Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Figures
Organizational Discourse Analysis
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Business and Management
Organizational Behavior and Theory

Organizational Discourse: Domains, Debates and Directions

Profile image of Nelson PhillipsNelson Phillips

2012, Academy of Management Annals

https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2012.681558
visibility

…

description

49 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

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.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. Organizational discourse analysis has gained traction, with over 30 articles published in top journals in the last decade.
  2. Classifications of organizational discourse approaches are problematic; propose an alternative based on within and across domain characterizations.
  3. Organizational discourse constructs rather than reflects social reality, emphasizing the role of language in shaping organizations.
  4. Critiques highlight the risk of overshadowing other perspectives and the need for multi-level, multi-method approaches.
  5. Future research should integrate discourse with materiality to enrich understanding of organizational phenomena.
Figures (1)

Related papers

Discourse perspectives on competence in organizations
Tom Van Hout, Katja Pelsmaekers
View PDFchevron_right
Discourse analysis as intervention: a case of organizational changing
Pascal Dey

In lieu of an abstract, here a brief extract from the introduction: In recent years, researchers in management and organization studies have devoted considerable attention to discursive research, so it is hardly controversial to claim that discourse analysis is one of the field’s most popular research methodologies. At the risk of simplifying, a key assumption underlying much of the available literature is that discourse analysis is primarily an excellent tool for producing knowledge (Heracleous, 2006) and more generally an analytic mentality (Phillips and Hardy, 2002). This interpretation is noteworthy as it consigns discourse analysis to its epistemological function. Although we agree that discourse analysis is inextricably connected to questions of epistemology (knowledge), in this chapter we seek to transcend this position by demonstrating that it can also be used productively as a means of intervention. Conflating the epistemological and interventionist trajectories of discourse analysis, we build on prior work that conceives of ‘method’ and ‘research’ quite generally as a means for enacting and changing reality instead of ‘only’ representing or interpreting it (Law, 2004; Steyaert, 2011). Following this vein of thinking, we tenta- tively outline the interventionist potential of discourse analysis against the backdrop of organizational changing. Thereby, drawing on Tsoukas (2005), we define organizational changing as the process through which multiple discursive practices unfold, allowing members of organizations to give meaning to the organizational reality of which they are part. Using this approach, and analysing a consultancy project in a large German voluntary organization, we reveal how discourse analysis can be used to intervene in discursive practices that are characterized by tensions and struggle. To this end, we pinpoint how the results from one such analysis were used to break up a contracted conflict via two interrelated steps. First, discursive spaces were created that offered members of the organization an opportunity to vent their frustration and to create awareness of the antagonistic discursive practices that triggered the tensions and conflict. Second, generative dialogue allowed them to foster more affirmative re-interpretations of organizational changing.

View PDFchevron_right
Discourse Analysis Organizational Analysis
Robert Chia

Organization, 2000

The question of discourse, and the manner in which it shapes our epistemology and understanding of organization, are central to an expanded realm of organizational analysis. It is one which recognizes that the modern world we live in and the social artefacts we rely upon to successfully negotiate our way through life, are always already institutionalized effects of primary organizational impulses. Social objects and phenomena such as 'the organization', 'the economy', 'the market' or even 'stakeholders' or 'the weather', do not have a straightforward and unproblematic existence independent of our discursively-shaped understandings. Instead, they have to be forcibly carved out of the undifferentiated flux of raw experience and conceptually fixed and labelled so that they can become the common currency for communicational exchanges. Modern social reality, with its all-too-familiar features, has to be continually constructed and sustained through such aggregative discursive acts of reality-construction. The idea that reality, as we know it, is socially constructed, has become an accepted truth. What is less commonly understood is how this reality gets constructed in the first place and what sustains it. For the philosopher William James, our social reality is always already an abstraction. Our lifeworld is an undifferentiated flux of fleeting sense-impressions and it is out of this brute aboriginal flux of lived experience that attention carves out and conception names:. .. in the sky 'constellations', on earth 'beach', 'sea', 'cliff', 'bushes', 'grass'. Out of time we cut 'days' and 'nights', 'summers' and 'winters'. We say what each part of the sensible continuum is, and all these abstract whats are concepts. (James, 1948: 50, emphasis original) It is through this process of differentiating, fixing, naming, labelling, classifying and relating-all intrinsic processes of discursive organization-that social reality is systematically constructed. Discourse, as multitudinal and heterogeneous forms of material inscriptions or verbal utterances occurring in space-time, is what aggregatively produces a particular version of social reality to the exclusion of

View PDFchevron_right
The debate about organizational discourse and communication: a rejoinder
Guowei Jian

Discourse & Communication, 2008

View PDFchevron_right
What's cooking in organizational discourse studies? A response to Alvesson and Karreman
Dennis Mumby

Human Relations, 2011

While 'Varieties of Discourse' essay was an important and oft-cited marker in the field of organizational discourse studies, I argue in this response that their rather gloomy, even curmudgeonly, updated reading of the field is not only misplaced but also rooted in their own reductionist conception of discourse -a charge that they themselves level against contemporary organizational discourse research. As a communication scholar who makes his interdisciplinary home in the area of organizational communication/organization studies, I argue that much of Alvesson and Kärreman's critique has its origin in a rather anemic, even wrongheaded, reading of the 'linguistic turn' -a reading that limits the generative and analytic possibilities of postlinguistic turn organizational discourse studies.

