Are We There Yet? Are We There Yet?

The Virtues of Green Marketing

This chapter starts bridging the gap between organizational and rhetorical studies by correlating the conceptual frameworks of the respective fields and comparing legitimacy theory with ethos analysis. Further, it critiques the dominant Aristotelian paradigm and its view of rhetoric as an amoral tool.

2007

'Discourse', as Norman Fairclough and his co-editors noted in the introduction to their new journal, Critical Discourse Studies, (2004), is now well established as category in social sciences. And yet, as they also note, there are significant differences as to what 'discourse' and 'discourse analysis' refers. These differences are, they argue, due to different theoretical, academic and cultural traditions and how they 'push discourse in different directions' (2004:4). In this review essay I sketch out the key direction that 'discourse' has been pushed or pulled in organization studies (see also Alvesson and Karreman, 2000; Chia, 2000; Grant et al, 2004; Fairhurst and Putnam, 2004; Prichard et al, 2004). To set the scene for this I review two books that seek to advance our understanding of discourse and language analysis in organization studies. Each has its strengths but both are relatively disengaged from the journal literature in the same field. In response to this weakness I will present a brief citation-based analysis of 'discourse analysis' in the management and organization studies field. This analysis brings to light eight different streams of work that are underway. Various forms of language analysis do feature among these. But the most prominent form is concerned with the analysis of knowledge and practice (particularly the distribution and character of various forms of management knowledge). I conclude by arguing that this, rather than forms of language analysis, is the distinctive form of discourse analysis in organization studies. In other words, and following on from the point by Fairclough and his colleagues, the dominant approach to 'discourse' in organization studies takes a distinctive form. There are many examples of this kind of work (see for example Westwood and Clegg, 2003), and among the most cited (see table 2) are those that provide critical analysis of management discourse (Du Gay,1994; Townley, 1993; Kerfoot and Knights, 1998). The approach has some distinctive features including ambivalence over the particular 'media' in which (by which) it is articulated, performed or 'No, you don't, Vic.' 'I've been in love with you for weeks'. 'There's no such thing', she says. 'It's 'a rhetorical device' and a 'bourgeoisie fantasy'. 'Haven't you ever been in love, then?' 'When I was younger,' she says, 'I allowed myself to be constructed by the discourse of romantic love for a while yes.' 'What the hell does that mean?' 'We aren't essences, Vic. We aren't unique individual essences existing prior to language. There is only language'. 'What about this?' he says, sliding his hand between her legs. 'Language and biology', she says, opening her legs wider. 'Of course we have bodies, physical needs and appetites. My muscles contract when you touch me there-feel?' 'I feel, 'he says.

2014

Because of its monumental importance for our everyday lives –marked, from their onset, by the activity of trading of goods and services for other goods and services– the language of corporations has been the focus of some interest for applied linguists, discourse analysts and communication theorists over the years (Goodman, 2000; Bhatia 2004; Bhatia and Lung 2006; Orts, 2006; Gotti, 2011; Evangelisti Allori and Garzone, 2011). In the face of an increasingly critical and mistrustful public opinion, recent studies have further endeavoured to analyse how corporations seek to construct and promote their image through the deployment of their genres, discursive practices and communicative events, both to create a planned self-representation suiting their own interests and to exercise persuasion (Beder, 2012; Fox and Fox, 2004, among others). Even if it is somewhat in the line of what has been termed as “organizational discourse analysis”, Breeze’s work is not set to provide radical critic...

2011

12 making the project unnecessarily problematic. A comparison with the way the Swedish media reported a similar situation in Stockholm shows that the use of metaphors depends on its cultural contexts.

Scandinavian Journal of Management, 2018

This paper analyzes how rhetoric is associated with the legitimation and institutionalization of managerial practices. Since rhetoric both shapes and reflects an actor's legitimacy assumptions, rhetoric can be used as an indicator of the institutionalization or cognitive legitimacy of managerial practices. Drawing on and expanding previous research on rhetorical theory and verbal accounts, this paper links argumentation structure and form with processes of institutionalization. The empirical analysis draws on a large text corpus of data from two German banks, both of which implemented drastic downsizing measures. The results show that the process of institutionalization is related to both a decline in argument diversity and a shift from defensive to acclaiming arguments.

