About Face: Reflexively Considering “Audience” in Hiring Situations

Chalice Randazzo Eastern Michigan University

Abstract

Using data from 88 students, 20 advisers, and 24 hirers about U.S. résumés, this article focuses on face of the company, the concept of employers' evaluating how well applicants might represent a company. The results of applying rhetorical listening’s identification–disidentification to “face” suggested two outcomes and their implications. First, primary audiences invoked secondary audiences to the point in which they conflated, suggesting that résumés should incorporate secondary audiences. Second, hirers sometimes violated their own beliefs about diversity hiring because of audiences they invoked, suggesting that because invoking audience can perpetuate inequitable hiring practices, hirers should be more nuanced about the audiences they choose.

Journal
Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Published
2019-04-01
DOI
10.1177/1050651918816355
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (3)

  1. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  2. Technical Communication Quarterly
  3. College English

Cites in this index (16)

  1. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  2. Technical Communication Quarterly
  3. Technical Communication Quarterly
  4. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  5. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Show all 16 →
  1. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  2. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  3. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  4. Technical Communication Quarterly
  5. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  6. Technical Communication Quarterly
  7. Technical Communication Quarterly
  8. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
  9. Technical Communication Quarterly
  10. Technical Communication Quarterly
  11. Technical Communication Quarterly
Also cites 32 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1177/1080569908330383
  2. 10.1080/13594320902903613
  3. 10.1177/002194360103800104
  4. 10.1177/1080569906287956
  5. 10.1525/9780520353237
  6. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00288.x
  7. 10.1177/1080569908317150
  8. 10.1177/1350507602331002
  9. 10.1177/1052562904264440
  10. 10.1177/108056990306600305
  11. 10.1177/1080569913501860
  12. 10.1177/1080569912475207
  13. 10.2307/358093
  14. 10.2307/377789
  15. 10.1177/108056999605900311
  16. 10.1177/108056999706000206
  17. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.06.001
  18. 10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
  19. 10.1109/TPC.2016.2583278
  20. 10.1111/1468-2389.00210
  21. 10.1080/07370024.1999.9667266
  22. 10.1177/108056999505800115
  23. 10.2307/j.ctv11sn1gq
  24. 10.1016/j.rssm.2010.12.001
  25. 10.1177/0894845305279162
  26. 10.2307/358272
  27. 10.1002/hrm.10053
  28. 10.1177/1080569909334015
  29. 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141048
  30. 10.2307/2111369
  31. 10.1177/001979390405700206
  32. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00434.x
CrossRef global citation count: 4 View in citation network →