I wrote this for my graduate Communication Theory course.  It's also pending for consideration for presentation for an Academic conference this fall.

---

The rise of corporations in the West in the latter half of the 19^th century has gone hand-in-hand with growing tensions between those who believe that corporate business enterprises act for, and represent, progress for humanity, and those who see them as self-serving entities who act in their own interests, operating above, beyond, and often against the rules which govern many forms of social conduct and communication in contemporary American democratic society.  Deetz (2003) holds that the influence of management upon communication processes within corporate organizations plays a major role in determining “not whether but whose and what values get represented” (Deetz, 2003, p. 608).  In a society where corporate organizations are viewed as playing an ever-increasing role in everyday life (Deetz, 2003; Langenberg, 2001), these critiques of managerial values challenge the openness of management of these organizations and their willingness to embrace the democratic values that are at the heart of American society, as well as seek to reform managerial communication by bringing the values of corporate management more into line with those of society as a whole.

            The critiques of those who study managerial communication can help us to better understand and challenge existing power structures which exist in contemporary managerial communication processes, as well as offer insights which can help guide efforts to empower those oppressed and excluded by managerial values.  These researchers examine existing managerial power structures and contribute their own insights and understandings of managerial values and power structures, as well as the problems they create, to help promote greater understanding, and promote reforms of what they saw as unjust power structures and communicative processes and structures.  Through the careful examination of their claims, and their proposals for reforming managerial communication, one can develop a greater understanding of these problems, and how to bring about needed reforms.  They also help us to understand the challenges that these reforms present to both reformers and corporate organizations.

            While there are many issues for which managerial values and corporate organizations should receive considerable attention, this paper will focus on those issues that relate to organizational values and principles, as well as the operational priorities of organizations, to give a better understanding of what management sees as important, and the ethical frameworks through which they work to achieve their objectives.

Theoretical relationship

            Littlejohn and Foss (2005) see critical theory as an activist theory, intended to understand and challenge the existing power structures and processes in managerial communication.  They outline three key objectives of critical researchers in the field of communication research:  1) develop a better understanding of power structures in managerial communication, and challenge the ideologies and beliefs that support those power structures; 2) uncover oppressive communication processes and reveal the power structures behind them to help facilitate greater empowerment by promoting more democratic and inclusive forms of communication; and 3) to use this greater understanding to help empower those considered oppressed or excluded from existing power structures, as well as understand the dynamics of how competing interests come into conflict in the workplace and how those conflicts can be resolved.  In this tradition of communication research, they propose that the careful examination of these power relationships should focus on who is, and who is not, allowed to speak, as well who stands to benefit by existing, as well as proposed, managerial communication processes and structures, and seek to use those understandings to help study how these power imbalances can best be addressed.

Deetz (1985) questions and challenges the values and standards of managerial communication of the corporate world and intends for these critiques to serve as a bridge between past and future research in the field of organizational communication.  He intends for his work to help bridge research by previous critical researchers and contemporary issues related to managerial values and organizational communication to help develop a more solid understanding of their research for use as a foundation for future critical studies in this field:

Current critical concepts and studies for the sake of: (a) providing some sense of what has been accomplished by them; (b) discussing themes and directions that are emerging to set the future agenda; and (c) suggesting problems and questions that are in need of greater explanation. (p. 121)

The collective efforts of those who study and critique of managerial values in corporate communication build upon past research in this field as a means to establish starting points for future critiques of organizational communication, to explore and critique the motives and values of management in organizational communication, and to empower oppressed voices with corporate organizations and advocate the reform of managerial values.  As such, the research and critiques of managerial values and corporate democracy fit comfortably within the Critical Tradition of communication studies. 

Historical overview

To better place the research of managerial critics in its proper context, understanding where their research sits in the field of communication tradition is not enough; one must also understand the path which the studies of managerial values, as well as their critics, have traveled.  Weiss and Miller (1987) note that many of the early critics of managerial communication were radical Marxists, who saw a world in which management and employees exist as two separate groups which held conflicting values and worldviews.  These Marxists see the workplace as a polarized world in which management works to assert control and use control of workplace communication processes to define rules in order to advance their interests, and workers struggle to overcome this oppression to express their voices and advocate their concerns.  They believe this polarization to be so extreme and deeply-rooted that only the overthrow and abolition of these power structures can resolve these power imbalances.

