Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Management Communication Quarterly
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mcphee, R. D.
Right arrow Articles by Trethewey, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

On Collective Mind and Conversational Analysis

Response to Cooren

Robert D. Mcphee

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

Karen K. Myers

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

Angela Trethewey

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

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.

Key Words: collective mind • organizational communication methods

Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 3, 311-326 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0893318905280324
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Management Communication QuarterlyHome page
T. Kuhn and M. H. Jackson
Accomplishing Knowledge: A Framework for Investigating Knowing in Organizations
Management Communication Quarterly, May 1, 2008; 21(4): 454 - 485.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Management Communication QuarterlyHome page
F. Cooren
Arguments for the In-Depth Study of Organizational Interactions: A Rejoinder to McPhee, Myers, and Trethewey
Management Communication Quarterly, February 1, 2006; 19(3): 327 - 340.
[Abstract] [PDF]