Strengthening the Introductory Communication Course: An Opportunity through Better Alignment with Today’s Needs

More than a century after its inception in contemporary form, the discipline of Communication has encountered a tremendous opportunity—the chance to become an “essential discipline” in the academy, one like Math or English, which universities consider indispensable to the work they do. And yet, as a discipline, we have not sufficiently moved toward taking advantage of that opportunity. While such a move will require action in curriculum, scholarship, and service, one of the highest-impact areas in establishing the necessity of Communication is the introductory course. In order to understand the opportunity that lies before us, we have to understand how higher education in the United States has evolved and how recent changes have created this opening. In this essay, I offer brief historical context to explain the relevant changes, then offer a path forward for the discipline respond productively

Dealing with Co-workers We Don\u27t Like

When we take a job with a company, we instantly develop a large network of new acquaintances. The relationships we have with co-workers are called “nonvoluntary relationships” because as long as we hold a job with that organization, we have no choice but to interact with the other people who work there. As long as we like our co-workers, the nonvoluntary nature of these relationships is unremarkable, but for most of us it is inevitable that we won’t like a few of those people. This can cause a difficult situation. Relationships with co-workers we don’t like are stressful. The stronger our disdain and the more closely we have to work with such individuals, the more stress these relationships cause. This article covers: * How to cope * What research tells us * Tips for dealing with people we don’t like * The importance of mastering this skil

\u27Wait — Something’s Missing!\u27: The Status of Ethics in Basic Public Speaking Texts

The basic course is important to the welfare of the speech communication discipline. According to Seiler and McGukin (1989), the basic course is the mainstay of the discipline. Gibson, Hanna, and Leichty (1990) surveyed 423 institutions of higher education nationwide and found that at 92% of the schools’ enrollment in the basic course was increasing or holding steady (this is up from the figure of 88% reported in 1985). In a survey of college graduates, Pearson, Nelson, and Sorenson (1981) found that 93% believed that the basic speech course should be required for all students. Because of its popularity and the perceived need for it, the basic course is important to the speech communication discipline. This importance mandates that we work to keep it a high-quality offering. Public speaking educators have a responsibility to teach both the skills needed to present a good speech and also guidelines for moral use of those skills. Just as we would not teach a child how to shoot a gun without explaining when and why it should be used, we should not teach students a powerful skill like public speaking and not provide appropriate guidelines. Greenberg (1986) argued that if ethics are not taught in the basic public speaking course, the learning is incomplete. Unfortunately, there exists evidence that ethics are not fully explored in basic speech textbooks (e.g., Arnett, 1988; Hess and Pearson, in press). Overlooking ethical considerations in speech classes could have severe consequences. Todd-Mancillas (1987) voiced this concern over omission of ethics in communication classes: “One of my greatest concerns is that we may well be helping an entire generation of students to presume the unimportance of asking fundamentally important questions about the rightness or wrongness of given communication strategies” (p. 12). And as Johnson (1970) noted, “it may be that the most ‘immoral’ person is not he [or she] who makes ‘wrong’ decisions, but he [or she] who consistently neglects to consider the moral implications of decisions he [or she] does make” (p. 60). This study was conducted to assess the current ethical guidance in basic public speaking textbooks. It focused on textbooks since they are the printed material students use during the course. Public speaking textbooks were examined since the public speaking focus is the most common orientation toward the basic course (Gibson, Hanna, & Leichty, 1990). By carefully examining what we currently teach in regards to speech ethics and deciding what we want to teach, we can evaluate our current status and clearly identify both strengths and areas in need of improvement

Rethinking Our Approach to the Basic Course: Making Ethics the Foundation of Introduction to Public Speaking

The basic public speaking course is often taught from a standpoint of effectiveness. That approach can be problematic due to the dangers of technique. The use of ethics as a foundation for public speaking can overcome this drawback and has other advantages. Included in these advantages are its fidelity to the subject matter, promoting more responsible use of power, improved fit with the liberal arts mission of higher education, and better meeting student needs. Issues in implementing an ethics-based course are discussed, such as identifying ethical issues and engaging in dialogue. The model is illustrated through a description of one introductory public speaking course that was recently restructured to meet this philosophy

