Scott2010 PDF

Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Toward an Integrative Theoretical

Perspective on Organizational Membership
Negotiations: Socialization, Assimilation,
and the Duality of Structure
Clifton Scott1 & Karen Myers2
1
University of North Carolina, Charlotte, Communication Studies, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, NC,
28223-0001, USA
2 Department of Communication, 4005 SS & MS, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4020, USA
In this article we argue that a component of structuration theory—the duality of struc-

ture—is a valuable heuristic for an integrative framework seeking to explain the role of
communication in how membership is negotiated over time. The membership negotiations
(MNs) perspective detailed here considers structural features of negotiation processes, while
accounting for how active participation of newcomers and incumbents sustains and alters
them. We offer a model of MNs and 18 propositions concerning how role expectations,
group/organizational norms, formal structure, external and indirect sources of socialization,
identification, power relationships, and member interaction are media for ongoing organi-
zational MNs. Through these media, incumbents and newcomers interactively rely upon,
sustain, and occasionally alter focal structures, practices, and the meanings of membership.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01355.x
Organizational socialization and assimilation research has been the subject of con-
troversy in recent years, particularly as it is articulated within the communication
discipline. Critiques of contemporary socialization research (e.g., Bullis, 1993; Clair,
1996; Smith & Turner, 1995) have been offered but dismissed by others as including
‘‘questionable claims’’ and ‘‘unfair’’ evaluations (Kramer & Miller, 1999). These
critiques and more recent reconceptualizations of the socialization process (Bullis &
Stout, 2000; Stout, 2002) have challenged a number of the prevailing assumptions
that undergird most theorizing about the socialization process. Although theoreti-
cal diversity and disagreement have been constructive, scholarship in this area has
reached a point where integrative theoretical moves are necessary.
We contend that many of the intellectual conflicts in the area are an artifact of
a more fundamental problem. Although communication scholars of socialization
Corresponding author: Clifton Scott; e-mail: cliff.scott@uncc.edu; cscott1975@yahoo.com
Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 79

Membership Negotiations C. Scott & K. Myers
and assimilation often acknowledge a mutually implicative relationship between

incumbents and focal organizational members (e.g., newcomers, transferees, promo-
tees, etc.), they usually stop short of meaningfully incorporating this assumption into
their theory building. We argue that a more genuine incorporation of a key structura-
tion theory (Giddens, 1984) concept, the duality of structure, illuminates the capacity
of communication to enable and constrain how organizational membership is nego-
tiated over time. If the purpose of studying socialization and assimilation from a
communication perspective(s) is to identify how people can more actively and knowl-
edgeably participate in the negotiation of organizational membership through specific
communication choices, the idea that socialization agents and focal individuals enjoy
reciprocal, albeit asymmetrical, influence over one another must be engaged.
Toward that end, we first introduce the foundation for our theorizing—
structuration theory (Giddens, 1984, 1994)—and in particular, one component
of structuration theory, the duality of structure. This is followed by a discussion of
the ways traditional research has overemphasized organizational structure or action
with details about how principles of the duality of structure force a reconsideration
of the recursive interplay of membership negotiations (MNs). We then introduce
an alternative conceptualization of MNs. Finally, we discuss consequences of MNs,
which are both outcomes and antecedents to the ongoing process of organizing.
We begin with a note on a key term in our discussion, a term that is endemic
to the alternative view of organizational socialization and assimilation we offer, and
a term that broadens the view of this complex process: membership negotiations
(MNs) (McPhee & Zaug, 2000). We utilize MNs to describe a set of ongoing pro-
cesses (intentional and unintentional) through which knowledgeable individuals and
focal organizations engage, disengage, and accomplish reciprocal—but still asym-
metrical—influence over the intended meanings for an individual’s participation in
organizational functions. In light of disagreement over the denotative and connota-
tive meaning of terms like socialization and assimilation (Bullis, 1993; Clair, 1999;
Kramer & Miller, 1999; Turner, 1999), we use MNs not to avoid taking a particular
position in this controversy but instead to reference a broad and nonlinear set of
activities—inclusive of both socialization and assimilation—in which the meanings
of an individual’s membership are constituted, reconstituted, and transformed over
time. Although we have attempted to remedy the common assumption in assimila-
tion–socialization research that newcomers are entry-level employees with limited
power, we acknowledge that our theoretical perspective also may be biased in this
direction.
Balancing structure and action in MNs research

Researchers agree they should examine ‘‘the dynamic interplay’’ between socializa-
tion and individualization (Bullis, 1993, p. 11; Falcione & Wilson, 1988; Kramer &
Miller, 1999; Kramer & Noland, 1996; McPhee & Zaug, 2000; Myers & Oetzel, 2003;
Smith & Turner, 1995). Studies of selected MNs processes such as the appropriation
80 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association

C. Scott & K. Myers Membership Negotiations
of rules and resources during organizational encounter (Stout, 2002) and employee
promotions (Kramer & Noland, 1996) have pursued this goal with regard to specific
topics or contexts. However, scholars have yet to provide a broad articulation of MNs
that explicitly balances action and structure in the organization–individual relation-
ship across the range of processes that constitute it. Indeed, although communication
theories of socialization and/or assimilation often specify an interactive relationship
between the individual and socializing agents, empirical studies tend to emphasize
elements of either socialization or individualization without accounting for interplay
between the two (Bullis, 1993). Thus, extant theoretical models lack the requisite
specificity to inspire empirical studies that might support or refute them.
Structuration theory and MNs

A fully structurational theory of MN is beyond both the scope of any single model and
well beyond the purpose of this article. However, we contend that several structuration
theory constructs, primarily the duality of structure, provide valuable heuristics for
an integrative framework seeking to explain the production, reproduction, and
transformation of organizational membership through communication. In spite of its
historical association with structuration theory, it is worth noting that the notion of
the duality of structure is generally acknowledged across a range of organizational
communication scholarship including, for example, texts far afield from descriptions
of structuration theory itself (e.g., Cheney, Christensen, Zorn, & Ganesh, 2004, p. 20;
Eisenberg, Goodall, & Trethewey, 2007, p. 35). Like those authors, we attempt to
highlight the potential value of that subconcept for MNs scholarship, which has
emanated from a variety of meta-theoretical perspectives.
Structures
Structures are virtual properties of social systems, the broad arrangements among
society members and focal institutions. Produced and reproduced through human
symbolic activity, structures guide social interaction by enabling and constraining
behavior. Structures are best thought of as formal and informal rules, symbolic
resources, and sets of transformational relations found in ongoing social interactions
and practices (Giddens, 1984). Rules refer to tacitly known general procedures
guiding individuals on how to function in society. Using rules, individuals constitute
meaning and act competently (Giddens, 1984). Resources enable competent action
either through authority (social conditions and other persons) or allocation (material
entities). In order to instantiate social action, agents must draw upon resources to
enable material conditions and relationships (Giddens, 1984). This view of structure
avoids the common tendency of scholars to reify it in their theorizing by conflating
structure with macrosystems or macrodiscourses. Structures are local, although they
have global implications and properties.
Agency
Scholars disagree about the extent to which humans actually make rational, deliberate
choices in behavior (Boden, 1994; Taylor & Van Every, 2000; Weick, 1979), but they

concur that the capacity to rationalize is an important aspect of being human.

All social interactions can be considered complex blends of both intentional and
unintentional consequences (Giddens, 1979). Humans can act strategically and claim
reasons for action, but they are not purposive all the time. Social interaction is
recursive and grounded in some level of partial knowledgeability. People monitor
their behaviors and attempt to make behavioral choices on the basis of past actions.
This enables them to modify goals, plans, and future action in a process known as
reflexivity (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2005; Poole, Seibold, & McPhee, 1985). This view of
agency avoids voluntarism because, although people constitute the social system, they
cannot fully control the context in which they do so. What’s more, they inevitably
draw on resources that they did not create alone.
We communicate without constant awareness of the social structures this inter-
action requires and sustains. When individuals have discursive consciousness of social
structures and behaviors, they are capable of talking about them (Giddens, 1984).
Alternatively, practical consciousness involves the ability to conduct reflexive monitor-
ing without focused attention on the act of monitoring, to revise and adapt without
making conscious effort to do so. The process sustains and works within a kind of
security system, at the level of the unconscious, alleviating anxieties enough for action
to take place (Collinson, 2003). For example, newcomers may reflexively monitor
existing structures, costs, and rewards when they encounter new organizational roles.
As they cope with uncertainty through information seeking (Miller & Jablin, 1991)
and sensemaking (Louis, 1980; Jablin & Kramer, 1998), they monitor the costs of
appearing to lack confidence in their behavior relative to their expectations and those
of others (Teboul, 1995). These cognitions and behaviors operate at various levels of
consciousness for newcomers and incumbents.
Dialectic of control
The dialectic of control (Giddens, 1984) refers to the ‘‘two-way character of the
distributive aspect of power (power as control); how the less powerful manage
resources in such a way as to exert control over the more powerful in established power
relationships’’ (p. 374). Newcomers submit to some control by the organization; the
dialectic of control implies that individuals also have some agency, since control
moves and power asymmetries are a product of interaction among dominant,
resistant, and submissive parties. For example, they retain some agency because while
organizational leaders may direct, even dominate them, leaders still depend on the
choice of individuals to provide labor. Will they perform tasks exactly as specified in
training or individualize their roles? Will they quit? In most cases, employees have the
capacity to act even if the options and the circumstances of their choice making are
less than ideal (Giddens, 1991). They may choose to conform to socialization efforts
and rules of the organization; they may choose to openly resist, attempting to modify
role expectations, even larger systems; perhaps most common, they simultaneously
do both, opting to adapt to organizational norms in some situations but overtly or
covertly resisting in others. As Deetz (1992) suggests, members often act in ways they

