This document discusses the impact of jargon on communication and relationships in the corporate workplace. It presents four hypotheses about how jargon may positively or negatively affect interactions between coworkers and between supervisors and subordinates. A survey was conducted to test the hypotheses. The document finds that jargon can both help and hinder workplace communication depending on how it is used and understood. While jargon allows efficient communication for those familiar with industry terms, excessive unfamiliar jargon poses risks of miscommunication and negatively impacting relationships.

1. 1
Danielle
Libassi
October
12,
2015
Owlett
Capstone
The
Impact
of
Jargon
on
Immediacy
Behaviors
and
Interpersonal
Communication
in
the
Corporate
Workplace

2. 2
The
Impact
of
Jargon
on
Immediacy
Behaviors
and
Interpersonal
Communication
in
the
Corporate
Workplace
Abstract:
Hypotheses
were
created
with
the
intent
to
understand
how
jargon
can
affect
interpersonal
relationships
and
immediacy
behaviors.
Previous
research
indicates
that
jargon
has
had
positive
and
negative
effects
on
the
immediacy
behaviors
between
coworkers
and
supervisor/subordinate
relationships.
A
survey
was
conducted
to
test
the
hypotheses
and
all
were
supported
but
one.
Data
concluded
that
jargon
can
compliment
day-­‐to-­‐day
communication
and
maintain
positive
immediacy
behaviors
within
the
corporate
workplace.
Hypotheses
and
Questions:
H1:
Jargon
is
detrimental
to
communication
when
used
in
any
writing
task,
formal
or
informal.
H2.
Jargon
is
assistive
in
employee-­‐to-­‐employee
casual
interaction
and
increases
immediacy
behaviors
in
the
workplace.
H3.
Jargon
can
negatively
affect
immediacy
behaviors
between
supervisor
and
subordinate.
H4:
If
interactions
between
supervisor
and
subordinate
are
positive,
business
will
maintain
their
turnover
rate.
R1.
Is
the
jargon
used
within
an
organization
hard
to
learn
or
understand?
R2.
Does
jargon
negatively
impact
the
communication
within
different
levels
of
a
corporation?
Introduction:
Jargon
is
a
language
that
has
been
created
within
all
facets
of
business
and
its
typically
specific
to
different
industries.
Studies
have
shown
that
this
jargon
or
better
known
as,
‘business
slang,’
negatively
impacts
the
immediacy
behaviors
between
co-­‐workers
and
boss
to
employee
relationships
(Gilsdorf,
1983).
Research
by
communications
experts
Brown
and
Gilsdorf
also
suggests
that
this
jargon
is
an
ever-­‐evolving
language
that
many
fluent
users
even
struggle
to
keep
up
with.
Jargon
is
used
daily
in
a
large
variety
of
organizations
because,
“the
attractiveness
of
jargon
in
a
nation
that
values
specialization
so
much
is
very
powerful”(Brown,
1913).
Studies
show
that
business
slang
can
be
either
assistive
or
detrimental
to
the

3. 3
communication
within
the
workplace,
which
can
increase
or
decrease
immediacy
behaviors
in
interpersonal
relationships
(Richmond
&
McCroskey,
2000).
Effective
communication
in
the
workplace
is
imperative
to
create
positive
relationships
between
co-­‐workers,
stakeholders
or
other
organizations.
There
is
a
lack
of
face-­‐to-­‐face
communication,
as
technology
has
taken
the
front-­‐runner
as
the
most
efficient
communication
method
within
the
workplace
(Brown,
1913).
Jargon
is
industry
specific
and
allows
employees
to
communicate
in
a
faster
method
however;
the
language
is
constantly
evolving,
making
it
hard
to
keep
up
(Gilsdorf,
1983).
Jargon
According
to
an
article
by
Gilsdorf,
the
daily
language
between
employees
are
an
“invisible”
resource
which
carry
ideas,
facts,
and
needs
and
are
exchanged
daily
among
all
interactions.
Communication
is
key
because,
“language
is
the
only
vehicle
for
moving
ideas
from
mind
to
mind”(Gilsdorf,
1983),
however
–
this
language
is
only
assistive
if
it
is
working
in
support
of
the
conversation
and
the
enhancements
of
interpersonal
relationships.
Brown
suggests
that
Americans
like
to
create
their
own
language
by
compounding
words
to
make
the
language
easier
or
more
special
to
them.
The
shortening
of
these
words
can
be
efficient
in
some
business
situations,
but
it
creates
a
colorful
language
that
not
all
employees
understand.
Many
companies
have
implemented
language
guidelines
for
virtual
communication
to
avoid
misinterpretations
(Brannen
&
Doz,
2012).
Brannen
&
Doz

