capstone paper - jargon research
TRANSCRIPT
1
Danielle Libassi October 12, 2015
Owlett Capstone
The Impact of Jargon on Immediacy Behaviors and Interpersonal
Communication in the Corporate Workplace
2
The Impact of Jargon on Immediacy Behaviors and Interpersonal
Communication in the Corporate Workplace
Abstract: Hypotheses were created with the intent to understand how jargon can affect interpersonal relationships and immediacy behaviors. Previous research indicates that jargon has had positive and negative effects on the immediacy behaviors between coworkers and supervisor/subordinate relationships. A survey was conducted to test the hypotheses and all were supported but one. Data concluded that jargon can compliment day-‐to-‐day communication and maintain positive immediacy behaviors within the corporate workplace. Hypotheses and Questions: H1: Jargon is detrimental to communication when used in any writing task, formal or informal. H2. Jargon is assistive in employee-‐to-‐employee casual interaction and increases immediacy behaviors in the workplace. H3. Jargon can negatively affect immediacy behaviors between supervisor and subordinate. H4: If interactions between supervisor and subordinate are positive, business will maintain their turnover rate. R1. Is the jargon used within an organization hard to learn or understand? R2. Does jargon negatively impact the communication within different levels of a corporation?
Introduction:
Jargon is a language that has been created within all facets of business and its
typically specific to different industries. Studies have shown that this jargon or
better known as, ‘business slang,’ negatively impacts the immediacy behaviors
between co-‐workers and boss to employee relationships (Gilsdorf, 1983). Research
by communications experts Brown and Gilsdorf also suggests that this jargon is an
ever-‐evolving language that many fluent users even struggle to keep up with. Jargon
is used daily in a large variety of organizations because, “the attractiveness of jargon
in a nation that values specialization so much is very powerful”(Brown, 1913).
Studies show that business slang can be either assistive or detrimental to the
3
communication within the workplace, which can increase or decrease immediacy
behaviors in interpersonal relationships (Richmond & McCroskey, 2000).
Effective communication in the workplace is imperative to create positive
relationships between co-‐workers, stakeholders or other organizations. There is a
lack of face-‐to-‐face communication, as technology has taken the front-‐runner as the
most efficient communication method within the workplace (Brown, 1913). Jargon
is industry specific and allows employees to communicate in a faster method
however; the language is constantly evolving, making it hard to keep up (Gilsdorf,
1983).
Jargon
According to an article by Gilsdorf, the daily language between employees
are an “invisible” resource which carry ideas, facts, and needs and are exchanged
daily among all interactions. Communication is key because, “language is the only
vehicle for moving ideas from mind to mind”(Gilsdorf, 1983), however – this
language is only assistive if it is working in support of the conversation and the
enhancements of interpersonal relationships. Brown suggests that Americans like
to create their own language by compounding words to make the language easier or
more special to them. The shortening of these words can be efficient in some
business situations, but it creates a colorful language that not all employees
understand.
Many companies have implemented language guidelines for virtual
communication to avoid misinterpretations (Brannen & Doz, 2012). Brannen & Doz
4
also states that, “corporate language is an artifact of how strategic thoughts are
formulated as well as how they are communicated and discussed,” giving employees
the opportunity to create their own language within their own specific boundaries.
This study also found that some workplaces have a hard time in diversifying their
strategic communication, which makes the language less exclusive and can often
lead to a failure in communication.
H1: Jargon is detrimental to communication when used in any writing task, formal or
informal.
Gilsdorf notes that jargon can be offensive to the reader and/or listener who
do not know that specific shortened language. Though jargon can sometimes be
used as a way to communicate in a more efficient manor, Gilsdorf reports that it is
not recommended to use it in writing, especially if it is taking place out of the
organization. “Slang is a powerful group-‐membership indicator. Business has its
groups, and business slang may be used to denote membership,”(Gilsdorf, 1983)
and as conditions change, expressions evolve or change as well.
Immediacy Behaviors
H2. Jargon is assistive in employee-‐to-‐employee casual interaction and increases
immediacy behaviors in the workplace.
Immediacy behaviors are the non-‐verbal and physical cues people give to one
another to signal closeness and understanding of one another. These behaviors
“signal availability, increase sensory stimulation, and decrease both physical and
5
psychological distance between interactants, ” and the most common nonverbal
cues are, “close proxemics distancing, touch, gaze, direct body orientation, and
forward lean” (Anderson, 1998). While these more physical attributes are
imperative to positive immediacy behaviors, there are also indicators called positive
affect cues such as smiling or vocal pleasantness, which helps maintain availability
and intimacy (Anderson, 1998). Understanding how to refine and acknowledge
these behaviors an important skill to possess as they play a large role in how
employees feel about their daily communication at work.
