* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download THE DRAMATISTIC GENRE IN ORGANISATIONAL RESEARCH
Survey
Document related concepts
Structuration theory wikipedia , lookup
Political economy in anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Models of communication wikipedia , lookup
Social psychology wikipedia , lookup
Social theory wikipedia , lookup
Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship wikipedia , lookup
Social network analysis wikipedia , lookup
Unilineal evolution wikipedia , lookup
Social history wikipedia , lookup
Anthropology of development wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
Community development wikipedia , lookup
Symbolic interactionism wikipedia , lookup
Symbolic behavior wikipedia , lookup
Postdevelopment theory wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
THE DRAMATISTIC GENRE IN ORGANISATIONAL RESEARCH: Contributions and Convergence BRAD JACKSON Victoria University of Wellington and DAVID BARRY University of Auckland Introduction The theatrical metaphor is one of the oldest and most persistent ways of thinking and talking about life (Overington & Mangham, 1982). Shakespeare’s well worn yet enduring epithet, “all the world’s a stage” captures a recurrent speculation that pre-occupied classical thinkers and continues to hold its fascination today. Lyman & Scott (1975) trace the intellectual genealogy of the dramatistic approach within psychology and sociology through Niccolo Machiavelli, Nicolas Evreinoff, Sigmund Freud, and George Herbert Mead. The most obvious strength of the dramatistic approach is that it is rooted in a metaphor that can be readily and universally understood. It is also a metaphor that most people find intrinsically interesting--it speaks to the actor, playwright and critic in us all. Encouraging individuals to look at life as theatre and vice versa is, therefore, not a task that is fraught with difficulty though it can, on occasion, create some bemusement. Dramatism’s primary area of concern is also deceptively straightforward. It inquires into the processes by which social reality is put together or, as Goffman, has stated in typically frank fashion, “what is it that is going on here?” (Goffman, 1974, p. 8). Unfortunately, the method’s strengths also prove to be the source of its greatest weakness. Ease of grasp of the approach’s basic precepts and questions is often confused with full proficiency. Like film noir, the dramatistic genre is widely known and appreciated, but extremely difficult to master. We have written this paper from the perspective of people who have been attempting to master this approach for some time but feel that they are serving a permanently indentured apprenticeship. While there are a few helpful collections of dramaturgically-oriented sociological writing (Brissett and Edgley, 1975; Combs and Mansfield, 1976; Hare and Blumberg, 1988), systematic reviews of the dramatistic approach as it has been applied in organisational research are few and far between, one notable exception being Mangham and Overington (1983). In this paper we want to provide organisational researchers who are curious about the analytical potential of dramatism with an inclusive and up-to-date roadmap that will help them navigate through this fascinating yet frequently perplexing genre. Dramatism is by no means a unified body of theory with well-established and clearly articulated methods; as Catherine Riessman (1993: 5) aptly states, “There is no one method here.” The term ‘genre’ is a particularly fitting descriptor of this rather loosely linked body of work that is united only by a common way of looking at the world. Our paper commences with a description of each of the four sub-genres of dramatism that have been the most influential in organisational research: Burke’s system of dramatism; Goffman’s dramaturgy; Turner’s social drama analysis, and Bormann’s fantasy theme analysis. Each subgenre will be illuminated by a brief discussion of empirical applications that have been inspired by it. It has been our experience that these empirical studies tend to speak the most eloquently about the analytical power and potential of this approach. Having reviewed the theoretical origins and empirical applications of the dramatic genre, the paper will then compare and contrast the sub-genres in an effort to identify the basis for a more integrated approach within the dramatistic genre. In the last part of the paper, we will use the research issue of leading organisational change to exemplify how each of these dramatistic subgenres might contribute to the research effort. The Four Dramatistic Sub-Genres Burke’s Dramatistic System Kenneth Burke is unquestionably the dominant figure of the dramatistic genre (Simons and Melia, 1989). A literary critic who, over a 50-year period, elabourated a complex, expansive and frequently perplexing system of ideas which he dubbed “dramatism” and opaquely characterized as “a method of analysis and a corresponding critique of terminology designed to show that the most direct route to the study of human relations and human motives is via a methodical inquiry into cycles or clusters of terms and their functions” (1968, p. 445). Central to Burke’s system of dramatism is the act. To properly understand the act it is important to distinguish action from motion. Burke points out that all objects and animals in the universe can be said to possess motion, but only human beings have action that is purposeful, voluntary behaviour. Humans are symbol-creating, symbol-using, and symbol-misusing animals. They create symbols to name things and situations; they use symbols for communication; and they often misuse them to their advantage. Language functions as the vehicle for action but is, despite our best efforts, inevitably economical, ambiguous, and emotionally loaded (Littlejohn, 1992). Dramatism is a method of examining and analysing social action and people’s explanations of social actions (Mangham & Overington, 1983). Drama is employed, not as a metaphor but as a fixed form that helps us discover what the implications of the terms “act” and “person” really are. The pentad is Burke’s basic analytical framework for analysing social action. It bears more than a passing resemblance to the journalist’s mantra: who, what where, when and why? He states that “any complete statement about motives will offer some kind of answers to these five questions: what was done (act), when