Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2015-1
The Role of Employee Identification and Organizational Identity in Strategic Communication and Organizational Issues Management about Genetic Modification
This article examines the organizational identities and strategic communication of two New Zealand primary export organizations as they managed intense public debate surrounding the potential impacts of genetic modification. We examine the similarities and differences in identifications at multiple levels in these organizations, illustrating the value and, by implication, policy positions held simultaneously by individual organizational members, groups, and the organizations as collective entities. These positions also serve as points of reference in public discourse about genetic modification. Our empirically grounded, critical interpretive analysis reveals the roles played by employee identification and organizational identity formation in strategic communication and organizational issues management about controversial public policies. In these ways, the analysis makes important connections between “the organizational voice” typically represented in issues management and individual members’ identifications, and offers evidence for how the latter might be taken into account in the development of strategic communication.
AllenG. (2007). The corporate political environment, and big business response. Journal of Public Affairs, 7, 97-108. doi:10.1002/pa.239
2.
AlvessonM.WilmottH. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 619-644.
3.
ArvidssonS. (2010). Communication of corporate social responsibility: A study of the views of management teams in large companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 339-354. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0469-2
4.
AshwellD. (2009). Restricted voices in the New Zealand GM debate: An analysis of New Zealand metropolitan newspaper coverage (1998 to February 2002). East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 5, 505-528. doi:10.1215/18752160-1457871
5.
AugoustinosM.CrabbS.ShepherdR. (2010). Genetically modified food in the news: Media representations of the GM debate in the UK. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 98-114. doi:10.1177/0963662508088669
BloomfieldB. P.DoolinB. (2013). Symbolic communication in public protest over genetic modification: Visual rhetoric, symbolic excess, and social mores. Science Communication, 35, 502-527. doi:10.1177/1075547012469116
8.
BostdorffD. M.VibbertS. L. (1994). Values advocacy: Enhancing organizational images, deflecting public criticism, and grounding future arguments. Public Relations Review, 20, 141-158.
9.
BoydJ. (2000). Actional legitimation: No crisis necessary. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12, 341-353. doi:10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1204_3
10.
BoydJ.WaymerD. (2011). Organizational rhetoric: A subject of interest(s). Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 474-493. doi:10.1177/0893318911409865
11.
BrownA. D. (2006). A narrative approach to collective identities. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 731-753. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00609.x
12.
BurkeK. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkley: University of California Press. (Originally work published 1950)
13.
BurkeK. (1973). The philosophy of literary form: Studies in symbolic action. Berkley: University of California Press.
CanavariM.NaygaR. M. (2009). On consumers’ willingness to purchase nutritionally enhanced genetically modified food. Applied Economics, 41, 125-137. doi:10.1080/00036840701367564
16.
CaterJ. J.JustisR. T. (2010). The development and implementation of shared leadership in multi-generational family firms. Management Research Review, 33, 563-585. doi:10.1108/01409171011050190
17.
CheneyG. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
18.
CheneyG.ChristensenL. T. (2001). Organizational identity: Linkages between internal and external communication. In JablinF.PutnamL. (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 231-269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
CheneyG.ChristensenL. T.ConradC.LairD. L. (2005). Corporate rhetoric as organizational discourse. In GrantD.HardyC.OswickC.PhillipsN.PutnamL. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 79-103). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
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: Advances in theory, research and methods (3rd ed., pp. 695-716). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
CheneyG.LairD. (2005). Theorizing organizational rhetoric: Classical, interpretive, and critical aspects. In MumbyD. K.MayS. K. (Eds.), Theory development in organizational communication (pp. 55-84). London, England: Sage.
22.
CheneyG.TompkinsP. K. (1988). On the facts of text as the basis of human communication research. Communication Yearbook, 11, 455-481.
23.
ChristensenL. T.CheneyG. (2000). Self-absorption and self-seduction in the corporate identity game. In SchultzM.HatchM. J.LarsenM. H. (Eds.), The expressive organization (pp. 246-270). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
24.
