DOCIDIMIT =SUMS AUTNOR Organizational Culture

"1 DOCIDIMIT =SUMS

ED 252252 892 CS 504 772 AUTNOR Sotirin, Patrici* J. TITLE Organizational Culture--A Foluson Contemporary Theory/Research in OrganizationalCommunication. PUN OAT* Nov 84 DOTE 18p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meetingof the Speech Communication Associa,ion (70th,Chicago, IL, 'Tovember 1-4, 1984). PUB TYPE %Aewpoillits (120)-- Speeches/Conference Papers (150) IIDRS PRIM MY01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Communication (Thought Transfer);Communication Research; *Cultural Context; *OrganizatiOnal Communication; *Organizational Theories;*Research Methodology; Research Needs IDENTIFIERS *Organisational Culture ABSTRACT Defining organisational cultureas the amalgam of beliefs. mythology, values, and ritualsthat, even more than its product;, differentiates it from otherorganisations, this paper demonstrates its utilityas a synthesizing focus on current ideas about communication in organisations.Modes of thought, dominant paradigms, perspectiveson communication and organisations, and research approaches are reviewed usingorganisational cultureas both a basis for comparison and a point of correlation. Dividedinto nice sections, the paper reviews theoriesespoused by such researchersas Linda Putnam, George Chaney, MichaelPacanowsky, Nick O'Donnell-Trujillo, and Andrew Pettigrew.(ROD)

*********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDITSare the best that can be made * * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** NPANIONIPPV OP INIONATIONI NATIONAL IINITITVTE OP NOUCATION EIVCATIONAI RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Uwe document his been reproduced es Nom Me person of orgenashon Of/91M* I9 it WIN' chews* Neve been mode to Improve reproductIon quests.

Pow, is of we.* or op000ns stated on thss deco moot do not necessenhmoresent ots col NIE potshot) of poscie

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE--A FOCUS ON CONTEMPORARY THEORY/RESEARCH

IN ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Patricia J. Sotirin

'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Patricia J. Sotirin

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE--A FOCUS

ON CONTEMPORARY THEORY/RESEARCH INORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

An evolution in perspective oa communication inorganizations and a growing disenchantment with theprevailing theoretical metaphor guiding theory/research inorganizational communication has sponsoreda diversity of assumptions and methodologies. The notion of organizational culture has recently been advanced, as an alternative metaphor. This paper demonstrates its utility as a synthesizing focus on current ideas about communication in organizations. Modes of thought, dominant paradigms, perspectiveson communication and organizations, and research approachesare reviewed using organizational culture as botha basis for comparison and a point of correlation. Page 2

In their review of researchtraditions and directions, Putnam

and Cheney issued a challenge toorganizational communication scholars "to embodya healthy pluralism, witb a critical bent."1

Other recent critiques have madesimilar appeals for alternate research directions and theoretical diversity.2

That the field is nowopen to such diversity is due in pei.t to a change in perspectiveon the nature of communication in

organizations. Putnam and Cheney described itas an evolution

from "a preoccupation with sender-orientedtransmission effects to a focus on communicationprocess and meaning.0 Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo alsoobserved a change in focus but they ascribed it to.a growing disenchantmentwith systems theoryas a guiding metaphor.` In place of systems theory, theyhave championed the organizationalculture metaphor for "its ability to liberate our thinking about bothorganizations and communication.5

The notion of organizationalculture evidences the diversity currently characterizing organizationalcommunication theory/ research. Thus, it offers a useful focusfor reviewing' dominant modes of thought and bodies of assumptionsin the field. It provides both a basis for comparisonacross perspectives and a point of correlation for reviewing studiesdone on elements of culture under different metaphors. Further, calling attention to theory/research trends offersopportunity for self-monitoring.6

Accordingly, this paper will describepresent theory/research directions by focusingon the notion of organizational culture.

4 Page 3

Academic and popular usages suggestsome preliminary parameters

on the notion of".an organization's culture. While there seems to

be no 'definition of "culture" enjoying academic consensus,7Prosser identified four orientations guiding current theories.8

"Evolutionalism" focuses on cultureas a cuaulatioi of collec-

tive experience; "functionalism" focuseson interconnections

between social elements, emphasizing patterns and theirpersis- , tence; "history" focuses on historical data and emphasizestime and space dimensions; and "ecology" regards cultureas an adap-

'tational process, both between a culture and itsenvironment

and between and within cultures. Further, Prosser named values

and value orientations as "the most cultural ofcultural characteristics."9 Prosser's review of academicusages suggests that

"culture" is a multi-dimensional, procesP1,valuative concept.

Popular usage of the term "organize-0nel culture"has

developed fidely acclaimed pragmatic connotations-- witness a recent observation made in The New York Times "Business Day"

Section:

In the 1960's, decentralizationwas the

vogue in management. In the 1970's, cor-

porate strategy became the buzzword. Now, corporate culture is the magic phrase that

management consultants are breathing into the ears of American executives.10

The article vent on to define "compalny culture"as "the amalgam of beliefs, mythology, values and ritualsthat, even more than Page 14

"11 its products, differentiates it fromother companies. The

pragmatic implications of the "amalgamation"were made more

explicit in a business journal articledefining "traditions" as

organizational culture; corporate historywas promoted as a man-

agement tool with which to draw instructiveanalogies between

company cultures past and present in order to "diagnoseproblems, reassess policy, measure performance, andeven direct change."12

Present development in organizationalcommunication maintains the popular notion of cultureas a pragmatic force in organiza-

tional life. Hawes advised "characterizingorganizational pheno- "13 mena as cultural phenomena. The popular notion of cultureas an amalgamation is also evident in current organizational

communication treatments. It may be helpful in this regardto consider culture a "constellation"concept, within whose field

such attendant elements as values, beliefs,myths, rituals, stories,

histories, routines, traditions, and folkwaysare held by the 14 force of collective symbolic meaning. Morgan affirmed that

the concept of culture focuses inquiryon "the symbolic aspects

of organizational life" and on howattendant elements "embody

networks of subjective meaning whichare crucial for understanding how organizational realitiesare created and sustained."15

Additionally, a communication orientationassigns significance to

language, valuative argument, and the intricaciesof communicative interactions as these elements both reflectand impact organizational culture. Bormsnn made clear the essential communicative nature of organizational culture; while otherelements may be important (i.e., material goods, tools, etc.), "withoutcommuni- cation these components would not result ina culture."16 :45 Page 5

III

Moving from preliminary parameters toan understanding of

how organizational culture both directsinvestigation and is being investigated requires recognitionof assumptive bases.

