Talk–Action Dynamics: Modalities of aspirational talk

Abstract

This paper investigates talk–action dynamics in the context of organizations, focusing in particular on situations where the talk concerns complex organizational aspirations, that is, situations where the implied action takes considerable effort to unfold and therefore extends into an unknown future. Using corporate social responsibility (CSR) as recurrent exemplar, we address talk–action dynamics in four different modalities of aspirational CSR talk: exploration, formulation, implementation and evaluation. By conceptualizing the precarious relationship between talk and action in each of these modalities, the paper disentangles talk and action, all the while acknowledging that the two are mutually intertwined. Hereby, the paper extends theories of communicative performativity, recovering the perlocutionary dimension and focusing on uptake beyond the moment in which the speech act is uttered.

(Un)resolving digital technology paradoxes through the rhetoric of balance

“…Although such managers may be reluctant to explicitly acknowledge their rhetoric, due to negative connotations of manipulation, it is at the centre of their role (Castelló and Lozano, 2011; Christensen et al, 2020; Hoffmann, 2018). Interviews themselves can also be considered ‘rhetorical situations’ (Bitzer, 1968), with interviewers acting as an audience.…”

“…Organizations are a marketplace for ideas, including social issues (Wickert and De Bakker, 2018) and CSR managers, in particular, attempt to transform abstract ideas into responsibilities and related tasks through their ‘talk’ (Christensen et al, 2020). Hoffmann (2018) further observes that CSR is a key contemporary site for paradox, and O’Connor and Ihlen (2018) note that rhetoric is instrumental in the conceptualization, construction and negotiation of CSR between corporations and stakeholders.…”

“…CSR has therefore become a source of security that responds to destabilizing aspects of business-society relationships, and may be understood as an unrealized source of ‘aspirational talk’ that represents firms’ desire for social responsiblity (Christensen et al, 2013). Drawing upon the concept of strategic ambiguity, Christensen et al (2013, 2020: 11) show how vague ideals placed into the future allow for the perception of fulfilments of promises. Strategic ambiguity is therefore a ‘rhetorical resource that may be exploited by different actors to advance their particular interests’ (Christensen et al, 2020: 11), i.e., CSR managers create organizational descriptions that current activities do not yet live up to (a rhetoric-reality paradox).…”

“…Drawing upon the concept of strategic ambiguity, Christensen et al (2013, 2020: 11) show how vague ideals placed into the future allow for the perception of fulfilments of promises. Strategic ambiguity is therefore a ‘rhetorical resource that may be exploited by different actors to advance their particular interests’ (Christensen et al, 2020: 11), i.e., CSR managers create organizational descriptions that current activities do not yet live up to (a rhetoric-reality paradox). This generate new ‘productive idealizations’ that organizations then work to realize (Christensen et al, 2013).…”

“…Participants’ use of ‘balance’ can also be understood as a specific form of strategic ambiguity - a strategic paradox - convincing the interlocutor of their reasonableness as practitioners sensitive to the situation, whilst maintaining competing positions as professional representatives of their companies and concerned citizens. Participants also appear to subscribe to aspirational talk around citizenship, inclusivity, and social contribution, yet as Christensen et al (2020) note, aspirational talk can actually shield managers from demands for immediate action. Hence, not all aspirational talk might produce positive organization change and instead may seek to avoid it.…”