FACTORS AFFECTING WRITTEN BUSINESS COMMUNICATION CREATION

AND PRODUCTIVITY PERCEPTIONS

by
Joy Leia Roach
B.A.B., Murray State University, 1999
M.B.A., Murray State University, 2001

A Dissertation
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy Degree

Department of Workforce Education and Development

in the Graduate School
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
May 2006

UMI Number: 3215046

Copyright 2006 by
Roach, Joy Leia
All rights reserved.

UMI Microform 3215046

Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

Copyright by Joy Leia Roach, 2006

All Rights Reserved

DISSERTATION APPROVAL

FACTORS AFFECTING WRITTEN BUSINESS COMMUNICATION CREATION

AND PRODUCTIVITY PERCEPTIONS

by
Joy Leia Roach

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the field of Workforce Education and Development

Approved by:
Dr. Marcia A. Anderson, Chair
Dr. Barbara Hagler
Dr. C. Keith Waugh
Dr. Joyce Killian
Dr. Nancy Gonzenbach

Graduate School
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
March 8, 2006

AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF

Joy L. Roach, for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Workforce Education and
Development, presented on March 8, 2006, at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
TITLE:

FACTORS AFFECTING WRITTEN BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

CREATION AND PRODUCTIVITY PERCEPTIONS

MAJOR PROFESSOR:

Dr. Marcia A. Anderson

In light of todays business communication literature on the large amount of

written workplace communication and suspect message quality, this study attempted to
gather information regarding the methods business professionals use to create differing
types of written business communications and the frequency of use of each method.
Additionally, professionals were surveyed on their perceptions regarding message
quality, training/preparation factors, and productivity in message creation. Data were
gathered through survey administration to a sampling frame of 1994-2004 MBA
graduates of three AACSB-accredited programs.
Conclusions state that professionals perceptions regarding quantity, quality,
timeliness, and cost seem to indicate relative solidarity. Professionals use a limited
number of methods to compose written communications, are confident in message
writing and information quality, timeliness in sending messages, and subsequent
cost/opportunity cost implications. Confidence was also expressed in professionals
preparation and training up to the graduate level, but not beyond, to create written
business messages. Moreover, professionals expressed great confidence in overall
productivity in business writing on the job.

However, statistical analyses revealed differences in the more specific aspects of

preparation and productivity in business writing between demographic groupings. Also,
statistical tests indicated differences by scope in that external messages are perceived to
have a higher quality than internal messages. Moreover, qualitative evidence suggests
that businesspersons are cautious of maintaining quality messages.
Recommendations for practice involving written business communication
productivity enhancement suggest an earlier adoption in the workplace of written
communication technologies. Further, recommendations for training center holistically
on a greater availability of total business composition skills development at the graduate
level as well as in the workplace and center more specifically on factors regarding e-mail
encoding. Suggestions for further research include a more extensive examination of
reasons for utilizing certain message creation resources and reasons for utilization
frequency of such resources. Additional research conducted on other populations of
business writers could further highlight possible demographic differences inherent in
written business communication creation in an effort to move toward implications for
curricula.

ii

DEDICATION

DADDY, thanks for always teaching me to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
I miss your dry humor and quiet wisdom so much.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As I near the end of this very long road, I find myself a changed person. There
have been several incredible people who have made this change possible and greatly
improved my life. Their sacrifices and never-ending encouragement have proven by
example that the effort of personal and professional development is always worthwhile.
The following paragraphs most certainly dont do these people justice for their perpetual
support. It is hoped that they already have some idea of the difference they have made.
I would like to thank Dr. Marcia Anderson, my advisor and friend, whom I will
admire and look up to all my life. Thanks for somehow seeing something promising in a
green as grass 24-year-old with a no-so-subtle accent. Dr. Anderson, I cant imagine
where I would be had our paths never crossed. Always inspiring, never disdainful,
through everything, you have been there. I will be forever grateful for all of the time and
effort you have put into me. I can only hope your standard of excellence is reflected in
this work.
My gratitude goes to my committee membersDrs. Keith Waugh, Barbara
Hagler, Joyce Killian and Nancy Gonzenbachthanks for believing in me. I greatly
appreciate all of the assistance you have provided and all of the kind words. Thanks also
to my other professors at SIUC who supplied me with invaluable knowledge and skills. I
will be forever grateful. Thanks goes in particular to Dr. Larry Bailey, for an exceptional
course in research methods to which I can refer throughout my career.
I would also like to express my gratitude to the panel of experts named in
Appendix B5, who helped me out at such a busy time in the year. They took their own

iv

personal time to give someone help, person unknown, to further the literature in the field
of business communication.
To all my friends in the department: Brenda, Shauna, Tony, Gerry, Sandy, Julia,
John, Mark, and especially you, James. I will miss you all.
Thanks goes to my kind colleagues in the College of Business at the University of
Tennessee at Martin, particularly Dr. Kay Durden, in the Department of Computer
Science and Information Systems. Dr. D., you put forth the extra mile to help me learn
the ropes of my new profession. You have offered continuing support, personal and
professional, and even sponsored this research with some of your own moneya grant
donation to the department specifically for me that you still think is anonymous. I respect
you as a professional and also as a friend.
Id also like to thank the crew back at Murray State who collectively helped me
get to this point and guided me into a Ph.D. program with the belief I am well suited for
an academic career. That is an intimidating projection, but Ill try my best to not let you
down. Thanks especially in this regard to Drs. Lila Waldman and Patsy Nichols, who
gave me the chance to be their research assistant, and through whom I learned much.
Last but foremost, Id like to thank the best parents ever. I dont know where to
start, Mom. You taught me I could achieve anything and in the face of any trying
circumstance. You always encourage me to keep going through all challengesnot least
is this work, despite our recent personal losses. I love you.
Thank you, Daddy. If I ever become blessed enough to have half of the
intellectual firepower you possessed underneath that quiet, modest veneer, Ill be
exceedingly proud.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .................................................................................................................... i
Dedication .............................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ....................................................................................................... xii

I.

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1
Background of the Study .............................................................................1
Justification for the Study ............................................................................3
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................7
Statement of the Problem.............................................................................7
Assumptions, Delimitations, and Limitations..............................................8
Definition of Terms......................................................................................9

II.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....................................................................11

Introduction................................................................................................11
Review of Theoretical Literature ...............................................................12
Written Communication Technology Overview..................................14
Importance of Written Communication Skills.....................................18
Preparation for Creation of Written Business Communications..........22

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

Review of Research Literature...................................................................29

Written Communication Productivity Overview .................................30
Productivity Measure: Quantity of Written Communication........33
Productivity Measure: Timeliness and Cost .................................34
Productivity Measure: Timeliness and Cost Relationship
to Type and Method .....................................................................36
Productivity Measure: Quality......................................................39
Professionals Perceptions of Preparation ...........................................42
Summary of Theoretical and Research Literature .....................................43

III.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND RATIONALE......................................45

IV.

RESEARCH PROCEDURES....................................................................53
Introduction................................................................................................53
Research Design.........................................................................................53
Subjects ......................................................................................................54
Instrumentation ..........................................................................................55
Validity ................................................................................................59
Comparison for Nonresponse Bias ................................................61
Reliability.............................................................................................63

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

Data Collection Procedures........................................................................63

Instrument Return Rate and Mailing Procedures.................................66
Treatment of the Data ................................................................................67

V.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................71

Presentation of Findings ............................................................................71
Presentation of Respondent Data .........................................................71
Presentation of Findings by Research Question ..................................77
Type, Method, and Frequency of Business
Message/Document Creation ......................................................81
Business Message Quality Perceptions..........................................89
Business Message/Document Creation Preparation
Perceptions..................................................................................96
Business Message/Document Creation Productivity
Perceptions................................................................................106
Integration of Findings with Literature....................................................116

VI.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........118

Summary of Research ..............................................................................118
Results and Conclusions by Research Question ................................120

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

Results and Conclusions through Qualitative Analysis .....................131

General Conclusions ................................................................................133
Recommendations for Practice ................................................................134
Recommendations for Further Research..................................................136

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................140

APPENDICES
A. Author Permission..............................................................................157
B. Materials for Panel of Experts and Draft Instrument Formulation ....159
C. Materials for Pilot Study Instrument Administration and Review.....174
D. Business Professionals Written Message Creation Practices and
Productivity PerceptionsInstrumentation and Population
Correspondence..................................................................................189
E. Subject Comments and CROSSTABS Tables ...................................199
F. Human Subjects Committees Approvals...........................................240

Vita.......................................................................................................................243

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1.

Analysis of Potential Nonresponse Bias ....................................................62

2.

Statistical Analyses by Research Question and Questionnaire Item .........68

3.

Respondents by Gender .............................................................................73

4.

Respondents by Age ..................................................................................73

5.

Respondents by Undergraduate Major(s) ..................................................74

6.

Respondents by Current Position within Organization..............................75

7.

Respondents by Organizational Classification ..........................................76

8.

Respondents by Graduate Study Institution..............................................77

9.

Availability of Technology for Creating Business

Messages/Documents.................................................................................79

10.

Availability of Administrative Support in Message Creation....................80

11.

E-Mail Messages Created by Method and Frequency ...............................82

12.

Memos Created by Method and Frequency...............................................83

13.

Letters Created by Method and Frequency................................................84

14.

Forms Created by Method and Frequency.................................................85

15.

Reports Created by Method and Frequency...............................................86

16.

Perceptions of Writing Quality of Internal Business Messages.................90

17.

Perceptions of Information Quality of Internal Business Messages..........91

18.

Quality of Internal Messages by Type .......................................................92

19.

Perceptions of Writing Quality of External Business Messages ...............93

LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table

Page

20.

Perceptions of Information Quality of External Business Messages.........94

21.

Quality of External Messages by Type......................................................95

22.

Business Message/Document Creation Preparation Factors......................99

23.

Venue of Keyboarding Preparation .........................................................101

24.

Most Effective Business Message Preparation ........................................102

25.

Preparation Perceptions and Respondent Data

CROSSTABS Analyses ...........................................................................104

26.

Business/Message Productivity Factors...................................................109

27.

Perceptions of Communication Skills Weakness ....................................111

28.

Skills Development to Increase Productivity...........................................112

29.

Productivity Perceptions and Respondent Data

CROSSTABS Analyses ...........................................................................115

xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

1.

Page

Proportion of respondents currently working in a position

that requires the creation of business messages or documents. .................72

xii

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

At the opening of the new millennium, business professionals find themselves in a
very unique and challenging position. Nowhere is this position more evident than in the
communication aspect of todays business environment. Information from recent studies
illustrates the situation.
In 2001, according to International Data Corporation, an estimated 1.4 trillion
messagestrillionwere sent from businesses in North America. Thats up
from 40 billion in 1995. The same firm estimates that the average office worker
spends 49 minutes a day on e-mail, while top management devotes nearly four
hours to it. Another study from the Garner Group reveals that nearly half of all
American e-mail usersand there are more than 100 million of uscheck e-mail
on vacation. Nearly 1 in 4 look for messages every weekend. (ORourke, 2004, p.
147)
As implied by this information, the fast-paced and information-laden business
environment of the current time has seemingly evolved due to one predominant factor.
As business professionals use e-mail, teleconferences, hand-held PDAs, voice recognition
software, and cellular phones from even the most distant locales on a daily basis, this
factor becomes obvious. Invariably linking the situation to the preparation that is
required to succeed in this environment, Cutshall (2003) stated, ask any business

2
educator what has changed in the field over their careers and the first answer will always
be technology (p. 18).
Moreover, perhaps no other specialty area in the study of business has been
touched by technology as deeply as communication; particularly, written communication.
Indeed, e-mail is currently one of the most widely used written forms of communication,
with roots only about 10 years old. In a study by the Meta Group in 2003, 80% of all
businesspersons on the job preferred to use e-mail for communication as opposed to the
phone (Nowak, 2003). However, while executives prefer e-mail to handle many business
activities, there is a point of concern.
According to a 2002 survey of business executives, three out of four respondents
to the survey felt the volume of information received had a negative impact on the
effectiveness of staff, reduced productivity and the quality of company communication.
In particular, it was also viewed as having a detrimental effect on individual stress levels
(British Computer Society [BCS], 2002a, 2). Perhaps of even greater concern was the
expressed opinion by 70% of respondents who indicated less than half of e-mails seen on
a daily basis were of good quality (BCS, 2002a, 6).
This hints at just how much written communication is used by executiveseven
with the exclusion in this example of other written forms, such as memos, letters, and
reports. It also reveals the possible disturbing condition in which much business
communication is encoded. In light of information such as this, in the workplace of
today, business professionals must have excellent communication skills in order to
process, analyze, and encode quality messages in such a fastidious setting. The
development of excellent communication skills helps to encourage effective message

3
creation and facilitation, and thus serves to promote enhanced efficiency and
productivity.

Justification for the Study

Evidence abounds that all communication technology has rocketed forward at a
very fast pace. In the 1980s, the principal communication method for written documents
was shown to be messages composed in long-hand (Harder, 1984). This illustrates how
far business message composition has progressed in the past 20 years. However, in the
new 21st-century, research is scant at best to determine exactly what forms of document
creation are currently being utilized by professionals and how the necessary skills have
comparatively changed in the last two decades.
The advent of a new spectrum of technologies that relate to written
communication, such as e-mail and voice recognition, has been described, dispersed, and
documented via business education, business communication, and IT journals. In the
most current issue of a journal devoted completely to business communication, more than
half of the published research had titles directly relevant to communicating in some way
via technology. Further, every articles actual content in that particular journal discussed
technology in some fashion, at some point, and was interjected with methods for
technology utilization. However, little is known of how much, specifically, these
technologies are actually being used relative to each other, with what written
communication forms they are being used, and how (if at all) they help communicators
boost productivity on the job.

4
With the current deluge of written communication on the job, coupled with
progressing technology aimed at the fast production of written documents, the potential
remains for quality not up to standard to promote sound business decisions. This may
mean wasted time in unnecessary follow-up communication to clarify misunderstandings,
or worsea bad decision that was made due to a missed or misinterpreted meaning. In
fact, despite the efforts of business educators, studies are confirming the overwhelming
misuse of communication skills and products (Dawley & Anthony, 2003; Fraihat, 2003;
Frayer, 2002).
Future business professionals must not only be aware of ways to utilize current
and upcoming document creation technology, but also to sustain productivity at the
greatest level possible using this technology. Thus, productivity is synonymous with
accurate, not just timely, message creation. Moreover, business educators need to know
in detail what business professionals are doing on the job in order to better prepare
students for the technology and the skills set needed not only to survive, but also to be
efficient in the creation of business documents.
The importance of communication skills development cannot be overstated.
According to a recent study conducted by communication conglomerate Pitney Bowes
(as cited in Guffey, 2003), on an average day, an employee is involved with 141 written
messages and 49 non-written messagesa percentage of roughly 75% in favor of written
communication. This information encourages written communication as a scope of first
priority. In addition, Ober (2003) listed the advantages of written communication as the
ability to be verifiable and recorded. These factors lend themselves to greater analysis
for study and reliability than other forms of communication.

5
Lastly, several sources have documented the inferiority of written communication
skills above other forms of communication, particularly in executive business settings.
The inferiority of managerial written communication skills, and thus the need for further
skills development, has been recently documented in such varied functions as accounting
(Porter, 1997), finance (Tanner & Cudd, 1999), operations management (Keller & Kros,
2000), information technology (Jacobs, 1998), and even research and development
(Blake, 1996).
Indeed, the study could have consequential implications for business
communication curricula, which spans all business functions. Business education
professionals will have a proactive role in the formulation of curricula in light of
technological development. Therefore, the importance of solid communication skills, the
increasing demands of written communication on the job, and the potential for falling
efficiency inculcate that the need is apparent to conduct a new investigation involving
written communication skills. The skills necessary for managers to create written
business communications and the way these skills may serve to enhance productivity
needs to be addressed.
Within that scope, this study attempted to reveal information about what methods
business professionals use on the job to create written communications, what types of
communications are created, the frequency of communication creation, professionals
perceptions of quality, and what specific methods of training best prepared them for the
creation of written communications. With the potential for much greater explicitly
business-related writing skills development in mind, productivity in particular is
examined.

6
What is meant by productivity, usually a focus in operations management, has
changed relatively little over the years. One source from the area of human resources,
which is more apt for the purpose of the current study, stated that productivity is output
gained from a fixed amount of inputs (Sherman, Bohlander, & Snell, 1998, p. 20). A
more encompassing definition is thus stated:
The ideal productivity is reached when you have produced just the right amount
of your product (no shortage or waste) with just the right quality (not too cheap
and not too expensive) at just the right time (neither too early, nor too late) and
have done so at the least possible cost. (Tellier, 1978, p. 6)
Tellier further clarified that productivity has four basic dimensions: quantity,
quality, timeliness, and cost (p. 6). In the scope of written communication productivity,
these four factors are very telling. Moreover, the first of these factors, quantity, has
previously been shown to pose quite a problem. The formerly introduced concern of 141
written messages per day for the average business professional, regardless of assumed
message length, illustrates the unproductive gravity of this factor (Guffey, 2003).
Concerning quality, a national survey revealed that 80% of managers said employees
needed to work on their writing skills (Paal, 1996). Business writing trainers and
consultants are extremely busy with calls from executives to train staff on proper writing
procedures. Executives also note that bad writing skills become much worse with
increased responsibilities (Tyler, 2003).
Associated with the third productivity dimension, timeliness, many related
communications come in too late on which to base sound decisions; also, when they do
arrive, it is difficult for managers to sift through all of the irrelevant information

7
incorporated with the message (Dawley & Anthony, 2003). Lastly, according to Nucleus
Research, American firms had a sunk cost related to only one aspect of lost
productivitynamely, going through useless e-mail communicationof an annual
average of $874 per employee, and that is considered to be a conservative estimate (cited
in Roper, 2003. While difficult to assign a comprehensive price, this fact, when meshed
with far greater sunk opportunity costs due to lost productivity (i.e., lost time clearing up
miscommunication, lost business due to slow communication, lost goodwill, etc.), gives
some idea of the true costs extent.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to contribute to a greater understanding of factors
affecting written business communication creation and the possible impact upon written
communication productivity. Specifically, the study sought to identify factors affecting
written business communication creation and professionals perceptions of productivity.

Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study was: what methods for written business communication
creation are most frequently being used by business professionals, and what are
professionals perceptions regarding productivity in creating these communications?
More specific research questions related to the statement of the problem and
which therefore stem from the associated literature review are subsequently introduced
and rationalized in Chapter 3.

8
Assumptions, Delimitations, and Limitations
The study includes the assumption that subjects are currently employed in some
professional business capacitymost likely in a managerial or executive function. It is
further assumed that these business professionals initiate informal and formal written
documents on a frequent basis and hold responsibility for these documents.
As the focus herein strictly involved written communication, the subject of the
study was delimited solely to that specific portion of the communication process. Also,
despite the fact that several phases are involved in the written document formulation
process, this study had the further delimitation of being isolated to the document creation
(or input) process. The method of creation and ways in which documents were
completed was the primary focus of the study. The many other phases involved with
written business communication, such as decoding messages and methods of final
message transmission, are potentially sound for additional investigation.
More procedural delimitations of the study included sample restrictions. The
sampling frame was restricted to include only domestic M.B.A. graduates. No M.B.A.
graduate with an international place of residence had the potential to be randomly
selected as a survey participant. Further, in an effort to isolate professionals most likely
involved with managerial and executive duties, business professionals without a graduate
degree were excluded. Lastly, as the population contained subjects that are 1994-2004
graduates in an effort to gain a greater understanding of current practices, the potential is
present for some type of bias due to time frame of formal business study and subsequent
graduation.

9
Although the attempt was made to secure a simple random sample, limitations of
the study center on two possible threats to validity involved with sample biasesselfreported information and non-response bias. As data from subjects was self-reported via
survey questionnaire and not recorded by an independent source, the possibility remains
that the information may not be completely impartial or objective. Another participant
bias may occur in the event that there is any deviation between respondents and nonrespondents in respect to relevant data. The tendency of those who volunteered to
return the survey and let their perceptions be known, as opposed to non-respondents, may
indicate some unique implicit quality that may influence the greater results of the study.
However, the attempt to compare both groups to isolate if indeed such a threat could be
identified within the sample served to show no significant differences in responses (this
procedure is described more fully in Chapter 4).
Greater limitations focus on the fact that the population for the study was taken
from 1994-2004 graduates of three AACSB-accredited business programs housed in
universities in the United States regions of the Midwest and South. Thus, any
generalizations made as a result of sample data can only be generalized to that
population, and to no other MBA graduates and/or business professionals.

Definition of Terms
Business Professional Specifically, in the scope of this study, a businessperson who has
earned an M.B.A. from an AACSB-accredited program in the last decade (1994-2004).
This professional presumably is currently employed in a business capacity as a manager
or organizational representative.

10
Creation Method For purposes of this study, creation method was defined as the series
of activity-based input options available to businesspersons at the present time that may
be utilized to fulfill written business communication creation needs. These options may
include (but are not limited to) the utilization of computer keyboarding, handwriting,
voice recognition, dictation to a personal assistant, and other methods for encoding
written messages.
Productivity The amount of output accomplished per labor and other resources invested
(Van Fleet & Peterson, 1994).
Written Business Communication Most forms of business communicationincluding
e-mail, announcements, memos, faxes, letters, newsletters, reports, proposals, and
manualsfall into this category (Guffey, 2003, p. 18).
Internal/External Written Business Communication Written messages intended for
stakeholder reception either inside the writers organization, such as superiors,
coworkers, and subordinates (internal); or outside the organization, with customers,
suppliers, the public, etc. (external) (Lehman & DuFrene, 2005).
Quality Devoid of major content errors such as misrepresented information, missing
information, or irrelevant information; also, relatively free of grammatical, punctuation,
and style errors.

11
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction
The following subsections outline research literature relevant to the purpose and
problem of the study. The purpose of the study was to contribute to a greater
understanding of factors affecting written business communication creation and the
possible impact upon written communication productivity. Specifically, the study sought
to identify factors affecting written business communication creation and professionals
perceptions of productivity. Moreover, the literature linked with this stated purpose, and
therefore associated with the following Review of Theoretical Literature, sought to
establish the theoretical basis and context of the study.
Whereas relevant literature associated with the purpose of the study provided a
basis for support of the purpose, the Review of Research Literature more directly
corresponded to the specific problem and research questions of the study. The problem
of this study was: what methods for written business communication creation are most
frequently being used by business professionals, and what are professionals perceptions
regarding productivity in creating these communications? Consequently, the Review of
Research Literature focused on specific measures of written communication productivity
and professionals perceptions regarding preparation and productivity. Lastly, the
Summary of Theoretical and Research Literature served to summarize the main points of
theoretical and research literature and to greater solidify the proposed contribution of the
current study in the scope of prior research.

12
Review of Theoretical Literature
Workforce 2000, a Hudson Institute publication composed 13 years prior to its
titles focus, has served to assist workforce educators in gaining an understanding of the
millennial new wave of necessary skills. Ranking jobs according to skills, rather than
education, illustrates the rising requirements even more dramatically (Johnston &
Packer, 1987, p. xxi). In hindsight, now that the period of time in question has come,
Workforce 2000 seemed to be accurate about the volume of high skills needed by
employees. Also, regardless of the fact that the true extent of todays computer surge
was conceivably not fully realized by the work, it appeared to correctly outline some of
the major trends to be expected at the beginning of the 21st-century. Likewise, the
publication also stressed the role of educators to prepare citizens for the new business
world, particularly in the private sector.
While the work was not the only such publication to highlight future workforce
trends, it illustrated future needs in a concise but comprehensive manner. The possible
skills gap alluded to in a retrospective analysis of Workforce 2000 illustrates the
potential for undermined productivity, especially when it comes to information sharing.
Indeed, this concept illustrates the much more categorical situation with current written
communications, for it is the linkage between technology advent and ensuing skills
development in which gaps may occur. The fact that technology has exceeded prior
expectations by a huge margin, especially to the extent that it has bred increased written
communications, while user skills are continually shown to be short of standard, may be
evidence of such a gap.

13
In fact, the subsequent counterpart to the aforementioned work, Workforce 2020
(Judy & DAmico, 1997), more profoundly places an emphasis on privatization as well as
increasing research and development. As the work implies, this increase should not only
serve to improve products and services offered, but also to increase the speed of business
and the frequency of transactions amid an aging workforce. Thus, how users of
technology have learned to adapt and continually hone skills, particularly in the business
office of the 21st-century, is a matter that merits further investigation. In fact, in a survey
of todays information professionals, it has been realized that 98% of staff require
computer skills as part of their everyday job, with three quarters (75 per cent) [sic] of
those surveyed acknowledging that time is wasted due to lack of computer knowledge
(British Computer Society, 2002b, 2).
Despite any possible reservations concerning user capitalization on new
technologies, research and development presses on amid budgets geared to greatly
increase data dispersion. True to ultimate function purpose, it is estimated that research
and development will continue to improve communication forms and technology as
competitive firms drive for greater competitive advantage. In a corporate-specific
example, Microsofts founder revealed that the company has set a new precedent of $6.8
billion to spur on new IT advances for the office (Gates, 2003). This R&D cost figure is
for the impending fiscal year, and spending seems likely to increase in the future. Indeed,
as evidenced by even a casual glance at todays typical business office, technology and
privatization have come together to create one central theme for communications
emanating from the business office: automationor perhaps even more apt:
computerization.

14
Written Communication Technology Overview
From strong predictive workforce reports such as Workforce 2000, more specific
implications were ascertained. Moreover, it was discerned at least 20 years ago that
computerization would be a key to productive and efficient business communications, but
to an unknown extent (Inman, 1975). Since then, computerization has gathered speed so
quickly due to one major factornamely, a small price tag. Even the smallest businesses
have been able to afford the most recent communication-related hardware and software.
Since 1995 the price decline for computers has accelerated In response,
investment in computers has exploded, and the growth contribution of computer
hardware has increased more than fivefold, to 0.46 percentage point per year in
the late 1990s. Software and communications equipment, two other types of IT
assets, contributed an additional 0.30 percentage point (Jorgenson & Stiroh,
2000, p. 125)
As these measures of increase in total U.S. economic growth imply, the business
office, the atmosphere in which most daily transactions are conceived and executed by
professionals, has undergone a transformation in recent times. Today, offices are
equipped with varied technology for business communication, which include such items
as faxes, LANs, personal data assistants (PDAs), and phones that show correspondents on
screen. Moreover, one major aspect of the office in particular, the methods for written
document creation, reveals the major phases through which the office of the last two
decades has passed.
A 1984 word processing textbook revealed how most documents were created in
that decade by the statement that handwriting, dictation to a secretary, and machine

15
dictation occur in the origination part of the document cycle (Bergerud & Gonzalez,
1984, p. 42). Also discussed as additional tools for word origination are the basic word
processor and a very early form of voice recognition software. The focus on the types of
documents created centered almost exclusively on letters and memos. The examination
of a mid-1980s Professional Secretaries International (PSI)-sponsored office professional
textbook also supported this content in regard to scope and topic (Schroeder, 1984).
Roughly a decade later, a 1995 PSI-sponsored exam review for office staff
concentrated on portable dictation units, desktop computers with word processing
software, and computer-aided transcription systems as methods for written
communication instigation. Documents described were also letters and memos, with the
limited addition of a new form of growing written communicatione-mails (Schroeder).
Additionally, as illustrated in this text, a focus in the 1990s seemed to be as much on new
ways of transmitting documents as on methods of document creation.
Lastly, a 2005 PSI text helps to illustrate perhaps the greatest decadal leap as far
as business document creation technology and types of documents created (Schroeder).
Word processing templates, e-mail, and voice recognition received substantial attention
as ways to encode messages. Information regarding memos and letters was still present;
in fact, instruction on the creation of business letters was broken down into six types,
including such respective concentrations as positive, routine, and persuasive. Also,
information regarding the composition of e-mails, particularly e-mail etiquette, is
covered. Other forms of written communications such as meeting minutes, new releases,
and itineraries, were also described. The examination of six 2003-2005 business
communication textbooks also supported these written communication topics as being the

16
most important for business professionals. In addition, in a significant change from the
1990s, the composition of business reports made up a substantial amount of topical
coverage. Interestingly enough, research is also covered in the form of written sources
from which to collect information.
From this comparison, it should rightly be assumed that the large expansion of
information available on the types of documents created and method in the 2000s reflects
todays need for excellent written communication methods and skills. Moreover, input
technologies and their relation to document creation has become a great force to endeavor
to master through awareness and ensuing skills development. For example, the evolution
of input has progressed from its long history of manual typewriters through to electronic
typewriters and then to word processors and microcomputer programs such as Microsoft
Word. An impact upon business communication training in the future lies not only with
keyboard input, but with speech and writing recognition, which arguably may hold the
potential to eliminate typing altogether in the future.
In fact, this leap from keyboarding to voice recognition is at the forefront of
written communication technology and seems to represent a large portion of literature on
document instigation. Erthal, Roane, and Larsh (2003) have recognized this possible
trend and describe its possible benefits: these input devices increase productivity,
improve communication and computer skills, and reduce the risks of repetitive stress
injuries (p. 125). In addition, voice recognition is readily available to all business
professionals; in the current market, there are at least four widely used voice recognition
packages available (Szul & Bouder, 2003). More immediately applicable to productivity,

17
Barksdale (2002) stated that a trained business professional could achieve 110-160 words
per minute with a 95% correctness rate.
However, despite the theoretically espoused benefits of voice recognition
software, it is not known how much business professionals actually use this technology
on the job. While there are various voice recognition software packages available with
different features, there also seems to be some disagreement on the preparation required
to use voice recognition. Fodor (2003) asserted that use of software requires little to no
preparation, while Savel (2002) has given examples of the need for training professionals
in the operation of such software and hardware, including the aspect of adjustment to
unique and individualized speech rhythms.
In support of Savel, it has been reported by one independent speech recognition
training firm that trainers have educated over 7,000 business educators in total
representing every U.S. state (Speaking Solutions, 2004). However, even with such
training to maximize productivity, it may be ideal to mix document creation methods.
One source describes an accuracy rate with the software of 80% to 90% and the use of an
administrative assistant to catch the remaining errors. Successful implementations use
transcriptionists to proof reports. When paired with transcription, voice recognition
improves the turnaround time for dictated reports (Parker, 2004, p. 41).
It is important to note, however, that some do not think voice recognition will
completely replace keyboarding in the near future and indicate these skills should be
complementary in nature (Bartholome, 1991; Jennings, 2001; Wiggs, 1993). As implied
by the aforementioned use of transcriptionists, there also seems to be a marginal base still
present for dictation methods, especially in medical and legal firms (Kennedy &

18
Littenberg, 2004; Ricutti, 2003; Schuerenberg, 2003). In sum, a review of literature
includes strong topical coverage of voice recognition in particular as the newest office
technology. However, coverage also suggests the continued use of keyboarding,
dictation, and administrative assistants as resources. These utilization choices represent
the strong need for professionals to be comfortable and therefore productive with the
creation of written communication. The major skills involved with this creation,
especially in light of described creation methods, come together to comprise one of the
most necessary overall business skills sets. In fact, employers, employees, and business
faculty deem written business communication skills one of the very most important to
firm performance.

Importance of Written Communication Skills

While technology continues to increase the ease and speed of information, the
vice president of InterAccess, a well-known IT corporation, fittingly summed up the
situation: One of the most surprising features of the information revolution is that the
momentum has turned back to the written word (Jacobs, 1998, p. 86). Technology and
the means through which writing skills integrate with this new technology can create a
definite challenge for employees, yet writing skills seem very much in demand.
In 2004, survey results were released that corroborated both of these patterns.
While employers rate communication skills as one of their most desired characteristics,
they all report that they are the skills that are most lacking in todays job candidates,
according to Marilyn Mackes, NACE executive director (Employers Value, 2004, p. 1).
This quotation stems from a National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE)

19
study in which communication skills ranked on top of all other skills, including specific
technical skills for the job. This information has been backed by numerous studies in
regard to employers desire for excellent communication skills on the part of employees
(Gardner & Liu, 1997; Rubin & Morreale, 2000; Scheetz, 1996; Tanyel, Mitchell, &
McAlum, 1999).
More specifically geared to a particular function, Johnson and Johnson (1995)
found that in the field of accounting (often a target of business communication
researchers), the mention of good communication skills increased 750% over two
decades in job ads for the profession. Also, in a study of accountants, including CPAs,
written communication skills ranked second in professional skills business educators
should develop in future accountants. This ranking was only behind the allencompassing analytical/critical thinking skills, but above oral communication skills.
Also behind written communication skills were teamwork, decision-making, leadership,
even professional demeanor, and interestingly enough, computing technology
(Burnett, 2003). This finding complements those of Nellermoe, Weirich, and Reinstein
(1999), who established that accounting professionals overwhelmingly agreed to the new
writing component of the CPA exam and advocated the use of information technology
templates to assist with the composition of documents.
It is clear that employers seek out excellent written communication skills, a need
that concurs with employees views. More generally suited across all business functions,
Storms (1983) found that 97% of surveyed business professionals stated that writing was
important; more specifically, 88% said that it was important for advancement (p. 15).
Also, a survey of managers also indicated that the need for written composition skills

20
dominated other skills, including oral skills. The finding was that memos, reports, letters,
and proposals were the most important types of overall communication (Alexander,
1992). In a deeper focus on future employee performance and employer preference, one
study indicated that 89.1% of employers expressly asked for solid written communication
skills on the part of employees as a factor for success (Connolly, Hoggat, & Honl, 1999).
More recently, employers placed written (and oral) communication skills at the top in
regard to importance, and computer literacy second; creation skills that greatly
complement each other (Moody, Stewart, & Bolt-Lee, 2002).
In addition, a National Commission on Writing study showed that three-fourths of
corporate human resource directors reported that two-thirds of salaried employees held
responsibility for substantive writing (National Commission, 2004). The future of this
situation has the potential to reach even more serious levels as the Commission also
pointed out the widely-recognized trend that service industries are expected to increase in
the next few years. The Commission found that at least 80% of all employees in service
organizations held intensive writing responsibility.
Likewise, future employees, those in direct transition from business programs to
employment as business professionals, solidify the importance of written
communications across the phases of the career cycle. Communication skills were shown
to be more important to job applicants in the job search than any other innate or earned
quality, including GPA and obtained degree (Curtis, Winsor, & Stephens, 1989). These
future professionals no doubt inferred the importance of communication skills from being
the first skills employers examine and base a hiring decision uponwriting skill in the
form of an employment cover letter, and oral skills in the job interview. It has been

21
shown that 86% of employers hold poorly written application materials against a job
candidate (National Commission, 2004, p. 10). Further, employers seeking MBA
graduates have been shown to value oral and written communication skills as the major
factors in the final hiring decision (Dowd & Liedtka, 1994).
The need for excellent communication skills on the part of business graduates is
expressed not only by employers and employees, but by professionals in academia as
well. Business school department chairs have stood firm on written communication
skills. Wardrope (2002) showed that business school leaders (i.e., department chairs and
program directors) perceive writing skills to be more important to business
communication courses than oral communication, communication technology skills,
interpersonal communication, group communication, listening, and inter-cultural
communication. Plutsky (1996) also received a similar response from business faculty as
to the potential business communication needs of graduates.
Even more specifically, business communication professionals themselves were
asked in 1999 by Wardrope and Bayless to rank 30 competencies based on importance
for the workplace. Of those 30, the top 5 all came from the realm of written
communication. Professionals identified these five to be writing mechanics, memo
writing, persuasive writing, positive message writing, and report writing.
Thus, business professionals who represent employers and employees, as well as
business educators, are unanimous in their regard for the necessity of written
communication competency. As shown, written skills have received premium attention
by these groups due to the fast-paced business environment of rising competition,
correspondence, and technology (Van der Colff, 2004). The combination of technology

22
through which to produce written communications and the need for solid written
communication skills merge to demand productive document creation. Much of this
productivity lies within the realm of proper preparation of professionals to achieve
streamlined document creation in the workplace.

