Communication Activities in the 21st Century Business Environment

Abstract

Effective undergraduate instruction requires accurate knowledge of professional communication practices and employer expectations, but ongoing contradictions between academic and professional expectations reflect historical, rhetorical, and pedagogical causes for inaccurate presumptions. Taking a customer service perspective, one business faculty revised its undergraduate goals in terms of empirically determined employer expectations. Interviewing professionals familiar with expectations of entry-level business graduates, the authors identified 10 communication activities, each comprising three to nine subtasks that constitute entry-level communication competencies. The results suggest a need to reconsider traditional curricular organization and instructional focus across the business curriculum to develop relevant skills across all business majors.

Keywords

pedagogy business practices curriculum design

Legislative and marketplace demands for accountability have led to academic discussions of learning assurance across all disciplines. In response to external demands for greater accountability, the authors’ university developed a Targeted Skill Gap Analysis methodology (Manning, Meyer, & Verma, 2012) to determine whether the institution meets the educational, social, cultural, and economic development goals of its mission. The College of Business Administration has successfully used the protocol to evaluate employer satisfaction with business graduates’ information literacy skills (Cyphert & Lyle, 2017). Adapted from widely used methodology for defining and measuring quality across service industries (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985,1988), the assessment protocol calls for a comparison of employerexpectationsagainst employerperceptionsof the educational service rendered by the university.

The first step in meeting the employer expectations involves carefully defining them. Thus, when the College of Business decided to implement a Targeted Skill Gap Analysis to enhance its undergraduate communication curriculum and instruction, faculty began with an effort to define learning goals in terms of employer expectations for professional communication. Despite agreement among business colleges and business practitioners that communication is an appropriate learning goal, a recurring motif in business communication scholarship highlights continuing discontinuities among undergraduate curriculum, employer needs, and student performance. Complaints continue about new employees’ communication skills (e.g.,Canavor & Meirowitz, 2005;Middleton, 2011;Northey, 1990;Odell, 1980;Smith, 2011;Wise, 2005), while multiple investigations have shown differences between employer priorities and communication curricula (Bogert & Butt, 1996;Brink & Costigan, 2015;Cyphert, 1993;DiSalvo, 1980;Harris & Thomlison, 1983;Holter & Kopka, 2001;Kretovics & McCambridge, 1998;Russ, 2016;Stevens, 2005;Wardrope, 2001).

The first step thus demanded an accurate and up-to-date understanding of communication expectations of newly graduated business majors. Beyond that, we anticipated that our research would yield pedagogical advantages from an up-to-date workplace rather than academic vocabulary and better contextualization of skills into authentic professional activities. With accurate and relevant descriptors, we could ultimately develop a more accurate understanding of gaps between employer expectations and their perception of undergraduates’ learning outcomes.

Based on a review of previous research into the multiple contradictions between academic and business priorities, we developed an interview protocol designed to avoid known sources of discrepant results. Initial results provided a set of 10 typical communication practices (Cyphert et al., 2016). The second step, reported here, aimed to identify the specific tasks involved in performing professional communication activities and gain a sense of which of those tasks employers were most likely to expect of entry-level business graduates, regardless of major.

Methodology

Given the well-documented mismatches between academic and employer aims, we designed our research after a careful review of previous research, developing a research protocol that might avoid repeating others’ mistakes. Using a series of interviews and a subsequent questionnaire, we then developed a comprehensive picture of employers’ communication expectations.

Addressing Divergent Interests, Assumptions, and Priorities

In an effort to avoid biases already identified in previous research, the team’s first step was to trace their underlying causes (Cyphert et al., 2016). We identified four general themes appearing in the literature: (a) significant differences between the discourse communities of academia and business, (b) the inherently contextualized nature of socialization into discourse communities, (c) the conflicted role of the university as gatekeeper for admission to the business community, and (d) dissimilar pedagogical goals and methods involved in practitioner training, theoretical knowledge, and managerial outcomes. Other frustrations noted in the literature reflect dissimilar institutional structures and norms. For example, curriculum change processes are slow compared to business’ responsiveness to changing needs (Tanyel, Mitchell, & McAlum, 1999), leading to some misalignments due simply to the time and resources required for academic retooling. Meanwhile, business practices often require a level of confidentiality that precludes their use as cases or examples for educational use. The historical divisions of academic disciplines and curricula, which can arbitrarily decouple communication activities, goals, and methods, pose another driver of error. Our goal, then, was to develop a research protocol to avoid, as much as possible, reintroducing similar errors.

Dissimilar Discourse Communities

Previous research has demonstrated significant differences between academic and business discourse (Beaufort, 1999;Cyphert, 1993,2007;Odell & Goswami, 1985;Spilka, 1993), along with problematic results when business respondents respond to surveys or use evaluation instruments prepared by academics (P. V. Anderson, 1985;Brink & Costigan, 2015;Cyphert & Wurtz, 2009;Hanna, 1978;Neher & Heidewald, 2015). Furthermore, academic research concerning entry-level preparation focuses on instrumental writing and speaking (Brink & Costigan, 2015;Conrad & Newberry, 2011a) despite general agreement that professional success requires interpersonal, strategic, electronic, and team communication skills (Clampitt, 2012;Daft, 2012;Schermerhorn, 2013). To avoid biasing the results with our own academic vocabulary and categories, we therefore took pains to solicit, understand, and use the business community’s preferred descriptors for communication tasks and behavioral expectations.

An initial review of practitioner publications set the stage for a contextualized understanding of communication descriptors within the business community. With institutional review board approval, the team then conducted phone interviews with 21 professionals, asking open-ended questions regarding events that occurred in the workplace where any kind of communication occurred. The responses provided an inventory of well over 100 distinct communication tasks. In multiple rounds of analysis, the team coded practitioners’ descriptions to discover seven categories of activity.

Contextualized Socialization

Analyses of ineffective academic preparation for professional communication have sometimes pointed toward the rhetorical or social complexity of the business environment (Davies & Birbili, 2000;Fabris, 2015;Henry, 2000) coupled with an abstracted, generalized academic curricula (Johnstone, Ashbaugh, & Warfield, 2002;Rappaport & Cawelti, 1993;Russell, 1995). AsJoseph Petraglia (1995)described it, the “formal and finite” rules taught in school offer little help for the professional facing the “ill-structured problem” presented by a rhetorically dynamic organizational environment (p. 84).

To gain a rich contextual understanding, we organized a series of four cross-functional and cross-industry groups of interviewees, recruited with the assistance of the university’s alumni association. By initiating practitioner discussions of the proposed communication activities, we could compare and contrast the participants’ operational milieu and develop a more nuanced understanding of the various contexts in which these activities might occur. We pointedly did not offer or request any discussion of general principles (e.g., genre characteristics or credibility elements), foundational skills (e.g., listening behaviors, language fluency, or rhetorical sensitivity), or mode (e.g., characteristics of face-to-face, electronic, or written communication). We focused instead on defining and understanding communication behaviors entirely in terms of their business purposes, and we used the interview responses to define the proper unit of analysis, which we refer to generically ascommunication activities.

