Organizational Communication Design Logics: A Theory of Communicative Intervention and Collective Communication Design

Abstract

Theorizing communication as design can support the development of theories of intervention by focusing attention not just on how groups, organizations, and communities communicate, but also on how they make and try to enact choices about their communication. We posit a theory of organizational communication design logics aimed at clarifying how collectives intervene in their own communication. We argue that collective communication design (CCD) is comprised of (a) individuals' overlapping communication designs, focused on goals and governed by communication design logics, and (b) the fit, function, and fragmentation of collectives' communication proposals and choices. Future research guided by this theoretical framework should explore the communication skills associated with CCD and the influence of power, authority, emotion, and temporality in CCD.

The mutual impact of university president’s leadership and organizational justice on knowledge sharing: the mediating effect of communication

“…Organizational communication is described as the process by which the members share information related to jobs or exchange emotion among the members in the organization (Chen et al, 2005;Choi et al, 2018). In the past, organizational communication was viewed as providing information to the public (one-way communication), whereas more recently organizational communication aims for balanced effects for both parties through social interaction, persuasion and mutual understanding (two-way communication) (Barbour et al, 2018;Cornelissen, 2004). Also, organizational communication allows members to increase their understanding of members' tasks and roles and the rules, policies and practices of organizations.…”

Digital Communication Environments in the Workplace

“…Because of the integrated nature of digital communication environments and their versatile possibilities, it can be challenging for employees to perceive these environments as a single, coherent platform instead of as several different communication tools or to understand the logic underlying how the various parts of the platform should be used (Barbour, Gill & Barge 2018;Treem et al 2019). Thus, it is important to collectively discuss how these environments should be used, identify the leaders' and employees' expectations regarding the use of digital communication environments, and determine how employees can best utilize them.…”

Collective Organizational Engagement & Work Engagement as Anchor Strategies to Sustain Green Organizational Performance A Case Study on Indonesian Organizational Services

“…Moreover, more study are found such as to link Organizational Resources and Work Engagement (Salanova et al, 2005); CEO Norms (Griffin, 2015); Collective action (Barnhardt, 2016); COE to link with Firm performance (Barrick et al, 2015); Model of COE (Flanagin et al, 2006); Constructive Leadership (Wei et al, 2016); Collective Engagement Identity (Fachrunnisa and Tjahjono, 2018); impact of Delegation on COE (Özdemir and Temel, 2017); organizational stressors on collective organizational (Molines et al, 2017); The role of civic engagement Jason (Carbone and McMillin, 2019); Neighborhood collective efficacy Jason (Carbone and McMillin, 2019); Organizational Communication Design (Joshua B. Barbour et al, 2018); Cognitive Collective Engagement (Fachrunnisa and Tjahjono, 2018); Collective psychological capital (Wu and Chen, 2018); Collective Engagement Creates Competitive Advantage (Eldor, 2019); Health-Related HRM (Huettermann and Bruch, 2019); Collective engagement (Wilson, 2019); Employee and collective voice engagement (Gruman and Saks, 2020); Tool to Develop Collective Organizational (Retolaza et al, 2020); the role of CEO on Entrepreneurial…”