4. 4
also
states
that,
“corporate
language
is
an
artifact
of
how
strategic
thoughts
are
formulated
as
well
as
how
they
are
communicated
and
discussed,”
giving
employees
the
opportunity
to
create
their
own
language
within
their
own
specific
boundaries.
This
study
also
found
that
some
workplaces
have
a
hard
time
in
diversifying
their
strategic
communication,
which
makes
the
language
less
exclusive
and
can
often
lead
to
a
failure
in
communication.
H1:
Jargon
is
detrimental
to
communication
when
used
in
any
writing
task,
formal
or
informal.
Gilsdorf
notes
that
jargon
can
be
offensive
to
the
reader
and/or
listener
who
do
not
know
that
specific
shortened
language.
Though
jargon
can
sometimes
be
used
as
a
way
to
communicate
in
a
more
efficient
manor,
Gilsdorf
reports
that
it
is
not
recommended
to
use
it
in
writing,
especially
if
it
is
taking
place
out
of
the
organization.
“Slang
is
a
powerful
group-­‐membership
indicator.
Business
has
its
groups,
and
business
slang
may
be
used
to
denote
membership,”(Gilsdorf,
1983)
and
as
conditions
change,
expressions
evolve
or
change
as
well.
Immediacy
Behaviors
H2.
Jargon
is
assistive
in
employee-­‐to-­‐employee
casual
interaction
and
increases
immediacy
behaviors
in
the
workplace.
Immediacy
behaviors
are
the
non-­‐verbal
and
physical
cues
people
give
to
one
another
to
signal
closeness
and
understanding
of
one
another.
These
behaviors
“signal
availability,
increase
sensory
stimulation,
and
decrease
both
physical
and

5. 5
psychological
distance
between
interactants,
”
and
the
most
common
nonverbal
cues
are,
“close
proxemics
distancing,
touch,
gaze,
direct
body
orientation,
and
forward
lean”
(Anderson,
1998).
While
these
more
physical
attributes
are
imperative
to
positive
immediacy
behaviors,
there
are
also
indicators
called
positive
affect
cues
such
as
smiling
or
vocal
pleasantness,
which
helps
maintain
availability
and
intimacy
(Anderson,
1998).
Understanding
how
to
refine
and
acknowledge
these
behaviors
an
important
skill
to
possess
as
they
play
a
large
role
in
how
employees
feel
about
their
daily
communication
at
work.
H3.
Jargon
can
negatively
affect
immediacy
behaviors
between
supervisor
and
subordinate.
Furthermore,
supervisors
must
use
these
immediacy
behaviors
to
assist
their
communication
with
subordinates
as
it
has
a
direct
correlation
to
job
satisfaction
(Richmond
&
McCroskey,
2000).
Some
supervisors
may
be
unaware
of
the
immediacy
behaviors
they
are
giving
off
whereas
some
may
be,
“consciously
manipulating
the
nonverbal
(as
well
as
verbal)
behavior
in
order
to
produce
a
desired
image
in
the
minds
of
the
subordinates”
(Richmond
&
McCroskey,
2000).
Subordinates
and
supervisors
use
these
cues
to
generate
reciprocity
to
the
interaction,
which
is
almost
always
a
subconscious
reaction.
For
example,
if
someone
smiles
at
another
employee,
it
is
likely
that
person
will
reciprocate
the
interaction
with
a
smile
or
a
wave
or,
“in
short,
if
positive
or
negative
affect
is
communicated
via
nonverbal
immediacy
behaviors,
it
will
be
reciprocated”(Anderson,
1998).