University as Gatekeeper

Ever since post–Civil War calls for a more utilitarian university education led to the 1885 introduction of a freshman-level writing course at Harvard (Russell, 1991), business employers, in particular, have expected college graduates to demonstrate professionally acceptable communication skills. The investigations into why academic instruction has not consistently met that expectation point variously to instructional methods (Haswell, 2008;Russell, 1992), secondary education preparation (Jameson, 2007), curricular distinctions between managerial and employee communication (Cyphert et al., 2016), and differences between academic and business discourse practices as discussed above. Across the literature, however, presumptions of that fundamental obligation endure. Businesses regularly provide training across a wide swath of technical or task-related topics, but academic scholarship seems to accept communication skills, however sophisticated or specialized, as the responsibility of the university. While the authors recognize that each university’s educational responsibility depends at least in part on its own mission, we note that a gatekeeper role necessarily focuses educational attention on threshold skills such as writing, for example, that might be required for employment but have little impact on professional performance (Reinsch & Gardner, 2011).

In order to clarify the threshold expectations for a business undergraduate, we thus asked interviewees to distinguish between communication activities they would expect from organizational novices and those they might perceive as too sophisticated or specialized to expect of a newly graduated student. We specified entry-level positions offered to undergraduates, so as not to include more sophisticated strategic communication tasks expected of a new MBA entering at a management level. With this information, we hoped, at the least, to make threshold expectations explicit.

Pedagogical Goals and Methods

Finally, previous analysis has established the variability among research perspectives, with contradictory pedagogical goals and methods assumed by academic educators, professional trainers, and management practitioners (Conrad & Newberry, 2011b;Cyphert & Wurtz, 2009). Communication faculty recognize communication education as preparation for “effective functioning in society and in the workplace” (Morreale, Rubin, & Jones, 1998, p. 12) and thus define education in terms of theories and general principles applicable across a wide range of conceivable contexts. Professional trainers, on the other hand, focus primarily on specific, measurable outcomes, warning that training should not happen unless an immediate or future need can be defined in terms of specific “job relevant” learning experiences that are “directly and explicitly related to the jobs, duties, and tasks they will be required to perform in their assignments” (Tracey, 1992, p. 91). In contrast to both, practicing managers value the pragmatic “attainment of organizational goals in an effective and efficient manner” (Daft & Marcic, 2004, p. 7) with greater appreciation for intuitive, creative, or aberrant communication practices that nevertheless get the job done.

In an effort to avoid assuming a single set of pedagogical goals and methods to be correct, we recruited respondents from first-line supervisory positions as much as possible and framed our queries in terms of activities performed on the job. Some respondents volunteered comments on general principles or skill sets required, specific criteria for successful performance, or desired organizational goals, but follow-up questions allowed us to determine specific elements of the communication activities relevant to the comments, which we then used as primary data points.

Defining Communication Expectations

An initial list of seven communication activities was developed from 21 phone interviews with professionals who either supervised or worked closely with newly hired business college graduates. The research team conducted several rounds of conceptual categorization to organize 529 descriptors into typical elements, preparation steps, and subtasks for each activity (Cyphert et al., 2016). A second round of analysis presented the results to four cross-functional discussion groups, comprising 18 professionals with expertise with the activities of entry-level business positions, who validated, expanded, challenged, and clarified the interview results. Interview groups met over the lunch hour or after work in the three cities where the bulk of the university’s graduates accept first positions, two at local restaurants and two at company sites. Respondents included professionals in marketing, human resources, operations, information technology (IT), accounting, finance, and administrative services across the financial services, health care, construction, manufacturing, software, consumer products, and entertainment industries.

The interviews and discussion groups met our primary objective to identify the communication activities expected of business graduates seeking employment in the region. Furthermore, one third of the interview respondents had taken positions in major cities outside the state, and all but five worked for major corporations with multiple, often international, locations. Similarly, more than half of the local professionals involved in the discussion groups worked for major corporations and had either worked previously in other regions or worked regularly with colleagues at other locations. We thus anticipated that we could identify communication activities generally representative of business employment anywhere in the United States.

Recognizing professional communication activities as highly contextualized, rhetorically rich interactions among diverse organizational actors, the authors were relieved to find considerable consensus around the normal activities of an entry-level business professional. Specific applications, terminology, or goals varied with the industry or business function, but the groups easily reached consensus on a list of typical communication activities. For each activity, participants were asked to discuss the proposed preparation and subtasks, ensuring that all elements of an activity were described with vocabulary that would be consistent and clear to employers from a variety of industries and business functions.

Three additional activities were developed during the discussions, representing two areas where respondents agreed that the interview responses had not been sufficiently parsed and a third activity that had not been mentioned in the telephone interviews. The resulting list of 10 activities is provided inAppendix Awith short operational descriptions and a sample of terms used to describe each activity in various organizational contexts. Each activity involved three to nine subtasks, shown inAppendix Bwith a representative example drawn from the interview responses to illustrate the detail at which respondents were able to agree on expectations.

Finally, in keeping with our original goal of defining the customer-employer expectations of our university’s educational service, we asked the groups to discuss the level of skills expected from brand new employees. Consensus emerged around a framework that involved three levels designated asnovice, moderate, andexpert. The participants agreed that expectations might differ for newly hired interns versus permanent hires, noting that successful interns often moved from novice to moderate skill level during their tenure, thereby becoming acceptable candidates for a hiring offer. SeeTable 1for a complete description of each category.

Table 1.

Mastery Levels.

Novice: Expected to need assistance

Aware of the general requirements and processes needed to perform the task but cannot complete them autonomously. Might need direct supervision, coaching, or an apprenticeship period before taking on full responsibility for this activity. A beginner, but not entirely unaware of the expectations and taking responsibility for learning.

Moderate: Expected to work independently

Able to perform the process autonomously in routine or familiar conditions but might require assistance or advice on occasion. Might be expected to request assistance under specific circumstances or to submit work for review on a regular basis. Might have several months or even years of experience with the job but has not yet developed advanced skills or facility with complex applications.

Expert: Expected to provide leadership

Performs the process without oversight and is capable of assisting others, troubleshooting problems, or training new employees in the process. Might be a supervisor or designated resource for others. Probably has spent considerable time performing the task, although possibly no longer does so on a day-to-day basis.

To confirm the accuracy of our interview results, we sent the compiled results from the group interview sessions to all participants in both the phone and group interviews, as well to four individuals who had not been able to attend one of the meetings. We also asked the participants to provide their assessment of the degree to which business majors should demonstrate a moderate skill at the time of hire. Nineteen individuals provided responses for each of the 59 subtasks identified across the final 10 communication activities, and the results are shown inTable 2andAppendix C. These individuals represented 14 different companies in the financial services, manufacturing, health care, insurance, communication, and technology industries and included professionals in accounting, supply chain, public relations, marketing, manufacturing operations, human resources, direct sales, and service operations.

Table 2.

Activities Expected of Entry-Level Business Graduates.