View PDFchevron_right
Guest editorial: discourse and organizational change
G. Michelson, David Grant, Cliff Oswick

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2005

Purpose – This paper aims to examine the contribution that discourse analysis can make to understanding organizational change. Design/methodology/approach – It identifies five key contributions. Discourse analytic approaches: reveal the important role of discourse in the social construction of organizational change; demonstrate how the meaning attached to organizational change initiatives comes about as a result of a discursive process of

View PDFchevron_right
Organizational discourse and communication: the progeny of Proteus
Gail Fairhurst

Discourse & Communication, 2008

As VanDijk(2007) proposed in the nrst issue of Discourse and Communication, the main purpose of this journal is to bridgethe two cross-disciplinesof communication and discourse studies. Giventhis goal, this article sought to help clear the ground for such interdisciplinary developmentby investigating how organizational researchers use the terms 'discourse' and 'communication' and cast discourse-communication relationships. Byreviewing 112 organizational discourse studies from major journals in communication, organizational studies, and interdisciplinary journals published between 1981 and 2006, this study identifieddiverse conceptualizations of these basic concepts. The findings help dispelsome of the misunderstandings that scholars from one research fieldmay possess toward the other and sort through some, if not all. the confusions regarding the terms 'discourse', 'communication', and their relationships.

View PDFchevron_right
Discourse Analysis as Intervention: The Case of Organizational Changing
Doerte Resch
View PDFchevron_right
Critical Discourse Analysis in Organizational Studies: Towards an Integrationist Methodology
Lilie Chouliaraki

Journal of Management Studies, 2010

We engage with Leitch and Palmer's (2010) analysis of Critical Discourse Analytical (CDA) scholarship in organizational and management studies, in order to argue that, whereas they rightly point to the need for further reflexivity in the field, their recommendation for a strict methodological protocol in CDA studies may be reproducing some of the problems they identify in their analysis. We put forward an alternative, relational-dialectic conception of discourse that defends an integrationist orientation to research methodology, privileging trans-disciplinarity over rigour.

View PDFchevron_right
Đurović, T. (2014). CONSTRUCTING CORPORATION THROUGH DISCOURSE. Ruth Breeze (2013). Corporate Discourse. ESP Today, 2(2), 216-220.
Tatjana Đurović

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.

View PDFchevron_right

References (211)

