Search results

Previous research has shown that eras of managerial rhetorics have alternated between normative and rational ideologies. The purpose of this study is to test the influence of generational membership on this phenomenon.

Examining data for the past 130 years, eras of managerial rhetorics are matched with recurring generational archetypes.

Empirical evidence is analyzed and found to be generally supportive of the hypotheses: generational membership is associated with the timing of the alternation in managerial rhetorics.

The findings of association suggest generational change could be a causal driver of long‐term change in managerial rhetorics.

The model tested implies a predictive ability to anticipate the movement from the current normative rhetoric to a new rational rhetoric in the near future.

This study is the first to find evidence that the alternation between rational and normative managerial rhetorics is related to generational effects.

This paper aims to discuss why there is often a gulf of difference between policy rhetoric and reality. In particular, the paper seeks to explore issues with the policy rhetoric, implementation process and the lens through which reality is perceived, explaining why these issues can open up a policy rhetoric‐reality gap. This article also suggests a simple matrix framework to analyse a rhetoric‐reality gap.

This paper is a reflection on, and analysis of, the issue of the difference between policy rhetoric and reality. The framework of analysis involves: issues with policy rhetoric; issues with the implementation process; issues with examining reality.

Although policy rhetoric always has laudable aims, the underlying dynamics of change and interaction among the various actors at different levels of the system often means that the rhetoric may be compromised in reality. However, it is also possible that even when implementation reality may not correspond closely to policy rhetoric, the adaptation of the policy allows for a better fit with the local context while allowing the policy rhetoric to retain its evocative values for an ideal state of affairs.

Policy rhetoric‐reality is not always “evil” and this gap can be systematically investigated.

This paper provides an explanation of the policy rhetoric‐reality gap and suggests a simple matrix framework to analyse such a gap.

Although the gap between rhetoric and reality is not a specific human resource management (HRM) feature, the disconnection between discourse and action seems to have reached unusual stages in this case. Not much is known about HRM in Portugal, but it is clear that Portuguese academics and practitioners have extensively adopted the global HRM rhetoric. With an environment apparently unfavorable to the HRM normative model, this paper examines the ways in which global HRM rhetoric meets Portuguese reality.

The paper criticises the dominant paradigm of public relations theory for lack of interest in discursive and rhetorical dimensions of public relations. An alternative theoretical approach to public relations is identified that does treat discursive and rhetorical dimensions of public relations, but it is indicated that at present it has not been sufficiently integrated into dominant public relations theory. The paper explores the points of convergence between rhetoric and public relations. The narrow and broad conceptions of rhetoric are presented, the first characterising rhetoric with persuasive and argumentative discourse, the second with different types of discourse. It is suggested that elements of the broad conception of rhetoric could provide heuristics for analysing public relations techniques as “genre repertoire” of public relations discourse. In the second part, an enquiry into the narrow conception of rhetoric as persuasive and argumentative discourse is made. Positivistic understanding of “truth” and “objectivity” as normative criteria of public relations discourse is criticised on the basis of the so‐called “rhetoric as epistemic” view. It is argued that in corporate discourse, especially in situations of confrontation with active publics, key managerial decisions have to be justified in argumentation. In the last part of the paper, Toulmin’s model of argumentation is suggested as especially suitable for analysis of the argumentative nature of corporate discourse.

This paper aims to extend the understanding of the ways in which social entrepreneurs give sense to and legitimize their work by introducing a rhetoric-orientation view of social entrepreneurship (SE).

This study uses computer-aided text analysis and computational linguistics to study 191 interviews of social and business entrepreneurs. It offers validation and exploration of new concepts pertaining to the rhetoric orientations of SE.

This study confirms prior untested assumptions that the rhetoric of social entrepreneurs is more other, stakeholder engagement and justification-oriented and less self-oriented than the rhetoric of business entrepreneurs. It also confirms that the rhetoric of both types of entrepreneurs is equally economically oriented.

This research makes new contribution to the SE literature by introducing three new orientations, namely, solution, impact and geographical, which reflect distinctive rhetorical themes used by social entrepreneurs, and by revealing that social entrepreneurs use terms associated with other, stakeholder engagement, justification, economic, solution, impact and geographical orientations differently than business entrepreneurs.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the current rhetoric of predictability in investment theory. After making the case for unpredictability, a new rhetoric for investment theory is proposed.

McCloskey's project of the rhetoric of economics provides the background and approach for the author's investigation. In particular the author will use the notions of metaphor, prediction, discourse analysis, and virtue ethics.

The current rhetoric equals the original rhetoric in the seminal work of Markowitz. The current rhetoric is based on predictability and rational behaviour. The proposed new rhetoric for investment theory denies predictability. The new rhetoric aims to cope with statistics by stressing that statistics is supportive but not decisive: handling investment theory is about judgements, combining virtues with historical and theoretical insights.

The investigation of the rhetoric of investment theory has practical relevance because the theory constitutes investment practice, and can put financial wealth at risk. The new rhetoric for investment theory invites practitioners and researchers to reflect on the epistemology of investment theory, and its consequences for the field.

The rhetoric of investment theory is to the author's knowledge not yet analysed in the literature. The rhetorical analysis of the current rhetoric and the proposal of a new rhetoric aim to contribute to the literature on the rhetoric of investment theory.

The purpose of this paper is to call for a rhetorical turn in the study of school leadership and discusses how principals use language to enact school improvement. The key purpose is to explore how talk is action in leading and managing school reform.

This paper presents a rhetorical framework and methodology for interpreting principal practice through language. As a model, the language use of one urban school principal is examined through a rhetorical analysis of 650 instances of principal talk in 14 administrative meetings. The paper reports on the form and content of principal rhetoric, including analysis of logos, pathos, and ethos, and comparative analysis across meeting contexts.

The paper demonstrates the importance of rhetorical form and content and highlights the role of audience in principal talk. In the present example, each of three rhetorical forms was used to transform school practice. Logos was used most frequently; emotional and ethical arguments were also integral to principal talk. Comparative analysis showed that the principal's rhetoric varied by audience. The principal's use of language did not just explain practice, but also defined and shaped ongoing practices.

The author proposes future cross-case research to develop an understanding of how leadership language varies across individuals and contexts, as well as interaction analyses of the co-performance of discourse and rhetoric in schools.

The author argues that principal preparation would benefit from the incorporation of the linguistic concepts and forms of rhetoric, particularly in the context of school improvement.

While many have turned to principal practice as an area of research, few have focussed on the underlying linguistic structures. This paper emphasizes the importance of language in principal practice and offers a specific methodology with which to study it.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the boundaries of rhetoric have excluded important theoretical and practical subjects and how these subjects are recuperated and extended since the twentieth century. Its purpose is to foster the awareness on emerging new trends of rhetoric.

The methodology is based on an interpretation of the history of rhetoric and on the construction of a conceptual framework of the rhetoric of judgment, which is introduced in this paper.

On the subject of the extension of rhetoric from public speeches to any kinds of persuasive situations, the paper emphasizes some stimulating relationships between the theory of communication and rhetoric. On the exclusion and recuperation of the subject of rhetorical arguments, it presents the changing relationships between rhetoric and dialectics and emphasizes the role of rhetoric in scientific research. On the introduction of rhetoric of judgment and meanings it creates a conceptual framework based on a re-examination of the concept of judgment and the phenomenological foundations of the interpretative methods of social sciences by Alfred Schutz, relating them to symbolic interactionism and theories of the self.

The study on the changing boundaries of rhetoric and the introduction of the rhetoric of judgment offers a new view on the present theoretical and practical development of rhetoric, which opens new subjects of research and new fields of applications.

The purpose of this paper is to present a critical view of rhetoric, science, scientific research, and management that discloses the role of rhetoric in these fields and that offers a conceptual framework for this special issue of the Journal of Organizational Change Management.

The approach taken is a critical and historical analysis.

The following main topics are uncovered: first, even if we think on scientific theories in terms of the classical concept of proven knowledge by empirical evidence and logical deduction, they are constituted by propositions accepted by reasonable rhetorical arguments, which depend on the paradigm of each scientific community. Second, even if we consider that scientific research is a strictly rational activity that follows precise methods, it continuously involves rhetorical reflections, judgements, arguments and debates. Third, even if management sciences usually conceptualize management as activities led by rational arguments and decisions, management constantly involves rhetorical conversations, in which managers use language for achieving their aims.

Beyond the scope of many research papers and books that emphasize the role of rhetoric in science and in management, the paper offers a systematic approach on the foundations of the functions of rhetoric in science and in management.