Preparation for Creation of Written Business Communications

Van Fleet and Peterson (1994) stated that the key ways to boost productivity and
achieve quality revolve around technological advancement and training. With the
technological aspect of communication established and accelerating, as well as the
importance of written communication at essential levels, the key to efficient
communications is training. Thus, the factor most apt to fulfilling any productivity
skills gap seen regarding writing procedures is training and education. Indeed,
notwithstanding that technology is in the workplace, the worker may not have the
knowledge required for even a mediocre attempt at utilization, let alone utilization in the
highest productive manner.
In fact, even business education programs have difficulty training students on the
latest technology for several reasons, including faculty reticence and the fact that new
technology often reaches trainers last (Lundgren, 1999). This has been the case for some
time, as Grever and Zimmerman (1988) determined that automated office equipment was
greatly lacking at the secondary and postsecondary levels. Despite this training situation,
as business information needs increase at an exceedingly fast rate, there is a natural and
integral link between the actual business environment and the preparation of future
business professionals to fulfill these needs. There seems to be four major realms in

23
which professionals may train for creating productive written business communication:
the secondary level, postsecondary business education programs, postsecondary
traditional business studies, and corporate training.
The initial contact a future business professional has with document creation may
come in secondary programs. However, this is not always the case; it is in fact becoming
a rarity. An example of this situation lies with keyboarding, once a staple of secondary
programs and currently necessary for most business professionals. Computers maintain a
formidable presence in millions of offices today, yet keyboarding training, the most basic
skill involved with almost anything done in a timely manner on the computer, has a slim
backing in education.
Many studies have shown that good keyboarding skills boost productivity on the
job (Schueler, 1989; Wentling, 1990; Zhao, 1996). However, Jennings (2001) found that
at the middle school level, which consensus generally recommends is the optimum level
to offer such training, four states required keyboarding training and eight states indicated
the curriculum choice was made by independent districts. In sum, keyboarding was not
required by a majority of states at neither the middle nor high school levels. In addition,
34.3% of all responding states that did offer keyboarding revealed that it did not even
count as a core curriculum elective that would be sufficient for graduation (Jennings,
2001, p. 47). This situation is almost bipolar to a 1961 study that cited 91% of schools
offered typing as a full one-year course (United Business Education Association, 1961).
In perhaps more far-reaching implications, a study of secondary business teachers
by Hosler, Jacobson, and James (2003) found that courses most recently added to the
curriculum were personal finance, web page design, and business law. The courses most

24
often dropped by institutions all related to office productivity: speedwriting, business
procedures, and keyboarding. Thus, this overall choice regarding secondary business
education curricula may serve to ultimately impact workplace written communication
productivity.
However, a comprehensive examination of written communication productivity
training must encompass both secondary and postsecondary training. As a fundamental
discipline in which information creation and processing as well as overall communication
skills are developed, postsecondary business education programs have long attempted to
enhance written communication skills. Communication skills development,
accomplished under the umbrella of business education, transfers to tasks on the job in
regard to computer hardware and software, written and oral communication, and various
business subject-specific training. But, this area also is not without concern. Regarding
issues in business education that have recently come to light, one main concern seems
particularly troublesome: business education programs in colleges and universities with
low enrollment and falling teacher numbers.
Business education has suffered a declining role in [our] educational institutions
that is distressing and artfully ignored (Lundgren, 1999, p. 55). This less than covert
statement is indeed distressing, but seems to have irrefutable truth. In a linear regression
analysis revealed by Lundgren, NABTE (National Association for Business Teacher
Education) will simply cease to exist in 15 years. In 1980, NABTE schools numbered
300; in the year 2000, 140; a drop of more than half. Indeed, a 1997-1998 NABTE
survey found undergraduate enrollments are about 40 percent of what they were 10
years ago (Okula, 1999, p. 8). If teachers at the secondary level are not equipped to

25
enhance future professionals training, it seems very unlikely that enrollment will
increase and the problem of inferior business writing skills will ultimately be alleviated.
In fact, it is no overstatement that the postsecondary level seems to be greatly
responsible for the decline in secondary business education programs. College and
university-level programs could be partly responsible for the fall in secondary business
programs due to the lack of formally trained secondary business teachers that earn
degrees to teach in secondary programs. Further, Okula (1999) voiced other problems
such as shrinking business education doctoral programs as well as decreasing numbers of
doctoral candidates, which historically have produced many member of business
communication faculty.
Many of the business communication faculty members fill positions within
postsecondary core business programs. Thus, besides secondary and specialized
postsecondary business education programs, there continues to be the often-cited
business communication core courses in postsecondary traditional business programs
that are aimed to develop the majority of professionals written communication skills.
Unlike the more specialized business education programs, this training is geared to
influence most business majors, from the study of accounting to management. It is
specialized for those who will imminently be business professionals in the workplace.
In fact, the AACSB (Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of
Business), the major accrediting agency of postsecondary business programs worldwide,
maintains that communication training and development are factors to be integrated with
student outcomes (AACSB, 2004; AACSB, 2006). However, as voiced by such agencies
as the Association for Business Communication, the focus on business communication

26
could be much more prominent and specific (ABC, 2002). Despite the expected role of
communication training in accredited programs via the newly adopted (2003) and revised
(2004 and 2006) assurance of learning standards (which are focused on learning
outcomes), stipulations for communication skills development therein seem to remain
vague. This vagueness no doubt may stem from the AACSBs effort to base
accreditation decisions based upon the ultimate mission statement of respective
institutions business programs.
Indeed, the new standards only state that: normally, the curriculum
management process will result in an undergraduate degree program that includes
learning experiences in such general knowledge and skill areas as: communication
abilities, ethical understanding and reasoning abilities, analytic skills, use of information
technology (AACSB, 2004, p. 15). This stipulation is so vague, in fact, that Hoggatt
(2003) found schools are satisfying AACSB accreditation with courses such as speech
and entry-level English. Hoggatt indicated that only 214 of 570 AACSB-accredited
institutions expressly required a communication course expressly geared for business
correspondence in their core.
Incidentally, the undergraduate business program ranked as the top in the country
in 2006 and for the past several years in a row by U.S. News and World Report is one of
the few to require two communication courses. This particular program required a course
in team communication (which seems to emphasize oral, interpersonal skills, based upon
information from the course description) and one written requirement. This written
requirement offers a choice from a battery of courses entitled writing about courses,
according to the undergraduate course catalog. Even more telling, the catalog specifies

27
the writing courses in this way: besides practicing writing skills, "writing about" courses
will provide an opportunity to explore a liberal arts subject area (University of
Pennsylvania, 2004).
This isolated example implies a potentially greater masked problemstudents
may get little written training in regard to the business situations they may find
themselves involved with in the near future. Further, there is no requirement for
communication training in M.B.A. or other graduate business programs (AACSB, 2004;
AACSB, 2006). Although Bogert and Butt (1996) showed a presence of graduate
business communication courses, it is unclear how many programs require such courses.
This lack of training is further confirmed by studies that ascertained level of degree
achieved had no bearing on written communication competencies of managers (Ariss &
Timmins, 1989; Jackson, 1990; and McEwen, 1998).
With such a possible absence of detailed training specifically in regard to written
business communication (as opposed to other forms of communication), future business
professionals are sometimes ill-prepared to compose a simple form of business writing,
such as a business letter or report. Even further, written communication is possibly even
more neglected, as oral skills often take priority. This is despite the noted importance of
written communication skills by employers, employees, and business faculty.
As an aside, professionals in other specialized areas such as engineering have
lamented the fact that missed training in technical writing and such a basic skill as
keyboarding has undermined their productivity (Ryker, 1999; Vest, Long, & Anderson,
1996). This cross-functional information seems directly relevant to the overall

28
preparation of professionals to create written communications and the productivity
involved with this creation.
In light of this situation, it is not surprising that Tallinghast (1994) reported that
84% of companies with at least 100 employees and over 90% of those with over 1,000
employees offered internal corporate communication training. Formal institutional
business programs are failing to properly prepare professionals for written
communication, which eventually must become evident to both employees and
employers. These poor communication skills are addressed by corporate trainers in the
development of fundamental methods of business writing. Middle managers receive
training in the creation of productive communicationsthe most often of any employed
group (McEwen, 1997). Also, Moore and Mulcahy found in 1991 that more than a half
of all business graduates have received formal training on the job regarding
communication technology. More recently, it has been shown that 40% of large
corporations provided writing training in 2004 for salaried employees, who, most
likely, are college graduates (National Commission, 2004, p. 17). This finding links with
recent evidence that graduates of even the most prestigious universities are disappointed
with the writing skills they obtained in college (Bartlett, 2003).
It is clear that corporate training is a major key to written communication
development as a method to close the communication skills gap, and it is this realm in
particular that holds the most consequence for the current study. The specific
development of written communication skills has the potential to directly boost
productivity in several waysthrough the creation of quality written communications
and saved costs associated with input factors. Thus, preparation enhances productivity

29
through streamlined methods of document creation, effective document types, minimized
direct costs, and saved opportunity costs.

Review of Research Literature

The major focus that was present in both Workforce 2000 and 2020 was the idea
of a skills gapincreasing technology at a fast pace and a lack of skills to fully
capitalize on this technology. The result of such a skills gap could directly result in
limited productivity, indeed in falling productivity. Technology and the importance of
written communications demands that one facet of the current study include preparation
in regard to professionals skills to produce efficient written communications.
It is key to keep in mind with preparation that even with a similar degree earned
by professionals, (business bachelors degree, or MBA, for example), there is the
potential for strong variance in professionals preparation to create written
communications on the job. Therefore, there is the potential for variance in the ways in
which communications are produced. An examination of literature as it relates to total
written communication productivity and its four component parts (quantity, quality,
timeliness, and cost) seems relevant to better understand the nature of written
communication productivity as it stands and perceptions of professionals for
improvement. Two facets are involved in these measures of productivitybusiness
writing skill (grammar and other writing measures as they relate to quality) and input
skills (method utilized for creation).

30
Written Communication Productivity Overview
Despite the call some time ago by Hyslop (1981) for the specific boost of
efficiency in regard to written communication in a world where work hours dont seem to
expand, but daily information does, there have been very few studies on such a topic.
Perhaps the major reason for this lack of research lies with the very difficult nature of the
construct of productivity, for which there seems to be no universal term. One longstanding attempt to establish a relationship simply asked presidents of the 100 largest
U.S. corporations in the mid-1950s about their perceptions regarding a communication
and productivity linkage. At that time, 96% believed there was a strong link (Lull, Frank,
& Pierson, 1955). Although more recent studies in which the general relationship
between communication and productivity has been voiced as strong (Downs, Clampitt, &
Pfeiffer, 1988), some have more mixed results, especially when taking into account more
personal communication against corporate-wide messages (Clampitt, 1983; Clampitt &
Downs, 1993).
One undeniable fact is that the seemingly never-ending debate whether
communication and office technology has boosted productivity still continues. No
communication medium illustrates this disagreement better than e-mail. Although some
professionals have voiced their opinions as a whole that office computerization has
helped to increase productivity, especially e-mail (Swartz, 2003), other sources have
concentrated on the prospect that infoglut and time wasted due to confusion and
disgruntlement impacts professionals negatively (Jackson, Dawson, & Wilson, 2003). In
a related, but very broad-based sense of the problem, Roach (1991) cited in a study
involving office professionals that office/information workers actually saw a decrease of

31
6.6% and more blue collar production workers saw an increase in productivity by
16.9% from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s. It has also been explicitly stated that
American companies received single-digit percentage increases in productivity in
exchange for the trillions they spent on technology in the 1980s (McCune, 1994, p. 55).
A more optimistic but perhaps ulterior motivated view is held by Microsofts
founder. Gates (2001) stated that, in the decade ahead, I can predict that we will
provide over twice the productivity improvement that we provided in the 90s ( 16).
However, this statement was in the context of acknowledged computer crashes, ongoing
technical problems, and the difficulty of businesspersons using software programs in the
beginning of the 2000s.
However holistically seen by experts, business professionals have assisted with
some measures that give an indication that effective and efficient communication is
linked with boosted productivity. On a more micro scale, Stitt (1988) found that many
respondents indicated that a computer has greatly enhanced their productivity. But, these
professionals also stated that even greater office productivity could come in the form of
increased employee motivation and more advanced office equipment (p. 77). This
was especially evident in the service sector of the study, as these persons may conduct a
greater percentage of external communication.
Indeed, recent research has suggested that solid business communication does
improve overall productivity and performance over the long-run, especially when it
comes to written communications (Roth, 1993; Zhao & Alexander, 2004). On a more
independent scale, Penley, Alexander, Jernigan, and Henwood (1991) found that better
communication skills deem employees high-performing managers over lower-

32
performing professionals. This coincides with the more obvious linkage of
communication ability as a whole to favorable business professionals job evaluations
and career advancement (Bednar, 1982; Sypher & Sypher, 1983). On an organizational
scale, a study by Mascolini (1988), revealed that 49 companies listed on the NYSE that
have won at least two communication awards (from the International Association of
Business Communicators) showed that productive communication does correspond to
overall firm performance. In fact, 67% (33 of 49) of these award-winning companies
beat their competitors in overall performance in three respective industries.
In sum, despite studies claiming falling office productivity, the real truth may be
hidden in the difficult nature of the construct when it comes to office productivity.
Written communication productivity may be falling due to simple things such as bad
measurement of inputs and outputs, learning lags, and mismanagement of technology
(Brynjolfsson, 1993).
Thus, to obtain a better sense of productivity in written business communications,
it is perhaps helpful to break the construct down into its major four parts. Although there
are differing methods of the determination of what constitutes productivity, the
aforementioned definition by Tellier (1978) includes the components of quantity, quality,
timeliness, and cost. These four factors duly relate to inputs measured against outputs
and also integrate with the research questions of the study. Thus, these four productivity
measures relate to prior research and serve as a basis by which to frame obtained
information from the current study.

33
Productivity measure: Quantity of written communication. According to the
United States Census Bureau in 2001, of the majority (54.2%) of workers who use
computers, 67.2% of employees on the job used word processing packages and desktop
publishing; also 72.2% used e-mail or the Internet. Also, there are an estimated
71,782,000 computers currently being used at work to create differing forms of written
communication (cited in Snyder, 2001). Indeed, the sheer quantity of specific types of
communications created by business professionals gives some idea of the impact business
writing has on the workplace. In fact, Boles (1997) reported a study of several
conglomerates that revealed the average Fortune 1000 employee sends and receives about
178 messages per day; no doubt a large amount of those are written messages.
More specifically suited to written communication, Jennings and Vice (1999)
found that executives in multi-national corporations (MNCs) wrote 2 to 5 messages a
day; however, with e-mail added in, the figure rose to 50 and 100 a week. For these
executives, the typical length of a document was one to two pages. More specifically, to
determine just what types of written documents are being created, Storms (1983) cited
that the most often written type by far was the memo. In fact, Storms revealed that 37%
of professionals indicated they use this form often; 34% indicated very often. Other
messages composed on a regular basis and ranked by frequency respectively included the
business letter, short reports (less than five pages), instructions, external proposals,
internal proposals, and guidelines. Perhaps surprisingly, as Storms (1983) surveyed
business professionals with a business degree, there was no statistical significance found
between undergraduate major and type of communication most created.

34
This order of type of communication created by frequency was confirmed a year
later. Brinkley (1984) surveyed professionals, some of whom had completed an
undergraduate course of some type in business communication, and found the same
resultsmemos were the most frequently written, then letters, then reports. This trend
was also very recently confirmed (National Commission, 2004). Incidentally, Alexander
(1992) and Wiggs (1992) also upheld the memo as the most frequently composed
document. Finally, after a decade of technological advancement in the realm of written
communications, Wiggs (1992) performed a similar study, including new, but certainly
not fully developed, forms of communication such as e-mail. Few respondents at that
time indicated that e-mail was a type of document regularly created, but a large
percentage foresaw greatly increased use of e-mail in the future. Indeed, the National
Commission on Writing in 2004 found that 95% of responding employees indicated that
e-mail was used at least frequently on the job.
Overall, quantity of written communications created, a measure of input and
output in regard to productivity, is also tied to time. The positive relationship between
effort and quantity produced involves depleted time. The tie of quantity and time as
components of productivity is further solidified by the tie between timeliness and cost.

Productivity measure: Timeliness and cost. The productivity factors of

timeliness and cost also relate to the amount of overall time spent on written
communications in a broad sense. The overall turnaround time involved with
composition of written communications relates to other workplace tasks managers could
be performing as well as overhead. The frequency and amount of overall writing done on

35
the job is very substantial; however, various sources cite differing total percentages of
time engaged in this activity.
Storms (1983) found that managers spend slightly more than one full day per
week solely on written communicationsthe mean percentage of time allocated for total
writing at work was 25%. Anderson (1985) determined that most college-degreed
professionals spend at least 20% of their overall on-the-job time writing. Indeed, persons
employed for more than three years write significantly more. There seems to be a very
direct relationship between responsibility, career advancement, and writing. However,
large amounts of writing are a part of many employees working day, and not just for
executives and middle management. A large amount of writing has been shown to be
representative of line supervisors as well. Front-line managers in manufacturing were
surveyed by Mabrito (1997), who found that the average supervisor spent between 8 and
14 hours per week writing, the equivalent of approximately one-fourth of every week.
This particular sample of front-line supervisors spent most of the time writing short
reports and step-by-step instructions.
As for the newest form of written communication, e-mail, Swartz (2003) reported
that workers in the United States with e-mail capability spend a very substantial amount
of time per day dealing with this form of written message. In fact, there are 50 million
workers who spend some time each working day on navigation through e-mail. In fact,
in a study by the Forbes and Gartner Groups (cited in Martin, 2004) it was discovered
that 82% of top executives, including CEOs, check e-mail before work and only 6%
allow an assistant to do that particular task for them.

36
With the quantity and time consumed per day on written messages overall, the
method of correspondence has a great impact on time, and therefore profit margin. The
quantity and type of written communication created directly relates to productivity;
however, the method utilized for creation perhaps even more greatly has a bearing on the
productivity involved with message creation. Moreover, overall time consumed with
writing can be reduced with the most productive mix of written communication creation
types and methods used to create those types.

Productivity measure: Timeliness and cost relationship to type and method.

Although studies that relate type of written communication created to method are scarce,
there is some information on the use of these two stand-alone variables by business
professionals. In light of frequency, these two variables have perhaps greater
implications for productivity. The methods through which professionals choose to
encode written messages can save time on the part of the decoder as well as encoder and
also improve message quality. For example, handwriting documents, whether for further
development later or for the professionals own notes, can greatly hold up business
processes due to unclearness (Gladstone, 2004). This was especially of importance in
light of the fact that handwritten documents have been shown to be composed quite often
by professionals.
In a show of handwriting importance to executives, Kirby and Oliver found in
1988 that administrative support personnel keyed documents from their superior (namely,
a business professional) from various ways of initial draft creation. Most often, the
professional had used longhand to create the document89% of personnel reported

37
keying documents from longhand. There was also a presence of shorthand (27%),
machine transcription (48%), and a strong showing of assistants who key the rough drafts
composed by their manager (89%). In a linkage with office automation and method,
incidentally, the same study reported that 78% of administrative assistants used a
typewriter; only 6% used a modem in 1988 to complete communications for the
professional.
Even as late as 1991, Andera found that professionals, most of whom held
degrees, still used and also preferred to create written communications by using the
handwritten technique. Coming in second was dictation to machine in use (22%) and
expressed preference for use, even if that method of creation was unavailable (29%). The
next used method was to personally type the communication (19%); although at that
point, professionals preferred dictation to secretary (18%). The least preferred method
was to personally type the communication. Wiggs (1992) also discovered the wide usage
of handwritten communications, particularly among older managers.
This strong result for handwritten messages is despite a study by Bennett, Durand,
and Betty (1990) which showed that managers saw communications composed with word
processing capabilities as more clear and professional than handwritten documents.
However, these studies did not clarify to whom the communication was targeted. If the
personal assistant was the recipient of the handwritten communication, that may put a
different slant on some of the methods chosen for document instigation.
One method of creation of interest in particular at this point in time is dictation.
In the past, Storms (1983) found dictation in some form was used by more experienced
degree-holders on the job47% used dictation. However, in 1992, Alexander (1992)

38
found that dictation was very rarely used, if at all. Going further on the subject, Condon,
Hoggatt, Missling, and Weston (1988) compared three types of transcription to determine
which is faster and most accurate. In the most likely normal office situation, dictation
was shown to be faster than handwriting. According to the study, machine dictation had
a speed advantage, but shorthand dictation had an accuracy advantage. Despite the
implications for boosted productivity, it remained unclear which method, however, was
utilized more.
However, today, shorthand in particular has fallen out of favor. Even
professionals administrative assistants scarcely use shorthand. The Management Centre
Europe (MCE) (2001) reported that a poll of administrative assistants by the combined
organizations of European Management Assistants and the American Management
Association determined that less than half of these office professionals use shorthand on a
regular basis.
Despite the past methods used to create the different types of communication,
administrative assistants seem to be greatly used as a resource to finalize documents.
Also, there is a strong showing that technical writers in industry choose their own desk
PCs most often when writing (Porter, 1989); Wiggs (1992) also confirmed this trend.
As shown, literature suggested trends such as the demise of the once-strong
dictation and rise of the personal PC, signs of how much technology is relevant to
productivity. The two factors of type and method are intertwined with and impact the
two productivity measures of timeliness and cost. Thus, opportunity cost represents the
crux of productivity in this regard. Time spent on written documents constitutes an
opportunity cost of sacrificing the time that could be spent on another managerial task.

39
The time saved by creating the most efficient types of communications in the most
efficient manner in the promotion of message clarity saves money through time.
Money is also saved with efficient type and method of creation on the part of the
decoder of the message. Any cost involved with confusion due to unclearness of a
message or cost involved with further unnecessary correspondence regarding the original
message can be alleviated with efficient communication. Lastly, the premise of saved
time and cost also greatly relates to the fourth and final micro-measure of written
communication productivity: quality.

Productivity Measure: Quality. Despite evidence of failing business programs

when it comes to written communication education, writing continues to remain
imperative for future business employee success. Corporations spend large amounts on
in-house communication training mostly because of overall quality concerns. Quality
links with productivity due to the opportunity cost of confusion and even bad will caused
by careless writing and possible misrepresentation of facts used for decision-making.
Therefore, quality is closely linked with the other productivity measures of quantity,
timeliness, and cost through turnaround time and quality of the managerial function
overall.
The realization that business communication skills are extremely lacking when it
comes to business graduates is certainly nothing new; it has been a recognized, widely
publicized problem at least since the mid-1970s (Mystery, 1977). After
acknowledgements at that time that there was undeniably a problem, studies throughout
subsequent years have sought to determine if the problem has continued.

40
In one of the more effusive statements from literature about the situation, Bates
(1984) asserted:
Even as the general education level has increased, technical organizations have
allowed their written communications to deteriorate. Reasons for the
deterioration include: 1. prizing quantity over quality in communication, 2. the
low value placed on language skills by technicians, 3. dependency on others to
correct writing, 4. social disregard for old rules of grammar and writing, and 5.
the pace of activity today, which excuses poor writing. (p. 89 [abstract])
These concerns for the quality of managerial written communication have been
confirmed by many studies, most of which inculcated some form of curricular focus.
Also, one of the more specific studies was an independent evaluation of actual written
messages from professionals. Goodin and Swerdlow (1987) found troublesome
mistakes in at least 25% in the writing of business professionals on the job. Also, in
another study, peers were used to evaluate writing. In the eyes of more senior CPAs, new
hires scored miserably on such aspects as word usage, style, and grammar (Nelson,
Moncada, & Smith, 1996). Also, after considerable experience in the evaluation of
professionals writing, Hyslop (1981) advocated compelling students to plan the message,
to reach for clarity in writing, and, after core skills have been developed, to impose time
restrictions for business writing exercises to encourage improved productivity.
In a great expansion of the problem involving these evaluations, this information
is coupled with the fact that employers have repeatedly ranked good communication
skills as the number one priority on the job. Unfortunately, unless educators potentially
alleviate this problem, quality may be a concern for future professionals. In fact, recent

41
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) writing exam results have
indicated that that the next wave of professionals will need vast development in writing
skills, as many children are not near the proficient level (NAEP, 2002).
However, the news isnt all bad. The National Commission on Writing (2004),
which calls writing the neglected R, found that most employees meet writing
requirements for their firms, but also acknowledged that the Business Roundtable
corporations surveyed get their pick of the best graduates from the finest colleges and
universities (p. 13). Jennings and Vice (1999) found that executives in MNCs wrote
quite well in an analysis of routine documents such as memos and letters. However,
some problems were still ascertained in tone, an abundance of clichs, and punctuation
problems (comma usage was a specific focus). Linking with other measures of
productivity, executives involved in this study stressed timeliness in documents, stating
that late documents were grounds for dismissal on the job.
Due to the imperative decision-making nature based upon the quality of
managerial written communications, it is no surprise that Krapels and Davis (2000) cited
greater in-house communication training for those professionals with college degrees or
some college credit. To its credit, it was confirmed that corporate-sponsored
communications training and seminars improved turnaround time for written
communication and encouraged more productive correspondence (Yedidia et al., 2003).
Corporate training also improved communication effectiveness overall (Tavernier, 1980;
Tubbs & Widgery, 1978). Realizing the linking situation regarding quality and
preparation for productivity, literature is not without professionals own opinions of how
to better prepare future employees for more productive written communications.

42
Professionals Perceptions of Preparation
As corporate training seems to be paying off, it is essential for material learned to
reach future employees at a much earlier time than in such sessions. This is confirmed by
the need to retrain MBAs to the point of a septuplet increase in training hours (from 41 to
241) in the last decade and possibly even more at the current time (Eberhardt, McGee, &
Moser, 1997; Linder & Smith, 1992). To get specifics of suggestions for communication
training based upon workplace experience, Hynes and Bhatia (1996) surveyed
professionals with a graduate degree in business. Most were managers, but the sample
also included programmers, accountants, and financial officers. Of those who had a
managerial communications course, one of the course topics selected in written
communications that was seen to help the most was writing letters and memos.
Written communication topics that graduates most wanted to see become included
in the curriculum were writing manuals, policies, or procedures; that need was indicated
by almost half of the respondents. Another factor relevant to written communication
preparation was the call for a greater concentration on research reports, as well as word
processing and computer graphics. Also, documents such as thank you notes and letters
of congratulations were deemed difficult to compose due to lack of solid goal (Jennings
& Vice, 1999).
Getting more into style elements, such as writing mechanics, Plutsky (1996)
determined more focused aspects in regard to writing that professionals think should be
included in business communication curricula and training. These six topics in order of
preference are English usage, style, research, letters and memos, and word usage. Topics

43
that should be excluded, according to the practicing professionals, include the dictation
method of creation.
As a last and essential point, Seshardi and Theye (2000) determined that
practicing professionals judge the aspects of written communications very differently
than do business faculty. In a study to obtain faculty and professionals opinions of
written business documents, both groups emphasized organization and clarity. However,
professionals were more concerned with substance and relevant content; this was in
variance to faculty, who focused on style aspects of spelling, mechanics, appearance, and
purpose.
This perhaps illuminates the focal point of the studys attempt to ascertain
business professionals own perceptions regarding the creation of productive written
communications in light of millennial technology. Although writing mechanics and
similar measures accumulate to determine the productivity measure of quality, this is not
exclusively the focus of the study. Rather, information in regard to all four measures of
productivity as conceived in the minds of professionals constitutes relevant information.

Summary of Theoretical and Research Literature

As current gaps may exist on the part of business and education, as well as skills
gaps between technology and business professionals preparation, business professionals
are the key to ascertaining what skills are recommended for creating productive business
communications in todays workplace. In the scope of large-scale technological
advances, the mass of written information that is encoded and decoded everyday, and the
situation of inferior communication skills displayed at work, the need seems apparent to

44
further investigate the realm of written communications on job. Literature seems to
support a need for greater information on the topics of written communication and
productivity. A greater focus on specificity of the kinds of documents created, the
manner in which they are created, and the productivity involved with document creation
has the potential to hold significant implications for business communication curricula.
The linkage and impact of productivity input variables represented in the Review
of Theoretical Literature (technology and preparation) upon the majority of relevant
output variables represented in the Review of Research Literature (quantity, quality,
timeliness, and cost) may reveal functional information regarding written communication
productivity. Indeed, an examination of specific skills necessary for efficient document
creation on the job could potentially be helpful for businesspersons in a variety of job
categories and titles. Business professionals perceptions are essential as viewed in the
scope of quantity, quality, timeliness, and cost (measures of productivity), as these
measures relate to types of communications created, methods of communication creation,
the frequency involved with creation, as well as professionals perceptions for improved
preparation and productivity.

45
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND RATIONALE

The purpose and problem of the study directly stem from the justification of the
study as well as relevant theoretical and research literature. Again, the purpose of the
study was to contribute to a greater understanding of factors affecting written business
communication creation and the possible impact upon written communication
productivity. Specifically, the study sought to identify factors affecting written business
communication creation and professionals perceptions of productivity.
The statement of the problem is as follows: what methods for written business
communication creation are most frequently being used by business professionals, and
what are professionals perceptions regarding productivity in creating these
communications? Further, specific research questions and rationale for their inclusion
that supplement the purpose and problem are subsequently listed.

Research Question #1: What resources do business professionals have available

for the creation of business messages/documents?
Rationale and Support: As the possible underlying motivator or cause for why
business professionals choose certain methods and frequency in use of those methods
when creating business communications on the job, some idea of the available technical
and human resources needs to be established before all subsequent research questions are
considered. As previously discussed, although large budgets are predominant for the
formulation of new input technologies, professionals may not have access to these

46
technologies for a variety of personal or organizational reasons. Also, it could be the
simple case that professionals have tried certain technologies and discounted them to turn
to other methods of message creation due to factors such as usability, speed, and cost.
Indeed, much information seems to be publicized as to what technologies are available;
however, little information is publicized as to how often these new technologies are being
used in the professional office. This information is the linkage between research
questions #1 (available resources) and #2 (type, method, and frequency of resource use).
Regarding the other end of the resource question, namely the availability of
human resources, primarily in the form of administrative assistants, it has been seen
through such studies in the late 1980s, such as Kirby and Oliver (1988), that there may
have been substantial use of administrative assistants. This was implied through the
finding that handwriting by managers was widely used with the finalizing of documents
done by assistants. However, recent information seems to be scant on the accessibility of
human assistance for the facilitation of routine business messages in the workplace of
today. There is also the consideration that perhaps there could be diminished use and
availability of administrative assistants due to a greater availability and use of direct PCrelated input technologies.

Research Question #2a: What methods and frequency of those methods do

business professionals utilize to create differing types of written business
communications?
Rationale and Support: Managers and business professionals are known to
choose types of communication based upon situation and various other factors, such as

47
informal/formal tone, internal/external scope, time constraints, resources, organizational
precedent, and habit. These factors are directly related to productivity as professionals
make these choices based upon a decision set geared to accomplish some prioritized task.
Assuming that there are few organizational stipulations regarding type, the method used
for this creation may overlap (i.e., match) with the decision for type chosen. Also, an
idea of the frequency of method used for each type of communication augments and
serves to further substantiate the type/method connection.
Some years ago, Wiggs (1992) found that professionals used a variety of input
methods. Indeed, that study served as a basis for the current studys investigation
regarding the type, method, and frequency linkages of written communication creation.
However, since then, from 1994 to 2000, information technology was responsible for at
least a 30% increase in gross domestic product (GDP) and over $2 trillion was spent in
the 1990s on microcomputers and software (Information Technology Industry Council,
n.d.). Recent IT expenditures of this magnitude surely have impacted the business office
environment and document creation in various ways. A recent study of practices may be
helpful to see how the large increase in computerization has changed the input methods
of business professionals in the last decade.
Current patterns to creation may exist in practice that need to be investigated
further, potentially in business communication literature, and possibly subsequently
considered in the scope of current business communication curricula. The capitalization
upon type/method linkages in skills development may increase communication
productivity for current and future business professionals.

48
Research Question #2b: Is there a relationship between type of written business
communication created and frequency of method used?
Rationale and Support: As business professionals have surely experimented to
choose the best frequency of method and communication type combination through
practical experience, it is important to gain information on these relationships.
Presumably, frequency of method used, tied to a certain type of communication, implies
the view that productivity is maximized with that combination for that set of
professionals; if not, these professionals would run little chance of performing in that
way.
Of perhaps even greater concern, dependent upon the creation methods shown to
be used the most by professionals, implications are held for curricula and skills
development to concentrate on these forms of document creation. Thus, skills
development in this area would hopefully result in enhanced speed and quality in regard
to a greater percentage of overall written communication. In short, frequency is key to
the determination and identification of the skill development area. Logic determines that
methods most frequently used to create documents should receive the most curricular and
developmental attention.

Research Question #3a: What are business professionals perceptions regarding

quality of external and internal written communications overall and by type?
Rationale and Support: As this line of inquiry most directly represents the
quality aspect of productivity, its need is determined by direct and opportunity costs
involved with miscommunication. Quality integrates with type created and

49
method/frequency used for creation, in order to complete the overall notion of
productivity. Productive communications should produce proof of conveying a message
successfully; characteristics such as speed and timeliness will be useless if readability is
sacrificed.
As evidenced in the previous chapter, there is a strong presence of literature
regarding both faculty and business professionals low opinion of written communication
skills and quality of documents overall. However, little research has been conducted in
this area to determine any specific quality/type tendencies that may be further explored.

Research Question #3b: Do business professionals perceptions regarding quality

of written communications differ by scope (internal versus external)?
Rationale and Support: In addition to quality/type linkages, any quality/scope
(i.e., quality of internal/external written communications relative to each other)
relationship may be useful. It is suspected that internal communication, due to the
possibility in particular for relaxed formality among colleagues and subordinates, may
run a higher risk for relatively lower quality. An analysis that correlates perceived
quality and scope (i.e., external or internal) gives heed to areas in need of
creation/composition skill development. Also, possible reasons revealed for any inferior
quality may shed further light on how to promote fewer inputs to gain greater (and more
effective) output.
Moreover, the author has observed this trend in several formal business
communication training settings. Often, in informal e-mail communication, trainees
neglect to use even the most rudimentary rules of grammar and style, such as the

50
capitalization of the first word of a sentence or punctuation after a sentence. Yet trainees
create formal written documents with an appropriate usage of solid writing standards.
The same trainees responsible for many poor quality e-mails create formal assignments
and projects of high quality. What makes this situation even more interesting is not only
the fact that both documents created with such differing quality were composed by the
very same trainees, but that both documents were being submitted to a supervisor or
ranking stakeholder. Further investigation is warranted to see if this trend indeed holds
any credibility in the true environment of todays business professional.

Research Question #4: What are perceptions of business professionals regarding

their own preparation for creating written communication and is there a relationship with:
(a) gender, (b) undergraduate major, (c) age, (d) position within organization, (e)
organizational type, and (f) graduate institution attended?
Rationale and Support: As previously stated, literature associated with question
#3 supports business faculty perceptions of graduates and colleague views on the relative
low communication quality of peers (in essence, how prepared other writers seem to be to
prepare business documents). However, little information is available on the selfreflection and perceptions regarding respondents own training and preparation to assume
written business communication on the job. Data on the formal preparation
(undergraduate and graduate courses, workplace training, seminars, conferences, etc.) and
informal preparation (self-study, constructive comments from peers, etc.) undertaken to
create necessary documents in a fast-paced atmosphere is needed from professionals.

51
Ultimately, this information may be balanced in the scope of what suggestions
professionals have for creating quality written documents. Again, as with many of the
aforementioned research questions, the key involves whether professionals perceptions
regarding what skills are essential to produce quality documents can be potentially
adapted toward skills development. It may also be advantageous to highlight any
possible relationships between the perceptions of business professionals and demographic
data such as age category, position within organization, institution of graduation, etc., to
reveal trends for further investigation.

Research Question #5: What are perceptions of business professionals regarding

their productivity in creating written communication and is there a relationship with:
(a) gender, (b) undergraduate major, (c) age, (d) position within organization, (e)
organizational type, and (f) graduate institution attended?
Rationale and Support: Trends revealed by demographic data, organizational
type, or discipline of prior formal study, viewed within the scope of written
communication productivity, may indicate routes of enhanced investigation. Moreover,
any statistically significant results that produce insight into productivity linkages may
reveal potentially usable information for office practices or written communication skills
development. Any linkages, with further corroboration, could possibly be used to tailor
skills development to targeted groups. This may hold implications in regard to
differences in training transfer by demographic group in written business communication
or possible ways in which different groups are apt to utilize retained material.

52
For example, Andera (1991) showed that age had an impact on document creation
methods, which implies an impact on productivity. Likewise, in the scope of educational
background, several researchers have revealed correlations between educational level and
frequency of written communication (Andera, 1991; Brinkley, 1984). Storms (1983) also
included a measure of writing quantity that business baccalaureate graduates create by
undergraduate major. Specialized information such as this could possibly assist in the
determination of group preparation needs based upon such characteristics.
As previously discussed, technology has progressed at such a rapid pace and
methods of document creation have changed so much that possible trends in regard to
productivity should be investigated in light of 21st-century office technology and recently
trained businesspersons. As subjects for the study received graduate training in business
in roughly the same time span (1994-2004), this sample selection may assist with
identification of these trends. Overall, information concerning statistically significant
differences of practicing professionals based upon demographic data and background
may shed further light on written communication productivity linkages suitable for
further study and potentially useful information for professionals preparation.

53
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH PROCEDURES

Introduction
The problem of this study was: what methods for written business communication
creation are most frequently being used by business professionals, and what are
professionals perceptions regarding productivity in creating these communications?
Thus, the following chapter subsections detail the Research Design, Subjects,
Instrumentation, Data Collection Procedures, and Treatment of the Data utilized within
the effort to investigate this problem.

Research Design
As the study attempted to obtain the current perceptions of business professionals
toward factors involved with business document creation and productivity, the research
design employed to elicit these views from professionals was descriptive. Best and Kahn
(1998) indicated the overall reason for the choice of a descriptive design:
Although many experimental studies of human behavior can be appropriately
carried out both in the laboratory and in the field, the prevailing research method
of the behavioral sciences is descriptive. Under the conditions that naturally
occur in the home, the classroom, the recreational center, the office, or the
factory, human behavior can be systematically examined and analyzed. (p. 114)
More specifically, the method utilized survey questionnaire development and
facilitation to assist with the acquisition of data and subsequent data treatment. The
survey method gathers data from a relatively large number of cases at a particular time.

54
It is not concerned with characteristics of individuals It is concerned with the statistics
that result when data are abstracted from a number of cases (Best & Kahn, 1998, p.
115).

Subjects
The population for the study consisted of 1994-2004 graduates of three AACSBaccredited Master of Business Administration programs. Thus, the population for the
study was delineated by a characteristic that implied responsibility for duties in a
managerial workplace capacity, including the creation of various written messages and
documents. The sampling frame consisted of M.B.A. alumni names and addresses from
the respective offices of alumni affairs and relations in each of the three postgraduate
institutions. The population was composed of graduates from three institutions of
varying sizes and geographic areas, although the institutions used for the sampling frame
were all public universities. In regard to geographic location, one institution represented
the Midwest and two institutions represented the southeastern United States. Further, one
institution represented the 2005 Carnegie Classification of (Prof+A&S/HGC,
CompDoc/MedVet, HV, FT4/S/HTI, L4/R), one institution represented the classification
of (Prof+A&S/SGC, Postbac-Comp, HU, FT4/S/HTI, M4/R), and the third institution
represented the Carnegie Classification of (Bal/SGC, Postbac-Prof/Bus; VHU,
FT4/S/HTI, M4/R).
The accessible population represented professionals dispersed nationally in the
workforce and who held a variety of occupational titles and positions in business. The
population was restricted to include only domestic addresses of business professionals.

