Chapter 17 - The Rhetoric
WHO: Aristotle
WHAT: an ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion
- Artistic proof = means of persuasion
- Inartistic proof = external evidence that the speaker did not create
Rhetorical proof: manners in which you can convey something
● LOGOS → appeal to listeners’ rationality
○ Syllogisms: deductive reasoning = you arrive at a specific conclusion by examining
premises or ideas (beantwoorden van vragen door logica te gebruiken)
○ Enthymemes: uses the same logic, but B=C is implied instead of stated.
○ Examples: uses inductive reasoning (door voorbeeld ziet publiek de waarheid)
● PATHOS → emotional reaction that is triggered while speaking
○ Aristotle cataloged a series of opposite feelings, explained the conditions under
which each mood is experienced, and then described how the speaker can get an
audience to feel that way.
● ETHOS → credibility from speaker
○ Perceived intelligence: based on practical wisdom and shared values
○ Virtuous character: has to do with the speaker’s image as a good and honest person
○ Goodwill: a positive judgment of the speaker’s intention toward the audience
5 canons of the rhetoric (not by Aristotle): measure the quality of a speaker’s performance
1) Invention: the speaker’s hunt for arguments that will be effective in a particular speech
2) Arrangement: first the thesis, then the proof. Avoid complicated schemes of organization
3) Style: focuses on metaphors to help audiences visualize
4) Delivery: naturalness is persuasive. Audiences reject delivery that seems planned or staged
5) Memory: general capacity of speaker as a good storyteller
Objective vs. interpretive
● As a good objective theory, Aristotle’s Rhetoric predicts future audience responses, explains
why they will respond this way, and has practical utility.
● As a good interpretive theory, Aristotle’s Rhetoric offers a new understanding of people,
clarifies the values they are likely to hold, and generates a wide community of agreement
that has spanned 24 centuries so far.
● Critique: clarity is often a problem, this affects its relative simplicity and aesthetic appeal.
Chapter 20 - Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making
WHO: Randy Hirokawa & Dennis Gouran
WHAT: a prescriptive approach, which predicts task group performance when your communication
functions are fulfilled.
,4 functions for effective decision making:
1) Analysis of the problem: determining nature, extent, and cause(s) of a problem
The clearest example of a faulty analysis is a failure to recognize a potential threat.
2) Goal setting: establishing criteria by which to judge proposed solutions
With no definitive goals to focus their discussion, it’s difficult for group members to
know whether they’re making an appropriate decision
3) Identification of alternatives: generation of more than one option to sufficiently solve the
problem
The groups need to identify the courses of action
4) Evaluation of positive and negative characteristics: testing the relative merits of each option
against the criteria selected
Positive bias: spotting the favorable characteristics of alternative choices is more
important than identifying negative qualities
Negative bias: the downside of options is more important than identifying their
positive qualities
The most crucial to ensure a quality decision: the evaluation of negative consequences
- Hirokawa now splits the evaluation of positive (1) and negative (2) consequences an speaks
of five functions rather than four
- As long as a group covers all of the functions, the route taken is not the key issue. But,
groups that successfully resolve problems often take a common decision-making path:
problem analysis, goal setting, identifying alternatives, and evaluating the positive/negative
characteristics
3 types of communication in decision-making groups:
1) Promotive: interaction that moves the group along the goal path (the 4 functions)
2) Disruptive: interaction that diverts, hinders, or frustrates to achieve the functions
3) Counteractive: interaction that gets the group back on track (refocuses)
Since most communication disrupts, effective group decision-making depends upon counteractive
influence.
Habermas’ ideal speech situation, 3 requirements:
1) Requirement for access of all affected parties
2) Requirement of arguments to figure out the common good
3) Requirement of justification or universal application
Critique: valid only if new functions are added or scope is narrowed
● Stohl and Holmes: bona fide group approach = real-life groups with historical + institutional
functions
Historial function = requiring the group to talk about how past decisions were made
Institutional function = satisfied when members discuss relevant parties who are
absent from the decision-making process
● Groups addressing questions of fact, conjecture, or value may not find the requisite
functions relevant. Only for questions of policy.
