InfoTrac Web: Expanded Academic ASAP.
AB Compliance-gaining theory has the potential for improving the
analysis of management communication through memoranda. The conventional
method of analyzing memoranda is the bad news formula, which is based on
sales principles. This method searches for buffers, reasons, implied
refusal and other language cues in analyzing the contents of memoranda.
However, compliance-gaining theory adds strength to textual analysis by
explicating the interpersonal relationships underlying the message
production process. Analysis of several management memos written to
subordinates reveals that their compliance-gaining features yield
further insight into the power structure, verbal strategies and
negotiating process involved in the communication.
AL Trade
AT
AU
AU
CT
DE
DE
DE
Rereading bad news: compliance-gaining features in management memos.
Carol David
Margaret Ann Baker
The Journal of Business Communication
Memorandums_Research
Business writing_Psychological aspects
Compliance (Psychology)_Psychological aspects
DP
IS
LW
ND
PB
PT
PT
RM
SN
Oct 1994 v31 n4 p267(24)
n4
p267(24)
20050808
Association for Business Communication
Magazine/Journal
Refereed
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group
0021-9436
SU
SU
SU
SU
SU
VO
ZZ
Memorandums_Research
Business writing_Psychological aspects
Compliance_Psychological aspects
Research
Psychological aspects
v31
Source: The Journal of Business Communication, Oct 1994 v31 n4
p267(24).
Title: Rereading bad news: compliance-gaining features in
management memos.
Author: Carol David and Margaret Ann Baker
Abstract: Compliance-gaining theory has the potential for improving
the analysis of management communication through memoranda. The
conventional method of analyzing memoranda is the bad news formula, which
is based on sales principles. This method searches for buffers, reasons,
implied refusal and other language cues in analyzing the contents of
memoranda. However, compliance-gaining theory adds strength to textual
analysis by explicating the interpersonal relationships underlying the
message production process. Analysis of several management memos written
to subordinates reveals that their compliance-gaining features yield
further insight into the power structure, verbal strategies and
negotiating process involved in the communication.
Subjects:
Memorandums - Research
Business writing - Psychological aspects
Compliance - Psychological aspects
Electronic Collection: A16359678
RN: A16359678
Full Text COPYRIGHT Association for Business Communication 1994
Methods of conveying bad news have received surprisingly little
attention considering their broad application in the business world.
Widely accepted is advice offered by textbooks for delivering written bad
news: an indirect organizational pattern, including buffer, reasons,
implied refusal, and positive ending. Because the bad news formula
originated in the pedagogy for consumer sales writing (Adair, 1986), its
usefulness for analyzing in-house communication may be limited. Managers
must frequently announce inconvenient changes that convey "bad news" to
employees, and the writing choices for these messages may be different
from those used with customers outside of the organization.
In this study we show how compliance-gaining theory can help to explain
some of the content and style of two kinds of memos that deliver bad news
from managers to subordinates. In the first section of the paper we review
pertinent research on bad news, most of which has dealt with the
organizational patterns and tone of bad news messages. Then we present
findings from research on compliance-gaining theory which identify some
of the message and contextual features that might influence the writing
choices made in bad news memos. In the second section we apply the
compliance-gaining principles to two kinds of real-world memos, reminders
and announcements of changes, to exemplify how the features elucidate the
texts. Finally, we assess the contribution of compliance gaining in
analyzing the memos.
RESEARCH ON BAD NEWS
Research on the bad news formula typically has examined the placement of
the bad news in letters and the letters' tone. Judgments about the efficacy
of an indirect organizational pattern have been mixed. Jablin and Krone
(1984) looked at the organization and content of employment rejection
letters sent to college students and found that the principles described
by the bad news formula, an indirect organization with some form of
explanation, were seen by recipients as clear and personal. Brown (1993),
reviewing 500 employment rejection letters, recommended a personal,
humane tone but rejected flattery or ambiguity in attaining it.
Many researchers have preferred directness in presenting bad news.
Salerno (1988), in a study of his own job rejection letters, ruled against
buffers, judging them either "insincere or merely ritualistic", and Brent
(1985) reported that readers, especially business readers, find the
indirect arrangement transparent and manipulative. Limaye (1988) also
found that over half of editors rejecting journal articles, eschewing
conventional advice, placed the bad news in the first paragraph.
Furthermore, he found no significant relationship between the placement
and the recipients' perceptions of the sender. Other researchers such as
Suchan and Dulek (1988) have objected to the bad news formula because it
fails to recognize the complexity of the audience and context of a message.
In general, researchers have agreed that achieving a personal tone is
important in conveying bad news, but the organizational pattern of the
message is not essential in attaining the tone.
Another method of analysis that researchers have applied to bad news is
Brown and Levinson's politeness theory. As a branch of pragmatics,
politeness theory describes strategies used by speakers to protect the
listener's image, or save face. Depending on the power and personal
relationship between the speakers, and the degree of negativity of the
message, speakers employ various linguistic strategies to mitigate a
potential threat to the listener (Brown & Levinson, 1987). These
strategies, originally identified in oral communication, have been
applied to written documents. Campbell (1990) found that including
reasons in bad news messages served as a politeness strategy. Also, Hagge
and Kostelnick (1989) applied linguistic politeness to sample letters
taken from an auditors' firm to illustrate the frequent use of stylistic
"passives, expletives, nominalizations, and hedging particles" in
mitigating potentially threatening interactions with clients.
On the other hand, Cherry (1988), applying linguistic politeness to
letters written by faculty to the president of a state university
objecting to a tenure decision, found that they violated some politeness
maxims. Cherry consequently advised that awareness of contextual features
is needed in a linguistic analysis. Analyzing in-house oral messages, Lee
(1993) concluded that politeness theory did not explain strategies used
by females, and she also noted several specific strategies that politeness
theory does not identify. Her research suggests that the large number of
options for style and content of bad news messages seriously hampers
attempts to catalog them. Thus, politeness theory has contributed basic
principles for explaining politeness in messages, but cannot address all
of the nuances of style and content produced by changing contexts. In fact,
Brown and Levinson in the 1987 reissue of their work on linguistic
politeness acknowledge the importance of contextual features to their
theory and the contribution of compliance-gaining research.
While these approaches to an analysis of bad news can elucidate some
effective writing techniques, they are limited in explaining the
important contextual features in a communication. Some composition
researchers see the context as vital to understanding the message. For
instance, Odell, Goswami, Herrington, and Quick (1983) found that writers
in a social services department were uneasy when asked to review memos
taken out of context even though the memos were taken from their own
organization. Awareness of the events that preceded or followed the memo
and the writer and subject matter was imperative to their judging the memos.
