Nonverbal Communication and Writing Deficiencies of Graduates: Research by Undergraduates for Undergraduates

Abstract

Effective organizational socialization demands soft skill competence. This article advances two goals: (a) explore the inclusion of undergraduate researchers in the scholarship of teaching and learning research and (b) present research findings on employer perceptions of new college graduates’ communication skills. The research team used a rules approach to explore employer perceptions of nonverbal communication skills for new college graduates, such as commonly violated rules. Four key findings relating to rule violations in unspoken communication include displaying a lack of interest, inappropriate attire, body art, and writing deficiencies. Suggestions are offered for including undergraduates in this kind of research.

Keywords

communication skills undergraduate pedagogy organizational socialization communication rules SoTL research

The university employing the lead author (henceforth, “the professor”) encourages undergraduate research involvement. In response to this university-wide imperative, the school director created opportunities for faculty to propose research projects that could be completed with the help of an undergraduate team. Interested faculty submitted research proposals detailing a research topic with which undergraduates could assist, and the director selected projects that the school would sponsor as a one-semester, three-credit independent study for students. The faculty member leading the independent study could count the student research team as one three-credit course. The professor was housed in a communication department, making the study of soft skills a natural fit for the curriculum. The instructor chose the topic and the theoretical grounding with an interest in giving students practical research skills while preparing them for effective communication in their future careers.

The project applied a scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) approach in which research is used to affect the classroom.Potter and Kustra (2011)stated that SoTL research should create “products that are publicly shared for critique and use by an appropriate community” (p. 2). The present study involved a two-pronged approach to conducting SoTL research. First, the project was designed to discover appropriate content to embed in the curriculum. Second, the professor engaged undergraduates in the SoTL research process, thereby entrenching them in the topic of the research. The closest parallel to the present study wasCoffelt et al.’s (2016)qualitative study of employer perceptions. In their study, undergraduates in business communication courses emailed employers in their desired profession to ask about the “type, frequency, and manner of communication” that interns and new hires regularly use (Coffelt et al., 2016, p. 306). Employers then emailed their responses. The researchers took the data collected by students and performed content analysis, finding that oral and electronic communication skills were most commonly mentioned.

The study described herein was completed by a research team composed of a professor and seven undergraduate students. The project was treated much like a traditional course, with clear expectations for regular face-to-face meetings and an online component. The course had a syllabus describing the learning objectives, outlining the curriculum for the semester, and providing the evaluation rubric. Fifty percent of the grade was derived from participation (e.g., attending meetings, identifying and contacting interviewees, completing interviews) and 50% was based on transcriptions (guidelines for transcriptions were provided). Students submitted recorded interviews and transcriptions to the professor to ensure accuracy.

While the research project explored both verbal and nonverbal communication, this article focuses on unspoken (i.e., nonverbal and written) communication. Like inCoffelt et al.’s (2016)study, undergraduates collected the data. Overall, however, student involvement in this study was more comprehensive. Undergraduates helped shape the interview guide, completed all interviews, and even proposed an innovative method of sharing the findings with future students: the creation of a video to place on YouTube. Students also had the option of enrolling in a second independent study to help with data analysis. All team members who collected data became coauthors.

This project served several diverse purposes simultaneously. First, it created a high-impact educational experience for students.Rodrick and Dickmeyer (2002)have asserted that “the undergraduate research experience facilitates learning and thinking in ways that are difficult to achieve in classroom situations” (p. 42). This type of project took students out of the classroom to study a topic that related to them directly. Second, it involved teaching and applying research skills in the form of qualitative interviewing. This study also contributes to the literature on employer perceptions of communication skills. We begin by considering communication skills sought by employers, followed by academic literature on communication rules and organizational socialization. Next, the methods and findings are described. We conclude by examining theoretical and pedagogical contributions of the study, offering tips for future research team leaders, and exploring the limitations and future directions for research.

Literature Review

Background

Research consistently finds that employers value soft skills (Jones et al., 2016;Pierce, 2018;Suvedi et al., 2016).Engelkemeyer’s (2012)opinion piece proposed that universities that are successful in placing large numbers of their graduates in full-time employment must “center around providing job-friendly skills and experiences that employers value” (p. 21). Hence, universities and colleges are often viewed as a solution to preparing young adults for entering the workforce.

Aligning curricula with employers’ needs requires first identifying those needs. Scholars have sought to identify skills that employers seek.Robles (2012)noted 10 top soft skills valued by employers: integrity, communication, courtesy, responsibility, social skills, a positive attitude, professionalism, flexibility, teamwork, and work ethic. Likewise,Ortiz et al. (2016)claimed that the skills employees use most often, yet need the most improvement in, are grammar, team communication, the ability to engage in conversation, meeting participation, and the ability to speak well on the phone. Last,Clokie and Fourie’s (2016)survey revealed that employers prioritize interpersonal communication skills first, followed by oral communication and written communication skills. These studies provide insight into the kinds of communication skills commonly noted by employers.

Rules and Organizational Culture

Schall (1983)definedcommunication rulesas “tacit understandings (generally written and unspoken) about appropriate ways to interact (communicate) with others in given roles and situations” (p. 560). Communication rules “are bothapplied andimplied in every organizational utterance” (Jabs, 2005, p. 269). We would also argue that the rules are applied and implied through every nonverbal behavior in the workplace context—further complicating the new employee’s learning of organizational culture and expectations. In examining rules in an organizational context,Gilsdorf (1998)acknowledged the tacit nature of organizational communication rules, noting that employees often feel reluctant to ask about employer expectations. This creates a quandary for new organizational members seeking to successfully integrate into the organizational culture.