		Percentage of total sample (N= 19)
100%	2. Participate in a planned meeting of two or more individuals	100.00
	7. Request information, assistance, cooperation, or further communication	100.00
	10. Engage in task-related interaction	100.00
>80%	6. Provide information for others, either upon specific request or as a regular job responsibility	94.74
	1. Attend company-wide, industry, or community events	89.47
	4. Initiate or participate in communication to resolve an issue of personal importance, either private or career related, with a supervisor, peer, or subordinate	84.21
	9. Communicate recognition to others	84.21
>50%	8. Engage in strategic, planned communication to meet a goal	63.16
>50%	5. Initiate or participate in communication to identify and/or resolve a business problem, set of issues, ongoing responsibility, or strategic response	63.16
<50%	3. Coordinate or facilitate a meeting with two or more individuals	47.37

Although at least one respondent named every major activity as an expectation of entry-level college graduates, only three activities and eight specific subtasks were expected by all 19 respondents, suggesting their importance for all business school graduates, regardless of major or functional specialty. Another four activities and 26 subtasks were expected by at least 80% of the respondents and an additional two activities and 24 subtasks by most respondents, leaving one activity and six subtasks expected by a minority of respondents. There was some variability in responses, with accounting and finance professionals expecting somewhat fewer communication activities, overall, than marketing, human resources, manufacturing, or consulting professionals, so any prioritization beyond the first three activities was deemed too preliminary to support decisions regarding learning goals.

Curriculum and Instructional Implications

As part of our own project to assess our business college’s ability to meet employer expectations, the pragmatic goal of this research involved defining communication activities that business graduates would be expected to perform on graduation. At each stage of this research, the authors also gleaned insights into effective methods of business communication instruction, which led, in a few cases, toward some theoretical considerations as well. We thus offer some general conclusions relevant for any academic institution engaged in undergraduate business communication pedagogy.

Educational Mission and Goals

The literature robustly demonstrates the degree to which employer and educator goals can differ, and the enormous breadth of employer expectations reported by our respondents further illustrates the importance of a difficult first question any business college must answer: What is the institution’s educational responsibility? Clearly, most business employers would prefer to hire candidates who demonstrate moderate skills across a wide range of sophisticated communication activities. Educators, on the other hand, recognize the need to limit the curriculum. With only 4 years to cover a seemingly infinite number of important business topics, choices must be made. A business school might specialize in a specific subset of industries, serve a unique regional economy, or cater to family-owned, multinational, or entrepreneurial business models. Furthermore, not all learners learn at the same rate or with the same effectiveness, leading to instructional choices as well. Educators might recognize and accept the gatekeeper role inherent in the assignment of grades, but that leaves open the question of how to define the gates. Does only the “A student” meet every expectation of every employer? Or should that be the minimal “D” outcome of a successful business curriculum?

Even with agreement on the scope of an entire curriculum, specializations and differentiation might arise. Our respondents were adamant that new employees should be able to effectively participate in meetings, clearly request information, and engage in productive day-to-day communication about their work. They seemed less concerned with a new hire’s ability to facilitate a meeting. Even so, some employers might highly value meeting facilitation skills and choose to use them as the differentiating factor between two strong candidates. Are we collectively responsible for ensuring that our graduates have that differentiating edge, or merely that they know what steps they might take to develop specific marketable skills?

Finally, respondents expected new employees to demonstrate behaviors that required relatively little organizational knowledge, with fewer than half asking for moderate abilities where knowledge of company politics, relationships, or history would be required. Career success would ultimately require rhetorical competence to engage in the strategic communication tasks intrinsic to management or leadership positions, but this leaves open the question of how students are best prepared to reach those levels. Should we teach communication strategies as tools? Teaching students how to perform audience analysis or general rules of media choice, for instance, might provide decision rules applicable across any organizational context. Or, can we anticipate that students with good attention behaviors and interpersonal skills will be able to develop rhetorical competence as the result of organizational experience, maturity, and implicit socialization? Furthermore, are we concerned with ultimate career success at all, or simply with preparing students to perform well in their first positions?

A college’s own mission and strategic positioning should help its faculty make these decisions, as will an accurate appraisal of a student body’s general preparation and capability, availability of resources, and the regional labor market. Still, they remain important and often difficult decisions. We recognize, also, that specific expectations might differ across majors, industries, or regions, leading to complications within that initial step of defining the college’s curricular and instructional mission. In short, knowing what employers expect seems to be just the first stage of an extended discussion.

Instructional Philosophy and Practice

Despite the ease with which respondents seemed to differentiate communication activities in terms of distinct contexts, goals, and subtasks, patterns in the subtasks seemed ripe for deriving general principles or abstracting common skills that might be applied across multiple contexts. Although considerable research has demonstrated the pedagogical disadvantages of decontextualized skill development (Aakhus, 1998;Ford & Wolvin, 1993), the necessarily linear organization of a university curriculum seems to call for just such a translation. A similar pattern of preparatory steps emerged with virtually every interviewee mentioningselection of appropriate communication technologyandplanning the message contentas steps that would be required for successful completion of any communication activity. A curriculum designer might thus identify choosing appropriate communication technology as a legitimate learning goal for all majors. A new employee’s effectiveness remains embedded within specific situations, however, and attempts to measure the outcome lead to a fundamental conundrum of communication education. Even though we might be able to discern general strategies or principles to choose an action, evaluations of the action’s appropriateness, responsiveness, or competence remain entirely dependent on the specific circumstances of the rhetorical situation (Cupach & Spitzberg, 1983).

Similarly, employers namedcommand of the chosen technologyas essential across virtually all activities. The traditional business curriculum has focused on technical proficiency with specific communication genre or technologies, but regardless of ongoing efforts to define, adjust, and update the curriculum, the notion of command remains a fully contextualized criterion. Our interviews uncovered several common expectations, such as the need to check spelling and grammar when sending an email or the need to introduce oneself completely when entering a video conference. The respondents described these actions, however, as steps taken within the competent completion of the task rather than as evidence of expertise. For example, interviewees described the failure to check spelling as an issue of laziness, poor time management, or, most often, disrespect but never in terms of cognitive ability or educational preparation.

For educators, this raises an intriguing point about learning as a process that involves encoding, storing, and timely retrieval of new knowledge (J. R. Anderson, 2000;Wilson, Goodman, & Cronin, 2007). A student might demonstrate mastery of a genre or technology within the classroom but fail to retrieve or apply that knowledge later. Authentic command of a technology might depend less on technical skill than on an ability to accurately recognize and appropriately respond to environmental prompts to express that skill. The explicit academic encoding of abstracted, general principles seems problematically at odds with highly contextualized and largely implicit retrieval cues of the professional workplace.

Business Communication Curriculum

The authors’ next step involved baseline assessments to determine where our students might need additional or revised communication instruction to meet our educational mission. We recognize that regardless of an institution’s mission and educational philosophy, any business communication curriculum necessarily reflects contemporary professional practices. These results point toward a fundamental mismatch between the traditional curriculum of communication modes (e.g., written, oral, presentational, mediated), genre (e.g., requests, apologies, proposals), or format (e.g., agendas, résumés, emails) against professionals’ differentiation among typically performed activities. Furthermore, a review of the universally desired subtasks reported inAppendix Csuggests the primacy ofchoosingthe appropriate mode, genre, and format as a foundational skill, rather than technical skill in any specific communication form.