Yet discovering such contextual features is a task that Faigley describes
as "formidable" (1985, p. 236).
One method that may reveal some of this contextual data is
compliance-gaining theory, developed by researchers in psychology and
organizational communication. Similar to linguistic politeness, this
research has been conducted on oral, interpersonal communication, but
unlike politeness research, it has not addressed stylistic techniques of
sentence structure and word choice. Instead, the principles of
compliance-gaining theory illuminate many of the power bases, verbal
strategies, and contextual features of persuasive business communication.
In the following section we discuss pertinent compliance-gaining research.
When needed, we have amplified the reported research with findings drawn
from research in professional writing and with examples from our own
experience.
COMPLIANCE-GAINING FEATURES
Compliance-gaining research has addressed the use of power in
persuasion. Much attention has gone to identifying the verbal strategies
actors use to influence others and compiling taxonomies of these
strategies. However, because of the number of taxonomies used in research
and their discrepancies in definition, the taxonomies have not allowed
replication of experiments and expansion of the theory. In their research
Kellermann and Cole (1994) conducted an extensive study of strategy
taxonomies and identified seventy-four classification systems.
Responding to the Kellermann and Cole study, O'Keefe (1994) urges
researchers to look at features of the message rather than concentrating
on the classification of message strategies and Roloff (1944) responds
to the Kellermann and Cole study by emphasizing that because
compliance-gaining research spans a number of disciplines, context
is important in interpreting messages. Although some of the research
situations have involved social relationships, many of the experiments
have used business contexts. Furthermore, early power literature on which
much of compliance gaining rests (Barnard, 1938; Etzioni, 1961; Simon,
1947) addresses organizations.
We have divided the following discussion of compliance gaining into two
sections: features of the message and features of the context. We have
chosen to discuss the power base, verbal strategies, and tactics in the
message section because they reflect the features of message production.
Also, we have included in this section some discussion of the process of
communication underlying compliance-gaining theory. Under context we
have placed employee resistance, goals, and corporate culture because
these categories are not methods of gaining compliance but rather features
of the persuasive situation (Kellermann & Cole, 1994). We believe, however,
that in operation the features are essentially inseparable. Because
research has examined a wide variety of contextual features in persuasion,
we have selected from it what seems to best pertain to the two types of
memos we discuss: reminders of company procedures that have been
overlooked and changes in procedures and policies. Similar to other
research on oral language, such as linguistic politeness theory (Campbell,
1990; Cherry, 1988; Hagge & Kostelnick, 1989), this study will adapt the
research findings on oral communication to written communication. However,
in examining the written texts, we have added some stylistic explanations
to compliance-gaining theory.
Message Features
Features of the message include the power base underlying the method of
persuasion and the verbal strategies that implement power with their
more specific breakdown into verbal tactics. These features create the
basic content of the message.
Power Bases
Early research in compliance gaining identified power bases which actors
use in motivating their target audience to comply with the request. An
early theory that has remained the most relevant (Wheeless, Barraclough,
& Stewart, 1983) is the power base taxonomy of French and Raven (1959).
They identify five primary power bases: legitimate power, where persons
are granted power because of their position in an organization or society;
reward power, the ability to provide remuneration (for example, money,
prestige, promotion); coercive power, the ability to provide punishment
(for example, reprimands, demotion, termination); expert power, the
appearance of special abilities or knowledge; and referent power, the
appearance of sharing similar values. An especially useful feature of
French and Raven's theory is the ease of translating power bases into
strategies of control. For instance, the legitimate power of managers
often gains compliance simply because of their rank. What they ask is
essentially mandatory in a hierarchical organization. Likewise, reward
and punishment, expertise, and referent power suggest motivations and
strategies for gaining compliance. Additionally, Etzioni (1961) adds a
further component to the power bases: normative power. He divides this
power base into two types, "pure," which boosts the target's feelings of
self-esteem, and "social," which activates the need for group acceptance.
Implementing normative power of either type and its inherent social
constraints may result in self-imposed compliance or group-imposed
rewards and punishments. Also, when managers request that all employees
follow institutional rules, individuals are not singled out, and the
requirements may seem more fair.
As the power literature has shown, when managers have the legitimate
power to make their requests, often the changes meet with little
resistance. Barnard (1938), in early power theory, postulates that
subordinates will comply with a supervisor's request because they grant
the supervisor the authority of leadership; that is, they recognize the
supervisor's power to ask or demand certain behaviors from them, and they
will comply even if they experience some reluctance. Barnard explains that,
in addition to being comprehensible, communicative acts should conform
with the lines of authority--that is, a hierarchical channel of authority
should exist where every person below the head reports to someone else,
and communication, to maintain compliance, should follow the channel of
authority. In hierarchical organizations employees may expect decisions
to be appropriately authoritative. Driskill and Goldstein (1986, p. 41)
document the disastrous effects when the announcement of a plant closing
came from the human resources manager instead of the CEO.
Currently, the norms of hierarchy and authority still exist within large
corporations; however, most companies grant employees some opportunities
to participate in decisions. Referent or expert power may be used more
often in current team concepts, even in hierarchical organizations. Such
power bases may diminish the expected resistance of the employees because
they feel more involved in decision-making.
Communication--A Negotiation
Compliance-gaining models have described persuasion as a reciprocal
process, where writers and readers negotiate meanings based on their past
experiences and the context of the immediate message. Shelby points out
that the attitudes and needs of the employees play a major role in
determining the optimal choice of power strategy (1991). As early as 1945
Simon's Administrative Behavior recognized the importance of the
reciprocal nature of manager and employee communication. Simon extends
Barnard's argument of authority to the issue of commitment, which he
refers to as "willingness" or "conviction". Like Barnard, Simon believes
that the authority or power of a supervisor alone will yield compliance
from a subordinate. He also argues, however, that behavioral compliance
does not necessarily insure commitment. This concept of commitment
anticipates current compliance-gaining models, which stress the
reciprocal nature of the persuasive process. Members of a community accept
new ideas and modify old ones if these changes seem consistent with their
expectations and belief systems. According to Nystrand, "this means that
the skilled writer senses, in a typically tacit manner, when her purpose
is likely either to mesh with or to run against the grain of her reader's
expectations and purposes" (1989, p. 78).
In-house communication, with its shared goals and values, is particularly
amenable to on-going negotiation between management and staff. With
in-house written messages, negotiations may occur before and after in
group meetings and forums. Staff members communicate through videos
(Thralls, 1993), newsletters, and face-to-face contact (Peters & Austin,
1985). Because they are in close touch, local issues are often discussed
informally or in group meetings. Creating a shared vision is paramount
to successful management (Leavitt, 1986).
