Fundamental Theories of Business Communication Laying A Foundation For The Field 1St Ed Edition Milton Mayfield Full Chapter

Fundamental Theories of Business
Communication: Laying a Foundation

for the Field 1st ed. Edition Milton
Mayfield
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/fundamental-theories-of-business-communication-layi
ng-a-foundation-for-the-field-1st-ed-edition-milton-mayfield/
NEW PERSPECTIVES IN ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
Fundamental Theories of
Business Communication
Laying a Foundation for the
Field
Milton Mayfield
Jacqueline Mayfield
Robyn Walker
New Perspectives in Organizational Communication
Series Editors
Milton Mayfield
Texas A&M International University
Laredo, TX, USA
Jacqueline Mayfield
Texas A&M International University
Laredo, TX, USA
This series will examine current, emerging, and cutting edge approaches
to organizational communication. Throughout this series, authors will
present new ideas in—and methods for—conducting organizational
communication research. The series will present a variety of topics, giving
readers an in-depth understanding of the organizational communication
field to develop the skills necessary to engage in field research.
More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/16587
Milton Mayfield · Jacqueline Mayfield ·
Robyn Walker
Fundamental Theories
of Business
Communication
Laying a Foundation for the Field
Milton Mayfield Jacqueline Mayfield
Texas A&M International University Texas A&M International University
Laredo, TX, USA Laredo, TX, USA
Robyn Walker
Marshall School of Business
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA, USA
ISSN 2730-5333 ISSN 2730-5341 (electronic)

New Perspectives in Organizational Communication
ISBN 978-3-030-57740-7 ISBN 978-3-030-57741-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57741-4
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgments
We are extremely grateful for the opportunity to write this book. It has
been a wonderful and challenging aspiration from which we learned a
great deal. To share one lesson learned, this book is a journey that we
hope will be continued. The field of business communication theory is
vital and dynamic so we encourage its members to pursue their important
work on theory development and evolution. We will do so too.
There are many significant contributors to our effort. We begin with
the inspiration found with the scholarship of Drs. Jeffrey A. Miles and
John B. Miner who made enormous strides in management theory by
surveying, summarizing, ranking, and raising relevant theoretical implica-
tions for researchers and managers. We are equally grateful to our mentor
and friend, Dr. Ronald Dulek, who has guided us over the years with
his superb vision of what makes effective business communication. Also
important, we thank our anonymous survey respondents, comprised of
organizational communication experts, who made the time and took the
effort to send us their feedback. This book would not exist without their
help and support. Their rankings and commentaries allowed us to identify
and categorize the theories in this book. Hats off to all these instructive
participants!
In the same vein, we are thankful for the other experts who informed
the process of book writing. Kudos to Drs. Ryan Bisel, Rita Men, and Jef
Naidoo for their invaluable advice on new and emerging theories. And
we truly appreciate the insightful theory discussions with Ken O’Quinn as
v
vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
well as the feedback from our anonymous book reviewers which was very
helpful. Another source of instrumental advice came from the Association
for Business Communication (ABC) members and Executive Director,
Jim Dubinsky. Thank you for that insightful meeting in Albuquerque
almost four years ago. The suggestions which all of you offered for this
book resonated and have carried us forward. In fact, this book is espe-
cially intended as a response to your contagious enthusiasm to advance
scholarship and knowledge in our field.
Our gratitude also extends to other key players in this book’s
professional support system. Marcus Ballenger, Commissioning Editor
at Palgrave and Sophia Siegler, his assistant, offered perfect sources of
encouragement, patience, and feedback to create this book. Many thanks
to both of you. In addition, Drs. Steve Sears, Ned Kock, and Texas A &
M International University were gracious in providing research funds and
release time for this book. Thanks for your resources too.
We finally want to mention our personal support systems. Applauds go
out to patient family members (pets included of course) who cheered us
on and never complained when we were knee deep in book research and
writing. Lastly, we are very grateful to each other for high persistence,
collaboration, and dedication towards this project. This book has been a
remarkable journey indeed.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 How We Selected the Theories 11
3 A Typology of Business Communication Theories 23
4 Theory Classification 39
5 Channels and Barriers 49
6 Cultural Characteristics and Influences 77
7 Flows and Patterns 95
8 Meaning-Making and Discovery 119
9 Motivation and Persuasion 143
10 Organizational Structures 161
11 Reasons and Representations 171
vii
viii CONTENTS
12 Emerging and Noteworthy Theories 187
13 Theory Traditions and Influences 211
14 Why We Need Business Communication Theories 233
15 Conclusion and Future Development 251
16 Recommended Readings 261
Index 263
List of Figures
Fig. 4.1 A diagram of overlapping areas among the business

communication theories 41
Fig. 5.1 Information Theories Model 58
ix
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Channels and Barriers 28

Table 3.2 Cultural Characteristics and Influences 29
Table 3.3 Flows and Patterns 30
Table 3.4 Meaning-Making and Discovery 30
Table 3.5 Motivation and Persuasion 31
Table 3.6 Organizational Structures 31
Table 3.7 Reasons and Representations 32
Table 4.1 Core Theories—those that scored highly across all four
areas 43
Table 4.2 Major Theories 45
Table 4.3 Focused Theories 46
Table 4.4 Notable Theories 47
Table 4.5 Summary statistics for each evaluation area 47
xi
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Tis hard if all is false that I advance. A fool must now

and then be right by chance.
—William Cowper, Conversation, Line 96
Business communication needs theories. As a field, business commu-

nication exists as a unique intersection of diverse areas, and, as such,
must fulfill many expectations. Business communication draws from the
broader field of communication research and draws from organizational
behavior, public relations, psychology, sociology, neurobiology, and even
more areas. This foundation gives business communication a rich set of
ideas to build on, but the multiplicity also creates difficulties. Specifically,
researchers can find it challenging to choose ideas on which to base their
work. Business communication researchers also face another issue—rele-
vance to the business world. Business communication—as indicated by its
name—must give value to businesses, employees, and stakeholders.
Unfortunately, business communication researchers can feel lost about
how to examine the many questions that confront the business commu-
nity. Most researchers recognize the issue they want to study—how to
improve leader communication, what promotes discussions in meetings,
how to make communication more honest and ethical—but they do
not see how to grapple with these questions. Even when researchers
develop a study framework, it often remains idiosyncratic—a framework
that addresses a particular situation, but does not provide a way for other
© The Author(s) 2020 1

M. Mayfield et al., Fundamental Theories of Business
Communication, New Perspectives in Organizational Communication,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57741-4_1
2 M. MAYFIELD ET AL.
researchers to build upon the findings (Almaney, 1974; Hale, Dulek,

& Hale, 2005). This situation simply frustrates everyone. Researchers
abandon essential questions because they see no way to study them,
quality findings remain isolated because of difficulties in extending the
results, business people fail to find consistent advice about how to
improve their business situations, and the field of business communication
sees only isolated progress toward a common body of knowledge.
However, the field of business communication has the building blocks
to become a unified field (M. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017a, 2017b). We
have the tools needed so researchers can find models to examine most
business communication phenomena. More so, these tools provide frame-
works where researchers can apply their findings to business applications
and deliver results which other researchers can further develop. Through
many years, the field has generated theories that give researchers what
they need to craft quality work. Unfortunately, most business commu-
nication researchers—and those in other fields (Miles, 2012; Miner,
2002)—do not know the wide range of theories available to them.
Many researchers know only a handful of theories they learned in their
doctoral classes and have come to rely on them in their research. They
have forgotten, overlooked, or never been exposed to the majority of
theories which we have available.
In business communication, our theories mostly remain covert. The
catalog of our basic, fundamental theories only exists as tacit knowl-
edge (Allred, 2001; M. Mayfield, Mayfield, & Lunce, 2008), accessible
through limited networks of friends, colleagues, and research reports
(Eisenberg, Johnson, & Pieterson, 2015; Latour, 2005). Such implicit
knowledge needs to be made explicit—a source available to our field’s
members for discussion, debate, and change (M. Mayfield, 2010; M.
Mayfield & Mayfield, 2012). The very nature of implicit knowledge,
however, makes identifying the theories challenging. Different researchers
know some theories better than others, various texts are built around
diverse research, and business communication experts find certain models
more useful than others. Still, other business disciplines—notably orga-
nizational behavior (Miner, 2003) and organizational theory (Miles,
2012)—have faced similar challenges and successfully identified core
theories relevant to diverse researchers across these fields.
We believe that business communication faces unique difficulties
because of its diversity and relative newness (Aritz & Bargiela-Chiappini,
2014; Kuhn, 1996). While business communication has likely existed
1 INTRODUCTION 3
since our paleolithic ancestors first discussed how to trade bananas for
pomegranates, the study of business communication has emerged more
recently. Dedicated business communication journals such as the Interna-
tional Journal of Business Communication (founded 1963), Journal of
Advertising (founded 1972), and Management Communication Quar-
terly (founded 1987) have only existed a few short decades. While on
a human time scale, this period may seem long, Kuhn (1996) showed
developing a field often takes several generations. As such, business
communication finds itself fragmented and still searching for an iden-
tity. This fragmentation also stunts our field’s growth (Fort, 1975;
Kuhn, 1996), hinders our acceptance by other business and social science
researchers, and limits how much (financially) universities value business
communication professors (Abbott, 2014).
How can we reduce this fragmentation and still preserve our field’s
richness? We believe making these divergent perspectives explicit and
easily accessible is key. A shared worldview binds people together—be they
friends, work colleagues, or members of an academic community (Brodie,
2011; Eisenberg & Riley, 2001). Case in point: Within academic commu-
nities, theories help forge members’ identities, even when vast distances
and long years separate them (Kuhn, 1996; Latour, 2005). Theory under-
lies the research we immerse ourselves in and underpins the texts we use to
teach. These same theories offer a compass to all members in our commu-
nity: a guide for researchers seeking robust, well-supported frameworks
for examining phenomena in the field; for teachers crafting pedagogy
based on useful and well-understood principles; for writers looking to
develop texts grounded in our field’s best practices; for consultants trying
to benefit the workforce.
To develop such coherence, we need a set of widely recognized theo-
ries. While we believe these theories exist, few business communication
researchers know more than a handful. (As an aside, part of the reason
we started this project was to develop our knowledge of these theories—
we wanted this list so we could know the field better.) While researchers
do not need an in-depth understanding of all of the major theories in an
area, we hope this book helps researchers recognize these theories and
gain a general idea of their legitimacy and utility. By distributing such
shared knowledge, a field can grow a cohesive speech community with
a free exchange of ideas (Boulanger & Gagnon, 2018; Lo, 1999). We
hope this book contributes to the development of such a community by
bringing to light the foundational blocks the field already possesses.
To facilitate this process, we present the fundamental business commu-

nication theories. Knowing these theories will help researchers have a
stronger understanding of our field—what shapes research and promotes
a better understanding of business communication phenomena. Also,
knowing these theories will help you develop research by building on
well-established knowledge that speaks to other researchers. To help you
develop this knowledge, we will present you with descriptions of the
major business communication theories and also explanations about how
these theories fit together to define the field.
In the remainder of this chapter, we will lay out specifics of what we
mean by business communication, theory, and our motivation for writing
this book.
What Is Business Communication

Many people have presented diverse definitions of business communica-
tion (Locker, 1998; Shelby, 1993). Such diversity arises naturally from
our expansive field. People even hold different views about the appro-
priate name for our field, and people may call the field of study corporate,
organizational, management, or business communication (Shelby, 1993).
Annette Shelby (1993) provided a useful typology that incorporated
the various terms’ nuances. She distinguished the terms based on how a
particular area examined dyadic or collective communication (along one
axis) and internal or external communications (along another axis). She
proposed that both organizational and business communication inves-
tigated similar topics, but business communication concentrated more
on applied communication while organizational communication focused
more on theoretical matters. In contrast, management communication
focused more on internal communications and corporate communication
focused on communications with external entities.
As such, it seems researchers could use the term business or organiza-
tional communication for many of the same concepts, and that either of
these terms would cover the areas explored in management and corporate
communication. Since the terms organizational and business communica-
tion seem quite similar, we will use business communication because we
use this term most often. However, we intend to use this term to cover
all aspects of Corporate/Organizational/Management/Business commu-
nication research. We hope that our choice of business communication
1 INTRODUCTION 5
does not deter anyone who views the field differently or prefers a different
name.
As for how we define business communication, we consider it consists
of any information exchange processes used to interpret, identify, deter-
mine, achieve, sustain, or subvert organizationally related individual or
collective goals. These communications include verbal and nonverbal
behaviors. Such exchanges occur between various entities—individuals,
teams, and entire organizations—in any combination. These communica-
tions can occur either entirely inside an organization or across organiza-
tional boundaries. Researchers can examine such interactions from micro,
macro, or multilevel perspectives.
What Is Theory
Now that we have a working definition of business communication, we
also need a definition of how we will use the term theory in this book.
Corley and Gioia (2011) provide a concise definition of a theory as “… a
statement of concepts and their interrelationships that shows how and/or
why a phenomenon occurs.” However, this statement is perhaps too
concise, and we would like to supplement it with a brief discussion of
Dubin’s (1978) theory definition, and, later, an expansion on his ideas
for business communication.
Dubin (1978) offered one of the most well-known theory definitions.
He defined a theory as any set of statements that give a clear set of
beliefs about a phenomenon and included three specific elements. The
first element was that a theory had to define at least two constructs. (In
this definition, a construct was simply some element that could act upon
or could be influenced by some other construct.) For example, motivating
language (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2018; Sullivan, 1988), communica-
tion satisfaction (MacDonald, Kelly, & Christen, 2019; Raina & Roebuck,
2016), and community (Cardon, 2016; Ma, Mayfield, & Mayfield, 2018)
can all serve as constructs. In essence, anything that we can measure,
could influence another construct, or could change because of another
construct fits the definition of a construct.
Dubin also required that at least one construct have a defined relation-
ship with another construct. We can think of constructs as the nouns in
Dubin’s grammar of theory, and his second element—the relationship—
as the verbs. We need to note that the relationship could state that no
influence exists between constructs, i.e., construct A doesn’t influence on

construct B.
Dubin also said a theory needed to define under what circumstances
construct relationships would change and when they no longer apply. The
change requirement essentially means that a theorist should identify what
moderators influence the relationship between a set of constructs (Dubin,
1978; Pettit, Goris, & Vaught, 1997). For examining when a theory
no longer applies, a theorist should include its boundary conditions—
in what situations the theory no longer holds (J. Mayfield & Mayfield,
2012, 2019). While these requirements complete Dubin’s theory defini-
tion, they usually only appear through empirical tests (Hale et al., 2005;
Ruben & Gigliotti, 2017).
Dubin’s definition provides a very thorough, robust, and easily applied
definition. However—as Dubin admits—it does not cover all types of
theory—including typologies or grand theories. As we will show in this
book, such model types have—and continue to play—essential roles in
business communication research. To incorporate such ideas, we will
have to supplement and broaden Dubin’s (1978) and Corley and Gioia’s
(2011) definitions.
For our definition, we will state that a theory must fulfill the following
conditions:
• It helps us understand the world better.

