Storytelling A Critical Review

Critical Review

Seite 1 von 18

Organizational Story and Storytelling: A Critical Review
By Mary E. Boyce, PhD, Asso. Professor, Dept. of Management & Business, Whitehead College, University of Redlands, P. O. Box 3080, 1200 E. Colton Avenue, Redlands, CA, USA 92373 voice: [phone] fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
Accepted for publication in the Journal of Organizational Change Management , 1996, Volume 9, Number 5

Acknowledgement: The author wishes to thank David Boje, Will McWhinney, Jon Sager, Burkard Sievers and Teri Tompkins for their comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Contents
Abstract The Social Construction of Reality Organization Symbolism as an Organizing Perspective Taking A Critical Perspective
A Focused, Interdisciplinary Lens For Review Contributions From A Multidisciplinary Foundation Key Studies in Folklore and Anthropology Research in Communication Theories Key Studies In Organizational Story And Storytelling Organizational Story and Myth Storytelling as a Process Challenges to Theory and Practice Summary REFERENCES

Abstract

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 2 von 18

The stories told in organizations offer researchers and OD practitioners a natural entry point to understanding and intervening in the culture(s) of an organization. Informed by perspectives of social constructivism, organizational symbolism, and critical theory, key studies of organizational story and storytelling are examined, multidisciplinary foundations are identified, and challenges to the application of story work in organizations are presented.

The stories told in organizations offer researchers and OD practitioners a natural entry point to understanding and intervening in the culture(s) of an organization. This review is informed by social constructivism, organizational symbolism, and critical theory. Considered individually, each of these perspectives includes a point of view, a genealogy of sorts regarding idea development, and examples of story research. Taken altogether, social constructivism, interpretive organizational symbolism, and critical theory provide a focused, interdisciplinary lens for the review of studies in organizational story and storytelling. Organizational story and storytelling studies build upon a foundation of multidisciplinary research that has shaped the understanding we have of story and storytelling. This review highlights the contributions of several key studies, critically examines the perspectives of these studies, and reflects on what has been learned about story and storytelling. Challenges to theory and practice are identified and attention is drawn to the applications possible for researchers and practitioners utilizing story and storytelling in their work in organizations.

The Social Construction of Reality
A social constructivist perspective is one of three perspectives informing this review. Berger and Luckmann (1967) described social construction as a blend of a social reality and symbolic interaction. They contended that the reality we collectively experience has, in fact, been constructed by our social interactions. Berger and Luckmann began with the universal need for meaning and order. They proposed that as individuals engage in the construction of their personal meaning, collectives engage in the construction of a social reality. In its first generation, a socially constructed reality is shared by all the participants. It is as this reality needs to be communicated and passed on to another generation that difficulty arises. There is a desire to integrate a new generation into the current reality. It is this need for integration which Berger and Luckmann believed motivates "legitimation" (1967: 86). Legitimation is the process by which people construct explanations and justifications for the fundamental elements of their collective, institutionalized tradition. There has been additional work on ways of understanding reality since that of Berger and Luckmann. McWhinney (1984), building on LeShan's (1976) work, proposed that a perspective on alternative realities provides a more effective way (than the perception of one, socially constructed reality) to understand fundamental differences in how people view reality. The way people define reality can be described in their position on two dimensions of being which form the axes of a four-quadrant model. These two dimensions are "the connectedness of the universe" (McWhinney, 1984: 10) and "freedom of will" (1984: 11). The model provides a description of four very different realities. These realities are unitary, sensory, mythic, and social (1984: 11). McWhinney's work makes a contribution to the literature on constructed reality which recognizes how deeply people differ in their recognition, experience, and construction of reality. Research with a social constructivist perspective. There are four studies that have explicitly connected either social construction or symbolic interaction, organization(s), and story (Boyce, 1995; Brown, 1982; Smircich, 1983; Wilkins, 1978). These studies form a small cluster of work that intentionally weaves a perspective of socially constructed reality with story and organization. Specific contributions from the work of Brown, Wilkins, and Smircich are highlighted here. Boyce's study is reviewed later in the section of storytelling as a process. Additionally, there is a body of work specifically examining the relationship between socially constructed reality, shared beliefs, and organizational ideology (Abravanel, 1983; Boyce, 1995; Conrad, 1981; Martin, Feldman, Hatch, & Sitkin, 1983; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1984; Pettigrew, 1979). That body of work is not included in this review. Brown's dissertation (1982) looks at the socializing use of story among 75 employees in four nursing homes. Brown supported Dandridge, Mitroff, and Joyce's (1980) delineation of symbolic functions as describing, energy controlling, and system maintaining and was working in the vein that became Fisher's (1987) narrative paradigm when she observed that stories ". . . give reasons which provide coherence and order to events occurring" (Brown, 1982: 48). (Fisher's narrative paradigm is reviewed later in the section on communication theories.) Brown concluded not only that organizational members express understanding and commitment to the organization in their use of stories (1982: 125), but that the degree of member familiarity with the dominant story of the organization might indicate the member's level of adaptation to the organization (1982: 127).

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 3 von 18

Wilkins and Martin (1979) identified three functions for organizational story and legend (generating commitment, making sense of the organization, and control). Wilkins aligned his work with that of Ouchi in social control (Wilkins, 1978: 21). As organizational legends enhance behavioral and attitudinal commitment, organizational control is made easier (Wilkins & Martin, 1979: 2425). Smircich's often cited study (1983) describes the stories of an insurance company in light of the organizational history. She spent 6 weeks as an observer within an insurance company which was a division of a larger corporation. The meaning system of the company is described as its "ethos" (1983: 57). This ethos had emerged over years. Smircich looked closely at the stories and common beliefs held in the company. She used the organizational history to explore the meaning of the stories and shared meanings. That these meanings may be consciously or unconsciously developed is a significant conclusion of the study. In summary, Berger and Luckmann provided a framework for understanding the social construction of reality. McWhinney, building on LeShan's work, developed a model for alternative realities that describes how differently people perceive and experience reality. The salient aspects of the research explicitly linking social construction, story, and organization are that: (a) stories are useful for new member socialization and generating commitment, (b) familiarity with dominant organizational stories can be an indicator of adaptation, (c) story can be a vehicle for social control, and that (d) meaning can develop consciously and/or unconsciously.