Carbaugh (1990)discussed two communication-centered types of rules: normative and code.Normative rulesrefer to those rules identifying “what’s done” or to patterns of behavior/common actions in which people typically engage. Nevertheless, simply examining the normative rules alone does not effectively reveal the communicative importance of the action. The second type of rule, thecode rule, involves the meaning behind the actions. Code rules explain the “why” guiding the behavior. Communication rules, then, provide a means of unravelling the system of meaning guiding patterned action.

Rules vary by intensity and crystallization (Shimanoff, 1980).Intensityrefers to the forcefulness of a rule. Some rules demonstrate greater salience than others (e.g., a rule violation regarding a relatively unimportant rule may not trigger any corrective action). In other words, if a new employee of an organization does not adhere to certain rules that are not deemed most important, they may go uninformed about their mistake. Similarly, Shimanoff recognized that rules vary bycrystallization, or the extent to which they are agreed on. These subtle, often unspoken communication rules within organizations can play a critical role in the organizational climate (Gilsdorf, 1998).

In studying organizational ethical codes,Stevens (2008)argued that the organizational codes work best when they support and reward employees who follow them and are also demonstrated by executives of the organization. When it comes to learning organizational communication rules, particularly those involving nonverbal and written communication (the focus of this study), those organizational members who adhere to tacit rules for nonverbal self-presentation may reap the greatest rewards. In a realm such as this, an employee cannot simply expect to mirror the behaviors of the executives for two reasons. First, rules governing appropriate nonverbal self-presentation probably vary between new college graduate employees and executives. Second, the employee may have very limited contact with executives. A context involving tacit rules and high stakes for appropriate adherence to them creates a need for a clear understanding of where new employees fall short.

Organizational Socialization

The study of organizational socialization has largely attended to uncertainty reduction theory and sensemaking, since these theoretical frameworks proffer insight into the learning process (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2005). AlthoughGilsdorf (1998)explored the role of communicative rules in organizational association, this approach has not received extensive attention from scholars. The study of rules offers important insights into employee socialization because the socialization process involves learning the ropes. Newcomer learning includes task, group, and organizational behaviors (Madlock & Chory, 2014). Organizational socialization entails learning the “values, goals,rules[italics added], politics, customs, leadership style, and language of the organization” (Haueter et al., 2003, p. 23). Finally, the theoretical perspective of organizational assimilation dovetails with the study of organizational rules, because the organization is a structure involving rules and resources that foster coordination and define competence (Scott & Myers, 2010). Achieving this competence is viewed as critical to organizations due to its correlation with greater employee engagement (Saks & Gruman, 2018), retention, and productivity (Kowtha, 2018;Saks et al., 2007).

Existing socialization research indicates that the present study is needed.Madlock and Chory (2014)called for future research to include qualitative studies that “provide a richer description and understanding of the communicative behaviors associated with organizational socialization” (p. 68).Ellis et al.’s (2017)evaluation of extant socialization research concluded that these studies have been mainly studied from the employee perspective, leaving much to learn about employer insights and perceptions of newcomer socialization. Finally, the SoTL approach builds on socialization research exploring the role of educational programs in socializing organizational newcomers through internships (Dailey, 2016) and professional socialization (Kowtha, 2018).

The tacit nature of normative and code rules, combined with the powerful need for employee socialization, prompts us to ask two research questions:

Research Question 1:Which nonverbal/unspoken behavioral rules are violated most often by new hires according to managers/supervisors/trainers?

Research Question 2:What code rules define the most commonly violated normative rules?

Method

To explore the methods used in gathering data, we offer an explanation of the research team, procedure, interview guide, participants, and data analysis.

The Research Team

The professor had previously led two undergraduate research teams with inconsistent success. Both previous teams had been held predominantly online with the understanding that face-to-face meetings would occur as needed. This approach worked well with one eager and motivated research team of four students who met as needed and talked freely about the project in the online platform. The other team, composed of seven members, avoided face-to-face meetings, and the class platform analytics showed minimal engagement online. This disengaged approach to the project yielded very little meaningful research data to analyze.

The professor sought to ensure trustworthy findings. Concerns with trustworthiness normally stem from questions about the honesty of the interviewees and with the dangers of bias in questioning (Kvale, 1994). Using novice qualitative researchers created challenges, as novices assumed responsibility for collecting and transcribing the data. Someone reading the findings could reasonably wonder whether there was consistency across interviews conducted by undergraduate students. The professor, therefore, ensured that the research team was adequately prepared to engage in qualitative research (e.g., by teaching them research interviewing skills, engaging them in institutional review board [IRB] training, holding mock interviews, and providing transcription training) so that the findings could be trusted.

In assembling the research team, the professor sought highly motivated undergraduate students. Interested students needed to apply for the opportunity, demonstrate a solid academic record, and provide a faculty reference. References were checked via phone or email to see if the student showed promise to complete each part of the research process ethically.

