Yusuf YÜKSEL

4614

KURUMSAL İLETİŞİM ÜZERİNE: GEÇMİŞİ, BUGÜNÜ VE GELECEĞİ

Kurumsal iletişim alanının kapsamı ve bu alanı ilgili disiplinlerden ayıracak içerik, teori, yöntem ve uygulamalar üzerine akademik tartışmalar 1980’li yıllardan beri devam etmektedir. Bu tartışmaların temelinde, ana akım, işlevsel yaklaşıma yönelik eleştiriler yatmaktadır. Bu tartışmalar yorumlayıcı ve eleştirel yaklaşımların alanda daha fazla yer bulmasına katkı sağlamıştır. Tüm bu farklı yaklaşımlar, kurumsal iletişim alanının derinlemesine anlaşılması, sınırlarının belirlenmesi ve diğer disiplinlerden ayrılan özelliklerinin anlaşılması noktasında hayati öneme sahiptir. Bu temel tartışmalardan hareketle, bu makalede kurumsal iletişim alanının tarihçesi, sınırları, alandaki temel teorik yaklaşımlar (işlevsel, yorumlayıcı, eleştirel) ve gelecek eğilimlerini incelemektedir. Bu konuları tartışarak, bu makale, kurumsal iletişim alanını bütünsel bir şekilde sunmayı ve bu alanda çalışan akademisyenler için temel bir referans olmayı amaçlamıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler:

İletişim, Kurumsal İletişim, Organizasyon, Kültür, Kurum Kültürü, Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION: AN ANALYSIS OF ITS HOSTORY, TODAY AND FUTURE

There is a scholarly debate since the 1980s regarding the content, theory, methodology and application that define the scope of organizational communication and separate it from other related disciplines. These debates are based on the critics for the mainstream, functinal perpective which led to increasing research in interpretive and critical perspectives. This debate on different perspectives is critical in the sense that it enables to identity organizational communication in a rich manner and helps us define the scope of the field and its unique characteristics. Based on this debate, this article provided the history and scope of the field, analysis of the major theoretical perspectives in the field (functional, interpretive, and critical) and future trends. By discussing these topics, this article aimed to provide a holistic view of organizational communication and become a basic reference for scholars in this field.
Keywords:

Communication, Organizational Communication, Organization, Culture, Organizational Culture, Information and Communication Technologies.,

