Communication during organizational decision making has often been treated as information exchange, and when social constructionist orientations have been assumed, these have focused on communication related to decision making rather than on talk during decision-making interactions. Shotter’s rhetorical-responsive social constructionist approach is applied to analyzing a faculty senate’s discussion on whether or not to implement a culture and ethnic diversity requirement. This study examines decision-making talk and how, during decision making, participants socially construct a diversity requirement. The vocabularies of diversity and requirement function to define the resolution and allow faculty to demonstrate accountability in different ways. The meanings of these vocabularies are discursively negotiated during decision making; this process reveals competing vocabularies and ambiguity. The conflict over the diversity requirement was resolved through a substitute resolution that reaffirmed the nature of the university as an institutional organization through the vocabulary of good faith. This study shows how decision-making talk constitutes organizations.
Allen, M. W., Gotcher, J. M., & Seibert, J. H. (1993). A decade of organizational communication research: Journal articles 1980-1991. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 16 (pp. 252-330). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Altbach, P. G., & Lomotey, K. (Eds.). (1991). The racial crisis in American higher education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
3.
Azoulay, K. G. (1997). Experience, empathy and strategic essentialism. Cultural Studies, 11, 89-110.
4.
Bantz, C. R. (1993). Understanding organizations: Interpreting organizational communication cultures. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
5.
Baxter, L. (1993). “Talking things through” and “putting it in writing”: Two codes of communication in an academic institution. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 313-326.
6.
Bilmes, J. (1976). Rules and rhetoric: Negotiating the social order in a Thai village. Journal of Anthropological Research, 32, 44-57.
7.
Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
8.
Bormann, E. G. (1983). Symbolic convergence: Organizational communication and culture. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 99-122). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9.
Bormann, E. G. (1985). Symbolic convergence theory: A communication formulation. Journal of Communication, 35, 128-138.
10.
Bormann, E. G. (1986). Symbolic convergence theory and communication group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 219-236). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
Bormann, E. G. (1996). Symbolic convergence theory and communication in group decision making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (2nd ed., pp. 81-113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Bormann, E. G., Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1994). In defense of symbolic convergence theory: A look at the theory and its criticisms after two decades. Communication Theory, 4, 259-294.
13.
Brewer, J. D. (1990). Talking about danger: The RUC and the paramilitary threat. Sociology, 24, 657-674.
14.
Brison, K. J. (1989). All talk and no action?: Saying and doing in Kwanga meetings. Ethnology, 28, 97-115.
15.
Browning, L. D., Sitkin, S. B., Sutcliffe, K. M., Obstfeld, D., & Greene, R. W. (2000). Keep ‘em flying: The constitutive dynamics of an organizational change in the US Air Force [Special issue]. Electronic Journal of Communication, 10(1/2).
16.
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.
17.
Buttny, R. (1993). Social accountability in communication. London: Sage.
18.
Carbaugh, D. (1995). Decision-making. In R. Harre & P. Stearns (Eds.), Discursive psychology in practice (pp. 137-163). London: Sage.
19.
Cheney, G., Straub, J., Speirs-Glebe, L., Stohl, C., DeGooyer, D., Whalen, S., et al. (1998). Democracy, participation, and communication at work: A multi-disciplinary review. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook 21 (pp. 35-91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Cooren, F. (1999). Applying socio-semiotics to organizational communication: A new approach. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 294-304.
21.
Cooren, F. (2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11(3), 373-393.
22.
Cooren, F.,& Taylor, J.R. (1997). Organization as an effect of mediation: Redefining the link between organization and communication. Communication Theory, 7, 219-260.
23.
Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (1995). Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5, 248-272.
24.
Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 3-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Dixon, T. C. (Ed.). (2000). Communication as a constitutive process in organizing and organizations [Special issue]. Electronic Journal of Communication, 10(1/2).
26.
Dudley, P. (1996). CED debate continues: Requirement undecided. Retrieved October 21, 2004, from the University of Washington, The Online Daily Web site: http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1996/010296/ced2.html
27.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. L. (1999). Reflections on the organization-communication equivalency question: The contributions of James Taylor and his colleagues. The Communication Review, 3, 1-19.
28.
Frey, L. R. (2003). Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30.
Geist, P., & Chandler, T. (1984). Account analysis of influence in group decision-making. Communication Monographs, 51, 67-78.
31.
Gephart, R. P. (1988). Managing the meaning of a sour gas well blowout: The public culture of organizational disasters. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 2, 17-32.
32.
Gephart, R. P. (1992). Sensemaking, communicative distortion and the logic of public inquiry legitimation. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 6, 115-135.
33.
Gephart, R. P., Steier, L., & Lawrence, T. (1990). Cultural rationalities in crisis sensemaking: A study of a public inquiry into a major industrial accident. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 4, 27-48.
34.
Gergen, K. J. (1985). Social constructionist inquiry: Context and implications. In K. J. Gergen & K. E. Davis (Eds.), The social construction of the person (pp. 3-18). New York: Springer-Verlag.
35.
Gergen, K. J. (1999). Social construction in context. London: Sage.
36.