The transition from idea to conceptualizationis a "leap"

Cusella considered "crucial" andone that is too often theoreti-

cally unsupported. 17 In concurrence, Putnam warned thatassump- tions should be made explicit because "ourbeliefs about social reality undergird the wayve theorize and operationalize organizational communication."18

Bedding observed 'that not only assumptionsbut their location should be made explicit: are they located in the researcher/ 19 theorist or in the target? An assumption common to both locations is that human behavioroccurs within some framework 20 of rationality. At the researcher/theorist locationthis

assumption establishes a common startingpoint: a consensus

on the amenability of social behavior to reasonedinquiry. But

beyond this overarching tenet, researcher/theorists take diver- gent tacks. The most general is that of orientation.

Orientation is a meta-perspectiveon the apprehension of

reality; as such, it is preliminary toassumptions about the nature of reality. Simons posited a distinction between "empirical"

and "anecdotal" orientations;21 Wilden developedthe distinction as one between "analog" and "digital" modes of comprehension;22

Haves described a continuum of "styles of thinking"from verbal/ 23 literary to mathematical/formal. The distinctions being made

are based on mode of thought rather than method of inquiry;they

influence how to ask questions, not what questionsto ask nor a Page 6

where cr how the answers are to be found. B:mons explained his bifurcation by contrast. Anecdotalists, he observed,

. . . "muddle" their theories with state- ments about the contexts and relationships

among messages. In place of single referents, they present us with levels' and layers of

meaning. In place of ither-or" thinking,

they offer us "both-and" thinking. In

place of discrete categories,or even linear dimensions, they offer us h!,erarchical 24 ofderings.

One source of the diversity in organizationalcommunication research is the viability of both empiricist andanecdotalist modes of inquiry. But "positivist" tradittono and empirical

science models characteristic of empiricistthinking are yielding

to anecdotalist ways of looking at organizationalcommunication

phenomena.25 Preliminary parameters on organizationalculture

indicate its usefulness in illustrating the anecdotalistorien- tation in current theory/research.

Anecdotalist thinking is evident in theory/research within

each of the prevailing organizational communication paradigms.26

Putnam's work is instructive in distinguishing theseparadigms.

Her overview article in the Spring 1982 issue ofthe Western

Journal of Syeech Communication delimitedfour clusters of

assumptions based on a matrix of dichotomies,one between objec- :1

Page 7

tive-subjective views of reality and theother between regulation-

27 ! change views of social order. The matrix generated four

paradigms: functionalist, interpretive, radicalstructuralist,

and Tactics humanist. Putnam has recently refined thefour

categories to functionalist and interpretive .2©She redefined

the radical struc Z ralist and radicalhumanist paradigms as schools

within the interpretive paradigmthenaturalistic and the critical

schools. Her distinctions may be diagrammedto provide a framework for further discussicn:29

Empiricist Anecdotalist Orientation Orientation

Functionalist ----. Interpretive if Paradigm Paradigm

Theories /Models Schools Mechanistic Naturalistic Systems Critical Action

Communication Perspective Communication Perspective Organization via Organizational Culture Communication

Approaches Approaches Emergent theory Cultural performances Symbol inventory Account analysis Etc. Etc. Figure 1.

A continuum between empiricist andanecdotalist modes of thinking

umbrellas theory/research development. Within those orientations,

two major bodies of assumptions dominate inquiry: functionalist and interpretive paradigms. Under each, theories and methodologies

9 e,* g

Page 8

as well as different perspectives qn communication inorganizations

have been developed. Their creation/validation proceedsunder

various approaches. For example, approaches under theaction

theory include Browning's emergent theory technique"and Smith's master symbol inventory.31 Under the interpretive paradigm, the

naturalistic school has fostered approachessuch as cultural 32 33 34 performances, account analysis, and structuration. The

critical school extends naturalistic assumptionsand methods

into a broader social context; critical-evaluativeapproaches such 35 as unobtrusive control and power relationships36are under

development. A more detailed review of thesedistinctions follows.

Putnam and Cheney summarized the assumptions ofthe functionalist paradigm:

(1) "Work as purposeful-rational action"dominates social existence;

(2) "Social reality is treatedas objective, materialis-

tic, and subject to prediction andtechnical control"; and

(3) The goals of research are understanding andprediction for the purpose of "exerting technical control."37

The functionalist paradigm subsumes mechanistic,systems, and action theories of organizational life. According to Morgan, these seemingly diverse models are basedon a common assumption that

"the reality of organizational liferests in a network of ontologically real relationships, whichare relatively ordered and cohesive."38 INV

c Page 9

WIthin the functionalist paradigm, an "organization via

communication" perspective has developed. For example, ?arace, Taylor, and Stewart tied communication and organization together

as interdependent processes of control: "Organizitional processes focus centrally on the control andcoordination of people raid

resources. The mechanism through which control and coordination

is accomplished is communication. "39 The controlling logic of organizational life is expressed

in the form of the practical Syllogism. Monge asserted that syllogistic logic is subsumed under the systems model, the model 40 most often employed within the functionalist paradigm, and he

characterized the logical framework as flexible. Systems logic "need not conform to the hypothetico-deductive" model; rather,

any logic that can be shown "isomorphic" with "the empirical

world" may be admitted. Thus, formal syllogistic logic is not necessary; for "if it meets the other requirements for a system,

the analysis of human communication action on the basis of the practical syllogism may be considered a valid form of systems

knowledge."4i

Human communication action can be understood and controlled

through manipulation of syllogistic premises. Those premises become accessible as roles that delimit actions and relationships.

The problem, as McDermott noted, is that causation within the

practical syllogism is conditional because "nomic ties in teleo-

logical explanation rest on choice premises. Thus the assumed

connection is a relationship of necessary conda_tionship."42 The "assumed connection" gains strength through the paradigmatic Page 10

assumption that choice premises may be engineeredinto "necessary conditionship" by limiting alternatives,thus decreasing behavioral 43 variability. Theory thereby approximates nomic necessity

Communication in organizations functions to reduceuncertainty

by limiting the range of alternativesavailable to a receiver, 44 thereby effecting behavioral control. Parsee, et al., claimed that since the of organizing is the reduction of

variability inhuman behavior and that endis accomplished through communication, then "therecan be no separation between 45 'organizing' functions and communicatingfunctions in organizations."

Putnam's description of Actiontheory assumptions suggests

how organizational culture is conceived within theuneven

functional interdependence between organizingand communicating.

She noted that while symbolic events andsubjective meanings are

significant, there is a reification of the "culturalmilieu,"

such that researchers treat myths, stories,rituals, etc.,

as "artifacts of the culture" which "inventorya pre-existing .46 objective structure. She summarized:

In essence, action-theory researchrelies

. on symbols to operationalize taken-for-

granted assumptions about organizational

reality. Symbolic meanings, then, reflect but do not create an organization's

culture

Tompkins' anecdotal examination of theMarshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) can be reviewed asa study of organizational culture.U8 Page 11'

As a communication consultant at MSFC,'Tompkins found elements

of the organization's culture instrumental in the development

and breakdown of communication networks. His reportAtributed present-day influence to MSFC history (beginning with WWII 4 events), noted the impact of tradition (the' "Paperclip120

Family"), documented the dominating "presence"of the Director,

and described the subjective reality of rhetoricalexigencies.