Organization Symbolism as an Organizing Perspective
The second perspective informing this review is that of organizational symbolism. Organizational symbolism involves the construction of meaning in organizations and attaching it to form. Dandridge, Mitroff, and Joyce broadly defined organizational symbolism as that which ". . . expresses the underlying character, ideology, or value system of an organization" (1980: 77). They proposed that the symbol-bearing aspects of organizational life are (a) stories and myths, (b) ceremonies and ritualized events, (c) company logo, and (d) anecdotes and jokes (1980: 77). Organizational symbolism fits within the overall rubric of the organizational culture literature. Smircich and Calas (1985) described the work done in organizational symbolism as concerned with interpreting symbolic discourse, identifying themes, and linking meaning to action. In the opening essay of Organizational Symbolism Pondy (Pondy, Frost, Morgan & Dandridge, 1983) built upon Burrell and Morgan's (1979) model of sociological paradigms (functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist, and radical structuralist) to identify metaphors and research in organizational symbolism which they aligned with each paradigm. Each paradigm favors particular assumptions, approaches, and research questions. A brief description of each paradigm and related metaphors follows. Morgan expanded the discussion of metaphor in Images of Organization (1986). The functionalist paradigm emphasizes the use of symbol for the maintenance of social order. The metaphors related to this paradigm are the organismic metaphor, the cybernetic metaphor, the culture metaphor, and the theatrical metaphor. In essence, symbolism is useful for organizational order. Examples of research in this vein are Goffman (1959), Rappaport (1971), and Wilkins (1978, 1983). The culture metaphor and the theatrical metaphor can also be approached through the interpretive paradigm. In each case, their focus would then shift from identifying functions to interpreting meaning and processes. The interpretive paradigm views the construction of meaning through symbolic media. The metaphors related to this paradigm are sense-making, text, and language game. The research from this perspective is concerned with understanding and interpreting how this process occurs. Examples of research in the interpretive paradigm are Mead (1934), Ricoeur (1971), Schutz (1967), Brown (1982), Smircich (1983), Berg (1985), Thorpe (1986), Mahler (1988), Boyce (1995), Jermier, Slocum, Jr., Fry, and Gaines (1991), Gabriel (1991), and Boje (1995). The radical humanist paradigm emphasizes the pathological use of symbol. The metaphor it draws upon is the psychic prison metaphor which focuses on the use of symbol to alienate. Persons are seen as trapped by their own unconscious and conscious social constructs (Pondy, Frost, Morgan, & Dandridge, 1983: 25). Researchers have examined symbolic forms in organizations for evidence of psychic prisons. Sievers' (1993, 1994) research may be an example of this paradigm. Sievers (1994) examined how organizational members, snared by their childhood dramas, play out the unconscious dynamics in the workplace. AIDS provides a metaphor for Sievers' (1993) analysis of an AIDS service organization as he explored organizational dynamics that included diminished ability to manage responsibility, embeddedness in the immediate, and focus on socioeconomic survival. He found that the social system mirrored the personal systems of its members

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 4 von 18

(1993: 41). The radical structuralist paradigm emphasizes the way symbolic form is used in ideological control in the interests of those in power. The metaphor it draws upon is instruments of domination. Research from this perspective focuses on ways in which dominant social ideologies are sustained. The work of Henry Giroux, a critical pedagogist, examines the use of popular culture to sustain the dominant ideology (1992, 1993, 1994). As Morgan (1986) developed the application of metaphor and paradigm to organization studies, he advocated the practice of applying several metaphors to a situation in order to gain a broader and more textured perspective on complex organizational situations. Challenging the ease with which researchers situate themselves within one paradigm, Morgan encouraged an intentional use of various metaphors regarding one situation. Few studies demonstrate the intellectual exercise of shifting paradigms or perspectives. As one examines the research on story, the paradigm of the researcher is evident in the design and methodology of the study, in the underlying assumptions as well as the study conclusions. There are numerous reasons for this. Among the reasons are that clearly grounding one's work in a particular tradition or perspective is the norm and that certainty and clear assertions are rewarded among scholars. That which is unclear to the researcher may never make it into a paper. Reflections regarding that which appears inconsistent or ambiguous may not appear in the final presentation of a study. Remaining largely unaddressed in the studies reviewed are the ways in which the researcher's paradigm shapes the study. For some scholars, the experiences and perceptions of the researcher are subjective issues which are outside the domain of objective scholarship. It is the conviction of this writer that the paradigm of the researcher shapes her/his perception of the data and its meaning and that the researcher cannot be completely separated from the research. Becoming conscious of one's dominant paradigm (or perspective) is a precursor to engaging in the exercise of applying more than one perspective. The practice of applying more than one perspective to an organizational culture or situation is best demonstrated in the work of Martin and her colleagues (1983, 1985, 1986, 1988). Their research and the three perspective framework they developed is reviewed later in the section on organizational story. Organizational symbolism has been cast as an aspect of the organizational culture literature. Pondy, Frost, Morgan, and Dandridge (1983) well framed the approaches taken to the research with their description of paradigms and metaphors. Research on story and storytelling has been conducted within each paradigm. In summary, the salient points are that (a) researchers from various disciplines have described organizational stories and the process of storytelling as primary ways in which meaning, both individual and collective, is expressed; and (b) the paradigm (or perspective) within which one has worked shapes the design and method of a study and is evident in one's scholarship.

Taking A Critical Perspective
Critical theory is the third perspective informing this review.
A vast literature spanning sociology, philosophy, social criticism, education, and organization studies now exists that advocates a critical perspective (Bowles, 1989; Burrell, 1988; Calas & Smircich, 1992; Clegg, 1990; Ferguson, 1984; Freire, 1985; Giroux, 1992, 1993; Gramsci, 1971; Martin, 1990, 1992; Mills, 1988; Mills & Tancred, 1992; Tierney, 1989, 1993). Some of this work is grounded in modernism and some in postmodernism. Giroux (1993) and Tierney (1993) proposed a blend of these approaches, "critical postmodernism," which addresses structures and expressions of oppression at both macro and micro levels. Central to a critical perspective is identifying and challenging the assumptions that lay underneath one's work. Taking a critical perspective involves a ruthless and courageous examination and deconstruction of assumptions, norms, expectations, limitations, language, results, and applications of one's work. Organizational myth and story from a critical perspective. In the most comprehensive, critical review of organizational myth done to date, Bowles' (1989) examined the relationship between myth and meaning in work organizations. His essential thesis was that with the demise of the Church in society meaning is now sought by many persons in work organizations. An aspect of Bowles' analysis was an examination of five dominant management ideologies (structuralism, psycholigism, welfarism, legalism, and consensualism) presented by Salaman (1979) and the management metamyth identified by Ingersoll and Adams (1986; Adams & Ingersoll, 1983). Management ideologies serve to bind the individual to the organization. Specifically, organizational stories are used to promote Salaman's (1979) management ideologies of psychologism and welfarism. A central concept in these ideologies is motivation. Stories speak to purpose, motivation, sense of team and success. Sievers (1986) described motivation becoming a
surrogate for meaning. As meaning in work is destroyed, people need increasingly to be externally motivated. The fragmentation and alienation that is the creation of modern management is addressed by

