Challenges for ABC Members in 2000: Outstanding Teacher Lecture

Abstract

Outstanding Teacher Lecture Preparing for my talk winner of year's Outstanding Teacher Award forced me to look closely at my years a teacher--my skills, my attitudes, and my growth over those years. It also gave me opportunity to assess profession of teaching business communication and state of field itself. I have examined what my own professional life has entailed and discussions I've had with Association for Business Communication (ABC) members through years. One overwhelming theme has emerged: many of us feel isolated and powerless we fight administrations to keep our programs. Our business communication programs are regarded weak and are susceptible to change more so than other disciplines. I am challenging ABC to fill void many of us feel. We need some strengths to fall back on when we are asked who we are and to support us when we are under attack. I have four challenges, each based on an attitude I have observed during my tenure a business communication instructor. Meeting any one of these challenges would help us take pride in our profession. Meeting all four would empower us to stand up a bit straighter in fight. Support Plain Language Across Continents The plain language movement has no academic sponsor, and I can think of no more appropriate group to endorse it than ABC. In some ways push for plain language is much stronger in countries other than US. However, movement is deserving of serious attention everywhere. I would hope that members of association would be flag bearers. In fact, back in 1985 Gretchen Vik wrote that as business communicators we need to keep track of movement's figures (p. 66). She pointed to interest of Department of Commerce and American Bankers Association in plain language validation of the concern we business communicators have shown for subject (p. 66). However, we have not followed her suggestion and could do much more. When I worked on my dissertation in mid-1980s, I interviewed a vice president at State Farm about rewriting of insurance policies into plain language. We first discussed challenges of meeting plain language requirements of 34 states' laws. He explained company's drafting process and pointed out that lawyers had lost some of their say in writing of policies. The final step was to send policy drafts to Document Design Center for editing and help with design of policy. Because rewritten policies actually filled more pages, there was a concern with increased expenses in printing process. So State Farm found a thinner paper that did not bleed, bought new printing presses, and decided to glue spines instead of using staples. They now could fold policies once and use a business-size envelope. They saved over a million dollars in postage simply by eliminating staples. The lengths plain language laws would force a company to go were fascinating. Nowhere had I read any of those details. However, when I submitted an article with those details to one of our journals in about 1988, one reviewer wrote, this old stuff again! I thought we were through with plain language by now. I had my doubts about an organization that had members with attitudes like that. Why wouldn't we want to know what lengths a company had to go to in order to meet needs of its policyholders? That was probably 13 years ago, and plain language movement is more active than ever in 2000. The Security and Exchange Commission is probably most visible proponent for plain language today; however, there is other activity well. For example, I teach a unit on plain language in my corporate communications class. Just semester, I have been able to make a very strong point to my class about current activity. The Food and Drug Administration required Glaxo Wellcome to produce a document in plain language explaining side effects of Lotronex because several women who had taken drug for irritable bowel syndrome became extremely ill. …