Communis Mei: Organizational Communication I

The International Encyclopedia of Communication

Organization–Public Relationships
Organizational Change Processes
Organizational Communication
Organizational Communication: Critical Approaches
Organizational Communication: Postmodern Approaches
Organizational Conflict
Organizational Crises, Communication in
Organizational Culture

Organization–Public Relationships

Robert L. Heath

DOI:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x

Over the years, academics and practitioners have worked to define public relations by what it accomplishes, the role it plays in society. One attempt at positioning the practice, and research about the practice, features the impact public relations can have on the quality of the relationship between each organization and its key publics, a theme that is at least 55 years old (Cutlip & Center 1952). Monitoring this view, Scott Cutlip, Allen Center, and Glen Broom (2000) observed that the trend in the United States was for public relations to be less focused on one-way, self-interested persuasion and more on mutuality, reciprocation, and the idea of “between.” Based on this trend, these authors posed one of the most widely disseminated definitions: “Public relations is the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends” (2000, 6). Thus, organization–public relationships consist of qualitatively valuable and relevant factors that lead key publics to support or oppose the organization because they see the organization as being as interested in their interests as it is in its own. The organization sees its interests with its publics as a valuable aspect of its own interests. Perception of mutual benefit can lead to support rather than opposition, which could foster willingness to buy products, use services, or take issue positions on public policy actions to support rather than sanction the organization. In short, the quality of the relationship is an independent variable that predicts support or opposition. The quality of the relationship is the dependent or mediating variable that results from what the organization does to meet or exceed the expectations of its key publics, whose good will and support are important to its business plan.

MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIPS

The ways in which relationships are built or harmed can result from careful strategic business planning that meets high standards of corporate responsibility, and public relations processes shared meaning, i.e., identification, which results rhetorically in shared sense-making joining the interests of the organization to those of key publics. A mutually beneficial relationship (MBR), a highly desirable outcome of effective and ethical public relations, occurs when the stakeholders of each organization believe that it works to achieve a condition where it and all its stakeholders benefit appropriately because of the quality of their relationships.

As a platitude, MBRs are asserted as the outcome goal of public relations, without much attention to how that end is achieved or what it entails. Some think, thereby leading to substantial criticism, that mutually beneficial relationships are the exclusive outcome of strategic communication rather than responsible and reflective management decisions. Such platitudes may mask the darker intent and ability of the focal organization to manipulate the relationship to seem more mutually beneficial than it truly is. Woe to the organization that fails to believe that such deceit can be detected and doubly harmful to relationships. The concept of MBR commits organizations to a process and → Discourse that go beyond mere manufactured image or reputation by actually operating in ways that achieve mutual benefits.

The logic of MBR is that when people believe that organizations operate with their interests in mind, they support rather than oppose those organizations. Thus, people buy from businesses they believe give them full value for goods and services purchased. They support activist or other nonprofit groups that share their values and hold similar goal-oriented commitments, such as preventing or treating specific childhood diseases. They believe in and support governmental agencies that act in their interest, in what can be seen as the public interest, where they are the “public.” They support businesses that meet operating expectations such as paying fair wages, giving proper benefits, protecting the environment, and fostering the communities where they operate.

Critics of this line of thinking simply doubt that businesses, for instance, ever hold stakeholder interests equal to their own. Thus the logic of MBR challenges public relations practitioners to truly understand and be in a management position to help the organization to know the expectations of its stakeholders that define their best interests. For this reason, public relations practitioners need to be advocates for sound and effective measures that produce mutual benefits.

MBRs assume that stakeholders hold varying standards of how each organization should operate. These standards are forged through societal dialogue voiced by many points of influence: industry, activist, government, media reporter, and such. Disagreement and intolerance are part of the dispute over the definition of what is mutually beneficial and whether the organization truly operates to that end. Critics hold different standards. Some are more intolerant of the actions and ethical choices of organizations than others. Thus, MBR is a normative goal that cannot be totally satisfied for all parties in any relationship. Each organization, regardless of its type, has a wide array of stakeholders. Each may have different expectations for the quality of the relationship and whether it is satisfied by what the organization does and says. In any full discussion of MBR, the sense of community is a focal point. What any organization does and says needs to be judged by whether it truly advances the essence of community among all of the stakeholders.

By the same token, appeals to community can be used asymmetrically to the beneficial interest of the organization rather than those of its stakeholders. Thus, a government ostensibly fighting international terrorism can appeal to community to defend its policies against its critics. It may, in this rhetorical stance, argue that any critic of its battle against international terrorists is actually a supporter of terrorism because it does not immediately and completely agree with and support the government policies. This rhetorical stance would in fact be asymmetrical and not serve the mutual interest of the critics, whose ideas may indeed ultimately add value to the fight against terrorism but do so in ways that disagree with the positions of the administration.

HOW TO CREATE RELATIONSHIPS

Practitioners' Views

Substantial discussion by various practitioners and academics earlier in the twentieth century sought to determine how organizations could create relationships. Both the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) and the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) have featured relationship building as a part of effective public relations and strategic business communication.

In its “vision, mission, and structure statement,” the IABC features relationships and says it specializes in helping people and organizations to make business sense of communication, think strategically about communication, measure and clarify the value of communication, and build better relationships with stakeholders (IABC 2007). The PRSA has been committed to meeting the challenge of relationship building since at least 1982: “Public relations helps our complex, pluralistic society to reach decisions and function more effectively by contributing to mutual understanding among groups and institutions. It serves to bring private and public policies into harmony.” Reviewing the wide array of institutions that require effective public relations, the PRSA publication Public relations tactics: The blue booknoted that “these institutions must develop effective relationships with many different audiences or publics such as employees, members, customers, local communities, shareholders, and other institutions, and with society at large” (PRSA 2002, B2).

One of the leaders in the formation of public relations as a management discipline, John W. Hill, principal founder of Hill & Knowlton, featured the concept of relationship in his books published during the 1950s and 1960s. He credited public relations icon Ivy Lee with an even earlier discussion of the term: “Public relationships, he [Lee] wrote, involved not simply ‘saying’ but ‘doing’ – not just talk, but action” (Hill 1963, 16). Hill reasoned that organizations simply could not avoid considering and meeting the challenges of multiple relationships “because the corporation deals with employees, stockholders, customers, neighbors, government functionaries, and many others – with all of whom it has many relationships” (1958, 4). To build relationships, organizations must not only talk, but act in appropriate ways. They must be good as well as do good.

At one level, the effort to achieve MBR, Hill reasoned, was a matter of reputation management. Do the organization's stakeholders believe the organization works in their interests? Does it have the reputation for such actions? If not, is the problem with its reputation one that could be corrected by communication, or does it also, or primarily, call for new and improved actions and policies? To this end, Hill asked managements to think about how strong their relationships were with all of their stakeholders. He was a practical counselor as well as one who sought high moral ground as the rationale for his profession and its profession. He reasoned, as advice to executive managements:

Business managements are concerned with the problems of conducting their corporate or industry affairs in ways that they may feel are contributive to public progress. They must arrive at effective policies that go far beyond their economic and operating functions into the complex realms of social, governmental, and political relationships. The large majority push forward into these policy areas as a matter of choice. But in terms of the long-range survival of corporate enterprise, there is little choice involved; it is a matter of essentiality.

(1963, 230)

A realist, Hill knew and counseled that organizations could not operate with autonomy as long as they merely operated in their own interest and expected others to tolerate that point of view.

Theory and Scholarship

Relationship management theory discusses process variables that can foster or impede the creation of MBRs (Ledingham 2005). This line of analysis is far from finished, but key factors are emerging (Heath & Coombs 2006): Openness fosters two-way communication based on listening for and sharing valuable information and evaluative opinions, as well as being responsive, respectful, candid, and honest. One-way communication occurs when an organization “speaks” but does not listen to or acknowledge the merit in what other people and organizations “say.” Trustworthyness builds trust by being reliable, nonexploitative, and dependable. Trust relates as well to the ethical and balanced use of control to foster one's interests in relationships with other interests. Cooperativity engages in collaborative decision-making that insures that the needs and wants of the organization and its stakeholders are met. Alignment shares interests, rewards, and goals with its stakeholders. Compatible views and opinions foster mutual understanding and agreement, co-creating meaning. Commitment supports community by being involved in it, investing in it, and displaying commitment to its quality.

The analysis of relationships has been explored from many points of view. Systems theory gives the rationale that no part of a system can operate forever imbalanced against the other parts of a system (→ Systems Theory). A rhetorical perspective (→ Rhetorical Studies; Rhetorical Theory of Public Relations) reasons that the effort to define interests assumes the co-creation of meaning. Many voices come together to define what constitutes a mutually beneficial relationship.Social exchange theory reasons that the quality of each relationship is based on give and take (→ Social Exchange). In such matters, publics must be allowed or assumed to define themselves and speak their mind. Theory does not adequately get at the essence of MBRs if it leads to the conclusion that the organization alone can know what is a public, whose ideas are best, and which discussants of an issue are legitimate.

SEE ALSO: → Discourse → Excellence Theory in Public Relations → Intereffication Approach in Public Relations → Issue Management → Legitimacy Gap Theory → Public → Public Affairs → Public Relations → Public Relations Field Dynamics → Rhetorical Studies → Rhetorical Theory of Public Relations → Social Exchange → Systems Theory

References and Suggested Readings

Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and a theory of organization–public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, (9) , 83–98.

Cutlip, S. M., & Center, A. H. (1952). Effective public relations. New York: Prentice Hall.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (2000). Effective public relations, 8th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Heath, R. L. (ed.) (2002). Handbook of public relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, R. L., & Coombs, W. T. (2006). Today's public relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hill, J. W. (1958). Corporate public relations: Arm of management. New York: Harper.

Hill, J. W. (1963). The making of a public relations man. New York: David McKay.

IABC (International Association of Business Communicators) (2007). At http://www.iabc.com, accessed January 12, 2007.

Ledingham, J. A. (2005). Relationship management theory. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage, pp. 740–743.

PRSA (Public Relations Society of America) (2002). Public relations tactics: The blue book. New York: Public Relations Society of America.

Cite this article

Heath, Robert L. "Organization–Public Relationships." The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Donsbach, Wolfgang (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2008.Blackwell Reference Online. 18 September 2014

Organizational Change Processes

Theodore E. Zorn

DOI:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x

Change is fundamental to organizing. To organize, or structure human activity intentionally to achieve collective goals, is in itself a change process – a movement from one state of being to another. A change process in the context of formal organizations may be defined as a sequence of events by which alteration occurs in the structure and/or functioning of an organization. Alternatively, it may be seen as the way in which difference(s) emerge between two (or more) successive conditions, states, or moments of time in an organization (Ford & Ford 1995).

As implied by these definitions, organizational change processes can be all-encompassing in scope, but scholarly attention is typically devoted to large-scale planned changes, such as restructuring, mergers, or implementation of major new management methods or information technology. Transcending the traditional concerns of innovation research, the study of change-related communication (CRC) considers how planned changes are adopted and implemented and how change-oriented discourse can infuse organizational interactions and messages.

RESEARCH INTERESTS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Organizational change processes have been of interest to → organizational communication scholars from the early days of the discipline's formation. In a historical overview of organizational communication research, Redding (1988, 45) cited several early publications that in one way or another focus on the role of communication in organizational change processes. For example, he mentions the following titles: “Employee Magazines Build Morale (1950),” “Effective Communications – One Road to Productivity (1950),” and “How House Magazines Improve Industrial Relations (1953).” Each of these suggests that early organizational communication scholars considered that communication could play a key role in enhancing productivity, improving employee relations, or attaining other organizational change goals. Additionally, → Everett Rogers's classic work on diffusion of innovations also highlights the role of communication in change.

However, organizational change has not until recently been a significant focus of study for organizational communication researchers. For example, handbooks of organizational communication have given only brief mention of organizational change. This is surprising, as the 1980s were a time when the notion of →organizational culture was coming into vogue as a major organizing construct, and culture change has been a major focus of both practitioners and organization studies scholars. However, organizational communication theorists tended to be critical of culture change initiatives, resisting the notion that culture is something that can be reliably managed. Thus, while practitioners and organizational scholars both became enamored of the culture metaphor beginning in the 1980s, practitioners were much more likely to associate culture with organizational change than were scholars.

The 1990s brought more focus on organizational change processes by communication scholars, largely stimulated by the increased emphasis on change in the contemporary workplace. There is still a relatively small body of work within the communication discipline, and few self-identified organizational communication scholars whose work concentrates on organizational change processes. However, this literature is growing, as is the sense of importance attributed to organizational change-related communication. In fact, Jones et al. (2004, 722) identified one of the six major challenges for organizational communication scholarship as “understand[ing] the communication of organizational change.”

INTELLECTUAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT

The intellectual context for organizational change scholarship is quite diverse. Communicative dimensions of organizational change processes have been addressed by scholars from multiple countries and disciplines. Among organizational communication scholars in the English-speaking world, the work of Laurie Lewis in the United States is particularly prominent, but there is also substantial work on the subject by organizational communication scholars in Australia (e.g., Victor Callan and colleagues at the University of Queensland), New Zealand (e.g., Colleen Mills at the University of Canterbury), the United Kingdom (e.g., Dennis Tourish at the Aberdeen Business School), and mainland Europe (e.g., Wim Elving at the University of Amsterdam and Anne-Marie Søderberg at the Cophenhagen Business School). Outside of organizational communication, numerous management scholars have investigated communication aspects of organizational change processes or discursive approaches to organizational change. In particular, Jeffrey Ford's work (e.g., Ford & Ford 1995) has been widely cited, and Loizos Heracleous has been prominent in researching discursive approaches to organizational change (Heracleous 2002).

The social context in which organizations operate has changed substantially in the past 40 years, and as a result of a number of converging factors, we have seen an intensified commitment to organizational change on the part of managers and executives. Among these factors are: the emergence of Asian economies as serious competitors to western businesses in high-profile industries such as manufacturing and electronics, creating a heightened sense of threat; revolutionary new technologies such as personal computers and the → Internet that enable rapid processing and transmission of information across boundaries; and the political-economic force of neo-liberalism, which has resulted in free-market principles being applied globally and in new domains of society (→ Globalization of Organizations).

Alongside these changes is the global dissemination of management ideas. Thus, we have seen waves of popular management models and methods, such as quality circles, total quality management (TQM), business process re-engineering (BPR), downsizing, outsourcing, lean manufacturing, e-business, knowledge management, enterprise resource planning, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability. The recommended response to these forces from so-called experts has been to organize for continuous change – to become a flexible organization that can adapt quickly to changes in the environment. This argument for change has been repeated by popular management “gurus,” such as Peter Senge, Tom Peters, and John Kotter, as well as by business schools, management consulting firms, and the business press, such that it has become the accepted wisdom for many managers and executives.

MAJOR DIMENSIONS OF THE TOPIC

A number of key dimensions of organizational change processes can be discerned. One important dimension is the meta-theoretical perspective from which the topic is approached. At least two broad meta-theoretical perspectives can be identified.