Business as Usual: Ethics as Mundane Behavior, and the Case of Target Corporation

Ethics are in vogue in the 1990s America. Concerns for ethical behavior pervade almost every aspect of our lives and work. This trend has not been unnoticed by the American business community. In fact, many businesses have taken current ethical concerns and tried to put them into action. In some cases, the action has been out of necessity or self-interest, as in the case of companies hurt by an unethical reputation or companies forced to implement ethics programs because of legal indictments. But some companies are taking a proactive stance toward ethics without external pressure. As these businesses strive to conduct themselves in a more ethically responsible manner, many questions must be answered: Do businesses need to appoint certain employees whose sole task is to handle ethical concerns, or should the duties just be integrated into existing organizational structures? How should leaders respond to ethical violations within the company? What should businesses do when competitors act unethically? Are ethical concerns best handled within the company, or should outside experts be employed? The questions are unending. As scholars, our responsibility is to provide answers to these questions so that practitioners can act effectively. I conducted this research project to start to answer some of the difficult questions about business ethics. Most of the research and writing on business ethics has addressed how organizations respond to difficult situations, like ethical misconduct (e.g., Millar & Boileau, 1992) or difficult ethical choices (e.g ., Berleant. 1982). Much less has been written on mundane ethical behavior in companies (Porter, 1990). Yet the mundane is the realm of behavior that represents the majority of what occurs. Difficult ethical dilemmas are inviting to study because they are salient, but they frequently reflect atypical behavior. To understand corporate ethics and make recommendations for growth, we need to study how companies respond to ethical issues in everyday organizational life. My focus, then, was to understand mundane structures for communicating ethics at one company, the Target Corporation. From that, I hoped to draw some preliminary conclusions about ethics at Target, and about organizational ethical structure in general

Maintaining Undesired Relationships

As social creatures, we spend our lives in the company of others, rather than in isolation. Consequently, we maintain many relationships out of need rather than desire. Unfortunately, some of these relationships are ones that we would not maintain if given a choice. Although a considerable amount of research on relational dynamics can be applied to unwanted relationships, scholars have made little attempt to generate an integrated overview of what communication characteristics typify such relationships, how they differ from desirable relationships, or how they should best be maintained. The maintenance of unwanted relationships piques public interest. Articles with titles such as You Bug Me! (Precker, 2000) and Do You Attract People You’d Rather Repel? (Finella, 2000) that are scattered throughout the pages of newspapers and magazines, and books such as Dealing With People You Can’t Stand (Brinkman & Kirschner 1994) serve as a testament to the attraction such relationships have on people’s attention. But unwanted relationships should catch attention as well because a closer examination of these relationships could broaden and enrich our understanding of personal relationships. Relationships people want to maintain pose challenges (e.g., managing dialectical tensions or dealing with conflict), but greater challenges can arise in relationships that one or both parties wish did not exist. It seems likely that at both an individual and societal level, more problems arise from relationships people would not maintain if given a choice than from relationships that people choose to nurture. The widely documented tensions in Ireland, the Middle East, and the former Yugoslavia may illustrate some problems that result from social groups being unwillingly forced to coexist. At an interpersonal level, individuals face undesirable relationships on a regular basis and often experience negative consequences from them (Hess, 2000; Levitt, Silver, & Franco, 1996)

Looking Forward to Meet Needs: A Response to Edwards; Frey, Tatum, and Cooper; and Prentiss

The essays you have just read offer valuable insights into the matter of matching communication knowledge and skills with employer needs. This topic is one of the more important issues facing the academy at present. Higher education in America is currently undergoing seismic shifts (Bok, 2013; Crow & Dabars, 2015). The model of higher education we have been developing since the late 1800s has served us well for over a century. But that model was developed to transition higher education from developing teachers and clergy to supporting broader societal needs of the Industrial Age (Davidson, 2017). With a very different nature of work in an Information Age, we need to revise curriculum and pedagogy accordingly