• It provides a coherent statement about some phenomena.
• It allows for researchers to build upon the theory.
This definition gives us a definitive enough framework to distinguish

between a theory and a simple collection of facts while also giving us
enough flexibility to fully explore theories that provide the foundations
of business communication research.
Why We Wrote This Book

First and foremost, we wrote this book to start a conversation. While it
may seem strange that we consider our book as the start of a conver-
sation rather than the end of our work, writing this book has increased
our humility about what we do not understand about business communi-
cation theory. The area of business communication contains a multitude
1 INTRODUCTION 7
of ideas and goals—a multitude that has proven challenging to codify

(J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017; M. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017b).
Theory helps us to codify and systematize our knowledge. How we
codify this knowledge; however, must come from the members of the
field; it should naturally arise as the field develops (Fort, 1975; Kuhn,
1996). As members of the field, we want to help this process. We hope
to do so by raising awareness of existing theories and fostering a shared
discussion of how we can use them.
As such, we hope that our work starts a debate among members of the
field. While we would like to think that our work presents the perfect set
of theories to advance business communication research, we also realize
our many shortfalls. We want readers to think about what theories we
have missed or what disagreements you have with our rankings; we want
readers to talk about how some theories do not really help advance the
field or are not really business communication theories; most of all, we
want you to find theories that will help your work or inspire you to create
new theories to capture emerging phenomena.
References
Abbott, A. (2014). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert
labor. University of Chicago Press.
Allred, B. B. (2001). Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery
of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. The Academy of
Management Executive, 15(1), 161–162.
Almaney, A. (1974). Communication and the systems theory of organiza-
tion. Journal of Business Communication, 12(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.
1177/002194367401200106.
Aritz, J., & Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2014). An introduction. International
Journal of Business Communication, 51(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2329488413509345.
Boulanger, P.-P., & Gagnon, C. (2018). Financial innovation and institutional
voices in the Canadian press: A look at the roaring 2000s. International
Journal of Business Communication, 55(3), 383–405. https://doi.org/10.
1177/2329488417747596.
Brodie, R. (2011). Virus of the mind: The new science of the meme (Reissue ed.).
Hay House.
Cardon, P. W. (2016). Community, culture, and affordances in social collabora-
tion and communication. International Journal of Business Communication,
53(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416635892.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building:
What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review,
36(1), 12–32.
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building (2nd ed.). Free Press.
Eisenberg, E. M., Johnson, Z., & Pieterson, W. (2015). Leveraging social
networks for strategic success. International Journal of Business Communi-
cation, 52(1), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414560283.
Eisenberg, E. M., & Riley, P. (2001). Organizational culture. In F. M. Jablin
& L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication:
Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 291–322). Sage.
Fort, C. (1975). The complete books of Charles Fort. Dover Publications.
Hale, J. E., Dulek, R. E., & Hale, D. P. (2005). Crisis response communi-
cation challenges: Building theory from qualitative data. Journal of Business
Communication, 42(2), 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194360527
4751.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). Structure of scientific revolutions, the (3rd ed.). University of
Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-
theory. Oxford University Press.
Lo, A. (1999). Codeswitching, speech community membership, and the
construction of ethnic identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(4), 461–479.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00091.
Locker, K. O. (1998). The role of The Association for Business Communication
in shaping business communication as an academic discipline. The Journal of
Business Communication, 35(1), 14–49.
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.
MacDonald, P., Kelly, S., & Christen, S. (2019). A path model of workplace
solidarity, satisfaction, burnout, and motivation. International Journal of Busi-
ness Communication, 56(1), 30–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/232948841
4525467.
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2012). National culture and infrastructure develop-
ment: A comparison among four cultural typologies. Competitiveness Review,
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2017). Leadership communication: Reflecting,
engaging, and innovating. International Journal of Business Communication,
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2018). Motivating language theory: Effective leader
talk in the workplace. Springer.
1 INTRODUCTION 9
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2019). The diffusion process of strategic moti-
vating language: An examination of the internal organizational environment
and emergent properties. International Journal of Business Communication,
Mayfield, M. (2010). Tacit knowledge sharing: Techniques for putting a powerful
tool in practice. Development and Learning in Organizations, 24(1), 24–26.
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/10.1108/147772812111
89128.
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 Commu-
nication, 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. Interna-
tional 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.), Ency-
clopedia of human resources information systems: Challenges in e-HRM: Vol. II .
Information Science Reference (an imprint of Idea Group Inc).
Miles, J. A. (2012). Management and organization theory: A Jossey-Bass reader
(1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miner, J. B. (2002). Organizational behavior (1st ed.). Oxford University Press,
USA.
Miner, J. B. (2003). The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical useful-
ness of organizational behavior theories: A quantitative review. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 2(3), 250–268.
Pettit, J. D., Goris, J. R., & Vaught, B. C. (1997). An examination of orga-
nizational communication as a moderator of the relationship between job
performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1),
81–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369703400105.
Raina, R., & Roebuck, D. B. (2016). Exploring cultural influence on managerial
communication in relationship to job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and the employees’ propensity to leave in the insurance sector of India. Inter-
national Journal of Business Communication, 53(1), 97–130. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2329488414525453.
Ruben, B. D., & Gigliotti, R. A. (2017). Communication: Sine qua non of
organizational leadership theory and practice. International Journal of Busi-
6675447.
Shelby, A. N. (1993). Organizational, business, management, and corporate

communication: An analysis of boundaries and relationships. Journal of
Business Communication, 30(3), 241–267.
Sullivan, J. (1988). Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy of
Management Review, 13(1), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.
4306798.
CHAPTER 2
How We Selected the Theories
The solution of this problem is trivial and is left

as an exercise for the reader.
—anonymous from multiple sources.
Developing a list of theories from any field presents many challenges—but

it presents particular challenges for the area of business communica-
tion when no unified source exists to examine what theories researchers
in the area consider to be most important (Griffin & McClish, 2011;
M. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017b). Kuhn (1996) posited that a unified
field forms around widely read and accepted textbooks. These textbooks
provide a shared set of ideas that everyone in a field learns and internal-
izes as they train in the area. These shared ideas—in essence—create a
speech community where members work with the same theories and have
a general knowledge of all of these theories (Lo, 1999; Ruben & Gigliotti,
2017). This shared set of ideas forms the basis of fields that have become
sciences and differentiates these fields from those that have not.
However, in areas that have not achieved the level of a science—
scientific disciplines—such shared texts do not exist (Kuhn, 1996; M.
Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017a). Business communication faces an extra
hurdle in that the field lacks a strong base in universities (Ma, Mayfield, &
Mayfield, 2018; J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017). While almost all business
schools have introductory business communication classes, and business-
focused communication courses and majors exist in most communication

and public relations programs, few business academic programs exist

where people can obtain a business communication major. Without such
programs, little incentive exists for authors to develop the more advanced
texts that would identify and showcase business communication theories
(J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2014; M. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2012). Instead,
these programs seem to either use books from other communication areas
or draw from research articles (Dyrud, 2011; Partridge, 2015). While
introductory texts (for any discipline) often provide theory information,
they usually focus more on general concepts and application guidelines
(Dyrud, 2011; Swales, 1995). Simply put, such texts do not seem to fill
the role that Kuhn identified as catalyzing agents for theory recognition.
The lack of such texts makes extracting the fundamental theories diffi-
cult. Instead, we had to turn to journal articles, a variety of business
communication books, and expert opinion to create our list. This chapter
lays out how we generated the theories we present in this book.
Initial Theory Search

We started our search with a systematic review (Shamseer et al., 2015;
Siddaway, Wood, & Hedges, 2019) of what theories have appeared in
business communication sources. While we did not expect to uncover
all major theories, we believe that such a systematic search would give
us a good starting list. We began with texts that focused on busi-
ness communication theories or communication texts with a strong
business communication component (Greenhalgh et al., 2005; Staples
& Niazi, 2007). After we had developed our initial list from such
texts, we expanded the search to include major business communication
journals. The journals included the Business and Professional Communi-
cation Quarterly, Corporate Communications, Communication Research,
Communication Research Reports, Human Communication Research,
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, International Journal
of Business Communication, Journal of Applied Communication Research,
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Journal of Tech-
nical Writing and Communication, Management Communication Quar-
terly, Technical Communication, Technical Communication Quarterly, and
Written Communication (Siddaway, Wood, & Hedges, 2019; Staples
& Niazi, 2007). We selected these journals for their (collective) broad
coverage of the study of business communication, influence on the field
(as indicated by their journal impact factors), and their strong focus on
2 HOW WE SELECTED THE THEORIES 13
theory-based research. We next searched web sites that listed business

communication theories. Finally, we included theories of which we had
personal knowledge that seemed influential on business communication
research.
We wanted to use diverse sources to develop our list so that we could
create an expansive theory list. We wanted a broad set of theories for two
reasons. First, we felt a more extensive list was appropriate for our field’s
diversity (Marsen, 2020; Pagel & Westerfelhaus, in press). As we said in
Chapter 1, we need a variety of theories to match our field’s diversity of
interests and topics. Also—since we ultimately planned to use field experts
to evaluate the theories—we felt that an expansive set of theories would
not be a problem. Lesser known (or useful) theories would receive lower
ratings while the experts would note the theories that have proven more
central to our field. The combination of an expansive list and ranking
the theories would provide us with an overview of what theories business
communication researchers use while also allowing us to identify those
theories that were more or less central to the field.
We had similar reasons for including grand and middle-range theo-
ries (Merton, 1968; Ruben & Gigliotti, 2017). However, we did not
include what we call—based on Parson’s (1967) terminology—empir-
ical theory. Empirical theory consists of a collection of propositions
designed to understand a specific set of observations. For example, a study
may examine communication through electronic channels (Braun, Bark,
Kirchner, Stegmann, & van Dick, 2019; Darics, 2020) or communication
in team dynamics (Aritz, Walker, Cardon, & Zhli, 2017; MacDonald,
Kelly, & Christen, 2019), but the study does not place these observa-
tions into a broader theoretical framework. While such studies help us
better understand various phenomena, they do not present a framework
that others can easily develop and expand (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan,
2007; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Instead, such researchers can only
incorporate these findings in a theory that they develop to understand
the related phenomena. On a practical note, we were not able to include
such work simply because such empirical theories lack a name that others
can refer to or we can use. However, within the scope of grand and
middle-range theories, we tried to make the list as inclusive as possible.
Our decision to be more inclusive does bring up a potential criticism
of what we have included in our list. Some theories—such as discourse
analysis—can be considered analytic methods rather than theories (G.
Brown, Gillian, & Yule, 1983; Duffy & O’Rourke, 2015). However, for
such included theories, we believe that they also act as grand theories.
In drawing from communication research, business communication has
inherited several theories that serve as both an overall world view (a grand
theory) and inform the method by which researchers can capture this
world. For example, with discourse analysis, its earliest development stated
that all-important social interactions come from the discourse between
participants, and these discussions shape these participants’ reality (Chia,
2000; Jaworska, 2018). The theory also put forward that such interac-
tions had unique emergent properties (even if regularities existed between
these discussions). As such, the theory proposed that the only way to
capture the phenomena was through a specific methodological practice
(G. Brown et al., 1983; Van Dijk, 2006). While researchers today often
use the method without reference to its initial underlying theory, we
believe that such models hold value today and provide a fundamental way
of modeling communication.
Similarly, we have included theories that do not specifically focus
on communication such as the attraction-selection-attrition framework
(Bretz, Ash, & Dreher, 1989; Chatman, Wong, & Joyce, 2008), the func-
tional perspective on group decision-making (Gouran, Hirokawa, Julian,
& Leatham, 1993; Li, 2007), and the theory of reasoned action (Bagozzi,
Wong, Abe, & Bergami, 2014; Fishbein, 1979). However, these theories
have a strong communication component, and business communication
researchers widely use these theories. We also feel they underline areas
where business communication has had to borrow non-communication
theories to map out phenomena relevant to our field. As such, these
theories point out areas where we need to take the time to modify such
theories to become more communicative ones or develop our theories
specifically to better incorporate business communication.
This last set of theories points out an important issue for business
communication: most of the theories used in our field did not arise
from business communication research. Instead, we have adopted (or
adapted) most of our theories from other areas. Most frequently, these
theories have come from (general) communication, but we also have
adopted theories from management, psychology, sociology, and educa-
tion. As such, these theories have some inherent degree of mismatch
between their development and our usage. For general communication-
oriented theories—such as rhetorical theory (Abrahams, 1968; Hartelius
& Browning, 2008) or media richness theory (Bjorvatn & Wald, in press;
Daft & Lengel, 1986)—we have had to adapt theory propositions to work
within a business framework. For theories that have arisen in such areas
as management or education—such as groupthink (Baron, 2005; Janis,
1972) or communication competence (Allen & Brown, 1976; Blood,
Blood, Tellis, & Gabel, 2001)—we have had to tease out communi-
cation implications. Theories specifically created to understand business
communication phenomena—such as motivating language (J. Mayfield &
Mayfield, 2018; Sullivan, 1988) or strategic messaging (Fielden & Dulek,
1984, 1990)—have been rare.
There is nothing wrong with borrowing theories from other areas—
such cross-pollination provides strength to our field. However, to advance
our field, we will need to develop more native theories that specifically
address the needs of our research. Adapting theories wholesale will always
lead to some mismatch between our phenomena of interest and the frame
we use to interpret these phenomena.
Since our task was descriptive (how the field stands) rather than norma-
tive (how we feel the field should be), we thought it necessary to include
theories regardless of where they originated from or original purpose. As
such, we retained theories that frequently appeared even if they did not
seem to be specifically business communication theories. However, we
expect if a similar exercise occurs in ten years, the list would include more
theories that had originated from (or at least been highly adapted for)
business communication purposes.
Refining the Theory List