His final recommendations for improving communicationnetworks

can be recognized as attempts to gain structural controlover cultural influences. Collective management style, open and

clo,cel communication loops, intermediary positions betweengroups

and between management levels, and matrix responsibilityassign- ments are objective structural procedures which Contain and describe cultural patterns but do not create them.49

In contrast, the interpretive paradigmassumes the ontolo- gica3 position that social reality is intersubjectivelycreated. Morgan described organizational realities as "ongoing social constructions" of symbolic, intersubjective meaning.50 In this process, he asserted, "Language is not simply communicational and descriptive; it is ontological.51

The naturalistic school dictatesa nonjudgmental research stance that maintains the integrity of intersubjective realities

"without questioning. "52 Under this dictum, the organizational culture perspective promotes a defining role for culture in organizations. Pacanovsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo proclaimed:

13 rj ^;'"; s.

f # -7771r1

Page 12

Organizational culture is not just another

piece of the puzzle, it is thepuzzle.

From our point of view,a culture is not

1,5 something an organization has;a culture is something an organization 18.53

Under the interpretive paradigm,organizing and communicating 54 are interdependent processes of organizationallife; when organizational life is identifiedas culture, then organizing

and communicating become the focalactivities of organizational 55 culture. Further, when intersubje4tive meanilig issubstituted for control and rational orderas the purpose for organising and

communicating, then those processesare no longer adaptive (i.e.,

attempting to fit subjective meaningsto ebjecc.ive, external

realities); rather, theybecome defining activities. The

change in focus has a moral impact; Pacanows.kyexplained:

. . the way people talk about their work

reveals varying degreesof appreciation or

disdain for themselves and the socialfabric

in which their work is embedded. For me,

the issue here is not so much thehuman

relations concern for employee self-esteem,

but a genuinely humanisticconcern for worker self.respect.56

Workers viewed as participants inprocesses creating cultural

reality are individually as wellas collectively important; workers viewed as contributors to thegreater whole, the

410111M,M. A 477 414. A4n77:-I57:7.

Page 13

organisation, are significant exclusivelyin terms of the collectivity.57

Naturalistic research within the interpretive.paradigm

seeks to understand and interpret the transactionalprocesses of 58 organizational life. Language, both verbal and nonverbal,

provides access to these processes. Naturalistic research is

theory -bound to participant-observationtechniques favoring 59 natural settings. The processes of talking and writing, 60 in Hawes' terms, "become primary data" because talking and writing "constitute as wellas reflect social reality."61

Further, talking and writing reveal thelogic-in-use of cultural sense-making. Haves argued that when talking and

writing are admitted as primary data,they can be analyzed both

as categorizing activities and as objects usedduring such

activities. "Such analyses," he concluded, "revealhow members view the causal and associationaldynamics of their own speech 62 community--their logic-in-use." Thus, the practical force

of the syllogism as the rational basis forhuman action becomes

subjectively rather than objectively constrained. Action is not

divorceable from its interpretation--the logicalrelationship between syllogistic premises is basedon attributional social-

value processes, not objectively determinedcausality.

Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo attributeda sense-making

function to organizational culture; logic-in-usereveals cultural "webs" of significance whichcannot be Operated from "veb-spinning."63 64 The web is the residue of the communication process,"they explainel.

15 Page 14

Structure as residue is misinterpreted if construedas objective;

Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo warned that studying cultureas 65 systems or artifacts reifies the essence of cultureas process. An example of research conducted under the organizational

culture perspective is Pacanovskl'o descriptive analysis of the

organizational identities developed by working policemen. He

argued that instead of isolating personality traits influencing

communicative effectiveness, the influence of communication and organizational experiences on development of organizational 66 personalities could be studied. His verbatim descriptions of "cop talk" in the Valley View police station demonstrate

naturalistic methodology: the transcripts reflect culture-in-

the making. Pacanovsky recognized four organizational identities

in Valley View cop talk: the rookie, the supercop, the journey- man cop, and the old soldier. He paralleled the transition from one identity to the next with a moral transformation from 67 "romantic to idealist to realist to cynic." The implication presented is intriguing: moral decay may be the result not of

"burn-out" in people but rather of the moral bankruptcyof the

organizingprocess. itself.

Pacanowsky's concern with progression in h2s notion of

identity transformation is evident in Pettigrew's "longitudinal- 68 processuel" study of organizational culture. Rather than identities, Pettigrew concentrated on organizational dramas: "The point of studying a sequence of social dramas longitudinally

is that they provide a transparent look at the growth, evolution, 69 transformation, and conceivably, decay of an organizationover time." Pettigrew's is not an organizational communication study but its 1 'kr

Page 15

allegiance to interpretive assumptions and naturalistic research

ieethodologies and goals makes it compatible with the organizational

culture perspective. For instance, Pettigrew advanced the

notion of an evolution of cultures: "One of the benefits of a

research design built around the analysis ofa sequence of, social dramas is the possibility it affords to study the emeronce and 70 development of organizational cultures." Culture as drama has been presented in Pacanovsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo's development 71 of cultural performances and Bormann's development of symbolic 72 convergence. Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo's notion of c.ontextuality suggests an evolutionary element while Bormann's

description of cultural sagas suggests the playing out of cultural dramas within the historical theatricality of organizational life.

In addition, Pettigrew's notion of the distinctionbetween drama and routine amplifies the improvisational and contextual

characteristics of performance detailed by Pacanowsky and

O'Donnell-Trujillo. They characterized performances as "unique and variable" improvisations; meaning is gained through the

"mutual elaboration".of singular performance and situation.

Performances are also "retrospective and prospective," requiring a historical "playing out" before significance can be fully 73 determined. Pettigrew implied that the theatricality of

organizational life maintains a consciousness of itsown past

. and future by performing its present on multiple levels. The interplay he recognized between routine as contextualbackdrop and foreground drama represents the constraints of cultural

patterns upon improvisational latitudes; the idea is similar to 17 r s e

Page 16

the gestalt drawings that present alternativefigures through

an optical illusion. The'routines andpatterns making up context

are informed by organizational history but assertan immediate influence upon the ilrovisationaldramas in' he foreground.

In Pettigrev's study of the evolutionof cultures in a private boarding school, the dramas playedout under one headmaster

scripted traditions and routineswhich both constrained and

informed the cultural dramas playedout under another headmaster.74

Thus, Pettigrev's notions suggestthat organizational culture evolves longitudinally and latitudinallyin a reciprocal and

1 simultaneous manner.