Verbal Strategies and Tactics
Managers may call upon one or a combination of verbal strategies to
implement power. Wheeless, Barraclough, and Stewart note that "a person's
strategy usage may result from habit and less conscious processes or from
more deliberate choice" (1983, p. 114). As mentioned, a number of
typologies of verbal strategies have been identified (for example, Kipnis,
Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Maxwell & Schmidt, 1967; Schenck-Hamlin,
Wiseman, & Georgacarakos, 1982), but the typologies are not easily
combined or compared. Strategies involving reward and punishment occur
on all lists, and Marwell and Schmidt (1967), the most frequently cited
(Kellermann & Cole, 1994; Wheeless, Barraclough, & Stewart, 1983),
additionally include such strategies as altercasting (implying that good
persons will cooperate with the desired action), altruism, and esteem.
Other typologies include reasons, empathy, and cooperation.
Some researchers have looked for more specific and extended descriptions
ofthe strategies, labeled tactics. Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980),
for instance, asked managers to write essays describing an incident in
which they influenced business employees. Tactics of influence such as
"used logic," "wrote a detailed plan to justify my ideas," "demonstrated
my competence" were developed from the research. The tactics make up the
essential content of the message; however, given the many possible
contexts, the variety of tactics is so great that compiling tax-enemies
has proven to be even more complicated than constructing taxonomies of
strategies.
Contextual Features
The contextual features describe all of the situational dimensions that
influence the message. Examples of context include: features of the
attitudes of both actor and target towards the message; features of the
rank, the age, and the personalities of the participants; features of the
goal of the request, whether or not it conforms to commonly accepted
beliefs; and features of the company, its size and its culture.
Employee Resistance
Because changes are effected only through negotiations between actor and
target, the employees' attitudes about the required change will influence
the choice of power base, strategy, and tactics in composing the message.
Sullivan, Albrecht, and Taylor (1990) found that the expected resistance
of the employees was the most important consideration in the managers'
choices of persuasive strategies. For instance, requests that require
little inconvenience, such as tidying up the coffee room, cost employees
little and benefit them considerably by improving the office environment
and their own self-esteem as considerate team players, so the request
would meet with little resistance. On the other hand, requests to strictly
follow safety rules for machinery maintenance may cost a great deal in
time and inconvenience and gain little notice or appreciation; thus,
resistance may be considerably greater.
Also important is the relationship between the manager and the
employees. Managers are less likely to exercise power strategies over
subordinates they know personally (Miller, 1982). University department
administration, for instance, who hold rotating offices, may go out of
their way to foster a relationship based on equality. On the other hand,
among managers and employees who are only acquaintances coercive, power
strategies may be more prevalent.
Personality traits affect managers' choices of strategies; for instance,
Type-A personalities tend to use more coercive strategies (Lamude &
Scudder, 1993). Other features that affect managers' persuasive choices
are personal characteristics such as age and gender (Kipnis, Schmidt, &
Wilkinson, 1980; Sullivan, Albrecht, & Taylor, 1990) as well as the
personal or professional gains the manager seeks (Cody, Woelfel, & Jordan,
1983). For instance, requests to maintain safety rules may be more
important to managers if the corporate headquarters is stressing safety,
and managers may be quick to use strategies of reward or punishment when
dealing with more visible issues.
Goals
The goals of the compliance-gaining message influence the power base and
strategies writers draw upon. Achieving a common vision, which is often
the goal, may require changing employees' attitudes. When the desired
attitudes run against the employees' personal beliefs, the changes may
be difficult to effect. On the other hand, more easily obtainable goals
may ask employees to reinstate past behaviors that they believe in but
have overlooked. Simply reminding employees may solve the problem when
the desired attitudes conform to commonly accepted social norms and
values.
Another feature of the goal of the request is the scheduled time period
for the change to be made. Almost every request includes some mention of
the time when changes must take place. When the desired behaviors must
endure, follow-up strategies may be needed, especially if the changes
cause inconvenience. For instance, the chairperson of our department has
asked staff members to conserve paper but does not monitor individuals
and relies on pure normative power to enforce a commonly held value of
economy. While most employees carefully limit their paper immediately
after the request, efforts wane as time passes.
Long-term acceptance of changes that are important to management may
require different persuasive methods than were initially used. Some type
of coercion for enforcement may be necessary (Shelby, 1991), but with
issues of lesser importance to the organization, as long as no outright
violations occur, managers may rely only on social constraints. However,
a request for wearing hairnets in a factory requires strict compliance
because violations jeopardize health codes. Furthermore, the issue is
more clearly open to monitoring. Normative power may enforce the behavior,
but because the request is important, if infractions occur, follow-up
strategies of reward and punishment may be needed to achieve the goal of
employees' support of the health standards.
If the compliance-gaining goal requires that employees adopt attitudes
that are not reinforced by their personal convictions, acceptance may
require considerable skill and may occur only over time. Some employees
may continue to object to a policy even though they comply. In the current
economic times, when cutbacks are common, managers must create a shared
understanding, evoking the company's special needs as well as the larger
context of the national economic climate, to effect change.
Organizational Culture
Features of the organization's culture strongly influence the content
and style of the message. An organization's culture is defined by the basic
assumptions about the behavior, beliefs, and values held by its members
(Schein, 1985). These assumptions underlie the groups policies and
procedures as well as the relationships among members of the organization.
Universities and other large, established organizations tend towards
formal cultures; that is, rules and policies are codified (Jablin, 1987).
Sullivan, Albrecht, and Taylor (1990) conclude that these organizations
are apt to communicate in more cordial terms than previous research had
indicated.
However, even large, formal companies display a wide range of
communication styles. For instance, the university faculty culture
demands a perception of democracy even though a clear hierarchy of rank
exists. Memos sent to faculty may include extended explanations,
appearing to release and share inside information. In asking for critical
changes in a democratic culture, administrators would be less likely to
encounter resentment if the communication system is seen as open. Also,
memos written among faculty might tend to use politeness strategies to
emphasize the democratic culture. Non-instructional departments in a
university (for example, business offices, traffic departments) with
non-faculty administrators often do not effect this appearance of
democracy. Blyler (1993) confirms the importance of employees'
expectations of politeness in her report of how one university memo
rescinding services for automatic deposit of paychecks was criticized by
some faculty for its authoritative tone. Even though the memo reflected
well known current economic budget constraints, the impersonal style and
omission of a thanks to the readers may have produced more frustration
with the change than was necessary.