perceive to be in their best interest, but this action always carries the possibility that
the choices better serve the interests of the organization. Their choices often have
unintended consequences, positive and negative.
Duality of structure
The duality of structure describes the mutually implicative relationship between
agency and structure (Giddens, 1984). Individual action cannot be explained separate
and apart from the social structures that enable it through resources and that constrain
it through rules. In the context of MNs, the structures that enable and constrain
how membership is negotiated cannot be completely separated from the interaction
between organization and member (McPhee & Zaug, 2000). MNs structures shape
that interaction, but they too are in process, and are sustained or altered by that
social action. As knowledgeable agents, members may have some awareness of the
structures they call upon to act, but this knowledge is never complete. Moreover, their
actions may have unintended consequences for these structures. For example, Kirby
and Krone (2002) identified the organizational discourse that discouraged members
from utilizing recently implemented family leave policies. Workers were aware
of the newly created formal structure (the paternal leave policy), but informally
sanctioned expectations regarding who should and should not use it, as well as
under what circumstances, and thus diminished the influence of those structures.
As knowledgeable agents, the members of ‘‘Regulatory Alliance’’ had practical
consciousness of how their choice to use and, in most cases, not use the policies
affected their immediate situations and stances. However, they had less awareness of
the unintended consequences of those actions—for example, that fewer members
would utilize such policies at all. Thus, by not using the policy and by discursively
sustaining particular interpretations, members influenced the structural impact of
the policy in practice. The duality of structure has intriguing implications for
MNs theories that challenge rarely acknowledged assumptions about organizations
and individuals. It suggests that both organizations and focal employees are, to
varying degrees, mutually adaptive throughout MNs. Individual attitudes, beliefs,
and identities may appear stable, but they are constantly in process (Ashforth, 2001).
The same is true for organizations as they adjust to shifting internal and external
contingencies (Katz & Kahn, 1966).
A river is a useful metaphor for understanding this duality of structure (Cheney,
Christensen, Zorn, & Ganesh, 2004, p. 20) and its relevance for MNs. Just as
water flows continuously through a river, individual attachment is always changing
and requires ongoing reaccomplishment. As this continuous movement proceeds
fairly predictably within boundaries of a river’s banks, reification of one’s role and
organizational attachment constrains behavioral options considerably. Job holders
may come and go, but the role boundaries associated with a particular position
are often resistant to change. Organizational roles often retain sediments, legacies
of the predecessor, thereby creating a blueprint by which future job holders are
judged (Burton & Beckman, 2007). Theorists often fail to acknowledge that these

metaphorical banks or boundaries also are continually being transformed. Just as the
course of a river changes very gradually over time, the meaning and practical function
of membership changes, often the result of internal tension and external sources.
Rather than balancing structure and action, socialization and assimilation theories
and research overemphasize structure or action, as discussed in the following section.
Overemphasis on structure in socialization and assimilation research

Scholarship in the area often emphasizes the structural constraints placed upon
actors without accounting for the manner in which actors knowledgeably utilize
structure to reproduce it. There is insufficient space here to provide a complete
survey, but before introducing our model of MNs we offer a brief account below
of the ways postpositivist, interpretive, critical, and postmodern approaches to
socialization and assimilation gloss, or ignore, the balance of structure and action
specified in prominent theoretical models (Bullis, 1993; Jablin, 1982, 1984, 1987;
Jablin & Krone, 1987). While valuable, that work stops short of considering the
way members themselves (even relatively powerless newcomers) participate in the
creation of ‘‘social properties’’ that ‘‘influence the choices and actions of members
of social collectives’’ (Conrad & Haynes, 2001, p. 49). These studies also do not fully
account for communication processes operating at different levels of analysis such as
groups, organizations, or institutions.
Stages and phases

Postpositivist models depicting three or four stages/phases of organization integration
have been the foundation of MNs research (e.g., Buchanan, 1974; Feldman, 1976;
Jablin, 1987, 2001; Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975). Especially influential in the
theorizing and study of MNs within the communication discipline (Jablin, 1987;
Jablin & Krone, 1987), they clearly overemphasize structure. Stage models assume that
individuals progress through a series of phases that orient them toward organizational
life; organizational boundaries are presented as objective environmental features. This
approach has the effect of overemphasizing the structural constraints placed upon
apparently passive individuals and underemphasizing or ignoring the role individuals
play as participative actors in various organizational processes (Myers, 2006).
In addition to the emphasis on phases, the bounded nature of the stage model
also is problematic because it assumes that newcomers encounter a preexistent
‘‘already organized organization’’ (Hawes, 1974, p. 499). Thus, the organization
socializes employees into the organization’s culture, a ‘‘preformed container in which
behavior ‘takes place’’’ (p. 499). While acknowledging the powerful influence of the
organization over the newcomer, stage models overlook the role of individual agency
in sustaining MN structures (Bullis, 1993; Hawes, 1974).
Passivity
The traditional view of newcomers as passive information receptacles also reveals an
overemphasis on structure. Until the late 1990s, much of the literature focused on

the role sending efforts of incumbents attempting to make newcomers aware of orga-
nizational rules or norms (Jablin, 2001). This process is presented as unidirectional:
Information passes from incumbents to newcomers who are construed as relatively
passive recipients. Although recent work has given more attention to how newcomers
participate in information seeking (Ashford & Black, 1996; Morrison, 2005), research
continues to imply that individuals progress through stages (e.g., from encounter
to metamorphosis) based on how they acquire/receive information from incum-
bents. How individuals’ memberships also develop through the information that
socializing agents receive from newcomers or from other focal individuals (personal,
technical, or otherwise) is given little or no consideration. Hence, the structural
effects of the socialization process on focal individuals (e.g., newcomers, transfer-
ees) are highlighted (Smith & Turner, 1995) but the potential impacts of whatever
actions newcomers take in this process on incumbents, structures, or processes are
almost never theorized. Although we can usually expect incumbents’ perspectives
to be more easily enabled and sustained through mastery of rules and resources
(e.g., vocabulary, cultural capital, domain authority), this view is problematic to the
extent that it understates how newcomers reproduce or even transform structure
through their interactions with incumbents and one another (for exceptions, see
Myers, 2005, 2006; Scott & Myers, 2005). Similarly, the passive characterization of
MNs turns theorists’ attention away from how incumbents reproduce or transform
existing structures (intentionally or unintentionally) in their efforts to acquaint the
newcomer (Burton & Beckman, 2007; Levine, Moreland, & Choi, 2001).
Critical approaches to agency

Some critical studies of socialization also privilege structure over action. Recent
critiques of traditional models of MNs have highlighted the experiences of members
from traditionally marginalized groups and correctly suggested that the models
underrepresent them (Allen, 1995, 1996; Bullis, 1993; Bullis & Stout, 2000; Clair,
1996). This work suggests that the manner in which discourse (Putnam & Fairhurst,
2004) facilitates how members’ identities are portrayed in the organizational culture
constrains the range of experiences they are likely to have through MNs. This work has
enriched MNs scholarship to the extent that it addresses a wider range of experiences.
These critical approaches, particularly their more modernist elements (see Mumby,
2001), overemphasize structure because they stop short of considering how the more
or less knowledgeable actions of inductees accommodate, reproduce, and transform
these discursive rules and resources (Collinson, 1992).
Overemphasis on action in socialization and assimilation research

