This article suggests that managerial awareness of ordinarily unconscious communicative rules (and how these rules potentially influence decision-making processes) might help managers to be more intentional about their communicative choices and may therefore lead to better decisions. The article explores the impact of communicative rules on decision-making processes using the retrospective discourse surrounding the decision to launch the space shuttle Challenger as an example case. Communicative rules may have played a part in the course of the eve of the launch debate over whether to launch the Challenger. Four potential communicative rules are identified using quotations from the presidential hearing transcripts. Being aware of communicative rules may be especially important in decision-making situations because it can enable one to make conscious choices concerning communicative behavior instead of unconsciously following intuitive social norms—norms that might have undesirable along with unintended results.
Anson, C. M., & Forsberg, L. L. (1990). Moving beyond the academic community: Transitional stages in professional writing. Written Communication, 7, 200-231.
2.
Collier, M. J., Ribeau, S. A., & Hecht, M. L. (1986). Intracultural communication rules and outcomes within three domestic cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(4), 439-457.
3.
Columbia Accident Investigation Board. (2003). Retrieved January 2004 from http://www.caib.us/
4.
Couture, B. (1992). Categorizing professional discourse: Engineering, administrative, and technical/professional writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 6(1), 5-37.
5.
Dalal, S. R., Fowlkes, E. B., & Hoadley, B. (1989). Risk analysis of the space shuttle: Pre-Challenger prediction of failure. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 945-957.
6.
Dannels, D. P. (2000). Learning to be professional: Technical classroom discourse, practice, and professional identity construction. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14, 5-37.
7.
Dannels, D. P. (2003). Teaching and learning design presentations in engineering: Contradictions between academic and workplace activity systems. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 17(2), 139-169.
8.
Eisenberg, E. M., Monge, P. R., & Farace, R. V. (1984). Coorientation on communication rules in managerial dyads. Human Communication Research, 11(2), 261-271.
9.
Freedman, A., & Adam, C. (1996). Learning to write professionally: ‘Situated learning’and the transition from university to professional discourse. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10, 395-427.
10.
Gilsdorf, J. W. (1998). Organizational rules on communicating: How employees are—and are not—learning the ropes. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 173-201.
11.
Gouran, D. S., Hirokawa, R. Y., & Martz, A. E. (1986). A critical analysis of factors related to decisional processes involved in the Challenger disaster. Central States Speech Journal, 37, 119-135.
12.
Hall, B. T. (1988). Norms, action, and alignment: A discursive perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 22, 23-44.
13.
Lamude, K. G., Daniels, T. D., & Graham, E. E. (1988). The paradoxical influence of sex on communication rules, coorientation and communication satisfaction in superior-subordinate relationships. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52(2), 122-134.
14.
Lighthall, F. F. (1991). Launching the space shuttle Challenger: Disciplinary deficiencies in the analysis of engineering data. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38, 63-74.
15.
Lull, J. (1982). A rules approach to the study of television and society. Human Communication Research, 9(1), 3-16.
16.
McConnell, M. (1987). Challenger: A major malfunction. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
17.
McCurdy, H. E. (1993). Inside NASA: High technology and organizational change in the U.S. space program. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
18.
Miller, C. M. (1993). Framing argument in a technical controversy: Assumptions about science and technology in the decision to launch the space shuttle Challenger. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 23, 99-114.
19.
Philipsen, G. (1987). The prospect for cultural communication. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory from Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 245-254). New York: Academic Press.
20.
Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. (1986). Report to the president by the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (Vols. 1-5). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
21.
Schall, M. S. (1983). A communication-rules approach to organizational culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(4), 557-581.
22.
Shimanoff, S. B. (1980). Communication rules: Theory and research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Challenger: Fine-tuning the odds until something breaks. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 319-340.
24.
Tompkins, P. K. (1993). Organizational communication imperatives. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
25.
Tompkins, P. K. (2004). Apollo, Challenger, Columbia: The decline of the space program (a study in organizational communication. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
26.
Tuft, E. R. (1991). Visual explanations: Images and quantities, evidence and narrative. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
27.
Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
Walzer, A. E., & Gross, A. (1994). Positivists, postmodernists, aristotelians, and the Challenger disaster. College English, 56, 420-433.
29.
Weider, D. L. (1974). Language and social reality: The case of telling the convict code. The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
30.
Werhane, P. H. (1991). Engineers and management: The challenge of the Challenger incident. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 605-616.
31.
Winsor, D. A. (1990a). Engineering writing/writing engineering. College Composition and Communication, 41(1), 58-70.
32.
Winsor, D. A. (1990b). Joining the engineering community: How do novices learn to write like engineers?Technical Communication, 37(2), 171-172.
33.
Winsor, D. A. (1996). Writing like an engineer: A rhetorical education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