According to Brennan (1997) and Weiss and Miller (1987), Marx was one of the early critics of managerial communication in the early years of the nineteenth-century industrial revolution.  They wrote that Marx believed that management sought to separate mental and physical tasks, keeping those tasks most essential to management and the preservation of their power in their domain.  Marx saw this division of labor as responsible for the creation of a stratified class system in the workplace, in which management sought to pursue their own interests and protect their power, with little regard for the concerns of their employees.  Brennan (1997) notes that Weber was another early critic who built upon Marx’ early critiques of managerial values, sharing Marx’ beliefs that social stratification was an integral part of a capitalist society and a natural outcome of managerial processes.  According to Brennan, Weber believed management could more efficiently manage an organization “if the management has extensive control over the selection and the modes of use of workers” (Brennan, 1997, p. 106). 

While Marx and Weber represent a European tradition of critique of management that often distrusts management and sees their motives as intended to manipulate rules and communication processes to assert their control over workers and exploit them for the benefit of management (Brennan, 1997; Weiss and Miller, 1987), a more moderate tradition of managerial critique rose in America around the time of World War Two, a period of rapid industrial growth in America.  While these critics often see the same problems as their European critical counterparts, these American critics often believe these problems are not so deeply-rooted or threatening.  These American reforms believe that reform is possible and see it as preferable to more radical courses of action (Brennan, 1997).  Brennan sees these critics not as being opposed to management, like the European managerial critics, but rather reformers who believe that capitalism and corporate organizations can be positive forces in society and advocate taking a more moderate and reforming approach in seeking to address these power imbalances within the context of contemporary corporate organizations.  These researchers believe these reforms can help to improve efficiency and profitability while increasing the inclusion of workers in corporate decision-making processes (Brennan, 1997; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005).

Likert (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005) examines and challenges American corporate managerial power structures between the 1940s and 1960s, proposing a system of reforms that would help change the balance of power in organizations and empower workers to express themselves and help participate in decision-making processes critical to the productivity and profitability of organizations, as well as the well-being of employees.  As a reformer, Likert believes management and workers are rarely in conflict with each other, but rather sees them as often holding similar interests and values, an understanding which he believes helps to lay the groundwork for reforming organizational power structures (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). 

Likert (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005) holds that organizations often function along a continuum of four different systems, which range from democratic to autocratic, and informative to inclusive:

1)      System One:  Known as Exploitative-Authoritative, management in this system holds total control over an organization without regard for, or inclusion of, their workers in the decision-making process;

2)      System Two:  Known as Benevolent-Authoritative, management in this system may show concern for the needs of workers, but still retains control of the inputs and outputs in the decision-making process;

3)      System Three:  Known as Consultative, management in this system will seek input from employees, but still holds control over the decision-making process;

4)      System Four:  Known as Participative Management, management in this system allows workers to become fully involved in the decision-making process.  (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005)

Likert believes organizations reform should be a gradual process.  He cautions that organizations will receive the most from their efforts when they work to implement System Four styles of management in a gradual and planned manner, allowing their employees to adjust gradually to these changes and allowing them greater opportunities to contribute their knowledge and experiences towards improving the business’ financial health and productivity, as well as creating a stronger sense of loyalty to organizations (Littlejohn & Foss 2005).

According to Foss (1973), the post-World War Two generation, which began entering the workplace in the 1960s, posed new challenges to managerial values.  Foss identifies this generation as having “spaceship” values, more concerned with maintaining and improving their lifestyles in a world of plenty than their predecessors, who he saw as holding what he called “frontier” values, who were more concerned with survival, expansion, and coping with scarcity than with lifestyle maintenance:

Our uncertainties today begin with the possibility that Americans may be embracing a set of values so different that they add up to a whole new outlook on life and work and society.  Vying in our bicultural society are a dominant residual outlook of yesterday and a nascent outlook of tomorrow. (p. 72)

Foss (1973) sees growing diversity in the workforce as societal changes brought new groups into the workplace, with workers increasingly driven by self-actualization motives instead of survival motives, and becoming less interested in fitting into a single corporate cultural mold, or desiring to pledge blind allegiance to management.  By contrast, he describes management in most organizations as conserving institutions, intent on protecting managerial interests by using their power to resist the need to adapt to cultural changes in values, lifestyles, and faces of its workforce.  Seeing the potential for conflicts between these two different sets of values, his concerns focus on how to best head off problems in the workplace as management was confronted with the challenge of adapting to these changes.

