Corporate communication through nonviolent rhetoric - IngentaConnect

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm

Corporate communication through nonviolent rhetoric Environmental, agency and methodological prerequisites

Corporate communication

249

Krishna S. Dhir Campbell School of Business, Berry College, Mount Berry, Georgia, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the problems associated with the prevailing rhetoric in corporate communication. It proposes the consideration of nonviolent rhetorical approaches. Design/methodology/approach – This paper explains corporate communication’s affinity for aggressive, militaristic language in terms of constraint of time, and expediency and efficiency of standardized communication strategies designed for large-scale effectiveness. However, such communication strategies run the risk of dehumanizing the intended targets, distancing the individuals, and compromising socially responsible corporate behavior. The recent corporate scandals of unprecedented scale, occurring in spite of vast improvements in communication theory and technology, have highlighted the need for alternative approaches to corporate communication. Further, it examines the prerequisites that must exist for corporate communication based on nonviolent rhetoric to be effective. The conditions that must be present in the environment, in the corporation or its agent, and in the method of communication, for nonviolent rhetoric to prove effective are discussed. Findings – Corporations seek to establish and modify relationships by influencing stakeholder beliefs, values, expectations and needs. Corporate rhetorical success is reflected in enhanced reputation and respectability, which in turn has significant economic consequences. To achieve these ends, corporations expend considerable effort on communication to educate, entertain and inform their stakeholders. Yet, scholars have generally neglected to study role of rhetoric and language in public relations. Originality/value – This paper would be of value to researchers and practitioners, in the fields of corporate communication, organizational communication, public relations, and strategic management, seeking to promote, practice or otherwise influence socially responsible corporate behavior. Keywords Corporate communications, Rhetoric Paper type Conceptual paper

Corporations expend enormous amounts of resources to fine-tune systems through which they persuade their stakeholders, including customers, employees, shareholders, community and others, to alter their beliefs, values and needs. Through various modes of corporate communication, including innovative designs, advertisements, programs, and news releases, corporations seek to effectively educate, entertain and inform their stakeholders, and establish and modify relationships with them. Corporate rhetorical success is reflected in enhanced reputation and respectability, which in turn has significant economic consequences. Considerable attention has been given to the economic effects of reputation in recent years (Alsop, 2004; Bennett and Gabriel, 2003; Bromley, 1993; Dhir and Vinen, 2005; Dowling, 2001; Fombrun, 1995; Green, 1992;

Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vol. 11 No. 3, 2006 pp. 249-266 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1356-3289 DOI 10.1108/13563280610680830

CCIJ 11,3

250

Kay, 1993; Riahi-Belkaoui, 2000; Ruth and York, 2004). Also, a number of studies have examined various aspects of corporate image, reputation and respectability (Gardberg and Fombrun, 2002; Goldberg and Hartwick, 1990; Milgrom and Roberts, 1982; Shapiro, 1982, 1983; Zyglidopoulos, 2004) from different perspectives (Dhir and Vinen, 2005). Through these works, the role of rhetoric is found to be central to image and reputation building, and to public relations management. Yet, the study of this role has generally been neglected (Alvesson and Karreman, 2000; Skerlep, 2001; Toth, 2000). Significant opportunities await corporate strategists with competencies in linguistics and rhetorical story-telling. Consumers judge the quality of a product or a service not only by its cost but also in terms of peer assessment of the manufacturer or service provider. Quality may be defined in terms of consumer expectations being met. Consumers are generally willing to pay a premium for their expectations being exceeded. Manufacturers and service providers reputed for the quality of their wares may charge higher price, realize higher profit margins, and generally enjoy excellent health even with what may objectively be an equivalent or sometimes, though rarely, inferior product or service. Those corporations that are successful in their rhetoric may enjoy easy access to more capital in the stock markets with less effort. Indeed, in a free market economy, failure to maintain standards of consumer expectation can be disastrous, as demonstrated by the recent spate of corporate scandals (Dhir and Vinen, 2005). Considerable attention has been afforded to the narrative approach for reputation management (Barnes, 2003; Barry and Elmes, 1997; Czarniawska, 1997; O’Connor, 1995; Phillips, 1995; Snowden, 2001; Vendelø 1998). However, Skerlep (2001) observes that while the field of organizational communication has engaged in discursive and rhetorical analysis, much of this work does not coincide with the field of public relations. Cheney and Christensen (2001, p. 231), too, observe that most organizational communication research stops at the boundaries of the organization. Skerlep (2001) concludes that: . . . if one subtracts the work done by specialists in organizational communication and by specialists in speech communication and rhetoric, there is little about rhetorical aspects of public relations that falls squarely into the narrow field of public relations.

Alvesson and Karreman (2000) opine that public relations as a field of study has failed to make the “linguistic turn” that other social science disciplines have welcomed. Skerlep (2001), too, testifies that: . . . from cultural and media studies to sociology, political science and psychology, contemporary social sciences are marked by intense interest in what might be characterized with expressions like discourse, textuality, signification, speech acts and argumentation as well as with disciplines such as linguistics, semiotics and rhetoric.