Procedure

The professor scheduled weekly face-to-face meetings, clearly stating that regular attendance and frequent online check-ins were required. Student researchers completed ethics training through the IRB and were added to the IRB research application. The team collectively generated an interview guide and was trained in research interviewing techniques. Additionally, employers from around campus served as mock interviewees for the students. Both the mock interviewees and instructor provided feedback on interviewing techniques following the practice interviews. On receiving IRB approval, research team members began scheduling and conducting interviews. All interviews were conducted by the undergraduate team in a location convenient to the interviewee (e.g., their office at work or a nearby coffee shop). All interviews were conducted face-to-face and were audio recorded.

Interviews were transcribed verbatim by the research team members. All team members were provided written and verbal instructions regarding the information to include in the transcriptions. The professor, aside from teaching a graduate qualitative methods course, also specialized in language and social interaction, which is consistent with a rules approach to studying communication. The training regarding transcriptions emphasized accurately capturing what the interviewee said. The transcriptions yielded a total of 361 pages of single-spaced data.

After transcribing, each recorded interview and its transcriptions were provided to the professor, who checked them for accuracy. Although the professor had already developed a high level of trust in the students based on their commitment to the task and enthusiastic participation, the recordings provided further evidence of the students’ use of solid interviewing skills and that the data were trustworthy. This phase also shed light on occasional student errors. One of the seven undergraduate students mistakenly used an earlier version of the interview guide for data collection. The earlier interview guide had been placed on the class web page for review prior to one of our meetings to finalize the content. The early version of the guide placed questions in a slightly different sequence, and the questions regarding tattoos and alternative style choices were not included. The sequencing of the questions did not appear to affect the interviewee responses, and the data about tattoos, extreme hairstyles, and piercings showed strong consistency from other interviews. The early version of the guide was used on four interviews, while the newer version was used on the other 30.

The Interview Guide

The interview guide was semistructured, using a funnel approach (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015) that opened with broader, general questions and then moved to specific topics examining communication practices (the guide is included in theonline supplementary appendix). The funnel approach was chosen to learn about topics that most readily came to mind for the employers. Topics were then developed by asking about strengths and weaknesses in oral communication, nonverbal communication, communication using technology, and written communication. Semistructured interviews were used because they provided shared structure among multiple interviewers while allowing for probing as needed (Nicholls, 2009). The exploration of strengths and weaknesses made sense from a communication rules approach because “knowledge of rules is increased by examining instances of their being followed and violated” (Kramer & Hess, 2002, p. 70). Prepared probes were included in each topic area to promote consistency across multiple interviewees.

Participants

Purposive sampling was used as the research team made “informed judgments” about “whom to interview” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2019, p. 143). The research team recruited professionals representing a wide range of local employers in the region. Interviewees needed to have experience with hiring, training, or directly supervising new college graduates to fit the sample. The research team sought participants in the university’s home city. As noted byLindlof and Taylor (2019), qualitative research seeks to find patterns among a specific population, but rarely seeks to generalize findings beyond the population studied. The study held intrinsic value to the students on the research team who were more likely to seek employment in this city postgraduation. Thirty-four participants were identified. Some represented large employers in the area, while others came from convenient participant selections utilizing the research team’s social networks as well as contact with university alumni. A diverse range of businesses and industries were represented, although the sample included several entertainment and hospitality-type organizations due to the large local tourist industry. Interviews ranged in duration from 17 to 45 minutes, with an average length of approximately 30 minutes.

Data Analysis

Because the data were gathered by seven different interviewers, the research team was not able to assess theoretical saturation during data collection. Theoretical saturation is normally used during data collection as researchers determine whether additional interviews would substantively add to the body of knowledge acquired (Lindlof & Taylor, 2019). The distribution of tasks among the team (e.g., interviews, transcribing) during data collection obscured whether we had reached theoretical saturation. Instead, the team established a goal of generating a sample consistent with existing published studies. This meant that the data analysis process necessitated a form of retroactive assessment of theoretical saturation. All data were analyzed by two coders who sought patterns. By the time the first 30 interviews were coded, the professor, who had been involved in all coding discussions, recognized that theoretical saturation had occurred.

Data were analyzed using an inductive approach in which the coders sought to find patterns among the data, rather than to test the validity of an existing pattern (Lindlof & Taylor, 2019). Responses related to each topic area on the interview guide were grouped together and then analyzed to identify the preferred behavior or rules referenced. Data analysis proceeded through two phases. The first phase involved identification of rules.Carbaugh (1990)specified four means of identifying rules in discourse: They are reportable, are repeatable, are widely intelligible, and could be invoked as repair mechanisms (p. 122). Using these criteria for identifying rules, two coders (the professor and one student) reviewed all the data and identified rules for preferred and undesirable conduct by new college graduate employees. Occasions where idealized behavior was discussed (e.g., “A good employee should”) were not coded as rules, because these instances were more indicative of employee prototypes than actual organizational rules. Disagreements were discussed until consensus was reached. The second phase of analysis involved getting a better understanding of the intensity and crystallization of rules (Shimanoff, 1980). Coders examined data for verbal and vocal emphasis stressing the importance of certain behaviors and sought patterns of agreement across multiple participants. The findings presented represent those rules that demonstrated the greatest crystallization across participants.

Findings

The four areas of nonverbal/written communication featured in the findings include displays of interest, attire, tattoos/extreme hairstyles/piercings, and written communication.