            Deetz (1992) believes corporate organizations hold a key role in contemporary America, but believes their undemocratic nature is often inconsistent with the values of openness, diversity, and inclusion that are common to a democratic society.  He argues that the scope of their reach and influence in American society allows them to project their values beyond their organizations in ways that pose a danger to the quality of life and warns of a growing gulf between the values held by management and those held by society at large.  Deetz (1997) voices concerns that the growing roles played by corporations in contemporary America were undermining government and other cultural and social institutions which normally promote the common good of society.  To compensate for this shifting of roles in society, Deetz (2003) calls for corporate managers to place a greater emphasis on social responsibility.  In seeking to serve the greater good of society, instead of just being concerned about meeting their financial objectives, he believes organizations should become more inclusive in their power structures and communicative processes.  By adopting these reforms, he believes both the organizations and their employees will prosper.

Mumby (1987) challenges the notion that managerial discourse represents monolithic and entrenched entities, arguing that such discourse often reveals corporate organizations to be dynamic and changing entities, where meaning and control continually shift and change forms in a continual and dynamic process.  As such, he holds that managerial discourse and power structures are by no means permanent, fixed, or unchangeable, but rather are the outcome of competing forces and processes within organizations, and as such are subject to change by those willing to implement such changes within their organizations:

At the same time, it is important that power should not be conceived as a monolithic entity which is imposed on organization members; rather, as a dialectical relationship which exists between the two.  In other words, social actors are constrained by organizational power structures, but at the same time these constraints provide the medium through which social actors can act strategically in organizations. (p. 117)

Mumby (1993) argues that developing an understanding of the various interests within an organization is important in understanding its power structures and rules of discourse, as a means to take advantage of these dynamic forces to influence managerial discourse and power within organizations.  Like Foss (1973), Mumby (1993) sees the workforce as a diverse mosaic of different groups with different identities, which contribute to these dynamic forces in the workplace.  He believes that understanding the interests and values of the individual groups represented within organizations is an important part of redressing power imbalances.

            In recent years, managerial values have been challenged by a wave of corporate scandals, which have served to undermine public confidence and trust in corporate organizations, calling into question the authenticity of reform efforts.  Seeger and Ulmer (2003) believe the highly-publicized collapse of the Enron Corporation in 2002 brings into question the system of values by which management relates itself to workers, regulators, and the public as a whole.  The fall of Enron followed highly-publicized revelations regarding accounting abuses in which management privileged values which promoted ignoring and breaking both internal and external rules, regulations, and laws, and encouraged abuses of power, such as the deceptive communication practices by which management acted to hide losses and encouraged the reporting of inflated profits.  These abuses led to financial ruin for many Enron employees, as well as private investors, who were encouraged to invest their savings into company stock, the value of which was based upon misleading estimates of the company’s worth.

Reforming Managerial Communication

            Deetz (1995) believes that adopting more democratic and inclusive approaches to communication management in corporate organizations can best serve the long-term interests of management and workers, as well as society as a whole.  He sees the best approach for reform as a two-way process in which managerial communication will not only be reformed, but can itself serve as a vehicle for further change:

Transforming communication and transforming business must be thought of in a double sense.  We need to transform our conception and practice of communication and business, and we must think more clearly about communication and business as transforming processes.  Transforming our conceptions and practices of communication and business can help make corporations both more responsive and responsible. (p. xiii)

Like Deetz, Schnebel and Bienert (2004) see a crisis of managerial ethics in contemporary capitalist society, and believe the survival of a free-market economy and democratic society in America requires a stronger sense of ethics on the part of corporate management, which will allow employees, management, customers, suppliers, and others to work together with a higher level of trust.  They see this trust as fundamental to a healthy economy and key to the profitability of businesses, as well as the prosperity of society as a whole:

A liberal, capitalist-oriented economy can function only if the participants and the responsible players follow a certain set of ethics.  This “value canon” means, for example, that bills are to be paid, contracts are to be kept, employees, shareholders, competitors, suppliers and customers are treated accordingly to existing contracts and the law.  Only if a large majority of players in an economy adhere to these principles can this economy function properly. (p. 203)

            As a result of this trust, Schnebel and Bienert (2004) suggest those who embrace this value canon will benefit from increased efficiency and decreased costs of doing business.  These savings would result from the reduced need to protect minor business transactions with complicated contracts and monitoring processes to insure performance, or other costs associated with enforcing agreements or ensuring that promises made would be kept by all parties involved in business dealings.