Managerialist perspectives, including positivist, post-positivist, realist, normative, and behaviorist approaches, are prominent in both communication and organization studies, with scholars attempting to discern more or less effective means of communicating in the process of change. From this perspective, communication is seen as a tool or instrumental means to achieve organizational change, and change agents are seen to be attempting to align or adapt organizations to an objective reality (Ford & Ford 1995). For example, research has focused on effective ways to announce change (Smeltzer & Zener 1993), the relationship of communication frequency and participation to perceptions of success (Lewis 1999; Lewis 2006), the effectiveness of particular methods of employee participation in change (Kellett 1999), persuasion campaigns in the context of change programs (Garvin & Roberto 2005), and the effects of major change on communication patterns (Tourish et al. 2004).

A second group of perspectives, which might be referred to as constructivist, includes social constructionist, interpretive, critical, discourse, and postmodern approaches (→ Constructivism). This group tends to be more concerned with understanding and critiquing organizational change processes, and communication is viewed as a means by which change is constructed by organizational members. Interpretively oriented approaches tend to describe patterns of communication practices and meaning construction. For example, researchers have investigated patterns of communication with external stakeholders (Lewis et al. 2001), dualities in change communication (Barge et al. 2008), and alternative constructions of a single change initiative (Zorn et al. 2000; → Framing Effects). Critically oriented constructivist approaches see communication as the arena in which organizational members struggle for preferred constructions of change-related phenomena. For example, researchers have demonstrated how certain communication practices serve a hegemonic function in change processes (Leonardi & Jackson 2004) and how tensions are reflected and constructed in CRC (Fairhurst et al. 2002).

FOUR PHASES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

To understand the major dimensions of the topic of organizational change processes, it is helpful to consider a model of the change process, as shown in Figure 1. This model is essentially a communication-oriented reinterpretation of traditional phase models of change, the best known of which is Kurt Lewin's unfreezing–moving–refreezing model. The model in Figure 1, however, highlights the interaction of the organization with its discursive environment. That is, change programs do not take place in a vacuum; rather, social-historical trends influence the interpretation and choices made regarding changes in each phase.

Figure 1 Phases of organizational change-related communication

Communication is implicated in each of the phases of change. In the first phase, the formulation phase, members of the organization become aware of the need for or possibility of change and decide upon a particular course of action, more or less well defined. In addition to identifying potential problems internally, members consume popular books, articles, seminars, and training videos – not to mention everyday talk with other managers – to learn of new programs and “best practices.” They may consult internal and outside experts (e.g., academics, consultants) as well as non-expert members of staff who may have insight or who may be affected by changes under consideration. Meetings will be held and memos, emails, and reports exchanged as discussion of a change develops. The organization may experiment with a change program on a small scale.

Communication processes in the formulation phase have been the focus of substantial theorizing and study, especially the processes by which popular management ideas are communicated and adopted. Guru theory, management fashion theory, and discourse theory make similar and mostly complementary claims. For example, Clark and Salaman (1998) theorized that management gurus construct an appealing identity for the manager as a heroic, transformational leader, thus encouraging managers to enact change to live up to the role. The management fashion perspective (e.g., Abrahamson 1996) suggests that a management fashion industry, consisting of gurus, consultants, business schools, and the business press, identifies new developments in management practice and then represents these ideas as simple but radical departures from existing practice that are necessary to prevent impending disaster. The fashion industry employs a recognizable pattern of rhetorical conventions and principles to convince managers to adopt them in some form (Clark & Greatbatch 2004). Discourse theorists (e.g., Zorn et al. 2000) suggest that managers draw on the popular discourses from gurus and the fashion industry more broadly to legitimate their change initiatives, and that organizational members are prepared and disciplined by these same discourses in their interpretations of and responses to change initiatives.

The implementation phase is the most extensively researched in both the change management and communication literature. Communication processes in this phase include announcing changes, exchanging task-related information needed to enact planned changes (including training and coaching), persuading stakeholders (including employees) to accept and commit to changes, and resisting the changes. Given that many organizational changes today result in layoffs or decreased job security, winning employee commitment is no mean feat.

A number of aspects of implementation communication have been examined. A major focus has been identifying strategies that are likely to help managers introduce changes effectively. For example, Smeltzer and Zener (1993) modeled strategies for change announcements, and Lewis investigated both change agents' (1999) and receivers' (2006) perceptions of the relationship of implementation communication activities to the success of change. Timmerman (2003) investigated media choice during implementation and, while his work was predictive rather than prescriptive, it had clear implications for practitioners. In addition to these efforts, other research of a critical nature has focused on the political (e.g., Doolin 2003) and emotional (e.g., Zorn 2002) aspects of implementation communication, as well as resistance processes (e.g., Ford et al. 2008). Still other research has addressed variations in organizations' socialization activities in the context of change (Hart et al. 2003), how employees cope with the stress of change (Callan 1993), and how discourses are used instrumentally to drive change (Leonardi & Jackson 2004).

The institutionalization phase is analogous to Lewin's “refreezing” stage of change. Once changes have been introduced, efforts to make them part of the organization's routines are important. This is a key phase in an era of constant change, since one of the pitfalls of constant change is that management is tempted to move on to the next “fashion” before the current change program is successfully institutionalized. Institutionalization may involve a number of communication activities, such as textualizing new practices into policies and procedures, recognizing and celebrating achievements, providing ongoing training and other socialization practices, discussing failures, and reorienting efforts. Few studies explicitly focus on the institutionalization phase of change efforts, although there are exceptions (e.g., Fairhurst et al. 2002).

The dissemination phase draws attention to the fact that, as a change initiative plays out, messages about the change process and change results are conveyed, either formally or informally, to multiple audiences. The organization's reputation is influenced either intentionally or unintentionally by the dissemination of messages about the change process. Furthermore, these messages shape others' views not only of the organization, but also of particular types of change initiatives. A management fashion perspective points to an interesting and practically important communication phenomenon in this phase. Because of managers' motivation to garner the praise and positive identity associated with successful programs, there is a temptation to publicize and overstate successes and hide failures. Zbaracki (1998), for example, reported that organizations that had had questionable success implementing TQM programs nonetheless publicized their use of and successes with these programs extensively. Such publicity may encourage the increasing positive appraisal and popularity of programs like TQM, even though such appraisals may be unwarranted.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN RESEARCH AND THEORY

Despite a wide-ranging exploration of communication processes in the context of organizational change, theoretical development has been rather sparse. This is less true in the research on CRC in formulation and dissemination than in implementation and institutionalization. Regarding communication in formulation and dissemination, management fashion, guru, and discourse theories are prominent, as reviewed above. Institutional theory has been used extensively to explain change processes generally, but only recently has it been considered as a means to explain CRC (Lammers & Barbour 2006; → Institutional Theory).

Much research on communication in implementation and institutionalization has been atheoretical, for example focusing on variables that are related to perceptions of success or resistance. However, Lewis (2007) has recently begun to address this concern, developing a model of implementation communication around stakeholder theory. In addition, structuration theory (e.g., Fairhurst et al. 2002) and discourse theory (e.g., Heracleous 2002) have been drawn upon by some scholars in researching implementation and institutionalization. Surprisingly, the rich theoretical tradition in → persuasion research has rarely been brought to bear on organizational change processes. Since so much of CRC is a process of influence – in all four of the phases – organizational change would seem an appropriate context in which to apply the theory of reasoned action, the elaboration likelihood model, and other persuasion theories.

A recent development has been a focus on “positive” approaches to CRC. Building on developments in positive psychology, the gist of such approaches is to identify positive deviance – that is, what is working well in an organization – and build on it, as opposed to identifying problems – or negative deviance – to be solved. Methods such as appreciative inquiry and dialog have drawn particular attention (Barge et al. 2008; → Dialogic Perspectives).

Another future direction that seems particularly important is increasing research on intercultural and trans-national organizational change. While there are a few notable studies (e.g., Søderberg & Vaara 2003), these are rare. Given increasing globalization, an understanding of CRC practices in different parts of the world and, especially, in intercultural situations seems needed.

References and Suggested Readings

Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, (21) (1), 254–285.

Barge, J. K., Lee, M., Maddux, K., Nabring, R., & Townsend, B. (2008). Managing dualities in planned change initiatives, Journal of Applied Communication Research, (36) (4), 364–390.

Callan, V. (1993). Individual and organizational strategies for coping with organizational change. Work and Stress, 763–75.

Clark, T., & Greatbatch, D. (2004). Management fashion as image-spectacle: The production of best-selling management books. Management Communication Quarterly, (17) (3), 396–424.

Clark, T., & Salaman, G. (1998). Telling tales: Management gurus' narratives and the construction of managerial identity. Journal of Management Studies, (35) (2), 137–161.

Doolin, B. (2003). Narratives of change: Discourse, technology and organization. Organization, (10) (4), 751–770.

Fairhurst, G. T., Cooren, F., & Cahill, D. J. (2002). Discursiveness, contradiction, and unintended consequences in successive downsizings. Management Communication Quarterly, (15) (4), 501–540.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, (20) , 541–570.

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story, Academy of Management Review, (33) (2), 362–377.

Garvin, D. A., & Roberto, M. A. (2005). Change through persuasion. Harvard Business Review, (83) (2), 104–112.

Hart, Z. P., Miller, V. D., & Johnson, J. R. (2003). Socialization, resocialization, and communication relationships in the context of an organizational change.Communication Studies, (54) (4), 483–495.

Heracleous, L. (2002). The contribution of a discursive view to understanding and managing organizational change. Strategic Change, (11) , 253–261.

Jones, E., Watson, B., Gardner, J., & Gallois, C. (2004). Organizational communication: Challenges for the new century. Journal of Communication, (54) (4), 722–750.

Kellett, P. M. (1999). Dialogue and dialectics in managing organizational change: The case of the mission-based transformation. Southern Communication Journal, (64) (3), 211–231.

Lammers, J. C., & Barbour, J. B. (2006). An institutional theory of organizational communication. Communication Theory, (16) (3), 356–377.

Leonardi, P. M., & Jackson, M. H. (2004). Technological determinism and discursive closure in organizational mergers. Journal of Organizational Change Management, (17) , 615–631.

Lewis, L. K. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned organizational change: Implementers' targets, sources and channels for communicating. Management Communication Quarterly, (13) , 43–75.

Lewis, L. K. (2006). Employee perspectives on implementation communication as predictors of perceptions of success and resistance. Western Journal of Communication, (70) (1), 1–24.

Lewis, L. K. (2007). An organizational stakeholder model of change implementation communication. Communication Theory, (17) , 176–204.

Lewis, L. K., Hamel, S., & Richardson, B. (2001). Communicating change to nonprofit stakeholders: Models and predictors of implementers' approaches.Management Communication Quarterly, (15) (1), 5–41.

Redding, W. C. (1988). Stumbling toward identity. In P. K. Tompkins & R. D. McPhee, (eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 15–54.

Sherblom, J. C., Keranen, L., & Withers, L. A. (2002). Tradition, tension, and transformation: A structuration analysis of a game warden service in transition. Journal of Applied Communication Research, (30) (2), 143–162.

Smeltzer, L. R., & Zener, M. F. (1993). Development of a model for announcing negatively perceived changes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, (6) (5), 56–70.

Søderberg, A-M., & Vaara, E. (eds.) (2003). Merging across borders: People, cultures, and politics. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Timmerman, E. (2003). Media selection during the implementation of planned organizational change: A predictive framework based upon implementation approach and phase. Management Communication Quarterly, (16) (3), 301–340.

Tourish, D., Paulsen, N., Hobman, E., & Bordia, P. (2004). The downsides of downsizing: Communication processes and information. Management Communication Quarterly, (17) (4), 485–516.

Zbaracki, M. J. (1998). The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Administrative Science Quarterly, (43) , 602–636.

Zorn, T. E. (2002). The emotionality of information and communication technology implementation. Journal of Communication Management, (7) (2), 160–171.

Zorn, T. E., Page, D., & Cheney, G. (2000). Nuts about change: Multiple perspectives on change-oriented communication in a public sector organization.Management Communication Quarterly, (13) (4), 515–566.

Cite this article

Zorn, Theodore E. "Organizational Change Processes." The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Donsbach, Wolfgang (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2008.Blackwell Reference Online. 18 September 2014

Organizational Communication

Katherine I. Miller

DOI:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x

Because investigations of organizational communication involve the intersection of two complex concepts – organization and communication – the discipline of organizational communication involves a number of diverse topical interests. Most scholars would agree that “organizations” are social collectives, embedded in a larger environment, in which activities are coordinated to achieve individual and collective goals. The study of organizational communication, then, is the consideration of “how the context of the organization influences communication processes and how the symbolic nature of communication differentiates it from other forms of organizational behavior” (Miller 2006, 1).

EMERGENCE OF THE FIELD

As with many disciplines in communication, the study of organizational communication has been traced back many decades – even to antiquity (→ Communication: Definitions and Concepts; Communication: History of the Idea). For example, Clair (1999, 284) argues that the discipline “lean[s] on the shoulders of Smith and Ricardo or Marx and Engels … rel[ies] on the tomes of White and Russell or Levi-Strauss and Douglas … resurrect[s] Aristotle, Plato, or Heraclitus.” However, most historians of the field place the beginning of the modern discipline of organizational communication in the middle of the twentieth century (→ Speech Communication, History of). The genesis of organizational communication can be traced to influences from traditional rhetorical theory, investigations of human relations and psychology, and theories from management and organizational studies. From their early years, organizational communication studies have been influenced both by theoretical frameworks from sociology, psychology, rhetoric, anthropology, and even the physical sciences, and by the ongoing practical concerns of those working in organizational settings. These cross-currents of theoretical and applied interest still influence organizational communication scholars in the twenty-first century.

Redding and Tompkins (1988) provide a typical recounting of the early history of organizational communication in their discussion of three overlapping formative phases. The first of these, occurring roughly between 1900 and 1950, is labeled the “era of preparation.” During this time period, concerns revolved around the need for prescriptive and skills-based training that would achieve “effective” communication within organizational settings. For example, researchers during this period looked at ways to structure messages, make appropriate media choices (e.g., written vs oral), and send messages to the “right person” at the “right time” for business effectiveness. Tompkins and Wanca-Thibault (2001, xxi) suggest that typical research questions during this era might include “What effects do downward directed mass media communications have on employees?” and “Is an informed employee a productive employee?”

The second phase (1940–1970) is labeled the “era of identification and consolidation.” During this time period, the discipline of organizational communication as a unique entity emerged, as seen through the development of graduate programs, the publication of seminal research articles, and recognition in professional associations such as the Speech Communication Association in the US (now the National Communication Association [NCA]) and the → International Communication Association (ICA). This time period was marked by attention both to prescriptive advice for practicing managers (what Redding and Tompkins call the “empirical-prescriptive” phase) and to an emphasis on the scientific method as central to the development of knowledge about organizational communication processes (what Redding and Tompkins call the “applied-scientific” phase). During this time period, empirical attention was focused on communication in supervisor–subordinate relationships, communication processes leading to employee satisfaction, communication networks such as “the grapevine,” and small group decision-making. These topic areas were investigated through straightforward → Surveys of organizational members and through laboratory experiments of basic organizational communication processes (→ Experiment, Laboratory). Tompkins and Wanca-Thibault (2001, xxi) consider typical research questions from this time period such as, “What is the relationship between the attitudes and performance of workers and the feedback they receive?” and “How can communication networks in organizations be measured?”