Conversely, some clusters of MN research overemphasize the actions of members as
they participate in information-seeking practices, which aid role development and
the management of ambiguity. These approaches turn attention away from how this
MN practice potentially operates as a function of structures that circumscribe choice.
As we mentioned earlier, scholarship has moved toward an acknowledgment that

newcomers are ‘‘highly motivated agents in their own socialization’’ (Ashforth, 2001,
p. 187; Ashford & Black, 1996). For example, several studies in the 1990s suggested
that newcomers engage in a variety of information-seeking tactics that range from the
covert to the overt, actions that are thought to be mediated by level of uncertainty, type
of information being sought, and the social costs of seeking information (Miller &
Jablin, 1991; Miller, 1996; Morrison, 1993, 1995; Teboul, 1994, 1995; see Morrison,
2002a, for a review). Additionally, case studies have documented how newcomers
enact some level of choice as they attempt to master organizationally preferred role
identities (Gibson & Papa, 2001; Myers, 2005; Scott & Myers, 2005).
This proactive view of newcomers is a positive development, for it has underscored
how relevant communication choices contribute to or detract from newcomer
learning. Nevertheless, the potential of information seeking to reify or change the
very structures about which newcomers are learning seems to have escaped scholars’
attention. Indeed, the action-oriented conceptualization of members as proactive
seekers of information and constructors of identity does not consider how patterned
the information they receive may be. Nor does it consider ways that information
and meaning acquired proactively may be reproductive of dominant organizational
values, thus constraining the range of choices and behaviors members may consider
as they negotiate membership throughout their tenures. Although MN scholars have
long been accused of overemphasizing the socializing efforts of ‘‘the organization’’
to the exclusion of the proactive efforts of individuals (e.g., newcomers), the recent
flurry of MN research may be critiqued for its failure to consider how such active role
learning reproduces preexistent structures. Extant approaches seem to suggest that
members either adapt or individualize. Little attention is given to the more complex
possibility, which is that newcomers may adapt and individualize simultaneously and
that they may do so to varying degrees over time as part of a larger, mutually adaptive
relationship with their employer.
Individuals, workgroups, organizations, and society: Recursive interplay

MNs have wide-ranging effects. Individual-level socialization practices have been
the focus of traditional conceptualizations and studies of MN, but socialization is
designed and implemented to have broad effects that stretch beyond the individual
to the workgroup and the organization. Traditional models of socialization and
assimilation illustrate microprocesses performed by individuals rather than the
meso- and macrolevel structures these actions reflect, sustain, and/or modify. For
example, Miller and Jablin’s (1991) model of information seeking concentrates on
how members proactively supplement socialization to gain a fuller understanding
of systems, structures, and norms to assimilate into their roles. Their model depicts
member-to-member interaction, but does not explicate the effect of information
seeking on the workgroup and the organization.
Although most MNs research is viewed as organization-level socialization or
organization-level assimilation, it seems clear that MNs have the most direct effects
on workgroup interaction, cohesion, and performance. Workgroup members have

most contact with each other, have the most at stake, and are likely to exert
considerable influence on MN (Myers & McPhee, 2006). One MN model that does
account for workgroup interaction is that of Moreland and Levine (1982, 2001),
which depicts MNs as a group-level process involving member evaluation of each
others’ actual or potential ‘‘rewardingness’’ and how commitment and acceptance of
members is a recursive and continuous process. Their model examines individual-
level behaviors, that influence group attitudes and interaction but makes no attempt
to explain how group-level MNs affect and are affected by the organization.
Workgroup norms are reproduced over time and can be replicated in other units
throughout the organizational system. Simultaneously, microlevel changes can be
refined and repeated within the group, even borrowed and adopted by workgroups
throughout the organization. Interorganizational entrenchment and change occurs
when organizations verify that their system of socialization conforms to industry and
societal norms. Conversely, organizations may modify their socialization efforts based
on successful socialization programs in other organizations. Occasionally, change
occurs when management implements new socialization practices throughout the
organization, influencing both group- and individual-level MNs.
Implications for MN research

The challenge for MN scholarship is to develop a more thorough understanding
of MN processes by acknowledging mutual interdependence of individuals, groups,
organizations, and institutions while still acknowledging an unequal level of influence
across the four. As we describe next, dominant models of socialization and assimi-
lation often stop short of this goal. Toward resolution of that shortfall, we provide
an overview of how the dynamic processes of MNs can be illuminated with the key
concepts of structuration theory reviewed earlier, particularly the duality of structure.
What is needed is a more integrative approach to MN, one that does not reify a
duality between the organizational effort to socialize individuals and individuals’
efforts to craft their own roles (Smith & Turner, 1995). Kramer and Miller (1999)
contend that traditional models of assimilation (Jablin, 1987) achieve this goal by
integrating socialization and individualization under the heading of ‘‘assimilation.’’
Others argue that, in practice, research considers either socializing efforts on behalf
of the organization or proactive individualization efforts of individuals (Bullis, 1993;
Smith & Turner, 1995). We believe a conceptual approach is needed that balances
action and structure in MNs, integrates them across levels of analysis, and enables
comprehensive empirical research. We offer that framework in the following section
(see Figure 1).
Toward a new theory of MNs

A balanced approach to MN would account for constraining structures but also
explore how member resistance and, more generally, production of structural
resources work to change existing and future structures and interactions. Thus,

Figure 1 Media of membership negotiations.
stereotypic organizational constraints such as a consensual role, formal rules, peer and
boss pressure, and task-related work demands are not conceptualized as omnipresent,
externally imposing, or static. Rather, communication theories of MNs have the
potential to explain how the knowledgeable action of both socializing agents and focal
individuals shapes how membership is accomplished and reaccomplished over time.
Structures are created and transformed as newcomers and experienced organizational
members interact. Although the socializing agents and other incumbents would most
likely possess more allocative resources, newcomers exercise agency by questioning,
often adapting to, but sometimes resisting existing organizational structures.
Patterned interaction
As these patterns of interaction are repeated across time and space, institutional rela-
tionships are formed and reinforced, becoming recognized features of organizational
life. Both newcomers and experienced organizational members recognize and inter-
act according to these established patterns. For example, probationary firefighters
understand the implicit requirement to demonstrate unwavering deference to more
senior crew members and a willingness to work from dawn to dusk (Myers, 2005).
For example, a probationary firefighter in Scott and Myers (2005, p. 81) described
what he had expected this way: ‘‘Everyone talks about your booter year and how
you have to bust your hump. You are supposed to be seen and not heard. Nobody

talks to you and everyone treats you like garbage.’’ However, it is important to note
that newcomers are more than just cognitively aware of the expectation. Rather, they
actively participate in practices of strategic self-subordination (Deetz, 1998), which
sustain this deference as a set of behaviors considered natural, normal, and good. As
another probationary firefighter in Scott and Myers characterized it:
I expected the first year to be kinda rough. . . . You have to basically try to look
busy the whole time. . . . You’re the one checking the tripod, you’re cleaning the
station, you’re doing the dishes, you’re doing all of the busy work. All of the guys
are taking naps while you’re mopping the bay, stuff like that. Basically, it’s just
like a rite of passage (p. 81).
This more or less unified response produces social integration, ‘‘the reciprocity of
practices between agents in circumstances of copresence, understood as continuities
in and disjunctions of encounters’’ (Giddens, 1984, p. 376). Although individuals are
knowledgeable agents, they also are subject to ‘‘situated practices’’ that work to resist
complete autonomy.
Collaborative agency
Organizational members, and especially subordinates, can exercise their personal
agency keeping in mind, but not necessarily adhering to, established rules and
resources (Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004; Murphy, 1998). The same structures that
constrain newcomers also provide opportunities for MNs when normative rules are
followed. For instance, the newcomer understands the attitude of tenured firefighters
and justifies the value of the traditions and routines mastered after long effort by
the senior crew (Myers, 2005; Scott & Myers, 2005), and they use that knowledge to
communicate strategically, in jokes, nuanced compliance, or peripheral participation
(Collinson, 1999; Tracy, Myers, & Scott, 2006). Even overt compliance is not merely
obedient response; it also is strategic, a dramatized attempt to gain respect, acceptance,
and/or slack to be used in the future.
Regardless of the effectiveness of socialization programs, recruits cannot be repro-
grammed to act in narrowly prescribed ways. The gap between what organizational
insiders want and what they receive from newcomers causes newcomers and incum-
bents to negotiate their working relationships. This negotiation process is illustrative
of the dialectic of control (Giddens, 1984). Neophytes exercise some agency as they
communicate what they can and cannot do, express their likes and dislikes, and most
clearly in what they choose to do or not. Management responds to newcomer control
by training, occasionally allowing newcomers to role negotiate, even cutting new-
comers slack (Morrison, 2002b). Over time, adaptations by newcomers or existing
members can cause lasting changes as they become institutionalized.
It is tempting to think of organizational membership as constraint: Employment
means a surrender of rights and individuality in return for a paycheck and identi-
fication. In becoming an organizational member we can be exploited, but we also
can acquire influence and experience personal growth, insight into ourselves, and an