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 5 von 18

cultural meaning-makers through the use of myth and story, Sievers critiqued large-scale, cultural prescriptions that are promoted as ways to align employees with a purpose larger than themselves. Ingersoll and Adams' (1986; Adams & Ingersoll, 1983) management metamyth refers to a "rational technical orientation toward tasks and relationships" (Bowles, 1989: 412). They concluded that the "management metamyth" is an insufficient substitution for deep meaning because it is dehumanizing and denies the numinous. Therefore, the conditions that Campbell (1976a) described for personal and social integration "are not to be found in through the experience of work" (Bowles, 1989: 415). The work of Ingersoll and Adams (1986) built upon the "purposive-rational action" which Habermas connected to a focus on increasing efficiency and the pursuit of economic and technological goals, and was contrasted with "symbolic or communicative interaction" which Habermas connected with "emancipation, individuation, and the extension of communication free of domination" (Habermas, 1970: 93). Bowles contended that symbolic communication "is impossible where an ideology of technical efficiency prevails" (Bowles, 1989: 410). He went on to observe that "corporate culture" represents the most recent in a series of efforts ". . . designed to conceal the attempt to manipulate the interests of employees in the service of management" (Bowles, 1989: 417). Organizational story is used to develop and to sustain corporate culture (Silver, 1987). The basic tension that exists between the need for control and the need for participation lays underneath each attempt by management to demonstrate how individual interests can be served by aligning with management. Due to the "inevitable clash of interests in organizations, derived from class locations, [Bowles] is skeptical of managerial strategies which purport to serve the interests of all" (Bowles, 1989: 417). Based on the unraveling of traditional mythologies and the ascension of work organizations as a possible locus of meaning, Bowles advocated for a "creative mythology" that allows an individual to recenter himself/herself on meaning that the individual creates and enacts individually and collectively (Campbell, 1976b; May, 1975). This new mythology would "enable the individual to commit him/herself to a pattern of activities, through work and life in general, where self potentials, both cognitive and affective, can be exercised and where the action of operating on the environment, as opposed to being merely subject to it, allows at some level, a sense of purpose and well-being" (Bowles, 1989: 416). Bowles observed that " a clear majority of people are severely hampered in achieving any form of individual creative response, due to the controls to which they are subject" (1989: 416). A creative mythology of organization requires a democratization of work so that management of work is incorporated into the work process and not separated from it. Further, a creative mythology would necessitate "decentralized structures, flexible work roles and self control" (1989: 417). Bowles recognized that for management to divest itself of the control process challenges the claim for expertise upon which management has historically depended. Confronted with descriptions of what makes work meaningful for individuals (Argyris & Schon, 1974, 1978; Maslow, 1954, 1971), the refusal to democratize work is stripped of its paternal and professional cloak and the power and control-based foundation is exposed. Bowles argued that creating a new mythology of work and organization will only be achieved by fundamentally changing the relationship that people have to work and to each other in the workplace. Bowles' critique of organizational myth and meaning draws attention to the ways in which myth and story are utilized to promote and to reinforce dominant ideologies. An intellectual and ethical challenge to those working with organizational story flows logically from Bowles' critique. The use of myth and story is not value neutral. Story researchers, managers, and practitioners can use story and storytelling in organizations to describe and sustain the current power structure or to nurture and fuel creativity and liberation and to develop new meaning of work and personhood by individuals and groups.

A Focused, Interdisciplinary Lens For Review
Each of the perspectives presented above contributes a significant aspect to the reviewer's interdisciplinary lens. By asserting the social construction of reality, social constructivism draws attention to the processes of symbolic interaction and meaning-making engaged in by all kinds of organizational members and groups. McWhinney's work in alternative realities highlights how differently people understand and experience reality. While social constructivism can be held hopefully by those with a unitary or integrative perspective, an acknowledgement of alternative realities humbles a researcher and sends her/him in search of different perspectives within the same organizations. Instead of one reality, there are multiple realities to be uncovered, spoken, heard, and understood as one seeks to develop an wholistic picture of an organizational culture. As another contributing aspect to an interdisciplinary perspective, organizational symbolism highlights the many ways in which meaning is given form and expressed. Within the interpretive

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 6 von 18

paradigm, one assumes that symbols have meaning and one works to uncover the meaning of those forms to organizational members. There is not one authoritative voice of interpretation for the researcher utilizing an interpretive paradigm. There are many voices and many meanings whose understandings overlap, collide, enhance, and silence one another. Organizational symbolism draws attention to the kaleidoscope of symbols and meanings sustained in organizations. As a third aspect of an interdisciplinary perspective, critical theory assumes that dynamics of power and politics sustain a dominant voice (or story) in the organization and other voices (and stories) are less frequently heard or are silent. Taking a critical perspective is a beginning point for examining all that a researcher has assumed regarding her/his own work, regarding the interactions between persons, regarding group dynamics, and regarding organizations. Rather than perceiving oneself as objective and neutral as a researcher, within this perspective there is an inherent challenge to become conscious of how one's commitments and actions align one; to organize one's work in ways that enhance emancipation and broaden the base of democracy in organizations and in society. To the review of story research, this perspective brings a consciousness of dominance and democratization processes in organizations. It makes visible the uses of story to reinforce and sustain organizational cultures. Although interdisciplinary, this lens is not objective, nor can it be so. One may argue whether or not a reviewer can possess a truly objective lens, and if he/she can do so, one may argue whether or not it is the most valuable perspective with which to wrestle and evaluate the value and contributions of a body of research. It is the position of this writer that one's perspective both enriches and limits one's work; that it must necessarily be identified and reflected upon. It is not enough to examine the perspective taken by story researchers. The perspective taken by the reviewer must also be identified and examined. Taken as a whole, the interdisciplinary perspective identified here has inherent strengths and weaknesses. The strengths of the perspective are its recognition of: (a) all organizational members (and groups) as meaning-makers, (b) symbol(s) as expressing meaning, (c) multiple realities, perspectives, and voices within an organization, (d) power dynamics being used to sustain dominant ideologies, and (e) emancipation as an on-going and essential aspect of democracy. The primary weaknesses of the perspective are that it is not empirically grounded and makes no claim of objectivity. It is from this interdisciplinary point of view that the rich and varied contributions to story and storytelling research are considered, key studies are examined, and challenges to theory and practice are presented.