55
Also, those addresses that were deemed incomplete were deleted from the sampling
frame. Thus, the complete initial sampling frame included 1,860 names; but after
restriction to valid domestic addresses, yielded a total population of 1,430 accessible
subjects from which the sample was taken. This number was further restricted to 1,330
valid subjects after 100 were randomly identified as pilot study subjects.
To gain information appropriate to support external validity and any
generalization of findings, several guidelines were consulted. In regard to minimum
returned sample size, Krejcie and Morgan (1970) advocated a returned, usable sample of
approximately 271 for a population of 922. Also, in a much more recent study by
Bartlett, Kotrlik, and Higgins (2001), a very comparable returned sample of 290 was
indicated for the studys population size with reference to categorical data emphasis and
an acceptable margin of error at 5%. These estimates also meet more general guidelines
provided by Tuckman (1999) that in survey research, responses from at least 10-20% of
the population is required to achieve some semblance of external validity. Thus, because
of an anticipated low response rate due to various factors, the entire accessible population
at the size of 1,330 was chosen to receive the survey instrument. Also, follow-up
procedures were geared to elicit returned surveys from those who were confirmed to
receive the survey through a valid mail address.

Instrumentation
Upon a search for a survey instrument to provide a basis for survey development,
Wiggs (1992) similar study provided a strong comparable questionnaire, especially with
relation to the studys second and fourth research questions. Therefore, with express

56
permission of the author (Appendix A), parts 1 and 2 of the instrument specifically
mirrored Wiggs (1992) questionnaire, sometimes verbatim, and with updated choices in
Section 2 to reflect current business message creation methods of the mid-2000s.
However, a review of the most relevant theoretical and research literature yielded
very limited information to assist with survey development in the areas of business
professionals perceptions of preparation to create written business communications and
perceptions of productivity in that scope. Therefore, to gain information for the areas of
preparation and productivity in particular, an extensive review of literature was
conducted and expanded to include such diverse fields as management, human resources,
and engineering. In addition, an extensive search was also performed to identify any
standardized instrument that would aid with survey instrument development. However,
no instrument elicited information comparable with the studys purpose, problem, or
research questions in these areas.
Thus, initial instrumentation development was aided by a Table of Specifications
devised by the author, and geared to assist with appropriate percentagesof topic inclusion
and format. With the assistance from Wiggs (1992) questionnaire and a review of
survey formatting methods, a survey questionnaire prototype (Appendix B4) was
developed with sections that attempted to link with each research question through
support of the overall research problem. The survey sought to obtain individual
demographic information from each subject, as well as subjects perceptions of written
business creation factors, preparation for these tasks, and perceptions regarding
productivity.

57
The questionnaire included four sections, labeled 1, 2, 3, and 4. These sections
corresponded to the divisions in the nature of information elicited from subjects. Section
1 (General Information about the Professional) sought demographic data from
respondents via questions containing categorical data. This part of the overall
questionnaire used nominal data to classify subjects according to demographic
information. The instrument included categorical choices in the form of lists, with
options for open-ended responses for those situations not represented by a category.
Section 2 (Business Message/Document Creation Methods and Quality) of the
instrument sought to obtain specific details from subjects concerning document creation
methods, types of documents created, and frequency of creation by type. These variables
were offered in groupings in pivot table style with headings according to overall types of
written communication created and method of creation. In the instrument prototype that
was sent to the 100 pilot study members, the body of the table included a four-point
Likert-style setup based upon frequencies that corresponded with type and method. The
four points in the perceived frequency scale corresponded to never, seldom,
occasionally, and often. However, upon analysis of suggestions from the pilot study,
these four categories were ultimately changed to three (never, sometimes, and
always) in the finalized instrument which reached the greater population.
As the title suggested, Section 2 (Business Message/Document Creation Methods
and Quality) of the survey also addressed another particular construct involved with
written communication productivityquality. In this part of Section 2, select-response
questions were used to obtain perceptions of professionals regarding factors of quality
involving written documents in the scope of external and internal communications.

58
The focus of Section 3 (Business Message/Document Creation Preparation
Factors) was that of the formal and informal preparation of business professionals to
create business messages. A series of statements guided respondents to use a five-point
Likert-scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) to indicate beliefs and perceptions
on those topics. Select-response questions were also utilized in this section.
Additionally, ordinal-type rankings required professionals to choose which preparations
were more effective on a relative basis.
Lastly, Section 4 (Business Message/Document Productivity Factors) dealt with
professionals perceptions of their own personal preparation and training for handling
written communications as well as their perceptions regarding written document
productivity. The style and layout in this section directly mirrored the previous section
(Section 3), but elicited information centered on professionals perceptions of their own
productivity in the creation of business messages on the job.
Instrument revisions based on results of the utilization of a pilot study of business
professionals and panel of experts from academia centered on question wording and
phrasing throughout the instrument, particularly the Likert-based statements in sections 3
and 4. Many improvements were made to the instrument in these areas as a result of the
22-member panel of expert review, many of whom wrote extremely in-depth
explanations of how to improve the instrument, especially in regard to the wording of
questions and statements in the pursuit of reducing bias.
The pilot study members, composed of business professionals in the workforce,
centered mainly on clearness of writing, avoiding confusion, and relevance of material.
Indeed, as shown in Appendix C5, which contains a summary of the pilot review results

59
and reviewers comments for improvement of the instrument, 90.6% (29 of 32) stated the
instruments instructions were clear; also, 87.5% stated the questions were clear.
However, many suggestions were given at the end of the evaluation regarding overall
difficulty of completing the instrument. Most (78.2%) thought completing the instrument
was easy, but of the nearly 19% who deemed the difficulty level as moderate, many
open-ended comments were provided to aid in the formulation of the final instrument
draft.
Additional improvements stemmed from suggestions from pilot study respondents
to include N/A choices for the instrument section regarding professionals preparation
to create business messages (Section 3). Additionally, suggestions made for Section 2
from respondents in the pilot study were integrated to reflect the various types of current
workplace business message creation technology available to respondents.
Upon the conclusion of construction of the prototype instrument, at that point, to
ensure compliance with the Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects, the
completed prototype was submitted to the Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Human Subjects Committee on October 28, 2004. Permission to use the survey
instrument was thus subsequently granted on November 11, 2004.

Validity
Content validity of the instrument was checked by comparison to a formulated
table of specifications, which itemized and weighed information chosen to include in the
survey, and to what degree of coverage. However, to specifically reduce the threat of
instrumentation bias to internal validity and improve non-statistical validity of the

60
instrument, the task of a review of the formulated survey questionnaire was given to a
panel of experts. Thirty nationwide representatives from academia recognized for
specific research interests in the field of business communications were contacted via email (Appendix B1) using membership information from the Association for Business
Communications and Delta Pi Epsilon.
Moreover, 25 of these experts indicated their willingness to serve on a panel to
assist the researcher with an in-depth instrument review for validity and reliability, and
22 responded with completed instrument reviews. The materials sent to the panel of
expert members included some background information from the study (justification for
the study, statement of problem, and statement of purpose), a letter of instruction,
instrument review form, and the draft instrument (Appendix B2-B4). The 22 faculty
members nationwide who shared their suggestions for improvement of the survey
instrument are listed in Appendix B5. These faculty members reviewed the instrument to
establish face validity, content validity, and writing clarity. Upon suggestions by
reviewers, the questionnaire instrument was revised and rechecked for face and content
validity.
After the panel of experts review and the instrument approval by the SIUC
Human Subjects Committee, the revised survey was pilot tested with 100 subjects chosen
at random from the population. The sample of MBAs was chosen via utilization of the
RAND Corporations function in Microsoft Excel, which generated random numbers
matched with sequential numbers that were assigned to all subjects. Before the mailing
was administered to this pilot study sample, a pre-postcard (Appendix C1) was sent to
subjects chosen for the pilot study to increase awareness of the study and to potentially

61
boost the chance of an adequate return rate of materials. After a period of a week and a
half after the postcard was mailed, again, in a similar fashion to the way in which panel
of experts members suggestions were solicited, members of the identified pilot study
received a letter of instruction, an instrument review form (slightly abbreviated from the
more in-depth panel of expert review form), and the pilot instrument (Appendix C2-C4).
The pilot test resulted in 32% (32 of 100) returned surveys, which were thus
coded and analyzed by statistical procedures geared for comparison purposes.
Categorically summed results of returned pilot study instrument review forms are in
Appendix C5 as well as transcribed open-ended comments. After final revisions were
made as a result of suggestions by the respondents of the pilot study (and earlier by the
panel of experts), data collection procedures began as a finalized survey instrument was
formulated and sent to population subjects six months after information was gained
through the panel of experts and within three months of improvement via the pilot study.

Comparison for nonresponse bias. To illuminate any possible threat to validity through
determination of the prospect for nonresponse bias, ten random items, representing
appropriate sections of the instrument, were analyzed according to two groups of
subjectsthose 30 of 372 valid responses who were the first to return the instrument
against the last 30 who retuned the instrument. The last 30 who returned the instrument
did so approximately two weeks after a follow-up was completed. The time-span
between those 30 who responded first and the 30 who responded last was six weeks.
Using the RAND function in Microsoft Excel, a list of random numbers was
generated through which 10 (20%) of appropriate instrument questions, with some

62
control for variability of instrument section represented, were chosen to be analyzed.
Through comparing these two groups of subjects on the 10 random items using the
Mann-Whitney U test, which is used to compare ordinal data from two independent
samples, it was discovered that no statistically significant difference was apparent on any
of the items. While this comparison is perhaps not as stri ngent as the procedure of
gathering data from non respondents who didnt respond to anything after two mailings,
hopefully some suggestion of accuracy was reached in this analysis. The greater result of
this analysis is provided in the following table (Table 1).

Table 1
Analysis of Potential Nonresponse Bias
Random Instrument
Question

Mann-Whitney U

Sig.
(2-tailed)

29.

416.00

.557

26.

382.50

.289

17.

385.00

.318

40.

415.00

.584

10.

417.00

.597

12.

390.00

.332

39.

446.50

.946

46.

378.00

.225

20.

392.50

.371

39.

363.00

.177

63
Reliability
As measures were taken to establish validity of the instrument, to boost reliability,
some inherent redundancy was built into the survey. Particularly in sections 3 and 4,
some questions or statements in the survey were rephrased and recurred to help determine
the reliability of respondent information. Further, in the sections of the survey (3 and 4)
that contained a battery of questions specific to one construct and held the feasibility to
measure for inter-item correlation, Cronbachs coefficient alpha was calculated and was
shown to be supportive of reliability. Reliability coefficient statistics were run on the
instrument from responses from pilot study respondents and before the instrument was
administered to the population.
Section 3 (Business Message/Document Creation Preparation Factors) showed a
raw alpha coefficient of 0.648 and Section 4 (Business Message/Document Productivity
Factors) showed a coefficient of 0.632. These measures are near 0.7, which has been
widely seen as an acceptable measure of correlation (Nunnally, 1978).

Data Collection Procedures

Through the attempt to submit information toward the studys research questions,
the following timeline and description of actions reveal preparations made for instrument
administration to the accessible population of 1,330 MBA graduates (from three
universities), which ultimately covered a period of approximately six months.
1. November 11, 2004 The completed prototype instrument was approved by
the Southern Illinois University Carbondale Committee for Research Involving Human
Subjects for dispersal to subjects.

64
2. November 2004 February 2005 Approval was gained through three
university internal review boards and MBA alumni names and addresses were secured
from all three AACSB-accredited business programs for use as the study population. All
accompanying documents to this process are included in Appendix F.
3. January 10, 2005 A nationwide prospective panel of experts in academia
were contacted via e-mail to solicit assistance with the prototype instrument review
(Appendix B1).
4. January 20, 2005 Materials were sent to the panel of experts; two and a half
weeks were requested as time to complete the instrument and/or instrument review form.
By February 12, 2005, 22 panel members had returned the necessary material (Appendix
B3-B4).
5. April 6, 2005 A pre-postcard was sent to the 100 randomly chosen MBA
graduates for the pilot study to inform them of the study and request their assistance in
completion and review of the instrument (Appendix C1).
6. April 22, 2005 Materials for the instrument review were sent to the pilot
study subjects, including three different versions of a cover letter, delineated to the pilot
members by each of three universities pilot members attended in graduate school; two
and a half weeks were requested as time to complete and return the instrument review
documents (Appendix C2-C4). By May 10, 2005, the final count (32%) had been
reached of pilot study members who responded with completed instruments and
instrument review forms; next, subsequent data analysis commenced. The complete
summary of the pilot study evaluation is included in Appendix C5.

65
7. July 15, 2005 The same pre-postcard used for the pilot study was sent to all
1,330 subjects in the population (Appendix C1). The purpose of the card was two-fold;
one function was to increase the return rate through familiarization; another function was
to determine invalid addresses of members of the population prior to the greater
instrument mailing.
8. August 2, 2005 After much effort by the researcher and much trauma
endured by the researchers household, finalized survey instruments and accompanying
cover letters were duplicated, hand-signed, and stuffed into stamped envelopeswith
SIUC departmental letterhead to be sent to the 1,330 subjects in the population. The
cover letter explained the overall instructions of the enclosed survey and the rights of
survey participants in compliance with the Committee for Research Involving Human
Subjects. The cover letter also provided some linkage between the business
professionals expertise and their selection to complete the survey. Materials sent to the
population are included in Appendix D1 and D2.
During the mailing timeframe, invalid addresses from the mailing of the prepostcard were updated to reflect supplied forwarding addresses. Two and a half weeks
were requested as a deadline by which to return the completed instrument. By August
12, 2005, 348 (33.6%) completed instruments had been returned. Whenever possible,
returned mail from invalid and out-of-date addresses that contained forwarding addresses
were used to attempt to reach subjects; thus, the final accessible population count was
1,035 MBAs who were confirmed to have received the instrument.

66
9. August 15, 2005 A follow-up postcard was sent to allnonrespondents i n the
population (Appendix D3). By two weeks (September 1, 2005), 53 additional completed
surveys had been obtained.

Instrument Return Rate and Mailing Procedures

The final rate of return of instruments for the study was 401 of the 1035 (38.7%)
who were confirmed to have received the instrument. However, useable statistics to
attempt to answer the research questions came from 372 completed surveys (return rate
of 35.9%); this wasdue to the fact that 29 respondents indicated in the first survey
question that they do not currently create business documents.
Many measures were taken in an effort to get an adequate return rate of the survey
instrument from busy business professionals. With institution of graduation as the
determining factor, three different cover letters were sent to MBAs, tailored to graduates
from the three respective universities. Additionally, mailing procedures included use of a
small incentive in an effort to boost the return rate as per the suggestion of several
studies; namely, some of the first to gauge the benefits of the inclusion of a small gift
(Kimball, 1961; Pressley and Tullar, 1971). As a small incentive, a pen or pencil was
included in the mailing envelope with the individual subjects alma mater school logo
imprinted on the barrel.
In light of long-established research to support the increase of the return rate
somewhat through smaller factors, attempts were made to boost the rate through the use
of a pre-postcard mailing (Ford, 1967; Heaton, 1965; Robin, 1965), stamps instead of
business-reply mail (Harris and Guffey, 1978; Viega, 1974), hand-signed cover letters,

67
university-sponsored letterhead and envelopes, printed envelopes instead of labels, the
instrument on colored paper for increased attention, and the opportunity indicated for
subjects to receive the greater results of the study.

Treatment of the Data

Upon receipt of the 401 returned instruments, i.e., when the final return
percentage was complete, each response to each variable in the survey was thus coded
and entered into a database for statistical analyses. Also, responses to questions that
could not be categorized except as Other are transcribed verbatim in Appendix E1.
Optional general open-ended comments provided at the conclusion of the survey were of
a large number and were also transcribed verbatim (Appendix E2).
Research questions were answered through a variety of descriptive and inferential
statistical procedures performed with SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).
Table 2 shows a linked summary of research questions, survey instrument questionnaire
items, and performed statistical analyses. The following chapter (5) details the obtained
results by research question and performed analysis.

68

Table 2
Statistical Analyses by Research Question and Questionnaire Item
Research Question
Question 1 What resources do business

Questionnaire
Item
Items 6 and 7

professionals have available for the creation

Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics
presented in table form

of business messages/documents?
Question 2a What methods and frequency of Item 8
those methods do business professionals

Descriptive statistics
presented in table form

utilize to create differing types of written

business communications?
Question 2b - Is there a relationship between

Item 8

Descriptive statistics
presented in table form
and chi-square ( 2)
tests

Items 9 through 14

Descriptive statistics
presented in table form
and open-ended
comment transcription

Items 9 and 12; 10

and 13

Mann-Whitney U

Items 15 through
32

Descriptive statistics
presented in table form
and open-ended
comment transcription

Items 15 through
30 and 1

Chi-square ( 2)

type of written business communication

created and frequency of method used?
Question 3a What are business
professionals perceptions regarding quality
of external and internal written
communications overall and by type?
Question 3b Do business professionals
perceptions regarding quality of written
communications differ by scope (internal
versus external)?
Question 4 What are perceptions of business
professionals regarding their own preparation
for creating written communication?
Question 4a Is there a relationship among
perceptions of business professionals
regarding their preparation for creating
written communication and gender?

(Table 2 continues)

69

(Table 2 continued)
Research Question
Question 4b Is there a relationship among
perceptions of business professionals

Questionnaire
Item

Statistical Analysis

Items 15 through
30 and 2

Chi-square ( 2)

Items 15 through
30 and 3

Chi-square ( 2)

Items 15 through
30 and 4

Chi-square ( 2)

Items 15 through
30 and 5

Chi-square ( 2)

Items 15 through
30 and sampling
frame data

Chi-square ( 2)

regarding their preparation for creating

written communication and undergraduate
major?
Question 4c Is there a relationship among
perceptions of business professionals
regarding their preparation for creating
written communication and age?
Question 4d Is there a relationship among
perceptions of business professionals
regarding their preparation for creating
written communication and position within
organization?
Question 4e Is there a relationship among
perceptions of business professionals
regarding their preparation for creating
written communication and organizational
type?
Question 4f Is there a relationship among
perceptions of business professionals
regarding their preparation for creating
written communication and graduate
institution attended?

(Table 2 continues)

70
(Table 2 continued)
Research Question
Question 5 What are perceptions of business
professionals regarding their productivity in

Questionnaire
Item

Statistical Analysis

Items 33 through
50

Descriptive statistics
presented in table form
and open-ended
comment transcription

Items 33 through
48 and 1

Chi-square ( 2)

Items 33 through
48 and 2

Chi-square ( 2)

Items 33 through
48 and 3

Chi-square ( 2)

Items 33 through
48 and 4

Chi-square ( 2)

Items 33 through
48 and 5

Chi-square ( 2)

Items 33 through
48 and sampling
frame data

Chi-square ( 2)

creating written communication?

Question 5a Is there a relationship among
perceptions of business professionals regarding
their productivity in creating written
communication and gender?

Question 5b Is there a relationship among

perceptions of business professionals regarding
their productivity in creating written
communication and undergraduate major?
Question 5c Is there a relationship among
perceptions of business professionals regarding
their productivity in creating written
communication and age?
Question 5d Is there a relationship among
perceptions of business professionals regarding
their productivity in creating written
communication and position within organization?
Question 5e Is there a relationship among
perceptions of business professionals regarding
their productivity in creating written
communication and organizational type?
Question 5f Is there a relationship among
perceptions of business professionals regarding
their productivity in creating written
communications and graduate institution attended?

71
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Presentation of Findings
This study attempted to investigate five research questions in an effort to provide
information toward the more general problem, stated as: what methods for written
business communication creation are most frequently being used by business
professionals, and what are professionals perceptions regarding productivity in creating
these communications? In order to form data provided by respondents into conclusions
and recommendations for further research, findings were summarized and analyzed.
Related findings are consequently presented in two groupings: (a) descriptive data on
respondents and (b) findings by specific research question, with an additional
commentary on the integration of findings with literature.

Presentation of Respondent Data

Of the 401 respondents who returned the survey instrument, all of whom hold
MBA degrees and graduated with that degree between the years 1994 and 2004, 372
(92.7%) indicated they were in a capacity to create job-related business messages and
documents at the time of their return of the instrument. Figure 1 (next page) illustrates
this percentage. It is relevant to note, however, that several of the respondents who
indicated they do not create business messages informally wrote on the survey instrument
that they had entered school again or were unemployed.

72

7%

Yes
93%

No

Figure I. Proportion of respondents currently working in a position that

requires the creation of business messages or documents.

Thus, responses from the 372 respondents who create business

messages/documents on a regular basis were analyzed via the 50-item instrument. That
information is summarized and analyzed in subsequent tables in an effort to create a
summation of information regarding respondents and their opinions on factors relating to
the studys five research questions. Respondent demographic data are presented first;
starting with gender, age, undergraduate major(s), current position within organization,
classification of organization for which respondents work, and graduate institution.
As indicated in Table 3, males made up the majority of responding MBAs at a
count of 201 (54.0%) as opposed to 170 (45.7%) females. This seems to hold true with
the strong historical trend of more males pursuing and attaining MBA degrees (Reingold,
2000).

73

Table 3
Respondents by Gender
Gender
Female
Male
(Not responding)
Total

n
170
201
1
372

%
45.7
54.0
0.3
100.0

As for the ages of respondents, categorical instead of continuous data were

gathered on this characteristic due to preference revealed for that format when the
question was posed to members of the pilot study. Therefore, Table 4 indicates the most
cited age range by respondents as 25-34 (at 45.7%). It is also noteworthy that
approximately half of respondents (177 at 47.6%) were below 35, while 194 (52.1%)
were 35 and above.

Table 4
Respondents by Age
Age Range
Below 25
25-34
35-44
45-55
56 and above
(Not responding)
Total

n
7
170
127
55
12
1
372

%
1.9
45.7
34.1
14.8
3.2
0.3
100.0

The wide range of undergraduate majors identified by the MBA graduates is

shown in Table 5. The range of business majors (whether single or double major) were

74
predominant (accounting, business administration, marketing, management, finance,
computer-related study, and economics: n=257 or 69.1%), but many had what could be
classified as a non-business major (n=96 or 25.8%). Of non-business majors, engineering
was the most declared (n=30 or 8.1%) and medical/sciences was ranked next by
frequency (n=12 or 3.2%). Also of interest is the fact that 43 (11.6%) of responding
MBAs had more than one undergraduate major.
Table 5
Respondents by Undergraduate Major(s)
First Undergraduate Major
n
%
100
26.9
36
9.7
34
9.1
34
9.1
30
8.1
28
7.5
22
5.9

Second Undergraduate Major

n
%
1
0.3
2
0.5
4
1.1
8
2.2
2
0.5
9
2.4
3
0.8

Major
Accounting
Business Administration
Marketing
Management
Engineering
Finance
Othera
MIS/Information
Systems/Computer
14
3.8
Science
Medical/Sciences
12
3.2
Economics
11
3.0
Communications/Public
10
2.7
Relations/Advertising
Political Science/Law
7
1.9
Psychology/Sociology
6
1.6
Liberal Arts
6
1.6
Education
3
0.8
(Not responding)
19
5.1
a
Responses classified as Other are shown in Appendix E1.

0.5

3
3

0.8
0.8

0.3

0
3
1
1
N/A

0.0
0.8
0.3
0.3
N/A

The various job title categories represented by respondents compose Table 6.

Most MBAs classified themselves as professional staff (144; 38.7%), followed by the
category of middle management (107; 28.8%). Although the next table, Table 7,

75
subsequently shows the predominance of respondents employed in manufacturing firms,
Table 6, below, shows that only 25 (6.7%) were first-line supervisors. In sum, while the
job titles/positions claimed by respondents ranged from CEO to Sole Proprietor-Antique
Dealer, as indicated in open-ended fashion by one respondent, most classify themselves
as being in some type of managerial position.
Table 6
Respondents by Current Position within Organization
Position within Organization

Professional staff

144

38.7

Middle management

107

28.8

Senior management

64

17.2

First-line supervisory

25

6.7

Sales representative

12

3.2

Professor/Teacher

11

3.0

Self employed/Business owner

1.6

(Not responding)

0.8

372

100.0

Total

The wide-ranging functions/purposes of organizations where respondents are

employed are illustrated in Table 7. As shown, manufacturing as well as
financial/insurance/real estate are the top two organizational classifications, composing
over a third of all responses, but all types of organizations are represented to some
degree. Services (which represented a wide variety of possible occupations) and

76
education (teachers/professors) also constituted a noteworthy amount of respondent
organizations.

Table 7
Respondents by Organizational Classification
Organizational Classification

Manufacturing

86

23.2

Financial, Insurance, Real estate

63

17.0

Services (including hospitals, hotels)

55

14.8

Education

52

14.0

Government agency

40

10.7

Othera

26

7.0

Retail trade (including restaurants)

18

4.9

Agriculture, Mining, Construction

2.4

Entrepreneurial

2.4

Pharmaceuticals

2.2

Wholesale trade

1.4

(Not responding)

0.3

372

100.0

Total
a

Responses classified as Other are shown in Appendix E1.

The institutions from which respondents graduated with MBAs are summarized in

Table 8, along with some supplemental 2005 enrollment/size-related data released by the
respective universities from which the population was contacted. Interestingly enough,
despite the differing sample sizes of MBAs by university in the population, the actual
number of surveys returned from each university varied little. The university with the

77
least amount of MBA graduates had the largest instrument return rate and vice versa.
Thus, each of the three institutions was represented almost evenly.

Table 8
Respondents by Graduate Study Institution
Total
Respondents

Accessible
N

Return
Rate %

Fall 2005
University
Enrollment

CompDoc/MedVet

126

402

31.3

21,441

Postbac-Comp

139

289

48.1

10,247

Postbac-Prof/Bus

136

343

39.7

6,484

Total

401

1034

N/A

N/A

Carnegie Classification of
University Where MBA
Program is Housed

Note. Fall 2005 university enrollments obtained from: www.siu.edu,

www.murraystate.edu, and www.utm.edu.
Presentation of Findings by Research Question
As demographic data from respondents was illustrated previously in Figure 1 and
Tables 3-8, all following tables (Tables 9-29) provide information for answering the five
research questions. Subsequently, each research question heads the section in which
corresponding tables and interpretation of results are included for examination of the
relevant question.

Research Question #1: What resources do business professionals have available

for the creation of business messages/documents?
As resources deemed appropriate for business message creation seem to fall into
two categoriestechnology/office machines and human resourcestwo questions posed

78
on the survey instrument to business professionals attempted to gain information in both
of these areas. It was indicated to professionals to choose the level of technology and
degree of administrative assistance available to them to create messages.
Of all potential message creation technology presented in Table 9, the largest
percentage (96.8% or 360) of the 371 business professionals who responded to question
#6 on the instrument indicated access to e-mail. Interestingly, that figure for e-mail
access is 7% higher than computer with word processing software, which ranks second
among available technology. Much other accessible technology as indicated by
professionals is included; namely, almost three-fourths have laptops (67.7%), half have
access to scanners (50.3%), and a quarter have access to PDAs (25.5%).
The typewriter seems to still have a somewhat strong presence in business offices
and environments, as almost a quarter of professionals claim to have access to it.
However, one machine, like the typewriter, that used to have a much larger usage in
business offices only now has 9 professionals of 371 that claim accessthe dictation
unit.
Other options such as the more recent Blackberry message creation system and
cell phones with web/text capability had negligible availability. Also, 12 (3.2%)
respondents have (or know if they have) that particular technology available for use.

79
Table 9
Availability of Technology for Creating Business Messages/Documents
What technology for composing business messages/documents do you have access to in
your work area (or on a business trip)?
Technology
E-mail
Computer with word processing software
Laptop/tablet PC
Scanner
PDA (personal digital assistant)
Typewriter
Computer with voice recognition softwarea
Dictation unit
Blackberry
Cell phone w/web access for messages
(Not responding)
Total

360
333
252
187
95
88
12
9
5
1
1
N/A

96.8
89.5
67.7
50.3
25.5
23.7
3.2
2.4
1.3
0.3
0.3
N/A

Of the 12 respondents who claim access to voice recognition, 2 respondents specifically

indicated they have access to Microsoft OS voice recognition and 5 indicated they have
Dragon Naturally Speaking.
In addition to the available technology summarized in Table 9, available human

assistance, in the form of administrative assistants, is shown in Table 10. Roughly half
(180 or 48.4%) of all respondents indicated that they share administrative assistant(s)
with other professionals; also 145 (39.0%) have no administrative assistance available at
all. Only 38 (10.2%) of business professionals indicated an available full-time assistant
and 11 (3.0%) indicated a part-time assistant who works solely for the professional.

80
Table 10
Availability of Administrative Support in Message Creation
What level of administrative support is available to assist with your business
message/document preparation?
Administrative Support Level

Full-time (40+ hours per week) administrative

assistant who works only for me

38

10.2

Part-time (<40 hours per week) administrative

assistant who works only for me

11

3.0

Share administrative assistant(s) with other

professionals

180

48.4

No administrative assistance available

145

39.0

Othera

1.1

(Not responding)

0.3

N/A

N/A

Total
a

Responses classified as Other are shown in Appendix E1.

As accessible resources have a direct bearing on the method utilized to create

differing types of business messages and frequency of creation of these types, it was
deemed useful to investigate this question before focusing on the types and frequency of
methods used by professionals on the job to create business messages. The following
research question concentrates on those aspects and contains three related parts, with
findings presented in Tables 11-15.

81
Type, Method, and Frequency of Business Message/Document Creation
In an effort to investigate research question #2a, each table of data compilation
concentrates on a business message/document type (e-mail message, memo, letter, report,
and form, respectively) and consistently indicates the method and frequency associated
with that particular type of business message throughout the tables. Thus, in all tables
related to this research question and therefore organized by message type, method is on
the y-axis and frequency of use is on the x-axis.

Research Question #2a: What methods and frequency of those methods do

business professionals utilize to create differing types of written business
communications?
Table 11 shows that when business professionals compose e-mail messages, the
most used method is to key the message and complete it themselves with no help from
any available administrative assistants357 or 96.0% indicate they always choose this
method. However, the next used method is to key a draft for assistant to edit and
complete as 17 (or 4.6%) indicated they always use that method.
Other, smaller, trends of note are that some professionals sometimes handwrite
for assistant to edit and complete (22; 5.9%) or dictate directly to assistant or dictation
unit (21; 5.6%). The other two methods, both of which involve the use of voice
recognition software, are hardly ever used at any time by any professional.

82

Table 11
E-Mail Messages Created by Method and Frequency
Frequency of Use
Method

Always

Sometimes

Never

Not
Responding

Totals

Key and complete myself

with no assistance

357
(96.0%)

11
(3.0%)

1
(0.2%)

3
(0.8%)

372
(100.0%)

Key a draft for assistant

to edit and complete

17
(4.6%)

32
(8.6%)

290
(77.9%)

33
(8.9%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate to voice
recognition and complete
myself

3
(0.8%)

5
(1.3%)

332
(89.3%)

32
(8.6%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate to voice
recognition and assistant
completes

0
(0.0%)

4
(1.1%)

335
(90.0%)

33
(8.9%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate directly to
assistant
or dictation unit

2
(0.5%)

21
(5.7%)

318
(85.5%)

31
(8.3%)

372
(100.0%)

Handwrite for assistant to

edit and complete

1
(0.3%)

22
(5.9%)

317
(85.2%)

32
(8.6%)

372
(100.0%)

In the creation of memos, there is a much greater dispersion of methods

sometimes used than with e-mails. As shown in Table 12, many professionals (77.7%;
289) indicate they always key and complete memos on their own79 or 21.2% say
they sometimes key a draft for assistant to complete. Other methods reported for
memo creation are of negligible use; however, 69 of 372 (18.5%) stated they

83
sometimes handwrite memos for assistant to complete and 31 (8.3%) stated they
sometimes dictate directly to assistant or machine.

Table 12
Memos Created by Method and Frequency
Frequency of Use
Always

Sometimes

Never

Not
Responding

Totals

Key and complete myself

with no assistance

289
(77.7%)

66
(17.7%)

11
(3.0%)

6
(1.6%)

372
(100.0%)

Key a draft for assistant to

edit and complete

18
(4.8%)

79
(21.2%)

239
(64.3%)

36
(9.7%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate to voice recognition

and complete myself

1
(0.3%)

10
(2.7%)

330
(88.7%)

31
(8.3%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate to voice recognition

and assistant completes

0
(0.0%)

5
(1.3%)

335
(90.1%)

32
(8.6%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate directly to assistant

or dictation unit

3
(0.8%)

31
(8.3%)

307
(82.6%)

31
(8.3%)

372
(100.0%)

Handwrite for assistant to

edit and complete

4
(1.1%)

69
(18.5%)

269
(72.3%)

30
(8.1%)

372
(100.0%)

Method

Methods and frequency of composing letters closely parallels the previous

information concerning memos. Most professionals (249 or 66.9%) always create
letters themselves with no assistance. However, 103 (27.7%) claim to sometimes key a
draft for assistant to complete. Almost all professionals never use voice recognition for
any assistance, but 85 (22.8%) sometimes handwrite letters for assistant to complete

84
and 34 (9.1%) sometimes dictate directly to assistant or dictation unit in composing
letters.

Table 13
Letters Created by Method and Frequency
Frequency of Use
Always

Sometimes

Never

Not
Responding

Totals

Key and complete myself

with no assistance

249
(67.0%)

102
(27.4%)

18
(4.8%)

3
(0.8%)

372
(100.0%)

Key a draft for assistant to

edit and complete

19
(5.1%)

103
(27.7%)

215
(57.8%)

35
(9.4%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate to voice recognition

and complete myself

1
(0.3%)

6
(1.6%)

334
(89.8%)

31
(8.3%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate to voice recognition

and assistant completes

0
(0.0%)

3
(0.8%)

337
(90.6%)

32
(8.6%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate directly to assistant

or dictation unit

1
(0.3%)

34
(9.1%)

306
(82.3%)

31
(8.3%)

372
(100.0%)

Handwrite for assistant to

edit and complete

5
(1.3%)

85
(22.9%)

253
(68.0%)

29
(7.8%)

372
(100.0%)

Method

The frequency of method used in the creation of forms (Table 14) seems to be the
most unique of the types of messages examined. A lesser number of professionals
complete them solely on their own than any other type (197; 53.0%). Therefore, a
number sometimes key a draft for assistant to complete (102; 27.4%), handwrite for
assistant to complete (88; 23.7%), or dictate directly to assistant or dictation unit (28;
7.5%). Hardly anyone (4; 1.1%) uses voice recognition, even sometimes.

85

Table 14
Forms Created by Method and Frequency
Frequency of Use
Always

Sometimes

Never

Not
Responding

Totals

Key and complete myself

with no assistance

197
(53.0%)

145
(39.0%)

21
(5.6%)

9
(2.4%)

372
(100.0%)

Key a draft for assistant to

edit and complete

18
(4.9%)

102
(27.4%)

217
(58.3%)

35
(9.4%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate to voice recognition

and complete myself

1
(0.3%)

4
(1.1%)

335
(90.0%)

32
(8.6%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate to voice recognition

and assistant completes

0
(0.0%)

4
(1.1%)

337
(90.6%)

31
(8.3%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate directly to assistant

or dictation unit

1
(0.3%)

28
(7.5%)

312
(83.9%)

31
(8.3%)

372
(100.0%)

Handwrite for assistant to

edit and complete

5
(1.3%)

88
(23.7%)

251
(67.5%)

28
(7.5%)

372
(100.0%)

Method

The composition of reports (Table 15) again seems to differ from the composition
of e-mails, memos, and letters, and is more similar to the composition of forms. Many
(62.1%) professionals always key reports themselves with no assistance, but other
methods are at least represented by the claim that professionals sometimes use them,
such as keying a draft for assistant to complete (102; 27.4%), handwriting for assistant to
complete (84; 22.6%), and dictating directly to assistant or dictation unit (23; 6.2%).

86

Table 15
Reports Created by Method and Frequency
Frequency of Use
Always

Sometimes

Never

Not
Responding

Totals

Key and complete myself

with no assistance

231
(62.1%)

122
(32.8%)

15
(4.0%)

4
(1.1%)

372
(100.0%)

Key a draft for assistant to

edit and complete

17
(4.6%)

102
(27.4%)

218
(58.6%)

35
(9.4%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate to voice recognition

and complete myself

1
(0.3%)

4
(1.1%)

336
(90.3%)

31
(8.3%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate to voice recognition

and assistant completes

0
(0.0%)

6
(1.6%)

335
(90.1%)

31
(8.3%)

372
(100.0%)

Dictate directly to assistant

or dictation unit

1
(0.3%)

23
(6.2%)

316
(84.9%)

32
(8.6%)

372
(100.0%)

Handwrite for assistant to

edit and complete

3
(0.8%)

84
(22.6%)

255
(68.5%)

30
(8.1%)

372
(100.0%)

Method

Research Question 2b: Is there a relationship between type of written business

communication created and frequency of method used?
An examination of the preceding tables (11-15) which address the amount of
usage of seven possible message creation techniques by type of message (e-mails,
memos, letters, forms, and reports) gives some indication that professionals use a
marginal mix of methods to create some message types, while some methods are not
hardly used at all. This finding directly impacts the analysis of this research question

87
(2b), as described below. All comparisons of frequency of method used according to
type stems from question #8 on the survey instrument (Appendix D2).
Many rather one-sided results of either never or always using a particular
method, regardless of the type of message being written, reduces the usability of a
CROSSTABS analysis of creation method by type. The lack of variance in responses
prevented a valid CROSSTAB analysisthis is due to the lack of observations in some
cells of the relevant contingency tables. All comparisons held a statistically significant
difference and high Cramers value often due to the overwhelming use of one particular
method across types. Therefore, information on each method of creation by type is
described in terms of cell percentages in the following sections of narrative by count
rather than by p-values from chi-square analyses.