6. 6
Interpersonal
Communication
in
the
Workplace
According
to
Anderson,
“employers
would
rather
hire
employees
with
well-­‐
developed
interpersonal
skills.”
In
a
study
conducted
by
Gilsdorf,
participants
in
a
survey
disclosed
that
the
use
of
jargon
is
misunderstood
in
80
percent
of
the
situations
it
is
used
in.
This
survey
also
indicates
that,
“the
amorphousness
of
the
subject
that
no
exact,
neutrally
connotative,
well-­‐understood
word
for
it
exists,”
therefore,
these
misunderstandings
are
lowering
the
immediacy
behaviors
within
the
relationships
that
are
created
in
the
workplace.
Research
has
been
conducted
on
immediacy
behaviors
and
their
effects
on
business
interactions.
It
has
been
concluded
that,
“1)
employees
who
are
highly
motivated
generally
are
more
productive
than
those
that
are
not,
and
2)
employees
who
are
satisfied
with
their
jobs
are
both
more
motivated
to
do
high
quality
work
and
less
likely
to
leave
their
jobs”
(Anderson,
1998).
Job
satisfaction
is
an
important
component
to
a
happy
and
well-­‐functioning
workplace
as,
“turnover
is
extremely
expensive
due
to
the
increased
costs
of
training
new
workers”(Anderson,
1998).
H4:
If
interactions
between
supervisor
and
subordinate
are
positive,
business
will
maintain
their
turnover
rate.
Arizona
State
University
conducted
a
study
among
Forbes
1000
top
business’
to
see
executives
reactions
and
attitudes
toward
“buzzwords”
or
business
slang.
Participants
reactions
to
these
words
vary,
some
deeming
them
to
have
positive
and

7. 7
negative
connotation
depending
on
the
situation
(Gilsdorf,
1983).
It
is
important
that
the
communication
used
between
workers
is
creating
positive
immediacy
behaviors,
as
interpersonal
skills
are
one
of
the
most
important
skill
needed
in
the
corporate
workplace.
In
this
study,
Gilsdorf
examines
the
top
companies
and
sought,
“to
discover
what
attitudes
toward
business
slang
are
held
by
excellent
communicators.”
He
found
that
although
not
all
people
hold
negative
feelings
toward
the
use
of
jargon,
most
people
are
not
firm
believers
in
its
use.
The
study
also
concluded
that
positive
attitudes
towards
this
shortened
form
of
communication
decreases
as
the
job
level
rises.
An
article
by
Petronio
illustrates
a
similar
concept
by
discussing
how
boundaries
are
important
within
inter-­‐groups
and
outer-­‐groups
because
they
allow
people
to
understand
what
behaviors
their
co-­‐workers
need
in
order
to
be
successful
within
the
organization.
The
miscommunication
of
interpersonal
boundaries
can
create
issues
between
employees
(or
subordinate
and
supervisor),
especially
if
one
is
using
terminology
that
another
does
not
understand.
Jargon
follows
a
pattern
within
the
workplace
(Petronio,
1998).
Depending
on
the
place
in
which
the
jargon
is
being
used,
it
is
up
to
the
person
involved
to
integrate
themselves
in
their
environment
by,
“…drawing
lines
around
those
things
that
are
important
to
us,
and
we
control
them
through
rules.
Yet
we
also
recognize
that
to
fit
within
the
environment
successfully,
we
must
have
enough
flexibility
in
these

8. 8
boundaries
to
allow
a
decree
of
integration
between
ourselves
and
the
world
in
which
we
live”(Petronio,
1998).
One
may
draw
the
conclusion
that
jargon
has
a
negative
effect
on
daily
communication.
However,
Gilsdorf
found
that
most
people
do
not
believe
slang
has
a
large
interference
in
the
daily
communication
within
an
organization.
This
study
also
concluded
that
75%
of
people
said
they
are
likely
to
use
jargon
in
an
informal
context
with
middle
management.
To
add,
top
management
regards
the
use
of
jargon
most
negatively,
as
they
understand
the
need
for
clear
communication
in
the
workplace
(Gilsdorf,
1983).
Methods
A
survey
was
constructed
that
analyzed
the
participants
thoughts
on
their
personal
corporate
communication
styles
and
how
jargon
either
assists
or
hinders
their
spoken
and
written
communication.
Participants
Sixty-­‐three
people,
both
male
and
female
participated
in
this
study.
Participants
were
reached
through
email
blast
through
two
Forbes
1000
pharmaceutical
companies:
NovoNordisk
and
AuroBindo
and
each
participant
was
asked
to
anonymously
fill
out
a
survey
about
the
use
of
jargon
in
their
workplace.
The
age
group
with
the
highest
participant
rate
was
28
people
between
the
ages
of
46-­‐55.
The
majority
of
subjects
have
acquired
a
degree
of
higher
education,
with
24
participants
completing
their
Bachelors
Degree,
and
25
participants
completing
a
Masters
Degree.