Indeed, in an information and knowledge based economy, corporations that fail to effectively communicate with both internal and external stakeholders, take on considerable risk. A favorable reputation can establish, protect and enhance competitive position. A tarnished reputation can set an enterprise onto a cycle of decline through reduced sales, lower profits or even losses, difficulties in accessing credit or materials or labor, lower morale, and so on (Dhir and Vinen, 2005). Such trends are attested by recent experiences of ABB, Adelphia Communications, Arthur Andersen, Enron, General Electric, Global Crossing, Merrill Lynch, Tyco, WorldCom, Xerox, and many others. In

industries such as pharmaceuticals, food processing, and art dealership, the impact of reputation on survival of the enterprise may be immediate. A pharmaceutical company that gains reputation as one developing innovative products based on sound scientific approach may have no difficulty in enjoying considerable success with a me-too product (Dhir and Vinen, 2005). In the US, many corporations have appointed managers to ensure that high standards of ethics are maintained. In Denmark, a highly respected corporation, Novo Nordisk, has a corporate vice president for stakeholder relations. In the UK, British Telecom maintains an entire unit working on its corporate reputation (Pruzan, 2001). In the US and elsewhere, corporations are appointing increasing categories of reputation managers, who are drawn from highly differentiated professional disciplines, e.g. accounting, communications, decision sciences, finance, strategic management, etc. (Dhir and Vinen, 2005). However, it is hard to find a linguist or a rhetorician among them. In this paper, some of the problems associated with the prevailing rhetoric in corporate communication are explored. It explains corporate communication’s affinity for aggressive, militaristic language in terms of constraint of time, and expediency and efficiency of standardized communication strategies designed for large-scale effectiveness. However, such communication strategies run the risk of dehumanizing the intended targets, distancing the individuals, and compromising socially responsible corporate behavior. The recent corporate scandals of unprecedented scale, occurring in spite of vast improvements in communication theory and technology, have highlighted the need for alternative approaches to corporate communication. This paper proposes the consideration of nonviolent rhetorical approaches. Further, it examines the prerequisites that must exist for corporate communication based on nonviolent rhetoric to be effective. The conditions that must be present: in the environment; in the corporation or its agent; and in the method of communication, for nonviolent rhetoric to prove effective are discussed. The constraint of time Ethical breaches of trust are a conspicuous feature of the contemporary society, worldwide. Corporate executives are criticized for not fulfilling their responsibilities to the stakeholders. The AACSB International – Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business – describes these responsibilities as follows: In addition to providing a return to owners, business is charged with other straightforward tasks – acting lawfully, producing safe products and services at costs commensurate with quality, paying taxes, creating opportunities for wealth creation through jobs and investments, commercializing new technologies, and minimizing negative social and environmental impacts (AACSB International, 2004, p. 10).

Although at first reading the above charge to the business executive seems “straightforward” enough, the execution of the tasks is not necessarily easy. The tasks assigned are not necessarily compatible. Adequacy of return to owners is assessed in the context of the time it takes to generate it. The rate of return needs to be adequate with respect to expectations, which stresses immediacy. Lack of early and attractive returns threatens the job security of corporate leadership. Yet, other considerations, such as producing safe products, enhancing quality, creating wealth, commercializing new technologies, and minimizing adverse social and environmental impact may


251

CCIJ 11,3

252

demand time or require reduced pace of activity. Constraints on time arise from a number of external sources as well. For instance, corporations compete with each other in the market place to meet the needs and demands of their consumers, and other stakeholders, in a timely manner. If a corporation fails to do so, its competitors step in before it can and the need for its efforts disappears, compromising the opportunities for its executives to meet their responsibilities across the board. Responding to such pressures, corporations seek to be efficient and expedient. The rhetoric of aggression In an economy where a planning period of mere three months can be described as the “short-term,” and the “long-term” may not exceed a year or two, corporate leadership experience threat to their job security on an ongoing basis. To cope with such demands, the metaphor of war is often applied to describe the mode of corporate operations (Rindova et al., 2004). Murphy (1996) observes: As a matter of social practice, the reality of conflict resolution in the United States today is largely a violent one. In the last two decades in particular, Americans have demonstrated an increased reliance on violence as a method of resolving conflict. This is true not only in terms of military intervention in political crises, but also – perhaps especially – in terms of . . . the reality of everyday life . . .

In our times, expediency and efficiency are typical and universal measures of effectiveness and success (Gorsevski, 1999). Davis and Meyer (1999) have described how three factors, speed, connectivity, and intangibles, drive the increasing rate of change in the economy. In a fast changing milieu, where time is deemed a scarce resource, the pressure of expediency and efficiency do not allow time for acquisition of knowledge, education of those involved or affected, and application of wisdom. Bureaucratic organizations are designed to cope with change with efficiency, and systems are designed to overcome delays. The human fallibility of the individual is overcome through dehumanized processes. The metaphor of war describes competition as the enemy. The implications for corporate communications, in terms of its mode and content, are profound. Dehumanization can lead to aggressiveness. Aggressiveness occurs “because dehumanization makes the universal norm against harming other human beings seem irrelevant. If Other is less than human, the norm does not apply.” (Rubin et al., 1994, pp. 89-90). The language deployed is often one of linguistic violence, often twisted to perpetuate unjust influence over the stakeholders. Coercive strategies are frequently implemented to bring about the desired outcomes even as corporations take pain to articulate and communicate their visions of the future and missions in the society. Corporations seek to control and manipulate, or at least influence, the cognitive domain of their stakeholders so as to enhance their image and be deemed reputable, as quickly as possible. Much of this effort had been counter-productive (Coulson-Thomas, 1992; Gimenez, 2002; Weidenbaum, 2003; Wulfson, 1998). There remains a gap between rhetoric and reality. Recent corporate scandals mentioned above attest to continued and wide-spread lack of top management commitment and of communication skills as major barriers to change. Ruthless self-interest of corporate leaders became evident at unprecedented levels. In the aftermath of the Enron debacle in January 2002, the Business Week/Harris poll revealed that only 33 percent of Americans believed large companies had ethical business practices and just 26 percent believed they were straightforward and honest in their