  1. Abbott, A., & Tsay, A. (1990). Sequence analysis and optimal matching methods in soci- ology: Review and prospect. Sociological Methods and Research, 29(1), 3-33.
  2. Albert, S., Ashforth, B., & Dutton, J. (2000). Organizational identity and identification. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13-17.
  3. Allen, G. (2000). Intertextuality. London: Routledge.
  4. Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Perseus Books.
  5. Alvesson, M. (1994). Talking in organizations: Managing identity and impressions in an advertising agency. Organization Studies, 15, 535-563.
  6. Alvesson, M. (1996). Communication, power and organizations. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
  7. Alvesson, M. (2002). Knowledge work: Ambiguity, image and identity. Human Relations, 54(7), 863 -886.
  8. Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000a). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2), 136 -158.
  9. Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000b). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organ- izations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53(9), 1125-1149.
  10. Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2011a). Decolonizing discourse: Critical reflections on organizational discourse analysis. Human Relations, 64(9), 1121-1146.
  11. Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2011b). Organizational discourse analysis -well done or too rare? A reply to our critics. Human Relations, 64(9), 1193-1202.
  12. Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C., & Robson, K. (1998). Work hard, play hard: An analysis of organizational cliche ´in two accountancy practices. Organization, 5(4), 565 -592.
  13. Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C., & Robson, K. (2000). In the name of the client: The service ethic in two professional services firms. Human Relations, 53(9), 1151-1174.
  14. Arribas-Ayllon, M., & Walkerdine, V. (2008). Foucauldian discourse analysis. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 91 -108). London: Sage. Organizational Discourse † 37
  15. Ashcraft, K.L., Kuhn, T.R., & Cooren, F. (2009). Constitutional amendments: Materializing organizational communication. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 1-64.
  16. Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20 -39.
  17. Askins, K., & Pain, R. (2011). Contact zones: Participation, materiality, and the messi- ness of interaction. Environment and Planning D: Space and Society, 29, 803 -821.
  18. Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson and M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  19. Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  20. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801 -831.
  21. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2011). Discourse(s), social construction and language practices: In conversation with Alvesson and Karreman. Human Relations, 64(9), 1177-1191.
  22. Barry, D., Carroll, B., & Hansen, H. (2006). To text or context? Endotextual, exotextual, and multi-textual approaches to narrative and discursive organizational studies. Organization Studies, 27(8), 1091-1110.
  23. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
  24. Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  25. Boje, D.M. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational and communications research. London: Sage.
  26. Boje, D.M., Oswick, C., & Ford, J.D. (2004). Language and organization: The doing of discourse. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 571-577.
  27. Broadfoot, K., Deetz, S., & Anderson, D. (2004). Multi-method approaches to organiz- ational discourse. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 193-211). London: Sage.
  28. Brown, A.D. (1997). Narcissism, identity, and legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 643 -686.
  29. Brown, A.D. (1998). Narrative, politics and legitimacy in an IT implementation. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 35 -58.
  30. Brown, A.D. (2001). Organization studies and identity: Towards a research agenda. Human Relations, 1(1), 113 -121.
  31. Brown, A.D. (2006). A narrative approach to collective identities. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 731 -753.
  32. Brown, A.D., & Humphreys, M. (2002). Nostalgia and the narrativization of identity: A Turkish case study. British Journal of Management, 13, 141-159.
  33. Brown, A.D., & Humphreys, M. (2006). Organizational identity and place: A discursive exploration of hegemony and resistance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(2), 231 -257.
  34. Brown, A., & Lewis, M. (2011). Identities, disciplines and routines. Organization Studies, 32(7), 871 -895.
  35. Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: The contri- bution of Michel Foucault. Organization Studies, 9(2), 221-235.
  36. Burrell, G. (1993). Eco and the bunnymen. In J. Hassard & M. Parker (Eds.), Postmodernism and organizational analysis (pp. 71 -82). London: Sage.
  37. Burrell, G. (1994). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: The contri- bution of Jurgen Habermas. Organization Studies, 15(1), 1 -19.
  38. Burrell, G. (1996). Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, discourses and genealogical analysis. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 388 -404). London: Sage.
  39. Burrell, G. (1997). Pandemonium. London: Sage.
  40. Burrell, G. (1998). Linearity, control and death. In C. Grant, T. Keenoy, & C. Oswick (Eds.), Discourse and organization (pp. 134 -151). London: Sage.
  41. Burrell, G. (2006). Foucault and postmodern approaches to work. In M. Korczynski, D. Hodson, & P. Edwards (Eds.), Social theory and work (pp. 155-181). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  42. Chalaby, J.K. (1996). Beyond the prison-house of language: Discourse as a sociological concept. British Journal of Sociology, 47(4), 684 -698.
  43. Cheney, G., Christensen, L.T., Conrad, C., & Lair, D.J. (2004). Corporate rhetoric as organizational discourse. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 79 -103). London: Sage.
  44. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis in organization studies: Towards an integrationist methodology. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1213-1218.
  45. Conrad, C. (2004). Organizational discourse analysis: Avoiding the determinism-volun- tarism trap. Organization, 11(3), 427 -439.
  46. Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analy- sis: An introduction. Organization Studies, 9(1), 91 -112.
  47. Cooren, F. (2001). The organizing property of communication. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
  48. Cooren, F. (2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11(3), 373 -393.
  49. Cooren, F. (2007). Introduction. In F. Cooren (Ed.), Interacting and organizing: Analyses of a management meeting (pp. xvii -xx). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  50. Corley, K., Harquail, C., Pratt, M., Glynn, M.A., Fiol, C.M., & Hatch, M.J. (2006). Guiding organizational identity through aged adolescence. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(2), 85 -99.
  51. Creed, W., Scully, M., & Austin, J. (2002). Clothes make the person? The tailoring of legitimating accounts and the social construction of identity. Organization Science, 13(5), 475 -496.
  52. Cunliffe, A.L. (2008). Discourse analysis. In R. Thorpe & R. Holt (Eds.), The Sage dic- tionary of qualitative management research (pp. 81 -82). London: Sage.
  53. Currie, G., & Brown, A.D. (2003). A narratological approach to understanding processes of organizing in a UK hospital. Human Relations, 56, 563 -586.
