Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
assumption of
convergence
during the
formation of
consciousness can
be relaxed by
complementing it
with ideas on
MANAGEMENT
10.1177/0893318905280326
FEBRUARY
Olufowote
/ SYMBOLIC
2006COMMUNICATION
CONVERGENCE
QUARTERLY
THEORY /
ROUSING AND
REDIRECTING
A SLEEPING GIANT
Symbolic Convergence Theory and
Complexities in the Communicative
Constitution of Collective Action
symbolic power
and politics
ideas such as:
JAMES O. OLUFOWOTE
Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA
anti-social
symbolizing,
speaker selfbenefit and
control, obscured
ideology
dominance in
visions, and
member
challenges to
visions.
Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT)an explanation of the process and consequences of human symbolizinghas enjoyed popularity in communication studies but, in organizational communication, its appeal has declined, perhaps because of perceptions of its irrelevance to complex and contemporary concerns. To
develop SCTs appeal as well as its possible resurgence, this article rouses and
redirects it. In rousing SCT, the article reviews its central statements, remembers
its uses, and lays bare some weaknesses (i.e., explaining why humans narrate
reality and share dramas, restrictive convergence assumptions, and restrictive
assumptions about membership in rhetorical communities). In redirecting SCT,
the article relaxes and complements its assumptions with ideas from organizational communication theories (i.e., sensemaking, power and politics, bona fide
groups, and multiple identifications) and points a reinvigorated SCT toward
exploring coalition action in response to leader behaviors at Harvard Business
Review and the University of Colorado.
Keywords: symbolic convergence theory; organizational coalitions; power and
politics
453
concerns. SCTs tenuous resurgence as well as its appeal and usefulness to organizational communication scholars can be developed if its theoretical concepts are remembered (e.g., discursive
process by which collective consciousness emerges, rhetorical
visions imbuing collectives, etc.), if restrictions in its explanations
and assumptions are exposed, and if those restrictions are relaxed
with ideas from relevant organizational communication theories
ideas that, for example, recognize the roles of social or organizational power and members multiple identity commitments and
conflicts.
This article advocates for SCTs usefulness to organizational
communication scholars in analyzing complexities in the communicative constitution of collective action. Specificallyas the title
indicatesthe article rouses and redirects SCT. Each aim has two
objectives. In rousing SCT, the article (a) reviews SCTs core statements as well as their prior uses and (b) interrogates SCT and lays
bare weaknesses, such as its restrictive assumptions. In redirecting
SCT, the article (a) bolsters SCT with organizational communication theories, such as symbolic power and politics, and (b) points
a reformulated SCT toward exploring a phenomenon exemplifying complexities in the communicative constitution of collective
actioncoalitions in organizations.
455
fighting literature. Firefighters described themselves as courageous and competent but thought the public viewed them as lazy and
reckless.
Fantasy themes and types. SCT offers a set of technical terms (or
tools) for capturing and describing, in varying levels of abstraction,
the recurring dramas that chain between participants. Fantasy
themes and types are simultaneously tools for researchers as well as
varying abstractions of dramas used by those sharing them. As
tools, they allow the researcher to track and hierarchically organize
dramatic content. Such content can be found in a rhetorical communitys dramatic and narrative materials (i.e., conversations,
magazines, interviews, artifacts, etc.). As dramas chaining between
individuals, themes and types embody recurring ideas with similar
orientations toward dramatic situations, plotlines, heroes, and so
forth. Fantasy themes are more detailed than fantasy types and are
used when shared meaning is nascent. Fantasy types are greater
abstractions incorporating several concrete fantasy themes and
exist when shared meaning is taken for granted (Bormann, 1982).
Fantasy theme analysis allows researchers to study specific communication contexts (e.g., interpersonal situations, speaker and
audience) for the origination, chaining (spread), or mere presence
of fantasy. In later sections of the article, assumptions governing
the spread of fantasy (e.g., prosocial, egalitarian, etc.) are challenged and expanded.
