|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Conceptualizing organizational discourse as situated symbolic action
Loizos Heracleous
Templeton College, University of Oxford, loizos.heracleous{at}templeton.ox.ac.uk
Robert J. Marshak
American University/NTL Institute Masters of Organization Development Program in Washington, DC, bobmarshak{at}aol.com
This article presents a conceptualization of organizational discourse as situated symbolic action, drawing from the fields of speech act theory, rhetoric, ethnography of communication and social constructionism. This conceptualization is illustrated through analysis of an episode of negotiated order accessed through an organization development intervention; a meeting of senior managers of Systech, a major IT organization, to decide on a new business model. This perspective helps to respond to some of the key challenges facing the organizational discourse field in terms of developing more clearly specified conceptualizations of discourse suited to the organizational level of analysis, achieving a more holistic and discourse-sensitive understanding of empirical contexts by organizational researchers, and illustrating that organizational discourse analysis is not simply an intellectual luxury but can have pragmatic, relevant implications.
Key Words: action research • organizational discourse • situated symbolic action
Human Relations, Vol. 57, No. 10,
1285-1312 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0018726704048356
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
R. J. Marshak and G. R. Bushe
Further Reflections on Diagnostic and Dialogic Forms of Organization Development
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
September 1, 2009;
45(3):
378 - 383.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. R. Bushe and R. J. Marshak
Revisioning Organization Development: Diagnostic and Dialogic Premises and Patterns of Practice
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
September 1, 2009;
45(3):
348 - 368.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Geiger and E. Antonacopoulou
Narratives and Organizational Dynamics: Exploring Blind Spots and Organizational Inertia
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
September 1, 2009;
45(3):
411 - 436.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Dewulf, B. Gray, L. Putnam, R. Lewicki, N. Aarts, R. Bouwen, and C. van Woerkum
Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A meta-paradigmatic perspective
Human Relations,
February 1, 2009;
62(2):
155 - 193.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guowei Jian, A. M. Schmisseur, and G. T. Fairhurst
Organizational discourse and communication: the progeny of Proteus
Discourse & Communication,
August 1, 2008;
2(3):
299 - 320.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Macpherson and O. Jones
Object-mediated Learning and Strategic Renewal in a Mature Organization
Management Learning,
April 1, 2008;
39(2):
177 - 201.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Jarzabkowski and J. Sillince
A Rhetoric-in-Context Approach to Building Commitment to Multiple Strategic Goals
Organization Studies,
November 1, 2007;
28(11):
1639 - 1665.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Walton
Site the Mine in Our Backyard! Discursive Strategies of Community Stakeholders in an Environmental Conflict in New Zealand
Organization Environment,
June 1, 2007;
20(2):
177 - 203.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Hansen
The ethnonarrative approach
Human Relations,
August 1, 2006;
59(8):
1049 - 1075.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. D. Jacobs and L. Th. Heracleous
Constructing Shared Understanding: The Role of Embodied Metaphors in Organization Development
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
June 1, 2006;
42(2):
207 - 226.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