Redding and Tompkins argue that organizational communication reached “the era of maturity and innovation” in the 1970s. At this point, organizational communication was recognized as an established discipline under the larger umbrella of communication studies, with important links to a wide range of allied disciplines including “administrative science, anthropology, business communication, corporate communication, industrial organizational psychology, management communication, organizational behavior, political science, social psychology, sociolinguistics, sociology, rhetoric, and even literary criticism” (Taylor et al. 2001, 102).

The maturity of the organizational communication discipline is clear: organizational communication is among the largest divisions in both ICA and NCA, there are divisions or sections of organizational communication in organizations such as the Academy of Management, European Communication Research and Education Association (ECREA) and the Korean Society for Journalism and Communication Studies (KSJCS). Graduate degree programs have proliferated across the globe, and organizational communication scholarship is well represented in our discipline's journals, in interdisciplinary journals, and in specialized journals such asManagement Communication Quarterly. The publication of “handbooks” and summary edited books on organizational communication in the 1980s (Greenbaum et al. 1983; McPhee & Tompkins 1985; Jablin et al. 1987; Goldhaber & Barnett 1988) also points to the maturing and consolidation of the discipline.

The time since this “era of maturity and innovation” began has not been stagnant, of course. In recent decades, the discipline of organizational communication has been marked by a number of major intellectual shifts and conceptual debates. These developments have largely followed similar currents in other academic disciplines but have had specific implications for organizational communication in terms of theoretical commitments and research topics. Further, as scholars in organizational communication have worked through these theoretical and conceptual discussions, the “new” perspectives have not totally replaced the “old.” As a result, organizational communication is now a relatively eclectic discipline in terms of theoretical commitments, methodological approaches, and research topics. Three important, and somewhat overlapping, strands of work are now prevalent in organizational communication. Following Corman and Poole (2000), these strands are labeled “post-positivist,” “interpretive,” and “critical.”

POST-POSITIVIST RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

The first important strand of research in organizational communication is scholarship that has stemmed most directly from research conducted in the middle portion of the twentieth century and the phases of empirical-prescriptive research and applied scientific research discussed above. Variously labeled as post-positivist, modernist, empirical, functional, or normative, this strand of research was clearly the dominant perspective as organizational communication reached “maturity” in the 1970s. The ontological focus of research during this time period was on a realist conception (→ Realism) of both “organization” and “communication.” That is, organizations were seen as “containers” within which people worked and within which goods and services were produced. These organizations were characterized by processes such as “input, throughput, and output” that emphasized both the boundaries of the organization and the definable processes of material and information management that occurred “within” those organizational boundaries. Further, communication was conceptualized in terms of mechanistic views of information flow that followed prescribed routes and included defined content.

Thus, communication and → Information were conceptualized as discrete “things” that could be investigated within the discrete boundaries of the organizational container. Epistemological and methodological commitments were closely aligned with the scientific method and a commitment to “objective” observation of communication behavior within organizational settings (→ Objectivity in Science; Quantitative Methodology). During this time period, the post-positivist perspective in organizational communication was often linked with managerial concerns such as increasing productivity, increasing efficiency, and enhancing the effectiveness of information flow within organizational systems.

Thus, early examples of post-positivist research in organizational communication included extensive attention to topics such as supervisor–subordinate communication, semantic information distance, information flow, upward and downward feedback in the organization, communication climate, and prescribed and emergent communication networks. During the 1970s and 1980s, “systems” perspectives on organizational communication became particularly prevalent, fueled by scholars interested in understanding the complexity of communication in organizations, the relationships among organizational subsystems, and the embedding of organizations in larger institutional environments (Farace et al. 1977; → Systems Theory).

In the final decades of the twentieth century and continuing into the twenty-first, organizational communication research with a post-positivist epistemological and methodological focus has continued, but has also been marked by important developments. First, many organizational communication scholars in this tradition now eschew a strictly realist ontological focus, with its emphasis on organizations as “containers” and on communication as mechanistic processes of information flow. Instead, scholars working from a post-positivist stance in organizational communication today tend to embrace modified realist stances or more complex ontologies of social constructionism (Miller 2000; → Constructivism). Second, post-positivist scholars in organizational communication today advocate and use much more sophisticated methodological choices, including over-time analysis (e.g., stochastic analysis, time-series analysis; → longitudinal analysis), complex analysis of communication networks (→ Network Analysis), and computer modeling of organizational communication systems. Third, post-positivist scholars in organizational communication today are engaged with crucial questions that face individuals and organizations in the late modern and postmodern world. These questions include issues of advanced communication and decision-making technologies, issues of globalization, alternative organizational structures and non-profit organizations, and self-organizing systems. As a result, post-positivist scholars are now generally less aligned with strictly managerial concerns than they were during the 1960s and 1970s and are less likely to consider questions of a strictly applied nature.

THE INTERPRETIVE TURN

During the 1970s and 1980s, as in many fields of social and human research, organizational communication scholars began to question an allegiance to positivistic and functional approaches to scholarship. This questioning involved a rejection of realist conceptions of organizations and communication (e.g., the “machine” and “container” metaphors), together with a clear turn away from positivistic epistemological assumptions and research methods based on the scientific method and quantitative approaches. Within the discipline of organizational communication, several publications were particularly noteworthy during this time period. For example, Burrell and Morgan's (1979) publication of Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis caught the attention of many organizational communication scholars, as it systematized the study of organizations to include alternatives to the dominant paradigm of → functional analysis.

Within organizational communication, however, the “interpretive turn” is most often traced to a conference held in the summer of 1981 in Alta, Utah. Taylor et al. (2001, 108) recount that “during that summer a group of young communication scholars met in a mountain retreat just south of Salt Lake City to consider where the field had been and where it should now be going,” and Kuhn (2005, 619) argues that that gathering now “serves as a synecdoche for a movement occurring over many years, comprising a graduate shift in organizational communication from attention to information flow and the forces shaping members' attitudes dominant before the conference … to an increased concern with meaning, interpretation, and power in organizing processes afterward.” The discussions from the 1981 Alta conference were published in a benchmark book, Putnam and Pacanowsky's (1983) Communication in organizations: An interpretive approach.

The intellectual roots of the interpretive turn in organizational communication can be found in intellectual movements such as symbolic interactionism (→ Symbolic Interaction), → hermeneutics, → phenomenology, and → ethnomethodology. There are a number of important markers of the interpretive approach in organizational communication scholarship that developed from these founding perspectives. Ontologically, the interpretive approach is marked by a social constructionist view of the social world (e.g., Berger & Luckmann 1967). With this shift in ontology come changes in epistemology and methodology. Specifically, in the 1980s many organizational communication scholars turned to subjective epistemologies that emphasized the relationship between the knower and the known and the value of local and emergent forms of knowledge (→ Qualitative Methodology).

Methodologically, scholars began to emphasize research methods drawn from anthropology (e.g., organizational ethnographies), rhetoric (→ Rhetorical Studies), and other qualitative modes of inquiry (e.g., interviewing, narrative, discourse analysis). The interpretive turn also led to a shift in the conceptualization of “organization” and “communication.” Instead of following the container metaphor, which emphasized the flow of information within and between organizational structures, interpretive scholars considered the role of communication in processes of organizing and sense-making (Weick 1979). In other words, organizational scholars shifted from a mechanistic view of organizational communication to a constitutive view of organizing and communicating (Craig 1999). Finally, the interpretive turn marked a definitive turn away from the managerial concerns that were important to many organizational communication scholars working from a functional perspective. Instead, attention turned to the experiences and interactions of a variety of organizational actors.

The era of the “interpretive turn” in organizational communication was also marked by the emergence of interest in a number of research topics. Perhaps the most important of these in the 1980s was → “organizational culture.” Though early work in management and other applied areas emphasized a prescriptive approach to culture in which organizational leaders were urged to develop cultures that were “strong” (Deal & Kennedy 1982) or “excellent” (Peters & Waterman 1982), scholars in organizational communication followed the tenets of an interpretive approach in proposing models of culture that emphasized the emergent and performative nature of culture (Pacanowsky & O'Donnell-Trujillo 1983), the existence of organizational sub-cultures, and the role of cultural understandings in processes such as organizational socialization, conflict, decision-making, and change. Other scholars during the early years of the interpretive turn focused attention on more macro issues of organizational identity and image, especially through the use of rhetorical approaches to organizational analysis (e.g., Cheney 1991). Many of these concerns are still active in organizational scholarship today, as scholars investigate the “lived experience” of organizational members through ethnographic, interview, and narrative methods.

THE CRITICAL TURN

During the same time period as the “interpretive turn” in organizational communication studies, many scholars were also turning to a critical approach to organizational communication in which organizations were viewed as systems of power and control (→ Organizational Communication: Critical Approaches). Indeed, the watershed Alta conference in 1981 discussed above also marked a move in the discipline to an appreciation of critical approaches to scholarship, though the roots of that scholarship (like the roots of the interpretive approach) can be traced to many decades earlier (→ Critical Theory). In organizational communication research, critical scholarship can be traced to a number of intellectual origins, including Karl Marx's attention to the commodification of labor and processes of alienation, Frankfurt School critics and their attention to cultural control, Louis Althusser's attention to the political function of ideology, and Antonio Gramsci's arguments regarding hegemony and control through consent. Organizational communication scholars also rely heavily on → Jürgen Habermas's work on forms of rationality and communicative competence, Michel Foucault's discursive approach to power, and Anthony Giddens's structurational conceptions of the relationship between agency and structure (→ Structuration Theory).

With these diverse and complex roots, the turn to critical organizational communication scholarship involved an analysis of organizations as sites of oppression, a consideration of the discursive construction of managerial interests, an examination of how workers are complicit in processes of alienation, and a consideration of processes of dissent and resistance in organizations (Mumby 2000; Deetz 2005). As Deetz (2005, 85) states regarding the critical approach in organizational communication, “of central concern have been efforts to understand the relations among power, language, social/cultural practices, and the treatment and/or suppression of important conflicts as they relate to the production of individual identities, social knowledge, and social and organizational decision making.” As organizational communication scholars interrogate these issues, there has been a consistent concern with praxis – the synthesis of theory and practice. In organizational communication, this concern often translates into considerations of alternative organizational forms, participatory practices in organizations, and opportunities for employee dissent (→ Participative Processes in Organizations; Dissent in Organizations).

With the critical turn in organizational communication scholarship also came a move to feminist sensibilities and scholarship (Ashcraft & Mumby 2004;→ Feminist and Gender Studies). Ashcraft (2005) argues that feminist research in organizational communication has roots in both the critical turn in social theory and research and the political activism that has served as the heart of feminism in all of its various waves. As Ashcraft (2005, 145) states, “whereas critical organizational scholars prioritized emancipation through ideology critique, feminists literally grounded their emancipatory interest in the trenches of practice.” Feminist scholarship did not gain a strong foothold in the organizational communication discipline until the 1990s, though there had been earlier studies of gender and biological sex in organizational communication processes, typically from a post-positivist perspective. However, in recent decades, feminist scholarship in organizational communication has included areas of research such as the public/private divide implicit in the distinction between work and home, feminist ways of organizing, emotionality in the workplace, and feminist approaches to conflict.

The critical turn in the discipline of organizational communication has also been associated in recent years with the emergence of postmodern theorizing (Taylor 2005; → Postmodernism and Communication). Postmodern approaches to organizational communication can be seen through two contrasting lenses (→ Organizational Communication: Postmodern Approaches). First, postmodern approaches differentiate organizations and communication in the modern epoch (e.g., centralized authority, mass markets, formalization, rationality, standardization, and stability) from the postmodern epoch (e.g., lateral relationships, fragmented and niche markets, consensus-based control, interactivity, and change; → Cultural Studies).

In this sense, it is possible to talk about a postmodern era or postmodern organizational forms. Perhaps more important, though, organizational communication scholars draw on postmodern theory to consider concepts such as intertextuality, the fragmentation of identity, the interrelationships of power, knowledge, and discourse, and the need for reflexive understanding. Taylor (2005, 120–130) provides five claims that are central to postmodern approaches to organizational communication. These are: (1) organizations are (inter-)texts; (2) organizational cultures and identities are fragmented and decentered; (3) organizational knowledge, power, and discourse are inseparable and their relations should be deconstructed; (4) organizational communication involves complex relations of power and resistance; and (5) knowledge of organizational communication is representational – thus, communication should be reflexive.

CONTEMPORARY FRAMES FOR CONSIDERING ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

There are a number of ways that current theory and research in organizational communication have been categorized. For example, Conrad and Haynes (2001)identify five “clusters of scholarship” within organizational communication in terms of their underlying concerns with aspects of the dualism between action and structure. Some research privileges structure over action, such as research on information exchange and supervisor–subordinate relationship. Other research privileges action over structure, such as work considering the emergence of culture, symbolism, or ambiguity. Conrad and Haynes also identify clusters of scholarship that attempt to integrate action and structure (e.g., work stemming from Giddens's structuration theory, considerations of unobtrusive control and identification, and critical theory), as well as research that crosses organizational boundaries and challenges traditional constructs from the 1980s and 1990s.

A second categorization structure for current organizational communication scholarship was proposed by Mumby and Stohl (1996), who identify four central “problematics” within the study of organizational communication. These are the problematics of voice, rationality, organization, and the organization–environment relationship. These problematics highlight the ways in which researchers question traditional ways of thinking about organizational communication and embed their interests in current concerns. For example, pressures toward globalization point to the fluid nature of the organization–environment relationship and the ways in which time and space are reconfigured through new technologies, new organizational forms, and the shifting needs of a global economy.

Putnam et al. (1996) provide a particularly insightful framework for considering contemporary theory and research in organizational communication. This framework considers the metaphors of communication and organization and highlights the varying ways the concepts of “organization” and “communication” are framed by theorists and researchers (→ Organizational Metaphors). The seven metaphors identified to categorize both historic and contemporary research in organizational communication are as follows. In the conduit metaphor approach to organizational communication, communication is seen as transmission that occurs within the container of the organization. Research in this tradition includes considerations of formal and informal communication flow, adoption of new communication technology, and considerations of information load in the workplace.

In the lens metaphor approach, communication is seen as a filtering process and the organization is seen as the eye. This metaphor highlights the possibility of distortion and the importance of message reception, and would include research on feedback in organizations, environmental scanning, and strategic ambiguity (Eisenberg 1984) in organizational communication. The linkage metaphor shifts the emphasis in theory and research to the connections among individuals and organizations. Thus, a primary focus of research within this metaphor is a consideration of communication networks, including network roles, patterns, and structures. Contemporary research in organizational communication considers these linkages both “within” organizations and in larger interorganizational systems. The performance metaphor marks a major break from the previous three, and interaction and meaning take the forefront. In the performance metaphor, “organizations emerge as coordinated actions, that is, organizations enact their own rules, structures, and environments through social interaction” (Putnam et al. 1996, 384). Organizational scholars working in this area rely on such frameworks as narrative theory and Weick's theory of organizing (Weick 1979; → Sense-Making) and consider processes including storytelling and symbolic convergence in groups at the micro-level (→ Symbolic Convergence Theory) and the rhetorical construction of organizational image and identity at the macro-level.