or where it was done (scene), who did it (agent or actor), how he did it (agency), and why (purpose).” (1969, p. xv). Mystification occurs when only one or two of these five elements are presented as the explanation for what took place, and participants in, or observers of the activity are persuaded by the simplicity of such explanations. In examining a social act, Burke urges the critic to examine the relationship or “ratio” between each of the five elements of the pentad to determine which term in the pentad receives the greatest attention by the rhetor and, thus, suggests where to look for the motivation of the act. Stories arise when one or more elements of the pentad are out of step with the others. For example, a man stepping into the women’s washroom suddenly discovers himself in the wrong place at the wrong time (actor/scene incongruence), thus creating a story-driving tension that needs to be resolved. For Burke, guilt is the primary motive behind all action and communication. He uses the term guilt broadly to signify any feeling of tension within a person such as anxiety, embarrassment, self-hatred, disgust, etc. Guilt is an inevitable product of humans’ symbol-using nature and emanates from three inter-related sources. The first source is the “negative” which Burke argues is crucial for understanding the communication process (Burke, 1969). Through language, humans have “invented the negative” and, in so doing, have created moral action that enables them to distinguish between right and wrong. Doing “wrong” generates a feeling of guilt. The concept of the negative necessarily leads to the establishment of hierarchies constructed on the basis of numerous negatives and commandments and the degree to which they are followed (Burke, 1962). The resultant “principle of hierarchy” is “the human impulse to build society around ambition or hierarchy on the basis of commandments derived from the concept of the negative” (Foss, Foss & Trap, 1985, p. 17). The hierarchy sets in motion the “principle of perfection”. Through language humans can imagine a state of perfection, which they constantly strive for but inevitably fall short of (Burke, 1965). Getting rid of guilt is the basic plot of human drama (Griffin, 1997). Rhetoric is a continual pattern of redemption through victimage (Duncan, 1962). In order for guilt to be purged the rhetor has two options. The first is through self-blame or “mortification” and requires a confession of sin and a request for forgiveness (Burke, 1970). The second option is via “victimage” – the process of designating an extreme enemy or “scapegoat” as the source of our ills (Burke, 1966). In addition to blaming, rhetoric also has the capacity to effect redemption, rebirth, or a new identity for the individual involved in the social drama. The rhetoric of rebirth involves movement through three steps – pollution, purification and redemption (Burke, 1965). This lifelong process is the drama of the self in quest, of building and finding the true self. It represents attempts to put our selves together and to discover and maintain our identities so that we can act purposefully, feel at home in the world, and move toward the perfection we seek (Hart, 1989). Given the immense scope and density of Burke’s dramatistic system, it is perhaps not surprising that empirical studies motivated by this system have tended to focus on applying just one aspect of his ideas. For example, Mangham and Overington (1983, 1987) have demonstrated how the pentad may be used in the analysis of organisations. Cheney (1983) has applied Burke’s concept of “identification” to reveal the recurrence of three identification strategies used in corporate newsletters or “house organs” to foster employee commitment and belief in the organisation. Case (1999) has used Burke’s system for demystifying the appeal of the rhetoric of business process reengineering (BPR). Juxtaposing an analysis of the primary texts of the movement’s leading protagonists, James Champy and Michael Hammer, with observations from an ethnographic study of an installation of a new computer system, Case argues that BPR can be read as a “salvation device” which offers cathartic absolution of the collective guilt associated with information technology mismanagement. Finally, Taalas (1999) has used Burke’s dramatistic method to explore how organisational actors allocated motives in their accounts of repertoire decision-making in a Finnish performing arts theatre. Goffman’s Dramaturgy If Kenneth Burke is the Capra of the dramatistic genre then Erving Goffman is surely its Hitchcock. A sociologist, Goffman’s eleven books form a singularly unique, quirky yet unified body of writing dedicated “to unravelling the rules of the game of social interaction in general and conversation in particular” (Burns, 1982, p. 6). In his most influential work, The Presentation of Self Everyday Life, Goffman sought to understand everyday social life and social intercourse in terms of the crafting of theatrical performances. Performance, as he defines it, is “all the activity of an individual which occurs during a period marked by its continuous presence before a particular set of observers and which has some influence on its observers” (1959, p. 22). Any performance is a “dramatic realization” in which the performer seeks to convey a certain impression in order to evoke a specific response from the audience and avoid embarrassment. The social actor’s problem, therefore, is one of either authenticating, having doubts about, or refusing to believe in the sincerity of the performances that are constantly being put on by others and by themselves. The sociologist’s problem, on the other hand, is to uncover the nature and operations of dramatic practices in everyday life, to analyse how humans go about “writing”, “casting”, “performing in”, “interpreting”, and “criticizing” one another’s life drama (Lyman, and Scott, 1975, p. 111). An important feature of Goffman’s dramatistic schema is the distinction he makes between the “front-stage” and “back-stage” activity of every performance (Clark, 1995). The former region refers to the part of the performance which is visible and at which the audience is present. In the latter region the audience is excluded so that the performer can relax, step out of character and rehearse her or his role. Because there is always the possibility that the back-stage may be revealed to the audience and the performer