On the Dark Side of Strategic Communication

Dulek, Ronald E.; Campbell, Kim Sydow

doi:10.1177/2329488414560107

Cited by 42 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A decade before, Jameson (2001) wrote that managers use narrative to resolve conflicts and reduce situational and factual complexities, but that narrative can also damage trust between managers and their audiences because of the beliefs and values embedded in the discourse. More recently, Dulek and Campbell (2015) explored the "darker side" of strategic communication, where managers use deceptive and ambiguous rhetoric to (mis)represent their discourse and overcome potential disruptions. In this study, while the level of resistance seems relatively slight, it is nevertheless discernible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Talking Strategy: Does it Make Senior Managers Vulnerable?

Muir¹,

Jiao²,

Zhu³

2015

AMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizing is talking, but what we say reflects our place in an organization. Workers at the lowest level (operations) talk mainly about technical and other processes that produce products and services for clients and customers. They also spend some of their time talking to supervisors to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of those processes. In addition to the operational staff, supervisors talk to other supervisors about their technical processes as well as the policies and guidelines for those processes that were approved by senior managers. Those senior managers talk extensively with people inside and outside the organization about trends, regulations, and issues that shape the strategy and policies they create to take the firm forward. In turn, policies and strategies shape the processes used by supervisors and operational staff to make the organization successful and profitable.What senior managers say is most consequential to organizations. They have the position and power to talk loudest, and their words are heard and appraised by the widest spectrum of people inside and outside the organization. But while we tend to examine the artifacts resulting from such talk, less is known about the internal power dynamics that shape and direct their discourse. That is the essence of a study by Penny Dick (University of Sheffield) and David Collings (Dublin City University). They propose that while senior managers have the authority to create and communicate organizational strategy, it may come at a cost. Specifically, Dick and Collings contend that the act of talking about strategy invites resistance, and exposes senior managers to setbacks and perceptions of weakness. In their study, Dick and Collings sought to examine how senior managers attempt to minimize such disruptions when they talk about strategy.Indeed, Dick and Collings discuss the shift from the notion of strategy as a linear and objective organizational product to a "linguistic construction" that is contextualized within the social and historical experiences of the firm and its employees. As a consequence, strategy discourse is not what the organization "does or is," but reflects "specific categories of action and experience that act, recursively, to shape action and experience" (p. 1515). And so, terminologies that are often invoked when managers engage in strategy discourse are not fixed, but variable according the rhetorical situations that inform and constrain them (Bitzer, 1968). Those situations may be fraught with uncertainty and ambiguity, thereby allowing supervisors, operational employees, and external players to resist strategy initiatives and to challenge the arguments upon which the strategy is predicated. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODTo better understand the complex role of power among various participants to destabilize, resist, contest, and control strategy discourse inside the firm, Dick and Collings examined data using the framework of "discursive psychology," which asserts that the substance of talk among the participants is not merel...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Talking Strategy: Does it Make Senior Managers Vulnerable?

Muir¹,

Jiao²,

Zhu³

2015

AMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In der PR-Forschung wurde dieses Spannungsfeld vor allem durch das Konzept der Täuschung erfasst (Dulek & Campbell, 2015;Merten, 2010;Thummes, 2013). Demnach handelt es sich um eine Täuschung, »wenn in einer Kommunikationssituation eine unwahrhaftige Handlung auftritt, die in der Absicht getätigt wird, andere in die Irre zu führen« (Thummes, 2016, 361).…”

Section: Fehlinformationen Falschinformationen Schädigende Informatunclassified

Neue Debatte, altes Dilemma? Die Herausforderungen des Phänomens »Fake News« für die Unternehmenskommunikation