PDF

___

  • Alvesson, M. (1993). Cultural Perspectives on Organizations, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Axley, S. (1984). “Managerial and Organizational Communication in terms of the Conduit Metaphor”, Academy of Management Review, 9, 428–437.
  • Berlo, D. (1960). The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, San Francisco: Rinehart Press.
  • Barge, J. K. (2004). “Reflexivity and Managerial Practice”, Communication Monographs, 71, 70-96.
  • Barker, J. (1993). “Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-managing Teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-437.
  • Barker, C. J. (1999). Danger, Duty and Disillusion, Illinois: Waveland Press.
  • Berger, R. C. (1977). “The covering law perspective as a theoretical basis for the study of human communication”, Communication Quarterly, 25, 7-18.
  • Bryman, A. (1999). Leadership in Organizations, London: Sage.
  • Bullis, C. (2005). “From Productivity Servant to Foundation to Connection”, Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 595-603.
  • Cheney, G. (1995). “Democracy in the Workplace: Theory and Practice from the Perspective of Communication”, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 167-200.
  • Craig, T. R. (1983). “Galilean Rhetoric and Practical Theory”, Communication Monographs, 50, 395-412.
  • Craig, T. R. (1999). “Communication Theory as a Field”, Communication Theory, 9, 119-161.
  • Collins, D. (1998). Organizational change: Sociological perspectives. London: Routledge.
  • Conrad, C. & Haynes, J. (2001). “Development of Key Constructs”, In Fredric M. Jablin ve Linda Putnam (Eds.) The New Handbook of Organizational Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 44-77.
  • Dawson, P. (2004). “Managing Change”, In Dannis Tourish ve Owen Hargie (Eds.) Key Issues in Organizational Communication, New York: Routledge, pp. 60-73.
  • Deetz, S. (1994). “Future of Discipline: The Challenges, the Research, and the Social Contribution”, In Stanley Deetz (Ed.) Communication Yearbook, CA: Sage, pp.565-600.
  • Deetz, S. (2001). “Conceptual Foundations”, In Fredric M. Jablin ve Linda Putnam (Eds.), The New Handbook of Organizational Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 3-46.
  • Deetz, S. A., Tracy, S.J. & Simpson, J. L. (2000). Leading organizations through transition: Communication and cultural change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Delia, J. (1987). “Communication Research: A History”, In Charles R. Berger ve Steven H. Chaffee (Eds.) Handbook of Communication Science, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, p. 20-98.
  • DeSanctis G. & Poole M. S. (1994), Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory, Organization Science, 5, 121-147.
  • Eisenberg, E. (1984). “Ambiguity as Strategy in Organizational Communication”, Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242.
  • Eisenberg, E. & Goodall, H. L. (1993). Organizational Communication: Balancing Creativity and Constraint, Bedford: St Martin’s.
  • Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: A discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 321-351.
  • Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Dualism in leadership research. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 379-439). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Fulk, J. & Collins, L. (2001). “Wired Meetings: Technological Mediation of Organizational Gatherings”, In Fredric M. Jablin ve Linda Putnam (Eds.) The New Handbook of Organizational Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 624-663.
  • Geertz, C. (2000). The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books.
  • Gioia, D. A. & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sense-giving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management of Journal, 12, 433-448.
  • Greenbaum, H. H., Hellweg, S.A., & Falcione, R. L. (1988) Organizational communication evaluation: An overview. In G. M. Goldhaber, & G. A. Barnett, (Eds.), A Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 275-317). Norwood, NJ: Ablex publishing.
  • Goldhaber, G. (1978). “Organizational Communication”, Human Communication Research, 5, 76-96.
  • Hardy, C. & Clegg, R. S. (1996). “Some Dare Call it Power”, In Clegg R. Stewart et al. (Eds.) Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage Publications, pp.622-641.
  • Hylmo, A. & Buzzanell, M. P. (2002). “Telecommuting as Viewed Through Cultural Lenses: An Empirical Investigation of the Discourses of Utopia, Identity, and Mystery”, Communication Monographs, 69, 329-356.
  • Jones, E. (2004). “Organizational Communication: Challenges for the New Century”, Journal of Communication, 54, 722-750.
  • Kuhn, T. (2005). “The Institutionalization of Alta in Organizational Communication Studies”, Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 618-627.
  • Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering Culture, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  • Lewis, L. K. & Seibold, D. R. (1998). Reconceptualizing organizational change implementation as a communication problem: A review of literature and research agenda. Communication Yearbook, 21, 92–151.
  • Lewis, L. K., Schmisseur, A. M., Stephens, K. K., & Weir, K.E. (2006). Advice on communicating during organizational change. Journal of Business Communication, 43, 113-137.
  • Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in Organizations, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Martin, J. (2002). Culture Wars, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • McDonald, P. (1991). “The Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee: Developing Organizational Culture in the Short Run”. In Peter Frost (Ed.) Reframing Organizational Culture, Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 26-38.
  • Mcphee, R. D. & Zaug, P. (2001). “Organizational Theory, Organizational Communication, Organizational Knowledge and Problematic Integration”, Journal of Communication, 12, 574-591.
  • McPhee, D. R. & Poole, S. (2001). “Organizational Structures and Configurations”, In Frederick M. Jablin ve Linda Putnam (Eds.) The New Handbook of Organizational Communication, CA: Sage Publications. pp. 503-543.
  • Miller, V. (1994). “Antecedents to Willingness to Participate in a Planned Organizational Change”, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 59-80
  • Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R. & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication research, 22, 59-80.
  • Motley, T. M. (1990). “On Whether One Can (not) Communicate: An Examination Via Traditional Communication Postulates”, Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 1-20.
  • Mumby, K. D. & Stohl, C. (1996). “Disciplining Organizational Communication Studies”, Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 50-72.
  • Mumby, K. D. (2001). “Power and Politics”, In Frederick M. Jablin and Linda Putnam (Eds.) The New Handbook of Organizational Communication, CA: Sage, pp.585-623.
  • Pacanowsky, M. & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). “Organizational Communication as Cultural Performance”, Communication Monographs, 50, 127-147.
  • Papa, J. M. (1997). “Organizing for Social Change within Concertive Control Systems: Member Identification, Empowerment, and the Masking of Discipline”, Communication Monographs, 64, 219-249.
  • Peters, J. T. & Waterman, H. R. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons From America's Best-run Companies, New York: Harper & Row.
  • Pugh, S. D. & Hickson, J. D. (1997). Writers on Organization: An Invaluable Introduction to the Ideas of Leading Authorities of Management, London: Penguin Books.
  • Putnam, L. (1983). “The Interpretive Perspective: An Alternative to Functionalism”, In Linda Putnam ve Michael. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.) Communication and Organizations: An Interpretive Approach, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 31-54.
  • Putnam, L. & Krone, J. K. (2006). “Editors’ Introduction”, In Linda Putnam and Kathleen J. Krone (Eds.) Organizational Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. xxiii – xxiii.
  • Redding, W. C. & Tompkins, K. P. (1988). “Organizational communication: Past and Present Tenses”, In Gerald. M. Goldhaber ve George. A. Barnett (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Communication Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 5-33.
  • Richetto, M. G. (1977). “Organizational Communication Theory and Research: An Overview”, In Brent D. Ruben (Ed.) Communication Yearbook 1, Transaction Publishers, pp. 331-346.
  • Ruben, D. B. (2000). “Systems Theory and the Quality Approach to Organizations”, In Linda C. Lederman ve David W. Gibson (Eds.) Communication Theory: A Casebook Approach, Dubuque, IA: Kendell Hunt, pp. 173-201.
  • Ruben, D. B. (2005). “Linking Communication Scholarship and Professional Practice in Colleges and Universities”, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 294-304.
  • Ruben, D. B. & Stewart, P. S. (2006). Communication and Human Behavior (5th edition), Allyn: Bacon.
  • Schön, A. D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, London: Temple Smith
  • Smircich, L. (1983). “Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339-358
  • Smircich, L. & Calas, M. (1987). “Organizational Culture: A Critical Assessment”, In Frederick Jablin et al. (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Communication, Beverley
  • Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 228-263.
  • Smith, C. R. & Eisenberg, M. E. (1987). “Conflict at Disneyland: A Root-metaphor Analysis”, Communication Monographs, 54, 367-380.
  • O’Kane, P., Hargie, O. & Tourish D. (2004). “Communication Without Frontiers: The Impact of Technology Upon Organization”, In Dennis Tourish ve Owen Hargie (Eds.)
  • Key Issues in Organizational Communication, New York: Rutledge, pp. 74-95.
  • Orlikowski, J. W. (1992). “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations”, Organization Science, 3, 398-427.
  • Taylor, J., Flanagin, J. T., Cheney G. & Seibold, D. R. (2001). “Organizational Communication Research: Key Moments, Central Concerns, and Future Challenges”, Communication Yearbook, 24, 99-137.
  • Taylor, J. (1993). Rethinking the Theory of Organizational Communication: How to Read an Organization, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.
  • Thayer, L. (1986). Communication and Communication Systems: In Organization, Management, and Interpersonal Relations, Lanham: University Press of America.
  • Van Maanen, J. (1991). “The Smile Factory: Work at Disneyland”, In Peter Frost et al. (Eds.) Reframing Organizational Culture, Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 58-76.
  • Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense-making in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Weick, K. E. & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361-386.
  • Witherspoon, P. D. (1997). Communicating leadership: An organizational perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Yates, J. & Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17, 299-326.
  • Zorn, E. T. (2000). “Nuts about Change: Multiple Perspectives on Change-oriented Communication in a Public Sector Organization”, Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 515-566.
  • Zorn, E. T. (2002). “The Emotionality of Information and Communication Technology Implementation”, Journal of Communication Management, 7, 160-171.
İstanbul Arel Üniversitesi İletişim Çalışmaları Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 2146-4162
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2017
  • Yayıncı: İstanbul Arel Üniversitesi
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