Respondents agreed, for instance, that meeting participation included a consistent set of communication subtasks to perform, but recognized the full range of mode, genre, or formats that could be used to do so. They described the important meeting action aschoosingthe modes, genre, and formats appropriate for the meeting function, goal, participants, and context. A novice might reasonably be given assistance in using the proper mode or document but nevertheless be expected to recognize what a situation calls for and proactively seek assistance as needed to perform effectively.

Rather than naming explicit outcomes or processes, respondents described expectations in terms of behaviors that would allow new employees to learn to accomplish communication tasks. The effective communicator must “pay attention” and “participate” as fully as possible, acting “autonomously” to use whatever is learned and proactively determine others’ communication “preferences.” An individual must “get acquainted” or “develop relationships” and “build rapport” so that better choices can be made, a “personal reputation” built, and a “confident, clear, professional manner” developed. Even descriptions of concrete, technical skills specified situational choices. The respondents defined clear requests for information, for instance, in terms of “sufficient context” and measured them in terms of gaining an “effective response.” Even descriptions of the universally desired ability to use “correct format, language, and data tools” referenced no objective standards or tools but instead related the communicator’s functional purpose “to create a clear and professional message.”

These professionals’ action-oriented and contextually bound understanding of communication activities leads us to conclude that an effective contemporary business curriculum should approach communication curriculum as an integrated preparation for communication tasks. Specific learning goals will vary with an institution’s mission, student body, and regional economy, but relevant professional communication development involves attention to interpersonal communication, broadly variable retrieval cues, and highly contextualized, integrated performance of content transformations.

Interpersonal Communication

Despite strong evidence of the importance of interpersonal communication in the workplace (Hynes, 2012;Robles, 2012), the extensive research on interpersonal skills lacks “clear definitions of these skills, their interrelationships, and their relevance to communication” (DeKay, 2012p. 449). Business communication textbooks typically include a section on interpersonal communication skills, sometimes referring to them as “professionalism” or “etiquette” (Guffey & Loewy, 2018), and one small survey of vendor offerings suggests that interpersonal communication warrants the preponderance of corporate training resources (DeKay, 2012). Nevertheless, instructional materials and methods remain scarce, and the assessment of interpersonal communication skills seems inextricably tied to the context, as well as participants’ “character traits, attitudes, and behaviors” (Robles, 2012, p. 457).

Many business colleges have begun to approach these complex skills with programs to instill professionalism as a broad mix of emotional intelligence, organizational savvy, rhetorical competence, ethical values, and communication behaviors (Hillyer, 2013;University of South Alabama Mitchell College of Business, n.d.;University of Texas at San Antonio College of Business, n.d.), but while positive results seem to warrant continued investment of resources, evidence consists largely of holistic employer response. One study of corporate training found limited formal assessment, but an anecdotal philosophy that most learning came during posttraining practice and supervisor coaching (Hynes, 2012). An inherently contextual learning mode (i.e., socialization) might characterize the general development of interpersonal communication skills, although modeling of professional behaviors has been shown to enhance skills in the classroom (Sigmar, Hynes, & Hill, 2012), in mentoring relationships (Hartenian, 2003), and through internships (Green, Graybeal, & Madison, 2011).

We might recognize the special importance of a few key interpersonal communication skills in a scan ofAppendix C. Proactively beginning conversations, for instance, or giving cues of confidence or comfort might be skills to highlight or systematically reinforce. Certainly, these skills currently earn leadership roles within the college, internship offers, and reference letters from the faculty, but they are not systematically identified, defined, or taught across a typical business curriculum. As with any instructional goal, a contemporary business curriculum should include specific, formative feedback as students learn and practice relevant skills in interpersonal communication.

Retrieval Cues

As the authors began this project, we anticipated an updating of our instructional vocabulary, enhancing the relevance and transferability of course materials and assignments. We did learn a few trendy terms, but the more important lesson might be the professionals’ lack of specific terminology for important communication activities. The perceived communication competence of new business graduates seems to depend a great deal on their ability to recognize when a supervisor or colleague expects them to demonstrate a specific skill without receiving an explicit prompt to do so. For example, our respondents never mentioned giving presentations as a typical entry-level activity, but their descriptions of meetings, conversations, and networking events included numerous associated skills. The student who has mastered the clear organization, rapport-building nonverbal cues, and fluently confident delivery required in a class presentation might nevertheless fail to display those same skills, not recognizing that being asked during a meeting to “mention anything that came up last week” or “explain your idea to us” amounts to a request for assertive, confident, clear delivery of well-organized content. Similarly, new graduates might fail to recognize a request to “make a few notes for your meeting with Mr. Executive” as a request for a meeting agenda with detailed, persuasive talking points, because those document elements had been learned as part of a classroom assignment to prepare a brief.

Some research supports this hypothesis.Brink and Costigan (2015), for example, noted the professional value of seemingly irrelevant public speaking assignments, and despiteRussell’s (1995)cogent argument against decontextualized and generalized writing instruction, students do seem to benefit. One explanation posits an implicit learning transfer; the sheer complexity of communication makes defining and assessing specific component skills problematic (R. A. Clark, 2002), but students nevertheless develop fluency in skills that are utilized within classroom assignments. However, those fluent behaviors can only be demonstrated when the new employee recognizes that they are appropriately used in the new context. We conclude, therefore, that we might be teaching the right skills, but that we must provide students better instruction concerning the varied contexts in which employers expect them to use those skills.

Content Transformation

The value of contextualized instruction within a specific discourse community has been especially well-documented in written communication pedagogy (Fishman, Lunsford, McGregor, & Otuteye, 2005;Johnstone et al., 2002;Paré, 1993;Russell, 1995;Spilka, 1990,1993), and more recently with respect to oral communication (Dannels, 2001,2002,2005;Darling, 2005;Garside, 2002). Even so, instructional recommendations have not questioned the traditional pedagogical divisions. Writing and presenting (presumably also discussing, meeting, and web conferencing) might be best learned within a specific discourse community, but each remains a separate academic topic. Given the highly integrated performances described by our respondents, we might suspect that contextualization should also address the fully integrated nature of professional communication.

Several of the activity descriptions shown inAppendix Aclearly indicate multiple communication modes or genres. Social conversations, formal meetings, and active listening typically occur as part of company-wide events, and some interviewees mentioned self-introductions, “job talks,” and PowerPoint presentations as well. Effective meeting participation similarly calls for the effective use of oral, mediated, and electronic formats. When considering the subtask sequences described inAppendix B, however, the story grows more complicated. Effectively performing the entire activity requires more than simply utilizing multiple platforms at different times. The workers’ role involves an integration in the sense oftransformingortranslatingmeaning across stages of a complex communication activity.

The effectiveness of a meeting participant’s notes, for instance, derives from their utility when updating peers back at the office. A word-for-word transcription of everything heard at the meeting would be no more useful than an audio recording. For professionals,effectiveparticipation in the meeting involves selecting and synthesizing information through the lens of a specific organizational role or function. Even the seemingly simple activity of responding to a request for information involves a transformation of work records or data into message content that meets the requestor’s goals, including unasked questions or potential future needs. Then the employee can begin to determine the most appropriate format and style to meet those needs. Effective communication in the professional context requires audience analysis, content editing, genre conformity, and stylistic choices to support a fully integrated sequence of value-producing communicative actions.