An example of fantasy themes is found in Heisey and Trebings
(1983) study of the 1978 to 1979 Iranian revolution, which discovered the Shahs White Revolution to be composed of themes suggesting the sacrifice of hard work, identification with the elites, and
the rational authority of governmental power. On the other hand,
the Ayatollah Khomeinis Islamic revolution was composed of
themes suggesting the sacrifice of martyrdom, Western vilification,
identification with the poor, and the rational authority of the religious and cultural. In another example, the New England Puritans
fantasy themesas propagated by ministersdealt with dramas
associated with salvation and damnation, the pilgrims holy war
struggles as rife with trials and tribulations, and the Christian as
soldier overcoming trials to do Gods will. The study by Bormann,
Pratt, and Putnam (1978) of a zero-history organization discovered
457
459
461
raising group mainly emphasizes members sexual orientation. Although such emphasis is intuitive given the groups vision, it downplays members other identities (e.g., professional, race, age, etc.)
and, by implication, the larger social context from which members
draw their identities. De-emphasizing the communitys heterogeneity ignores factors that make common ground a complex and tenuous achievement as well as the conflicts (identity, relational)
members may experience. SCT can borrow insights from bona fide
groups (e.g., Putnam & Stohl, 1990b) and research examining individuals identifications with multiple groups or targets (e.g., Kuhn
& Nelson, 2002; Larson & Pepper, 2003; Scott et al., 1999).
SCT was developed to study the process by which meaning and
consciousness is shared. It posits that the exchange of dramas can,
at times, result in publicly shared consciousness and action. Specifically, a drama can be powerful enough to chainthrough individuals sharing of fantasy themes and typesoutward of its originating context, attaining converts along the way, encapsulating a
community, and imbuing it with a rhetorical vision (see Table 1). To
develop SCTs potential resurgence (e.g., Jackson, 1999) and its
value to organizational communication scholars, its shortcomings
must be exposed. SCTs shortcomingsexplaining why humans
dramatize and share fantasy, a restrictive convergence ideology,
and restrictive characterizations of membership in rhetorical communitiescan be redressed with ideas from relevant theories and
by applying a reinvigorated SCT to complex communication phenomena such as coalition action in organizations.
463
Rhetorical community
Convergence ideology
prosocial bias
egalitarian benefits
conflict-free rhetorical visions
Fantasy theme
Fantasy type
Theoretical Weaknesses
(Explanatory Weakness, Restrictive Assumptions)
Dramatizing messages
dramatis personae (hero, villain)
plot lines
scene
Theoretical Elements
Weicks sensemaking
sensemaking as a narrated activity
reaching a collective understanding of
experiences (past, future)
Theoretical Responses
(Explanatory Bolstering, Complementary Assumptions)
TABLE 1: Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT): Theoretical Elements, Weaknesses, and Responses
465
467
process should be queried for whether some actors are benefiting more than others. Although prior research has celebrated the
rhetorical skills of speakers who are successful in getting others to
participate in a drama (Bormann, 1985a), such speakers can be
appropriately recast as self-interested agents of control and manipulation. For example, Porters (1976) group fantasy analysis of
transcripts of Nixons White House advisors uncovered a theme of
Nixon media image control. Porter found that Nixons advisors
controlled (or chained) his media image through the use of dirty
tricks (p. 274) and information manipulation (e.g., embellishing,
withholding, leaking). Furthermore, the outcome of symbolic convergence, or rhetorical visions, should be queried for whether they
reinforce a status quo (or deeply held assumptions) that privileges
certain groups, ideas, or interests. In other words, rhetorical visions
that appear free of conflict and unified at the surface may obscure
fundamental ideological conflicts when certain deeply held
assumptions are elevated above others. The process and outcomes
of convergence deserve special scrutiny when their contents are
antisocial.
Third, SCT research could benefit from accounting for member
contestations to a rhetorical vision. To date, SCT has assumed unity
in characterizing the composite ideological commitments of those
participating in a rhetorical vision. But given the possible antisocial
nature of dramas and the processes of domination involved in convergence, research should also unveil and examine contestations
to visions. By this, I refer not only to the contestations of those
who never participated in the vision and who perhaps opposed it
but also to the contestations of those within the rhetorical community. This notion is compatible with both Weicks sensemaking
model and processes involving power and politics. Weicks (1969,
1995) model emphasizes the ongoing and revisionary nature of
sensemaking; hence, suggesting that participation in a drama is
subject to continual challenge and renewed constructions. Lukess
(1974) stance implies ideological dominance during meaning formation; hence, dramas may, at any time, be penetrated for their
ideological bias(es) and become subject to challenge. SCT research has pursued this sort of thinking when fantasies are chaining
between individuals but not when rhetorical visions have emerged.
