professional communication
professional communication
Why “Business” communication Needs to Preserve Its Identity within “Professional” Communication Business communication has much to leam from and contribute to professional communication, but it also has its own concems, insights, and identity that need to be retained in “professional” communication. Central to these concems and insights is the basic difference between the two disciplines, which is posed most starkly in the foundationai course. The archetypal problem in technical communication is represented by blinking 12:00s on VCRs across America. People want to record programs, but they don’t know how to set the time. So technical writing attempts to explain. Technical communication focuses on exposition. One assumes a motivated but ignorant and perhaps impatient audience. How can one make information clear?
The archetypal problem in business communication, in contrast, is how to convince people to tum off the lights when they leave the office, or how not to do personal e-mail or Web surfing when they’re being paid to work—all without feeling as though Big Brother is monitoring their every move. Business communication focuses on persuasion. The communicator’s problem is not primarily exposition—though some business issues can be highly arcane—but motivation: how do you make people adopt common goals? How do you make their commitment to work not merely a matter of mechanically meeting minimum expectations, but rather one of intelligence, creativity, and energy? (We might note that college professors face exactly the same challenge: only part of our job is explaining to students material that is new to them; a
130 Business Communication Quarterly 66:3 September 2003
bigger part, for many of us, is motivating students to think, to revise, to leam.) The higher one gets, the more the easy binary between exposition and persuasion breaks down. Early technical communication books classified audiences in terms of their technical knowledge, but at least by the late 1970s technical communication books noted that even “technical” decisions can be made emotionally (Mathes & Stevenson, 1978). Experiences such as the Challenger disaster and issues such as nuclear power, stem cell research, and terrorist attacks remind us that attitudes, not just knowledge, shape decisions and actions. But though that binary breaks down, business and technica] communication still differ, I believe. Business communication focuses on context. What role does the document play in the creation, maintenance, ot transformation of the organization and its values? What political and cultural pressures in the organization account for decisions and communications? How is power inscribed and reproduced? How is marginalization enforced or ameliorated? These are research questions suggested by the “business” part of “professional” communication.
Many of our colleagues, and perhaps some of us, distrust business, seeing it as a source of many of the problems in our society. We might rememher that husinesses are not the only organizations whose effects have sometimes been malign: schools, universities, and even churches have also supported repressive status quos and hurt groups and individuals. Certainly businesses have done horrible things. Many of us are particularly conscious of the recent frauds which have devastated university endowments and our own retirement accounts. But lest we use that fact to assume that “technical” is somehow purer than “business” communication, remember that science too has done horrible things: gassing human beings in Nazi concentration camps, watching African-American men die slowly of untreated syphilis, and creating ever-more lethal technology for war. Moreover, many—perhaps most—of the horrible acts of science have been done at the behest of organizations, either business or govemment. Many people who would not under
ABC Sessions at MLA 2002 131
take dubious or illegal actions on their own will do so at the behest of supervisors or in a culture that rewards or seems to demand such behavior. Organizations affect the way people act and interact, and business communication studies just these interactions. We who teach and study discourse in organizations can affect public policy, business practice, and scientific practice only though language—primarily language in organizations. Where are the pressure points? How does one persuade someone who disagrees? How does one find allies? How does the culture of the organization make it harder or easier for people to behave ethically? All of these are crucial questions not merely for our research programs, but for our students and our society. They are questions that are more likely to be asked by people who focus on “business” communication. We need to ask these questions—and we need to retain the perspective and areas o( expertise that professional communication finds developed and ready at hand in “business” communication.
References
ABC Graduate Studies Committee. (1996, December). Graduate programs in business and professional communication. Retrieved July, 1997 from www.public.iastate.edu/~nizachrv/abc/abc_gp.htm; no longer available on this site. Beard, j. D., & Williams, D. L. (1993). A professional profile of business communication educators and their research preferences: Survey results. The Joumai of Business Communication, SO, 269-295. Connors, R. J. (1982). The rise of technical writing instruction in America. Journal of Technical Writing and Communicaiion, 12, 329-352. Dobrin, D. (1987). Guest editorial: Writing without discipline(s). Iowa State Joumai of Busiriess and Technicai Communication, 1, 5-8. Estrin, H. S. (1996). Guest editorial. Joumai o/Technicai Wnting and Communication, 26. 129-130. Harris, j. S. (1996). Looking backward. JouTnoi o/Tec/inical Writing and Communication, 26, 131-137. Hatch, R. A., et al. (1973, Winter). Graduate-level business communication classes. Thejoumal of Business Communication, /0(3): 29-37. Hildebrandt, H. W., et al. (1977, March). Proposal for a Master of Business Administration in business communication. ABCA Buiietin, 40(1), 3-7. Hildebrandt, H. W., et al. (1978, March). Proposal for a Ph.D. program in business communication. ABCA BuUetin, 4i(l). 1-4.