H3. Jargon can negatively affect immediacy behaviors between supervisor and
subordinate.
Furthermore, supervisors must use these immediacy behaviors to assist their
communication with subordinates as it has a direct correlation to job satisfaction
(Richmond & McCroskey, 2000). Some supervisors may be unaware of the
immediacy behaviors they are giving off whereas some may be, “consciously
manipulating the nonverbal (as well as verbal) behavior in order to produce a
desired image in the minds of the subordinates” (Richmond & McCroskey, 2000).
Subordinates and supervisors use these cues to generate reciprocity to the
interaction, which is almost always a subconscious reaction. For example, if
someone smiles at another employee, it is likely that person will reciprocate the
interaction with a smile or a wave or, “in short, if positive or negative affect is
communicated via nonverbal immediacy behaviors, it will be
reciprocated”(Anderson, 1998).
6
Interpersonal Communication in the Workplace
According to Anderson, “employers would rather hire employees with well-‐
developed interpersonal skills.” In a study conducted by Gilsdorf, participants in a
survey disclosed that the use of jargon is misunderstood in 80 percent of the
situations it is used in. This survey also indicates that, “the amorphousness of the
subject that no exact, neutrally connotative, well-‐understood word for it exists,”
therefore, these misunderstandings are lowering the immediacy behaviors within
the relationships that are created in the workplace.
Research has been conducted on immediacy behaviors and their effects on
business interactions. It has been concluded that, “1) employees who are highly
motivated generally are more productive than those that are not, and 2) employees
who are satisfied with their jobs are both more motivated to do high quality work
and less likely to leave their jobs” (Anderson, 1998). Job satisfaction is an important
component to a happy and well-‐functioning workplace as, “turnover is extremely
expensive due to the increased costs of training new workers”(Anderson, 1998).
H4: If interactions between supervisor and subordinate are positive, business will
maintain their turnover rate.
Arizona State University conducted a study among Forbes 1000 top business’
to see executives reactions and attitudes toward “buzzwords” or business slang.
Participants reactions to these words vary, some deeming them to have positive and
7
negative connotation depending on the situation (Gilsdorf, 1983). It is important
that the communication used between workers is creating positive immediacy
behaviors, as interpersonal skills are one of the most important skill needed in the
corporate workplace.
In this study, Gilsdorf examines the top companies and sought, “to discover
what attitudes toward business slang are held by excellent communicators.” He
found that although not all people hold negative feelings toward the use of jargon,
most people are not firm believers in its use. The study also concluded that positive
attitudes towards this shortened form of communication decreases as the job level
rises.
An article by Petronio illustrates a similar concept by discussing how
boundaries are important within inter-‐groups and outer-‐groups because they allow
people to understand what behaviors their co-‐workers need in order to be
successful within the organization. The miscommunication of interpersonal
boundaries can create issues between employees (or subordinate and supervisor),
especially if one is using terminology that another does not understand. Jargon
follows a pattern within the workplace (Petronio, 1998). Depending on the place in
which the jargon is being used, it is up to the person involved to integrate
themselves in their environment by,
“…drawing lines around those things that are important to us, and we
control them through rules. Yet we also recognize that to fit within the
environment successfully, we must have enough flexibility in these
8
boundaries to allow a decree of integration between ourselves and the
world in which we live”(Petronio, 1998).
One may draw the conclusion that jargon has a negative effect on daily
communication. However, Gilsdorf found that most people do not believe slang has a
large interference in the daily communication within an organization. This study
also concluded that 75% of people said they are likely to use jargon in an informal
context with middle management. To add, top management regards the use of
jargon most negatively, as they understand the need for clear communication in the
workplace (Gilsdorf, 1983).
Methods
A survey was constructed that analyzed the participants thoughts on their
personal corporate communication styles and how jargon either assists or hinders
their spoken and written communication.
Participants
Sixty-‐three people, both male and female participated in this study.
Participants were reached through email blast through two Forbes 1000
pharmaceutical companies: NovoNordisk and AuroBindo and each participant was
asked to anonymously fill out a survey about the use of jargon in their workplace.
The age group with the highest participant rate was 28 people between the ages of
46-‐55. The majority of subjects have acquired a degree of higher education, with 24
participants completing their Bachelors Degree, and 25 participants completing a
Masters Degree.
9
Procedures
Subjects were sent an email with an explanation of the survey and its
purposes for a study at William Paterson University. The survey had an explanation
and background information on jargon and communication in the workplace so
participants had an understanding of why they were participating in this survey.
