If an individual can possess or be possessed by some particular type of ethos, then why not a group? This article defines, and empirically supports with case studies, three modes of group ethos that are culturally available to work groups in modern organizational settings. Each mode is associated with a particular communication style. The three group ethos modes are (a) pluralistic, associated with a pragmatic style of communication; (b) social movement, which communicates via protest; and (c) administrative-technical, which manifests via a prescriptive communication style. Characteristic communication strengths, weaknesses, and management problems are associated with each mode. The ethos mode will explicitly inform group communication and rhetoric and hence can be reliably inferred by observers. Group effectiveness problems are often attributable to groups entrained by their own ethos or to clashes of groups of differing ethos. Hybridism of modes is possible and may offer advantages in effectiveness.
Adams, J. L. (1986). Voluntary associations: Socio-cultural analyses and theological interpretation. Chicago: Exploration Press.
2.
Alderton, S. M., & Frey, L. R. (1986). Argumentation in small group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making(pp. 157-173). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
Ancona, D. G. (1993). The classics and the contemporary: A new blend of small group theory. In J. Murningham (Ed.), Social psychology in organization: Advances in theory and practice(pp. 225-243). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
Arendt, H. (1948). The origins of totalitarianism (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
5.
Aristotle. (1991). Aristotle on rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. Kennedy, Trans.).New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
7.
Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 408-437.
8.
Bentley, A. F. (1908). The process of government: A study of social pressures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Bernays, E. L. (1929). Crystallizing public opinion. New York: Horace Liveright.
10.
Berry, J. M. (1984). The interest group society.Boston: Little, Brown.
11.
Bion, W. R. (1959). Experiences in groups and other papers.New York: Basic Books.
12.
Blumer, H. (1950). The mass, the public and public opinion. In B. Berelson & M. Janowitz (Eds.), Reader in public opinion and communication(pp. 43-49). Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original work published 1946)
13.
Bormann, E. G. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 396-407.
14.
Chesebro, J. W., Cragan, J. F., & McCullough, P. (1973). The small group technique of the radical revolutionary: A synthetic study of consciousness raising. Speech Monograph, 40, 136-146.
15.
Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (2000). Effective public relations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
Dahl, R. A. (1963). Modern political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17.
Dahl, R. A. (1982). Dilemmas of pluralist democracy: Autonomy vs. control. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
Ellul, J. (1965). Propaganda: The formation of men's attitudes. New York: Knopf.
19.
Enos, R. L. (1981). Heuristic and eristic rhetoric in small group interaction: An examination of quasi-logical argument. In G. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation (pp. 719-727). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
20.
Foucault, M. (1973). The birth of the clinic: An archeology of medical perception.New York: Vintage.
21.
Geertz, C. (1971). Religion as a cultural system. In M. Banton (Ed.), Anthropological approaches to the study of religion (pp. 1-46). London: Tavistock.
22.
Gerver, I., & Bensman, J. (1995). Toward a sociology of expertness. In R. Jackall (Ed.), Propaganda (pp. 54-73). New York: New York University Press. (Original work published 1954)
23.
Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth: The struggle toward self-realization.New York: Norton.
24.
Jackall, R., & Hirota, J. M. (2000). Image makers: Advertising, public relations, and the ethos of advocacy.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
James, W. (1902). Pluralistic universe. In B. Kullick (Ed.), William James: Writings 1902-1910 (pp. 625-819). New York: Library of America.
26.
Johnson, B. M. (1975). Images of the enemy in intergroup conflict. Central States Speech Journal, 26, 84-92.
27.
Lenin, V. I. (1929). What is to be done? In H. M. Christman (Ed.), Essential works of Lenin (pp. 55-76). New York: Bantam.
28.
MacIntyre, A. C. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
29.
Marlin, R. (2002). Propaganda and the ethics of persuasion. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview.
30.
Mokros, H. B., & Deetz, S. (1996). What counts as real?: A constitutive view of communication and the disenfranchised in the context of health. In E. B. Ray (Ed.), Communication and disenfranchisment: Social health issues and implications(pp. 29-44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
Patrick, B. A. (2002). The National Rifle Association and the media: The motivating force of negative coverage. New York: Peter Lang.
32.
Pearce, W. B. (1995). Public dialogue and democracy: A guide for the discussion leader. Chicago: Loyola University, Center for Instructional Design.
33.
Rogers, R. A. P. (1911). A short history of ethics: Greek and modern.London: Macmillan.
34.
Ryan, C. (1991). Prime time activism: Media strategies for grass roots organizing.Boston: South End.
35.
Schein, E. H., Schneier, I., & Barker, C. H. (1961). Coercive persuasion: A socio-psychological analysis of the “brainwashing” of American civilian prisoners by the Chinese communists.New York: Norton.
36.
Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action, and politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Walton, R. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1986). Groups under contrasting management strategies. In J. P. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 168-201). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38.
Weber, M. (1948). Bureaucracy. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds. & Trans.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 77-128). New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628-652.
40.
Wilson, J. (1983). Social theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
41.
Wright, J. R. (1995). Interest groups and Congress: Lobbying, contributions, and influence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
42.
Zald, M. N., & Berger, M. A. (1987). Social movements in organizations: Coup d'état, bureaucratic insurgency, and mass movement. In M. N. Zald & D. McCarthy (Eds.), Social movement in an organizational society: Collected essays (pp. 185-222).New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