dealings with consumers and employees. Public trust had been severely compromised even though over 90 percent of the Fortune 500 companies had ethical codes of conduct reminding their employees and stakeholders of their shared beliefs and values, and what was expected of them in terms of responsibilities and behavior (Wulfson, 1998). New attitudes and approaches to communication are needed. In an adversarial mode of communication, corporations have an advantage over the consumers. Vendelø (1998) suggests that, in the emerging knowledge economy, evaluation of product quality prior to its purchase is vague and partial. He cites examples of software companies, investment bankers, and management consultants. In these cases the significance of reputation derives from the fact that it is difficult for customers to observe or evaluate the quality of their products before purchase, since production of products takes place only after purchase. He explains that: There is . . . asymmetry in information between customers and software companies concerning the actual expertise possessed by the software companies’ employees. Customers, thus, have imperfect information about software companies’ abilities to handle and fashion the information technology so that it fulfills their information-processing needs (Vendelø 1998).

With the stakeholders already at disadvantage, corporate communication and advertisement is often viewed as a coercive and sometimes even violent form of persuasion designed to promote the objectives of the corporation. The objective of its rhetoric seems designed to overcome consumer or other stakeholder resistance. Impersonal and anonymous, it concurs with the demands of bureaucratic predictability. Yet, it is reasonable to expect that in the market place, as in any public realm, one: shares words and deeds, thus contributing [one’s] share of action and thought to the fabric of human affairs . . . where issues are decided in a way worthy of free [people]: by persuasion and words, not by violence (Merton, 1965, p. 7).

Therefore, let us now examine the nature of nonviolent rhetoric. The nonviolent rhetoric The rhetoric deployed by corporations to communicate with stakeholders must promote awareness, train and educate, engage, and contribute to the well-being of the stakeholder. The task is not impossible. Gorsevski (1999) states that: Rhetoricians tend to focus upon ways that humans use communication and persuasion to resist oppression, yet they routinely ignore the fact that nonviolent engagement in conflict is a special mode of persuasion with a distinct history of success.

Apple Computer was particularly successful in recognizing this nuance (Berger, 1989; Sayre et al., 1996; Scott, 1991). IBM had entered the personal computer market in 1981. With enormous resources, but without innovative technology, it was able to marshal corporate purchasers and small vendors into its strategy. Independent manufacturers, unable to withstand the enormous size and strength of IBM went bankrupt in large numbers. By 1984, IBM controlled one-third of the market and planned to force standardization on an industry that was still in its infancy. Breaking into a market thoroughly controlled by the powerful Big Blue, Apple Computer deployed an approach adapted from literary criticism to create a dynamic, participatory experience through information-centered rhetoric. During the Super Bowl telecast, their


253

CCIJ 11,3

commercial showed a science-fiction setting packed with bald human drones, listening to their leader address a giant screen. A young athletic female, chased by faceless storm-troopers, runs past the crowd and smashes the screen with a sledgehammer. All was quiet after the blast, and a calm, cultured voice assured the astonished masses that 1984 would not be like the Orwellian 1984! It says:

254

We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom secure from the pests purveying contradictory boards . . . We are one people. With one whim, one resolve, one cause . . . We shall prevail.

Collins (1991) observes that to challenge a ruling group, the most effective strategy is to attack the privileged narrative through the use of a prophetic voice. Prophecies tend to take a long-term view of time. Apple’s commercial, a challenge to the “Big Brother” like oppressors of the Orwellian world – it was 1984, after all – violated prevailing advertising conventions by featuring a minimal corporate identification. The use of grouping mindset has been shown to promote “de-individuation” that can lead to aggressive behavior (Gorsevski, 1999; Janis, 1982). Apple’s commercial suggested that consumers could break away from having to conform to the masses and declare their independence from Apple’s competitors. Apple introduced the Macintosh three days later. More than 200,000 people went to the retail stores and waited for the doors to open. Scott (1991) explains that: . . . (t)he theme of the 1984 commercial is one of individual action to prevent homogenizing tyranny. The spot communicates through an artful arrangement of images that has its own internal logic. The spot keeps the audience unbalanced and curious throughout the viewing, and thus open to affective experience through which it persuades.

