A61C00100 Bridging Corporate and Organizational Communication by Lars TH Ger Christensen and Joep Cornelissen 2

http://mcq.sagepub.
com/
Quarterly
Management Communication
http://mcq.sagepub.com/content/25/3/383
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0893318910390194
13 December 2010
2011 25: 383 originally published online Management Communication Quarterly
Lars Thger Christensen and Joep Cornelissen
Development and a Look to the Future
Bridging Corporate and Organizational Communication: Review,
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
found at:
can be Management Communication Quarterly Additional services and information for
http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://mcq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://mcq.sagepub.com/content/25/3/383.refs.html Citations:
What is This?
- Dec 13, 2010 Proof
- Aug 10, 2011 Version of Record >>

at Aalto University on October 27, 2011 mcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Management Communication Quarterly
25(3) 383 414
The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0893318910390194
http://mcq.sagepub.com
390194MCQ25310.1177/0893318910390194Christ
ensen and CornelissenManagement Communication Quarterly
The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1
University of Southern Denmark, Odense
2
VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Lars Thger Christensen, The Department of Marketing & Management, The University
of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense M, Denmark
Email: ltc@sam.sdu.dk
Bridging Corporate
and Organizational
Communication:
Review, Development
and a Look to the
Future
Lars Thger Christensen
1
and Joep Cornelissen
2
Abstract
The theory and practice of corporate communication is usually driven by
other disciplinary concerns than the field of organizational communication.
However, its particular mind-set focusing on wholeness and consistency in
corporate messages increasingly influence the domain of contemporary
organizational communication as well. We provide a formative and critical
review of research on corporate communication as a platform for highlighting
crucial intersections with select research traditions in organizational com-
munication to argue for a greater integration between these two areas of
research. Following this review, we relax the assumptions underlying tradi-
tional corporate communication research and show how these dimensions
interact in organizational and communication analysis, thus, demonstrating
the potential for a greater cross-fertilization between the two areas of
research. This cross-fertilization, as we will illustrate, enriches the theoriza-
tion of corporate and organizational communication and may better link
micro- and macro level analyses.
Thought Leadership Series
384 Management Communication Quarterly 25(3)
Keywords
corporate communication, consistency, wholeness, cross-fertilization
Introduction
There is a continuous and growing interest in the study of corporate com-
munication within the disciplines of management and organization theory,
public relations, and mass communication research (e.g., Shelby, 1993). This
interest has been spurred in recent years by an increase in the volume of
theoretical and empirical work that explores processes and consequences of
corporate (re)presentations to stakeholders (e.g., Marchand, 1998), by the
emergence of ideas such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), sustain-
ability, and corporate citizenship that have clear implications for stakeholder
communication (e.g., Cheney, Roper, & May, 2007), as well as by the wide-
spread and strategic presence of corporate communication professionals,
procedures, and systems across private and public sector organizations alike
(e.g., Cornelissen, 2008a). Although the interest in corporate communication
across these writings is varied and multifaceted, together they highlight the
economic and social significance of corporate communication as a domain
of professional practice and as an important focus for academic reflection
and research (Christensen, Morsing, & Cheney, 2008).
Against this background, we set out to review existing perspectives on
corporate communication to identify critical areas for theory development
and empirical research. Specifically, we believe that current corporate com-
munication research is mostly focused on the controlled handling and organi-
zation of communication (Cornelissen, 2008a; Christensen, Morsing, et al.,
2008) with very little direct attention being focused on communication as
such, including models of communication with stakeholders (see also,
Hallahan, Holtzhausen, van Ruler, Vercic, & Sriramesh, 2007). We argue
that the field of corporate communication would benefit from a figure ground
reversal aimed at a better understanding of how communication organizes
(e.g., Taylor & Van Every, 2000) rather than the traditional focus on the
organization of communication. This reversal opens up ample space for the-
ory development and highlights important connections between the two
related, but largely separate, traditions of corporate and organizational com-
munication (e.g., Shelby, 1993).
Our aim in the present article is to provide the groundwork for stronger con-
nections between these two traditions of scholarship. To give this shape, we
first present a formative review of existing work on corporate communication.
Christensen and Cornelissen 385
We critique current assumptions and preoccupations and analytically demon-
strate that existing work presupposes metonymic reasoning and a related
organizational or macro level of analysis in which parts of activities or the
voice of single individuals (e.g., managers) are taken to stand for or represent
the whole organization. We contextualize the difference with organizational
communication, where recent work has focused on how, in micro interactions
between speakers, organizations metaphorically emerge in acts of commu-
nication or are constituted by communication (Taylor & Van Every, 2000;
see also, Cooren, 1999). We then proceed by advancing theoretically impor-
tant connections between metonymic and metaphorical reasoning in research
on corporate communication. In doing so, we attempt to show not only the
common threads that cut across the areas of corporate and organizational
communication but also how systematic, empirically useful theory can be
derived from their integration. We conclude with a number of recommenda-
tions for research that indicate how scholars of organizational communication
may engage the theory and practice of corporate communication and in this
way help in better linking micro- and macro level analyses in this area.
Corporate Communication:
A Pervasive Mindset
Given the size and diversity of the literature on corporate communication, a
comprehensive review is beyond the scope of the present treatment. Instead,
we draw on representative work to map the terrain of corporate communica-
tion research and to highlight current definitions, theories, and constructs as
well as the prevailing assumptions and modes of argumentation. In this way,
we intend to demonstrate that (a) corporate communication functions as a
specific way of thinking that pervades and shapes many different types of
organizations and (b) corporate communication, as a consequence, is highly
relevant to the field of organizational communication, even though it is often
driven by other disciplinary concerns.
On the whole, definitions of corporate communication are often unclear,
vague, or even missing in the conventional literature. Many textbooks, thus,
take the notion of corporate communications for granted and define it only
indirectly by listing the different types of activities it encompasses, including,
for example, crisis communications, media relations, community relations,
investor relations, employee relations, public affairs, and other communica-
tion activities traditionally associated with the broad field of public relations
(Argenti, 1998; Dilenschneider, 2000; Goodman, 1994). Without clearly
articulating the differences, these writings seem to imply that corporate
communication is a more contemporary and sophisticated version of public
relations (e.g., Dilenschneider, 2000). Even in writings where the theoretical
foundation is more elaborate, corporate communications is often defined in
terms of other communication practices, including marketing communica-
tions, organizational communications, and management communications
(e.g., van Riel, 1995; van Riel & Fombrun, 2007). Corporate communication,
in these writings, is simply used as an umbrella term for a field of practice that
draws on multiple communication and management activities (Shelby, 1993).
Increasingly, however, corporate communication is regarded as a disci-
pline in its own right, that is, as a discipline with a distinct rationale and ambi-
tion. In this capacity, corporate communication is highly significant for the
broad field of organizational communication. Although corporate communi-
cation used to be a rather vague term referring loosely to messages from
(major) corporations, today it designates a specific way of thinking that may
be applied to many, if not all, sorts of organizations (Cornelissen, 2008a).
According to Harrison (1995), the aim of corporate communication as a field
of theory and practice is to manage all communications that involve an orga-
nization as a corporate entity. Likewise, van Riel (1995) described corporate
communication as an all-embracing framework designed and organized to
integrate the total business message (see also, berg, 1990). Within this
framework, orchestration of different messages and behaviors becomes a
central activity (van Riel, 1997). More recently, van Riel and Fombrun (2007)
have defined corporate communication as the set of activities involved in
managing and orchestrating all internal and external communications aimed at
creating favourable starting points with stakeholders on which the company
depends (p. 25). Rather than pursuing different identities vis--vis different
audiences or letting different departments handle their communications
autonomously, the vision of contemporary corporate communication, in other
words, is to manage all communications under one banner.
Thus, the distinct nature of corporate communication has less to do with
the growing number of communication functions and disciplines it claims to
subsume than with the vision it provides for contemporary management.
Corporate communication differs from other types of communication man-
agement not simply because it claims to include a broader range of commu-
nication activities or to address more audiences across formal organizational
boundaries but because its raison dtre is to organize the organizations
communication activities as one coherent entity (Jackson, 1987). In contrast
to other types of organizational communicationfor example, advertising,
employee communication, or technical communicationthat typically
address very specific audiences with discrete messages, corporate messages
speak to many audiences at once in the hope of establishing and maintaining
favorable and coherent corporate reputations across different stakeholder
groups (e.g., Cornelissen, 2008a).