We started refining our list by first checking how often a theory
appeared in different sources. We eliminated theories that only appeared
in communication-focused texts and not in business communication-
oriented texts or journals. We considered such theories as false positives—
communication theories but not business communication theories. We
next eliminated any theories that had not appeared in our journal search
at least ten times, since we considered that these theories have only had a
minor effect on our field.
We next consolidated theories that appeared under different names.
This step proved difficult since we found several theories that slowly
evolved into new theories, while at other times, researchers used variant
names. For example, face theory (Knobloch, Satterlee, & DiDomenico,
2010; Moore, 2017) and politeness theory (R. Brown, 1990; Goldsmith,
2013) seem to be different theories, but researchers often use them
interchangeably (Mao, 1994; Wilson, Kim, & Meischke, 1991). Only

rarely—as with dialogic theory (Kent & Taylor, 2002; McClellan, 1989)
and its later iterations—did we find clear distinctions about when a new
theory had emerged.
Survey Stage
Once we had refined our list, we moved to our survey stage. In this stage,
we asked business communication experts to rate the theories. To accom-
plish this task, we provided our generated list to members of business
communication editorial boards. We decided to poll these editorial boards
because we felt they would serve as appropriate experts—people who had
a broad view and understanding of research in business communication.
We requested feedback from board members of the following journals
International Journal of Business Communication, Management Commu-
nication Quarterly, Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,
Journal of Advertising, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
and IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. For the survey, we
provided the judges with the name of each theory and a brief description.
We also gave alternate names for each theory, in case a judge knew the
theory under a less frequently used designation.
We asked these judges to use four rating criteria for each theory and
asked them only to rate theories they knew. For each theory they knew, we
asked them to rate it on importance, knowledge, application, and scientific
support. We asked the judges to rate the theories on a scale from 1 to 5
for each of the four criteria. The importance criteria rated how important
they believed the theory was to the field of business communication. The
knowledge criterion was how well they knew the theory (tapping into
how widely understood it was). The application criterion was for how
useful they felt the theory was for business situations. And the scientific
support criteria measured how well supported they believed the theory
was by evidence. We used the judges’ ratings to develop a typology (see
Chapter 4 for more details) of theories in business communication.
In addition to the theories we uncovered, we asked the judges to
suggest and rate business communication theories that we might have
missed. In total, the judges only suggested five new theories (with only
four judges suggesting any new theory). Since there was no consensus
on any missing theory, we did not include the theories in our main list
or typology. Also, the lack of additional, consensus-based theory sugges-

tions indicates that our initial list did an adequate job of uncovering the
fundamental business communication theories.
Conclusion
This chapter has presented the method by which we discovered and
analyzed business communication theories. We attempted to uncover the
diversity and richness of the field through this process. This chapter also
lays the foundations for our next one, where we develop a typology that
groups the theories into more understandable sets.
References
Abrahams, R. D. (1968). Introductory remarks to a rhetorical theory of folklore.
The Journal of American Folklore, 81(320), 143–158.
Allen, R. R., & Brown, K. L. (1976). Developing communication competence in
children. National Textbook Co.
Aritz, J., Walker, R. C., Cardon, P., & Zhli, L. (2017). Discourse of leader-
ship: The power of questions in organizational decision making. International
Journal of Business Communication, 54(2), 161–181.
Bagozzi, R. P., Wong, N., Abe, S., & Bergami, M. (2014). Cultural and situ-
ational contingencies and the theory of reasoned action: Application to fast
food restaurant consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 97–106.
Baron, R. S. (2005). So right it’s wrong: Groupthink and the ubiqui-
tous nature of polarized group decision making. Advances in Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 37, 219–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-260
1(05)37004-3.
Bjorvatn, T., & Wald, A. (In press). Complexity as a driver of media choice: A
comparative study of domestic and international teams. International Journal
of Business Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419874367.
Blood, G. W., Blood, I. M., Tellis, G., & Gabel, R. (2001). Communication
apprehension and self-perceived communication competence in adolescents
who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 26(3), 161–178. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0094-730X(01)00097-3.
Braun, S., Bark, A. H., Kirchner, A., Stegmann, S., & van Dick, R. (2019).
Emails from the boss—Curse or blessing? Relations between communication
channels, leader evaluation, and employees’ attitudes. International Journal
of Business Communication, 56(1), 50–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/232948
8415597516.
Bretz, R. D., Ash, R. A., & Dreher, G. F. (1989). Do people make the place?
An examination of the attraction-selection-attrition hypothesis. Personnel
Psychology, 42(3), 561–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb0
0669.x.
Brown, G., Gillian, B., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, R. (1990). Politeness theory: Exemplar and exemplary. In I. Rock (Ed.),
The legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social psychology (pp. 23–
38). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Chatman, J. A., Wong, E. M., & Joyce, C. K. (2008). When do people make the
place? Considering the interactionist foundations of the attraction-selection-
attrition model. In The people make the place: Dynamic linkages between indi-
viduals and organizations (pp. 63–86). Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Chia, R. (2000). Discourse analysis as organizational analysis. Organization, 513–
518.
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and
theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1281–1303. https://doi.org/10.
5465/AMJ.2007.28165855.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements,
media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
Darics, E. (2020). E-leadership or “how to be boss in instant messaging?” The
role of nonverbal communication. International Journal of Business Commu-
nication, 57 (1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416685068.
Duffy, M., & O’Rourke, B. K. (2015). Dialogue in strategy practice: A
discourse analysis of a strategy workshop. International Journal of Business
Communication, 52(4), 404–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/232948841452
5455.
Dyrud, M. A. (2011). Social networking and business communication: Pedagogy
plugging into the Facebook generation. Business Communication Quarterly,
74(4), 475–478.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases:
Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–
32. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888.
Fielden, J. S., & Dulek, R. E. (1984). How to use bottom-line writing in corpo-
rate communications. Business Horizons, 27 (4), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0007-6813(84)90053-3.
Fielden, J. S., & Dulek, R. E. (1990). Principles of business communication. New
York: Macmillan.
Fishbein, M. (1979). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and
implications. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 65–116.
Goldsmith, D. J. (2013). Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory. In B.

B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary
theories and exemplars (pp. 219–236). Routledge.
Gouran, D. S., Hirokawa, R. Y., Julian, K. M., & Leatham, G. B. (1993). The
evolution and current status of the functional perspective on communication
in decision-making and problem-solving groups. Annals of the International
Communication Association, 16(1), 573–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/238
08985.1993.11678870.
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.
Griffin, E. A., & McClish, G. A. (2011). A first look at communication theory
(8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Boston.
Hartelius, E. J., & Browning, L. D. (2008). The application of rhetorical theory
in managerial research: A literature review. Management Communication
Quarterly, 22(1), 13–39.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy
decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.
Jaworska, S. (2018). Change but no climate change: Discourses of climate change
in corporate social responsibility reporting in the oil Industry. International
Journal of Business Communication, 55(2), 194–219. https://doi.org/10.
1177/2329488417753951.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations.
Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-811
1(02)00108-X.
Knobloch, L. K., Satterlee, K. L., & DiDomenico, S. M. (2010). Rela-
tional uncertainty predicting appraisals of face threat in courtship: Inte-
grating uncertainty reduction theory and politeness theory. Communication
Research. http://crx.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/04/12/009365021
0362527.abstract.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). Structure of scientific revolutions, the (3rd ed.). University
Of Chicago Press.
Li, S.-C. S. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and group decision
making a functional perspective. Small Group Research, 38(5), 593–614.
Lo, A. (1999). Codeswitching, speech community membership, and the
construction of ethnic identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(4), 461–479.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00091.
MacDonald, P., Kelly, S., & Christen, S. (2019). A path model of workplace
solidarity, satisfaction, burnout, and motivation. International Journal of Busi-
4525467.
Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed.
Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 451–486.
Marsen, S. (2020). Navigating crisis: The role of communication in orga-
nizational crisis. International Journal of Business Communication, 57 (2),
163–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419882981.
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2014). Step by step to better performance:
Organizational-citizenship behavior can transform employees and the work-
place. Human Resource Management International Digest, 22(4), 36–39.
https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-07-2014-0087.
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/10.1108/147772812111
89128.
10.1177/2329488416687050.
McClellan, W. (1989). Bakhtin’s theory of dialogic discourse, medieval rhetorical
theory, and the multi-voiced structure of the Clerk’s Tale. Exemplaria, 1(2),
461–488. https://doi.org/10.1179/exm.1989.1.2.461.
Merton, R. K. (1968). On sociological theories of the middle range. In Social
Theory and Social Structure. The Free Press.
Moore, J. (2017). Performative face theory: A critical perspective on interper-
sonal identity work. Communication Monographs, 84(2), 258–276. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1315891.
Pagel, S., & Westerfelhaus, R. (In press). “The leopard does not change its
spots”: Structuration theory and the process of managerial decision-making
regarding popular management theories. International Journal of Business
Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419829890.
Parsons, T. (1967). Sociological theory and modern society (1st ed.). Free Press.
Partridge, R. S. (2015). Book review: Digital storytelling in the classroom: New
media pathways to literacy, learning, and creativity. International Journal
of Business Communication, 52(4), 479–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/232
9488415598431.
Ruben, B. D., & Gigliotti, R. A. (2017). Communication: Sine qua non of
organizational leadership theory and practice. International Journal of Busi-
6675447.
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M.,
… Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review
and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation.
BMJ, 349, g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647.
Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic
review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews,
meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747–770.
Staples, M., & Niazi, M. (2007). Experiences using systematic review guide-
lines. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(9), 1425–1437. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.046.
Sullivan, J. (1988). Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy of
Management Review, 13(1), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.
4306798.
Swales, J. M. (1995). The role of the textbook in EAP writing research. English
for Specific Purposes, 14(1), 3–18.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political
Ideologies, 11(2), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310600687908.
Wilson, S. R., Kim, M.-S., & Meischke, H. (1991). Evaluating Brown and Levin-
son’s politeness theory: A revised analysis of directives and face. Research on
Language & Social Interaction, 25(1–4), 215–252.
CHAPTER 3
A Typology of Business Communication

Theories
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous;

In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.
—Arthur Sullivan and William Schwenck Gilbert
The Pirates of Penzance: Act I. “I am the very model
of a modern Major-General”
In addition to uncovering and rating business communication theories,

we also wanted to develop a typology of these theories (Bailey, 1994;
M. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017b). While having a list of theories should
help business communication researchers, researchers also need a way to
classify these theories. Having such a typology helps researchers quickly
locate theories to use in their research, and, therefore, makes it more likely
that researchers will employ appropriate theories with which to frame
their studies. Typologies can also serve as meta-theoretical constructs
that researchers can use to advance the field (Bailey, 2005; J. Mayfield
& Mayfield, 2012).
Before beginning this chapter, we want to briefly define typology
(Bailey, 1994; Doty & Glick, 1994). Typologies provide classification
models that exhaustively categorize all items in a domain. When devel-
oped correctly, they offer a classification method that helps to quickly
locate items within the typology, and provide a better understanding

of how they relate to each other. Typologies contrast with taxonomies

because people create typologies qualitatively by grouping items together
based on perceived similarity or by creating exhaustive classification rules.
In contrast, researchers create taxonomies mechanically through a data
classification process.
We had several goals in developing this typology. First, we wanted
to create a typology that would help researchers locate the theories
they needed for their work. We imagined many researchers would have
an idea about what phenomenon they wanted to investigate, but not
know a theory that would help them examine it. As such, we tried to
create categories based on what seems to be the most common types of
questions business communication researchers investigate. If a researcher
could match their general question area to a group, then he or she could
look in that category to find an appropriate theory.
Next, we wanted the typology categories to have enough flexibility
and clarity that they would serve for the inclusion of future theories. We
expect that the theory list will change over time, but we hope that the
typology will prove robust enough to accommodate these new theories.
Finally, we wanted distinct categories. This desire works in partner-
ship with our other goals. Having distinct groups should help researchers
locate an appropriate theory for the work and make it easier to place new
theories into a category.
In the remainder of this chapter, we will discuss how we developed our
typology.
Typologies in Theory Development

