DOCUMENT ME4052 11!) 144 '12S 'CS,501,815 . et AOTi6;t -. ' Rogers,,Donald P.- . TITLE The Content of Organizational Communicatiofi. PUBDATE '' (77] MOTE 9p;.0iudy prepared at State University of New fork at. BiTfalo , 4.4. 4 EDRS PRICE HP-S0.83 HC$1.67 Plus Postage. ESCRIPTORS Communication (Thought Transfer); *Communication Problems; *Communication Skills; COntent Analysis; Course Content; Course Objectives;*Course Organization; Higher Educatiok; *Infoemation Theory; dab *OrganiZational Communication; *Textbook Content ABSTRACT In order to determine the content of an organizationalcommunication course, till.; study examined 26 textbooks in thatfield, according to the frequency of discubSion of a topic and the number of pages devoted tcLa topic. The, findings from that eiaminai.ion indicate that_topicsinorganizatiollaDramunicaton can be outlined under three'cOurse types: communication skills necessary 14 for successful careers in organizations; theories and methods of organizational communication necessary for advanced study in the area; and analysis, and soldtion of the dominant problems faced by. various types of organizations. Suggested _topical outlines for etch course type are prOvided.' tRL) r 0 ***11*****************************A******4*********************4****** ,* Dements acqiired by ERIC include many informal unpublished * ---;:.--*-itaterialar net available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort * * to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items 'of marginal * *'repiodecibility Are often encountered and this:ffectsthe quality lik io,of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC' sakes mailable * *'Via the ERIC Document-.RepoductiotsSarvice (EDRS). EDRS is not * ,* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions * -* supplied by EDRS are tee best that can be made from the original. * ************************,********************************************** i ( . .' . ( . "'; 4 , . Ir The Content of Organizational Communication Texts Interest in the area of organizational communication has'teen growing steaOily forAftorethan, two decades. This ibterest has prompted the development of numerous courses, majors,,and academic programs in organizational communica- tion. Forthe professor assigned to teach the area this presents a problem. Specifilally, "What should bethe content of a course in organizational comouni/itionl" 1,4 The -Problem The problem of content in Organizational communication courses'flows from the problem of defining organizational communication. There is no "obvious" or "logical" definition of the Area. Organizational communication can be and is taken to mean, "Communication in the' Organization," or "Communication by the Organization," or "Communication as Management," or "Communication as Organiza- tion." Moteover, since interest in the area is a relatively recent phenomenon, there is no-tradition of common usage,.common concern, or common focus from which a definition might emerge. As Goldhaber (1974) observed, there are a great many.definitions of organizational communication, but little agreement among the definitions. Since...thereis no commonly accepted definition of the subject, it is very difficult to develop commonly accepted content for the subject. Redding (1967) summarized the problem: We face here an interesting antinomy: on the one hand, in there patently exists a widespread-And lively interest 4 "Organizational Communicatipn" (among both academes and businessmen); but on the ofher nd, and just as patently, there exists no consensus what er on the precise nature of the thing we are interested}/ in Ridding (1967) also suggested a ,Way to go about solving this problem, ' & conclusion: the 'field' of 'organizational communication' consists of whatever those who concern themselves with it say it is (p. 2)1"Thus, determining the content of organize Tonal communication should be a matter of determining what those who are con erned with it arejoinewith it. ,A number of authors have aalpted to,do just that. Cooper (1953), .Knapp (1969)) Blagdon and Spata (1973), and Rdgers (1975) have developed auFlines of organizational c. .ication to.guide instructors. Voos (1967), Carter (1972), and Greenbaum, alcione, et, al. (1975, 1976) have developed bibliographies to despribe wh t LB being written about organizational,communi - cation.Wright, and Sherman 970), Dqwns and Larimer (1974), Hatch, et. (1973), ond Lewis (1975) ha a surveyed teachers to 'determine what is being taught as organiiitional 4 ication. The common thread of these efforts has been the demonstration-of n overwhelming lackof professional consensus 0;1 the nature of organizatial communication. Downs and Larimer (1975) attributed this lack of consensus to thee-relitive youth of the area. They expected to variance to diminish as more texts became available and the subject crystallized.' More, texts have becoiee'available.' In L 4 * ti The Content of Organizational Communication Texts Interest in the area of organizational communication has'teen growing stea4ily for.