On collective mind and conversational analysis: Response to Cooren

Robert D. Mcphee, Angela Trethewey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The authors note an important problem with Cooren’s (2004) argument that processes of representing, subordinating, and contributing, accomplished routinely in “mundane” conversations, constitute collective organizational mind as discussed by Hutchins (1995) and especially Weick and Roberts (1993). The authors show that everyday conversations can easily exhibit evidence of those three processes and yet amount to heedless, self-centered exchanges and that the lone or unvoiced activities of members can exhibit the essence of the kind of collective mind that generates high reliability organizations (HROs). Therefore, analysis of local conversations is inadequate to demonstrate the existence of collective mind and to explain the high reliability of HROs; such analysis needs supplement by evidence that the conversation contributes to a pattern of institutionalized system-level distributed heedfulness.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)311-326
Number of pages16
JournalManagement Communication Quarterly
Volume19
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2006

Fingerprint

conversation
supplement
evidence
High reliability organizations
Weick

Keywords

  • collective mind
  • organizational communication methods

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Communication
  • Strategy and Management

Cite this

On collective mind and conversational analysis : Response to Cooren. / Mcphee, Robert D.; Trethewey, Angela.

In: Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2006, p. 311-326.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mcphee, Robert D. ; Trethewey, Angela. / On collective mind and conversational analysis : Response to Cooren. In: Management Communication Quarterly. 2006 ; Vol. 19, No. 3. pp. 311-326.
@article{7e662f9f8b644920b99b528d422c2530,
title = "On collective mind and conversational analysis: Response to Cooren",
abstract = "The authors note an important problem with Cooren’s (2004) argument that processes of representing, subordinating, and contributing, accomplished routinely in “mundane” conversations, constitute collective organizational mind as discussed by Hutchins (1995) and especially Weick and Roberts (1993). The authors show that everyday conversations can easily exhibit evidence of those three processes and yet amount to heedless, self-centered exchanges and that the lone or unvoiced activities of members can exhibit the essence of the kind of collective mind that generates high reliability organizations (HROs). Therefore, analysis of local conversations is inadequate to demonstrate the existence of collective mind and to explain the high reliability of HROs; such analysis needs supplement by evidence that the conversation contributes to a pattern of institutionalized system-level distributed heedfulness.",
keywords = "collective mind, organizational communication methods",
author = "Mcphee, {Robert D.} and Angela Trethewey",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.1177/0893318905280324",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "311--326",
journal = "Management Communication Quarterly",
issn = "0893-3189",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - On collective mind and conversational analysis

T2 - Response to Cooren

AU - Mcphee, Robert D.

AU - Trethewey, Angela

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - The authors note an important problem with Cooren’s (2004) argument that processes of representing, subordinating, and contributing, accomplished routinely in “mundane” conversations, constitute collective organizational mind as discussed by Hutchins (1995) and especially Weick and Roberts (1993). The authors show that everyday conversations can easily exhibit evidence of those three processes and yet amount to heedless, self-centered exchanges and that the lone or unvoiced activities of members can exhibit the essence of the kind of collective mind that generates high reliability organizations (HROs). Therefore, analysis of local conversations is inadequate to demonstrate the existence of collective mind and to explain the high reliability of HROs; such analysis needs supplement by evidence that the conversation contributes to a pattern of institutionalized system-level distributed heedfulness.

AB - The authors note an important problem with Cooren’s (2004) argument that processes of representing, subordinating, and contributing, accomplished routinely in “mundane” conversations, constitute collective organizational mind as discussed by Hutchins (1995) and especially Weick and Roberts (1993). The authors show that everyday conversations can easily exhibit evidence of those three processes and yet amount to heedless, self-centered exchanges and that the lone or unvoiced activities of members can exhibit the essence of the kind of collective mind that generates high reliability organizations (HROs). Therefore, analysis of local conversations is inadequate to demonstrate the existence of collective mind and to explain the high reliability of HROs; such analysis needs supplement by evidence that the conversation contributes to a pattern of institutionalized system-level distributed heedfulness.

KW - collective mind

KW - organizational communication methods

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84990385448&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84990385448&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0893318905280324

DO - 10.1177/0893318905280324

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84990385448

VL - 19

SP - 311

EP - 326

JO - Management Communication Quarterly

JF - Management Communication Quarterly

SN - 0893-3189

IS - 3

ER -