For example, Bormann et al.s (1978) study of a zero-history orga-
469
nization found a fantasy theme which contested another; specifically, their study found that an initial fantasyin which males were
seen as stimulators of tasks, only to have females lead, organize,
and complete those taskswas later resisted by a fantasy celebrating dictatorial and violent rule by males.
SCTs assumption of convergence during the formation of consciousness can be relaxed by complementing it with ideas on symbolic power and politicsideas such as antisocial symbolizing,
speaker self-benefit and control, obscured ideology dominance in
visions, and member challenges to visions (Table 1). We now examine how SCTs assumptions on membership in rhetorical communities can be relaxed.
471
Specifically, SCTs insufficient explanation for why humans dramatize and share fantasy was redressed with Karl Weicks model of
sensemaking. Furthermore, SCTs convergence ideology (i.e.,
prosocial, egalitarian benefits, free of conflict) is relaxed by complementing it with symbolic power and politics (i.e., antisocial
symbolizing, speaker self-benefit and control, ideological dominance within visions, and member challenges to visions). Furthermore, SCTs homogeneous characterizations are complemented
with a perspective from bona fide groups and organizational identification (see Table 1).
473
variables (e.g., personal and psychological needs) on coalition formation (e.g., Cobb, 1982).
Limitations of coalition models in laboratories. Laboratory
models of coalitions are governed by several assumptions that limit
an understanding of their behavior in field settings and the nature of
their communicative constitution. These models are limited by
conceptions of the actor, consideration of the resources sought and
who they are sought for, consideration of the coalitions context,
and assumptions about the nature of communication. First, actors
are considered to be rational and economically driven individuals
who have optimal knowledge and information in their goal pursuits. The notion of actors as creative, motivated by emotional
impulses (e.g., mood), or confronted with uncertainty is ignored.
Second, actors are assumed to primarily seek material or economic
resources, form partnerships based on the acquisition of such resources, and internally distribute acquired resources. Here, the collaborative pursuit of resources for others or pursuit of noneconomic or nonmaterial resources (e.g., justice) is not emphasized.
Third, coalitions are modeled without consideration of their context. As such, members social identities, interaction history, and
the organizations structure and culture are not considered (Pearce
et al., 1986). Fourth, communication is given a limited role in coalition models; communication is regarded solely as the simple transmission and exchange of information (outcomes, payments, votes;
see Pool, 1976). As such, notions of communication as grounded in
humanly constructed symbols and meanings, and as constitutive of
collective action are virtually nonexistent.1 (see Cobb, 1986; Miller
& Komorita, 1986; Pearce et al., 1986, for further critiques of laboratory models).
tions. In doing so, examples of coalition incidents at Harvard Business Review, Texas Tech University, and University of Colorado
are discussed. Stevenson et al. (1985) and Pearce et al. (1986)
lament the disparate and undifferentiated uses of the term coalition
in the organizational literature (e.g., the whole organization, interorganizational formations, formal committees, etc.). In reaction,
they challenge prior uses of the term, critique the assumptions in
laboratory models, and develop a definition guided by a focus on
intraorganizational processes and field settings. Stevenson et al.
define coalitions as the following:
An interacting group of individuals, deliberately constructed, independent of the formal structure, lacking its own internal formal
structure, consisting of mutually perceived membership, issue oriented, focused on a goal or goals external to the coalition, and
requiring concerted member action. (p. 261)
This definition has eight important criteria. In the following sections, each criterion is elaborated on in a manner consistent with
Stevenson et al.s treatise. Then, to elevate and explore the communicative constitution of coalitions, each criterion is modified and
extended with the aid of a revised SCT.
475
DELIBERATELY CONSTRUCTED
According to Stevenson et al. (1985), coalitions differ from
other informal groups because of their purposeful construction and
self-conscious formation and design (p. 261). They differ
because they are self-formed (i.e., formed by members) and imbued with a particular consciousness. To elaboratein a manner
consistent with a revised SCTcoalitions are formed through
members purposeful construction and spread of consciousness.