The broad and somewhat diverse field of corporate communication, thus,
is characterized by a common mind-set, a certain way of thinking about and
approaching an organizations communication, shaped by images and ideals
of unity, wholeness, and totality. In many ways, this mind-set corresponds
with the etymological roots of the adjective corporate. Derived from the
Latin corpus, corporate suggests a collective entity united into one body.
Thus, to label communication as corporate means to invoke a bodily meta-
phor of unity and totality. When we conceive of communication as a specifi-
cally corporate endeavor, we therefore refer to the efforts of organizations
to communicate as whole, total, or bodily entities (Christensen, Morsing,
et al., 2008).
In practice, the vision of wholeness unfolds into a goal of projecting a
consistent and unambiguous image of what the organization is and stands
for. Although formulations differ, writers in corporate communication argue
fervently that organizations should aim for a unified, consistent voice across
different markets and different audiences (Dolphin, 1999; Schultz & Schultz,
2003; Schultz, Tannenbaum, & Lauterborn, 1994; Smith, 1996). According
to van Riel and Fombrun (2007, p. 23), the key task of corporate communica-
tion is to flesh out the profile of the company behind the brand, to minimize
discrepancies between different markers of corporate identity, to define and
assign communication responsibilities across the organization, and to mobi-
lize support (internally and externally) behind corporate initiatives. Corporate
communication, accordingly, defines a whole range of new managerial activ-
ities focused on the integration, coordination, and orchestration of an
organizations communications (Cornelissen, 2008a). By aligning symbols,
messages, procedures, and behaviors, organizations hope to appear consis-
tent and coherent across different audiences and different media (e.g., Duncan,
1993; Schultz et al., 1994).
Not surprisingly, this ambition, sometimes referred to as integrated com-
munications, has been embraced in particular by marketing scholars and
practitioners who argue that the alignment of symbols, messages, and so on,
is necessary for organizations to optimize their communication budgets
(Smith, 1996), to stand out as distinctive and interesting brands in a cluttered
marketplace (Duncan, 2005; Knox & Bickerton, 2003; Shimp, 2003), and to
be recognized as legitimate players in the globalised world of today (Balmer,
2001; Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000; Schultz & Kitchen, 2000). Some writ-
ers in the field of marketing communication even suggest that integration is
inevitable (e.g., Duncan & Caywood, 1996; Schultz et al., 1994; Schultz &
Schultz, 2003) and absolutely imperative for success (see also, Argenti,
Howell, & Beck, 2005). Although the integration of an organizations com-
munication has been a recurring theme in many fields, including corporate
design (e.g., Olins, 1989), corporate culture (e.g., Deal & Kennedy, 1982;
Peters & Waterman, 1982; cf. Martin, 1992), and public relations (Gronstedt,
1996; Hutton, 1996a, 1996b; see also, Scholes & Clutterbuck, 1998), corpo-
rate communication conceives of itself as the integrated communication dis-
cipline par excellence, claiming to pool all possible communication
disciplines and supply an all-encompassing framework for their integration
(Argenti et al., 2005; Cornelissen, 2008a; Harrison, 1995; Nessmann, 1995;
van Riel, 1995).
Parts and Wholes: The Organization as a Unitary Actor
A central characteristic of corporate communication as a field of research and
practice, thus, is that it conceives of the organization as a single unit in com-
munication with its stakeholders. It is not individual managers, buildings,
advertising campaigns, or interactions with employees that communicate in
and of themselves. Rather, these are all seen as parts or fragments of the same
communicating organization as the unit of analysis. The main arguments and
analyses related to corporate communication, in other words, presuppose a
metonymy. Metonymy is a linguistic and cognitive operation in which we
imply certain parts (e.g., buildings) directly to stand in for the larger idea or
conceptualization (e.g., the corporation). As Manning (1979) writes,
Metonymy takes the whole (an organization) to be indicated by its
parts (e.g., the number of levels in an organization, the size of the body
of rules governing procedures, the rates of mobility between and
within organizational slots). The whole is thus represented by the
parts; the essential features of a whole are reduced to indices. (p. 662)
When metonymy is at play, we come to experience the parts and the whole
as compressed into one, which naturalizes the metonymy and leads us to see
the whole (in this case, the organization) as directly implied in any specific
activities or parts such as, for example, a corporate advert or an oil spill. This
mind-set, we argue, is fundamental to research and practitioner thinking on
corporate communication. The very idea of a corporate identity, for example,
was initially coined by two designers (Lippincott and Margulies) who
argued that visual designs could invoke and represent the whole organization
(see also Olins, 1989). The central metonymy has since been sustained and
reinforced by the location of much corporate communication research in
business schools (e.g., Argenti, 1998; Fombrun & Rindova, 2000). That is,
by aligning themselves with business research on strategy, management, and
organization, corporate communication researchers not only co-opted ideas
but also, in borrowing from these fields, implicitly sustained the metonymy
in adopting an organizational or firm level of analysis (e.g., Fombrun &
Rindova, 2000; Fombrun & van Riel, 2004; Hatch & Schultz, 2001). Most, if
not all, of the contemporary constructs and theories in corporate communica-
tion research, including stakeholder theory, corporate image and reputation,
CSR, integration, corporate identity, and corporate citizenship, are elaborated
on the back of the mentioned metonymy and the associated organizational or
firm level of analysis.
However, metonymy and metaphor, as we know from linguistics, are
closely related figures of speech and forms of understanding. Gareth Morgan
(1983) argued in his early writings that metaphor makes meaning in a primal
way (p. 602) and that metonymy is used as a secondary form within the
domain or context forged through metaphor (Morgan, 1983, p. 602). Morgan
has since acknowledged a mutual interdependence between the metaphorical
and metonymical: Metaphor and metonymy are always interconnected. You
cannot have one without the other (Morgan, 1996, p. 231). Although he
argued that a metaphorical image relies on some kind of metonymical reduc-
tion, otherwise it remains thin air (Morgan, 1996, p. 231), Morgan equally
suggested that metonymy is entirely dependent on metaphor, for without a
prefiguring image we have nothing to see (Morgan, 1996, p. 231). The basic
point is that actually seeing organizations as single actors or as constituted in
communication requires both metaphorsfor example, of an organization as
a person or of communication as a physical act of buildingand metonymic
compressions in which various parts can be seen to intimate the whole
(person or building).
The strong connection between metonymy and metaphor has long been
recognized within linguistics. Jakobson (1956/1990), for example, famously
argued that metaphors and metonymies provide the bipolar structure of
language; both are necessary for the development of discourse and meaning
through statements of similarity (metaphor) and contiguity (metonymy), and
both mutually implicate each other in actual instances of language use.
Goossens (1995a, 1995b) similarly talked about frequent expressions that
combine the two such as metonymy-within-metaphor, which occurs when
a metonymically used entity is embedded within a (complex) metaphorical
expression (Goossens, 1995a, p. 172). Goossens (1995a, 1995b) also pointed
to another category of expressions, metaphor-from-metonymy, which has
been found to be a very frequent kind of connection or interaction
between metonymy and metaphor (Deignan, 2005).
Cornelissen (2008b) considered constructs such as corporate identity and
citizenship as a metaphor-from-metonymy. The idea is that these con-
structs first of all presuppose a metonymyseparate activities are the hall-
mark of single organizationwhich may then cue a further metaphorical
interpretation of an organization, as the single unit, acting as if it were a
human person with an identity and citizenship rights and obligations. This
metonymy is actually quite pervasive in our thinking. Stakeholders, for
example, have a natural inclination to ascribe identity traits to an organiza-
tion and treat it as (if it were) a person when we form an image of it. Cohen
and Basu (1987, p. 463) pointed out that stakeholders of an organization are
inclined to perceive a company in corporeal terms and to ascribe traits holisti-
cally (where they perceive relationships among features, and also configural
properties beyond merely correlated features, to make up for a perceived
intact entity). They also effectively credit that organization with identity
traits, just as they would an individual person (Cohen & Basu, 1987). The
implication of the metonymy, as in this example, is that it privileges the
whole over specific parts and suggests a totalitarian picture of control that
communication professionals in practice hope to manage.
The Limitations of Corporate Communication
As a strategic project of communication management that emphasizes whole-
ness, integration, and consistency, corporate communication may be ques-
tioned and critiqued from many different angles. From a communication
perspective, the projects most obvious flaw is its reliance on linear models
of communication. Classic models of corporate identity, image, and repu-
tation, for example, usually assume one-way communication processes
from the organization to its stakeholders (e.g., Abratt, 1989; Olins, 1989).