● The scope is limited.
, WHO: Dewey
WHAT: six-step process of reflective thinking to solve problems (mirrors a doctor’s approach)
1. Recognize symptoms
2. Diagnose the cause
3. Establish the criteria for wellness
4. Consider all possible remedies
5. Test to determine the best solution
6. Implement the best solution
Chapter 22 - Cultural Approach to Organizations
WHO: Clifford Geertz & Michael Pacanowsky
WHAT: in order to understand an organization, you need to understand the culture. It is not
something an organization has, but something an organization is.
- Pacanowsky has applied Geertz’s approach in his research of organizations
- He asserts that communication creates and constitutes the taken-for-granted reality of the
world
Culture as a metaphor of organizational life : you need to understand the culture to understand an
organization. Corporate culture has several meanings:
● The surrounding environment that constrains a company’s freedom of action
● An image, character, or climate that a corporation has
● Pacanowsky argues that the web of organizational culture is the residue of employees’
performances. Geertz called these cultural performances an ensemble of texts.
● Cultural performances = actions by which members constitute and reveal their culture to
themselves and others
Pacanowsky as an ethnographer: 5 tasks
1) Accurately describe talk and actions in the context in which they occur
2) Capture the thoughts, emotions, and the web of social interactions
3) Assign motivation, intention, or purpose for what people said and did
4) Artfully write this up so readers feel they’ve experienced the events
5) Interpret what happened; explain what it means within this culture
→ thick description = a record of intertwined layers of common meaning that underlie what
particular people say and do. Begins with a state of bewilderment.
- Widely used metaphors offer a starting place for assessing the shared meaning of a
corporate culture. Valuable tools for both the discovery and communication of
organizational culture.
3 types of organizational narratives (stories):
1. Corporate stories: reinforce management ideology and policies
2. Personal stories: define how individuals would like to be seen within an organization
3. Collegial stories: positive/negative anecdotes about others within the organization that pass
on how the organization “really works”
WHO: Aristotle
WHAT: an ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion
- Artistic proof = means of persuasion
- Inartistic proof = external evidence that the speaker did not create
Rhetorical proof: manners in which you can convey something
● LOGOS → appeal to listeners’ rationality
○ Syllogisms: deductive reasoning = you arrive at a specific conclusion by examining
premises or ideas (beantwoorden van vragen door logica te gebruiken)
○ Enthymemes: uses the same logic, but B=C is implied instead of stated.
○ Examples: uses inductive reasoning (door voorbeeld ziet publiek de waarheid)
● PATHOS → emotional reaction that is triggered while speaking
○ Aristotle cataloged a series of opposite feelings, explained the conditions under
which each mood is experienced, and then described how the speaker can get an
audience to feel that way.
● ETHOS → credibility from speaker
○ Perceived intelligence: based on practical wisdom and shared values
○ Virtuous character: has to do with the speaker’s image as a good and honest person
○ Goodwill: a positive judgment of the speaker’s intention toward the audience
5 canons of the rhetoric (not by Aristotle): measure the quality of a speaker’s performance
1) Invention: the speaker’s hunt for arguments that will be effective in a particular speech
2) Arrangement: first the thesis, then the proof. Avoid complicated schemes of organization
3) Style: focuses on metaphors to help audiences visualize
4) Delivery: naturalness is persuasive. Audiences reject delivery that seems planned or staged
5) Memory: general capacity of speaker as a good storyteller
Objective vs. interpretive
● As a good objective theory, Aristotle’s Rhetoric predicts future audience responses, explains
why they will respond this way, and has practical utility.
● As a good interpretive theory, Aristotle’s Rhetoric offers a new understanding of people,
clarifies the values they are likely to hold, and generates a wide community of agreement
that has spanned 24 centuries so far.
● Critique: clarity is often a problem, this affects its relative simplicity and aesthetic appeal.
Chapter 20 - Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making
WHO: Randy Hirokawa & Dennis Gouran
WHAT: a prescriptive approach, which predicts task group performance when your communication
functions are fulfilled.