Having a typology of business communication theories helps in many
areas of business communication research. Perhaps most obviously, having
such a typology aids researchers in selecting a theory for their research
(Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2004; Kelly & MacDonald, in press). By
grouping similar theories together, researchers can identify the general
area of the phenomena they want to understand better, and then select an
appropriate theory from within this group. In this way, a typology allows
researchers to quickly narrow down theories applicable to their questions
(M. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2014; Witkemper, Blaszka, & Chung, 2016).
In this way, a typology serves a role in locating an appropriate
theory that is analogous to the role a theory plays in a research study
(Bailey, 2005; J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017). In both cases, they (the
3 A TYPOLOGY OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION THEORIES 25
typology and the theory) reduce the cognitive requirements necessary to

conduct research, and they improve the quality of the final outcome (Ma,
Mayfield,& Mayfield, 2018; M. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2017a). A theory
lessens the effort needed in a study because it allows the researcher to
employ an existing and tested framework to her or his work rather than
having to create one from scratch. For a typology, the framework allows
a researcher to more quickly and reliably identify the theory needed to
begin the study. A researcher can then redirect the reduced time and
effort expended on determining the framework into the analysis itself—
thus allowing the researcher to devote those resources to increased study
quality.
When researchers use a typology in selecting a theory, they can also
improve the quality of their research by comparing different, appropriate
theories. A researcher will often find a given phenomenon amenable to
multiple business communication theories—separate theories will better
model various aspects of the phenomenon. When a researcher has
multiple theories he or she can compare, the researcher can more easily
pick among them for suitability (Bailey, 2005; M. Mayfield, Mayfield, &
Genestre, 2001). Having these various theories will allow the researcher
to engage in thought experiments about how a study might unfold
under different theories (Frappier, 2015; Schick & Vaughn, 2012). These
thought experiments should help the researcher better understand their
research and allow for multiple interpretations of their results. Researchers
may even find that they can fruitfully combine more than one theory to
create a better understanding of business communication.
The use of the business communication theory typology to compare
multiple theories introduces a less obvious typology result. A typology
allows researchers to more clearly see when theories within a typological
group have similarities (or differences) (Mayfield, Mayfield, Genestre, &
Marcu, 2000; Mayfield, Mayfield, & Stephens, 2007). Through making
such a comparison, the researcher can decide if an existing theory would
benefit from expanding it by including aspects of other theories. For
example, combining the Critical Theory of Communication Approach to
Organizations (Campos, 2007; Fuchs & Mosco, 2012) with Semantic
Networks theory (Duda, Hart, Nilsson, & Sutherland, 1977; Rice &
Danowski, 1993) could allow researchers to better examine the power
dynamics and ethics of different communication interchanges. Similarly,
researchers can use the typological groupings to cross-pollinate theories
between categories and better develop their questions.
We can also use a typology to advance the theories it classifies (Bailey,

2005; Doty & Glick, 1994). By reducing the number of theories we have
to consider at one time (through grouping similar theories together), we
can determine if theories in a given category approach business commu-
nication from a limited perspective (M. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2012a,
2012b). For example, we may find that the category covering persuasion
and motivation mainly approaches the topic from a managerial perspec-
tive (Fuchs & Mosco, 2012; J. Mayfield, Mayfield, & Neck, in press). As
such, we could expand existing theories to bring in other perspectives or
create new theories.
Typologies can also help us to recognize when we need to develop new
theories within a group (J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2019; M. Mayfield &
Mayfield, 2014). If each group should fully cover phenomena within that
group—for example, the category of motivation and persuasion—then we
should have a theory within that group to analyze and explain all business
communication related to motivation and persuasion. If we find that no
theory exists within a group to answer our questions, we have evidence
that we need a new theory (Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011; M. Mayfield
& Mayfield, 2012b).
Typologies can also help us decide if we can consolidate theories within
a group. They make a collection of items (theories in this case) more
parsimonious and generalizable. If we see that two or more theories have
substantial overlap, we can work to consolidate them to create a single
one capable of explaining the phenomena. By unifying such theories,
researchers will have more robust frameworks to work with. In addi-
tion, this smaller set of theories can cover more business communication
ideas. If we look outside of our field, we can find many examples of how
such consolidation aided rapid advancement. Einstein’s relativity theory
was able to combine Newtonian physics with other physical properties
in a more elegant description of reality, and this new theory unleashed
(and continues to drive) many advancements in the fields of physics and
engineering.
Finally, a typology provides a tool for reflective analysis: We can use
a typology to refine itself over time. We can do so by looking for gaps
between typology categories—have we missed any important group of
business communication interactions? If so, we need to create a new cate-
gory or at least imagine the parameters of such a category. Once we have
identified a missing group, then we can work to identify or create theories
that should exist within the category. Similarly, we may discover substan-
tial overlap between two or more categories and decide that we can merge
these categories.
Creating the Typology

To create our typology, we had three requirements. First, every theory
should fit in only one category. Second, every theory had to appear in a
category. Finally, the range of categories had to cover the major business
communication areas—they had to cover our field’s breadth.
In selecting the number of categories, we had to make a trade-
off between category homogeneity and parsimony. More categories
create greater homogeneity within each category. However, an increased
number of categories would also lead to less utility of any one category.
At the logical extreme, we would have one category per theory, thus
negating any typology utility. At the other extreme, too few categories
would lead to us grouping dissimilar theories together. Based on the
number of theories we had identified, we decided a priori to have between
five and ten categories. This range seemed a good compromise between
complexity arising from the number of categories and category homo-
geneity. Also, with this number of categories we could expect to have from
around eight to sixteen theories within a given category. This number
of categories and theories within a category seemed sufficient to create
homogeneity within a category while not having too many elements for
a researcher to work with.
We developed the actual categories through an affinity exercise. We
began by writing each theory’s name and a brief description on index
cards. We next grouped theories that addressed similar topics. After we
had our initial groupings, we gave these groups tentative names and
descriptions about what they represented. We then took the theory cards
and placed them in the category where we felt they best belonged. While
most theories remained in their initial groups, we did recognize that some
theories now fit better in other categories. We then refined our definitions,
updated category names, and decided if we needed to add or remove a
category. We repeated the process until we stopped making changes. At
the end of the process, we had seven categories.
Typology Categories
Now that we have laid out the uses for a typology, and how we
developed ours, we can present the categories and category definitions
we constructed.
Channels and Barriers: This category lists theories about a vital busi-
ness communication research stream that addresses how people, groups,
and organizations transmit their communications (channels). Theories in
this category also examine what factors interfere with these communica-
tion flows, and how channel selection improves transmissions. Shannon
and Weavers’ Information Theories model (Shannon & Weaver, 1963)
provided a seminal examination of these topics, and it remains one of
the most widely used frames in business communication textbooks (Du-
Babcock, 2006; Miller, 2004). However, over the years, researchers have
elaborated and developed this theory, and these additions have spawned
many diverse theories. This category also includes approaches that give
us a better understanding of what factors distort communications and
strategies for reducing these distortions.
Table 3.1 presents the theories in this category.
Cultural Characteristics and Influences: Culture has an interactive
relationship with communication. Their intersection has given researchers
a fertile ground for theory development, and this ground has yielded
fruitful results. These discoveries have given us knowledge about how
business communication signals cultural attributes, creates a barrier to
outsiders, alters cultures, morphs under cultural pressures, and responds
to support cultural needs. Theories in this category examine culture from
Table 3.1 Channels

Business English as a Lingua Franca Media Richness
and Barriers
Theory
Communication Apprehension Media
Synchronicity
Theory
Communication Competence Multimodality
Genderlect Theory Social Presence
Theory
Information Theories Source Credibility
Media Naturalness Uncertainty
Reduction/Initial
Interaction Theory
many lenses. These facets include the level of analysis (national, organiza-
tional, and small group), communication’s role in forming and signaling
cultures, and how culture influences communication and communication
patterns. High-Context vs. Low-Context Culture (Hall, 1977; Korac-
Kakabadse, Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin, & Savery, 2001) describes a
complete national communication culture typology, and Employee Voice
and Silence (Brinsfield, Edwards, & Greenberg, 2009; Morrison, 2014)
gives an example of how communication culture strongly influences
specific employee behaviors.
You can find the theories in this category in Table 3.2.
Flows and Patterns: Many major questions in business communi-
cation research come from how information flows between different
entities. Many theories have identified recurring patterns in the paths
that communication takes under different circumstances, and how the
use of different patterns can affect these communications. Theories in
this category showcase these flows and patterns. The Theory of Commu-
nication Networks (Monge & Contractor, 2003; Pandurangan & Khan,
2010) provides an explanation that incorporates many existing commu-
nication network theories, and Actor-Network Theory (Latour, 1996,
2005) offers an interesting grand model for the category.
Theories in this category appear in Table 3.3.
Meaning-Making and Discovery: Several major researchers in busi-
ness communication assert that communication does more than transmit
or represent ideas. These scholars believe that communication uncovers
and even creates our reality. Theories from this category fully explore
these ideas, and associated researchers have conducted compelling studies
to grapple with their implications. The decision-making theories in
the category—such as Groupthink (Esser, 1998; Janis, 1983)—give us
Table 3.2 Cultural

Activity Theory High-Context vs.
Characteristics and
Low-Context Culture
Influences Attraction-Selection-Attrition Memetics
Framework
Competing Values Framework Narrative Theory
Cultural Approach to Speech Codes
Organizations Theory
Employee Voice and Silence Symbolic
Convergence Theory
Table 3.3 Flows and

Actor-Network Theory Rhetorical Sensitivity
Patterns
Model
Contagion Theory Social Penetration Theory
Diffusion of Innovation Spiral of Silence
Theory
Grapevine Communication Theory of Communication
Networks
Homophily-Proximity Uses and Gratification
Theories Approach
Interpersonal Ties
insights into how people use communication to find solutions to different

business problems. For other theories in this category, communica-
tion plays a role in creating and negotiating self-image—Face Negotia-
tion (Oetzel, Meares, Myers, & Lara, 2003; Ting-Toomey, 2004)—or
mutually discover/create an agreed-upon reality—such as Sense-Making
(Erbert, 2016; Weick, 1988).
Theories of meaning-making and discovery appear in Table 3.4.
Motivation and Persuasion: Academics and managers alike want
to know how communication can motivate and persuade people. The
theories in this category explore this interest from many different perspec-
tives including Agenda-Setting Theory’s (McCombs, Shaw, & Weaver,
1997; Mccombs & Valenzuela, 2007), Rhetorical Theory’s (Farrell, 1976;
Webb, 2016) persuasion focus, Impression Management’s (Adame &
Bisel, 2019; Bromley, 1993) self-presentation tactics, and Motivating
Table 3.4
Meaning-Making and Attribution Theory Interaction Analysis
Discovery Constructivism Open Communication and
Teamwork
Coordinated Management of Organizational
Meaning Identification
Ethnomethodology and Politeness Theory
Ethnography
Expectancy Violations Sense-Making
Theory
Face Negotiation Social Information
Processing
Groupthink Symbolic Interactionism
Table 3.5 Motivation

Agenda-Setting Theory Interpersonal Deception
and Persuasion
Theory
Cognitive Dissonance Motivating Language
Theory
Communication Regulatory Focus
Accommodation Theory Theory
Dialogic Public Relations Rhetorical Theory
Theory
Dramaturgical Theory Social Influence Theory
Elaboration Likelihood Model Social Judgment
Theory
Framing in Organizations Theory of Reasoned
Action
Impression Management
Language’s (Holmes & Parker, 2017; J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2018)

leadership lens.
We have listed the theories of motivation and persuasion in Table 3.5.
Organizational Structures: Theories in this category try to answer
questions about how organizational structures shape communication and
how communication within an organization shapes organizational struc-
tures. Most of the theories in this category look at the processes as
mutually influential—communication patterns create and shape struc-
tures, which then influence communication patterns. However, each of
these theories takes a different approach to the processes and provides
many insights into this area. Social Constructionism (Allen, 2005; Burr,
2015) offers a good start for understanding the basic ideas behind
theories in the category.
You will find the theories that fall in this category in Table 3.6.
Reasons and Representations: Most theories in the other cate-
gories remain neutral about the purpose behind business communication
research and rarely try to integrate business communication processes into
Table 3.6
Organizational Adaptive Structuration Theory Social
Structures Constructionism
Enactment Theory Social Context of
Communication
Organizational Information Theory Structuration
Theory
Table 3.7 Reasons and Representations
Conversation Analysis Functional Perspective on Group