  54. Czarniawskia, B. (1997). Narrating the organization: Dramas in institutional identity. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
  55. Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  56. Deetz, S. (2003). Reclaiming the legacy of the linguistic turn. Organization, 10(3), 421 -429. Organizational Discourse † 39
  57. Dick, P. (2004). Discourse analysis. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 203-213). London: Sage.
  58. Donaldson, L. (1996). For positivist organization theory: Proving the hard core. London: Sage.
  59. Ellis, C. (1997). Evocative autoethnography: Writing emotionally about our lives. In W.G. Tierney & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Representation and the text: Reframing the narrative voice (pp. 115 -142). Albany, NY: Suny Press.
  60. Engestrom, Y. (1999). Communication, discourse and activity. Communication Review, 3(1/2), 165 -185.
  61. Ezzamel, M., & Willmott, H. (2004). Rethinking strategy: Contemporary perspectives and debates. European Management Review, 1(1), 43 -48.
  62. Ezzamel, M., & Willmott, H. (2008). Strategy as discourse in a global retailer: A sup- plement to rationalist and interpretive accounts. Organization Studies, 29(2), 191 -217.
  63. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  64. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
  65. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
  66. Fairclough, N. (2005). Peripheral vision: Discourse analysis in organization studies: The case for critical realism. Organization Studies, 26, 915-939.
  67. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction: A multidisciplinary introduction (Vol. 2, pp. 258 -284). London: Sage.
  68. Fairhurst, G.T., & Cooren, F. (2004). Organizational language in use: Interaction analysis, conversation analysis and speech act thematics. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 131-152). London: Sage.
  69. Fairhurst, G.T., & Grant, D. (2010). The social construction of leadership: A sailing guide. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(2), 171-210.
  70. Foot, K., & Groleau, C. (2011). Contradictions, transitions, and materiality in organizing processes: An activity theory perspective. First Monday, 16(6), 1 -18.
  71. Ford, J., & Ford, L. (1994). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 541-570.
  72. Foucault, M. (1965). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason. New York: Vintage Books.
  73. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
  74. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972- 1977. New York: Pantheon.
  75. Foucault, M. (1984). The order of discourse. In M. Shapiro (Ed.), The language of politics (pp. 103 -138). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  76. Fournier, V. (1998). Stories of development and exploitation: Militant voices in enter- prise culture. Organization, 5(1), 55-80.
  77. Gabriel, Y. (2004). Narratives, stories and texts. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 61 -77). London: Sage.
  78. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  79. Gergen, K. (1999). An invitation to social construction. London: Sage.
  80. Gergen, M., Gergen, K., & Barret, F. (2004). Appreciative inquiry as dialogue: Generative and transformative. Advances in Appreciative Inquiry, 1, 3 -27.
  81. Goodpaster, K. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53 -73.
  82. Grant, D., & Hardy, C. (2004). Struggles with organizational discourse. Organization Studies, 25(1), 5-13.
  83. Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C., & Putnam, L. (2004). Organizational discourse: Exploring the field. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 1-36). London: Sage.
  84. Grant, D., Hardy, C., & Putnam, L. (Eds.). (2011). Organizational discourse studies: History, challenges and contributions. Organizational discourse studies (pp. xvii -xlii). London: Sage.
  85. Grant, D., & Iedema, R. (2005). Discourse analysis and the study of organizations. Text, 25(1), 37 -66.
  86. Grant, D., Iedema, R., & Oswick, C. (2009). Discourse and critical management studies. In M. Alvesson, T. Bridgman, & H. Willmott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criti- cal management studies (pp. 213 -231). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  87. Grant, D., Keenoy, T., & Oswick, C. (Eds.). (1998). Organizational discourse: Of diver- sity, dichotomy and multi-disciplinarity. Discourse and organization (pp. 1 -13). London: Sage.
  88. Grant, D., Keenoy, T., & Oswick, C. (2001). Organizational discourse: Key contributions and challenges. International Studies in Management and Organization, 31(3), 5 -24.
  89. Grant, D., Michelson, G., Oswick, C., & Wailes, N. (2005). Discourse and organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(1), 6-15.
  90. Green, S., Li, Y., & Noria, N. (2009). Suspended in self-spun webs of significance: A rhe- torical model of institutionalization and institutionally embedded agency. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 11-36.
  91. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2008). The Sage hand- book of organizational institutionalism. London: Sage.
  92. Hammersley, M. (2003). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: Methods or paradigms? Discourse and Society, 14(6), 751-781.
  93. Hansen, H. (2006). The ethnonarrative approach. Human Relations, 59(8), 1049-1075.
  94. Hardy, C. (2001). Researching organizational discourse. International Studies in Management and Organization, 31(3), 25 -47.
  95. Hardy, C., Lawrence, T., & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and collaboration: The role of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 58 -77.
  96. Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2010). Discourse, field-configuring events, and change in organizations and institutional fields: Narratives of DDT and the Stockholm Convention. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1365-1392.
  97. Hardy, C., Palmer, I., & Phillips, N. (2000). Discourse as a strategic resource. Human Relations, 53(9), 1227-1248.
  98. Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1999). No joking matter: Discursive struggle in the Canadian refugee system. Organization Studies, 20(1), 1 -24.
  99. Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2004). Discourse and power. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 299-316). London: Sage. Organizational Discourse † 41
  100. Hatch, M.J., & Schultz, M. (Eds.). (2004). Organizational identity: A reader. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  101. Hendry, J. (2000). Strategic decision making, discourse, and strategy as social practice. Journal of Management Studies, 37(7), 955 -977.
  102. Heracleous, L. (2006). Discourse, interpretation, organization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  103. Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 755-778.
  104. Humphreys, M., & Brown, A.D. (2008). An analysis of corporate social responsibility at credit line: A narrative approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 403-418.
  105. Ibarra, H., & Barbulescu, R. (2010). Identity as narrative: A process model of narrative identity work in macro work role transition. Academy of Management Review, 35, 135 -154.
  106. Iedema, R. (2007). On the multi-modality, materiality and contingency of organiz- ational discourse. Organization Studies, 28(6), 931-945.