The symbol metaphor sees the organization as a complex system of texts and communication as a process of representation through which the organizational world is made meaningful. Many current studies of organizational culture, organizational socialization, and the role of narrative, rites, and rituals in constructing the commonplaces of organization could be seen as stemming from this metaphor. The voice metaphor, as Putnam et al. note, “entails focusing on communication as the expression or suppression of the voices of organizational members” (1996, 389). Contemporary work from this metaphor could include considerations of ideology and naturalized knowledge (a consideration of distorted voices), considerations of hegemony and power (voices of domination), considerations of women and cultural groups in organizations (different voices), studies of hierarchy and participation (access to voice), and considerations of empowerment and democratization (making a difference through voice). In the discourse metaphor approach, finally, Putnam et al. consider theory and research in organizational communication that sees communication as a conversation, as collective action, and as dialogue. Scholarship stemming from this metaphor variously considers discourse as an artifact in organizational life, as structure and process, and as ongoing acts.

CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH TOPICS IN ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

The metaphors discussed above point to the disparate and enriching frameworks now used to consider organizational communication. However, it is important to emphasize the ongoing importance of the metatheoretical and theoretical influences discussed above, including post-positivism, interpretivism, critical approaches, postmodernism, and feminism. Organizational communication also continues to blend a concern with social theory with ongoing concerns with practice and with the experiences of organizational members. Further, the discipline of organizational communication continues to be marked by a consideration of various levels of analysis. Scholars are concerned with the individual experiences of organizational members (→ Psychology in Communication Processes); with the interaction of critical dyads in organizations, such as supervisors and subordinates (→ Supervisor–Subordinate Relationships); with interaction in task-related and social groups in the workplace (→ Group Communication); with the structure and function of various organizational types (→ Organizational Structure); and with larger systems of organizations across industries and nations (→ Interorganizational Communication).

There are a number of topic areas that would be considered “enduring” interests of organizational communication scholars. These include conflict processes in organizational systems and cultures (→ Organizational Conflict), issues of leadership (→ Leadership in Organizations; Feedback Processes in Organizations), and processes of individual and group decision-making (→ Decision-Making Processes in Organizations). However, the following outlines some of the more important contemporary interests of scholars in organizational communication. All of these topics are currently approached from a variety of theoretical perspectives and with a wide range of methodological approaches and analytical tools (e.g., ethnographic analysis, network analysis, survey and interview techniques, field experiments, comparative case analysis, rhetorical analysis, archival analysis, and historical analysis). It should, of course, be noted that these topic areas are not mutually exclusive and that this list is not intended as a comprehensive accounting of current organizational communication research.

Influenced largely by feminist theorizing, contemporary scholars in organizational communication have shifted from a traditional view of organizational processes as rational and logical to a consideration of emotional experience in the workplace. Such work includes studies of emotional labor, stress and burnout in the workplace, compassion, humor, and workplace bullying (→ Emotion and Communication in Organizations). The concepts of organizational identity and identification have held a central role in organizational communication research in recent years, as scholars have considered the formation of identity and the influence of identification on issues such as organizational decision-making, commitment, and group interaction. Work in this area has important roots in rhetorical (especially Burkean) theory (→ Organizational Identification).

Not surprisingly, the role of communication technology in shifting organizational communication processes has been a central concern of scholars for the last several decades. This research is conducted largely within the auspices of post-positivist theoretical and methodological assumptions and has included considerations of decision-making technology, technology for information storage and retrieval, communication technology such as telephony and the Internet, and technology that allows for alternative organizational configurations such as → telework (→ Technology and Communication; Meeting Technologies; Mobility, Technology for; E-Commerce). Shifts in technology, travel, and politics have led organizational communication scholars to the critical consideration of globalization processes. Theoretical and research interests in this area include both global and economic concerns as well as considerations of ways in which processes of globalization affect the work lives and communication processes of individuals. Much work in this area remains theoretical – often with a critical or postmodern sensibility – but there are increasing forays into research that considers data from a variety of levels (e.g., economic, political, network, psychological) and a variety of methodological approaches (→ Globalization Theories; Globalization of Organizations; Technology and Globalization).

Traditional research in organizational communication considered profit-centered organizations and bureaucracies (→ Bureaucracy and Communication). However, organizational communication scholars have recently become more interested in considerations of nonprofit organizations and alternative “flatter” forms of organizations encouraged through feminist theorizing. Further, trends in technology and globalization have led to increased consideration of virtual workplaces, and concerns with → Knowledge Management have led organizational communication scholars to concepts of learning and dialogue in organizational processes (→ Learning Organizations; Dialogic Perspectives), and to continued considerations of participatory systems and organizational democracy.

Critical scholars in organizational communication initially gave a great deal of attention to the ways in which organizational processes such as managerialism, decision-making, organizational structure, identification, and gender and culture could lead to hegemonic processes of oppression and alienation in the workplace. In recent years, these scholars have also turned their attention to ways in which employees resist these processes and engage in active dissent and resistance. Given rapid developments in technology, globalization, organizational forms, and market concerns, scholars in organizational communication are concerned not just with the nature of organizational communication in the late modern and postmodern world, but also with the processes through which organizations change and adapt (→ Organizational Change Processes). Concerns with organizational change are particularly marked in considering the ways in which organizations navigate crises (→ Organizational Crises, Communication in; Crisis Communication), the management of organizational image (→ Image; Issue Management), and ethical considerations (→ Organizational Ethics).

References and Suggested Readings

Ashcraft, K. L. (2005). Feminist organizational communication studies: Engaging gender in public and private. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (eds.), Engaging organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 141–169.

Ashcraft, K. L., & Mumby, D. K. (2004). Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann.

Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Clair, R. P. (1999). Standing still in an ancient field: A contemporary look at the organizational communication discipline. Management Communication Quarterly, (13) , 283–293.

Conrad, C., & Haynes, J. (2001). The development of key constructs. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 47–77.

Corman, S. R., & Poole, M. S. (2000). Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground. New York: Guilford.

Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, (9) , 119–161.

Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Deetz, S. (2005). Critical theory. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (eds.), Engaging organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 85–111.

Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, (51) , 227–242.

Farace, R. V., Monge, P. R., & Russell, H. M. (1977). Communication and organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Goldhaber, G. M., & Barnett, G. A. (eds.) (1988). Handbook of organizational communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Greenbaum, H. H., Falcione, R. L., Hellweg, S. A., et al. (eds.) (1983). Organizational communication: Abstracts, analysis, and overview. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Jablin, F. M., & Putnam, L. (eds.) (2001). The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jablin, F. M., Putnam, L. L., Roberts, K. H., & Porter, L. W. (eds.) (1987). Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jones, E., Watson, B., Garnder, J., & Gallois, C. (2004). Organizational communication: Challenges for the new century. Journal of Communication, (54) , 722–750.

Kuhn, T. (2005). The institutionalization of Alta in organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, (18) , 618–627.

May, S., & Mumby, D. K. (2005). Engaging organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McPhee, R. D., & Tompkins, P. K. (1985). Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Miller, K. I. (2000). Common ground from the post-positivist perspective: From “straw person” argument to collaborative coexistence. In S. R. Corman & M. S. Poole (eds.), Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground. New York: Guilford, pp. 46–67.

Miller, K. I. (2006). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes, 4th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Mumby, D. K. (2000). Common ground from the critical perspective: Overcoming binary oppositions. In S. R. Corman & M. S. Poole (eds.), Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground. New York: Guilford, pp. 68–86.

Mumby, D. K., & Stohl, C. (1996). Disciplining organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, (10) , 50–72.

Pacanowsky, M., & O'Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, (50) , 126–147.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Harper and Row.

Putnam, L. L., & Pacanowsky, M. E. (eds.) (1983). Communication in organizations: An interpretive approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Putnam, L. L., Phillips, N., & Chapman, P. (1996). Metaphors of communication and organization. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (eds.), Handbook of organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 375–408.

Redding, W. C., & Tompkins, P. K. (1988). Organizational communication: Past and present tenses. In G. Goldhaber & G. Barnett (eds.), Handbook of organizational communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 5–34.

Taylor, B. C. (2005). Postmodern theory. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (eds.), Engaging organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 113–140.

Taylor, J. R., Flanagin, A. J., Cheney, G., & Seibold, D. R. (2001). Organizational communication research: Key moments, central concerns, and future challenges. In W. Gudykunst (ed.), Communication yearbook 24. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 99–137.

Tompkins, P. K., & Wanca-Thibault, M. (2001). Organizational communication: Preludes and prospects. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, xvii–xxxi.

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing, 2nd edn. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cite this article

Miller, Katherine I. "Organizational Communication." The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Donsbach, Wolfgang (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2008.Blackwell Reference Online. 18 September 2014

Organizational Communication: Critical Approaches

Dennis K. Mumby

DOI:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x

The term “critical approach” refers to a broad, interdisciplinary body of theory and research that conceives of organizations as dynamic sites of control and resistance. “Critical studies” covers several distinct yet related intellectual traditions, each of which examines the communicative practices through which control and resistance are produced, reproduced, and transformed in the process of organizing. These traditions include: neo-Marxism, → critical theory, postmodernism, and feminism (→ Postmodernism and Communication; Feminist and Gender Studies). Each of these traditions shares the “post-linguistic turn” assumption that language and → Discourse are central, constitutive elements of human meaning and reality formation.

In the context of organizational communication studies, this assumption translates into a view of communication and organization as co-constitutive. That is, communication is viewed as creating organizations as meaning-based, social constructions; organizations are conceived as both enabling and constraining the everyday communication processes of their members. Common to all traditions within the critical perspective, however, is the notion that such co-constitutive processes are not arbitrary or spontaneous, but rather occur within the context of complex relations of power. Thus, all perspectives in critical organizational communication studies view organizing as a fundamentally political process that gets played out in the dynamics of various competing interests (→ Control and Authority in Organizations).

Furthermore, critical perspectives share a praxis orientation toward theory and research. Simply put, praxis – the synthesis of theory and practice – invokes the possibility of social transformation. As Marx famously put it, “The philosophers have only described the world; the point is to change it.” In the context of organizational communication research, praxis translates into efforts to conceptualize and realize more democratic and participatory organizational forms (Deetz 1992). As such, all critical research invokes, whether implicitly or explicitly, the possibility of alternative organizing processes. In this sense, all critical research operates according to an emancipatory logic that recognizes the possibilities for self-reflection and social change.

CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS

The critical perspective came into its own in the early 1980s as part of a broader rise to prominence of an interpretive, meaning-based approach to the study of organizations. Both Putnam and Pacanowsky's (1983) important edited volume, Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach, and a special issue of the Western Journal of Speech Communication edited by Putnam and Pacanowsky in 1982 featured essays by Conrad (1983), Deetz and Kersten (1983), and Deetz (1982) that together formed early efforts to define the conceptual terrain of critical studies, exploring the connections among communication, power, and organizing.

Intellectual Origins

The intellectual origins of the critical perspective, however, are far older. Much is owed, of course, to Marx's rewriting of political economy and his groundbreaking analysis of the capitalist accumulation process. Despite its limitations, Marxist theory still resonates for critical organization scholars in its acute analysis of the expropriation, alienation, and commodification of labor. In this sense, critical organization studies has inherited from classic Marxist theory an understanding of the materiality of the capitalist labor process and the ways that workplace power and exploitation are structured into capitalist relations of production.

A much stronger influence on critical organizational communication studies has been exerted by efforts to reinterpret Marxism in the face of the changing character of capitalism and the workplace in the twentieth century. In particular, the work of the Frankfurt School and a number of western Marxist theorists, including Antonio Gramsci, Gyorgy Lukács, and Louis Althusser, have been instrumental in shaping critical studies of workplace “control through consent.” This phrase captures the evolution of the capitalist workplace as it moved away from coercive, exploitative practices – described so vividly by Marx in Capital – toward forms of control that, paradoxically, relied more heavily on worker autonomy. For critical studies, then, theory and research have been centrally concerned with explaining the communicative dynamics through which apparent worker autonomy and consent to an exploitative labor process reside together.

Central to critical efforts to address this problematic have been the concepts of “ideology” and “hegemony.” “Ideology,” particularly as developed in the works of Althusser and Gramsci, refers not simply to a system of ideas, but rather to everyday discourses and practices which constitute the lived reality of social actors. From a critical perspective, ideology provides the interpretive mechanism through which certain social realities and interests are privileged over others. Furthermore, ideology does not simply reflect these dominant interests in a straightforward manner, but rather transforms and obscures these interests such that they are not immediately accessible to everyday experience. For example, Willis's (1977) classic study of a working-class sub-culture of “lads” in a British high school illustrates how their rejection of middle-class values of education, enterprise, and upward mobility and their embracing of a culture of violence and “having a laff” prepares them for insertion into the capitalist labor process in a way that reproduces their role as generalized, abstract labor. Thus, the lads' sub-culture functions ideologically to simultaneously secure and obscure their relationship to capitalist relations of production.

Gramsci's (1971) concept of “hegemony” is equally important in its conception of capitalism not as coercive, but as a structure of relations and institutions that creates a “collective will” among classes and interest groups with competing interests. A group or class that is hegemonic does not act in a coercive fashion (though coercion may be a control mechanism of last resort) but rather is able to articulate the beliefs, values, and interests of other groups and classes with its own. Hegemony therefore functions primarily in the ideological and cultural realms through the institutions of civil society such as the family, religion, education, and the mass media.

In the context of critical organization studies, Gramsci's concept is taken up to address the subjective experience of workers as they participate in the labor process. Burawoy (1979), for example, shows how capitalist relations of production are hegemonic in part by virtue of the workers' construction of a culture of “making out” that functions ideologically to obscure the exploitative character of capitalist relations of production. Hegemonic relations, then, involve not passive consent to a system of beliefs, but rather the active appropriation and reproduction of those beliefs by subordinate groups.

The final neo-Marxist influence on critical organization studies comes out of the Frankfurt School of critical theory and, more specifically, the work of second-generation Frankfurt School philosopher → Jürgen Habermas. Habermas's work has been particularly influential on two related fronts. First, he argues that contemporary modernity has privileged technical forms of rationality over practical and emancipatory rationality, resulting in the dominance of instrumental, means–end forms of knowledge. This colonization and rationalization of the life-world lead to impoverished notions of human knowledge and community, and negate possibilities for critical reflection and social transformation. Second, Habermas posits the notion of “systematically distorted communication” to address the ways in which technical rationality functions ideologically, through discourse, to co-opt other forms of rationality. Critical organization scholars (e.g., Deetz 1992;Mumby 1988) have used Habermas's work to explore the central role of organizations in processes of the colonization of human identity formation. This not only includes research into the discursive mechanisms through which employees themselves are colonized by corporate ideologies and values, but extends also to larger corporate efforts to shape human identity, what counts as knowledge, definitions of excellence, and so forth.

Recent Developments in the Field

Much of the critical organizational communication research conducted in the last 25 years has taken the form of extended “ideology critique,” focusing on the discursive mechanisms through which organizations construct social realities that produce and reproduce the interests of “managerialism” (Deetz 1992). Early examples of such research include ideological analyses of organizational storytelling (Mumby 1988), work songs (Conrad 1988), and workplace rituals (Rosen 1985). In each instance, analyses focus on the intrinsic connection between ideology and discourse, examining how particular discursive practices “interpellate” social actors as organizational subjects in specific ways. Frequently repeated organizational stories, for example, “narrate” particular organizational realities into being and position members as subjects within those realities.