Use of key and complete with no assistance method. In investigating if

professionals are using the method of keying and completing with no assistance more
for making some types of messages but not others, it was found that most professionals
always use this method, regardless of comparison of message combination.
Some other message type combinations of note for this one method are that those
who always key and complete e-mails themselves, sometimes do the same for forms
(in 37.2% of the total analysis count for this type combination by this method). Other
strong combinations with this methods use are always for emails coupled with
sometimes for reports (31.5% of total responses in this type analysis), sometimes for
reports / sometimes for forms (26.2%), and sometimes for letters / sometimes for
forms (20.7%).

88
Use of key draft for assistant to edit and complete method. In moving from the
first method, in which most professionals always use that method regardless of type
being composed, to the second proposed method, key a draft for assistant to edit and
complete, there is a difference in usage. With this latter method, most professionals
never use it at allin fact, in all type combinations who never use this method, the
range is from 54.5% (for letter-form combination) to 70.1% (e-mail/memo). However,
this percentage is one in which there is somewhat of a margin left for differing frequency
of usage according to type. In that margin lie several type/frequency of method use
combinations in the percentage range of 14.6 to 22.4% of responses. These describe
those who never key draft for assistant to edit and complete e-mails while
simultaneously choosing sometimes to this method when creating memos, letters,
forms, and reports. Also, there was some evidence of those who sometimes use this
method to create both memos and letters (23.7%), memos and reports (15.3%), memos
and forms (16.2%) and reports and forms (22.7%).

Use of handwrite method. Throughout any type combination regarding

creation method, most professionals indicated that they never use handwriting in any
form to compose a messagethe range was from 66.2% at its lowest to 78.2% at its
highest in all analyses. The next highest combination of types that indicate any
difference between frequency of method was that professionals revealed they never
used handwriting for e-mails while simultaneously indicating that they sometimes did
for memos, letters, reports, and forms. Also, there was indication that they sometimes

89
use this method to create both types of messages in a myriad of memo, letter, forms, and
report type combinations.

Use of dictation/voice recognition/other methods. There were three methods

which respondents overwhelmingly indicated they never use to create any message at
all; that, therefore, reveals very limited information on a type/frequency of method used
analysis. These methods were dictate to voice recognition and complete myself (in
which all type combinations revealed a minimum/maximum range of 96.2 to 98.2% that
this method was never used for either type of message), dictate to voice recognition
and assistant completes (in 97.9 to 98.8% of all cases, professionals never use for either
message type combination), and dictate directly to assistant or dictation unit (in which
88.3% to 90.6% was the range).
As type, method, and frequency are directly related to frequency, timeliness, and
cost/opportunity cost, three of the four Tellier (1978) components that make-up
productivity, the one excluded dimension of quality needs further examination; hence,
quality is the focus of the two-part research question #3.

Business Message Quality Perceptions

Research Question #3a: What are business professionals perceptions regarding
quality of external and internal written communications overall and by type?
In regard to business professionals perceptions of the writing quality illustrated
in internal business messages, as shown in Table 16, a majority (236; 63.5%) deem the
quality to be better than adequate; approximately one-third (113; 30.4%) deem it to be

90
adequate. Only 17 of 367 responding to this question indicated quality was poor, and
only one person indicated it as very poor.

Table 16
Perceptions of Writing Quality of Internal Business Messages
Overall, how would you rate the writing quality of internal written communication that
your colleagues routinely create? Consider keying accuracy, punctuation, grammar,
organization, and writing style.
Quality

Excellent

40

10.8

Good

196

52.7

Adequate

113

30.4

Poor

17

4.5

Very poor

0.3

(Not responding)

1.3

372

100.0

Total

Very similar to how business professionals responded to the question of quality of

internal business messages regarding the aspect of writing quality, most professionals
regard information quality also to be above adequate. In fact, professionals regard
information quality of internal messages to be of an even higher standard than writing
quality, as indicated in Table 17. Indeed, most (270; 72.6%) categorize internal
information quality to be good or excellent.

91
Table 17
Perceptions of Information Quality of Internal Business Messages
Overall, how would you rate the information quality of internal written
communication that your colleagues routinely create? Consider relevance and
completeness of information, accuracy, conciseness, and clarity.
Quality

Excellent

48

12.9

Good

222

59.7

Adequate

80

21.5

Poor

16

4.3

Very poor

0.0

(Not responding)

1.6

372

100.0

Total

Even though respondent perceptions seem to be very positive regarding writing

and information-related quality of internal business messages, when asked to choose
which communication often held the worst overall quality, emails were the overwhelming
choice (270 at 72.6%). Second in rank were memos (32; 8.6%) as the worst; then
internal reports (25; 6.7%) and forms (23; 6.2%). All information about how types of
internal messages ranked according to worst quality are shown in Table 18.

92

Table 18
Quality of Internal Messages by Type
Which internal message type seems to be of the poorest quality overall?
Type

E-mail Messages

270

72.6

Memos

32

8.6

Internal Reports

25

6.7

Forms

23

6.2

Other

1.3

(Not responding)

17

4.6

Total

372

100.0

Responses classified as Other are shown in Appendix E1.

Precisely the same measures of quality considered in internal messages were also

considered in external messages, with even more positive perceptions expressed on the
part of respondents toward overall quality. Table 19 contains all details of how business
professionals see the writing quality in external business messages. Only 3 of 368
respondents to this inquiry indicated writing quality of external messages to be poor
and none indicated very poor.

93

Table 19
Perceptions of Writing Quality of External Business Messages
Overall, how would you rate the writing quality of external written communication you
have seen that your colleagues or employees of other firms routinely create? Consider
keying accuracy, punctuation, grammar, organization, and writing style.
Quality

Excellent

70

18.8

Good

204

54.8

Adequate

91

24.5

Poor

0.8

Very poor

0.0

(Not responding)

1.1

372

100.0

Total

Again, as in internal messages, respondents seemingly consider external message

information quality to be slightly higher than writing quality. Table 20 confirms that
only 2 professionals of 367 considered information quality of external messages to be
less than adequate. Further, 284 (76.3%) consider information quality of external
messages to be either good or excellent.

94

Table 20
Perceptions of Information Quality of External Business Messages
Overall, how would you rate the information quality of external written communication
you have seen that your colleagues or employees of other firms routinely create?
Consider relevance and completeness of information, accuracy, conciseness, and clarity.
Quality

Excellent

69

18.5

Good

215

57.8

Adequate

81

21.9

Poor

0.5

Very poor

0.0

(Not responding)

1.3

372

100.0

Total

Also, in regard to the business message of worst quality, this time in the realm
of external messages, e-mail again was the answer of choice at 276 or 74.2%. In
addition, 47 or 12.7% chose letters and the largest of the rest of the consequential
percentage was taken by external reports at n=23 (6.2%). This information is shown in
Table 21.

95

Table 21
Quality of External Messages by Type
Which external message type seems to be of the poorest quality overall?
Type

E-mail Messages

276

74.2

Letters

47

12.7

External Reports

23

6.2

Othera

1.3

(Not responding)

21

5.6

Total

372

100.0

Responses classified as Other are shown in Appendix E1.

In addition to the above descriptive data, through which professionals

perceptions of message quality may be generally ascertained to some extent, it may

augment any useful quality-related information to also investigate this comparison of
quality perceptions by scope (i.e., internal versus external) through a nonparametric
statistical analysis. Moreover, this latter inquiry is the subject of the following research
question.

Research Question #3b: Do business professionals perceptions regarding quality

of written communications differ by scope (internal versus external)?
Internal and external messages were examined on two fronts regarding possible
differences in quality of message by scope. Internal messages (e-mails, forms, internal
reports, and memos) were compared with external messages (e-mails, external reports,

96
and letters) on writing qualitymeaning keying accuracy, punctuation, grammar,
organization, and writing style; as well as information qualitynamely, relevance and
completeness of information, accuracy, conciseness, and clarity.
A Mann-Whitney U test was performed for writing quality and revealed the
difference was statistically significant. Internal versus external writing quality were
deemed different as the asymptotic p-value was .000 (p<.05). Also external messages
had a lower ranking (with a scale of 1=excellent and 5=very poor) than internal
messages, which indicates better quality.
Likewise, with internal messages versus external messages regarding
professionals perceptions of information quality, there is a similar result. Also, again,
the Mann-Whitney U test revealed the difference was statistically significant as
asymptotic was .029 (p<.05). The external message again had a lower ranking (again
with a scale of 1=excellent and 5=very poor).
The preceding investigation of business professionals perceptions of the quality
of business messages lends itself to a greater examination of the preparation professionals
obtained to create what they seem to perceive as high quality communications. A look at
professionals preparation, on both a formal and informal basis, links with quality
perceptions in moving toward an overall view on productivity in business writing.

Business Message/Document Creation Preparation Perceptions

Research questions thus far have dealt with resources for communication
creationthe type/method/frequency of messages and written business message quality,
which serve to impact creation productivity. However, a further examination of perhaps

97
one of the strongest links to productivity, an underlying influence of the aforementioned
characteristics of method and frequency chosen, and especially quality of message, is
necessary. Preparation, i.e., formal or informal training in the composition of business
messages, is surmised to have a great influence on productivity in the overall creation of
business communications. Therefore, research question #4 deals with professionals
perceptions of their preparation to create workplace communications, from middle school
through graduate school, as well as on-the-job training and learning on their own.

Research Question #4: What are perceptions of business professionals regarding

their own preparation for creating written communication?
As shown in Table 22, the focus on venue and level of preparation/training is
interspersed throughout the battery of questions from Section 3 of the instrument; also,
questions 31 and 32 (shown in Tables 24 and 25) deal with the specific aspects of
composition training in keyboarding and most effective composition training overall that
was obtained.
Regarding perhaps the first level of preparation, secondary school, findings are
fairly split on whether English courses in high school adequately prepared professionals
(#15). English was chosen as a focus because it was believed that class was the most
widely used at that particular level to develop written message creation skills. On
instrument questions dealing with the various undergraduate message creation courses
(#16-18), postsecondary level/undergraduate English was seen as frequently used (69%
agree or strongly agree)more used than secondary-level English (51% agree or strongly
agree).

98
However, overall, opinions were split on the question of if respondents wished
they had taken more undergraduate writing courses. Regarding the undergraduate
business communication class in particular, the largest part of respondents (159; 42.7%)
indicated that they create business messages/documents the same way they were taught in
that particular class. Relatedly, in question #30, which deals with whether respondents
would have liked to had better training at either the undergraduate or graduate levels in
choosing the right words in stressful situations, most agreed.
In the question (#19) that focused on graduate school training for message
creation, there was roughly 10% more respondents than not who indicated training in the
MBA program did not sufficiently cover how to write for business. However, the
greatest percentage (139 or 37.4% agree) indicated they still create their business
messages the same as they did in MBA program (question #20).
In sum, questions #21 and 23-24 gathered perceptions on workplace/in-house
preparation and training for business message creation. Most respondents indicated that
they did not receive sufficient workplace training regarding the creation of business
messages.
Nevertheless, 353 (94.9%) business professionals cited they were confident about
the business messages they create (#29), 245 (65.7%) stated they had sufficient formal
training in formatting business messages/documents (#27), and most stated they do not
need further training in punctuation or grammar (#25) or style, tone, or organization
(#26). Also, many (184; 49.5%) indicated they didnt have to work very hard to adjust to
writing in a fast-paced environment (#22); however, most (271; 72.8%) professionals
thought training for e-mail message composition and etiquette is necessary (#28).

99

Table 22
Business Message/Document Creation Preparation Factors
Preparation Statement

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

N/A

No
Response

15. English/language courses in

high school sufficiently
prepared me for the type of
business messages/documents
I now create at work.

39
10.5%

136
36.6%

58
15.6%

112
30.1%

21
5.6%

4
1.1%

2
0.5%

16. I frequently apply business

writing skills learned in my
undergraduate English
courses.

57
15.3%

201
54.0%

59
15.9%

44
11.8%

5
1.3%

3
0.8%

3
0.8%

17. I wish I had taken more

undergraduate courses in
written communication.

38
10.2%

96
25.8%

105
28.2%

113
30.4%

13
3.5%

3
0.8%

4
1.1%

18. I no longer create my business

messages/documents in the
same manner that was taught
in my undergraduate business
communication (or other
business) class(es).

10
2.7%

83
22.3%

91
24.5%

159
42.7%

17
4.6%

8
2.2%

4
1.1%

19. I had training in my MBA

program that sufficiently
covered how to write for
business.

20
5.4%

105
28.2%

74
19.9%

137
36.8%

27
7.3%

6
1.6%

3
0.8%

20. I no longer create my business

messages/documents in the
same manner that was
taught in my MBA program.

5
1.3%

41
11.0%

124
33.3%

139
37.4%

12
3.2%

47
12.6%

4
1.1%

21. I had company-sponsored

training
programs/orientations
that sufficiently addressed
workplace written
communication issues.

7
1.9%

49
13.2%

33
8.9%

153
41.1%

71
19.1%

54
14.5%

5
1.3%

22. When I joined this

organization, I had to work
hard to be able to create
the most appropriate business
messages in a fast-paced
environment.

19
5.1%

94
25.3%

62
16.7%

133
35.8%

51
13.7%

11
3.0%

2
0.5%

(Table 22 continues)

100

(Table 22 continued)
Preparation Statement

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

N/A

No
Response

23. My organization has

provided sufficient training
to enhance the input
methods (software, voice
recognition, etc.) I use
to create written
communication at work.

9
2.4%

97
26.1%

67
18.0%

113
30.4%

46
12.4%

36
9.7%

4
1.1%

24. My organization has

provided sufficient training
to develop my
keyboarding/typing speed
and accuracy.

2
0.5%

25
6.7%

59
15.9%

157
42.2%

77
20.7%

49
13.2%

3
0.8%

25. I need more training in

regard to writing skills such
as punctuation and
grammar.

9
2.4%

60
16.1%

40
10.8%

183
49.2%

75
20.2%

2
0.5%

3
0.8%

26. I need more training in

regard to writing skills such
as style and scope (i.e.,
tone, organization, and
flow).

8
2.2%

89
23.9%

52
14.0%

158
42.5%

61
16.4%

1
0.3%

3
0.8%

27. I had sufficient formal

training on how to correctly
format business documents
such as memos, letters,
and reports.

46
12.4%

199
53.3%

44
11.8%

71
19.1%

8
2.2%

0
0.0%

4
1.1%

28. Formal training in e-mail

message composition and
etiquette is not necessary.

7
1.9%

54
14.5%

36
9.7%

188
50.5%

83
22.3%

1
0.3%

3
0.8%

29. I feel confident about my

ability to create business
messages/documents that
are understood.

135
36.3%

218
58.6%

12
3.2%

4
1.1%

1
0.3%

0
0.0%

2
0.5%

30. Sometimes I wish my

undergraduate or MBA
curricula had covered more
aspects of choosing the
right words in stressful
situations.

50
13.4%

171
46.0%

72
19.4%

68
18.3%

6
1.6%

1
0.3%

4
1.1%

101
Specifically regarding the essential input skill for the creation of most written
business messages, keyboarding, Table 23 shows that the majority (263 or 70.7%) gained
training in high school. Perhaps a telling statistic is that roughly one-third of respondents
cited they learned at least some keyboarding skills on their own.

Table 23
Venue of Keyboarding Preparation
Where did you learn to keyboard/type?
Training Venue

Keyboarding training in high school

263

70.7

Learned on my own

148

39.8

Keyboarding training at college/university

65

17.5

Keyboarding training in middle/junior high school

64

17.2

In-house workplace training

35

9.4

Keyboarding training in elementary school

2.4

Attended external seminar(s)/workshop(s) on my

own initiative

1.6

Othera

0.8

(Not responding)

0.5

N/A

N/A

Total
a

Responses classified as Other are shown in Appendix E1.

In the last table (Table 24) related to preparation in the creation of business

messages, the undergraduate business communication course received the top vote as the
most effective business message preparation of all by respondents (n=144; 38.7%).
Interestingly, the second-place choice was learned on my own.

102
Table 24
Most Effective Business Message Preparation
What training BEST prepared you to create business messages?
Training

Undergraduate business communication course(s)

144

38.7

Learned on my own

64

17.2

High school course(s)

39

10.5

MBA communication course(s)

33

8.9

In-house workplace training

26

7.0

Other preparationa

15

4.0

Other undergrad course(s)a

12

3.2

Undergraduate English/composition

10

2.7

Attended external seminar(s)/workshop(s) on my

own initiative

1.1

(Not responding)

25

6.7

Total

372

100.0

Responses classified as Other are shown in Appendix E1.

The descriptive data by count and percentage of professionals perceptions on

preparation in the previous section may further be analyzed to reveal differences by

respondent demographic information, which may, upon further investigation, be useful to
business communication trainers.

103
Research Question #4 a-f: Is there a relationship among perceptions of business
professionals regarding their preparation for creating written communication and: (a)
gender, (b) undergraduate major, (c) age, (d) position within organization, (e)
organizational type, and (f) graduate institution attended?
In an attempt to answer research question #4 - parts a-f, the following table (Table
25) is condensed from the full chi-square analyses tables contained in Appendix E3a,
which contain all CROSSTABS performed on the variables of gender, undergraduate
major, age, position within organization, organizational type, and graduate institution
attended against perceptions of business professionals regarding their preparation for
creating written business communications. These perceptions are summarized by
statements which respondents categorized by a five-point Likert scale ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree. (Also in Appendix E3a are the full contingency
tables from each relationship result that held statistical significance.)
Therefore, Table 25 contains only those statements that contain statistical
significance per respondent data by category at the 0.05 alpha level and also maintain
validity by upholding the assumptions of the chi-square test by meeting or exceeding
necessary cell counts. To that end, respondent data were sometimes collapsed into usable
categories and Likert data were collapsed to preserve distinct differences (neutral was
extracted in all cases). The table includes measures of the strength of the relationship
between variables, which is Cramers V for most in the study, due to most with degrees
of freedom over one; however, those with one degree of freedom (2X2 tables) demand
the Phi measure (Morgan, Griego, & Gloeckner, 2001).

104

Table 25
Preparation Perceptions and Respondent Data CROSSTABS Analyses
Pearson
2

df

Sig.
(2-tail)

Cramers
V

Fishers/Phi

Preparation Perceptions and Gender

17. I wish I had taken more undergraduate courses
in written communication.

6.672

.010

---

.013 / -.160

22. When I joined this organization, I had to work

hard to be able to create the most appropriate
business messages in a fast-paced environment.

4.139

.042

---

.054 / -.118

10.576

.001

---

5.966

.015

---

3.850

.050

---

6.521

.038

.156

---

10.206

.006

.188

---

18. I no longer create my business

messages/documents in the same manner that
was taught in my undergraduate business
communication (or other business) class(es).

6.626

.036

.165

---

20. I no longer create my business

messages/documents in the same manner that
was taught in my MBA program.

6.875

.032

.195

---

24. My organization has provided sufficient training

to develop my keyboarding/typing speed and
accuracy.

9.524

.009

.202

---

.012

.233

---

25. I need more training in regard to writing skills

such as punctuation and grammar.
27. I had sufficient formal training on how to
correctly format business documents such as
memos, letters, and reports.

.001 / -.180
.019 / -.136

Preparation Perceptions and Major

18. I no longer create my business
messages/documents in the same manner that
was taught in my undergraduate business
communication (or other business) class(es).

.067 / -.128

Preparation Perceptions and Age

18. I no longer create my business
messages/documents in the same manner that
was taught in my undergraduate business
communication (or other business) class(es).
19. I had training in my MBA program that
sufficiently covered how to write for business.

Preparation Perceptions and Position

Preparation Perceptions and Organizational Type

18. I no longer create my business
messages/documents in the same manner that
was taught in my undergraduate business
communication (or other business) class(es).

12.776

Note. Comprehensive CROSSTABS tables from which this data were taken are included in Appendix E3a.

105
As seen in the preceding table, the CROSSTABS analysis for relationships
between perceptions of preparation for creating written business messages and gender
revealed the most statistically significance relationships of any other characteristic
examined, including age, organizational type, and others.
Although the five-point Likert scale had to be collapsed down to two points
(strongly agree/agree; strongly disagree/disagree), several differences existed when
considering gender. Upon study of the corresponding contingency tables included in full
in Appendix E3, several findings are evident. Speaking in generalities, males differed
from females in the wish that they had taken more undergraduate and graduate courses in
written communication. Similarly, from #22, males differ from females in that they
indicated they had to work hard to be able to create the most appropriate business
messages in their new work environment.
Many more males than females indicated in #25 that they need more training in
writing skills such as punctuation and grammar and in #27 in their general view that they
had not had sufficient formal training on how to correctly format business documents.
Moving from gender differences in views to those between undergraduate majors,
question #18 indicates difference. In collapsed categories for business undergraduate
majors versus non-business majors (with the extraction of n=10 who had a double-major
in both categories), more observed business majors than expected agreed that they
continue to create their business messages in the same way they were taught at the
undergraduate level.
Differences in the age categories of below 35, 35-44, and 45+ exist when
evaluating respondents undergraduate and MBA communication training. Many MBAs

106
aged below 35 differ from other MBAs in their agreement that their graduate program
had sufficient training on how to write for business (question #19) and also that they still
create messages the same way that they did in undergraduate work.
In viewing positions of employee in the firm, mid-level and first-line management
claim to not have been provided sufficient training in keyboarding speed and accuracy,
which differs from senior managers on #24. Also, those in senior-level positions differ
greatly from those in professional staff positions as seniors do not create their messages
the same as they did in either their undergraduate course nor their MBA course (#18 and
#20). Information in this area that also became apparent is that employees in the
manufacturing and agriculture, mining, and construction firms differ from those in other
organizational types in that they do not create messages as they did at the undergraduate
level.

Business Message/Document Creation Productivity Perceptions

Lastly, as an investigation has been conducted via the prior research questions in
regard to specific components of productivity, research question #5 gains information
directly on professionals perceptions of their overall productivity in the creation of
business messages and documents. While an exact measure of the construct of
productivity is very difficult to attain, professionals perceptions gained perhaps illustrate
some measure of apposite conditions in the area of composing written business
communication.

107
Research Question #5: What are perceptions of business professionals regarding
their productivity in creating written communication?
The questions that make up Table 26 collectively focus on professionals
perceptions of their productivity in creating written business messages through the
aforementioned measures of productivity (quantity, quality, timeliness, and cost).
Indeed, all productivity measurements in this battery of questions (from Section 4 of the
instrument) overlap to some extent. For example, questions that focus on timeliness also
have an opportunity cost implication as well as quantity and quality implications.
However, if the effort is made to group the questions in some form by productivity
measure, it could be made as: quantity (#33-34, 40), quality (#35, 41), timeliness (#38,
44-45, 48), and input methods with respect to time and cost (#36, 39, 46-47). Moreover,
questions relate to overall productivity perceptions. Lastly, questions #49 and 50, shown
in Tables 27 and 28, deal with the specific aspects of skills development for increasing
productivity.
In the questions with the focus on quantity, 231 or 62.1% of respondents did not
feel overwhelmed with the amount of written communication undertaken on a typical
day, (#33). Likewise, a number of professionals (237; 63.7%) thought an organizational
policy of limiting personal e-mails at work would not boost their productivity (#34).
These two perceptions are despite the fact that 142 (38.2%) strongly agree and 122
(32.8%) agree that they send more than 10 e-mails per day (#40), (which may provide a
sampling of the quantity of communications per day via perhaps the most popular type of
business message).

108
With respect to quality, almost every respondent (360; 96.7%) indicated that they
put forth effort to create error-free print documents (#35) as well as error-free e-mails
(358; 96.2%) (#41). However, it is interesting to note that only one respondent indicated
no effort was put forth on print documents, while that number increases to seven for emails.
On questions of timeliness (linked to cost through opportunity cost), most
respondents (45.1% as opposed to 18.9%) feel that they would not be more productive if
they had sent messages in a more timely fashion (#38). Also, most (248; 66.7%) disagree
with the statement that they sometimes feel unproductive at work due to slowness in
creating written business messages (#48). However, most respondents (55.1%) feel they
take a lot of time to format written business messages or documents as opposed to 21.5%
who feel they dont take much time (#44). In addition, 250 or 67.2% claim to not have
much difficulty putting ideas into written words (#45).
Moving from time in formatting and writing to input methods to save time and
thus boost productivity, a large amount 332 (or 89.2%) agree that they use Microsoft
Word to create almost all types of written documents (#36). However, the margin was
closer on if respondents believe they could be more productive if they had another input
method other than keying. Most didnt think they could be more productive (164; 44.1%)
but some (110; 29.5%) did want another way besides keying (#39).
Finally, with input software in question, it was slightly agreeable to respondents
on whether learning more word processing software would increase their productivity
(agree-34.9%, disagree-30.6%) (#46). However, on whether voice recognition has
boosted productivity, the large number of those who responded as neutral, or with

109
some form of disagree reflects the previous study finding from Table 9 that below 15
people even know of their access to voice recognition software.

Table 26
Business/Message Productivity Factors
Productivity Statement

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

No
Response

33. I often feel overwhelmed with all

of the written communication I
must complete in a typical work
day.

15
4.0%

61
16.4%

62
16.7%

208
55.9%

23
6.2%

3
0.8%

34. I would be more productive if

my organization had a (more
strict) policy for limiting
personal e-mails.

9
2.4%

47
12.6%

76
20.4%

205
55.1%

32
8.6%

3
0.8%

35. I put forth effort to produce error

free print documents such as
letters and memos.

172
46.2%

188
50.5%

10
2.7%

1
0.3%

0
0.0%

1
0.3%

36. I use Microsoft Word to create

almost all types of written
documents (memos, letters,
reports, etc.).

170
45.7%

162
43.5%

14
3.8%

19
5.1%

4
1.1%

3
0.8%

37. If Im rushed, I will usually have

an administrative support person
compose my document.

7
1.9%

36
9.7%

31
8.3%

179
48.1%

118
31.7%

1
0.3%

38. I sometimes feel that my

business messages and
documents would be more
effective if they had been sent
sooner.

8
2.2%

62
16.7%

133
35.8%

137
36.8%

31
8.3%

1
0.3%

39. I believe I could be more

productive if I had another way
to create documents other than
keying.

12
3.2%

98
26.3%

97
26.1%

139
37.4%

25
6.7%

1
0.3%

40. I often send more than 10

business-related e-mails a day.

142
38.2%

122
32.8%

16
4.3%

76
20.4%

15
4.0%

1
0.3%

(Table 26 continues)

110

(Table 26 continued)
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

No
Response

41. I put forth effort to make my

business e-mails error free.

186
50.0%

172
46.2%

5
1.3%

7
1.9%

0
0.0%

2
0.5%

42. The types (memos, letters,

etc.) of messages I create
in a given day at work vary
widely.

78
21.0%

188
50.5%

49
13.2%

54
14.5%

1
0.3%

2
0.5%

43. I am proud of the written

business messages and
documents I create.

111
29.8%

209
56.2%

45
12.1%

4
1.1%

0
0.0%

3
0.8%

44. I take a lot of time to format

a written business message
or document.

49
13.2%

156
41.9%

86
23.1%

78
21.0%

2
0.5%

1
0.3%

45. I frequently have difficulty

putting my ideas into written
words.

10
2.7%

47
12.6%

64
17.2%

205
55.1%

45
12.1%

1
0.3%

46. Having time to learn more

word processing software
features would help me be
more productive in the
creation of business
documents.

20
5.4%

130
34.9%

90
24.2%

114
30.6%

15
4.0%

3
0.8%

47. Voice recognition software

has helped me increase my
speed in business
message/document
processing.

1
0.3%

13
3.5%

164
44.1%

81
21.8%

109
29.3%

4
1.1%

48. I sometimes feel

unproductive at work due to
slowness in composing
effectively-worded written
messages.

9
2.4%

63
16.9%

51
13.7%

192
51.6%

56
15.1%

1
0.3%

Productivity Statement

Complementing the information from Table 26 on the slightly more detailed

measures of productivity, more holistic information regarding professionals perceptions
of the best ways to boost their productivity through skills development is illustrated in
Table 27. Writing skills/content creation skills are the most cited (121 at 32.5%)

111
workplace communication skill professionals consider personal weakness that is the most
difficult for them to overcome. The next weakest is keyboarding speed, as 74 of 346
claimed that skill in need of the most development. The seemingly comfortable handle
by professionals revealed here on choice of creation method directly concurs with the
previous finding that most respondents simply key their documents using Microsoft
Word and send the messages themselves.

Table 27
Perceptions of Communication Skills Weakness
Which workplace written communication skill do you consider a weakness that is the
MOST DIFFICULT for you to overcome?
Skills

Writing skills/content creation skills

121

32.5

Keyboarding speed

74

19.9

Skills in using voice recognition software

61

16.4

Choosing the appropriate type of communication

(such as letter, memo, e-mail, etc.)

37

9.9

Othera

25

6.7

None/no difficulty in written communication/N/A

19

5.1

Choosing the appropriate method of creation

(such as dictation, keyboarding, etc.)

2.4

(Not responding)

26

7.0

Total

372

100.0

Responses classified as Other are shown in Appendix E1.

112
Supplementing information on the skills professionals see as a weakness is in
Table 28, which reveals that when given one choice for the skill or resource they would
most like to have to increase productivity, the availability of input technology ranked
first. The second choice was writing skills, which was the top-ranked skills weakness in
the previous table (Table 28). The availability of administrative assistance ranked fifth
(17.2%). This finding complements the prior finding that most professionals from this
particular sample simply do their own work in executing business communications.

Table 28
Skills Development to Increase Productivity
Which workplace written communication inputs would you like to implement to increase
your productivity?
Inputs

Availability of input technology

130

34.9

Greater writing skills/content creation training

102

27.4

Greater training in document creation through

increased software competency

97

26.1

Increased keyboarding speed

73

19.6

Availability of administrative assistance

64

17.2

Othera

12

3.2

None/N/A

11

3.0

(Not responding)

20

5.4

N/A

N/A

Total
a

Responses classified as Other are shown in Appendix E1.

113
Like in professionals perceptions of their preparation to create business messages
on the job, perceptions of productivity are also analyzed by respondent demographic data
to reveal any relationships. This analysis is the subject of research question #5a-f.
Research Question #5 a-f: Is there a relationship among perceptions of business
professionals regarding their productivity in creating written communication and: (a)
gender, (b) undergraduate major, (c) age, (d) position within organization, (e)
organizational type, and (f) graduate institution attended?
Table 29 shows statistically significant relationships through the comparison to
alpha and strengths of relationship through Phi or Cramers V. Six of the sixteen
statements revealed statistically significant differences between subjects represented by
categorical variables. (Again, Table 29 has been condensed from the full chi-square
analyses tables contained in Appendix E3b; also the appendix includes the full
contingency tables from each statistically significant relationship result.)
Statement #39 on whether professionals believed they could be more productive if
they had another way to create messages other than keying, many more observed males
agreed while there were more females who disagreed than expected. Also, persons who
work in finance, insurance, and real estate also agreed, which is very different from those
who work in government agencies.
In respect to other time-saving procedures, this time reflected by #37, MBAs
younger than 35 have administrative assistants help with document creation as opposed to
other age groups. This also holds true for senior-level managers. Also involved is the
micro scale of quantity of written communication, namely, number of e-mails sent daily.
Those whose firm is in the category of manufacturing, agriculture, mining, and

114
construction especially indicated that they send more than 10 e-mails per day while those
in government agencies and education/services tend to have lower observed counts than
expected on that item.
E-mail also caused differences where type of organization is concerned as those in
education and services firms believe they would be more productive with a policy;
however, those in government agencies and those in finance, insurance, and real estate
had lower counts than expected (#34).
In other questions about productivity, younger workers (below 35) are shown
through statistical significance to be different than workers in the 35-44 category in that
they do not seem to feel overwhelmed with all of the written communication they must
do per day. Also, lastly, in a determination of differences between graduates by
university, many more of those who graduated from the smallest school with an MBA
feel overwhelmed on the job with written communication than those from the largest,
doctoral university. Also, many more than expected from the largest school feel a
personal e-mail policy at work would not boost their productivity, which is a large
difference from the middle-sized schools graduates opinions.
As a last comment on differences in perceived productivity, it is interesting to
note that no differences in the comparisons between business undergraduate majors
versus non-majors exists.

115

Table 29
Productivity Perceptions and Respondent Data CROSSTABS Analyses
Pearson
2

df

Sig.
(2-tail)

Cramers
V

Fishers/Phi

.004

---

.004 / -.174

Productivity Perceptions and Gender

39. I believe I could be more productive
if I had another way to create
documents other than keying.

8.220

Productivity Perceptions and Age

33. I often feel overwhelmed with all of
the written communication I must
complete in a typical work day.

8.903

.012

.171

---

37. If Im rushed, I will usually have

an administrative support
person compose my document.

5.843

.054

.131

---

.013

.168

---

Productivity Perceptions and Position

37. If Im rushed, I will usually have
an administrative support person
compose my document.

8.684

Productivity Perceptions and Organizational Type

34. I would be more productive if my
organization had a (more strict)
policy for limiting personal e-mails.

11.258

.024

.207

---

39. I believe I could be more productive

if I had another way to create
documents other than keying.

18.235

.001

.273

---

40. I often send more than 10 businessrelated e-mails a day.

13.655

.008

.208

---

Productivity and Graduate Institution

33. I often feel overwhelmed with all
of the written communication I
must complete in a typical work
day.

6.956

.031

.151

---

38. I sometimes feel that my business

messages and documents would be
more effective if they had been sent
sooner.

7.364

.025

.176

---

Note. Comprehensive CROSSTABS tables from which this data were taken are included in Appendix E3c.

116
Integration of Findings with Literature
Although literature seems to be lacking at the present time on the research
questions investigated in this chapter, some previously investigated information was
augmented. Findings from this sample suggest that professionals create documents very
differently from 1992, when Wiggs collected data on the frequency of methods used to
create various types of messages. Professionals now seem to create messages without
much administrative assistance and do most of it through their desktop PCs. The use of
dictation, both to machine and assistant, has been greatly reduced since 1992. However,
there are still some similarities as many professionals still prefer to write messages in
long-hand for administrative assistants to complete. It is also important to note that
despite a large amount of information in literature today on the benefits of new creation
technology, such as voice recognition, very few professionals claim to even sometimes
use such technology. In fact, qualitative data in the form of open-ended comments reveal
frustration and abandonment in using such technology.
However, word processing and desktop publishing advances better illustrate the
propensity to really assist professionals on the job today. The new advances in office
technology, mostly through the PC, seems a determining factor as to the methods that
have changed in professionals document creation methods and even types of created
messages. In 1992, the very first e-mails were being sent, while findings herein indicate
professionals send many more than 10 per day, and one professional commented in the
open-ended section of the instrument that 100 e-mails per day are sent.
This linkage with the level of quantity of business message is another area on
which the study concentrated. Even though information in the literature indicates a large

117
level of messages that are composed and sent daily, and professionals in this study tend to
confirm this heavy volume, professionals do not indicate they are overwhelmed with
written communication. In fact, in the productivity measurements of time and quantity,
professionals indicate they are comfortable at work with the amount of time (and
therefore opportunity cost) they take to create messages. This finding tends to agree with
the comfort level professionals have with the other measure of productivityquality.
One large difference in the findings of this study compared with others has to do
with the level of quality that business professionals perceive in written business
messages. Despite much literature describing the state of written communications as
poor, professionals in this study were complimentary of the communications that they
create and also of the communications seen on a daily basis from other firms. However,
this is a descriptive-oriented perception, not investigated experimentally, and the tenuous
nature is reflected in open-ended statements compiled in Appendix E2, of which many
are questionable in quality through a perhaps more objective analysis.
Also, in linking with productivity perceptions, training and preparation at the
postsecondary level for creating business messages was seen as effective overall, despite
the body of literature referenced in Chapter 2 that illustrates a tendency for lacking in
writing training at the postsecondary level, picked up to some extent by increasingly
prevalent on-the-job training. This latter indication in itself highlights another variance
in the study from literature, as this sample indicated little sufficient firm-sponsored
training in business communication creation.

118
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Research
In summarizingthe study, in the light of both implication and establishment
through prior research of a problem with the high quantity and cost, but low quality, of
business communications in the workplace of the current time, an investigation of several
aspects regarding business professionals preparation and productivity regarding written
communication creation was undertaken. Measures of productivity were largely
investigated through a literature review in which the goal was to attain some grasp of the
relationship some constructs had in composing the overall notion of productivity in
written business communication creation. These conceptsquantity, quality, timeliness,
and costwere examined in the scope of resources representative of the last 20 years in
office technology.
Changes in message creation technology and patterns of use since some literature
was published led to the exposure of a need for a new study of message creation practices
and a linkage to how well prepared business professionals perceived themselves to be in
creating productive communications. Indeed, from this examination of the literature
grew the overall purpose, which led to the more specific problem of the study, and thus
each research question.
The purpose of the study was to contribute to a greater understanding of factors
affecting written business communication creation and the possible impact upon written
communication productivity. Specifically, the study sought to identify factors affecting
written business communication creation and professionals perceptions of productivity.