Contributions From A Multidisciplinary Foundation
The research on organizational story and storytelling is built on a larger foundation of work on myth and narrative. A brief introduction to the foundational work includes research conducted by folklorists, anthropologists, sociologists, communication and organization theorists.

Key Studies in Folklore and Anthropology
Three contributions from the folklore literature that specifically address storytelling are the studies by Georges (1969), Nusbaum (1982), and Robinson (1981). Georges (1969) proposed that storytelling events be researched as holistic communicative events, however, he constrained the meaning of a storytelling event to the particular event (p. 323). Subsequent researchers established a connection between shared storytelling experiences and the larger organizational reality (Agmon & McWhinney, 1989; Boje, 1991; Boyce, 1995). Nusbaum (1982) asserted that sense-making involves both storytelling and ordinary conversation and Boje described storytelling as ". . . the preferred sense-making currency of human relationships among internal and external stakeholders" in organizations (1991: 106). Robinson (1981) identified the roles of listeners of stories in his work on personal narratives. The recognition that listeners are active participants in "storying" is of particular significance to those working with story and storytelling in organizations. While it is impossible to briefly review an anthropological approach to myth and story research, it can be observed out that the models of social structure which anthropologists apply to analyses shifted from the equilibrium models of Malinowski (1931) and Radcliffe-Brown (1952) to the structural analysis model of Levi-Strauss (1963, 1966). Levi-Strauss (1963, 1966) had two underlying assumptions regarding myth. First, that thought process demands order and gains that order by interacting with experience in such a way as to render it intelligible. Second, this process is generally unconscious. Myth functions essentially to resolve life contradictions. The ideas of Levi-Strauss shaped the way myth is approached and understood by researchers in anthropology as

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 7 von 18

well as organizational culture. Levi-Strauss laid the foundation of story and storytelling as vehicles for ambiguity and contradiction in organizational culture.

Research in Communication Theories
Another approach to the study of story resides within the field of communication theory. Rhetorical discourse has a lengthy tradition and includes both argument and narrative as forms of speech. The study of story occurs within narrative in communication theory. Approaches to narrative (as it relates to story) have been developed and described by numerous scholars (Burke, 1955; Campbell, 1970; Fisher, 1984, 1987; Labov, 1972; Labov & Waletsky, 1967; Perelman, 1979; and van Dijk, 1975). Fisher's (1987) narrative paradigm is described in this review because of its particular relevance to the study of organizational stories. The narrative paradigm presents a "philosophy of reason, value and action" (1987: 64), provides a "logic" for assessing stories, and also explores "how we endorse or accept stories as the basis for decisions and actions" (1987: 87). Fisher described this work as a paradigm because it implies a philosophical view of human communication. Communication can be interpreted, critiqued for coherence and fidelity, and linked to actions taken by people. Fisher described the choice of meaningful stories. The world as we know it is a set of stories that must be chosen among in order for us to live life in a process of continual re-creation. In short, good reasons are the stuff of stories, the means by which humans realize their nature as reasoning-valuing animals. The philosophical ground of the narrative paradigm is ontology. (1987: 65) The narrative paradigm also recognizes the capacity of people to create ". . . new stories that better account for their lives or the mystery of life itself" (1987: 67). To position the narrative paradigm in conjunction with other approaches to rhetoric and narrative, it is helpful to distinguish between several rhetorical perspectives and hermeneutics. The two primary rhetorical theorists with whom Fisher clarified points of difference are Burke (1955) and Perelman (1979). The narrative paradigm differs from Burke's dramatization in two ways: (a) it views people as full participants rather than as actors with scripts; and (b) that ". . . people's symbolic actions take the form of stories and that they assess them by the principles of coherence and fidelity" (Fisher, 1987: 19). The essential point of difference between the narrative paradigm and the "new rhetoric" of Perelman is a difference in view of humanity. Fisher saw "storytellers" and Perelman saw "arguers" (1987: 97). The narrative paradigm views story as a fundamental form in which people express values and reasons, and subsequently make decisions about action. It focuses on the message of a story and evaluates the reliability, trustworthiness, and desirability of the message. The method for applying the narrative paradigm involves identifying story themes and assessing the links between values, reason and action. It provides a particularly valuable method for working with story and storytelling in organizations. In summary, story and storytelling research is built upon a multidisciplinary foundation. Work conducted by folklorists, anthropologists, communication theorists as well as by sociologists, philosophers, and critical theorists enriches the family tree and informs the work in story and storytelling being conducted by organizational researchers.

Key Studies In Organizational Story And Storytelling
Particular studies have built upon the broad knowledge base highlighted above and contributed directly to the work in organizational story and storytelling. It is appropriate to examine the studies individually and as a whole in order to assess their contribution(s) to how we understand the role of stories and shared storytelling in organization culture. Who tells organization stories? How, and by whom, are organizational stories interpreted? What meaning is attributed to the stories and to the process of storytelling? It is the purpose of this review to reflect on the perspectives of the researchers as well as the conclusions drawn in the studies in a critical assessment of organizational story and storytelling.

