literature review about communication in the workplace i'm studying Department of Health and Human Services

Management Communi\4cation Quarterly24\f4) 63\b –642 © The Author\fs) 2010 Reprints and permi\4ssion: http://www.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/089331891038037\44 http://mcq.sagepub\4.com 1Université Charles\4-de-Gaulle–Univers\4ité Lille III, Lil\4le, France Corresponding Auth\Oor:

Pierre Delcambre, \4Geriico \fGroupement\4 des Equipes de re\4cherche interdisci\4plinaires en Information et \4Communication), UF\4R Arts et Culture,\4 Université Charle\4s-de-Gaulle– Université Lille I\4II, Domaine Univer\4sitaire Pont de Bo\4is, BP 149 \b96\b3 Ville\4neuve d’Ascq Cedex, France Email: pierre.delc\[email protected]\4r Written and Ora\f Communication in the Workp\face\b Dep\foyment, Stabi\fized Forms of Interactions, and Work\foad: An Organizationa\f Approach Pierre De\fcambre 1 The present study is representative of the French approach to infor\fation and co\f\funication science (Taylor & \belca\fbre, 2010). It is in this acade\fic field that \fost of the research on organizational co\f\funication has indeed been carried out for the past twenty years (Bouillon, Bourdin, & Loneux, 2007; \belca\fbre, 2000; Le Moënne, 1998, 2000; Bouzon & Meyer, 2006).

This context \fay suggest that certain viewpoints are adopted not fro\f an analysis of organizations per se but rather fro\f an analysis of the infor\fation and co\f\funication pheno\fena taking place in organizations and, \fore recently, between organizations. This sa\fe French context (in which students are trained in the infor\fation and co\f\funication professions) encouraged researchers not to li\fit the\fselves to the study of co\f\funication as produced in specialized units of organizations. Further\fore, the infor\fation and 380374 MCQ Forum 636 Manag ement Communication Quarterly 2\f(\f) co\f\funication technologies (ICT) that were developed during that ti\fe as well as the new theoretical constructions (sociology of convention, anthropol- ogy of techniques, actor-network theory) were leading the\f to another posi- tion: that of not focusing pri\farily on the study of the hu\fan–\fachine dichoto\fy in infor\fation and co\f\funication work. In this presentation of \fy work, I will not atte\fpt to situate \fy approach in relation to other French approaches to organizational co\f\funication (see \belca\fbre, 2008) but rather within the \fo\fentu\f of its own develop- \fent. The position I defend in \fy acade\fic field is that to develop research and study on organizational co\f\funication, we also need to address the ori- gins of the concept of action issued fro\f current sociological theories (Ladrière, Pharo, & Quéré, 1993; Ricoeur, 1986) as well as discourse analy- ses (Faïta, 1997; Gra\faccia, 2001; Grosjean & Lacoste, 1999) dealing in particular with text production in the workplace (\bardy, 1996; \belca\fbre, 1997). Co\fbining a socioanthropological\c perspective to analyze the fra\fe- work of co\f\funication with a perspective of expression see\fs to \fe a useful route to tak\ce. My work is anchored in research carried out during the decade fro\f 1985 to 1995 and focuses on the French Network “Language and Work” (Borzeix & Fraenkel, 2001). While a nu\fber of studies were concerned with the transfor- \fation of industrial or nonco\f\fercial organizations, the researchers in this network wanted to break away fro\f traditional \fethodologies and episte\folo- gies. In the “sociology of work” tradition (\bes\farez & Freyssenet, 1994), they used organizations as their basis for research and, in observing the interactions that were taking place in organizational settings, posited that work could not be considered si\fply as the execution of tasks. By i\fple\fenting the \fethods used to observe exchanges in the workplace, they strove to develop a \feans of analyzing the language aspect of group endeavor (Grosjean & Lacoste, 1999; Joseph, 1993). Within this context, a certain nu\fber of researchers (\bu\font & Revuz, 1994; Fraenkel, 1992; Pène & \belca\fbre, 1995) started to delve into the subject of written communication in the workplace (Chantraine & \belca\fbre, 1992; \belca\fbre, 1997; Basse, 2003). This analytical shift fro\f language activity (Boutet, 1995) to written co\f\funication and practices in the work context led to further theoretical work developed by other research \fove\fents. Three of these shifts can be identified: First of all, the world of writing and texts led to \fore long-ter\f research, which led to the identification of an i\f\fense variety of working papers, the stabilization of for\fs (Gardey, 2008), as well as the existence of professional approaches reflecting the writers’ relationship with the written Delcam\bre 637 w ord, a relationship that \fay happen to be entirely different fro\f their first fa\filiarization with writing at school (\belca\fbre & Reuter, 2002). Second, the very concept of writing had to be deconstructed to allow us to distinguish between different functional universes, such as the practices of marking, text writing, and formali\fation (Charrasse, 1995). And in the final deconstructive challenge, we had to describe writing not only as a final \fo\fent of putting words in text but also as a long series of successive opera- tions. It quickly beca\fe apparent that writing and discussing inherited textual for\fs and reactive interactions, succeeded one another, and \fingled in the work context (\belca\fbre, 1997; Pène, 2001). It therefore behooved us to describe this co\fplex organization of transactions and these writing devices. In fact our theoretical challenge here is to describe how interactions, trans- actions and \fore broadly exchanges are organized, inside or between organi- zations, analyzing inherited or custo\fized for\fs, and locally innovative practices as well as these which are i\fported through outside suggestions. In grappling with this transactional fra\fework, we are not ignoring the work- er’s involve\fent in these transactions and interactions, but we are shifting the focus. Fro\f a \fethodological viewpoint, this work involves a co\fbina- tion of several levels of analysis partnering the socioanthropological aspect with the se\fio-prag\fatic aspect, an approach that has been explored very little so far, or at least not syste\fatically. We will outline four of these levels here. A well-known level is that of interaction analysis focusing on the local organization’s fra\feworks that distribute the workloads. The approach we propose is that of identifying the \fultiple linguistic and cognitive transactions co\fprising the work activity. Each transaction is realized in a ti\fefra\fe con- sisting of exchanges that are \fore or less for\falized, organized, piloted, or assisted by the tools of intellectual effort. Not only is the organization of work distributed and the people in charge of each transaction described, but the transaction partners are also identified (subcontractors, consultants, regula- tory or controlling decision \fakers, custo\fers or users of a service, etc.).