Johann¹,

Wagner²

2020

Fake News Und Desinformation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Verbreitung von Falschinformationen über die sozialen Medien und das erodierende Vertrauen in Teilen der Gesellschaft belasten nicht nur den Journalismus und die politische Kommunikation, sondern auch die strategische Kommunikation von Unternehmen. Vertrauensbedrohliche Phänomene wie »Fake News« stellen jedoch keine genuin neuen Herausforderungen für die Unternehmenskommunikation dar, sondern erfordern im Grunde eine Rückbesinnung auf klassische Bezugsgrößen der Public Relations (PR) wie Legitimation, Vertrauen und Glaubwürdigkeit. Ausgehend von einer begrifflichen und konzeptuellen Unterscheidung zwischen Fehlinformationen, Falschinformationen und schädigenden Informationen entwickelt der vorliegende Beitrag anhand von Fallbeispielen aus der Kommunikationspraxis vier Risikoszenarien, welche die Relevanz des Phänomens »Fake News« für die Unternehmenskommunikation vor allem auf der Makro-und der Mesoebene systematisch erfassen. Die Szenarien verdeutlichen, dass die Grenzziehung zwischen Wahrheit und Unwahrheit, PR-Gag und gezielter Fehlleitung schwierig sein kann und daher angesichts der aktuellen gesellschaftlichen Debatte rund um das Phänomen »Fake News« besondere Achtsamkeit seitens der Unternehmenskommunikation gefordert ist. Das Dilemma der Unternehmenskommunikation Das Phänomen »Fake News« im Sinne intentional konstruierter Falschmeldungen, die aus ökonomischen oder ideologischen Gründen erfunden werden (Arendt, Haim & Beck, 2019), bergen nicht nur für den Journalismus, sondern auch für die Unternehmenskommunikation erhebliche Risiken (Kirf, 2018). Unternehmenskommunikation wird generell verstanden als »alle gesteuerten Kommunikationsprozesse, mit denen ein Beitrag zur

show abstract

“…Strategic ambiguity is considered a “best practice” in crisis communication, because ambiguous messages allow the communicator to avoid statements that later are shown as inaccurate and refine the message as the situation unfolds and more information becomes available (Seeger, 2006). The concept has been illustrated to allow multiple perspectives and objectives to coexist in conflict discourse (Leitch & Davenport, 2007), but can also be used with the strategic intent to be deceptive (Dulek & Campbell, 2015); for example, by avoiding to disclose uncomfortable information, however, this strategy is not recommended (Seeger, 2006).…”

Section: Strategic Ambiguitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the literature, we find these two different approaches to ambiguity-that it is negative because ambiguity leads to confusion and ignorance leads to uncertainty-and that it is inevitable but can also be positive as it allows multiple interpretations. Ambiguity can also be used with strategic intent to be deceptive (Dulek & Campbell, 2015).…”

Section: Employing Strategic Ambiguity or Striving For Claritymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Simple Truth: Ambiguity Works. Discursive Strategies by Swedish Public Authorities During the 2008 Financial Crisis

Johansson

Nord

2017

International Journal of Business Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global financial crisis that broke out in 2008 affected a large number of governmental, public, and private organizations. This article explores communication of public authorities in Sweden during the crisis, and highlights their discursive strategies between 2008 and 2010, analyzing press releases. As an analytical point of departure, complexity theory is combined with theory on strategic ambiguity in order to analyze which communication strategies were employed by the authorities. Results show that the public authorities embraced complexity and ambiguity differently in their communication, and consequences of their different approaches are discussed. The study also confirms that the different roles of significant actors during a crisis influence the selection of possible message strategies.

show abstract

On the Dark Side of Strategic Communication

Cited by 42 publications

References 53 publications

Talking Strategy: Does it Make Senior Managers Vulnerable?

Talking Strategy: Does it Make Senior Managers Vulnerable?

Neue Debatte, altes Dilemma? Die Herausforderungen des Phänomens »Fake News« für die Unternehmenskommunikation

The Simple Truth: Ambiguity Works. Discursive Strategies by Swedish Public Authorities During the 2008 Financial Crisis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About