A Communicative Theory of the Firm: Developing an Alternative Perspective on Intra-organizational Power and Stakeholder Relationships
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing theories of the firm exhibit significant shortcomings when questions turn to intra-organizational power and extra-organizational relationships — two issues central to understanding firm operations. Here I advance an alternative view, founded on the Montreal School of organizational communication's conception of conversation—text relations, yet extending it in several ways. In developing a communicative theory of the firm, I highlight the functions of, and relations between, `concrete' and `figurative' texts, paying particular attention to their participation in the construction of an authoritative (yet never monolithic) system for cooriented and distributed action. Using examples drawn from struggles over power, strategy, and organizational form at GM, I show that seeing the firm in textual terms presents a very different view of its operations. Doing so, portrays individuals and collectives as engaging in sophisticated games where firms marshal consent and attract capital through textually mediated practice. Moreover, through game playing, the firm's trajectory is authored. Building on these arguments, I present two novel and testable propositions about the nature of organizational change in interfirm and stakeholder relationships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it