Abstract
When Organization Fails is the latest addition to a school of thought known as the Montréal School of Organizational Communication. It builds upon the idea of a communicative constitution of organization (frequently abbreviated as CCO; Ashcraft, Kuhn, & Cooren, 2009; Putnam & Nicotera, 2009), which has gained a small but growing scholarly community (see, e.g., the special issue of Organization Studies by Cooren, Kuhn, Cornelissen, & Clark, 2011).
The book first introduces the reader to the hypothesis that the concept of authority has received little account beyond Weber’s (1922) distinction between rational-legal, traditional, and charismatic types of authority. Taylor and Van Every provide a compelling argument that a search in state-of-the-art handbooks, annual volumes, and leading journals mainly yields references that distinguish between the authority of position and the authority of expertise (Barley, 1996), which roughly translates into issues situated in a vertical hierarchy or between horizontal peers.
Taylor and Van Every then provide their own theoretical concept of authority based on their reading of Peirce, Greimas, and Simmel (Chapters 1–2). They go on to illustrate how the organization of authority fails in two empirical case studies: A news broadcast of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the 1960s (Chapters 3–5) and a more contemporary IT project of the New Zealand police force (Chapters 6–9). Their conclusion (Chapter 10) rounds off the book with a reflection on the subtitle, Why Authority Matters.
Thirdness as the Basis of Authority
Taylor and Van Every first turn to the work of Peirce (1955) on the concept of thirdness. Here, meaningful activity (including organizing and organization) emerges in the semiosis of a sign, an object, and the interpretation of the relationship between the sign and the object. The sign (a first) expresses an object (a second) in language, whereupon an interpretation (a third) of the sign and the object produces meaning similar to what Weick (1979) called sensemaking. Authority rests with the interpretation of a relationship between the sign and the object. In the words of Taylor and Van Every, ‘Nobody has it. It is not possessed by someone. It governs a relationship. It assumes an object of value to both parties, and here is the rub – an already agreed-upon value of the object’ (p. 198). Peirce’s concept of thirdness provides Taylor and Van Every with a sound basis for their investigation of how authority is distributed in nested structures of semiosis. More importantly, it allows for their further inquiry into situations when an interpretation is ambiguous. The inherent conflict then explains why the organization of authority fails.
The Thirdness of Organization
In addition to Peirce’s work, Taylor and Van Every make use of Greimas’ (1987) semiotic approach to discourse. Accordingly, the social construction of the world is a narrative, which immediately subjects society, organization, and other concepts to discursive analysis. Peirce’s concept of thirdness aligns with Greimas’ discursive approach to organizing and organization in the relationship between individuals and an organization they are members of. The organization is both an entity (a second) addressed by an individual (a first) and a process (a third) of collective interpretation in language. On the one hand, the organization entails an individual with authority to act on its behalf. On the other hand, the individual takes on authority only in the relationship to the organization. Greimas’ narratology shows that it is not just individuals who act, but organizations are actors in their own right in that language attributes activities to them (Bencherki & Cooren, 2011).
Thirdness in Simmelian Triads
Simmel (1950), too, emphasized the significance of a third element in social relationships. The difference between triadic and dyadic relationships, however, is not simply the addition of a third individual to a group of two. The social structure of triads is fundamentally different from dyads for three reasons. First, triads provide the basis for a majority rule where two individuals team up against the remaining one; in contrast, dyads preserve the singularity of each individual. Second, triads are less prone to issues of power and politics because any threat to the unity of social relationships by one of three individuals falls back on a dyad of the two remaining ones; dyads, however, are threatened by termination of one individual. Third and last, triads are capable of resolving conflict if one individual mediates between the other two; dyads are left with two individuals to escalate their conflict.
Taylor and Van Every stay true to the concept of Simmelian triads. Yet, they readily point to Greimas, saying that the third element in social relationships does not necessarily need to be an individual (e.g. a manager) but may well be a collective (e.g. an organization). This seemingly small theoretical finesse – succinctly building on Peirce, Greimas, and Simmel – opens up a whole world of possible (re)interpretations of authority in organizational practice and how it subsequently plays into organizational failure.