Striking a fair balance between management and employees is often seen as a key step towards reforming organizations.  Mumby (1987) sees the construction of narratives by management as having the ability to legitimize or de-legitimize certain groups, interests, or points-of-view; he sees this process as a double-edged sword, allowing privileged groups to be controlled or overthrown within organizations.  He sees this “dialectic of control” (Mumby, 1987, p. 114), as a form of power this is not a static, but rather as a dynamic process in which even powerless can assert power, and holds that through developing a better understanding of these dynamics, workers can better address their situations in the workplace.

            Like Mumby, Deetz (1992) is concerned that when power structures are fluid or ambiguous, management will seek to arrange power structures and communication processes in ways that will privilege its viewpoints and values within the decision-making process.  He holds that this bias often precludes the sharing of knowledge and perspectives from those outside of management, even when such input may be critical to the well-being of both workers and management.  To address this imbalance and create momentum within organizations for reform, he argues for the establishment of stakeholder representation processes, which can help balance the institutional biases towards management in the communication process in the workplace.

            Schnebel and Bienert (2004) studied and compared the values management systems of three companies: Boeing Corporation, Siemens, and SAP Corporation.  Boeing developed their values management process to comply with requirements imposed as part of dealing with Federal agencies which included the Securities Exchange Commission and the Department of Defense, a major Boeing customer.  Siemens’ value system was largely an informal structure, intentionally left loose and vague by management to help incorporate the diverse values and interests of the international workforce without privileging particular value systems or beliefs over others.  The value management system of SAP Corporation was not codified at all, and relies solely on leadership in work groups to implement value systems in whatever way they saw fit.  From this experience, Schnebel and Bienert (2004) find that Boeing and Siemens had far better experience with the creation and implementation of values systems, with Boeing’s codified system, and Siemens creating defined loose and flexible frameworks to work hand-in-hand with managerial leadership and the values of the workforce.  By comparison, they find that SAP, which set few formal or informal expectations, saw a lack of willingness to lead the task of changing values, as well as a lack of consistency of values within its organization.

Profit, Principles, or Both?

Deetz (1995) cautions that management in corporate organizations focuses too much importance upon the creation of the most wealth in the least amount of time and warns of corporations, becoming “the creation of financial investors run by managers for the sake of profit.  Jobs, products, and services, and the effects on family and communities are considered as things that happen along the way” (Deetz, 1995, p. 2).  He calls for a shifting of the focus of managerial economic analyses away from short-term profit making, and more towards long-term growth and stability (Deetz, 1995).  Deetz emphasizes the importance of not only stability within organizations and the rejection of short-sighted decision making as important objectives, but also calls for greater efforts by management to invest back into the business, as well as into their employees and external communities.

Both Deetz (1997) and Langenberg (2001) are concerned that the growth and sizes of corporate organizations are extending their reach in society to the point where they are becoming more important than traditional public service institutions, such as government agencies, churches, and community organizations.  Langenberg (2001) believes the potential adverse effects can be addressed by placing a stronger emphasis upon the development of formal corporate social responsibility policies and the placement of these efforts closer to the central functions of management.  She also calls for greater efforts by management to include stakeholders in the decision-making processes, including in how decisions are made regarding the allocation of company resources to community involvement efforts and social responsibility programs.  This point of view is supported by Laurence (2004), who cites a study by Corporate Reputation Watch 2002 of one hundred corporate CEOs as to which objectives they feel should be priorities for corporate social responsibility efforts.  Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed believed treatment of employees should be a priority, sixty-nine percent said the reinforcement of ethical values within their organizations were important, and fifty-seven percent believe transparency in financial reporting should be a priority.

