A major thread of complaint in our field has run along the theme of theory deficits. Early voices claimed that lack of theory plagued the borrowed and patched together field of organizational communication, even though the research was quite practical and applicable. Others have noted the fragmentation of our communication discipline in general (Berger, 1991), calling for broader, more encompassing theory and decrying the preponderance of variable-analytic approaches (Daniels & Frandsen, 1984). These are all worthy concerns. In discovering our future, it is helpful to look to past weaknesses. But rather than focus on deficits, I would like to highlight the gains in perspective and theory that "work" for our field (despite missing pieces here and there) by proposing an alternative level from which to pitch our strategic complaining, and thus, our strategic planning. That level is the larger and changing social contexts in which our questionably bounded organizations exist. We already have a variety of perspectives and theories from which to draw that help us examine the interface between organizations and contextual impacts. We just need to be reminded to draw from them.

Organizational communication was pulled together by behavioral scientists' conglomerate effort to consider context, that is, the context of organizations. Early researchers were motivated to fix organizations and worked to define the channels and means of communication that could be "improved" (Redding, 1985). This context drew a boundary around the field, large though that boundary be, and allowed for theory concerning groups and structure to emerge and prosper. Though much of the theory has been created for and in the context of the workplace-type organization (or the close ally, the volunteer organization), recently, the trend has been to consider organizations to be any collectivity in which people interact and create organization through communication. With this broader definition of organization (and consequently, organizational communication), inquiry has spread to any social collectivity regardless of alleged purpose, business, social or whatever.

It is this very variety among the types of collectivities that has led to suggestions that we pay attention to contexts such as type/purpose of organization, stage of organization, or the organizational culture in which communication occurs (or which it creates, depending on theoretical bent). To complicate things further, the boundaries of organizations are becoming less clear requiring that our attention broaden to include the larger social and political systems in which they interact. But if theories are created separately for each context, then we fragment the field even further. Theory should attempt to encompass these contexts, incorporating the realities of the different contexts into theoretical perspectives either existing or created for this purpose.

Contexts that have become salient due to current environmental conditions include the economy, rapidly changing demographics and conceptualizations of diversity, global interaction, and, of course, technological change. These contexts have implications for the boundaryless organization as well as for tightly boundaried organizations in that the conditions both surround and permeate our organizations. Each requires careful consideration for present-day organizations, but developing theory for each specifically could create amnesia for theory-gone-by and splinter gains made in "broader" and "more encompassing" theory.

Before I launch into illuminations of a couple of the contexts that should concern us as we enter the next century, I=d like to comment on a previous discussion of our field and its future. Concerns with the development of original communication theory seems related to some instrinsic need to overcome self and others= perceptions of our field as being borrowed from other social sciences--as if this were a problem. Redding (1992) points out that not only do we have our very roots in other disciplines, but that there just aren=t any human sciences that ignore communication as an important dimension of study. The overlap is ubiquitous. Thus, rather than obsess over a lack of identity, the salience of communication throughout the behavioral sciences should be be celebrated.

I recognize the political concerns about establishing a unique identity and an indispensable platform (especially as we may be facing continued cut-backs in university budgets), but it seems more important that we "be about our work", examining and understanding human behavior in collectivities. As we become more sophisticated in understanding collectivities, it seems that we have to acknowledge the interplay of perspectives and influences critical to this understanding. As Hecht (1993) suggests, Alayering of theory and research methods...implies that there are alternative ways of knowing that are continually juxtaposed and played off each other and/or blended together (useful for) experiencing our social world@ (p. 76). Thus, I=m not as concerned with developing a separate disciplinary identity as I am with co-adoption of perspectives. As suggested a decade ago by Redding (1985), our field has arrived in that we have gained recognition as a discipline among social scientists (even if our exports are still few in number). Now let us get on with the business of developing our research agendas and not worry about labeling. Our goals should be sharing across disciplines--in both directions-- rather than carving a larger niche for ourselves. In that light, both formal theories with propositions and testable relationship, and less formal theories or perspectives (no matter the originating discipline), are considered in the following discussion of addressing pervasive contexts of change in our field.

One more important consideration in the discussion of how to integrate influential contexts in our studies is an explication of the purpose of theory. Some would argue that we are about pure research, to describe and explain our world; others that we have a duty to change our world. I straddle the fence with the uncomfortable proposition that we are about both: our work has to, at times, begin with exploratory questions arising from mere curiosity, in order to bring fresh, creative insights into our subject. Yet, in the end there must be a few healers who use what we know to enlighten society, liberate organizational members, and, yes, even educate managers on the means for more effective communication (and I won't go into an argument about the meaning of effective and whether or not that goal is inherently oppressive!). Thus, I consider in-depth description, testing of theoretical relationships, revelation of oppressive discourse, and evaluations of skills all to be important outcomes of theory and valid contributions to our field. Another criteria for evaluating theory at this point in time, however, might more appropriately be the degree to which it enables us to understand the processes of change.

As to the contexts of change chosen to be highlighted in this essay--radical organizational change and shifting demographics--there may be others equally important. I chose ones that are receiving press and finding their way into our research (sometimes presented as fragmented topics) and they were chosen because they have not been fully integrated into our thinking and literature. They do, however, contain the seeds of potential integration through the theories and persepectives that are often adopted to consider them (as some of the examples hope to demonstrate).

Economic Environment and Organizational Change

For more than a decade, the economy of the U.S. has changed the shape and culture of corporations in America. Downsizings, mergers, and acquisitions have dominated the scene disturbing much of what has been theorized to occur in stable environments. Although the economy has had several impacts on business organizations, such as changes in how we view and expect rewards for performance, and how competition across businesses is conceptualized, the most profound effect on our basic archetype of organizational life has been on the stable relationship between employer and employed (Buono & Bowditch, 1989). This upset has occurred mostly because of the combination of frequently changing leadership, and the individual's prospects for job loss. Researchers have honed in on this particular contextual phenomenon, and, even though it has been going on for quite some time now, it continues to be studied somewhat in a vacuum. Commitment, communication climate, organizational culture, leadership, workteam communication, superior-subordinate relationships--many of the interesting constructs we study in our field--are still examined with very little consideration to the strongly prevailing conditions of radical change.

To address this pervasive contextual presence in organizational studies, our concern should not be only with specific cases of "when downsizing happens" but rather, with how the exististing mileau backdrops most of everything we study. When a merger occurs during data collection, the event becomes an apology in the report--and this is no problem per se when the focus of study is something other than radical organizational change--but effects of such an event are not isolated and should be proactively addressed in our field. It may seem an impossible task to take into consideration radical change at the same time that we continue to look for relations among communication variables and descriptions of communication processes in organizations. There are, however, some methods, approaches, perspectives that allow for consideration of change at the same time that traditional constructs are studied.

First, we need to employ theories and perspectives that take into account dialectics of change, the push-pull of moving forward while staying the same, and the increase in independence and self-definition while still hanging onto organizational identities. Several existing works take these processes into account at the same time that organizational communication phenomena are studied (cf. Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Bartunek, 1988). For example, Geist and Hardesty (1992) address hospital restructuring and adjustment to Diagnostic Related Groupings (DRGs)-based reimbursement. They examine the tensions emerging from the many forms of resistance, reinventions and compliance-gaining strategies patterned through communcation throughout the levels of the organization (see also, Howard & Geist, 1995). Similarly, an analysis of symbolic discourse over time also guides Vaughn=s (1995) study on organizational change and leadership in a plant shutdown, buyout, and resurrection. Structuration theory also provides a particularly revealing approach to examining the unfolding of meaning over time as exemplified in Bastien, McPhee and Bolton's (1995) description of an organization's change in policy. They discriminate between underlying structuring themes, "sedimented" themes (i.e., sedimented into policy and action) and surface interpretations transformed in clustered groups. Such perspectives--dialectics, symbolic discourse analysis, structuration theory--serve well to address change while assessing important, even traditional, organizational phenomena.