The communicative construction of consciousness occurs when
members narratives are actively proselytized (or chained) to attain
converts (Bormann, 1983b). Allen and Tompkins (1997) rendition
of the Colorado events demonstrates the deliberate self-conscious
formation and design of the coalition. During a press conference,
coalition members explained that a petition against the Universitys
president had been circulating for several weeks. Allen and
Tompkins also write that the situation, and perhaps the formation of
the coalition itself, had been three years in the making (p. 55).
477
they merely support its motivations. The nature of membersparticipation moves beyond the ideological when they engage in publicly
observable rituals and ceremonies, such as baptism and the payment of dues (Bormann, 1983b).
For example, only four HBR members were publicly acknowledged as seeking Wetlaufers resignation. This public acknowledgment came in part because of the letters written to the editorial
director of Harvard Business School (HBRs parent). Yet the writers indicated that Wetlaufer had lost the confidence of the majority
of the magazines top editors (Bandler, 2002a). As such, those
demonstrating observable commitment to the coalition gave voice
to those merely ideologically committed to it. The subsequent resignation of a senior editor who was not one of the letter writers indicates some veracity to the writers claims (Bandler, 2002b). Similarly, although a small delegation at Colorado (deans and a vice
chancellor) pushed for Albinos resignation, they had a letter
signed by 78 individuals (Allen & Tompkins, 1997). There are several reasons some members are more overt than others, with one
being a system of representation in which a few are selected to represent others. This notion is usually accompanied by the assumption that participants, whether central or peripheral, benefit equally
(in interests, goals, resources, etc.). I have previously argued that
this assumption (which underlies SCT) deserves scrutiny, as it
undermines the possibility that overt members simply have more to
gain than other members. For example, it would not be outrageous
to suggest that Wetlaufers job as senior editor and her $300,000
annual salary may have been coveted by some subordinates
(Bandler, 2002a). Neither would it be conspiratorial to suggest that
some of the Colorado deansfrom whose rank Albino was chosen
for presidencyperhaps felt overlooked or slighted in the
selection process.
479
order to take action as a coalition (p. 262). SCT captures the thrust
of this criterion through the notion of rhetorical visions. Bormann
(1983b) defines rhetorical visions as a unified symbolic system
which portrays a broad and consistent view of . . . reality (p. 75).
Cragan and Shields (1981) identified three types of rhetorical
visions: pragmatic, social, and righteous. A simple application of
SCT would suggest that coalitions coalesce around visions that are
pragmatic, social, or righteous. In reformulating SCT, I challenged
such thinking by arguing that rhetorical visions suffer from a
prosocial bias and characterizations that are free of conflict and
overly unified. Instead I argued for incorporating symbolic power
and politics, recognizing members antisocial symbolizing and
obscured ideological conflicts and dominance in visions.
The Wetlaufer affair. To demonstrate these processes with the
use of examples, I develop the issues surrounding the Wetlaufer
and Albino cases. The coalition seeking Wetlaufers resignation
emerged amidst a series of related incidents. According to several
articles in the Wall Street Journal, in late December 2001,
Wetlaufer, a 42-year-old and single mother of four placed a call to
her superior, Walter Kiechel, editorial director of Harvard Business
School Publishing. During the phone call, she recommended that
Kiechel destroy an article which was in its last editorial stages. The
article was an interview on management philosophy she had conducted with Jack Welch, 66 years old, married, and former luminary CEO of General Electric. Wetlaufer is reported to have told
her superior that during the course of the interview, she had become
too close to Welch for the article to pass as journalistically objective. After the phone call, sometime in January 2002, Kiechel sent
an e-mail to the HBR staff reassigning the article to two of
Wetlaufers subordinates and explaining Wetlaufers concerns
about compromising journalistic objectivity. Welch was reinterviewed, the article was rewritten and titled Jack on Jack, and published in February 2002. Several weeks before this replacement,
stories circulated within HBR about Wetlaufers romantic relationship with Welch (Bandler, 2002a). For example, stories circulated
about a bracelet Wetlaufer received from Welch (Bandler, 2002b)
and the lunch they had following a photography session (Bandler,
2002a). It is unclear whether Wetlaufer disclosed the extent of her
481
its editorial process (Pastin, 2002), at least four high-level resignations (not including Wetlaufers) both at HBR and Harvard Business School Publishing (see Armstrong & Bandler, 2002; Bandler,
2002b; Trachtenberg & Bandler, 2002), and a systematic review of
its ethics policies (Hymowitz, 2002). In late march 2002, Jane
Welch filed for divorce; Jack Welchs attorneys are reported to have
made a settlement offer worth around $130 million during the
course of Janes life (Murray, Silverman, & Hymowitz, 2002). Two
years later, according to The Boston Herald, in April 2004, a seemingly happy Wetlaufer and Welch exchanged wedding vows (Fee,
Raposa, & Westmoreland, 2004).