Laurence (2004) sees a growing corporate awareness of the problems caused by the practice of overemphasizing the importance short-term profit gains by management.  He reports that Coca-Cola has responded by ending the practice of issuing quarterly financial reports, as well as a decision by BP, the international petroleum company, to refocus its financial reporting from looking at its performance in regards to meeting short-term production targets towards examining how its activities contributed to the company’s overall financial health.  Hatcher (2003) also finds that organizations are reconsidering the emphasis placed upon management’s ability in assessing their overall organizational performance by their ability to meet quarterly financial goals, and that organizations are beginning to give more weight to management’s ability to abide by stated ethics and value codes.  He cites the example of Guardsmark, a security firm in Memphis, Tennessee, whose corporate policies required their ethics code to reviewed and revised on an annual basis, incorporating input from their employees.

A Question of Values

Deetz (2003) argues that the primary problems with managerial communication are not the result of incomplete rules, or lax penalties, but rather the result of a lack of democratic values in managerial culture.  He warns that the recent efforts to address shortcomings in managerial communication values through legislative or judicial remedies may fail to address the lack of democratic values in the corporate world, and that any progress made by forcibly imposing them upon corporate organizations will be minimal and short-lived.  Deetz cautions that these approaches could even have an adverse effect by serving to lull reformers into a false sense of security by giving a false impression that they had accomplished something of substance, suggesting that such an approach:

still treats the problems as arising from individual defects rather than governance and decisional structures and the solution as policies and standards rather than better processes of making business decisions. (p. 606)

Seeger (2003) cautions that the behaviors and statements of management regarding the values and ethical standards of their organization are closely watched by their employees, and as such are important to the success of implementing ethical reforms within organizations.  Without it, he holds that such efforts are doomed to failure.  He observes that older organizations often find it easier to set standards and abide by them, and saw that younger companies, such as Enron, with no historical frames of reference, organizational standards, or established leadership to establish the authority needed to lead such reforms had more difficulty instituting ethical standards.

Conrad (2004) warns that simply promoting ethics within organizations, as well as the need to operate by higher ethical standards is not enough.  He sees progress towards reform in how the academic community is responding to growing public discontent over managerial conduct by placing a greater emphasis on ethics in their programs, as well as corporate leaders proclaiming their support for legislative and regulatory reforms.  However, Conrad views talk about forcing management to embrace higher ethical standards is not enough, believing that organizations should be willing to seek and embrace reforms of their own, and warns that highly-visible efforts to remedy deceptive managerial communication processes in the wake of recent corporate scandals are often inadequate.  Like Deetz (2003), Conrad (2004) is concerned that these reforms can have the opposite effect by serving to divert public pressure for reform, thus reducing the momentum of managerial critics.  He questions if expecting management to change its ways was enough to make it truly embrace reform:

First, the discourse that individualizes managerial corruption culminated in calls for increased “ethics training” in academic coursework.  Although it is difficult to disagree that a need for such training exists, the likelihood that it will change managerial behaviors or ideology is quite low. (p. 330)

            Hatcher (2003) shares Conrad’s concerns regarding the effectiveness of ethics training, citing a survey of 100 corporate executives in the United States, finding that “more than half of respondents said that even if Enron’s senior management had received extensive ethics training, it would’ve made little to no difference” (p. 44).  Hatcher holds that reforming managerial values and introducing higher levels of ethics within organizations requires far more than simply talking about ethics, and that ethics and value systems within organizations need to be backed up with systems of measures, rewards, and discipline for breaches in order to be truly effective.

            Schnebel and Bienert (2004) warn that the process of establishing what an organization holds to be its “values” is problematic, and cautions that disputes will often arise in the process of deciding what values are to be embraced within an organization’s code of ethics as “different standards of ‘good’ are offered” (Schnebel & Bienert, 2004, p. 205).  They warn that even the process of establishing ethical codes of conduct involve subjective processes in which decisions as to which values to uphold within an organization could create outcomes in which particular points of view can be privileged and others oppressed and muted.

Managerial Deception and Distortion

Mumby (1987) see authority in an organization as being based upon the creation and implementation of rules by management which governed behavior in the workplace.  These rules allow management to orient the behavior of employees in ways that often serve to establish and maintain power within an organization.  He believes that real power in an organization is often the outcome of creation and implementation of rule systems:

Power, then, is achieved by establishing an organization’s mode of rationality through controlling the deep structure rules of organizations.  It is not simply a possession of individuals within organizations. (p. 115)

Deetz (1985) holds that management views control as key to its survival, warning that systematic distortion in organizations often takes place when groups, types of information, or expression become arbitrarily privileged, creating false consensus regarding policy directions.  He sees this process as working to the benefit of the privileged interests, and to the disadvantage of others.  He identifies four processes by which management maintains rules systems which help them retain control:  

1)      Naturalization:  A process by which privileged forms of communication become accepted realities in an organization.  Management portrays these processes and values as natural parts of the organization, and are no longer considered subjects for discussion or changing.

