IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jomstd/v37y2000i8p1125-1156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rhetorical Power, Accountability And Conflict In Committees: An Argumentation Approach

Author

Listed:
  • John A. A. Sillince

Abstract

The general aim of the paper is to shift interest in group communication in organizations in general and in committees in particular away from a prescriptive and rationalistic view detached from the organizational context towards a more analytical approach which takes account of important organizational issues of conflict, power and accountability. The paper outlines a theoretical model containing 11 propositions. The model contains definitions of rhetorical power (defined to be distinct from positional power), rhetorical accountability (defined to be different from organizational accountability for a task) and rhetorical conflict and contains 12 rhetorical variables which are language categories, and eight non‐rhetorical variables. These language categories are argumentation elements which can be identified within any committee transcript such as proposals, challenges and questions and which have been derived from previously published and validated coding schemes. The model predicts that committee members will seek to maximize their rhetorical power by using some language categories and avoiding others, and that they will seek to vary the amount of rhetorical accountability they wish to claim depending on the likely success or failure of the project being discussed. The model also predicts that the proportions of language categories within any committee transcript will change depending upon how open or hostile the committee debate is, and that the proportions of language categories will also be changed by attempts by committee leaders to reduce rhetorical conflict by using some language categories and avoiding others. Several relations between rhetorical power and rhetorical conflict are hypothesized. According to the model, rhetorical power and rhetorical conflict can be manipulated by participants in beneficial ways only under some circumstances (those which characterize an open rather than a hostile committee debate). The model is related to several important non‐rhetorical variables.

Suggested Citation

  • John A. A. Sillince, 2000. "Rhetorical Power, Accountability And Conflict In Committees: An Argumentation Approach," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1125-1156, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:37:y:2000:i:8:p:1125-1156
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-6486.00219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00219
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-6486.00219?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:37:y:2000:i:8:p:1125-1156. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-2380 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.