Although there is some listening to stakeholders or attempts to gather feed-
back, the intent in such models is to represent the corporate identity, which,
it is assumed, will almost automatically transform into an equivalent corpo-
rate image on the side of stakeholders. Fombrun and van Riel (2004), for
example, argued that the strongest reputations extend from visible, transpar-
ent, and consistently portrayed corporate identities. The role of communica-
tion, thus, is reduced to a conduit (Reddy, 1979) between the self-definition
of the organization (its corporate identity) and the cognitive image or com-
pany representation held in memory by others (corporate image or corporate
reputation). Language (and other symbolic representations) employed by
corporate entities simply reveal and transfer cognitive interpretations
(Donnellon, Gray, & Bougon, 1986), thereby casting aside any formative
effects of language on thought processes and on the construction of meaning
in social settings (e.g., Christensen & Askegaard, 2001; Fauconnier, 1997;
Langacker, 1991).
With its ambition of managing consistent and unambiguous images of
organizations, writings on corporate communication simultaneously promote
a strongly sender-biased view on communication that ignores or at least
downplays the interpretative propensities and capabilities of the alleged
receiver. Although it is well known that receivers of corporate messages
internal or externalare not passive targets but mature, creative, and savvy
partners in the production of identities and experiences (cf. Duranti, 1986;
Iser, 1974; Jauss, 1982), this view on communication is central to the field.
However, consumers frequently interpret and use corporate products and mes-
sages differently from their original purpose, reshape and adapt them to per-
sonal use, and modify and sometimes pervert their meanings in ways not
imagined by their creators (Cova, 1996). Likewise, members of organizations
creatively co-construct or de-construct the meanings of corporate messages in
ways not intended by management (Christensen & Cheney, 2000; Humphreys
& Brown, 2002). Corporate communicators, in other words, are not the mas-
ters of meaning able to control the reception of corporate messagesinside or
outside the organization (e.g., Christensen, Torp, & Frat, 2005).
Interestingly, conduit models and sender-oriented notions of communica-
tion are also evident in research that highlights the significance of interpreta-
tion. Although recognizing the existence of different stakeholder perspectives
on the organization, leading writers in the field emphasize the strategic
importance for organizations in avoiding gaps in their communication
(e.g., Balmer & Greyser, 2003; Balmer & Soenen, 1999; Fombrun & Rindova,
2000; Hatch & Schultz, 2001; Simoes, Dibb, & Fisk, 2005). Fombrun and
Rindova (2000), for example, focused on the importance of achieving align-
ment or transparency between corporate identities and corporate images
and reputations. Transparency, according to Fombrun and Rindova (2000), is
a state in which the internal identity of the firm reflects positively the expec-
tations of key stakeholders and the beliefs of these stakeholders about the
firm reflect accurately the internally held identity (p. 94). Similarly, Hatch
and Schultz (2001) claimed that to ensure trustworthy communication, orga-
nizations must avoid breach[es] between rhetoric and reality (p. 4), primarily
because such breaches result in cynicism, suspicion, and dispirited employ-
ees. To avoid these breaches, Hatch and Schultz have developed a so-called
corporate branding tool kit that allows managers to identify the nature of
the corporate vision, the corporate culture, and the corporate image and, most
importantly, to expose gaps between these dimensions. Such gaps, according
to Hatch and Schultz, reflect key organizational problems and need to be
eliminated to create and maintain a strong corporate brand (see also, Hatch &
Schultz, 2002). These researchers, thus, stress the importance of alignment,
the assumption being that where the internal and external ideas of identity are
not aligned (so that presumably the rhetoric of corporate identity does not
match the experienced reality of stakeholders), a range of suboptimal out-
comes are anticipated, including employee disengagement and customer
dissatisfaction.
Hatch and Schultz (2002) elaborated on these issues of alignment in a
model extended from Meads theory of social identity. In their framework,
organizations are again metaphorically personified on the back of a meton-
ymy that compresses all individuals and activities into that of a single orga-
nization (Cornelissen, 2008b). In this way, Meads ideas about the relationship
between the I and the me are extended to identity processes at the orga-
nizational level of analysis. Mead considered identity as an inherently
relational or social process; at the level of organizations, it is similarly
assumed that an organizations identity is relational in balancing images and
expectations of stakeholders (me) and ones own deep-seated and internal
cultural values (I; cf. Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). Implicit in the model is
again the idea that a balance between internal and external ideas on ones
identity is important. A broadly supported identity is one that results from
effectively channeling ideas across from the organization to stakeholders and
back so that the appropriate alignment and consistency can be achieved.
In addition to these communication-specific assumptions, the project of
corporate communication operates with limited understandings of what an
organization is or should be. Writings on corporate communication first of
all assume that it is possible for the organization or parts thereof to oversee
its own communication as a whole. Its preoccupation with integration and
alignment of all messages underscores this perspective. Although such an
all-embracing viewpoint or privileged perspective is an illusionno system
can describe itself in full (Andersen, 2003)the notion of a panoptic organi-
zation, able to see and manage the totality of all messages, is an essential and
defining feature of contemporary corporate communication. This perspective
is particularly prevalent in writings on corporate identity. With its notion of a
consistent organizational voice, corporate communication tends to promote a
monolithic type of organizational identity in which the members of the orga-
nization are seen as walking-around embodiments or manifestations of the
organization as a whole (Christensen, Morsing, et al., 2008). This we see, for
example, in the corporate branding literature. Although branding often is
associated with products, the ultimate ambition of corporate communication
is to develop and present the organization as one unified brand: a so-called
corporate brand. As Schultz (2005) pointed out, the notion of a corporate
brand encapsulates the preferred dimensions of organizational identity, which
are highlighted and staged vis--vis the surrounding world. Corporate brand-
ing assumes a strong coherence between the organizations identity, image,
and culture (Hatch & Schultz, 2001). Arguing that the success of a corporate
brand depends on the extent to which there is harmony between the values
defined by management and the way these values are seen and implemented
by staff, writers in the field urge organizations to develop strong cultures that
motivate employees to support corporate values without supervision (e.g.,
De Chernatony, 2002; Mitchell, 2002). De Chernatony (2002, p. 114), thus,
talked about the orchestration of staff, claiming that members of the orga-
nization need to be genuinely committed to delivering the [brand] promise
if the corporate brand is to be successfully implemented. Employees, in other
words, are expected to align themselves with the idealized version of the
organizations identity, its corporate brand.
However, the identity to which employees are expected to swear alle-
giance is highly equivocalespecially in the corporate communication lit-
erature. On the one hand, this literature describes an organizations identity
as intrinsic and as capturing unique characteristics or traits that define the
organization and set it apart from its surroundings. Drawing on Albert and
Whettens (1985) classical definition of organizational identity as the cen-
tral, distinct, and enduring dimensions of an organization (see also, Whetten,
2006), writers and managers of corporate communication often equate orga-
nizational identity with an individuals personality (e.g., Kunde, 2000;
Olins, 1989), in other words, something solid and reliabledeeply rooted in
the organizationthat shapes its choices and defines its integrity. On the other
hand, the same literature frequently talks about shaping and changing orga-
nizational identities, leaving the impression that an organizations identity is
fluid and malleable, in other words, an ongoing project that can and should be
planned, manufactured, and communicated into existence. Descriptions of
organizational identity as essence and continuity, thus, coexist with discus-
sions of identity as projects of communication.
Acknowledging these limitations and equivocalities, critical management
and marketing scholars have challenged corporate communication on several
accounts. Cornelissen and Lock (2000), for example, suggested that integrated
communication is an attractive management fashion because of the simple
solutions it appears to offer, but whose instrumental value is difficult to
identify and evaluate because of the vagueness of its jargon. Simultaneously,
Christensen, Morsing, et al. (2008) argued that corporate communication and
its implied belief in message regulation and control ignores important devel-
opments and insight from the general field of organization studies. Although
seemingly celebrating employee involvement, corporate communication
research and practice advances a type of employee regulation that in fact
contradicts notions of participation and empowerment (Christensen, Morsing,
et al., 2008). The organization we find represented in the corporate com-
munication literature is an organization that operates in the full service of the
communications program, in other words, an organization defined, shaped,
and controlled by its overall corporate message (Christensen, Frat, & Torp,
2008). With its notion of integration, corporate communication imposes new
types of inflexibility on organizations that subscribe to this ideal and, thus,
constrain their ability to respond to changes in environments marked by tur-
bulence and change (Christensen, Frat, et al., 2008; Christensen, Frat, &
Cornelissen, 2009). The potential for reaping the fruits of its different voices
and thus retain diversity and possibilities for change (see also, Hazen, 1993;
Morrison & Milliken, 2000) are seriously constrained in organizations that
subscribe to the strict ideals of corporate communication.
