A model of the strength and appropriateness of argumentation in organizational contexts

John A A Sillince*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Argumentation within organizations depends for its effectiveness upon the context. The model presented seeks to identify the three ways in which an arguer can become more persuasive. The first way uses the fact that many of the dimensions of argument strength (familiarity, evidence, simplicity, etc) are not appropriate in particular organizational contexts, so that within each context the arguer must select a particular combination of appropriate dimensions. The second way uses the fact that each context has its own rhetorical requirements and gives rise to its own appropriate rhetorical form which triggers a myth-like association. The third way uses the fact that the four elements of context (arguer, audience, topic and setting) must be skilfully integrated together, especially with regard to showing empathy for the audience, balancing contradictory elements (such as promises and warnings) in the same argument in order to minimize the simplifying effect of rhetoric, and remaining tactically flexible enough to switch positions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)585-618
Number of pages34
JournalJournal of Management Studies
Volume39
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2002

Fingerprint

Switches
Organizational context
Argumentation
Appropriateness
Rhetoric

Cite this

@article{7eabd88d28c547b299ca374b241a84ec,
title = "A model of the strength and appropriateness of argumentation in organizational contexts",
abstract = "Argumentation within organizations depends for its effectiveness upon the context. The model presented seeks to identify the three ways in which an arguer can become more persuasive. The first way uses the fact that many of the dimensions of argument strength (familiarity, evidence, simplicity, etc) are not appropriate in particular organizational contexts, so that within each context the arguer must select a particular combination of appropriate dimensions. The second way uses the fact that each context has its own rhetorical requirements and gives rise to its own appropriate rhetorical form which triggers a myth-like association. The third way uses the fact that the four elements of context (arguer, audience, topic and setting) must be skilfully integrated together, especially with regard to showing empathy for the audience, balancing contradictory elements (such as promises and warnings) in the same argument in order to minimize the simplifying effect of rhetoric, and remaining tactically flexible enough to switch positions.",
author = "Sillince, {John A A}",
year = "2002",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1467-6486.00001",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "585--618",
journal = "Journal of Management Studies",
issn = "0022-2380",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

A model of the strength and appropriateness of argumentation in organizational contexts. / Sillince, John A A.

In: Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39, No. 5, 01.07.2002, p. 585-618.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A model of the strength and appropriateness of argumentation in organizational contexts

AU - Sillince, John A A

PY - 2002/7/1

Y1 - 2002/7/1

N2 - Argumentation within organizations depends for its effectiveness upon the context. The model presented seeks to identify the three ways in which an arguer can become more persuasive. The first way uses the fact that many of the dimensions of argument strength (familiarity, evidence, simplicity, etc) are not appropriate in particular organizational contexts, so that within each context the arguer must select a particular combination of appropriate dimensions. The second way uses the fact that each context has its own rhetorical requirements and gives rise to its own appropriate rhetorical form which triggers a myth-like association. The third way uses the fact that the four elements of context (arguer, audience, topic and setting) must be skilfully integrated together, especially with regard to showing empathy for the audience, balancing contradictory elements (such as promises and warnings) in the same argument in order to minimize the simplifying effect of rhetoric, and remaining tactically flexible enough to switch positions.

AB - Argumentation within organizations depends for its effectiveness upon the context. The model presented seeks to identify the three ways in which an arguer can become more persuasive. The first way uses the fact that many of the dimensions of argument strength (familiarity, evidence, simplicity, etc) are not appropriate in particular organizational contexts, so that within each context the arguer must select a particular combination of appropriate dimensions. The second way uses the fact that each context has its own rhetorical requirements and gives rise to its own appropriate rhetorical form which triggers a myth-like association. The third way uses the fact that the four elements of context (arguer, audience, topic and setting) must be skilfully integrated together, especially with regard to showing empathy for the audience, balancing contradictory elements (such as promises and warnings) in the same argument in order to minimize the simplifying effect of rhetoric, and remaining tactically flexible enough to switch positions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036661192&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1467-6486.00001

DO - 10.1111/1467-6486.00001

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0036661192

VL - 39

SP - 585

EP - 618

JO - Journal of Management Studies

JF - Journal of Management Studies

SN - 0022-2380

IS - 5

ER -