Current thinking about effective written communication does not systematically assess the complex role that language plays in organizations. This article calls for a contingency view of communication clarity and effectiveness based on the impact that an organization's language customs have on perceived effectiveness. To justify this need for a contingency approach, we examine the psychological-social function of organizational language and discuss the role that language has in creating new knowledge in organizations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, J. D. , & Sigband, N. B. (1984). How effectively does the “new” accountant communicate? Perceptions by practitioners and academics. Journal of Business Communication, 21(2), 15-24.
2.
Armstrong, J. S. (1979). Unintelligible research and academic prestige. (Working Paper No. 79-015). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, Department of Marketing.
3.
Armstrong, J. S. (1980). Unintelligible management research and academic prestige. Interfaces, 10, 80-86.
4.
Bennett, J. , & Olney, R. J. (1986). Executive priorities for effective communication in an information society. Journal of Business Communication, 23(2), 13-22.
5.
Born, R. P. (1987). Split semantics: Provocations concerning theories of meaning and philosophy in general. In R. P. Born (Ed.), Artificial intelligence (pp. 190-213). Great Britain: Croom Helm Ltd.
6.
Bruffee, K. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: A bibliographic essay. College English, 48, 773-790.
7.
Cooper, M. (1986). The ecology of writing. College English, 48, 364-375.
8.
Correspondence Manual. (1983). Washington, DC: Department of the Navy.
9.
Crow, P. (1988). Plain English: What counts besides readability?Journal of Business Communication, 25(1), 87-95.
10.
Di Salvo, V. , & Larsen, J. (1987). A contingency approach to communication skill importance: The impact of occupation, direction, and position. Journal of Business Communication, 24(3), 3-22.
11.
Evered, R. (1983). The language of organizations: The case of the navy. In L. Pondy (Ed.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 169-191). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
12.
Feinberg, S. , & Pritzker, I. (1985). An MBA communications course designed by business executives. Journal of Business Communication, 22(4), 75-83.
13.
Freed, R. , & Broadhead, G. (1987). Discourse communities, sacred texts, and institutional norms. College Composition and Communication, 38(2), 154-165.
14.
Lanham, R. (1974). Style: An anti-textbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
Lundborg, L. (1980). The voice of business. In L. Michaels & C. Ricks (Eds.), The state of the language (pp. 1524-184). Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
Myers, G. (1985). The social construction of two biologists' proposals. Written Communication, 2, 219-245.
17.
Orwell, G. (1974). Politics and the English language. In R. Gieselman (Ed.), Readings in business communication (pp. 96-107). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.
18.
Suchan, J. , & Colucci, R. (1987, October). Naval officers perceptions of high impact and bureaucratic written communications. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Business Communication, Atlanta, GA.
19.
Suchan, J. , & Colucci, R. (1989). Communication efficiency between high-impact and bureaucratic written communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 2, 452-482.
20.
Timm, P. R. , & Oswald, D. (1985). Plain English laws: Symbolic or real?Journal of Business Communication, 22(2), 31-38.
21.
Tracy, L. , & Lee, J. A. (1982). Reading-level preferences of business executives and executive MBA students. (Working Paper No. 82-105). Athens: Ohio University, College of Business Administration.
22.
Wittengenstein, L. (1961). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. (D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
23.
Whorf, B. L. (1964). Language, thought, and reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