119
Therefore, the research problem that stems from this stated purpose is: what methods for
written business communication creation are most frequently being used by business
professionals, and what are professionals perceptions regarding productivity in creating
these communications?
Specific research questions, underlying the problem and subsequently discussed,
were examined using data gathered from a population of business professionals with
advanced degrees in business. This population was chosen in the hope of obtaining data
from those responsible for creating a valid amount of written business communications
on the job as well as those with formal training. Training earned was deemed a factor in
the hope of the illumination of introspective preparation and training opinions, which
contain possible implications for business communication educators.
Thus, approximately 1,034 business professionals received a survey
questionnaire, which underwent scrutiny from an academician panel of experts with their
major field in business communication as well as a pilot study of business professionals.
The 401 business professionals (38.7%) who responded to the larger instrument
administration provided information on the following questions, which deal with
quantity, quality, timeliness, and cost, in relation to productivity in the creation of written
business communications.

120
Results and Conclusions by Research Question
Research Question #1: What resources do business professionals have available
for the creation of business messages/documents?
As previously discussed, the question of resource availabilityis a precurso r to
methods of creation, and therefore productivity, in creating business messages on the job.
Findings suggest that although some of the newest technology for business message
creation has been shown to at least be available to some professionals, it seems to not be
available in large numbers. While almost 97% of business professionals claim access to
e-mail, the number drops to around 25% of professionals who have a PDA and only 3.2%
claim access to voice recognition software. This is further illustrated in the findings of
the next research question regarding frequency of method used to create business
communications, as are the findings of how much administrative help is available.
Perhaps a much more surprising finding is the high percentage of business
professionals with little to no human resource assistance in the creation of business
messages. Indeed, nearly 50% share an assistant who helps with business message
creation, and 39% have no assistance at all. This finding again greatly influences the
findings of research question #2 in that human resources are rarely used in any way in the
business message creation process. Creation methods that involve any editing by
assistants are therefore infeasible to many businesspersons.

121
Research Question #2a: What methods and frequency of those methods do
business professionals utilize to create differing types of written business
communications?
Businesspersons overwhelmingly choose to always key and complete e-mail
messages themselves, with no assistance; however, the few professionals (10%) who
have access to administrative assistants do seem to utilize that help some to edit and
complete e-mail messages. This may reflect a desire to have greater administrative help
that would influence creation methods.
Nevertheless, available administrative assistants see less of e-mails from their
superior than any other internal/external types of business messages (memos, letters,
forms, or reports). This indicates the private nature of e-mail and also a possible reason
for the inferior quality in respect to other messages.
In moving to other message types and linked methods, the number of
professionals who always create messages with no assistance decreases with each
respective type of message, with the exception of reports. However, despite the
prevalence of PCs shown by the findings, the fact that some businesspersons, even those
with this technology, sometimes tire of using it. It may also imply that professionals may
fatigue in typing and prefer to use another method, especially when they have an
administrative assistant to edit and complete the message.
In sum, conclusions to this research question suggest thatmost professionals write
the many types of messages on a daily basis from start to finish with no assistance.
However, the nonexistent use of voice recognition, the current subject of much
concentration in business education and business communication literature at the present

122
time, and scarce use of dictation to machine or assistant may reflect the lack of resources
and/or unwillingness to delegate message creation duties.

Research Question #2b: Is there a relationship between type of written business

communication created and frequency of method used?
Since so many professionals indicate they always key and complete most all
types of messages themselves, that precluded many possible scenarios in which
employees used differing methods to compose differing types of messages. However,
conclusions linked with findings in this area again suggest that professionals consider email private as 967% key and complete themselves. However, among the other types
of messages, professionals perhaps see these as more formal and are somewhat
consistent in the methods used across types. If professionals sometimes handwrite a
draft for assistant to complete for memos, they also sometimes use that method about
as frequently for letters and forms. As stated before, the unwillingness to use voice
recognition at all is an area of mystery and also of possible skills development.
This is also the case with the methods of keying drafts for assistants to complete
(fairly consistent across all types); and to a much smaller extent, across types(other than
e-mails) with the method of dictation to machine or assistant. All of these choices
involving frequency of method used by message type must reflect convenience and
acceptable accuracy to the professional, perhaps in the light of limited administrative help
as in the case with this sample of employees.

123
Research Question #3a: What are business professionals perceptions regarding
quality of external and internal written communications overall and by type?
Contrary to most published research on the state of quality of writing in business
communication, professionals overwhelmingly saw messages as adequate, good, and
excellent regarding both writing and validity of information. Further, consistently
across message types, professionals indicate good/excellent on quality as opposed to
just adequate consistently by a 3:1 ratio.
It is possible that this finding is the result of self-reported data and a potential bias
for subjects to wish to project a favorable image of their colleagues at work; however, on
the half of the quality-related questions that involve external communications, subjects
were also asked to rate communications they have seen from employees of other firms.
This comparison between rating the message quality of professionals internal messages
(through direct peers on the job) and external messages (through the message quality
from employees at other firms) is the subject of the next research questions results. This
information, however, sometimes seems to conflict with the inordinate attention given to
suspect quality in business writing by professionals in open-ended comments volunteered
at the conclusion of the survey instrument.
The finding that e-mails are of the worst quality, no matter what the scope of
communication, integrates with the finding that nearly all professionals key and complete
these messages themselves. This may indicate a much more informal tone; i.e., if it is
not on paper, perceptions may be that it doesnt have to hold to the same standard for
some reason as memos and letters.

124
Research Question #3b: Do business professionals perceptions regarding quality
of written communications differ by scope (internal versus external)?
Research question #3b was examined through a comparison on the two quality
fronts posed to subjects on the instrumentthose of quality in writing (keying accuracy,
punctuation, grammar, organization, and writing style) and in information (relevance and
completeness of information, accuracy, conciseness, and clarity). The better quality of
external messages than internal on both measures, highlighted by Mann-Whitney U tests,
could be attributable to a variety of possible causes. Possible underlying factors could be
over-familiarity with the audience in internal messages and therefore a laxity in taking
time to proofread. Professionals may know their internal colleagues know they know
better in regard to writing mechanics and therefore dont take greater time to edit.

Research Question #4: What are perceptions of business professionals regarding

their own preparation for creating written communication?
Through research question #3, which considers professionals perceptions of the
quality of written business communications, professionals perceptions of their training to
create these communications is the logical step for research question #4. The fact that
business professionals are pleased with their training and preparation to create written
business communications directly links with their high opinions of the quality of such
messages. Through data collected via the related 16-item battery, professionals generally
are pleased with their formal training in creating the different types of business messages
which indicates they do not have a lot of lost time on the job due to clarifying confusing
or badly written communications.

125
This, coupled with the fact that amid the various choices provided on what
training best prepared business leaders to create messages, the undergraduate business
communication course was top and professionals claim to still create messages in the way
they were taught in that course, it bodes well for the standard undergraduate business
communication curricula. This is also supported by the finding that businesspersons did
not have to work hard to adjust to creating fast- paced business communications in the
workplace.
However, while the sample seemed confident in their overall preparation for
writing business communications and especially their undergraduate business
communication course, the two other areas perhaps in which curricula could be evaluated
are at the graduate level and workplace training. Most professionals saw their MBA
programs as not sufficient in preparing them to write for business, and placed the MBA
course as fourth overall in training that best prepared them to create messages.
A large percentage of professionals expressed the wish through both ordinal and
qualitative data that their MBA program had covered more aspects of choosing the right
words in stressful situations, which could be integrated more into the graduate curricula
not necessarily in one specific course, but in the MBA core, through a variety of writingintensive projects. Also, the relative dissatisfaction with in-house training, or lack
thereof, can be addressed by business organizations through small training sessions or at
least some written communication guidelines, especially regarding e-mail abuse.
In conclusion, it is important to state that despite business professionals
tremendous confidence in their overall training, an analysis by the researcher of optional,
open-ended comments submitted in long-hand form through the instrument provided

126
some troubling information. In an analysis of all open-ended comments, many had some
error in simple spelling, punctuation, or grammar. This is troubling indeed for trainers of
business leaders in message creation skills at all levels. These subject comments are
transcribed verbatim in Appendix E2 for review. This review highlights the perceived
need for greater training at the graduate level and in the work organization.

Research Question #4 a-f: Is there a relationship among perceptions of business

professionals regarding their preparation for creating written communication and: (a)
gender, (b) undergraduate major, (c) age, (d) position within organization, (e)
organizational type, and (f) graduate institution attended?
Business professionals saw aspects of their training and preparation differently by
such factors as demographic characteristics(gender and age) as well as by characteristics
of choice (major, type of position at work, and type of organization in which employed).
The reasons why males consistently seem to be less complimentary overall of
their informal and formal training to create written business messages and admit
weaknesses in grammar, punctuation, style, and formatting than females should be
investigated further to determine possible inherent differences. Possible reasons for these
differences in perspective by gender should be further investigated (as specified in this
chapters subsequent Recommendations for Further Research section) and could link with
such additionaldiffering variables as level of position held within organization,
undergraduate major, graduate institution attended, etc., which are differences that might
impact the perceptionsexpressed by gender.

127
Also, regarding another demographic difference, age, young professionals (below
age below 35) believe that their undergraduate business communication course and MBA
program sufficiently prepared them to create written business messages whereas
professionals over 34 were not as positive. As the population consisted of MBA
graduates from the last 10 years, the difference between these age groups on this opinion
cannot be due per se to younger workers in recent programs with perhaps more of a
focus on written communication assignments or courses. Speculation as to this result
then lies in older workers perhaps having higher positions and therefore more difficult
writing responsibilities that manifests itself in some dissatisfaction in training.
In moving from possible demographic stems for differences in opinions on
training and preparation, it is realized that characteristics/categories of subjects based
upon choice also played a role. Although the studys population consisted entirely of
MBAs, the distinguishing feature of having business undergraduate majors and nonbusiness majors in the same sample produced a not entirely surprising difference of nonbusiness majors who no longer create messages as was taught in their undergraduate
program. This result is probably attributable to the fact that business majors had more
training in business message creation, especially in light of the fact that most MBAs
thought their graduate program was not sufficient on providing such training. However,
this area also produced a difference in those working in differing organizational types
because those in manufacturing, agriculture, mining, and construction firms differed from
others also in more revealing they do not create messages as taught in their undergraduate
course/program.

128
As described in the previous chapter, differences in opinion based upon subjects
categorical characteristics not only exist in more holistic opinions concerning programwide development of writing skills but also in more specific skills such as inputting
information into messages. Concerning differences of opinion on preparation, first-line
and mid-level managers express more dissatisfaction on the primary input method of
keyboarding development by their organization than senior managers. This is an
interesting result in that perhaps senior managers write more and have more of an
opportunity for self-development of keyboarding skills, which may covertly influence
their view on this question, but then senior managers may have more administrative
assistance available, which may lessen their exposure to keyboarding.
It is also interesting to note that more senior managers, in differing from
professional staff, claim to not create their business messages the same way they did in
either their undergraduate or graduate business communication training. Although some
in senior managerial positions are also more senior in age, which may reflect on moving
through undergraduate communication curricula at a time that didnt reflect todays
advances in message creation technology, it is important to take note that they did move
through the MBA communication training in recent years, as the population were 19942004 MBA graduates.
Perceptions of training and preparation by all analyzed characteristics by category
seem consistent with perceptions on productivity, also analyzed by the same categorical
identifications of subjects. These differences are analyzed in research question #5b, after
a general description in #5 (below) of descriptive data regarding productivity perceptions.

129
Research Question #5: What are perceptions of business professionals regarding
their productivity in creating written communication?
Business professionals overall confidence in the quality of business messages
and their overall preparation to compose such messages is again reflected in perceptions
of written communication productivity. Professionals conveyed their ongoing
willingness to receive writing skills/content creation skills through ranking that as top
when asked what skill is a weakness most difficult for them to overcome, but also
maintained their faith and effort in regard to their writing in all facets, including
mechanics, organization, and inputting skill.
Reflecting this pride is that 80% stated even if theyre in a rush, they will write
the message themselves instead of allowing an administrative support person to compose
it; however, this may be due to the lack of accessible administrative support. These
results, whether objective or subjective, indicate businesspersons perceptions from this
sample contradict much of the research literature on the state of overwhelming stress due
to the large quantity and small quality of written business communication.

Research Question #5 a-f: Is there a relationship among perceptions of business

professionals regarding their productivity in creating written communication and: (a)
gender, (b) undergraduate major, (c) age, (d) position within organization, (e)
organizational type, and (f) graduate institution attended?
Fewer statistically significant relationships are evident regarding professionals
perceptions of their productivity in the creation of written business communications than
in perceptions of their preparation to create such messages, but some distinguishing

130
trends emerge. First of all, regarding the productivity measure of quantity of business
message, it may be surprising that those in education and services firms differ from the
manufacturing and construction-oriented fields in that they dont send as many e-mails
it might be thought that those directly in assisting various persons would send more
messages instead of the concentration on making products. Perhaps this links with the
findings that those in education and services differ from other groups in the
acknowledgementthat they might be more productive with an organizational policy to
limit personal communications at work.
Moreover, the findings that younger MBAs differ from the other age groups in
having administrative assistants help more with message creation as well as expressing a
comfortable level of quantity in communications at work (i.e., not feeling overwhelmed)
is a cause for speculation at this point. Perhaps younger MBAs are more confident due to
not having a larger amount of writing responsibility as older MBAs. Addingsome
interest to this result is the fact that relationships exposed in position-level results
somewhat mimic the findings for young MBAs in usage of administrative help, but do
not show any difference from other groups in their perceptions of being overwhelmed at
work with communicationthis difference centers on those in senior managerial
positions, who are no doubt of an older age.
Lastly, concerning the two main differences which come to light in that those
who earned an MBA through the largest, doctoral university, feel less overwhelmed on
the job with written communication and exude more confidence in timely
communication, the initial speculation as to factors underlying these results is that the
MBA curricula of the schools differ in some way to produce these differing productivity

131
perceptions. However, the number of other extraneous variables seems to make this
hypothesis improbable and therefore needing further investigation.
As the MBA program is quite short in duration as opposed to other training, such
as bachelors degree work, there are many other opportunities for outside influences,
especially since many MBA graduates probably earned a four-year degree at another
institution besides the respective graduate choice. Indeed, also contributing to the
enigmatic nature of determining possible reasons for such results is the fact that no
differences were found in business undergraduate majors versus non-business majors in
any aspect of productivity perceptions on the job. Perhaps an investigation into further
differences in confidence in productivity, such as age, may be helpful, as, in findings
herein, age seems to be a delineating characteristic in that younger employees are more
confident in their ability to be productive in creating written communications.

Results and Conclusions through Qualitative Analysis

Many revealing and useful comments were provided by business professionals
regarding facets of written business communicationapproximately a quarter of all
respondents provided such data. A total of 84 open-ended comments voluntarily offered
by respondents largely fell into several comparable categories of opinions.
Approximately half of allviews exp ressed deal with the importance of written
communication in the workplace. Respondents strongly indicated that written
communication needs to be continually stressed and strengthened in curricula.
A large number of professionals also stressed again their belief in their ability to
create written communications; most attribute it to training before entering their graduate

132
program. However, many also commented that many communications are not proofread
adequately and that they see a diminishing quality of writing as new graduates continue
to enter the workforce. However, quality was seen as a factor at all levels as one
respondent even commented on the lack of proofreading performed by the supervisory
level and several respondents commented on the lack of use and even misuse of
SpellCheck. The implication was given that some professionals simply use SpellCheck,
which obviously misses some problems, and do not proof to any other degree.
A result of the established importance and quality perceptions was the expressed
view that much workplace miscommunication and unproductivity is attributable to emails; therefore, e-mail etiquette, timing, and especially technical quality (such as
grammar and punctuation) are factors professionals commented on that demand strong
training coverage in todays curricula. Some indication was also given that writing in
general was deteriorating in quality due to the popularity of e-mail. Also, a few
respondents commented on the large amount of e-mails damaging their productivity
overallespecially through the overuse of cc and bcc.
In regard to input methods, also represented was interest by those who had not
used as well as disdain by those who had, in a few cases, for voice recognition software.
A comment was made that voice recognition was simply not viable in cubes, in a
reference to the workplace layout. In relation to several likecomments of infeasibility of
voice recognition linked with the articulated difficult task to find qualified administrative
assistance, the importance of solid keyboarding skills were specifically mentioned by
many professionals.

133
Other miscellaneous comments included the wish that ways of formatting
documents such as internal memos should be discussed at work (by the firm) as well as
how to write for best customer satisfaction. Also addressed by respondents was the wish
that how to write for multicultural business audiences should be covered in some training
venue and so should writing to avoid legal pitfalls. Respondents also voiced opinions on
many other facets of written business communications. The transcription of all
respondent comments is included in Appendix E2.

General Conclusions
In conclusion, the study defined findings and conclusions via research questions
which concern the productivity measures of quantity, quality, timeliness, and cost of
written business messages as well as professionals preparation for and productivity in
the creation of messages in an initial sense; however, much more exploration is seen as
necessary to gain insightful information into the more distinct but tentative relationships
highlighted through this process.
Professonals perceptions regarding quantity, quality, timeliness, and cost seem to
reflect relative solidarity. Professionals use a somewhat limited amount of message
creation methods to create all types of communications, are confident in message quality,
time to completion, and cost/opportunity cost implications involved in message creation.
There is also some supplementary qualitative evidence that suggests while holding these
views, businesspersons are very cautious of the maintenance of quality of messages and
the influence of this quality through the maintenance of reasonable quantities of messages
created and sent.

134
However, while again favorable overall, professionals seem to reflect a greater
variance in views regarding the specific aspects of their informal and formal preparation
to create messages as well as in productivity in creating these messages. These
differences in views, coupled with the diverse demographics of businesspersons, hold
several implications for further research.

Recommendations for Practice

As the study seems to be an initial attempt to shed light on the research questions
herein, recommendations for practice should thus be taken as steps to consider while
subsequent recommendations for further research may be explored. These initial
recommendations are arranged by and center around the investigated areas of resources
with which to create written communication, message quality, preparation/training to
create messages, and productivity in business writing:
1. Although business professionals expressed an overall satisfaction with their
productivity in creating written business communications, an earlier and more indepth adoption of communication technology such as voice recognition and
Blackberry may serve to improve productivity in business writing and other tasks
through reducing opportunity cost. At the time of this study, some technology, while
available, was certainly not being used in large numbers. On the other side of
resources to improve productivity in business message creation, and perhaps much
more difficult to implement due to monetary restrictions, is to attempt a greater
utilization of human resources such as administrative assistants. This latter

135
suggestion stems from the seemingly inordinate amount of professionals who have no
assistance at all or who share an assistant.
2. As the inquiry into written business message quality consistently revealed e-mails as
holding the worst encoding of all other types, to prevent possible misunderstandings
as well as increased lost time and increased opportunity cost, business professionals
should concentrate on writing involving this type of communication as possibly
needing development. The reasons for this quality concern may be due to a number
of factors (again, for further research) involving familiarity with recipients, difficulty
in proofreading due to rarely seeing the message in hard copy form, or other reasons.
However, professionals should at least be aware of this finding and give e-mail
encoding increased attention. This recommendation also links with others from the
studys research questions involving professionals preparation and training on a
number of items, including e-mail training.
3. More specific recommendations as a result of the expressed opinions of business
professionals regarding their training and preparation for creating business messages
are the continuation or inclusion of e-mail etiquette training and the possible
implementation of more keyboarding training at the secondary level, as many
professionals learned to key on their own. Holistic recommendations for practice
consist of improving (or implementing more) written business communication
training at the graduate level and also possibly increasing message training (including
methods of inputting) in-house or in organizations where professionals are
employed. This latter recommendation could be accomplished through a variety of
ways, including short seminars.

136
4. The preceding recommendations for practice highlight areas for skills development
and directly link with recommendations based upon professionals perceptions
expressed in regard to message creation productivity. The need for greater
keyboarding speed (as cited as professionals biggest weakness regarding creation)
and wish for greater knowledge of software features link with training as these areas
especially lend themselves for greater coverage through organizational training or
training on any level. In addition, as many professionals were very confident with
their productivity in business writing, many indicated they do take a lot of time to
format business messages; perhaps the recommendations for practice herein regarding
inputting training could help reduce this time.

Recommendations for Further Research

Suggestions for further research are summarized as follows:
1. It is believed that further investigations to explore the statistically significant
relationships revealed in the studys chi-square analyses would serve to augment the
information herein. The differences found in this sample between both professionals
perceptions of preparation to create messages as well as perceptions of productivity in
creating messages may serve to be a precursor to more specific findings in the future
on written communication trends and possible areas of concentration by business
writing trainers.
2. Also, further study to highlight other possible relationships, such as perceptions of
preparation and perceptions of productivity, perceived message quality and

137
preparation perceptions, etc., may illuminate further trends regarding business
professionals and various characteristics involving written business communications.
3. It is recommended that a similar study be conducted with a different sampling frame
of persons deemed responsible for business writing in the workplace; not necessarily
those with MBAs or advanced business degrees. A similar study conducted with
recipients of bachelors or associates degrees in business or some other method of
identifying appropriate subjects would be beneficial to supplement research in this
area.
4. In addition to suggestion #3, and in keeping in mind possible curriculum development
in business communication, another possibility lies in the investigation of line
managers or entry-level managers as the sampling frame, if such an accessible
population could be established.
5. Similar data to this study could be collected and examined against the size of
organizations in which subjects are employed, as size often dictates available
resourcesboth technological and human. Findings herein suggest the sample for
this study had an overall curious characteristic of having relatively little
administrative help despite subjects advanced educational level and often advanced
managerial positions. While this situation was perhaps more revealing about methods
and types of messages business professionals create, the correlation of a samples
productivity perceptions with greater access to writing resources may be more
revealing in some fashion.
6. Also, a similar study sometime in the next few years that reflects updated
advancements in input and creation technology may prove to be helpful. For

138
example, while few herein indicated use of voice recognition input technology,
substantial interest in this form was noted. Perhaps in the future, voice recognition
and other input forms will be widely used and thus may be investigated.
7. There are opportunities for further investigation of the underlying causes for the rather
one-sided frequency of methods used. Research should be conducted on the reasons
as to why business professionals do not use voice recognition and other methods
besides the predominant choice of keying and completing messages themselves with
Microsoft Word. Research could be done to illuminate why professionals sometimes
use assistants and sometimes not, and why machine dictation is no longer used. Also,
on this point, while having some idea via open-ended write-in of organizational type
for those who checked services, it would be interesting to see if medical and legal
firms use more machine and assistant dictation than respondents who work in other
organizational types.
8. In moving from resources to quantity of communication, as this study did not
concentrate on the quantity of each type of message regularly created in the
workplace, but rather method and frequency of those methods, an overall
investigation of the number of e-mails, memos, letters, reports, etc. would prove to be
helpful in the determination of business message types on which to concentrate on in
curricula to reflect current practices in the workplace. Skills development according
to message type could be linked with such an investigation.
9. Taking into account message quality as well as quantity, in light of the findings that
business professionals sampled in this study have great pride and confidence in their
ability to produce good quality business writing but the review of collected qualitative

139
data reveals many errors in professionals longhand writing, it would be ideal to
conduct a more objective study. This study should focus on non self-reported data in
ascertaining the state of business professionals ability to compose quality messages.
10. Lastly, a study to determine why e-mails are written at such an inferior quality
relative to other communications and an effort to determine the most effective ways in
which this problem can be focused on by training may eventually save business
professionals time and money through reduced confusion. Also, a study further
examining the motivation to construct external messages that are superior in quality to
internal communications may serve some purposean investigation of the confidence
level in creating communications may come into play in such a study.

140
REFERENCES

Alexander, C. J. (1992). A study of the business communication needs and problems of

women in entry-level, middle, and upper management positions in Texas
(Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 53 (08), 2654A.
American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2004). Eligibility
procedures and standards for business accreditation. Retrieved September 5,
2004, from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp
American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2006). Eligibility
procedures and standards for business accreditation. Retrieved March 16, 2006,
from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp
Andera, F. (1991). Written communication: What business executives are using.
Business Education Forum, 45(5), 1719.
Anderson, P. V. (1985). What survey research tells us about writing at work. In L. Odell
& D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 383). New York:
Guilford Press.
Ariss, S. S., & Timmins, S. A. (1989). Employee education and job performance: Does
education matter? Public Personnel Management, 18(1), 110.
Association for Business Communication (ABC). (2002). Committees and interest
groups: AACSBr esponse. Retrieved September 5, 2004, from
http://www.businesscommunication.org/news/AACSB_response.pdf
Barksdale, K. (2002). Speech recognition: How do we teach it? Business Education
Forum, 56(3), 5255.

141
Bartholome, L. (1991). Preparing business education for the 21st century. Business
Education Forum, 46(2), 1518.
Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research:
Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology,
Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 4350.
Bartlett, T. (2003). Why Johnny cant write, even though he went to Princeton. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(17), A39.
Bates, G. D. (1984). Upgrading written communication [Abstract]. IEEE Transactions
on Professional Communication, 27(2), 8992.
Bednar, D. A. (1982). Relationships between communicator style and managerial
performance in complex organizations: A field study. Journal of Business
Communication, 19(4), 5176.
Bennett, R., Durand, D. E., & Betty, S. A. (1990). Managerial ratings of written
compositions: Impact of information technology on the persuasiveness of
communications. Information & Management, 19(1), 16.
Bergerud, M., & Gonzales, J. (1984). Word/information processing: Concepts of office
automation (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in education (8th ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Blake, G. (1996). Quality in R&D demands right writing. Research Technology
Management, 39(2), 1012.
Bogert, J., & Butt, D. (1996). Communication instruction in MBA programs: A survey
of syllabi. Business Communication Quarterly, 59(2), 2045.

142
Boles, M. (1997). HelpInformation overload! Workforce, 76(9), 20.
Brinkley, W. J. (1984). A comparison of supervisory-level managers written business
communication practices and problems and college written business
communication instruction (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University,
1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45 (08), 2364A.
British Computer Society. (2002a). Email deluge frustrates UK management efficiency,
according to national survey. Retrieved June 2, 2004, from
http://www.bcs.org/BCS/News/PressReleases/2002/December/
PressReleases2002DecemberEmailDeluge.htm
British Computer Society. (2002b). Productivity hit by IT skills gap. Retrieved July 24,
2004, from http://www.bcs.org/BCS/News/PressReleases/2002/April/
PressReleases2002AprilITSkillsGap.htm
Brynjolfsson, E. (1993). The productivity paradox of information technology: Review
and assessment. Communications of the ACM, 36(12), 6778.
Burnett, S. (2003). The future of accounting education: A regional perspective. Journal
of Education for Business, 78(3), 129134.
Clampitt, P. G. (1983). Communication and productivity. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Kansas, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44 (11),
3204A.
Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. W. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship
between communication and productivity: A field study. Journal of Business
Communication, 30(1), 528.

143
Condon, G., Hoggatt, J., Missling, L., & Weston, A. (1988). A time and error analysis
of the input and process stages of the information cycle. Delta Pi Epsilon
Journal, 30(4), 143151.
Connolly, J. M., Hoggatt, J. O., & Honl, L. (1999). [Survey: What business
communication skills are essential for success]. Unpublished raw data.
Curtis, D. B., Winsor, J. L., & Stephens, R. D. (1989). National preferences in business
and communication education. Communication Education, 38(1), 614.
Cutshall, S. (2003). Getting down to business. Techniques, 78(7), 1821.
Dawley, D. D., & Anthony, W. P. (2003). User perceptions of e-mail at work. Journal
of Business and Technical Communication, 17(2), 170201.
Dowd, K. O, & Liedtka, J. (1994). What corporations seek in MBA hires: A survey.
Selections, 10(2), 3439.
Downs, C. W., Clampitt, P., & Pfeiffer, A. (1988). Communication and organizational
outcomes. In G. Goldhaber & G. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
communication, (pp. 171211). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Eberhardt, B. J., McGee, P., & Moser, S. (1997). Business concerns regarding MBA
education: Effects on recruiting. Journal of Education for Business, 72(5), 293
296.
Employers value communication and interpersonal skills. (2004). Keying In, 14(3), 17.
Erthal, M. J., Roane, A. S., & Larsh, K. (2003). Input technologies. In M. H. Rader
(Ed.), Effective methods of teaching business education in the 21st century, No. 41
(pp. 115129). Reston, VA: National Business Education Association.

144
Fodor, J. T. (2003). Talking to your computer: Advances in voice recognition.
Promotion & Education, 10(3), 127128.
Ford, N. (1967). The advance letter in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research,
4(2), 202-204.
Fraihat, H. R. (2003). Taxonomy and remedy of work hazards associated with office
information systems. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge,
3(1/2), 127137.
Frayer, C. E. (2002). Employee privacy and Internet monitoring: Balancing workers'
rights and dignity with legitimate management interests. The Business Lawyer,
57(2), 857875.
Gardner, P. D., & Liu, W. (1997). Prepared to perform? Employers rate work force
readiness of new grads. Journal of Career Planning & Employment, 57(3), 32
41.
Gates, B. (2001, November). Keynote remarks by Bill Gates, COMDEX, Fall, 2001.
Retrieved on July 6, 2004, from http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/
speeches/2001/11-11comdex.asp
Gates, B. (2003, November). Remarks by Bill Gates, Chairman and Chief Software
Architect, Microsoft Corporation, COMDEX, Las Vegas, 2003. Retrieved on July
6, 2004, from http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2003/1116comdex2003.asp
Gladstone, K. (2004). Beliefs affecting handwritten communication. Et Cetera, 61(1),
5962.

145
Goodin, E., & Swerdlow, S. (1987). The current quality of written correspondence: A
statistical analysis of the performance of 13 industry and organizational
categories. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 50(1), 12
16.
Grever, J., & Zimmerman, H. (1988). How are we meeting the challenge of preparing
teachers and students in office technology? Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 30(1), 2
13.
Guffey, M. E. (2003). Business communication: Process and product (4th ed.). Mason,
OH: Thomson South-Western.
Harder, J. C. (1984). The methods of word origination used most often within the offices
of major American corporations (word processing). (Doctoral dissertation,
Memphis State University, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45 (10),
3054A.
Harris, J. R., & Guffey, J. J. (1978). Questionnaire returns: Stamps versus business
reply envelopes revisited. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(2), 290-293.
Heaton, E. E. (1965). Increasing mail questionnaire returns with a preliminary letter.
Journal of Advertising Research, 5(4), 36-39.
Hoggatt, J. (2003). Addressing the communication needs of business. Business
Education Forum, 58(1), 2630.
Hosler, M. M., Jacobson, T., & James, M. L. (2003). Tips for marketing your program in
todays competitive environment. Business Education Forum, 58(1), 4244.

146
Hynes, G. E., & Bhatia, V. (1996). Graduate business students' preferences for the
managerial communication course curriculum. Business Communication
Quarterly, 59(2), 4555.
Hyslop, D. J. (1981). Developing writing efficiency. Business Education Forum, 35(7),
2223.
Information Technology Industry Council. (n.d.). Accelerated depreciation of assets:
The need to modernize the Tax Code is more critical than ever. Retrieved July
19, 2004, from http://www.itic.org/reports/Economy/tax_exp.htm
Inman, T. H. (1975). Computerization key to communications of the future. ABCA
Bulletin, 38(3), 1921.
Jackson, J. J. (1990). The communication competence of managers with liberal arts vs.
professional/technical undergraduate backgrounds (Doctoral dissertation,
Memphis State University, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51 (09),
3135A.
Jackson, T. W., Dawson, R., & Wilson, D. (2003). Understanding email interaction
increases organization productivity. Communications of the ACM, 46(8), 8084.
Jacobs, P. (1998, July 6). Strong writing skills essential for success, even in IT.
InfoWorld, 20(27), 86.
Jennings, M. S., & Vice, J. P. (1999). Writing preferences and practices of top-level
executives. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 41(4), 187193.
Jennings, S. E. (2001). National keyboarding trends. Business Education Forum, 55(3),
4648.

147
Johnson L. M., & Johnson, V. E. (1995). Help wanted accountant: What the
classifieds say about employers expectations. Journal of Education for Business,
70(3), 130135.
Johnston, W. B., & Packer, A. H. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the
twenty-first century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.
Jorgenson, D., & Stiroh, K. (2000). Raising the speed limit: U.S. economic growth in
the Information Age. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2000(1), 125236.
Judy, R. W., & DAmico, C. (1997). Workforce 2020: Work and workers in the 21st
century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.
Keller, C., & Kros, J. (2000). Teaching communication in an MBA operations
research/management science course. The Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 51(12), 14331439.
Kennedy, A. G., & Littenberg, B. (2004). A dictation system for reporting prescribing
errors in community pharmacies. The International Journal of Pharmacy
Practice, 12(1), 1319.
Kimball, A. E. (1961). Increasing the rate of return in mail surveys. Journal of
Marketing, 25(6), 63-64.
Kirby, M. S., & Oliver, J. D. (1988). Information processing specialist: A redefinition of
the administrative support function. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 30(1), 1424.
Krapels, R. H., & Davis, B. D. (2000). Communication training in two companies.
Business Communication Quarterly, 63(3), 104111.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607610.

148
Lehman, C. M., & DuFrene, D. D. (2005). Business communication (14th ed.). Mason,
OH: Thomson South-Western.
Linder, J., & Smith, J. (1992). The complex case of management review. Harvard
Business Review, 70(5), 1633.
Lull, P., Frank, R., & Pierson, D. (1955). What communication means to the corporate
president. Advanced Management, 20, 1720.
Lundgren, T. D. (1999). Challenges for business education in the twenty-first century.
Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 41(1), 5361.
Mabrito, M. (1997). Writing on the front line: A study of workplace writing. Business
Communication Quarterly, 60(3), 5870.
Management Centre Europe. (2001). Secretaries as theyve never been seen before.
Retrieved July 20, 2004, from http://www.mce.be/knowledge/73/16
Martin, J. (2004). Digital CEOs. Chief Executive, 197, 4851.
Mascolini, M. (1988). Excellence in communication: A factor in corporate profitability.
Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 30(1), 3642.
McCune, J. C. (1994). Information systems get back to basics. Management Review,
83(1), 5460.
McEwen, T. (1997). Communication training in corporate settings: Lessons and
opportunities for the academe. Mid-American Journal of Business, 12(1), 4958.
McEwen, T. (1998). The impact of type and level of college degree on managerial
communication competence. Journal of Education for Business, 73(6), 352358.
Moody, J., Stewart, B., & Bolt-Lee, C. (2002). Showing the skilled business graduate:
Expanding the tool kit. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(1), 2137.

149
Moore, R. W., & Mulcahy, K. F. (1991). Training and technology: New patterns in
communications training. Journal of Education for Business, 66(4), 198202.
Morgan, G. A., Griego, O. V., & Gloeckner, G. W. (2001.) SPSS for Windows: An
introduction to use and interpretation in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum & Associates.
The mystery of the business graduate that cant write. (1977). Nations Business, 65(2),
60.
NAEP: The Nations Report Card. (2002). Percentage of students, by writing
achievement level, grades 4, 8, and 12: 1998 and 2002. Retrieved March 16,
2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/results2002/
natachieve.asp
The National Commission on Writing for Americas Families, Schools, and Colleges.
(2004). Writing: A ticket to work or a ticket out. Retrieved October 5, 2004,
from http://www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/writingticket-to-work.pdf
Nellermoe, D. A., Weirich, T. R., & Reinstein, A. (1999). Using practitioners'
viewpoints to improve accounting students' communications skills. Business
Communication Quarterly, 62(2), 4161.
Nelson, S. J., Moncada, S., & Smith, D. C. (1996). Written language skills of entry-level
accountants as assessed by experienced CPAs. Business Communication
Quarterly, 59(4), 122128.
Nowak, R. (2003, May 19). Behind the numbers: E-mail beats the phone in business
communication. Information Week, 940, 66.

150
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ober, S. (2003). Contemporary business communication (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Okula, S. (1999). The coming crisis: A shortage of business educators. Business
Education Forum, 53(4), 612.
ORourke, J. S. (2004). Management communication: A case analysis approach (2nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
Paal, E. (1996, November 23). MBA programs talk up communication skills. The
Indianapolis Star, p. B5.
Parker, P. J. (2004). Quantify technologys benefits. Nursing Management, 35(2), 41
45.
Penley, L. E., Alexander, E. R., Jernigan, I. E., & Henwood, C. I. (1991).
Communication abilities of managers: The relationship to performance. Journal
of Management, 17(1), 5776.
Plutsky, S. (1996). Faculty perceptions of students business communication needs.
Business Communication Quarterly, 59(4), 6976.
Porter, J. A. (1997). Writing skills of new accounting hires: The message is mixed. The
Tax Advisor, 28(8), 518522.
Porter, L. R. (1989). Technical writing with computers: A study of the documentationproduction processes of technical communicators in industry. (Doctoral
dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 50 (08), 2285A.

151
Pressley, M. M., & Tullar, W. L. (1977). A factor interactive investigation of mail
survey response rates from a commercial population. Journal of Marketing
Research, 14(1), 108-111.
Reingold, J. (2000). Its still a guy thing: Female MBA enrollment hasnt budged in a
decade. Business Week, 58(3682), 58.
Ricutti, P. (2003). When it comes to increasing office productivity, dictate. Commercial
Law Bulletin, 18(4), 1617.
Roach, S. S. (1991). Services under siege: The restructuring imperative. Harvard
Business Review, 69(5), 8292.
Robin, S. (1965). A procedure for securing returns to mail questionnaires. Sociology
and Social Research, 50(1), 24-35.
Roper, G. (2003, August 29). Unsolicited commercial e-mail makes its presence felt on
productivity. The Colorado Springs Business Journal, p. 1.
Roth, L. (1993). Education makes a difference: Results of a survey of writing on the
job. Technical Communication Quarterly, 2(2), 177184.
Rubin, R. B., & Morreale, S. P. (2000). What college students should know and be able
to do. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 29(1), 53
65.
Ryker, D. K. (1999). Need for computer keyboarding skills as viewed by engineering
professionals. Unpublished masters thesis, Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale, Carbondale, Illinois.
Savel, T. (2002). Dont talk before you run with voice-response software. American
Medical News, 45(31), 19.