Memos written to employees of a production plant, in contrast to a
university, might be more brusque and direct because typically the
hierarchy of rank is not disguised. Memos posted on a manufacturing plant
bulletin board might be briefer than those mailed by university
administrators to all staff members. Also, the values espoused by each
culture may differ. The university values, such as diversity and retention,
may be abstract and humanistic. In contrast, a plant manager might set
profit and efficiency as objectives. Finally, university memos may be more
carefully crafted than the business memos if the writers believe that
readers might be more critical of writing techniques.
Compliance-gaining research has identified an array of contextual
features that shape communication in the workplace. Applying the features
to an analysis of real-world memos may allow discovery of influences on
the writing choices made by managers that previous analyses of texts have
not revealed.
REAL WORLD MANAGEMENT MEMOS
In this section we analyze memos using the compliance-gaining features
discussed previously. These memos are directed to the entire company or
large groups by top or middle management; memos representing similar tasks
performed by managers appear in textbooks as examples or cases using
indirect arrangement or the bad news formula. We have chosen memo examples
of two managerial tasks identified in the literature as common tasks of
managers: improving behavior and announcing changes (Kipnis, Schmidt, &
Wilkinson, 1980; Shelby, 1991). We have categorized our memos as
"reminders" and "announcements of changes" although we recognize that the
categories are loose and in some cases overlap.
We define reminders as memos that ask employees to change social norms
or comply more consistently with company rules. Usually employees are
reminded of the rules because a problem has surfaced. Often reminders are
based on pure normative power governing etiquette and considerate
behavior, such as keeping a break room clean or returning equipment.
However, they may invoke social normative power by reminding employees
to attend meetings on time or to shower before leaving a laboratory.
Reminders which require sustained behavior may need follow-up monitoring
or sanctions to maintain the desired behavior. Announcements of changes
are memos that introduce new policies and procedures, often cutbacks,
dictated by the company or larger economic context, such as cutting
benefits and raising prices on employee services. The decisions have
already been made when they are announced and are often irreversible,
open only to minor modifications or negotiations aimed at better
understanding. Behavioral change may or may not be required, but managers
usually hope for acceptance of the changes and commitment to the proposed
new rules.
Our memos are written by relatively young, male administrators in three
large, formal organizations with differing cultures: a university
president and English department assistant department executive officer
(DEO), a plant manager of a large food processing company, and an office
manager in the corporate headquarters of a subsidiary of a conglomerate.
We asked managers in the two companies for examples of reminders and
changes written to subordinates. From this collection of about a dozen
memos sent by each company we chose examples that conformed most closely
to our criteria of managerial tasks, that is, improving behavior and
announcing changes. Because our purpose was to apply compliance-gaining
features to bad news memos representing these tasks, we rejected several
memos where the news did not seem sufficiently negative. We also rejected
two memos because we did not think the manager held a rank high enough
that we could assume the audience was all subordinates. We used the same
criteria for our own university memos and also selected current topics
that seemed common to all businesses. We looked specifically for memos
that announced cutbacks, such as a reduction in raises, because of the
importance of salary issues to employees. Informants in the two companies
who provided the memos told us that the memos were representative of those
they receive. But these memos are offered as examples; we are not claiming
that the memos constitute a random sample. We believe that other business
memos could supply a source for the analysis of compliance-gaining
features, and we urge additional research using a variety of managerial
tasks and organizational situations.
In the following memos we will examine the power bases, verbal
strategies, and tactics used in the message and identify the contextual
features mentioned in the discussion above. The message and the contextual
features that influence it are so tightly intertwined that dividing the
analysis into message and context would be unnecessarily awkward;
therefore, our analysis combines the salient features of both. At times,
we have noted principles of linguistic politeness to explain textual
elements that clearly exemplify them.
Reminders
The assistant chair of our English Department reminds the staff to
improve workplace behavior because the noise in the halls has become
obtrusive:
To: All Staff and Graduate Teaching Assistants in English
From: John Smith !sic^
Subject: Noise Pollution
I have received several legitimate complaints in the past two weeks
about the high level of noise in our office areas, particularly on the
third and fourth floors. I realize that no sole cause of this problem can
be pinpointed:
we are badly overcrowded and that in itself is perhaps the prime cause.
I would like, however, to make two requests that should help to alleviate
some of the noise and confusion:
1. Please keep your office door closed whenever you are conducting
conferences with students or conversing extensively with colleagues.
2. Please keep the volume on radios, stereos, etc., at a reasonably low
level, at least between the hours of 8 and 5 when most staff are in their
offices.
Thanks for your cooperation.
The memo's message relies on both pure and social normative power, where
the staff would be expected to comply because the request is for valued
business behavior and etiquette. The corporate culture supplies insights
into the reasons for the request: to improve the work climate and portray
a more acceptable academic image to outsiders. Yet the assistant chair
omits mention of these reasons in the memo. To state them overtly might
be insulting to insiders, who, along with management, both understand and
support the request because it is consonant with the organization's
cultural values. Furthermore, the memo contains no suggestion of
monitoring the behavior or following up the request, even though the
author
follow
effect
to the
presumably seeks a permanent change. Both options (monitoring,
up) would be possible, but normative power should sufficiently
compliance, and mention of negative sanctions would be contrary
department culture and could alienate the staff.
Because the assistant chair position is a rotating one, the relationship
between the writer and most of the employees is an interpersonal one.
Thus, according to research on contextual features, the manager would be
less inclined to use power strategies (Miller, 1982). Moreover, the
university culture generally effects a democratic relationship between
administration and staff. The memo uses three first person pronouns, two
in sentences that employ strategies of linguistic politeness. Although
the memo begins by describing the problem in direct and negative terms,
a "high level of noise," the next lines represent what Brown and Levinson
(1987) have identified as face-saving techniques used to protect the
employees' image. The manager blames the overcrowding and not the staff
for the excessive noise. Further politeness strategies occur in the
author's indirection: "I would like to make two requests...." The
technique accomplishes a personal and democratic rather than a
writer-centered, authoritarian tone, which has been attributed to
first person pronouns in business communication literature. Furthermore,
the memo demonstrates other politeness features. The directives begin
with "please," and the writer uses an informal "thanks" at the close.
In another reminder, an office manager in a corporate office asks
employees to exercise care when entering the street from the parking lot:
From: J.C. O'Brien
Subject: Parking Garage Safety
To: Monthly Parkers
With the winter season upon us, it is time to remind everyone that
safety needs to be a priority when leaving our parking garage. Please use
extreme caution when entering and exiting the parking garage. Stay at a
slow speed and be especially watchful at the crest of the hill. There are
a number of pedestrians and drivers in that area of the garage.