  107. Iedema, R. (2008). Discourse analysis. In S. Clegg & J.R. Bailey (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of organization studies (pp. 389 -393). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  108. Iedema, R. (2011a). Discourse studies in the 21 st century: A response to Alvesson and Karreman's "decolonializing discourse". Human Relations, 64(9), 1163-1176.
  109. Iedema, R. (2011b). On the multi-modality, materiality and contingency of organiz- ational discourse. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, & L. Putnam (Eds.), Organizational discourse studies (pp. 327 -343). London: Sage.
  110. Iedema, R., & Wodak, R. (1999). Organizational discourses and practices. Discourse and Society, 10(1), 5 -19.
  111. Jack, G., & Lorbiecki, A. (2007). National identity, globalization and the discursive con- struction of organizational identity. British Journal of Management, 18(Suppl), S79 -S94.
  112. Jian, G., Schmisseur, A.M., & Fairhurst, G.T. (2008). Organizational discourse and communication: The progeny of Proteus. Discourse and Communication, 2(3), 299 -320.
  113. Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  114. Jones, G. (1998). Perspectives on strategy. In S. Segal-Horn (Ed.), The strategy reader (pp. 409 -429). Milton Keynes, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
  115. Keenoy, T., Marshak, R., Oswick, C., & Grant, D. (2000). The discourses of organizing. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2), 133-135.
  116. Keenoy, T., & Oswick, C. (2004). Organizing textscapes. Organization Studies, 25(1), 135 -142.
  117. Keenoy, T., Oswick, C., & Grant, D. (1997). Organizational discourses: Text and context. Organization, 4(2), 147 -157.
  118. Khaire, M., & Wadhwani, D. (2010). Changing landscapes: The construction of meaning and value in a new market category-Modern Indian art. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1281-1304.
  119. Kilduff, M. (1993). Deconstructing organizations. Academy of Management Review, 18, 13 -31.
  120. Kilduff, M., & Kelemen, M. (2004). Deconstructing discourse. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 259 -272). London: Sage.
  121. Knights, D. (1992). Changing spaces: The disruptive impact of a new epistemological location for the study of management. The Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 514 -536.
  122. Knights, D., & Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A critique. Organization Studies, 12(2), 251 -273.
  123. Knights, D., & Morgan, G. (1995). Strategy under the microscope: Strategic manage- ment and IT in financial services. Journal of Management Studies, 32(2), 191-215.
  124. Kress, G. (1995). The social production of language: History and structures of domina- tion.
  125. In P. Fries & M. Gregory (Eds.), Discourse in society: Systemic functional perspectives (pp. 169 -191). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
  126. Lawrence, T., & Phillips, N. (2004). From Moby Dick to Free Willy: Macro-cultural discourse and institutional entrepreneurship in emerging institutional fields. Organization, 11(5), 689 -711.
  127. Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2011). Organizations as discursive constructions: A Foucauldian approach. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1247-1271.
  128. Leitch, S., & Palmer, I. (2010). Analysing texts in context: Current practices and new protocols for critical discourse analysis in organization studies. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1194-1212.
  129. Leonardi, P.M., & Barley, S.R. (2010). What's under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1 -51.
  130. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
  131. Lilley, S. (2001). The language of strategy. In S. Linstead & R. Westwood (Eds.), The language of organization (pp. 66 -88). London: Sage.
  132. Llewellyn, N. (2008a). Organization in actual episodes: Harvey Sacks and organization studies. Organization Studies, 29, 763 -791.
  133. Llewellyn, N. (2008b). Identifying with the audience: A study of community police work. International Journal of Public Administration, 31, 971-987.
  134. Llewellyn, N. (2011). The delicacy of the gift: Passing donations and leaving change. Discourse & Society, 22, 155 -174.
  135. Llewellyn, N., & Burrow, R. (2007). Negotiating identities of consumption: Insights from conversation analysis. In A. Pullen, N. Beech, & D. Sims (Eds.), Exploring identity: Concepts and methods (pp. 302 -315). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
  136. Llewellyn, N., & Burrow, R. (2008). Streetwise sales and the social order of city streets. British Journal of Sociology, 59, 561 -583.
  137. Llewellyn, N., & Hindmarsh, J. (2010). Organization, interaction and practice: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  138. Loewenstein, J., Ocasio, W., & Jones, C. (2012). Vocabularies and vocabulary structure: A new approach linking categories, practices, and institutions. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2012.660763
  139. Lounsbury, M., & Ventresca, M. (2003). The new structuralism in organizational theory. Organization, 10(3), 457 -480.
  140. Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and deinstitutionalization: The decline of DDT. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 148-178.
  141. Maguire, S., Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2001). When 'silence ¼ death', keep talking: Trust, control and the discursive construction of identity in the Canadian HIV/ AIDS treatment domain. Organization Studies, 22(2), 287 -312. Organizational Discourse † 43
  142. Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2008). On the problem of participation in strategy: A critical discursive perspective. Organization Science, 19(2), 341-358.
  143. Martens, M.L., Jennings, J.E., & Jennings, P.D. (2007). Do the stories they tell get them the money they need? The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1107-1132.
  144. Mauws, M., & Phillips, N. (1995). Understanding language games. Organization Science, 6(3), 322 -334.
  145. Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 5(4), 491 -500.
  146. Morgan, G., & Sturdy, A. (2000). Beyond organizational change: Structure, discourse and power in UK financial services. London: Macmillan.
  147. Mumby, D. (2004). Discourse, power and ideology: Unpacking the critical approach. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 237 -258). London: Sage.
  148. Mumby, D. (2011). What's cooking in organizational discourse studies? A response to Alvesson and Karreman. Human Relations, 64(9), 1147-1161.
  149. Mumby, D., & Clair, R. (1997). Organizational discourse. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 181 -205). London: Sage.
  150. Munir, K.A., & Phillips, N. (2005). The birth of the Kodak moment: Institutional entre- preneurship and the adoption of new technologies. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1665-1687.
  151. O'Connor, E.S. (1995). Paradoxes of participation: Textual analysis and organizational change. Organization Studies, 16(5), 769 -803.
  152. O'Connor, E.S. (2000). Plotting the organization: The embedded narrative as a construct for studying change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2), 174 -192.
  153. Orlikowski, W.J., & Scott, S.V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433 -474.
  154. Oswick, C. (2008). Organizational discourse. In S. Clegg & J.R. Bailey (Eds.), The inter- national encyclopedia of organization studies (pp. 1052-1056). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  155. Oswick, C. (2012). Discourse analysis and discursive analyses. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), The practice of qualitative organizational research: Core methods and current challenges (pp. 473 -491). London: Sage.