exposed, a considerable degree of risk, danger, and uncertainty hangs over the enterprise. This risk has to be properly managed in order to avoid performance failure. Goffman noted that dramaturgical aspects of formal organisation had been neglected. Yet he did not make this a central concern of his work. In one of the first attempts to apply Goffman’s work to organisational research, Thompson (1976) argued that dramaturgical skill was becoming increasingly essential for maintaining the organisational hierarchy in the face of advancing specialization. He notes, “The dramaturgical management of impressions about the hierarchical positions and roles is no longer a sporadic affair depending upon the accidents of personality. It appears to be institutionally organized” (1976, p. 331). Thompson identifies three specialized dramas that are typical of the modern bureaucratic organisation: the “dramaturgy of the superior” through which executives use ritual and status symbols to communicate their superiority and right to deference; the “management troupe” through which employees demonstrate their loyalty to, and membership of, their team; and the “subordinate dramaturgy” through which subordinates create the impression that they are awed by their superiors and the latter's performance has gone well. However, as Thompson dryly observes, “it is backstage that one finds what subordinates really think about their superiors” (1976, p. 334). Although popular management books like Andrew Carnegies’ How to Win Friends and Influence People (Carnegie, 1936) and Napoleon Hill’s Thinking and Growing Rich (Hill, 1966) had long recognized that impression management processes were crucial to organisational success, organisational researchers were much slower to accept impression management as a viable theory. Schlenker and Weigold (1992) have identified in the mid1980s a shift away from a “restrictive view” of impression management which viewed it as a negative, nefarious, and manipulative function to an “expansive view” of impression management which sees it as a very broad and common phenomenon (e.g. “the process whereby people seek to control the image others have of them,” Rosenfeld, Giacalone and Riordan, 1995, p.4) that is a fundamental part of interpersonal interactions in organisations. Adopting the latter perspective of impression management, researchers have applied the impression management perspective to a wide array of organisational phenomena including performance appraisals (Villanova and Bernardin, 1991), employee motivation (Huber, Latham and Locke, 1989), and employee sabotage (Giacalone and Knouse, 1990). While not widely recognized, Goffman’s work has been an important influence on the research effort that has looked into the issue of emotional labour (Hochschild, 1983; Sutton and Rafaeli, 1988; Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989). Clark and Salaman have shown that Goffman’s dramaturgical method provides a useful framework within which to illuminate the activities of management consultants and management gurus (Clark, 1995; Clark and Salaman, 1998). Turner’s Social Drama Analysis Victor Turner was an anthropologist who, perhaps because of his early exposure to theatre, goes beyond Burke and Goffman in his knowledge and exploration of the links between theatre and social life (Mangham, 1996). Drawing on extensive fieldwork and study of historical documents, Turner notes that a community’s movement through time repeatedly takes a “dramatic” or proto-aesthetic form. He described this form as a “social drama”. According to Turner, social life is “characteristically pregnant” with social dramas (1982, p. 11). Social dramas are “units of aharmonic or disharmonic process, arising in conflict situations” (1974, p. 37). They can be isolated for study at all levels of scale and complexity and follow the same processural or temporal structure irrespective of culture. Typically, social dramas are marked by four phases of public action. First, a breach is made of regular norm-governed relations between individuals or groups within a social system. Second, a phase of mounting crisis supervenes during which the breach can be either sealed off or widened and extended. Turner observes, “we have become somewhat more adept in devising cultural modes of confronting, understanding, assigning meaning to and sometimes coping with crisis” (1982, p. 11). In the third phase, redressive action by leaders is taken in order to limit the spread of the crisis. Redressive action can be undertaken through three social processes: political, legal-judicial and ritual. The ritual process was Turner’s primary focus throughout his career and will be explored more thoroughly below. In the final phase or “act” of the social drama the disturbed group is either reintegrated and peace and “normality” are restored among participants or the “irremediable and irreparable schism” between the contesting parties is socially recognized and legitimated (Turner, 1974, p. 41). If, however, redressive action fails, there would be a reversion to the first phase of the social drama, namely crisis. This cycle might be repeated until the point that the revolution may ensue and the group itself might become radically restructured, including its redressive machinery. Turner noted that it is at this fourth and final phase that the scientific observer has the opportunity to analyze the temporal structure synchronically. In order to make sense of what takes place in the ritual process, Turner drew on the three phases of the “rites of passage” identified by Van Gennep (1960): “separation”, “margin” (or “limen”, signifying “threshold” in Latin), and “aggregation”. In Turner’s mind the second or “liminal phase” was the most significant as it was “a no-man’s-land betwixt-and-between the structural past and the structural future as anticipated by the society’s normative control of biological development” (Turner, 1990, p 10). It is in the liminal phase that the dominant cultural genres of performance in societies at all levels of scale and complexity make their most significant contribution to social life. Turner shows how cultural genres of performance have evolved from the “liminal” genres of technologically “simpler” societies in which all members of the community actively participate in the ritual process to the considerably more specialized, segmented, and secularised “liminoid” genres of technologically “complex” societies. In