Against these ideals, it may be argued that organizationsand especially
large corporationsmay speak with many different voices simultaneously.
Thus, we know that organizations often differentiate their messages to adapt
to different audiences (Hill & Winski, 1987; Onkvisit & Shaw, 1987), culti-
vate strategic ambiguity (Eisenberg, 1984) to accommodate multiple interpre-
tations and conflicting goals, and manage multiple identities (Cheney, 1991)
to build and maintain legitimacy in a complex world. Even with such strate-
gies, however, attempts to define the organizations identity from above are
precarious and likely to be contested. As Alvesson and Willmott (2002)
pointed out, efforts to foster, regulate, and control processes of loyalty and
commitment are frequently challenged by employees who fail to see, or reject
the notion, that the identity defined by management is inclusive enough to
embrace the differences among organizational members (e.g., Fairhurst,
Jordan, & Neuwirth, 1997). Similarly, Humphreys and Brown (2002) pointed
to the difficulties of maintaining a monological and hegemonic identity narra-
tive in an organizational context where centrifugal forces and heteroglossia
unavoidably challenge the community defined and declared by management.
Crucially, the line running through these objections and critiques is that
an organization is neither a single unit nor can it be managed and controlled
as such. In fact, when managers are too strictly trying to manage and control
its communication and its employees from the perspective of a single
organizational or corporate identity, it may undermine employee well-
being and morale and stifle creativity, innovation, and organizational adap-
tation (Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003). Recent studies on CSR, for example,
demonstrated that although we usually associate responsibility and account-
ability with consistency, organizations are not single unitary actors. Pavelin,
Barmmer, and Porter (2009) showed that corporations operating in so-called
countries of concern (with questionable governance or corruption or
where governments knowingly suppress human rights) often continue with
their operations (as one part of their activities) in such settings but, to offset
any possible negative stakeholder perceptions, give more to charitable
donations and promote their donations (as another part) on the other.
Although such behavior is often denunciated, the significance and inevita-
bility of buffers or loose couplings between different dimensions of the
organizational practice are fully acknowledged in the classic organizational
literature (e.g., Orton & Weick, 1990; Thompson, 1967; Weick, 1976; see
also, Meyer & Rowan, 1977). More recently, it has been argued that orga-
nizations operating in complex environments cannot escape some level of
hypocrisyunderstood as a split between words, decisions, and other types
of organizational action (Brunsson, 2003a, 2003b; Christensen, Morsing, &
Thyssen, 2010). Consequently, we cannot and should not look at organiza-
tions simply as single and unitary actors but rather perhaps as collections
of individuals and activities, dispersed over the globe, from where strate-
gies and coordinated activities emerge. The same kind of critique extends
to the models of communication discussed in corporate communication
research.
A Persistent Ideal
Why should scholars of organizational communication pay any attention to
a managerial mind-set so clearly preoccupied with marketing or public rela-
tions concerns of visibility, linear persuasion, communication impact, and
control? After all, and as Hallahan et al. (2007) have argued with respect to
the term strategic, corporate evokes a one-way, managerial, and thus top-
down, approach to communication that seems to ignore the utmost concern
of organizational communication: the communication practices of organiza-
tions and their members. Against this view, we argue that the mind-set of
corporate communication no longer is an exclusively managerial project, but
an ideal that is shared and kept alive by many different actors inside and
outside the organization. As such, and as we shall argue below, corporate
communication is dramatically shaping how contemporary organizations
come to see, manage, and evaluate their communication activities.
In spite of the problems and critiques outlined above, the mind-set behind
corporate communication continues to appeal to organizations for many dif-
ferent reasons. Its attraction to corporate managers is rather straightforward.
Speaking of alignment, integration, consistency, synergy, and so on, corpo-
rate communication holds the promise of order, stability, and predictability
in an otherwise fragmented and uncertain world (Cornelissen, 2001; see also
Cornelissen & Lock, 2000). Simultaneously, corporate communication jus-
tifies a more centralized control of an organizations communication func-
tions in a business environment that otherwise calls for participation,
involvement, and decentralization (Christensen et al., 2005). Among the
most dramatic formulations of this promise, bergs (1990) notion of total
communications sends the message to contemporary managers that it is
necessary and feasible to encompass all communications, both externally
directed communication activities and internal messages, within one inte-
grated whole. No matter how idealistic or even delusional such notions may
sound, their rhetorical appeal should not be underestimated.
The current appeal of corporate communication, however, goes far beyond
these narrow managerial interests. Clearly, organizations are concerned that
without coherence, integration, or consistency, their messages can be misun-
derstood and their audiences get conflicting or inconsistent meanings which,
in the end, may cause confusion and distrust in what the organization offers
or stands for. Today, where corporate misconduct is so strongly associated
with inconsistency and insincerity, this concern is representedand fre-
quently articulatedby many other stakeholders, including critical interest
groups, journalists, and the media. Although these audiences do not necessar-
ily ask for corporate communication per se, there is a growing call for com-
munication consistency and coherence in society at large (Christensen &
Langer, 2009). Thus, although early articulations of corporate communication
were driven by an interest in aligning a limited number of tangible marketing
or design parameters, today the most powerful driver behind integration
seems to be a potent combination of inquisitive publics demanding insight
and information and critical media and journalists zealously looking for gaps,
contradictions, and discrepancies in corporate messages. Owing to these
pressures, organizations and institutions across sectors are compulsively
focused on producing consistent messages to both internal and external audi-
ences (Christensen et al., 2009). In their efforts to respond to social expecta-
tions for accountability and transparency and to present themselves as
coherent, reliable, and trustworthy institutions with nothing to hide, a growing
number of organizations, for example, implement policies of consistency by
formalizing all communications and pursuing uniformity in everything they
say and do (Christensen & Langer, 2009). The emphasis on corporate credi-
bility and the growing desire for information and stakeholder insight seem
to indicate that an increasingly critical and well-organized public is in fact
demanding such policies of consistency.
As the pool of arguments in favor of integration is expanding beyond mar-
keting and corporate design into revered areas such as accountability, sus-
tainability, and CSR, the ambition of corporate communication becomes
even more difficult to rejecteven though it ignores decades of research into
the organizational dimensions of communication. Although the connection is
rarely expressed in such terms, it may well be the case that ingenuous pro-
grams of CSR, sustainability, and accountability are unthinkable today with-
out corporate communication and its systematic focus on integration. Under
these circumstances, the notion of consistency becomes a shared currency
that brings together the expectations and demands of critical stakeholders
with the ideals and endeavors of corporate communicators.
Given these trends, it is only logical that corporate communication has
become a guiding principle for communication management and has expanded
from a rather vague and bounded activity to an organization-wide issue and
concern spanning functional and disciplinary confines. Following its expan-
sion to still more dimensions of the organization, the field is experiencing a
growing involvement from management. As Cornelissen (2008a) pointed
out, corporate communication is increasingly understood as a management
functiona function that offers a framework and vocabulary for the effec-
tive coordination of all means of communications with the overall purpose of
establishing and maintaining favourable reputations with stakeholder groups
upon which the organization is dependent (p. 5). Realizing that communica-
tions are no longer a bounded set of tactical activities but an ongoing strategic
process that taps directly into issues of identity and legitimacy and, ultimately,
organizational survival, organizational leaders increasingly seek to master
communication as a general managerial competence.
In the remainder of this article, we will explore how the field of organi-
zational communications may enrich our understanding of corporate com-
munication as a specific management discourse with important consequences
for contemporary organizations. In particular, we will discuss how the ideals
of corporate communication may be recaptured and rearticulated in a disci-
plinary context in which communication is not seen as a conduit through
which organizations simply relay and amplify their self-perceptions, but as
an active and constitutive force in the construction of organizations.
The Communicative
Constitution of Organizations
Organizational communication scholars have long been claiming that com-
munication is an important force of organizing, indeed is the building block
of organizations (e.g., Putnam & Nicotera, 2009). Inspired by Weicks
(1979) emphasis on the process of organizing (rather than the noun and entity
of organization) as well as by the turn toward discourse and language analy-
sis in the social sciences, this claim has been elaborated by a growing com-
munity of speech analysts and interpretive scholars interested in questions of
how communication is the means by which human beings coordinate actions,
create relationships, and constitute or maintain organizations (e.g., Putnam
& Pacanowsky, 1983). Although theoretical perspectives on the communi-
cative constitution of organizations (CCO) vary (e.g., Ashcraft, Kuhn, &
Cooren, 2009; Putnam & Nicotera, 2009), they subscribe to the same empha-
sis on the formative effect of language and speech on collective sense mak-
ing and social coordination.
Collective sense making, to the extent that it involves communication,
takes place in interactive talk and draws on institutionalized resources of lan-
guage to formulate and exchange through talk symbolically encoded represen-
tations of the jointly experienced circumstances (Taylor & Van Every, 2000).
As this occurs, a situation is talked into existence as basis for collective action.
Communication, and the collective sense making that emerges from it, is,
thus, an act of turning circumstances into a situation that is comprehended
explicitly in words and that serves as a springboard to action (Taylor & Van
Every, 2000, p. 40; see also Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005).
A basic assumption here is that although the inner thoughts and imagina-
tions of individuals within organizations matter, they are not spoken or even
necessarily speakable; to get to speech, something further takes place. Sense
making, in other words, functionally refers to the point where ideas take form
in the stream of an individuals experience with external speech reconfigur-
ing ideas to fit the demands of spoken language (Cornelissen & Clarke,
2010). The linguist Slobin (1987, 1996) labeled this as thinking for speaking
that refers to how individuals organize their thinking to meet the demands of
linguistic encoding online, during acts of speaking with others. As he noted
(1996), Whatever else language may do in human thought and action,
it surely directs us to attendwhile speakingto the dimensions of experi-
ence that are enshrined in grammatical categories (p. 71). According to
Slobin (1996), the demands of online sense making require that individuals
think by speaking (cf. Weick, 1979), which means that they pick those
characteristics that (a) fit some conceptualization of the event, and [that]
(b) are readily encodable in the language (p. 76). Within this process,
thought and language are intimately and dynamically connected at the point
where individuals verbalize their ideas and, although communicating, articu-
late them in their speech to others.
Communication is also a dynamic process, with the social context of
speaking and the interactions with others affecting the construction of mean-
ing. Taylor and Van Every (2000), in their classic text, referred to the work
of the linguist Goldberg (1995) on construction grammar and frame seman-
tics to make this particular point. Frame semantics originally emerged from
the work of Charles Fillmore who suggested that the meaning of many words
relies on our experiences with the cultural scenarios and social institutions
they presuppose. Fillmore (1975, p. 124) initially defined a frame as a system
of categories invoked by words and whose structure is rooted in some moti-
vating cultural context. Words are defined with respect to a frame and per-
form a categorization that takes the frame for granted. Activating a frame
thus creates expectations about important aspects of the context or circum-
stance by directing individuals to elaborate on the default or prototypical
scenario in a manner suggested by the frame (Lakoff, 1987). Although frames
are linguistically motivated within frame semantics, they may invoke entire
conceptual scenarios or scripts accessed from working memory (cf. Minsky,
1975; Schank & Abelson, 1977). Individuals use such frames (also referred
to as idealized cognitive models or scripts (e.g., Barsalou, 1992; Lakoff,
1987)) to make inferences in context, to make default assumptions about
unmentioned aspects of situations, and to make predictions about the conse-
quences of their actions. Although they aid individual inferences, within the
context of a work group or organization, specific words (e.g., action verbs,
role-related vocabulary) may also cue collective scenarios or familiar scripts
and can thus be seen as behavioral grammars that inform a settings every-
day action (Barley, 1986, p. 83). Such common scenarios or scripts may
enable individuals to comprehend and predict the behavior of others through
stereotypical inference and, as such, support coordinated collective action if
individuals commit themselves to playing out the scripted situations (Gioia &
Poole, 1984; Pentland & Reuter, 1994). A highly scripted scenario (Schank &
Abelson, 1977, p. 422) in particular is one that, because of its familiarity, pro-
vides an expectation about what will happen next in a well understood situ-
ation, thus [obviating] the need to think (Schank & Abelson, 1995, pp. 5-6).
Through communication, and the formative effects of language in par-
ticular, a collective situation is defined and encoded in understandable
terms. In addition, through the cultural frames (e.g., scripts) that may be
invoked, certain representations and scenarios (with implications for action)
are suggested that provide a basis for social coordination. In both these
senses, communication can be said to shape or constitute organizing as a
collective process of sense making and coordination.
Building on these basic assumptions, recent research in organizational
communication (e.g., Cooren & Fairhurst, 2009) has been devoted to ques-
tions of scaling up from communication between individuals (micro) to the
organization (macro). Cooren and Fairhurst (2009), for example, theoreti-
cally suggested that any local act of communication between individuals
already implies other times and spaces, whether these are in the future or in
the past. Society and its institutions, in a sense, speak through our utterances
to the effect that our talk always is collective or organizational (Taylor &
Cooren, 1997). Larger structures such as rules and procedures are embodied
or implicated in specific acts of communication and sense making in the
here and now, with such embodiments shaping future action and com-
munication. Hence, the focus is on how the macro organization, as the collec-
tive whole, is constantly present in local acts of communication. Robichaud,
Giroux, and Taylor (2004) similarly suggested that language as a resource
and in the way in which it is used is recursive. To be recursive means that
the structure of a whole emerges in the same way as the structure of the parts
(Taylor, 2009, p. 175). Language thus functions as both the matter and the
framework of communication, as defined above (Robichaud et al., 2004).
Cultural frames, which include representations of individual roles and identi-
ties as well as routine behaviors, are represented and socially confirmed in
and through language. Finally, Taylor and Cooren (1997) and Taylor and
Van Every (2000) considered how communication, although allowing indi-
viduals to magnify the power of their personal voices, implies epistemic clo-
sure in their understanding of the circumstances or objects to which they
relate, with this closure changing their relationship into a single unit (an
in-group or organization). Their affiliation switches to the joint relation-
ship (see also Cornelissen et al., 2007), and as a result they may act as a single
agent (Taylor & Cooren, 1997).
Communication and Emergence
Organizations, as social or macro phenomena, are recursively implicated
in local acts of communication and sense making. This is a similar kind of
metonymic argument (part-whole reversal) to the one implied in corporate
communication. However, it is markedly different in the sense that it consid-
ers organizations not as a given, but as emerging in, and indeed constituted
by, such local episodes. What this means is that organizations are constantly
(re)produced, and thus subjected to change and renewal. It also implies that
individual voices matter in the constitution of organizations, and as such it
unsettles the privileged perspective (panopticon) and the assumption that the
organization, as an entity or actor, exists ex ante.
Models of CCO suggest that common knowledge about an organization is
not necessary for the emergence of symbolic conventions and organized
behavior. According to these models, semantic representations are coordi-
nated through its actual use (e.g., Barr, 2004; Donnellon et al., 1986; Hewes,
2009), that is, as a by-product of individual attempts at coordination among
individuals who are distributed over time and across space. The origin of
symbolic conventions lies in the act of communication itself, and not in its
externalization. Individuals also do not necessarily share an explicit global
representation of common knowledge about the organization. The primary
focus instead is on the connections between individuals and, specifically,
between their communicative acts (i.e., the communicative statements they
produce). Collective sense making about the organization, in other words,
emerges from the interactions of individuals and the complex connections
between those interactions rather than resides in individuals (e.g., Barr, 2004;
Hewes, 2009; Hutchins, 1995). When applied to organizational settings, it is
assumed that individuals may have incomplete knowledge but are capable of
responding to unexpected events and interactions and are able to modify their
communication opportunistically (Barr, 2004; Hewes, 2009; Sawyer, 2005).
Collectively, then, individuals may resemble an improvisational jazz perfor-
mance (Weick, 1998) or a plastic (collective) mind (Weick & Roberts, 1993)
in which it is the individuals reactions to communicative statements (and the
choices the reactants make about how to connect) that constitute the collec-
tive, emergent sense-making process and any notion of an organization. As
in improvisational jazz, structure and stability exist, but unlike a fully scripted
performance, the emergent character of the communication is primary.
The Polyphony of the Organizational Voice
Taking this idea one step further, the CCO perspective recognizes an orga-
nization as emerging from, or constituted in, a multiplicity of voices. Organi-
zations or society, as Taylor and Cooren (1997) put it, [have] no voice of
[their] own (p. 433; cf. Morin, 1973, 1986). Taylor and Cooren drew on
Durkheim and Boden to argue that organizational communication is inevita-
bly local, as it continuously depends on local repetitions of collective opinions
and representations. This is not to suggest that individual voices simply
reproduce ritualistically the voice of the collectivity. The dynamics of any
social collectivity depends on a constant interplay between order and disorder
(Morin, 1973, 1986), between society as instituted and society in the making
(see also, Castoriadis, 1987; Giddens, 1984). In this process, the polyphony
of local articulation plays a central role.
In turn, this suggests that although the growing desire for clarity and
consistency is understandable in todays business environment, organiza-
tions are simultaneously dependent on the many voices of its individual
speakers. Against the prevailing propensity of contemporary management
to focus on consistency in corporate messagesa propensity which, as we
have seen, ignores the organizational and behavioral complexities of human
communicationwe suggest that polyphony is an essential dimension of all
organizing. The very concept of polyphony, and its study in episodes of com-
munication, has been a hallmark of organizational communication research.
In the organizational context, polyphony manifests itself at many different
levels. Language is not only essentially polyphonic but also used deliberately
to obfuscate or to allow for multiple interpretations to coexist side by side.
The Russian linguist Mikhail Bakhtin (1981) introduced the notion of hetero-
glossia to describe the centrifugal powers of language and the coexistence of
distinct varieties within a single linguistic code. Heteroglossia challenges the
assumption that communicators must conform to the same linguistic code for
communication to take place. Following Bakhtin, Humphrey, and Brown
pointed out that organizations are not discursively monolithic, but pluralis-
tic and polyphonic, involving multiple dialogical practices that occur simul-
taneously and sequentially (p. 422). Although clarity and consistency may
be essential dimensions of contemporary communication ideals, such com-
munication does not necessarily guarantee the type of agreement, commit-
ment, and an esprit-de-corps presupposed by corporate communication
(Pascale & Athos, 1981). In contrast to the emphasis on sharedness, coher-
ence, and commitment, as we often find the literatures on corporate commu-
nication, corporate branding, and integrated communication (e.g., Ind, 1997),
Eisenberg (1984) posited that vague and equivocal language allows organi-
zations to talk about themselves in ways that integrate a variety of members
and stakeholders without alienating anyone. Too much clarity and consis-
tency in the formulation of shared values may actually prevent managers
from establishing accord with some corporate audiences. Although writings
in corporate communication and corporate branding call for organizations to
eliminate ambiguity (e.g., Hatch & Schultz, 2001), ambiguity is essential in
promoting what Eisenberg calls unified diversity (p. 230), the ability for
differences to coexist within the unity of the organization. Ambiguity and
polyphony may even be a conscious management strategy designed to foster
identification and reduce tension by allowing different audiences to apply
different interpretations to what is seen as one corporate message (Christensen
et al., 2010).
Implications and Recommendations
for Research
If we accept the propositions that organizations emerge in communication
(Taylor & Van Every, 2000) and that communication has organizing proper-
ties that shape and generate organizations (Cooren, 1999), the ways organiza-
tions and their members formulate visions and ideals for their communication
practices are important to studyeven when such visions and ideals contra-
dict established knowledge in the field.
As corporate communication has expanded from a rather vague term
referring loosely to messages from (major) corporations to a broader com-
munication ideal shared by many different stakeholders, it potentially has
wide-ranging implications for organizational life. The field therefore calls for
a thorough examination and deconstruction of its dominant assumptions, its
main arguments, and its levels of analysisas well as their consequences for
managerial practice. In analyzing the field of corporate communication from
the perspective of organizational communication, our question should be:
What type of organization emerges in a social environment in which both
managers and critical stakeholders focus compulsively on wholeness, consis-
tency, and integration in all communication?
Corporate communication makes people inside and outside organizations
pay attention to certain things, like gaps and inconsistencies in corporate
messages, although ignoring other dimensions such as, for example, the
adaptive and innovative potential of variety and differences; it frames situa-
tions in terms of clarity and univocality, attracts resources (including profes-
sional positions) to integrated communication programs, and invites certain
types of action, like projects of corporate branding. Folded into the vision of
corporate communication, thus, are not only prescriptions for proper ways of
devising and handling messages and campaigns but also definitions of orga-
nization that guide the behaviors of managers and employees far beyond
message creation and message handling per se (see e.g., Putnam, Phillips, &
Chapman, 1996). We therefore call on organizational communication schol-
ars to study the organizational dimensions of corporate communication.
More specifically, scholars of organizational communication may study the
following:
The structural dimensions of corporate communication, including
questions of how its call for consistency and wholeness may stimu-
late the emergence of new types of (consolidated) communication
departments, change the role and the influence of communication
man agers, or give rise to new cross-disciplinary communication
functions;
How corporate communication, as an ideal and mind-set, shapes
organizational decision making, and how its notion of integration
is used as a decisional premise in arguments about projects, power,
and resources;
How corporate communication, as an ideal and mind-set, influences
the way organizations collect and handle information, including
questions of what opportunities and trends corporate communica-
tion allows organizations to see or, alternatively, ignore;
Types of organizational culture stimulated by the corporate com-
munication ideal, including questions of how new employees are
socialized into cultures that emphasize integration and the impor-
tance of alignment and commitment to a shared corporate brand;
Issues of organizational identity and identification and the diffi-
culties of managing univocal identities in complex and multifac-
eted environments that often call for flexibility and differentiated
messages;
The role of leadership in defining and communicating consistent
images of what the organization is or stands for, including redefi-
nition, manipulation, and other types of resistance to such images;
Issues of participation and ownership in corporate communication
projects, including the question of how (even critical) members of
the organization may contribute to the maintenance of consistency
as an organizational ideal;
Questions of power, control, and hegemony associated with the proj-
ect of corporate communication and its implementation, including
issues of discursive closure;
New types of organizational conflict stimulated by the call for con-
sistency and univocality in organizational messages;
Corporate communication as a discourse of organizational change
or persistence;
The role of information technologies in driving managerial projects
of message integration and consistency;
The significance of globalization in stimulating corporate com-
munication as an ideal among managers and critical stakeholders,
including questions of organizational isomorphism;
And the role of ethics in shaping discourses on organizational
consistency.
Considering the social pressures on contemporary organizationsfocused
in particular on accountability and credibilitythe continuous expansion of
the field of corporate communication seems both logical and inevitable. In
such a context, it is not sufficient to reiterate the difficulties of managing
univocal images of organizations. Such difficulties are generally well con-
ceived and understood. The current challenge for scholars of organizational
communication may instead be to appreciate and conceptualize how the
growing pressure on contemporary organizations to pursue such images none-
theless shapes the management of both internal and external messages. Such
pressure and its implied call for corporate communication is rarely articulated
and discussed in the organizational communication literature. Given the orga-
nizational and social implications of such efforts, it is time, we believe, that
scholars of organizational communication begin to embrace corporate com-
munication as a powerful management discourse able to shape the communi-
cative practices of contemporary organizations. To paraphrase Hallahan et al.
(2007), the emergence of corporate communication as a unifying paradigm
for studying communicative consistency and integration provides an impor-
tant opportunity to reinvigorate and refocus the study of organizational com-
munication in the context of contemporary markets. As a particular way of
organizing, the attempts to apply consistency and assert univocality in and
around contemporary organizations are an interesting (and, perhaps, trouble-
some) managerial dream in itself and certainly worthy of study as a new type
of communication ideal through which new types of organizations poten-
tially emerge.
The theoretical perspectives and methods associated with organizational
communication simultaneously complement and enrich scholarship on cor-
porate communication. It unsettles the assumption of a fixed organization
and brings a new range of questions to the theory and practice of corporate
communication about politics, voice, and social coordination or organization,
as a process. The ideal of corporate communication implies that the represen-
tation of an organization is given and known to all and is not often or easily
subjected to debate or discussion. Organizational communication offers a
more liberating perspective that recognizes the multiple voices of individuals
within an organization. It opens up the black box of the organization includ-
ing processes of politics and polyphony.