Conclusions and Next Steps

The immediate outcome of this research involved changes to learning goals within the College of Business. The authors first requested and received permission to expand the curricular scope to include oral and visual as well as written forms of professional communication. Our results support a broadening of the business communication curriculum that has been apparent over the past two decades. Specialist courses might focus on specific modes or contexts, but the general business communication course has expanded from exclusive attention to written documents and formal presentations to include oral conversations, meetings, and interactive presentations (Bogert & Butt, 1996;Curtis, Winsor, & Stephens, 1995;Schullery & Gibson, 2001).

The authors then proposed communication learning goals to reflect the communication actions most frequently required of business undergraduates as they begin their careers. We recognize that every faculty must decide its own learning goals, educational philosophy, and curricular priorities, and career readiness need not be every university’s priority. Our own mission calls for professional readiness, and the authors’ current project involves baseline assessments of student capabilities in four communication tasks. Two of the three tasks identified by 100% of the preliminary respondents were proposed: (a) effectively participate in a face-to-face or mediated meeting and (b) clearly, appropriately request information or assistance, orally or in writing, within a business context. (The third task requested by 100% of the respondents, task-related conversation, reflects an interpersonal communication goal of the university’s liberal arts core curriculum and was thus determined to be outside the scope of the business curriculum.) A third proposed goal, accurately summarize written, oral, or graphic information, both orally and in writing, appears as a subtask of providing information to others, desired by 94.7% of respondents. Summarizing information also appears within subtasks associated with meeting participation and had previously been identified as a problematic writing skill by recruiters and advisory boards of the college. A fourth proposed goal, justify or explain a position or claim, orally or in writing, reflects long-standing academic learning goals in both writing and critical thinking. This research did not corroborate the skill as an employer expectation, but further research within the larger Targeted Skill Gap Analysis was deemed necessary before abandoning the goal.

Two highly desirable tasks, attending company-wide events and communicating recognition, were deemed too context bound for curricular instruction and were referred to the college’s Professional Readiness Program as better suited than the academic curriculum for activity-based development. Finally, a fifth learning goal was discussed: competence with appropriate communication technology. The subtask appears in every communication activity, but specific technologies ranged across all communication modes and measures of both competence and appropriateness varied with the context. This success factor would appear to be better included as a rubric element on the specific assessment instruments used to measure each of the learning goals.

With baseline assessment data, the authors will finalize the college’s learning objectives and begin the ultimate project of locating gaps between employer expectations and their perceptions of graduates’ performance. Although these interview subjects provided preliminary insights to help establish learning priorities, the authors recognize a need for ongoing research: employers might report more—or less—concern with these specific tasks than anticipated, or a lack of meaningful gaps will direct us to redeploy our efforts toward more problematic instructional areas. In short, clearly defining learning objectives and assessing our ability to meet those objectives necessarily remains an ongoing project.

Regardless of the choices a business college might make in defining and assessing its own learning goals, the project offered insights into the nature of professional communication that hold both instructional implications and potential guidance for designing a more effective business communication curriculum. The desirability for greater attention to interpersonal communication, workplace retrieval skills, and transformative communication tasks suggests the most effective learning opportunities might lie outside the traditional business communication classroom.

Consider, for example, the degree to which students engage in interpersonal communication across their entire college experience. Some activities lie outside the curriculum entirely, although faculty acting as student club advisors or conversational partners during office hours might recognize those as important learning opportunities. Still, classroom opportunities abound. Class discussion, for instance, long advocated as a pedagogical tool (O’Connor, 2013), requires students to engage in confident oral communication, respond appropriately to implicit cues and expectations, and integrate course readings, homework assignments, lecture materials, and personal experience into the coherent expression of an idea. Yet, most faculty do not conduct discussions as a means of developing professional meeting or task-related conversation skills, nor do they structure the activity to foster the full range of professionally expected behaviors. A minority of students regularly engage in class discussions (Weaver & Qi, 2005), but even when cold calling or participation points enforce participation, students typically receive no instruction, feedback, or assessment on the professionally relevant skills. Instead, faculty inadvertently reward students for professionally dysfunctional behaviors (Barnes, 1983;Weimer, 1987).

Similarly, students give and respond to communication cues daily, working within the social environments of class activities, project teams, and interactive presentations. Our results reiterate the importance of including retrieval cues as an integral part of the learning process (J. R. Anderson, 2000) and highlight the degree to which students could benefit from instructional materials and methods that include explicit guidance regarding the professional applications, terminology, and contextual cues that might trigger their use in the business setting. Courses in organizational management and organizational behavior typically include theoretical treatments of communication, such as team practices or leadership, without attention to their applications. Simply adding instruction about the typical points at which these theoretical principles are expressed in communication activities could be useful, and instructional activities could be structured to develop familiarity with specific professional actions—such as preparing a meeting agenda or delivering a recognition message—during which professionals apply their theoretical knowledge.

Possibly the most intriguing insight from this project involved discussions of communication subtasks as a chain of information transformations. Employers understand communication as a value-adding activity, not merely the transmission of information from one party to another. An instrumental focus has been central to the traditional business communication curriculum, and while some have questioned the inattention to theoretical concerns (Cohen, Musson, & Tietze, 2005) or noted the political hazards of functioning as a service course (Graham & Thralls, 1998), the pragmatic focus on clear, appropriate message construction remains central. This is not to say we have not noted the value of integrated assignments. The value of attention to the multiple steps involved in effective communication practice has been previously demonstrated in terms of teamwork (Bolton, 1999;T. Clark, 1998;Dyrud, 2001;Schullery & Gibson, 2001;Vik, 2001;Williams & Anderson, 2008), discussion of presented material (Cyphert & Spencer, 2006;Dallimore, Hertenstein, & Platt, 2008), and contextualized writing instruction (Schneider & Andre, 2005;Yu, 2008). Instruction might be even more effective, however, with explicit attention to the points at which effective communicators must transform content at each step to make it appropriate for the next audience, purpose, or context.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix C

Subtask Behaviors Expected of Entry-Level Business Graduates.