opportunity for personal expression and achievement—resources that may benefit

the individual as much or more than the organization. Communication scholarship
should, of course, continue to critique the manner in which organizational mem-
bership colonizes individuals and sustains inequities through discourses of identity,
entrepreneurship, and power (Deetz, 1995; McPhee & Zaug, 2001; Mumby, 2001).
However, postmodern views of agency remind us that members collaboratively (albeit
asymmetrically) manage tensions and conflicts among ideologies, local norms, and
organizational structures in power relationships (Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004; Ashcraft
& Trethewey, 2004).
Acquiring and managing the meanings of organizational membership is funda-
mentally a communicative process that often includes experienced and expressed
dimensions of fulfillment, a new beginning or separation from the past, initiation,
novelty, and empowerment. However, these experiences and perceptions are best
considered a product of embodied symbolic interaction rather than mere attitudes.
More generally, the mutual, cooperative agency enabled through the duality of
structure, as reviewed earlier, leads us to a richer sense of MNs. For instance, our
rationalization resources get augmented and corrected. We stop explaining ourselves
by saying ‘‘I was told to. . .’’ or ‘‘I’m new here,’’ and move to questions such as ‘‘Aren’t
we supposed to. . .?’’ or comments such as ‘‘That doesn’t make sense.’’ Over time, we
master a growing set of the standard narrative schemes of the organization and our
unit (Barge & Schlueter, 2004). Another example is the growth and then diminution
of our discursive consciousness. Routines and scripts vital to organizational work
and life go from being puzzling to being things we consciously tell ourselves to do
(‘‘Get off at the second floor, turn right, go past five doors . . .’’) to being second
nature. Our reflexive monitoring changes too, as we ask ourselves less ‘‘What should
I do?’’ and more ‘‘Is this what I really want to be doing?’’ In short, a theory of MNs
incorporating the duality of structure should move researchers from the straight-
forward behavioral sense of newcomer action toward a sense of the newcomer as
a more or less reflective and strategic, and in the process a qualitatively changing
and (constrainedly) empowered being. Next, we illustrate how MNs are mediated
through rules and resources.
Media of MNs
The media of MNs are rules and resources that structure and are structured by
interaction. These forms of formal and informal structure sanction (rules) and
inspire (resources) interaction (Giddens, 1984; Stout, 2002). As depicted in Figure 1,
when members negotiate their membership, they participate in formal and informal
processes that induct them into the workgroup and organization. However, they also
draw upon and influence structures and systems from the larger society. Although
organizations and existing members have undeniable influence in introducing,
training, and otherwise acculturating newcomers, as we illustrated in discussing the
dialectic of control (Giddens, 1984), individual newcomers and members of any
tenure retain some influence in their situations as they seek information, adapt,

resist, or otherwise respond. New and tenured members redefine their organizational
membership in the process of MNs.
The seven media of MNs we identify include constructs important to the
process of adjustment to organizational life: role expectations (clarity, ambiguity),
group and organizational norms, formal structure, socialization from external and
indirect sources, identity and identification, power relations, and socializing and
ongoing interaction. Members draw upon these during interaction and, in doing
so, reproduce and occasionally alter them (Giddens, 1984). Consider the manner in
which newcomers and incumbents draw upon structures acquired during anticipatory
socialization. When teenagers begin working at a local fast-food franchise, they have
little or no prior work experience from which to draw knowledge of dominant
social expectations and practices in the workplace. Yet, because social systems
are integrated across time and space, inexperienced newcomers inevitably rely on
relevant anticipatory knowledge (Armfield & Dougherty, 2005; Gibson & Papa,
2000). The teen might know something about basic expectations for hierarchical and
superior–subordinate interaction by participating in society as a fast-food consumer,
or through participation in family and educational institutions. These interactive
experiences reproduce broad societal assumptions about social roles (Paradise &
Wall, 1986; Spade, 2001). They take place throughout members’ tenures as they
interact with individuals who are outside the organization and, more generally, are
embedded in social systems that interact with and influence (and are influenced by)
organizational activities. In discussing work life with family and friends (e.g., role
expectations, work-based relationships, working conditions), members are affected
by outsiders’ reactions and interpretations (Stohl, 1995). Individuals without direct
association with the organization extend their influence to impact attitudes and
beliefs of those who are associated with it. In each case there is some reciprocity
between collectivities and/or actors ‘‘across extended time–space,’’ even though they
are not copresent (Giddens, 1984, p. 377). Interaction that draws upon anticipatory
knowledge, as well as interpretations made and shared outside the boundaries of the
organization, serve as a bridge of system integration that reproduces social practices
across time–space.
These media of MNs are appropriated in interaction as rule–resource sets. People
experiencing transitions in organizations draw upon these media as they negotiate or
renegotiate their membership (Ashforth, 2001; Kramer, Callister, & Turban, 1995;
Kramer & Noland, 1999). In less obvious ways, members who are not necessarily
negotiating overt transitions are in an ongoing state of reproducing a particular sense
of their membership by drawing upon these media as well (McPhee & Zaug, 2000).
We treat each in turn below, and offer formal prepositions about their role in MNs.
Role expectations
Role expectations are similar to what has been termed referent information (Miller &
Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1995), which involves assumptions about ‘‘what is required
and expected as part of one’s job role’’ (Morrison, 1995, p. 133). Morrison (1995)

found that newcomers rate referent information (along with appraisal information
related to their performance) as more useful than other types of information acquired
during entry. A number of studies have also demonstrated that newcomers play an
active role in drawing on role expectations through relatively covert forms of
information seeking. The importance of this knowledge is underscored by studies
demonstrating its association with retention, job satisfaction, and commitment
(Morrison, 1993; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Moreover, the compromise between
members’ role perceptions and existing role expectations provides the foundation
for role negotiation (Jablin, 2001, p. 757). When members do not feel they can
adequately negotiate their new roles, they may respond by communicating negative
emotions, including anger, aggression, and hostility (Morrison & Robinson, 1997).
Proposition 1: Organizationally shared role expectations create a standard by

which newcomers are judged by incumbents. Over time, enacted role
expectations become more entrenched and resistant to change. Reified role
expectations may even be appropriated across group and organizational
boundaries.
Proposition 2: When organizationally shared role expectations and
newcomer-held role perceptions are congruent, roles are reinforced and MNs
are facilitated. When they are incongruent, MNs may modify role expectations at
both the individual and group level.
Group and organizational norms

Norms constitute another structural feature of organizations upon which members
draw throughout MN processes over their tenure. Interaction norms may include how
to address others (Morand, 1996), appropriate modes of dress (Pratt & Rafaeli, 1997),
uses and functions of humor (Meyer, 1997; Tracy, Myers, & Scott, 2006), expression
of emotion (Morris & Feldman, 1996; Scott & Myers, 2005), how to coordinate with
group members for reliability and productivity (Myers & McPhee, 2006), and appro-
priate use of communication media (Donabedian, McKinnon, & Bruns, 1998; Fulk,
Schmitz, & Steinfield, 1990; Fulk, Steinfield, Schmitz, & Power, 1987; Waldeck, Sei-
bold & Flanagin, 2004). As Jablin (2001) argues, while these norms eventually ‘‘become
mundane aspects of communication,’’ they are particularly salient for newcomers
who lack familiarity with dominant modes of interaction in the organization (p. 756).
Knowledge of these norms is acquired ‘‘through formal and informal communication,
in both ambient and discretionary forms, with others in the organization including
message exchanges with supervisors, peers/coworkers, and management sources’’
(Jablin, 2001, p. 756). However, these interactions are also more than mere ‘‘mes-
sage exchanges.’’ Dynamic interplay between incumbents and newcomers includes
instances in which parties may choose to reinforce (or resist) the memorable messages
and lessons learned from previous transitional experiences (Barge & Schlueter, 2004;
Butler Ellis & Smith, 2004; Stohl, 1986). While newcomers may be acutely aware of
group and organizational norms, over time the norms that caused them shock and

surprise may become transparent, causing them to lose discursive consciousness of

norms.
Proposition 3: Incumbent members introduce newcomers to group and

organizational norms through dynamic interplay in which norms are invoked.
In that process, incumbents reproduce those norms. If newcomers question
these norms, incumbents may bring issues of practical consciousness to
discursive consciousness, which may enable incumbents to question and
potentially modify group norms.
Proposition 4: Discursive consciousness of organizational and group norms
enables incumbents to formally socialize newcomers to normative behaviors. In
the process of socializing newcomers, long-time members can change their own
interactional norms by bringing issues that had been in practical consciousness
to discursive consciousness, potentially resulting in reflection, questioning, and
transformation.
Proposition 5: Through practical consciousness incumbents informally socialize
newcomers to group and organizational norms.
Formal structure
Formal structure is also a medium through which membership is continually nego-
tiated. Formal structure can be manifested in a variety of artifacts, including official
job titles and descriptions, operational objectives, differentiation of organizational
units, standard operating procedures, organizational charts, management informa-
tion systems, performance review systems, and workflow diagrams. Members may
come to understand their organizational roles and identities partly on the basis of
formal structure (McPhee, 1985). Formal structure not only substitutes or specifies
member roles through implied communication processes, it provides the basis for
the articulation and reinforcement of power structures, controlled routinization of
work, and systemic self-control by presenting the organization as a ‘‘differentiated yet
purposeful whole’’ (McPhee & Zaug, 2000, p. 14). First, formal structure may serve
as a substitute for communication (McPhee, 1985) by reducing the need to commu-
nicate about, for example, the nature of a member’s formal responsibilities, reporting
relationships, or place in the organizational hierarchy. Second, formal structure
specifies a member’s relationship to the organization. For example, the job titles that
express a member’s responsibilities, status level, organizational tenure, and power
not only represent an individual’s relationship to the organization but relationships
with others. In the form of formal policies, procedures, and reward systems, formal
structures also symbolize organizational values—that is, which behaviors and char-
acteristics will be encouraged or discouraged (McPhee & Poole, 2001). Finally, MNs
include communication that produces, reproduces, enables, and constrains formal
structure across time and space (Giddens, 1984). Aspects of formal structure that are
inscribed in one time and place are instantiated through MNs in an entirely different
time and place. Yesterday’s newcomer learned about formal structural features at