Analysis. The convergence of consciousness and stories at HBR
demonstrates the constitutive character of communication in an
organization. Specifically, news coverage of the incidents at HBR
demonstrates the coalitions rhetorical vision of Wetlaufer-asunethical-editor inappropriately mixing her personal and professional life. Yet in analyzing the case, one must suspend the
prosocial assumptions accompanying the achievement of communicative convergence (of which SCT is guilty) and interrogate the
content on which staffers converged. In the HBR incident, it is
ambiguous, at best, whether staffers were showing concern for conformity to ethical guidelines at HBR or engaging in character
assassination, one that became even more vicious and public when
HBR officials could not force Wetlaufers resignation. At one
point, amidst the allegations, Wetlaufer released a statement indicating HBR had a long history of office turmoil (Bandler, 2002a,
p. B1). It seems plausible that, as a way to force Wetlaufers resignation, coalition members may have engaged in antisocial symbolizing, exaggerated stories about her office romances, and perhaps
used outright deception.
The formation of meaningvia the sharing of consciousness
and dramasreproduces power relations when certain groups,
ideas, or interests are privileged over others (Lukes, 1974; Mumby,
2001). Stated differentlya status quo privileging or subordinating ideas or interests along the lines of race, gender, or class instantiates social power. For example, one can argue that the coalitions vision was imbued by a social arrangement (Lukes, 1974),
which reinforced a gendered status quo regarding leadership style.
483
485
one accepts the consciousness of a rhetorical community, the convert is expected to demonstrate commitment by taking public
action. Coalition members at HBR took concerted action by writing letters to Keichel, Wetlaufers superior. They also took action
by chaining Wetlaufer stories through the media. At Colorado,
coalition members took concerted action by signing a petition letter, meeting with Albino (Black Friday Ambush), meeting with the
regents where several faculty members sat crossed-legged on the
floor, and writing a joint letter in the local newspaper.
Aided by Stephenson et al.s (1985) definition, I use several
tenets of a revised SCT (e.g., antisocial symbolizing, power, etc.)
to analyze the communicative constitution of coalitions in field
settings.
487
NOTE
1. In an exception, Cooren (2001) uses Greimass semionarrative theory to (a)
examine equivalences between narrating and organizing and (b) explore coalition
formation. Specifically, narrating and organizing (in a Weickian sense) are discussed as both involving actors prospective and retrospective constructions as
well as having the same structure (e.g., initial breach, mission to repair, mobilizing
help, overcoming opponents, etc.). He further discusses narratives of alliance
building as involving translations in which either party (human or nonhuman) can
speak on the others behalf, inserting the other into their narrative. In so doing, an
articulation (or oneness) is created between both parties even if they do not share
meanings or objectives. Cooren uses these concepts of narrative translation and
articulation to examine an environmental controversy in which government entities, organizations, individuals, and nonhuman actors formed two opposing alliances (or coalitions).
REFERENCES
Allen, B. J., & Tompkins, P. K. (1997). Vocabularies of motives in a crisis of academic leadership: Hell hath no fury . . . In B. D. Sypher (Ed.), Case studies in
organizational communication (Vol. 2, pp. 53-67). New York: Guilford.
Andrews, S. (2002, June 1). Romancing the CEO. Vanity Fair, 113-124.
Armstrong, D., & Bandler, J. (2002, July 9). Harvard Business Review publisher is
forced to resignAbernathys departure comes amid overhaul of University
operations. The Wall Street Journal, p. A3.
Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1980). Power and politics in organizations. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1962). Decisions and nondecisions: An analytical
framework. American Political Science Review, 57, 641-651.
Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Bandler, J. (2002a, March 4). Harvard editor faces revolt over Welch story. The
Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
Bandler, J. (2002b, March 11). Harvard editors deal further irks review staffers.
The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
Bandler, J. (2002c, April 25). Harvard Business Reviews Wetlaufer resigns. The
Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
Bormann , E. G. (1973). The Eagleton affair: A fantasy theme analysis. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 59, 143-159.
Bormann, E. G. (1982). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: Ten years later. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 68, 288-305.
Bormann, E. G. (1983a). Symbolic convergence: Organizational communication
and culture. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and
Organizations (pp. 99-122). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bormann , E. G. (1983b). The symbolic convergence theory of communication
and the creation, raising, and sustaining of public consciousness. In J. Sisco
(Ed.), The Jensen lectures: Contemporary communication studies. Tampa:
University of South Florida.
Bormann, E. G. (1985a). Symbolic convergence theory: A communication formulation. Journal of Communication, 35, 128-138.
Bormann , E. G. (1985b). The force of fantasy: Restoring the American dream.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
489
Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dahl, R. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2, 201-215.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological
Review, 27, 31-41.
Endres, T. G. (1994). Co-existing master analogues in symbolic convergence theory: The knights of Columbus quincentennial campaign. Communication
Studies, 45, 294-308.
Fee, G., Raposa, L., & Westmoreland, S. (2004, April 25). Suzy, Jack light up their
day. Boston Herald, p. 016.
Freedman, S. C. (1981). Threats, promises, and coalitions: A study of compliance
and retaliation in a simulated organizational setting. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 14, 114-136.
Grint, K., & Case, P. (1998). The violent rhetoric of re-engineering: Management
consultancy on the offensive. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 557-576.
Hardy, C. (1994). Managing strategic action: Mobilizing change concepts, readings and cases. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heisey, D. R., & Trebing, J. D. (1983). A comparison of the rhetorical visions and
strategies of the Shahs white revolution and the Ayatollahs Islamic revolution. Communication Monographs, 50, 158-174.
Hensley, C. W. (1975). Rhetorical vision and the persuasion of a historical movement: The Disciples of Christ in the nineteenth century American culture.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 251-264.
Hymowitz, C. (2002, May 14). An HBR case study: How magazine failed to
respond to a crisis. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
Jackson, B. G. (1999). The goose that laid the golden egg? A rhetorical critique of
Stephen Covey and the effectiveness movement. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 353-377.
Kroll, B. S. (1983). From small group to public view: Mainstreaming the womens
movement. Communication Quarterly, 31, 139-147.
Kuhn, T., & Nelson, N. (2002). Reengineering identity: A case study in multiplicity and duality in organizational identification. Management Communication
Quarterly, 16, 5-38.
Larson, G. S., & Pepper, G. L. (2003). Strategies for managing multiple organizational identifications: A case of competing identities. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 528-557.
Lawler, E. J. (1975). An experimental study of factors affecting the mobilization
of revolutionary coalitions. Sociometry, 38, 163-179.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.
Mannix, E. A. (1993). Organizations as resource dilemmas: The effects of power
balance on coalition formation in small groups. Organizational behavior and
human decision processes, 55, 1-22.
Miller, C. E., & Komorita, S. S. (1986). Coalition formation in organizations:
What laboratory studies do and do not tell us. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard,
& M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1,
pp. 117-137). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
491
Stevenson, W. B., Pearce, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1985). The concept of coalition in organization theory and research. Academy of Management Review,
10, 256-268.
Thamel, P. (2004, February). Knight insists he didnt start latest incident. New
York Times. Retrieved February 4, 2004, from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/
02/04/sports/ncaabasketball/04KNIG.html
Trachtenberg, J., & Bandler, J. (2002, April 15). Penguins Wan to head Harvard
publishing unit. The Wall Street Journal, p. B4.
Weick, K. E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGrawHill.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
James O. Olufowote (Ph.D., Purdue University, 2005) is an assistant professor in the Communication Department at Boston College. His research
focuses on behavioral and interpretive approaches to power, politics, and
decision making in workplace and health care settings. He has previously
published in the Western Journal of Communication and Management
Communication Quarterly.