The participants were not provided with any incentive for completing the survey,
however they received a thank you email for participating. It can be assumed that
participants took these surveys somewhere within their workplace, as they were
sent to their professional email addresses.
The survey includes 15 items total to determine the use of jargon in the
workplace and the affect it has on employee communication. This survey was
measured using a four-‐point Likert-‐type scale (1= strongly disagree, 4= strongly
agree) created by Caplan (2002) and positive question statements. Some questions
included in the survey are as follows: Jargon makes your daily communication
easier, jargon helps add clarity to my writing, my boss talks down to me with
Question Responses
Are you male or female? Male – 23 Participants (36.51%) Female – 40 Participants (63.49%) 63 total Participants
How old are you? Under 25 – 0 Participants (0%) 25-‐35 – 7 Participants (11.11%) 36-‐45 – 17 Participants (29.98%) 46-‐55% -‐ 28 Participants (44.44%) 55+ -‐ 11 Participants (17.46%)
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
High School/GED – 2 Participants (3.17%) Some College – 10 Participants (15.87%) BA – 24 Participants (38.10%) MA – 25 Participants (39.68%) Ph.D – 2 Participants (3.17%)
10
terminology I do not understand, my company uses jargon to communicate with
other companies, and when I was a new employee, I had a hard time understanding
the jargon at my company. The reported findings can support the hypotheses
previously mentioned and suggest several new findings about the communication
within the professional workplace.
Results
The four hypotheses were used to measure the effects of jargon on business
communication. The results below are reflective of the data collected from
corporate professionals who experience the use of jargon on a daily basis. Not all
results had a positive correlation to the mentioned hypotheses.
H1: Jargon is detrimental to communication when used in any writing task, formal or
informal.
Hypothesis one was tested with two questions: is jargon assistive in writing
tasks? and does jargon help add clarity to your writing? This hypothesis was
confirmed as the results of these two questions displayed a disdain toward using
jargon in any type of writing. In Q5: Is jargon assistive in writing tasks, 44.8% of
people disagreed that it helps them in their professional writing. To add, in Q6: Does
jargon help add clarity to your writing, 56.9% of participants felt that the use of
jargon in professional writing does not add clarity to their writing.
11
Table A: Q5 – Jargon Is Assistive In Writing Tasks
H2. Jargon is assistive in employee-‐to-‐employee casual interaction and increases
immediacy behaviors in the workplace.
Hypothesis 2 was tested was tested in order to understand how the use of
jargon affects the immediacy behaviors between supervisor and subordinate, and
between same level co-‐workers. According to Q7: There is often miscommunication
between employees of my workplace, 44.07% of corporate employees agreed with
this statement. On the contrary, in Q4: Jargon makes your daily communication
easier, 69.49% of corporate employees agree that this slang alleviates the stress of
day-‐to-‐day communication.
In Q15: I only use jargon in informal business settings, 48.3% of participants
agreed with the statement. When the participants were asked Q12: I feel like I have
a good understanding of the jargon in my office place, 91.44% of participants agreed
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
12
that they understand their companies jargon. The use of this informal
communication among employees could help increase proximity and closeness,
which are important immediacy behaviors needed within a workplace.
Table B: Q4 – Jargon Makes Your Daily Communication Easier
Table C: Q12 – I Feel Like I Have A Good Understanding of the Jargon In My Office.
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
13
H3. Jargon can negatively affect immediacy behaviors between supervisor and
subordinate.
Hypothesis three was created in order to address some of the results of other
studies. According to Richmond & McCroskey, supervisors may be using jargon to
manipulate their communication with their subordinates in order to produce a
desired result. Although their research supports this, Q9: My boss talks down to me
with terminology I do not understand, states the opposite, with a total of 96.6% of
corporate employees who disagreed with this statement.
H4: If interactions between supervisor and subordinate are positive, business will
maintain their turnover rate.
Hypothesis four suggests that supervisors and subordinates must have a
positive communication in order to maintain the turnover rate. As research
indicates that it is expensive for a company to train new employees so, it is
imperative to have a control over the intake and outtake within an organization
(Anderson, 1998). Q9 supports hypothesis four, indicating the participants at these
organizations do not feel that their boss uses terminology to speak down to them.
Participants agreed at a rate of 91.5% with Q9: Jargon is used interchangeably in my
office.
