocating the course hours to do so. It might also behoove business educators to encourage our students to participate in activities where they have opportunities to present outside of class: student organizations, case competitions, volunteering, internships, and jobs. The ability to present effectively is a complex skill set comprising many elements. Practicing it in lower risk settings can only help students in their classroom performances as well as their overall development of this essential business skill.
Limitations
The alumni who responded to this study are overwhelmingly employed and working, in many cases, in positions which require them to make presentations with some frequency. They, thus, may not be representative of all business graduates across all industries and levels of employment. The demographic composition of this university’s student body is also less diverse, as mentioned earlier, and more male than most universities of its size and caliber; during the years these students graduated, the male-to-female ratio stood at about 60:40.
Last, respondents were not required to adhere to any one definition of what constitutes a presentation. This decision was made to ensure as much inclusion as possible. An operational definition of presentation seemed reasonable, in that people in this age range and level of education, especially those working in business fields, presumably have a fairly shared and consistent sense of what constitutes a presentation. Other researchers, when querying employers as well as academics, generally have not offered specific definitions in their research. Still, for purposes of comparison, greater specificity in future research may be warranted.
Conclusion
This study elicited feedback and advice from undergraduate business alumni regarding their formation as presenters both inside and outside business communication classes. Giving more help on dealing with difficult audiences, assigning impromptu presentations, and dealing with nervousness in making presentations surfaced as the most recommended changes, along with increased coverage of how to present business and financial data visually. The current level of three to five presentations assigned was also largely affirmed. The greatest challenge business people face apart from writing and email issues is ineffective and inefficient meetings, according to these alumni. This area thus calls for our attention.
These alumni reported that, on average, they are making two to three oral presentations per month. This surely underscores the relevance and importance of making sure our undergraduate students take a strong set of oral presentation skills and experiences with them as they leave college. These skills, as one team of researchers put it, are a “distinguishing feature.” The alumni respondents in this study appear to believe that as well.
Footnotes
Appendix
Author’s Note
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Bentley University. Participant comments are reproduced by permission.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received a summer grant from Bentley University for the research and authorship of this article.
Author Biography