152
Scheetz, L. P. (1996). Recruiting trends 1996-1997: A national study of job market trends
for new college graduates. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State Collegiate
Employment Research Institute.
Schroeder, B. L. (Ed.). (1984). Certified professional secretary examination review
series. New York: Wiley.
Schroeder, B. L. (Ed.). (1995). Office systems and administration. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall Career & Technology.
Schroeder, B. L. (Ed.). (2005). CPS exam review office administration. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Schueler, D. V. (1989). The relationship of computer activities and computer time to
keyboarding skill with implications for productivity (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Houston, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50 (06),
1535A.
Schuerenberg, B. K. (2003). Physicians vocalize dictation issues. Health Data
Management, 11(10), 4856.
Seshardi, S., & Theye, L. D. (2000). Professionals and professors: Substance or style?
Business Communication Quarterly, 63(3), 923.
Sherman, A., Bohlander, G., & Snell, S. (1998). Managing human resources.
Cincinnati, OH: Thomson South-Western.
Snyder, T. D. (2001). Digest of Education Statistics, 2001. National Center for
Education Statistics. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education.
Speaking solutions. (2004). Training. Retrieved July 21, 2004, from the World Wide
Web: http://speakingsolutions.com/training/index.html

153
Stitt, W. L. (1988). Management utilization of automated office equipment and
microcomputers. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 30(2), 7180.
Storms, C. G. (1983). What business school graduates say about the writing they do at
work: Implications for the business communications course. The ABCA Bulletin,
66(4), 1318.
Swartz, N. (2003). Americans call e-mail essential to their jobs. Information
Management Journal, 37(2), 16.
Sypher, B. D., & Sypher, H. E. (1983). Self-monitoring and perceptions of
communication ability in an organizational setting. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 9, 297304
Szul, L. F., & Bouder, M. (2003). Speech recognition: Its place in business education.
Business Education Forum, 57(3), 5456.
Tallinghast, D. (1994). An overview of employee training in America: 1994 industry
report. Training, 31(10), 4355.
Tanner, J., & Cudd, M. (1999). Finance degree programs and the issue of student
preparedness. Journal of Education for Business, 74(6), 335341.
Tanyel, F., Mitchell, M., & McAlum, H. (1999). The skill set for success of new business
graduates: Do prospective employers and university faculty agree? Journal of
Education for Business, 75(1), 3337.
Tavernier, G. (1980). Using employee communications to support corporate objectives.
Management Review, 69, 813.
Tellier, R. D. (1978). Operations management: Fundamental concepts and methods.
New York: Harper & Row.

154
Tubbs, S., & Widgery, R. N. (1978). When productivity lags, are key managers really
communicating? Management Review, 67, 2025.
Tuckman, B. W. (1999). Conducting educational research (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Group-Thomson.
Tyler, K. (2003). Toning up communications. HR Magazine, 48(3), 8790.
United Business Education Association (1961, November). Headquarters notes. UBEA,
4344.
University of Pennsylvania. (2004). Required courses Wharton undergraduate
program. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from http://undergrad.wharton.upenn.edu/
programs/day/curriculum.cfm
Van der Colff, L. (2004). A new paradigm for business education: The role of the
business educator and business school. Management Decision, 42(3/4), 499507.
Van Fleet, D. D., & Peterson, T. O. (1994). Contemporary management. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Vest, D., Long, M., & Anderson, T. (1996). Electrical engineers' perceptions of
communication training and their recommendations for curricular change: Results
of a national survey. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 39(1),
3843.
Viega, J. F. (1974). Getting the mail questionnaire returned: Some practical research
considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(2), 217-218.
Wardrope, W. J. (2002). Department chairs perceptions of the importance of business
communication skills. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(4), 6073.

155
Wardrope, W. J., & Bayless, M. L. (1999). Content of the business communication
course: An analysis of coverage. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(4), 33
41.
Wentling, R. M. (1990). Computer keyboarding skills needed by business professionals.
Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 32(1), 1525.
Wiggs, L. H. (1992). Document origination and factors contributing to selection of
origination method: Implications for business curricula (automation, computers)
(Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1992).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 53 (10), 3430A.
Wiggs, L. H. (1993). Keyboarding: What is its future? Business Education Forum,
48(2), 2931.
Yedidia, M. J., Gillespie, C. C., Kachur, E., Schwartz, M. D., Ockene, J., Chepaitis, A.
E., et al. (2003). Effect of communications training on medical student
performance. JAMA, 290(9), 11571165.
Zhao, J. J. (1996). Recommended computer end-user skills for business students by
Fortune 500 human resource executives. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 38(3), 155
166.
Zhao, J. J., & Alexander, M. W. (2004). The impact of business communication
education on students' short- and long-term performances. Business
Communication Quarterly, 67(1), 2440.

156

APPENDICES

157

APPENDIX A

AUTHOR PERMISSION

158

APPENDIX A
AUTHOR PERMISSION
Date: 12-Jul-2004 22:43:37 -0500
From: <roach@siu.edu>
To: "lhwiggs" <lhwiggs@semo.edu>
Subject: RE: Your SIUC Dissertation

Joy,
You have my permission to use my materials. Good luck in your study.
>===== Original Message From roach@siu.edu =====
>Dear Dr. Wiggs:
>
>I hope your summer is going very well. I do hate to bother you out of the "blue" like
>this, Dr. Wiggs, but I have a question for you. I got your e-mail address from Dr.
>Marcia Anderson and I hope you dont mind my use of it to contact you. My name is
>Joy Roach, and as a doctoral candidate at SIU, (studying under Marcia Anderson, as
>you did), I came upon your dissertation and thought it would be a wonderful study to
>use as the basis for mine.
>
>Congratulations on such an interesting dissertation. In fact, I would like to ask your
>permission to use part of your survey instrument (especially the way you have the
>demographic part set up and your Likert investigation by document type) and even to
>perhaps use the same first two research questions that you did. If you would indeed
>give your permission, I would be greatly indebted to you.
>
>My plan is to investigate the types of written communications being created, the
>methods of creation, and the frequency of creation by type--just as you did, but in the
>light of new technology. It would be interesting to see the changes in the last 12 years.
>Also, my last few research questions incorporate some of the productivity aspect of
>document creation (perceptions of preparation for creating documents, perceived
>document quality, etc.) So, with your permission, my study would parallel yours at the
>beginning (the first two research questions), then would spin off in a slightly different
>direction from your subsequent questions. Of course, I am still in the initial stages of
>formulating my research plan.
>
>Thank you so much for your time and trouble, Dr. Wiggs. I really appreciate it. I hope
>to hear from you soon.
>
>Joy Roach
>Workforce Education and Development
>Southern Illinois University Carbondale

159

APPENDIX B

MATERIALS FOR PANEL OF EXPERTS AND DRAFT INSTRUMENT

FORMULATION
B1:

Initial E-mail to Prospective Expert Panel Members

B2:

Letter of Instruction to Expert Panel Members

B3:

Panel of Expert Instrument Review Form

B4:

Draft Instrument

B5:

Panel of Expert Members

160
B1:

Initial E-mail to Prospective Panel Members

Subject Line: Instrument Review Panel

Dear Dr. ______:

As a leading researcher and teacher in the field of business communication, the lending
of your expertise to assist with a dissertation instrument review would be invaluable (and
greatly appreciated). I am a doctoral candidate in the process of developing an
instrument to gather data for my dissertation, which seeks to identify factors influencing
written business communication creation and professionals perceptions of productivity.
In consultation with Dr. Marcia Anderson, my dissertation chair at Southern Illinois
University Carbondale, you were selected as a prospective member for a small panel of
experts to assist in this endeavor. With your kind assistance, this would entail the critical
review of a questionnaire instrument via a form designed to gather your opinions and
suggestions in regard to content, measurement, and layout factors.
If you would indeed do us the honor of serving on the panel, please reply to me (at
roach@siu.edu) by Friday, January 21, so I may make arrangements to send a hard copy
of the relevant material to your campus address at ___ University.
Thank you so much for your consideration. I hope to hear from you soon.
Regards,
Joy
Joy L. Roach, Ph.D. Candidate
Business Education
Department of Workforce Education and Development
212 Pulliam Hall
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Carbondale, IL 62901-4605
270-559-3733

161
B2:

Letter of Instruction to Expert Panel Members

January 20, 2005

[Name and College/University Address]

Dear Dr. ______:
I cant tell you how grateful I am for your help. Thank you so much for volunteering
your expertise for this dissertation instrument review. I know how busy you are,
especially at this time of the year, and I thank you.
Indeed, please feel free to be as critical as possible and to make suggestions as deemed
necessary. After a thorough review of literature, no existing instrument seemed quite
suited to gather specific information on the studys research questions, so this is a nearly
from scratch effort. Your help is essential to move the instrument toward validity and
reliability.
Accompanying the instrument is some brief information and narrative from the
dissertation; this should serve to provide a bit of background and orientation to the topic.
Lastly, a form is enclosed to assist with your review of the instrument in light of several
factors. (Of course, dont hesitate to mark needed improvements directly on the survey
as well.) While conducting your review, please keep in mind that the planned population
for the survey is 1994-2004 M.B.A. graduates of three AACSB-accredited business
programs in three different states.
Please return the relevant material in the pre-paid envelope upon completion of your
review. If possible, please try to have the material back in the mail by Friday, February
4.
Thank you again for your time and consideration!
Regards,

Joy Roach, Ph.D. candidate

Business Education
Department of Workforce Education and Development
212 Pulliam Hall
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Carbondale, IL 62901-4605
270-559-3733
roach@siu.edu

162
B3:

Panel of Expert Instrument Review Form

BUSINESS PROFESSIONALS DOCUMENT CREATION METHODS AND

PRODUCTIVITY PERCEPTIONS
Instrument Review
1. Do the questions asked elicit the kind of information needed to
sufficiently investigate the research questions?
Yes

No

If no, please cite the relevant section(s)/question(s) and any suggestions for
improvement:

2. Are the measurement scales and questionnaire formats appropriate for

accurate measurement of information and respondent perceptions?
Yes

No

If no, please cite the relevant section(s)/question(s) and any suggestions for
improvement:

163
3. Is each question worded in the best manner possible to get unbiased
and appropriate information from subjects?
Yes

No

If no, please give the question number(s) and suggestions for improvement:

4. Is the order of sections (i.e., the placement of each section of elicited

information relative to the others) the most conducive to get unbiased
and appropriate information from subjects?
Yes

No

If no, please give any suggestions for improvement:

5. Is the order of questions within each section (i.e., the placement of

questions within each section relative to the others) the most conducive
to get unbiased and appropriate information from subjects?
Yes

No

If no, please give any suggestions for improvement:

6. Are the instructions clear and specific in each section?

Yes

No

If no, please cite the section(s) and any suggestions for improvement:

164
7. Are grammar, punctuation, and style elements accurate and
appropriate?
Yes

No

If no, please give relevant section(s) and suggestions for improvement:

8. Is the instrument formatted in an attractive enough design to warrant

an effort to complete and return the survey? (However, please note that there
are plans to have the instrument professionally aligned and printed.)

Yes

No

If no, please give suggestions for improvement:

9. Is the overall instrument too long?

Yes

No

If yes, do you have any suggestions for brevity?

10. Other comments or suggestions:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH for all of your help!

165

B4:

Draft Instrument

STUDY OF BUSINESS PROFESSIONALS DOCUMENT CREATION METHODS AND

PRODUCTIVITY PERCEPTIONS
The purpose of this survey is to get your input concerning the processes you use to create
business documents at work. As a business professional, your perceptions and expertise are
essential to this study. Please mark the responses that apply to you. Thank you so much for
your time and assistance. (If you would like to obtain the surveys overall results upon the
completion of this study, please see the directions that conclude this survey.)
Are you currently working in a position that requires you to create business messages or documents?
___ Yes
If yes, please answer the following questions.
___ No
If no, please stop here and return this form in the enclosed envelope.

A.

B.

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROFESSIONAL:

1.

Gender: (

) Female

) Male

2.

What was your undergraduate major?

(Please check appropriate choice(s))
( ) Accounting
( ) Business Administration
( ) Computer Science
( ) Economics
( ) Finance
( ) Management
( ) Marketing
( ) Other business/Non-business major (please list) ________________________________________

3.

What classification best describes the type of organization for which you work?
(Check one)
( ) Agriculture, mining, construction
( ) Education
( ) Entrepreneurial
( ) Financial, insurance, real estate
( ) Government agency
( ) Manufacturing
( ) Retail trade (including restaurants)
( ) Services (including hospitals and hotels)
( ) Wholesale trade
( ) Other (please list) ______________________________________________

4.

Your age: __________

DOCUMENT CREATION METHODS:

5.

What methods do you have access to in your work area for composing documents?
(Check ALL that apply)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

) PDA (personal digital assistant)

) Computer (including laptop) with voice recognition software
(please list which software)_______________________________________________
) Computer (including laptop) with word processing software
) E-mail
) Scanner
) Machine dictation unit
) Typewriter at your workstation
) Other (please identify)___________________________________________________

6.

What administrative support is available to assist with your business document preparation?
(Please check ONLY ONE)
( ) Full-time administrative assistant who works for me
( ) Share administrative assistant(s) with other professionals
( ) Very limited administrative assistance available
( ) No administrative assistance available
( ) Other (please identify)__________________________________________________

7. Using the scale below, please circle the responses appropriate for how much time you take to complete writing
tasks according to method and type. For example, if you often key and send yourself to complete e-mail
messages, circle the 4 in the set of numbers in the top left of the table.

4
3
2
1

=
=
=
=

Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never
E-MAIL
MESSAGES

(71%-100% of total writing time at work)

(36%-70% of total writing time at work)
(1%-35% of total writing time at work)
(0% of total writing time at work)
MEMOS

LETTERS

REPORTS

FORMS

OTHER
(explain)

___________
Key and send myself with no assistance

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

Key a draft for someone else to edit

and complete

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

Dictate to voice recognition and edit

Myself

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

Dictate to voice recognition and

assistant edits

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

Dictate to machine or assistant

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

Handwrite for someone else to edit

and send

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

Other (please identify)____________

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

C. PERCEPTIONS OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION QUALITY

For statements #8 and #9 below, please mark the most appropriate response in the box to the right.
INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS Communications to persons within the firm
8. Overall, how would you rate the writing quality of internal written
communications (including e-mails, memos, forms, internal reports,
etc.) that your colleagues create in regard to the amount of
typographical/grammatical errors, writing style, and syntax.

___ Excellent
___ Good
___ Adequate
___ Poor
___Very poor

9. Overall, how would you rate the writing quality of internal written
communications thatyour colleagues create in regard to information
quality? Consider conciseness, clarity, and completeness of
information.

___ Excellent
___ Good
___ Adequate
___ Poor
___Very poor

10.

Which internal format seems to be of the poorest quality overall?

(Please check ONLY ONE)
___E-mail messages
___Memos
___Internal Reports
___Other (Please identify)_____________________________________________

Comments:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS Communications to persons within the firm

For statements #11 and #12 below, please mark the most appropriate response in the box to the right.

13.

11. Overall, how would you rate the writing quality of external written
communications (including letters, external reports, etc.) that your
colleagues create in regard to the amount of typographical/grammatical
errors, writing style, and syntax.

___ Excellent
___ Good
___ Adequate
___ Poor
___Very poor

12. Overall, how would you rate the writing quality of external written
communications that your colleagues create in regard to information
quality? Consider conciseness, clarity, and completeness of information.

___ Excellent
___ Good
___ Adequate
___ Poor
___Very poor

Which external format seems to be of the poorest quality overall?

(Please check ONLY ONE)
___E-mail messages
___Letters
___External Reports
___Other (Please identify)_____________________________________________

Comments:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

D. PREPARATION FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO DOCUMENT CREATION METHODS:

In this section, you will let us know information about what training prepared you to create written communications on the job. Please indicate
your level of agreement with the following statements by marking an X in the box that corresponds with your view for each of the sentences.
Strongly
Agree

14. English courses in high school best prepared me for the type of business
documents I create at work.
15. I frequently put into practice what I learned in my college English courses
regarding written business communication.
16. I had training at the undergraduate level that sufficiently covered how to write
for business.
17. I now do not create my documents in the same manner that I created
assignments in my college business communications (or other business)
class(es).
18. I had training in my MBA program that sufficiently covered how to write for
business.
19. I now do not create my documents in the same manner that I created
assignments in my MBA program.
20. Company-sponsored training/orientations have sufficiently addressed written
communication issues at work.
21. It took me a while to adjust when I joined this firm in regard to being able to
create the most appropriate business documents in a fast-paced
environment.
22. My organization has sponsored sufficient training specifically geared to
develop the methods I use to create written communications at work.
23. My organization has sponsored training specifically to develop my
keyboarding speed and accuracy.
24. I need more training in regard to writing skills such as style, scope, and
grammar.
25. Training in software usage (Microsoft Word, Excel, etc.) would be/is
invaluable to me as a business professional.
26. I had sufficient formal training overall on how to format such documents as
memos, letters, and reports or work.
27. Business communication training in e-mail message
composition and etiquette is unnecessary.
28. I feel confident about my ability to create documents at work that are
understood.
29. Sometimes I wish my undergraduate and MBA curricula had covered more
aspects of choosing the right words in stressful situations.

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

For the following two questions, please mark the most appropriate slot.
30. Where did you learn to keyboard?
(Please check ALL that apply.)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Keyboarding training in elementary school

Keyboarding training in middle/junior high school
Keyboarding training in high school
Keyboarding training at college/university
In-house workplace training
Learned on my own
Attended externalseminars/workshops
on my own initiative
( ) Other (please identify)_______

31. What training BEST prepared you to

create business messages?
(Please check ONLY ONE.)
( ) High school course
( ) Business communication courses in college
( ) Other course(s) in college (please identify)_______________________
( ) In-house workplace training
( ) Learned on my own
( ) Attended external seminars/workshops on my own initiative
( ) Other (please identify)______________________________________

Comments:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

E.

PRODUCTIVITY FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO DOCUMENT CREATION METHODS:

In this section, you will let us know information about factors that influence written communications on the job. Please indicate your level of
agreement with the following statements by marking an X in the box that corresponds with your view for each of the sentences.
Strongly
Agree

32. I often feel overwhelmed with all of the written communication I do in

a typical day at work.
33. I would be more productive if my organization had a (or better) policy
for limiting personal e-mails.
34. I put forth effort to make all my documents error-free.
35. I mostly use Microsoft Word to create all types of written documents.
36. If I am in a hurry for a document, I will usually have an administrative
support person write my document.
37. I have trouble keyboarding fast enough to keep up with my daily
written work.
38. I feel I could be more productive if I had another way to create
documents than keying.
39. I often send more than 15 e-mail messages per day.
40. I put forth effort to make e-mails error-free.
41. The types of messages created in a given day vary widely.
42. I am proud of the business documents I create.
43. Organizing a business document takes too much time.
44. I frequently have ideas to communicate, but have difficulty putting them
into words.
45. Having time to learn more word processing software features would help
me be more productive in the creation of business documents.
46. My keyboarding skills slow me down on the job.
47. I sometimes feel unproductive at work due to slowness in composing
in composing written messages.

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

For the following two questions, please mark the appropriate box(es).
48. What workplace written communication below is a weakness and is the MOST DIFFICULT
for you to overcome?
(Please check ONLY ONE)
( ) Keyboarding speed
( ) Choosing the appropriate document format
( ) Writing skills/content creation
( ) Choosing the appropriate method of creation (dictation, key myself, etc.)
( ) Choosing the appropriate type of communication (letter, memo, etc.)
( ) Other business (please identify) ________________________________________
49. What aspect of workplace written communication output would you change to increase your
productivity?
(Check ALL that apply)
( ) Keyboarding speed
( ) Input technology available
( ) Administrative assistance available
( ) Greater writing skills/content creation training
( ) Document creation method training through increased software competency
( ) Other business (please identify) ________________________________________

Comments regarding written communications productivity:

_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

THE SURVEY IS NOW COMPLETE! THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ASSISTANCE. IT IS GREATLY
APPRECIATED.
If you would like the studys overall results sent to you upon completion of the study, please provide your e-mail address in the following space:
________________________________
Please be assured that your address will be kept completely confidential and destroyed upon one-time use. It will neither be sold nor shared
with any outside party and will only be used to provide survey results to you.
Please mail all materials to:
Business Professionals Study
Department of WED
275 Clocktower Dr.
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Carbondale, IL 62901-4605

172
B5:

Panel of Expert Members

Table B5
Panel of Expert Members
Dr. Marsha Bayless
Department of General Business
College of Business
Stephen F. Austin State University

Dr. Lillian Chaney

Department of Management
Fogelman College of Business & Economics
University of Memphis

Dr. Tena Crews

Department of Technology Support & Training
Management
College of Hospitality, Retail, & Sport
Management
University of South Carolina

Dr. Kay Durden

Department of Computer Science &
Information Systems
College of Business and Public Affairs
University of Tennessee at Martin

Dr. Barbara Hagler

Department of Workforce Education &
Development
College of Education
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale

Dr. Bobbie H. Krapels

Department of Management
School of Business Administration
University of Mississippi

Dr. Carol M. Lehman

Management & Information Systems
Department
College of Business & Industry
Mississippi State University

Dr. Beryl McEwen

Department of Business Education
School of Business & Economics
North Carolina A&T State University

Dr. Peter F. Meggison

Computer Technology & Information
Management Department
Division of Business & Technology
Massasoit Community College

Dr. Robert Mitchell

Department of Management
College of Business
University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Dr. Sharon Lund ONeil

Department of Information & Logistics
Technology
College of Technology
University of Houston

Dr. Larry Pagel

Department of Office Information Systems
Walker L. Cisler College of Business
Northern Michigan University

(Table B5 continues)

173

(Table B5 continued)
Panel of Expert Members (Continued)
Dr. Donna H. Redmann
School of Human Resource Education
& Workforce Development
College of Agriculture
Louisiana State University
Dr. Marcel M. Robles
Department of Management, Marketing, &
Administrative Communication
College of Business & Technology
Eastern Kentucky University
Dr. Lila Waldman
Department of Business Education &
Office Information Systems
College of Business
Bloomsburg University
Dr. Kelly Wilkinson
Department of administrative Systems &
Business Education
College of Business
Indiana State University
Dr. Dawn Woodland
Department of Technology Support &
Training
Eberly College of Business
Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Terry D. Roach

Department of Management & Marketing
College of Business
Arkansas State University
Dr. James Calvert Scott
Department of Business Information
Systems
College of Business
Utah State University
Dr. Cheryl Wiedmaier
Department of Middle/Secondary
Education & Instructional Technologies
College of Education
University of Central Arkansas
Dr. Janet Winter
Department of Management & Business
Communications
Harmon College of Business
Administration
Central Missouri State University
Dr. Helene L. Zimmerman
Professor Emeritus
Central Michigan University

174

APPENDIX C
MATERIALS FOR PILOT STUDY INSTRUMENT ADMINISTRATION AND
REVIEW
C1:

Three Prepostcards Sent to Pilot Study(and Greater

Population) SubjectsUniversity Specific

C2a:

Letter of Instruction to Murray State University MBA

Graduate Pilot Study Subjects

C2b:

Letter of Instruction to Southern Illinois University MBA

Graduate Pilot Study Subjects

C2c:

Letter of Instruction to University of Tennessee at Martin

MBA Graduate Pilot Study Subjects

C3:

Pilot Study Instrument Review Form

C4:

Pilot Instrument

C5:

Pilot Study Instrument Review Results and Comments for

Improvement

175

C1:

Three Prepostcards Sent to Pilot Study SubjectsUniversity

Specific

176
C2a:

Letter of Instruction to Murray State University MBA Graduate Pilot Study

Subjects

April 22, 2005

[Professionals Name and Address]

Dear _________:
As an MBA, you are one of a very limited group who has been selected to participate in a
pilot study being conducted through Southern Illinois University Carbondale. I am a
Murray State MBA graduate as well as a doctoral candidate at Southern Illinois
University Carbondale, where I am conducting dissertation research regarding the
creation and facilitation of business messages on the job. Your education at Murray State
and experience as a business professional has provided you with expertise that is crucial
to this study. Input concerning your on the job experience is necessary to gain
information regarding several questions that the study investigates. The overall objective
of the study is to potentially assist with the update and improvement of baccalaureate
instruction in business communication.
The obtainment of your input is essential before the survey research is conducted. A
copy of my proposed questionnaire and cover letter are enclosed for your examination.
Please read the cover letter and complete the questionnaire, then answer the questions on
the blue form. Please place all materials in the prepaid envelope and back in the mail to
me by Friday, May 6, 2005. If you have any questions, please contact me (270-5593733), or my dissertation chair, Dr. Marcia A. Anderson (618-453-1968).
Please accept this small gift from your alma mater as a token of appreciation for your
help. Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to assist with this
study.
Sincerely,
Joy Roach, MBA
Department of Workforce Education and Development
219 Pulliam Hall
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Carbondale, IL 62901-4605
Enclosures
This research project has been reviewed and approved by the SIU Carbondale Committee for Research
Involving Human Subjects. This committee believes that the research procedures adequately safeguard
your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, and rights. If you have concerns, the chair of the committee may be
reached through the Graduate School, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, 629014709, or by calling the committee office at 618-453-4533.

177

C2b:

Letter of Instruction to Southern Illinois University MBA Graduate Pilot Study

Subjects

April 22, 2005

[Professionals Name and Address]
Dear _________:
As an MBA, you are one of a very limited group who has been selected to participate in a
pilot study being conducted through Southern Illinois University Carbondale. I hold an
MBA and am a doctoral candidate at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, where I am
conducting dissertation research regarding the creation and facilitation of business
messages on the job. Your education at SIUC and experience as a business professional
has provided you with expertise that is crucial to this study. Input concerning your on the
job experience is necessary to gain information regarding several questions that the study
investigates. The overall objective of the study is to potentially assist with the update and
improvement of baccalaureate instruction in business communication.
The obtainment of your input is essential before the survey research is conducted. A
copy of my proposed questionnaire and cover letter are enclosed for your examination.
Please read the cover letter and complete the questionnaire, then answer the questions on
the blue form. Please place all materials in the prepaid envelope and back in the mail to
me by Friday, May 6, 2005. If you have any questions, please contact me (270-5593733), or my dissertation chair, Dr. Marcia A. Anderson (618-453-1968).
Please accept this small gift from your alma mater as a token of appreciation for your
help. Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to assist with this
study.
Sincerely,

Joy Roach, MBA

Department of Workforce Education and Development
219 Pulliam Hall
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Carbondale, IL 62901-4605
Enclosures
This research project has been reviewed and approved by the SIU Carbondale Committee for Research
Involving Human Subjects. This committee believes that the research procedures adequately safeguard
your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, and rights. If you have concerns, the chair of the committee may be
reached through the Graduate School, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, 629014709, or by calling the committee office at 618-453-4533.

178
C2c:

Letter of Instruction to University of Tennessee at Martin MBA Graduate Pilot

Study Subjects

April 22, 2005

[Professionals Name and Address]
Dear _________:
As an MBA, you are one of a very limited group who has been selected to participate in a
pilot study being conducted through Southern Illinois University Carbondale. I am a
faculty member at UT Martin as well as a doctoral candidate at Southern Illinois
University Carbondale, where I am conducting dissertation research regarding the
creation and facilitation of business messages on the job. Your education at UT Martin
and experience as a business professional has provided you with expertise that is crucial
to this study. Input concerning your on the job experience is necessary to gain
information regarding several questions that the study investigates. The overall objective
of the study is to potentially assist with the update and improvement of baccalaureate
instruction in business communication.
The obtainment of your input is essential before the survey research is conducted. A
copy of my proposed questionnaire and cover letter are enclosed for your examination.
Please read the cover letter and complete the questionnaire, then answer the questions on
the blue form. Please place all materials in the prepaid envelope and back in the mail to
me by Friday, May 6, 2005. If you have any questions, please contact me (270-5593733), or my dissertation chair, Dr. Marcia A. Anderson (618-453-1968).
Please accept this small gift from your alma mater as a token of appreciation for your
help. Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to assist with this
study.
Sincerely,

Joy Roach, MBA

Department of Workforce Education and Development
219 Pulliam Hall
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Carbondale, IL 62901-4605
Enclosures
This research project has been reviewed and approved by the SIU Carbondale Committee for Research
Involving Human Subjects. This committee believes that the research procedures adequately safeguard
your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, and rights. If you have concerns, the chair of the committee may be
reached through the Graduate School, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, 629014709, or by calling the committee office at 618-453-4533.

179
C3:

Pilot Study Instrument Review Form

Business Professionals Written Message Creation Practices and Productivity

Perceptions
Pilot Study Questionnaire Evaluation
Please respond to the following items after you have completed the enclosed
questionnaire.

1. Were there any instructions that were difficult to understand?

Yes

No

If yes, please cite the section(s) or question(s) and any suggestions for
improvement:
Section # _____ or Question # _____
Section # _____ or Question # _____

2. Were there any questions that were difficult to understand?

Yes

No

If yes, please cite the question(s) and any suggestions for improvement:
Question # _____
Question # _____
Question # _____
Question # _____
3. How long did it take to complete the questionnaire?

Yes

Is it too long?

Approximately _____ minutes.

No

4. After reading the cover letter that came with the questionnaire, would you be
persuaded to respond?

Yes

No

Perhaps

What suggestions do you have for improving the cover letter?

180
5. Please rate the overall difficulty in completing the questionnaire:

Extremely Difficult

Difficult

Moderate

Easy

Extremely Easy

6. Additional comments/suggestions:

______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

THANK YOU for your help.

181

C4:

Pilot Instrument

Business Professionals Written Message Creation Practices and Productivity Perceptions

The purpose of this survey is to receive input concerning the processes you use to create business messages and
documents (e-mails, forms, letters, memos, and reports). By gaining information on the current practices of
professionals on the job, the results of this study may serve to improve postsecondary business program
curricula. As a business professional, your perceptions and expertise are essential to the study. Your responses
are completely confidential. Thank you so much for your time and assistance. (Please use a dark pen or pencil.
If you would like to obtain the overall results upon the completion of this study, please see the directions that
conclude this survey.)
Are you currently working in a position that requires you to create business messages or documents?
Yes
If yes, please answer the following questions.
No
If no, please stop here and return this form in the enclosed envelope.

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROFESSIONAL:

1. Gender:

Female

Male

2. What was (were) your undergraduate major(s)?

(Please identify) __________________________________________________________________
3. Your age range:
(Please check one.)
below 25
25-34

35-44
45-55
56 and above

4. What is your current position within the firm?

(Please check one.)
Senior management
Mid-level management

First-line supervisory
Professional staff
Other (please identify)________________________________

5. What classification best describes the type of organization for which you work?
(Please check one.)
Agriculture, mining, construction
Manufacturing
Education
Retail trade (including restaurants)
Entrepreneurial
Services (including hospitals, hotels)
Financial, insurance, real estate
Wholesale trade
Government agency
Other (please identify)_______________________________

SECTION 2: DOCUMENT CREATION METHODS AND QUALITY:

6.

What technology for composing business messages/documents

do you have access to in your work area (or on a business trip)?
(Please check all that apply.)
PDA (personal digital assistant)
Computer with voice recognition software
(please identify which software)__________________
Laptop/tablet PC
Computer with word processing software
E-mail
Scanner
Dictation unit
Typewriter
Other (please identify)__________________________

7. What level of administrative support is available to

assist with your business message preparation?
(Please check all that apply.)
Full-time (40+ hours per week) administrative
assistant who works only for me
Part-time (<40 hours per week) administrative
assistant who works only for me
Share administrative assistant(s) with
other professionals
No administrative assistance available
Other (please identify)___________________

Continued on Next Page

page 1

Internal Communication Communication to persons WITHIN the firm (includes e-mails, forms, internal reports, and memos)
8. Overall, how would you rate the writing quality of
internal written communication that your colleagues
routinely create? Consider keying accuracy, punctuation,
grammar, organization, and writing style.

9. Overall, how would you rate the information quality of

internal written communication that your colleagues
routinely create? Consider relevance and completeness of
information, accuracy, conciseness, and clarity.

Excellent
Good
Adequate
Poor
Very poor

10.

Excellent
Good
Adequate
Poor
Very poor

Which internal message type seems to be of the poorest quality overall?

(Please check ONLY ONE.)
E-mail messages
Forms
Internal Reports
Memos
Other (Please identify)_____________________________________________

External Communication Communication to persons OUTSIDE the firm (includes e-mails, external reports, and letters)
11. Overall, how would you rate the writing quality of
external written communication you have seen that your
colleagues or employees of other firms routinely create?
Consider keying accuracy, punctuation, grammar,
organization, and writing style.

12. Overall, how would you rate the information quality of

external written communication you have seen that your
colleagues or employees of other firms routinely create?
Consider relevance and completeness of information,
accuracy, conciseness, and clarity.

Excellent
Good
Adequate
Poor
Very poor

13.

14.

Excellent
Good
Adequate
Poor
Very poor

Which external message type seems to be of the poorest quality overall?

(Please check ONLY ONE.)
E-mail messages
External Reports
Letters
Other (Please identify)_____________________________________________
Using the scale below, please circle the responses appropriate for the time you spend creating the following
messages/documents using a variety of input methods. For example, if you regularly key and complete
myself with no assistance when composing e-mail messages, circle the 4 in the first set of numbers.
4
3
2
1

=
=
=
=

Regularly
Sometimes
Seldom
Never

(71%-100% of total writing time at work)

(36%-70% of total writing time at work)
(1%-35% of total writing time at work)
(0% of total writing time at work)

E-MAIL
MESSAGES

MEMOS

LETTERS

REPORTS

FORMS

OTHER (identify)

Key and complete myself with no assistance

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

Key a draft for assistant to edit and complete

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

Dictate to voice recognition and complete myself

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

Dictate to voice recognition and assistant completes

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

Dictate directly to assistant or dictation unit

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

Handwrite for assistant to edit and complete

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

Other (please identify)_______________________

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

___________

Continued on Next Page

page 2

SECTION 3: PREPARATION FACTORS:

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements by marking an X in the corresponding box.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

15. English/language courses in high school sufficiently prepared

me for the type of business messages/documents I now
create at work.
16. I frequently apply business writing skills learned in my
undergraduate English courses.
17. I wish I had taken more undergraduate courses in written
communication.
18. I no longer create my business messages/documents in the
same manner that was taught in my undergraduate business
communication (or other business) class(es).
19. I had training in my MBA program that sufficiently
covered how to write for business.
20. I no longer create my business messages/documents in the
same manner that was taught in my MBA program.
21. I had company-sponsored training
programs/orientations that sufficiently addressed workplace
written communication issues.
22. When I joined this firm, I had to work hard to be able
to create the most appropriate business messages in
a fast-paced environment.
23. My organization has provided sufficient training
to enhance the input methods (software,
voice recognition, etc.) I use to create written
communication at work.
24. My organization has provided sufficient training to develop
my keyboarding/typing speed and accuracy.
25. I need more training in regard to writing skills such as
punctuation and grammar.
26. I need more training in regard to writing skills such as
style and scope (i.e., tone, organization, and flow).
27. I had sufficient formal training on how to correctly
format business documents such as memos, letters, and
reports.
28. Formal training in e-mail message composition and etiquette
is unnecessary.
29. I feel confident about my ability to create business
messages/documents that are understood.
30. Sometimes I wish my undergraduate or MBA
curricula had covered more aspects of choosing the
right words in stressful situations.

31. Where did you learn to keyboard/type?

(Please check all that apply.)

32. What training BEST prepared you to create business messages?

(Please check ONLY ONE.)

Keyboarding training in elementary school

Keyboarding training in middle/junior high school
Keyboarding training in high school
Keyboarding training at college/university
In-house workplace training
Learned on my own
Attended external seminar(s)/workshop(s)
on my own initiative
Other (please identify)_______________________

High school course(s)

Undergraduate business communication course(s)
Other undergrad course(s) (please identify)_____________
MBA communication course(s)
In-house workplace training
Learned on my own
Attended external seminar(s)/workshop(s)
on my own initiative
Other (please identify)_____________________________

Continued on Next Page

page 3

SECTION 4: PRODUCTIVITY FACTORS:

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements by marking an X in the corresponding box.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

33. I often feel overwhelmed with all of the written

communication I must complete in a typical work day.
34. I would be more productive if my organization had a more
strict policy for limiting personal e-mails.
35. I put forth effort to produce error free print documents such as
letters and memos.
36. I use Microsoft Word to create almost all types of written
documents (memos, letters, reports, etc.).
37. If Im rushed, I will usually have an administrative support
person compose my document.
38. I sometimes feel that my business messages and documents would
be more useful if they had been sent sooner.
39. I believe I could be more productive if I had another way to
create documents other than keying.
40. I often send more than 10 business-related e-mails a day.
41. I put forth effort to make my business e-mails error free.
42. The types (memos, letters, etc.) of messages I create in a
given day at work vary widely.
43. I am proud of the written business messages and documents
I create.
44. I take a lot of time to format a written business message or
document.
45. I frequently have difficulty putting my ideas into written words.
46. Having time to learn more word processing software features
would help me be more productive in the creation of business
documents.
47. Voice recognition software has helped me increase my speed in
business message/document processing.
48. I sometimes feel unproductive at work due to slowness
in composing effectively-worded written messages.