  156. Oswick, C., Grant, D., Marshak, R., & Wolfram-Cox, J. (2010). Organizational discourse and change: Positions, perspectives, progress and prospects. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(1), 8 -15.
  157. Oswick, C., Grant, D., Michelson, G., & Wailes, N. (2005). Looking forwards: Discursive directions in organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(5), 383 -390.
  158. Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., Beverungen, A., Ellis, N., Sabelis, I., & Ybema, S. (2007). Discourse, practice, policy and organizing: Some opening comments. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27(11/12), 429-432.
  159. Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (1997). Managerial discourses: Words speak louder than actions. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 6(1), 5 -12.
  160. Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (2000a). Discourse, organisations and organising: Concepts, objects and subjects. Human Relations, 53(9), 1115-1123.
  161. Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (2000b). A debate on discourse, organization and epistemology. Organization, 7(3), 511 -512.
  162. Oswick, C., & Richards, D. (2004). Talk in organizations: Local conversations, wider perspectives. Culture and Organization, 10(2), 107-124.
  163. Palmer, B. (1990). Descent into discourse. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
  164. Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics. London: Routledge.
  165. Parker, M. (2000). The less important sideshow: The limits of epistemology in organiz- ational analysis. Organization, 7(3), 519 -523.
  166. Phillips, N., & Brown, J.L. (1993). Analyzing communication in and around organiz- ations: A critical hermeneutic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1547-1576.
  167. Phillips, N., & di Domenico, M. (2009). Discourse analysis: Methods and debates. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 549 -566). London: Sage.
  168. Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (1997). Managing multiple identities: Discourse, legitimacy and resources in the UK refugee system. Organization, 4(2), 159-185.
  169. Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social con- struction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  170. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 1 -18.
  171. Potter, J. (2003). Discursive psychology: Between method and paradigm. Discourse and Society, 14(6), 783 -794.
  172. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage.
  173. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co. Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
  174. Putnam, L., & Cooren, F. (2004). Alternative perspectives on the role of text and agency in constituting organizations. Organization, 11(3), 323-333.
  175. Putnam, L., Grant, D., Michelson, G., & Cutcher, L. (2005). Discourse and resistance: Targets, practices and consequences. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 5 -18.
  176. Pye, A. (1995). Strategy through dialogue and doing: A game of Mornington Crescent? Management Learning, 26(4), 445-462.
  177. Reed, M. (1998). Organizational analysis as discourse analysis. In D. Grant, T. Keenoy, & C. Oswick (Eds.), Discourse and organization (pp. 193-213). London: Sage.
  178. Reed, M. (2000). The limits of discourse analysis in organizational analysis. Organization, 7(3), 524 -530.
  179. Reed, M. (2004). Getting real about organizational discourse. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 413-420). London: Sage.
  180. Reissman, C.K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  181. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  182. Sabelis, I., Keenoy, T., Oswick, C., & Ybema, S. (2005). Time, text and tuning. Time and Society, 14(3), 261 -264.
  183. Sackmann, S. (1989). The role of metaphors in organisation transformation. Human Relations, 42, 463 -485. Organizational Discourse † 45
  184. Sahlin, K., & Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 218 -242). London: Sage.
  185. Samra-Fredericks, D. (2003). Strategizing as lived experience and strategists' everyday efforts to shape strategic direction. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 141 -174.
  186. de Saussure, F. (1983). A course in general linguistics. Lasalle, IL: Open Court.
  187. Scott, J. (1992). Corporate interlocks and social network analysis. Social Sciences Research Centre Occasional Paper 8, The University of Hong Kong .
  188. Shaw, J. (2010). Papering the cracks with discourse: The narrative identity of the auth- entic leader. Leadership, 6(1), 89 -108.
  189. Shutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
  190. Sillince, J.A.A., & Brown, A.D. (2009). Multiple organizational identities and legitimacy: The rhetoric of police websites. Human Relations, 62, 1829-1856.
  191. Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.
  192. Sonenshein, S. (2010). We're changing-Or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 477-512.
  193. Strang, D., & Meyer, J.W. (1993). Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22(4), 487 -511.
  194. Sturrock, J. (2003). Structuralism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  195. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35 -67.
  196. Taylor, J.R., Cooren, F., Giroux, N., & Robichaud, D. (1996). The communicational basis of organization: Between the conversation and the text. Communication Theory, 6(1), 1 -39.
  197. Taylor, J.R., & Van Emery, E.J. (1993). The vulnerable fortress: Bureaucratic organiz- ation in the information age. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  198. Thornborrow, T., & Brown, A.D. (2009). "Being regimented": Aspiration, discipline and identity work in the British Parachute Regiment. Organization Studies, 30, 355 -376.
  199. Townley, B. (1993). Foucault, power/knowledge, and its relevance for human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 18, 518-545.
  200. Tsoukas, H. (2000). False dilemmas in organization theory: Realism or social construc- tivism. Organization, 7(3), 531 -535.
  201. Vaara, E., Kleymann, B., & Seristo, H. (2004). Strategies as discursive constructions: The case of airline alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 1 -35.
  202. Van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 29, 249 -283.
  203. Van Dijk, T.A. (1997). Discourse as social interaction: Discourse studies-Volume II. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  204. Watson, T.J. (2009). Narrative, life story and manager identity: A case study in autobio- graphical identity work. Human Relations, 62(2), 425-452.
  205. Westwood, R., & Linstead, S. (Eds.). (2001). The language of organization. London: Sage.
  206. Whyte, W.F. (1991). Introduction. In W.F. Whyte (Ed.), Partcipatory action research (pp. 7 -15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  207. Winch, P. (1958). The idea of a social science. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul.
  208. Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical investigations. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  209. Yamaguchi, K. (1991). Event history analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  210. Ybema, S., Keenoy, T., Oswick, C., Beverungen, A., Ellis, N., & Sabelis, I. (2009). Articulating identities. Human Relations, 6(22), 1 -24.
  211. Zilber, T. (2006). The Work of the symbolic in institutional processes: Translations of rational myths in Israeli high tech. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 281 -303. Organizational Discourse † 47

