Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Flows and Patterns

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fundamental Theories of Business Communication

Part of the book series: New Perspectives in Organizational Communication ((NPOC))

  • 1162 Accesses

Abstract

Theories in this chapter look at how communication flows between parties and what obstacles can impede or prevent this flow. Most of these theories give us insights into the transmission of information rather than the impetus for or effects of communication. However, theories such as Latour’s Actor-Network Theory examines the effects of disrupted communication links. Theories in this section also give us insights into how communication flows can develop into long-standing patterns that create communication structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abrahamson, E., & Rosenkopf, L. (1997). Social network effects on the extent of innovation diffusion: A computer simulation. Organization Science,8(3), 289–309. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.3.289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration theory. Holt & Rinehart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aten, K., & Thomas, G. F. (2016). Crowdsourcing strategizing: Communication technology affordances and the communicative constitution of organizational strategy. International Journal of Business Communication,53(2), 148–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415627269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, J. (1979). Uncertainty and social penetration theory expectations about relationship communication: A comparative test. Western Journal of Communication (Includes Communication Reports),43(3), 192–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baack, D., Fogliasso, C., & Harris, J. (2000). The personal impact of ethical decisions: A social penetration theory. Journal of Business Ethics,24(1), 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal,49(1), 49–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behnke, R. R., Sawyer, C. R., & King, P. E. (1994). Contagion theory and the communication of public speaking state anxiety. Communication Education,43(3), 246–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529409378981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research,6(1), 9–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollobás, B. (1968). A problem of the theory of communication networks. Acta Mathematica Hungarica,19(1–2), 75–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bon, G. L. (1897). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. T.F. Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice. The Journal of Management Studies,40(6), 1393–1417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandão, M. A., Moro, M. M., Lopes, G. R., & Oliveira, J. P. (2013). Using link semantics to recommend collaborations in academic social networks. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 833–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning, L., Morris, G. H., & Kee, K. F. (2011). The role of communication in positive organizational scholarship. In G. M. Spreitzer & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1999). Actor-network theory—The market test. The Sociological Review,47(S1), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03488.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardon, P. (2015). Business communication: Developing leaders for a networked world. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardon, P. W. (2009). Online social networks. Business Communication Quarterly,72(1), 96–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569908330376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, A., & Greene, K. (2015). Social penetration theory. In The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekaran, D., & Tellis, G. J. (2010). Diffusion of innovation. In Wiley international encyclopedia of marketing (1st ed.). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, A., Xu, B., & Wang, H. (2013). Who should I add as a friend? A study of friend recommendations using proximity and homophily. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Modeling Social Media, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Social contagion theory: Examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Statistics in Medicine,32(4), 556–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, N. S., & DeChurch, L. A. (2014). Integrating social networks and human social motives to achieve social influence at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,111(Supplement 4), 13650–13657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2012). Internet contagion theory 2.0: How Internet communication channels empower stakeholders. In S. Duhé (Ed.), New media and public relations (2nd ed., pp. 21–30). Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowell-Meyers, K. (2011). A collarette on a donkey: The Northern Ireland women’s coalition and the limitations of contagion theory. Political Studies,59(2), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00883.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crampton, S. M., Hodge, J. W., & Mishra, J. M. (1998). The informal communication network: Factors influencing grapevine activity. Public Personnel Management,27(4), 569–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609802700410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2012). Spiral of silence. Communication Yearbook,14(14), 288–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1983). Social penetration in Japanese and American close friendships. Annals of the International Communication Association,7(1), 592–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarniawska, B., & Hernes, T. (2005). Actor-network theory and organizing. Copenhagen Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. (1953). Management communication and the grapevine. Harvard Business Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. (1969). Grapevine communication among lower and middle managers. Personnel Journal,48(4), 269–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. (1973). The care and cultivation of the corporate grapevine. Management Review,62(10), 53–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, W. L., & O’Connor, J. R. (1977). Serial transmission of information: A study of the grapevine. Journal of Applied Communication Research,5(2), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909887709360246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Zúñiga, H. G., & Valenzuela, S. (2011). The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: Online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communication Research,38(3), 397–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diddi, A., & LaRose, R. (2006). Getting hooked on news: Uses and gratifications and the formation of news habits among college students in an Internet environment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,50(2), 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilbeck, K. E., & McCroskey, J. C. (2009). Socio-communicative orientation, communication competence, and rhetorical sensitivity. Human Communication,12(3), 255–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eadie, W. F., & Powell, R. G. (1991). RHETSEN2: A new measure of rhetorical sensitivity. Annual Meeting of the Western States Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farías, I. (2014). Virtual attractors, actual assemblages: How Luhmann’s theory of communication complements actor-network theory. European Journal of Social Theory,17(1), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431013484003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, P. H., & Pugliese, R. R. (2000). Partisans, proximates, and poker players: The impact of homophily and proximity on communication patterns of state legislators. Polity,32(3), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fichman, R. G., & Kemerer, C. F. (1999). The illusory diffusion of innovation: An examination of assimilation gaps. Information Systems Research,10(3), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.10.3.255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulkerson, G. (1990). The ethics of interpersonal influence: A critique of the rhetorical sensitivity construct. Journal of Communication & Religion, 13(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galpin, T. (1995). Pruning the grapevine. Training & Development,49(4), 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, C. J., & McLeod, J. M. (1984). Implications of the spiral of silence theory for communication and public opinion research. Political Communication Yearbook,1984, 43–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1977). The strength of weak ties. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Social networks: A developing paradigm (pp. 347–367).