Pettigrew's stated purposewas to highlight concepts of

organizational culture.Accordingly, his discussion of birth,

growth, and decay of dramas and culturesdid not adopt a critical stance. Similarly, Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo

argued that the organizational cultureperspective "does not

necessarily indict organizational communicationas morally

bankrupt but instead . . . suggests that organizational

communication is situationally relativeand variable.75

Description and interpretation of thevariability of patterns

is the moral imperative of organizationalculture inquiry; but

Deetz charged that such a positionabdicates ethical res- a ponsibility. "Research, he argued, "shouldperform a critical

.function by demonstrating where falseconsensus exists and the "76 means by which it is constructed. Further, researchers must

assume a participative role in "reorienting"organizational

awareness: interpretive research is "not neutral"--itinfluences "the direction and character ofindividual and organization t

Page 17

formation" and thereby holds an ethical responsibilityto "open---:- up this formation by exposing the conditions of closure"

and provide "the means far :responsible choice."77

N VII NN The critical-evaluative dimension ;dosing in the assertion of

neutrality by organizational culture researchers is the basis for the critical approach in interpretive organizational litera-

ture. Putnam described the goal of critical researchas emancipatory: by exposing the "pseudo-consensus" among organize-

: tional rembers en subjective meanings for organizational realities

and the rational inconsistencies of deep structures of organize- tional life,, alternatives are developed tt may change the status quo.78 Deetz and Karsten charged critical researchers with

three tasks in the goal to effect social reconstruction: under-

standing, critique, and education.79 Understanding is a descriptive task similar to the activity of naturalistic research.

Critique evaluates the nature of consensual meanings and inter-

subjective realities for ideological distortion. And education

deiPelops a communicative competency engendering "free andunres- trained" decision- making and self-realization through participation 80 in organizational life.

Critical inquiry seeks to effect social change; revealing social distortions and ideological domination makes possible 8l greater individual autonomy and responsibility. What is signi ficant is the notion of the individual's capability to effect

change. The functionalist paradigm restricts the possibility for change by locating the determining forces for action outside

19 :

.1 Page 18

of the individual; naturalistic researchers maintainthe inter-

creative dynamics of communicative,organizational, and cultural

processes such that change and variabilityare essential charac-

teristics. Discrepancies, distortions, andartificialities evident in organizational life "donot necessarily call for

pejorative assessment, butfor understanding. "82 However, under

the critical evaluative approach,understanding includes not only descripticin but also ti analysis. Rather than holdingintersubjec- tive data neutral, theprocesses of organization, communication,

and culture are subjectto valuative assessment. Rationality

within this approach isbased on awareness ofalternatives and -informed choice. Rather than the practicalsyllogism, the

rhetorical syllogism may berecognized as the logical formof cultural sense-making inorganizations. Tompkins and Cheney

argued that the "genesis ofalternatives" may bemore significant than the actual choice;83 the capability of theindividual-

to effect change is enhancedby expansion of the set ofalter-

natives available. Such expansion resultsfrom awareness of the

rational or coercive premisesunderlying the dialecticarguments 84 between the-individual and thecollectivity. Deetz-ind-Kersten suggested that it is the "purposiveirrationality" of such 85 arguments that critical researchersshould reveal; Weick

suggested a similar researchcommitment when he includedthe 86 investigation of "bounded rationality"on his research agenda. To summarize, the functionalistposition ascertains an adaptional function for communicationin organizations in that communication adapts subjectiveprocesses to objective structures. The interpretive paradigm assumds-thefunction of communication in

20 . ..1001a4"-4"

Page 19

organizations is one of constantadjustment to an intersubjec-

tive social reality in flux. But the critical school maintains

that adjustment must be made throughawareness and generation of alternatives; otherwise, individualautonomy and responsibility

are sacrificed to the domination and control oforganizational ideology.

In a critical-evaluative approach,organizational culture

comes under scrutiny as a source of organizationalideology. The concept is not neutral butmust be understood in terms of

social power and historicallyembedded forms of domination.

Conceptualization of culture within thecritical approach may be clarified by considering thetreatment of enculturation.

Elsea.;analyzed enculturation fAbma functionalist perspective;

his review documents a variety ofways in which the individual

is taught or forced to adapt toexisting organization,' structures 87 (roles, rules, hierarchies, etc.). From a naturalistic

perspective, Pacanovsky and O'Donnell-Trujilloidentified organizational enculturation as performanclffor new members regarding

the acquisition of both role-relatedknowledge and table skills

as well as a general appreciation of the "subtletiesof organi- 88 zational ctlture." In a critical-evaluative approach,encul-

turation processes would be subject toanalysis of the argumen-

Ntive premises whereby the individualis being redefined as an orOslizational member. This approach emphasizes the dialectical

tensio arising from inherent contradictions bet4eenthe

individual nd the organization. Tompkins and Cheney addressed enculturation c cerns in their discussion of enthymemetic value

premises, suggestinthat identification of the individualwith Page 20

the organization anticipatesovert enculturation efforts. Self- identificativa with organizationalvalue premises places internal

constraints on choice-making and theimplications are potentially

"dnagerous." Critical inquiry is ethically bound,not just to

describe, but to reveal whereorganizations "restrict the flow

of communication that reflectivelyexamines the nature and aims

of the individual-organizational relationship"and to foster an awareness of the possibilities of freer dialogue. . . .N89

There is little organizational-communicationresearch

professing to apply a critical-evaluativeapproach to the concept

of culture. However, existing studies dealingwith cultural

constructs in a criticalmanner may be reviewed. One such study is Philipsen's analysis ofculture-in-action in Teamsterville.90 Philipsen posited cultureas the "taken-for-granted" under-

standings which delimit appropriateresponses (performances)

to situational events. Such understandingsare based on values

informing the consensual realityof what "being a man" is.

Philipsen identified three situationalexigencies and the type

of performance culturally approvedfor each. By analyzing instances of violations, he identified thosevalises upon which "maleness" is understood in Teamsterville. Philipsen's study tom'cater bow analysis of "deep structures" of valuesand consensual belief can point out constraintson individual development imposed by organizational culture.

Cheney examined organizgtionalidentities under the critical assumption that "persuasion isinherent in the process of 91 organizing." Using Kenneth Burke's notion ofidentification, he described the process of self-persuasionby which the 22 Page 21

individual assumes organizational values and identitiesas his own.

The organization initiates the process but the. individualcompletes

it. Cheney analyzed strategies used by corporations to induceself-

identification as presented in corporate houseorgans. His

critique noted the valuative arguments used, butmore importantly,

pointed out the false premises used to persuade: large corporations can "portray their priorities not as the products of real choices 92 but as the way things are and the way individualswant them to be. Neglecting or denying the manipulation of organizational

identities is dangezoue;according to Cheney, the individual

sacrifices his autonomy unknowingly when the blendingof

individual and organizational values and goals happenson the basis of false arguments.