SOSYAL BİLİMLERİ AÇIN, FEN BİLİMLERİNE YAYIN

Hüseyin ÇELİK, Hasan GÜRKAN, Yaşar Nuri SEVGEN, Yaprak CİVELEK, Mehmet YAKIN, Güven ÖZDOYRAN

KULLANIMLAR VE DOYUMLAR YAKLAŞIMI BAĞLAMINDA INSTAGRAM KULLANIMI ÜZERİNE BİR İNCELEME

Özgür ASLAN

KURUMSAL İLETİŞİM ÜZERİNE: GEÇMİŞİ, BUGÜNÜ VE GELECEĞİ

Yusuf YÜKSEL

DİJİTAL ÇAĞIN İNSANI

Nazife GÜNGÖR

RİSK İLETİŞİMİ PERSPEKTİFİNDEN NESNELERİN İNTERNETİ ÜZERİNE BİR İNCELEME: YENİ TEKNOLOJİLERİN YENİ RİSKLERİ

Denizcan KABAŞ

TÜRKİYE BURSLARI İLE İSTANBUL’A EĞİTİME GELEN ÖĞRENCİLERİN TÜRKİYE’YE AŞİNALIKLARI İLE TÜRKİYE İMAJI VE KİŞİLİĞİ ALGISI İLİŞKİSİ

Elif KAHRAMAN