Sharp (1992) has suggested that nonviolent action seeks to deny the opponent the human assistance and cooperation which are necessary if the opponent is to maintain control over the masses. A crucial means to deny such assistance is rhetoric. Various practitioners of nonviolence have recognized this nuance (Gorsevski, 1999). Sharp suggests the use of rhetoric to achieve non-cooperation through various persuasion strategies, ranging from verbal dissent and artistic expressions, to humorous pranks. Nonviolent rhetoric can counter violence or coercion “. . . in such a way that [opponents] are thrown . . . off balance in a kind of . . . jiu-jitsu.” As demonstrated by Apple Computer in 1984, such rhetoric strategy, exercised with understanding, can be directed at the monopolistic competition (note the allusion to Big Brother and to the Big Blue) in the market place. The strategy was also deployed by Gandhi to counter the imposition of tax on salt, a commodity essential for the subsistence of human life, on Indians by their colonial rulers in early April 1930. First on March 2nd, Gandhi wrote to the British Viceroy, Lord Irwin, addressing him as “dear friend.” In it, he informed Lord Irwin of the vast inequities in the salaries paid to Indians and to British officials: where the average Indian earned less than two annas per day, the British Prime Minister earned Rs. 180 per day, while the Viceroy received Rs. 700 per day; more tellingly, the Prime Minister of Britain received 90 times more than the average Britisher, but the Viceroy received “much over five thousand times India’s average income.” The Viceroy promptly replied, but only to express his regret that Gandhi was again “contemplating a course of action which is clearly bound to involve violation of the law and danger to the public peace.” “On bended knees I asked for bread and I have received stone instead” Gandhi remarked. With seventy-eight of his followers and

disciples from Sabarmati Ashram, he set out on a 241-mile march to Dandi on the sea. He took his time, addressing large crowds along the way, and with each passing day an increasing number of people joined the march. Others watered their path, and covered it with fresh flowers. To the tunes of Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram, the hymn sung by the great Hindustani vocalist, Pandit Paluskar, they marched in thousands, arriving at Dandi, on the shores of the Arabian Sea on April 5th. There, with a simple act of stooping and picking up a small lump of salt, Gandhi defied the mighty British Empire. Others followed suit. The British had to enforce the law of the land. He was arrested. Indians courted arrest in millions. The administration panicked as freedom struggle gathered momentum both inside and outside of India (Anonymous, 2005a; Dalton, 1993). The picture of Gandhi, firm of step and walking staff in hand, became a brand image. Today, corporations like Apple Macintosh and Telecom Italia are deploying his brand (Vashisht, 2005). Let us now review the various traditions and forms through which nonviolent action is generally practiced, and communication transacted. Traditions and forms of nonviolent action Nonviolence has generally been discussed in terms of two distinct traditions, namely: (1) principled nonviolence; and (2) pragmatic nonviolence (Burrowes, 1996, pp. 112-15; Stiehm, 1968). Principled nonviolence, which is sometimes also described as ideological, conscientious, or positive nonviolence, holds that “refusal to use violence is a moral imperative, based for example on the sanctity of human life.” Gandhi and Tolstoy are seen as exponents of such practice. Pragmatic nonviolence, espoused by Sharp (Weber, 2003), accepts conflict as a normal phenomenon, and offers the rejection of violence as an effective way of challenging aggression, coercive power and oppression (Martin and Varney, 2003). In both traditions, communication is central to the effectiveness of nonviolent action. However, the pragmatic tradition possibly promises greater potential for application to corporate communications, particularly in dealing with considerations that otherwise motivate strategists to seek urgent efficiency of aggressive militaristic rhetoric. Pragmatic approach to nonviolent action is described as being a “technique approach.” According to Sharp such action should be motivated by pragmatism, and not by religious or ethical motivations (Weber, 2003). Gandhi was also concerned with finding a substitute for violence; however, Gandhi’s motivations were more principled and “had more to do with a perceived intrinsic rather than merely an instrumental value in nonviolence” (Weber, 2003). A biographical profile of Sharp states that “he is convinced that pragmatic, strategically planned, nonviolent struggle can be made highly effective for application in conflicts to lift oppression and as a substitute for violence” (Anonymous, 2005b). Indeed, he has been described as the “Clausewitz of nonviolent warfare” (Weber, 2003). For Sharp, power, not ethical principle, is the key feature of the “technique approach”: Nonviolent action is a technique by which people who reject passivity and submission, and who see struggle as essential, can wage their conflict without violence. Nonviolent action is not an attempt to avoid or ignore conflict. It is one response to the problem, of how to act effectively in politics, especially how to wield power effectively (Sharp, 1973, p. 64).


