Organizational communication plays a critical role in shaping the success of modern businesses. In today’s rapidly digitalizing environment, organizations are becoming aware of the changes that new technologies create in internal communication. The effectiveness of communication in organizations depends on the correct use of language production and meaning processes. Understanding the complex relationship between language production, organizational communication, and meaning-making is particularly important to grasp the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in these processes. This study integrates Karl Weick’s Theory of Meaning with a phenomenological framework to examine how language mediates communication in organizations from a phenomenological perspective. The integration of AI technologies in organizations adds new dimensions to corporate communication strategies, increases the accuracy of language use, and reduces uncertainty. However, this process also requires careful consideration of ethical implications and the dynamics of organizational culture. This study examines in depth the integration of Weick’s theories with AI-supported communication tools, highlighting the challenges and opportunities that arise in this context. It explores the potential of AI technologies, especially in areas such as language processing and machine learning, in providing a more effective meaning-making process in corporate communication. Finally, the research highlights the importance of creativity and standardization of meaning, suggesting that with the increasing use of AI to maximize its benefits in organizational communication, a more consistent and effective communication process can be achieved.
AllenJ. F. (2003). Natural language processing. In RalstonA.ReillyE. D.HemmendingerD. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Computer Science (4th ed., pp. 1218–1222). Wiley.
2.
AlsheibaniS.CheungY.MessomC.AlhosniM. (2020). Winning AI strategy: Six-steps to create value from artificial intelligence [Conference session]. Americas Conference on Information Systems, Online.
AshcraftK. L.KuhnT. R.CoorenF. (2009). Constitutional amendments: “Materializing” organizational communication. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 1–64.
5.
BaldwinT. (Ed.) (2007). Reading Merleau-Ponty: On phenomenology of perception. Routledge.
6.
BernetR.Driker-OhrenC.SaberM. (2023). Difference and presence: Derrida and Husserl’s phenomenology of language, time, history, and scientific rationality. Continental Philosophy Review, 56(1), 63–93.
7.
BinnsR. (2018). On the limitations of artificial intelligence in organizational settings: The need for human empathy and understanding. Journal of AI Ethics, 3(2), 123–134.
8.
BrahnamS. (2009). Building character for artificial conversational agents: Ethos, ethics, believability, and credibility. PsychNology Journal, 7(1), 9–47.
9.
BroussardM. (2018). Artificial unintelligence: How computers misunderstand the world. MIT Press.
10.
BrummansB. H.SivunenA.TaylorB. C. (2024). The Sage handbook of qualitative research in organizational communication. Sage.
11.
BrynjolfssonE.McAfeeA. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. WW Norton & company.
Canbul YaroğluA. (2024). The effects of artificial intelligence on organizational culture in the perspective of the hermeneutic cycle: The intersection of mental processes. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.3037
14.
CeciS. J.RoazziA. (1994). The effects of context on cognition: Postcards from Brazil. In SternbergR. J.WagnerR. K. (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (Vol. 12, pp. 74–101). Cambridge University Press.
15.
Clavijo-TapiaF. J.Duque-HurtadoP. L.Arias-CerqueraG.Tolosa-CastañedaM. A. (2021). Organizational communication: A bibliometric analysis from 2005 to 2020. Clío América, 15(29), 621–640.
16.
CoeckelberghM. (2023). Democracy, epistemic agency, and AI: political epistemology in times of artificial intelligence. AI and Ethics, 3(4), 1–1350.
17.
CoorenF.FairhurstG. T. (2004). Speech timing and spacing: The phenomenon of organizational closure. Organization, 11(6), 793–824.
18.
CormanS. R.PooleM. S. (Eds.) (2000). Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground. Guilford Press.
19.
CrawfordK.PaglenT. (2021). Excavating AI: The politics of data and algorithms. MIT Press.
20.
CrossleyN. (1997). Corporeality and communicative action: Embodying the renewal of critical theory. Body & Society, 3(1), 17–46.
21.
Czarniawska-JoergesB. (1992). Budgets as texts: On collective writing in the public sector. Accounting Management and Information Technologies, 2(4), 221–239.
22.
DastinJ. (2022). Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. In MartinK. (Ed.), Ethics of data and analytics (pp. 296–299). Auerbach Publications.
23.
DeSanctisG.FulkJ. (1999). Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community. Sage.
24.
DiederichS.BrendelA. B.KolbeL. M. (2020). Designing anthropomorphic enterprise conversational agents. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 62(3), 193–209.
25.
DörrK. N. (2016). Mapping the field of algorithmic journalism. Digital Journalism, 4(6), 700–722.
26.
DownsC. W.AdrianA. D. (2012). Assessing organizational communication: Strategic communication audits. Guilford Press.
27.
DreyfusH. L. (1992). What computers still can’t do: A critique of artificial reason. MIT Press.
28.
EdwardsA.EdwardsC.SpenceP. R.HarrisC.GambinoA. (2016). Robots in the classroom: Differences in students’ perceptions of credibility and learning between “teacher as robot” and “robot as teacher.”Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 627–634.
