have to write a memo
Assessment task Your boss is keen to understand the challenges and opportunities that technology has brought to corporate communication. She has asked you to prepare an executive summary giving a brief outline on how to embrace 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 library 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 brief 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 Rubric located in this document. JBTC287260.qxd Author’s Note: I would like to thank Abbey Nova, Suzanne Klotz, and Annette Lyman for their help with this article. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Vol. 20 No. 3 July 2006 357-370 DOI: 10.1177/1050651906287260 © 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 business and a discipline within the academy. He focuses specifically on the challenges and opportunities that new technologies have brought to the field and explores possi- bilities 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; read the news; access medical, government, and financial information; participate in online auctions; buy and sell stocks; and make travel reservations. 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 brought 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 relations, investor relations, internal or employee communications, government relations or public affairs, community relations, corpo- rate 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 blogs. 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 or 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 broadcast by companies to inform audiences, what Munter (2005) called a “tell style” of communication, or to persuade them to do something that corporations wanted to accomplish (Schultz & Kitchen, 2004). Information 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, 2001). A 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 over 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 number 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, 2004). But 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 by anyone with Internet access. A recent documentary about Enron is a cautionary tale for all corporations (Gibney, 2005). This 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 Web 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 broad, basic 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; color 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 labor 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 major 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 base, a broader 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 their 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