In dienst van de betere boodschap

References

1. Aarts, N. (2018). Dynamics and dependences in socio-ecological interactions (Dynamiek en dependentie in socio-ecologische interacties). Radboud University.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). A stupidity-based theory of organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1194-1220.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003). The good visions, the bad micro-management and the ugly ambiguity: Contradictions of (non-)leadership in a knowledge-intensive company. Organization Studies, 24, 961-988.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Andersen, N. (2001). The undecidability of decision. Working Papers 12/2001. Copenhagen Business School, Department of Management, Politics & Philosophy.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Arend, S. van der. (2007). Pleitbezorgers, procesmanagers en participanten. Interactief beleid en de rolverdeling tussen overheid en burgers in de Nederlandse democratie [Dissertatie]. Utrecht University.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Argyris, C. (1991) Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 4(2), 4-15.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Argyris, C. (1994). Good communication that blocks learning.Harvard Business Review, 72, 77-85.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Cooren, F., & Martine, T. (2016). Communicative constitution of organizations. In K. B.Jensen, E. W.Rothenbuhler, J. D.Pooley, & R. T.Craig (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015). Putting communication front and center in institutional theory and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 10-27.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
12. DühringL. (2015). Lost in translation? On the disciplinary status of public relations. Public Relations Inquiry, 4(1), 5-23.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227-242.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Elving, W., Ruler, B. van, Goodman, M., & Genest, C. (2012). Communication management in The Netherlands: Trends, developments, and benchmark with US study. Journal of Communication Management, 16(2), 112-132.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Falkheimer, J.,Heide, M., Simonsson, C., Zerfass, A., & Verhoeven, P. (2016). Doing the right things or doing things right? Paradoxes and Swedish communication professionals’ roles and challenges. Corporate Communications, 21(2), 142-159.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Falkheimer, J., & Heide, M. (2006). Multicultural crisis communication: Towards a social constructionist perspective. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14, 180-189.
    [Google Scholar]
17. FlyvbjergB. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Ford, J., & Ford, L. (1994). Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. The Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 756-785.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Ford, J., Ford, L., & McNamara, R. (2002). Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 105-121.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2017). Organizational crisis communication. A multivocal approach. Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Gadamer, H.-G. (1965). Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Mohr.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Gaim, M., Wåhlin, N., Cunha, M., & CLegg, S. (2018). Analyzing competing demands in organizations: A systematic comparison. Journal of Organization Design, 7(6).
    [Google Scholar]
23. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., Ruler, B. van, Verčič, D., & Krishnamurthy, S. (2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3-35.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Heide, M., & Simonsson, C. (2011). Putting coworkers in the limelight. New challenges for communication professionals. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(4), 201-220.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Heide, M., & Simonsson, C. (2015). Struggling with internal crisis communication. A balancing act between paradoxical tensions. Public Relations Inquiry, 4(2), 223-255.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Heide, M., Platen, S. von, Simonsson, C., & Falkheimer, J. (2018). Expanding the scope of strategic communication: Towards a holistic understanding of organizational complexity. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 452-468.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Heijting, K., Vemden, S. van, & Gerritsen, L. (2019). Dilemmalogica. Koepelrapportage van 4 kwalitatieve deelonderzoeken. Ministerie van Algemene Zaken en MARE.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Hernes, T., & Bakken, T. (2003). Implications of Self-Reference. Niklas Luhmannn’s autopoiesis and organization theory. Organization Studies, 24(9), 1511-1535.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Herzele, A. van, & Aarts, N. (2013). ‘My forest, my kingdom’: Self-referentiality as a strategy in the case of small forest owners coping with governmental regulations. Policy Sciences, 46(1), 63-81.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Ihlen, Ø., & Ruler, B. van (2009). Introduction: Applying social theory to public relations. In Ø.Ihlen, B.van Ruler, & M.Fredriksson (Eds.), Public relations and social theory: Key figures and concepts (pp. 1-20). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