Displays of Interest

Even before the topic of nonverbal communication was directly queried, interviewees referenced strengths and weaknesses in displays of interest. Some of the most divergent responses occurred in this area. For some interviewees, the excitement and enthusiasm of new employees were identified as appreciated displays of passion. Conversely, enthusiasm was also presented as an area of weakness. Employers claimed that some new college graduates did not show adequate interest. One news editor asked about perceived weaknesses responded, “I recently interviewed a recent college graduate a few months ago who actually was texting during the interview which was appalling.” The response was similar when a vice president of human resources for a nonprofit organization was asked “What type of nonverbals do you think are most harmful to the professional image of a new employee?” She replied, “I would say it’s being distracted by their phone. I think not giving 100% engagement or attention to the task at hand and just not being focused.” This finding is consistent withWashington et al.’s (2014)acknowledgement of a generational divide in the workplace in the tendency of older professionals to demonstrate less acceptance of cell phones at meetings.

Participants consistently expressed a strong desire for eye contact, rather than a focus on technology. The code rule associated with direct eye contact was interest and enthusiasm. Those who paid attention to technology rather than the people around them were seen as lacking these positive attributes.

Attire

Although specific guidelines for attire varied among participants, two consistent themes emerged:attire mattersanddress for the next level up. Many acknowledged that dressing well depended on the organization and that one needed to gauge the environment. One human resources professional explained,

There’s a lot of books out, dress for success that type of thing, and all they say is dress for the next job that you want not the job that you have . . . and there’s certain truth to that because you really do stand out.

Discussions regarding attire often centered on avoiding standing out in a negative way and seeking to present oneself in “professional attire.” Although the specific normative behaviors for what constituted “professional” varied according to professional context and interviewee (e.g., hosiery, properly tied ties, etc.), interviewees expressed the belief that the safest course of conduct was to “overdress.”

A chairman and CEO of an organization shared the following story that demonstrated the force with which he held to the rule of dressing professionally. He described an exchange with a young employee:

Make sure you’re dressed properly, and you’re ironed properly. I had an employee the other day say—I called him out, because his shirt wasn’t ironed properly. And he was like, “well, I don’t have someone to dry cleaning, you know, I don’t have the money to do dry cleaning like you do.” And I told that employee, “You think I take my stuff dry cleaning? I iron my stuff every day.” And that employee he says, “No you don’t.” So I took my cellphone out and I call my wife and I go, “Who irons my clothes every day” and she goes, “You do, you iron your own clothes.”

Clearly, this CEO established an organizational climate and readily refuted reasons produced by young people regarding why they were unable to conform to the organizational rules. Participants we spoke with consistently expressed a desire for new college graduates to be as well dressed as the people around them or to be the best dressed person in the room.

More professionally geared articles that are not based on empirical research have previously suggested that the Millennial generation prefers more informal attire (Carpen, 2008) and to maintain the freedom to express their own individuality (Burgess-Wilkerson et al., 2010). Our data show that some senior employees working with new employees actively work to socialize them in this area. The preferred normative rule of dressing a level above one’s current position was offered across a range of professions. As the termprofessional attirewould suggest, this normative rule is related to the code of professionalism. Managers, trainers, and human resources personnel did not appear to share the Millennial appreciation for informality.

Tattoos, Extreme Hairstyles, and Piercings

When it came to discussions of tattoos, extreme hairstyles, and piercings, there was some disagreement among interviewees—with some unconcerned about these style matters and others holding strongly negative opinions. Some even viewed tattoos, extreme hairstyles, and piercings as irrelevant to the job. Of all the interviewees, only one noted the creative atmosphere of the workplace as a potential facilitator of that kind of self-expression. This was the only overtly positive reaction. Others quickly referred to an organizational dress code that precluded certain types of appearances. Interviewees also offered conditional responses that explained that one’s appearance would depend on where one worked within the organization.

The most common response involved the interviewee indicating that, while he or she had no problem personally with tattoos, extreme hairstyles, or piercings, such adornments could present problems in their organization. The director of one nonprofit organization explained,

so that’s not a reason not to hire someone. I believe that if you really are doing a good job at hiring you need to be upfront with what your dress code expectations are, so those tattoos would have to be covered while he is on our shift. He knows that, that’s part of our expectation, but that’s not a reason to not hire someone, that’s an individual expression that shouldn’t limit professional opportunity as long as the dress code and expectation of the organization can be met through modification.

Although many interviewees echoed the above mind-set, some voiced concerns only about customer-facing positions or positions which could detract from customers having a positive “guest experience” of the organization. Some interviewees acknowledged the age-based disparities in older employees disliking tattoos.

Some interviewees expressed unabashed opposition to tattoos. An operations manager indicated a preference for avoiding tattoos and other extreme styles and supplied the following explanation for the avoidance of visible nontraditional styles:

My natural reaction is a negative one, and I know that is not always true. They might make a fabulous employer—employee with piercings, with unnatural hair colors and all kinds of other things. But again, it goes to, for me, to hire them or have them on board, I have to make sure that they represent our organization a certain way. So, it just, it does not work well.