An important aspect of maintaining a turnover rate at an organization is
keeping employees up-‐to-‐date with communication practices. Employees, new and
old, should be educated about the jargon terminology used within a company. In
Q13: When I was a new employee, I had a hard time understanding the jargon at my
14
company, 67.2% of participants agreed that they struggled to understand the jargon
when they first started with the company. To add, Q8 states: The jargon used in my
office rapidly changes, and 26.6% of participants agreed.
Table D: Q13 – When I Was A New Employee, I Had A Hard Time Understanding the
Jargon at My Company
Discussion
Implications
This survey sought to understand the way that jargon can affect the
immediacy behaviors and communication in a corporate workplace. The four
hypotheses challenged the ideas that jargon can be assistive or detrimental to
communication and the results of the survey proved most of these hypotheses. The
data compiled from the survey did not support H3.
The results of the survey supported H1 and indicated that the participants do
not prefer to use jargon in written communication. H2 concluded that interpersonal
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Series1
15
communication is imperative to day-‐to-‐day communication and is enhanced by
using familiar language with their counterparts. This survey revealed that the use of
jargon makes the communication environment easier for the participants. Data from
the survey did not support H3, rather implied that jargon in fact does assist the
communication and immediacy behaviors within the corporate workplace. Finally,
H4 suggests that in order to maintain turnover rates within the office place, it is
crucial that supervisors speak to the subordinates in a manner that establishes
inclusiveness.
The findings from this survey support the research conducted by Gilsdorf, as
he suggests that most people do not believe that jargon has any effect on their daily
communication. Furthermore, conclusions made by Anderson states that the
subordinate immediacy attitudes toward the supervisor will rise as the supervisor
expresses more positive attitudes toward the subordinate. It appears that
employees have generally positive feelings about the use of jargon, and do not mind
its use as long as they are aware of what the terms mean. Many get lost in
communication as the workplace jargon changes. This issue could be aided by
providing employees with proper training or knowledge on the jargon of their
specific organization. Though one can draw these conclusions based off of the
survey’s findings, there were several limitations that could hinder the results.
Limitations
There were several limitations when conducting this survey. First, the survey
used a convenience sample, as it was passed along from friend-‐to-‐friend. To add,
16
methods to data collection were limited to a survey. It would be difficult to conduct
a naturalistic observation or focus group because the presence of others has the
potential to skew the answers. Some participants chose to opt out of certain
questions so not all responses were definitive across the board. Finally, there were
40 female participants and only 23 male participants. The large difference in the
gender of participants could potentially alter the answers, as females view
immediacy and communication differently than males.
Future Directions
In the future, I would suggest that researchers attempt some sort of
naturalistic observation or focus group in order to generate a more in depth analysis
of participants exact feelings on the use of jargon within the workplace. I think it
would be assistive to the research to sit in on corporate meetings, between same-‐
level co-‐workers, and between subordinate/supervisor. To add, I would like to
further research on what sort of education could be provided at these corporate
offices to teach new and existing employees about the jargon or language within the
organization. This would ensure that employees are communicating on the same
level, and has the potential to alleviate miscommunications in daily office
communication.
Conclusion
Communication researchers suggest that jargon can either be positive or
negative for workplace communication, depending on its usage. Gilsdorf, Brown,
17
Brannen & Doz, and June all concluded that immediacy behaviors are key in
maintaining positive communication and the use of jargon has the ability to do so.
The study conducted concluded that jargon can in fact enhance immediacy
behaviors by creating inclusiveness within inter-‐groups, and enhance day-‐to-‐day
communication between employees.
18
References
Anderson, P., Guerrero, L., Buller, D., & Jorgensen, P. (1998). An Empirical Comparison of Three Theories of Nonverbal Immediacy Exchange. Human Communication Research, 24(4), 501-‐534. Retrieved November 15, 2015
Brown, W. (1913, April 1). Jargon and the Teaching of Organizational
Communication. Retrieved October 9, 2015. Gilsdorf, J. W. (1983). Executive and Managerial Attitudes Toward Business Slang: A
Fortune-‐List Survey. Journal of Business Communication, 20(4), 29-‐42. Gilsdorf, J. W. (1983). Jargon and Business Slang within the Organization? Consider
the Audience. 30-‐32. Petronio, S. (1998, December 1). (Mis)communicating Across Boundaries. Retrieved
October 9, 2015 Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000). The Impact of Supervisor and
Subordinate Immediacy on Relational and Organizational Outcomes. Communication Monographs, 67(1), 85.
Yoko Brannen, M., & Doz, Y. L. (2012). Corporate Languages and Strategic Agility:
TRAPPED IN YOUR JARGON OR LOST IN TRANSLATION?. California Management Review, 54(3), 77-‐97. doi:10.1525/cmr.2012.54.3.77