In the last 15 years the conceptual terrain of critical organization studies has broadened considerably, particularly with the emergence of research informed by postmodern theory and feminist theory. While postmodernism approaches are addressed in another entry (→ Organizational Communication: Postmodern Approaches), it is worth noting that there are certain continuities between critical theory proper and postmodern analytics. First, while both perspectives focus on power and its dynamics, postmodernism is concerned less with liberating truth from power and more with explicating the discursive mechanisms through which power and truth are articulated together in particular ways. Second, both focus on the discursive construction of social reality. However, while critical theory examines discourse through the lens of ideology critique, postmodern thought examines discourse as a complex constellation of intertextual practices that construct subject positions in complex and often contradictory ways. Third, and related, while critical theory views the social actor as a rational, conscious – though linguistically mediated – subject, postmodernism views the subject as decentered, fragmented, and the effect of discourses.

Since the mid-1990s feminist organization studies has exercised increasing influence in critical organization studies (→ Gender and Discourse). Unlike earlier “gender as variable” research that examined, for example, differences in managerial leadership style between men and women, critical feminist studies take upAcker's (1990) idea that organizations are “gendered” cultural forms, constituted around systems of difference that take “masculine” and “feminine” as the primary binary opposition. This reframing of the relationship between gender and organization has generated theory and research that examine the ongoing, communicative construction of masculine and feminine identities in the process of organizing. Of particular significance here is the shift away from an essentialist conception of gender, almost exclusively concerned with women's roles in the workplace, to a much more nuanced exploration of the multiple and intersecting gendered identities that are socially constructed through everyday discursive practices. Consistent with other critical approaches, feminist scholarship focuses on the intersection of discourse, power, and organizing in everyday social practice; what differentiates it from other forms of critical research is its careful exploration of power as a gendered process.

Feminist theory and research in organizational communication have had three broad foci: (1) feminist deconstructions of the gendered underpinnings of mainstream organization theory (e.g., Mumby & Putnam 1992); (2) empirical analyses of everyday gendered organizing processes (e.g., Trethewey 1997); and (3) studies of feminist organizational structures and their possibilities for alternative means of democratic decision-making (e.g., Ashcraft 2001). It is important to note that while feminist organization studies can be placed under the broader umbrella of critical studies, this area also has a distinct and independent history, with much of early feminist thought and practice maintaining a skeptical posture in regard to the male-dominated theory work conducted in critical studies. Indeed, a strong case can be made that while many critical scholars were theorizing about the possibilities for alternative democratic institutional forms, many feminists were engaging such possibilities in a praxis-oriented manner through the creation of women-centered, collectivist organizations.

CURRENT RESEARCH FOCI

While it is not possible to provide an exhaustive account of the current state of research informed by critical approaches, there are certain broadly identifiable empirical foci. These include: (1) professional identities; (2) knowledge-intensive organizations; (3) work–home relationships; (4) the body, sexuality, and emotion; and (5) employee resistance.

Professional Identities

The discursive construction of employee identities has become a central preoccupation of much critical scholarship (→ Organizational Identification; Identities and Discourse). Such work takes a number of forms. For example, the European Labor Process Group of Knights, Willmott, and colleagues focuses on the ways in which employees maintain professional identities in the face of increasingly insecure work environments, where traditional conceptions of “job stability” and upward mobility have largely disappeared in the new, post-Fordist economy. In organizational communication studies proper, a number of scholars have shifted focus away from organizations as physical sites, within which members construct meanings and identities, and toward examination of the professional discourses that are both medium and outcome of organization members' identities. In this context, organizations per se are less important than the constellation of discursive resources (e.g., race, class, gender, sexuality) that social actors draw upon in constructing such professional identities (→ Organizational Discourse).

Knowledge-Intensive Organizations

The shift from the Fordist to the post-Fordist organizational form has led a number of critical researchers to examine the effects of this transformation on issues of power, control, and identity. For example, researchers have investigated the implications of flatter, more knowledge-intensive organizational hierarchies for issues of employee autonomy and decision-making.

One of the more interesting findings of this work is that greater decentralization of decision-making and control processes has actually led to increased, though more subtle and insidious, control over workers. This is particularly true in team-based organizations, where workers engage in “concertive control,” constructing their own collective value premises that act to internalize self-surveillance at the level of everyday work activities (Barker 1993).

Work–Home Relationships

The critical focus on issues of “corporate colonization” and “managerialism” has led some scholars to investigate more closely the increasingly complex relations between work and others spheres of life, particularly home. Again, the advent of the post-Fordist organization and attendant phenomena, such as corporate campuses, telecommuting (→ Telework), flex-time, and so forth, has produced increased critical focus on the ways in which such structural shifts have changed employees' relationships to work.

Perhaps most significantly, this research has drawn increased attention to the impact of these shifts on the construction of subject positions and the ability of social actors to even contemplate identities separate from work. If, indeed, distinctions between work and the private spheres of life are increasingly amorphous, then it is arguably increasingly difficult for social actors to articulate identities that are autonomous from corporate rationalization processes. In this context, critical organization research is particularly interested in the impact of such structural shifts on civil society; that is, to what extent corporate forms have subsumed other spheres of civil society such as family, education, and religion, thus constraining possibilities for the construction of meaning systems that function autonomously from corporate discourses including efficiency, rationality, and branding.

The Body, Sexuality, and Emotion

The move in the last few years to studies of the body, sexuality, and emotion reflects increased critical attention to both the gendered and material character of organizing (→ Emotion and Communication in Organizations). In the latter case, this shift perhaps reflects the recognition that, in privileging the discursive/symbolic character of organizing, critical scholars have sometimes overlooked the flesh-and-blood social actors who people organizations.

Studies of the body and sexuality focus on how these issues are read through, and coded into, organizational discourses and practices. For example, Trethewey's (2001) study of mid-life professional women's experience of aging addresses their efforts to situate themselves and their bodies in relation to patriarchal/managerial discourses that interpellate such women within a “master narrative” of decline. In this sense, questions of the body, sexuality, and emotion are examined in terms of how they are structured into larger discourses of power, resistance, and identity. Emotion, for example, has been recognized by critical and feminist scholars as an important site of struggle in contemporary organizations; managerial control efforts aim at harnessing employee emotions as a way to enhance customer satisfaction, while employees struggle to maintain their right to express unmediated, genuine emotion.

Employee Resistance

Finally, the last few years have seen a marked increase in critical studies that focus on employee efforts to resist organizational control mechanisms. This is in contrast to the early emphasis on control processes and the conceptual and empirical marginalization of resistance practices (→ Dissent in Organizations).

This recent effort to capture employee recalcitrance in the face of increasingly sophisticated managerial control efforts reflects greater sensitivity regarding the control–resistance dialectic in everyday organizing. Moreover, it suggests a greater recognition that, from a discursive, meaning-centered perspective, critical research is less about identifying and critiquing specific control (or resistance) practices, and more about explicating the – gendered, classed, raced, etc. – dialectical struggle between multiple interest groups over organizational meaning and identity. In this sense, critical organization studies at its most effective unpacks the ways that discourses, identities, control/resistance, and organizing get articulated together to create particular constellations of meaning. It is through understanding the political interests informing such articulation processes that alternative organizing practices become possible.

References and Suggested Readings

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, (4) , 139–158.

Ashcraft, K. L. (2001). Organized dissonance: Feminist bureaucracy as hybrid form. Academy of Management Journal, (44) , 1301–1322.

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, (38) , 408–437.

Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Conrad, C. (1983). Organizational power: Faces and symbolic forms. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky (eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 173–194.

Conrad, C. (1988). Work songs, hegemony, and illusions of self. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, (5) , 179–201.

Deetz, S. (1982). Critical interpretive research in organizational communication. Western Journal of Speech Communication, (46) , 131–149.

Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Deetz, S., & Kersten, A. (1983). Critical models of interpretive research. In L. L. Putnam & M. Pacanowsky (eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 147–171.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (trans. Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith). New York: International Publishers.

Mumby, D. K. (1988). Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology, and domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mumby, D. K., & Putnam, L. L. (1992). The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review, (17) , 465–486.

Putnam, L. L., & Pacanowsky, M. (eds.) (1983). Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rosen, M. (1985). “Breakfast at Spiro's”: Dramaturgy and dominance. Journal of Management, (11) (2), 31–48.

Trethewey, A. (1997). Resistance, identity, and empowerment: A postmodern feminist analysis of clients in a human service organization. Communication Monographs, (64) , 281–301.

Trethewey, A. (2001). Reproducing and resisting the master narrative of decline: Midlife professional women's experiences of aging. Management Communication Quarterly, (15) , 183–226.

Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cite this article

Mumby, Dennis K. "Organizational Communication: Critical Approaches." The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Donsbach, Wolfgang (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Blackwell Reference Online. 18 September 2014

Organizational Communication: Postmodern Approaches

Shiv Ganesh

DOI:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x

Postmodern approaches to organizational communication elude easy description. Broadly speaking, they are diverse forms of inquiry that challenge and reconstruct systems of power, identity, and representation (→ Control and Authority in Organizations). Since the 1980s, postmodern approaches, situated with reference to a larger critical tradition, have burgeoned in organizational communication studies. Under this rubric, many extant theories and methods in → Organizational Communication inquiry have been challenged and refashioned.

Yet scholars working in this tradition sometimes eschew the label “postmodern” and its attendant baggage, adopting other terms such as “dialogic” (Deetz 1996) or “discursive.” Inevitably then, the task of describing “postmodern approaches” is likely to be partial and fragmented – much like the approaches it seeks to describe. This entry thus proceeds tentatively, by examining the relationship between postmodernism and the critical tradition, and discusses some key tenets, trends, and futures of postmodern approaches to organizational communication studies.

MODERNITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Postmodern thought has been a relatively new entrant in organizational communication studies due largely to the dominance of managerial perspectives and quantitative methodologies – approaches against which postmodern and critical approaches in part set themselves (Deetz 1992). As such, the emergence of postmodern thought in organizational communication studies has to be seen with reference to the critical turn in organizational studies (→ Organizational Communication: Critical Approaches), which began in the late 1970s when scholars began to consider issues of power and language as central to organizational life (Mumby 1988).

Like those in most disciplines that are engaged in investigations of “the social,” organizational communication scholars have wrestled with the central problematic of → modernity. The engagement with modernity both as a historical epoch and as an epistemological stance has been most overt in critical and postmodern approaches to organizational communication. Both approaches invoke a broad conception of power, and theorize issues of domination, control, and resistance. It is therefore a mistake to examine critical and postmodern approaches to organizational communication in oppositional terms. Indeed, there are important continuities between them in organizational communication studies, with many scholars combining both traditions (Cheney 1999).

A crucial difference between critical and postmodern approaches lies in their respective critiques of modernity. While critical approaches tend to offer an internal critique of modernity, endorsing some central Enlightenment ideals such as emancipation or progress, postmodern thought tends to take an external critique of modernity, sometimes rejecting it wholesale. Yet the relationship between postmodern thought and modernity is complex, and such complexity reflects the broad range of philosophical positions encapsulated in the term “postmodern.” For instance, Mumby (1997) argues that there are at least two major strands of postmodern thought: affirmative postmodernism and skeptical postmodernism (→ Postmodernism and Communication). The former maintains the viability of resistance, albeit fragmented, to dominant systems of power and is in some ways continuous with critical research in its belief in social transformation. In contrast, the latter eschews the possibility of any form of viable resistance to dominant control systems.

In addition to positioning their work as a critique of modernity, postmodern scholars in organizational communication examine postmodern organizational phenomena that arise from modernity itself. These include the replacement of structure with flux, the increasing fragmentation of labor, the emergence of bewildering arrays of difference and identity, the dominance of information and postcolonial economies, and so forth (Taylor 2005).

SOME TENETS OF POSTMODERN THOUGHT IN ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

First, postmodern approaches, drawing from Foucault, consider power in terms of diffuse and disciplinary networks, operating normatively and unobtrusively. Rather than power being conceptualized in terms of repression, it is thought of in terms of its ability to produce identities, languages, and realities. In particular, discourse is understood as the means through which power produces and reproduces (→ Organizational Discourse). Zoller's (2003) work, for example, examines occupational health and safety standards as a discourse that serves to produce a range of norms that construct work practices and identities.

Second, embodied individual identities are seen as fragmented (Tracy and Trethewey 2005). Postmodern thought is characterized by complex examinations of (the death of) individual subjectivity and the imposition of regulatory constructions upon categories such as pleasure and desire. Nadesan and Trethewey's (2000)analysis of women's popular success literature and the ways in which it constructs incomplete entrepreneurial identities among professional women exemplifies such research.

Third, issues of representation are examined discursively. Reality, for postmodern approaches, is a suspect category, never fully represented in discourse. Yet discourse and discursive formations remain our only means of accessing reality. Derrida's idea of “différance” points precisely to this: that which is referred to or signified in discourse is always deferred and set back. Postmodern approaches to organizational communication therefore often treat organizations themselves as discursive formations, a form of hyperreality, subsequently treating organizing and communicating as synonymous (Fairhurst & Putnam 2004).

Further, postmodern thought attempts to move beyond the examinations of distinct economic, social, political, or cultural foundations for explaining or understanding organizational life. Rather, postmodern scholars either consider their work as without foundations (the collapsing of categories such as economy or society) or as post-foundational proper (the construction of multiple foundations of organizational thought and practice).

Finally, postmodern scholars theorize issues of resistance to disciplinary practices. Here, resistance is conceived as a means of subverting or engaging in opposition to such practices. Research on resistance often characterizes organizations and communication as constituting systems of disciplinary practice, and examines fragmented and partial individual resistance in the context of such formations (Nadesan 1996).

POSTMODERN RESEARCH TRENDS IN ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Organizational communication scholars emphasize some tenets of postmodern research over others, and in some respects the area is distinct from postmodern research in other areas of communication inquiry. First, postmodern work in organizational communication studies often foregrounds questions of identity, resistance, and control, treating questions of reality, truth, and representation as larger, background issues. This is especially visible in studies of concertive control (Tompkins and Cheney 1985), which show how unobtrusive systems of normative power in organizations simultaneously shape individual identities and create possibilities for fragmented resistance (Larson & Tompkins 2005). Researchers have examined a wide range of phenomena under the rubric of concertive control, including social development programs, high-tech work teams, temporary labor, and fire-fighters (Cheney et al. 2003).

Second, postmodern research is friendly to issues of voice and otherness, emphasizing the study of difference, fragmentation, ethics, and politics (→ Organizations, Cultural Diversity in). Postmodern organizational communication studies is marked by a tendency toward inclusiveness, most clearly evidenced by emerging feminist scholarship on the subject (Ashcraft & Mumby 2003). While feminist thought itself is remarkably complex in its liberal, radical, Marxist, postmodern, and postcolonial manifestations (→ Feminist and Gender Studies), it contributes to postmodern thought in organizational communication studies the examination of gender as a key site of complex difference. Feminist thought and practice serves to deconstruct dominant organizational theory, enabling a constant engagement in the search for and the theorizing of difference. Such retheorizing is also evident in recent attempts, for example, to uncover the racial foundations of organizational communication thought (Ashcraft & Allen 2003). More recently, the emphasis on difference is turning into a productive engagement with issues of occupational and professional identity (Ashcraft 2006). Other organizational communication researchers have begun to examine organizational communication through postcolonial perspectives, which in turn are often informed by post-Foucauldian thought (Kurian & Munshi 2006). However, there is as yet no significant emerging corpus of research on postmodern difference informed by queer theory.