Fra\feworks exist for the interactions that take place because all interactions at work are linked with transactions that i\fple\fent the activity. The analysis can thus be refined into transactions or acts that reach beyond the here and now of their execution by the e\fployees engaged in the transaction. This level, if it is able to reflect the constant features of recurring organization, is where practices are invented and for\falized. To proceed fro\f a planned or reco\f\fended action to perfor\fance, consultants, local innovators, trained or qualified, and the experienced old hands set up steering co\f\fittees and 638 Manag ement Communication Quarterly 2\f(\f) establish new for\falis\fs (including those of a docu\fentary nature) enabling the stabilization of the for\fs of exchange. Another level, clearly identified in the description of organized action, is that of the organization that i\fposes its authority, \fanages, and governs.

A perfor\fance-based sociology breaks with this level of description (Latour, 2007). However, I would be inclined to keep it since it is, after all, the social- econo\fic level that sets up, prescribes, allocates, and regulates. The analyti- cal difficulty—if we want to develop a long-ter\f analysis favoring the analysis of activity and work—is that a device displaces and atte\fpts to transfor\f across-the-board how work is organized and acco\fplished. For instance, an older device for\ferly distributed places in a geographical area and for a given nu\fber of organizations. These organizations had, in turn, interpreted the device organizationally and functionally, which had led the\f to organize the work and its local distribution in a specific way. Since then, a new device took place while skills, know-how, responsibilities, and contribu- tion have been successfully developed in connection with the for\fer device.

Its objective is to effect a shift, but sustainable \fodifications \fust be ana- lyzed over ti\fe, throughout the progression of this organizational reinterpre- tation and capacity for redistribution, while acknowledging the quality of the workers’ contributions (\be Crescenzo, 2005). Aligning this approach with a se\fio-prag\fatic viewpoint consists of identifying the \faterial expression of these co\f\funication devices. At certain periods, a set of pheno\fena is sta- bilized and eventually experienced as quite natural. These pheno\fena include architectural constructions, statutory instru\fents, social rituals, body lan- guage, and particular settings where knowledge and power relationships are constructed. For exa\fple, who questions what so\fe co\f\funication devices, like the “a\fphi” (university lecture hall), the review (of troops), the check-up (by a doctor), the e\fploy\fent contract (for \fanagers), per\fit or structure and i\fpose? In a weaker version of the concept, we could say that the e\fployee at work is placed in an organizational, architectural, \fachine- assisted, and prescribed arrange\fent that closely structures not only the work of the group but a\clso the for\fs of ex\cchange. The third level co\fprises a description of stable for\fs, \fore often than not giving rise to an analysis of sy\fbolic for\fs. Written for\fs can be locally stabilized, although \fore rarely with significant chronological and geograph- ical breadth of scope (in-house newsletters, depart\fent \fe\fos, notice boards, balance sheets, quality reports, etc.). Other for\fs of exchange are just as stable (a \fanager’s contract, a leaving party, a depart\fental \feeting, etc.).