Similarly, an individual sacrifices hissense of personal responsibility when he succumbsto the persuasion of corporate

arguments without critical assessment. Putnam addressed

Pacanowsky's suspicion about the moral bankruptcy ofthe organi- 93 zing process in an examination of paradoxicalmessages. While not conducted as a critical inquiry (the analysis stressed role

relationships, communication channels, and product-outcome management goals characteristic of functionalist action theory

approaches), Putnam's work suggestsan area of organizational

communication significant to the critical analysisof cultural processes. Paradoxes, she claimed, deny participation in the

argumentative process of culture-in-the-making because bynature 9 they "divest the situation of choice. By assuming talk as the

enactment of organizational culture, paradoxes might be viewedas

valuative dilemnas expressed as rational binds. Determining the

7,77, 23 r4;'11F, Page 22

basis for such binds might beone way of analyzing the moral

decay of organizingprocesses. Beyond analysis, beets and Kersten

implied that critical inquiryserves as catalyst to organizational

change; contradictions representonly the possibility for change

unless critical discourse withinthe organization turns "the

force of contradiction into positiveorganizational development.

One of the most intriguingsuggestions for critical inquiry

into organizational culture is thatof unobtrusive control.

Putnam described the notionas ideological domination through

entrenched rationalities which reflectfalse consensus and ignore individual choice and the "spirit ofthe organization."96

Tompkins and Cheney identifiedunobtrusive control as enthymemetic

in that self-identification withorganizational values biases the employee's choice of alternatives indecision-making processes.9T A study using the notion ofunobtrusive control to examine

organizational culture might analysethe inherent premises in

organizational performances of passion.98 Descriptions of passion episodes (stories, repartee, etc.)might entail both the recog-

nition and the implications oftheir generating forces; how does the social reality of organizationalculture constrain or enhance the individual's performance? Why is the individual actor using this type of performance to makesense of organizational routines?

A critique of the deep structureunderlying the foregroundpc...- formance might yield symbolic referentsto the major premises inducing actor performance. Finally, evaluation of underlying premises might suggest cultural scripts (rationalities,ideo_axes ) constraining the actor's reconciliation ofself- and organizational I

Page 23

identities. The resulting tension betweensurface performance

and deep structure couldprompt performances of passionas

'unconscious defenses of selfor induce performances of passion

as displays of acquiesence. Encouraging awareness of the cultural premises underlyingsuch performances might change

acquiesence to informedunderstanding and unconscious defense

to performances of passion thatreflect rather than masjicultural realities.

VIII

The initial rationalefor focusing on the organizational

culture metaphor was to providea dynamic and self-monitoring

look at current directions inorganisational communication

theory/research. The following observationsare made with that purpose in mind.

1) As a metaphor, organisationalculture appears to have heuristic potential, both forsynthesizing diverse research/theory approaches and generatingnew insights.

2) researcher/theorists shouldmaintain a self-consciousness a out their own orientations andassumptions. While organize- t onal culture metaphor hasnot been developed untilrecently, there is soms evidence that coherencebetween studies vill be lost unless assumptive basesare made clear. For example,

Pacanovsky and O'Donnell-Trujillorailed against studies treating elements of culture as objectivestructural components rather 99 than as processes. While Bormann's treatmentof culture as diamatic fantasies andsagas maintains the notion ofprocess,100 Bentz suggested that Bormann'sis a macroscopic view whereas

25 Page 24

Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo'sis a microscopic 'elev.101

There is need, then, to keep inmind both how and where culture is being studied.

3) There is also a need to maintainawareness of what

building blocks are beingused in theory construction. When Putnam and Cheney argued thatproblems inherent in traditional

treatments of climate as a communicationconstruct could be resolved by "recasting" itas the interpretive concept of 102 organizational culture, they'failed to indicate whetherclimate

as a concept or a constructwas being recast; as a concept,some explanation for conceptualhomology should have been provided.103

If the recasting was donefrom climate as a construct toculture as a concept, then levels of theoryconstruction were being loft. confounded. Finally, to recast the constructof climate as the metaphor of organizational culturewould require significant a justification to demonstrate thatclimate has the same potential

to "yield a richer sense of the relationshipbetween communication and organizations" -that Pacanowskyand 10'Dondell-Trujillo,attr* buted to culture.105

In contrast, Poole and McPheemade clear the theoretical

bases for subjective, objective, andintersubjective formulations

of the climate construct andsuggested that, climatecan be recast on an intersubjective level intermediatebetween subjective and 106 objective levels of analysis. Their recasting resolves the

contradictions and ambiguities betweentraditional individual/ organizational, subjective/objectivelevels; it is a compositional

approach specifying "relations amongforms of one construct

represented at different levels ofanalysis."107

26 II NI 1 P.:11. Page 25

4) There is opportunity to enrich organisational communication

theory/research through incorporation of communicationthories and techniques developed in other areas of the field. Rhetorical

,theory and ,research is w particularly richsource of concepts 108 and approaches. Among those studies employing rhetoiical notions are the application of key terr. from Kenneth Burke's theory 109 to organizistibns-by Tompkins, et al.; Cheney's.Burkeian analysis of 110 organisational identification; the argument by Tompkins and

.Cheney that covert controlover the individual is afforded by

, 4enihymemetic logic in organizationil rhetoric;111and Bormann's , -4 112 . fantasy theme analysis techniques. Further rhetorical develop- \

sent might proceed using Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's notionof

off' epilleict!./c0;rhetoricas,manifei in cultural performances;43 Bart and Birk's concept` of rhetorical sehsitiNatyas an evaluative r basis for analyzing organizational interactions;114examination

tf organizational ideologies as lefinted by Brown115or McGee116 - / ...... : . either in contrast to .or in support.ofthi critical school.'s , , , .

notion of coercive domination by socio-political.ideologies; . . , and identification and criticism of genres.of organizational rhetoric.

The multiple research directionsnov admitted as fruitful'. for organizational communication inquiry evidencean environment

Of heightened enthusiasm and innovation inthe field. The development of the organisational culture metaphor, for example, has sponsored new approaches, heuristic argument, andan expansion of focus in organisational communication scholarship. Such

27 ;,.au: v r orr y.

Page 26

efforts manifest the response to Putnam'andCheney's challenge and demonstrate that new "pluralism" is tndeed fostering revitalization of traditionalareas and encouraging "vigorous" pursuit of new ones.UT

"" " II Page 27

Endnotes

1 Linds L. Putnam and George Cheney, "ACritical Review of Research Traditions in OrganizationalCommunication," Annual Convention of the InternationalCommunication Association, Dallas, May 1983; to be published inCommunication in Transition, ed. M. Mender (New York: Praeger Press,-in press),p. 25. 2 See Fredric M. Jablin, "Past,Present, and Future Research Priorities in Organizational Communication,"Annual Convention of the Speech Communication Association,Minneapolis, Nov. 1978 (revised 1979); W. Charles Redding, "Organizational Communication Theory and Ideology: An Overview," in CommunicationYearbook 3, ed. Dan Nimmo (New Brunswick, NewJersey: International Communication Association, 1979), pp. 309-341;Michael N. Pacanowsky and Nick O'Donnell-Trujillo, "Communicationand Organizational Cultures," EfasternJornalofS.eeciamunicatista, 46 (1982),115-130; and Kirlr.ifeick,"Orgaiiss-tionalCommiicunation: Toward a Research Agenda," in Communicationand Organizations: An Interpretive Approach, ed. Linda L. Putnam and MichaelE. Pacanowsky (Beverly Rills: Sage Publications, 1983),pp. 13-30. 3Putnam and Cheney, p. 11.