this way he reveals similarities between the “leisure genres of art and entertainment in complex industrial societies and the rituals and myths of archaic, tribal, and early agrarian cultures” (Turner, 1977, p. 43). In complex societies stage drama emerges in its various subgenres as “a performance mode sui generis” (Turner, 1992, p. 26). Turner describes a reflexive rather than a merely reflective relationship between drama as it is staged and the wider social drama stating: The manifest social drama feeds into the latent realm of stage drama; its characteristic form in a given culture, at a given time and place, unconsciously, or perhaps pre-consciously, influences not only the form but also the content of the stage drama of which it is the active or “magic” mirror. The stage drama, when it is meant to do more than entertain – though entertainment is always one of its vital aims – is a meta-commentary, explicit or implicit, witting or unwitting on the major social dramas of its context (wars, revolutionaries, scandals, institutional changes) (1990, p. 16). The interrelation of social drama to stage drama is not an endlessly repetitive, cyclical pattern, but a spiralling one that responds to inventions and changes in the mode of production in the given society. Drawing on both Turner and Goffman, Rosen (1988) has argued that organisations are systems of domination, which mystify meaning for the purpose of achieving and maintaining a bureaucratic social order. From his ethnographic study of an advertising agency, Rosen has produced two compelling accounts of key rituals for the office. The first provides a detailed dramaturgical analysis of the agency’s annual business breakfast meeting (Rosen 1985). At the agency’s annual Christmas party, Rosen (1988) reveals how the hierarchically arranged relationships of the office are temporally stripped and levelled in a liminal moment. Through these and other rituals, Rosen shows how a formal community is systematically cultivated within the agency that enables and obscures the underlying network of instrumental relationships and preserves the existing power relations. Along similar lines, Elmes and Costello (1992) have lucidly explicated the social drama of a communications skills training seminar. Bormann’s Dramatistic Method Of Rhetorical Criticism Fantasy theme analysis (FTA) emerged from the collective efforts of the ‘Minnesota Group’ centred at the Department of Speech Communication at the University of Minnesota. FTA is founded on a general theory of communication called symbolic convergence theory (SCT) which attempts to provide an explanation that accounts for the creation, raising, and maintenance of group consciousness through communication (Jackson, 1997). The process of symbolic convergence is “symbolic” because, “it deals with the human tendency to interpret signs and objects by giving them meaning” (Bormann, 1983, p. 102). “Convergence” refers to the way “two or more private symbolic worlds incline toward each other, come more closely together, or even overlap during certain processes of communication” (Bormann, 1983, p. 102). The central unit of analysis for FTA are rhetorical visions – widely shared images or composite dramas of how things have been, are, or will be (Bormann, 1972; 1982). A rhetorical vision is constructed from “fantasy themes” which are the means through which the interpretation of the rhetorical vision is accomplished in communication. As people seek to make sense of their environment and events around them, they come into contact with fantasies that have been chained out from other groups. “Fantasies” are defined as, “the creative and imaginative interpretations of events that fulfil a psychological or rhetorical need” (1976, p. 434). If they speak convincingly to the individual’s “here-and-now” problems in a dramatic form (i.e. as a setting, or piece of action or as a character), fantasies can be consolidated into a credible interpretation of reality or “theme”. Fantasy themes are organized, artistic interpretations that are removed in time and/or space from the actual activities of the group. The sanctioning agent of the rhetorical vision is a source that justifies its acceptance. Bormann notes that when a rhetorical vision emerges, participants in the vision come to form a “rhetorical community”. They share a common symbolic ground and respond to the message in ways that are in tune with the rhetorical vision. As such, the vision serves to “sustain the member’s sense of community, to impel them strongly to action and to provide them with a social reality with heroes, villains, emotions and attitudes” (1972, p. 398). Bormann’s fantasy theme criticism has been used widely in the communication research field but has been used only on a limited basis in organisational research. Three studies are particularly noteworthy in this regard. Kendall (1993) has used SCT to discover and interpret corporate dramas inherent in the language of the “boiler plates” (chairman’s message) of the annual reports of the 30 companies comprising the Dow Jones Industrials. Koester (1982) discovered the “Female Manager Vision” from a fantasy theme analysis that she conducted of 28 popular self-help management books for women published between 1970 and 1979. Jackson (2001) has used fantasy theme analysis to produce detailed rhetorical critiques of three popular management fashions instigated by management gurus during the 1990s: reengineering, effectiveness and led the learning organisation. Comparing the Dramatistic Sub-Genres: Towards Convergence? The preceding exposition supports Littlejohn’s observation that dramatism “still remains basically an ‘interest group’ or coalition of theories that share a metaphor rather than any particular set of theoretical terms or principles” (1992, p. 189). In the section that follows, we ask whether this necessarily must remain the case. While individuals will undoubtedly continue to work in splendid isolation within each of the four fields, we believe the time may be ripe for fashioning, if not a unified theory of dramatism, at least a more convergent genre that creatively joins key elements of the individual theories. Our call echoes Mangham and Overington’s sentiment: “our choice of work in the dramaturgical mode is conditioned by a sense that somewhere between the elaborate, categorical sweep of Duncan’s grand design and the unsystematic brilliance of Goffman’s insight, there is