2004

The Handbook is divided into four sections. Part I, Domains of Discourse, focuses on specific discursive domains or 'forms' of organizational discourse. Part II, Methods and Perspectives, plots the contrasting methodological approaches and epistemological views that may be discerned among those studying organizational discourse. Part III, Discourses and Organizing, comprises chapters that draw on a variety of discursive perspectives and approaches in order to show how discursive activity produces and mediates different organizational phenomena. Part IV, the final section of the Handbook, is titled Reflections. It comprises three pieces in which eminent contributors consider the value of organizational discourse to the broader field of organizational studies, reflect on chapters presented in the Handbook and suggest future avenues of research. The remainder of this chapter provides an introductory overview of the field of organizational discourse by using the structure and content of the Handbook to explore what organizational discourse comprises. We then discuss key areas of debate and discussion within the field, and identify some of the challenges it faces. We conclude by highlighting the significance of organizational discourse in terms of its contribution to our understanding of organization. However, we also note that while there has been a recent growth in the number of studies of organizational discourse, it remains a relatively underutilized avenue of enquiry whose contributions have not been fully realized. We assert that there is considerable further scope for its application, and advocate more discourse-focused research on the basis of the potentially considerable insights that it offers. Exploring Organizational Discourse The term 'organizational discourse' refers to the structured collections of texts embodied in the practices of talking and writing (as well as a wide variety of visual representations and cultural artefacts) that bring organizationally related objects into being as these texts are produced, disseminated and consumed (Grant et al., 1998b; Parker, 1992; Phillips & Hardy, 2002). Consequently, texts can be considered to be a manifestation of discourse and the discursive 'unit' (Chalaby, 1996) on which the organizational discourse researcher focuses. They signify collections of interactions, media of communication (i.e., oral, print, electronic), or assemblages of oral and written forms (Putnam & Cooren, 2004). Such a definition demonstrates that those studying organizational discourse are often interested in the social constructionist (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Searle, 1995) effects of language in organizational settings (Phillips & Hardy, 2002). As Mumby and Clair point out: Organizations exist only in so far as their members create them through discourse. This is not to claim that organizations are 'nothing but' discourse, but rather that discourse is the principle means by which organization members create a coherent social reality that frames their sense of who they are. (1997, p. 181) In line with Mumby and Clair's observation, this Handbook shows how the everyday attitudes and behaviour of an organization's members, along with their perceptions of what they believe to be reality, are shaped and influenced by the discursive practices in which they engage and to which they are exposed or subjected. In short, the Handbook highlights the fact that discursive practices in organizations 'do not just describe things; they do things' (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 6). In studying how discourse shapes organizing processes, researchers engage with discourse

The Handbook of Organizational Rhetoric and Communication, 2018

Invention is the discovery of valid or seemingly valid arguments to render one's cause plausible. Arrangement is the distribution of arguments thus discovered in the proper order. Expression is the fitting of the proper language to the invented matter. Memory is the firm mental grasp of matter and words. Delivery is the control of voice and body in a manner suitable to the dignity of the subject matter and the style.

Academy of Management Annals, 2012

Interest in the analysis of organizational discourse has expanded rapidly over the last two decades. In this article, we reflect critically on organizational discourse analysis as an approach to the study of organizations and management, highlighting both its strengths and areas of challenge. We begin with an explanation of the nature of organizational discourse analysis and outline some of the more significant contributions made to date. We then discuss existing classifications of approaches to the study of organizational discourse and suggest that they fall into two main categories: classifications by level of analysis and classifications by type of method. We argue that both of these approaches are inherently problematic and present an alternative way to understand the varieties of approaches to the analysis of organizationaldiscourse based on within domain and across domain characterizations. We conclude with a discussion of the challenges that remain in the development of organizational discourse as an area of study and point to some of the opportunities for important and unique contributions to our understanding of organizations and management that this family of methods brings.

Ruth Breeze’s Corporate Discourse is a useful text in many aspects. Firstly, it covers the issue of corporate discourse from a range of theoretical backgrounds and their respective methodologies, plausibly showing how corporate ‘discourses’ both merge and differ from one another. Secondly, all the genres dealt with in the book are exemplified with authentic data, which lends validity to the author’s findings. Thirdly, although Breeze never loses sight of the two staple ideas of the company’s communicative intent – promoting a good image and legitimising corporate activities – she underscores the need for a critical evaluation of both company’s internal and external communicative and discursive practices.

Discourse & Communication, 2008