Texts and conversations are central to the constitution of organizations. Through the use of social media technologies, organizational members and nonorganizational members alike have the capacity to author organizational texts that co-constitute an organization as an entity with a specific identity in a situational space and time. The implications of this ability are underexplored. This study focused on how two organizations used the social media technology Twitter to interact with their constituents. The article adopts communication-centered and sociomateriality perspectives to illustrate how Twitter interactions (hashtags) become hypertexts that simultaneously coproduce an organizational actor and act as a pastiche of the organization (i.e., a vehicle of contestation for the specific identity they were designed to bring into existence). The findings provide a novel understanding of hypertextuality as the process through which an organization is temporarily co-constituted by both inter- and intraorganizational discursive-material interactions across spaces and times.
BaxterP.JackS. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13, 544-559.
6.
BijkerW.LawJ. (Eds.). (1992). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 1-19). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
7.
CharmazK. (2001). Grounded theory. In EmersonR. M. (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 335-352). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
8.
CheneyG.ChristensenL. T.DaileyS. (2014). Communicating identity and identification in and around organizations. In PutnamL. L.MumbyD. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication (pp. 695-717). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9.
ChristensenL. T.CornelissenJ. P. (2011). Bridging corporate and organizational communication: Review, development and a look to the future. Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 383-414.
10.
CoorenF. (2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11, 373-394.
11.
CrumpJ. (2011). What are the police doing on Twitter? Social media, the police and the public. Policy & Internet, 3(4), Article 7.
EricksonT.KelloggW. (2000). Social translucence: An approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7, 59-83.
14.
EtterM. (2014). Broadcasting, reacting, engaging-three strategies for CSR communication in Twitter. Journal of Communication Management, 18, 322-342.
15.
FischerE.ReuberR. (2011). Social interaction via new social media: (How) can interactions on Twitter affect effectual thinking and behavior?Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 1-18.
16.
GarfinkelH. (1992). Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In WatsonG.SellerR. M. (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 175-206). London, England: SAGE.
17.
GenetteG. (1997). Palimpsests, literature in the second degree. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
18.
GibbsJ. L.RozaidiN. A.EisenbergJ. (2013). Overcoming the “ideology of openness”: Probing the affordances of social media for organizational knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 102-120.
19.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Reading, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
20.
GioiaD. A.SchultzM.CorleyK. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63-81.
GolbeckJ.GrimesJ.RogersA. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 1612-1621.
23.
GuoC.SaxtonG. (2013). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 57-79.
24.
HalfordS.SavageM. (2010). Reconceptualizing digital social inequality. Information Communication & Society, 13, 937-955.
25.
HolstiO. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
26.
HoltD. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding. The Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 70-90.
27.
JacksonM. H. (2007). Fluidity, promiscuity, and mash-ups: New concepts for the study of mobility and communication. Communication Monographs, 74, 408-413.
28.
JansenB.ZhangM.SobelK.ChowduryA. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 2169-2188.
29.
KhasnabishA. (2008). Zapatismo beyond borders: New imaginations of political possibility. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
30.
LandowG. P. (2006). Hypertext 3.0: Critical theory and new media in an era of globalization. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
31.
LeonardiP. M. (2009). Why do people reject new technologies and stymie organizational changes of which they are in favor? Exploring misalignments between social interactions and materiality. Human Communication Research, 35, 407-441.
32.
LeonardiP. M.HuismanM.SteinfieldC. (2013). Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 1-19.
33.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
34.
LovejoyK.WatersR. D.SaxtonG. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38, 313-318.
35.
MurthyD. (2012). Towards a sociological understanding of social media: Theorizing Twitter. Sociology, 46, 1059-1073.
36.
PelsD.HetheringtonK.VandenbergheF. (Eds.). (2002). Special issue on materiality/sociality. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5-6), 1-277.
37.
PutnamL. L.MumbyD. K. (Eds.). (2014). The SAGE handbook of organizational communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
SchoenebornD.SchererA. G. (2012). Clandestine organizations, al Qaeda, and the paradox of (in)visibility: A response to Stohl and Stohl. Organization Studies, 33, 963-971.
TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
TreemJ.LeonardiP. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook, 36, 143-189.
42.
TurnerG. (2010). Ordinary people and the media: The demotic turn. London, England: SAGE.
VásquezC.CoorenF. (2013). Spacing practices: The communicative configuration of organizing through space-times. Communication Theory, 23, 25-47.
46.
VeilS. R.SellnowT. L.PetrunE. L. (2012). Hoaxes and the paradoxical challenges of restoring legitimacy: Dominos’ response to its YouTube crisis. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 322-345.
47.
WhelanG. (2013). Corporate constructed and dissent enabling public spheres: Differentiating dissensual from consensual corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 755-769.
48.
ZhangJ.QuY.CodyJ.WuY. (2010). A case study of micro-blogging in the enterprise: Use, value, and related issues. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 123-132). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