Taylor and Van Every illustrate their theoretical approach to authority and failure in two extensive case studies. Their telling of both stories unfolds from a plethora of interviews, official reports, and corporate documents. The sheer number of examples of how individuals in their dyadic relationships (chain of command) evoke the organization they are members of as a third actor in now a triadic relationship paints a coherent picture and, indeed, an interpretation in the light of the idea of a communicative constitution of organization.
The Case of Seven Days
In 1960, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) fired (or, in the words of the CBC, did not renew the contracts) of the hosts of their popular news broadcast This Hour Has Seven Days. Taylor and Van Every annotate the transcribed hearings of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts to illustrate how authority is contested, disputed, and circumvented. Chapter 3 takes the perspective of the two hosts, Watson and LaPierre, and their vice-president, Walker. The apparent issue is that top management is wrongfully accusing the two hosts for a lack of integrity on camera. The case questions who has the authority over the production of editorial content, i.e. the top management or the hosts. Chapter 4 weaves together the testimony of middle and upper management. Producers and executives are caught up in the interpretation of authority along the chain of command. Chapter 5 finally gives voice to the president of the CBC, Ouimet. Though he is the ultimate authority, he is very much detached from the responsibilities associated with the production of Seven Days. The CBC fails, Taylor and Van Every conclude, to change its structures and processes in a period when political and societal upheaval turned the Canada of the 1960s inside out.
The Case of the Integrated National Crime Information System
In the late 1990s, the New Zealand police force entered an interorganizational cooperation with IBM to develop an Integrated National Crime Information System (INCIS). Similar to their annotation of the transcribed committee hearings in the case of the CBC, Taylor and Van Every extensively comment on interviews with former members of both the police force and IBM. Chapter 6 recalls the inception of the IT project from the perspective of some of the police officers involved. Already the selection of an IT partner to develop an INCIS calls into question the interpretation of authority in the police force. For example, early warnings of a consulting agency about the risks of the IT project are plainly ignored by the power and politics in play. Chapter 7 then offers an insight into the contract negotiations with IBM. The interorganizational cooperation appears troubled from the start as neither the police force nor IBM can agree upon clearly defined responsibilities. Chapter 8 recalls contests to authority reflected in the strategic decisions made. Though technology is rarely the issue itself, the authority necessary to move forward receives multiple interpretations depending on the party involved in decision-making. Chapter 9 finally gets to the bottom of the managerial challenges of a large-scale IT project and the particularities along the position of individuals and their expertise.
Why Authority Matters
Taylor and Van Every are very clear that organizations fail because the authority of position and expertise runs into ambiguous interpretations. Organization fails when individuals struggle over the interpretation of their relationships with others and the organization they are members of. The book complements earlier efforts on the research pragmatics of organization studies (Taylor & Van Every, 2011). It may be too short an introduction to the idea of a communicative constitution of organization for researchers and practitioners unfamiliar with the theoretical territory. The empirical case studies, however, are rich in detail. They read almost as stories, yet the language is theoretically informed and empirically concise. In the end, Taylor and Van Every use the backdoor of authority and failure to bring back the individual into the idea of a communicative constitution of organization.
While Taylor and Van Every carefully develop the concept of authority, their interest in organizational failure receives little theoretical reflection. Indeed, they do not address how organization fails (e.g. to achieve goals) but rather lay out what it means when we fail to organize (i.e. there is no organization in place to achieve something, whether it is goals or otherwise). For example, Taylor and Van Every simply rely on the undisputed (public) opinion that the CBC failed when it took a popular news broadcast off the air, just as the interorganizational cooperation between the New Zealand police force and IBM failed when their joint IT project could not deliver on the promises made. Organizational failure, however, is not that obvious, because the reception of the news broadcast was highly controversial despite its success in terms of both critical ratings and reach in the viewer audience, and the IT project was not deemed a failure by all its participants since it built a working technology. The title of the book then is more a catchphrase than a scholarly discussion of the matter. This is not necessarily a shortcoming, but readers particularly interested in organizational failure should be aware of it.