2004
Volume 49, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 1384-6930
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7286

Abstract

Samenvatting

Communicatieafdelingen bij overheidsorganisaties spelen een belangrijke rol bij het verminderen, geleiden, maskeren en oplossen van organisatiespanningen. In dit casusonderzoek laten we zien hoe communicatieprofessionals dilemma’s ervaren terwijl ze organisatieboodschappen proberen te produceren. Deze dilemma’s blijken niet oplosbaar binnen de instrumentele visie op communicatie die juist in spanningscontexten domineert. Hierdoor lukt het professionals niet altijd om hun professionele normen te realiseren. Op grond van deze casusanalyse pleiten we voor de ontwikkeling van een bredere, meer sociaal-interactioneel georiënteerde visie op communicatiewerk.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2021.4.003.ROOI
2021-12-01
2022-01-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aarts, N. (2018). Dynamics and dependences in socio-ecological interactions (Dynamiek en dependentie in socio-ecologische interacties). Radboud University.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  21. Gadamer, H.-G. (1965). Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Mohr.
  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.
  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.
  38. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford University Press.
  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
  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.
  45. Pepper, G. L. (1995). Communicating in organizations. A cultural approach. McGraw-Hill.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2021.4.003.ROOI
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error