Why “Business” communication Needs to Preserve Its Identity within ”
Professional
” Communication
Business communication has much to leam from and contribute to professional communication, but it
also has its own concems, insights, and identity that need to
be retained in “professional”
communication. Central to these concems and insights is the basic difference between the two
disciplines, which is posed most starkly in the foundationai course. The archetypal problem in technical
communication is represented
by blinking 12:00s on VCRs across America. People want to record
programs, but they don’t know how to set the time. So technical writing attempts to explain. Technical
communication focuses on exposition. One assumes a motivated but ignorant and perhaps i
mpatient
audience. How can one make information clear? The archetypal problem in business communication, in
contrast, is how to convince people to tum off the lights when they leave the office, or how not to do
personal e
–
mail or Web surfing when they’re b
eing paid to work
—
all without feeling as though Big
Brother is monitoring their every move. Business communication focuses on persuasion. The
communicator’s problem is not primarily exposition
—
though some business issues can be highly
arcane
—
but motivation
: how do you make people adopt common goals? How do you make their
commitment to work not merely a matter of mechanically meeting minimum expectations, but rather
one of intelligence, creativity, and energy? (We might note that college professors face exac
tly the same
challenge: only part of our job is explaining to students material that is new to them; a
130 Business Communication Quarterly 66:3 September 2003
bigger part, for many of us, is motivating students to think, to revise, to leam.) The higher on
e gets, the
more the easy binary between exposition and persuasion breaks down. Early technical communication
books classified audiences in terms of their technical knowledge, but at least by the late 1970s technical
communication books noted that even “te
chnical” decisions can be made emotionally (Mathes &
Stevenson, 1978). Experiences such as the Challenger disaster and issues such as nuclear power, stem
cell research, and terrorist attacks remind us that attitudes, not just knowledge, shape decisions and
actions. But though that binary breaks down, business and technica] communication still differ, I believe.
Business communication focuses on context. What role does the document play in the creation,
maintenance, ot transformation of the organization and
its values? What political and cultural pressures
in the organization account for decisions and communications? How is power inscribed and
reproduced? How is marginalization enforced or ameliorated? These are research questions suggested
by the “business”
part of “professional” communication. Many of our colleagues, and perhaps some of
us, distrust business, seeing it as a source of many of the problems in our society. We might rememher
that husinesses are not the only organizations whose effects have somet
imes been malign: schools,
universities, and even churches have also supported repressive status quos and hurt groups and
individuals. Certainly businesses have done horrible things. Many of us are particularly conscious of the
recent frauds which have dev
astated university endowments and our own retirement accounts. But lest
we use that fact to assume that “technical” is somehow purer than “business” communication,
remember that science too has done horrible things: gassing human beings in Nazi concentrati
on camps,
watching African
–
American men die slowly of untreated syphilis, and creating ever
–
more lethal
technology for war. Moreover, many
—
perhaps most
—
of the horrible acts of science have been done at
the behest of organizations, either business or govemm
ent. Many people who would not under
ABC Sessions at MLA 2002 131
Why “Business” communication Needs to Preserve Its Identity within “Professional” Communication
Business communication has much to leam from and contribute to professional communication, but it
also has its own concems, insights, and identity that need to be retained in “professional”
communication. Central to these concems and insights is the basic difference between the two
disciplines, which is posed most starkly in the foundationai course. The archetypal problem in technical
communication is represented by blinking 12:00s on VCRs across America. People want to record
programs, but they don’t know how to set the time. So technical writing attempts to explain. Technical
communication focuses on exposition. One assumes a motivated but ignorant and perhaps impatient
audience. How can one make information clear? The archetypal problem in business communication, in
contrast, is how to convince people to tum off the lights when they leave the office, or how not to do
personal e-mail or Web surfing when they’re being paid to work—all without feeling as though Big
Brother is monitoring their every move. Business communication focuses on persuasion. The
communicator’s problem is not primarily exposition—though some business issues can be highly
arcane—but motivation: how do you make people adopt common goals? How do you make their
commitment to work not merely a matter of mechanically meeting minimum expectations, but rather
one of intelligence, creativity, and energy? (We might note that college professors face exactly the same
challenge: only part of our job is explaining to students material that is new to them; a
130 Business Communication Quarterly 66:3 September 2003
bigger part, for many of us, is motivating students to think, to revise, to leam.) The higher one gets, the
more the easy binary between exposition and persuasion breaks down. Early technical communication
books classified audiences in terms of their technical knowledge, but at least by the late 1970s technical
communication books noted that even “technical” decisions can be made emotionally (Mathes &
Stevenson, 1978). Experiences such as the Challenger disaster and issues such as nuclear power, stem
cell research, and terrorist attacks remind us that attitudes, not just knowledge, shape decisions and
actions. But though that binary breaks down, business and technica] communication still differ, I believe.
Business communication focuses on context. What role does the document play in the creation,
maintenance, ot transformation of the organization and its values? What political and cultural pressures
in the organization account for decisions and communications? How is power inscribed and
reproduced? How is marginalization enforced or ameliorated? These are research questions suggested
by the “business” part of “professional” communication. Many of our colleagues, and perhaps some of
us, distrust business, seeing it as a source of many of the problems in our society. We might rememher
that husinesses are not the only organizations whose effects have sometimes been malign: schools,
universities, and even churches have also supported repressive status quos and hurt groups and
individuals. Certainly businesses have done horrible things. Many of us are particularly conscious of the
recent frauds which have devastated university endowments and our own retirement accounts. But lest
we use that fact to assume that “technical” is somehow purer than “business” communication,
remember that science too has done horrible things: gassing human beings in Nazi concentration camps,
watching African-American men die slowly of untreated syphilis, and creating ever-more lethal
technology for war. Moreover, many—perhaps most—of the horrible acts of science have been done at
the behest of organizations, either business or govemment. Many people who would not under
ABC Sessions at MLA 2002 131
