Organizational Discourse, Article Review Example

Question:  Fairhurst and Putnam (2004) characterize organizational discourse research as conforming to one of three perspectives (i.e., object, becoming, or grounded-in-action). Identify and defend how they would characterize Boden (1994) and Watson’s (1995) approach to organizational discourse.

Fairhurst & Putnam (2004) argue that researchers hold implicit assumptions about the relationship between the organizations and the conversations within that organization.  They .present three organizational discourse perspectives, as an already formed object, as in a perpetual state of becoming, or as grounded in action.  These authors would characterize Boden as being an approach grounded in action and Watson’s approach to as one of becoming.

The perspective of being an already formed object considers an organization as a stable entity that exists both before and after the discourse takes place.  The characteristics and patterns of the organization shape the patterns of the discourse too.  In a sense, the organization is considered as a fixed-size and fixed-shape object that contains the discourse.  Another way of viewing this is that the organization is independent of the humans in the organization; it has an independent existence.  The organization as a fully formed object also correlates to a realistic perspective. Often these perspectives focus on a fixed language orientation—a slang or argot that provides the specific mode of communication within the organization.  This is common, for example, in computer technology companies which personify the computer and have specific insider slang. (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004).

In contrast, the becoming perspective is one that focuses on the dynamics of the organizational discourse.  In essence, the dialogues create the organization every day; it does not exist until created by the discourse.  These organizations evolve and language is treated as a process.  Researchers who focus on storytelling, rhetoric, literary perspectives (among others), typify this approach.  Watson (1995), for example, presents discourse as an exercise in rhetoric and uses the specifics of literary tropes (metaphor, metonymy, simile, irony, etc.) to explain how such dialogue evolves the organization on a near-continuous basis.

The third perspective Fairhurst & Putnam (2004) identify is one of being grounded in action.  In this perspective action and structure work in mutual constituency to build the organization.  Thus, in this view, language in action is privileged over more static functions such as power or knowledge.  The structure of the organization unfolds  and  is influenced by the ongoing experience and discourse that happens continuously.  Boden (1994) reflects this perspective because she also considers the ongoing stream of dialogue and  continuing interactions  as the orientation of the discourse analysis. Because her focus is on the temporal details of the discourse and the corresponding organizational structure, she demonstrates structure in action (as opposed, for example, to structure as becoming).

Boden (1994) argued that organizations act via (meeting) talk. What does she really mean? Do you agree or disagree, why?

Boden (1994) contended that organizations are constructed through the way that people describe and relate the actions they take—which is the typical discourse of meetings.  In other words, actors within organizations construct their world by objectifying the events they have participated in or experienced and thus organize their internal world through those details.  Thus, as Fairhurst & Putnam (2004) point out, the internal world that unfolds in the meeting discourse literally creates a new experience of the organization within the space of the meeting.

Boden (1994) notes that meetings have a specific set of rituals that correlate to the actions within the meeting. These include such conventions as taking turns at speaking, categorizing membership within the organizational structure, and  noting the adjacency pairs of the discourse.  She focuses on the ongoing temporal stream of the discourse which foregrounds how past actions appear in the present status, how global activities correlate to local ones, and how organizational structure shows up in the actions of the members as revealed again by the discourse.

In considering the validity of Boden’s perspective it is important to note how individuals respond within the meeting environment. Within a meeting, past events (such as minutes of previous meetings) are presented and incorporated into the discourse about present and future events.  This is similar to a laminar process in which past, present, and future are all laminated into a single structural whole.

Meetings also are studies in social structures and commonly reflect the social organization  within the business entity.  Whether in the macro or the micro level, the social realities of the organization self-organize within a meeting to make the social structure and the organizational structure self-reflexive models.

Boden emphasizes the social structure of organizations, rather than other organizational aspects.  The discourse of the meetings literally reconstitutes the organization on an ongoing, continual basis.  Meetings really do have the ability to restructure the organization either at the local or individual project level, or at the level of global corporation.  The discourse reflects (and self-reflects) the organizational structure to a strong degree that creates an ever-changing and ever-adapting coherency with the overall organization.

Organizations of all types are essentially social entities.  The structure of each one is determined by the social interactions—the discourse—that occurs between and among the members of the organization.  Thus, an approach to organizational structure that emphasizes the organizational discourse is going to reflect the actions of the organization as a whole.  Boden’s perspective on how organizations act and react through their discourse events (i.e., meetings) thus accurately reflects the operation of organizaitons.

References

Boden, D. (1994). The Business of Talk. New York, NY: Polity. 1994.

Fairhurst, G. & Putnam, L.  (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14 (1), 5-26.  DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00301.x

Watson, T. J. (1995). Rhetoric, discourse and argument in organizational sense making: A reflexive tale. Organizational Studies 16 (5), 805-821. DOI: 10.1177/017084069501600503