On 24 January 2017, the Trump administration tried to censor various science-related federal agencies, most notably the National Park Service. This case study presents the emergence of “alternative” National Park Service Twitter accounts that subverted the ban and explores how “rogue rangers” share in and resist organizational authority through communication practices we interpret as dis/attributing communicative action to various figures to do so. Through qualitative analysis of textual and non-textual data pertaining to the accounts, we demonstrate that organizational members create ambiguity through communicative dis/attribution to do and say more things than authorized, while maintaining a link to their organization, for it is as members that their actions and words are authoritative. The study concludes by theorizing three contributions to the literature on authority and resistance, in particular in the context of social media: (1) it shows that authority and resistance are at play even outside of conventional organizations, which conversely means that social media activity can display a level of organizationality; (2) it demonstrates that the communicative performance of authority and resistance rests on membership ambiguity; and (3) it extends current conversations on the communicative performance of authority by showing that the same practices can also perform resistance.
AhrneGBrunssonN (2011) Organization outside organizations: The significance of partial organization. Organization18(1): 83–104.
2.
AjunwaICrawfordKSchultzJ (2017) Limitless worker surveillance. California Law Review105(3): 735–776.
3.
AlbuOBEtterM (2016) Hypertextuality and social media: A study of the constitutive and paradoxical implications of organizational Twitter use. Management Communication Quarterly30(1): 5–31.
4.
AntebyM (2008) Identity incentives as an engaging form of control: Revisiting leniencies in an aeronautic plant. Organization Science19(2): 202–220.
5.
AshcraftKL (2001) Organized dissonance: Feminist bureaucracy as hybrid form. Academy of Management Journal44(6): 1301–1322.
6.
AshcraftKL (2016) Resistance through consent? Occupational identity, organizational form, and the maintenance of masculinity among commercial airline pilots. Management Communication Quarterly19(1): 67–90.
7.
AshcraftKLKuhnTCoorenF (2009) Constitutional amendments: “Materializing” organizational communication. The Academy of Management Annals3(1): 1–64.
8.
AshkenasRUlrichDJickT, et al (2015) The Boundaryless Organization: Breaking the Chains of Organizational Structure. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
9.
BartesaghiMLivioOMatteF (2019) The authority of the “broader context”: What’s not in the interaction? In: BencherkiNMatteFCoorenF (eds) Authority and Power in Social Interaction: Methods and Analysis. New York: Routledge, 18–36.
10.
BencherkiNSnackJP (2016) Contributorship and partial inclusion: A communicative perspective. Management Communication Quarterly30(3): 279–304.
11.
BencherkiNMatteFCoorenF (eds) (2019) Authority and Power in Social Interaction. Routledge Studies in Communication, Organization, and Organizing. New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
Benoit-BarnéCCoorenF (2009) The accomplishment of authority through presentification: How authority is distributed among and negotiated by organizational members. Management Communication Quarterly23(1): 5–31.
13.
Benoit-BarnéCFoxS (2017) Authority. In: ScottCRLewisL (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 1–13.
14.
Benoit-BarnéCMarsenSWangN, et al (2019) Decentering the analysis: The authority of spectators, journalists and others. In: BencherkiNMatteFCoorenF (eds) Authority and Power in Social Interaction: Methods and Analysis. New York, NY: Routledge, 117–137.
15.
BourgoinABencherkiNFarajS (2020) “And who are you?”: A performative perspective on authority in organizations. Academy of Management Journal63(4): 1134–1165.
16.
BrownADHumphreysM (2006) Organizational identity and place: A discursive exploration of hegemony and resistance. Journal of Management Studies43(2): 231–257.
17.
CarrPRCuervo SanchezSLDarosMA (2020) Citizen engagement in the contemporary era of fake news: Hegemonic distraction or control of the social media context?Postdigital Science and Education2(1): 39–60.
18.
CasePPiñeiroE (2006) Aesthetics, performativity and resistance in the narratives of a computer programming community. Human Relations59(6): 753–782.
19.
CastellsM (2015) Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age (2nd edn). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
20.
