Det forførende medie - om autokommunikation i markedsføringen

Artiklen præsenterer forskellige aspekter af markedskommunikation set som autokommunikation – det vil sige kommunikation om og til af- sender selv. Moderne marketing er grundlagt på ideen om, at virksom- heder kun overlever i længden, hvis de er opmærksomme på marke- dets ønsker og behov, og branchen arbejder ud fra en ideel forståelse om responsivitet og dialog med kunder og omverden. Artiklen påpeger imidlertid, at den moderne forbruger – eller modtager – oftest forholder sig blasert eller ligegyldigt til reklamens budskaber, hvorimod både rek- lamebureauerne og deres kunder er højinvolverede i at omsætte bud- skaberne til symbolsk værdiskabelse inden for virksomhedernes egne rammer. I et ledelsesperspektiv betyder det for det første, at visioner og holdninger bliver forlenet med en særlig autoritet og forpligtelse for virksomheden, når disse visioner kommunikeres offentligt gennem et eksternt medie. Intern kommunikation får simpelthen en større gennem- slagskraft, når den sendes ud af huset, og artiklen viser med en række eksempler, hvorledes reklamer kan anspore medarbejderne til korps- ånd og hensigtsmæssig adfærd i ’sandhedens øjeblik’ – mødet med kunden

The polyphony of values and the value of polyphony

While human communication is inherently symbolic and thus potentially vague, ambiguous and polyphonic, there is a growing emphasis on certainty, accuracy and consistency in everything contemporary organizations say and do. Organizational messages about corporate values, in particular, are expected to accurately and unambiguously depict the organizational sender “behind” the words. Current communication principles, in other words, seek to reduce or eliminate the polyphonic potential of symbolic communication. In this paper we challenge this trend, arguing that the polyphony of corporate values is valuable because it facilitates change by inviting alternative interpretations and stimulating participation and critique. Lack of accuracy in organizational messages – including inconsistencies between what organizations say and what they do – may be an important driver of organizational and social change, because such differences have potential to raise expectations and apply pressure on organizational actors to improve their practices

Bullshit and Organization Studies

Bullshit is a ubiquitous communication practice that permeates many dimensions of organizational life. This essay outlines different understandings of bullshit and discusses their significance in the context of organization studies. While it is tempting to reject bullshit as corrosive to rational organizational practice, we argue that it is necessary to understand its organizational significance and performative nature more systematically. We outline different social functions of bullshit focusing on two particular types of managerial practices in which bullshit is likely to play a significant role: commanding and strategizing. On this backdrop, we consider bullshit in terms of the messages, senders and receivers involved, focusing especially on the dynamics between these dimensions in the context of organizations. The final part of this essay debates the reasons why bullshit, which is recognized by organizational members, is rarely called and rejected explicitly

Metaphor in organizational research: Context, modalities and implications for research introduction

We provide a general overview of previous work which has explored the use of metaphors in organizational research. Differences in focus and form of research on metaphors are noted. Work in organization theory (OT) and organizational communication (OC) generally features prescriptive metaphors that aid the practice of theorizing and research; research in organizational development (OD) tends to use metaphors for intervention in individual and group decision-making; while studies of organizational behaviour (OB) emphasize the metaphors-in-use within individuals' sensemaking accounts of critical events within their organization. Alongside these differences in focus, the form of metaphor analysis also differs across these contexts, ranging from text- and discourse-based analysis to the analysis of non-linguistic modalities such as pictorial signs, gestures and artefacts. Based on our overview of previous work, we call for greater attention to methodological issues around metaphor identification and analysis and outline a number of directions for further research