a place for more systematic elabouration of the theatrical metaphor which could still provide cultural and historical density in the analysis of human action” (1982, p. 207). Though historically there has been little contact between the four thinkers, closer inspection suggests that conceptually at least, the prospects for overlap are reasonably sanguine; as Wexler (1993, p. 247) has pointed out, “The dramatist notion of science is artful: it sensitizes rather than sharply delineates”. Boundary blurring is reflected in the career paths of each of the four theorists. Kenneth Burke was the quintessential intellectual “jack of all trades” and “gypsy scholar” who never found or looked for a permanent institutional home (Weiss, 1996; Foss, 1985). Even though just before his death, Goffman became the President of the American Sociological Association, he consistently maintained his maverick and outsider stance with respect to sociology and any other disciplines (Manning, 1997). While Turner and Bormann were more closely aligned with their home disciplines they both demonstrated a ready willingness and a generous capacity to move with ease between the disciplines. Certainly, all four writers were committed to developing methods that could help scholars to bridge the intellectual schism that has opened up between the humanities and the social sciences after the Enlightenment for the mutual enrichment of both enterprises. Some authors have already begun this quest for convergence. Semantically, Perinbanayagam has attempted to articulate a connection between Burke’s dramatism and Goffman’s dramaturgy. Though the two separate terms might appear redundant he suggests that “dramaturgical analysis, as used by Goffman in many of his works, is an examination of the techniques of communication that actors use, and dramatism, as used by Burke, is the analysis of the terms used by poets, dramatists and philosophers to establish certain communicative transactions” (1982, p. 263). Bormann’s theory has been subject to a number of criticisms (Gronbeck, 1980; Mohrman, 1982), and while Bormann and his colleagues have systematically responded to many of these (Bormann, Cragan and Shields, 1994) they have not adequately spelled out the theory’s underlying ontological assumptions. They show how drama is a powerful persuader for humans but never properly explain why. Jackson (1999) has provided a bridge between Bormann and Burke, using Burke’s categories of motive to strengthen the explanatory power of Bormann’s theory in his analysis of management fashions. Along similar lines, Cheseboro (1988) has located in Kenneth Burke’s later writings, an intriguing possibility for bridging the philosophical gap between Burke and Bormann by adapting his “ontological-epistemic dialectic”. Given Burke and Bormann’s mutual investment and passion for the dramatistic metaphor, we believe that this suggestion is worthy of further investigation as it may ultimately serve to clarify and, thereby strengthen SCT/FTA and the dramatistic method in general. While these pioneering efforts to explore cross-linkages between two of these sub-genres are welcomed as a step in the right direction, we also believe that it is important to begin the task of comparing each of these four sub-genres in a more systematic fashion. We present Table 1 below as an initial attempt to do this. The table demonstrates the transdisciplinary nature of the genre. It also shows that the way in which the theatrical methapor was utilized by the four authors varied quite significantly. For Goffman life is like theatre, for Burke life is theatre (Mangham, 1990). Turner’s use falls somewhere between Goffman and Burke, where life is mirrored by theatre and theatre draws from life. And for Bormann, life is known through theatre. In terms of level of analysis, Goffman’s scheme tends to be the most micro, with its focus on face-to-face interaction. Turner and Bormann move between the meso and macro level, while Burke’s focus remains mostly at the macro, societal level. Table 1. The Four Dramatistic Sub-Genres Compared Disciplinary Source Use Theatrical Metaphor Burke’s Dramatistic System Goffman’s Dramaturgy Turner’s Social Bormann’s Drama Dramatistic Analysis Method Literary Criticism Sociology Anthropology of Life is theatre Life is theatre Communicatio n like Life and We know life theatre are through theatre mutually dependent Primary Level Societal of Analysis Inter-personal face-to-face interaction Group, community and society Data Gathering Text Modes Unsystematic Observation and systematic observation Text Small and large group communicatio n processes Text Interviewing Text Major Analytic Pentad Concepts Motive Key Motive Contribution to the Dramatistic Genre Definition of Social Drama the Situation Liminality Front Stage and Back Communitas Stage Scripts Phases Rhetorical Vision Fantasy Themes Rhetorical Community Fantasy Finally, the key emphasis of each varies in accordance with their view of whether life is drama or runs parallel with it. Thus, Burke’s emphasis is on the drivers of actions (motive), while Goffman’s concern lies in organising the actions (script). Turner, with his conception of life and drama as interdependent, focuses on the movement or phasing between the two. For Bormann, it is the deep, often unconscious thematic fantasy that is central; the fantasy provides the drive/motive, organises action, and determines phasing. Connecting the four might be done in some of the following ways: • Using a levels of analysis approach to create a more complete picture of a given organisation’s functioning. • • using a combination of the analytical concepts to dynamically examine a communication phenomenon over time. applying the analytic concepts to various content areas such as leadership to create a more complete explanation of those area’s dramatistic properties. With respect to the first direction, it would seem a useful exercise to apply the four approaches across organisational levels, from micro to macro, in the same way that we apply such concepts as goal setting, leadership, strategy, conflict management, etc. to span various levels. Perhaps meta-dramatist researchers could use the same ‘interlocking’ system so successfully employed by the discourse analyst Norman Fairclough (1989) and his followers; there, each discourse area (text, text production, and social influences) is seen as influenced by the others. While Fairclough takes pains to