Organizational Story and Myth

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 8 von 18

The most frequently referenced research in organizational story is the study by Clark (1970, 1972). Clark's definition of "organizational saga" (1972: 178) links a charismatic leader and strong purpose with a claim of unique accomplishment. Two story studies followed Clark's which explore uniqueness as an aspect of organizational culture. Key points from each of these studies are described here. The first is a study by Mitroff and Kilmann on "epic myths" (1975: 18). Mitroff and Kilmann defined an epic myth as capturing the unique quality of an organization. They proposed that the epic myth gives meaning to organizational members and is useful in new member orientation. The most salient aspect of this work is their use of sharing stories as an approach to large scale, organizational problem-solving (1975: 25-26). Their method involves sharing stories about an ideal organization first, and then, sharing stories about the actual organization. This study stands out from other research in organizational story because it describes a structured, storytelling event as a piece of action research. The study focuses on the value of the shared stories for managers to understand employees. In the second "uniqueness study", Martin, Feldman, Hatch, and Sitkin (1983) searched for uniqueness in their study of organizational stories across a varied collection of organizations. They discovered that what organizational members hold to be unique about their organizations is, in fact, not unique. They called this feature the "uniqueness paradox" (1983: 439). Beyond uniqueness, Martin and her associates looked critically at the prevailing integrative perspective of cultural study that presumes an organizational culture is that which is shared, that a founder is a culture-creator, and thirdly, that the shared understandings reflect the personal convictions of the founder. With culture creation being attributed to leaders, it is not surprising that the literature has many studies about leaders shaping and changing organizational cultures. Studies with this perspective include those by Clark (1970, 1972), Hackman (1984), Martin, Feldman, Hatch, and Sitkin (1983), Pettigrew (1979), Schein (1983, 1985), and Wilkins (1978, 1983, 1984). Research that continues to advocate an integrative perspective warrants criticism. "Given the conceptual centrality of the question of what is shared, and by whom, it is indeed an important weakness that integration paradigm research seldom makes a systematic attempt to determine exactly who shares what" (Martin & Meyerson, 1988: 104). The dominance of the integrative perspective persists, however, and studies that demonstrate leaders in control of organizational change are still the norm. One journal editor found a study to be "disturbing" when it demonstrated that organizational members were resisting a leader's cultural change efforts and reinforcing meaning woven within their own ranks (personal correspondence with author and editor, 1992). With a series of studies, Martin and her associates (1983, 1985, 1986, 1988; Martin, 1992) examined and defined a three perspective framework: integration (described above), differentiation, and ambiguity (subsequently identified as fragmentation). The differentiation perspective holds that organizations are "umbrellas for collections of subcultures" (1985: 101), that leaders and members are active culture creators, and that culture is shaped by forces beyond the control of the founder. Just as the integration perspective is congruent with a top management point of view, studies with the differentiation perspective express the points of view of those attuned to differences of class and power. There is a growing collection of studies in folklore, labor culture, and organization studies written with a differentiation perspective (Gregory, 1983; Jermier, Slocum, Jr., Fry, & Gaines, 1991; Maynard-Moody, Stall, & Mitchell, 1986; Meyer, 1982; Reynolds, 1986; Rose, 1988; Smircich, 1983; Trice and Beyer, 1984; Van Maanen & Barley, 1984, 1985). The fragmentation perspective "brings ambiguity to the foreground" (Martin, 1992: 130) and focuses attention on the complex array of relationships in the culture. The perspective includes unclear and inconsistent cultural manifestations and differences are seen as irreconcilable and unavoidable. A metaphor that Martin and Meyerson (1988) proposed for this perspective is a web in which individuals are connected by some, but not all, of the concerns. A recently developed perspective, few studies have been conducted with a fragmentation perspective although one can refer to studies by Martin (1990, 1992), Meyerson (1989), and Weick (1991). The three perspective framework (Martin, 1992) provides researchers and practitioners an approach to "taking another perspective". Application of the framework will make a textured, manysided interpretation of stories (and of organizational culture) more likely than if a researcher or practitioner utilizes one perspective. While the integration perspective addresses management's point of view, intentional focus on the differentiation and fragmentation perspectives will increase one's understanding of co-existing groups and exploration of democracy and emancipation in organizational life. Examples of other research on organizational story are Berg and Asplund's (1981) study of organizational genesis with a Nordic, mythic context, Gabriel's (1991) exploration of organizational

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 9 von 18

myths as collective fantasies, Gufstafsson's (1984) investigation of the "essential contradiction" between a traditional hero and a manager-as-hero, Larson's (1991) identification of storytelling as a strategy for informal workplace learning, Mahler's (1988) interpretation of the symbolism in stories from the Agency for International Development (AID), and McCollom's (1987) reflections on multicultural reality in a family-owned business. The applications of organizational story for managers and practitioners that are demonstrated in these studies include problem-solving/action research, suspending irreconcilable alternatives, socializing, generating commitment, learning, sense-making, symbolizing, social control and creating new meaning. Much of the work in organizational story has been conducted from an integrative perspective. Martin's three perspective framework presents a challenge to traditional studies conducted with an integrative perspective and lays a foundation for developing fuller, more textured expressions of meaning in organizations by utilizing more than one perspective.

Storytelling as a Process
Interesting work on storytelling as a vehicle for collective centering and collective sense-making has been conducted (Boje, Fedor, & Rowland, 1982; McWhinney & Battista, 1988; Agmon & McWhinney, 1989; Boyce, 1995; Boje, 1991, 1995). McWhinney called his work "remythologizing" and it is highlighted here because of its focus on organizational renewal. Remythologizing can revitalize an organizational culture. Remythologizing is a process used in organizations to interpret and understand the organizational symbology, bring it to consciousness, and enable organizational renewal (McWhinney & Battista, 1988; Agmon & McWhinney, 1989). McWhinney attributed the development of this process to the deep work done in symbol by Jungians. He saw symbol as an expression of the unconscious. It is through the symbolic form of story that we begin to discover the deep meaning which guides action. Remythologizing ". . . summons back to consciousness the founding ideals and the oft-told tales that helped establish and maintain an organization's identity, thus linking the primal energy with present conditions" (1988: 46). McWhinney and Battista proposed three stages to this process. The stages are bringing founding myths to organizational consciousness, reviving the founding myths, and "recommitment to the revitalized myth" (1988: 55). Remythologizing has been applied in varied situations. McWhinney worked with the founding myth of the Disney Corporation (1988); Battista (in McWhinney & Battista, 1988) applied the concepts on a macro level to Caribbean myth; and Agmon researched the myth underlying an international, Israeli business (Agmon & McWhinney, 1989). A remythologizing project on American and European conceptions of health has been a recent project of McWhinney (McWhinney, in conversation, 1995). He uncovered nine metaphors related to health in an exploration with healthcare professionals. "Within each metaphor are the myths and stories that elaborate the ways in which these meanings appear" (1995: 6). There are many possible applications of remythologizing. An earlier, related approach to organizational myth was proposed by Boje, Fedor, and Rowland (1982). They described "myth-making" as an adaptive process in which organizational members create a logic which attributes meaning to their activities. They suggested that a myth "narrows the horizon in which organizational life is allowed to make sense" (1982: 18). Their work identifies stages to myth development (1982: 24-26) which are similar to those suggested by McWhinney and Battista. The stages are myth development, solid myth, myth split, and myth shift. They introduced the concept of "myth exchange" in which they maintained that people can learn to bracket their own mythic thinking, entertain the thinking of others, and stay clear on the original myth (1982: 26). The differences between the work by McWhinney, Battista, and Agmon, and Boje, Fedor, and Rowland seemed to be: (a) that Boje, Fedor, and Rowland described what they understood as an organizational life process rather than the creative process for organizational renewal that McWhinney, Battista, and Agmon were developing; and (b) McWhinney, Battista, and Agmon clearly were focused on the unconscious power of myth and symbol and Boje, Fedor, and Rowland seemed less focused on the unconscious. Remythologizing represents an approach to collective centering with its focus on core processes and living myth. Collective centering is the process of focusing a group on that which is integral, of organizational essence (Mink, Shultz, & Mink, 1979). Other work that demonstrates shared storytelling as a vehicle for collective centering is the study by Boyce (1995) in which the stories and storytelling of one, not-for-profit organization are examined.