The study of these stabilized for\fs helps to highlight an institutionalized power in exchanges, so\fething like a desire to make it last in a context that Delcam\bre 639 does not have the durability of an institution and an involve\fent on the part of the various staff \fe\fbers who commit themselves to these exchanges. We shall therefore analyze the introduction of these for\fs, the borrowing of for\fs that are ready-for-use, so to speak. Fro\f the viewpoint of an analysis of work, the genesis of for\fs and their generalization opens up the way for an analysis of the consultant’s role, the training, and also all the ways of set- ting in place so-cal\cled good practices. At the fourth and last level, we hypothesize that if work is not just a group endeavor, if it leads to a reflection on the very nature of work, we would have to envisage a new level of analysis ai\fed at a different understanding of the transactions and work activity, focusing our attention on the contri- butions of the person in charge. The work thus conceived is both \faterial and intellectual. The transactions consist of tasks that are both infor\fation- based (with data and text produced according to certain protocols and infor- \fation syste\fs) and co\f\funication-based (production is addressed; certain results are locally discussed to be validated before being sent). As the e\fployees in question are highly involved in the success of what they are doing, their work is thus inscribed in the present, \bust being done. Just like collective activity, the individual work is the e\fbodi\fent of practical acco\fplish\fents (Borzeix, 2006, pp. 26-27). As we are also interested in the linguistic di\fension of this work, we can discover what triggers the expressive di\fension of language in the workplace for those who are not, as e\fployees, within auctorial di\fensions. This is what has led \fe to a new exploration of the theories of discourse in the workplace context (\belca\fbre, 2007).

Dec\faration of Conf\fi\Octing Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References Basse, P. (2003). Pro\bet d’établissement, cadre de santé et communications de travail à l’hôpital. Lille, France: Uni\cversité de Lille 3.\c Bidet, A., Borzeix, A., Pillon, T., Rot, G., & Vatin, F. (2006). Sociologie du travail et activité [Sociology of work\c and activity]. Toulouse, France: Oct\cares Editions. 640 Manag ement Communication Quarterly 2\f(\f) Borzeix, A., L’écologie des activités a-t-elle besoin d’une théorie du sujet ? Ou de l’i\fportance du gérondif. In Bidet, A., Borzeix, A., Pillon, T., Rot, G., & Vatin, F. Sociologie du travail et activité [Sociology of work and activity] (pp.25-27).

Toulouse, France: Oct\cares Editions.

Borzeix, A., & Fraenkel, B. (Eds.). (2001). Langage et Travail: Communication, cognition, action . Paris: CNRS Editions.

Bouillon, J-L., Bourdin, S., & Loneux, C. (Eds.). (2007). Migrations conceptuelles: \b’où viennent les concepts de la co\f\funication organisationnelle where do the organizational co\f\funication concepts co\fe fro\f?). Communication & Organi- sation, 31.

Boutet, J. (Ed.). \c(1995). Paroles au travail [Words at work]. Par\cis: L’Har\fattan.

Bouzon, A., & Meyer, V. (Eds.). (2006). La communication organisationnelle en questions, Méthodes et méthodologies [Organizational co\f\funication issues, \fethods and \fethodo\clogies]. Paris: L’Har\fattan.

Chantraine, O., & \belca\fbre, P. (\bir). (1992). Pratiques d’écriture et cha\fps profes- sionnels (2) [Writing practices and professional fields (2)]. Études de communica- tion, 13.

Charrasse, \b. (1995). Marquage et entreprise scripturaire: la construction d’un \fonde sans auteur “Marking while the industrial process goes on: an authorless co\f\fu- nication?”. Études de Communica\ftion, 16, 135-164.

\bardy, C. (1996). Lieux d’inscription: des équipe\fents pas co\f\fe les autres [Reg- istration sites: Equip\fent like no other]. Études de Communication,16, 37-58.

\be Crescenzo, J. C. (2005). Les réseaux clandestins de salariés. Etude d’une forme de réponse organisationnelle face aux régimes managériaux de mobilisation de la force de travail [The underground networks of e\fployees. Study of a for\f of organizational response to address the \fanagerial regi\fes to \fobilize the work- force]. Lille, Franc\ce: Université de L\cille 3.

\belca\fbre, I., & Reuter, Y. (\bir). (2002). I\fages du scripteur et rapports à l’écriture [I\fages of the write\cr and ways of writ\cing reports]. Pratiques, 113-114.

\belca\fbre, P. (1997). Écriture et communications de travail: Pratiques d’écriture des éducateurs spécialisés [Writing and co\f\funications at work: Social Workers’s Writing Practices]. \cLille, France: Press\ces Universitaires \cdu Septentrion.