say that researchers should not proceed through these levels in a linear way, he does suggest that movement should go back and forth until dense description and “crystallization” is achieved (Richardson, 1994, p. 522). If strategy analysts, for example, were to apply this form of cross-linking, they might use Goffman’s scheme to capture a specific exchange between two members of a planning committee, say, whether to merge with another company. Stepping further back, Burke’s theory could be used to determine the direction the exchanges might take--how do actor/scene discrepancies seem to be fuelling the stories of how the merger might work out? Further back, Turner’s approach might then be used to locate that exchange within the ritual system of the organisation--is the exchange a movement towards or away from the liminal? Are the strategists trying to rescue their company from uncertainty? Or, are they attempting to open up new areas of endeavour because their own operations have become overly rigid? And further back yet, Bormann’s theory might be used to link the various fantasy themes and rhetorical visions being used to give shape to both the phase of planning and the articulation of dyadic or group discussions. Perhaps there is a rhetorical vision of ‘partnering’ and ‘marriage’ at the societal level that is fuelling a local fantasy of ‘keeping the cannibals in the family’--such a view might temper how the strategists view the possible merger target--as a groom or as a black widow spider. In terms of phasing, links to this vision might suggest that the company is moving from a stage of freewheeling singlehood to responsible partnering, from youth to maturation. A second way in which the four dramatistic approaches might be productively combined would be in conducting a dynamic analysis of organizational change processes. This might involve using Burke to identify the spark of an action, Goffman to show how that action becomes framed (both frontstage and backstage), Turner to trace how the action sequence becomes linked to other rituals, and Bormann to show how the action contributes to a given fantasy theme. Returning to our strategy duo, the merger discussion might have been triggered by a purpose/action split; that is, the current actions of the company were incongruent with its purposes (maybe it was not meeting its social goals). From here, the discussion might move into a series of frontstage and backstage encounters, primarily around trying to decide just what the company’s purposes should be. This indecision about purpose might be a shift into Turner’s liminal phase and result in fantasy theme discussions about other possible purposes. In both these examples, we have moved from the left side of our table to the right; however, there is no reason why the sequence might not go some other way. Similarly, a rich analysis could result from simultaneously considered each approach as an action sequence unfolded. So the inception of strategic planning could be looked at from the vantage points of motive (Burke), staging (Goffman), separation (Turner), and the beginning formation of a fantasy theme (Bormann). Later stages could be linked to progressions in each of the four author’s theories--implementation of planning might simultaneously be an instance of guilt reparation (Burke), face saving (Goffman), aggregation (Turner), and fantasy theme enactment (Bormann). Finally, the four theorists might also be convergently used to describe phenomena within specific fields of inquiry. One area of research that would seem to be particularly ripe for dramaturgical analysis is in the field of leadership studies. Applying a Dramaturgical Analysis to Leadership Studies Within the leadership literature much attention has been devoted to describing charismatic leadership and explaining its increased significance in a mass mediated world (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). However, scholars have left unexplored the strategies that leaders use to nurture and validate their charisma and thereby forge and solidify a charismatic relationship with their followers. Gardner and Avolio (1998) have attempted to create a conceptual bridge between the charismatic leadership and impression management literature. Using a dramaturgical and interactive perspective, they examine the roles that the environment, actor (leader), and audience play in defining the situation and in jointly constructing a “charismatic relationship”. Another fruitful dramaturgically-oriented direction for leadership researchers stems from Czarniawska-Joerges and Wolff (1991) who have contrasted the role of “leader” with those of manager and entrepreneur in the “organisational theatre”. They propose that all three roles should be viewed as symbolic expressions of the collective hopes and fears played out or “performed” on the organisational stage. In addition to having a sense of the dramatic in their lives, Starratt (1993) has suggested that leaders should have a sense of responsibility for the drama. Because of their strategic position in the social drama, leaders can “mobilize the participants to restore the drama to its human purposes” (1993, p. 132). Education is seen as having a critical role in instilling this sense of responsibility. Following similar logic, Gardner has argued, “it is critical that organisational members recognize various impression management tactics and the motives behind them, thus becoming intelligent and discriminating actors and audiences in the daily drama” (1992, p. 37). Unfortunately, as Mangham (1990) has observed, management education has tended to restrict rather than promote the performative aspects of management. He argues that “a sound education for managers (as for anyone else) should provide a setting for performance that is relevant to the real interests of the students and the situations that they confront on a day to day basis. It should be structured so that the student’s reading of his or her self can be tentative, exploratory and flexible” (1988, p. 114). To partially temper Mangham’s pessimism, there have been some encouraging signs that, in addition to guiding insightful organisational research, the theatre is also becoming increasingly recognized as a powerful medium for facilitating learning within training and development (Carley, 1996; Heimes, 1997) and management education (Brans & Marcharis, 1997; Kirkman, 1987; Roach, 1986). Conclusion This paper’s