49. Which workplace written communication skill do you consider a

weakness that is the MOST DIFFICULT for you to overcome?
(Please check ONLY ONE.)
Keyboarding speed
Skills in using voice recognition software
Writing skills/content creation skills
Choosing the appropriate method of creation
(such as dictation, keyboarding, etc.)
Choosing the appropriate type of communication
(such as letter, memo, e-mail, etc.)
Other (please explain) ___________________________

50. Which workplace written communication inputs would

you like to implement to increase your productivity?
(Check all that apply.)
Increased keyboarding speed
Availability of input technology
Availability of administrative assistance
Greater writing skills/content creation training
Greater training in document creation
through increased software competency
Other (please explain) ____________________

Please provide comments you have regarding the aspects of workplace written communication addressed in this survey:

_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

The survey is now complete. Thank you. Your time and assistance are greatly appreciated.
If you would like the overall results sent to you upon completion of the study, please provide your e-mail address in the following space:
______________________________________________________
Please be assured that your e-mail address will not be linked with any of your responses on this survey. Your address will be kept completely confidential
and destroyed upon one-time use. It will neither be sold nor shared with any outside party and will only be used to provide survey results to you.

Thank you. Please send to: Study of Business Professionals, 219 Pulliam Hall, SIUC, Carbondale, IL 62901-4605

page 4

186

C5:

Pilot Study Instrument Review Results and Comments for Improvement

Business Professionals Written Message Creation Practices and Productivity

Perceptions
Pilot Study Questionnaire Evaluation
Please respond to the following items after you have completed the enclosed
questionnaire.

1. Were there any instructions that were difficult to understand?

Results:

Yes
3
(9.4%)

Yes

No

No
29
(90.6%)

If yes, please cite the section(s) or question(s) and any suggestions for
improvement:
Pilot Subject

22

Question
Needing
Improvement
14

22

28

24
26

14
14

Comment:

The rows & columns should have been reversed-very odd

format.
If one reads unnecessary as necessary question changes
should say not necessary
[No comment provided]
[No comment provided]

2. Were there any questions that were difficult to understand?

Results:

Yes
3
(9.4%)

Yes

No
28
(87.5%)

If yes, please cite the question(s) and any suggestions for improvement:
Pilot Subject

22
22

Question
Needing
Improvement
14
6, 14

Comment:

[No comment provided]

Im not sure many people even know what voice
recognition software is.

No

187

3. How long did it take to complete the questionnaire?

Yes

Is it too long?

Approximately _____ minutes.

No

Results:
Yes
3
(9.4%)

Approximately _____ minutes.

Minutes
Frequency
Percentage
5
3
9.4%
10
17
53.1%
15
10
31.3%
20
2
6.3%

No
28
(87.5%)

4. After reading the cover letter that came with the questionnaire, would you be
persuaded to respond?

Yes

No

Perhaps

Results:
Yes
18
(56.3%)

No
2
(6.3%)

Perhaps
12
(37.5%)

What suggestions do you have for improving the cover letter?

Pilot Subject
2
12
22

23
24
26

Comment:
Looks good.
None

Anyone conducting survey research without an

option to respond online is perceived as behind
the times. Services like Zoomerang.com are
better and cheaper.
None
Tell what the results of the study will lead to.
Shorten.

188
5. Please rate the overall difficulty in completing the questionnaire:

Extremely Difficult

Difficult

Moderate

Easy

Results:

Please rate the overall difficulty in completing the questionnaire

Extremely Difficult
Difficult
Moderate
Easy
Extremely Easy

0
1
6
19
6

0.0%
3.1%
18.8%
59.4%
18.8%

6. Additional comments/suggestions:

Pilot Subject
2
7
9
13
20
26

Comment:
Maybe a bit too long, but overall pretty well done.
Questions 33-48 should have had a N/A column.
Thanks for the pen!
Repetitive questions!
Some questions dont apply to my business so please add
non-applicable. Thanks.
Shorten.

Extremely Easy

189

APPENDIX D
BUSINESS PROFESSIONALS WRITTEN MESSAGE CREATION PRACTICES
AND PRODUCTIVITY PERCEPTIONS
INSTRUMENTATION AND POPULATION CORRESPONDENCE

D1a:

Cover Letter to MBA Graduates of Murray State University

D1b:

Cover Letter to MBA Graduates of Southern Illinois University Carbondale

D1c:

Cover Letter to MBA Graduates of the University of Tennessee at Martin

D2:

Final Instrument Administered to Population

D3:

Follow-Up Postcard

190

D1a:

Cover Letter to MBA Graduates of Murray State University

August 2, 2005

[Professionals Name & Address]

Dear [Title & Name]:
As an MBA and business professional, you have been selected to contribute your perceptions
and opinions in a new study related to the writing tasks you complete at work. The objective
of the study is to potentially assist with the update and improvement of business
communication curricula at the university level. I hold an MBA from Murray State and am a
doctoral candidate at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, where I am conducting
dissertation research regarding the creation and facilitation of business documents. As an
MBA graduate from Murray State, your input is vital to this investigation. A few minutes of
your valuable time to complete the material included in this envelope will indeed be
appreciated. You should be able to finish the survey in only 10 minutes. Once you have
completed the survey, please enclose it in the provided addressed and stamped envelope, and
place it in the mail by Wednesday, August 17, 2005.
The return of this completed survey indicates voluntary consent to participate in this study.
All individual responses will be kept strictly confidential. Neither your name nor any other
personal information will appear anywhere--only a numerical code will be linked with your
survey. Further, the assigned code linking your responses to you will be kept in a secure
location, accessible only to select researchers, and destroyed upon completion of the study.
THANK YOU very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to assist with this
important study. Please accept this small gift from your alma mater as a token of
appreciation for your help. If you have any questions, please contact me at 270-5593733/roach@siu.edu or my supervising professor, Dr. Marcia A. Anderson, at 618-4531968/mandersn@siu.edu.
Sincerely,

Joy Roach, MBA

Enclosures
This research project has been reviewed and approved by the SIU Carbondale Committee for Research
Involving Human Subjects. This committee believes that the research procedures adequately safeguard
your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, and rights. If you have concerns, the chair of the committee may be
reached through the Graduate School, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, 629014709, or by calling the committee office at 618-453-4533.

191

D1b:

Cover Letter to MBA Graduates of Southern Illinois University Carbondale

August 2, 2005

[Professionals Name & Address]

Dear [Title & Name]:
As an MBA and business professional, you have been selected to contribute your perceptions
and opinions in a new study related to the writing tasks you complete at work. The objective
of the study is to potentially assist with the update and improvement of business
communication curricula at the university level. I hold an MBA and am a doctoral candidate
at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, where I am conducting dissertation research
regarding the creation and facilitation of business documents. As an MBA graduate from
SIUC, your input is vital to this investigation. A few minutes of your valuable time to
complete the material included in this envelope will indeed be appreciated. You should be
able to finish the survey in only 10 minutes. Once you have completed the survey, please
enclose it in the provided addressed and stamped envelope, and place it in the mail by
Wednesday, August 17, 2005.
The return of this completed survey indicates voluntary consent to participate in this study.
All individual responses will be kept strictly confidential. Neither your name nor any other
personal information will appear anywhere--only a numerical code will be linked with your
survey. Further, the assigned code linking your responses to you will be kept in a secure
location, accessible only to select researchers, and destroyed upon completion of the study.
THANK YOU very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to assist with this
important study. Please accept this small gift from your alma mater as a token of
appreciation for your help. If you have any questions, please contact me at 270-5593733/roach@siu.edu or my supervising professor, Dr. Marcia A. Anderson, at 618-4531968/mandersn@siu.edu.
Sincerely,

Joy Roach, MBA

Enclosures
This research project has been reviewed and approved by the SIU Carbondale Committee for Research
Involving Human Subjects. This committee believes that the research procedures adequately safeguard
your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, and rights. If you have concerns, the chair of the committee may be
reached through the Graduate School, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, 629014709, or by calling the committee office at 618-453-4533.

192

D1c:

Cover Letter to MBA Graduates of the University of Tennessee at Martin

August 2, 2005

[Professionals Name & Address]

Dear [Title & Name]:
As an MBA and business professional, you have been selected to contribute your perceptions
and opinions in a new study related to the writing tasks you complete at work. The objective
of the study is to potentially assist with the update and improvement of business
communication curricula at the university level. I am a faculty member at the University of
Tennessee at Martin as well as a doctoral candidate at Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, where I am conducting dissertation research regarding the creation and
facilitation of business documents. As an MBA graduate from UT Martin, your input is vital
to this investigation. A few minutes of your valuable time to complete the material included
in this envelope will indeed be appreciated. You should be able to finish the survey in only
10 minutes. Once you have completed the survey, please enclose it in the provided addressed
and stamped envelope, and place it in the mail by Wednesday, August 17, 2005.
The return of this completed survey indicates voluntary consent to participate in this study.
All individual responses will be kept strictly confidential. Neither your name nor any other
personal information will appear anywhere--only a numerical code will be linked with your
survey. Further, the assigned code linking your responses to you will be kept in a secure
location, accessible only to select researchers, and destroyed upon completion of the study.
THANK YOU very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to assist with this
important study. Please accept this small gift from your alma mater as a token of
appreciation for your help. If you have any questions, please contact me at 270-5593733/roach@siu.edu or my supervising professor, Dr. Marcia A. Anderson, at 618-4531968/mandersn@siu.edu.
Sincerely,

Joy Roach, MBA

Enclosures
This research project has been reviewed and approved by the SIU Carbondale Committee for Research
Involving Human Subjects. This committee believes that the research procedures adequately safeguard
your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, and rights. If you have concerns, the chair of the committee may be
reached through the Graduate School, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, 629014709, or by calling the committee office at 618-453-4533.

193

D2:

Final Instrument

Business Professionals Written Message Creation Practices and Productivity Perceptions

The purpose of this survey is to receive input concerning the processes you use to create business messages and documents
(e-mails, forms, letters, memos, and reports). By gaining information on the current practices of professionals on the job, the
results of this study may serve to improve postsecondary business program curricula. As a business professional, your
perceptions and expertise are essential to the study. Thank you so much for your time and assistance. (Please use a dark
pen or pencil. If you would like to obtain the overall results of this study, please see the directions that conclude this survey.)

Are you currently working in a position that requires you to create business messages or documents?
Yes
If yes, please answer the following questions.
No
If no, please stop here and return this form in the enclosed envelope.

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROFESSIONAL:

1. Gender:

Female

Male

2. What was (were) your undergraduate major(s)?

(Please identify.) __________________________________________________________________
3. Your age range:
(Please check one.)
Below 25
25-34

35-44
45-55
56 and above

4. What is your current position within your organization?

(Please check one.)
Senior management
First-line supervisory
Mid-level management
Professional staff
Other (please identify)________________________________
5. What classification best describes the type of organization for which you work?
(Please check one.)
Agriculture, mining, construction
Manufacturing
Education
Retail trade (including restaurants)
Entrepreneurial
Services (including hospitals, hotels)
Financial, insurance, real estate
Wholesale trade
Government agency
Other (please identify)_______________________________

SECTION 2: BUSINESS MESSAGE/DOCUMENT CREATION METHODS AND QUALITY:

6. What technology for composing business messages/documents
do you have access to in your work area (or on a business trip)?
(Please check all that apply.)

7. What level of administrative support is available to

assist with your business message/document preparation?
(Please check all that apply.)

PDA (personal digital assistant)

Computer with voice recognition software
(please identify which software)__________________
Laptop/tablet PC
Computer with word processing software
E-mail
Scanner
Dictation unit
Typewriter
Other (please identify)__________________________

Continued on Next Page

Full-time (40+ hours per week) administrative

assistant who works only for me
Part-time (<40 hours per week) administrative
assistant who works only for me
Share administrative assistant(s) with
other professionals
No administrative assistance available
Other (please identify)________________________

page 1

8.

Using the scale below, please circle the responses appropriate for the frequency in which you create the following
messages/documents using a variety of input methods. For example, if you always key and complete
myself with no assistance when composing e-mail messages, circle the 3 in the first set of numbers.

3
2
1

= Always
= Sometimes
= Never
E-MAIL
MESSAGES

MEMOS

LETTERS

REPORTS

FORMS

Key and complete myself with no assistance

3 2 1

3 2

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

Key a draft for assistant to edit and complete

3 2 1

3 2

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

Dictate to voice recognition and complete myself

3 2 1

3 2

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

Dictate to voice recognition and assistant completes

3 2 1

3 2

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

Dictate directly to assistant or dictation unit

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2

3 2 1

Handwrite for assistant to edit and complete

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2

3 2 1

Internal Communication Communication to persons WITHIN the firm (includes e-mails, forms, internal reports, and memos)
9. Overall, how would you rate the writing quality of
internal written communication that your colleagues
routinely create? Consider keying accuracy, punctuation,
grammar, organization, and writing style.

10. Overall, how would you rate the information quality of

internal written communication that your colleagues
routinely create? Consider relevance and completeness
of information, accuracy, conciseness, and clarity.

Excellent
Good
Adequate
Poor
Very poor

11.

Excellent
Good
Adequate
Poor
Very poor

Which internal message type seems to be of the poorest quality overall?

(Please check ONLY ONE.)
E-mail messages
Memos
Forms
Other (Please identify)______________________________
Internal reports

External Communication Communication to persons OUTSIDE the firm (includes e-mails, external reports, and letters)
12. Overall, how would you rate the writing quality of
external written communication you have seen that your
colleagues or employees of other firms routinely create?
Consider keying accuracy, punctuation, grammar,
organization, and writing style.

13. Overall, how would you rate the information quality of

external written communication you have seen that your
colleagues or employees of other firms routinely create?
Consider relevance and completeness of information,
accuracy, conciseness, and clarity.

Excellent
Good
Adequate
Poor
Very poor

14.

Excellent
Good
Adequate
Poor
Very poor

Which external message type seems to be of the poorest quality overall?

(Please check ONLY ONE.)
E-mail messages
Letters
External reports
Other (Please identify)_____________________________________________

Continued on Next Page

page 2

SECTION 3: BUSINESS MESSAGE/DOCUMENT CREATION PREPARATION FACTORS:

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements by marking an X in the corresponding box.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

N/A

15. English/language courses in high school sufficiently

prepared me for the type of business messages/documents
I now create at work.
16. I frequently apply business writing skills learned in my
undergraduate English courses.
17. I wish I had taken more undergraduate courses in written
communication.
18. I no longer create my business messages/documents in the
same manner that was taught in my undergraduate
business communication (or other business) class(es).
19. I had training in my MBA program that sufficiently
covered how to write for business.
20. I no longer create my business messages/documents in the
same manner that was taught in my MBA program.
21. I had company-sponsored training programs/orientations
that sufficiently addressed workplace written
communication issues.
22. When I joined this organization, I had to work hard to be
able to create the most appropriate business messages in
a fast-paced environment.
23. My organization has provided sufficient training to enhance
the input methods (software, voice recognition, etc.) I use
to create written communication at work.
24. My organization has provided sufficient training to develop
my keyboarding/typing speed and accuracy.
25. I need more training in regard to writing skills such as
punctuation and grammar.
26. I need more training in regard to writing skills such as
style and scope (i.e., tone, organization, and flow).
27. I had sufficient formal training on how to correctly format
business documents such as memos, letters, and reports.
28. Formal training in e-mail message composition and
etiquette is not necessary.
29. I feel confident about my ability to create business
messages/documents that are understood.
30. Sometimes I wish my undergraduate or MBA curricula had
covered more aspects of choosing the right words in
stressful situations.

31. Where did you learn to keyboard/type?

(Please check all that apply.)

32. What training BEST prepared you to create business messages?

(Please check ONLY ONE.)

Keyboarding training in elementary school

Keyboarding training in middle/junior high school
Keyboarding training in high school
Keyboarding training at college/university
In-house workplace training
Learned on my own
Attended external seminar(s)/workshop(s)
on my own initiative
Other (please identify)_______________________

High school course(s)

Undergraduate business communication course(s)
Other undergrad course(s) (please identify)____________
MBA communication course(s)
In-house workplace training
Learned on my own
Attended external seminar(s)/workshop(s)
on my own initiative
Other (please identify)_____________________________

Continued on Next Page

page 3

SECTION 4: BUSINESS MESSAGE/DOCUMENT PRODUCTIVITY FACTORS:

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements by marking an X in the corresponding box.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

33. I often feel overwhelmed with all of the written communication I

must complete in a typical work day.
34. I would be more productive if my organization had a (more
strict) policy for limiting personal e-mails.
35. I put forth effort to produce error free print documents such as
letters and memos.
36. I use Microsoft Word to create almost all types of written
documents (memos, letters, reports, etc.).
37. If Im rushed, I will usually have an administrative support
person compose my document.
38. I sometimes feel that my business messages and documents would
be more effective if they had been sent sooner.
39. I believe I could be more productive if I had another way to
create documents other than keying.
40. I often send more than 10 business-related e-mails a day.
41. I put forth effort to make my business e-mails error free.
42. The types (memos, letters, etc.) of messages I create in a
given day at work vary widely.
43. I am proud of the written business messages and documents
I create.
44. I take a lot of time to format a written business message or
document.
45. I frequently have difficulty putting my ideas into written words.
46. Having time to learn more word processing software features
would help me be more productive in the creation of business
documents.
47. Voice recognition software has helped me increase my speed in
business message/document processing.
48. I sometimes feel unproductive at work due to slowness in
composing effectively-worded written messages.

49. Which workplace written communication skill do you consider a

weakness that is the MOST DIFFICULT for you to overcome?
(Please check ONLY ONE.)
Keyboarding speed
Skills in using voice recognition software
Writing skills/content creation skills
Choosing the appropriate method of creation
(such as dictation, keyboarding, etc.)
Choosing the appropriate type of communication
(such as letter, memo, e-mail, etc.)
Other (please explain) ___________________________

50. Which workplace written communication inputs would

you like to implement to increase your productivity?
(Check all that apply.)
Increased keyboarding speed
Availability of input technology
Availability of administrative assistance
Greater writing skills/content creation training
Greater training in document creation
through increased software competency
Other (please explain) ____________________

Please provide comments you have regarding the aspects of workplace written communication addressed in this survey

_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

The survey is now complete. Thank you. Your time and assistance are greatly appreciated.
If you would like the overall results sent to you upon completion of the study, please provide your e-mail address in the following space:
______________________________________________________
Please be assured that your e-mail address will not be linked with any of your responses on this survey. Your address will be kept completely confidential
and destroyed upon one-time use. It will neither be sold nor shared with any outside party and will only be used to provide survey results to you.

Thank you. Please send to: Study of Business Professionals, c/o J Roach, 1503 Beckett Dr, Murray, KY 42071-3201

page 4

198

D3:

Follow-Up Postcard

199

APPENDIX E
SUBJECT COMMENTS AND CROSSTABS TABLES

E1:

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES CLASSIFIED AS

OTHERS BY QUESTION AND SUBJECT

E2:

RESPONDENT COMMENTS

E3a:

CHI SQUARE RESULT TABLES FOR

PROFESSIONALS PERCEPTIONS OF PREPARATION
TO CREATE WRITTEN BUSINESS
COMMUNICATIONS

E3b:

SPSS CONTINGENCY TABLES FOR

PROFESSIONALS PERCEPTIONS OF PREPARATION
TO CREATE WRITTEN BUSINESS
COMMUNICATIONS CROSSTABS ANALYSES

E3c:

CHI SQUARE RESULT TABLES FOR

PROFESSIONALS PERCEPTIONS OF
PRODUCTIVITY IN CREATING WRITTEN BUSINESS
COMMUNICATIONS

E3d:

SPSS CONTINGENCY TABLES FOR

PROFESSIONALS PERCEPTIONS OF
PRODUCTIVITY IN CREATING WRITTEN BUSINESS
COMMUNICATIONS CROSSTABS ANALYSES

200

APPENDIX E1
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES CLASSIFIED AS OTHERS BY QUESTION AND
SUBJECT
Table E1
Responses Categorized as Others by Table Reference
Responses from Table 4 Respondents by Undergraduate Major(s)
SubjectNumber

Response

48
497
348
876
1207
361
264
1001
470
83
413
418
568
708
780
894
847
471
440
409
802
1057

General studies
University studies
Agribusiness
Administration of justice
Criminal justice
Music business
Home Economics
Fashion merchandising
WED-Healthcare MGT
Health care administration
Health care management
Hospitality management
Cinema & photography
Automotive technology
Aeronautics
Aviation management
Naval architecture
Workforce ed
Radio/Television
Japanese
Russian
International studies
From Table 7 - Respondents by Organizational Classification

48
920
1202
716
54

Nonprofit medical
501-C-3
NFP - evaluate/train the disabled for workforce
Oil & gas exploration & production
Natural gas transportation
(Table E1 continues)

201

(Table E1 continued)
From Table 7 - Respondents by Organizational Classification (cont.)
Subject Number

Response

272
240
847
55
495
367
1098
1199
435
897
666
908
475
1159
1085
1207
661
616
219
1119
47

Natural gas transmission company

Energy Transportation
Power industry
Chemical
Computer software
IT consulting
Clinical information systems
Engineering Design
Engineering Consulting
Technology outsourcing
Print/publishing / Marketing
Publishing/freelance writer/editor
Newspaper trade org (media)
Marketing
Sales
Sales/marketing
Hospitality/tourism
Aerospace
Sales
International shipping
Full-time artist and consultant

From Table 9 - Availability of Administrative Support in Message

Creation
249
Support available but I do most of it myself
43
Assistant manager assists with paperwork, but that
is not his sole task
631
Intern
47
Work alone
From Table 17 - Quality of Internal Messages by Type
306
108
233
851
264

Departmental procedures, policies

Instant Messaging
Newsletters
Notes
None--all excellent
(Table E1 continues)

202
(Table E1 continued)
From Table 20 - Quality of External Messages by Type
Subject Number Response
966
264
479
1219
343
250
539
326

916
770
108
367
306
250
1088
394
780
1281
919
380
530
132
759
1247
735
1191
861
693

Preprinted forms/bills
Invoicing errors
Web pages
Support messages - private case notes
Ads mailed to customers that the customers don't
understand
From Table 24 Venue of Keyboarding Preparation
Military
Still hunt and peck
Mother taught me too [sic].
From Table 25 - Most Effective Message Preparation
Other undergrad course(s)
Business courses
Tech writing
Tech writing class & ENG 101/102
English - tech writing
Writing workshop, Dr. Bob Darrell
Literature
Public speaking
Journalism
Other communication class
Biology lab coursework
Engineering
Center for English as a second language SIU
Carbondale
Other preparation
US Navy
Service in US Military
Military
Ed.D. studies
Law school
Law school writing courses
Legal writing JD
MsEd Health Education
(Table E1 continues)

203
(Table E1 continued)
From Table 25 - Most Effective Message Preparation (cont.)
Subject Number Response

1199
894
296
1205
388

Grad school ethnohistory - Was asked to rewrite for

class reading - that highlighted the problems quickly
Writing necessary for MBA courses
Combination of grad & undergrad
My first boss
Internship
Reading documents prepared by my colleages [sic]

951

Hands-on experience

1219

From Table 27 - Perception of Top Communication Skills Weakness

1155
95
83
264
303
1088
249
418
1221
1191
1292
1159
48
354
769
306
329
802
343
1059

Keyboarding accuracy
Formatting
Formatting a document (creating tables, etc.)
Use of software
Updates/changes in computer programs
What level of knowledge to write on depending on
what dept. I'm sending to
Grammer [sic]/Punctuation
When to e-mail to provide a "trail" of documentation
& when to have face to face conversation
Choosing the correct (or most effective) words
Word choice as it pertains to tone
Best wording
Managing multiple communications
Informal memos
Providing constructive critcism [sic] in writing
Clearly communicating complex topics/issues
Time it takes to obtain necessary info before I can
compose document.
Producing a quality error free document with limited
time.
Time to devote to top-notch comms.
Having uninterrupted time to communicate
Time to do it
(Table E1 continues)

204

(Table E1 continued)
From Table 27 - Perception of Top Communication Skills Weakness
(cont.)
Subject Number Response
111
1124
1219
275
1100

Being timely in communicating

Sharing admin assist & waiting on finished document
Thinking through the communication in a cubical
[sic] I cannot hear myself think & I have to wait
hours.
Lack of foreign language skills
Overcoming language barriers
From Table 28 Skills Development to Increase Productivity

1155
849
1263
418
55
1219
780
661
1100
388
440
511

Keyboarding accuracy
Voice recognition
Voice recognition software
Less volume of received email to need to respond to
Longer deadlines
Better document templates
Boiler plate correspondence
Others knowing more about how to communicate
Overcoming language barriers
More assistance in administrative help
Finding dedicated admin assist
Competent employees

205

Appendix E2
Respondent Comments
(Subject) Comment
(1076) I have struggled with proper grammar.
(1137) Most of my contacts have not taken any business communications courses and
could benefit from doing so. Many emails tend to be too informal when addressing
business issues with colleagues or clients, if I proofread a document for a co-worker I
typically make suggestions that make the message more clear, concise, & formal.
(920) I do not have voice recognition software. Two facts have greatly helped me: I
went to a top notch boarding school, and I majored in English for my B.A.
(419) Correct written communication is declining in the work place due to email.
(163) More grammar related courses on all educational levels.
(306) Five important components are proper spelling, grammar, sentence structure, style,
& format. Also people need to write to the audience.
(606) I do think that e-mail needs to be dealt with in courses; the best way to write them,
follow up, when to send, etc. It seems that interpretation of e-mail messages has caused a
lot of stress in my line of work.
(1100) Communication required between myself and other analysts/co-workers in Japan.
Trying to speak in a manner easiest for them is new to me.
(53) Voice recognition software is not used in my company.
(240) While I indicated that I had had sufficient training in writing skills & content, more
training would be beneficial. Any questions involving voice recognition software is not
applicable to my work environment.
(313) Writing skills should be focused on heavily in high school & undergraduate studies.
The quality of writing among new graduates is diminishing. They do not know how to
write simple policies, procedures, reports or even simple e-mail messages.
(86) Good luck!
(249) This is an area that many professionals are lacking. Communication is extremely
important in the business environment.

206

(916) Many individuals in professional roles do not have adequate writing skills.
(348) Sometimes the biggest difficulty is getting fellow employees to respond to my
communication that I have put in writing. Its too easy to ignore an email and I often have
to use the phone to chase people down.
(1045) My high school English grammar, spelling, and communication training was
outstanding; far better than any college courses. I also had outstanding training in typing
on a manual typewriter in high school. My background was a college piano major has
also contributed to my keyboard accuracy and speed. Most of my software skills as selftaught.
(1027) I send more than 100 e-mails a day.
(681) Of all of my friends & associates I do not know anyone that has access to an
admin assistant for writing not consulting firm partners not senior VPs. I have never
heard of anyone that is not handicaped using voice recognition software
furthermore it is not viable in cubes.
(743) Computers were not widely used when I was in high school or an undergraduate.
All computer skills I have had to learn on my own. Business letter writing was not
covered in any high school or undergraduate or graduate level course. I have had to
apply general writing skills to business type communications.
(841) Work place communication is not limited to e-mail and Microsoft Word
advanced skills in spreadsheets, slides (PowerPoint, etc.) is needed. I fine recent business
graduates lacking in these areas.
(708) One thing to consider for MBA curriculum is additional emphasis on
communication styles/etiquettes of various cultures.
(326) As technology ever increases, we as business professionals have to find creative
ways to eliminate the use of paper communications. As a result, I prefer communicating
via email and our business internal email/data communications system.
(530) I personally did not take college-level English courses. I learned my professional
writing skills on-the-job in the US Navy. Writing is a hobby for me.
(374) It is surprising how many people do not proof their work. Many do not use Spell
Check, let alone look for errors that Spell Check will not find.
(607) The cast majority of my written communication is through email. I am very careful
in proofreading the messages that I create. It amazes me how many emails I receive
throughout a typical day that have several spelling and grammatical errors. Good luck
with your study.

207

(663) Im not sure about some of these questions. I think the MBA is wonderful, but
written skills are important.
(927) Most employees send quick emails that often contain short, choppy, or incomplete
sentences.
(1219) I am a computer professional. Need a product to write manuals. Also need to
turn off lots of MS Word features. Also Outlook can be annoying. I document many
procedures, events in emails.
(95) I think workplace written communication needs to be given a higher ranking during
the MBA training. But I think I was fortunate to receive more training than most.
(948) I think that the most difficult part of business communication would be the ability
to answer questions when put on the spot or under pressure.
(1249) Emails are the most widely used form on communication today replacing the
telephone and its provides documentation.
(1258) When I was an undergrad only accounting majors were required to take Business
Communication. I always thought that was silly because all business majors should have
been exposed to that during undergrad.
(362) It is very important to write and create good writing skills in business
communications.
(199) Good luck! Interesting study. The use of voice recognition technology has not hit
our industry or at least not this region. Might include questions as far as form letters. We
use lots of can or form letters and modify.
(516) Good written communication skills are essential in ones daily operations.
(661) I strongly recommend a series of Speech Communication / Interpersonal Comm.
Classes manditory for all business students. Many undergrad curriculum in this prepared
me more for the business world than my prerequisite business classes I had to take. The
MBA has been useful in general knowledge and aspects of business development, but the
day-to-day tasks were better developed by my undergrad. education.
(367) email still the number one communication method used at my workplace. Then
comes internal website.
(319) I think more professionals should proofread their communications before sending
them. Spelling is a major challenge for many people.
(730) I havent used voice recognition software but I think it would be very beneficial to
my work, and it would save time.

208

(1260) I have observed that business communication is becoming less formal over time
and that information content and clarity has suffered accordingly.
(1166) Technically speaking any softwares or input technology does not matter to
improve my business. Probably 90% of communication would be verbal. Think of the
original meaning of message! This is only a one-way notice. You just send them. Thats
it. You have to listen!!!
(265) 1) Questions almost seem to be steering you toward a preselected answer. 2)
Bottom line: a) Business majors need more English/writing courses/training b) Email has
replaced memos & letters, both internally & externally. More training needed for this
fairly new business communication tool.
(270) Technical writing undergrad course was basis for formal training. I believe my
documents are well written & organized in most cases. I believe I could benefit from
more formal training as I spend a lot of time composing the docs.
(418) While I indicated that email is probably the lowest quality it is also the highest
volume of business communication. Memos & letters tend to be rare and are always
outdated when received. I have little use or interaction with paper communications in
such a fast paced environment. Electronic communication is the most efficient despite
the quality or tone issues that can arise.
(539) Good luck!
(66) One of the major problems with e-mail or word processing software is spellcheck. I
have seen several errors which contain correctly spelled words; however, the words do
not make any sense in the way they were used. Many employees do not proof the e-mail
since spellcheck found no errors.
(514) My associate degree in Office Systems & Specialties provided much more details
about composed business documents & communication than any business course at
COBA.
(380) English is my second language, it would have been appropriate to ask that
information. SIU-Carbondale used to be among the top ten universities with largest
international-students population. However, it looks like that important factor continues
to be overlooked.
(479) Software such as Word are great tools unavailable in the not so distant past.
However, blind usage of tools such as spellcheck & grammer check without proofreading
greatly attribute to many of todays failures in written communication. This is also
evidenced in regular media outlets such as magazines and papers.

209

(831) Easily 95% of our internal and external communication is in email format. I
believe that the proliferation of email in modern business is a curse and has significantly
reduced my overall effectiveness as manager. Most of my peers spend half their day in
electronic communication, even on laptops at meetings.
(740) I find that many persons suffer from (what I consider) very poor writing skills. I
am often embarrassed by what I read at work.
(394) A) You need a little more focus on small business and home-based operations that
make several of your questions moot. B) My business--communication consulting--is
based upon a high quality work product. C) Overall, e-mail is the poorest quality
communication product of any in my experience.
(1278) As the only individual on staff that is trained to complete many accounting
reports, much of the work has to be done by myself. Also, internal software the
inventory & OL is DOS-based therefore it is hard to train additional employees.
(388) Quality of written communication is typically poor with administrative assistants.
It is very difficult to find assistants that have the ability to write effective sentences, thus
I needlessly do more drafting of simple documents on my own.
(1088) 1) E-mail etiquette is, perhaps, the most overlooked necessity in large
corporations. 2) Every email Ive received from top-mgt. has had at least one typo or
major misspelling! 3) The use of cc: & bc: can be ridiculous. Top-level mgt. can get
involved in too many emails due to this. I feel the bcc: should be abolished! 4) Lack of
etiquette can lead to misunderstandings & resentment.
(616) Nothing prepares you for entering the workplace. Learning while doing and by
having examples provided showing the accepted formats and politically correct language,
as well as the correct people to provide information to is essential. Good luck!
(1292) Biggest mistakes in writing style, grammar, & content are usually seen in emails.
(605) As mentioned in one of the questions I wish I could articulate better in my
writing.
(440) Due to my proficiency with word processing software, as well as my above average
keyboarding speed, creating written communication is usually accomplished easily and
much quicker when done myselfespecially if it has to go out right away. Also, I
usually talk out what I need to say. While I am doing this, I am also typing it.
(1155) No comments except to say good luck w/your research. Can I get a copy of the
presentation?

210

(1198) #47 should have an NA option as people like myself may not have voice
recognition software. #8 if you answered 3 for the first item as in not having an
assistant then there should be instruction to not answer items that follow.
(998) The written documents I learned to create is business school (undergraduate &
graduate) bears little, if any, resemblance to the writing required in my experience in the
real world. I have yet to complete any research paper in my entire professional career.
The only element from business school writing to my real world experience is that
bsuiness school taught me how to think and explore. Nothing in my formal education
taught me to write memos, prepare PowerPoint presentations, email my boss,
subordinates or Directors or real world proposals. These skills I had to learn myself on
the job. School is valuable but in my experience it bears little resemblance to the real
world.
(67) E-mails in general have become the biggest limiting factor in my daily productivity.
Too many unnecessary e-mails are sent back & forth (internally) on a daily basis.
(1247) Organizations should use more wireless technology for easier access.
(26) I believe emails are often sent hurriedly and therefore have mistakes that reflect
upon a person.
(132) Business communication must be practical and critiqued at all levels to be effective
in the workplace. The equipment and software we have today is superb we just have to
make sure its use will improve overall productivity and not make more work than is
necessary.
(238) Comment typing class in high school was very important. Technical writing
classes in college would have been helpful I did not take the one which was available.
(303) In my current position, I basically only utilize e-mail so my answers are not very
helpful Im afraid. I believe that Murray State has a very strong MBA program!
(908) I went into my MBA program with strong written communication skills; therefore,
I did not seek additional training in that discipline. I believe that I had better basic
language education than some of my classmates. I was also much older than most of
them.
(1276) I had a great English teacher at a private high school, I was well prepared to
communicate properly and effectively.
(1163) Interface with database for communications is very important to my work
db/doc creation still a problem for me.
(509) Good luck with your research!

211

(661) What best prepared me for creating business messages was experience different
companies have different parameters you have to adapt depending on the corporate
culture and industry you may be working in.
(464) The understanding of what to say & what not to say and determining how to say it.
In my field (HR) I see a number of mgrs who need coaching in dealing with employees in
all aspects (disipline, layoff, promotion, reviews, etc.) Communication is critical in
keeping us out of court not just the message but how it is delivered can encourage
people to file or not.
(18) In my industry there is still a strong emphasis on verbal communication, both
internally and externally, which has a definite impact on the resources used to improve
written communications.
(189) In my work environment, we do not use dictation nor voice recognition software.
The later could be of great benefit because I am not as efficient with the keyboard.
(221) I believe a combination of middle and high school, undergraduate, and graduate
studies provided me superior training in written communication. Composition skills are
developed through learning spelling & spelling rules, grammer, phonics, styles, etc. I
believe my senior English in high school, though difficult, was most influential, in
developing my composition skills.
(1284) E-mail has become the communication tool of choice because of the ease of use.
There have not been any rules established.
(58) I am very interested in voice recognition software and I will urge my organization to
research this possibility.
(64) I dont see the relevance of the survey. If you had problems with written
communication, you probably did not get your MBA.
(409) Should add N/A for section 4. Good luck!
(770) I would hesitate to use voice recognition or dictation software. Since I usualloy
sort out my thoughts as I write & therefore have the ability to rearrange &/or change the
ideas I want to convey as they come to me.
(769) The hardest thing is trying to communicate highly technical info or complicated
financial info in a way that people without such backgrounds can fully understand the
message.
(1081) I wish we had a class at my organization on writing or addressing our customers
and all internal memos. A policy on emails and letters would be a start also a better
understanding or Microsoft Word would be a big help to me.

212
(111) Biggest problems w/written communication is memos, e-mails from others who
have poor English and grammar skills & reluctance to be willing to improve. Lots of
people in the organization never had to communicate before, but now with tools they
have they are forced to use them, but basic English skills are lacking including spelling.
(138) You should prepare a survey based on oral communication rather than written. I
feel oral communication is a necessiry in professionals today and many are lacking in
these skills.

213

APPENDIX E3a
CHI-SQUARE RESULT TABLES FOR PROFESSIONALS PERCEPTIONS OF
PREPARATION TO CREATE WRITTEN BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS

214
Gender Comparison with Perceptions of Preparation to Create Written Communications
CROSSTABS Results
df=1
15. English/language courses in high school
sufficiently prepared me for the type of
business messages/documents I now create
at work.
16. I frequently apply business writing skills
learned in my undergraduate English
courses.
17. I wish I had taken more undergraduate
courses in written communication.
18. I no longer create my business
messages/documents in the same manner
that was taught in my undergraduate
business communication (or other business)
class(es).
19. I had training in my MBA program that
sufficiently covered how to write for
business.
20. I no longer create my business
messages/documents in the same manner
that was taught in my MBA program.
21. I had company-sponsored training
programs/orientations that sufficiently
addressed workplace written communication
issues.
22. When I joined this organization, I had to
work hard to be able to create the most
appropriate business messages in a fastpaced environment.
23. My organization has provided sufficient
training to enhance the input methods
(software, voice recognition, etc.) I use to
create written communication at work.
24. My organization has provided sufficient
training to develop my keyboarding/typing
speed and accuracy.
25. I need more training in regard to writing
skills such as punctuation and grammar.
26. I need more training in regard to writing
skills such as style and scope (i.e., tone,
organization, and flow).
27. I had sufficient formal training on how to
correctly format business documents such as
memos, letters, and reports.
28. Formal training in e-mail message
composition and etiquette is not necessary.
29. I feel confident about my ability to create
business messages/documents that are
understood.
30. Sometimes I wish my undergraduate or MBA
curricula had covered more aspects of
choosing the right words in stressful
situations.