,4 functions for effective decision making:
1) Analysis of the problem: determining nature, extent, and cause(s) of a problem
The clearest example of a faulty analysis is a failure to recognize a potential threat.
2) Goal setting: establishing criteria by which to judge proposed solutions
With no definitive goals to focus their discussion, it’s difficult for group members to
know whether they’re making an appropriate decision
3) Identification of alternatives: generation of more than one option to sufficiently solve the
problem
The groups need to identify the courses of action
4) Evaluation of positive and negative characteristics: testing the relative merits of each option
against the criteria selected
Positive bias: spotting the favorable characteristics of alternative choices is more
important than identifying negative qualities
Negative bias: the downside of options is more important than identifying their
positive qualities
The most crucial to ensure a quality decision: the evaluation of negative consequences
- Hirokawa now splits the evaluation of positive (1) and negative (2) consequences an speaks
of five functions rather than four
- As long as a group covers all of the functions, the route taken is not the key issue. But,
groups that successfully resolve problems often take a common decision-making path:
problem analysis, goal setting, identifying alternatives, and evaluating the positive/negative
characteristics
3 types of communication in decision-making groups:
1) Promotive: interaction that moves the group along the goal path (the 4 functions)
2) Disruptive: interaction that diverts, hinders, or frustrates to achieve the functions
3) Counteractive: interaction that gets the group back on track (refocuses)
Since most communication disrupts, effective group decision-making depends upon counteractive
influence.
Habermas’ ideal speech situation, 3 requirements:
1) Requirement for access of all affected parties
2) Requirement of arguments to figure out the common good
3) Requirement of justification or universal application
Critique: valid only if new functions are added or scope is narrowed
● Stohl and Holmes: bona fide group approach = real-life groups with historical + institutional
functions
Historial function = requiring the group to talk about how past decisions were made
Institutional function = satisfied when members discuss relevant parties who are
absent from the decision-making process
● Groups addressing questions of fact, conjecture, or value may not find the requisite
functions relevant. Only for questions of policy.
● The scope is limited.
, WHO: Dewey
WHAT: six-step process of reflective thinking to solve problems (mirrors a doctor’s approach)
1. Recognize symptoms
2. Diagnose the cause
3. Establish the criteria for wellness
4. Consider all possible remedies
5. Test to determine the best solution
6. Implement the best solution
Chapter 22 - Cultural Approach to Organizations
WHO: Clifford Geertz & Michael Pacanowsky
WHAT: in order to understand an organization, you need to understand the culture. It is not
something an organization has, but something an organization is.
- Pacanowsky has applied Geertz’s approach in his research of organizations
- He asserts that communication creates and constitutes the taken-for-granted reality of the
world
Culture as a metaphor of organizational life : you need to understand the culture to understand an
organization. Corporate culture has several meanings:
● The surrounding environment that constrains a company’s freedom of action
● An image, character, or climate that a corporation has
● Pacanowsky argues that the web of organizational culture is the residue of employees’
performances. Geertz called these cultural performances an ensemble of texts.
● Cultural performances = actions by which members constitute and reveal their culture to
themselves and others
Pacanowsky as an ethnographer: 5 tasks
1) Accurately describe talk and actions in the context in which they occur
2) Capture the thoughts, emotions, and the web of social interactions
3) Assign motivation, intention, or purpose for what people said and did
4) Artfully write this up so readers feel they’ve experienced the events
5) Interpret what happened; explain what it means within this culture
→ thick description = a record of intertwined layers of common meaning that underlie what
particular people say and do. Begins with a state of bewilderment.
- Widely used metaphors offer a starting place for assessing the shared meaning of a
corporate culture. Valuable tools for both the discovery and communication of
organizational culture.
3 types of organizational narratives (stories):
1. Corporate stories: reinforce management ideology and policies
2. Personal stories: define how individuals would like to be seen within an organization
3. Collegial stories: positive/negative anecdotes about others within the organization that pass
on how the organization “really works”