This interviewee stated it firmly but neutrally. Unfavorable reactions to tattoos and extreme styles ranged from this to more aggressive opposition to tattoos. One interviewee joked about how a “creative type” (of person) worked in his organization and concluded, “We put her in [the] back.” Another of the most strongly negative reactions came from a hotel food and beverage director who did not even allow the interviewer to complete the question about “visible piercings, tattoos, and nontraditional [styles]” before she interrupted with her response: “Hate them. Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, tease ‘em all.” She expressed that she “teased” all the employees with tattoos and that she has never hired anyone with a “gauge,” the large piercings that extend one’s skin around a ring. Although we did not ask specifically about gauges, some participants referenced those specifically as particularly undesirable. When a participant raised the topic of gauges, strong disdain was expressed.

This normative rule for avoiding nontraditional bodily adornment was associated with the code of professionalism. One director in a company acknowledged that she has a small tattoo that she covers when coming to work, per company policy, and she clearly believed that tattoos should not affect one’s employability. Despite this, she noted that “there’s old school people who still see body piercings and tattoos or different hair colors as ‘that person’s not professional.’” This conclusion is consistent with previous research suggesting that while body art in the workplace has become increasingly common, the stigma and prejudices persevere (Miller et al., 2009). Interviewees pointed to professionalism as the code rule that guides the normative rule.

Written Communication

One of the most consistent and forceful themes identified in the data involved support for the importance of effective writing skills. Only one interviewee asserted that writing was not central to one’s success in the organization. That one person was the CEO of the organization and went on to note that he was not a good writer and felt that people could have other areas of strength besides writing. Despite that statement, he noted that he sometimes hires proficient writers to “balance out my weakness.” The other 33 participants consistently asserted that writing played an important role in perceptions of one’s professional identity. Although many participants distanced themselves from expressions of distaste regarding body art, participants readily acknowledged strong personal biases against poor writing skills.

The phrase “red flag” recurred across interviewees in association with noticing spelling and typographical errors of potential and new employees. One manager of college recruiters exemplified this pattern well in saying “If they see continued typos in emails, that is a huge red flag for us.” Spelling and typographical errors were often presented as a concern when reviewing job applications. This finding is consistent with those ofMartin-Lacroux and Lacroux (2017), who studied the effects of errors in résumés and cover letters, concluding that applications with spelling errors hampered candidates’ likelihood of making the short list for hiring.

The interviewees we spoke with cited professionalism as the code rule defining the behavioral norm of using correct grammar and proofreading work. Interviewees in this study cited an array of negative attributions given to writing errors: (a) the applicant is not giving the written work “the attention that it deserves,” (b) it makes them wonder “what other details they are missing,” or (c) they conclude that the writer may be “unprepared” or “lazy.” The findings differ slightly from previous research, which emphasized new employee failure to adapt from academic to professional writing expectations (Moore & Morton, 2017). The interviewees in this study consistently ascribed blame to the employee’s lack of professionalism as the cause of poor writing, citing forms of professionalism shared by both teachers and employers.

Similarly, it was also discussed as a reason why a professional image could be threatened after an interviewee was already hired. A medical director stated,

So every single sentence or paragraph that is written, it really needs to be properly executed because, again, that portrays the image of who we are as a corporation in addition to the individual’s ability to properly write and express themselves.

This sentiment was echoed by a manager who asserted that writing skills are “critical because it’s your reputation.” Some participants pointed to the damaged image of the individual, while others brought the concern to an organizational level. A manager of marketing communication (as one might expect) was particularly adamant about the importance of writing well, especially regarding things that go out to the public. He concluded, “It’s our face of the organization, so it’s definitely a problem.” Overall, responses regarding the importance of well-written texts were consistent and forcefully stated. We could not assess from the data which errors were viewed as the most egregious or whether writing problems were the product of carelessness or ignorance, but we could clearly see that mistakes mattered. The normative rule of carefully constructed, well-proofread writing was seen as an important component of professionalism.

Discussion

The findings of the study are not revolutionary in that they largely support existing research on employer preferences for new college graduate communication. We turn from presenting themes in the data to considering how both the data and the research process yield meaningful contributions.

Contributions of the Study

The study, although consistent with previous research, provided both theoretical and pedagogical contributions worthy of consideration.

Theoretical Contributions

Due to our interest in new college graduate socialization in the workplace, we were particularly concerned with isolating the most commonly violated normative rules and in identifying their underlying code rules. The findings suggest that employers identify the following normative rules violations by new and potential new employees: (a) they frequently appear distracted (often due to the use of technology), (b) they opt for attire that is too casual, (c) they display body art (tattoos) and extreme styles, and (d) they make careless errors in writing. The code rule that made these normative rule violations sensible and important is that they are understood by many managers as ways of demonstrating a lack of professionalism.

Another theoretical contribution of the study involved the pairing of a rules perspective on communication with theorizing about organizational socialization. Despite the clear connection between learning explicit and tacit rules and organizational socialization, little research sinceGilsdorf (1998)has examined how understandings of rules have influenced employee socialization. Whereas Gilsdorf studied student perceptions of rules at the job, we inquired into the perspective of the employers. Gilsdorf generated ideas for how organizations could more effectively communicate to the employees, while the recommendations here examine how teachers can better prepare future employees and how those entering the workforce can learn the most commonly made mistakes. Rules comprise one small part of employee socialization, but they are an important part. A fraction of an organization’s rules is stated in formal instructions and bylaws. Much of the socialization process involves that which remains unsaid but is richly imbued with meanings. Socialization involves learning not only what behavior is done but also why it is done and what implications accrue from not adhering to normative conduct.