one time and may later reproduce or transform them as an incumbent who helps to
shape the behavior of tomorrow’s newcomer. Therefore, organizational socialization
that provides detail about organizational structures provides clarification of roles and
serves to situate members into the organizational system.
Proposition 6: Formalized organizational structure serves as a medium for MNs

across time and space.
Socialization from external, indirect sources

In addition to acknowledging the role of formal structure, perspectives on MNs must
account for the influence of external, indirect sources that affect MNs both prior to
entry in the form of anticipatory socialization and following entry as communication
received from family, friends, and other meaningful sources. This facet of MNs is
often discussed in informational terms, such as Jablin’s (1987) claim that individuals
‘‘acquire information from a variety of sources.’’ In contrast, communication during
anticipatory socialization also has been described as constitutive of organizational
meanings. For example, Clair’s (1996) analysis of the colloquialism ‘‘a real job’’
reveals the influence of anticipatory vocational processes in framing the meaning
and value of various occupations according to dominant ideology. Importantly, any
job may be anticipatory in that it frames how members evaluate future work (Bullis,
1993). The permeability of socialization from rules and systems seemingly external to
the boundaries of the organization is significant to MNs because it is through these
processes that members also develop expectations for their organizational experi-
ences. The content and accuracy of preentry expectations have important postentry
consequences as members’ experience ‘‘shock’’ and ‘‘surprise,’’ depending on the
realism of job previews and the extent to which the organization helps newcomers
deal with surprises (Hom, Griffeth, Palich, & Bracker, 1998; Louis, 1980). Similarly,
the perceptions and related evaluations of individuals in members’ social networks
can pressure or encourage attachment to the organization (Morrison, 2002b).
Proposition 7: Newcomers engage in MNs based on values and beliefs developed

and transformed through interaction with individuals in their social networks
and via learned cultural expectations.
Proposition 8: Organizational practices appropriate, create, and transform
societal and member preentry expectations about organization–member
relationships and responsibilities, thus influencing MNs.
Proposition 9: MN experiences may cause members to change socialization of
newcomers based on previous newcomers’ expectations and MN experience.
Organizational identification
Organizational identification involves a sense of oneness with, or belongingness
to, organizations and concerns the ways in which members define and evaluate
themselves in light of the organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Sluss & Ashforth,

2007). As a medium of control, identification also occurs when members choose

alternatives that promote perceived organizational interests (Tompkins & Cheney,
1985). Scott, Corman, and Cheney (1998) propose that identification is shaped
by individuals, their actions, and the social organizational context in which they
participate. Accounts of identification in the context of MNs require that we not
only assume members act on the basis of their identification with the organization,
but also the activities in which members participate in turn shape the nature and
extent of identification as well (Scott, Corman, & Cheney, 1998). Identification is
a medium of MNs because it aids attempts to resolve tensions between individual
needs for identity and collective organizational interests (Barker, 1993; Barker &
Cheney, 1994). Members’ identification partially resolves these tensions, in so far as it
facilitates actions that are individually meaningful and that enable members to cope
with conflicting demands in everyday work (Conrad & Haynes, 2001). Members who
are identified with the organization may, in turn, affect identification and behaviors
of other members by modeling and influencing normative behaviors.
Proposition 10: By providing means for belongingness, control, and connection,

MNs are a medium through which members develop organizational
identification.
Proposition 11: As members experience and communicate organizational
identification, they reproduce and change other members’ meanings concerning
attachment to the organization, and also reinforce their own identification.
Power relations
Organizational members are also transformed by existing power relations throughout
MNs. Mumby (2001) defines organizational power as a processual phenomenon in
which ‘‘fixed’’ and ‘‘sedimented’’ structures of communication and meaning are
produced, reproduced, resisted, or transformed to support the interests of some
members over others. Power manifests itself in politics, everyday communication
practices that articulate the interests of various individuals and groups (Mumby,
2001). Power is a medium for MNs because of the disparities in resources and goals
that exist between people who interact to negotiate the meaning of membership. For
example, newcomers often are in vulnerable positions as they become acquainted
with their organizations. The language of the socialization and assimilation literature
reflects this notion, especially as it addresses how individuals are ‘‘integrated into’’
an organization (Jablin, 2001; Morrison, 1995). The assumption underlying most
definitions of these terms is that individuals are absorbed into the organization
and transformed for organizational purposes in a relatively unproblematic manner
(Smith & Turner, 1995). Several authors have called for more attention to this power
disparity and its associated theoretical assumptions (Bullis, 1993; Clair, 1996; Smith
& Turner, 1995), as newcomers rarely possess power to immediately change an
organization’s functional norms (Clegg, 1989).

As members negotiate their roles and sense of membership, the content of these
activities is shaped by dominant meanings of membership. This is evidenced in studies
that indicate newcomers value and actively seek information about the distribution
of power in the organization (Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994;
Morrison, 1995; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Even less powerful members play an
active role in drawing upon and reproducing the rules and resources through which
power is exercised (Giddens, 1984; Stout, 2002). Incumbents also draw upon and
reproduce or transform these structures as they indoctrinate newcomers through
interaction.
Proposition 12: Structural asymmetries guide members about existing and likely
future organizational relationships.
Proposition 13: Members reproduce structural asymmetries by drawing on rules

and resources as they negotiate membership.
In one sense, organizational members are relatively passive agents in the con-
struction of identity and membership. Many newcomers take a custodial orientation
toward membership (Van Maanen, 1978), particularly when institutionalized social-
ization tactics (Jones, 1986) are used, that persuade newcomers to accept preset roles
in a passive manner. Such an orientation readily fixes meaning and limits the ability
of members to creatively fashion a more individualized, autonomous sense of self
as a member (Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004; Giddens, 1984; Papa, Auwal, & Singhal,
1995). On the other hand, organizational members can be construed as more active,
autonomous agents of identity formation. Members may resist dominant attempts
to dictate the meaning of membership by actively producing and reinforcing senses
of collective identity, that are not purely independent of the structures of domination
but nevertheless resistant (Collinson, 1988, 1992). The meaning of member identities
are formed, altered, or reproduced through ongoing, often contradictory processes
that enable and constrain communicative action (Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004; Ashcraft
& Trethewey, 2004; Deetz & Mumby, 1990; Tracy, 2004). One relevant contradiction
is that members may unwittingly reproduce structures (in this case, preferred iden-
tities) that they do not intend to reproduce (Clegg, 1989). For example, Collinson
(1992) concluded that although British factory workers actively constructed hege-
monic notions of manliness in opposition to managerial masculinity, their efforts to
resist actually served to undermine the value of their collective identity through an
unwitting reproduction of dominant notions of what it meant to work as a man. A
theoretical account of MNs should include this and other unintended consequences
(Giddens, 1984).
Proposition 14: As members negotiate their membership, identities and power

relationships are intentionally and unintentionally produced, reproduced, and
transformed.