4MichaelB. Pacanowsky and lick O'Donnell-Trujillo, "Organizational Communicationas Cultural Performance," Communication Monographs, 5.9 (1983),pp. 126..128. 5 ,T Pacanovsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo, "CulturalPerformance,7 p. 127. 6 Critiques admonishing organizationalcommunication scholars for haphazard theory/researchdevelopment include Gary M. Richetto, "Organizational Communication Theoryand Research: An Overview," in Communication Yearbook I, ed.Brent D. R.:ben (New Brunswick, New Jersey: International.Communication Association, 1978),pp. 243-269; Fredric M. Jablin,"Organizational CommunicationTheory and Research: An Overview of CommunicationClimate and Network Research," in CommunicationYearbook 4 (New Brunswick, NewJersey: Transaction Books, 1980),pp. 327-347; and Louis P. Cusella, "Conceptual Issue. inOrganizational Communication Research: Zlements of Model of Conceptual Authenticity,"Academy of Management Convention, New York,August 1982. Self-monitoring mar be helpful in maintaining_the diwalpline_Cusella-claimedhas- boon frequently neglected in thepast. The "borrowing" of concepts developed by other disciplines withoutregard for attendant theoretical and methodological implications,he admonished, "tends to undermine the assertion thatorganizational communication represents a unified cluster ofconcepts, a field, distinctas a study of organizations. . . .," p. 11.

7Seralcould find no "widely agreed-upondefinitions" in his review. See Tulsi B. Ssral, "InterculturalCommunication Theory and Research: An Overview," in CommunicationYearbook I, ed. Brent D. Ruben (Nev Brunswick, NewJersey: iransactionBooks, 1977), p. 389.

29 -2;tarA,11,- Lc. Page 28 8 Michael Prosser, "InterculturalCommunication Theory and Research: An Overview of Major Constructs,"in ConmunieWen Yearbook 2, ed. Brent D. Ruben (WowBrunswick, New Jersey: Transact on Books, 1978),pp. 340-341. 9Prosser,p. 341. 10 Sandra Salmans, "New Vogue: Company Culture," New York Times, Jan. 7, 1983, "Business Day"Section, p. 1. 11 Salmans, p. 1. 12 George David Smith and' Laurence E.Steadman, "The Present Value of Corporate History,"Harvard Business Review (1981); reprinted as "The Value of CorporateHistory, Best ,r Business, 1 (1982),p. 70. 13 Leonard C. Haves, "On CharacterizingOrganizations' Cultures," Purdue Lecture Serieson Interpretive Perspectives of Organizational Communication: Precis of Lecture Presentations,Linda L. Putnam, organizer, Fall 1979,p. 1. 14 Note should be made of Tompkins'objection to the meteorological metaphor cf climate; Putnam and Cheneynoted Tompkins' argument that the metaphor misdirects researcherattention "outside the individual" and thus contributes to confusions inoperationalising and concep- tualising the term as a communicationelement. Its use in this paper does not apply the analogy to the 'Organizationaltarget; is offered here as an analogy forthe activity of theoryconcep- tualization by the researcher. See Phillip K. Tompkins, "Functions of Communication in Organisations,"in Handbook of Rhetorical and and Communication Theory, ed. C. Arnoldand 4. W. Bowers (New YorK: Allyn & Bacon, in press); cited inPutnam and Cheney, pp. 16.17. 15 G reth Morgan, "Paradigms, Metaphors,and Puzzle Solving in Organization Theory," Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 30 (1980) p. 616. 16 Hrnest G. Bormsnn, "Symbolic Convergence: Organizational Communication and Culture," in Communicationand Organizations: AnInterpretive Approach, ed. Linda L. Putnamand Michael E. Pacanovsky (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1983),p. 100. 17 Cusella, p. 3. 18 LindaL. Putnam, "Paradigms forOrganisational Communication Research: An Overview and Synthesis," WesternJournal of.Epeech_ Communication, 46 0.9821; p;-192. 19 Redding, p. 324. Page 29

20 The distinction between researcher and targetand the inter-relationship between the two is illustrated bythe "rational" inquiry into organizational irrationality; forsynopses of "bounded rationality" and "purposeful irrationality"see Stanley A. Deetz, "Critical Interpretive Research inOrganizational Communication," Western Journal of ftopez4 Commalcation, 46 (1982),p. 141; Weick, "Research Agenda," pp. 26-27; and StanleyA. Deets and Astrid Kersten, "Critical Models of Interpretive Research,"in Communication and Organizations: An Interpretive Approach, ed. Linda L. Putnam and Michael E. Pacanovaky (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1983), esp. p. 155: 21 Herbert W. Simons, "In Praise of Muddleheaded Anecdotalism," Western Journal of Speech Communication, 42 (1978), 21-28. 22 Anthony Wilden, "Analog and Digital Communication: On the Relationship Between Negation, Signification,and the Emergence of the Discrete Element," American AnthropologicalAssociation Meeting, San Diego, Nov. 1970. 23 Leonard,C. Haves, Pra matics of Analo uin : Theor and Model Construction in Commun caton ea ng, ass.: ddison- Wesley Publishing Co., 1975),pp. 8-14. 24 Simons, p. 24. 25 Redding's pulse-taking essay on organizationalcommunication theory proclaimed, ". . . there is unquestionably a 'negative'consensus reflected in an overwhelming rejection of the traditional

logical postivist (logical empiricist) approach. . . ." (Redding, p.314. Ve discussions by Weick on environmentaloverdeterminism and Putnam on linear and nonlinear models of causalityreflect anecdotalist precepts. See Weick, "Research Agenda," pp. 17-19 and Linda L. Putnam, "The Interpretive Perspective: An Alternative to Functionalism," in Communication and Organizations: An Interpretive Approach, ed. Linda L. Putnam and Michael E.Pacanovsky (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1983), pp. 41-42. 26 Paradigms are "core assumptions" about thenature of man, the structure of reality, belief and knowledgeclaims, and methodologies. For further description, see Morgan,pp. 606-609 and Putnam, "Paradigms: An Overview," pp. 192-193. 27 Putnam, "Paradigms: An Overview," pp. 193-194. Putnam drew these dichotomies from Gibson Burrell and GarethMorgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis (London: Heinemann Press, 1970; they are also presented inMorgan, pp. 607-609. 28 Putnam, "The Interpretive Perspective,"pp. 31-54. 29 This framework is loosely basedon Morgan's diagram of organizational theory paradigms. See "Figure 1. Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving: three concepts forrUnderstanding the nature and organization of social science," In Morgan, p. 606.