Pedagogical Contributions of the Study

The research team approached this research intending to share findings with academics and students alike. This section focuses on one of the SoTL components of this project: the benefits accrued to the students who participated in the research team. Four students expressed interest in participating in the study because they were interested in applying for graduate school and thought that the course would provide them with the preparation needed to handle graduate-level academic rigor and research methods. Students also perceived the course as different from a traditional communication class, fostering more “hands-on” opportunities—such as in contributing to a research project and conducting interviews with professionals about a topic relevant to their lives.

First and foremost, the students involved in the research team gained practical knowledge. They learned about constructing an interview guide, about the ethics of gathering research, and about the challenges that accompany completing a research project. Additionally, they learned about the perspectives of local professionals and some of their tacit expectations for new college graduate employees. Last, all students were at least informed about the next stages of analyzing data, and two enrolled in another independent study to pursue this project further. To promote more frank sharing, the second author (student) asked the rest of the research team what they felt they had gained from the experience. Students reported that the course helped them develop critical thinking and research skills, as well as the ability to adapt organizational communication as needed. Some said that the project helped them gain valuable insight into the job search process after graduation. Some students had predicted research experience would be beneficial for graduate school preparation; however, they expressed surprise at how experiential the course became in the end. One student noted specifically that she believed the research project would involve a lot of “tedious” work and was genuinely surprised when it did not.

Beginning the project, students foresaw a challenge in needing to balance work, other classes, and extracurricular activities in order to devote time to the research project. When their tasks turned out to be more experiential than expected, the students felt more energized and motivated. It seems that when undergraduate students can see the purpose and the meaning behind research tasks, along with an integration of active learning in the curriculum, it creates both a heightened sense of perseverance and quality learning.

Some employer recommendations paralleled content that was included in course texts for business and professional communication. An important difference is that some students may never read the course text.Pecorari et al. (2012)found that even when students view reading course materials as valuable, they may choose not to read or view reading as an alternative to attending class. Students generally prefer other modes of engaging with the material (Aagaard et al., 2014). Even if students receive the information through lecture, instructors can sometimes be viewed as theoretical experts without deep insight into the job market. The students in this study expressed enthusiastic appreciation for the hands-on component of the research process. Completing careful transcriptions, while painstaking, ensures that the student hears the message repeatedly and focuses on it for a prolonged period of time. These observations align withRodrick and Dickmeyer’s (2002)assertion that “the undergraduate research experience facilitates learning and thinking in ways that are difficult to achieve in classroom situations” (p. 42). Becoming involved in research at the undergraduate level, therefore, can provide fertile ground for a high-impact educational experience.

Beyond the knowledge component, students were told that this project was designed to build their résumés and promote networking. As a result of their participation, the students’ résumés may now include experience with research, conference presentations, and any resulting publications. Since participating in the project, three of the seven undergraduate research team members have enrolled in graduate studies. The project’s excellent networking opportunity yielded exciting results. Two students were offered jobs while they were conducting interviews, and one was offered an internship. None of the students accepted these unanticipated offers, however any faculty undertaking a research team should anticipate such possibilities and train students with a plan for responding that adheres to their department’s views on providing a limited number of students with such a uniquely advantageous opportunity.

In a less measurable way, the project has affected the home department of the professor and students. The findings have been presented to the faculty and provide a point of consideration when discussing curriculum. At the outset of the project, the professor had proposed that the students go to different classes to share the results of the study. As the project evolved and student enthusiasm grew, one student suggested that we videotape a member of the research team presenting the study’s findings so that it could be placed on YouTube. Subsequently, video recordings were made in both English and Spanish and have been posted on YouTube. (The hyperlink is provided at the end of the article.) The English version has been incorporated into some faculty courses and has received numerous views.

Recommendations for Instructors

To facilitate others who may lead a similar research team, recommendations are offered. The professor’s specialization in qualitative research gears these tips toward addressing some practical challenges inherent in engaging undergraduates in qualitative research within the confines of a semester system.

Select research team members with extreme care. Minimum grade point averages and faculty references were required. Responsible team members who display leadership qualities help create a successful outcome. It may prove helpful to include juniors or even sophomores. After the semester during which data were collected and transcribed, one of the students from the research team enrolled in another independent study to code data. The following semester, yet another student registered for an independent study to craft the script for the video.

Keep the team small, preferably six to eight students. Having too few team members yields insufficient data, while too many inhibits individual ownership.

Prepare an interview guide and obtain IRB approval before the semester begins. Awaiting IRB approval may delay students’ data collection. If IRB approval is obtained in advance, any desired changes will require only an expedited modification to the approved proposal.

Establish expectations early in the process. For example, the professor established that she would serve as first author and assume the lead in writing the final manuscript(s). Creating realistic expectations and a clear plan fosters student feelings of ownership regarding the data (Rogers-Dillon, 2005). The professor also explicitly stated the desire for the students to present tentative findings at the undergraduate research conference held each semester on campus. Discussing final products from the beginning of the term provided students with a vision and motivation to maintain a schedule.

Hold regular meetings. Online communication is convenient, and our team used it liberally to exchange information. Face-to-face meetings, on the other hand, allow the faculty leader to instill a sense of urgency. For example, some students appeared somewhat intimidated to begin reaching out to potential interviewees. At one of our team meetings, one team member indicated that she had already contacted numerous interviewees. Those who had not begun contacting interviewees became alert to the need to get started.