32. JarzabkowskiP., SillinceJ., & ShawD. (2010). Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for enabling multiple interests. Human Relations, 63(2), 219-248.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Kim, J., & Kim, E. (2008). Theorizing dialogic deliberation: Everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue. Communication Theory, 18, 51-70.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Kuhn, T. (2012). Negotiating the micro-macro divide. Thought leadership from organizational communication for theorizing organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(4), 543-584.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Leitch, S., & Davenport, S. (2002). Strategic ambiguity in communicating public sector change. Journal of Communication Management, 7(2), 129-139.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Lewis, M. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on self-reference. Colombia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221-240.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Molder, H. te (1999). Discourse of dilemmas: An analysis of communication planners’ accounts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3), 245-263.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Molder, H. te (1995). Discourse of dilemmas: an analysis of government communicators’ talk [Dissertation]. https://edepot.wur.nl/137985
    [Google Scholar]
42. NassehiA. (2005). Organizations as decision machines: Niklas Luhmann’s theory of organized social systems. The Sociological Review, 53(1), 178-191.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Nothhaft, H. (2010). Communication management as a second-order management function: Roles and functions of the communication executive – results from a shadowing study. Journal of Communication Management, 14(2), 127-140.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Pearce, W., & Littlejohn, S. (1997). Moral conflict. When social worlds collide. Sage Publications, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Pepper, G. L. (1995). Communicating in organizations. A cultural approach. McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Pool, E. van der, & Rijnja, G. (2019). Maatwerk in contact: vragen om verschillen bij complexe opgaven. Bestuurswetenschappen, 73(2), 5-21.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Mapping social psychology series. Negotiation in social conflict. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Putnam, L., Fairhurst, G., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65-171.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Rasche, A., & Seidl, D. (2020). A Luhmannian perspective on strategy: Strategy as paradox and meta-communication. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 73, 101984.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Rooij, H. van, & Aarts, N. (2014). In dienst van beleid of in dienst van de democratie?Bestuurswetenschappen, 68(1), 13-40.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Rooij, H. van, Wessel, M. & Aarts, N. (2020). Over zelfredzame burgers gesproken. Hoe ambtenaren een buigzaam burgerschapsideaal vormgeven. Beleid en Maatschappij, 46(4), 429-452.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Ruler, B. van, & Vercic, D. (2005). Reflective communication management: Future ways for public relations research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 29(1), p. 239-274.
    [Google Scholar]
53. SchoenebornD. (2011). Organization as communication: A Luhmannian perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 663-689.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Shotter, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2014). In search of phronesis: leadership and the art of judgment. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(2), 224-243.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. The Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
    [Google Scholar]
56. TaylorJ., & RobichaudD. (2004). Finding the organization in the communication. Discourse as action and sensemaking. Organization, 11(3), 395-413.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Twist, M. van, Edelenbos, J., & Broek, M. van der (1998). In dilemma’s durven denken. Management en Organisatie, 1998, 5, 7-23.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Verčič, D., Ruler, B. van, Buetschi, G., & Flodin, B. (2001). On the definition of public relations. A European view. Public Relations Review, 27(4), 373-387
    [Google Scholar]
59. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change. Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. W. W. Norton.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Zerfass, A., Tench, R., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, V., & Moreno, A. (2014). Excellence in strategic communication – key issues, leadership, gender and mobile media. European communication monitor 2014, results of a survey in 42 countries. EACD/EUPRERA, Helios Media Brussels.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Zerfass, A., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., Tench, R., & Verčič, D. (2016). European Communication Monitor 2016. Exploring trends in big data, stakeholder engagement and strategic communication. Results of a survey in 43 Countries. EACD/EUPRERA, Quadriga Media Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Zhao, X., Zhan, M., & Liu, B. (2019). Disentangling social media influence in crises: Testing a four-factor model of social media influence with large data. Public Relations Review, 44(4), 549-561.
    [Google Scholar]