1#1,6,1",Y:',.. karA17=1:77.",- q!'" ,Lertt _tt

Page 30 4

30 Larry D. Browning, "A Grounded OrganisationalCommunication Theory Derived from Qualitative. Data," Communication 45 (1978), 93-109: 31 David H. Smith, "The Master Symbolas Key to Understanding Organization Communication," Annual Meeting ofthe Speech Communication Association, New York City, Nov.1973. 32 Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo, "OrganizationalCultures," (1982).

33PhillipK. Tompkins and George Cheney, "The Uses ofAccount Analysis: A Study of Organisational Decision Makingand Identification," Annual Conferenceof the International Communication Association, Boston, May 1982; also, PhillipK. Tompkins and George Cheney, "Account Analysis of Organisations: Decision Making and Identification," in Communication andOrganisations: An Interpretive Approach, ed. Linda L. Putnam and Michael E. Pacanowsky (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1983), pp. 123 -146. 34 Marshall Scott Poole and Robert D. McPhee, "AStructurational Analysis of Organizational Climate," in Communicationand Organizations: An Interpretive Approach, ed. Linda L. Putnam and Michael E. Pacanowtky (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1983), pp. 195.220. 35 Phillip K. Tompkins and George Cheney, "UnobtrusiveControl, Decision Making, and Communication in ContemporaryOrganizations," Speech Communication Association Annual Meeting,Louisville, Nov. 1982. 36 Charles Conrad, "Organizational Power: Faces and Symbolic Forms," in Communication and Organizations: An Interpretive Approach, ed. Linda L. Putnam end Michael E. Pacanovsky (BeverlyHills: Sage Publications, 1983), pp. 173-194. 37Putnam and Cheney, p. 4.

38Morgan, p. 616. 39 Richard V. Farace, James A. Taylor, and John P.Stewart, "Review and Synthesis: Criteria for the Evaluation of Organizational Communication Effectiveness," International CommunicationAssociation, Chicago, April 1978, p. 2. 40 Redding observed, "The conceptualizationof organizations as systems (usually 'open systems'), whose componentsare role-based behaviors and relationships, is regarded bymany contemporary organization theorists as axiomatic. . . ." However, Redding noted that most reseacher/theoristspay lip service to the model but employ a more strictly positivist causality in theirresearch. See Redding, p. 316. p Page 31

41 Peter R. Monge, "The Systems Perspectiveas a Theoretical Basis for the Study of Human Communication,"Communication quarterly, 25 (1977), p. 28. 42 Virginia McDermott, "Book Review Essay: The Literature on Classical Theory Construction," HumanCommunication Research, 2 (1975), P. 90. 43 Redding pointed out that organizationalcommunication research/theory strives to "implypositivistic, law-like, nomic- necessity orientations." See Redding, p. 317. 44 Parsee, et al., pp. 1-2. 45 Parsee,et al., pp. 1-2. 46 Putnam,"Paradigms: An Overview," p. 199. 47 Putnam,"Paradigms: An Overview," p. 199. 48 Phillip K.' Tompkins, "Management QuaCommunication in Rocket Research and Development," CommunicationMonographs, 44 (1977), 1-26; see also, Phillip K.Tompkins, "Organizational Metamorphosis in Space Research and Development,"Communication Monographs, 45 (1978), 110-118. 49 It should be noted that Putnam and Cheneyidentified Tompkins' analysis as an example ofthe "historical-hermeneutic" perspective based on its use of empirically "soft"data (interviews and researcher observation) and its displayof the "practical" ,interest of inquiry (Tompkins servedas a consultant to the MSPC management). However, Tompkins effort was notinterpretive; rather his focus was on communicating/organizingas "adaptive" activities in that subjective understanding oforganizational culture is a reciprocation to the objective context of organizationalreality. Tompkins' report recommends vays to improvemessage transmission between subsystems and formal structurallevels reflecting the functionalist focus on "directionality ofmessage flow, message barriers and breakdowns, distortion,information processing, networks, and frequency of communication. ." (Putnam, "The' Interpretive Perspective,",Y. 39). Reification of communicative processes is implied in Tompkins'' approval of the "Monday Notes" and the ralmost iron-like discipline of communication"they effected (Tompkins, "Management Qua; Communication," 11977),p. 10). The notion of channel transmission is'evidentin Tompkins''rec- 'mendation to "funiAl" upward communicationthrough an intermediary office in order to enhance "'iteration'" ofmessages between hiearchical levels. (see the retrospectivesummary of his second consulting assignment at MFSC in Phillip K. Tompkis, "On Upward Communication," Purdue LectureSeries on Interpret ve Perspectives of Organizational Communication: Precis of Lectur Presentations, Linda L. Putnam, organizer, Fall1979, p. 3). The MSFC studies. subscribe to the functionalist view ofcommunicati n that Putnam and Cheney characterized as "focusedprimarily on ?discovering relationships among objectively defined variables'rather than on intersubjective meanings (Putnam and Cheney, p0. 5-6).

33 Page 32

50 Morgan, p. 617.

iMorgan,p. 616. 52 Putnam, "The Interpretive Perspective,"p. 53. 53 Pacanowsky and' O'Donnell-Trujillo, "CulturalPerformance," p. 146. 54 For elaboration of thisrelationship, see Putnam, "Paradigms: An Overview," p. 205; also Putnam,"The Interpretive Perspective," P. 53. 55- Haves described organizingas a "gloss" for production and interpretive activities creatingsocial reality. See Haves, "Characterizing Cultures," (1979),p. 1. 56 Michael E. Pacanowsky, "OrganizationalIdentities as Orcitnization Products: Prdser.tatiol of Self Among Valley View Police," The Communicator,12 (1982), p. 20. 57 Putnam made a similar distinctionon the organizational level between unitary and pluralisticviews of organizations; the ,former characterizes functjonalistresearch while the latter is characteristic of interpretive work. See Putnam, "The Interpretive Terspective," (1983),pp. 36-37. 58 For a fuller description ofnaturalistic research, see Charles R. Bentz, "NaturalisticResearch Traditions," in C mmunication and Organizations: An Interpretive Approach, ed. L nda L. Putnam and Michael E.Pacanowsky (Beverly Hills: Sage POlications, 1983), particularlythe summary on pp. 55-56. 59 See Bantz on participant observation,pp. 64-66L0 60Leonard C. Haves, "How Writing IsUsed inTalk: A Studyof Co $municative Logic-In-Use," QuarterlyJournal of Speech, 62 (1976), P.351. 61 Raves, "Logic -In -Use," (1976),P. 352. 62 Raves, "Logic-In-Use," (1976),p. 355.

"Pacanowskyand O'Donnell-Trujillo, "OrganizationalCultures," (1982),p. 123.