\belca\fbre, P. (Ed.). (2000). Communications organisationnelles. \f Ob\bets, pratiques, dispositifs [Organizational Co\f\funication: Objects, practices, devices]. Rennes, France: Presses Uni\cversitaires de Ren\cnes.

\belca\fbre, P. (2007). Pour une théorie de la co\f\funication en contexte de travail, appuyée sur des théories de l’action et de l’expression “Toward a workfield co\f- \funication theory based both upon action and expression theories”. Communica- tion & Organisation, 31, 43-63. Delcam\bre 641 \belca\fbre, P. (2008). Un état des recherches en co\f\funications organisationnelles en France (2000-2007): l’âge de la trans\fission? [A state of research in organi- zational co\f\funications in France (2000-2007): The age of the trans\fission?] Sciences de la socié\fté, 74, 11-25.

\bes\farez, P., & Freyssenet, M. (Eds.). (1994). Les énig\fes du travail. Work as an enig\fa. Sociologie du travai\fl, 36.

\bu\font, M., & Revuz, C. (Eds.). (1994). Ecriture, travail, for\fation [Writing, Work, Training]. Éducation Permanent\fe, 120.

Faïta, \b. (Ed.). (1997). Co\f\funiquer . . . les \fots de l’expérience. “Co\f\funi- cate work life: what words for talking?”. Études de communication, 20.

Fraenkel, B. (1992). La signature. Genèse d’un signe [Signature: Genesis of a sign].

Paris: NRF Galli\fard\c.

Gardey, \b. (2008). Écrire, calculer, classer. Comment une révolution de papier a trans- formé les sociétés contemporaines (1800-1940) [Write, calculate, classify: How a paper revolution has transfor\fed conte\fporary societies (1800-1940)]. Paris: La \bécouverte.

Gra\faccia, G. (2001). Les actes de langage dans les organisations [The speech acts in organizations]. Pari\cs: L’Har\fattan.

Grosjean, M., & Lacoste, M. (1999). Communication et intelligence collective: Le travail à l’hôpital [Co\f\funication and collective intelligence: Working at the hospital]. Paris: P\cresses Universitai\cres de France.

Joseph, I. (Ed.). (1993). Régulation du trafic et information des voyageurs au PCC de la ligne A du RER, Réseau 2000 [Traffic control and passenger infor\fation produced in CCP line of the RER, N\cetwork 2000]. Pari\cs: RATP éditeur.

Ladrière, P., Pharo, P., & Quéré, L. (Eds.). (1993). La théorie de l’action. Le su\bet pratique en débat [The theory of action: The practical subject in debate]. Paris:

CNRS Editions.

Latour, B. (2007). Changer de société, refaire de la sociologie [Changing society, the reconstruction of s\cociology]. Paris: L\ca \bécouverte.

Le Moënne, C. (Ed.). (1998). Communications d’entreprises et d’organisations [Co\f\funications of businesses and organizations]. Rennes, France: Presses Uni- versitaires de Ren\cnes.

Le Moënne, C. (Ed.). (2000, May/October). La co\f\funication organisationnelle en débat [Questions about organizational co\f\funication]. Sciences de la Société, 50-51.

Pène, S., (2001). Les agence\fents langagiers de la qualité [Language arrange\fents for Quality]. In A. Borzeix & B. Fraenkel (Eds.), Langage et Travail: Communication, cognition, action (pp. 303-321). Paris: CNRS. 642 Manag ement Communication Quarterly 2\f(\f) Pène, S. (2005). Société de disponibilité. La vie quotidienne des communautés arti- ficielles [Society availability: The daily life of artificial co\f\funities]. Paris:

Celsa-Paris IV.

Pène, S., & \belca\fbre, P. (\bir). (1995). Pratiques d’écriture et cha\fps profession- nels (3) [Writing practices and professional fields (3)]. Études de communica- tion, 16 .

Ricoeur, P. (1986). Du texte à l’action. Essais d’Herméneutique, II [Fro\f text to action: Her\feneutics\c Essays, II]. Paris:\c Seuil/Esprit.

Taylor, J. R., & \belca\fbre, P. (in press). La co\f\funication organisationnelle: histoire, enjeux et fonde\fents [Organizational co\f\funication: History, issues, and foundations]. In S. Grosjean & L. Bonneville (Eds.), Communication organi- sationnelle: approches, processus et en\beux . Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Gaëtan Morin.

Bio Pierre Delcambre is a professor of infor\fation and co\f\funication sciences at the University of Lille Charles de Gaulle, Lille, France. His research, fro\f an anthropo- logical point of view, focuses on workplace relationships and effects of writing process on organizations.