The memo contains another paragraph explaining the particulars of the
location and ends with, "I'm sure your cooperation will be freely given."
Mentions of time in both of the above reminders are included as part of
the description of the problem; the designated time periods also suggest
the immediacy of the need for change. In this memo time is invoked almost
poetically: "With the winter season upon us." Relying on normative
compliance-gaining strategies, the memo will probably not encounter
employee resistance because the directive reinforces common altruistic
values encompassing others' safety. The reasons--injuring pedestrians,
one's self, or other motorists when leaving the garage on icy driveways
or incurring a law suit against the company—are omitted just as actual
reasons are deleted in the university memo; they are obvious to members
of the organizational culture. The memo is more formal than the university
employee's request, especially in the closing, "I am sure your cooperation
will be freely given." Compared to the assistant chair's "Thanks
for your cooperation," this ending adds additional force by explicit
mention of the writer's assurance of receiving the cooperation.
This manager in a large corporate office does not have a personal
relationship with most employees but nevertheless avoids coercive
strategies. The behavior, barring flagrant violations of safe driving,
would be difficult to monitor and management might hope for a change in
attitude or social pressure to maintain the behavior. The writer uses a
first person plural pronoun in "our parking garage" to establish
commonality between management and employees. The use of the expletive
"it is time" rather than the previous university manager's "I would like"
provides a politeness strategy, allowing the manager to omit a directive,
but the memo does not use the high politeness techniques or informality
of the university culture.
A memo on safety comes from a high level, the plant manager. Because the
topic concerns a value important to the company, the authority of high
management adds weight to the request.
To: Staff and Supervisors
From: Myron
Subject: Safety
In 1992, safety must take a new meaning in Pleasantville. Our safety
record is the worst it has been in many years. It is fully recognized that
some departments continued their good safety records, but as a plant, we
have slipped. In 1991 Pleasantville recorded two lost time accidents and
thirteen reportable accidents.
In trips through the plant, it is apparent that safety could be
improved. Safety is the responsibility of each of us, not the Safety
Committee. We have a responsibility for the employee's well being as well
as the employee.
We should all rededicate ourselves to safety and get our safety record
back on track. As an incentive, safety will be more heavily weighted when
considering merit increases in 1992 than it was in 1991. It would be
appropriate for each of you to set safety goals. As a plant, we should
expect "0" lost time accidents and "7" reportables in 1992.
For several reasons the power base of reward is useful in this
situation. Shelby discusses the use of rewards: "Remuneration is the
strongest reward when the receiver is not committed and a new behavior
is desired" (1991, p. 204). The topic of safety is a common one in plants
and the data on accidents are no doubt sent on to corporate headquarters.
Thus the managers reputation is at stake. With this important topic he
uses several power bases and strategies. He first uses his legitimate
power in citing statistics only he has access to which supply evidence
of the seriousness of the problem. The elaboration in the second paragraph
on the responsibility for the employees' well being represents the
strategy of empathy and serves to emphasize the human element of business
and the family nature of the relationships. In the case of memos, which
are expected to be factual and concise, the mention of his concern for
the employees' well being is unexpected. The plant manager gains attention
in the memo by showing awareness and concern for their lives outside of
the workplace and recognizing them as people, not just contributors
to profits. He also uses the strategy of altercasting, implying that
good people will agree with the request. His specific tactic is to suggest
a common responsibility of both the company and the employees in looking
out for everyone's safety.
The reward referred to in the final paragraph suggests that follow-up
monitoring will take place using the power base of reward and perhaps
punishment. Those employees following or failing to follow safety
procedures will be identified. This memo does not clarify the infractions
that have been noted nor set the specific criteria for improvement. Rather,
it announces the issue of safety and points to its seriousness. Employees
might expect this memo to initiate a continuing campaign to improve safety,
and more specific requirements for each division may ensue.
Like the corporate headquarters memo, this memo also contains examples
of the expletive "it." "It is fully recognized" and "it is apparent"
mitigate the implied threat that the manager is carefully watching the
staff and making judgments. "It would be appropriate" deletes the agent
of the action in giving these directives. The memo is replete with first
person plural pronouns that suggest the commonality of the management and
employee community in supporting this important value ("We have a
responsibility ... ," "We should all rededicate ourselves to safety ...").
The commonality established suggests a referent power base where
employees identify with the manager and the company in supporting common
values.
Features drawn from our categories--power bases and strategies, employee
resistance, goals, and organizational culture--have contributed to the
analysis of these reminders. In each example pure normative power bases
were operative. These work well to enforce values (Etzioni, 1961), and
in these three examples both the specific company culture and generally
accepted values are evoked in the topics of a quiet environment, a safe
parking lot, and safety in the plant.
The use of first person plural pronouns as well as expletives creates an
atmosphere of commonality, emphasizing a democratic, reciprocal
relationship. As a common bond is created, the apparent authority of the
manager is diminished, and a referent power base invoked, where employees
identify with the manager and organization. Still another power base
reward emphasizes the important and continuing issue of plant safety, and
combined with a variety of strategies including explanation, empathy, and
altercasting offers strong persuasion.
Announcements of Changes
Announcements of changes and cutbacks that require inconvenience,
increased work, or decreased remuneration have the potential to arouse
more resistance in employees than reminders and usually are accompanied
by coverage in other forums which supply more complete information. In
fact, for announcements of complicated and serious changes, much of the
discussion takes place outside of the memo itself. These changes are often
closely tied to current economic or social conditions in the company or
in the larger society, for instance, smoking bans, paper recycling, or
increased parking fees, but the news can be more serious, such as layoffs
or salary cuts.
The plant manager in our study announces a cutback, a change in the
policy of handling insurance claims in-house, where employees can get
personal counsel. The news occurs directly in the first line with a mention
of the date of the change:
To: All Employees
From: Myron Beck
Subject: DIRECT CLAIMS PROCESSING ADMINISTRATION
Effective March 15 the Operations Group will begin Direct Claims
Processing Administration with Metro, our claims administrator in Kansas
City. This means that you will no longer submit your medical and dental
claims to your Benefits Representative at Pleasantville, but will send
them directly to Metro.
We are pleased and excited to provide this new method of claims
processing. Sending claims directly to the claims administrator will
afford you more confidentiality, and by eliminating one step in the
processing procedure, turn-around time for benefit payments will be
shortened.