29.
EpleyN.WaytzA.CacioppoJ. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.
30.
FountaineT.McCarthyB.SalehT. (2019). Building the AI-powered organization. Harvard Business Review, 97(4), 62–73.
31.
FrankishK.RamseyW. M. (Eds.). (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
32.
GallagherS. (2017). Enactivist interventions: Rethinking the mind. Oxford University Press.
33.
GehlR. W.BakardjievaM. (Eds.). (2017). Socialbots and their friends: Digital Media and the automation of Sociality. Routledge.
34.
GeorgeonO. L.MarshallJ. B. (2013). Demonstrating sensemaking emergence in artificial agents: A method and an example. International Journal of Machine Consciousness, 5(02), 131–144.
35.
GrahamS. A.LeeE. E.JesteD. V.Van PattenR.TwamleyE. W.NebekerC.YamadaY.KimH. C.DeppC. A. (2020). Artificial intelligence approaches to predicting and detecting cognitive decline in older adults: A conceptual review. Psychiatry Research, 284, 112732.
36.
GuietteA.VandenbemptK. (2016). Learning in times of dynamic complexity through balancing phenomenal qualities of sensemaking. Management Learning, 47(1), 83–99.
37.
GunkelD. J. (2012). Communication and artificial intelligence: Opportunities and challenges for the 21st century. Communication, 1(1), 1–25.
38.
GuzmanA. L. (2019). Voices in and of the machine: Source orientation toward mobile virtual assistants. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 343–350.
39.
HalákJ. (2022). Gesturing in language: Merleau-Ponty and Mukařovský at the phenomenological limits of structuralism. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 53(4), 415–439.
40.
HickokG.PoeppelD. (2004). Dorsal and ventral streams: A framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language. Cognition, 92(1-2), 67–99.
41.
HillJ.Randolph FordW.FarrerasI. G. (2015). Real conversations with artificial intelligence: A comparison between human–human online conversations and human–chatbot conversations. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 245–250.
42.
HogardE.EllisR. (2006). Evaluation and communication: Using a communication audit to evaluate organizational communication. Evaluation Review, 30(2), 171–187.
HuberG. P.DaftR. L. (1987). The information environments of organizations. In JablinF. M.PutnamL. L.RobertsK. H.PorterL. W. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 130–164). Sage.
45.
HusserlE. (1931). Méditations cartésiennes: Introduction à la phénoménologie (PeifferG.LévinasE., Trans.). Alcan.
46.
HusserlE. (1939). Die Frage nach dem Ursprung der Geometric als intentional-historisches Problem. Revue internationale de philosophie, 1(2), 203–225.
47.
HusserlE. (1913). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie: Erstes Buch. Max Niemeyer.
48.
HusserlE. (1997). Thing and space: Lectures of 1907 (Vol. 7). Springer Science & Business Media.
49.
IhdeD. (1998). Bodies, virtual bodies and technology. In WeltonD. (Ed.), Body and flesh: A philosophical reader (pp. 349–357). Blackwell.
50.
JohanssonC. (2007). Research on organizational communication. Nordicom Review, 28(1), 93–110.
51.
KaplanA.HaenleinM. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15–25.
KeskinH.AkgünA. E.YılmazS. (2013). Örgütlerde duygusal zeka ve duygusal yetenekler. Der Yayınları.
54.
KouzminA.DixonJ. (2006). Neoliberal economics, public domains, and organizations: Is there any organizational design after privatization?Public Administration and Public Policy-New York, 116(2), 667.
55.
KudinaO. (2021). “Alexa, who am I?”: Voice assistants and hermeneutic lemniscate as the technologically mediated sense-making. Human Studies, 44(2), 233–253.
56.
KüpersW.MantereS.StatlerM. (2012). Strategy as storytelling: A phenomenological exploration of embodied narrative practice. Journal for Management Inquiry, 21(3), 1–18.
57.
LaniganR. L. (2007). The phenomenology of embodiment in communicology. Phenomenology, 5(Part 2), 361–387.
58.
LanktonN.McKnightD. H.TrippJ. (2015). Technology, humanness, and trust: Rethinking trust in technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16(10), 880–918.
59.
LittlejohnS.FossK. (2009). Encyclopedia of communication theory (pp. 641–642). Sage Publication.
60.
LowD. (2009). The body of Merleau-Ponty’s work as a developing whole. International Philosophical Quarterly, 49(2), 207–227.
61.
LowD. S.McneillI.DayM. J. (2022). Endangered languages: A sociocognitive approach to language death, identity loss, and preservation in the age of artificial intelligence. Sustainable Multilingualism, 21(1), 1–25.
62.
MackeF. J. (2007). Body, liquidity, and flesh: Bachelard, Merleau-Ponty, and the elements of interpersonal communication. Philosophy Today, 51(4), 401–415.
63.
MaitlisS. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21–49.
64.