		Activity supported	Percentage of total sample (N= 19)
100%	2D. Establish and maintain a personal and professional reputation by paying attention, staying on task, and participating as appropriate	Meeting participation	100.00
	2F. Establish and develop relationships by getting acquainted with participants, building rapport, and understanding others’ interests	Meeting participation	100.00
	2G. Take appropriate action after meeting; act autonomously to implement ideas, use information, and share meeting outcomes with team	Meeting participation	100.00
	7D. Establish and develop relationships, using the event to promote rapport and maintain personal reputation	Request information	100.00
	7E. Clearly ask for specific information or action, providing sufficient context to allow an effective response	Request information	100.00
	7F. Use technology appropriately, including correct format, language, and data tools to create a clear and professional message	Request information	100.00
	10A. Determine communication preferences, asking when and how others like to share ideas or collaborate	Task communication	100.00
	10C. Use a professionally appropriate format and style with a confident, clear, professional manner	Task communication	100.00
>80%	2A. Prepare for the event by reviewing work content, meeting goals, or personal responsibilities to prepare input or questions	Meeting participation	94.74
	2B. Appropriately use basic communication technology such as conference calls, net-meeting software, presentation technology, and note-taking tools	Meeting participation	94.74
	2C. Actively participate by giving input in area of responsibility, providing previously prepared information, or clarifying information for later application or action	Meeting participation	94.74
	2E. Contribute relevant material by playing a functional role, reporting on job or team status, presenting data, or offering insights	Meeting participation	94.74
	6C. Prepare content, understanding goals, creating complete content, and providing context for clarity and to meet information needs	Provide information	94.74
	6D. Summarize content, clearly and concisely: Appropriate context, detail, organized and formatted to allow easy use	Provide information	94.74
	6E. Establish and develop relationships and reputation by building rapport and credibility	Provide information	94.74
	6F. Use technology appropriately, proofreading, formatting, and transmitting efficiently	Provide information	94.74
	7B. Select appropriate format and technology, considering the type of information, complexity, and user preferences to ensure efficiency	Request information	94.74
	7C. Specify or negotiate response time, format, and content, showing respect for others’ time while meeting information needs	Request information	94.74
	10B. Plan and schedule communication, proactively establishing and maintaining regular channels of communication	Task communication	94.74
	10A. Determine communication preferences, asking when and how others like to share ideas or collaborate	Task communication	94.74
	1A. Prepare for the event, understanding his/her personal and functional role	Attend events	89.47
	1B. Engage in professionally relevant activities, staying professional throughout the event	Attend events	89.47
	6A. Determine technology preferences, information needs, and appropriate format and style of the response	Provide information	89.47
	6B. Specify or negotiate response time, format, and content of the response	Provide information	89.47
	1E. Establish and develop relationships by networking and building rapport	Attend events	84.21
	1C. Establish a professional reputation by appearing as a teachable, supportive, trustworthy member of the organization	Attend events	84.21
	1G. Take appropriate action after meeting by applying or sharing new ideas, applications, or insights	Attend events	84.21
	5A. Prepare for event: Identify issues, define goals, determine current situation, metrics, stakeholder positions	Resolve a personal issue	84.21
	5C. Engage in productive problem-solving by maintaining a constructive tone and taking responsibility for solutions	Resolve a personal issue	84.21
	5D. Document results, agreements, and responsibilities for action	Resolve a personal issue	84.21
	7A. Determine information needs and appropriate sources	Request information	84.21
	7B. Use technology appropriately; use format and language to establish rapport and sincerity	Communicate recognition	84.21
>50%	1D. Use expected technology such as conference call, social media, and presentation equipment	Attend events	78.95
	1F. Participate in the decision-making process, usually by observing learning, but with attention to postmeeting applications and implications of the topics under discussion	Attend events	78.95
	9A. Select appropriate format and technology, considering audience as well as organizational or legal requirements for appraisal messages	Communicate recognition	78.95
	9B. Determine content of recognition message; develop accurate, contextually appropriate description	Communicate recognition	78.95
	4A. Prepare documents, rehearse presentations, or work with team or supervisor to revise materials	Resolve a business problem	63.16
	4D. Appropriately use expected technology such as documents, report decks, presentation slides, or spreadsheets	Resolve a business problem	63.16
	4G. Project confidence and competence with a clear, professional demeanor, volume, and projection	Resolve a business problem	63.16
	4H. Contribute to collaborative documentation, adding notes, formal presentation, or data to a collaborative report or data files	Resolve a business problem	63.16
	5B. Select appropriate format, audience, and timing, determining who should be addressed, in what manner, and what should be disclosed	Resolve a personal issue	63.16
	8D. Establish and develop relationships, building rapport and credibility with attention to variations across levels of investment and hierarchy	Meet a goal	63.16
	8F. Listen and respond productively, accurately assessing, resolving, and responding to issues as they arise	Meet a goal	63.16
	8G. Use technology appropriately, demonstrating professionalism and proficiency in all media used	Meet a goal	63.16
	8H. Act on results of the conversation, engaging in documentation, follow-up, or action steps as dictated by the event	Meet a goal	63.16
	4E. Engage in productive problem-solving by identifying problems, looking for stakeholder positions, finding solutions, and seeking agreement	Resolve a business problem	57.89
	4I. Prepare and distribute meeting outcomes in accordance with confidentiality, formatting, retention requirements, and distribution protocols	Resolve a business problem	57.89
	8A. Select appropriate technology, considering audience preferences, goals, and content to select the most effective means	Meet a goal	57.89
	8E. Project confidence and competence, maintaining control of the conversation strategy while responding to others’ interests, information, and emotions	Meet a goal	57.89
	4A. Prepare content, determining issues to cover and prepare an agenda, game plan, or talking points	Resolve a business problem	52.63
	4F. Deliver a formal presentation of issues as a presentation, conference call, web presentation, or written summary of points	Resolve a business problem	52.63
	8B. Select appropriate content, assessing goals, situation, and audience to decide what to include or reveal	Meet a goal	52.63
	8C. Plan the conversation strategy, developing what-if scenarios, follow-up questions, and additional support or detail to be used in response to potential responses	Meet a goal	52.63
<50%	3A. Prepare the meeting agenda, by determining the purpose, goals, and content requirements of the meeting	Meeting coordination	47.37
	3C. Create the meeting by inviting attendees, reserving and setting up a room, publicizing the event, and handling event details	Meeting coordination	47.37
	3D. Administer technology, knowing what is available or needed, setting up the room, and ensuring the meeting runs smoothly	Meeting coordination	47.37
	3E. Facilitate the meeting, offering discussion questions, taking notes, and ensuring the agenda is covered	Meeting coordination	47.37
	4B. Select appropriate format, participants, and venue to accomplish the goal	Resolve a business problem	36.84
	3B. Determine who needs to attend, locating expertise, stakeholders, or team participants needed to meet goals	Meeting coordination	31.58

Authors’ Note

These results were presented at the 82nd annual meeting of the Association for Business Communication, Dublin, Ireland, October 2017. First-phase results appeared in L. A. Whittle (Ed.),Proceedings of the 81st Annual Conference of the Association for Business Communication, Albuquerque, NM, 2016. Other preliminary work was presented at the 80th annual meeting of the Association for Business Communication, Seattle, WA, October 2015. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Northern Iowa.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research has received financial support from the C. R. Anderson Research Fund, an affiliate of the Association for Business Communication.

Author Biographies

Dale Cyphertis an associate professor in the Management Department at the University of Northern Iowa and director of the MBA program. She works closely with the undergraduate Professional Readiness Program to provide business communication resources and assessment.

Corrine Holke-Farnamis an instructor of writing in the Languages and Literatures Department at the University of Northern Iowa. She also serves as a Writing Coach for the College of Business Administration at the University of Northern Iowa.

Elena N. Dodgeis the assessment specialist for the College of Business Administration at the University of Northern Iowa, administering assessment of student learning for curriculum management at graduate and undergraduate levels. She researches academic engagement and learning of students of diverse cultural backgrounds.

W. Eric Leeis an associate professor of accounting and accounting alumni faculty fellow in the Accounting Department at the University of Northern Iowa. He teaches managerial and cost accounting, and his main research interests are in sustainability accounting, fintech, and accounting pedagogy. He is a licensed CPA, CGMA, and CFE.

