How can we make our research more relevant? Bridging the gap between workplace changes and business communication research.

Some management scholars argue that academic literature is becoming less and less relevant to practicing managers. Thomas posits that the same will be true for business communication if scholars do not venture into the field and connect with those who "do" business communication. As organizations shift from manufacturing to service jobs, expand their operations overseas, manage "talent" more strategically, and alter traditional bureaucratic structures, business communication is becoming increasingly intercultural, virtual, horizontal, strategic, and change focused. Yet it is not clear that the business communication literature is keeping pace. Examples of Thomas's work in interagency collaboration, electronic mail overload, and strategic communication demonstrate possibilities for gaining access and studying communication dilemmas that face practicing managers. Bridging the academic-practitioner gap is a way to build face validity in the business world as well as help academics to develop better theories about workplace communication.

Keywords: globalization; electronic communication; intercultural communication; horizontal communication; strategic communication; change communication; interagency collaboration

**********

Significant research is an outcome of investigator involvement in the physical and social world of organizations. The implications for scholars are clear: Make contacts. Leave your office door open. Look for wide exposure and diverse experiences. Go into organizations.... Listen to managers. Activity and exposure are important because significant research often results from chance convergence of ideas and activities from several sources.

Campbell, Daft, & Hulin (1982, p. 107)

Over the years, various academics have raised concerns about the gap between organizational research and business practice (Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, 2001; Smeltzer, 1993; Suchan & Charles, 2006; Thomas & Tymon, 1982). In fact, several studies have shown that managers rarely turn to academics or research to inform their practice (Abrahamson, 1996; Mowday, 1997, Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002; Smeltzer, 1993).

In 1992, Larry Smeltzer addressed the academic-practitioner gap in business communication when he gave the Association for Business Communication's (ABC) first Outstanding Researcher plenary speech. After querying practitioners and academics about their preference for research knowledge and then analyzing articles during a 15-year span from Journal of Business Communication, he found limited overlap in research topics. Among the three sources--practitioners, academics, and JBC--written communication was the only common topic. Smeltzer concluded that academics needed to become intimately aware of the needs of business people or risk becoming irrelevant.

You may wonder why this gap exists. Some say it's because managers and researchers work from very different frames of reference. Others say it's because academics and practitioners have different purposes and operate within different discourse communities (Johns, 1993; Rynes et al., 2001; Shrivastava & Mitroff, 1984). Whatever the reason, if academics talk only to themselves, they risk becoming inwardly focused and out of touch with the business world (Gergen, 1995, Zimbardo, 2002). In a world that seems increasingly volatile, it seems more important than ever that academics attempt to bridge this gap by venturing out into organizations and collaborating with practitioners. The reasons for this seem clear. First, business people can benefit from the knowledge that academics have to share. Second, academics are more likely to have a stronger impact in their classrooms if they demonstrate an understanding of the contemporary and future dilemmas in the world of work. And third, bridging this gap is likely to increase our credibility with the business community.

The purpose of this article is to provide a brief overview of forces that are shaping the environment, including the changes that are manifesting themselves in the workplace. I primarily draw from two recent sources for this overview: Friedman's (2005) The World is Flat and O'Toole and Lawler's (2006) The New American Workplace. I then demonstrate the implications of these forces for business communication research, including examples from studies I have conducted over the past years.

THREE ERAS OF GLOBALIZATION

Friedman (2005) claims that globalization has reached a tipping point and is moving to a new level. In his often-cited book, The World is Flat, he describes the progression of Globalization 1.0 to Globalization 3.0.

According to Friedman, Globalization 1.0 was the first era of globalization. It began in 1492, when Columbus opened trade between the Old World and the New World, and lasted until about 1800. Wind power, steam power, and brawn propelled this era. Often inspired by religion or imperialism, countries and governments crossed boundaries and globalized. As Friedman says, "it shrank the world from a size large to a size medium" (p. 9).

The second era, Globalization 2.0, lasted roughly from 1800 to 2000 and was fueled by technological changes such as railroads, steam engines, the telegraph, PCs, satellites, and early versions of the World Wide Web. During this time, hundreds of millions of dollars were invested in hardware and infrastructure to connect institutions throughout the world. E-mail, which only became widespread in the mid-1990s, transformed the way we communicated with one another. In the late 1990s, the Internet and e-commerce took off. The core driver of change in this period was the multinational company. Goods and information were more easily transported around the globe and integration moved to a new level. In Friedman's words, "this era shrank the world from a size medium to a size small" (p. 9).

In about the year 2000, Friedman argues, we entered a whole new era, Globalization 3.0, where individuals' intellectual work could be delivered from anywhere. Work can now be disaggregated, delivered, distributed, produced, and put back together again. According to Friedman,

it is now possible for more people than ever to collaborate and

compete in real time with more other people on more different kinds

of work from more different corners of the planet on more equal

footing than at any previous time in the history of the world. (p.

8)

This shift to 3.0 gave individuals a whole new freedom for the way they work. In essence, the global economy has matured to a point where goods and information can flow quite easily throughout the world. According to Friedman, "Globalization 3.0 is shrinking the world from a size small to a size tiny and flattening the playing field at the same time" (p. 10). Friedman says that what's different about the three eras is that 1.0 is about countries globalizing, 2.0 is about companies globalizing, and 3.0 is about individuals worldwide globalizing.

This flattened playing field is causing remarkable changes in the workplace. Much of this change has been captured in O'Toole and Lawler's (2006) update to their well-known 1972 study, "Work in America." Their comprehensive study shows how American organizations have evolved in the past 30 years and the resulting shifts in the nature of work itself.

HOW ORGANIZATIONS ARE CHANGING

Lawler and O'Toole begin their argument in The New American Workplace by demonstrating the shift to a global economy. "The US," they claim, "has chosen a national strategy of being a leader in the fastpaced, unpredictable, and unsettling global process of economic and industrial transformation" (p. 5). In light of these shifts, organizations are moving from strategies that kept them competitive among American corporations to strategies that will keep them competitive in a more intense global competitive economy.

The first two columns in Table 1 list themes derived from the two books: The World Is Flat and The New American Workplace. The third column is my interpretation of communication-related changes that seem to be occuring in response to these global and workplace changes.

Although numerous changes have occurred in business organizations, column 1 lists five organizational changes that are frequently discussed in the management literature:

* In the past 30 years, American organizations have made a significant shift from manufacturing-related industries to service-related industries. Today, 80% of American jobs are service related. Nowhere is this more evident than in IBM. IBM, which was once known for its product businesses, has increasingly become more global and now focuses on technical services. In 2005, they exited the PC business altogether--a business it once dominated--selling it to a Chinese company. A result of this change is a business that is more knowledge intense and a workforce that is more professional, better compensated, and engaged in more interesting work.

* More American corporations are expanding beyond the domestic, U.S. economy and entering the global economy. Companies such as Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, IBM, and Citibank all have global brands and do much of their business offshore. Today, almost 28% of employees of major U.S. corporations work overseas.

* Increasingly, human capital is the name of the game for high-performing companies. American corporations know that to be successful, they must attract, retain, and develop highly skilled managers, professionals, and technicians. In the field of human resources, the competition for the best employees is known as the "war for talent."