255

CCIJ 11,3

256

Sharp, the proponent of pragmatic nonviolence, classifies nonviolent actions into three distinct categories, namely: . nonviolent protest and persuasion; . non-cooperation; and . intervention (Martin and Varney, 2003; Sharp, 1973). Both nonviolent protest and persuasion clearly are forms of communication. These include such communication modes as picketing, displaying of banners, wearing of symbols, petitioning, singing, pilgrimage, fraternizing, teach-ins, mock funerals, and walk-outs. Such modes impress on the opponents the strength of organizational purpose and the intensity of the activists’ passion. They may bring about a conversion in the opponent, or at least a willingness to consider the activists’ view-point with increased seriousness (Martin and Varney, 2003). Methods of non-cooperation include strikes, boycotts, slow-down and stalling, stay-at-home, and counter-measures. By demonstrating the willingness to implement non-cooperative strategies one powerfully communicates the message of interest. Such nonviolent actions, too, may bring about an impact on the opponent by revealing concerns and strength of organization, resulting in altered behavior. For instance, a strike by rank and file can communicate a message to employers stronger than claims offered by labor leaders in negotiations. “Communication, of course, need not involve words: non-cooperation on its own creates meanings among observers, though explanations help to crystallize the purpose of the action, or . . . select out denotations from a range of connotations” (Martin and Varney, 2003). Strategies of intervention, such as fasts, sit-ins, overloading of systems or facilities, seizure of assets, too, have similar communicative functions. Generally, these nonviolent actions involve a greater level of coercion than non-cooperation (Martin and Varney, 2003). Yet, except for a few recent exceptions (Baker and Martinson, 2001; Bode, 1994; Gorsevski, 1999; Martin and Varney, 2003; Murphy, 1996; Rosenberg, 2003), students and scholars of communication generally exhibit limited explicit awareness of nonviolence theory. Reports examining the nonviolence theory for the promise of its application to corporate communication are very rare, indeed. Although we have described nonviolence in terms of two distinct traditions, in practice it is possible that one practices principled nonviolence with an unusual and sharp sense of timing, effectiveness and efficiency. Conversely, it is quite possible for one to be guided by principled tenets in the development of pragmatic nonviolent strategies. Indeed, underlying cultural values such as rejection of violence, sense of fairness, and other shared tenets underscore the existence of a link between the principled and pragmatic orientation. The illustrative experience of ChevronTexaco in Nigeria An example, illustrating pragmatic nonviolence in practice, is in order. Consider the experience of ChevronTexaco in Escravos, Nigeria. Nigeria is the world’s sixth largest oil exporter, and the fifth largest supplier to the US. Yet, the villagers in Escravos live in crushing poverty, even while surrounded by the oil wealth of southeastern Nigeria. On July 8, 2002, about 150 unarmed village women from several different tribes, with a core group of Itsekiri, occupied the Escravos facility, ChevronTexaco’s main and multimillion dollar oil export terminal in the Niger Delta region. Their numbers soon rose to 2000. They also held hundreds of Nigerian and foreign employees as hostage.

They were protesting the exploitation of their natural resources and the resultant pollution, and their own condition of abject poverty. Ten days later, about 50 miles east of Escravos, hundreds of Ijaw women, believing that their rivals, the Itsekiris, were trying to extract government concessions in a long lasting land dispute between the Ijaws and the Itsekiris, stormed and took over four ChevronTexaco pipeline stations. The Ijaw women, too, declared that their action was to draw attention to widespread poverty in villages with “nothing to show for over 30 years of the company’s existence” in their region (Anonymous, 2002). Ijaw men warned that they would burn down all Chevron oil facilities if police tried to forcibly remove or otherwise harm their women. In mid-1990s, violent protests by the tiny Ogoni tribe had forced Shell to abandon its wells on Ogoni land. The government had responded by hanging nine Ogoni leaders, including writer Ken Saro Wiwa, triggering international outrage and the expulsion of Nigeria from the British Commonwealth. However, in a culture where armed men frequently deploy threat strategies, including kidnapping and sabotage, to pressure oil multinationals into providing them with jobs, protection money or compensation for alleged environmental damage, the protest by the women was a new phenomenon. In Escravos, the women, ranging in age from 30 to 90, used a powerful traditional shaming gesture to maintain control over the facility after seizing it – they threatened to remove their clothing. In doing so, they would shame both, the multinational companies and their own men (Anonymous, 2002). The symbolism of removing their clothes, in their particular culture, would be intolerable to their society. Eleven days later, the oil company executives presented the women with a memorandum of understanding. They would hire at least 25 villagers over the next five years. They would build schools. They would provide water, electricity and a community center. They would help the women establish a poultry and fish farm to supply the terminal’s cafeteria. With the agreement in place, women, many with babies tied to their backs, danced and sang, and left. No hostage was harmed. The facilities suffered no damage. Later, the oil company feted the women with a celebration as a gesture of gratitude for not doing harm to their assets and personnel, and for keeping their production capabilities in tact. Nonviolence is often referred to as an “alternative weapon system” and “means of combat, as is war” (Sharp, 1973; Weber, 2003). As in a military engagement, nonviolent actions require wise strategy and tactics, weapons of ideas and techniques, demands of courage, discipline and sacrifice. The central dynamics, well illustrated by the Itsekiri, Ijaw and other tribal women of Niger Delta region, is one of political jiu-jitsu rather than the moral jiu-jitsu (Weber, 2003). When the opponent comprehends the socio-economic culture of the activist, that opponent is able to engage and participate in what Gadamer refers to as the “art of conversation” (Gadamer, 1975). Knowledge and understanding become possible when a person overcomes prejudices that prevent new understanding, and allows transformation through whatever is revealed through the course of conversation (Zeddies, 2002). The same may be said for a group of people, or an organisation. An organisation must be willing to participate in the socio-economic culture of the local market, and through adaptation, be transformed by the socio-economic realities it encounters. Communication is at the heart of the process through which culture, tradition, and custom are transmitted. Communication is essential for designation, discovery, reference, or depiction of situations. Communication is used to carry out or perform actions and to reveal how things are presented to us as we deal with them.


