Abstract
Why is it so plausible that business organisations in contemporary society use values in their communication? In order to answer this question, a sociological, system theoretical approach is applied which approaches values not pre-empirically as invisible drivers for action but as observable semantics that form organisational behaviour. In terms of empirical material, it will be shown that business organisations resort to a communication of values whenever uncertainty or complexity is very high. Inevitably, value semantics are applied in organisations first when the speakers are uncertain about which stakeholders to whom they have to address (uncertainty) or when different stakeholder groups have to be addressed simultaneously (complexity); second, when the identity of the organisation has to be described; and third, when future strategic options that cannot be expressed by quantitative terms have to be communicated. Values accordingly play a role in organisational practice when certain aspects are indeterminate. Therefore, they are a means for organisations to communicate under fuzzy circumstances. On the basis of these findings, new approaches to value management can now be formulated.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Åkerstrøm Andersen, N.: 2003a, Discursive analytical strategies: understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann, (Policy Press, Bristol).
Åkerstrøm Andersen, N.: 2003b, ‘Polyphonic Organisations’, in T. Hernes and T. Bakken (eds.), Autopoietic Organization Theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Perspective (Copenhagen Business School Press, Oslo), pp. 151–182.
Åkerstrøm Andersen, N. and Born, A. W.: 2007, ‘Heterophony and the Postponed Organization: Organizing autopoietic systems’, Tamara Journal for Critical Organizational Inquiry 6(2), 176–186.
Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. A.: 2000, Doing critical management research, (Sage, London).
Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D.: 2000, ‘Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36(2), 136–158.
Baecker, D.: 2006, ‘The Form of the Firm’, Organization: The Critical Journal on Organization, Theory and Society 13(1), 109–142 (Special Issue on “Niklas Luhmann and Organization Studies”).
Baecker, D.: 2007, Studien zur nächsten Gesellschaft (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main).
Bayerische HypoVereinsbank AG: 2007, ‘Werte leben – Werte schaffen’, http://www.hypovereinsbank.de/export/sites/aboutus/binaries/downloads/de/HVB_CSR_2007.pdf, München. Accessed 21 July 2008.
BMW AG: 2006, ‘Geschäftsbericht 2006’, http://www.bmwgroup.com/d/0_0_www_bmwgroup_com/investor_relations/finanzberichte/geschaeftsberichte/2006/popup/_downloads/gb2006_gesamt.pdf, München. Accessed 26 Sep 2007.
Brunsson, N.: 2002, The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, decisions and actions in organizations, (Copenhagen Business Press, Oslo).
Brunsson, N.: 2006, ‘Administrative reforms as routines’, Scandinavian Journal of Management 22, 243–252.
Calás, M. B.: 1997, Postmodern management theory, (Ashgate, Aldershot).
Carroll, A.B.: 1999, ‘CSR: Evolution of a definitional construct’, Business & Society 38, pp. 268-295.
Clegg, S. et al. (eds.): 2006, The Sage handbook of organization studies, (Sage, London).
Collins, J. C. & Porras, J. I.: 1994, Built to last. Successful habits of visionary companies, (Harper Business, New York, NY).
Conrad, Ch. (ed.): 1993, ‘The Ethical nexus’, (Ablex Pub. Corp., Norwood, N.J).
Cox, T.: 2005, Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice, (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, Calif.).
Deutsche Lufthansa AG: 2006, ‘Geschäftsbericht 2006’, http://konzern.lufthansa.com/de/downloads/presse/downloads/publikationen/lh_gb_2006.pdf, Frankfurt. Accessed 26 Sep 26.
Drepper, T.: 2005, ‘Organization and Society’, in D. Seidl and K. H. Becker (eds.), Niklas Luhmann and Organization Studies (Liber et al., Malmö), pp. 171–190.
Drucker, P.: 1989, ‘Ethical Chic’, in A. P. Iannone (ed.), Contemporary moral controversies in business, (Oxford Univ. Press, New York), pp. 44–52.
