Assessment task
Your boss is keen to understand the challenges and opportunities that technology has
ought to corporate communication. She has asked you to prepare an executive summary giving a
ief outline on how to em
ace these challenges and opportunities in the workplace.
Read the article by Argenti, P 2006, ‘How Technology Has Influenced the Field of Corporate Communication, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 357 – 370 (located on the Blackboard – Assessment Readings 1).
Please follow these guidelines to complete the assessment:
1. Read the article by Argenti, P 2006, ‘How Technology Has Influenced the Field of Corporate Communication, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 357 – 370 (located on the Blackboard – Assessment Readings 1).
2. Engage in research to find two other articles (academic journal, industry journal, website article, or a newspaper article) related to the impact of technology on corporate communication. Use Google Scholar and the SCU li
ary website to do your research.
3. Print and read all articles and complete the Article Analysis Form (located under Assessment Details) for each of the three articles. Attach each form to the back of your executive summary.
4. After carefully reading the three articles, draft a two-page Executive Summary (synopsis) using the format of an Executive Summary memo. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed, (2000), the word synopsis is defined as “A
ief outline . . . a summary”
5. Identify three headings that relate to the purpose of the memo to form the structure for the body of your work. Support for each heading must come from at least TWO of your THREE sources. Use one quotation in each section from one of your three sources.
6. You will need to use SCU Harvard style to document your sources within the text and in the Reference List. For further information please see: http:
libguides.scu.edu.au/harvard
7. Write the two-page Executive Summary (12pt Times New Roman font – single spaced). The Reference List must be on the third (separate) page.
8. Submit Assessment 1 to Turnitin via the Blackboard site no later than the due date: Monday 19th March 9.00am (QLD time).
9. Refer to the Marking Criteria Guide and Marking Ru
ic located in this document.
JBTC287260.qxd
Author’s Note: I would like to thank A
ey Nova, Suzanne Klotz, and Annette Lyman fo
their help with this article.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Vol. 20 No. 3 July XXXXXXXXXX
DOI: XXXXXXXXXX/ XXXXXXXXXX
© 2006 Sage Publications
How Technology Has Influenced the
Field of Corporate Communication
PAUL A. ARGENTI
Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
This commentary serves as a sequel to and an update of the author’s earlier article
“Corporate Communication as a Discipline: Toward a Definition.” In addition to pre-
senting new information about the field of corporate communication, the author dis-
cusses the particular effect that technology has had on the field as both a function in
usiness and a discipline within the academy. He focuses specifically on the challenges
and opportunities that new technologies have
ought to the field and explores possi-
ilities for teaching and research.
Keywords: corporate communication; technology; blogs; integration; new commu-
nication channels
Ten years ago, when Management Communication Quarterlyasked me to write an article defining corporate communica-tion as a discipline (Argenti, 1996), the field was relatively new
to business schools and was transitioning in the business world from
the media-oriented field of public relations into corporate communica-
tion, a more integrated, organizational function focusing on multiple
constituencies. Now corporate communication is being reformulated
again by unprecedented technological change. When that article,
“Corporate Communication as a Discipline: Toward a Definition,” was
published in 1996, fewer than 15% of Americans had Internet access;
today, more than 60% have Internet access (Fox, Anderson, & Rainie,
2005). Worldwide, people use the Internet to communicate via e-mail;
ead the news; access medical, government, and financial information;
participate in online auctions; buy and sell stocks; and make travel
eservations. Users also communicate with corporations directly
and indirectly through a growing list of Web sites, online chat rooms,
and blogs. This commentary focuses on the changes, challenges, and
357
opportunities that technology has
ought to corporate communication
and explores possibilities for teaching and research.
CHANGING ENVIRONMENT
Within companies, the term corporate communication is used to
describe four distinct aspects of communication (Argenti & Forman,
2002): It may describe a function, such as marketing or operations; a
channel of communication; a communication process; or an attitude
or set of beliefs. A company’s corporate communication function
is responsible for communication with both internal and external
constituencies; it involves a number of subfunctions, such as media
elations, investor relations, internal or employee communications,
government relations or public affairs, community relations, corpo-
ate philanthropy, corporate reputation, and marketing communica-
tions. Corporate communication channels include not only printed
materials but also information posted on a company’s Web sites and
logs. Communication processes involve the style of communica-
tion, including tone and timing. Some organizations, for example,
may use highly formal and bureaucratic styles, whereas others pre-
fer informal styles that facilitate free-flowing dialogues between
senior managers and employees, customers, analysts, and other con-
stituencies. Finally, corporate communication is also an attitude o
set of beliefs that people have about what and how to communicate
and the inherent value of such efforts to communicate.
