Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Relations
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Christensen, L. T.
Right arrow Articles by Morsing, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Correspondence: Corporate communications and its receptions

A comment on Llewellyn and Harrison

Lars Thøger Christensen

Joep Cornelissen

Mette Morsing

This article critiques the conceptualization of corporate communications in a recent study by Llewellyn and Harrison. We argue that their analysis of the reception of corporate messages is one-sided and partial and fails to advance a comprehensive understanding of corporate communications and its role in contemporary organizations. Llewellyn and Harrison suggest that blue-collar employees share a class-based anti-management attitude which together with their `folk' linguistic competences leads them to read corporate communications texts in a strictly cynical way that reinforces a class distinction between `managers' and (blue-collar) `employees'. In the hope of advancing a more sophisticated view on corporate communications, we challenge Llewellyn and Harrison's position by questioning the methods and arguments brought forth in their analysis.

Key Words: corporate communications • identification • message reception • voice

Human Relations, Vol. 60, No. 4, 653-661 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0018726707078356
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organization StudiesHome page
J. P. Cornelissen, C. Oswick, L. Thoger Christensen, and N. Phillips
Metaphor in Organizational Research: Context, Modalities and Implications for Research Introduction
Organization Studies, January 1, 2008; 29(1): 7 - 22.
[Abstract] [PDF]