Encourage distributed leadership. To move things along in a short time frame, students were asked to contribute whatever strengths they could. If one student was conducting more interviews, he or she might give the audio-taped interview to another team member to transcribe. When we were running behind schedule, one student volunteered to take an incomplete grade so that she could transcribe the last interviews.

Perhaps most important, the professor should listen carefully to the undergraduate team. Student team members prompted the questions about tattoos and extreme hairstyles. They also offered innovative ideas like creating the video to be placed on our department’s YouTube channel. (The professor had not even known that the department had a YouTube channel.) Undergraduates bring their own insights. They know what they want from their education and can share that perspective with instructors. Learning from them was an unexpected benefit for the professor.

Limitations and Future Directions

Like all studies, this research had limitations. The study sample was relatively small and was drawn from one region in the United States. When interviewing participants, it became evident that they found it difficult to focus specifically on new college graduate behaviors. Participants automatically lapsed into discussing interns and other employees. Another limitation was that the data were drawn from a wide range of industries which do not always have commensurate expectations of employees. In addition, this study examined only a limited range of nonverbal communication. Having a research team of undergraduates also presented limitations, as many moved away from the region following graduation, limiting their ability to participate fully in the later stages of the research process. Conversely, the positive outcome that the professor had in working with this group of students may not be generalizable, because every team develops its own dynamic. In this particular dynamic, students expressed a high level of motivation and involvement.

Future research could study other aspects of nonverbal communication, as well as additional areas of strength and weakness in writing. Research with employers in specific industries would greatly benefit those students seeking to enter those professions. As discussed throughout this study and reviewed in the academic literature, there are many undergraduates who are looking ahead with concern for their future careers. It is our hope that faculty will begin including undergraduates in research that informs both the academic literature and the professional development needs of the students.

To view the video recordings referenced in this article, visithttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y0fI6hY9rU(English version) andhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh87jzhfdEg(Spanish version).

Supplemental Material

Supplemental_Material – Supplemental material for Nonverbal Communication and Writing Deficiencies of Graduates: Research by Undergraduates for Undergraduates

Supplemental material, Supplemental_Material for Nonverbal Communication and Writing Deficiencies of Graduates: Research by Undergraduates for Undergraduates by Sally O. Hastings, Sandra Aponte, Esther Valverde, Catherine Gristock, Rebecka Fraser, Michelle Missigman, Jordan Bicasan and Luisa Rosas in Business and Professional Communication Quarterly

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Central Florida (Approval No. SBE-15-11022). Participant comments are reproduced by permission. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Philadelphia, PA, 2016.

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 no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sally O. Hastings

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Sally O. Hastingsis an associate professor of human communication at the University of Central Florida. In addition to studying various facets of applied communication, she enjoys working with undergraduate and graduate students on research projects.

Sandra Apontereceived both her bachelor of science in social sciences and master of arts in clinical mental health counseling from the University of Central Florida. Today, she works as a career counselor for the undergraduate student body at the University of Virginia Career Center.

Esther Valverdeearned her bachelor’s degree in human communication from the University of Central Florida. She now works as a planning assistant in the Miami area.

Catherine Gristockearned her bachelor’s degree in human communication from the University of Central Florida and is currently working in outside sales.

Rebecka Fraserearned both her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in communication from the University of Central Florida. She now works in marketing on the east coast.

Michelle Missigmancompleted her bachelor’s degree in human communication from the University of Central Florida and her Juris Doctor degree from Suffolk University Law School. She has recently begun her law career.

Jordan Bicasanearned his bachelor’s degree in music performance from the University of Central Florida. He plays the violin professionally and teaches violin and piano.

Luisa Rosasearned her bachelor’s degree in human communication from the University of Central Florida and her MBA from Florida International University. She now works as a sales manager in the West Palm Beach area.

References

Aagaard

Conner

T. W.

II Skidmore

R. L.

(2014).College textbook reading assignments and class time activity.Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,14(3),132-145.https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v14i3.5031

Brinkmann

Kvale

(2015).InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing(3rd ed.).Sage.

Burgess-Wilkerson

Thomas

J. B.

Morris

R. L.

(2010).Summary brief: Do I really have to dress like everyone else? Exploring the issue of conformity in the workplace.Society for Marketing Advances Proceedings,2010,146-147.

Carbaugh

(1990).Communication rules in Donahue discourse. In Carbaugh

(Ed.),Cultural communication and intercultural contact(pp.119-149).Erlbaum.

Carpen

(2008).Attracting and retaining Millennial workers.Information Executive,11(6),13-18.

Clokie

T. L.

Fourie

(2016).Graduate employability and communication competence: Are undergraduates taught relevant skills? Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,79(4),442-463.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2329490616657635

Coffelt

T. A.

Baker

M. J.

Corey

R. C.

(2016).Business communication practices from employers’ perspectives.Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,79(3),300-316.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2329490616644014

Cooper-Thomas

H. D.

Anderson

(2005).Organizational socialization: A field study into socialization success and rate.International Journal of Selection and Assessment,13(2),116-128.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2005.00306.x

Dailey

S. L.

(2016).What happens before full-time employment? Internships as a mechanism of anticipatory socialization.Western Journal of Communication,80(4),453-480.https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2016.1159727

10.