257

CCIJ 11,3

258

It would now be appropriate to investigate the prerequisite conditions that must be satisfied for nonviolent communication to result in effective action. Prerequisites for nonviolence The division of British India into independent Indian and Pakistan in August 1947 resulted in large-scale communal violence in the South Asian sub-continent, bringing death, destruction and dislocation to millions. This outcome was particularly disheartening to Gandhi, who had promoted nonviolence as an alternative to violent confrontation with the colonial rulers of British India, and had ardently wished for harmonious coexistence of various communal groups that made up the Indian social fabric. Despondent, Gandhi was self-critical. On November 11, 1947, he wrote in the Harijan that: . . . hope for the future I have never lost and never will because it is embedded in my undying faith in nonviolence. What has, however, clearly happened in my case is the discovery that in all probability there is a vital defect in my technique of the working of nonviolence . . . Failure of my technique of nonviolence causes no loss of faith in nonviolence itself. On the contrary, that faith is, if possible, strengthened by the discovery of a possible flaw in the technique (Gandhi, 1949, p. 336; Potter, 1971, p. 91).

Gandhi described as flawed those very techniques that were central to the strategies that brought about political changes that were profound, unprecedented and far-reaching. In doing so, he invited an investigation of the manner in which the theory of nonviolence was applied. He seems to suggest that the principle of nonviolence is unquestionable while its application was open to question. Potter (1971, p. 92) notes that it is difficult to draw a clear demarcation between the theory and practice of nonviolence. He observes that the theory of nonviolence is, in fact, the technique of its application. In this sense, Potter is closer to Sharp in his conceptualization of nonviolence than to Gandhi. Potter concludes that the flaw, if there was one, could possibly lie somewhere else. Believing that in a frank and open search for truth one must examine all hypotheses with equal care, Potter sets out to examine, in a critical way, some of Gandhi’s notions about nonviolence. The basic operative assumption, which Gandhi makes, is that nonviolence offers a positive procedure for bringing about social change. Violence is not necessarily wrong. Gandhi himself cites instances when prevailing conditions might justify violence, for instance, when one is confronted with a choice between inflicting violence and acting in a cowardly manner “The question is not one of establishing . . . the absolute disvalue of violence and, therefrom, the absolute value of nonviolence. The theory of nonviolence is not a system of moral philosophy or even part of a system.” (Potter, 1971, p. 93). According to Potter, specification of conditions under which nonviolent resistance may be practiced: is not a matter of deciding when it is expedient to embark on a program whose moral worth is generically justified on some other grounds. Rather, the conditions under which nonviolence can operate are precisely the crux of the theory of nonviolence, setting limits to the very notion of what nonviolence is (Potter, 1971, p. 93).

Here, Potter’s pragmatism becomes evident. He began by cataloging the conditions under which, as Gandhi sees it, nonviolence can or cannot occur. After examining Gandhi’s own statements on the nature of nonviolence, Potter categorized the conditions that Gandhi described as rendering nonviolence impracticable or impossible. Three such

categorized were thus identified, yielding useful insight into the practicality of the theory of nonviolence. Potter found: (1) types of external circumstances that render nonviolent techniques inadvisable or unworkable or unlikely to succeed; (2) characteristics of the agents, organizations, or individuals proposing nonviolent action that preclude success; and (3) techniques which will defeat the purpose of nonviolence. Environmental prerequisites Potter (1971) infers a number of environmental conditions which by their very existence render nonviolence impossible. The first is an obvious one: If the type of change that is contemplated is believed by the agent to be one which leads to a state less beneficial than the present one, the methods used to bring about this change can hardly be described as nonviolent.

Potter gives an example. Refusing to obey a law, even while acknowledging it to be just, albeit without getting violent, would not qualify as a nonviolent act. After all, just laws are enacted precisely to ensure more beneficial states through compliance. According to Potter, actions are not nonviolent unless they are intended to lead to more beneficial states or, at least, to maintain the present level of justice. Potter also infers that nonviolence is “precluded unless the resistance is undertaken as a response to an instance of violence” (Potter, 1971). He quotes Gandhi (1949): It should . . . be remembered that nonviolence comes into play only when it comes into contact with violence. One who refrains from violence when there is no occasion for its exercise is simply un-violent and has no credit for his inaction.

The action taken by the tribal women in the Niger Delta region against ChevronTexaco was to improve the lot of the people who were living in an environment being exploited to their detriment. Their action was directed to bring about a more beneficial state, which in the final analysis, had the potential for being beneficial not only to the majority, but to all involved. Another environmental factor cited by Potter that precludes the use of nonviolence is the absence of a “true and substantial issue.” He laments that Gandhi did not explain “how one might go about to distinguish ‘true and substantial’ issues from those that cannot be so characterized.” Would strong commitment to an issue make it true or substantial? Would such qualities be derived from the issue affecting a large number of individuals? Would the issues be true and substantial if more good were to come from the contemplated nonviolent action, for greater number of people, than what it might cost to others? Potter wonders whether Gandhi had something else in mind. Could Gandhi have been alluding to the publicity accompanying the contemplated action through which the purveyor of violence is shamed, in a public manner, and thus is induced to reconsider his actions? (Potter, 1971, p. 95). This is unlikely. Surely, nonviolent action could bring resolution of issues in situations that are private, involving no publicity whatsoever. Agency prerequisites Potter cites characteristics or properties of the agent as factor that could preclude the use of nonviolent actions. Gandhi described cowardice as being entirely inconsistent with nonviolence. Yet, he described nonviolence in relative terms. “What is one man’s


259

CCIJ 11,3

260

food can be another’s poison,” he stated, “. . . Evil and good are relative terms . . . ” (Gandhi, 1949). He also spoke of grades of nonviolence referring to the nonviolence of the brave – undertaken as a creed – and nonviolence of the weak – undertaken as a policy (Gangal, 1960), although Sharp took issue with Gandhi on such classification (Weber, 2003). Nevertheless, Gandhi’s focus was on action. Even in situations where nonviolence was precluded, action was possible. He wrote: . . . where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence . . . But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier . . . But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature. A mouse hardly forgives a cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her . . . (Gandhi, 1949).