-hore than- two decades. This interest has prompted the development of numerous courses, majorsAind academic programs in organizational communica- tion. For the professor assigned to teach the area this presents a problem. Speciftially, "What should be-the content of a course in organizational coemuniEition?" The Problem The problem of content in Organizational communication courses'flows from the problem of defining organizational communication. There is no "obvious" or "logical" definition of the area. Organizational communication can be and is taken to mean, "Communication in the Organization," or "Communication by the Organization," or "Communication as Management," or "Communication as Organize- . _ tion." Moteover, since interest in the area is a relatively recent phenomenon, there is no of common usage,.common concern, or common focus from which a definition might emerge. As Goldhaber (1974) observed, there are a great many-definitions of organizational communication, but little agreement _ among the definitions. Since-_,there is no commonly accepted definition of the subject, it is very difficult to develop commonly accepted content for the subject. Redding (1967) summarized the problem: - We face here an interesting antinomy: on the one hand, there patently exists a widespread-and lively interest frl "Organizational Communicatipn" (among both academes and businessmen); but on the other band, and just as patently, there exists no consensus whatoVer on the precise nature of the thing we are interested, in Redding (1967) also suggested a Way to go about solving thid problem, "& conclusion: the 'field' of 'organizational communication' consists of whatever those who concern themselves with it sly it is (p. 2)1"Thus, determining the content of organize ional communication should be a matter of determining what those who are con erned with it arejoing'with it. ,A number of authors have a Itpted todo just that. Cooper (1953), _Knapp (1969)) Blagdon and Spate (1973), and Rdgers (1975) have developed (*lines of organizational c. '..ication to.guide instructors. Voos (1967), Carter (1972), and Greenbaum, alcione, et, al. (1975, 1976) have developed bibliographies to despribe wh t is being written about organizatibnalcommuni- cation. Wright and Sherman 970), Downs and Lorimer (1974), Hatch, et. alv (1973), sad Lewis (1975) ha e surveyed teachers to 'determine what is being taught as organiiitional 4 ication. The common thread of these efforts has been the demonstration-Of n overwhelming lack'of professional consensus on the nature of organizatial communication. Downs and Lorimer (1975) attributed this lack of consensus tothe-relitive youth of the area. They expected to variance to diminish as more texts became available and the subject crystallized.' More texts have becoine'available: In :3 communication texts availablein April of 1977, fact, of the organizational five years, 607. (fifteen (twenty texts) werepublished in the last MOTS than 807. study was to examine the texts) in the last two years. The purpose of this subject has' crystallized. The available texts to determine towhat extent the . tommunication-is,and imp-licit assumption was that the natureof organizational communication should bewhat the the content of a coursein organizational it is and/orshould bey authors of tectbook onorganizational communication say The Method Murdick - s examine the texts wasderived from Ross and The methodology used to of could be organizedaround the consensus (1977). -They-argued-that acourse the subject, most important bythe authors of the texts on topics considere of a topic ortance were used: frequency of discussions TwO measures of number of pages ad to be at least two pagesto be counted} and (a discussi inferred topic. 'Moreover, the natureof the subject could be devoted to = perspective for treatingthe from the number of authorsAdopting a particular subject.A subjective countmeasured perspective. 1 available tradebooks were surveyed(a list of_titles is Twenty six text and included. Handbooks, bibliographies,and readers were not from the author). writing, re- specific topics such asopenness, speaking, Nor were texts on included. porting, interviewing, advertising,public relations, etc. The Results. shown ta Table 1. .Topics The results of the surveyof text content Aare of books with separatediscussions are listedfirst,-followed by the number the topic. Of special_ of-the topic, and the numberof pages devoted to covered in every textand the