Blurring the Boundaries: Historical Developments and Future Directions in Organizational Rhetoric

Meisenbach, Rebecca J.; McMillan, Jill J.

doi:10.1080/23808985.2006.11679056

Cited by 21 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Meisenbach and McMillan (2006) have noted that organizational rhetoric has been traditionally characterized as duplicitous. As such, they have argued that future organizational rhetoric research endeavors should seek to "make more transparent the 'magical,' behind-closed-doors quality of corporate rhetoric and find critical tools to unpack it" (p. 128).…”

Section: Hidden Interestmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…How does it (mis)represent the multiple voices that compose an organization and the society where they operate, and what chance do external audiences have to respond effectively to or engage in dialogue with an organizational voice? How can it be used to assist society in making enlightened choices, or how can it be used more effectively to help make society a better place to live (Heath, 2011)? In sketching answers to some of these questions, we are answering the call of Meisenbach and McMillan (2006) to explain the uniqueness of organizational rhetoric and to grapple with problems of agency and the role of the individual as a part of/apart from the organizational voice. Scholars of organizational rhetoric need to take a skeptical stance that identifies the multiple interests involved and unpacks hidden ideographs and assumptions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Organizational Rhetoric: A Subject of Interest(s)

Boyd

Waymer

2011

Management Communication Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the heart of this special issue on external organizational rhetoric is the pursuit of unearthing the ways that complex organizations, performing as modern rhetors engaged in discourse, can work to make society a good place to live. One way that this can be achieved is by problematizing organizational rhetoric. To do so requires taking a critical stance that identifies the hidden ideographs and assumptions embedded within them. External organizational rhetoric scholars, aiming to foster a more fully functioning society, need to expose, smooth, and neutralize these assumptions and tacit constraints if there is to be continued progress in the study and application of the ways external organizational rhetoric, including public relations, might further contribute to society at large.

show abstract

Section: Hidden Interestmentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational Rhetoric: A Subject of Interest(s)

Boyd

Waymer

2011

Management Communication Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Excellent work in organizational communication explores normative obligations that members should enact in their communication to strive for ethical excellence (Lyon & Mirivel, 2010; Meisenbach, 2006; Meisenbach & Bonewits Feldner, 2011). Many works identify the corrupting and silencing nature of power and, also, advocate for more democratic dialogue as a means through which sincere members can interrogate decision making for its legitimacy, goodwill, and justice (Hoffman & Ford, 2010; Makau, 2011; Meisenbach & McMillan, 2006). Of course, these points extend also to communication with stakeholders (Lyon, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Encouraging Upward Ethical Dissent in Organizations: The Role of Deference to Embodied Expertise

Bisel

Adame

2018

Management Communication Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article demonstrates that when supervisors encourage subordinates to defer to their embodied expertise, subordinates are more likely to voice explicitly moralized upward dissent to an unethical business request. Working adults (N = 312) were randomly assigned to respond to an unethical business request from their boss in one of three scenarios that varied by how much the supervisor was known for encouraging deference to (a) embodied knowing, (b) intellectual reasoning, or (c) neither (i.e., a baseline control condition). Analyses revealed that participants were more than twice as likely to voice their private moral concerns explicitly with their boss when the supervisor was known for valuing subordinates’ embodied expertise (e.g., “going with your gut feelings”). In addition, participants also reported feeling significantly less communication anxiety in that same condition. Implications for leading organizational ethics conclude the article.

show abstract

“…His proposal did suggest that the effectiveness of these strategies could be evaluated by assessing public response. But scholars have noted that legitimacy literature does not offer a formal method for assessing why and how these various strategies might be effective (Meisenbach & McMillan, 2006). Such an assessment requires a renewed focus on publics in legitimacy research and a means of examining the content of claims.…”

Section: Organizational Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 93%