CastorTCoorenF (2006) Organizations as hybrid forms of life: The implications of the selection of agency in problem formulation. Management Communication Quarterly19(4): 570–600.
21.
CharmazK (2001) Grounded theory. In: EmersonRM (ed.) Contemporary Field Research. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 335–352.
22.
CoorenF (2010) Action and Agency in Dialogue: Passion, Ventriloquism and Incarnation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
23.
CoorenF (2015) In medias res: Communication, existence, and materiality. Communication Research and Practice1(4): 1–15.
24.
CoorenF (2018) Materializing communication: Making the case for a relational ontology. Journal of Communication68(2): 278–288.
CourpassonD (2017) Beyond the hidden/public resistance divide: How bloggers defeated a big company. Organization Studies38(9): 1277–1302.
27.
CourpassonDDanyFCleggS (2012) Resisters at work: Generating productive resistance in the workplace. Organization Science23(3): 801–819.
28.
DawsonVR (2015) “Who are we online?” Approaches to organizational identity in social media contexts. The Journal of Social Media in Society4(2): 28–72.
29.
DawsonVR (2018) Fans, friends, advocates, ambassadors, and haters: Social media communities and the communicative constitution of organizational identity. Social Media + Society4(1): 1–11.
30.
Del FaS (2017) The embodiment of the alternative: A communicational and constitutive approach of an “alternative university.”Tamara: Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry15(3–4): 219–236.
31.
DobuschLSchoenebornD (2015) Fluidity, identity, and organizationality: The communicative constitution of anonymous. Journal of Management Studies52(8): 1005–1035.
32.
EtterMRavasiDColleoniE (2017) Social media and the formation of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Review44(1): 28–52.
33.
GehlRW (2016) Power/freedom on the dark web: A digital ethnography of the Dark Web Social Network. New Media & Society18(7): 1219–1235.
34.
GherardiS (2000) Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations. Organization7(2): 211–223.
35.
GlozerSCaruanaRHibbertSA (2019) The never-ending story: Discursive legitimation in social media dialogue. Organization Studies40(5): 625–650.
36.
GoffmanE (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
37.
GoodwinC (2006) Interactive footing. In: HoltE (ed.) Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 16–46.
38.
Grothe-HammerM (2019) Membership or contributorship? Managing the inclusion of individuals into organizations. In: AhrneGBrunssonN (eds) Organization Outside Organizations (1st edn). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 84–112.
39.
HansenH (2015) Prophets and Moguls, Rangers and Rogues, Bison and Bears: 100 Years of the National Park Service. Seattle, WA: Mountaineers Books.
40.
HassardJMorrisJ (2021) The extensification of managerial work in the digital age: Middle managers, spatio-temporal boundaries and control. Human Relations. Epub ahead of print 2 March 2021.
41.
KärremanDAlvessonM (2009) Resisting resistance: Counter-resistance, consent and compliance in a consultancy firm. Human Relations62(8): 1115–1144.
42.
KavadaA (2015) Creating the collective: Social media, the Occupy Movement and its constitution as a collective actor. Information, Communication & Society18(8): 872–886.
43.
KavadaA (2016) Social movements and political agency in the digital age: A communication approach. Media and Communication4(4): 8–12.
44.
KuhnT (2008) A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies29(8–9): 1227–1254.
45.
KuhnT (2012) Negotiating the micro-macro divide: Thought leadership from organizational communication for theorizing organization. Management Communication Quarterly26(4): 543–584.
46.
KuhnTAshcraftKLCoorenF (2017) The Work of Communication: Relational Perspectives on Working and Organizing in Contemporary Capitalism. New York, NY: Routledge.
47.
LangeA-CLengletMSeyfertR (2019) On studying algorithms ethnographically: Making sense of objects of ignorance. Organization26(4): 598–617.
48.
LawrenceTB (2004) Rituals and resistance: Membership dynamics in professional fields. Human Relations57(2): 115–143.
49.
LernerGH (1993) Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text & Talk13(2): 213–246.
50.
MacRLytvynenkoJ (2021) Facebook is worried Starbucks will delete its page over hateful comments. BuzzFeed News, 6May.
