This article presents an empirical analysis of the communicative constitution of organization (CCO) literature to demonstrate how, and to what extent, CCO scholarship is becoming established within organizational communication studies and related fields. We assess the trajectory of CCO research from 2000 to 2015 and, via the application of a neo-institutional perspective, show that CCO scholarship is gaining legitimacy within organizational communication and is becoming increasingly recognized in fields such as management and organization studies, although it has not focused extensively on formalizing its approaches to investigating how organizations are produced in communication. Our analysis reveals key questions and challenges that future CCO scholarship should address to strengthen its institutional legitimacy and influence.
AlvessonM.KärremanD. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53, 1125-1149. doi:10.1177/0018726700539002
2.
AnandN.JonesB. C. (2008). Tournament rituals, category dynamics, and field configuration: The case of the Booker prize. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1036-1060. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00782.x
3.
ArnaudN.MillsC. E. (2012). Understanding interorganizational agency: A communication perspective. Group & Organization Management, 37, 452-485. doi:1059601112451125.
4.
Benoit-BarnéC.CoorenF. (2009). The accomplishment of authority through presentification: How authority is distributed among and negotiated by organizational members. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 5-31. doi:10.1177/0893318909335414
5.
BergerP. L.LuckmannT. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Anchor.
6.
BiselR. S. (2010). A communicative ontology of organization? A description, history, and critique of CCO theories for organization science. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 124-131. doi:10.1177/0893318909351582
7.
BiselR. S.MessersmithA. S.KelleyK. M. (2012). Supervisor-subordinate communication: Hierarchical mum effect meets organizational learning. Journal of Business Communication, 49, 128-147. doi:10.1177/0021943612436972
8.
BourdieuP.WacquantL. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
BrowningL. D.SitkinS. B.SutcliffeK. M.ObstfeldD.GreeneR. (2000). Keep ‘em flying: The constitutive dynamics of an organizational change in the US Air Force. Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronique de Communication, 10. Retrieved from http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/010/1/01012.html
10.
BrummansB. H. J. M. (2006). The Montréal School and the question of agency. In CoorenF.TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversation (pp. 197-211). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
BrummansB. H. J. M. (2015). “Turning the lens on ourselves”: Bourdieu’s reflexivity in practice. In TatliA.ÖzbilginM.Karatas-ÖzkanM. (Eds.), Bourdieu, organisation and management (pp. 70-94). New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
BrummansB. H. J. M.CoorenF.RobichaudD.TaylorJ. R. (2014). Approaches to the communicative constitution of organizations. In PutnamL. L.MumbyD. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication (3rd ed., pp. 173-194). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
13.
BrummansB. H. J. M.HwangJ. M.CheongP. H. (2013). Mindful authoring through invocation: Leaders’ constitution of a spiritual organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 346-372. doi:10.1177/0893318913479176
14.
CoorenF. (2004). The communicative achievement of collective minding: Analysis of board meeting excerpts. Management Communication Quarterly, 17, 517-551. doi:10.1177/0893318903262242
15.
CoorenF. (2006). Arguments for the in-depth study of organizational interactions: A rejoinder to McPhee, Myers, and Trethewey. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 327-340. doi:10.1177/0893318905280325
16.
CoorenF.FairhurstG. T. (2004). Speech timing and spacing: The phenomenon of organizational closure. Organization, 11, 793-824. doi:10.1177/1350508404047252
17.
CoorenF.FoxS.RobichaudD.TalihN. (2005). Arguments for a plurified view of the social world: Spacing and timing as hybrid achievements. Time & Society, 14, 265-282. doi:10.1177/0961463X05055138
18.
CoorenF.KuhnT.CornelissenJ. P.ClarkT. (2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 32, 1149-1170. doi:10.1177/0170840611410836
19.
CoorenF.MatteF.Benoit-BarnéC.BrummansB. H. J. M. (2013). Communication as ventriloquism: A grounded-in-action approach to the study of organizational tensions. Communication Monographs, 80, 255-277. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.788255
20.
CoorenF.VaaraE.LangleyA.TsoukasH. (2014). Language and communication at work: Discourse, narrativity, and organizing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
CormanS. R.PooleM. S. (Eds.). (2000). Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
22.
CornelissenJ.ChristensenL. T.KinuthiaK. (2012). Corporate brands and identity: Developing stronger theory and a call for shifting the debate. European Journal of Marketing, 46, 1093-1102. doi:10.1108/03090561211230214
23.
CornelissenJ. P.DurandR.FissP. C.LammersJ. C.VaaraE. (2015). Putting communication front and center in institutional theory and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 40, 10-27. doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0381
24.
DeweyJ. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: The Free Press.
25.
DickK. (Director), & Ziering KofmanA. (Director and Producer). (2002). Derrida [Documentary]. New York, NY: Zeitgeist Films.
26.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095101
27.
EisenbergE. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242. doi:10.1080/03637758409390197
28.
FairhurstG. T.PutnamL. L. (1999). Reflections on the organization-communication equivalency question: The contributions of James Taylor and his colleagues. The Communication Review, 3, 1-19. doi:10.1080/10714429909368572
29.
FairhurstG. T.PutnamL. L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14, 5-26. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00301.x
30.
FauréB.BrummansB. H. J. M.GirouxH.TaylorJ. R. (2010). The calculation of business, or the business of calculation? Accounting as organizing through everyday communication. Human Relations, 63, 1249-1273. doi:10.1177/0018726709355658
31.
FauréB.RouleauL. (2011). The strategic competence of accountants and middle managers in budget making. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36, 167-182. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2011.04.001
32.
GarudR. (2008). Conferences as venues for the configuration of emerging organizational fields: The case of cochlear implants. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1061-1088. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00783.x
33.
GiddensA. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
34.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
35.
GrantD.HardyC.OswickC.PutnamL. L. (2004). The SAGE handbook of organizational discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
36.
GreimasA. J. (1989). On meaning (PerronP.CollinsF., Trans.). New Literary History, 20, 539-550. doi:10.2307/469352
37.
GüneyS. (2006). Making sense of a conflict as the (missing) link between collaborating actors. In CoorenF.TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversation (pp. 19-35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
HardyC.MaguireS. (2010). Discourse, field-configuring events, and change in organizations and institutional fields: Narratives of DDT and the Stockholm Convention. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1365-1392. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.57318384
39.
Knorr CetinaK. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
KoschmannM. A. (2010). Communication as a distinct mode of explanation makes a difference. Communication Monographs, 77, 431-434. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.523593
41.
KoschmannM. A. (2013). The communicative constitution of collective identity in interorganizational collaboration. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 61-89. doi:10.1177/0893318912449314
42.
KuhnT. (2005). The institutionalization of Alta in organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 595-603. doi:10.1177/0893318904273851
43.
KuhnT. (2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 29, 1227-1254. doi:10.1177/0170840608094778
44.
KuhnT. (2012). Negotiating the micro-macro divide: Thought leadership from organizational communication for theorizing organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 543-584. doi:10.1177/0893318912462004
45.
KuhnT.SchoenebornD. (2015). The pedagogy of CCO. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 295-301. doi:10.1177/0893318915571348
46.
LammersJ. C. (2011). How institutions communicate: Institutional messages, institutional logics, and organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 154-182.
47.
LammersJ. C.BarbourJ. B. (2006). An institutional theory of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 16, 356-377. doi:10.1177/0893318910389280
48.
LammersJ. C.GarciaM. A. (2014). Institutional theory. In PutnamL. L.MumbyD. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication (3rd ed., pp. 195-216). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
49.
LampelJ.MeyerA. D. (2008). Field-configuring events as structuring mechanisms: How conferences, ceremonies, and trade shows constitute new technologies, industries, and markets. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1025-1035. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00787.x
50.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
51.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
52.
LoewensteinJ.OcasioW.JonesC. (2012). Vocabularies and vocabulary structure: A new approach linking categories, practices, and institutions. The Academy of Management Annals, 6, 41-86. doi:10.1080/19416520.2012.660763
53.
LuhmannN. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
54.
MatteF.CoorenF. (2015). Learning as dialogue: An “on-the-go” approach to dealing with organizational tensions. In FilliettazL.BillettS. (Eds.), Francophone perspectives of learning through work (pp. 169-187). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
55.
McpheeR. D.MyersK. K.TretheweyA. (2006). On collective mind and conversational analysis: Response to Cooren. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 311-326. doi:10.1177/0893318905280324
56.
McPheeR. D.PooleM. S.IversonJ. (2014). Structuration theory. In PutnamL. L.MumbyD. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (3rd ed., pp. 75-100). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
57.
McPheeR. D.ZaugP. (2000). The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation. The Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronique de Communication, 10. Retrieved from http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/010/1/01017.html
58.
McPheeR. D.ZaugP. (2009). The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation. In PutnamL. L.NicoteraA. M. (Eds.), Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication (pp. 21-48). New York, NY: Routledge.
59.
MumbyD. K.StohlC. (1996). Disciplining organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 50-72. doi:10.1177/0893318996010001004
60.
PalmerM.SimmonsG.HallM. (2013). Textbook (non-)adoption motives, legitimizing strategies and academic field configuration. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 485-505. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.583983
61.
PangL. (2006). The institutionalization of “Chinese” cinema as an academic discipline. Journal of Chinese Cinemas, 1, 55-61. doi:10.1386/jcc.1.1.55_7
62.
PhillipsN.OswickC. (2012). Organizational discourse: Domains, debates, and directions. The Academy of Management Annals, 6, 435-481. doi:10.1080/19416520.2012.681558
63.
PietteI. (2013). Restructuring identity through sectorial narratives. In RobichaudD.CoorenF. (Eds.), Organization and organizing: Materiality, agency, and discourse (pp. 150-170). New York, NY: Routledge.
64.
PutnamL. L. (1983). Organizational communication: Toward a research agenda. In PutnamL. L.PacanowskyM. E. (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 31-54). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
65.
PutnamL. L.CheneyG. (1985). Organizational communication: Historical developments and future directions. In BensonT. (Ed.), Speech communication in the 20th century (pp. 130-156). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
66.
PutnamL. L.FairhurstG. T. (2001). Discourse analysis in organizations: Issues and concerns. In JablinF. M.PutnamL. L. (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 78-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
67.
PutnamL. L.FairhurstG. T. (2015). Revisiting “organizations as discursive constructions”: 10 years later. Communication Theory, 25, 375-392. doi:10.1111/comt.12074
68.
PutnamL. L.MumbyD. K. (2014). Introduction: Advancing theory and research in organizational communication. In PutnamL. L.MumbyD. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication (3rd ed., pp. 1-25). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
69.
PutnamL. L.NicoteraA. M. (Eds.). (2009). Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. New York, NY: Routledge.
70.
PutnamL. L.PhillipsN.ChapmanP. (1996). Metaphors of communication and organization. In CleggS. R.HardyC.NordW. R. (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 375-408). London, UK: SAGE.
71.
RobichaudD.CoorenF. (Eds.). (2013). Organization and organizing: Materiality, agency, and discourse. New York, NY: Routledge.
72.
SchoenebornD.BlaschkeS.CoorenF.McPheeR. D.SeidlD.TaylorJ. R. (2014). The three schools of CCO thinking: Interactive dialogue and systematic comparison. Management Communication Quarterly, 28, 285-316. doi:10.1177/0893318914527000
73.
SchoenebornD.SandhuS. (2013). When birds of different feather flock together: The emerging debate on “organization as communication” in the German-speaking countries. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 303-313. doi:10.1177/0893318912470079
74.
SchoenebornD.VásquezC. (in press). Communication as constitutive of organization. In ScottC. R.LewisL. K. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of organizational communication. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
75.
ScottW. R.MeyerJ. W. (1983). The organization of societal sectors: Propositions and early evidence. In MeyerJ. W.ScottW. R. (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 129-153). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
76.
SillinceJ. A.BarkerJ. R. (2012). A tropological theory of institutionalization. Organization Studies, 33, 7-38. doi:10.1177/0170840611425735
77.
SmithR. C. (1993, May). Images of organizational communication: Root-metaphors of the organization-communication relation. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC.
78.
SpradleyJ. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
79.
SpradleyJ. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
80.
TaylorJ. R. (1988). Une organisation n’est q’un tissu de communication: Essais théoriques [The organization is but a web of communication]. Montréal, QC: Université de Montréal.
81.
TaylorJ. R. (1993). Rethinking the theory of organizational communication: How to read an organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
82.
TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
83.
TolbertP. S.ZuckerL. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In CleggS. R.HardyC.NordW. R. (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 175-190). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
84.
VareyR. (2006). Accounts in interactions: Implications of accounting practices for managing. In CoorenF.TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversation (pp. 181-196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
85.
VásquezC.BrummansB. H. J. M.GroleauC. (2012). Notes from the field on organizational shadowing as framing. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 7, 144-165. doi:10.1108/17465641211253075
86.
VásquezC.CoorenF. (2013). Spacing practices: The communicative configuration of organizing through space-times. Communication Theory, 23, 25-47. doi:10.1111/comt.12003
87.
WeickK. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
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.