Third, postmodern approaches in organizational communication tend to be more affirmative than skeptical; this is evident in the emergence, since the early 1990s, of a significant body of work that examines various aspects of resistance. In many ways, the study of resistance can be said to constitute the central concern of postmodern organizational communication studies in the 1990s and the early part of this century. Such research often treats resistance in individualized, fragmented, and open-ended terms, although more recently scholars have also begun to call for attention to the more collective aspects of such resistance (Ganesh et al. 2005).

Finally, in the last few years postmodern approaches to organizational communication studies have begun to play with the boundaries of what “counts” as organizational communication itself. For instance, sparked by Cheney and Christensen's (2000) work on how organizational identity issues coalesce both “internal” and “external” forms of communication, scholars have begun to examine the intersections between organizational communication and public relations scholarship (McKie et al. 2004).

FUTURES

It is hard to predict any single direction for postmodern organizational communication research. However, it is safe to say that postmodern approaches will continue to explore the dialectics of identity and difference, highlighting the contradictory and tension-laden character of organizational formations. Further, such approaches are likely to push collective understandings of the boundaries of organizational communication itself, as they continue to chart the shifting and dynamic interplay between internal and external forms of communication, and discursive and material realms. Finally, postmodern scholars are likely to continue working within the qualitative tradition, expanding their work to include both ethnographic and historical methods.

References and Suggested Readings

Ashcraft, K. (2006). Back to work: Sights/sites of difference in gender and organizational communication studies. In B. J. Dow & J. T. Woods (eds.), Sage Handbook of Gender and Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 97–122.

Ashcraft, K., & Allen, B. J. (2003). The racial foundations of organizational communication. Communication Theory, (13) , 5–38.

Ashcraft, K., & Mumby, D. (2003). Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cheney, G. (1999). Values at work: Employee participation meets market pressure at Mondragon. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. (2000). Identity at issue: Linkages between “internal” and “external” organizational communication. In F. Jablin & L. Putnam (eds.), New handbook of organizational communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 231–269.

Cheney, G., Zorn, T., Christensen, L., & Ganesh, S. (2003). Organizational communication in an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practices. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Deetz, S. A. (1996). Describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, (7) (2), 191–207.

Fairhurst, G., & Putnam, L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, (14) (1), 5–26.

Ganesh, S., Zoller, H. M., & Cheney, G. (2005). Transforming resistance, broadening our boundaries: Critical organizational communication studies meets globalization from below. Communication Monographs, (72) (2), 169–191.

Kurian, P., & Munshi, D. (2006). Tense borders: Culture, identity and anxiety in New Zealand's interweaving discourses of immigration and genetic modification.Cultural Politics, (2) (3), 359–380.

Larson, G., & Tompkins, P. (2005). Ambivalence and resistance: A study of management and resistance in a concertive control system. Communication Monographs, (72) (1), 1–21.

McKie, D., Motion, J., & Munshi, D. (2004). Envisioning communication from the edge. Australian Journal of Communication, (31) (3), 1–12.

Mumby, D. K. (1988). Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology and domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mumby, D. K. (1997). Modernism, postmodernism, and communication studies: A rereading of an ongoing debate. Communication Theory, (7) , 1–28.

Nadesan, M. H. (1996). Organizational identity and space of action. Organization Studies, (17) (1), 49–81.

Nadesan, M. H., & Trethewey, A. (2000). Performing the enterprising subject: Gendered strategies for success (?). Text and Performance Quarterly, (20) (3), 223–250.

Taylor, B. C. (2005). Postmodern theory. In S. May & D. Mumby (eds.), Engaging organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 113–140.

Tompkins, P. K., & Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (eds.),Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 179–210.

Tracy, S., & Trethewey, A. (2005). Fracturing the real-self–fake-self dichotomy: Moving toward “crystallized” organizational discourses and identities.Communication Theory, (15) (3), 168–195.

Zoller, H. M. (2003). Health on the line: Identity and disciplinary control in employee occupational health and safety discourse. Journal of Applied Communication Research, (31) (2), 118–139.

Cite this article

Ganesh, Shiv. "Organizational Communication: Postmodern Approaches." The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Donsbach, Wolfgang (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Blackwell Reference Online. 18 September 2014

Organizational Conflict

Linda L. Putnam

DOI:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x

Organizational conflict is a frequent occurrence in most work settings. Whether rooted in interactions with co-workers, supervisors, or customers, conflict is an inevitable part of task and relational communication. Conflict refers to incompatibilities or perceptions of diametrically opposed goals and values that occur in the process of organizing. It includes disagreements about ideas, negotiations to obtain scarce resources, informal complaints about work issues, objections to corporate policies, and formal grievances filed against an organization. Hence, conflict is a pervasive feature of organizational life, but one that is often ignored. Unresolved and poorly managed organizational conflicts are very costly and lead to lower job satisfaction, lost work time, high costs of litigation, and the loss of valuable employees.

SOCIAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT

Organizational conflict also entails social interactions between two or more interdependent parties that adjust to each other's moves and countermoves. It includes what the parties say to each other (→ Language and Social Interaction), the → Information that they exchange, their nonverbal behaviors (→ Facial Expressions;Gestures and Kinesics; Paralanguage), and the → meanings or interpretations of their messages. Moreover, in conflict interactions, parties react to each other's influence attempts and anticipate each other's actions.

Communication in conflict situations draws on sequences of statements and responses that develop into patterns. These patterns, then, can lead to repetitive cycles or conflict spirals. For example, if one party makes a threat and the other party responds with another threat, followed by a counter-threat, the conflict interaction begins to develop a competitive spiral that increases in intensity. Parties often have difficulty breaking a conflict spiral and avoiding these cyclical patterns in present and future interactions (Folger et al. 2005).

Because the parties in organizations are interdependent, they need each other to accomplish tasks and develop working relationships. Hence, they cannot easily walk away from disagreements without the problems recurring at another point in time. Interdependence also means that each person has the potential to block the other party from attaining organizational goals. Therefore, parties must cooperate with each other to work together, yet they simultaneously compete with each other to attain their own goals; hence, parties mix both cooperation and competition to manage organizational conflicts (Putnam 2006).

This mix of cooperation and competition contributes to the tensions that parties feel in organizational conflicts. Because they are competing with each other, they may withhold information, feel distrustful, and fear exploitation. However, the need to cooperate pushes the parties to share information, develop trust, and avoid escalation. Folger et al. (2005) describe these tensions that result from cooperating and competing as a balancing act. Like tacking a sailboat that is moving upstream, parties need to capture the force and energy of the wind and steer the boat to avoid rampant escalation or easy exploitation. Parties need to confront the other disputant about the issues, develop mutual understanding of the underlying concerns, and avoid giving in prematurely.

In effect, conflict interaction develops into processes that move in either a destructive or a constructive direction. Destructive conflicts become inflexible over time; lead to uncontrolled escalation; and increase in the number of issues, parties, and costs that participants experience (Deutsch 1973). Disputants in destructive conflicts typically lose sight of their original goals, blur issues together, and aim to hurt or annihilate the other person. Thus, destructive conflicts often end up in a win-lose or lose-lose situation for both parties. In contrast, conflicts that move in a constructive direction lead to added flexibility, broaden participants' insights about situations, and foster personal development. Constructive conflict management focuses on discovering options to expand the pie and to produce a win-win situation for all parties. Because conflict can lead to destructive outcomes, most people avoid it or see it as a necessary evil. Organizational conflict, however, when handled in a constructive way, promotes change through preventing stagnation and enabling adaptability. It also functions as a safety valve, exposing problems and improving group cohesiveness.

To enhance effective conflict management, most people believe that parties must engage in rational decision-making and remove emotions from their interactions. Yet conflicts by definition are emotional (→ Emotion and Communication in Organizations; emotion). Emotions are triggered because participants perceive an interruption in their plans or see a discrepancy between their goals and the likelihood of achieving them (Jones 2001). Emotions also enter into conflicts through seeing a course of action as good or bad, right or wrong. This value framing evokes frustration, anger, and contempt as well as feelings of pride and defensiveness. Emotions enter into conflicts because participants want to look good rather than be viewed as a wrongdoer. Thus, conflicts need to be approached with rational procedures, but with ones that recognize the personal and emotional involvement that employees have in work situations.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

The role of communication in organizational conflict is clearly complex. Scholars have adopted different perspectives to examine the role of communication in organizational conflicts, especially ones that treat communication as a variable, as an interaction process, as interpretations or meaning, or as a dialectic.

When scholars position communication as a variable, they combine it with other factors, like gender, culture (→ Culture: Definitions and Concepts), or → cognitions, to test for the effects of interaction on conflict outcomes. Communication surfaces as a variable when it is treated as a type of media, a strategy or tactic, a style or orientation to conflict, or information that affects an individual's judgments about a situation (Wilson et al. 2001). As a process, communication becomes theinteraction patterns of participants that unfold over time. This approach focuses on the combinations of actions and reactions and how they result in constructive or destructive outcomes.

Treating communication as meaning highlights the language that participants use, the stories that they tell, and the ways that they make sense of situations. For example, formal negotiation between labor and management signifies efforts to work out differences between parties who have competing interests. This routine has symbolic meanings for the parties who have a stake in this process.

Finally, scholars adopt a dialectical perspective to the study of communication and conflict (→ Dialogic Perspectives). A dialectic perspective focuses on the tensions that arise through the simultaneous connection of opposites, such as cooperating and competing, or withholding and sharing information. Communication helps parties manage the tensions that arise from the oppositions that are inevitable in organizational conflicts. In this approach, communication and organizational conflict define each other as disputes surface through both formal and informal means, become fused with public and private activities, and are worked out through rational and emotional interactions.

ARENAS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

These perspectives for studying communication and organizational conflict surface in research findings on conflict styles, communication media, negotiation and bargaining, work/life conflicts, and dispute system designs.

Conflict Styles

Individuals typically approach an organizational conflict with a predisposition to manage the dispute in a particular way (→ Conflict Resolution). This orientation influences the verbal and nonverbal behaviors that members choose. In the 1960s and 1970s, Blake and Mouton (1964) identified five styles that are common ways of managing conflicts: problem-solving, competing, accommodating, avoiding, and compromise. With problem-solving, individuals confront a conflict directly through exploring causes and possible solutions. Competing relies on coercion or position power to pressure the other party to comply. Individuals who accommodate tend to smooth over a conflict and yield to others, while those who avoid withdraw from the scene or fail to confront. Compromise refers to meeting the other party half-way or settling for a 50–50 split. This approach is regarded as a half-hearted effort and often fails to meet the needs of both parties (Olekalns et al. 2007).

Choosing a conflict style depends on the importance of one's own and the other party's goals. Employees who develop a repertoire of approaches are typically more effective at managing conflicts than are people who rely on only one or two styles. If both parties regard their relationship and their respective goals as important, they should use problem-solving or compromise. However, if organizational members need to reach a decision quickly or if only one party's goals are critical, competing, accommodating, or avoiding are appropriate. Managers who are optimistic about resolving a conflict typically begin with problem-solving and then shift to competing if subordinates do not comply. This combination of problem-solving and competing promotes the information search necessary for resolution and leads to the best substantive and relational outcomes (Olekalns et al. 2007). Choice of conflict style also influences levels of stress at work. Specifically, problem-solving and accommodating lower the amount of stress while the use of competing and avoiding may increase anxiety.

Research in the 1980s and 1990s revealed that the effects of using conflict styles differed across cultures. For example, managers from China, Korea, and the Middle East scored higher on avoiding as a preferred conflict style than did managers in the United States and Australia. However, younger Asian workers preferred problem-solving to manage organizational conflicts (→ Intercultural Conflict Styles and Facework; Communication Modes, Asian; Communication Modes, Western).

As a whole, research on conflict styles treats communication as a variable and relies heavily on questionnaires (→ Survey; Interview) that measure organizational members' preferences. These questionnaires are sometimes inaccurate predictors of actual behaviors in conflict situations and fail to recognize that preferences are fluid; hence, styles are only one indicator of verbal and nonverbal messages that parties use in organizational conflicts.

Conflict and Communication Media

Another way that communication functions as a variable in organizational conflicts is the type of media or channel that parties use. “Communication media” refers to telephones, memos, computers, or face-to-face interactions. Early research in this arena revealed that disputants were more likely to cooperate when conflicts were managed through face-to-face interactions than when individuals used telephones or written messages. Recent studies on the use of emails reaffirmed these findings. In particular, disputants were more likely to use negative strategies, reduce information sharing, and receive lower joint profits in conflicts managed through email than in face-to-face interactions. Organizational conflicts handled via the computer led to fewer explanations, informal tones, and a tendency to bundle disparate arguments. The loss of social cues, such as vocal overtones or facial expressions in computer messages, may make it difficult to infer the other party's intentions (Olekalns et al. 2007). The effects of communication media on conflicts, however, are not direct or simple. Thus, if parties know each other well, interact regularly, or use multiple media to manage a conflict, these negative effects may not occur.

Communication and Negotiation Processes

Research on negotiation process focuses on what bargainers say and how they respond to each other while searching for mutually satisfactory agreements (→ Negotiation and Bargaining). Negotiation is a form of conflict management in which parties exchange offers and counteroffers in search of a settlement. In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers coded communication into categories of negotiation talk, such as a threats, offers, or information giving. Thus, this line of research treats communication as an interaction process.

Scholars have examined the relationship between categories of talk and distributive and integrative bargaining. Distributive bargaining treats organizational conflict as a fixed pie in which parties employ a win-lose approach to get the most from a pool of scarce resources. This approach is suitable when a person is buying a car or negotiating for the cost of a house. Integrative bargaining, in contrast, engages in a win-win process in which participants strive to meet the needs and interests of both parties. This model is most effective in workplace negotiations that depend on relationships and routine interactions. The two models, however, are tightly interrelated and any one negotiation is rarely a pure process. Bargainers who mix the two approaches rather than keep them distinct are more likely to reach agreements (Olekalns et al. 2007).

Research on communication and negotiation also reveals that bargainers reciprocate both cooperative and competitive tactics. That is, they match each other's tactics, such as arguments, threats, and demands, and they reciprocate offers and trade problem-solving tactics. To buffer against conflict spirals, bargainers use complementary tactics, such as following a demand with information giving or discussing procedures. Communication tactics also emerge at different stages in a negotiation. For example, bargainers who shift from → Persuasion in the early stages of interaction to clarifying priorities later in the negotiation are likely to receive high joint gains.

Language use also aids in developing bargaining relationships. Specifically, studies find that negotiators who use first person pronouns, speak with short utterances, and avoid excessive interruptions convey closeness to the other party. Language use also facilitates making sense of a negotiation through the stories and symbols that parties share. For example, stories about outsiders as impeding the negotiation can unite opposing teams in reaching agreements.

