This study examines the influence that organizational metaphors have on report
writers' framing of their writing tasks and the stylistic, organizational, and
document design choices they make. The study, conducted at a medium-size organi
zation, uses participant observation, semi-structured individual and group inter
views, and protocol analysis to gather data from 23 staff professionals at three field
sites.
The data show that writers see themselves as communication ciphers or con
duits and describe their communication activities in mechanistic terms. These
metaphors, which complemented the organization's view of itself as a smoothly
operating machine, help explain why writers were neither aware of nor concerned
about their report readers and why they write difficult-to-read reports.
These results indicate that root organizational metaphors significantly influence
writers'perception of their communication role and the rhetorical choices they
make. Altering these writers' composing habits would be a major intervention
requiring a change in the organization's dominant or root metaphor.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Axley, F. (1984). Managerial and organizational communication in terms of the conduit metaphor. Academy of Management Review , 9, 428-437.
2.
Barabas, C. (1990). Technical writing in a corporate culture. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
3.
Barrett, F.J., & Cooperrider, D.L. (1990). Generative metaphor intervention: A new approach for working with systems divided by conflict and caught in defensive perception. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 26, 219-239.
4.
Bazerman, M.H. (1990). Judgment in managerial decision making. New York: John Wiley.
5.
Benson, J.K. (1983). Paradigm and praxis in organizational analysis .In L. L. Cummins & B. Straw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 5 (pp. 33-56). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
6.
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Brown, R.L., & Herndl, C.G. (1986). An ethnographic study of corporate writing: Job status as reflected in written text. In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional approaches to writing: Research perspectives (pp. 11-28). Norwood, NJ: Ablex .
8.
Cassirer, E. (1944). An essay on man. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9.
Cross, G.A. (1994). Ethnographic research in business and technical writing: Between extremes and margins. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8,118-134.
10.
Daft, R.L., & Weick, K.E. (1984). Towards a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9, 284-295.
11.
Derrida, J. (1982). White mythology. Margins of philosophy. (Alan Bass, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 207-271.
12.
Doheny-Farina, S. (1989). A case study of one adult writing in academic and non-academic discourse communities. In C. B. Matelene (Ed.), Worlds of writing (pp. 17-42). New York: Random House.
13.
Doheny-Farina, S. (1986). Writing in an emerging organization: An ethnographic study. Written Communication, 3, 158-185.
14.
Felker, D.B., Redish, J.C., & Peterson, J. (1985). Training authors of informative documents. In T. M. Duffy & R. Waller (Eds.), Designing useful texts (pp. 43-61). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
15.
Freed, R.C., & Broadhead, G.J. (1987). Discourse communities, sacred texts, and institutional norms. College Composition and Communication, 38, 154-165.
16.
Gadamer, H.G. (1975). Truth and method. New York : The Seabury Press.
17.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
18.
Guillemette, R.A. (1987). Predicting readability of data processing written materials. Data Base, 18 (3), 41-51.
19.
Hagge, J., & Kostelnick, C. (1989). Linguistic politeness in professional prose: Discourse analysis of an auditor's suggestion letters, with implications for business communication pedagogy. Written Communication, 6, 312-339.
20.
Harrison, T. (1987). Frameworks for the study of writing in organizational contexts. Written Communication, 4, 3-24.
21.
Haviland, S., & Clark, J. (1974). What's new? Acquiring new information as process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior , 13, 511-522.
22.
Huff, A.S. (1983). A rhetorical examination of strategic change. In L.R. Pondy et al.(Eds.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 167-183). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
23.
Kieras, D.E. (1981). Topicalization effects in cued recall of technical prose. Memory and Cognition, 9, 541-549.
24.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
25.
Martin, J., & Meyerson, D. (1988). Organizational culture and the denial, channeling, and acknowledgement of ambiguity. In L. R. Pondy, R. J. Boland Jr., & H. Thomas (Eds.), Managing ambiguity and change (pp. 52-81). New York: John Wiley.
26.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
27.
Moore, P. (1992). Intimidation and communication: A case study of the "Challenger" accident. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 6, 403-437.
28.
Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 605-622.
29.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30.
Odell, L., & Goswami, D. (1982). Writing in a non-academic setting. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 201223.
31.
Odell, L., & Goswami, D. (1984). Writing in a non-academic setting. In R. Beach & L. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 233-258). New York: Guilford Press.
32.
Odell, L. (1985). Beyond the text: Relations between writing and social context. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 201223). New York: Guilford Press.
33.
Odell, L., Goswami, D., Herrington, A., & Quick, D. (1983). Studying writing in nonacademic settings. In P V. Anderson, R. J. Brockmann, & C. R. Miller (Eds.), New essays in scientific and technical communication: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 17-40). Farmingdale, NY: Baywood Publishing Co.
34.
Pepper, S. (1942). World hypothesis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
35.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. In L. L. Cummins & B. Straw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 3 (pp. 1-52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
36.
Pondy, L.R. (1982). The role of metaphors and myths in organization and the facilitation of change. In L. R. Pondy et al. (Eds.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 157-166). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
37.
Redish, J.C., Battison, R.M., & Gold, E.S. (1985). Making information accessible to readers. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 129-154). New York: Guilford Press.
38.
Ricouer, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the human sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Rogers, P.S. (1989). Choice-based writing in managerial contexts: The case of the dealer contact report. The Journal of Business Communication, 26, 197-216.
40.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41.
Sarbin, T.R. (1986). Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human contact. New York: Praeger.
42.
Schon, D.A. (1979). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem solving in social policy. Metaphor and thought (pp. 254-283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Seigel, A. (1978). Designing readable documents: State of the art . New York: Seigel & Dale.
44.
Selzer, J. (1983). What constitutes a readable technical style? In P. V Anderson, R. J. Brockmann, & C. R. Miller (Eds.), New essays in scientific and technical communication: Research, theory, practice (pp. 71-89). Farmingdale, NY: Baywood.
45.
Smeltzer, L., & Thomas, G.F. (1994). Managers as writers: A meta-analysis of research in context. Journal of Business and Technical Communication , 8, 186-211.
46.
Smirich, L. (1983). Organizations as shared meanings. In L. R. Pondy et al. (Eds.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 55-65). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
47.
Smith, R.C., & Eisenberg, E.M. (1987). Conflict at Disneyland: A root metaphor analysis. Communication Monographs, 54, 367-380.
48.
Srivastva, S., & Barrett, F.J. (1988). The transforming nature of metaphors in group development: A study in group theory. Human Relations, 41, 31-64.
49.
Stratman, J., & Duffy, T.M. (1990). Conceptualizing research on written management communication: Looking through a glass onion. Management Communication Quarterly, 3, 429-451.
50.
Suchan J. (1989). Communication efficiency between high-impact and bureaucratic written communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 2, 452-484.
51.
Turner, V.W. (1974). Dramas, fields, and metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
52.
Van Maanen, J. (1991). The smile factory: Work at Disneyland. In P J. Frost et al.(Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 58-76). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
53.
Weik, K.E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. (2nd ed.) Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.
54.
Winsor, D. (1988). Communication failures contributing to the "Challenger" accident: An Example of Technical Communicators. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 31.3, 101-107.
55.
Winsor, D. (1993). Owning corporate texts. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7, 179-195.
56.
Wittgenstein, L. (1972). Philosophical investigations. (2nd ed.) (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