Sarah Rosolis an instructor in the Management Department at the University of Northern Iowa. She teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in organizational management, project management, and human resources and coordinates the capstone experience in the MBA program.

References

Aakhus

(1998).We just manage the process not the content: Normative obligations and communication facts in practical theories of facilitating communication.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association,Chicago, IL.

Anderson

J. R.

(2000).Learning and memory: An integrated approach(2nd ed.).New York, NY:Wiley.

Anderson

P. V.

(1985).What survey research tells us about writing at work. In Odell

Goswami

(Eds.),Writing in nonacademic settings(pp.3-83).New York, NY:Guilford Press.

Barnes

C. P.

(1983).Questioning in college classrooms. In Ellner

C. L.

Barnes

C. P.

(Eds.),Studies of college teaching(pp.61-81).Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.

Beaufort

(1999).Writing in the real world: Making the transition from school to work.New York, NY:Teachers College Press.

Bogert

Butt

(1996).Communication instruction in MBA programs: A survey of syllabi.Business Communication Quarterly,59(2),20-44.

Bolton

M. K.

(1999).The role of coaching in student teams: A “just-in-time” approach to learning.Journal of Management Education,23,233-250.

Brink

K. E.

Costigan

R. D.

(2015).Oral communication skills: Are the priorities of the workplace and AACSB-accredited business programs aligned? Academy of Management Learning & Education,14,205-221.

Canavor

Meirowitz

(2005).Good corporate writing: Why it matters, and what to do.Communication World,22,30-33.

10.

Clampitt

P. G.

(2012).Communicating for managerial effectiveness: Problems | strategies | solutions(5th ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

11.

Clark

R. A.

(2002).Learning outcomes: The bottom line.Communication Education,51,396-404.

12.

Clark

(1998).Teaching students to enhance the ecology of small group meetings.Business Communication Quarterly,61(4),40-52.

13.

Cohen

Musson

Tietze

(2005).Teaching communication to business and management students: A view from the United Kingdom.Management Communication Quarterly,19,279-287.

14.

Conrad

Newberry

(2011a).Identification and instruction of important business communication skills for graduate business education.Journal of Education for Business,87,112-120.

15.

Conrad

Newberry

(2011b).24 business communication skills: Attitudes of human resource managers versus business educators.American Communication Journal,13(1),4-23.

16.

Cupach

W. R.

Spitzberg

B. H.

(1983).Trait versus state: A comparison of dispositional and situational measures of interpersonal communication competence.Western Journal of Speech Communication,47,364-379.

17.

Curtis

D. B.

Winsor

J. L.

Stephens

R. D.

(1995,April).National preferences in business and communication education, II.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association,Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved fromhttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED390085

18.

Cyphert

(1993).A comparison of communication skill requirements in the workplace with current business communication textbooks.Paper presented at the Western States Communication Association Annual Convention,Albuquerque, NM.

19.

Cyphert

(2007).Presentation technology in the age of electronic eloquence: From visual aid to visual rhetoric.Communication Education,56,168-192.

20.

Cyphert

Dodge

E. N.

Holke-Farnam

Hillyer

Iyer

Lee

W. E.

Rosol

(2016).Defining employer expectations: Communication activities, behaviors, and events in the 21st century business environment. In Whittle

L. A.

(Ed.),Proceedings of the 81st Annual Conference of the Association for Business Communication.Blacksburg, VA:Association for Business Communication. Retrieved fromhttps://www.businesscommunication.org/page/2016-annual-proceedings

21.

Cyphert

Lyle

S. P.

(2017).Employer expectations of information literacy: Identifying the skills gap. In D’Angelo

B. J.

Jamieson

Maid

B. M.

Walker

J. R.

(Eds.),Information literacy: Research and collaboration across disciplines(pp.51-76).Denver:Colorado University Press.

22.

Cyphert

Spencer

M. S.

(2006,November).Unlearning presentation skills: The “team presentation”in quality circles.Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association,San Antonio, TX.

23.

Cyphert

Wurtz

M. S.

(2009).Assessing communication skill in a business context: Negotiating the contradictions of education, training, and management. In Snyder

L. G.

(Ed.),Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication.Blacksburg, VA:Association for Business Communication. Retrieved fromhttps://www.businesscommunication.org/page/2009annual-proceedings

24.

Daft

R. L.

(2012).Management(10th ed.).Mason, OH:South-Western.

25.

Daft

R. L.

Marcic

(2004).Understanding management(4th ed.).Columbus, OH:South-Western.

26.

Dallimore

E. J.

Hertenstein

J. H.

Platt

M. B.

(2008).Using discussion pedagogy to enhance oral and written communication skills.College Teaching,56,163-172.

27.

Dannels

D. P.

(2001).Time to speak up: A theoretical framework of situated pedagogy and practice for communication across the curriculum.Communication Education,50,144-158.

28.

Dannels

(2002).Communication across the curriculum and in the disciplines: Speaking in engineering.Communication Education,51,254-268.

29.

Dannels

D. P.

(2005).Performing tribal rituals: A genre analysis of “crits” in design studios.Communication Education,54,136-160.

30.

Darling

A. L.

(2005).Public presentations in mechanical engineering and the discourse of technology.Communication Education,54,20-33.

31.

Davies

Birbili

(2000).What do people need to know about writing in order to do their jobs? British Journal of Educational Studies,48,429-445.

32.

DeKay

S. H.

(2012).Interpersonal communication in the workplace: A largely unexplored region.Business Communication Quarterly,75,449-452.

33.

DiSalvo

V. S.

(1980).A summary of current research identifying communication skills in various organizational contexts.Communication Education,29,283-290.

34.

Dyrud

M. A.

(2001).Group projects and peer review.Business Communication Quarterly,64,106-112.

35.

Fabris

(2015,January 20).College students think they’re ready for the work force. Employers aren’t so sure.The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved fromhttp://chronicle.com/article/College-Students-Think/151289/

36.

Fishman

Lunsford

McGregor

Otuteye

(2005).Performing writing, performing literacy.College Composition and Communication,57,224-252.

37.

Ford

W. S. Z.

Wolvin

A. D.

(1993).The differential impact of a basic communication course on perceived communication competencies in class, work, and social contexts.Communication Education,42,215-223.

38.

Garside

(2002).Seeing the forest through the trees: A challenge facing communication across the curriculum programs.Communication Education,51,51-64.

39.

Graham

M. B.

Thralls

(1998).Connections and fissures: Discipline formation in business communication.Journal of Business Communication,35,7-13.

40.

Green

B. P.

Graybeal

Madison

R. L.

(2011).An exploratory study of the effect of professional internships on students’ perception of the importance of employment traits.Journal of Education for Business,86,100-110.

41.

Guffey

M. E.

Loewy

(2018).Business communication: Process & product(9th ed.).Boston, MA:Cengage.

42.

Hanna

M. S.

(1978).Speech communication training needs in the business community.Central States Speech Journal,29,163-172.

43.

Harris

T. E.

Thomlison

T. D.

(1983).Career-bound communication education: A needs analysis.Central States Speech Journal,34,260-267.

44.

Hartenian

L. S.

(2003).Team member acquisition of team knowledge, skills, and abilities.Team Performance Management,9,23-30.