Decision-Making
Critical Theory of Communication Approach to Interpretive School of
Organizations Communication, The
Dialogic Theory Semantic Network
Discourse Analysis Speech Acts Theory
English for Specific Purposes Strategic Messaging
a single framework. In contrast, theories in this category bring these issues

to the forefront. They examine how business communications operate
as a unified system and what we should use this system to accomplish.
Some theories—such as the Critical Theory of Communication Approach
to Organizations (Fuchs & Mosco, 2012; Hasian & Delgado, 1998)—
answer these questions by highlighting ethical communication issues.
Others, such as Conversation Analysis (Goodwin & Heritage, 1990;
Hammersley, 2003), focus on what communication factors and methods
researchers should use. Theories such as the Semantic Network model
(Doerfel & Barnett, 1999; Jang & Barnett, 1994) give general modeling
guidance for representing communication interchanges. The Strategic
Messaging model (Fielden & Dulek, 1984, 1990) combines all of these
perspectives and describes an entire communication system for achieving
organizational results.
You will find the theories in this category listed in Table 3.7.
Conclusion
With these categories in mind, we can move on to presenting our theories’
ratings. We will provide a background for the theory ratings and discuss
what they mean for a better understanding of the theories and our field.
We will then group the theories by their scores. Hopefully, this grouping
will make it easier for the reader to understand the different research areas
of business communication.
References
Adame, E. A., & Bisel, R. S. (2019). Can perceptions of an individual’s
organizational citizenship be influenced via strategic impression management
messaging? International Journal of Business Communication, 56(1), 5–29.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415627355.
Allen, B. J. (2005). Social constructionism. In S. May & D. K. Mumby
(Eds.), Engaging organizational communication theory and research: Multiple
perspectives (pp. 35–53). Sage.
Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification
techniques (1st ed.). Sage.
Bailey, K. D. (2005). Typology construction, methods and issues. In K. Kempf-
Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 889–898). Elsevier.
Boxenbaum, E., & Rouleau, L. (2011). New knowledge products as bricolage:
Metaphors and scripts in organizational theory. The Academy of Management
Review, 36(2), 272–296.
Brinsfield, C. T., Edwards, M. S., & Greenberg, J. (2009). Voice and silence in
organizations: Historical review and current conceptualizations. In J. Green-
berg & M. S. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 3–33).
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Bromley, D. B. (1993). Reputation, image and impression management. Wiley.
Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2004). Developing a typology of humor
in audiovisual media. Media Psychology, 6(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.
1207/s1532785xmep0602_2.
Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism. Routledge.
Campos, M. N. (2007). Ecology of meanings: A critical constructivist commu-
nication model. Communication Theory, 17 (4), 386–410.
Doerfel, M. L., & Barnett, G. A. (1999). A semantic network analysis of the
International Communication Association. Human Communication Research,
25(4), 589–603.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of
theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy
of Management Review, 19(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.
1994.9410210748.
Du-Babcock, B. (2006). Teaching business communication: Past, present, and
future. The Journal of Business Communication, 43(3), 253–264. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0021943606288775.
Duda, R. O., Hart, P. E., Nilsson, N. J., & Sutherland, G. L. (1977). Semantic
network representations in rule-based inference systems. ACM SIGART
Bulletin, 63, 18–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/1045343.1045351.
Erbert, L. A. (2016). Organizational sensemaking: Interpretations of workplace
“strangeness”. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(3), 286–
305. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525461.
Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2), 116–141.
Farrell, T. B. (1976). Knowledge, consensus, and rhetorical theory. Quarterly

Journal of Speech, 62(1), 1–14.
Fielden, J. S., & Dulek, R. E. (1984). How to use bottom-line writing in corpo-
rate communications. Business Horizons, 27 (4), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0007-6813(84)90053-3.
Fielden, J. S., & Dulek, R. E. (1990). Principles of business communication. New
York: Macmillan.
Frappier, M. (Ed.). (2015). Thought experiments in philosophy, science, and the
arts (1st ed.). Routledge.
Fuchs, C., & Mosco, V. (2012). Introduction: Marx is back—The importance
of Marxist theory and research for critical communication studies today.
TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a
Global Sustainable Information Society, 10(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.
31269/triplec.v10i2.421.
Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 19, 283–307.
Hall, E. T. (1977). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.
Hammersley, M. (2003). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: Methods
or paradigms? Discourse & Society, 14(6), 751–781. https://doi.org/10.
1177/09579265030146004.
Hasian, M., & Delgado, F. (1998). The trials and tribulations of racialized crit-
ical rhetorical theory: Understanding the rhetorical ambiguities of Proposition
187. Communication Theory, 8(3), 245–270.
Holmes, W. T., & Parker, M. A. (2017). Empirically testing behavioral integrity
and credibility as antecedents for the effective implementation of motivating
language. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(1), 70–82.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416675450.
Jang, H.-Y., & Barnett, G. A. (1994). Cultural differences in organizational
communication: A semantic network analysis. Bulletin de Methodologie Soci-
ologique, 44(1), 31–59.
Janis, I. L. (1983). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes.
Houghton Mifflin.
Kelly, S., & MacDonald, P. (in press). A look at leadership styles and workplace
solidarity communication. International Journal of Business Communication,
Korac-Kakabadse, N., Korac-Kakabadse, A., Kouzmin, A., & Savery, L. (2001).
Low- and high-context communication patterns: Towards mapping cross-
cultural encounters. Cross Cultural Management: an International Journal,
Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt,
47 (4), 369–381.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-

theory. Oxford University Press.
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2012). National culture and infrastructure develop-
ment: A comparison among four cultural typologies. Competitiveness Review:
an International Business Journal Incorporating Journal of Global Competi-
tiveness, 22(5), 396–410. https://doi.org/10.1108/10595421211266285.
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2019). The diffusion process of strategic moti-
vating language: An examination of the internal organizational environment
and emergent properties. International Journal of Business Communication,
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. (2012a). Effective performance feedback for
learning in organizations and organizational learning. Development and
Learning in Organizations, 26(1), 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/147772
81211189128.
Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (2012b). Logoleadership: Breathing life into loyalty.
Development and Learning in Organizations, 26(2), 11–15. https://doi.org/
10.1108/14777281211201178.
Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (2014). What workers want: A global perspective.
Competitiveness Review, 24(4), 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-01-
2013-0006.
10.1177/2329488416687050.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
la poursuite devenait impossible: Constantin,
fuyant à toute bride, avait eu la précaution de faire Lact. de mort.
couper les jarrets à tous les chevaux de poste qu'il pers. c. 24.
laissait sur son passage; et la rage impuissante du
tyran ne lui laissa que le regret de n'avoir pas osé Praxag. ap.
faire le dernier crime. Photium, cod.
62.
Constantin traverse comme un éclair l'Illyrie et les
Alpes, avant que Sévère puisse en avoir des
nouvelles, et arrive au port de Boulogne (Bononia) AN 306.
lorsque la flotte mettait à la voile. A cette vue
inespérée on ne peut exprimer la joie de xii. Constantin
Constance: il reçoit entre ses bras ce fils que tant s'échappe des
de périls lui rendaient encore plus cher; et mêlant mains de
ensemble leurs larmes et toutes les marques de Galérius.
leur tendresse, ils arrivent dans la Grande-
Bretagne, où Constance, après avoir vaincu les Lact. de mort.
Pictes, mourut de maladie le 25 juillet de l'an 306. pers. c. 24.
Il avait eu de son mariage avec Théodora, trois fils:
Delmatius, Jule-Constance, Hanniballianus, et trois Anony. Vales.
filles, Constantia, qui fut femme de Licinius,
Anastasia qui épousa Bassianus, et Eutropia mère
de Népotianus, dont je parlerai ailleurs. Mais il Zos. l. 2, c. 8.
respectait trop la puissance souveraine, pour
l'abandonner comme une proie à disputer entre xiii. Il joint son
ses enfants; et il était trop prudent pour affaiblir ses père.
états par un partage. Le droit d'aînesse, soutenu
d'une capacité supérieure, appelait à l'empire Eumen. paneg.
Constantin, qui était déja dans sa trente-troisième c. 7 et 8.
année. Le père mourant couvert de gloire, au
milieu de ses enfants qui fondaient en larmes et
Anony. Vales.
qui révéraient ses volontés comme des oracles,
embrassa tendrement Constantin et le nomma son
successeur; il le recommanda aux troupes, et Till. note 5, sur
ordonna à ses autres fils de lui obéir. Constantin.
Toute l'armée s'empressa d'exécuter ces dernières dispositions de