"Pacanovskyand O'Donnell-Trujillo, "OrganizationalC%ltures," (1982), p. 123. 65 Pacanovskyand O'Donnell-Trujillo, "OrganizationalCultures," (1982), p. 128. 66 Pacanovsky,p. 31. 67 Pscanovsky, p. 32.

34 or ,44-424"- .; _ Page 33

68 Andrev M. Pettigrew, "OnStudying Organizational Cultures," Administrative Science quarterly, 24(1979)-, 570-581. 69 Pettigrew, p. 570. 70 Pettigrew, p. 572. 7 1Pacanovskyand O'Donnell-Trujillo,"Cultural Performance," (1983), pp. 96-97.

'2Bormann,"Symbolic Convergence,"(1983),esp. pp. 115-119. 73 Pacanovsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo,"Cultural Performance," (1983), pp. 132-134. 74 Weick went one stepfurther when he suggestedthat the "ignored remainder' in backdropcommon-sense may become foreground drama under scrutiny: "If people repeatedlyare reminded that what they ignore is important . . . then their oldcommon sense will be what they now ignorerand we will cycle backthrough the exercise again." (Weick, "Research Agenda,"pp. 23-24). 75 Pacanowsky and O'Donnell.- Trujillo, "Cultural Performance," (1983), p. 130.

76Deets, p. 133.

77Deetz, p. 148. 78 Putnam, "The InterpretivePerspective," (1983),p. 53. 79 Deets and Kersten,p. 148. 80 Deetz and Kersten,p. 148. 81 Putnam and Cheney,p. 8. 82Pacanovsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo, "CulturalPerformance," (1983),P. 130. 83 Tompkins and Cheney, "UnobtrusiveControl," (1982),P. 2. 84 Deets and Kersten narkedthe academic researcher's "distantiation"as.. necessary in facilitating suchawareness due to the nature of freedom and choicemaking:

Research is importantto human choice making. We propose twotypes of freedom and choice making--the choice withincontexts and the choice of contexts.--TEIWrstandingthe sur- face structure enhanceschoices within contexts. . . . Understanding the deep structure makes possiblethe choice of context. Only this latterunderstanding can . free people from unnecessary constraints. . . . (Deetz and Kersten,p. 171, footnote 1).

7..rm _64- 35 -.4 -Lae-A ; .r7r.`.'" , . Nip

, 1 Page 34

85Deets and Kersten, p. 155. 86 Weiek, "Research Agenda," p. 26. 87 Kenneth J. Elsea, "The Role of Communication in 'Organizational Socialization: A Selective Review of Relevant Literature," Annual Convention of the InternationalCommunication Association, Philadelphia, May 1979. 88 Pacianovsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo, "Cultural Performance," (1983), p*. 143-145. 89 Tompkins and Cheney, "Unobtrusive Control," (1982),pp. 28-29. 90 Gerry Philipsen, "Speaking 'Like a Man' in Teamsterville: Culture Patterns of Role Enactment inan Urban Neighborhood," quarterly Journal of Suesi, 61 (1975), 13-22. 91 George Cheney, "The Rhetoric of Identification and the Study of Organizational Communication," Annual Meetingof the Speech Communication Association, Louisville, Nov. 1982,p. 2. Subsequent* publishedas "The Rhetoric of, Identification and the Study oOrganizational Communication," 9uarterly Journal of Speech, 69 1983), 143-158. References in this paper will be made to the `unpublished. manuscript. 92 Cheney, p. 22. 93 Linda\L. Putnam, "Paradoxical Message Patternsas Indices of Systemic and Interpersonal Socialization in Organizations," International Communication Association Convention,Philadelphia, May 1979. 94 Putnam, "Paradoxes," (1979),P. 5. 95Deetz and Kersten, p. 167. 96 Putnam,\TheInterpretive Perspective," (1983), pp. 48-49. 97 Tompkins and. Cheney, "Unobtrusive Control," (1982),p. 15. 98 Pacanovsky and.O'Donnell-Trujillo identified passionas a type of cultural performance; see "Cultural Performance," (1983), pp. 137-138.

99Pacanovskyand O'Donnell-Trujillo, "Cultural Performance," (1983), pp. 126-147. 10 °Borman°, "SymbolicConvergence," (1983), pp. 99-122. 101 Bantz, p. 60. 102 Putnam and Cheney, p. 17. Page 35 C

103 Roberts warned that organizational communicationscholars might be building a theoretical "Tower of Babel"unless issues such as conceptual homology and compositionalcorrespondence are addressed. See Karlene H. Roberts, "Boise ConceptualIssues About Organizational Communication Research," PurdueLecture Series on Interpretive Perspe5tives of Organizational Communication: Precis of Lecture Presentations, Linda L. Putnam,organizer, Fall 1979, pp. 2-4. 104 Cusella distinguished between the theory-buildingelements of ideas, concepts, and constructs:

. . . concepts are the precursors of constructs. Constructs enter into theoretical schemes, are related in various ways to other constructs, and are defined and specified in such a way that they can be observed and measured. Scientists enact constructs through the caseation /discovery ofconcepts. Concepts spring from ideas. Ideas are the central core of theory development. (Cusella, p.3). 105Pacanovsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo, "Cultural Performance," (1983), p. 146. 106 Poole and McPhee, p. 202. 107 Roberts, p. 3. 108 Putnam described as a divident "the capabilityof applying well-established rhetorical theoriesto interpretive research" (Putnam, "Paradigms: Ar Overview," (1982), p. 205); Weick endorsed rhetorical analysis anddebate techniques as "ideal" for interpretive investigation (Weick,"Research Agenda," p. 22). 109 Phillip K. Tompkins, Jeanne Y. Fisher,Dominic A. Infante, and Elaine L. Tompkins, "Kenneth Burkeand the Inherent Character- istics of Formal Organizations: A Field Study," Speech Monographs, 42 (1975), 135-142. 110 George Cheney, "A Field Study of Organizational Identification," Annual Conference o? theInternational Communication Association, Dallas, May 1983. 111 Tompkins and Cheney, "Unobtrusive Control," (1982). 112 For a review of the applications of thefantasy theme techniques to organizational communication,see Timothy F. Grainey, Michael W. Cuffe, and Dennis R. Pollack,"Rhetorical Vision Theory: A Critique of the First Ten Years of Research,"unpublished ms., n.d., University of Minnesota. Page 36

113 Ch. Pe:41mm and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Arumentation, trans. John Wilkinsonand Purcell Weaver (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969). 11 4RoderickP. Hart and Don M. Burks, "Rhetorical Sensitivity and Social Interaction," Speech Monographs39 (1972), 75-91. 115 William R. Brown, "Ideology as Communication Process," iultItraJoanmloilEelta, 64 (1978), 123-140. 116 Michael Calvin McGee, "The 'Ideograph': A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology," Quarterly Journalof Speech, 66 (1980), 1-16. 117 Putnam and Cheney,P. 25.