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 10 von 18

Boyce (1990, 1995) made a contribution to the storytelling literature with story analysis that is grounded in organizational history and root metaphor. The shared meaning (collective sense) possessed by the organizational members who participated in the study is rooted in a unitary reality (McWhinney, 1984) with a religious foundation. In the organization studied, no alternative realities (or groups with a distinctive collective sense) are identified among study participants. A contribution to the sense-making literature made by Boyce's (1990) study is an examination of collective sense-making in a structurally closed system. Although she attempted to demonstrate shared storytelling as a vehicle for collective sense-making, this did not occur in the study. When deep disagreement between the organizational members and the president is uncovered during the study, questions about vision, strategy, and organizational change are evoked (Boyce, 1995). An organization as a storytelling system is the focus of Boje's (1991) study of story performance in an office-supply firm. He demonstrated the management of sense-making as storytellers and listeners sent cues and make decisions about how much of the story to tell, how much to reference, and which interpretation is applied (1991: 124). Skilled storytellers and story interpreters are effective organizational communicators, demonstrate understanding of organizational culture and history, and possess skills that managers dealing with rapid change might well develop (Boje, 1989, 1991). The strength of Boje's (1991) study is the first-hand observation of storytelling as it is performed naturally in an organization. His work draws attention to the uses of storytelling by internal stakeholders (predicting, empowering, and fashioning change) and by external stakeholders (making sense of the setting, negotiating alternative interpretations, and accommodating new precedents) and to the dynamics which vary story performance (1991: 124). Boje's (1995) study of Disney stories which demonstrates pre-modern, modern, and postmodern discourse provides an example of taking more than one perspective in one's research. Using Tamara, a play, as a metaphor for plurivocal organizational discourse, Boje conducted postmodern analysis of the array of official and unofficial stories about Walt Disney and the Disney Studios. Boje drew attention to the mix of discourses present in the Disney stories and storytelling. As a company, Disney is still characterized by the hegemonic, organizational culture and authoritarian practices that Disney introduced. Now, however, Eisner is intentionally weaving into his storytelling voices that have not been heard in some time, and stories are told by people besides the CEO. It is significant that Boje distinguished between his method of postmodern analysis and the conclusion that Disney is not a postmodern organization (1995). Working from the postmodern assumption that more than one discourse co-exists, Boje's demonstrates an approach to plurivocal story interpretation. The research conducted to date has demonstrated storytelling processes as approaches to problem-solving and action research (Mitroff & Kilmann, 1975), organizational renewal (McWhinney & Battista, 1988; Agmon & McWhinney, 1989), socialization of new employees (Louis, 1980, 1983; Brown, 1982), collective centering (McWhinney & Battista, 1988; Boyce, 1995), sense-making (Boje, 1991, 1995), learning (Helmer, 1989), and innovation and new product development (McWhinney, 1995). Shared storytelling has a number of applications that warrant consideration by organizational members, managers, and practitioners. These are: (a) expressing the organizational experience of members or clients; (b) confirming the shared experiences and shared meaning of organizational members and groups within the organization; (c) orienting and socializing new organizational members; (d) amending and altering the organizational reality; (e) developing, sharpening, and renewing the sense of purpose held by organizational members; (f) preparing a group (or groups) for planning, implementing plans, and decision making in line with shared purposes; and (g) co-creating vision and strategy.

Challenges to Theory and Practice
Regarding the research to date on organizational story and storytelling, the emergent challenges with which to wrestle include (a) explicitly addressing one's perspective as a researcher and conducting critical and political analysis, (b) culture creation and taking multiple perspectives into account, (c) attributing earlier scholars, and (d) the essential, ethical challenge of story and storytelling work. These concerns are presented below. Explicitly addressing the researcher's perspective. Studies undertaken with a symbolic interactionist or social constructivist perspective recognized the significance of individual and collective meaning, however they may not explicitly address the orientation of the researcher and may or may not include a critical or political analysis. Dynamics of power, dominant groups and lesser heard voices, "insiders" and "outsiders", and the fundamental question of whose culture and meaning is expressed in organizational stories is largely unaddressed in the story studies conducted to date. If people are symbolizing meaning-makers who express meaning in the form of stories, researchers must carefully attend to the meaning made and expressed at each level of the organization and by different groups of organizational members. Two concerns emerge here that draw attention to the researcher's perspective as he/she approaches a story study. First, if one assumes an integrative perspective, there is the probability that dissonant voices will not be heard or will be made peripheral. For example, we might assume that a well-known, organizational story has one

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 11 von 18

meaning rather than explore the possible differences of meaning that the story has to various groups in the organization. Second, a conscious or unconscious collusion with management can guide the researcher's search for stories and the meaning (or value) that is attributed to the stories uncovered. Explicitly identifying one's perspective as a researcher can increase one's awareness as to the limitations of one's point of view and the probable effectiveness or ineffectiveness of one's research design for uncovering other meaning. Taking multiple perspectives into account. Related to the first observation are questions about who it is in organizations that creates culture and who "owns" or possesses the culture of an organization. If we are learning that all organizational members are meaning-makers and contribute to "storying" and the culture-creation process, this has direct implications for organizational story work. When doing storytelling work in an organization, one must carefully assess the culture being created and changed through-out the organization; identifying the various strains of the culture(s) being woven everyday and identifying how the creating and changing is occurring. Researchers must seek out the different meanings woven and held by different members and groups in the organization. Story and storytelling research could be making an intentional contribution to what is known about the creating and changing of organizational culture. Little of this work has been done to date in the story and storytelling research. Attributing earlier scholars. Storytelling is an ancient medium for communication and meaning-making. Serious studies about myth, narrative, story, and storytelling have been conducted by scholars with different theoretical traditions and disciplines. Organizational story is an area of study with a rich and varied genealogy, however, little of the research in organizational story and organizational culture is clearly grounded in earlier theoretical work. With the clear exception of dissertations, in which scholars carefully demonstrate how their studies fit within a stream of work previously conducted, many story and culture studies seem to hang in the air without apparent genealogy. Is it possible that scholars in organization story are unfamiliar with the history of this scholarship? Rather perhaps we are reluctant to attribute scholars in other disciplines upon whose work we build, citing instead our own early scholars in organization story and organization culture. There is not a "pure" study of organizational story or culture. Much of our research is multidisciplinary and should be demonstrated as such. Current scholarship is deepened by demonstrating its place in the family tree. Inescapable ethical challenges. Research and application of story and storytelling processes presents scholars, managers, and practitioners with ethical/philosophical challenges. The research on organizational story and storytelling has been conducted from social control as well as from participatory, emancipatory, co-creative perspectives. The application of organization story and storytelling processes in organizations can also be socially controlling or participatory and emancipatory. A critical perspective advocates the development and utilization of liberatory and democratic processes so that people can learn how to be involved in social and organizational actions that are critical and hopeful. Storytelling is an example of a process that can nurture and create meaning or reinforce control and manipulate meaning. The observation about ethics/philosophy ties back around to the risk of a pro-management bias. Several questions emerge for the researcher and practitioner: To what ends do I apply my knowledge of culture and storytelling in organizations? Am I, as a practitioner and researcher, engaged in story and storytelling work that increases renewal, participation and democracy in organizations? What evidence of this can I find? Am I aligned with management in ways that result in my knowledge and skill regarding symbol, meaning-making, and sense-making being used to establish and reinforce control? What evidence of this can I find? These questions are unsettling to ask.