Related papers

Introduction: Organizational Discourse: Exploring the Field
David Grant, Cliff Oswick

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Discourse, 2004

View PDFchevron_right
Discourse Analysis and the Study of Organizations
David Grant

Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 2000

In this paper we provide an overview of research into organisational discourse, making a tentative distinction between organisational discourse studies (emerging from organisation and management theory) and organisational discourse analysis (emerging from more linguistic-oriented research) (Iedema 2003). Our primary aim is to focus on organisational discourse studies in a fashion that complements, rather than replicates, previous overviews of the field. In so doing we suggest that organisational discourse research tends to be too complex and multi-variate to be neatly pigeon-holed into categories such as 'managerialist' or 'postmodernist'. Further, abstracting the multiplicity of these research endeavours into two single dimensions runs the risk of losing some of this richness. We aim to provide insight into the complexity of organisational discourse and the philosophical and methodological richness that it embodies, by recognising and highlighting that commentators often straddle a number of analytical-practical positions. To this end, we propose five dimensions by which to map this rich domain of research. Our concluding argument is that organisational discourse studies and organisational discourse analysis would do well to combine the former's normative and the latter's analytical stance with attention to practitioner situated problematics and struggles. We highlight recent research that has begun to adopt this approach.

View PDFchevron_right
The SAGE handbook of organizational discourse
Paul Luff

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

View PDFchevron_right
Discourse Analysis in Organizational Studies
Norman Fairclough

Although studies of organization certainly need to include analysis of discourse, one prominent tendency within current research on organizational discourse limits its value of for organizational studies through a commitment to postmodernism and extreme versions of social constructivism. I argue that a version of critical discourse analysis based upon a critical realist social ontology is potentially of greater value to organization studies, and I refer in particular to the contribution it can make to research on organizational change.