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O., & Peacock, R. (2005). Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science and Medicine,61(2), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grübler, A. (1996). Time for a change: On the patterns of diffusion of innovation. Daedalus, 125(3), 19–42. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027369.

  • Gudykunst, W. B., Nishida, T., & Chua, E. (1987). Perceptions of social penetration in Japanese-North American dyads. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,11(2), 171–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, M. R., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1987). The influence of ethnicity and sex on social penetration in close friendships. Journal of Black Studies,17(4), 418–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, R. P., & Burks, D. M. (1972). Rhetorical sensitivity and social interaction. Communications Monographs,39(2), 75–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2007). Exploring the forms of self-censorship: On the spiral of silence and the use of opinion expression avoidance strategies. Journal of Communication,57(4), 785–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society,18(5), 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensley, W. E. (1996). A theory of the valenced other: The intersection of the looking-glass-self and social penetration. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,24(3), 293–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, S. S. (2016). Spiral of silence. In The international encyclopedia of political communication (pp. 1393–1417). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y., Shen, C., & Contractor, N. S. (2013). Distance matters: Exploring proximity and homophily in virtual world networks. Decision Support Systems,55(4), 969–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hursti, K. (2011). Management earnings forecasts: Could an investor reliably detect an unduly positive bias on the basis of the strength of the argumentation? The Journal of Business Communication,48(4), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943611414538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly,37(4), 509–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavanaugh, A. L., Reese, D. D., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2005). Weak ties in networked communities. The Information Society,21(2), 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kock, N. (2001). The ape that used e-mail: Understanding e-communication behavior through evolution theory. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,5(1), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kock, N., Mayfield, M., Mayfield, J., Sexton, S., & De La Garza, L. M. (2018). Empathetic leadership: How leader emotional support and understanding influences follower performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,29(2), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818806290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohl, J., Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (2005). Recent trends in pregnancy discrimination law. Business Horizons,48(5), 421–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaRose, R., & Eastin, M. S. (2004). A social cognitive theory of Internet uses and gratifications: Toward a new model of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,48(3), 358–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1988). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society (Revised ed.). Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt,47(4), 369–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. The Sociological Review,47(S1), 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2011). Network theory, networks, societies, spheres: Reflections of an actor-network theorist. International Journal of Communication,5, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (2008). Actor-network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory, 3rd edition (Vol. 3, pp. 141–158). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304992.ch7.

  • Liu, A. H., & Gao, H. (2014). Examining relational risk typologies for Guanxi boundary spanners: Applying social penetration theory to Guanxi brokering. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,22(3), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679220303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen, K., & Damsgaard, J. (2001). What’s wrong with the diffusion of innovation theory? In M. A. Ardis & B. L. Marcolin (Eds.), Diffusing software product and process innovations (pp. 173–190). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Q. K., Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (2018). Keep them on-board! How organizations can develop employee embeddedness to increase employee retention. Development and Learning in Organizations: an International Journal,32(4), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-11-2017-0094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, P. V., & Gorman, E. H. (2001). Interpersonal ties, social capital, and employer staffing practices. In N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 105–26). Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2012). National culture and infrastructure development: A comparison among four cultural typologies. Competitiveness Review, 22(5), 396–410. https://doi.org/10.1108/10595421211266285.

  • Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2013). Developing your organization with models and simulations. Development and Learning in Organizations,27(5), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-04-2013-0010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2014). Step by step to better performance: Organizational-citizenship behavior can transform employees and the workplace. Human Resource Management International Digest,22(4), 36–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2018a). A few words to get us started. In J. Mayfield & M. Mayfield (Eds.), Motivating language theory: Effective leader talk in the workplace (1st ed., pp. 9–22). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66930-4_9.

  • Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2018b). Clarity is key: Direction-giving language. In J. Mayfield & M. Mayfield (Eds.), Motivating language theory: Effective leader talk in the workplace (1st ed., pp. 49–63). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66930-4_9.

  • Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2018c). Fitting into the big picture: Meaning-making language. In J. Mayfield & M. Mayfield (Eds.), Motivating language theory: Effective leader talk in the workplace (1st ed., pp. 23–34). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66930-4_9.

  • Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2018d). Motivating language theory: Effective leader talk in the workplace. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2019). The diffusion process of strategic motivating language: An examination of the internal organizational environment and emergent properties. International Journal of Business Communication,56(3), 366–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416629093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M., & Neck, C. P. (in press). Speaking to the self: How motivating language links with self-leadership. International Journal of Business Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488417731861.

  • Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (2012). Effective performance feedback for learning in organizations and organizational learning. Development and Learning in Organizations,26(1), 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777281211189128.

  • Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (2017a). Leader talk and the creative spark: A research note on how leader motivating language use influences follower creative environment perceptions. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(2), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416687057.

  • Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (2017b). “What’s past is prologue”: A look at past leadership communication research with a view toward the future. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416687050.

  • Mayfield, M., Mayfield, J., & Lunce, S. (2008). Increasing tacit knowledge sharing with an HRIS. In T. Torres-Coronas & M. Arias-Oliva (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human resources information systems: Challenges in e-HRM: Vol. II. Information Science Reference (an imprint of Idea Group Inc).

    Google Scholar 

  • McCurdy, P. (2010). Breaking the spiral of silence: Unpacking the “media debate” within global justice movements. A case study of Dissent! and the 2005 Gleneagles G8 summit. Interface, 2(2), 42–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meade, N., & Islam, T. (2006). Modelling and forecasting the diffusion of innovation–A 25-year review. International Journal of Forecasting,22(3), 519–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, J. (1990). Managing the grapevine. Public Personnel Management,19(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609001900209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monge, P. E., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Homophily, proximity, and social support theories. In Theories of communication networks (pp. 223–239). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. (2003). Theory of communication networks. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2001). Emergence of communication networks. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 440–502). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuwirth, K., Frederick, E., & Mayo, C. (2007). The spiral of silence and fear of isolation. Journal of Communication,57(3), 450–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication,24(2), 43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuttin, J. M., & Nuttin, J. (1996). The illusion of attitude change: Towards a response contagion theory of persuasion. Leuven University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmgreen, P. (1984). Uses and gratifications: A theoretical perspective. Annals of the International Communication Association,8(1), 20–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, G. P. (1978). The British medical profession and contagion theory: Puerperal fever as a case study, 1830–1860. Medical History,22(02), 138–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priest, S. H., Ten Eyck, T., & Braman, S. (2004). Transborder information, local resistance, and the spiral of silence: Biotechnology and public opinion in the United States. In Biotechnology and communication: The meta-technologies of information (pp. 175–195). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quan-Haase, A., & Young, A. L. (2010). Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison of Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society,30(5), 350–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roessing, T. (2010). Challenges in spiral of silence research. 63rd Annual Conference of the World Association for Public Opinion Research, Chicago, Illinois, USA, pp. 11–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society,3(1), 3–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, C. T., & Kline, F. G. (1983). The spiral of silence ten years later: An examination and evaluation. Proceedings for the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, pp. 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, T. D. (2012). Virality: Contagion theory in the age of networks. University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, C. W., & Cho, H. (2003). A social network contagion theory of risk perception. Risk Analysis,23(2), 261–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufle, D. A., & Moy, P. (2000). Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of Public Opinion Research,12(1), 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1963). The mathematical theory of communication (1st ed.). University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stage, C. (2013). The online crowd: A contradiction in terms? On the potentials of Gustave Le Bon’s crowd psychology in an analysis of affective blogging. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 14(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2013.773261.

  • Stansberry, K. (2012). One-step, two-step, or multi-step flow: The role of influencers in information processing and dissemination in online, interest-based publics (Unpublished Dissertation, University of Oregon). https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/12416.

  • Swanson, D. L. (1979). The continuing evolution of the uses and gratifications approach. Communication Research,6(1), 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, J.-H., & Wang, C.-C. (2012). Self-disclosure among bloggers: Re-examination of social penetration theory. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,15(5), 245–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatnall, A. (2005). Actor-network theory in information systems research. In Encyclopedia of information science and technology (1st ed., pp. 42–46).

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, D. A. (1968). The development of interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes. The Journal of Social Psychology,75(1), 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, D. A., & Altman, I. (1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 257–277). Sage. http://doi.apa.org/psycinfo/1987-98202-011.

  • Valente, T. W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Hampton Pres.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanLear, C. A. (1987). The formation of social relationships: A longitudinal study of social penetration. Human Communication Research,13(3), 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, S. A., Bluman, D. L., & Dauria, A. F. (1982). Rhetorical sensitivity recast: Theoretical assumptions of an informal interpersonal rhetoric. Communication Quarterly,30(3), 189–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaremba, A. (1988). More than rumors: Understanding the organizational grapevine (Opinion Papers). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED296434.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A&M International University, Laredo, TX, USA

    Milton Mayfield & Jacqueline Mayfield

  2. Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Robyn Walker

Authors
  1. Milton Mayfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacqueline Mayfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robyn Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacqueline Mayfield .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mayfield, M., Mayfield, J., Walker, R. (2020). Flows and Patterns. In: Fundamental Theories of Business Communication. New Perspectives in Organizational Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57741-4_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation