Siinviidatu on kasulik lugemine nendele, kelle arvates organisatsioonid on midagi olemuslikult dialoogilist. On siiski ka teistsugune vaade, millele mõtlemine avab organisatsioonide mõtestamisel värskeid vaatenurki, mis võivad paljudele ehmatavad tunduda, sest peegeldavad kas enda või endale tuntud organisatsiooni baaspraktikaid üsna täpselt.
Jah, ja tekst on vabalevis.


However, we do claim that the centre of gravity in recent theorising strongly and one-sidedly leans towards a dialogic perspective. […] Evoking an essentially romanticized social landscape, the dialogic perspective inadvertently presumes that every act of organizing involves actors who are actively engaging in an interchange of ideas


Monologic organization – forms of organizing that speak at people, not with people [1] – provides an equally rich alternative to the dialogic perspective by making intelligible those situations in which meanings are predetermined at the outset, and communication consists of the strictly

Autorite ambitsioon:

Specifically, we discuss three dominating features of dialogicity in the context of organization theory: plurality, reciprocity and liquidity. […] we first draw on the classic work of Mikhail Bakhtin to inform our understanding of the relationship between dialogic and monologic organization. […] we want to make a stand for ‘monologue’ and ‘dialogue’ as different images of organization inspiring different ways of seeing and analysing.


What are the central tenets of a dialogic perspective? First, dialogism frames our social world in terms of a plurality of voices and reciprocity in the interactional dynamics between actors. Organizations are construed as ‘polyvocal’, ‘multi-storied’ (Buchanan & Dawson, 2007), ‘multi-authored’ (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002), ‘polyphonic’ (Gergen & Whitney, 1996; Hazen, 1993) or ‘heteroglossic’ (Rhodes, 2000; Rhodes, 2001). […] If plurality and reciprocity are the first two (relational) tenets of dialogic organization, a third (spatio-temporal) tenet is liquidity. Organization is seen as an ongoing process of combining and recombining elements, creating an oscillation between order and disorder (Chia, 1996; Rhodes, Clegg & Kornberger, 2005).

Korüfee arvab:

In Bakthin’s conceptualization, ‘monologue’ and ‘monoglossia’ are on the other end of the spectrum, presented as the adverse anti-pole of dialogic discourse. In monologic discourse, listeners’ have a ‘purely receptive’ (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 281) understanding of the speaker’s intention, merely equating to the ‘reproduction of that which is already given’ (p. 281).

Monoloogist täpsemalt:

In monologic communication, any difference between the meaning at the outset of the communication process and that at the end is anomalous: by definition, monologic meanings do not evolve. […] In monologic organization it does not matter who speaks or what is being said as long as speech is monologic and mechanistically reaffirms pre-set truths. Since the monologic mechanism remains unaffected by the turnover of actors or the variability of meanings they attempt to communicate, it seeks to impart a sense of solidity; its operation never in danger of being thwarted and individual operators always inert.

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

Our normative proposal is that an appropriate attitude for the organizational analyst should entail allowing oneself to accommodate one’s epistemological apparatus to the phenomenon being observed, thus providing an opportunity for a more balanced account.

Izak, M., Case, P., & Ybema, S. (2021). Monologue and Organization Studies. ORGANIZATION STUDIES.