Greenwald, B. (1998). Perspectives on a policy that never was: Trying to enhance multiculturalism in a university setting. New York: New York University Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED420226)
37.
Hall, P. M. (Ed.). (1997). Race, ethnicity, and multiculturalism: Policy and practice. New York: Garland.
38.
Hon, L. G., Weigold, M., & Chance, S. (1999). The meaning of diversity among the professoriate. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 54, 51-67.
39.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: Ethnography of communication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
40.
Kirby, E. L., & Harter, L. M. (2002). Speaking the language of the bottom-line: The metaphor of “managing diversity.”Journal of Business Communication, 40, 28-49.
41.
Kuhn, T., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2003). Corporate scandal and the theory of the firm: Formulating the contributions of organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 17, 20-57.
42.
Loseke, D. R. (1989). Creating clients: Social problems work in a shelter for battered women. Perspectives on Social Problems, 1, 173-193.
43.
McMillan, J. J., & Cheney, G. (1996). The student as consumer: The implications and limitations of a metaphor. Communication Education, 45, 1-15.
44.
McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2000). The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation [Special issue]. Electronic Journal of Communication, 10(1/2).
45.
Mehan, H. (1983). The role of language and the language of role in institutional decision making. Language in Society, 12, 187-211.
46.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
47.
Miller, L. (1994). Japanese and America meetings and what goes on before them: A case study of co-worker misunderstanding. Pragmatics, 4, 221-238.
48.
Miller, S. J., Hickson, D. J., & Wilson, D. C. (1996). Decision-making in organizations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 293-312). London: Sage.
49.
O’Connor, E. S. (1997). Discourse at our disposal: Stories in and around the garbage can. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 395-432.
50.
O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J. A., & Anderson, J. C. (1987). Message flow and decision-making. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 600-623). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
51.
Pearce, W. B. (1992). A “camper’s guide” to constructionism. Human Systems: The Journal of Systemic Consultation and Management, 3, 139-161.
52.
Pearce, W. B. (1995). A sailing guide for social constructionists. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social approaches to communication (pp. 88-113). New York: Guilford.
53.
Penman, R. (1992). Good theory and good practice: An argument in progress. Communication Theory, 2, 234-250.
54.
Philipsen, G. (1992). Speaking culturally: Explorations in social communication. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
55.
Potter, J. (1996). Discourse analysis and constructionist approaches: Theoretical background. Retrieved June 14, 2004, from http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/depstaff/staff/bio/JPpages/Richardson%2520Handbook%2520Chapter%2520for%2520web.htm
56.
Putnam, L., & Stohl, C. (1996). Bona fide groups: An alternative perspective for communication and small group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (2nd ed., pp. 147-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
Reed, R. R. (1990). Are Robert’s rules of order counterrevolutionary?: Rhetoric and the reconstruction of Portuguese politics. Anthropological Quarterly, 63, 134-144.
58.
Robichaud, D. (1999). Textualization and organizing: Illustrations from a public discussion process. The Communication Review, 3(1/2), 103-124.
59.
Rodriguez, J. (1996). Broadened diversity requirement misses the point. Retrieved October 21, 2004, from the University of Washington, The Online Daily Web site: http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1996/032596/cedagain.html
60.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
61.
Schwartzmann, H. B. (1989). The meeting: Gatherings in organizations and communities. New York: Plenum.
62.
Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46-62.
63.
Shapira, Z. (Ed.). (1997). Organizational decision making. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
Shotter, J. (1984). Social accountability and selfhood. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
65.
Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London: Sage.
66.
Shotter, J., & Gergen, K. J. (1994). Social construction: Knowledge, self, others, and continuing the conversation. Communication Yearbook, 17, 3-33.
67.
Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
68.
Stewart, J. (1995). Language as articulate contact. Albany: State University of New York Press.
69.
Takaki, R. (Ed.). (2002). Debating diversity: Clashing perspectives on race and ethnicity in America (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
70.
Taylor, J. R., & Cooren, F. (1997). What makes communication ‘organizational’?: How the many voices of a collectivity become the one voice of an organization. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 409-438.
71.
Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
72.
Tierney, W. G. (1983). Governance by conversation: An essay on the structure, function, and communicative codes of a faculty senate. Human Organization, 42, 172-177.
73.
Tompkins, P. K., & Cheney, G. (1983). Account analysis of organizations: Decision-making and identification. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 123-146). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
74.
Tracy, K. (1997). Colloquium: Dilemmas of academic discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
75.
Tracy, K., & Ashcraft, C. (2001). Crafting policies about controversial values: How wording disputes manage a group dilemma. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 297-316.
76.
Tracy, K., & Muller, H. (2001). Diagnosing a school board’s interactional trouble: Theorizing problem formulating. Communication Theory, 11, 84-104.
77.
Tracy, K., & Standerfer, C. (2003). Selecting a school superintendent: Sensitivities in group deliberation. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed., pp. 109-134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
78.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79.
Zeeman, L., Poggenpoel, M., Myburgh, C. P. H., & Van der Linde, N. (1998). An introduction to a postmodern approach to educational research: Discourse analysis. Education, 123, 96-102.