discussion of the theoretical and empirical contributions of the dramatistic genre has shown that it has provided a much needed transdisciplinary focus for organizational researchers. In the process it has helped to broaden the scope of what is considered researchable within the field. As Czarniawska has remarked, the dramatistic method provides “a spacious device for a spacious material” (1997, p. 29). Moreover, in striving to bridge the intellectual schism between the social sciences and the humanities, the dramatistic genre’s transdisciplinary perspective makes it possible for researchers to present highly personal yet systematic analyses of explanations for human action. As Mangham and Overington surmise, through the dramatistic perspective, “we gain access to a metaphorical resource--the theatrical perspective--which is so rich with conceptual possibilities that one can stay entirely within it when inventing a conceptual framework for social action” (1982, p. 218). Its historical contributions notwithstanding we have also seen how convergence between the dramatistic sub-genres might be fashioned, ranging from semi-systematic progressions from one theorist to the next (i.e. across organisational levels and across time), to the crafting of creative blends (e.g. the application to leadership studies). Our illustrations are just that— simply examples of possible integrative devices. Moving from the realm of convergent possibility to the full integrative utility will require more than speculation, however. Researchers interested in more fully utilising dramatism theories will need to experiment with different analytic progressions and blends, applying them to actual organisations to see whether some combinations provide more explanatory power than others. Hopefully such experiments will also help us find ways to move dramatism from being merely post-hoc and descriptive to becoming more predictive and re-scriptive. References Bormann, E.G. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 396-407. Bormann, E.G. (1976). General and specific theories of communication. In Golden, Berquist, J., & W. Coleman. (Eds.). The rhetoric of western thought (pp. 431-449). Dubuque, IA: Kendall. Bormann, E.G. (1982). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 396-407. Bormann, E.G. (1983). Symbolic convergence: Organisational communication and culture. In Putnam, L., & Paconowsky, M.E. (Eds.). Communication and organisations: An interpretative approach (pp.99-122). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Bormann, E.G., Cragan, J.F. & Shields, D.C. (1994). In defense of symbolic theory: A look at the theory and its criticisms after two decades. Communication Theory, 4, 4, 259-294. Branaman, A. (1997). Goffman’s social theory. In Lemert, C. & Branaman, A. (Eds). The Goffman reader. Oxford; Blackwell, pp. xlv-lxxxii. Brans, J. & Machararis, C. (1997). Play theatre: a new way to teach O.R. European Journal of Operational Research, 99, 2, 241-241. Brissett, D. & Edgley, C. (1975). Life as theater: A dramaturgical sourcebook. Chicago: Aldine. Burke, K. (1965). Permanence and change: An anatomy of purpose. Indianapolis: BobbsMerrill. Burke, K. (1962). A rhetoric of motives. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing Company. Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Burke, K. (1968). Dramatism. In The international encyclopaedia of the social sciences, VII. NY: Macmillan, pp 445-452, Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press. Burke, K. (1970). The rhetoric of religion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Burns, T. (1992). Erving Goffman. Routledge: London. Case, P. (1999). Remembering re-engineering?: The rhetorical power of a managerial salvation device. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 4, 419-442. Carley, M.S. (1996). Teambuilding: Lessons from the theatre. Training and Development, 50, 8, 41-43. Carnegie, D. (1983). How to win friends and influence people. NY: Pocket Books. Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organisational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 143-158. Clark, T. (1995). Managing consultants: Consultancy as the management of impressions. Buckingham: Open University Press. Clark, T. & Salaman, G. (1996). The management guru as organisational witchdoctor. Organisation, 3, 1, 85-107. Clark, T. & Salaman, G. (1998). Creating the ‘right’ impression: Towards a dramaturgy of management consultancy. Service Industries Journal, 18, 1, 18-38. Combs, J.E. & Mansfield, M.W. (1976). Drama in life. NY: Hastings House. Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (Eds.). (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organisational effectiveness. SF: Jossey-Bass. Cragan, J.F. & Shields, D.C. (1992). The use of symbolic theory in corporate strategic planning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 199-218. Czarniawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organisation: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Czarniawska-Joerges, B. and Wolff, R. (1991). Leaders, managers, entrepreneurs on and off the organisational stage. Organisation Studies, 12, 4, 529-546. Duncan, H.D. (1962). Communication and Social Order. NewYork: The Bedminster Press. Duncan, H.D. (1969). Symbols and social theory. NY: Oxford University Press. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman. Foss, S.K., Foss, K.A. & Trapp, R. (1985). Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Gardner, W.L. (1992). Lessons in organisational dramaturgy: The art of impression management. Organisational Dynamics, 21, 1, 33-41. Gardner, W.L. & Avolio, B.J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Executive, 23, 1, 3-58. Geertz, C. (1980). Blurred genres: The refiguration of social thought. American Scholar, Spring, ???-???. Giacalone, R.A. & Knouse, S.B. (1990). Justifying wrongful employee behaviour: The role of personality in organisational sabotage. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 55 -61. Goffman, E. (1960). The presentation of self in everyday life. NY: Doubleday Anchor. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organisation of experience. NY: Harper & Row. Griffin, E.M. (1997). A first look at communication theory. NY: McGraw-Hill. Gronbeck, B.E. (1990). Dramaturgical theory and criticism: The state of the art (or science?). Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44, 315-330. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. London: Heinemann. Hare, A.P. & H.H. Blumberg (1988). Dramaturgical analysis of social interaction. New York: Prager. Hart, R.P. (1989). Modern rhetorical criticism. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman/Little, Brown. Heimes, S. (1997). The play’s the thing. Presentations, 11, 1, 12. Hill, N. (1966). Thinking and growing rich. Hollywood, CA: Wiltshire. Hochschild, A.R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Huber, V., Latham, G. and Locke, E.(1989). The management of impressions through goal setting. In Giacalone, R.A., Rosenfeld, P. (Eds). Impression management in the organisation. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 203-218. Jackson, B.G. (1997). Linking the immediate with the mass-mediated theatre in organizations: The case for symbolic convergence theory. Proceedings of the 15th International Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism, Warsaw, Poland (http://www.it.com.pl/scos). Jackson, B. G. (1999). “The goose that laid the golden egg?: A rhetorical critique of Stephen Covey and the effectiveness movement.” Journal of Management Studies, 36, 3, 353-378. Jackson, B.G. (2001). Management gurus and management fashions: A dramatistic inquiry. London: Routledge. Kirkman, F. (1987). The theatre of life. Management Decision, 25, 1, 9-17. Koester, J. (1982). The Machiavellian princess: Rhetorical dramas for women managers. Communication Quarterly, 30, 165-172. Lemert, C. (1997). “Goffman”. In Lemert, C. & Branaman, A. (Eds). The Goffman reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. ix-xliii. Littlejohn, S.W. (1992). Theories of human communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Lyman, S.M. & Scott, M.B. (1975). The drama of social reality. NY: Oxford University Press. Mangham, I.L. (1990). Managing as performing art. British Journal of Management, 1, 105115. Mangham, I.L. (1996). All the world’s a… Studies in Cultures, Organisations and Societies, 12, 2, 9-13. Mangham, I.L. & Overington, M.A. (1982). Performance and rehearsal: Social order and organisational life. Symbolic Interaction, 5, 2, 205-23. Mangham, I.L. & Overington, M.A. (1983). Dramatism and the theatrical metaphor. In G. Morgan (Ed.). Beyond method. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 219-233. Mangham, I.L. & Overington, M.A. (1987). Organisations as theatre: A social psychology of dramatic appearances. Chichester: JohnWiley. Medhurst, M.J. & Benson, T.W. (Eds.). (1984). Rhetorical dimensions in media: A critical casebook. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Messinger, S.E., Sampson, H. & Towne, R.D. (1962). Life as theatre: Some notes on the dramaturgic approach to social reality. Sociometry, 25, 98-110. Mohrman, G.P. (1982). An essay on fantasy theme criticism. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, 109-132. Overington, M. A. & Mangham, I.L. (1982). The theatrical perspective in organisational analysis. Symbolic Interaction, 5, 2, 173-186. Perinbanayagam, R.S. (1982). Dramas, metaphors, and structures. Symbolic Interaction, 5, 2, 259-276. Riessman, C.K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, California: Sage. Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 516-529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Roach, B. (1986). Decision theatre: Curtain up on an innovative approach to management education. Business Horizons, 29, 4, 70-77. Rosen, M. (1985). Breakfast at Spiro’s: Dramaturgy and dominance. Journal of Management Studies, 11, 2, , 31-48. Rosen, M. (1988). ‘You asked for it’: Christmas at the bosses’ expense. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 5, 463-480. Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R.A. & Riordan, C.A. (1995). Impression management in organisations. London: Routledge. Schlenker, B.R.. & Weigold, M.F. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving impression regulation and management. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 133-168. Simons, H.W. & Melia, T. (Eds.). (1989). The legacy of Kenneth Burke. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. Starratt, R.J. (1993). The drama of leadership. London: The Falmer Press. Stern, B. (1991). Who talks advertizing? Literary theory and narrative ‘point of view’. Journal of Advertizing, 20, 3, 9-22. Sutton, R.I. & Rafeli, A. (1988). Untangling the relationship between displayed emotions and organisational sales: The case of conveniences stores. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 3, 461-487. Taalas, S. (1999). Organizing theatre: Theatre repertoire decision-making in dramatistic perspective. Paper presented at the 15th European Group of Organisation Studies (EGOS) at Warwick Business School, U.K. Thompson, V. (1976). “Dramaturgy: the dramatical aspect of organisations”. In Combs, J.E. & M.W. Mansfield (Eds.). Drama in Life. New York: Hastings House. 329-337. Turner, V. (1974). Dramas, fields, and metaphors. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Turner, V.J. (1977). Variations on the theme of liminality. In Moore, S. & Myeroff, B. (Eds), Secular ritual. Assen: Van Gorcum, 36-53. Turner, V. (1982). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. NY: PAJ Publications. Turner, V.J. (1990). Are there universals of performance in myth, ritual, and drama?”. In Schechner, R. & Appel, W. (Eds). By means of performance: Intercultural studies of theatre and ritual. New York: Cambridge University Press. Turner, V.J. (1992). The anthropology of performance. New York: PAJ Publications. Van Gennep. A. (1960). The rites of passage. London: Routledge. Van Maanen, J, & Kunda, G. (1989). Real feelings: Emotional expressions and organisational culture. In Staw, B.M. & L.L. Cummings (Eds). Research in Organisational Behaviour, Volume 11. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Villanova, P. & Bernardin, H.J. (1991). Peformance appraisals: The means, motive and opportunity to manage impressions. In Giacalone, R.A, & Rosenfeld, P. (Eds). Applied impression management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 81-96. Wexler, M.N. (1983). Pragmatism, interactionism and dramatism: Interpreting the symbol in organisations. In Pondy, L.R., Frost, P.J. & Morgan, G. (Eds). Organisational symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 237-253. Wilshire, B. (1982). The dramaturgical model of behaviour: Its strengths and weaknesses. Symbolic Interaction, 5, 2, 287-297.