Summary
This review of organizational story and storytelling research conducted with symbolic, social constructivist and critical perspectives has examined key studies and reflected on the perspectives with which the studies have been conducted. Story and storytelling clearly express organizational culture. The research reviewed contributes particular organizational case studies, industry-wide descriptions, and an array of approaches to story and storytelling that have been utilized in organizations. Researchers and practitioners are challenged to examine the perspective with which they undertake story and storytelling work in organizations. The ease with which story and storytelling can be used in the interests of management or as a vehicle for organizational renewal and participation is highlighted.

REFERENCES

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 12 von 18

Abravanel, H. (1983). Mediatory myths in service of organizational ideology. In L. R. Pondy, G. Morgan, P. J. Frost, & T. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism: 273-293. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Adams, G. B. , & Ingersoll, V. H. (1983). Managerial metamyths: Bridges to organizational boundary crossing. Paper presented at the invitational meeting of Myth, Symbol, & Folklore: Expanding the Analysis of Organizations, UCLA, Los Angeles. Agmon, O. , & McWhinney, W. (1989). On myths and the mythic: Their use in organizational and social change. Unpublished manuscript. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Berg, P. & Asplund, C. (1981). Organizational sagas. Paper presented at E. G. O. S. Colloquium, Glasgow University. Berg, P. (1985). Organizational change: As a symbolic transformation process. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture: 281-299. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Berger, H. S. , & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor. Boje, D. M. (1989). Postlog: Bringing performance back in. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2(2): 80-93. Boje, D. M. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 106-126. Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as "Tamara-land". Academy of Management Journal, 38(4): 997-1035. Boje, D. M. , Fedor, D. B. , & Rowland, K. M. (1982). Myth making: A qualitative step in OD interventions. Journal and Applied Behavioral Science, 18(1): 17-28. Bowles, M. L. (1989). Myth, meaning, and work organization. Organization Studies, 10(3): 405-421. Boyce, M. E. (1990). Story and storytelling in organizational life. Unpublished dissertation. The Fielding Institute. Boyce, M. E. (1995). Collective centring and collective sense-making in the stories and storytelling of one organization. Organization Studies, 16(1): 107-137. Brown, M. H. (1982). That reminds me of a story: Speech action on organizational socialization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas at Austin. Burke K. (1955). A rhetoric of motives. New York: George Braziller. Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, post modernism, and organizational analysis 2: The contribution of Michel Foucalt. Organization Studies, 9(2): 221-235.

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 13 von 18

Burrell, G. , & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann. Calas, M. B. & Smircich, L. (1992). Re-writing gender into organizational theorizing: Directions from feminist perspectives. In M. Reed & M. Hughes (Eds.), Rethinking organization: New directions in organization theory and analysis: 227-253. Campbell, J. (1976a). Primitive mythology. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Campbell, J. (1976b). Creative mythology. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Campbell, K. (1970). The ontological foundations of rhetorical theory. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 3: 97-108. Clark, B. R. (1970). The distinctive college: Antioch, Reed, and Swarthmore. Chicago: Aldine. Clark, B. R. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 178-184. Clegg, S. (1990). Modern organizations: Organization studies in the postmodern world. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Conrad, C. (1981). Toward a symbology of organizational power. Paper presented at the SCA/ICA conference on interpretive approaches to organizational communication. Alta, Utah. Dandridge, T. C. , & Mitroff, I. , & Joyce, W. F. (1980). Organizational symbolism: A topic to expand organizational analysis. Academy of Management Review, 5(1): 77-82. Ferguson, K. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51(3): 1-22. Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. trans. by D. Macedo. MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc. Gabriel, Y. (1991). Turning facts into stories and stories into facts: A hermeneutic exploration of organizational folklore. Human Relations, 44(8): 857-875. Georges, R. A. (1969). Toward an understanding of storytelling. Journal of American Folklore, 82: 313-328. Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge. Giroux, H. A. (1993). Living dangerously: Multiculturalism and the politics of difference. New York: Peter Lang Publishers. Giroux, H. A. (1994). Disturbing pleasures: Learning popular culture. New York: Routledge.

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 14 von 18

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. Q. Hoare and G. Nowell-Smith (Eds.). New York: International Publishers. Gregory, K. L. (1983). Native-view paradigms: Multiple cultures and culture conflicts in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 359-376. Gustafsson, B. (1984). Hero myths and manager descriptions. Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture. Lund, Sweden. Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a rational society. trans. by J. J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon. Hackman, R. (1984). The transition that hasn't happened. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University. Helmer, J. E. (1989). Between horses: An ethnographic study of communication and organizational culture at a harness track. Unpublished dissertation. University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Ingersoll, V. H., & Adams, G. B. (1986). Beyond organizational boundaries: Explaining the managerial myth. Administration and Society, 18(3): 360-381. Jermier, J. M., Slocum, Jr., J. W., Fry, L. W., & Gaines, J. (1991). Organizational subcultures in a soft bureaucracy: Resistance behind the myth and facade of an official culture. Organization Science, 2(2): 170-194. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. , & Waletsky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral version of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the visual and verbal arts: 12-44. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Larson, B. J. (1991). Informal workplace learning and partner relationships among paramedics in the prehospital setting. Unpublished dissertation. Columbia University Teachers College. LeShan, L. (1976). Alternative realities. New York: Ballantine. Levi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural anthropology. London: The Penguin Press. Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational setting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 226-252. Louis, M. R. (1983). Organizations as culture-bearing milieu. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, T. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism: Monographs in organizational and industrial relations, Vol. 1: 39-54. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 15 von 18