View PDFchevron_right
The organization of organizational discourse
Craig Prichard

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.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Discourse Analysis
  • Organizational Theory
  • Organizational discourse

    • Cited by

    Writing materiality into management and organization studies through and with Luce Irigaray
    Nancy Harding

    Human Relations, 2014

    There is increasing recognition in management and organization studies of the importance of materiality as an aspect of discourse, while the neglect of materiality in post-structuralist management and organization theory is currently the subject of much discussion. This article argues that this turn to materiality may further embed gender discrimination. We draw on Luce Irigaray's work to highlight the dangers inherent in masculine discourses of materiality. We discuss Irigaray's identification of how language and discourse elevate the masculine over the feminine so as to offer insights into ways of changing organizational language and discourses so that more beneficial, ethicallyfounded identities, relationships and practices can emerge. We thus stress a political intent that aims to liberate women and men from phallogocentrism. We finally take forward Irigaray's ideas to develop a feminist écriture of/for organization studies that points towards ways of writing from the body. The article thus not only discusses how inequalities may be embedded within the material turn, but it also provides a strategy that enriches the possibilities of overcoming them from within.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Emotions in Institutional Work: A Discursive Perspective
    Heidi Hirsto

    Organization Studies, 2016

    This paper focuses on the dynamics and interplay of meaning, emotions, and power in institutional work. Based on an empirical study, we explore and elaborate on the rhetorical strategies of emotion work that institutional actors employ to mobilize emotions for discursive institutional work. In an empirical context where a powerful institutional actor is tasked with creating support and acceptance for a new political and economic institution, we identify three rhetorical strategies of emotion work: eclipsing, diverting and evoking emotions. These strategies are employed to arouse, regulate, and organize emotions that underpin legitimacy judgments and drive resistance among field constituents. We find that actors exercise influence and engage in overt forms of emotion work by evoking shame and pride to sanction and reward particular expedient ways of thinking and feeling about the new institutional arrangements. More importantly, however, the study shows that they also engage in strategies of discursive institutional work that seek to exert power-force and influence-in more subtle ways by eclipsing and diverting the collective fears, anxieties, and moral indignation that drive resistance and breed negative legitimacy evaluations. Overall, the study suggests that emotions play an important role in institutional work associated with creating institutions, not only via "pathos appeals" but also as tools of discursive, cultural-cognitive meaning work and in the exercise of power in the field.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Building professional discourse in emerging markets: Language, context and the challenge of sensemaking
    Andrei Kuznetsov

    Journal of International Business Studies, 2014

    Using ethnographic evidence from the former Soviet republics, this article examines a relatively new and mainly unobserved in the International Business (IB) literature phenomenon of communication disengagement that manifests itself in many emerging markets. We link it to the deficiencies of the local professional business discourse rooted in language limitations reflecting lack of experience with the market economy. This hampers cognitive coherence between foreign and local business entities, adding to the liability of foreignness as certain instances of professional experience fail to find adequate linguistic expression, and complicates cross-cultural adjustments causing multinational companies (MNCs) financial losses. We contribute to the IB literature by examining cross-border semantic sensemaking through a retrospectively constructed observational study. We argue that a relative inadequacy of the national professional idiom is likely to remain a feature of business environment in post-communist economies for some time and therefore should be factored into business strategies of MNCs. Consequently, we recommend including discursive hazards in the risk evaluation of international projects.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Towards a Performative Theory of Resistance: Senior Managers and Revolting Subject(ivitie)s
    Hugh Lee

    Organization Studies, 2017

    This article develops a performative theory of resistance. It uses Judith Butler’s and Karen Barad’s theories of performativity to explore how resistance (to organizational strategies and policies) and resistants (those who resist such strategies and policies) co-emerge, within and through complex intra-actions of entangled discourses, materialities, affect and space/time. The article uses empirical materials from a case study of the implementation of a talent management strategy. We analyse interviews with the senior managers charged with implementing the strategy, the influence of material, non-sentient actors, and the experiences of the researchers when carrying out the interviews. This leads to a theory that resistance and resistants emerge in moment-to-moment co-constitutive moves that may be invoked when identity or self is put in jeopardy. Resistance, we suggest, is the power (residing with resistants) to say ‘no’ to organizational requirements that would otherwise threaten t...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Becoming the Leader: Leadership as Material Presence
    Jackie Ford

    Organization Studies, 2017

    This paper seeks to understand leaders as material presences. Leadership theory has traditionally explored leaders as sites of disembodied traits, characteristics and abilities. Our qualitative, mixed method study suggests that managers charged with the tasks of leadership operate within a very different understanding. Their endogenous or lay theory understands leadership as physical, corporeal and visible, and as something made manifest through leaders’ material presence. This theory-in-practice holds that leadership qualities are signified by the leader’s physical appearance: the good leader must look the part. Actors consequently work on their own appearance to present an image of themselves as leader. They thus offer a fundamental challenge to dominant exogenous, or academic, theories of leadership. To understand the unspoken assumptions that underpin the lay theory of leadership as material presence, we interrogate it using the new materialist theory of Karen Barad and the obje...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved