How do institutions think about change? Building on Mary Douglas’s famous contention that institutions think by means of analogy, we suggest that institutions think about change by means of irony. Irony is pronounced during times of profound change when the rhetoric and the reality of change can be inconsistent. We show that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has enacted what we term loosely coupled change—change in which symbolic meanings and material practices are only weakly connected and retain their independence. The CCP employed the rhetorical form of irony, known as casuistry, to legitimize a change to market systems as being incremental while in practice radically adopting market systems and dismantling socialist practices. We contribute to research on institutional messaging by examining the hermeneutic depth of casuistry. We also contribute to research on organizational change by explicating how casuistry reconciles contradictory ideologies and facilitates loosely coupled change.
BarbourJ. B. (2010). On the institutional moorings of talk in health care organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(3), 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318910370269
2.
BarbourJ. B.ManlyJ. N. (2016). Redefining disaster preparedness: Institutional contradictions and praxis in volunteer responder organizing. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(3), 333–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318916629101
BoothW. C. (1974). A rhetoric of irony. The University of Chicago Press.
5.
BrunssonN. (1991). The organization of hypocrisy (N. Adler, Trans). John Wiley & Sons.
6.
BurgersC. (2016). Conceptualizing change in communication through metaphor. Journal of Communication, 66(2), 250–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12211
7.
BurkeK. (1969a). A grammar of motives. Prentice-Hall.
8.
BurkeK. (1969b). A rhetoric of motives. University of California Press.
9.
BurkeK. (1984). Attitudes toward history (3rd ed.) University of California Press.
10.
CarlsonA. C. (1992). Creative casuistry and feminist consciousness: A rhetoric of moral reform. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 78(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335639209383979
DengX. (1993) Deng xiaoping wenxuan (selected works of Deng xiaoping) (Vol. 3). People’s Publishing House.
14.
DoughertyD. S.KramerM. W.KlatzkeS. R.RogersT. K. K. (2009). Language convergence and meaning divergence: A meaning centered communication theory. Communication Monographs, 76(1), 20–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750802378799
15.
DouglasM. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse University Press.
FewsmithJ. (2001). Elite politics in contemporary China. M.E. Sharpe.
18.
FriedlandR.AlfordR. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). The University of Chicago Press.
GreenS.LiY. (2011). Rhetorical institutionalism: Language, agency, and structure in institutional theory since Alvesson 1993. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1662–1697. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01022.x
21.
GreenS.LiY.NohriaN. (2009). Suspended in self-spun webs of significance: A rhetorical model of institutionalization and institutionally embedded agency. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.36461725
22.
GreenwoodR.HiningsC. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054. https://doi.org/10.2307/259163
23.
HallettT.VentrescaM. J. (2006). How institutions form: Loose coupling as mechanism in Gouldner's patterns of industrial bureaucracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 908–924. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764205285171
24.
HarteliusE. J.BrowningL. D. (2008). The application of rhetorical theory in managerial research: A literature review. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318908318513
25.
JensenP. R. (2020). Alternative logics: A discursive approach to normative and alternative organizing. Human Relations, 74(8), 1156–1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720904128
26.
JonsenA. R.ToulminS. E. (1988). The abuse of casuistry. University of California Press.
27.
KluverA. R. (1996). Legitimating the Chinese economic reforms: A rhetoric of myth and orthodoxy. State University of New York Press.
28.
LammersJ. C. (2011). How institutions communicate: Institutional messages, institutional logics, and organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 154–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318910389280
LiY.GreenS. E.HirschP. M. (2018). Rhetoric and authority in a polarized transition: The case of China's stock market. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492616682620
31.
LizardoO. (2019). Specifying the “what” and separating the “how”: Doings, sayings, codes, and artifacts as the building blocks of institutions. In HaackP.SiewekeJ.WesselL. (Eds.), Microfoundations of institutions (pp. 217–234). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X2019000065A021
32.
LuX.SimonsH. W. (2006). Transitional rhetoric of Chinese Communist Party leaders in the post-Mao reform period: Dilemmas and strategies. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 92(3), 262–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630600938674
33.
MacleanM.HarveyC. E.SillinceJ. A. A.GolantB. D. (2018). Intertextuality, rhetorical history and the uses of the past in organizational research. Organization Studies, 39(12), 1733–1755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618789206
34.
MaguireS.HardyC. (2009). Discourse and deinstitutionalization: The decline of DDT. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 148–178. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.36461993
35.
MeisenbachR. J.McMillanJ. J. (2006). Blurring the boundaries: Historical developments and future directions in organizational rhetoric. Annals of the International Communication Association, 30(1), 99–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2006.11679056
36.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
37.
MeyerR. E.HöllererM. A. (2016). Laying a smoke screen: Ambiguity and neutralization as strategic responses to intra-institutional complexity. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 373–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127016633335
38.
NaughtonB. (1995). Growing out of the plan: Chinese economic reform, 1978-1993. Cambridge University Press.
39.
NeeV.OpperS. (2012). Capitalism from below. Harvard University Press.
40.
O’ConnorA.ParchaJ. M.TulibaskiC. L. G. (2017). The institutionalization of corporate social responsibility communication: An intra-industry comparison of MNCs’ and SMEs’ CSR reports. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 503–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318917704512
41.
OfficeC. C. C. L. R. (Ed.), (1983). Since the third plenum: Selected important documents. People’s Publishing House.
OrtonJ. D.WeickK. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.2307/258154
44.
OswickC.PutnamL. L.KeenoyT. (2004). Tropes, discourse and organizing. In GrantD.HardyC.OswickC.PutnamL. L. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 105–127). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608122.n5
45.
PatalaS.KorpivaaraI.JalkalaA.KuitunenA.SoppeB. (2019). Legitimacy under institutional change: How incumbents appropriate clean rhetoric for dirty technologies. Organization Studies, 40(3), 395–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617736938
PhillipsN.MalhotraN. (2008). Taking social construction seriously: Extending the discursive approach in institutional theory. In GreenwoodR.SahlinK.SuddabyR. (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 702–720). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.N30
48.
PooleM. S.Van de VenA. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308389
49.
PowellW. W.ColyvasJ. A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SuddabyR.SahlinK. (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 276–298). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X2019000065B031
50.
PutnamL. L. (2015). Unpacking the dialectic: Alternative views on the disourse-materiality relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 52(5), 706–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12115
51.
SeoM.PutnamL. L.BartunekJ. M. (2004). Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change. In PooleM. S.Van de VenA. H. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 73–107). Oxford University Press.
52.
ShirkS. L (1993). The political logic of economic reform in China. University of California Press.
SillinceJ. A. A.JarzabkowskiP.ShawD. (2012). Shaping strategic action through the rhetorical construction and exploitation of ambiguity. Organization Science, 23(3), 630–650. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0670
55.
StiglitzJ. E. (1994). Whither socialism?MIT Press.
56.
SuddabyR. (2011). How communication institutionalizes: A response to Lammers. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318910389265
57.
SuddabyR.CoraiolaD.HarveyC.FosterW. M. (2020). History and the micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 41(3), 530–556. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3058
WaltmanL.van EckN. J.NoyonsE. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002
61.
WeickK. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875
62.
WengB. S. J. (1983). Introduction. In SchramS. (Ed.), Mao Zedong: A preliminary reassessment (pp. i-viii). Chinese University Press.
63.
WestphalJ. D.ZajacE. J. (2001). Decoupling policy from practice: The case of stock repurchase programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 202–228. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667086
64.
WinklerP.EtterM.WehmeierS. (2017). Forms of talk-action-inconsistency: Introducing reverse coupling. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(3), 479–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318917699523
ZuckerL. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42(5), 726–743. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094862
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.