9. 9
Procedures
Subjects
were
sent
an
email
with
an
explanation
of
the
survey
and
its
purposes
for
a
study
at
William
Paterson
University.
The
survey
had
an
explanation
and
background
information
on
jargon
and
communication
in
the
workplace
so
participants
had
an
understanding
of
why
they
were
participating
in
this
survey.
The
participants
were
not
provided
with
any
incentive
for
completing
the
survey,
however
they
received
a
thank
you
email
for
participating.
It
can
be
assumed
that
participants
took
these
surveys
somewhere
within
their
workplace,
as
they
were
sent
to
their
professional
email
addresses.
The
survey
includes
15
items
total
to
determine
the
use
of
jargon
in
the
workplace
and
the
affect
it
has
on
employee
communication.
This
survey
was
measured
using
a
four-­‐point
Likert-­‐type
scale
(1=
strongly
disagree,
4=
strongly
agree)
created
by
Caplan
(2002)
and
positive
question
statements.
Some
questions
included
in
the
survey
are
as
follows:
Jargon
makes
your
daily
communication
easier,
jargon
helps
add
clarity
to
my
writing,
my
boss
talks
down
to
me
with
Question
Responses
Are
you
male
or
female?
Male
–
23
Participants
(36.51%)
Female
–
40
Participants
(63.49%)
63
total
Participants
How
old
are
you?
Under
25
–
0
Participants
(0%)
25-­‐35
–
7
Participants
(11.11%)
36-­‐45
–
17
Participants
(29.98%)
46-­‐55%
-­‐
28
Participants
(44.44%)
55+
-­‐
11
Participants
(17.46%)
What
is
the
highest
level
of
education
you
have
completed?
High
School/GED
–
2
Participants
(3.17%)
Some
College
–
10
Participants
(15.87%)
BA
–
24
Participants
(38.10%)
MA
–
25
Participants
(39.68%)
Ph.D
–
2
Participants
(3.17%)

10. 10
terminology
I
do
not
understand,
my
company
uses
jargon
to
communicate
with
other
companies,
and
when
I
was
a
new
employee,
I
had
a
hard
time
understanding
the
jargon
at
my
company.
The
reported
findings
can
support
the
hypotheses
previously
mentioned
and
suggest
several
new
findings
about
the
communication
within
the
professional
workplace.
Results
The
four
hypotheses
were
used
to
measure
the
effects
of
jargon
on
business
communication.
The
results
below
are
reflective
of
the
data
collected
from
corporate
professionals
who
experience
the
use
of
jargon
on
a
daily
basis.
Not
all
results
had
a
positive
correlation
to
the
mentioned
hypotheses.
H1:
Jargon
is
detrimental
to
communication
when
used
in
any
writing
task,
formal
or
informal.
Hypothesis
one
was
tested
with
two
questions:
is
jargon
assistive
in
writing
tasks?
and
does
jargon
help
add
clarity
to
your
writing?
This
hypothesis
was
confirmed
as
the
results
of
these
two
questions
displayed
a
disdain
toward
using
jargon
in
any
type
of
writing.
In
Q5:
Is
jargon
assistive
in
writing
tasks,
44.8%
of
people
disagreed
that
it
helps
them
in
their
professional
writing.
To
add,
in
Q6:
Does
jargon
help
add
clarity
to
your
writing,
56.9%
of
participants
felt
that
the
use
of
jargon
in
professional
writing
does
not
add
clarity
to
their
writing.

11. 11
Table
A:
Q5
–
Jargon
Is
Assistive
In
Writing
Tasks
H2.
Jargon
is
assistive
in
employee-­‐to-­‐employee
casual
interaction
and
increases
immediacy
behaviors
in
the
workplace.
Hypothesis
2
was
tested
was
tested
in
order
to
understand
how
the
use
of
jargon
affects
the
immediacy
behaviors
between
supervisor
and
subordinate,
and
between
same
level
co-­‐workers.
According
to
Q7:
There
is
often
miscommunication
between
employees
of
my
workplace,
44.07%
of
corporate
employees
agreed
with
this
statement.
On
the
contrary,
in
Q4:
Jargon
makes
your
daily
communication
easier,
69.49%
of
corporate
employees
agree
that
this
slang
alleviates
the
stress
of
day-­‐to-­‐day
communication.
In
Q15:
I
only
use
jargon
in
informal
business
settings,
48.3%
of
participants
agreed
with
the
statement.
When
the
participants
were
asked
Q12:
I
feel
like
I
have
a
good
understanding
of
the
jargon
in
my
office
place,
91.44%
of
participants
agreed
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