Drucker, P.: 2001, ‘The Next Society’, The Economist, 3 November.
Drucker, P.: 2002, Managing in the Next Society, 1st edition (Truman Talley, New York, NY).
Du, S. et al.: 2010, ‘Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication’, International Journal of Management Reviews 12(1), pp. 8-19.
Durkheim, E.: 1973, On morality and society: Selected writings, (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago).
Ethics Resource Center: 2003, National Business Ethics Survey: How Employees View Ethics in Their Organizations (Ethics Resource Center, Arlington).
Ethics Resource Center: 2005, National Business Ethics Survey: How Employees View Ethics in Their Organizations (Ethics Resource Center, Arlington).
Ethics Resource Center: 2007, National Business Ethics Survey: How Employees View Ethics in Their Organizations (Ethics Resource Center, Arlington).
Frederick, W. C.: 1995, Values, nature, and culture in the American corporation, (Oxford Univ. Press, New York).
Friedman, M.: 1990, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’, in W. M. Hoffman and J. M. Moore (eds.), Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate morality, (McGraw-Hill, New York), pp.153–156.
Goodpaster, K. E.: 2007, Conscience and corporate culture, (Blackwell, Malden, Mass.).
Grant, D.: 1998, Discourse and organization, (Sage, London).
Günther, G.: 1979, ‘”Life as Poly-Contextuality”‘, in G. Günther (ed.), Beiträge zur Grundlegung einer operationsfähigen Dialektik, (Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg), pp. 283–306.
Habisch, A. et al. (eds.): 2005, Corporate Social Responsibility Across Europe (Springer, Berlin).
Hofstede, G.: 2006, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (Sage, Thousand Oaks).
Kelly, C. et al.: 2005, ‘Deriving Value from Corporate Values’, http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5%7D/VALUE%20SURVEY%20FINAL.PDF. Accessed 21 July 2008.
Kotler, P. and N. Lee: 2005, Corporate Social Respon- sibility – Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause (John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey)
Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J. L.: 1992, Corporate culture and performance, (Free Press et al., New York).
Kronberger, M. et al.: 2006, ‘Rethinking the polyphonic organization: Managing as discursive practice’, Scandinavian Journal of Management 22, pp. 3–30.
Lichtenstein, D.R. et al.: 2004, ‘The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits’, Journal of Marketing 68, pp. 16-32.
Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V.: 2010, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’, International Journal of Management Reviews 12(1), pp. 1-7.
Luhmann, N.: 1964, Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation 1994, (Duncker and Humblot, Berlin).
Luhmann, N.: 1977, ‘Differentiation of society’, The Canadian Journal of Sociology 2(1), pp. 29-53.
Luhmann, N.: 1982, The differentiation of society, (Columbia University Press, Columbia).
Luhmann, N.: 1990a, ‘Risiko und Gefahr’, in N. Luhmann (ed.), Konstruktivistische Perspektiven, (Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen), pp. 131–169.
Luhmann, N.: 1990b, ‘Tautology and Paradox in the Self-Descriptions of Modern Society’, in N. Luhmann (ed.), Essays on self-reference, (Columbia University Press, New York, NY), pp. 123–143.
Luhmann, N.: 1990c, ‘Was tut ein Manager in einem sich selbst organisierenden System?’, GDI Impuls 1, 11–16.
Luhmann, N.: 1996, Social Systems, (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto).
Luhmann, N.: 1997, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main).
Luhmann, N.: 1999, ‘Complexity, Structural Contingencies and Value Conflicts’, in P. Heelas et al. (eds.), Detraditionalization: critical reflections on authority and identity, (Blackwell, Cambridge, Mass.), pp. 59–71.
Luhmann, N.: 2005a, ‘Funktion und Kausalität’, in N. Luhmann (ed.), Soziologische Aufklärung 1: Aufsätze zur Theorie sozialer Systeme, (VS Verlag, Wiesbaden), pp. 11–30.