In the following paragraph employees are assured that they can call the
insurance company for any needed advice. The last two paragraphs announce
forthcoming information and a question and answer session scheduled at
the end of the month. The memo ends, "Watch for additional information
coming soon!"
Although the memo contains reader benefits of confidentiality and
quicker turn-around, the major reason for the change--benefits to the
company in saving money by eliminating the local contact person--is not
mentioned. Employees will probably notice this omission, but
understanding if not sharing the common goals of saving the company money,
they will probably accept the change without resistance. The hierarchical
structure of a plant and the legitimate power of upper management to make
this change could explain why the manager announces the change abruptly.
Upper management commonly makes these announcements, and providing that
these changes are consistent with the local goals of saving money and the
recognition of a sagging economy, the writer can expect support, or at
least acceptance, if not commitment. Furthermore, the change, because it
is directed to all employees, seems more fair.
This memo is short for several reasons. The writer does not elaborate on
reader benefits. Because the actual benefits to employees are limited
and the cost-saving for the company is obvious, elaboration on the
benefits might be hypocritical. Second, like many memos of this type, it
can exclude details because it refers to future meetings. Finally, because
it is addressed to all employees, it is posted on the bulletin board, where
employees would not expect to be asked to stand and read a lengthy
document.
While the insurance memo came at the beginning of the discussion on the
issue, a memo from the president of our university was issued after a
lengthy debate in our state legislature about salaries for state workers.
Employees were well informed on the issues by the local news media.
Probably assuming readers' knowledge of events, the president began the
memo directly:
Dear University Colleague:
In the last few days, there have been two major changes in the
university's FY93 budget: the university will have fewer state dollars
for both employee compensation increases and the operating budget than
originally expected. I met with department heads and other administrators
last Friday to discuss these changes. I also want to communicate the
changes and their impact directly to all faculty and staff.
The memo goes on to detail for the staff the expected cuts in raises and
expresses only brief reasons for the cuts. Employees know that the budget
is controlled by the state and the president is not directly responsible
for mandating the cuts; thus he does not have to so much justify the reasons
for the cuts as explain details and boost morale. Most of the memo is
informational, explaining with a number of qualifiers ("about 6%,"
"increases . . . will be delayed until August or September"), how groups
will or will not be affected. The writer does, contrary to business
communication advice, apologize--three times. The apologies are examples
of tactics that supply human elements to the message, in this case the
strategy of empathizing with the readers. The ending makes a strong
personal plea to identify with the staff in order to maintain morale:
I am disappointed with these changes in our budget. I continue to
believe, however, that State's FY 93 budget is a good one compared to that
of most other public universities. Please do not hesitate to contact me
or other university administrators if you have questions or concerns. I
appreciate your understanding, cooperation, and patience as we work
through these budget adjustments.
The president appeals to pride in the organization by comparing its
budget favorably to that of other universities. And even though the
decision is irreversible, the memo opens the door for further discussions.
The larger economic context of this memo--the financial distress of the
university and state has prepared the readers for these cuts, and the memo
relies on this common understanding. The apologies and the use of "I,"
although unusual in our corporate memos, may in this university memo serve
to obfuscate legitimate power and assume an egalitarian vision.
A memo sent to all employees by the office manager in a corporate
headquarters announces a less drastic financial change--an increase in
garage fees. It begins, "Effective May 1 garage fees will increase $10
a month." The garage fees memo is curt, justifying the increase in fees
by invoking rising overhead costs. This opening appears to be a common
one in business environments; however, it does not occur in the memos we
examined in the academy. In our experience, when college administrators
announce changes directly in faculty memos, they have avoided this wording,
perhaps because it seems too blunt or too cliched. Other departments and
offices on campus may follow conventions similar to a business environment,
but faculty memos, even though they announce the topic of the memo in the
opening, tend to use forms of politeness that suggest a democratic
culture.
In these announcements of changes, managers can make use of their
legitimate power to announce changes in the workplace because the culture
of a hierarchical organization dictates that decisions come through
channels of authority. Furthermore, in the contexts of our memos managers
have additional normative power since the memos are directed to all group
members and thus the requests seem fair. However, the corporate culture
of the organization or individual department in the organization affects
the strategy and tactics that will be implemented as well as the degree
of linguistic politeness included in the text.
Specific strategies used in announcing changes also vary according to
the subject and its importance to management and employees. The plant
manager uses reasons in justifying changing insurance procedures by
mentioning benefits to the reader of saving time and maintaining
confidentiality but relies on employees to recognize that in a
profit-making organization most changes are based in part on cutting costs.
The university president uses empathy by apologizing to employees facing
salary cuts and attempts to ease their disappointment by assuring them
that they are as well off as faculty at other schools. Our examples confirm
what both Campbell (1990) and Lee (1993) have suggested: because content
(strategies and tactics) is so closely allied to the context, a writer
outside of the organization would have difficulty making appropriate
choices.
Finally, all of the writers use first person plural pronouns to
establish a commonality which draws members of the group together and
suggests that they are working as a team. By establishing commonality
managers build loyalty to the organization (Baker & David, 1994).
COMPLIANCE-GAINING THEORY AND BAD NEWS FORMULAS
Use of the bad news formula is recommended by most textbooks for
messages unwelcomed by the audience, memos similar to our examples. Some
textbooks suggest exceptions to this formula, such as beginning a message
directly when the news is routine or when a message is extremely important
and might be missed. The components of the formula emphasize textual
features, especially the indirect organizational pattern of the message.
Some general content features are also included, such as giving reasons
for the bad news, deemphasizing the negative information, and including
benefits to the reader. Most of this advice addresses concepts of audience
and tone required for a positive relationship between the writer and
reader. On the other hand, compliance gaining emphasizes the ways of
influencing a target audience and the background situations where this
influence takes place. Compliance-gaining precepts do encompass the
content of a message; however, the focus is on organizational behavior,
whereas the bad news formula has developed out of advice primarily for
written consumer sales (Baker & David, 1994). Because the principles
included in both paradigms have different aims, they might supplement each
other in an analysis such as ours, if both provide descriptions of the
sample memos.
From the examination of our memos, except for the inclusion of reasons,
the bad news formula does not describe the salient writing choices made
by our managers. Our memos support research findings that indicate the
indirect organizational pattern is not common in business writing. All
of the memos begin by announcing the topic. None use a buffer. Although
the reminders in our sample display a problem-solution organization, the
description of the problem serves to clarify the need for the request.