Socializing and ongoing interaction

Although we have characterized the phenomena described earlier as action oriented,
it is worth underscoring that they are accomplished and reaccomplished interactively.
Through formal and informal communication, both newcomers and incumbents
draw upon many structural and symbolic resources during the ongoing process of
negotiating the meaning of neophyte and incumbent memberships. This requires
that members reflexively monitor their knowledge of role expectations, norms of
interaction, member identities, formal structure, power relations, and identification,
and they utilize them as resources for action. Efforts to indoctrinate newcomers (Van
Maanen & Schein, 1979) are typically interactional as well, as are the proactive efforts
of newcomers to learn about and individualize their new roles (Ashford & Black,
1996; Miller & Jablin, 1991).
Traditionally, MNs research has focused on socialization—the efforts of leaders
and incumbents to indoctrinate the newcomer. Organizational insiders use formal
and informal social controls to bring about structures that motivate relatively
consistent, organized actions that stabilize and sustain social systems (McPhee, 1985;
Pascale, 1985; Stout, 2002). For example, incumbents draw upon the media of
MNs (e.g., formal structure, expectations, interaction norms) as they more or less
strategically teach newcomers the ropes of organizational life and serve as examples
for newcomers in going about their own routines. Formal training, most visibly,
relies on and reproduces the media of MNs by attempting to make newcomers aware
of what is expected of them. Rites of transition and incorporation, as cultural rituals
that mediate the unfreezing, shifting, and refreezing (Lewin, 1951) of member roles
and identities, also draw upon these media (Ashforth, 2001). That is, incumbents’
actions provide clues concerning the rules and resources (social structures) on which
newcomers must act; but newcomers, as knowledgeable actors, also play a role
in reproducing or transforming the culture into which they are being socialized.
Thus, when incumbents ‘‘provide information’’ they usually highlight and reproduce
structure both for themselves and the newcomer. When newcomers proactively seek
information, they also are searching for rules and resources that they will likely
reproduce.
Interaction also can include socialization tactics that vary in their degree of
individualism (Jones, 1986; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). More individualistic
modes of socialization are less likely to result in identity transformation, and
collective modes of socialization will do more to transform the newcomer’s identity
(Ashforth, 2001). These facilitate an individual’s transition from one role to another,
and they present varied opportunities for the reproduction and transformation
of structure. Individualized socialization tactics are less reproductive of structure
because they feature a relative absence of structure, allowing newcomers to question
norms and develop individualized approaches to their roles (Ashforth & Saks, 1996).
These approaches also are less reproductive of structure for incumbents because
they involve less role sending (dictating how a role will be performed). Alternatively,
institutionalized socialization tactics are more reproductive of rules and resources

because ‘‘the structuring of early experiences and their interpretation tends to

encourage newcomers to passively accept preset roles and thus maintain the status
quo’’ (Ashforth, 2001, p. 164; Jones, 1986).
Interaction also includes the proactive efforts of the newcomer to negotiate
membership (Ashford & Black, 1996). Researchers have explored the information
seeking of newcomers (Kramer, 1993a, 1993b; Kramer, Callister, & Turban, 1995;
Miller & Jablin, 1991; Miller, 1996; Teboul, 1995). Morrison (1993) found that
newcomer information seeking was positively related to task mastery, role clar-
ity, job satisfaction, social integration, and job performance and negatively related
to intentions to quit. In these interactions, members seek information through a
variety of tactics (see Miller & Jablin, 1991 for a review) that vary from overt to
covert. Teboul (1995) reported that the perceived social costs of seeking information
mediate the choice of overt versus covert information-seeking tactics, such that low
perceived social costs were associated with overt tactics (e.g., direct questioning) and
high perceived social costs were associated with covert tactics (e.g., observation).
Members may reflexively monitor social costs by drawing upon the media of MN.
Norms of interaction, role expectations, and power relations may frame and sanction
newcomers’ decisions about how they seek information in an effort to individualize
their roles.
Proposition 15: Newcomers are transformed from outsiders to insiders in and
through interaction with incumbents with media such as socialization tactics,
information seeking, and role negotiation.
The seven media of MNs described earlier are by no means exhaustive, but they do
show how common organizational structures and communicative processes facilitate
MNs through enabling and constraining communication and behaviors. They cause
members to grasp their freedoms (‘‘I can do this’’), other’s expectations (‘‘I should
do this’’), and boundaries of their membership (‘‘I can’t do that’’). Next, we present
the effects of the media of MNs.
Outcomes
If structure is a medium and outcome of action (Giddens, 1984), the media of MN
appropriated in interaction do not merely function as rules and resources for inter-
action. They are also outcomes of such interaction in the sense that their utilization
in interactions of MNs may reproduce or transform them. Role expectations, norms
of interaction, formal structure, member identities, organizational identification,
and power relations are both media and outcomes of interaction. Newcomers and
incumbents interact on the basis of perceptions about role expectations and norms
of interaction, yet this interaction (e.g., information seeking) may transform these
structures upon reliable members (Louis, 1980; Miller & Jablin, 1991).
Proposition 16: As members negotiate their membership, formal and informal
rules and structures are produced, reproduced, and transformed, thus affecting
the meanings of membership.

Proposition 17: Role expectations are transformed by newcomer

individualization and enactment, which influence future role expectations.
Proposition 18: Newcomers transform group and organizational norms through
their non- or modified use.
Conclusion
Traditional approaches to organizational socialization and assimilation research have
greatly contributed to understanding microprocesses of organizational integration.
We suggest that those perspectives, by focusing on either socializing agents’ or
members’ efforts, have bifurcated what is a more dynamic and interactive process
involving interpersonal, group, organizational, and societal communication. The
propositions and associated model (see Figure 1) in this article offer a broader
perspective to theorize MNs. This structurational framework lends itself to recon-
ceptualizing the interactional process through the duality of structure and media of
MNs. Our goal is to provide a more encompassing understanding of the organiza-
tional membership experience and how, through interaction, members produce and
reproduce the organization and their relationships to it. By considering how com-
municative processes reciprocally affect members, workgroups, and organizations,
we can better recognize the complexities of this foundational organizational process
of socialization/assimilation, which we have reframed as MNs.
The duality of structure provides a means of theorizing MNs in a manner that
avoids the dangers inherent in most current views of socialization and assimilation
processes. We are not encouraging researchers to provide more specific models of
the broad process as a whole. Rather, we hope the perspective articulated here offers
others in the area grounds for extending or revising past claims and specifying models
of specific MN processes that balance individual action and organizational constraint
(e.g., metamorphosis, job transfers, role/organizational exit). Our approach also takes
into account antecedent and indirect factors influencing MNs, and it extends recent
research on the communicative constitution of organizations (McPhee & Zaug, 2000;
Taylor & Van Every, 2000) by describing how formal and informal organizational
structures are produced, reproduced, and transformed in MNs. Ultimately, we hope
the integrative approach we propose will foster productive growth and expansion of
MNs research.
References
Allen, B. (1995). ‘‘Diversity’’ and organizational communication. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 23, 143–155.
Allen, B. (1996). Feminist standpoint theory: A black woman’s (re)view of organizational
socialization. Communication Studies, 47(4), 257–272.
Armfield, G. G., & Dougherty, D. S. (2005, November). Measuring vocational anticipatory
socialization: The vocational anticipatory socialization index. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of National Communication Association, Boston, MA.

Ashcraft, K. L., & Mumby, D. K. (2004). Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of

organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ashcraft, K. L., & Trethewey, A. (2004). Developing tension: An agenda for applied research
in the organization of irrationality. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32,
171–181.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire
for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199–214.
Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity perspective. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer
adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149–178.
Barge, J. K., & Schlueter, D. W. (2004). Memorable messages and newcomer socialization.
Western Journal of Communication, 68, 233–256.
Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 408–437.
Barker, J. R., & Cheney, G. (1994). The concept of discipline in contemporary organizational
life. Communication Monographs, 61, 19–43.
Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in
work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533–546.
Bullis, C. (1993). Organizational socialization research: Enabling, constraining, and shifting
perspectives. Communication Monographs, 60, 10–17.
Bullis, C., & Stout, K. R. (2000). Rethinking organizational socialization from a feminist
standpoint approach. In P. Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking organizational and managerial
communication from feminist perspectives (pp. 47–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burton, M. D., & Beckman, C. M. (2007). Leaving a legacy: Position imprints and successor
turnover in young firms. American Sociological Review, 72, 239–266.
Butler Ellis, J., & Smith, S. (2004). Memorable messages as guides to self-assessment of
behavior: A replication and extension diary study. Communication Monographs, 71,
97–119.
Chao, G., O’Leary-Kelly, A., Wolf, S., Klein, H., & Gardner, P. (1994). Organizational
socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730–743.
Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Zorn, T. E., & Ganesh, S. (2004). Organizational
communication in an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practices. Long Grove, IL:
Waveland.
Choo, C. W. (1998). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to create
meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Clair, R. P. (1996). The political nature of the colloquialism, a real job: Implications for
organizational socialization. Communication Monographs, 63, 249–267.
Clair, R. P. (1999). Ways of seeing: A review of a manuscript. Communication Monographs,
66, 374–381.
Clegg, S. (1989). Frameworks of power. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Collinson, D. L (1988). Engineering humour: Masculinity, joking, and conflict in shop floor
relations. Organization Studies, 1(3), 58–76.
Collinson, D. (1992). Managing the shopfloor: Subjectivity, masculinity and workplace culture.
New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Collinson, D. L. (1999). ‘‘Surviving the rigs’’: Safety and surveillance on North Sea oil
installations. Organization Studies, 20, 579–600.
Collinson, D. L. (2003). Identities and insecurities: Selves at work. Organization, 10, 527–547.
Conrad, C., & Haynes, M. (2001). Development of key constructs. In F. Jablin & L. Putnam
(Eds.), New handbook of organizational communication (pp. 47–77). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in
communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Deetz, S. A. (1995). Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive
and responsible workplaces. Cresskill: Hampton.
Deetz, S. (1998). Discursive formations, strategized subordination, and self-surveillance: An
empirical case. In A. Mckinlay & K. Starkey (Eds.), Foucault, management and
organizational theory. (pp. 151–172). London: Sage.
Deetz, S. A., & Mumby, D. K. (1990). Power, discourse, and the workplace: Reclaiming the
critical tradition. Communication Yearbook, 13, 18–47. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Donabedian, B., McKinnon, S. M., & Bruns, W. J. Jr. (1998). Task characteristics, managerial
socialization, and media selection. Management Communication Quarterly, 11(3),
372–400.
Eisenberg, E., Goodall, H. L., & Trethewey, A. C. (2007). Organizational communication:
Balancing creativity and constraint. New York: St. Martins.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions.
Communication Theory, 14, 5–26.
Falcione, R., & Wilson, C. (1988). Socialization processes in organizations. In G. Goldhaber
& G. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 151–169).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21, 433–452.
Forward, G. L. (1999). Encountering the nonprofit organization: Clergy uncertainty and
information-seeking during organizational entry. Journal of Communication and Religion,
22, 190–213.
Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Steinfield, C. W. (1990). A social influence model of technology use. In
J. Fulk & C. W. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology
(pp. 117–140). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fulk, J., Steinfield, C. W., Schmitz, J., & Power, J. G. (1987). A social information processing
model of media use in organizations. Communication Research, 14, 529–552.
Gibson, M., & Papa, M. (2000). The mud, the blood, and the beer guys: Organizational
osmosis in blue-collar work groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(1),
68–88.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in
social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hawes, L. (1974). Social collectives as communication: Perspectives on organizational
behavior. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60, 497–502.

Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., Palich, L. E., & Bracker, J. S. (1998). An exploratory
investigation into theoretical mechanisms underlying realistic job previews. Personnel
Psychology, 51, 421–451.
Jablin, F. (1982). Organizational communication: An assimilation approach. In M. Roloff &
C. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 255–286). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Jablin, F. M. (1984). Assimilating new members into organizations. Communication
Yearbook (Vol. 8, pp. 594–626). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jablin, F. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam,
K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 679–740).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jablin, F. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In F. Jablin & L. Putnam
(Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 732–818). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jablin, F. M., & Kramer, M. W. (1998). Communication-related sense-making and
adjustment during job transfers. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 155–182.
Jablin, F. M., & Krone, K. (1987) Organizational assimilation. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chafee
(Eds.), Handbook of communication science. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jones, G. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kirby, E., & Krone, K. (2002). ‘‘The policy exists but you can’t really use it’’: Communication
and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 30(1), 50–77.
Kramer, M. W. (1993a). Communication and uncertainty reduction during job transfers:
Leaving and joining processes. Communication Monographs, 60, 178–198.
Kramer, M. W. (1993b). Communication after job transfers: Social exchange processes in
learning new roles. Human Communication Research, 20, 147–174.
Kramer, M. W., Callister, R. R., & Turban, D. B. (1995). Information-receiving and
information-giving during job transitions. Western Journal of Communication, 59,
151–170.
Kramer, M. W., & Miller, V. (1999). A response to criticisms of organizational socialization
research: In support of contemporary conceptualizations of organizational assimilation.
Communication Monographs, 66, 358–367.
Kramer, M. W., & Noland, T. L. (1996, November). Assimilation as structuration: An
examination of communication during the promotion process. Paper presented at the
annual convention of the National Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
Kramer, M., & Noland, T. L. (1999). Communication during job promotions: A case of
ongoing assimilation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 335–355.
Levine, J. M., Moreland, R. L., & Choi, H. S. (2001). Group socialization and newcomer
innovation. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology:
Group processes (pp. 86–106). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lewin, K. (1951). Frontiers in group dynamics. In D. Cartwright (Ed.)., Field theory in social
science: Selected theoretical papers. (pp. 188–237). New York: Harper & Brothers.
Louis, M. (1980). Surprise and sense-making: What newcomers experience when entering
unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 225–251.

Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,
103–123.
McPhee, R. D. (1985). Formal structure and organizational communication. In R. McPhee &
P. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new
directions (pp. 149–177). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McPhee, D. R., & Poole, M. S. (2001). Organizational structures and configurations. In
F. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), New handbook of organizational communication
(pp. 503–541). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2000). The communicative constitution of organizations: A
framework for explanation. Electronic Journal of Communication(La Revue Electronique de
Communication), 10(1–2). http://www.cios.org/getfile/MCPHEE V10N1200
Meyer, J. (1997). Humor in member narratives: Uniting and dividing at work. Western
Journal of Communication, 61, 188–209.
Miller, V. (1996). An experimental study of newcomers’ information seeking behaviors
during organizational entry. Communication Studies, 47, 1–19.
Miller, V., & Jablin, F. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences,
tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92–120.
Morand, D. (1996). What’s in a name? An exploration of the social dynamics of forms of
address in organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 422–451.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Group socialization: Temporal changes in
individual-group relations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 137–192). New York: Academic Press.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2001). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In
M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theories and research (pp. 69–112). Mahwah, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of
emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21, 986–1010.
Morrison, E. (1993). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer
socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 173–183.
Morrison, E. (1995). Information usefulness and acquisition during organizational
encounter. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 131–155.
Morrison, E. (2002a). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during
socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1149–1160.
Morrison, E. W. (2002b). Information seeking within organizations. Human Communication
Research, 28, 229–242.
Morrison, E., & Robinson, S. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how
psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226–256.
Mumby, D. K. (2001). Power and politics. In F. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), New handbook of
organizational communication (pp. 585–623). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murphy, A. G. (1998). Hidden transcripts of flight attendant resistance. Management
Communication Quarterly, 11, 499–535.
Myers, K. K. (2005). A burning desire: Assimilation into a fire department. Management
Communication Quarterly, 18, 344–384.
Myers, K. K. (2006). Assimilation and mutual acceptance. In J. Greenhaus & G. Callanan
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of career development (pp. 31–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Myers, K. K., & McPhee, R. D. (2006). Influences on member assimilation in workgroups in

high reliability organizations: A multilevel analysis. Human Communication Research, 32,
440–468.
Myers, K. K., & Oetzel, J. G. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of organizational assimilation:
Creating and validating a measure. Communication Quarterly, 51, 438–457.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The
role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849–874.
Papa, M. J., Auwal, M. A., & Singhal, A. (1997). Organizing for social change within
concertive control systems: Member identification, empowerment, and the masking of
discipline. Communication Monographs, 64, 219–249.
Paradise, L. V., & Wall, S. M. (1986). Children’s perceptions of male and female principals
and teachers. Sex Roles, 14, 1–7.
Pascale, R. T. (1985). The paradox of ‘‘corporate culture.’’ California Management Review,
27(2), 26–41.
Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group decision-making as a
structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74–102.
Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., III, & Hackman, J. R. (1975). Behavior in organizations. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Pratt, M. G., & Rafaeli, A. (1997). Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered social
identities. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 862–898.
Scott, C. R., Corman, S. R., & Cheney, G. (1998). Development of a situated-action theory of
identification in the organization. Communication Theory, 8, 298–336.
Scott, C. W., & Myers, K. K. (2005). The socialization of emotion: Learning emotion
management at the fire station. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 67–92.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining
ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 9–32.
Smith, R. C., & Turner, P. K. (1995). A social constructionist reconfiguration of metaphor
analysis: An application of ‘‘SCMA’’ to organizational socialization theorizing.
Communication Monographs, 62, 152–181.
Spade, J. (2001). Gender and education in the United States. In D. Vannoy (Ed.), Gender
mosaics (pp. 85–93). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Stohl, C. (1986). The role of memorable messages in the process of organizational
socialization. Communication Quarterly, 34, 231–249.
Stohl, C. (1995). Organizational communication: Connectedness in action. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Stout, K. R. (2002, November). The impact of rules and resources on the organizational
socialization process: Structures that enable and constrain communication and action. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Taylor, J., & Van Every, E. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and
surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
Teboul, J. C. B. (1994). Facing and coping with uncertainty during organizational encounter.
Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 190–225.
Teboul, J. C. B. (1995). Determinants of information-seeking during organizational
encounter. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 305–325.
Tompkins, P. K., & Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in
contemporary organizations. In R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational

communication: Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 179–210). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Tracy, S. J. (2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind?: Analyzing and theorizing
employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 32, 119–146.
Tracy, S., Myers, K. K., & Scott, C. (2006). Cracking jokes and crafting selves: A multi-site
analysis of humor, sensemaking, and identity management among human service
workers. Communication Monographs, 73, 283–308.
Turner, P. (1999). What if you don’t?: A response to Kramer and Miller. Communication
Monographs, 66, 382–390.
Van Maanen, J. (1978). People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization.
Organizational Dynamics, 7, 19–36.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209–264.
Waldeck, J., Seibold, D. R., & Flanagin, A. (2004). Organizational assimilation and
communication technology use. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 161–183.
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Witmer, D. F. (1997). Communication and recovery: Structuration as an ontological
approach to organizational culture. Communication Monographs, 64, 324–349.