Luhmann, N.: 2005b, ‘Funktionale Methode und Systemtheorie’, in N. Luhmann (ed.), Soziologische Aufklärung 1: Aufsätze zur Theorie sozialer Systeme, (VS Verlag, Wiesbaden), pp. 31–53.
Luhmann, N.: 2005c, ‘The Concept of Autopoiesis’, in D. Seidl and K.H. Becker (eds.), Niklas Luhmann and organization studies, (Liber et al., Malmö), pp. 54–63.
Nassehi, A.: 2003, Geschlossenheit und Offenheit: Studien zur Theorie der modernen Gesellschaft (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main).
Nassehi, A.: 2005, ‘Organizations as Decision Machines: Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Organized Social Systems’, in C. Jones and R. Munro (eds.), Contemporary Organization Theory, (Blackwell, Oxford), pp. 178-191.
Nassehi, A. and Saake, I.: 2002, ‘Kontingenz: Methodisch verhindert oder beobachtet. Ein Beitrag zur Methodologie der qualitativen Sozialforschung’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie 31(1), pp. 66-86.
Parsons, T.: 1960, Structures and Process in Modern Societies, (Free Press, Gencoe).
Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H.: 2006, In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies,, (Harper Collins, New York).
Schein, E. H.: 1991, Organizational culture and leadership, (Jossey-Bass. San Francisco).
Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Pollach, I.: 2005, ‘The perils and opportunities of communicating corporate ethics’, Journal of Marketing Management 21, pp. 267-290.
Seeger, M. W.: 1997, Ethics and organizational communication, (Hampton Press, Cresskill, N.J.).
Seidl, D.: 2003a, ‘Metaphorical Self-Description of Organizations’, in A. Müller and A. Kieser (eds.), Communication in Organizations: Structures and Practices (Lang, Frankfurt am Main).
Seidl, D.: 2003b, ‘Organisational identity in Luhmann’s theory of social systems’, in T. Hernes and T. Bakken (eds.), Autopoietic Organization Theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Perspective (Copenhagen Business School Press, Oslo), pp.123–150.
Seidl, D. and K.H. Becker (eds.): 2005, Niklas Luhmann and organization studies, (Liber et al., Malmö).
Smircich, L.: 1983, ‘Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis’, Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (3), pp. 339–358.
Sweeney, L. and J. Coughlan: 2008, `Do Different Industries Report Corporate Social Responsibility Differently? An Investigation Though the Lens of Stakeholder Theory', Journal of Marketing Communications 14(2), 113–124
van Liedekerke, L. and Dubbink, W.: 2008, ‘Twenty Years of European Business Ethics - Past Developments and Future Concerns’, Journal of Business Ethics 82 (2), pp. 273–280.
von Groddeck, V.: 2008, Organisation und Werte. Formen, Funktionen, Folgen. Doctoral Dissertation. Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich.
Wanderley, L.S.O. et al.: 2008, ‘CSR information disclosure on the web: a context-based approach analyzing the influence of country of origin and industry sector’, Journal of Business Ethics 82, pp. 369-378.
Weick, K. E.: 1976, ‘Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems’, Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (1), pp. 1–19.
Weick, K. E.: 1979, The social psychology of organizing, (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.).
Weick, K. E.: 1995, Sensemaking in organizations, (Sage, Thousand Oaks).
Wieland, J. (ed.): 2004, Handbuch Wertemanagement: Erfolgsstrategien einer modernen Corporate Governance, (Murmann, Hamburg).
Yin, R. K.: 2005, Case study research: design and methods, (Sage, Thousand Oaks Calif.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
von Groddeck, V. Rethinking the Role of Value Communication in Business Corporations from a Sociological Perspective – Why Organisations Need Value-Based Semantics to Cope with Societal and Organisational Fuzziness. J Bus Ethics 100, 69–84 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0769-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0769-1