Constance: à peine eut-il les yeux fermés, que les officiers et les
soldats, excités encore par Éroc, roi des Allemans
auxiliaires, proclamèrent Constantin Auguste. Ce xiv. Il lui
prince s'efforça d'abord d'arrêter l'ardeur des succède.
troupes; il craignait une guerre civile; et pour ne
pas irriter Galérius, il voulait obtenir son agrément Liban. in
avant que de prendre le titre d'empereur. Basilico.
L'impatience des soldats se refusa à ces
ménagements politiques: au premier moment que
Euseb. vit.
Constantin, encore tout en larmes, sortit de la Const. l. 1, c.
tente de son père, tous l'environnèrent avec de 21.
grands cris: en vain voulut-il leur échapper à
course de cheval; on l'atteignit, on le revêtit de la
pourpre malgré sa résistance; tout le camp xv.
Proclamation de
retentissait d'acclamations et d'éloges; Constance Constantin.
revivait dans son fils, et l'armée n'y voyait de
différence que l'avantage de la jeunesse.
Eumenius,
Le premier soin du nouvel empereur fut de rendre Paneg. c. 8.
à son père les derniers devoirs: il lui fit faire de
magnifiques funérailles, et marcha lui-même à la
tête avec un grand cortège. On décerna à Euseb. Vit.
Const. l. 1, c.
Constance, selon la coutume, les honneurs
22.
divins[5]. M. de Tillemont rapporte, sur le
témoignage d'Alford et d'Ussérius, qu'on montre
son tombeau en divers endroits de l'Angleterre, et Vict. epit.
particulièrement en un lieu appelé Caïr-Segeint ou
Sejont, quelquefois Caïr-Custeint, c'est-à-dire, Ville Zos. l. 2, c. 9.
de Constance ou de Constantin; et que, en 1283,
comme on prétendit avoir trouvé son corps dans Hist. misc. l. 11.
un autre lieu qui n'est pas loin de là, Edouard I, qui apud Muratori,
régnait alors, le fit transporter dans une église, T. I, p. 71.
sans se mettre beaucoup en peine si les canons
permettaient d'y placer un prince païen. Il ajoute
xvi. Sépulture
que Cambden raconte que peu de temps avant lui,
de Constance.
c'est-à-dire au commencement du seizième siècle,
en fouillant à York dans une grotte où l'on tenait
qu'était le tombeau de Constance, on y avait Euseb. Hist.
ecc. l. 8, c. 13 et
trouvé une lampe qui brûlait encore; et Alford juge Vit. Const. l. 1,
que selon les preuves les plus solides, c'était, en c. 22.
effet, le lieu de la sépulture de ce prince.
[5] Beaucoup de médailles frappées après la mort de ce Numism.
prince, portent les légendes: DIVO. CONSTANTIO. AVG. ou Mezzab.
DIVO. CONSTANTIO. PIO. PRINCIPI ou bien DIVVS.
CONSTANTIVS. Quelques-unes, frappées par les ordres de
Maxence, portent IMP. MAXENTIVS. DIVO. CONSTΑΝΤIΟ. Till., art. 7.
AD-FINI vel COGN.—S.-M.
Sa mort semblait favoriser les desseins de Alford, Ann.
Galérius: elle entrait dans le plan qu'il avait dressé Brit., an 306 §
6.
pour se rendre le seul monarque; mais elle était
arrivée trop tôt, et ce contre-temps rompait toutes
ses mesures. Son projet avait été de substituer à Usserius, Brit.
Constance, Licinius son ancien ami: il s'aidait de Eccl. Antiq. p.
ses conseils, et comptait sur une obéissance 60.
aveugle de sa part. Il lui destinait le titre d'Auguste,
et c'était dans cette vue qu'il ne lui avait pas fait [Eckhel, doct.
donner celui de César. Alors maître de tout, et ne num. vet. t. viii,
laissant à Licinius qu'une ombre d'autorité, il aurait p. 28-32.]
disposé à son gré de toutes les richesses de
l'empire; et après avoir accumulé d'immenses xvii. Projets de
trésors, il aurait quitté, comme Dioclétien, au bout Galérius.
de vingt ans la puissance souveraine, et se serait
ménagé une retraite assurée et tranquille pour une Lact. de mort.
vieillesse voluptueuse; en laissant pour empereurs pers. c. 20 et
Sévère avec Licinius, et pour Césars Maximin et seq.
Candidianus son fils naturel, qui n'avait encore que
neuf ans, et qu'il avait fait adopter par sa femme Valéria, quoique cet
enfant ne fût né que depuis le mariage de cette princesse.
Pour réussir dans ces projets il fallait exclure
Constantin: mais Galérius s'était rendu trop odieux xviii. Ses
par sa cruauté et par son avarice. Depuis sa cruautés.
victoire sur les Perses, il avait adopté le
gouvernement despotique établi de tout temps dans ce riche et
malheureux pays; et sans pudeur, sans égard pour les sentiments
d'une honnête soumission, à laquelle une longue habitude avait plié
les Romains, il disait hautement que le meilleur usage auquel on
pouvait employer des sujets, c'était d'en faire des esclaves. Ce fut
sur ces principes qu'il régla sa conduite. Nulle dignité, nul privilége
n'exemptait ni des coups de fouet, ni des plus horribles tortures les
magistrats des villes: des croix toujours dressées attendaient ceux
qu'il condamnait à mort; les autres étaient chargés de chaînes et
resserrés dans des entraves. Il faisait traîner dans des maisons de
force des dames illustres par leur naissance. Il avait fait chercher par
tout l'empire des ours d'une énorme grosseur, et leur avait donné
des noms: quand il était en belle humeur, il en faisait appeler
quelqu'un, et se divertissait à les voir non pas dévorer sur-le-champ
des hommes, mais sucer tout leur sang et déchirer ensuite leurs
membres: il ne fallait rien moins pour faire rire ce tyran sombre et
farouche. Il ne prenait guère de repas sans voir répandre du sang
humain. Les supplices des gens du peuple n'étaient pas si
recherchés: il les faisait brûler vifs.
Galérius avait d'abord fait sur les chrétiens l'essai
de toutes ces horreurs, ordonnant par édit, xix. Contre les
qu'après la torture ils seraient brûlés à petit feu. Chrétiens.
Ces ordres inhumains ne manquaient pas
d'exécuteurs fidèles, qui se faisaient un mérite d'enchérir encore sur
la barbarie du prince. On attachait les chrétiens à un poteau; on leur
grillait la plante des pieds, jusqu'à ce que la peau se détachât des
os; on appliquait ensuite sur toutes les parties de leur corps des
flambeaux qu'on venait d'éteindre; et pour prolonger leurs
souffrances avec leur vie, on leur rafraîchissait de temps en temps
d'eau froide la bouche et le visage: ce n'était qu'après de longues
douleurs que, toute leur chair étant rôtie, le feu pénétrait jusqu'aux
entrailles, et jusqu'aux sources de la vie. Alors on achevait de brûler
ces corps déja presque consumés, et on en jetait les cendres dans
un fleuve ou dans la mer.
Le sang des chrétiens ne fit qu'irriter la soif de
Galérius. Bientôt il n'épargna pas les païens xx. Contre les
mêmes. Il ne connaissait point de degré dans les païens mêmes.
punitions: reléguer, mettre en prison, condamner
aux mines, étaient des peines hors d'usage; il ne parlait que de feux,
de croix, de bêtes féroces: c'était à coups de lance qu'il châtiait ceux
qui formaient sa maison; il fallait aux sénateurs d'anciens services et
des titres bien favorables, pour obtenir la grace d'avoir la tête
tranchée. Alors tous les talents qui, déja fort affaiblis, respiraient
encore, furent entièrement étouffés: on bannit, on fit mourir les
avocats et les jurisconsultes; les lettres passèrent pour des secrets
dangereux, et les savants pour des ennemis de l'état. Le tyran,
faisant taire toutes les lois, se permit de tout faire, et donna la même
licence aux juges qu'il envoyait dans les provinces: c'étaient des
gens qui ne connaissaient que la guerre, sans étude et sans
principes, adorateurs aveugles du despotisme, dont ils étaient les
instruments.
Mais ce qui porta dans les provinces une
désolation universelle, ce fut le dénombrement xxi. Rigueur des
qu'il fit faire de tous les habitants de ses états, et impositions.
l'estimation de toutes les fortunes. Les
commissaires répandaient partout la même inquiétude et le même
effroi que des ennemis auraient pu causer; et l'empire de Galérius
d'une extrémité à l'autre ne semblait plus être peuplé que de captifs.
On mesurait les campagnes, on comptait les ceps de vignes, les
arbres, et, pour ainsi dire, les mottes de terre; on faisait registre des
hommes et des animaux: la nécessité des déclarations remplissait
les villes d'une multitude de paysans et d'esclaves; les pères y
traînaient leurs enfants. La justice d'une imposition proportionnelle
aurait rendu ces contraintes excusables, si l'humanité les eût
adoucies, et si les impositions en elles-mêmes eussent été
tolérables; mais tout retentissait de coups de fouets et de
gémissements; on mettait les enfants, les esclaves, les femmes à la
torture, pour vérifier les déclarations des pères, des maîtres, des
maris; on tourmentait les possesseurs eux-mêmes, et on les forçait,
par la douleur, de déclarer plus qu'ils ne possédaient: la vieillesse ni
la maladie ne dispensaient personne de se rendre au lieu ordonné;
on fixait arbitrairement l'âge de chacun; et comme, selon les lois,
l'obligation de payer la capitation devait commencer et finir à un
certain âge, on ajoutait des années aux enfants et on en ôtait aux
vieillards. Les premiers commissaires avaient travaillé à satisfaire
l'avidité du prince par les rigueurs les plus outrées: cependant
Galérius, pour presser encore davantage ses malheureux sujets, en
envoya d'autres, à plusieurs reprises, faire de nouvelles recherches;
et les derniers venus, pour enchérir sur leurs prédécesseurs,
surchargeaient à leur fantaisie, et ajoutaient à leur rôle beaucoup
plus qu'ils ne trouvaient ni dans les biens ni dans le nombre des
habitants. Cependant les animaux périssaient, les hommes
mouraient; et après la mort on les faisait vivre sur les rôles, on
exigeait encore la taxe des uns et des autres. Il ne restait d'exempts
que les mendiants: leur indigence les sauvait de l'imposition, mais
non pas de la barbarie de Galérius; on les rassembla par son ordre
au bord de la mer, et on les jeta dans des barques qu'on fit couler à
fond.
Telle est l'idée qu'un auteur contemporain, très-
instruit et très-digne de foi, nous a laissée du xxii. Les crimes
gouvernement de Galérius. Quelque méchant que de ses officiers
fût ce prince, une partie de ces vexations doit sans doivent lui être
doute être imputée à ses officiers. Mais telle est la imputés.
condition de ceux qui gouvernent; ils prennent sur leur compte les
injustices de ceux qu'ils emploient: ce sont les crimes de leurs
mains. Les noms de ces hommes obscurs périssent avec eux; mais
leurs iniquités survivent et restent attachées au supérieur, dont le
portrait se compose en grande partie des vertus et des vices de
ceux qui ont agi sous ses ordres.
Galérius était occupé de ces rapines et de ces
violences, quand il apprit la mort de Constance: xxiii. Il refuse à
bientôt après on lui présenta l'image de Constantin Constantin le
couronnée de laurier. Le nouvel empereur la lui titre d'Auguste,
envoyait, selon la coutume, pour lui notifier son et le donne à
Sévère.
avénement à l'empire. Il balança long-temps s'il la
recevrait: son premier mouvement fut de la jeter au
feu avec celui qui l'avait apportée; mais on lui Lact., de mort.
représenta ce qu'il avait à craindre de ses propres pers. c. 25.
soldats, déja mécontents du choix des deux
Césars, et tout disposés à se déclarer pour Till. art. 5.
Constantin, qui viendrait sans doute lui arracher
son consentement à main armée. Plus susceptible de crainte que de
sentiment de justice, il reçut à regret cette image; et pour paraître
donner ce qu'il ne pouvait ôter, il envoya la pourpre à Constantin.
Ses vues sur Licinius se trouvaient trompées; mais afin d'abaisser
du moins le nouveau prince, autant qu'il pourrait le faire, il s'avisa de
donner le titre d'Auguste à Sévère, qui était le plus âgé, et de ne
laisser à Constantin que le rang de César après Maximin, le faisant
ainsi descendre du second degré au quatrième. Le jeune prince,
dont l'ame était élevée et l'esprit solide, parut se contenter de ce
qu'on lui accordait, et ne jugea pas à propos de troubler la paix de
l'empire, pour conserver le titre d'un pouvoir dont il possédait toute la
réalité. En effet, c'est de cette année qu'on commença à compter
celles de sa puissance tribunitienne.
Sévère, qui commandait en Italie, fort satisfait de
cette nouvelle disposition, ne différa pas d'envoyer xxiv. Maxence
à Rome l'image de Constantin, pour l'y faire élevé à l'empire.
reconnaître en qualité de César. Mais le dépit d'un
rival méprisé jusques alors, et qui prétendait avoir Incert. Paneg. c.
plus de droit à l'empire que tous ces nouveaux 4.
souverains, renversa l'ordre établi par Galérius.
Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maxentius était fils de
Lact. de mort.
Maximien. Ses mauvaises qualités, et peut-être pers. c. 18 et
ses malheurs, ont fait dire qu'il était supposé; on 26.
prétend même que sa mère Eutropia avoua qu'elle
l'avait eu d'un Syrien. C'était un prince mal fait de
corps et d'esprit, d'une ame basse, et plein Anony. Vales.
d'arrogance, débauché et superstitieux, brutal
jusqu'à refuser le respect à son père. Galérius lui Eutrop. l. 10.
avait donné en mariage une fille qu'il avait eue de
sa première femme; mais ne voyant en lui que des
Till. note 12 et
vices dont il ne pouvait faire usage, il avait 13.
empêché Dioclétien de le nommer César. Ainsi
Maxence, oublié de son père, haï de son beau-père, avait, jusqu'à
ce temps, mené une vie obscure, enveloppé dans les ténèbres de la
débauche, tantôt à Rome, tantôt en Lucanie. Le bruit de l'élévation
de Constantin le réveilla: il crut devoir sauver une partie de son
héritage, qu'il se voyait enlever par tant de mains étrangères. La
disposition des esprits lui donnait de grandes facilités: l'insatiable
avidité de Galérius alarmait la ville de Rome; on y attendait des
commissaires chargés d'exercer les mêmes vexations qui faisaient
déja gémir les provinces; et comme Galérius craignait la milice
prétorienne, il en avait cassé une partie: c'était donner à Maxence
ceux qui restaient. Aussi les gagna-t-il aisément par le moyen de
deux tribuns nommés Marcellianus et Marcellus; et les intrigues de
Lucien, préposé à la distribution des viandes, qui se faisait aux
dépens du fisc, firent déclarer le peuple en sa faveur. La révolution
fut prompte; elle ne coûta la vie qu'à un petit nombre de magistrats
instruits de leur devoir, même à l'égard d'un prince odieux; entre
lesquels l'histoire ne nomme qu'Abellius, dont la qualité n'est pas
bien connue. Maxence, qui s'était arrêté à deux ou trois lieues de
Rome sur le chemin de Lavicum, fut proclamé Auguste le 28
octobre.
Galérius qui était en Illyrie, ne fut pas fort alarmé
de cette nouvelle. Il faisait trop peu de cas de xxv. Maximien
Maxence pour le regarder comme un rival reprend le titre
redoutable. Il écrit à Sévère, qui résidait à Milan, et d'Auguste.
l'exhorte à se mettre lui-même à la tête de ses
troupes et à marcher contre l'usurpateur. Maxence, Lact., de mort.
aussi timide que Sévère, n'osait s'exposer seul à pers. c. 26.
l'orage dont il était menacé. Il eut recours à son
père Maximien, qui peut-être était d'intelligence Baluzius in Lact.
avec lui, et qui se trouvait alors en Campanie. p. 315.
Celui-ci, qui ne pouvait s'accoutumer à la vie
privée, accourt à Rome, rassure les esprits, écrit à
Dioclétien pour l'engager à reprendre avec lui le Eutrop. l. 10.
gouvernement de l'empire; et sur le refus de ce
prince, il se fait prier par son fils, par le sénat et Incert. Pan.
par le peuple, d'accepter de nouveau le titre Maxim. et
d'Auguste. Const. c. 10.
Maximin ne prit point de part à ces premières

