Institutional Conditions for Effective Communication in Legitimate Organizations

• Autorzy: Adam Janiszewski
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to (1) discuss current topics related to organizational communication with reference to legitimacy problems described within the institutional theory framework and to (2) show how the proposed solutions may be important with regard to research on communication processes in organizations and for theorists dealing with foundational assumptions for organization studies. As for reaching the core point of processes under investigation in the paper researchers make use of metaphors leading to rising concerns over the appropriate lens used to understand reality, the discussion in the paper is conducted in the light of more abstract considerations over the paradox of agency and assumptions related to epistemological and ontological stances of institutionalists or critical researchers. Design/methodology/approach: The theoretical scope of the paper covers selected streams of research of institutional theory focused on communication processes, however, some further attention is paid to e.g. possibilities for the critical institutional analysis to emerging. In order to achieve the goals of the paper theoretical analysis is conducted based on selected papers important regarding how institutional theory can develop in the field of communication research. Findings: Considering the phenomena of legitimacy building based on appropriate communication with external and internal evaluators as a challenging task whose effect may depend on actors' agency opens interesting perspectives from which those relations may be analyzed. Nevertheless, it is also emphasized that each time when attempting to answer posed questions by referring to theories that may turn out not to be the best choice for this task, the researches need to maintain aware that those trials can potentially introduce primarily further ambiguity in arguments instead of clarifications. Thus, conclusions allow for recognition of main ontological and epistemological assumptions lying behind propositions that should be considered when building new ones related to communication. Hence, it becomes possible to outline hints as to when it may be especially possible for successful communication to occur. Originality/value: The paper addresses the problems related mainly to the communicative stream of research within the institutional theory framework by focusing on the conditions of the appropriateness of using metaphors as a source of inspiration for the advancement of theoretical reasoning. Because of the growing level of sophistication of how processes of communication are described, it is worth doing to indicate not only assumptions behind new propositions but also to delineate boundaries within which those propositions are to be built. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Communication; Business communication; Legitimacy

PL

Komunikowanie; Komunikowanie w biznesie; Prawomocność

• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2022
• Numer: z. 163
• Strony: 133--167