51.
MeredithJ (2019) Conversation analysis and online interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction52(3): 241–256.
52.
MilanS (2015) When algorithms shape collective action: Social media and the dynamics of cloud protesting. Social Media + Society1(2): 1–10.
53.
MilesMBHubermanAMSaldañaJ (2020) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (4th edn). Los Angeles: SAGE.
54.
MumbyDK (2005) Theorizing resistance in organization studies: A dialectical approach. Management Communication Quarterly19(1): 19–44.
55.
MurphyAG (1998) Hidden transcripts of flight attendant resistance. Management Communication Quarterly11(4): 499–535.
56.
NathuesEvan VuurenMCoorenF (2020) Speaking about vision, talking in the name of so much more: A methodological framework for ventriloquial analyses in organization studies. Organization Studies.
57.
NeylandD (2015) On organizing algorithms. Theory, Culture & Society32(1): 119–132.
58.
PaulsenR (2015) Non-work at work: Resistance or what?Organization22(3): 351–367.
59.
PeddintiSTRossKWCapposJ (2014) “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog”: A Twitter case study of anonymity in social networks. In: Proceedings of the second ACM conference on online social networks, New York, NY, USA, 83–94.
60.
PittinskyTLShihMJ (2004) Knowledge nomads: Organizational commitment and worker mobility in positive perspective. American Behavioral Scientist47(6): 791–807.
61.
PutnamLLFairhurstGTBanghartS (2016) Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals10(1): 65–171.
62.
SchoenebornDKuhnTRKärremanD (2019) The communicative constitution of organization, organizing, and organizationality. Organization Studies40(4): 475–496.
63.
SeaverN (2017) Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society4(2):1–12.
64.
SweetserKDKelleherT (2016) Communicated commitment and conversational voice: Abbreviated measures of communicative strategies for maintaining organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research28(5–6): 217–231.
65.
TaylorJRVan EveryEJ (2014) When Organization Fails: Why Authority Matters. New York, NY: Routledge.
66.
ThomasRDaviesA (2005) Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance: New public management and managerial identities in the UK public services. Organization Studies26(5): 683–706.
67.
ToffolettiKThorpeH (2018) Female athletes’ self-representation on social media: A feminist analysis of neoliberal marketing strategies in “economies of visibility.”Feminism & Psychology28(1): 11–31.
68.
TreemJWLeonardiPM (2013) Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association36(1): 143–189.
69.
Trittin-UlbrichHSchererAGMunroI, et al (2021) Exploring the dark and unexpected sides of digitalization: Toward a critical agenda. Organization28(1): 8–25.
70.
TrombleR (2018) Thanks for (actually) responding! How citizen demand shapes politicians’ interactive practices on Twitter. New Media & Society20(2): 676–697.
71.
VaaraETienariJ (2011) On the narrative construction of multinational corporations: An antenarrative analysis of legitimation and resistance in a cross-border merger. Organization Science22(2): 370–390.
72.
VaastEDavidsonEJMattsonT (2013) Talking about technology: The emergence of a new actor category through new media. MIS Quarterly37(4): 1069–1092.
73.
van DijckJPoellT (2013) Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication1(1): 2–14.
74.
VásquezCSergiVCordelierB (2013) From being branded to doing branding: Studying representation practices from a communication-centered approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management29(2): 135–146.
75.
VásquezCBencherkiNCoorenF, et al (2018) From ‘matters of concern’ to ‘matters of authority’: Reflecting on the performativity of strategy in writing a strategic plan. Long-Range Planning51(3): 417–435.
76.
WilhoitED (2016) Ventriloquism’s methodological scope. Language Under Discussion2(1): 45–49.
77.
WilhoitEDKisselburghLG (2019) The relational ontology of resistance: Hybridity, ventriloquism, and materiality in the production of bike commuting as resistance. Organization26(6): 873–893.
78.
YbemaSHorversM (2017) Resistance through compliance: The strategic and subversive potential of frontstage and backstage resistance. Organization Studies38(9): 1233–1251.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