Making Oral Communication a Successful Part of the Common Core

Adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) represents the first time that oral communication has been included in the curriculum requirements for K–12 education in many states. If done well, this change will provide important benefits to students. However, effective implementation will require collaboration among policymakers, educators, and experts in oral communication. As educators work to strengthen primary and secondary education in the United States, many agree that schools need educational standards that are grounded in today’s needs and shared across states. The CCSS have emerged as a potential solution, and the majority of states have adopted these standards. The addition of oral communication to the primary and secondary curriculum is significant, as bountiful evidence points to oral communication as one of the most important domains of knowledge and skill students can master. Surveys of employers by organizations such as the National Association of College and Employers, surveys of corporate leaders by academic researchers, research on technical and engineering jobs funded by the National Science Foundation, prevalent advice by employment experts, and vast amounts of other evidence consistently place strength in oral communication among the most sought-after attributes in new hires. The CCSS focus on two major areas of communication knowledge and skill: * Comprehension and collaboration * Presentation of knowledge and ideas. The former helps students learn how to work with others in discussion and team settings. Comprehension and collaboration includes being prepared for discussion, interacting with civility, setting goals and deadlines in conversation, asking good questions and answering effectively, integrating and responding thoughtfully to diverse ideas, evaluating oral arguments, and developing other related skills. The latter content area focuses on quality of oral presentations. Presentation of knowledge and ideas includes structuring information for best comprehension, having effective delivery style, making strategic use of presentational aids, adapting to different audiences and contexts, and more

Building Support for the Introductory Oral Communication Course: Strategies for Widespread and Enduring Support on Campus

A strong introductory course is important for many communication departments, for the discipline, and for meeting our obligation to society. This paper utilizes the example of a recent curricular reform that threatened to eliminate a required oral communication course to reflect on strategies departments can use to build widespread and lasting support for the course. The paper reviews the events that led to the challenge and details the department’s response, which offers lessons that may be useful for other institutions. Four lessons include: * Tailoring the introductory course to the institution’s needs and mission * Involvement in university work * Making compelling use of assessment * Drawing on support from accreditation requirements

Distancing from Problematic Coworkers

Troublesome relationships are a universal aspect of human social interaction (Levitt, Silver, & Franco, 1996). Perhaps nowhere besides the family are problematic relationships so commonplace as in the workplace. Although relationship research primarily focuses on positive relations and thorny problems that occur even in the best of relationships, virtually everyone who has worked in an organization can relate stories of problematic relationships. The challenges these relationships pose resonate with people’s deepest feelings and most significant experiences at work. Problematic work relationships are often as memorable as they are challenging. Workplace relations are largely nonvoluntary relationships. They are created when people with diverse backgrounds, reasons for working in a company, different work styles, values, and incompatible personal and career goals must all work with each other. Such an environment should create conditions where personal differences and conflicts are commonplace. If negative relationships had little impact on workers, they would not be of much concern to researchers despite their prevalence. Unfortunately, these relationships have significant negative effects on those who experience them. Fritz and Omdahl (1998) found that the greater the proportion of negative peers people have at work, the greater their workplace cynicism and the lesser their job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Furthermore, problematic relationships can have detrimental effects on people’s well-being. … If people are to be successful at work and find their jobs satisfying, they must learn how to deal with these difficult relationships. One of the most important ways people cope with negative relationships is by distancing themselves from the problematic partner (Hess, 2002a). In this chapter, I provide a detailed review of what distance is, the role it plays in problematic workplace relationships, how the organizational setting may impact people’s use of distancing tactics, and why people use distance in such relationships. A careful reading of the literature suggests that underlying the act of maintaining relationships with problematic coworkers is a more general process of using affiliation (closeness and distance) to regulate arousal in personal relationships. The end of the chapter delineates this model and discusses its implications for problematic relationships in the workplace