LAUSR

The critical communication perspective and the encapsulated communicative constitution of organization (CCO) model described by Mumby (2019) offer a dynamic framework by which to examine workplace exchanges at the individual and group level. Moreover, I see utility in this perspective as a framework for interesting multidisciplinary research involving organizational psychology. The author defines this perspective as “the process of creating and negotiating collective, coordinated systems of meaning through symbolic practices oriented toward the achievement of organizational goals” (Mumby & Kuhn, 2019, p. 11). However, as useful as this framework may be, I believe the critical communication perspective is incomplete in its definition of the processes involved in creating and negotiating collective, coordinated systems of meaning. Mumby (2019) describes organizations as political sites of contestation wherein the communicative construction of collective systems of meaning does not occur spontaneously or capriciously. This characterization seems to assume only explicit communication between rational stakeholders. The subsequent examples provided by the author, even the more complex ones concerning multiple stakeholders in the organization, do seem to support this assumption. In other words, the critical communication perspective seems to be predicated on explicit communicative exchanges and foregoes tacit social exchanges and psychological underpinnings of organizational contestation that are more or less spontaneous. The exclusion of tacit exchanges and psychological underpinnings may seem like a practical omission to critical management studies (CMS) scholars interested in the problematization of worker resistance to managerial control processes. After all, explicit exchanges between stakeholders give scholars concrete scenarios with which to examine and pose real-world practical solutions. However, I believe the examination of psychological processes that engender a stakeholder’s sense of self-efficacy, self-identity, and sense of belongingness, all touched upon by Mumby (2019), will be serviceable to a greater understanding of tacit organizational contestation, communication, and worker resistance to managerial control. Furthermore, understanding psychological underpinnings of the communicative process may help to explain changes in workplace trends of interest to communication scholars and perhaps even somewhat ameliorate troubling aspects of said trends. For example, although I accept the author’s proposition that there is essentially something broken in the workplace today, or perhaps many broken things, I do not totally regard the increased influence of the workplace on one’s self-identity as a function of oppressive corporate colonization. Instead, I more so see this trend as the product of psychological ownership (PO) naturally manifesting in the workforce. Psychological ownership can conceptually be defined as the state in which an individual identifies a target for ownership as “mine” (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2003). The literature on PO recognizes three sociobiological motives for human psychological ownership: efficacy and effectance, self-identity, and sense of belongingness. Do these three sociobiological motives sound familiar? Another trend identified by Mumby (2019) is the growing field of high