45.

Haswell

R. E.

(2008).Teaching of writing in higher education. In Bazerman

(Ed.),Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text(pp.331-346).New York, NY:Erlbaum.

46.

Henry

(2000).Writing workplace cultures: An archeology of professional writing.Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press.

47.

Hillyer

(2013).Professional readiness program. Retrieved fromhttps://business.uni.edu/undergraduate/professional-readiness-program

48.

Holter

N. C.

Kopka

D. J.

(2001).Developing a workplace skills course: Lessons learned.Journal of Education for Business,76,138-143.

49.

Hynes

G. E.

(2012).Improving employees’ interpersonal communication competencies: A qualitative study.Business Communication Quarterly,75,466-475.

50.

Jameson

D. A.

(2007).Literacy in decline: Untangling the evidence.Business Communication Quarterly,70,16-33.

51.

Johnstone

K. M.

Ashbaugh

Warfield

T. D.

(2002).Effects of repeated practice and contextual-writing experiences on college students’ writing skills.Journal of Educational Psychology,94,305-315.

52.

Kretovics

M. A.

McCambridge

J. A.

(1998).Determining what employers really want: Conducting regional stakeholder focus groups.Journal of Career Planning and Employment,58,25-27, 30.

53.

Manning

Meyer

Verma

(2012).University of Northern Iowa targeted skill gap analysis. (MBA Capstone Report),University of Northern Iowa,Cedar Falls.

54.

Middleton

(2011,March 3).Students struggle for words: Business schools put more emphasis on writing amid employer complaints.Wall Street Journal, p.B8.

55.

Morreale

Rubin

R. B.

Jones

(1998).Speaking and listening competencies for college students: Expected student outcomes for speaking and listening: Basic communication course and general education [and] expectations for speaking and listening for college graduates: Basic and advanced skills. Retrieved fromhttps://www.natcom.org/sites/default/files/pages/Assessment_Resources_Speaking_and_Listening_Competencies_for_College_Students.pdf

56.

Neher

Heidewald

(2015).Business curriculum practices survey 2015: Placing skills and curriculum in context.Paper presented at the 80th annual meeting of the Association for Business Communication,Seattle, WA.

57.

Northey

(1990).The need for writing skill in accounting firms.Management Communication Quarterly,3,474-495.

58.

O’Connor

K. J.

(2013).Class participation: Promoting in-class student engagement.Education,133,340-344.

59.

Odell

(1980).Business writing: Observations and implications for teaching composition.Theory into Practice,19,225-232.

60.

Odell

Goswami

(Eds.). (1985).Writing in nonacademic settings.New York, NY:Guildford.

61.

Parasuraman

Zeithaml

V. A.

Berry

L. L.

(1985).A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research.Journal of Marketing,49(4),41-50.

62.

Parasuraman

Zeithaml

V. A.

Berry

L. L.

(1988).SERVQUAL: A multi-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality.Journal of Retailing,64(1),12-40.

63.

Paré

(1993).Discourse regulations and the production of knowledge. In Spilka

(Ed.),Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives(pp.111-123).Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press.

64.

Petraglia

(1995).Writing as an unnatural act. In Petraglia

(Ed.),Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction(pp.79-100).Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

65.

Rappaport

Cawelti

G. S.

(1993).Using peer review to improve the writing of case analyses: Requirements and experience.Journal of Management Education,17,485-497.

66.

Reinsch

N. L.

Jr. Gardner

J. A.

(2011).Do good communicators get promoted? Maybe not!In Snyder

L. G.

(Ed.),Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication.Blacksburg, VA:Association for Business Communication. Retrieved fromhttps://www.businesscommunication.org/page/2011annual-proceedings

67.

Robles

M. M.

(2012).Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace.Business Communication Quarterly,75,453-465.

68.

Russ

T. L.

(2016).The status of the business communication course at U.S. colleges and universities.Business Communication Quarterly,72,395-413.

69.

Russell

D. R.

(1991).Writing in the academic disciplines, 1870-1990: A curricular history.Carbondale:Southern Illinois Press.

70.

Russell

D. R.

(1992).American origins of the writing-across-the-curriculum movement. In Herrington

Moran

(Eds.),Writing, teaching, and learning in the disciplines(pp.22-42).New York, NY:Modern Language Association.

71.

Russell

D. R.

(1995).Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In Petraglia

(Ed.),Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction(pp.51-78).Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

72.

Schermerhorn

J. R.

Jr. (2013).Management(12th ed.).Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.

73.

Schneider

Andre

J.-A.

(2005).University preparation for workplace writing: An exploratory study of the perceptions of students in three disciplines.Journal of Business Communication,42,195-218.

74.

Schullery

N. M.

Gibson

M. K.

(2001).Working in groups: Identification and treatment of students’ perceived weaknesses.Business Communication Quarterly,64(2),9-30.

75.

Sigmar

L. S.

Hynes

G. E.

Hill

K. L.

(2012).Strategies for teaching social and emotional intelligence in business communication.Business Communication Quarterly,75,301-317.

76.

Smith

(2011,March/April).The literate business student.BizEd,42-48.

77.

Spilka

(1990).Orality and literacy in the workplace: Process- and text-based strategies for multiple-audience adaptation.Journal of Business and Technical Communication,4(1),44-67.

78.

Spilka

(Ed.). (1993).Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives.Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press.

79.

Stevens

(2005).What communication skills do employers want? Silicon Valley recruiters respond.Journal of Employment Counseling,42,2-9.

80.

Tanyel

Mitchell

M. A.

McAlum

H. G.

(1999).The skill set for success of new business school graduates: Do prospective employers and university faculty agree? Journal of Education for Business,75,33-37.

81.

Tracey

W. R.

(1992).Designing training and development systems(3rd ed.).New York, NY:American Management Association.

82.

University of South Alabama Mitchell College of Business. (n.d.).Professional Readiness Engagement Program—PREP. Retrieved fromhttps://www.southalabama.edu/colleges/mcob/prep/

83.

University of Texas at San Antonio College of Business. (n.d.).Center for Student Professional Development. Retrieved fromhttps://business.utsa.edu/cspd/

84.

Vik

G. N.

(2001).Doing more to teach teamwork than telling students to sink or swim.Business Communication Quarterly,64(4),112-119.

85.

Wardrope

W. J.

(2001).“Challenge” is a positive word: Embracing the interdisciplinary nature of business communication.Journal of Business Communication,38,242-247.

86.

Weaver

(2005).Classroom organization and participation: College students’ perceptions.Journal of Higher Education,76,570-601.

87.

Weimer

M. G.

(1987,September).Professors and the participation blues: Could this be your classroom? The Teaching Professor,1.

88.

Williams

S. K.

Anderson

J. S.

(2008).Teams lab: Promoting effective teamwork in operations management classes.Decision Sciences,6,159-166.

89.

Wilson

J. M.

Goodman

P. S.

Cronin

M. A.

(2007).Group learning.Academy of Management Review,32,1041-1059.

90.

Wise

(2005).The importance of writing skills.Public Relations Quarterly,50(2),37-48.

91.

(2008).Contextualize technical writing assessment to better prepare students for workplace writing: Student-centered assessment instruments.Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,38,265-284.