Another condition identified by Potter, that precludes nonviolent action is a lack of self-respect: I can only congratulate those who are spat upon, or assaulted, or had night-soil thrown upon them. No injury has happened to them, if they had the courage to suffer the insult without even mental retaliation. But it was wholly wrong on their part to suffer it, if they felt irritated but refrained out of expedience from retaliating. A sense of self-respect disdains all expedience (Gandhi, 1949; Potter, 1971, p. 98).

It is clear that Gandhi viewed indignities visited upon an agent by another party as constituting violence. He also clearly indicates that nonviolent response is appropriate and desirable. Passivity cannot be termed as a nonviolent response unless it is based on the principle of self-respect by those assaulted. That is, if their self-respect dictated to them that ignoring the insults was the most appropriate retaliation, only then would such inaction be an exercise of nonviolence (Potter, 1971). Potter concludes that Gandhi is making an appeal for a kind of wisdom on the part of the nonviolent agent that is considerably more than mere courage. It requires a rather mature and sophisticated person, indeed a wise individual, “not to lose his head in such circumstances . . . The nonviolent resister must be honest with himself and others . . . ” (Potter, 1971, p. 99). The standards are high. “It is of course assumed that the outward act is an expression of the inward intention. One who having retaliation in his breast submits to violence out of policy is not truly non-violent, and may even be a hypocrite if he hides his intention” (Gandhi, 1949). Potter takes this stipulation as an ideal, observing as follows: For there is no doubt, it seems to me, that most of those who participate in nonviolent resistance are not free from anger toward their adversaries but feel that checking this emotion, sublimating it, perhaps, by adopting nonviolent means, will be more constructive and efficacious (Potter, 1971, pp. 99-100).

Potter infers from Gandhi’s writings that the person or people against whom the nonviolent resistance is practiced must possess the intellectual capacity to be able to recognize in the agent the pure motives, which impel him to practice nonviolence. Gandhi has stated that: non-violent resistance can only follow some real disinterested service, some heart-expression of love. For instance, I would have no status to resist a savage offering animal sacrifice until he could recognize in me his friend through some loving act of mine or other means (Gandhi, 1949).

Additionally, it would seem that nonviolence presupposes the ability to strike. “Man for man the strength of non-violence is in exact proportion to the ability, not the will, of the nonviolent person to inflict violence” (Gandhi, 1949). The women of the Niger Delta region had the capacity to inflict serious damage to the ChevronTexaco facilities that could have resulted in significant economic loss for the oil enterprises and their associates. “Nonviolence . . . presupposes the ability to strike” (Gandhi, 1949). Indeed, ChevronTexaco had been warned that their entire facilities could be destroyed by the tribal uprising. The women refrained from destructive strategies, both before and after gaining control of the facilities. The nonviolent course of action taken by the women effectively transformed their adversaries into initiating a program of shared economic development. Methodological prerequisites Gandhi acknowledged that violence is unavoidable in day to day life. One needs to choose from among alternatives a course of action that minimizes violence. The Ijaw women in the Niger delta were aware of this nuance. Potter (1971, p. 104) observes that, “a specific application of this point occurs when one proposes to coerce another, even if the coercion is intended to stop the coerced person from violence.” Gandhi stated that “the man who coerces another not to eat fish commits more violence than he who eats it . . . The man who uses coercion is guilty of deliberate violence. Coercion is inhuman . . . ” (Gandhi, 1949). The point seems to be that the method adopted must avoid greater injustice than existed previously. The issue is confounded by the axiom that what is violent for one may not be so for another, and what was violent then may not be now or vice versa (Potter, 1971, p. 105). Potter concludes that the openness is essential to the practice of nonviolence because of the need for continual critical appraisal (Potter, 1971, p. 103). The Ijaw women understood this aspect of nonviolent action, as well. Their message was the same, both to the oil company and to the men of their own tribe. Indeed, all proponents of nonviolence demand openness. Openness is a prerequisite for nonviolence. If the methods of the agent involve secrecy, they do not meet the requirements of nonviolence. This requirement emerges from Gandhi’s assertion that truth and nonviolence were two sides of the same coin. Feedback is also essential because the objective of the nonviolent strategy is to bring about a change of heart in the opponent. One who practices methods of nonviolence to resist must then be constantly aware of the effect these methods generate in the opponent. Secrecy is inconsistent with nonviolence. Persuading the stakeholders We have briefly and broadly reviewed various forms of nonviolent rhetoric, and examined the prerequisite conditions for them to be effective. Indeed, even while recognizing that corporate communications is essential to persuading the stakeholders, corporate strategists have generally failed to recognize that nonviolent engagement of its stakeholders is a special mode of persuasion. This is true in spite of the availability of rich literature provided by many works and experiments, from the time that P.B. Shelley published An Address to the Irish People, with subsequent contributions by Thoreau, Penn, Jefferson, Gandhi, King and Maguire, to the contemporary practice by Bernard LaFayette, Jr, in Colombia, and Wangari Maathai in Kenya (Peterson, 2004). Nonviolent modes of persuasion can be as successful with corporate


