Analyzing discourse II: a tale of three discourses

Loizos Heracleous

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511488573.008

7 - Analyzing discourse II: a tale of three discourses

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009

Loizos Heracleous

Show author details

Loizos Heracleous: Affiliation:
National University of Singapore

Book contents

Get access

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 - 198

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511488573.008 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aristotle, . 1991. On rhetoric. G. A. Kennedy (trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barry, D. and Elmes, M. 1997. Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. Academy of Management Review, 22: 429–452.Google Scholar

Berger, D. and Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality. London: Penguin.

Boje, D. M. 1995. Stories of the storytelling organization. A postmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-Land”. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 997–1035.Google Scholar

Bolten, D. 2001. Managers develop moral accountability: The impact of socratic dialogue. Reason in Practice, 1 (3): 21–34.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chatman, D. A. and Jehn, K. A. 1994. Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics and organizational culture: How different can you be?Academy of Management Journal, 37: 522–553.Google Scholar

Cheney, D. and McMillan, J. J. 1990. Organizational rhetoric and the practice of criticism. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18 (2): 93–114.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T. Conrad, C. and Lair, D. J. 2004. Corporate rhetoric as organizational discourse. In Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C., Phillips, N., and Putnam, L. L. (eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse: 79–103. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. 1997. The study of discourse. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 1–34. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Dyer, W. G. Jr. and Wilkins, A. L. 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 Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 208–229. Thousand Oaks, CA: Stage.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550.Google Scholar

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1991. Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16: 620–627.

Fisher, A. 1988. The logic of real arguments. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Foucault, M. 1977a. History of Systems of Thought. In Bouchard, D. (ed.), Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews by Michel Foucault: 199–204. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Foucault, Michel 1977b. Discipline and punish. London: Penguin.

Gadamer, H.-G. 1997. Rhetoric and hermeneutics. In Jost, W. and Hyde, M. J. (eds.), Rhetoric and hermeneutics in our time: A reader: 45–59. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

du Gay, P. and Salaman, G. 1992. The cult(ure) of the customer. Journal of Management Studies, 29: 615–33.Google Scholar

Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Giddens, A. 1979. Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan.

Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society. Cambridge, MA: Polity.

Giddens, A. 1987. Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge, MA: Polity.

Giddens, A. 1993. New rules of sociological method (2nd edn.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Gill, A. M. and Whedbee, K. 1997. Rhetoric. In Dijk, T. A. (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 Grant, D., Keenoy, T., and Oswick, C. (eds.), Discourse and organization: 1–13. London: Sage.

Grant, D., Keenoy, T. and Oswick, C. 2001. Organizational discourse: Key contributions and challenges. International Studies of Management and Organization, 31 (3): 5–24.CrossRef Google Scholar

Habermas, J. 1987. The philosophical discourse of modernity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. 1995. Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.

Heracleous, L. 2006. A tale of three discourses: The dominant, the strategic and the marginalized. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 1059–1087.Google Scholar

Heracleous, L. 2001. An ethnographic study of culture in the context of organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37: 426–446.Google Scholar

Heracleous, L. and Hendry, J. 2000. Discourse and the study of organization: Towards a structurational perspective. Human Relations, 53: 1251–1286.Google Scholar

Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E. and Pennings, J. M. 1971. A strategic contingencies theory of intra-organizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 216–229.Google Scholar

Keenoy, T., Oswick, C. and Grant, D. 1997. Organizational discourses: Text and context. Organization, 4: 147–157.Google Scholar

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. and Miller, D. 1987. Interpreting organizational texts. Journal of Management Studies, 24: 233–247.Google Scholar

Maitlis, S. and Lawrence, T. B. 2003. Orchestral manoeuvres in the dark: Understanding failure in organizational strategizing, Journal of Management Studies, 40: 109–139.Google Scholar

Morgan, G. 1986. Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mumby, D. K. and Clair, R. P. 1997. Organizational Discourse. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse as social interaction: 181–205. London: Sage.

Oswick, C., Keenoy, T. and Grant, D. 1997. Managerial discourses: Words speak louder than actions?Journal of Applied Management Studies, 6: 5–12.Google Scholar

Palmer, I. and Dunford, R. 2002. Managing discursive tension: The co-existence of individualist and collaborative discourses in Flight Centre. Journal of Management Studies, 39: 1045–1069.Google Scholar

Palmer, R. E. 1969. Hermeneutics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Palmer. Richard E. 1997. What hermeneutics can offer rhetoric. In Jost, W. and Hyde, M. J. (eds.), Rhetoric and hermeneutics in our time: A reader: 108–131. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Phillips, N. and Brown, J. L. 1993. Analyzing communication in and around organizations: A critical hermeneutic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1547–1576.Google Scholar

Ricoeur, P. 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 Rasmussen, D. (ed.), Mythic-symbolic language and philosophical anthropology: 135–150. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Ricoeur, P. 1973a. The task of hermeneutics. Philosophy Today, 17: 112–128.Google Scholar

Ricoeur, P. 1973b. The hermeneutical function of distantiation. Philosophy Today, 17: 129–141.Google Scholar

Ricoeur, P. 1983. On interpretation. In A. Montefiore, (ed.), Philosophy in france today: 175–197. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Ricoeur, P. 1997. Rhetoric-poetics-hermeneutics. In Jost, W. and Hyde, M. J. (eds.), Rhetoric and hermeneutics in our time: A reader: 60–72. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

Rodrigues, S. B. and Collinson, D. L. 1995. ‘Having fun?’ humor as resistance in brazil. Organization Studies, 16: 739–768.Google Scholar

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

Schein, E. 1987a. Process consultation, vol. 2. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schein, E. 1987b. The Clinical perspective in fieldwork. Qualitative Research Methods, CA: Sage.

Thachankary, D. 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 McPhee, R. D. and Tompkins, P. K. (eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions: 179–210. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Vaara, E., Kleymann, B. and Seristo, H. 2004. Strategies as discursive constructions: The case of airline alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41: 1–35.Google Scholar

Maanen, J. 1979. The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 539–550.Google Scholar

Wilkins, A. and Ouchi, W. 1983. Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 468–481.Google Scholar