Secondly, we need to take into account the pervasiveness of change when assessing constructs originally identified and studied under stable assumptions. For example, the current dialogue reconceptualizing commitment and organizational identification has intentionally included the development of change-sensitive theoretical perspectives and corresponding methods of assessment. Early statements in this conversation have included the development of the Organizational Identification Questionnaire (Tompkins & Cheney, 1983) and the analysis of decision-making accounts as representations of the identification process (Bullis & Tompkins, 1989). Further, rhetorical positioning of multiple identities in the Catholic Church during times of policy change and reinterpretation has been offered as a theoretical contribution to the understanding of commitment and identification processes (Cheney, 1991). Larkey and Morrill (1995) noted, AWhen the taken-for-granted premises of institutional arrangements begin to break down or have their legitimacy challenged as they did in the 1980's and continue to do so in the 1990's, local level actor-organization interfaces become crucial for understanding how symbol systems and mutual identifications are socially constructed and reconstructed@ (p. 198) and they consequently suggest revisiting the construct of commitment using symbolic analysis of the organizational/individual identities and interfaces to capture the processes of change.

Thus, both the theoretical underpinnings and the methods we use to assess common constructs require rethinking during times of change. Change-sensitive theoretical perspectives and associated methodologies, then, allow for analysis of traditional (and non-traditional) topics of study at the same time that they take into account the continual change processes and resulting tensions, fragmentations, and justifications of meanings.

Societal Shifts: Diversity

Our larger communication field is increasingly acknowledging the importance of cultural framing as evidenced by the growing activities of intercultural communication focused divisions in our associations and increasing publications in this area. This is no less important in organizational studies; the reality of cultural diversity in our organizations is more than a side issue. The very fabric of our communication patterning is comprised of many more voices than before. As we are repeatedly reminded, the workforce in the US is becoming increasingly diverse as women, domestic ethnic group members, and foreign nationals enter at higher rates than ever before (Workforce 2000, 1987). The diversity of our organizations characterizes them; diversity is not simply another interesting variable.

Further, the global economy and perspective is becoming an integral consideration in local organizational concerns. Not only are organizations owned, operated, and co-mingled among many national owners, but the marketing of products, manufacturing of components and provision of services are spanning across many countries in almost any business enterprise. When we speak of organizational culture, it becomes more and more difficult to determine what the boundaries of our analysis should be. When we look at superior-subordinate relationships, discourse on procedures and norms, and mainstream management expectations, we need to embed these beyond the context of North American culture and business preactices, and acknowledge the centrality of other systems in the creation of these norms.

There are two major concerns with this pervasive Adifference@ in the modern organization that must be rapidly adjusted to in our understanding organizational communication--and communication in our societies in general. The first is the need to rethink every process--group process, systems patterns, interpersonal communication--in terms of its juxtaposition with cultural differences and political tensions. The second is to examine what it means to be multiple-identitied people in multiple-identitied organizations--and how that condition reflects a larger, global concern.

Intercultural perspectives of diversity. We are just beginning to address the radical change in demography occurring in our workplaces and other collectivities by borrowing (oh no, not again!) from intercultural communication. Much of the work in intercultural communication examines what happens when individuals from particular cultural backgrounds attempt to communicate through the alleged differences in style of communication and cultural meanings. In the organizational context, the prevailing organizational culture complicates this interaction even further. Organizational studies, however, tend to view the culture of the organization as a describable, somewhat homogenous, set of characteristics, despite variation among members, clusters of members, and networks of meaning (with some notable exceptions, e.g., Bastien, et al. [1995], Smircich & Morgan [1982], Smircich [1987], Smith & Eisenberg, [1987], and Stohl [1993]).

Similar assumptions occur for the homogeneity of cultural members. Thus, a large area of interest has been international differences and how they affect communication between companies, divisions of companies, and individuals representing those different companies (e.g., Japanese and American) as the "representative" meaning systems and cultural styles of communicating are negotiated (Gudykunst, 1994). These are important studies and provide guidance for the teacher and practitioner in cross-cultural communication context. Differences in "difference" due to ethnic identity salience or various identity-evoking contexts have been noted, but often are not integrated in models or theories in ways that highlight the possibility for multiple identities. What seems to be missing is the more comprehensive examination and theorizing about the larger issue of multiple identities existing across societies, within organizations, within workgroups, and even within individuals.

Multiple identities. If diversity is with us to stay, then we need to begin addressing how the diversity in our society, organizations and within ourselves interface. How do we manage the multiple identities this pervasive context presents to us? Evidence of this interface (and how it is managed) is already available. For example, Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, and Sanders (1990) found that organizational culture was strongly represented in the practices of organizational members across several cultures, but that privately held values were more strongly influenced by national culture. Banks (1987) suggested a praxis view of discourse analysis in examining minority employees= explanations for adopting mainstream management styles of communication. Apparently, people are negotiating who they are and how they will behave when they face a variety of social contextual norms. Theory describing the many social forces shaping multiple identities, how they interface and interact, is needed in our field of communication as a frame for what happens in what we conventionally consider to be organizational or intercultural communication contexts. We have perspectives that could assist in this task.

First, a systems views of organizations and their contexts could describe and explain what happens when different systems of beliefs and cultural norms interact. At least, a systems model could map out the territory of concern (much as Alderfer does in his model of organizationally and societally embedded racism [1992]). Second, what predicts the domination of one Aaccount@ of behavior over another when people are working together in a system that differs from their system of origin? Particularly in an age in which an individual's sense of self is not neatly defined within a gestalt of social positions and norms, the need for clarifying multiple identities becomes more important (Stephen, 1994). Persons in simpler societies experienced clarity about self as a part of the whole, but more recent developments in society have required more complex definitions of self in relation to others and the many institutions they comprise (Levitt & Nass, 1994). Multiple relationships in a plural society need negotiation, and the identities resulting from definition of self-in-relation-to-others are negotiated through narratives (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1994). Critical theory has the potential for examining the multiple voices expressed and suppressed in collectivities of many types through these narratives.

A recent candidate set forth as a practical method fitting the postmodern, critical perspective is Smith and Turner=s (1995) Social Constructionist Metaphor Analysis (SCMA). By revealing assumptions through several layers of analysis, this method has the potential for examining the interfaces of multiple communication discourses, those expressed and those not expressed, and would serve well to critically assess how organizational, societal, and national cultures are variously enacted or hidden. Although not specifically proposed as a perspective for noting change over time, it is obvious that the dynamics of change can potentially be observed through such an analysis, particularly as older, more traditional assumptions are exposed in their juxtaposition and competition for expression with newer assumptions and views.

Putting It All Together

Several domains of study and some scattered theories have been mentioned, perhaps leaving the reader with a question about the main point here. What do the contexts noted have to do with each other, and how can we continue to focus our work if we now have to take into account radical organizational change, demographic shifts, global change, technological advances...? There really are only two key suggestions implied by the foregoing. The first is that we have available to us theoretical views that can help us make sense out of change, whether that change is about varying and clustered responses to new policies, constituent demands, or even change in ownership. Changes may emerge from global perspectives or technological advances--not just as side issues but, again, as substantially changing the way we communicate in collectivities. Perspectives that examine change over time and reflectively examine the way meaning unfolds broaden our views by developing theory that spans several levels of the systems we call organizations. We can then address larger, contextually incurred change as well as the microchanges in those contexts. Examples include the effort to go beyond the superior-subordinate relationship and examine this relationship embedded in the organization and how that relationship affects and is affected by other organizattional characteristics and relationships (Sias & Jablin, 1995), or linking older models of group process to models of group process mediated by technology (Poole & Homes, 1995) or diversity (Larkey, in press; Oetzel, 1995). No matter the direction our social, political, and organizational arrangements lead us to beyond the year 2000, we have at hand theories and perspectives that can move us through and help us adapt to the change because they examine and analyze change itself.