2)      Neutralization:  A process by which positions and activities that express certain values or points-of-view which are value-laden, are represented by management as being neutral and value-free, so as to keep employees from challenging the rules and values imposed by management.

3)      Legitimation:  A process by which management rationalizes decisions and practices by connecting them to higher moral and external principles.  Deetz uses the example of how the quest for higher productivity is becomes connected to the Protestant work ethic, which stresses hard work as a key to religious salvation.

4)      Socialization:  This process focuses on gradually adjusting employees, especially newcomers, to accepting managerial views and values in organizations.

Conrad (2004) holds that corporate management will seek to avoid openness in policy-making when it may invite the expression of points of view which may challenge the interests of management, and use their connections and relationships with regulators to avoid public scrutiny and to influence the processes used to govern their operations.  To avoid this scrutiny and loss of control of decision-making power, Conrad believes management will engage in efforts to contain the issues of concern or head off public resistance to reform by finding “ways to shift public attention away from the issue, or to define it in ways that minimize the possibility that meaningful reform will emerge from the decision-making process” (Conrad, 2004, p. 312).  He believes the management in many organizations is actively opposed to allowing regulatory decisions to become a matter of public discussion, and see such openness as a threat to their control of the processes which allow them to decide how they will do business:

Public policymaking is risky.  It publicizes elite influence over the policy process, and may allow non-elite groups to discover common interests and to organize in ways that create coalitions that exceed the “minimum winning size” needed to initiate reforms that are opposed by elites. (p. 313)

In the wake of public discontent with managerial exploitation and malfeasance exposed in the collapse of the Texas-based Enron Corporation, Conrad (2004) saw a two-step process used by management to resist public pressure to engage in real and substantive reforms:

Phase 1: Symbolic Placation.  Conrad (2004) believes management views their best prospects for survival in being able to ride out waves of negative publicity while their image handlers to go to work on reshaping the public’s perception of the problem and their political operatives work to head off demands for increased regulatory oversight.  He believes that managerial policymakers will create highly-publicized displays of managerial outrage over corporate abuses, to create the impression that managerial leaders identify with the concerns of the public as a means to regain public confidence and buy time for public pressure to impose legislative mandates to subside.  This in turn will buy management additional time for their image handlers to work to further reduce the perceived scope of the problem, eventually reducing the public’s perception of the problem from one of corporate governance or lack of corporate social responsibility to a much smaller problem, which require much smaller technical corrections.  According to Conrad, this is intended to head off wholesale changes that would threaten to undermine the power of management.  In doing so, this process of symbolic placation serves to reduce the overall level of concern of the public, and to shift the balance of power back to management from its critics.

Phase 2: Individualizing the Crisis.  Once the initial public pressure is reduced through a combination of efforts at damage control and acts of symbolic placation, Conrad (2004) believes management will work to further reduce public pressure and regulatory scrutiny by working to narrow the perceived scope of the problem.  He cautions that management will attempt to characterize the problem as one of a few rogues operating outside of the regulatory boundaries and norms of corporate values and minimize the visibility of those who were harmed by managerial abuses, and assure the public that in spite of a few bad apples, the system itself is not broken.  To this end, Conrad accuses regulatory officials of playing along with these deceptive practices by conducting highly-visible activities such as the pre-arranged and highly-publicized arrests and bookings of corporate executives in what have become known as “perp walks”, which he believes are intended to give the public the false impression that the corporate criminals have been brought to justice, the problems resolved, and the system of managerial values maintained more-or-less intact.