The emergent or constitutive model of communication helps in address-
ing the question of how organizational identities may change and be trans-
formed over time. Depending on the connections that individuals make
while communicating, the organization and its identity is constructed rather
than antecedently given or residing in individuals (e.g., Barr, 2004; Hewes,
2009; Hutchins, 1995). Such an emergence or constitutive model may reso-
nate with communication professionals who have been involved in organi-
zational changes and who recognize that an identity is dependent on the
voices of individual employees. Such a model, however, has so far not been
promoted as part of corporate communication teachings, with most graduates
still leaving business or communication schools with the ideals of whole-
ness, unity, and integration in mind.
As we have seen, the research traditions of corporate and organizational
communication are significantly different in terms of their level of analysis.
These traditions also have very different assumptions as to whether an orga-
nization is objectively given, as a representation of an entity or single actor,
or whether it is constituted in, and emerges from, communication. Despite
these differences, we also believe that they share common ground. One way
of considering this common ground is to recognize that both metonymically
combine the micro and macro in their analysis of an organization. Corporate
communication research generally examines issues of corporate representa-
tion to stakeholders that metonymically compress the complexity of organiza-
tions into a single corporate actor although organizational communication
research tends to address how organizations metaphorically emerge in, or are
constituted by, communication processes at more micro levels of analysis.
The advantage of recognizing the dynamic interplay between metonymy and
metaphor is that it forces us not to objectify or locate organizations either
in abstract metaphorical images of, say, a corporate identity or in specific or
local instances or episodes of talk, although ignoring that wider social struc-
ture and institutionalized scripts may exist. The whole, in other words, is
recursively and dynamically related to the parts, and holding this in perspec-
tive allows us to recognize corporate and organizational communication as
two sides of the same coin.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article.
References
berg, L. E. G. (1990). Theoretical model and praxis of total communications. Inter-
national Public Relations Review, 13(2), 13-16.
Abratt, R. (1989). A new approach to the corporate image management process. Journal
of Marketing Management, 15, 63-76.
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 263-295).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control: Pro-
ducing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 619-644.
Andersen, N. A. (2003). The undecidability of decision. In T. Bakken & T. Hernes
(Eds.), Autopoietic organization theory (pp. 235-258). Oslo, Norway: Copenha-
gen Business School Press.
Argenti, P. A. (1998). Corporate communication (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin
McGraw-Hill.
Argenti, P. A., Howell, R. A., & Beck, K. A. (2005, Spring). The strategic communi-
cation imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46, 83-87.
Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009). Constitutional amendments:
Materializing organizational communication. In J. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief
(Eds.), The academy of management annals (Vol. 3, pp. 1-64). London, UK:
Routledge.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate
marketingSeeing though the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 248-291.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2003). Revealing the corporation: Perspectives on
identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing.
London, UK: Routledge.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Soenen, G. M. (1999). The ACID test of corporate identity man-
agement. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 69-92.
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from obser-
vations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 31, 78-108.
Barr, D. J. (2004). Establishing conventional communication systems: Is common
knowledge necessary? Cognitive Science, 28, 937-962.
Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In E. Kittay &
A. Lehrer (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical
organization (pp. 21-74). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bouchikhi, H., & Kimberly, J. R. (2003, Spring). Escaping the identity trap. Sloan
Management Review, 44, 20-26.
Brunsson, N. (2003a). The organization of hypocrisy. Talk, decisions and actions in
organizations (2nd ed.). Oslo, Norway: Liber.
Brunsson, N. (2003b). Organized hypocrisy. In B. Czarnaiwska & G. Sevn (Eds.),
The Northern LightsOrganization theory in Scandinavia (pp. 201-222).
Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society. Managing multiple identi-
ties. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Cheney, G., Roper, J., & May, S. (2007). Overview. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper
(Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 3-12). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Christensen, L. T., & Askegaard, S. (2001). Corporate identity and corporate image
revisited. A semiotic perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 292-315.
Christensen, L. T., & Cheney, G. (2000). Self-absorption and self-seduction in the
corporate identity game. In M. Schultz, M. J. Hatch, & M. H. Larsen (Eds.), The
expressive organisation (pp. 246-270). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Christensen, L. T., & Langer, R. (2009). Public relations and the strategic use of transpar-
ency: Consistency, hypocrisy and corporate change. In E. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.),
Critical and rhetorical approaches to public relations (pp. 129-153). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Christensen, L. T., Frat, A. F., & Cornelissen, J. (2009). New tensions and challenges
in integrated communications. Corporate Communication: An International Jour-
nal, 14, 207-219.
Christensen, L. T., Frat, A. F., & Torp, S. (2008). The organization of integrated
communications: Toward flexible integration. European Journal of Marketing,
42, 423-452.
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Cheney, G. (2008). Corporate communications:
Convention, complexity and critique. London, UK: SAGE.
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2010). The polyphony of corpo-
rate social responsibility. Deconstructing accountability and transparency in
the context of identity and hypocrisy. In G. Cheney, S. May, & D. Munshi
(Eds.), Handbook of communication ethics (pp. 457-474). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Christensen, L. T., Torp, S., & Frat, A. F. (2005). Integrated marketing communica-
tion and postmodernity: An odd couple? Corporate Communication: An Interna-
tional Journal, 10, 156-167.
Cohen, J. B., & Basu, K. (1987). Alternative models of categorization: Toward a
contingent processing framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 455-472.
Cooren, F. (1999). The organizing property of communication. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
Cooren, F., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2009). Dislocation and stabilization: How to scale up
from interactions to organization. In L. L. Putnam & A. M. Nicotera (Eds.), The
communicative constitution of organization: Centering organizational communi-
cation (pp. 117-152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2001). Integrated marketing communications and the language of
marketing development. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 483-498.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2008a). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice
(2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2008b). Metonymy in language about organizations: A corpus-
based study of company names. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 79-99.
Cornelissen, J. P., & Clarke, J. S. (2010). Imagining and rationalizing opportunities:
Inductive reasoning, and the creation and justification of new ventures. Academy
of Management Review, 35, 539-557.
Cornelissen, J. P., Haslam, S. A. & Balmer J. M. T. (2007). Social identity, organi-
zational identity and corporate identity: Towards an integrated understanding of
processes, patternings and products. British Journal of Management, 18, 1-16.
Cornelissen, J. P., & Lock, A. R. (2000). Theoretical concept or management fashion:
Examining the significance of integrated marketing communications. Journal of
Advertising Research, 40(5), 7-15.
Cova, B. (1996). The postmodern explained to managers: Implications for marketing.
Business Horizons, 39(6), 15-23.
De Chernatony, L. (2002). Would a brand smell any sweeter by a corporate name?
Corporate Reputation Review, 5, 114-132.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of
corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Dilenschneider, R. L. (2000). The corporate communications Bible. Everything
you need to know to become a public relations expert. Beverly Hills, CA: New
Millennium Press.
Dolphin, R. R. (1999). The fundamentals of corporate communications. Oxford, UK:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Donnellon, A., Gray, B., & Bougon, M. G. (1986). Communication, meaning and
organized action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 43-55.
Duncan, T. (1993, March 8). Integrated marketing? Its synergy. Advertising Age, p. 22.
Duncan, T. (2005). Principles of advertising & IMC (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Duncan, T., & Caywood, C. (1996). The concept, process, and evolution of integrated
marketing communication. In E. Thorson & J. Moore (Eds.), Integrated com-
munication: Synergy of persuasive voices (pp. 13-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Duranti, A. (1986). The audience as co-author: An introduction. Text, 6, 239-247.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and iden-
tity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517-554.
Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication.
Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242.
Fairhurst, G. T., Jordan, J. M., & Neuwirth, K. (1997). Why are we here? Managing
the meaning of the organizational mission. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 25, 243-263.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Berkeley
Linguistics Society, 1, 123-131.
Fombrun, C. J., & Rindova, V. P. (2000). The road to transparency: Reputation man-
agement at Royal Dutch/Shell. In M. Schultz, M. J. Hatch, & M. H. Larsen (Eds.),
The expressive organisation: Linking identity, reputation and the corporate brand
(pp. 77-98). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fombrun, C. J., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Fame and fortune: How the worlds top
companies develop winning reputations. New York, NY: Pearson.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. outline of the theory of structuration.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gioia, D. A., & Poole, P. P. (1984). Scripts in organizational behavior. Academy of
Management Review, 9, 449-459.
Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and
adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63-81.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argu-
ment structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Goodman, M. B. (1994). Corporate communication. Theory and practice. Albany:
State of New York Press.