Work/Life Conflicts

Work/life conflict, also known as incompatibilities between work/family and home/work, refers to the tensions and role strain that occur from dividing time and energy to attend to both domains. Organizational expectations often compete with family and personal life for these scarce resources.

As a new arena of organizational conflict work, this topic embraces a dialectical perspective to examine the pushes and pulls between these domains. It also draws from the tensions between the public and the private domains, ones rooted in assumptions about the proper roles of men and women in society. These roles typically cast men in the work domain and expect women to attend to the private realm. In like manner, these assumptions perpetuate the myth of a separation between home and work, when, in actuality, the boundaries are very blurred. Effective management of work/family conflict improves organizational morale for both men and women (Kirby et al. 2006).

Research reveals that the critical factors for effective conflict management include having supervisors who recognize and are supportive of both domains, enacting and administering fair work/family policies, developing an organizational culture that fosters flexibility, and having co-workers who value personal lives as well as organizational agendas. Organizations need to guard against sending mixed messages, such as having supportive policies but requiring excessive overtime and weekend work.

Designing Dispute Systems

All organizations, large or small, have some type of conflict management system. Most of these systems are informal norms or sets of procedures for filing grievances. In the past 10 years, however, organizations have focused on designing formal dispute systems that are proactive and aimed at preventing, managing, and resolving conflicts (Lipsky & Seeber 2006). These systems contain steps and procedures for processing conflicts, build in alternative approaches for handling disputes, and integrate the system into the daily organizational routines. Alternatives for managing a conflict include hiring a neutral facilitator to lead discussions, voting on issues, assigning employees to serve as neutral third parties, or arranging for a mock trial with a jury of peers. Dispute systems typically offer conflict management training for employees, multiple points of entry for registering complaints, and approaches that focus on the needs and desires of parties rather than on who was right or wrong (Ury et al. 1988).

Communication plays a pivotal role in integrating dispute systems into the daily operations of organizations. The most effective systems are responsive, encourage employees to address conflicts at the lowest organizational level and as early as possible, and develop an organizational culture that supports dissent. Thus, employees feel able to voice complaints without fear of retaliation or reprisal.

NEW DIRECTIONS IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Organizational conflicts differ from disputes in other arenas because they often reappear in different forms. Scarce resources and power differences often lead to fighting the same battles over and over again. Thus, scholars have moved away from resolving conflicts and, in turn, recommend ways to make decisions fairly and moving forward. When conflicts become opportunities to redefine situations, new directions emerge for managing conflicts. Dialogue is a form of communication that promotes attending to the other party's stance and creating new frames to locate conflict in alternative contexts. This approach differs from using the traditional options of conflict styles, negotiation, and dispute systems and brings multiple voices to the scene, transcends polarized positions, and develops new possibilities for meaning and action.

References and Suggested Readings

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Folger, J. P., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (2005). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations, 5th edn. Boston: Pearson.

Jones, T. S. (2001). Emotional communication in conflict: Essence and impact. In W. F. Eadie & T. S. Jones (eds.), The language of conflict and resolution. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 81–105.

Kirby, E. L., Wieland, S. M., & McBride, M. C. (2006). Work/life conflict. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 327–357.

Lipsky, D. B., & Seeber, R. L. (2006). Managing organizational conflicts. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 359–390.

Olekalns, M., Putnam, L. L., Weingart, L. R., & Metcalf, L. (2007). Communication processes and conflict management. In C. K. W. De Dreu & M. J. Gelfand (eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 79–112.

Putnam, L. L. (2006). Definitions and approaches to conflict and communication. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 1–32.

Ury, W. L., Brett, J. M., & Goldberg, S. B. (1988). Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems to cut the costs of conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilson, S. R., Paulson, G. D., & Putnam, L. L. (2001). Negotiating. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology, 2nd edn. London: John Wiley, pp. 303–315.

Cite this article

Putnam, Linda L. "Organizational Conflict." The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Donsbach, Wolfgang (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Blackwell Reference Online. 18 September 2014

Organizational Crises, Communication in

Timothy L. Sellnow

DOI:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x

Advancing technology, global connectivity, and ethical lapses have resulted in an escalation in the frequency and intensity of organizational crises over the past two decades. Commensurate with the increase in crisis events, academic research in crisis communication has expanded, focusing predominantly on the role of communication in predicting, managing, and resolving crisis events (→ Disasters and Communication).

DEFINITION OF CRISIS

Common types of crises are natural disasters, malevolence, product failure, human error, terrorism, financial loss, ethical violations, economic malfeasance, and hoaxes or widespread rumors. Hermann (1963) established that, to reach the level of a crisis, a negative event must have three essential components: surprise, threat, and short response time. Surprise indicates that the organization could not or did not prepare adequately for the magnitude of the crisis. Threat suggests that the organization's future is at risk. Short response time requires an organization to take immediate action to avoid further intensification of the crisis. Coombs (2007) addresses the interconnectivity of these three elements in his working definition: “A crisis can be defined as an event that is an unpredictable, major threat that can have a negative effect on the organization, industry, or stakeholders if handled improperly.”

Crises evolve in three general stages: pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis (Seeger et al. 2003). In the pre-crisis stage, competent organizations scan their environment and attempt to prepare for potential crises. Warning signs typically occur in the pre-crisis stage that, if recognized by the organization, can be addressed to prevent a crisis. A dialogue with all stakeholders who may be at risk is prudent in the pre-crisis stage. If the organization fails to recognize these warning signs, the situation may escalate into a crisis event. The crisis stage begins when risk is manifested (Heath & O'Hair 2009). Typically, a trigger event makes apparent the warning signs that were not heeded during the pre-crisis state. In the case of a product failure, for example, reports of serious injury or extensive customer frustration are possible triggering events. During the crisis stage, the organization's reputation or survival is threatened. Communication during the crisis stage is hampered by the inherent uncertainty of the crisis and the public's demand for an expeditious response. In many cases, the urgency of the crisis stage necessitates a shift from dialogue with stakeholders to instructional messages informing those affected by the crisis how they can protect themselves (Coombs 2009). The post-crisis stage begins when the danger of the crisis has passed. Post-crisis communication focuses on determining responsibility for the crisis, apologizing when appropriate, and taking corrective action to avoid similar crises in the future (Benoit 1995). Lawsuits and public outrage may cause the post-crisis stage to continue for years. For example, the crisis that resulted from Hurricane Katrina in 2005 has yet to be fully resolved.

EARLY RESEARCH

Early work in crisis communication focused primarily on apologia. Ware & Linkugel (1973) identified four strategies commonly found in the rhetoric of self-defense: denial, differentiation, bolstering, and transcendence. Denial refers to a disavowal of guilt or responsibility. Claims of differentiation seek to separate the actions of the speaker from the general context of the accusations. Bolstering is an attempt by the speaker to distract the audience from the negative accusations by emphasizing admirable achievements of the individual or organization. Finally, speakers use transcendence to reinterpret the actions for which they are criticized in a broader and more positive context that appeals to the audience.

Benoit (1995) extended Ware & Linkugel's work by developing a synthetic typology of image restoration strategies that is widely applied in the crisis communication literature. Benoit isolated four general categories for image restoration: denial, evading responsibility, reducing the offensiveness of the event, and corrective action. Denial involves either simply stating that the organization is not responsible or shifting the blame for a crisis event to a source outside the organization. When evading responsibility, organizations can claim that the crisis occurred because of provocation, defeasibility (an incapacity to respond), or an accident, or in spite of good intentions. Reducing the offensiveness of a crisis is achieved through bolstering the organization's reputation, minimizing the perceived impact of the crisis, differentiating between accusations and reality, making statements that transcend the negative situation by stressing a higher value, attacking the accuser, or offering compensation to victims. Corrective action requires organizations to make notable changes in their management and operations to avoid future crises.Mortification occurs when the organization accepts responsibility and asks for forgiveness. Although apologia has been a central focus of crisis communication research, the perspective is limited largely to considerations of reputation (→ Organizational Image).

THEORETICAL CONCEPTS

Research in crisis communication has expanded from apologia to advance theoretical concepts focusing on the comprehension of complex crisis situations, organizational learning in the wake of crisis events, and the development of best practices for mitigating and managing crises.

Fully comprehending a crisis situation is difficult because of the inherent elements of a crisis: shock, urgency, and uncertainty. In the midst of a crisis, the available information is highly equivocal. This means that there can be multiple interpretations of the same data. The short response time is a constraint that denies individuals and organizations the luxury of an extended analysis or debate. In order to manage a crisis effectively, organizational leaders must make sense of the situation and respond quickly.

Weick's (1979; 1995) theory of → sense-making, applied extensively in the organizational communication literature, has emerged as a flexible and enlightening approach to understanding how individuals and organizations comprehend warning signs and crises. Weick (1988, 306) links sense-making to crisis communication through what he calls “the enactment perspective.” He explains, “People often do not know what ‘appropriate action’ is until they take some action and see what happens.” Weick contends that, during crisis situations, individuals are limited in their sense-making by their commitment, capacity, and expectations. Commitment refers to the tenacity with which individuals hold to established procedures or opinions. Excessive commitment may result in defending established ideas and procedures even after they have contributed to a crisis. Capacity is the degree of influence individuals perceive they have on their environment. Limitations on capacity simultaneously diminish an individual's perceived ability and willingness to act in crisis situations. Finally, the expectations individuals have about vulnerability and priorities influence crisis planning and willingness to respond. Prior to a crisis, inappropriate commitment, limited capacity, and disempowering expectations can impede an organization's ability to recognize signs that a crisis is imminent. During a crisis, these factors can slow the comprehension process. More recently, Weick & Sutcliffe (2007) have argued that many of these limitations can be overcome by applying the principles of high reliability organizations to pre-crisis planning. Weick's sense-making approach has been applied to crises such as Union Carbide's deadly gas leak in Bhopal, India; natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, and fires; and the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Chaos theory serves as a means for viewing crises from a broad systematic perspective (Murphy 1996). Traditional notions of causality are replaced by an attempt to understand general trends and patterns across a nonlinear system using broad scales and wide time frames. Crisis communication scholars have applied chaos theory to observe how complex systems are dismantled by crisis and reconstituted through post-crisis communication. Crises are initiated by drastic system changes referred to as bifurcation points. Order re-emerges through the self-organization process. Communication is a central feature in the self-organizationprocess. Through self-organization, hierarchical structures, policies, procedures, and interpretations are established (Seeger et al. 2003). In many cases, self-organization results in a new and improved system that is less vulnerable to the form of bifurcation that instigated the crisis and subsequent evolution of the system. Chaos theory is particularly relevant to crisis communication in catastrophic natural disasters and has been applied recently to understand the complex challenges of communicating before, during, and after floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, epidemics, and terrorist attacks.

Ideally, organizations learn from mistakes made prior to or during the crisis. Sitkin (1996) argues that failure is actually essential to the organizational learning process (→ Learning Organizations). Crises, which constitute a major failure, can inspire and validate positive change in organizations. Resilient organizations learn to take corrective action following a crisis so that similar crises do not reoccur. These corrective actions are maintained through organizational memory. The loss of this memory through employee turnover or a changing organizational culture can increase the organization's vulnerability to crisis. Organizations need not experience crises directly in order to learn from them. Vicarious learning occurs when organizations observe the crisis responses of similar organizations. Organizations can increase their resilience by adopting successful strategies from comparable organizations that have experienced crisis. Elements of organizational learning appear in crisis communication studies where corrective action is a featured element. Such learning is often captured in the form of best practices that are applicable to other organizations and crisis types (Seeger 2006).

In the best circumstances, organizations emerge from crisis with a sense of renewal (Ulmer et al. 2007). Renewal occurs when the organization has a fresh sense of purpose and a renewed commitment to its stakeholders. Leaders in the organization communicate in ways that embrace a “new normal,” and employees feel a commitment to rebuild, move beyond the crisis, and rededicate themselves to serving their stakeholders. Renewal is prevalent in crisis communication research that focuses on communication ethics. Malden Mills' recovery from a devastating fire and Cantor Fitzgerald's response to losing 658 employees in the World Trade Center on September 11 are examples of crisis studies focusing on renewal.

Three primary methods are used to conduct crisis communication research. Case studies comprise the most common research method (→ Case Studies). Most frequently, theoretical frameworks are evaluated on the basis of outcomes of actual crises (Hearit 2006). Survey research methods are also prevalent in crisis communication research (→ Survey). Victims of crises, first responders, or organizational employees who have faced a crisis are often surveyed to build a better understanding of the impact crisis has on individuals in a variety of positions (Lachlan & Spence 2007). Finally, message testing research is often done prior to a crisis in hopes of predetermining effective communication strategies (Reynolds 2002; Heath & Palenchar 2009; → Test Theory). Crisis planners share a variety of message types with subjects in an attempt to predict how various messages would be interpreted in an actual crisis situation.

Crisis communication research has expanded and evolved considerably since the initial work in apologia. The increasing complexity of organizations and the expanding threat of terrorism portend an increase in the frequency and intensity of crises in the future. Crisis communication scholars must continue to adapt their theoretical concepts and research methods to match this evolving threat. The considerable expansion of crisis communication theory in the past three decades suggests that scholars will succeed in meeting this challenge.

SEE ALSO: → Advertising as Persuasion → Case Studies → Disasters and Communication → Learning Organizations → Organizational Image → Public Relations: Media Influence → Risk Communication → Sense-Making → Survey → Test Theory

References and Suggested Readings

Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses and apologies. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Coombs, W. T. (2007). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Coombs, W. T. (2009). Conceptualizing crisis communication. In R. L. Heath & H. D. O'Hair (eds.), Handbook of risk and crisis communication. New York: Routledge, pp. 99–118.

Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Heath, R. L., & Palenchar, M. J. (2009). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, R. L., & O'Hair, H. D. (2009). The significance of crisis and risk communication. In R. L. Heath & H. D. O'Hair (eds.), Handbook of risk and crisis communication. New York: Routledge, pp. 5–30.

Hermann, C. F. (1963). Some consequences of crisis which limit the viability of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, (8) (1), 61–82.

Lachlan, K. A., & Spence, P. R. (2007). Hazard and outrage: Developing a psychometric instrument in the aftermath of Katrina. Journal of Applied Communication Research, (35) (1), 109–123.

Murphy, P. (1996). Chaos theory as a model for managing issues and crises. Public Relations Review, (22) (2), 95–113.

Reynolds, B. (2002). Crisis and emergency risk communication. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Seeger, M. W. (2006). Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process: Introduction. Journal of Applied Communication Research, (34) , 232–244.

Seeger, M. W., Venette, S., Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2002). Media use, information seeking, and reported needs in post crisis contexts. In Greenberg, B. S. (ed.),Communication and terrorism: Public and media responses to 9/11. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 53–64.

Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Sitkin, S. B. (1996). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. In M. D. Cohen & L. S. Sproull (eds.), Organizational learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 541–578.

Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2007). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ware, B. L., & Linkugel, W. A. (1973). They spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic criticism of apologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech, (59) , 273–283.