While the problem-solution arrangement common to reminders does provide
an alternative to the total directness of beginning with a command ("From
now on keep your doors shut" would be unnecessarily rude and possibly
confusing as a memo opening), it does not seem to be used to mitigate the
bad news (as a buffer would) since at times the problem of employees'
behavior is described in quite negative terms that writers could surely
have modified if their purpose were to be polite.
Also, in announcements of changes, the university president begins
directly but qualifies the exact amount of the cuts with the phrase "fewer
dollars to spend" rather than stating bluntly, "All staff will receive
6 percent cuts." The other managers, however, are more apt to use a blunt
announcement of the change. In every case we examined, the memo included
an initial announcement of the topic, not a buffer, such as a positive
statement of agreement or approval (Wilkinson, Clarke, & Wilkinson, 1980,
p. 206). Our analysis suggests that "direct" or "indirect" approaches may
be described more accurately as a range of patterns used in memo openings
rather than mutually exclusive categories.
As the bad news formula suggests, these memos did include reasons for
requesting the changes, often referring to features of the organizational
context unique to in-house relationships. Because of their common
location, management and employees may count on future meetings and
communications to add further explanation and justification for the
announced changes, so explanations in the memo may be brief.
Justifications for the requests emphasize common values and goals of
management and employees and assume knowledge embedded in the
organizational culture. Our memos deliver the news in a clear and direct
manner. We found no implied statements of the bad news and no offers of
alternatives. Although the reminders are not worded in blunt commands,
the negative situations are not disguised. A distinction can be made
between negative terms that are unnecessarily accusative ("This group has
been negligent") and negative words that reflect a manager's
responsibility to make judgments ("The situation is unacceptable"). Our
managers avoid the former wording; in fact, the tone of reminders could
be generalized as friendly, but not, with their negative judgments of
conditions, as positive, which the bad news formula suggests. Sullivan,
Albrecht, and Taylor (1990) confirm this finding, listing friendliness
and reasons as frequently used strategies.
Also, the you-viewpoint, which is generally prescribed for written
business communication, is absent in these memos. Textual features of the
memos suggest that the managers in our sample attempt to promote a strategy
of commonality by the use of frequent first-person plural pronouns that
breaks down authority and emphasizes common goals. There was almost no
use of "you" as the pedagogy for sales prescribes. "We," "our," and "us"
reinforce the common goals shared by managers and employees to promote
the company, whereas "you" could suggest a division between the groups.
Lakoff (1990) describes this device which serves to promote the feeling
of a democratic corporate culture: "Inclusive we is a powerful emotional
force, bringing speaker and hearer together as one, united and sharing
common interests. It indicates the authority of numbers, not just I but
all of us". Thus, in-house writing may be better characterized by a
we-viewpoint that recognizes how language functions within the
organization's culture to reinforce and modify members' beliefs and
actions.
As a major contribution to management writing, compliance gaining
illuminates the multiple features of both a persuasive message and its
context. Compliance gaining foregrounds motivational strategies and the
need for negotiations to effect change. It recognizes that some persuasive
tasks are ongoing and that communication is a process rather than a single
event. Another important contribution is its ability to identify many of
the background features of an organization. The theory emphasizes variety
in the design of persuasion, and an analysis of memos can reveal how a
change in one feature of the persuasive situation, such as the
relationship between the manager and employee, can change the content and
style of the memo. While the bad news formula implies a limited number
of methods of composing a memo, compliance gaining suggests myriad
designs.
Although the bad news formula offers little for the analysis of our
memos, it may explicate the features of memos written to individuals or
of memos written laterally or upward. Especially with personnel problems,
the sensitivity of the message might call for a less direct approach than
these memos addressed to groups. On the other hand, the bad news formula
might be subsumed under the theory of linguistic politeness in that it
represents one way of employing elaborations and indirection as
politeness strategies. Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness explains
many of the memos' semantic and stylistic techniques, for instance, the
managers' frequent use of expletives and passive constructions as well
as face-saving strategies. This theory has the potential for wide
application in textual analysis. However, developed within a broad social
rather than a business context, linguistic politeness can be used
effectively in concert with compliance gaining, which elucidates the
content of message production and the organizational background where
memos take place.
Our analysis of memos suggests that managers have accounted for the
expected reader responses with appropriate writing techniques,
presumably because they understand the situational features of the
communication.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis identifies the complexity of several writing tasks engaged
in by managers whose memos we analyzed. Much of information communicated
in the workplace, for instance, assigning work, improving behavior,
announcing change (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980) has the potential
to be disappointing, yet most of these messages are part of the work
routine. The label "bad" or "negative" news does not explain the task or
context of these messages. Acceptance of changes often comes through the
implementation of power bases and verbal strategies that require
negotiation over time. Considering the myriad choices of content and style
available to writers and the shifting contexts for each message, it is
unlikely that any single formula could explain how persuasion can best
be carried out in writing.
An application of compliance-gaining theory to memos written from
managers to subordinates has revealed contextual factors operating in an
organization which may be different from those influencing the writing
between companies and customers. However, applying compliance-gaining
theory to writing between companies and customers might point out
additional features that could amplify the present pedagogy in some letter
writing situations. A major contribution of the theory is uncovering the
ubiquitous power bases and verbal strategies at work in persuasion.
Another important component of compliance-gaining theory is its
conceptualization of persuasion as a reciprocal negotiation between the
actor and target that may take place over time. Although the power
bases and strategies might suggest manipulation of subordinates,
effective persuasion requires gaining employees' acceptance, so managers
are constrained by the needs of the employees and the power strategies
the culture allows. Also salient in our analysis is the implementation
of the strategy of commonality, one not noted in the literature.
Application of the features of power bases and strategies, employee
resistance, goals, and organizational culture, categories which overlap
and can be only arbitrarily separated, elucidates the content and
stylistic choices managers have made.
Because compliance-gaining theory was developed for oral communication,
features of verbal strategies employed in written documents need further
amplification and refinement. We noted that the strategy of "reasons"
could be divided into tactics of "explanation" and "justification," and
we suggest the addition of the strategy of "commonality." Furthermore,
compliance-gaining research should be applied to other written documents
taken from a variety of organizations. All of our managers were male,
relatively young, and described by informants as proponents of
participative management. Changes in any of these factors could produce
changes in the style and content of the memo. For instance, an autocratic
manager or a request targeting just one department or group might require
different writing techniques. Perhaps managers in smaller or less formal
cultures use different methods of negotiation. Further research might
address such issues.
