Search

Irony and humor play an important role in both organizing and organizations, because they both help to collide and contrast ideas as well as mitigate and moderate criticism. Our empirical observations of a senior management team suggest participants frequently use verbal irony and aggressive conversational humor through 'ironic personae' - a cast of characters, real or imaginary - as a vehicle for pragmatically making sense of complicated topics. We show how ironic personae perform three functions: (i) testing new positions on topics in a non-committal way; (ii) stretching the frame of comparison of a group; and (iii) aligning shared understanding and commitment. Thus, our analysis sheds light on an underexplored and undertheorised aspect of irony that serves as a pragmatic vehicle for the expression of humorous verbal irony and aggressive conversational humor.

Irony is an effective means of dealing with controversy in organizations, but there is a paucity of knowledge of the various ways in which irony helps managers to do so without necessarily ‘solving’ those issues. By drawing on discursive incongruity theory, we examine the use of irony when managers are confronted with controversial issues in a multinational company. As a result, we identify and elaborate on four distinctively different pathways of how irony helps participants to move on: ‘acquiescing’ (framing understanding as having no alternative because of environmental constraints), ‘empowering’ (synthesizing a view through broad inputs from different individuals), ‘channelling’ (subsuming other interpretations under a single and often dominant view) and ‘dismissing’ (rejecting alternative interpretations and often reinforcing the status quo). On this basis, we develop a theoretical model that elucidates the process dynamics in dealing with and moving on with controversial issues and elaborates the specific characteristics of each of these four pathways. Our analysis also leads to a fuller understanding of the discursive underpinnings and intersubjective dynamics in irony use in organizations.

Extant organizational research into crises has focused on the efforts of different actors to defend and legitimate their ideologies towards particular actions. Although insightful, such research has offered little knowledge about the moral reasoning underlying such action. In this paper, we explore how moral reasoning from different ideological viewpoints can lead to polarized debates and stalemate within the context of ecological crises. We apply our conceptual framework in an analysis of the 19thcentury French phylloxera epidemic. Drawing upon this analysis, we argue that, by adapting their moral reasoning, opposing stakeholder groups could maintain their underlying ideology, while at the same time pragmatically changing their actions towards the crisis. We discuss the theoretical implications of our analysis for historical research in organizational studies and research on organizations and the natural environment.

We investigate the role of top management resistance against strategic initiatives for bottom-up change. While resistance has been mostly considered leading to inertia and rigidity by maintaining a particular strategic path, some scholars make the counterintuitive point that resistance could also be a facilitator of change. In this essay, we argue that such a generative perspective of top management resistance has important implications for strategy research. To do so, we draw on Alfred D. Chandler’s historic account of the emergence of the M-form at DuPont at the beginning of the 20th century. Based on this case, we illustrate three generative mechanisms of top management resistance for strategic change: the reframing, restructuring and the recoupling of strategic initiatives. We build on these generative mechanisms in order to develop implications for future research.

Management scholars have explored how certain actors in meetings – especially leaders – shape social processes of interaction and use different linguistic devices, as methods, to affect how sense is made of strategic issues. Less attention has been paid to interactions between members of the team as a whole and the repertoire of discursive strategies, or goal-directed behaviours, that they deploy to create shared views around issues. We analyse rare empirical episodes of team discussions of strategic issues in board meetings to inductively conceptualize how this is achieved. To do this we use the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) to critical discourse analysis (CDA). We reveal five discursive strategies teams use to develop shared views around strategic issues (Re/defining, Equalizing, Simplifying, Legitimating, and Reconciling) and demonstrate how they are skilfully operationalized through a range of linguistic devices or means.

The talk of managers in meetings is central to organizational life and crucial to research in strategic management, as well as managerial and organizational cognition, sensemaking and decision-making. To achieve full understanding, both the text and the context of discussion require systematic analysis, but most approaches treat context as everything that is known and observed beyond the immediate text. This obscures different readings of the text of meetings. To resolve this problem, the discourse historical approach (DHA) to critical discourse analysis is outlined as a framework within which researchers can analyse the text and context of talk in meetings. The primary contribution of this paper is to isolate four ‘levels of context’ as a heuristic framework within which discursive practices, strategies and texts can be located. By making explicit the levels of contextual analysis that are implicit in other methods, and illustrating the DHA using an episode of strategic discussion from a multinational company, this paper shows how researchers can use the approach to analyse the naturally occurring talk of senior managers in meetings, which is arguably the most important but yet under-explored venue for strategizing.

Meetings are increasingly seen as sites where organizing and strategic change take place, but the role of specific discursive strategies and related linguistic-pragmatic and argumentative devices, employed by meeting chairs, is little understood. The purpose of this article is to address the range of behaviours of chairs in business organizations by comparing strategies employed by the same chief executive officer (CEO) in two key meeting genres: regular management team meetings and ‘away-days’. While drawing on research from organization studies on the role of leadership in meetings and studies of language in the workplace from (socio)linguistics and discourse studies, we abductively identified five salient discursive strategies which meeting chairs employ in driving decision making: (1) Bonding; (2) Encouraging; (3) Directing; (4) Modulating; and (5) Re/Committing. We investigate the leadership styles of the CEO in both meeting genres via a multi-level approach using empirical data drawn from meetings of a single management team in a multinational defence corporation. Our key findings are, first, that the chair of the meetings (and leading manager) influences the outcome of the meetings in both negative and positive ways, through the choice of discursive strategies. Second, it becomes apparent that the specific context and related meeting genre mediate participation and the ability of the chair to control interactions within the team. Third, a more hierarchical authoritarian or a more interpersonal egalitarian leadership style can be identified via specific combinations of these five discursive strategies. The article concludes that the egalitarian leadership style increases the likelihood of achieving a durable consensus. Several related avenues for research are outlined.

This paper elaborates the role of managerial framing activity during processes of strategic change in order to build the critical level of support across coalitions of competing interests to mobilize collective action towards change. Through a longitudinal 21-year qualitative study we examine the creation of a new business school through five strategic initiatives. Drawing on a Social Movement Organization perspective we analyze how frames are used by protagonists and antagonists to influence the development of the change initiatives over time. We develop a model that exposes the dynamics of diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framing in collective action frame development within specific strategic change initiatives, but also how the frames of new change initiatives are linked with and develop from previous framings.