ChristensenL. T.CornelissenJ. P. (2011). Bridging corporate and organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 383-414. doi:10.1177/0893318910390194
ConradC.McIntushH. (2003). Organizational rhetoric and healthcare policymaking. In ThompsonT.DorseyA.MillerK.ParrottR. (Eds.), Handbook of health communication (pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DavenportS.LeitchS. (2009). Creating space for the successor: The discourse strategies of pro-and anti-GM factions regarding the future of agriculture in New Zealand. European Planning Studies, 17, 943-961. doi:10.1080/09654310902949281
30.
DeliosA. (2010). How can organizations be competitive but dare to care?Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 25-36. doi:10.5465/AMP.2010.52842949
31.
DuttonJ. E.DukerichJ. M.HarquailC. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.
32.
EdwardsL. (2011). Questions of self-interest, agency, and the rhetor. Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 531-540. doi:10.1177/0893318911409866
33.
EisenbergE. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242.
34.
ElsbachK. D. (1998). The process of social identification: With what do we identify? In WhettenD. A.GodfreyP. C. (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 232-237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
ElsbachK. D.BhattacharyaC. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you’re not: Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Organization. Organization Science, 12, 393-413. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.4.393.10638
36.
FaircloughN. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
FossS. (2004). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (3rd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
39.
FoucaultM. (1984). The Foucault reader. New York, NY: Pantheon.
40.
GinzelL. E.KramerR. M.SuttonR. I. (2004). Organizational impression management as a reciprocal influence process: The neglected role of the organizational audience. In HatchM. J.SchultzM. (Eds.), Organizational identity: A reader (pp. 223-261). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
41.
HagemannK. S.ScholdererJ. (2009). Hot potato: Expert-consumer differences in the perception of a second-generation novel food. Risk Analysis, 29, 1041-1055. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01229.x
42.
HeathR. L. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
HeathR. L. (2001). A rhetorical enactment for public relations: The good organization communicating well. In HeathR. L. (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 31-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
HeathR.PalencharM.McComasK.ProutheauS. (2012). Risk management and communication: Pressures and conflicts of a stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility. In LindgreenA.KotlerP.MaonF.VanhammeJ. (Eds.), A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: Pressures, conflicts, reconciliation (pp. 121-140). Farnham, England: Gower.
45.
HendersonA. (2005). Activism in “paradise”: Identity management in a public relations campaign against genetic engineering. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 117-137. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1702_4
46.
HeracleousL.BarrettM. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 755-778. doi:10.2307/3069414
KentM. (2011). Public relations rhetoric: Criticism, dialogue, and the long now. Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 550-559. doi:10.1177/0893318911409881
49.
KitzingerJ.BarbourR. S. (1999). Introduction: The challenge and promise of focus groups. In BarbourR. S.KitzingerJ. (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 1-20). London, England: Sage.
50.
KuhnT. (1997). The discourse of issues management: A genre of organizational communication. Communication Quarterly, 45, 188-210. doi:10.1080/01463379709370060
51.
LevidowL. (1998). Democratizing technology—or technologizing democracy? Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Europe. Technology in Society, 20, 211-226.
52.
LindlofT.TaylorB. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
LoeberA.HajerM.LevidowL. (2011). Agro-food crises: Institutional and discursive changes in the food scares era. Science as Culture, 20, 147-155. doi:10.1080/09505431.2011.563567
54.
MackenzieW. J. M. (1978). Political identity. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
55.
MarcuA.GasparR.RutsaertP.SeibtB.FletcherD.Verbeke.BarnettJ. (2014). Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662514521106
56.
MeisenbachR.FeldnerS. (2011). Adopting an attitude of wisdom in organizational rhetorical theory and practice: Contemplating the ideal and the real. Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 560-568. doi:10.1177/0893318911409548
57.
MerrettC. D. (2001). Understanding local responses to globalisation: The production of geographical scale and political identity. National Identities, 3, 69-87. doi:10.1080/14608940020028501
58.
MeyerS.MamerowL.HendersonJ.TaylorA.CoveneyJ.WardP. (2013). The importance of food issues in society: Results from a national survey in Australia. Nutrition & Dietetics, 71, 65-142. doi:10.1111/1747-0080.12076
59.
Ministry of Research, Science and Technology. (2002, October). New Zealand biotechnology strategy. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. Retrieved from http://www.massey.ac.nz/~ychisti/NZBioStrat.pdf
60.