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, (25) (4), 305–317.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty, 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cite this article

Sellnow, Timothy L. "Organizational Crises, Communication in." The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Donsbach, Wolfgang (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Blackwell Reference Online. 18 September 2014

Organizational Culture

Joann Keyton

DOI:10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x

Organizational culture is the “set(s) of artifacts, values, and assumptions that emerge from the interactions of organizational members” (Keyton 2005, 1). These interactions create a social order or a communication construction of the organization. Thus, symbols, messages, and meaning create a continuous communication performance at work (→ Culture: Definitions and Concepts; Meaning). This is why it is frequently stated that an organization is culture rather than an organizationhas a culture (Smircich 1983). While the popular view of organizational culture is often that it is comprised of organizational members' shared assumptions, communication scholars have demonstrated that multiple shared patterns of organizational artifacts, values, and assumptions exist and are constantly being created and recreated through member interactions (→ Organizational Communication).

ARTIFACTS, VALUES, AND ASSUMPTIONS

Artifacts are visible or tangible in themselves or in their manifestations, such as norms about politeness or dress, organizational customs such as new employee orientation, or physical representations such as organizational logos. Artifacts are easy to observe, but can be difficult to decipher. For example, an organizational logo can be easily identified, but why or how the logo or artifact represents the organization is not always direct or clear. Because an analysis of an organization's artifacts is only partial, a valid interpretation of an organization's culture cannot be constructed from artifacts alone (Schein 1992).

Values shared by organizational members and manifested in their behavior are also a component of organizational culture. Values are strategies, goals, principles, or qualities that are considered ideal or desirable, and, as a result, create guidelines for organizational behavior. Organizational cultures are comprised of many values that are interdependent; one set may support one another (e.g., values for independence and personal achievement), whereas others again may conflict (e.g., values for autonomy and teamwork). Values that are shared inevitably become transformed into assumptions, taken-for-granted beliefs that are so deeply entrenched that organizational members no longer discuss them. These tacit assumptions are subtle, abstract, and implicit, making them difficult to articulate. Despite these features, basic assumptions are acted on with such little variation that organizational members consider any other action inconceivable.

Organizational members seldom talk directly about artifacts, values, and assumptions. Rather, the meaning held in these elements is revealed through day-to-day conversations with other organizational insiders and outsiders. Organizational culture is both created and revealed through the creation and enactment of rites, rituals, and ceremonies; the practice of norms or procedures; the use of specialized language; and the telling of stories or use of metaphors. No one artifact, value, or assumption can create or represent an organization's culture. Rather, organizational culture emerges from the complex interplay of these elements in the organizational communication of all members, all at levels, in all job functions. As a result, culture is nearly impossible to see in its totality.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Using a communicative perspective, organizational culture has five important characteristics (Keyton 2005). First, organizational culture is inextricably linked to organizational members, who participate in the organization symbolically and socially construct and sustain the culture. Second, organizational culture is dynamic, not static. Third, organizational culture consists of competing assumptions and values, as organizational members create sub-cultures with both overlapping and distinguishing elements. Fourth, organizational culture is emotionally charged, as meanings associated with artifacts, values, and assumptions are deeply connected to the feelings and relationships of organizational members. Finally, organizational culture operates in both the foreground and background of organizational life. Organizational members make sense of their current interactions (the foreground) on the basis of their understanding of the existing culture (the background). This cycle of culture creation is continuous and never complete. As a result, organizational culture is a representation of the social order of an organization (→ Control and Authority in Organizations).

Relationships of Sub-Cultures to Culture

A consensus view of organizational culture is based on the congruence of assumptions, values, and artifacts jointly held or shared by organizational members. The more unity there is among members, the more consensual the view of organizational culture. Often referred to as integration, mutually consistent interpretations are abundant and so deeply held that little variation occurs. Generally, a strong leader shapes this integration by initially generating the value and beliefs and then strategically publicizing and propagating them.

Six factors limit the degree to which a consensual view of culture can be achieved. Employees are often members of occupational or professional communities and bring pre-existing shared values and practices into the workplace. Employees also belong to specific functions (e.g., manufacturing, human resources, engineering, sales) or work groups. Because the work of these groups is central to the organizational mission, these individuals are likely to bond together as they work to control their collective destiny in the organization. Hierarchy can also create sub-cultures. Organizational members at the same level will share similar organizational treatment, and thus sub-cultures develop. Sub-cultures can also develop based on the social needs and interpersonal interactions among employees across work groups or work functions. When groups exist in an organization they distinguish themselves from members of others groups. This ingroup/outgroup distinction often results in intergroup conflict that strengthens differences between groups and the sub-culture of each. Finally, all employees have individual value systems, and core values are often difficult to change. Thus, it is common for sub-cultures with different sets of artifacts, values, and assumptions to develop in organizations.

Regardless of their basis, sub-cultures are revealed in the language patterns of organizational members as they segment themselves into groups. Sub-cultures may be distinguished by clear and systematic differences. This type of segmentation, known as differentiation, reveals oppositional thinking, with each sub-culture concerned about the power it holds relative to others. Within each sub-culture, there is consistency and clarity that makes it distinct from others. In contrast, fragmentation of organizational culture occurs when ambiguity is prevalent. Here, organizational members are part of shifting coalitions, forming and reforming on the basis of shared identities, issues, and circumstances. Sub-cultures appear briefly, but with boundaries that are permeable and fluctuating, making it difficult for a sub-culture to sustain itself. Fragmentation tensions are irreconcilable, and are often described as ironies, paradoxes, or contradictions, as employees may belong to sub-cultures that are in agreement on some issues and simultaneously belong to other sub-cultures that are not. In this view, ambiguity is a normal and persistent organizing condition.

The broadest view of cultural consensus and division is that integration, differentiation, and fragmentation coexist. Using all three perspectives allows consistency, distinction, and ambiguity to be revealed as important characteristics of an organization's culture. One perspective is not more correct than another, as each offers an incomplete view of an organization's culture, and all three are needed to offer a multifocal view. Described as a nexus approach to the study of organizational culture (Martin 2002), this serves as a resource for communication researchers. However, the ontological and analytical claims associated with it have been challenged (Taylor et al. 2006).

HISTORY

Viewing organizations through a cultural lens – rather than as legal entities, hierarchies, or functional operations – reveals the rich symbolism that exists in all aspects of organizational life. A cultural lens also shifts the focus in organizational studies from that of managers, leaders, and executives to all organizational members (→ Leadership in Organizations). Through a cultural perspective, researchers can explore an organization's way of life, how that reality is created and interpreted by various organizational stakeholders, and the influence of those interpretations on organizational activities.

From early anthropological studies, culture was viewed holistically and was synonymous with societal boundaries. More recently, the study of culture has focused on meaning systems that distinguish members of one group or category from another. The primary contribution of anthropologists to the study of culture has been their integrated and detailed accounts of cultural phenomena. The study of organizational culture also draws from sociologists who focus on sub-groups within a society (e.g., blue-collar workers, working mothers) and the ideas, themes and values they express.

Although not labeled as organizational culture, Elton Mayo's human relations studies (Mayo 1975; 1st pub. 1949) concluded that informal interactions among organizational members created expectations and constraints that could not be otherwise explained, and that beliefs, attitudes, and values brought by employees into the work setting influence how the employees view themselves, the organization, and their roles. By 1969, organizational culture was inextricably linked to organizational change, as management scholar Warren Bennis proclaimed that the only way to change an organization was to change its culture.

Since the 1970s, communication scholars have worked to explore and explain the ways in which messages, meanings, and symbols are central to an organization's existence. This early symbolic interaction approach has been replaced with an interpretive approach that focuses on the complexity of meanings in social interaction, treats organizations as social constructions, and views the processes of organizing and communicating as inextricably linked (→ Organizational Discourse). Most recently, a critical communication perspective of organizational culture (→ Organizational Communication: Critical Approaches) has generated insight about cultural processes by revealing the complexity of the work environment, the variety of stakeholders, and their competing interests and power relationships (Deetz 1988).

Communication scholars have contributed to the growth and development of the study of organizational culture in five ways (Eisenberg & Riley 2001). First, a communication perspective has demonstrated the symbolic nature of day-to-day conversations and routine practices, emphasizing that culture is present in all organizational communication. Second, a communication perspective emphasizes the way in which both interpretation and action exist within communication practice. Third, the communication perspective on organizational culture recognizes how societal patterns and norms facilitate or constrain the practices of individuals within an organizational culture. Fourth, the communication perspective honors a variety of researcher–organization relationships. The researcher can be within, close to, or more removed from the culture being studied. Finally, the communication perspective acknowledges all motives as legitimate for the study of organizational culture. These five contributions underscore the role of the study of organizational culture in moving the broader study of organizations, particularly, organizational communication, from a rational, objective, and abstract perspective to one that produces deep, rich, and realistic understandings of organizations and the experiences of people within them.

APPROACHES FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE RESEARCH

Communication scholars have taken several approaches to the study of organizational culture. Four are described here: symbolic performance, narrative, textual reproduction, and power and political.

The symbolic performance perspective examines the way in which a set of artifacts, values, and assumptions reveals cultural meaning as well as how the performance itself is developed, maintained, and changed. Organizational performances have four characteristics (Pacanowsky & O'Donnell-Trujillo 1982, 1983). They are interactive and contextual, as organizational members create and participate in them together situated within a larger set of organizational events. Organizational performances are episodic – each with a beginning and ending – creating regularity and a routine for the flow of work, as well as a framework for interpretation. Finally, organizational performances are improvisational. While an organization's culture can provide some structure for a performance, a performance is never fully scripted. Witmer's (1997) study of Alcoholics Anonymous illustrates these characteristics.

A second approach sees organizational culture as a narrative reproduction. A narrative is a story, and a common way for people to make sense of their organizational experiences (Boje 1991; → Storytelling and Narration). Because organizational stories are about particular actors and particular events, they serve as artifacts to provide information about an organization's values and assumptions. The telling and retelling of a narrative reproduces the culture and provides insight into what the culture values. Stories also reveal logics or rationales for understanding the complexity of organizational life, and create bonds that hold organizational members together. If others in the organization tell the same or a similar story, the narrative will gain legitimacy and be seen as the way things really are. Legitimacy in this case is not located in truth, but depends on the plausibility of the story. Most important, stories are never neutral, and often represent the interests of dominant groups. Because stories reinforce what is and what is not valued, they both produce and reproduce the organization's power structure. As an example, Zoller's (2003) interviews with employees at an automobile manufacturing plant demonstrate how stories reveal their values and assumptions and the way in which those values and assumptions align with those of management.

A third approach conceptualizes organizational culture as textual reproduction. Written texts, such as formal communication in the form of newsletters, mission statements, procedures, handbooks, reports, and slogans, are widely used and available in organizations, providing a fixed view of organizational culture (→ Text and Intertextuality). Typically these texts represent managerial perspectives because of their permanence and ability to be controlled. Textual reproductions of organizational culture are especially useful for exploring espoused versus enacted elements of culture. Formal documentation represents the espoused view and explains the culture from a managerial perspective. Alternately, informal texts, such as emails or blogs, are better representations of the enacted culture. An example of the latter is Gossett and Kilker's (2006) examination of a counter-institutional (i.e., not organizationally sponsored) website that reveals employees' and former employees' alternative interpretations of organizational events.

In a fourth view, power and politics are manifested in many ways in organizations; four are central to the study of organizational culture (Ragins 1995). Power can exist in an organizational member's ability or others' perceptions of that ability. Power can exist in interactions among organizational members. Structural or legitimate power can be derived from the design of the organization, most commonly based on a job title or job function. Finally, socio-political power – such as racism, sexism, and classism – can be imported from an organization's larger social environment. Thus, it is impossible for an organization's culture not to carry symbolic meaning about who is powerful and who is not. For example, Smith and Keyton's (2001) study of the production of a television sitcom demonstrates how interactions among organizational members both affirm and contest hierarchal power.

The critical perspective views the communication of an organization as an index of its ideology. Critical cultural studies explore forms of organizational domination and control as well as the ways organizational members perpetuate or resist these forms. Organizations are sites of hierarchy, dominance, and power, and, as a result, organizational members have varying degrees of power and status, and of control over message creation and message meaning. Powerful organizational members, when they can get others to accept their views about the organization, are in a position to create the normative practices of the organization's culture. Moreover, these members can establish a culture that is more favorable to them and less favorable to the less powerful. While norms and values are sometimes obvious, this imbalance can also be presented in such a way that less powerful organizational members accept the views and values of the powerful without question.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

The value of a communicative approach to the study of organizational culture rests within a researcher's intimate knowledge of an organization's interaction environment. While early functional and prescriptive studies were largely based on → Surveys or questionnaires (→ Interview), the interpretive and critical perspectives rely on participation → observation, group and individual interviews (→ Interview, Qualitative), ethnography (→ Ethnography of Communication), and textual analysis.

These methods allow the researcher to capture informal and formal textual artifacts of the organization, and organizational members' interactions as they occur as well as their reactions to the communication of others. These methods also allow a researcher to examine the texts, interactions, and interpretations of communication within the context in which they were generated.

References and Suggested Readings

Bennis, W. R. (1969). Organization development: Its nature, origins, and prospects. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Boje, D. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of storytelling performance in an office supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, (36) , 106–126.

Deetz, S. A. (1988). Cultural studies: Studying meaning and action in organizations. In J. A. Anderson (ed.), Communication yearbook 11. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 335–345.

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. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 291–322.

Gossett, L. M., & Kilker, J. (2006). My job sucks: Examining counterinstitutional web sites as locations for organizational member voice, dissent, and resistance.Management Communication Quarterly, (20) , 63–90.

Keyton, J. (2005). Communication and organizational culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mayo, E. (1975). The social problems of an industrial civilization. London: Routledge.

Meyer, J. C. (1995). Tell me a story: Eliciting organizational values from narratives. Communication Quarterly, (43) , 210–224.

Pacanowsky, M. E., & O'Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1982). Communication and organizational cultures. Western Journal of Speech Communication, (46) , 115–130.

Pacanowsky, M. E., & O'Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, (50) , 126–147.

Ragins, B. R. (1995). Diversity, power, and mentorship in organizations: A cultural, structural, and behavioral perspective. In M. M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, & M. A. Costanzo (eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 91–132.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership, 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, (28) , 339–358.

Smith, F. L., & Keyton, J. (2001). Organizational storytelling: Metaphors for relational power and identity struggles. Management Communication Quarterly, (15) , 149–182.

Taylor, B. C., Irvin, L. R., & Wieland, S. M. (2006). Checking the map: Critiquing Joanne Martins' metatheory of organizational culture and its uses in communication research. Communication Theory, (16) , 304–332.

Witmer, D. F. (1997). Communication and recovery: Structuration as an ontological approach to organizational culture. Communication Monographs, (64) , 324–349.

Zoller, H. M. (2003). Health on the line: Identity and disciplinary control in employee occupational health and safety discourse. Journal of Applied Communication Research, (31) , 118–139.

Cite this article

Keyton, Joann. "Organizational Culture." The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Donsbach, Wolfgang (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Blackwell Reference Online. 18 September 2014

Communis Mei

Herramientas para la formación del comunicador social

Páginas

.

Organizational Communication I

The International Encyclopedia of Communication