The second observation made that supports our future work is that we also have available to us the means for addressing a mounting concern for the complexities of multiple identities. Although comprehensive theories have yet to be developed that outline how our identifications with varied and competing collectivities are negotiated, and how those collectivities themselves are defined by multiplicity, we have at hand perspectives that can help us develop such theories. Ranging from traditional systems perspectives to interpretive, constructionist, and critical analyses of narratives, metaphors, and symbolic processes, we are capable of tracking the experience of change and multiple identities.

I noticed when I entered graduate school almost a decade ago that there were few organizational studies published in our top tier journals--a scattered few only. Recently, there have been entire issues devoted to organizational studies. One such publication often cited in this review is the June, 1995, issue of Communication Monographs. This issue in particular highlights the theoretical contribution possible as the authors ground their work in theory or metatheoretical perspectives, demonstrate the effectiveness of those theories for explicatomg their work, and then extend the theories to develop their potential for even broader application. I think it is this very sort of perspective-taking that will bring our domain of inquiry into the center of our field for the 21st century. We have begun the forward-looking work that will take us into the future. The task ahead is to find better ways to integrate our understandings by noting the most salient, pervasive contexts of change and taking these contexts into account as central features in theory-development and research perspectives.

Alderfer, C. (1992). Changing race relations embedded in organizations. In S.E. Jackson & Associates, Diversity in the workplace: Human resources initiatives, (pp. 138-166). New York: Guildford Press.

Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 20-39.

Bartunek, J. (1988). The dynamics of organizational reframing. In R. E. Quinn and K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Towards a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 137-162). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger

Bastien, D.T., McPhee, R.D., & Bolton, K.A. (1995). A study and extended theory of the structuration of climate. Communication Monographs, 62, 87-109.

Bullis, C., & Tompkins, P.K. (1989). The forest ranger revisited: A study of control practices and identification. Communication Monographs, 56, 287-386.

Buono, A. F., & Bowditch, J. L. (1989). The human side of mergers and acquisitions. San Francisco: Jossey­Bass.

Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Geist, P., & Hardesty, M. (1992). Communication and the dialectics of change: Hospitals, DRGs and the transformation or organizational structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gudykunst, W.B. (1994). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A quantitative study across twenty cases. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316.

Hood, J., & Koberg, C.S., (1993). Patterns of differential assimilation and acculturation for women in business organizations. Human Relations, 46

Howard, L.A., & Geist, P. (1995). Ideological positioning in organizational change: The dialectic of control in a merging organization. Communication Monographs, 62, 110-131.

Larkey, L.K. (in press). Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse workgroups. Academy of Management Review.

Larkey, L.K., & Morrill, C. (1995). Organizational commitment as symbolic process. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 193-213.

Oetzel, J.G. (1995). Intercultural small groups: An effective decision-making theory. In R.L. Wiseman (Ed.) Intercultural communication theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Redding, C. (1992). Response to Professor Berger=s essay: Its meaning for organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 59, 87-93.

Sias, P.M., & Jablin, F.M. (1995). Differential superior-subordinate relations, perceptions of fairness, and coworker communication. Human Communication Research, 22, 5-38.

Smircich, L. (1987). Organizational culture: A critical assessment. In F. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 228­263). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Smircich, L. & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 257-273.

Smith, R. C., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1987). Conflict at Disneyland: A root­metaphor analysis. Communication Monographs, 54, 367­380.

Smith, R.C., & Turner, P.K. (1995). A Social Constructionist reconfiguration of metaphor analysis: An application of ASCMA@ to organizational socialization theorizing. Communication Monographs, 62., 152-181.

Stephan, T. (1994). Communication in the shifting context of intimacy: Marriage, meaning, and modernity. Communication Theory, 4, 191-218.

Stohl, C. (1993). European manager's interpretations of participation: A semantic network analysis. Human Communication Research, 20, 97-117.

Tompkins, P.K., & Cheney, G. (1983). Account analysis of organizations. In L.L. Putnam & M.E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 31-54). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Vaughn, M.A. (1995). Organizational symbols: An analysis of their types and functions in a reborn organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 219-250.

Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st century. (1987). The Hudson Institute: U.S. Department of Labor.