The use of conversation analysis (CA) as an applied research methodology that can be of interest to business communication is sometimes overlooked. Taking the case of leadership as an example, this article demonstrates how CA can provide a fine-grained analysis of talk-in-interaction during a business meeting, which reveals an emic perspective on “what is going on.” By linking such an analysis to wider social theorizing, notably a social constructivist approach to leadership and the construction of reality, CA is able to make explicit the normally “seen but unnoticed” machinery of talk with which leadership is enacted. Moreover, the results of such an analysis can give researchers a clearer insight into the phenomenon and help practitioners improve leadership and communication skills.
Alvesson, M. (1992). Leadership as social integrative action: A study of a computer consultancy company. Organization Studies, 13(2), 185-209.
2.
Alvesson, M. (1996). Leadership studies: From procedure and abstraction to reflexivity and situation. Leadership Quarterly, 7(4), 455-485.
3.
Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003). The great disappearing act: Difficulties in doing leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 359-381.
4.
Atkinson, J. M. (1982). Understanding formality: The categorization and production of “formal” interaction. British Journal of Sociology, 33, 86-117.
5.
Beach, W. (1993). Transitional regularities for “casual” okay usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(4), 325-352.
6.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. London: Penguin.
7.
Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
8.
Button, G. (1991). Conversation-in-a-series. In D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 251-277). Cambridge, UK: Polity.
9.
Chia, R. (2000). Discourse analysis as organizational analysis. Organisation, 7(3), 513-518.
10.
Conger, J. (1998). Qualitative research as the cornerstone method for understanding leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 107-121.
11.
Cooren, F. (2004). The communicative achievement of collective minding: Analysis of board meeting excerpts. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(4), 517-551.
12.
Cooren, F. (2006). Arguments for the in-depth studies of organizational interactions: A rejoinder to McPhee, Myers, and Trethewey. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(3), 327-340.
13.
Cunliffe, A. (2001). Managers as practical authors: Reconstructing our understanding of management practice. Journal of Management Studies, 38(3), 351-372.
14.
Drew, P. (2003). Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings: A sketch. In P. Glenn, C. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper (pp. 293-308). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
Gafaranga, J., & Britten, N. (2004). Formulations in general practice consultations. Text, 24(2), 147-170.
16.
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. McKinney & E. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 338-366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
17.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Context activity and participation. In P. Auer & A. di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 77-99). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.
18.
Heath, C. (1992). Gesture’s discreet tasks: Multiple relevancies in visual context and in the contextualization of language. In P. Auer & A. di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 101-128) Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.
19.
Heritage, J., & Watson, D. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123-162). New York: Irvington.
20.
Holmes, J. (2005). Leadership talk: How do leaders “do mentoring,” and is gender relevant?Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1779-1800.
21.
Hosking, D. (1997). Organising, leadership, and skillful process. In K. Grint (Ed.), Leadership: Classical, contemporary, and critical approaches (pp. 293-318). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
Huisman, M. (2001). Decision-making in meetings as talk-in-interaction. International Studies of Management & Organization, 31(3), 69-90.
23.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-23). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
24.
Labov, W. (1971). The study of language in its social context. In J. Fishman (Ed.), Advances in the sociology of language (pp. 152-216). The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
25.
Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
26.
Sacks, H. (1984). On doing “being ordinary.” In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 413-429). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Sacks, H., Schegloff E., & Jefferson G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
28.
Samra-Fredericks, D. (2000). An analysis of the behavioural dynamics of corporate governance—A talk-based ethnography of a U.K. manufacturing “board-in-action.”Corporate Governance, 8(4), 311-326.
29.
Samra-Fredericks, D. (2003). Strategizing as lived experience and strategists’ everyday efforts to shape strategic decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 141-174.
30.
Schegloff, E. (1992a). Introduction. In H. Sacks, Lectures on conversation (pp. ix-lxii). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
31.
Schegloff, E. (1992b). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 101-134). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Schegloff, E. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 161-216.
Schegloff, E. (1998). Body torque. Social Research, 65, 535-586.
35.
Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London: Sage Ltd.
36.
Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 18(3), 257-273.
37.
ten Have, P. (1997, June). In the presence of data: Conversation analysis as “empirical philosophy.” Paper presented at the conference Ethnomethodology, an Improbable Sociology? Cerisy-la-Salles, France. Available at http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/emca/paul.htm
38.
ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage Ltd.
39.
ten Have, P. (2001). Applied conversation analysis. In A. McHoul & M. Rapley (Eds.), How to analyze talk in institutional settings: A casebook of methods (pp. 3-11). London: Continuum.
40.
Thayer, L. (1995). Leadership/communication: A critical review and a modest proposal. In G. Goldhaber & G. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 231-263). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
41.
Wasson, C. (2000). Caution and consensus in American business meetings. Pragmatics, 10(4), 457-481.
42.
Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage Ltd.
43.
Yeung, L. (2004). The paradox of control in participative decision-making: Facilitative discourse in banks. Text, 24(1), 113-146.
44.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251-289.
45.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 33-48.