Strength, weaknesses, and future directions for research

            Critical studies of managerial communication and organizational democracy lay a solid foundation of understanding of the problems with managerial communication practices, and create a vision for a higher standard of democratic values in the workplace.  Through developing a better understanding of the motives and values of management, researchers of managerial communication have done much to help develop a better understanding of the problems, as well as the challenges that reformers face in this field.  By revealing oppressive managerial communication practices and processes, they make strong arguments that reform is essential if contemporary corporate organizations wish to survive and prosper.  In showing that reform is possible and suggesting avenues by which to conduct these reforms, they show that the more moderate American tradition of managerial critique can address the problems of managerial communicative values within the context of the corporate workplace.

            While these critiques help identify problems and create rationales for change, much work remains to be done to improve the effectiveness of solutions proposed by managerial critics.  Managerial reform efforts, such as improved communication, ethical codes, and corporate social activism, have not always worked, and in some cases, these efforts at reform serve as little more than smoke screens that serve to mask deceptive managerial practices and help evade calls to implement true reforms.  As a means to improve the predictability of behaviors and outcomes, research should further examine the differences between those organizations that pay lip service to reform approaches and those who truly embrace reform within their organizations.  The ability of researchers to use improved understandings of managerial communication processes as a means to predict behaviors and control outcomes needs to be improved, along with more effective processes by which to measure and critique of the results of reform efforts and to help plan further reforms. 

Also, the view of the workplace as a bi-polar environment consisting of management and workers as two monolithic groups needs to be discarded and researchers should view workers as Foss (1973) and Mumby (1987) saw them, as a fluid mosaic of diverse groups and individuals.  From this new standpoint, those examining the impact of managerial communication upon the workforce will be able to better consider how to advance the voices and values of the entire workforce, instead of creating a uniform identity of the workforce that would accomplish nothing more than replacing managerial oppression with a tyranny of the majority.

            While one should take heart that the debate prompted by managerial critics has advanced to the point where some of the reforms sought by management critics are taking place, there is still much work to be done.  As good intentions and symbolic actions by management are not enough, critical researchers of managerial values and workplace democracy should seek to build upon the understandings of managerial and workforce values and priorities to help focus greater attention upon establishing a greater consistency between proposed reforms and the outcomes of such efforts.

---

References

Conrad, C. (2004).  The illusion of reform: Corporate discourse and agenda denial in the 2002 “corporate meltdown”.  Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 7(3), 311-338.

Deetz, S. (2003).  Corporate governance, communication, and getting social values into the decisional chain.  Management Communication, 16(3), 606-611.

Deetz, S. (1997).  Communication in the age of negotiation.  Journal of Communication, 47(4), 118-135.

Deetz, S. (1995).  Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive and responsible workplaces.  Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

Deetz, S. (1992).  Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life.  Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Deetz, S. (1985).  Critical-cultural research: New sensibilities and old realities.  Journal of Management, 11(2), 121-136.

Foss, L. (1973).  Managerial strategy for the future: Theory Z Management.  California Management Review, 15(3), 68-81.

Hatcher, T.  (2003).  New world ethics.  T+D: The American Society for Training & Development, 57(8), 42-47.

Langenberg, S. (2004).  Parresiastic stakeholders: A different approach to ethical institutions.  Journal of Business Ethics, 53.

Laurence, A. (2004).  So what really changed after Enron?  Corporate Reputation Review, 7(1), 55-63.

Littlejohn, S. & Foss, K. (2005).  Theories of Human Communication, (8^th Edition).  Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Mumby, D. (1993).  Critical organization communication Studies: The next 10 years.  Communication Monographs, 60, 18-25.

Mumby, D. (1985).  The political function of narrative in organizations.  Communication Monographs, 54, 113-127.

Schnebel, E., & Bienert, M. (2004).  Implementing ethics in business organizations.  Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 203-211.

Seeger, M., & Ulmer, R. (2003).  Explaining Enron: Communication and responsible leadership.  Management Communication Quarterly, 17(1), 58-84.

Weiss, R., & Miller, L. (1987).  The concept of ideology in organizational analysis:  The sociology of knowledge or the social psychology of beliefs?  Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 104-116.

---

Got something to say?  Email me!

HOME
My Bio
Family Pics
Traveling Pics
My Catholic Faith

My College
My Papers
COMM 510 webpage
Nat'l Comm. Assoc.
Carolinas Comm Assoc.
Graduation Day Pics

My Company Online
SC UCC
My Church
Melkite Catholic Diocese
The Vatican
The 80s Server
Sirius Satellite Radio
  My Fave Channels:
   19, 22, 23, 160