Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Preface
- 1 Images of discourse: interpretive, functional, critical, and structurational
- 2 Interpretive approaches to organizational discourse
- 3 Functional approaches: metaphor in organization change and development
- 4 Critical approaches: Michel Foucault's conceptions of discourse
- 5 A structurational approach to discourse
- 6 Analyzing discourse I: discourse as situated symbolic action
- 7 Analyzing discourse II: a tale of three discourses
- Index
- References
7 - Analyzing discourse II: a tale of three discourses
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Preface
- 1 Images of discourse: interpretive, functional, critical, and structurational
- 2 Interpretive approaches to organizational discourse
- 3 Functional approaches: metaphor in organization change and development
- 4 Critical approaches: Michel Foucault's conceptions of discourse
- 5 A structurational approach to discourse
- 6 Analyzing discourse I: discourse as situated symbolic action
- 7 Analyzing discourse II: a tale of three discourses
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter provides an empirical illustration of a structurational view of discourse, outlined in chapter 5, where discourse is seen as a duality constituted by two dynamically interrelated levels: the surface level of communicative actions and the deeper level of discursive structures, recursively linked through the modality of actors' interpretive schemes. Within this broad view of discourse, an analytical approach based on rhetoric and hermeneutics was employed to analyze the discourses operating in the UK operations of People Associates (PA), a global consulting firm focusing on people issues, in the context of PA's organizational change program that took place in the mid-1990s.
This study had three aims. First, to clarify the nature of “modes of discourse” (Giddens, 1984: 33) in organizational settings. Second, to explore how, if at all, modes of discourse in specific social settings are interrelated. Finally, the study aimed to explore the constructive potential of modes of discourse in their social and organizational context. Empirical analysis revealed three modes of discourse, which I have labeled the dominant discourse, the strategic change discourse, and the marginalized counter-discourse. As will be discussed in detail later, the dominant discourse is patterned in terms of enthymeme structures (rhetorical structures of argumentation that draw from the premises already held by the audience, in particular social contexts) that possess both normative and positive, action-oriented, elements. The strategic change discourse draws its legitimacy by being located in the structures and constructions of the dominant discourse, exhibiting a co-optive relationship with the dominant discourse.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Discourse, Interpretation, Organization , pp. 165 - 198Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
. 1991. On rhetoric. G. A. Kennedy (trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
and 1997. Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. Academy of Management Review, 22: 429–452.Google Scholar
and 1966. The social construction of reality. London: Penguin.
1995. Stories of the storytelling organization. A postmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-Land”. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 997–1035.Google Scholar
2001. Managers develop moral accountability: The impact of socratic dialogue. Reason in Practice, 1 (3): 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1994. Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics and organizational culture: How different can you be?Academy of Management Journal, 37: 522–553.Google Scholar
and 1990. Organizational rhetoric and the practice of criticism. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18 (2): 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T. Conrad, C. and Lair, D. J. 2004. Corporate rhetoric as organizational discourse. In , , , , and (eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse: 79–103. London: Sage.
van Dijk, T. A. 1997. The study of discourse. In (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 1–34. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
. and 1991. Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16: 613–619.
Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. and Jacobs, S. 1997. Argumentation. In (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 208–229. Thousand Oaks, CA: Stage.
1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550.Google Scholar
1991. Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16: 620–627.
1988. The logic of real arguments. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M. 1977a. History of Systems of Thought. In (ed.), Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews by Michel Foucault: 199–204. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
1977b. Discipline and punish. London: Penguin.
Gadamer, H.-G. 1997. Rhetoric and hermeneutics. In and (eds.), Rhetoric and hermeneutics in our time: A reader: 45–59. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
1979. Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan.
1984. The constitution of society. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
1987. Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
1993. New rules of sociological method (2nd edn.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gill, A. M. and Whedbee, K. 1997. Rhetoric. In (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 157–183. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grant, D., Keenoy, T. and Oswick, C. 1998. organizational discourse: of diversity, dichotomy and multi-disciplinarity. In , , and (eds.), Discourse and organization: 1–13. London: Sage.
, and 2001. Organizational discourse: Key contributions and challenges. International Studies of Management and Organization, 31 (3): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1987. The philosophical discourse of modernity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
and 1995. Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.
2006. A tale of three discourses: The dominant, the strategic and the marginalized. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 1059–1087.Google Scholar
2001. An ethnographic study of culture in the context of organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37: 426–446.Google Scholar
and 2000. Discourse and the study of organization: Towards a structurational perspective. Human Relations, 53: 1251–1286.Google Scholar
, , , and 1971. A strategic contingencies theory of intra-organizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 216–229.Google Scholar
and 1987. Interpreting organizational texts. Journal of Management Studies, 24: 233–247.Google Scholar
and 2003. Orchestral manoeuvres in the dark: Understanding failure in organizational strategizing, Journal of Management Studies, 40: 109–139.Google Scholar
1986. Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mumby, D. K. and Clair, R. P. 1997. Organizational Discourse. In (ed.), Discourse as social interaction: 181–205. London: Sage.
, and 1997. Managerial discourses: Words speak louder than actions?Journal of Applied Management Studies, 6: 5–12.Google Scholar
and 2002. Managing discursive tension: The co-existence of individualist and collaborative discourses in Flight Centre. Journal of Management Studies, 39: 1045–1069.Google Scholar
1969. Hermeneutics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Palmer. Richard E. 1997. What hermeneutics can offer rhetoric. In and (eds.), Rhetoric and hermeneutics in our time: A reader: 108–131. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
and 1993. Analyzing communication in and around organizations: A critical hermeneutic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1547–1576.Google Scholar
1971a. The model of the text: Meaningful action considered as a text. Social Research, 38: 529–562.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. 1971b. What is a text? Explanation and understanding. In (ed.), Mythic-symbolic language and philosophical anthropology: 135–150. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Ricoeur, P. 1983. On interpretation. In (ed.), Philosophy in france today: 175–197. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ricoeur, P. 1997. Rhetoric-poetics-hermeneutics. In and (eds.), Rhetoric and hermeneutics in our time: A reader: 60–72. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.
and 1995. ‘Having fun?’ humor as resistance in brazil. Organization Studies, 16: 739–768.Google Scholar
1992. Organizational culture and leadership (2nd edn.). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
1987a. Process consultation, vol. 2. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
1987b. The Clinical perspective in fieldwork. Qualitative Research Methods, CA: Sage.
1992. Organizations as ‘texts’: Hermeneutics as a model for understanding organizational change. Research in Organization Change and Development, 6: 197–233.Google Scholar
Tompkins, P. K. and Cheney, G. 1985. Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In and (eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions: 179–210. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
, and 2004. Strategies as discursive constructions: The case of airline alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41: 1–35.Google Scholar
1979. The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 539–550.Google Scholar
and 1983. Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 468–481.Google Scholar