A Communicative Ontology of Organization? A Description, History, and Critique of CCO Theories for Organization Science

Abstract

Writing as an organizational communication scholar, I provide a brief description and history of theories encapsulated by the phrase communication is constitutive of organizing (CCO). Then, I explain that CCO theory would benefit from an explicit differentiation between which conditions are prerequisite to and which conditions ensure the constitution of organization. Specifically, I argue that communication may be better thought of as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for organizing. CCO TheoryCCO theories articulate a communicative ontology of organization. Although the specific mechanisms and processes by which communication is associated with organization are debated hotly among theorists, one premise remains constant across the tradition: Communication calls organization into being. A Brief HistoryDuring the interpretive turn in the 1980s, some organizational communication scholars began to change their focus from "communicating in organizations"

Organizations as Networks of Communication Episodes: Turning the Network Perspective Inside Out

“…Although critics rightfully point out that the idea that organizations are communicatively constituted or discursively constructed is far from new (e.g., Sillince, 2010), we identify two important features that distinguish the CCO perspective from its various ancestors and siblings: First, the CCO perspective is primarily concerned with the fundamental question of the ontological status of organizations (Bisel, 2010;Putnam, Nicotera, & McPhee, 2009, p. 5;Taylor & Van Every, 2010, p. ix). Several scholars have already emphasized the importance of communication and discourse in organizational contexts (e.g., Boden, 1994;Ford, 1999;Ford & Ford, 1995;Sillince, 2007), but these scholars do not go so far as to tackle to sufficient theoretical depth the question of what an organization is.…”

NGO Organizing for Environmental Sustainability in Brazil: Meaningful Work, Commonality, and Contradiction

“…Use of interviews may have limited the conclusions we could draw from our study insofar as participants may have responded in idealistic or utopian ways to our inquiries (Alvesson, 2003). During the interviews, we were always aware of this aspect, but even so, further research could investigate the differences between what members say and what they do at the NGO MAE, particularly how members operate within, contest, and resist particular organizational discourse (Bisel, 2009).…”

Organization as Communication

“…In this paper, I have introduced Luhmann's theory of social systems (Luhmann, 1995(Luhmann, , 2000 as one explicit strain of CCO thinking. I particularly argue that Luhmann's perspective contributes to current conceptual debates on how communication constitutes organization (Bisel, 2010;Cooren & Fairhurst, 2008;McPhee & Zaug, 2008;Sillince, 2010). In response to this, the TSS highlights that organizations are fundamentally grounded in paradox, as they are built on communicative events that are contingent by nature.…”

“…The various strains of the CCO perspective address this question from different theoretical angles but all agree on the constitutive power of communication for organizations. I therefore believe that engaging in a dialogue on the minimum conditions of organizing, a question that is raised both in the CCO approach (e.g., Bisel, 2010) and the TSS (e.g., Ahrne & Brunsson, forthcoming), can pave the way for a new, processual understanding of organization.…”

“…what is it that makes communication organizational (Bisel, 2010;McPhee & Zaug, 2008) (Luhmann, 2003, p. 32) Luhmann's focus on decisions as the constitutive element of organization roots in a long-standing tradition in organization studies (e.g., March & Simon, 1958;Weber, 1958;Weick, 1979Weick, , 1995 as well as organizational communication research (e.g., Tompkins & Cheney, 1983, 1985. Within existing strains of CCO thinking, however, such focus on decisions as the key feature of organizing -in the tradition of March and Simon (1958) -is regarded as old-fashioned and too reductionist (e.g., Taylor & van Every, 2000, p. 183).…”