agitations. Tranquille en Orient, et livré à ses xxvi. Maximin
plaisirs, il goûtait un repos dont il ne laissait pas ne prend point
jouir les chrétiens. Étant à Césarée de Palestine le de part à ces
mouvements.
20 novembre, jour de sa naissance, qu'il célébrait
avec grand appareil, après les divertissements
ordinaires, il voulut embellir la fête par un Eus. de Mart.
spectacle dont les païens étaient toujours fort Palæst. c. 6.
avides. Le chrétien Agapius était depuis deux ans
condamné aux bêtes. La compassion du magistrat, ou l'espérance
de vaincre sa fermeté, avait fait différer son supplice. Maximin le fait
traîner sur l'arène avec un esclave qu'on disait avoir assassiné son
maître. Le César fait grace au meurtrier, et tout l'amphithéâtre
retentit d'acclamations sur la clémence du prince. Ayant fait ensuite
amener le chrétien devant lui, il lui promet la vie et la liberté, s'il
renonce à sa religion. Mais celui-ci protestant à haute voix qu'il est
prêt à tout souffrir avec joie pour une si belle cause, court lui-même
au-devant d'une ourse qu'on avait lâchée sur lui, et s'abandonne à la
férocité de cet animal, qui le déchire. On le reporte à demi mort dans
la prison, et le lendemain comme il respirait encore, on le jette dans
la mer avec de grosses pierres attachées à ses pieds. Tels étaient
les amusements de Maximin.
Constantin signalait les commencements de son
empire par des actions plus dignes d'un souverain. xxvii.
Quoiqu'il fût encore dans les ténèbres du Occupations de
paganisme, il ne se contenta pas, comme son Constantin.
père, de laisser aux chrétiens, par une permission
tacite, le libre exercice de leur religion, il l'autorisa Lact., de mort.
par un édit. Comme il avait souvent dans la pers. c. 24.
bouche cette belle maxime: que c'est la fortune qui
fait les empereurs, mais que c'est aux empereurs à Lamprid. in
justifier le choix de la fortune, il s'occupait du soin Helag. c. 34.
de rendre ses sujets heureux. Il s'appliqua d'abord
à régler l'intérieur de ses états, et songea ensuite à en assurer les
frontières.
Après avoir visité les provinces de son obéissance,
en rétablissant partout le bon ordre, il marcha xxviii. Sa
contre les Francs. Ces peuples, les plus belliqueux victoire sur les
des barbares, profitant de l'absence de Constance Francs.
pour violer les traités de paix, avaient passé le
Rhin et faisaient de grands ravages. Constantin les vainquit, fit
prisonniers deux de leurs rois, Ascaric et Régaïse;
et pour punir ces princes de leur perfidie, il les fit Eus. vit. Const.
dévorer par les bêtes dans l'amphithéâtre: action l. 1, c. 25.
barbare qui déshonorait sa victoire, et à laquelle la
postérité doit d'autant plus d'horreur, que la basse Eumen. Paneg.
flatterie des orateurs du temps s'est efforcée d'en c. 10 et 11.
faire plus d'éloge.
Ayant forcé les Francs à repasser le fleuve, il le Nazar. Pan. c.
passa lui-même sans être attendu, fondit sur leur 16 et 17.
pays[6], et les surprit avant qu'ils eussent eu le
temps de se sauver, comme c'était leur coutume, Incert. Pan. c. 4
dans leurs bois et leurs marais. On en massacra, et 23.
on en prit un nombre prodigieux. Tous les
troupeaux furent égorgés ou enlevés; tous les
xxix. Il acheva
villages brûlés. Les prisonniers qui avaient l'âge de de les dompter.
puberté, trop suspects pour être enrôlés dans les
troupes, trop féroces pour souffrir l'esclavage,
furent tous livrés aux bêtes à Trèves, dans les jeux Eumen. Pan. c.
qui furent célébrés après la victoire. Le courage de 12 et 13.
ces braves gens effraya leurs vainqueurs, qui
s'amusaient de leur supplice: on les vit courir au- Vorburg, Hist.
devant de la mort, et conserver encore un air Rom. Germ., l.
intrépide entre les dents et sous les ongles des 2, p. 112.
bêtes farouches, qui les déchiraient sans leur
arracher un soupir. Quoi qu'on puisse dire pour Incert. Pan. c.
excuser Constantin, il faut avouer qu'on retrouve 23 et 24.
dans son caractère des traits de cette férocité
commune aux princes de son siècle, et qui s'échappa encore en
plusieurs rencontres, lors même que le christianisme eut adouci ses
mœurs.
[6] Constantin ravagea le pays des Bructères, tribu de la nation des Francs.—S.-
M.
Pour ôter aux barbares l'envie de passer le Rhin,
et pour se procurer à lui-même une libre entrée sur xxx. Il met à
leurs terres, il entretint, le long du fleuve, les forts couvert les
déja bâtis et garnis de troupes, et sur le fleuve
même une flotte bien armée. Il commença à terres de la
Cologne un pont de pierre qui ne fut achevé qu'au Gaule.
bout de dix ans, et qui, selon quelques-uns,
subsista jusqu'en 955. On dit aussi que ce fut pour Eumenius, Pan.
défendre ce pont qu'il bâtit ou répara le château de c. 13.
Duitz vis-à-vis de Cologne[7]. Ces grands ouvrages
achevèrent d'intimider les Francs; ils demandèrent Vorb. Hist. Rom.
la paix, et donnèrent pour ôtages les plus nobles Germ. t. 2, p.
de leur nation. Le vainqueur, pour couronner ces 170.
glorieux succès, institua les jeux franciques, qui
continuèrent long-temps de se célébrer tous les Till., art. 10.
ans depuis le 14 de juillet jusqu'au 20.
[7] C'est une conjecture de Bucher (Hist. Belg., l. 8, c. 2, § 5). Les anciens ne
disent rien de pareil.—S.-M.
Tout était en mouvement en Italie. Sévère, parti de
Milan au milieu de l'hiver de l'an 307, marcha vers An 307.
Rome avec une grande armée, composée de
Romains et de soldats Maures, qui tous avaient xxxi. Sévère
servi sous Maximien, et lui étaient encore trahi.
affectionnés. Ces troupes, accoutumées aux
délices de Rome, avaient plus d'envie de vivre
Incert. Pan. c. 3.
dans cette ville que de la ruiner. Maxence ayant
d'abord gagné Anullinus, préfet du prétoire, n'eut
pas de peine à les corrompre. Dès qu'elles furent à Lact., de mort.
la vue de Rome, elles quittèrent leur empereur et pers. c. 26.
se donnèrent à son ennemi. Sévère abandonné
prend la fuite, et rencontrant Maximien à la tête Anony. Vales.
d'un corps qu'il venait de rassembler, il se sauve à
Ravenne, où il se renferme avec le petit nombre
de ceux qui lui étaient demeurés fidèles. Cette ville Zos. l. 2, c. 10.
était forte, peuplée, et assez bien pourvue de
vivres pour donner à Galérius le temps de venir au Vict. epit. p.
secours. Mais Sévère manquait de la principale 221.
ressource: il n'avait ni bon sens, ni courage.
Maximien pressé par la crainte qu'il avait de Eutrop. l. 10.
Galérius, prodiguait les promesses et les serments
pour engager Sévère à se rendre: celui-ci plus pressé encore par sa
propre timidité, et menacé d'une nouvelle désertion, ne songeait qu'à
sauver sa vie; il consentit à tout, se remit entre les mains de son
ennemi, et rendit la pourpre à celui qui la lui avait donnée deux ans
auparavant.
Réduit à la condition privée, il revenait à Rome, où
Maximien lui avait juré qu'il serait traité avec xxxii. Sa mort.
honneur. Mais Maxence, pour dégager son père
de sa parole, fit dresser à Sévère une embuscade Anony. Vales.
sur le chemin. Il le prit, l'amena à Rome comme un
captif, et l'envoya à trente milles sur la voie
Appienne, dans un lieu nommé les Trois- Zos. l. 2, c. 10.
Hôtelleries (Tres tabernæ), où ce prince infortuné,
ayant été retenu prisonnier pendant quelques [Victor, epit. p.
jours, fut forcé de se faire ouvrir les veines. On 221].
porta son corps dans le tombeau de Gallien, à huit
ou neuf milles de Rome. Il laissa un fils nommé Sévérianus qui ne
fut héritier que de ses malheurs.
Maximien s'attendait bien que Galérius ne tarderait
pas de venir en Italie pour venger la mort de xxxiii. Mariage
Sévère. Il craignait même que cet ennemi violent de Constantin.
et irrité n'amenât avec lui Maximin; et quelles
forces pourraient résister aux armées réunies de Lact., de mort.
ces deux princes? Il songea donc de son côté à se pers. c. 27.
procurer une alliance capable de le soutenir au
milieu d'une si violente tempête. Il met Rome en
Du Cange, in
état de défense, et court en Gaule pour s'attacher numm. Byz. p.
Constantin en lui faisant épouser sa fille Flavia- 45.
Maximiana-Fausta, qu'il avait eue d'Eutropia, et
qui, du côté de sa mère, était sœur cadette de
Theodora, belle-mère de Constantin. Elle était née Till. art. 11.
et avait été élevée à Rome. Son père l'avait
destinée au fils de Constance dès l'enfance de l'un Incert. Paneg.,
et de l'autre: on voyait dans son palais d'Aquilée Max. et Cons. c.
un tableau, où la jeune princesse présentait à 6.
Constantin un casque d'or. Le mariage de
Minervina rompit ce projet: mais sa mort arrivée
avant celle de Constance donna lieu de le Baluzius, in
reprendre, et il semble que ce prince avait consenti Lact., c. 27.
à cette alliance. L'état où se trouvait alors
Maximien la fit promptement conclure: le mariage fut fait à Trèves, le
31 mars. Nous avons encore un panégyrique qui fut alors prononcé
en présence des deux princes[8]. Pour la dot de sa fille, Maximien
donna à son gendre le titre d'Auguste, sans s'embarrasser de
l'approbation de Galérius.
[8] Cet ouvrage, dont on ignore l'auteur, se retrouve dans le Recueil des anciens
panégyristes (Panegyrici veteres).—S.-M.
Ce prince était bien éloigné de l'accorder. Plein de
courroux et ne respirant que vengeance, il était xxxiv. Galérius
déja entré en Italie avec une armée plus forte que vient assiéger
celle de Sévère, et ne menaçait de rien moins que Rome.
d'égorger le sénat, d'exterminer le peuple, et de
ruiner la ville. Il n'avait jamais vu Rome, et n'en Incert. Pan. c. 3.
connaissait ni la grandeur ni la force: il la trouva
hors d'insulte: l'attaque et la circonvallation lui
Lact., de mort.
paraissant également impraticables, il fut contraint pers. c. 27.
d'avoir recours aux voies de négociation. Il alla
camper à Terni en Ombrie, d'où il députa à
Maxence deux de ses principaux officiers, Licinius Anony. Vales.
et Probus, pour lui proposer de mettre bas les
armes, et de s'en rapporter à la bienveillance d'un beau-père, prêt à
lui accorder tout ce qu'il ne prétendrait pas emporter par violence.
Maxence n'avait garde de donner dans ce piége. Il
attaqua Galérius avec les mêmes armes qui lui xxxv. Il est
avaient si bien réussi contre Sévère; et profita de contraint de se
ces entrevues pour lui débaucher par argent une retirer.
grande partie de ses troupes, déja mécontentes
d'être employées contre Rome, et par un beau-père contre son
gendre. Des corps entiers quittèrent Galérius et s'allèrent jeter dans
Rome. Cet exemple ébranlait déja le reste de l'armée, et Galérius
était à la veille d'éprouver le même sort que celui qu'il venait venger,
lorsque ce prince superbe, humilié par la nécessité, se prosternant
aux pieds des soldats et les suppliant avec larmes de ne pas le livrer
à son ennemi, vint à bout, à force de prières et de promesses, d'en
retenir une partie. Il décampa aussitôt et s'enfuit en diligence.
Il ne fallait qu'un chef avec une poignée de bonnes
troupes, pour l'accabler dans cette fuite précipitée. xxxvi. Il ruine
Il le sentit; et pour ôter à l'ennemi le moyen de le tout sur son
poursuivre, et payer en même temps ses soldats passage.
de leur fidélité, il leur ordonna de ruiner toutes les
campagnes et de détruire toutes les subsistances. Jamais il ne fut
mieux obéi. La plus belle contrée de l'Italie éprouva tous les excès
de l'avarice, de la licence et de la rage la plus effrénée. Ce fut au
travers de ces horribles ravages que l'empereur, ou plutôt le fléau de
l'empire, regagna la Pannonie; et la malheureuse Italie eut lieu de se
ressouvenir alors que Galérius, recevant deux ans auparavant le
titre d'empereur, s'était déclaré l'ennemi du nom romain, et qu'il avait
projeté de changer la dénomination de l'empire, en l'appelant
l'empire des Daces, parce que presque tous ceux qui gouvernaient
alors tiraient, comme lui, leur origine de ces barbares.
Maximien était encore en Gaule. Indigné contre
son fils, dont la lâcheté avait laissé échapper xxxvii.
Galérius, il résolut de lui ôter la puissance Maximien
souveraine. Il sollicita son gendre de poursuivre revient à Rome
d'où il est
Galérius, et de se joindre à lui pour dépouiller
chassé.
Maxence. Constantin s'y trouvait assez disposé,
mais il ne put se résoudre à quitter la Gaule, où sa
présence était nécessaire pour contenir les Lact. de mort.
barbares. Rien n'est plus équivoque que la pers. c. 28.
conduite de Maximien. Cependant, quand on suit
avec attention toutes ses démarches, il paraît qu'il Incert. Paneg. c.
n'avait rien d'arrêté que le désir de se rendre le 3.
maître. Sans affection comme sans scrupule,
également ennemi de son fils et de son gendre, il
Zos. l. 2, c. 10.
cherchait à les détruire l'un par l'autre, pour les
faire périr tous deux. Il retourne à Rome: le dépit
d'y voir Maxence plus honoré et plus obéi, et de Eutrop. l. 10.
n'être lui-même regardé que comme la créature de
son fils, joignit à son ambition une amère jalousie.
Il pratiqua sous main les soldats de Sévère, qui Zonar., l. 12, t. i,
avaient été les siens: avant même que d'en être p. 644.
bien assuré, il assemble le peuple et les gens de
guerre, monte avec Maxence sur le tribunal; et après avoir gémi sur
les maux de l'état, tout-à-coup il se tourne d'un air menaçant vers
son fils, l'accuse d'être la cause de ces malheurs, et, comme
emporté par sa véhémence, il lui arrache le manteau de pourpre.
Maxence effrayé se jette entre les bras des soldats qui, touchés de
ses larmes et plus encore de ses promesses, accablent Maximien
d'injures et de menaces. En vain celui-ci veut leur persuader que
cette violence de sa part n'est qu'une feinte, pour éprouver leur zèle
à l'égard de son fils; il est obligé de sortir de Rome.
Galérius avait donné le consulat de cette année à
Sévère et à Maximin: le premier n'avait pas été xxxviii.
reconnu dans les états de Maxence, qui avait Maxence lui ôte
nommé son père consul pour la neuvième fois: et le consulat.
Maximien, en donnant à Constantin la qualité
d'Auguste, l'avait fait consul avec lui, sans Buch. de cycl.
s'embarrasser du titre de Maximin. Maxence ayant p. 238.
chassé son père, lui abrogea le consulat, sans lui
substituer personne. Il cessa même alors de Till. note 15 sur
reconnaître Constantin pour consul, et fit dater les Constantin.
actes par les consulats de l'année précédente en
ces termes: Après le sixième consulat; c'était celui
de Constance Chlore et de Galérius, qui tous deux Idat. chron.
avaient été consuls pour la sixième fois en 306.
Maximien se retira en Gaule, soit pour armer
Constantin contre Maxence, soit pour le perdre lui- xxxix. Maximien
même. N'ayant pu réussir dans l'un ni dans l'autre va trouver
projet, il se hasarda d'aller trouver Galérius, Constantin et
ensuite
l'ennemi mortel de son fils, sous prétexte de se
Galérius.
réconcilier avec lui, et de prendre de concert les
moyens de rétablir les affaires de l'empire: mais en
effet pour chercher l'occasion de lui ôter la vie, et Lact., de mort.
pers. c. 29.
de régner en sa place, croyant ne pouvoir trouver du repos que sur
le trône.
Galérius était à Carnunte en Pannonie. Désespéré
du peu de succès qu'il avait eu contre Maxence, et xl. Portrait de
craignant d'être attaqué à son tour, il songea à se Licinius.
donner un appui dans Licinius, en le mettant à la
place de Sévère. C'était un Dace, d'une famille Lact., de mort.
aussi obscure que celle de Galérius; il se vantait pers. c. 29.
pourtant de descendre de l'empereur Philippe. On
ne sait pas précisément son âge, mais il était plus
Zos. l. 2, c. 11.
âgé que Galérius, et c'était une des raisons qui
avaient empêché celui-ci de le créer César, selon
la coutume, avant que de l'élever à la dignité Eutrop. l. 10.
d'Auguste. Ils avaient formé ensemble une liaison
intime, dès le temps qu'ils servaient dans les Aurel. Vict. de
armées. Licinius s'était ensuite attaché à la fortune Cæs., p. 174 et
de son ami, et avait beaucoup contribué, par sa 176.
valeur, à la célèbre victoire remportée sur [le roi de
Perse] Narsès. Il avait la réputation d'un grand
Vict. epit. p. 221
homme de guerre, et il se piqua toujours d'une et 222.
sévère exactitude dans la discipline. Ses vices,
plus grands que ses vertus, n'avaient rien de rebutant pour un
homme tel que Galérius: il était dur, colère, cruel, dissolu, d'une
avarice sordide, ignorant, ennemi des lettres, des lois et de la
morale; il appelait les lettres le poison de l'état; il détestait la science
du barreau, et il prit plaisir, étant empereur, à persécuter les
philosophes les plus renommés, et à leur faire souffrir, par haine et
par caprice, les supplices réservés aux esclaves. Il y eut pourtant
deux sortes de personnes qu'il sut traiter avec assez d'équité: il se
montra favorable aux laboureurs et aux gens de la campagne; et
retint dans une étroite contrainte les eunuques et les officiers du
palais, qu'il aimait à comparer à ces insectes qui rongent sans cesse
les choses auxquelles ils s'attachent.
Pour rendre l'élection de Licinius plus éclatante,
Galérius invita Dioclétien à s'y trouver. Le vieillard xli. Dioclétien
y consentit: il partit de sa paisible retraite de refuse l'empire.
Salone, et reparut à la cour avec une douce
majesté, qui attirait les regards sans les éblouir, et Vict. epit. p.
les respects sans mélange de crainte. Maximien, 221.
toujours agité du désir de régner, comme d'une
fièvre ardente, voulut encore exciter en secret son ancien collègue,
devenu philosophe, à reprendre la pourpre et à rendre le calme à
l'empire, qui, dans les mains de tant de jeunes souverains, n'était
que le jouet de leurs passions. Ce fut alors que Dioclétien lui fit cette
belle réponse: Ah! si vous pouviez voir à Salone ces fruits et ces
légumes que je cultive de mes propres mains, jamais vous ne me
parleriez de l'empire! Quelques auteurs ont dit que Galérius se
joignit à Maximien pour faire à Dioclétien cette proposition: si le fait
est vrai, ce ne pouvait être qu'une feinte et un pur compliment de la
part de ce prince, qui n'était pas d'humeur à reculer d'un degré; mais
l'ambition de Maximien nous répond ici de sa sincérité.
Ce fut donc en présence et du consentement des
deux anciens empereurs, que Galérius honora xlii. Licinius
Licinius du titre d'Auguste, le 11 novembre 307, lui Auguste.
donnant, à ce qu'on croit, pour département la
Pannonie et la Rhétie, en attendant qu'il pût lui Chron. Alex. vel
donner, comme il espérait le faire bientôt, toute la Paschal, p. 278.
dépouille de Maxence. Licinius prit les noms de C.
Flavius Valerius Licinianus Licinius: il y joignit le
Noris, de num.
surnom de Jovius, que Galérius avait emprunté de Licinii.
Dioclétien.
Constantin, qui n'avait pas été consulté, garda sur Till. n. 19 sur
cette élection un profond silence. Maxence, de son Constantin.
côté, créa César son fils M. Aurélius Romulus.
Mais le dépit de Maximin ne tarda pas à éclater.
Pour faire sa cour à Galérius, et pour gagner dans [Eckhel, doct.
num. vet. t. viii,
son esprit l'avantage sur Licinius, qui commençait p. 61-68.]
à lui donner de la jalousie, il avait redoublé de
fureur et de cruauté contre les chrétiens. Mennas,
préfet d'Égypte, était chrétien: Maximin, l'ayant xliii. Maximin
appris, envoie Hermogènes pour prendre sa place continue à
persécuter les
et pour le punir. Le nouveau préfet exécute ses chrétiens.
ordres, et fait cruellement tourmenter son
prédécesseur; mais ébranlé d'abord par sa Baronius, ann.
constance, éclairé ensuite par plusieurs miracles 307.
dont il est témoin, il se convertit et embrasse le
christianisme. Maximin outré de colère vient à Alexandrie: il leur fait
à tous deux trancher la tête; et pour tremper lui-même ses mains
dans le sang des martyrs, il tue d'un coup d'épée Eugraphus,
domestique de Mennas, et qui osait devant l'empereur professer la
religion proscrite. Mon dessein n'est pas de mettre sous les yeux de
mes lecteurs tous les triomphes des martyrs: ce détail appartient à
l'histoire de l'Église, dont ils furent l'honneur et la défense. Je me
propose seulement de rendre compte des principaux faits de ce
genre, auxquels les empereurs ont eu part immédiatement et par
eux-mêmes.
Les édits de Maximin remplissaient tout l'Orient de
gibets, de feux et de carnage. Les gouverneurs xliv. Punition
s'empressaient à l'envi à servir l'inhumanité du d'Urbanus et de
prince. Urbanus, préfet de la Palestine, se signalait Firmilianus.
entre les autres, et la ville de Césarée était teinte
de sang. Aussi possédait-il toute la faveur du Eus. Hist. Mart.
tyran: sa complaisance barbare couvrait tous ses Pal. c. 7. et 11.
autres crimes, dont il espérait acheter l'impunité
aux dépens des chrétiens. Mais le Dieu qu'il attaquait dans ses
serviteurs, ouvrit les yeux du prince sur les rapines et les injustices
du préfet. Urbanus fut convaincu devant Maximin, qui devint pour lui
à son tour un juge inexorable, et qui, l'ayant condamné à la mort,
vengea, sans le vouloir, les martyrs sur celui qui avait prononcé tant
de condamnations injustes. Firmilianus, qui succéda à Urbanus,
ayant été comme lui le fidèle ministre des ordres sanguinaires du
tyran, fut comme lui la victime de la vengeance divine, et eut
quelques années après la tête tranchée.
Quoique les rigueurs que Maximin exerçait contre
les chrétiens ne coûtassent rien à sa cruauté, An 308.
cependant plus il s'était étudié à se conformer aux
volontés de Galérius, plus il se sentit piqué de la xlv. Maximin
préférence que ce prince donnait à Licinius. Après prend le titre
s'être regardé comme tenant la seconde place d'Auguste.
dans l'empire, il ne voulait pas reculer à la
troisième. Il en fit des plaintes mêlées de Lact., de mort.
menaces. Pour l'adoucir, Galérius lui envoie pers. c. 20.
plusieurs fois des députés; il lui rappelle ses
bienfaits passés; il le prie même d'entrer dans ses
vues, et de déférer aux cheveux blancs de Eus. Hist. eccl.
l. 8, c. 14.
Licinius. Maximin, que ces ménagements
rendaient plus fier et plus hardi, proteste qu'étant
depuis trois ans revêtu de la pourpre des Césars, il Numism.
ne consentira jamais à laisser à un autre le rang Mezzab. et
qui lui est dû à lui-même. Galérius, qui se croyait Banduri.
en droit d'en exiger une soumission entière, lui
reproche en vain son ingratitude: il lui fallut céder à Toinard et
l'opiniâtreté de son neveu. D'abord pour essayer Cuper. in Lact.
de le satisfaire il abolit le nom de César; il déclare
que lui-même et Licinius seront appelés Augustes, [Eckhel, doct.
et que Maximin et Constantin auront le titre non num. vet. t. viii,
plus de Césars, mais de fils des Augustes. Il paraît p. 71-95].
par les médailles de ces deux princes, qu'ils
adoptèrent d'abord cette nouvelle dénomination. Mais Maximin ne la
garda pas long-temps; il se fit proclamer Auguste par son armée, et
manda ensuite à son oncle la prétendue violence que ses soldats lui
avaient faite. Galérius, forcé avec chagrin d'y consentir, abandonna
le plan qu'il avait formé, et ordonna que les quatre princes seraient
tous reconnus pour Augustes. Galérius tenait sans contredit le
premier rang; l'ordre des trois autres était contesté: Licinius était le
second selon Galérius, qui ne donnait que le dernier rang à
Constantin; mais Maximin se nommait lui-même avant Licinius; et
selon toute apparence, Constantin dans ses états était nommé avant
les deux autres. D'un autre côté, Maxence ne reconnaissait d'abord
que lui seul pour Auguste; il voulut bien ensuite faire part de ce titre
à Maximin. Mais enfin toutes ces disputes de prééminence se
terminèrent par la mort funeste de chacun de ces princes, qui
cédèrent l'un après l'autre au bonheur et au mérite de Constantin.
Maximien, empereur honoraire, puisqu'il n'avait ni sujets, ni
fonctions, que celles que lui imposait son humeur turbulente, avait
été compté pour rien dans ces nouvelles
dispositions. Il était dès lors brouillé avec Galérius: xlvi. Maximien
il paraît qu'au commencement de cette année ils consul.
avaient vécu en bonne intelligence, puisqu'on voit
dans les fastes le dixième consulat de Maximien, Till. note 21 sur
joint au septième de Galérius. Maxence, qui ne Constantin.
reconnaissait ni l'un ni l'autre, après avoir passé
près de quatre mois sans nommer de consuls, se nomma lui-même
le 20 avril avec son fils Romulus, et se continua avec lui l'année
suivante.
Comme il se voyait tranquille en Italie, il envoya
ses images en Afrique pour s'y faire reconnaître. Il xlvii. Alexandre
s'attribuait cette province: c'était une partie de la est nommé
dépouille de Sévère. Les troupes de Carthage, empereur à
regardant Maxence comme un usurpateur, Carthage.
refusèrent de lui obéir; et craignant que le tyran ne
vînt les y contraindre à main armée, elles prirent le Zos. l. 2, c. 12.
long du rivage la route d'Alexandrie, pour se retirer
dans les états de Maximin. Mais ayant rencontré Aurel. Vict., de
en chemin des troupes supérieures, elles se Cæs., p. 174 et
jetèrent dans des vaisseaux et retournèrent à 175.
Carthage. Maxence, irrité de cette résistance,
résolut d'abord de passer en Afrique, et d'aller en
personne punir les chefs de ces rebelles; mais il Vict. 221.
epit. p.
fut retenu à Rome par les aruspices, qui
l'assurèrent que les entrailles des victimes ne lui promettaient rien
de favorable. Une autre raison plus solide, c'est qu'il craignait
l'opposition du vicaire d'Afrique, nommé Alexandre, qui avait un
grand crédit dans le pays. Il voulut donc s'assurer de sa fidélité, et lui
demanda son fils pour ôtage: c'était un jeune homme fort beau; et le
père, informé des infâmes débauches de Maxence, refusa de le
hasarder entre ses mains. Bientôt des assassins, envoyés pour tuer
Alexandre, ayant été découverts, les soldats plus indignés encore
proclamèrent Alexandre empereur. Il était Phrygien selon les uns,
Pannonien selon les autres; peut-être était-il né dans une de ces
provinces, et originaire de l'autre: tous conviennent qu'il était fils d'un
paysan; ce qui ne le rendait pas moins digne de l'empire que