Ellis

A. M.

Nifadkar

S. S.

Bauer

T. N.

Erdogan

(2017).Newcomer adjustment: Examining the role of managers’ perception of newcomer proactive behavior during organizational socialization.Journal of Applied Psychology,102(6),993-1001.https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000201

11.

Engelkemeyer

S. W.

(2012).Getting our new graduates employed: A call for better job preparation during the undergraduate years.University Business,15(7),21-22.

12.

Gilsdorf

J. W.

(1998).Organizational rules on communicating: How employees are—and are not—learning the ropes.Journal of Business Communication,35(2),173-201.https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500201

13.

Haueter

J. A.

Macan

T. H.

Winter

(2003).Measurement of newcomer socialization: Construct validation of a multidimensional scale.Journal of Vocational Behavior,63(1),20-39.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00017-9

14.

Jabs

L. B.

(2005).Communicative rules and organizational decision making.Journal of Business Communication,42(3),265-288.https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943605277008

15.

Jones

Baldi

Phillips

Waikar

(2016).The hard truth about soft skills: What recruiters look for in business graduates.College Student Journal,50(3),422-428.

16.

Kowtha

N. R.

(2018).Organizational socialization of newcomers: The role of professional socialization.International Journal of Training and Development,22(2),87-106.https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12120

17.

Kramer

M. W.

Hess

J. A.

(2002).Communication rules for the display of emotions in organizational settings.Management Communication Quarterly,16(1),66-80.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0893318902161003

18.

Kvale

(1994).Ten standard objections to qualitative research interviews.Journal of Phenomenological Psychology,25(2),147-173.https://doi.org/10.1163/156916294X00016

19.

Lindlof

T. R.

Taylor

B. C.

(2019).Qualitative communication research methods(4th ed.).Sage.

20.

Madlock

P. E.

Chory

R. M.

(2014).Socialization as a predictor of employee outcomes.Communication Studies,65(1),56-71.https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.811429

21.

Martin-Lacroux

Lacroux

(2017).Do employers forgive applicants’ bad spelling in résumés? Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,80(3),321-335.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2329490616671310

22.

Miller

B. K.

Nicols

K. M.

Eure

(2009).Body art in the workplace: Piercing the prejudice? Personnel Review,38(6),621-640.https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480910992247

23.

Moore

Morton

(2017).The myth of job readiness? Written communication, employability, and the “skills gap” in higher education.Studies in Higher Education,42(3),591-609.https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1067602

24.

Nicholls

(2009).Qualitative research: Part three—methods.International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation,16(12),638-647.https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2009.16.12.45433

25.

Ortiz

L. A.

Region-Sebest

MacDermott

(2016).Employer perceptions of oral communication competencies most valued in new hires as a factor in company success.Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,79(3),317-330.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2329490615624108

26.

Pecorari

Shaw

Irvine

Malmström

Mežek

. (2012).Reading in tertiary education: Undergraduate student practices and attitudes.Quality in Higher Education,18(2),235-256.https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2012.706464

27.

Pierce

(2018).What employers want: Employers are looking to community colleges for help in teaching soft skills.Community College Journal,89(3),20-25.

28.

Potter

M. K.

Kustra

E. D. H.

(2011).The relationship between scholarly teaching and SoTL: Models, distinctions, and clarifications.International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning,5(1),1-18.https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050123

29.

Robles

M. M.

(2012).Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace.Business Communication Quarterly,75(4),453-465.https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569912460400

30.

Rodrick

Dickmeyer

(2002).Providing undergraduate research opportunities for communication students: A curricular approach.Communication Education,51(1),40-50.https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520216496

31.

Rogers-Dillon

R. H.

(2005).Hierarchical qualitative research teams: Refining the methodology.Qualitative Research,5(4),437-454.https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794105056922

32.

Saks

A. M.

Gruman

J. A.

(2018).Socialization resources theory and newcomers’ work engagement.Career Development International,23(1),12-32.https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-12-2016-0214

33.

Saks

A. M.

Uggerslev

K. L.

Fassina

N. E.

(2007).Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: A meta-analytic review and test of a model.Journal of Vocational Behavior,70(3),413-446.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.12.004

34.

Schall

M. S.

(1983).A communication-rules approach to organizational culture.Administrative Science Quarterly,28(4),557-581.https://doi.org/10.2307/2393009

35.

Scott

Myers

(2010).Toward an integrative theoretical perspective on organizational membership negotiations: Socialization, assimilation, and the duality of structure.Communication Theory,20(1),79-105.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01355.x

36.

Shimanoff

S. B.

(1980).Communication rules: Theory and research.Sage.

37.

Stevens

(2008).Corporate ethical codes: Effective instruments for influencing behavior.Journal of Business Ethics,78(4),601-609.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9370-z

38.

Suvedi

Ghimire

R. P.

Millenbah

K. F.

(2016).How prepared are undergraduates for a career? NACTA Journal,60(1a),13-20.https://www.nactateachers.org/attachments/article/2392/7%20Suvedi_NACTA%20Journal%20Special%20May%202016.pdf

39.

Washington

M. C.

Okoro

E. A.

Cardon

P. W.

(2014).Perceptions of civility for mobile phone use in formal and informal meetings.Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,77(1),52-64.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1080569913501862

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.25 MB