12. 12
that
they
understand
their
companies
jargon.
The
use
of
this
informal
communication
among
employees
could
help
increase
proximity
and
closeness,
which
are
important
immediacy
behaviors
needed
within
a
workplace.
Table
B:
Q4
–
Jargon
Makes
Your
Daily
Communication
Easier
Table
C:
Q12
–
I
Feel
Like
I
Have
A
Good
Understanding
of
the
Jargon
In
My
Office.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

13. 13
H3.
Jargon
can
negatively
affect
immediacy
behaviors
between
supervisor
and
subordinate.
Hypothesis
three
was
created
in
order
to
address
some
of
the
results
of
other
studies.
According
to
Richmond
&
McCroskey,
supervisors
may
be
using
jargon
to
manipulate
their
communication
with
their
subordinates
in
order
to
produce
a
desired
result.
Although
their
research
supports
this,
Q9:
My
boss
talks
down
to
me
with
terminology
I
do
not
understand,
states
the
opposite,
with
a
total
of
96.6%
of
corporate
employees
who
disagreed
with
this
statement.
H4:
If
interactions
between
supervisor
and
subordinate
are
positive,
business
will
maintain
their
turnover
rate.
Hypothesis
four
suggests
that
supervisors
and
subordinates
must
have
a
positive
communication
in
order
to
maintain
the
turnover
rate.
As
research
indicates
that
it
is
expensive
for
a
company
to
train
new
employees
so,
it
is
imperative
to
have
a
control
over
the
intake
and
outtake
within
an
organization
(Anderson,
1998).
Q9
supports
hypothesis
four,
indicating
the
participants
at
these
organizations
do
not
feel
that
their
boss
uses
terminology
to
speak
down
to
them.
Participants
agreed
at
a
rate
of
91.5%
with
Q9:
Jargon
is
used
interchangeably
in
my
office.
An
important
aspect
of
maintaining
a
turnover
rate
at
an
organization
is
keeping
employees
up-­‐to-­‐date
with
communication
practices.
Employees,
new
and
old,
should
be
educated
about
the
jargon
terminology
used
within
a
company.
In
Q13:
When
I
was
a
new
employee,
I
had
a
hard
time
understanding
the
jargon
at
my

14. 14
company,
67.2%
of
participants
agreed
that
they
struggled
to
understand
the
jargon
when
they
first
started
with
the
company.
To
add,
Q8
states:
The
jargon
used
in
my
office
rapidly
changes,
and
26.6%
of
participants
agreed.
Table
D:
Q13
–
When
I
Was
A
New
Employee,
I
Had
A
Hard
Time
Understanding
the
Jargon
at
My
Company
Discussion
Implications
This
survey
sought
to
understand
the
way
that
jargon
can
affect
the
immediacy
behaviors
and
communication
in
a
corporate
workplace.
The
four
hypotheses
challenged
the
ideas
that
jargon
can
be
assistive
or
detrimental
to
communication
and
the
results
of
the
survey
proved
most
of
these
hypotheses.
The
data
compiled
from
the
survey
did
not
support
H3.
The
results
of
the
survey
supported
H1
and
indicated
that
the
participants
do
not
prefer
to
use
jargon
in
written
communication.
H2
concluded
that
interpersonal
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Series1

15. 15
communication
is
imperative
to
day-­‐to-­‐day
communication
and
is
enhanced
by
using
familiar
language
with
their
counterparts.
This
survey
revealed
that
the
use
of
jargon
makes
the
communication
environment
easier
for
the
participants.
Data
from
the
survey
did
not
support
H3,
rather
implied
that
jargon
in
fact
does
assist
the
communication
and
immediacy
behaviors
within
the
corporate
workplace.
Finally,
H4
suggests
that
in
order
to
maintain
turnover
rates
within
the
office
place,
it
is
crucial
that
supervisors
speak
to
the
subordinates
in
a
manner
that
establishes
inclusiveness.
The
findings
from
this
survey
support
the
research
conducted
by
Gilsdorf,
as
he
suggests
that
most
people
do
not
believe
that
jargon
has
any
effect
on
their
daily
communication.
Furthermore,
conclusions
made
by
Anderson
states
that
the
subordinate
immediacy
attitudes
toward
the
supervisor
will
rise
as
the
supervisor
expresses
more
positive
attitudes
toward
the
subordinate.
It
appears
that
employees
have
generally
positive
feelings
about
the
use
of
jargon,
and
do
not
mind
its
use
as
long
as
they
are
aware
of
what
the
terms
mean.
Many
get
lost
in
communication
as
the
workplace
jargon
changes.
This
issue
could
be
aided
by
providing
employees
with
proper
training
or
knowledge
on
the
jargon
of
their
specific
organization.
Though
one
can
draw
these
conclusions
based
off
of
the
survey’s
findings,
there
were
several
limitations
that
could
hinder
the
results.
Limitations
There
were
several
limitations
when
conducting
this
survey.
First,
the
survey
used
a
convenience
sample,
as
it
was
passed
along
from
friend-­‐to-­‐friend.
To
add,

16. 16
methods
to
data
collection
were
limited
to
a
survey.
It
would
be
difficult
to
conduct
a
naturalistic
observation
or
focus
group
because
the
presence
of
others
has
the
potential
to
skew
the
answers.
Some
participants
chose
to
opt
out
of
certain
questions
so
not
all
responses
were
definitive
across
the
board.
Finally,
there
were
40
female
participants
and
only
23
male
participants.
The
large
difference
in
the
gender
of
participants
could
potentially
alter
the
answers,
as
females
view
immediacy
and
communication
differently
than
males.
Future
Directions
In
the
future,
I
would
suggest
that
researchers
attempt
some
sort
of
naturalistic
observation
or
focus
group
in
order
to
generate
a
more
in
depth
analysis
of
participants
exact
feelings
on
the
use
of
jargon
within
the
workplace.
I
think
it
would
be
assistive
to
the
research
to
sit
in
on
corporate
meetings,
between
same-­‐
level
co-­‐workers,
and
between
subordinate/supervisor.
To
add,
I
would
like
to
further
research
on
what
sort
of
education
could
be
provided
at
these
corporate
offices
to
teach
new
and
existing
employees
about
the
jargon
or
language
within
the
organization.
This
would
ensure
that
employees
are
communicating
on
the
same
level,
and
has
the
potential
to
alleviate
miscommunications
in
daily
office
communication.
Conclusion
Communication
researchers
suggest
that
jargon
can
either
be
positive
or
negative
for
workplace
communication,
depending
on
its
usage.
Gilsdorf,
Brown,

17. 17
Brannen
&
Doz,
and
June
all
concluded
that
immediacy
behaviors
are
key
in
maintaining
positive
communication
and
the
use
of
jargon
has
the
ability
to
do
so.
The
study
conducted
concluded
that
jargon
can
in
fact
enhance
immediacy
behaviors
by
creating
inclusiveness
within
inter-­‐groups,
and
enhance
day-­‐to-­‐day
communication
between
employees.

18. 18
References
Anderson,
P.,
Guerrero,
L.,
Buller,
D.,
&
Jorgensen,
P.
(1998).
An
Empirical
Comparison
of
Three
Theories
of
Nonverbal
Immediacy
Exchange.
Human
Communication
Research,
24(4),
501-­‐534.
Retrieved
November
15,
2015
Brown,
W.
(1913,
April
1).
Jargon
and
the
Teaching
of
Organizational
Communication.
Retrieved
October
9,
2015.
Gilsdorf,
J.
W.
(1983).
Executive
and
Managerial
Attitudes
Toward
Business
Slang:
A
Fortune-­‐List
Survey.
Journal
of
Business
Communication,
20(4),
29-­‐42.
Gilsdorf,
J.
W.
(1983).
Jargon
and
Business
Slang
within
the
Organization?
Consider
the
Audience.
30-­‐32.
Petronio,
S.
(1998,
December
1).
(Mis)communicating
Across
Boundaries.
Retrieved
October
9,
2015
Richmond,
V.
P.,
&
McCroskey,
J.
C.
(2000).
The
Impact
of
Supervisor
and
Subordinate
Immediacy
on
Relational
and
Organizational
Outcomes.
Communication
Monographs,
67(1),
85.
Yoko
Brannen,
M.,
&
Doz,
Y.
L.
(2012).
Corporate
Languages
and
Strategic
Agility:
TRAPPED
IN
YOUR
JARGON
OR
LOST
IN
TRANSLATION?.
California
Management
Review,
54(3),
77-­‐97.
doi:10.1525/cmr.2012.54.3.77