Fundamental Theories of Business Communication Laying A Foundation For The Field 1St Ed Edition Milton Mayfield Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fundamental Theories of Business Communication Laying A Foundation For The Field 1St Ed Edition Milton Mayfield Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fundamental Theories of Business

Communication: Laying a Foundation

More information about this series at

ISSN 2730-5333 ISSN 2730-5341 (electronic)

2 How We Selected the Theories 11

3 A Typology of Business Communication Theories 23

5 Channels and Barriers 49

6 Cultural Characteristics and Influences 77

7 Flows and Patterns 95

8 Meaning-Making and Discovery 119

9 Motivation and Persuasion 143

10 Organizational Structures 161

11 Reasons and Representations 171

12 Emerging and Noteworthy Theories 187

13 Theory Traditions and Influences 211

14 Why We Need Business Communication Theories 233

15 Conclusion and Future Development 251

16 Recommended Readings 261

Fig. 4.1 A diagram of overlapping areas among the business

Table 3.1 Channels and Barriers 28

Tis hard if all is false that I advance. A fool must now

Business communication needs theories. As a field, business commu-

© The Author(s) 2020 1

researchers to build upon the findings (Almaney, 1974; Hale, Dulek,

To facilitate this process, we present the fundamental business commu-

What Is Business Communication

influence exists between constructs, i.e., construct A doesn’t influence on

• It helps us understand the world better.

This definition gives us a definitive enough framework to distinguish

Why We Wrote This Book

of ideas and goals—a multitude that has proven challenging to codify

Shelby, A. N. (1993). Organizational, business, management, and corporate

How We Selected the Theories

The solution of this problem is trivial and is left

Developing a list of theories from any field presents many challenges—but

© The Author(s) 2020 11

and public relations programs, few business academic programs exist

Initial Theory Search

theory-based research. We next searched web sites that listed business

Refining the Theory List

interchangeably (Mao, 1994; Wilson, Kim, & Meischke, 1991). Only

or typology. Also, the lack of additional, consensus-based theory sugges-

Goldsmith, D. J. (2013). Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory. In B.

A Typology of Business Communication

I know the scientific names of beings animalculous;

In addition to uncovering and rating business communication theories,

© The Author(s) 2020 23

of how they relate to each other. Typologies contrast with taxonomies

Typologies in Theory Development

typology and the theory) reduce the cognitive requirements necessary to

We can also use a typology to advance the theories it classifies (Bailey,

Creating the Typology

Table 3.1 Channels

Table 3.2 Cultural

Table 3.3 Flows and

insights into how people use communication to find solutions to different

Table 3.5 Motivation

Language’s (Holmes & Parker, 2017; J. Mayfield & Mayfield, 2018)

Table 3.7 Reasons and Representations

Conversation Analysis Functional Perspective on Group

a single framework. In contrast, theories in this category bring these issues

messaging? International Journal of Business Communication, 56(1), 5–29.

Farrell, T. B. (1976). Knowledge, consensus, and rhetorical theory. Quarterly