As Comprone explains, "Effective writers must be able to define and
understand the rhetorical exigencies that underlie the situations within
which they write" (1993, p. 104). Our findings confirm that the writing
situation is much more complex than envisioned by traditional business
communication advice. While the task of identifying individual writing
problems and situations may seem daunting, the prospects nevertheless
open doors to innovative approaches and techniques. Further studies of
managers' communication can only provide challenges and enrichment and
a broader field of knowledge on which to base our writing decisions.
NOTES
Carol David is an associate professor and coordinator of the writing
center in the Department of English at Iowa State University. She has
presented papers and published articles on basic writing and business
communication. She may be reached at Department of English, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA 50011. Here-mail address is cdavid iastate.edu
Margaret Ann Baker is an associate professor in the Department of
English at Iowa State University. She has published essays in The Journal
of Business Communication, Management Communication Quarterly, and
Journal of Business and Technical Communication. She may be reached at
Department of English, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.
The authors thank Mohan Limaye of Boise State University and Michael
Mendelson of Iowa State University for reading and supplying helpful
comments on this manuscript.
We also thank the companies who supplied us with managerial memos. In
order to protect their confidentiality we have changed all names and key
numbers in the memos.
REFERENCES
Adair, C. R. (1986). Negative messages: An analysis of letters written
by employees of manufacturing companies. Unpublished master's thesis,
Iowa State University, Ames.
Baker, M. A., & David, C. (1994). The rhetoric of power: Political
issues in management writing. Technical Communication Quarterly, 3,
165-178.
Barnard, C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Bazerman, C. (1993). Foreword. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.),
Professional communication: The social perspective (pp. vii-x), Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Blyler, N. (1993). Reexamining the curricular separation of business and
technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
7, 218-245.
Brent, D. (1985). Indirect structure and reader response. The Journal of
Business Communication, 22(2), 5-8.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in
language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, T. (1993). Unkind cuts: Rethinking the rhetoric of academic job
rejection letters. College English, 55, 770-778.
Campbell, K. S. (1990). Explanations in negative messages: More insights
from speech act theory. The Journal of Business Communication, 27,
357-375.
Cherry, R. D. (1988). Politeness in written communication. Journal of
Pragmatics, 12, 63-81,
Cody, M. J., Woelfel, M. L., & Jordan, W. J. (1983). Dimensions of
compliance-gaining situations. Human Communication Research, 9, 99-113.
Comprone, J. J. (1993). Generic constraints and expressive motives:
Rhetorical perspectives on textual dialogues. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls
(Eds.), Professional communication: The social perspective (pp. 92-108),
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Driskill, L., & Goldstein, J. R. (1986). Uncertainty: Theory and
practice in organizational communication. The Journal of Business
Communication, 23(3), 41-56.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New
York: Free Press of Glencoe, Inc.
Faigley, L. (1985). Nonacademic writing: The social perspective. In L.
Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 231-248).
New York: The Guilford Press.
French, J. R. P, Jr. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In
D. Cartwright (Ed.). Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan.
Hagge, J., & Kostelnick, C. (1989). Linguistic politeness in
professional prose: A discourse analysis of auditors' suggestion letters,
with implications for business communication pedagogy. Written
Communication, 6, 312-339.
Jablin, F. M. (1987). Formal organization structure. In F. M. Jablin, L.
L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.). Handbook oforganizational
communication (pp. 389-419). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jablin, F. M., & Krone, K. (1984). Characteristics of rejection letters
and their effects on job applicants. Written Communication, 1, 387-406.
Kellermann, K., & Cole, T. (1994). Classifying compliance-gaining
messages: Taxonomic disorder and strategic confusion. Communication
Theory, 4, 3-60.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational
influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65, 440-452.
Lakoff, R. T. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language in our
lives. New York: Basic Books.
Lamude, K. G., & Scudder, J. (1993). Compliance-gaining techniques of
type-A managers. The Journal of Business Communication, 30, 63-79.
Leavitt, H. J. (1986). Corporate pathfinders. Homewood, IL: Dow
Jones-Irwin.
Lee, F. (1993). Being polite and keeping MUM: How bad news is
communicated in organizational hierarchies. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 23, 1124-1149.
Limaye, M. (1988). Buffers in bad news messages and recipient
perceptions. Management Communication Quarterly, 2, 90-101.
Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1967). Dimensions of compliance-gaining
behavior: An empirical analysis. Sociometry, 30, 350-364.
Miller, M. D. (1982). Friendship, power, and the language of compliance
gaining. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1, 111-121.
Nystrand, M. (1989). A social-interactive model of writing. Written
Communication, 6, 66-85.
Odell, L., Goswami, D., Herrington, A., & Quick, D. (1983). Studying
writing in non-academic settings. In P. V. Anderson, R. J. Brockmann, &
C. R. Miller (Eds.), New essays in technical and scientific communication:
Research, theory, practice (pp. 17-40). Farmingdale, NY: Baywood
Publishing Co.
O'Keefe, D. J. (1994). From strategy-based to feature-based analyses of
compliance-gaining message classification and production. Communication
Theory, 4, 61-69.
Peters, T., & Austin, N. (1985). A passion for excellence: The
leadership difference. New York: Random House.
Roloff, M. E. (1994). Validity assessments of compliance-gaining
exemplars. Communication Theory, 4, 69-81.
Salerno, D. (1988). An interpersonal approach to writing negative
messages. The Journal of Business Communication, 25(1), 41-51.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schenck-Hamlin, W. J., Wiseman, R. L., & Georgacarakos, G. N. (1982). A
model of properties of compliance-gaining strategies. Communication
Quarterly, 30, 92-100.
Shelby, A. N. (1991). Applying the strategic choice model to
motivational appeals: A theoretical approach. The Journal of Business
Communication, 28, 187-212.
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making
processes in administrative organizations. New York: Macmillan.
Suchan, J., & Dulek, R. (1988). Toward a better understanding of reader
analysis. The Journal of Business Communication, 25(2), 29-45.
Sullivan, J. J., Albrecht, T. L., & Taylor, S. (1990). Process,
organizational, relational, and personal determinants of managerial
compliance-gaining communication strategies. The Journal of Business
Communication, 27, 331-355.
Thralls, C. (1993). Rites and ceremonials: Corporate video and the
construction of social realities in modern organizations. Journal of
Business and Technical Communication, 6, 381-402.
Wheeless, L. R., Barraclough R., & Stewart, R. (1983). Compliance
gaining and power in persuasion. In R. E. Bostrom & B. H. Westley (Eds.),
Communication Yearbook 7 (pp. 105-145). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Wilkinson, C. W., Clarke, P. B., & Wilkinson, D. W. (1980).
Communicating through letters and reports (7th ed.). Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc.