Identifying the Common and Separate Domains of Business-Management-Organizational Communication

By White-Mills, Kim; Rogers, Donald P. | The Journal of Business Communication, July 1996 | Go to article overview

Identifying the Common and Separate Domains of Business-Management-Organizational Communication


White-Mills, Kim, Rogers, Donald P., The Journal of Business Communication


In recent years there have been several indications that Business-Management-Organizational Communication (BMOC) is developing as a mature field (for example, the number of top schools requiring BMOC, the total number of schools requiring BMOC, membership in professional organizations, attendance at professional meetings, the number, quality, and focus of the journals). Ho's (1988) analysis of citation patterns in core communication journals showed indications of gradual development. Beringer (1990) argued that communication has at last come of age as an academic field. In the specific areas, recent research by Nelson, Luse, and DuFrene (1992), Pace, Michal-Johnson, and Mills (1990), and Munter (1989) showed significant consistency within (but not among) business communication, organizational communication, and management communication. Since self-reflection is one characteristic of academic maturity, we chose to examine the intellectual foundations of the field for clues to its future directions.

BMOC as a field of study has three primary roots. The oldest root is from English to Business Writing to Business Communication. According to Galle and Lundberg (1988), "the traditional domain of business communication involves the structural components of correct letter writing, writing style, grammar, and formal reports" (p.27). Recent research by Nelson, Luse, and DuFrene (1992) confirms that letters, memos, and reports (along with oral presentations) are the core of the introductory course in Business Communication.

The second root is from Speech Communication to Business Speaking to Communication to Organizational Communication. Putnam and Cheney (1985) developed the common view that organizational communication takes a theoretical approach to analyzing a variety of communications phenomena, but within organizational contexts. The research of Pace, Michal-Johnson, and Mills (1990), Pace and Ross (1983), Rogers (1978), and Downs and Larimer (1974) confirms that organizational communication focuses on theory (organizational theory, communication theory, and organizational communication theory) and has applications (to conflict, leadership, climate, culture, change, and decision making).

The third root is from Management to Management Communication. Smeltzer, Glab, and Golen (1983) described this root as the merger of business communication, organizational communication, and management. Research by Munter (1989) showed that management communication focuses on the merger of managerial writing and speaking, formulation of communication strategies, and applications in specific contexts.

A central question for BMOC is whether this is one field of study or three closely related fields. Pearse (1989) argued that BMOC is a single discipline with a multidisciplinary history. Smeltzer, Glab, and Golen (1983) contend that managerial communication, as the product of the merger of business communication, organizational communication, and management, encompassed all three. Johnson and DuFrene (1992) argued that historically this has been a diverse field, but a common body of knowledge is emerging. Reinsch (1991) contends that "business communication, management communication, and organizational communication are not identical" (p.305). He does, however, see overlap in their research interests and methodologies. Smeltzer and Suchan (1991) disagree, arguing instead that business communication as a discipline lacks respect in part because of its failure to develop a recognizable body of knowledge or theoretical framework of its own. At this point in the history of the field, it is not clear whether BMOC is one field with a common body of knowledge or three fields with a fragmented body of knowledge.

Research Question

A major goal of an identifiable discipline is the clear identification of that discipline, its parameters and perspectives. The basic research question motivating this study is whether BMOC is a single field of study with a common body of knowledge or three separate fields.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Identifying the Common and Separate Domains of Business-Management-Organizational Communication
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.