Sig.
(2-tail)

Fishers
(2-tail)

Phi

.032

.858

.908

-.010

.309

.578

.641

.032

6.672

.010

.013

-.160

.008

.930

1.00

-.005

.739

.390

.405

-.051

.663

.416

.501

-.058

.973

.324

.370

.059

4.139

.042

.054

-.118

.938

.333

.376

-.060

.480

.489

.540

-.043

10.576

.001

.001

-.180

2.901

.089

.111

-.096

5.966

.015

.019

-.136

.567

.452

.479

.041

1.374

.241

.380

-.062

.000

.997

1.00

.000

Pearson
2

^^

Note. Symbol ^^ = tentative result as more than 20% of cells had a count of less than 5. Yates

continuity correction is present for these items.

*p<.05

Yates:
.471

215

Undergraduate Major Comparison with Perceptions of Preparation to Create Written

Communications CROSSTABS Results
df=1

Sig.
(2-tail)

Fishers
(2-tail)

Phi

.349

.555

.658

.036

.346

.557

.537

-.036

1.442

.230

.259

.080

3.850

.050

.067

-.128

1.076

.300

.359

-.066

.972

.324

.378

.076

2.243

.134

.180

.096

.386

.534

.546

-.039

.126

.723

.746

.023

.712

.399

.579

-.056

.215

.643

.728

.028

.688

.407

.442

.050

1.961

.161

.178

-.084

1.601

.206

.202

.075

1.823

.177

.214

-.077

.059

.808

.851

.015

Pearson

15. English/language courses in high school

sufficiently prepared me for the type of
business messages/documents I now create
at work.
16. I frequently apply business writing skills
learned in my undergraduate English courses.
17. I wish I had taken more undergraduate
courses in written communication.
18. I no longer create my business
messages/documents in the same manner
that was taught in my undergraduate
business communication (or other business)
class(es).
19. I had training in my MBA program that
sufficiently covered how to write for business.
20. I no longer create my business
messages/documents in the same manner
that was taught in my MBA program.
21. I had company-sponsored training
programs/orientations that sufficiently
addressed workplace written communication
issues.
22. When I joined this organization, I had to
work hard to be able to create the most
appropriate business messages in a fastpaced environment.
23. My organization has provided sufficient
training to enhance the input methods
(software, voice recognition, etc.) I use to
create written communication at work.
24. My organization has provided sufficient
training to develop my keyboarding/typing
speed and accuracy.
25. I need more training in regard to writing skills
such as punctuation and grammar.
26. I need more training in regard to writing skills
such as style and scope (i.e., tone,
organization, and flow).
27. I had sufficient formal training on how to
correctly format business documents such as
memos, letters, and reports.
28. Formal training in e-mail message
composition and etiquette is not necessary.
29. I feel confident about my ability to create
business messages/documents that are
understood.
30. Sometimes I wish my undergraduate or MBA
curricula had covered more aspects of
choosing the right words in stressful
situations.

^^

Yates:
.572

^^

Yates:
.457

Note. Symbol ^^ = tentative result as more than 20% of cells had a count of less than 5. Yates

continuity correction is present for these items.

*p<.05

216

Age Comparison with Perceptions of Preparation to Create Written Communications

CROSSTABS Results
df=2

Sig.
(2-tail)

Cramers V

1.274

.529

.064

.426

.808

.037

1.212

.546

.068

6.521

.038

.156

10.206

.006

.188

2.970

.227

.123

.278

.870

.032

.031

.984

.010

1.175

.556

.067

1.650

.438

.080

.711

.701

.047

4.790

.091

.123

2.637

.268

.090

.096

.953

.017

1.826

.401

.072

3.038

.219

.102

Pearson

15. English/language courses in high school sufficiently

prepared me for the type of business
messages/documents I now create at work.
16. I frequently apply business writing skills learned in my
undergraduate English courses.
17. I wish I had taken more undergraduate courses in
written communication.
18. I no longer create my business messages/documents
in the same manner that was taught in my
undergraduate business communication (or other
business) class(es).
19. I had training in my MBA program that sufficiently
covered how to write for business.
20. I no longer create my business messages/documents
in the same manner that was taught in my MBA
program.
21. I had company-sponsored training
programs/orientations that sufficiently addressed
workplace written communication issues.
22. When I joined this organization, I had to work hard
to be able to create the most appropriate business
messages in a fast-paced environment.
23. My organization has provided sufficient training to
enhance the input methods (software, voice
recognition, etc.) I use to create written
communication at work.
24. My organization has provided sufficient training to
develop my keyboarding/typing speed and accuracy.
25. I need more training in regard to writing skills such
as punctuation and grammar.
26. I need more training in regard to writing skills such
as style and scope (i.e., tone, organization, and flow).
27. I had sufficient formal training on how to correctly
format business documents such as memos, letters,
and reports.
28. Formal training in e-mail message composition and
etiquette is not necessary.
29. I feel confident about my ability to create business
messages/documents that are understood.
30. Sometimes I wish my undergraduate or MBA
curricula had covered more aspects of choosing the
right words in stressful situations.
Note. Symbol ^^ = tentative result as more than 20% of cells
*p<.05

had a count of less than 5.

^^

217

Professionals Position within Organization Comparison with Perceptions of

Preparation to Create Written Communications CROSSTABS Results
df=2

Pearson
2

Sig.
(2-tail)

Cramers V

15. English/language courses in high school sufficiently

.079
.962
prepared me for the type of business
messages/documents I now create at work.
16. I frequently apply business writing skills learned in
.080
.961
my undergraduate English courses.
17. I wish I had taken more undergraduate courses in
1.470
.479
written communication.
18. I no longer create my business messages/documents
in the same manner that was taught in my
6.626
.036
undergraduate business communication (or other
business) class(es).
19. I had training in my MBA program that sufficiently
1.220
.543
covered how to write for business.
20. I no longer create my business messages/documents
6.875
.032
in the same manner that was taught in my MBA
program.
21. I had company-sponsored training
.012
.994
programs/orientations that sufficiently addressed
workplace written communication issues.
22. When I joined this organization, I had to work hard
2.764
.251
to be able to create the most appropriate business
messages in a fast-paced environment.
23. My organization has provided sufficient training to
enhance the input methods (software, voice
4.311
.116
recognition, etc.) I use to create written
communication at work.
24. My organization has provided sufficient training to
9.524
.009
develop my keyboarding/typing speed and accuracy.
25. I need more training in regard to writing skills such
.205
.902
as punctuation and grammar.
26. I need more training in regard to writing skills such
as style and scope (i.e., tone, organization, and
3.853
.146
flow).
27. I had sufficient formal training on how to correctly
4.531
.104
format business documents such as memos, letters,
and reports.
28. Formal training in e-mail message composition and
.143
.931
etiquette is not necessary.
29. I feel confident about my ability to create business
3.939
.139
messages/documents that are understood.
30. Sometimes I wish my undergraduate or MBA
1.858
.395
curricula had covered more aspects of choosing the
right words in stressful situations.
Note. Symbol ^^ = tentative result as more than 20% of cells had a count of less than 5.
*p<.05

.017
.017
.079
.165

.068
.195

.007
.101

.134
.202

.026
.116
.125
.022
.110
.083

^^

218

Organizational Type Comparison with Perceptions of Preparation to Create Written

Communications CROSSTABS Results
df=4

Pearson
2

Sig.
(2-tail)

Cramers V

15. English/language courses in high school sufficiently

prepared me for the type of business
1.274
.866
messages/documents I now create at work.
16. I frequently apply business writing skills learned in
3.830
.430
my undergraduate English courses.
17. I wish I had taken more undergraduate courses in
1.992
.737
written communication.
18. I no longer create my business messages/documents
in the same manner that was taught in my
12.776
.012
undergraduate business communication (or other
business) class(es).
19. I had training in my MBA program that sufficiently
8.407
.078
covered how to write for business.
20. I no longer create my business messages/documents
1.769
.778
in the same manner that was taught in my MBA
program.
21. I had company-sponsored training
2.030
.730
programs/orientations that sufficiently addressed
workplace written communication issues.
22. When I joined this organization, I had to work hard
to be able to create the most appropriate business
4.575
.334
messages in a fast-paced environment.
23. My organization has provided sufficient training to
enhance the input methods (software, voice
3.907
.419
recognition, etc.) I use to create written
communication at work.
24. My organization has provided sufficient training to
3.137
.535
develop my keyboarding/typing speed and accuracy.
25. I need more training in regard to writing skills such
1.407
.843
as punctuation and grammar.
26. I need more training in regard to writing skills such
4.856
.302
as style and scope (i.e., tone, organization, and
flow).
27. I had sufficient formal training on how to correctly
format business documents such as memos, letters,
2.365
.669
and reports.
28. Formal training in e-mail message composition and
.995
.917
etiquette is not necessary.
29. I feel confident about my ability to create business
7.263
.123
messages/documents that are understood.
30. Sometimes I wish my undergraduate or MBA
1.614
.806
curricula had covered more aspects of choosing the
right words in stressful situations.
Note. Symbol ^^ = tentative result as more than 20% of cells had a count of less than 5.
*p<.05.

.068
.119
.093
.233

.181
.101
.091
.132

.129
.117
.069
.130
.091
.057
.151
.079

^^

219

Graduate Institution Attended Comparison with Perceptions of Preparation to Create

Written Communications CROSSTABS Results
df=2

Pearson
2

Sig.
(2-tail)

Cramers V

15. English/language courses in high school sufficiently

1.803
.406
prepared me for the type of business
messages/documents I now create at work.
16. I frequently apply business writing skills learned in
3.435
.180
my undergraduate English courses.
17. I wish I had taken more undergraduate courses in
4.568
.102
written communication.
18. I no longer create my business messages/documents
in the same manner that was taught in my
3.302
.192
undergraduate business communication (or other
business) class(es).
19. I had training in my MBA program that sufficiently
1.324
.516
covered how to write for business.
20. I no longer create my business messages/documents
in the same manner that was taught in my MBA
2.732
.255
program.
21. I had company-sponsored training
programs/orientations that sufficiently addressed
.777
.678
workplace written communication issues.
22. When I joined this organization, I had to work hard
1.647
.439
to be able to create the most appropriate business
messages in a fast-paced environment.
23. My organization has provided sufficient training to
enhance the input methods (software, voice
.081
.960
recognition, etc.) I use to create written
communication at work.
24. My organization has provided sufficient training to
3.991
.136
develop my keyboarding/typing speed and accuracy.
25. I need more training in regard to writing skills such
.132
.936
as punctuation and grammar.
26. I need more training in regard to writing skills such
as style and scope (i.e., tone, organization, and
3.223
.200
flow).
27. I had sufficient formal training on how to correctly
1.637
.441
format business documents such as memos, letters,
and reports.
28. Formal training in e-mail message composition and
1.523
.467
etiquette is not necessary.
29. I feel confident about my ability to create business
.503
.778
messages/documents that are understood.
30. Sometimes I wish my undergraduate or MBA
3.440
.179
curricula had covered more aspects of choosing the
right words in stressful situations.
Note. Symbol ^^ = tentative result as more than 20% of cells had a count of less than 5.

.077
.106
.133
.111
.068
.118
.053
.074

.017
.124
.020
.101
.071
.068
.037
.108

^^

220

APPENDIX E3b
SPSS CONTINGENCY TABLES FOR PROFESSIONALS PERCEPTIONS OF
PREPARATION TO CREATE WRITTEN BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
CROSSTABS ANALYSES

221
Contingency Figures for Significant Statements (Instrument #15-30) and Gender
(gender 1=female; 2=male)
Likert collapsed to (2=SA/A, 3=N, 4=D/SD)
#17, 22, 25, 27
#17
Crosstab
gender1
1
prep17

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

53
60.7
14.6%
42
47.1
11.5%
70
57.1
19.2%
165
165.0
45.3%

81
73.3
22.3%
62
56.9
17.0%
56
68.9
15.4%
199
199.0
54.7%

Total
134
134.0
36.8%
104
104.0
28.6%
126
126.0
34.6%
364
364.0
100.0%

#22
Crosstab
gender1
1
prep22

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

43
51.5
14.5%
93
84.5
31.4%
136
136.0
45.9%

2
69
60.5
23.3%
91
99.5
30.7%
160
160.0
54.1%

Total
112
112.0
37.8%
184
184.0
62.2%
296
296.0
100.0%

222

#25
Crosstab
gender1
1
prep25

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

20
31.5
5.5%
16
18.3
4.4%
131
117.3
35.8%
167
167.0
45.6%

49
37.5
13.4%
24
21.7
6.6%
126
139.7
34.4%
199
199.0
54.4%

Total
69
69.0
18.9%
40
40.0
10.9%
257
257.0
70.2%
366
366.0
100.0%

#27 (reverse coded)

Crosstab
gender1
1
prep27

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

28
35.9
7.6%
14
20.0
3.8%
125
111.0
34.1%
167
167.0
45.5%

2
51
43.1
13.9%
30
24.0
8.2%
119
133.0
32.4%
200
200.0
54.5%

Total
79
79.0
21.5%
44
44.0
12.0%
244
244.0
66.5%
367
367.0
100.0%

223
Contingency Figures for Significant Statements (Instrument #15-30) and Age
Likert collapsed to (2=SA/A, 4=SD/D)
Age collapsed to (2: ages 0-34, 3: ages 35-44, 4: ages 45+)
#18 & 19
#18
Crosstab

2
prep18

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

Total

37
46.3
13.8%
97
87.7
36.1%
134
134.0
49.8%

age3
3
35
31.1
13.0%
55
58.9
20.4%
90
90.0
33.5%

4
21
15.6
7.8%
24
29.4
8.9%
45
45.0
16.7%

Total
93
93.0
34.6%
176
176.0
65.4%
269
269.0
100.0%

#19 (reverse coded)

Crosstab

2
prep19

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

67
77.5
18.5%
31
35.0
8.6%
73
58.6
20.2%
171
171.0
47.2%

age3
3
60
56.2
16.6%
28
25.3
7.7%
36
42.5
9.9%
124
124.0
34.3%

4
37
30.4
10.2%
15
13.7
4.1%
15
23.0
4.1%
67
67.0
18.5%

Total
164
164.0
45.3%
74
74.0
20.4%
124
124.0
34.3%
362
362.0
100.0%

224
Contingency Figures for Significant Statements (Instrument #15-30) and Graduate
Institution
Likert collapsed to (2=SA/A, 4=SD/D)
Institution collapsed to (1=largest/doctoral, 2=middle/master, 3=smallest/master)
(No significance found)

Contingency Figures for Significant Statements (Instrument #15-30) and Position

Likert collapsed to (2=SA/A, 4=SD/D)
Position collapsed to (1=senior, 2=mid-level and first-line, 4=professional staff. Other
extracted entirely.)

#18, 20, 24
#18
Crosstab

1
prep18

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

22
15.6
9.1%
23
29.4
9.5%
45
45.0
18.5%

position
2
34
32.8
14.0%
61
62.2
25.1%
95
95.0
39.1%

4
28
35.6
11.5%
75
67.4
30.9%
103
103.0
42.4%

Total
84
84.0
34.6%
159
159.0
65.4%
243
243.0
100.0%

20
Crosstab

1
prep20

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

14
8.6
7.7%
22
27.4
12.2%
36
36.0
19.9%

position
2
12
17.6
6.6%
62
56.4
34.3%
74
74.0
40.9%

4
17
16.9
9.4%
54
54.1
29.8%
71
71.0
39.2%

Total
43
43.0
23.8%
138
138.0
76.2%
181
181.0
100.0%

225

24 (reverse coded)
Crosstab
position
2
93
89.7
39.7%
6
9.3
2.6%
99
99.0
42.3%

1
prep24

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

26
30.8
11.1%
8
3.2
3.4%
34
34.0
14.5%

4
93
91.5
39.7%
8
9.5
3.4%
101
101.0
43.2%

Total
212
212.0
90.6%
22
22.0
9.4%
234
234.0
100.0%

Contingency Figures for Significant Statements (Instrument #15-30) and Type of

Organization
Likert collapsed to (2=SA/A, 4=SD/D)
Organization type collapsed to (4: Financial, insurance, & real estate, 5: government
agency, 6: Manufacturing, & agriculture, mining, construction, 8: Education & services,
9: Retail trade & wholesale trade)
#18 only
#18
Crosstab

4
prep18 2

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

13
16.4
5.5%
34
30.6
14.5%
47
47.0
20.0%

5
10
11.2
4.3%
22
20.8
9.4%
32
32.0
13.6%

firmtype
6
31
22.3
13.2%
33
41.7
14.0%
64
64.0
27.2%

8
27
26.2
11.5%
48
48.8
20.4%
75
75.0
31.9%

9
1
5.9
.4%
16
11.1
6.8%
17
17.0
7.2%

Total
82
82.0
34.9%
153
153.0
65.1%
235
235.0
100.0%

226

Contingency Figures for Significant Statements (Instrument #15-30) and Major

Likert collapsed to (2=SD/D 4=SA/A -- N and NA extracted.)
Major collapsed to (2=business, 9=nonbusiness)
#18 only
#18
Crosstab
major2a
prep18

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

Total

61
66.9
26.0%
124
118.1
52.8%
185
185.0
78.7%

24
18.1
10.2%
26
31.9
11.1%
50
50.0
21.3%

85
85.0
36.2%
150
150.0
63.8%
235
235.0
100.0%

227

APPENDIX E3c
CHI-SQUARE RESULT TABLES FOR PROFESSIONALS PERCEPTIONS OF
PRODUCTIVITY IN CREATING WRITTEN BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS

228

Gender Comparison with Perceptions of Productivity in Creating Written

Communications CROSSTABS Results
df=1
33. I often feel overwhelmed with all of the written
communication I must complete in a typical
work day.
34. I would be more productive if my organization had
a (more strict) policy for limiting personal e-mails.
35. I put forth effort to produce error free print
documents such as letters and memos.
36. I use Microsoft Word to create almost all types of
written documents (memos, letters, reports, etc.).
37. If Im rushed, I will usually have an
administrative support person compose my
document.
38. I sometimes feel that my business messages and
documents would be more effective if they had
been sent sooner.
39. I believe I could be more productive if I had
another way to create documents other than
keying.
40. I often send more than 10 business-related
e-mails a day.
41. I put forth effort to make my business e-mails
error free.
42. The types (memos, letters, etc.) of messages I
create in a given day at work vary widely.
43. I am proud of the written business messages
and documents I create.
44. I take a lot of time to format a written
business message or document.
45. I frequently have difficulty putting my ideas into
written words.
46. Having time to learn more word processing
software features would help me be more
productive in the creation of business
documents.
47. Voice recognition software has helped me
increase my speed in business
message/document processing.
48. I sometimes feel unproductive at work due to
slowness in composing effectively-worded written
messages.

Sig.
(2-tail)

Fishers
(2-tail)

Phi

2.986

.084

.087

-.099

1.065

.302

.372

-.060

.877

.349^^

1.00

-.049

.009

.926

1.00

.005

.053

.818

.871

.013

2.224

.136

.155

-.097

8.220

.004

.004

-.174

.020

.887

.903

.008

.888

.346

.458

-.049

3.410

.065

.075

.103

1.212

.271

.351

.061

.231

.631

.692

-.029

1.056

.304

.307

.059

1.705

.192

.226

-.078

.199

.656

.782

.031

.417

.518

.592

-.036

Pearson
2

Note. Symbol ^^ = tentative result as more than 20% of cells had a count of less than 5. Yates

continuity correction is present for these items.

*p<.05

Yates:
1.00

Yates:
.576

Yates:
.550

229

Undergraduate Major Comparison with Perceptions of Producrivity in Creating

Written Business Communications CROSSTABS Results
df = 1
33. I often feel overwhelmed with all of the written
communication I must complete in a typical
work day.
34. I would be more productive if my organization
had a (more strict) policy for limiting personal
e-mails.
35. I put forth effort to produce error free print
documents such as letters and memos.
36. I use Microsoft Word to create almost all types
of written documents (memos, letters, reports,
etc.).
37. If Im rushed, I will usually have an
administrative support person compose my
document.
38. I sometimes feel that my business messages
and documents would be more effective if they
had been sent sooner.
39. I believe I could be more productive if I had
another way to create documents other than
keying.
40. I often send more than 10 business-related
e-mails a day.
41. I put forth effort to make my business e-mails
error free.
42. The types (memos, letters, etc.) of messages I
create in a given day at work vary widely.
43. I am proud of the written business messages
and documents I create.
44. I take a lot of time to format a written
business message or document.
45. I frequently have difficulty putting my ideas into
written words.
46. Having time to learn more word processing
software features would help me be more
productive in the creation of business
documents.
47. Voice recognition software has helped me
increase my speed in business
message/document processing.
48. I sometimes feel unproductive at work due to
slowness in composing effectively-worded
written messages.

Pearson

Sig.
(2-tail)

Fishers
(2-tail)

.330

.566

.606

2.044

.153

.185

-.090

.287

.592

1.00

.030

Yates:
1.00

2.437

.119

.182

.089

Yates:
.195

2.672

.102

.131

.095

1.877

.171

.196

-.096

.335

.563

.630

.038

.932

.334

.427

.055

.009

.925

1.00

.005

3.558

.059

.075

.114

.772

.380

1.00

.052

.125

.724

.857

-.023

1.050

.305

.343

.063

.054

.816

.879

.015

.016

.899

1.000

.010

.287

.592

.720

.032

Phi
-.035

Yates:
1.00
Yates:
.875

Yates:
1.00

Note. Symbol ^^ = tentative result as more than 20% of cells had a count of less than 5. Yates continuity
correction is present for these items.

230

Age Comparison with Perceptions of Productivity in Creating Written Communications

CROSSTABS Results
df=2
33. I often feel overwhelmed with all of the written
communication I must complete in a typical
work day.
34. I would be more productive if my organization had
a (more strict) policy for limiting personal e-mails.
35. I put forth effort to produce error free print
documents such as letters and memos.
36. I use Microsoft Word to create almost all types of
written documents (memos, letters, reports, etc.).
37. If Im rushed, I will usually have an
administrative support person compose my
document.
38. I sometimes feel that my business messages and
documents would be more effective if they had
been sent sooner.
39. I believe I could be more productive if I had
another way to create documents other than
keying.
40. I often send more than 10 business-related
e-mails a day.
41. I put forth effort to make my business e-mails
error free.
42. The types (memos, letters, etc.) of messages I
create in a given day at work vary widely.
43. I am proud of the written business messages
and documents I create.
44. I take a lot of time to format a written
business message or document.
45. I frequently have difficulty putting my ideas into
written words.
46. Having time to learn more word processing
software features would help me be more
productive in the creation of business
documents.
47. Voice recognition software has helped me
increase my speed in business
message/document processing.
48. I sometimes feel unproductive at work due to
slowness in composing effectively-worded written
messages.

Sig.
(2-tail)

Cramers V

8.903

.012

.171

4.677

.096

.127

1.084

.582

.055

4.507

.105

.113

5.843

.054

.131

2.429

.297

.101

.510

.775

.043

2.101

.350

.077

.223

.895

.025

5.463

.065

.131

.956

.620

.054

3.112

.211

.105

.060

.970

.014

4.909

.086

.133

3.400

.183

.129

3.960

.138

.111

Pearson
2

Note. Symbol ^^ = tentative result as more than 20% of cells had a count of less than 5.
*p<.05

^^

^^

^^

^^

231

Professionals Position within Organization Comparison with Perceptions of

Productivity in Creating Written Communications CROSSTABS Results
df=2
33. I often feel overwhelmed with all of the written
communication I must complete in a typical
work day.
34. I would be more productive if my organization had
a (more strict) policy for limiting personal e-mails.
35. I put forth effort to produce error free print
documents such as letters and memos.
36. I use Microsoft Word to create almost all types of
written documents (memos, letters, reports, etc.).
37. If Im rushed, I will usually have an
administrative support person compose my
document.
38. I sometimes feel that my business messages and
documents would be more effective if they had
been sent sooner.
39. I believe I could be more productive if I had
another way to create documents other than
keying.
40. I often send more than 10 business-related
e-mails a day.
41. I put forth effort to make my business e-mails
error free.
42. The types (memos, letters, etc.) of messages I
create in a given day at work vary widely.
43. I am proud of the written business messages
and documents I create.
44. I take a lot of time to format a written
business message or document.
45. I frequently have difficulty putting my ideas into
written words.
46. Having time to learn more word processing
software features would help me be more
productive in the creation of business
documents.
47. Voice recognition software has helped me
increase my speed in business
message/document processing.
48. I sometimes feel unproductive at work due to
slowness in composing effectively-worded written
messages.

Sig.
(2-tail)

Cramers V

2.061

.357

.086

.317

.854

.035

1.391

.499

.065

3.592

.166

.106

8.684

.013

.168

3.923

.141

.134

.736

.692

.055

4.485

.106

.118

.703

.704

.046

5.545

.062

.137

.337

.845

.034

4.098

.129

.127

2.170

.338

.088

.108

.947

.020

2.997

.224

.127

1.200

.549

.064

Pearson
2

Note. Symbol ^^ = tentative result as more than 20% of cells had a count of less than 5.
*p<.05

^^

^^

^^

232

Organizational Type Comparison with Perceptions of Productivity in Creating Written

Communications CROSSTABS Results
df=4
33. I often feel overwhelmed with all of the written
communication I must complete in a typical
work day.
34. I would be more productive if my organization had a
(more strict) policy for limiting personal e-mails.
35. I put forth effort to produce error free print
documents such as letters and memos.
36. I use Microsoft Word to create almost all types of
written documents (memos, letters, reports, etc.).
37. If Im rushed, I will usually have an
administrative support person compose my
document.
38. I sometimes feel that my business messages and
documents would be more effective if they had
been sent sooner.
39. I believe I could be more productive if I had
another way to create documents other than
keying.
40. I often send more than 10 business-related
e-mails a day.
41. I put forth effort to make my business e-mails
error free.
42. The types (memos, letters, etc.) of messages I
create in a given day at work vary widely.
43. I am proud of the written business messages
and documents I create.
44. I take a lot of time to format a written business
message or document.
45. I frequently have difficulty putting my ideas into
written words.
46. Having time to learn more word processing software
features would help me be more productive in the
creation of business documents.
47. Voice recognition software has helped me increase
my speed in business message/document processing.
48. I sometimes feel unproductive at work due to
slowness in composing effectively-worded written
messages.

Sig.
(2-tail)

Cramers V

2.339

.674

.093

11.258

.024

.207

2.016

.733

.079

^^

.920

.922

.054

^^

5.867

.209

.139

3.356

.500

.127

18.235

.001

.273

13.655

.008

.208

1.230

.873

.062

^^

7.716

.103

.165

4.016

.404

.118

.900

.924

.060

5.798

.215

.147

5.761

.218

.154

2.280

.684

.113

5.867

.209

.143

Pearson
2

Note. Symbol ^^ = tentative result as more than 20% of cells had a count of less than 5.
*p<.05

^^

^^

233

Graduate Institution Attended Comparison with Perceptions of Productivity in Creating

Written Communications CROSSTABS Results
df=4
33. I often feel overwhelmed with all of the written
communication I must complete in a typical
work day.
34. I would be more productive if my organization had a
(more strict) policy for limiting personal e-mails.
35. I put forth effort to produce error free print
documents such as letters and memos.
36. I use Microsoft Word to create almost all types of
written documents (memos, letters, reports, etc.).
37. If Im rushed, I will usually have an
administrative support person compose my
document.
38. I sometimes feel that my business messages and
documents would be more effective if they had
been sent sooner.
39. I believe I could be more productive if I had
another way to create documents other than
keying.
40. I often send more than 10 business-related
e-mails a day.
41. I put forth effort to make my business e-mails
error free.
42. The types (memos, letters, etc.) of messages I
create in a given day at work vary widely.
43. I am proud of the written business messages
and documents I create.
44. I take a lot of time to format a written business
message or document.
45. I frequently have difficulty putting my ideas into
written words.
46. Having time to learn more word processing software
features would help me be more productive in the
creation of business documents.
47. Voice recognition software has helped me increase
my speed in business message/document processing.
48. I sometimes feel unproductive at work due to
slowness in composing effectively-worded written
messages.

Sig.
(2-tail)

Cramers V

6.956

.031

.151

1.668

.434

.075

1.870

.393

.072

.826

.662

.048

2.275

.321

.082

7.364

.025

.176

.212

.900

.028

.396

.820

.033

1.989

.370

.074

1.845

.398

.076

3.537

.171

.104

1.515

.469

.073

.022

.989

.009

.293

.864

.032

.376

.821

.043

.873

.646

.052

Pearson
2

Note. Symbol ^^ = tentative result as more than 20% of cells had a count of less than 5.
*p<.05

^^

^^

^^

^^

234

APPENDIX E3d
SPSS CONTINGENCY TABLES FOR PROFESSIONALS PERCEPTIONS OF
PRODUCTIVITY IN CREATING WRITTEN BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
CROSSTABS ANALYSES

235

Significance for Productivity Statements #33-48

Gender
(gender 1=female; 2=male)
Likert collapsed to (2=SA/A, 4=D/SD)
#39 only
#39
Crosstab
gender1
1
prod39

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

38
49.6
13.9%
85
73.4
31.1%
123
123.0
45.1%

Total
110
110.0
40.3%
163
163.0
59.7%
273
273.0
100.0%

72
60.4
26.4%
78
89.6
28.6%
150
150.0
54.9%

Age
Age collapsed to (2: ages 0-34, 3: ages 35-44, 4: ages 45+)
Likert collapsed to (2=SA/A, 4=SD/D)
#33 & 37
#33
Crosstab

2
prod33

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

26
37.3
8.5%
124
112.7
40.5%
150
150.0
49.0%

age3
3
36
27.6
11.8%
75
83.4
24.5%
111
111.0
36.3%

4
14
11.2
4.6%
31
33.8
10.1%
45
45.0
14.7%

Total
76
76.0
24.8%
230
230.0
75.2%
306
306.0
100.0%

236
#37
Crosstab

2
prod37

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

27
19.9
8.0%
130
137.1
38.3%
157
157.0
46.3%

age3
3
12
15.2
3.5%
108
104.8
31.9%
120
120.0
35.4%

4
4
7.9
1.2%
58
54.1
17.1%
62
62.0
18.3%

Total
43
43.0
12.7%
296
296.0
87.3%
339
339.0
100.0%

Position
Likert collapsed to (2=SA/A, 4=SD/D)
Positon collapsed to (1=senior, 2=mid-level and first-line, 4=professional staff. Other
for position was extracted entirely.)
#37 only
#37

Crosstab

1
prod37

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

14
7.3
4.5%
44
50.7
14.3%
58
58.0
18.8%

position
2
13
15.1
4.2%
106
103.9
34.4%
119
119.0
38.6%

4
12
16.6
3.9%
119
114.4
38.6%
131
131.0
42.5%

Total
39
39.0
12.7%
269
269.0
87.3%
308
308.0
100.0%

237

Graduate Institution Attended

Likert collapsed to (2=SA/A, 4=SD/D)
Institution collapsed to (1=largest/doctoral, 2=middle/master, 3=smallest/master)

#33 & 38
#33
Crosstab

1
prod33

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

18
26.2
5.9%
88
79.8
28.7%
106
106.0
34.5%

universi
2
24
24.0
7.8%
73
73.0
23.8%
97
97.0
31.6%

3
34
25.7
11.1%
70
78.3
22.8%
104
104.0
33.9%

Total
76
76.0
24.8%
231
231.0
75.2%
307
307.0
100.0%

#38
Crosstab

1
prod38

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

16
24.1
6.7%
66
57.9
27.7%
82
82.0
34.5%

universi
2
28
20.9
11.8%
43
50.1
18.1%
71
71.0
29.8%

3
26
25.0
10.9%
59
60.0
24.8%
85
85.0
35.7%

Total
70
70.0
29.4%
168
168.0
70.6%
238
238.0
100.0%

238

Type of Organization
(Collapsed to 2=SA/A, 4=SD/D only)
Type collapsed to (4: Financial, insurance, & real estate, 5: government agency, 6:
Manufacturing, & agriculture, mining, construction, 8: Education & services, 9: Retail
trade & wholesale trade)
#34, 39, & 40
#34
Crosstab

4
prod34 2

Total

Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
% of Total

6
9.1
2.3%
42
38.9
15.9%
48
48.0
18.2%

5
2
6.8
.8%
34
29.2
12.9%
36
36.0
13.6%

firmtype
6
19
15.2
7.2%
61
64.8
23.1%
80
80.0
30.3%

8
22
15.9
8.3%
62
68.1
23.5%
84
84.0
31.8%

9
1
3.0
.4%
15
13.0
5.7%
16
16.0
6.1%

Total
50
50.0
18.9%
214
214.0
81.1%
264
264.0
100.0%

239

#39
Crosstab

prod39 2

Total

4
Count
32
Expected Count 20.5
% of Total
13.1%
Count
18
Expected Count 29.5
% of Total
7.4%
Count
50
Expected Count 50.0
% of Total
20.5%

5
6
12.7
2.5%
25
18.3
10.2%
31
31.0
12.7%

firmtype
6
30
29.5
12.3%
42
42.5
17.2%
72
72.0
29.5%

26
30.3
10.7%
48
43.7
19.7%
74
74.0
30.3%

6
7.0
2.5%
11
10.0
4.5%
17
17.0
7.0%

Total
100
100.0
41.0%
144
144.0
59.0%
244
244.0
100.0%

#40 (reverse coded)

Crosstab

4
prod40 2

Total

Count
15
Expected Count 14.6
% of Total
4.7%
Count
45
Expected Count 45.4
% of Total
14.2%
Count
60
Expected Count 60.0
% of Total
19.0%

13
8.8
4.1%
23
27.2
7.3%
36
36.0
11.4%

firmtype
6
14
23.1
4.4%
81
71.9
25.6%
95
95.0
30.1%

8
25
25.3
7.9%
79
78.7
25.0%
104
104.0
32.9%

9
10
5.1
3.2%
11
15.9
3.5%
21
21.0
6.6%

Major
Collapsed to business majors versus non-business majors.
Likert collapsed to SD/D versus SA/A
-- 2X2 table.)

No significance

Total
77
77.0
24.4%
239
239.0
75.6%
316
316.0
100.0%

240

APPENDIX F
HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEES APPROVALS

F1a:

Written Permission to Contact Murray State University Alumni

F1b:

Written Permission to Contact the University of Tennessee at Martin Alumni

241
F1a: Written Permission to Contact Murray State University Alumni

242
F2b: Written Permission to Contact University of Tennessee at Martin Alumni

January 5, 2005
Joy Roach
Computer Science & Information Systems
112 Business Administration Bldg.
CAMPUS MAIL
IRB# EO54230-02
Title: Business Professionals Document Creation Methods and Productivity Perceptions
Dear Ms. Roach:
The project listed above has been reviewed by the Expedited Review Board and has been approved
allowing you to conduct your research for the following reasons: 1) presents no more than minimal risk to
the participants and 2) Research on individual or group characteristics or behavior (including, but not
limited to research on perceptions, cognition, motivation, identity, language, communication, cultural
beliefs or practices, and social behavior) or research employing survey, interview, oral history, focus group,
program evaluation, human factors evaluation, or quality assurance methodologies.
The responsibilities of the investigators are to abide by the regulations governing research involving human
participants, including those provisions specifying the means of obtaining informed consent. In all cases,
the standards of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice enumerated by the Ethical Principles and
Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (Belmont Report) apply to all research
involving human participants conducted at UT Martin. Please note that you are also committed to the other
Investigator Responsibilities as stated in the IRB Expedited Review Form packet.
All expedited approved research is subject to UTM-IRB review, at least once a year. Attached is the
Change/Termination Form that you will need to complete and submit if your project remains active and
UTM-IRB approval needs to be renewed for another year. Unless your research moves in a few direction
or participants have experienced adverse reactions, then renewal is not a major hurdle. You as Principal
Investigator are responsible for determining whether the changes will affect the current status of the
project. When you complete your research, file a Change/Termination Form (attached) and check the
termination box. This will allow the UT Martin IRB Compliance Section to close your project files. Please
remember that it is the responsibility of the Principal Investigator to keep the data that is collected in a
secure location for 3 years after the completion of the research project.
We wish you success in your research endeavors.

Joan K. West, Ph.D.

Director and authorized UTM-IRB Official
tb
Attachments

243

VITA
Graduate School
Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Joy Leia Roach

Date of Birth: May 18, 1976

1503 Beckett Drive, Murray, Kentucky 42071

Murray State University
Bachelor of Arts in Business, May 1999
Murray State University
Master of Business Administration, August 2001

Awards:
Best Paper Award, Academic Business World Conference, 2005, Nashville, TN

Dissertation Title:
Factors Affecting Written Business Communication Creation and Productivity
Perceptions

Major Professor: Dr. Marcia Anderson

Publications:
Durden, K. A., & Roach, J. L. (2005). The Matrix: Reloaded for the information
systems classroom. The Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 1(1) , 67-70.
Roach, J., & Hogan, L. (2004). The specific focus in the new AACSB standards on
assurance of learning and the implications involved for business teacher
educators. NABTE Review, 31, 64-68.
Daniel, L., & Roach, J. (2001). Preparing students to do business in Russia. Business
Education Forum, 55(3), 44-45.