Over the last decades, the idea that communication constitutes organizations (CCO) has been gaining considerable momentum in organization studies. The CCO perspective provides new insights into key organizational issues, such as the relation between stability and change, between micro-level and macro-level phenomena, or between emergence and control. However, despite various theoretical advancements, the CCO perspective's range of methodologies is still limited to analyzing local communication episodes, rather than studying organizations as broader networks of communication episodes. In this paper, we present a new methodological approach to the study of the relation between organization and communication, based on network analysis. Following a discussion of existing network approaches, we incorporate the fundamental assumptions of the CCO perspective into a methodology that places communication at the center of network analysis by turning the prevalent network perspective inside out, so that the vertices of the network represent communication episodes and the edges represent individuals. We illustrate our methodology with an empirical case study, in which we examine the structures and dynamics of an actual organization as a network of communication episodes. AbstractOver the last decades, the idea that communication constitutes organizations (CCO) has been gaining considerable momentum in organization studies. The CCO perspective provides new insights into key organizational issues, such as the relation between stability and change, between micro-level and macro-level phenomena, or between emergence and control.However, despite various theoretical advancements, the CCO perspective's range of methodologies is still limited to analyzing local communication episodes, rather than studying organizations as broader networks of communication episodes. In this paper, we present a new methodological approach to the study of the relation between organization and communication, based on network analysis. Following a discussion of existing network approaches, we incorporate the fundamental assumptions of the CCO perspective into a methodology that places communication at the center of network analysis by turning the prevalent network perspective inside out, so that the vertices of the network represent communication episodes and the edges represent individuals. We illustrate our methodology with an empirical case study, in which we examine the structures and dynamics of an actual organization as a network of communication episodes.

No abstract

The idea of the communicative constitution of organizations (CCO) has gained considerable attention in organizational communication studies. This rather heterogeneous theoretical endeavor is driven by three main schools of thought: the Montreal School of Organizational Communication, the Four-Flows Model (based on Giddens's Structuration Theory), and Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems. In this article, we let proponents of all three schools directly speak to each other in form of an interactive dialogue that is structured around guiding questions addressing the epistemological, ontological, and methodological dimension of CCO as a theoretical paradigm. Based on this dialogue, we systematically compare the three schools of CCO thinking and identify common grounds as well as key differences.

ZusammenfassungDie computerbasierte Simulation ist zu einer weithin akzeptierten Methodik in den Sozialwissenschaften avanciert, insbesondere in der Organisationsforschung. In diesem Beitrag replizieren wir zunächst eine computerbasierte Simulation aus dem Bereich des organisationalen Lernens von James G. March. Im Anschluss daran modifizieren und erweitern wir die Replikation unter Rückgriff auf die Theorie sozialer Systeme Niklas Luhmanns. Während Marchs ursprüngliches Simulationsmodell vor allem die Konzepte Wissen und Lernen in den Blick nimmt, ergänzen wir das Modell um das Luhmannsche Konzept des Gedächtnisses, hier verstanden als ein fortlaufendes Diskriminieren zwischen Vergessen und Erinnern. Im Lichte dessen kann gezeigt werden, dass Vergessen für Organisationen als Quelle dynamischer Instabilität dient. Es verhindert die Lähmung aufgrund einer inkonsistenten Organisationsgeschichte und wird somit zur ermöglichenden Bedingung neuer Irritabilität und folglich Lernens.