Goossens, L. (1995a). Metaphtonomy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in
expressions for linguistic action. In L. Goossens, P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn,
A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen, & J. Vanparys (Eds.), By word of mouth: Metaphor,
metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective (pp. 159-174). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Goossens, L. (1995b). From three respectable horses mouths: Metonymy and
conventionalization in a diachronically differentiated database. In L. Goossens,
P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen, & J. Vanparys
(Eds.), By word of mouth: Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cogni-
tive perspective (pp. 175-204). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Gronstedt, A. (1996). Integrated communications in Americas leading total quality
management corporations. Public Relations Review, 22, 25-42.
Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Vercic, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007).
Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communi-
cation, 1, 3-35.
Harrison, S. (1995). Public relations: An introduction. London, UK: Routledge.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate
brand? Harvard Business Review, 79, 128-134.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. S. (2002). The dynamics of organizational identity. Human
Relations, 55, 989-1018.
Hazen, M. A. (1993). Towards polyphonic organization. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 6(5), 15-26.
Hewes, D. E. (2009). The influence of communication processes on group outcomes:
Antithesis and thesis. Human Communication Research, 35, 249-271.
Hill, J. S., & Winski, J. M. (1987, November 16). Goodbye global ads. Global village
is fantasyland for big marketers. Advertising Age, pp. 22, 36.
Humphreys, M., & Brown, A. D. (2002). Narratives of organizational identity and
identification: A case study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies,
23, 421-447.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hutton, J. G. (1996a). Integrated relationship-marketing communication: A key
opportunity of IMC. Journal of Marketing Communications, 2, 191-199.
Hutton, J. G. (1996b). Integrated marketing communications and the evolution of
marketing thought. Journal of Business Research, 37, 55-162.
Ind, N. (1997). The corporate brand. London, UK: Macmillan.
Iser, W. (1974). The implied reader. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jakobson, R. (1990). Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances.
In L. R. Waugh & M. Monville-Burston (Eds.), On language/Roman Jakobson
(pp. 115-133). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work pub-
lished 1956)
Jackson, P. (1987). Corporate Communication for Managers, London: Pitman.
Jauss, H. R. (1982). Toward an aesthetic of reception. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minneapolis Press.
Knox, S., & Bickerton, D. (2003). The six conventions of corporate branding. European
Journal of Marketing, 37, 998-1016.
Kunde, J. (2000). Corporate religion. Building a strong company through personality
and corporate soul. London, UK: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume II descriptive
applications. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Manning, P. K. (1979). Metaphors of the field: Varieties of organizational discourse.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 660-671.
Marchand, R. (1998). Creating the corporate soul. The rise of public relations and
corporate imagery in American big business. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structure as
myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.),
The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211-277). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Mitchell, C. (2002). Selling the brand inside. Harvard Business Review, 80, 99-105.
Morgan, G. (1983). More on metaphor: Why we cannot control tropes in administra-
tive science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 601-607.
Morgan, G. (1996). Is there anything more to be said about metaphor? In D. Grant & C.
Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organizations (pp. 227-240). London, UK: SAGE.
Morin, E. (1973). Le paradigme perdu: La nature humaine [Paradigm lost: Human
nature]. Paris, France: Seuil.
Morin, E. (1986). La mthode 3. La connaissance de la connaissance. Livre premier:
Antropologie de la connaisance [Method 3. The knowledge of knowledge. Book
One: Anthropology of Knowledge]. Paris, France: Seuil.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change
and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25,
706-725.
Nessmann, K. (1995, Summer). Public relations in Europe. A comparison with the
United States. Public Relations Review, 21, 151-160.
Olins, W. (1989). Corporate identityMaking business strategy visible through
design. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Onkvisit, S., & Shaw, J. J. (1987). Standardized international advertising: A review
and critical evaluation of the theoretical and empirical evidence. Columbia Journal
of World Business, 22, 43-55.
Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization.
Academy of Management Review, 15, 203-223.
Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. (1981). The art of Japanese management. New York,
NY: Simon and Schuster.
Pavelin, S., Barmmer, S. J., & Porter, L. A. (2009). Corporate charitable giving, mul-
tinational companies and countries of concern. Journal of Management Studies,
46, 575-596.
Pentland, B. T., & Reuter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of
action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 484-510.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. Lessons from Americas
best run companies. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Putnam, L. L., & Nicotera, A. M. (2009). Building theories of organization: The
constitutive role of communication. London, UK: Routledge.
Putnam, L. L., & Pacanowsky, M. E. (1983). Communication and organizations: An
interpretive approach. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Putnam, L., Phillips, N., & Chapman, P. (1996). Metaphors of communication and
organization. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of orga-
nization studies (pp. 375-408). London, UK: SAGE.
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our lan-
guage about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284-297).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Robichaud, D., Giroux, H., & Taylor, J. R. (2004). The metaconversation: The
recursive property of language as a key to organizing. Academy of Management
Review, 29, 617-634.
Sawyer, R. Keith. (2005). Social Emergence: Societies As Complex Systems. Cam-
bridge University Press.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1995). Knowledge and memory: The real story.
London, UK: Taylor and Francis.
Scholes, E., & Clutterbuck, D. (1998). Communication with stakeholders. An inte-
grated approach. Long Range Planning, 31, 227-238.
Schultz, D. E., & Kitchen, P. J. (2000). Communicating globally. An integrated
marketing approach. London, UK: Macmillan Business.
Schultz, D. E., & Schultz, H. (2003). IMC. The next generation. Five steps for deliv-
ering value and measuring returns using marketing communication. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Schultz, D. E., Tannenbaum, S., & Lauterborn, R. F. (1994). The new marketing para-
digm. Integrated marketing communications. Chicago, IL: NTC Business Books.
Schultz, M. (2005). A cross-disciplinary perspective of corporate branding. In
M. Schultz, Y. M. Antorini, & F. F. Csaba (Eds.), Towards the second wave of
corporate branding. Purpose/people/process (pp. 23-55). Copenhagen, Denmark:
Copenhagen Business School Press.
Shelby, A. N. (1993). Organizational, business, management, and corporate commu-
nication: An analysis of boundaries and relationships. Journal of Business Com-
munication, 30, 241-267.
Shimp, T. A. (2003). Advertising, promotion & supplemental aspects of integrated
marketing communications (6th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
Simoes, C., Dibb, S., & Fisk, R. (2005). Managing corporate identity: An internal per-
spective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 153-169.
Slobin, D. I. (1987). Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 435-444.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From thought and language to thinking for speaking. In
J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70-96).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, P. (1996, February). Benefits and barriers to integrated communications.
Admap, 19-22.
Taylor, J. R. (2009). Organizing from the bottom up? Reflections on the constitution of
organization in communication. In L. L. Putnam & A. M. Nicotera (Eds.), Building
theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication (pp. 153-186).
London, UK: Routledge.
Taylor, J. R., & Cooren, F. (1997). What makes communication organizational?
How the many voices of a collectivity become the one voice of an organization.
Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 409-438.
Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. (2000). The emergent organization. Communication as
its site and surface, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
van Riel, C. B. M. (1995). Principles of corporate communication. London, UK:
Prentice Hall.
van Riel, C. B. M., & Fombrun, C. (2007). Essentials of corporate communica-
tion: Implementing practices for effective reputation management. London, UK:
Routledge.
Weick, K. (1998). Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organiza-
tion Science, 9/5, 543-555.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful
interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357-381.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of
sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409-421.
Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of
organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 219-234.
Bios
Lars Thger Christensen, PhD (Odense University), is a professor of communica-
tion at the Department of Marketing & Management, University of Southern Denmark.
His research focuses on identity, integration, and transparency and draws on critical
and postmodern approaches to organizational and corporate communications.
Joep Cornelissen, PhD (Manchester Metropolitan University), is a professor in com-
munication and organization at the Department of Management and Organizations,
VU University Amsterdam. His current research focuses on narratives and processes
of framing in the context of entrepreneurship and organizational change.

A61C00100 Bridging Corporate and Organizational Communication by Lars TH Ger Christensen and Joep Cornelissen 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A61C00100 Bridging Corporate and Organizational Communication by Lars TH Ger Christensen and Joep Cornelissen 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

http://mcq.sagepub.

http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

- Dec 13, 2010 Proof

- Aug 10, 2011 Version of Record >>

You might also like