Mahler, J. (1988). The quest for organizational meaning: Identifying and interpreting the symbolism in organizational stories. Administration & Society, 20(3): 344-368. Malinowski, B. (1931). Culture. In E. R. A. Seligman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 4: 621-646. Martin, J. (1990). Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Organization Science, 1: 1-21. Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Martin, J. , Feldman, M. S. , Hatch, M. J. , & Sitkin, S. B. (1983). The uniqueness paradox in organizational stories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 438-453. Martin, J., & Meyerson, D. (1986). Organizational culture at the OZ company (OZCO). Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Martin, J., & Meyerson, D. (1988). Organizational cultures and the denial, channeling, and acknowledgement of ambiguity. In L. R. Pondy, R. J. Boland, Jr., & H. Thomas (Eds.), Managing ambiguity and change: 93-125. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Martin, J. , & Powers, M. E. (1983). Truth or corporate propaganda: The value of a good war story. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism: Monographs in organizational and industrial relations, Vol. 1: 93-107. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Martin, J. & Siehl, C. (1983). Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis. Organizational Dynamics, August: 52-64. Martin, J., Sitkin, S. B., & Boehm, M. (1985). Founders and elusiveness of a cultural legacy. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture: 99-124. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. Maslow, A. H. (1971). The further reaches of human nature. New York: Viking. May, R. (1975). The courage to create. New York: Bantam. Maynard-Moody, S., Stull, D., & Mitchell, J. (1986). Reorganization as status drama: Building, maintaining, and displacing dominant subcultures. Public Administration Review, 46: 301-310. McCollom, M. E. (1987). Subcultures and stories: Reflection of a multicultural reality in organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Yale University. McWhinney, W. (1984). Alternative realities: Their impact on change and leadership. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 24(4): 7-38. McWhinney, W. (1995). A health confluence. Unpublished paper. McWhinney, W. , & Battista, J. (1988). How remythologizing can revitalize organizations. Organizational Dynamics, August: 46-58.

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 16 von 18

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meyer, J. W. (1982). How ideologies supplant formal structures and shape responses to environments. Journal of Management Studies, 19: 45-61. Meyerson, D. (1989). The social construction of ambiguity and burnout. Unpublished dissertation. Stanford University. Mills, A. J. (1988). Organization, gender, and culture. Organization Studies, 9(3): 351-369. Mills, A. J., & Tancred, P. (Eds.). (1992). Gendering organizational analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Mink, O.G., Shultz, J. M., & Mink, B. P. (1979). Open organizations. Published by Learning Concepts. San Diego, CA: University Associates (distributor). Mitroff, I. , & Kilmann, R. H. (1975). Stories managers tell: A new tool for organizational problem-solving. Management Review, July: 18-28. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Nusbaum, P. (1982). Making sense: The creative formulation of everyday conversation. Unpublished dissertation. Indiana University. Nystrom, P. C. , & Starbuck, W. H. (1984). Managing beliefs on organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20(3): 277-287. Ouchi, W. G., & Johnson, J. (1978). Types of organizational control and their relationship to emotional well-being. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 293-317. Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 570-581. Perelman, C. (1979). Authority, ideology, and violence. In C. Perelman (Ed.), The new rhetoric and the humanities: Essays on rhetoric and its experience. Holland: D. Reidel. Pondy, L. (1983). The role of metaphors and myths in organization. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism: Monographs in organizational and industrial relations, Vol. 1: 157-166. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pondy, L., Frost, P., Morgan, G., & Dandridge, T. (Eds.) (1983). Organizational symbolism: Monographs in organizational and industrial relations. Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1952). Structure and function in primitive society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Rappaport, R. A. (1971). Ritual, sanctity, and cybernetics. American Anthropologist, 73: 59-76. Reynolds, P. D. (1986). Organizational cultures as related to industry, position, and performance. Journal of Management Studies, 23, 333-345. Ricoeur, P. (1971). The model of text: Meaningful action considered as text. Social Research, 39: 529-562.

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 17 von 18

Robinson, J. A. (1981). Personal narratives reconsidered. Journal of American Folklore, 94: 58-85. Rose, R. A. (1988). Organizations as multiple cultures: A rules theory analysis. Human Relations, 41: 139-170. Salaman, G. (1979). Work organizations, resistance, and control. London: Longman. Schutz, A. (1967). Collected papers I: The problem of social reality (2nd ed.). The Hague: Martinua Nijhoff. Schein, E. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics, Summer: 13-28. Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sievers, B. (1986). Beyond the surrogate of motivation. Organization Studies, 7(4): 355-351. Sievers, B. (1993). Love in the time of AIDS. Paper presented at "Organizations and Symbols of Transformation," the 11th International SCOC Conference on Organizational Symbolism, EADACollbato, Barcelona, Spain. Sievers, B. (1994). Characters in search of a theatre. In R. Casemore, G. Dyos, A. Eden, K. Kellner, J. McAuley, and S. Moss (Eds.), What makes consultancy work‹understanding the dynamics: 291-311. London: South Bank University Press. Silver, J. (1987). The ideology of excellence: Management and neo-conservatism. Studies in Political Economy 24, August: 105-129. Smircich, L. (1983). Organizations as shared meanings. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism: Monographs in organizational and industrial relations, Vol. 1: 55-66. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Smircich, L. , & Calas, M. B. (1985). Organizational culture: A critical assessment. In F. M. Jabin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: 228-263. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Thorpe, B. N. (1986). Learning about organizational change through the analysis of myth and narrative: A critical hermeneutic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of San Francisco. Tierney, W. G. (1989). Advancing democracy: A critical interpretation of leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(3): 157-175. Tierney, W. G. (1993). Building communities of difference: Higher education in the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonies. Academy of Management Review, 9: 653-669. Van Dijk, T. A. (1975). Action, action description, and narrative. New Literary History, 6: 273-294.

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003

Critical Review

Seite 18 von 18

Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6: 287-365. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1985). Cultural organization: Fragments of a theory. In P. Frost et al (Eds.), Organizational culture: 31-53. Beverly Hills: Sage. Weick, K. E. (1991). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster. In P. Frost, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture: 117-130. Newbury Park: Sage. Wilkins, A. (1978). Organizational stories as an expression of management philosophy: Implications for social control in organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford University. Wilkins, A. (1983). Organizational stories as symbols which control the organization. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism: Monographs in organizational and industrial relations, Vol.1: 81-92. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wilkins, A. (1984). The creation of company cultures: The roles of stories and human resource systems. Human Resource Management, 23(1): 41-60. Wilkins, A. , & Martin, J. (1979). Organizational legends. Unpublished research paper, #521. Graduate School of Business, Stanford University. Return to Mary Boyce's Home Page

http://newton.uor.edu/facultyFolder/MBoyce/5CRITICA.HTM

06.11.2003