All these aspects of corporate communication are being trans-
formed. Today, companies have less control of communication while
various constituencies, competitors, and the general public have
greater access to information and to employees at all levels within
companies. Communication has become less static and more dynamic,
involving many shifting channels and new capabilities. In the past,
most corporate messages were
oadcast by companies to inform
audiences, what Munter XXXXXXXXXXcalled a “tell style” of communication,
or to persuade them to do something that corporations wanted to
accomplish (Schultz & Kitchen, XXXXXXXXXXInformation was mostly pre-
planned; it was designed and delivered to audiences through personal
contacts, presentations, company visits, and the mass media. Today,
technology accommodates real-time dialogue between companies and
their constituents, replacing unidirectional messages from faceless
managers. Companies must react to public inquiries and dialogue
(Ihator, 2001), with less opportunity to prepare for presenting their own
358 JBTC / July 2006
versions of reality. Constituents expect information to be provided
quickly, allowing little time for packaging.
Although the Internet allows companies to present their viewpoints
directly to key constituents, control over information dissemination is
lost (Ihator, XXXXXXXXXXA message directed at employees from a senior man-
ager, for instance, can be spread to multiple constituencies who were
not supposed to receive it. Investors and analysts following the finan-
cial markets can hear customer complaints intended for a company,
which can affect its market value. One example of how the dissemina-
tion of negative information can spiral out of control happened in the
summer of 2005, when Jeff Jarvis, on his blog BuzzMachine, chronicled
his negative experience with Dell’s customer service, corporate com-
munications, and head of marketing. Traffic to his site doubled to ove
10,000 hits per day during this time, and the media and investors
noticed the situation, calling into question Dell’s customer service in a
very public forum (Beucke & Lee, 2005).
The control of information is also complicated by the sheer numbe
of communication channels: Web sites, mobile phones, kiosks, ATMs,
even gas pumps. Such diverse and geographically dispersed channels
allow companies to reach customers and other constituencies cost
effectively. For example, a glossy hard copy of an annual report
shipped at some expense is no longer necessary (or expected) to dis-
seminate information (Myers, Pickersgill, & Van Metre, XXXXXXXXXXBut out-
side corporate control, records of what a company does and says, as
well as what is said about it, are more readily available and searchable
y anyone with Internet access. A recent documentary about Enron is
a cautionary tale for all corporations (Gibney, XXXXXXXXXXThis movie shows
actual documents and footage that were obtained over the Internet,
creating an indictment far more damaging than whatever the courts
have handed down to the executives in question. And sites such as
Internet Archive (http:
www.archive.org) archive versions of We
sites, providing a historical record for all to see. For example, I used
Internet Archive to compare the 1996 and 2005 versions of the AFL-
CIO’s Web site. In 1996, the site was primarily text based, with
oad,
asic sections for policy statements, press releases, research reports,
newsletter information, and instructions for union organizing, as well
as its boycott list. Clip art graphics were used to add color to an other-
wise white screen (Figure 1 is a snapshot of the 1996 home page). By
2005, the AFL-CIO’s Web site had expanded substantially. It featured a
legislative alert center, including congressional voting records; colo
photographs of union members; interactive education tools, including
a way to look up the total compensation of senior executives; games
Argenti / TECHNOLOGY AND CORPORATE COMMUNICATION 359
and puzzles; an online union shop; a search engine; and a place to sign
up for e-mail alerts. In 1996, there was no mention of a global labo
movement; in 2005, it was an integrated part of the Web site. Perhaps
the most telling change was that in 1996, the Web site had two majo
updates whereas in 2005, it had 122 (Figure 2 is a snapshot of the 2005
home page). Clearly, the changes between these two versions reflected
more than mere technological improvements. They reflected a morph-
ing and increasing sophistication in communication with constituents.
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL CHALLENGES
With an increasingly mobile workforce, an empowered employee
ase, a
oader audience for financial information, and a power shift
to constituents in general, corporations are being challenged in new
ways. Technology has fundamentally changed the dynamic between
corporations and their employees and outside constituencies, creating
a new sense of entitlement by enabling insiders and outsiders to
360 JBTC / July 2006
Figure 1. A Snapshot of the 1996 Home Page of the AFL-CIO’s Web Site
SOURCE: Retrieved August 29, 2005, from Internet Archive (http:
www.archive.org).
Reprinted with permission from the ALF–CIO.
disseminate and collect information about companies at will and a
new equality in communication.
Employees
Today’s employees are increasingly mobile. Connected to thei
peers and managers by electronic means rather than by close physi-
cal proximity, employees can work independently. With less “face
time,” companies may have more difficulty clearly communicating
values, culture, and vision