Summoning the spirits: Organizational texts and the (dis)ordering properties of communication

Abstract

This article addresses the question: Why does disorder tend to simultaneously accompany efforts to create order when organizing? Adopting a communication-centered perspective, we specifically examine the role of texts in the mutual constitution of order and disorder. Drawing on empirical material from three qualitative case studies on project organizing, we show that attempts of ordering through language use and texts (i.e., by closing and fixing meaning) tend to induce disorder (i.e., by opening the possibility of multiple meanings), at the same time. As we contend, these (dis)ordering dynamics play a key role in the communicative constitution of organizations, keeping them in motion by calling forth continuous processes of meaning (re-) negotiation.

How things make things do things with words, or how to pay attention to what things have to say

“…This confusion has also been fueled by the choice of cases. For instance, Vásquez, Schoeneborn and Sergi (2016) studied SPOKESTHINGS 6 project proposal forms, a technical template and a presentation slide; Cooren's (2015) example of a museum-related creative project focused on a participant's oral presentation. These different studies discuss cases where verbal language is present, but what makes a difference in each case is the material (i.e., physical) availability of text or speech in given situations.…”

From ‘matters of concern’ to ‘matters of authority’: Studying the performativity of strategy from a communicative constitution of organization (CCO) approach

“…Because of their material and symbolic nature, and their recursive interplay with conversation (Taylor & Van Every, 2000, see also Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2011), texts can open and close the meanings and values given to matters of concerns (Vásquez et al, 2016). Hence, their production and consumption call for constant negotiations.…”

Goffman’s Return to Las Vegas: Studying Corruption as Social Interaction

“…Accordingly, we have opted for what is called an ''abductive'' research strategy. Abduction involves backand-forth movements between a (theoretical) body of knowledge and an (empirically) observed phenomenon (Vásquez et al 2016). This research strategy is also known as ''inference to the best explanation'' or, in short, IBE: ''In IBE the researcher selects the 'best' out of a short list of plausible explanations based on considerations of epistemic virtues, such as simplicity or novelty'' (Ketokivi and Mantere 2010, p. 319).…”