Twórcy

autor

Adam Janiszewski

• University of Economics in Katowice, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Abdelnour, S., Hasselbladh, H., Kallinikos, J. (2017). Agency and institutions in Organization Studies. Organization Studies, Vol. 38, Iss. 12. pp. 1775-1792. doi: 10.1177/0170840617708007.
• 2. Al-Amoudi, I., Willmott, H. (2011). Where constructionism and critical realism converge: interrogating the domain of epistemological relativism. Organization Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 27-46. doi: 10.1177/0170840610394293.
• 3. Battilana, J., Leca, B., Bxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 65-107. doi: 10.5465/19416520903053598.
• 4. Bitektine, A., Haack, P. (2015). The "macro" and the "micro" of legitimacy: toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 49-75, doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0318.
• 5. Bitektine, A., Haack, P., Bothello, J., Mair, J. (2020). Inhabited actors: internalizing institutions through communication and actorhood models. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 57, Iss. 4, pp. 885-897. doi: 10.1111/joms.12560.
• 6. Bitektine, A., Song, F. (2021). On the role of institutional logics in legitimacy evaluations: the effects of pricing and CSR signals on organizational legitimacy. Journal of Management, pp. 1-36. doi: 10.1177/01492063211070274.
• 7. Cardinale, I. (2018). Beyond constraining and enabling: toward new microfoundations for institutional theory. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 132-155. doi: 10.5465/amr.2015.0020.
• 8. Cornelissen, J.P., Durand R., Fiss, P.C., Lammers, J.C., Vaara, E. (2015). Introduction to special topic forum. Putting communication front and center in institutional theory and analysis. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 10-27. doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0381.
• 9. Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W., White, R.E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intution to institution. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, Iss. 3, pp. 522-537. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135.
• 10. Delbridge, R., Edwards, T. (2013). Inhabiting institutions: critical realist refinements to understanding institutional complexity and change. Organization Studies, Vol. 34, Iss. 7, pp. 927-947. doi: 10.1177/0170840613483805.
• 11. DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W. (1991). Introduction. In: W.W. Powell, P.J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1-38). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
• 12. Edgar, A. (2006). Habermas : the key concepts. London-New York: Routledge.
• 13. Fleetwood, S. (2004). An ontology for organization and management studies. In: S. Fleetwood, S. Ackroyd (eds.), Critical Realist Applications in Organization and Management Studies (pp. 27-46). London: Routledge.
• 14. Green, S.E., Li, Y. (2011). Rhetorical institutionalism: Language, agency, and structure in institutional theory since Alvesson 1993. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 48, Iss. 7, pp. 1662-1697. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01022.x.
• 15. Hahn, R., Lülfs, R. (2014). Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting: a qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 123, Iss. 3, pp. 401-420. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1801-4.
• 16. Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., Figge, F. (2015). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4015, No. 1, pp. 18-42. doi:10.5465/ amr.2012.0341.test.
• 17. Harmon, D.J., Patrick, H., Roulet, T.J. (2019). Microfoundations of institutions: a matter of structure versus agency or level of analysis? Dialogue, Vol. 44, Iss. 2, pp. 464-467, doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0080.
• 18. Hirsch, P., Lounsbury, M. (2015). Toward a more critical and "powerful" institutionalism. Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 24, Iss.1, pp. 96-99. doi:10.1177/1056492614545297.
• 19. Höllerer, M.A., Jancsary, D., Grafström, M. (2018). "A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words": Multimodal Sensemaking of the Global Financial Crisis. Organization Studies, Vol. 39, Iss. 5-6, pp. 617-644. doi: 10.1177/0170840618765019.
• 20. Janiszewski, A. (2018). Problemy uczenia się wielopoziomowego w świetle teorii działań. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology, Organization and Management Series, no. 118. Gliwice: Silesian University of Technology in Publishing House, pp. 215-225.
• 21. Janiszewski, A. (2021). Organizational responses to sustainable development challenges - condtions & consequences. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology, Organization and Management Series, no. 150. Gliwice: Silesian University of Technology in Publishing House, pp. 29-46.
• 22. Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. Sociological Review, Vol. 47, Iss. 1, pp. 15-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03480.x.
• 23. Lok, J. (2019). Why (and how) institutional theory can be critical: addressing the challenge to institutional theory's critical turn. Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 28, Iss. 3, pp. 335-349. doi: 10.1177/1056492617732832.
• 24. Lok, J., Willmott, H. (2006). Institutional theory, language, and discourse analysis: a comment on Phillips, Lawrence, and Hardy. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31, No. 2, Dialogue, pp. 477-480. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.20208692.
• 25. Lok, J., Willmott, H. (2014). Identities and identification in organization: dynamics of antipathy, deadlock, and alliance. Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 215-230. doi:10.1177/1056492613504461.
• 26. Lok, J., Willmott, H. (2019). Embedded agency in institutional theory: problem or paradox? Academy of Management Review, Vol. 44, No. 2, Dialogue, pp. 470-473, doi: 10.5465/amr.2017.0571.
• 27. McPherson, Ch.M., Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in action: managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 58, Iss. 2, pp. 165-196, doi: 10.1177/0001839213486447.
• 28. Meyer, R.E., Jancsary, D., Höllerer, M.A., Boxenbaum, E. (2018). The role of verbal and visual text in the process of institutionalization. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 392-418. doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0301.
• 29. Meyer, R.E., Vaara, E. (2020). Institutions and actorhood as co-constitutive and co-constructed: the argument and areas for future research. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 898-910. doi: 10.1111/joms.12561.
• 30. Mumby, D.K., Kuhn, T.R. (2019). Organizational communication: a critical introduction. Los Angeles: Sage.
• 31. Orlikowski, W.J., Scott, S.V. (2015). Exploring material-discursive practices. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 52, Iss. 5, pp. 697-705. doi: 10.1111/joms.12114.
• 32. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 635-652. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2004.14497617.
• 33. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T.B., Hardy, C. (2006). Discussing "Discourse and Institutions": a reply to Lok and Willmott. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31, Iss. 2, Dialogue, pp. 480-483. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.20208693.
• 34. Reay, T., Hinings, C.R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 629-652, doi: 10.1177/0170840609104803.
• 35. Salvova, M., Karanasios, S. (2018). When institutional logics meet information and communication technologies: examining hybrid information practices in Ghana's agriculture. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 19, Iss. 9, pp. 775-812. doi: 10.17705/1jais.00509.
• 36. Schilke, O. (2018). A micro-institutional inquiry into resistance to environmental pressures. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 1431-1466. doi: 10.5465/ amj.2016.0762.
• 37. Seo, M.-G., Creed, W.E.D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, Iss. 2, pp. 222-247. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2002.6588004.
• 38. Suchman, M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 571-610. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331.
• 39. Suddaby, R. (2015). Can institutional theory be critical? Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 24, Iss. 1, pp. 93-95. doi: 10.1177/1056492614545304.
• 40. Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 451-478. doi: 10.5465/annals.2015.0101.
• 41. Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W., Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• 42. Tuomela, R. (2002). Collective goals and communicative action. Journal of Philosophical Research, Vol. 27, pp. 29-64. doi: 10.5840/jpr_2002_33.
• 43. Weber, K., Glynn, M.A. (2006). Making sense with institutions: context, thought and action in Karl Weick's theory. Organization Studies, Vol. 27, No. 11, pp. 1639-1660. doi: 10.1177/0170840606068343.
• 44. Xiu, L., Lu, F., Liang, X. (2020). Legitimized identity vs identifiable legitimacy. Toward a theoretical framework of the relationship between organizational identity and organizational legitimacy. Nankai Business Review International, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 102-120. doi: 10.1108/NBRI-03-2019-0009.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2022.163.8