组织会籍确定的综合理论视角：社会化，同化，以及结构的二元性
【摘要：】
本文认为，结构理论的一个组成部分——结构二元性——在解释随着时间推
移, 组织会籍的确定有重要的启发意义。它指明这一过程中传播的作用。本文所
详细阐述的入盟谈判（MNs）视角阐明了谈判进程的结构特点，同时说明了新成
员的积极参与和在职人员如何保持和改变这一结构特点的。我们提供了入盟谈判
模型和 18 个命题，用以阐释角色期待、团体和组织规范、形式结构、外部和间
接社会化来源、身份认同、权力关系，以及成员之间的相互作用怎样成为组织会
籍谈判进程中的媒介。通过这些媒介，在职人员和新成员相互依赖，支撑，有时
改变焦点结构，实践以及成员的含义。
Vers une perspective théorique globale de la négociation de l’affiliation organisationnelle :
la socialisation, l’assimilation et la dualité de la structure
Résumé
Dans cet article, nous soumettons qu’un élément de la théorie de la structuration, la dualité de la
structure, est un outil heuristique précieux pour un cadre global cherchant à expliquer le rôle de
la communication dans la manière dont l’affiliation est négociée au fil du temps. La perspective
de la négociation de l’affiliation décrite ici prend en compte les aspects structurels des processus
de négociation, tout en expliquant comment la participation active de nouveaux venus et de
membres déjà en place alimente et modifie ces processus. Nous soumettons un modèle de
négociation de l’affiliation et 18 propositions concernant la manière dont les attentes quant aux
rôles, les normes organisationnelles ou de groupe, la structure formelle, les sources directes et
indirectes de socialisation, l’identification, les relations de pouvoir et les interactions entre les
membres agissent toutes comme des médiums de négociation de l’affiliation organisationnelle.
Par le biais de ces médiums, les membres en place et les nouveaux venus s’appuient sur les
structures focales, les pratiques et les significations de l’affiliation, en plus de les alimenter et de
les modifier à l’occasion.
Mots clés : négociation de l’affiliation, assimilation organisationnelle, socialisation
organisationnelle, dualité de la structure, théorie de la structuration

Schritte zu einer integrativen theoretischen Perspektive auf organisationale
Mitgliedschaftsverhandlungen: Sozialisation, Assimilation und die Dualität der Struktur
In diesem Artikel argumentieren wir, dass eine Komponente der Strukturationstheorie –

die Dualität von Struktur – eine wertvolle Heuristik für ein integratives Rahmenkonzept
ist, welches die Rolle von Kommunikation bei der Frage, wie Mitgliedschaft über die Zeit
verhandelt wird, zu erklären versucht. Die Perspektive der Mitgliedschaftsverhandlung,
die hier aufgearbeitet wird, betrachtet strukturelle Merkmale von Verhandlungsprozessen
und schließt dabei ein, wie sich die aktive Partizipation von Neulingen und Amtsinhabern
gegenseitig erhält und verändert. Wir bieten ein Modell von Mitgliedschaftsverhandlungen
und 18 Propositionen dazu, wie Rollenerwartungen, Gruppen-/Organisationsnormen,
formale Struktur, externale und indirekte Quellen der Sozialisation, Identifikation,
Machtbeziehungen und Mitgliederinteraktion Medien für kontinuierliche organisationale
Mitgliedschaftsverhandlungen sind. Durch diese Medien hängen Amtsinhaber und
Neulinge interaktiv voneinander ab, erhalten und verändern manchmal Strukturen,
Praktiken und Bedeutungen von Mitgliedschaft.
Keywords: Mitgliedschaftsverhandlungen, organisationale Assimilation, organisationale

Sozialisation, Dualität der Struktur, Strukturationstheorie
조직적 구성원 협상들을 위한 통합적 이론적 전망을 향하여:
사회화, 유사화, 그리고 구조적 이중성
요약
본 연구에서, 우리는 구조화 이론의 구성요소 (구조의 이중성)란 어떻게 구성원들이
여러번에 걸쳐 협상하는지에 있어 커뮤니케이션의 역할을 설명할 수 있는 통합적
프레임을 위한 가치있는 발견이라고 주장하고 있다. 구성원 협상 전망은 협상과정들의
구조적 특징들을 고려하며, 어떻게 새로운 조직원들과 현존하는 구성원들간의 활동적인
참여가 유지되고 변화되는가을 설명하고 있다. 우리는 어떻게 역할 기대성, 집단/조직적
규범들, 공식적 구조, 사회화의 외적 그리고 간접적 자료들, 동일화, 파워 관계들, 그리고
구성원 상호작용이 계속되는 구조적 구성원 협상들을 위한 매개역할을 하는지에 대한
구성원 협상의 모델과 18 가지 제안들을 제의하고 있다. 이러한 미디어를 통해, 현존자와
신규자들은 상호적으로 의존하며, 그 관계를 유지하며, 때로는 주요한 구조들, 실행들,
그리고 멤버쉽의 의미들을 바꾸게 된다. .

Hacia una Perspectiva Teórica Integradora de las Negociaciones de Membresía Organizacional:
La Socialización, la Asimilación, y la Dualidad de la Estructura
Resumen
En este artículo sostenemos que un componente de la teoría de estructuración—la dualidad de la
estructura –es un heurístico valioso para un marco integrador que busca explicar el rol de la
comunicación en cómo la membresía es negociada a través del tiempo. La perspectiva de la
Negociación de la Membresía (MNs) detallada aquí considera las características estructurales de
los procesos de negociación, mientras da cuenta de cómo la participación activa de los nuevos
socios y los de cargo, los sostienen y alteran. Ofrecemos un modelo de las Negociaciones de la
Membresía (MN) y 18 proposiciones acerca de cómo las expectativas del rol, las normas de
grupo/organización, la estructura formal, las fuentes de socialización externas e indirectas, la
identificación de relaciones de poder, y la interacción de los miembros son el medio para las
Negociaciones de Membresía organizacional permanentes. A través de estos medios, los
miembros de cargo y los nuevos socios dependen en forma interactiva, sostienen, y
ocasionalmente alteran las estructuras focales, prácticas, y los significados de la membresía.
PALABRAS CLAVES: negociaciones de membresía, asimilación organizacional, socialización
organizacional, dualidad de estructura, teoría de estructuración.

Scott2010 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Scott2010 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293

Toward an Integrative Theoretical

In this article we argue that a component of structuration theory—the duality of struc-

Corresponding author: Clifton Scott; e-mail: cliff.scott@uncc.edu; cscott1975@yahoo.com

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 79

and assimilation often acknowledge a mutually implicative relationship between

Balancing structure and action in MNs research

80 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association

Structuration theory and MNs

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 81

concur that the capacity to rationalize is an important aspect of being human.

82 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 83

Overemphasis on structure in socialization and assimilation research

Stages and phases

84 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association

Critical approaches to agency

Overemphasis on action in socialization and assimilation research

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 85

Individuals, workgroups, organizations, and society: Recursive interplay

86 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association

Implications for MN research

Toward a new theory of MNs

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 87

Figure 1 Media of membership negotiations.

88 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 89

opportunity for personal expression and achievement—resources that may benefit

90 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 91

Proposition 1: Organizationally shared role expectations create a standard by

Group and organizational norms

92 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association

surprise may become transparent, causing them to lose discursive consciousness of

Proposition 3: Incumbent members introduce newcomers to group and

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 93

Proposition 6: Formalized organizational structure serves as a medium for MNs

Socialization from external, indirect sources

Proposition 7: Newcomers engage in MNs based on values and beliefs developed

94 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association

2007). As a medium of control, identification also occurs when members choose

Proposition 10: By providing means for belongingness, control, and connection,

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 95

Proposition 13: Members reproduce structural asymmetries by drawing on rules

Proposition 14: As members negotiate their membership, identities and power

96 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association

Socializing and ongoing interaction

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 97

because ‘‘the structuring of early experiences and their interpretation tends to

98 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association

Proposition 17: Role expectations are transformed by newcomer

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 99

Ashcraft, K. L., & Mumby, D. K. (2004). Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of

100 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 101

102 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 103

Myers, K. K., & McPhee, R. D. (2006). Influences on member assimilation in workgroups in

104 Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association

Communication Theory 20 (2010) 79–105 © 2010 International Communication Association 105

la socialisation, l’assimilation et la dualité de la structure

de négociation, tout en expliquant comment la participation active de nouveaux venus et de

membres agissent toutes comme des médiums de négociation de l’affiliation organisationnelle.