MotionJ.WeaverC. K. (2005). A discourse perspective for critical public relations research: Life sciences network and the battle for truth. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 49-67. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1701_5
61.
MouffeC. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism?Social Research, 66, 745-758.
62.
MullerF. G. (2004). The biosafety protocol and its environmental seeds of discord. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 6, 3-17. doi:10.1080/0020723032000119019
63.
New Zealand Dairy Board. (2000a). Biotechnology: Why we’re investing in research. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
64.
New Zealand Dairy Board. (2000b). Royal Commission on genetic modification [Submission presented to the Royal Commission on genetic modification]. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
65.
Overton-de KlerkN.VerweyS. (2013). Towards an emerging paradigm of strategic communication: Core driving forces. Communicatio, 39, 362-382. doi:10.1080/02500167.2013.837626
66.
PetersonT. R. (1997). Sharing the earth: The rhetoric of sustainable development. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
67.
PrasadP.ElmesM. (2005). In the name of the practical: Unearthing the hegemony of pragmatics in the discourse of environmental management. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 705-892. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00521.x
68.
PutnamL. L.NicoteraA. M. (2009). Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. London, England: Routledge.
69.
RodriguesS.ChildC. (2008). The development of corporate identity: A political perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 885-911. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00750.x
70.
Rogers-HaydenT.HindmarshR. (2002). Modernity contextualises New Zealand’s Royal Commission on genetic modification: A discourse analysis. Journal of New Zealand Studies, 1, 41-62. Retrieved from http://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/jnzs/article/view/79/38
71.
RoperJ. (2012). Environmental risk, sustainability discourses, and public relations. Public Relations Inquiry, 1, 69-87. doi:10.1177/2046147X11422147
72.
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. (2001). Report of the Royal Commission on genetic modification. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
ScottC. R.CormanS. R.CheneyG. (1998). Development of a structurational model of identification in the organization. Communication Theory, 8, 298-336. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00223.x
75.
ShivaV. (1997). Biopiracy: The plunder of nature and knowledge. Boston, MA: South End Press.
SillinceJ. A. (2006). Resources and organizational identities: The role of rhetoric in the creation of competitive advantage. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 186-212. doi:10.1177/0893318906293587
78.
SkillingD.BovenD. (2006). Developing Kiwi global champions: Growing successful New Zealand multi-national companies. Auckland, New Zealand: The New Zealand Institute.
UllmerR.SellnowT. (1997). Strategic ambiguity and the ethic of significant choice in the tobacco industry’s crisis communication. Communication Studies, 48, 215-233. doi:10.1080/10510979709368502
85.
van DijkT. A. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society, 6, 243-289. doi:10.1177/0957926595006002006
86.
van DijkT. A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In WodakR.MeyerM. (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse (pp. 95-120). London, England: Sage.
87.
WeaverC. K. (2010). Carnivalesque activism as a public relations genre: A case study of the New Zealand group Mothers Against Genetic Engineering. Public Relations Review, 36, 35-41. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.09.001
88.
WeaverC. K. (2014). Mothers, bodies, and breasts: Organizing strategies and tactics in women’s activism. In DaymonC.DemetriousK. (Eds.), Gender and public relations: Critical perspectives on voice, image and identity (pp. 108-131). London, England: Routledge.
89.
WeaverC. K.MotionJ. (2002). Sabotage, and subterfuge: Public relations, democracy and genetic engineering in New Zealand. Media, Culture & Society, 24, 325-343. doi:10.1177/016344370202400303
90.
WebbyJ. (Ed.). (2004, February). Celebrating 100 years: The New Zealand Kiwifruit industry 1904-2004 (Series: 100 Year Centennial Edition). Tauranga, New Zealand: New Zealand Kiwifruit Journal.
91.
Zespri. (2000). Royal Commission on genetic modification [Submission presented to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification]. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
ZollerH. (2004). Dialogue as global issue management: Legitimizing corporate influence in the transatlantic business dialogue. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 204-220. doi:10.1177/0893318904265126
94.
ZollerH.TenerM. (2010). Corporate proactivity as a discursive fiction: Managing environmental health activism and regulation. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 391-418. doi:10.1177/0893318909354116