MaitlisS.ChristiansonM. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125.
65.
MalafourisL. (2013). How things shape the mind. MIT Press.
66.
MayS.MumbyD. K. (Eds.). (2004). Engaging organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives. Sage.
67.
McAuleyJ.DuberleyJ.JohnsonP. (2007). Organization theory: Challenges and perspectives. Pearson Education Limited.
Merleau-PontyM. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (LandesD. A., Ed.). Routledge. (Original work published 1945)
70.
Merleau-PontyM.LandesD.CarmanT.LefortC. (2013). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge.
71.
Merleau-PontyM.SmithC. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (Vol. 26). Routledge.
72.
Merleau-PontyM.SoysalA. (2012). Göz ve tin. Metis Yayınları.
73.
MilesJ. A. (2012). Management and organization theory: A Jossey-bass reader (Vol. 9). John Wiley & Sons.
74.
NassC.SteuerJ.TauberE. R. (1994, April24–28). Computers are social actors [Conference session]. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA (pp. 72–78). ACM.
75.
O'NeilC. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishing Group.
76.
PeterJ.KühneR. (2018). The new frontier in communication research: why we should study social robots. Media and Communication, 6(3), 73–76.
77.
PfeiferR.BongardJ. (2006). How the body shapes the way we think: A new view of intelligence. MIT Press.
78.
PfeufferK.GeigerM. J.PrangeS.MeckeL.BuschekD.AltF. (2019, May). Behavioural biometrics in vr: Identifying people from body motion and relations in virtual reality [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. 112).
79.
PietersmaH. (1989). The problem of knowledge and phenomenology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50(1), 27–47.
80.
PutnamL. L.Maydan NicoteraA. (2010). Communicative constitution of organization is a question: Critical issues for addressing it. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 158–165.
81.
RainieL.AndersonJ. (2017). The internet of things connectivity binge: What are the implications?Pew Research Center.
82.
RamadantyS.MartinusH. (2016). Organizational communication: Communication and motivation in the workplace. Jurnal Humaniora, 7(1), 77–86.
83.
RansbothamS.GerbertP.ReevesM.KironD.SpiraM. (2018). Artificial intelligence in business gets real. MIT sloan management review.
ReevesB.NassC. (1998). The media equation. CSLI Publications.
86.
ReevesJ. (2016). Automatic for the people: The automation of communicative labor. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 13(2), 150–165.
87.
ReijersW.CoeckelberghM. (2020). Narrative and technology ethics (pp. 113–149). Palgrave Macmillan.
88.
RiedlR.MohrP. N. C.KenningP. H.DavisF. D.HeekerenH. R. (2014). Trusting humans and avatars: A brain imaging study based on evolution theory. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30(4), 83–114.
89.
RiemerK.JohnstonR. B. (2017). Clarifying ontological inseparability with Heidegger’s analysis of equipment. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1059–1082.
90.
RomeleA. (2020). Digital hermeneutics: Philosophical investigations in new media and technologies. Routledge.
91.
RosenbergerR.VerbeekP. P. (2015). A field guide to postphenomenology. In RosenbergerR.VerbeekP. P. (Eds.), Postphenomenological investigations: Essays on human-technology relations (pp. 9–41). Lexington Books/Rowman Littlefield Press.
92.
RussellS. J.NorvigP. (2016). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Pearson.
93.
SandbergJ.Dall'AlbaG. (2009). Returning to practice anew: A life-world perspective. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1349–1368.
94.
SandbergJ.TsoukasH. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338–360.
95.
SchankeS.BurtchG.RayG. (2021). Estimating the impact of “humanizing” customer service chatbots. Information Systems Research, 32(3), 736–751.
96.
SchuetzlerR. M.GrimesG. M.Scott GiboneyJ. (2020). The impact of chatbot conversational skill on engagement and perceived humanness. Journal of Management Information Systems, 37(3), 875–900.
97.
SuchmanL. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press.
98.
SundarS. S.NassC. (2000). Source orientation in human-computer interaction: Programmer, networker, or independent social actor. Communication Research, 27(6), 683–703.
99.
TuckerM. L.PowellK. S.ClearyC. A. (1999). Incorporating community service learning into the business communication class. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 41(1), 42.
100.
VagleM. (Ed.). (2014). Crafting phenomenological research (1st ed.). Left Coast Press, Inc.
101.
WeickK. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. McGraw-Hill.
102.
WeickK. E. (1993). The solapse of sensemaking in organisations: The Mann Gulch disasters. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652.
103.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 1–231). Sage Publications.
104.
ZhengJ.JarvenpaaS. L. (2021). Thinking technology as human: Affordances, technology features, and egocentric biases in technology anthropomorphism. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(5), 1429–1453.
105.
ZlatevJ. (2007). Embodiment, language, and mimesis. In ZiemkeT.ZlatevJ.FranckR. (Eds.), Body, language, mind. Vol 1: Embodiment (pp. 297–337). Mouton de Gruyter.