261

CCIJ 11,3

262

stakeholders as nonviolent engagement has been in political conflict throughout the world. Although the works of the individuals listed above are parts of separate histories, mostly disconnected in time and place, they describe common aspects of nonviolent engagement and action. As with the more expedient militaristic approach, nonviolent action requires careful planning. The planning process is often aimed at creating a rhetorical situation (Gorsevski, 1999), and includes the need to assess the risk that would have to be received and sacrifices that would have to be made, organize to channel willpower and energy, summon courage, gather information for accountability and open communication. Nonviolent mode of persuasion would not shirk away from the chaotic, disorderly, emotional side of human nature, and would seek to take on competition and conflict with minimal violence. The goal is to educate the stakeholders and emphasize the commonality (Gorsevski, 1999). Greater gains may be realized in situations of conflict where competition is replaced by enlightened cooperation. Indeed, in joint ventures among corporations, each participant contributes strengths in areas where others are weak, and each shares in the risks and costs. Joint ventures are examples of cooperative possibilities where synergies are realized by cooperating parties in areas where neither would succeed by themselves. Ultimately, the goal of nonviolent rhetoric is to educate and to rehumanize the engaged parties. Johnstone (1965, pp. 1-9) emphasizes the rehumanizing effect of nonviolent rhetoric. He states that with two parties arguing a point: . . . the person with the totally closed mind cuts himself off from the human race . . .(while) the person willing to run the risks involved in listening to the arguments of others is open-minded. . .(T)he risk a person takes by listening to an argument is that he may have to change himself. . . (Gorsevski, 1999; Johnstone, 1965).

This point is consistent with the insights offered by Gadamer (1975) and Zeddies (2002). According to them conversation transforms the participants. Consistent with the Potter’s description of the theory of nonviolence as the very technique of its practice, Martin and Varney (2003) prefer to describe nonviolence as communication itself. They see nonviolent engagement playing a double role. Initially, two parties may seek to resolve problems through a dialogue. But should an opponent refuse to proceed in good faith or become violent, the “nonviolent action becomes a means to encourage the opponent to enter dialogue” (Martin and Varney, 2003; Naess, 1974, pp. 90-93). In any event, the change brought about through nonviolent engagement is self-initiated, self-driven, and equitable. Corporations are better placed today than ever before to benefit from nonviolent rhetoric. Emerging technologies effectively decentralize the functioning of social institutions that are organically designed for centralized functioning. For instance, it is difficult for authoritarian agencies to monitor and control the flow information on the information highway. Emerging technologies promote freedom of speech and dissemination of information, and can help the spread and effectiveness of nonviolent rhetoric. Taking the lead from Tolstoy, who forecasted that “a time was coming, and will inevitably come, when all institutions based on violence will disappear because it has become obvious to everyone that they are useless,” Gorsevski offers the following vision: As developing nations move into computer-based networks of commerce and communications, and as advances in technology in industrialized nations improve every

citizen’s access to information, possibilities are appearing on the horizon for nonviolent action and rhetoric to transcend the structurally violent systems of repression that occur in places where political or economic constraints limit freedom of expression (Gorsevski, 1999).

Conclusion In this paper we have explored nonviolent rhetoric as means of communicating with, educating, entertaining, informing, or otherwise engaging corporate stakeholders. This paper examined corporate communication’s affinity for aggressive, militaristic language in terms of constraint of time, and expediency and efficiency of standardized communication strategies designed for large-scale effectiveness. However, such communication strategies run the risk of dehumanizing the intended targets, distancing the individuals, and compromising socially responsible corporate behavior. Proposing that nonviolent rhetorical approaches deserve consideration, this paper examined the prerequisites for nonviolent corporate communication. The conditions that must be present in the environment, in the corporation or its agent, and in the method of communication, for nonviolent rhetoric to prove effective are discussed. A nonviolent theoretic approach offers new insights to the disciplines of corporate communication, public relations, and strategic management, and provides researchers and practitioners in these fields new pathways to explore strategies consistent with socially responsible corporate behavior. References AACSB International (2004), Ethics Education in Business Schools, AACSB International, St Louis, MO. Alsop, R.J. (2004), The 18 Immutable Laws of Corporate Reputation: Creating, Protecting, and Repairing Your Most Valuable Asset, Free Press, New York, NY. Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2000), “Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 136-59. Anonymous (2002), “Women storm Nigeria pipeline stations”, Associated Press Online, July 17. Anonymous (2005a), “Dandi: Salt March”, available at: www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/ Gandhi/Dandi.html (accessed April 28, 2005). Anonymous (2005b), “Gene sharp a biographical profile”, available at: www.peace.ca/genesharp. htm (accessed April 28, 2005). Baker, S. and Martinson, D.L. (2001), “The TARES test: five principles for ethical persuasion”, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 16 Nos 2/3, pp. 148-75. Barnes, E. (2003), “What’s your story?”, Harvard Management Communication Letter, Vol. 6 No. 7, pp. 3-5. Barry, D. and Elmes, M. (1997), “Strategy retold: toward a narrative view of strategic discourse”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 429-52. Bennett, R. and Gabriel, H. (2003), “Image and reputational characteristics of UK charitable organizations: an empirical study”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 276-89. Berger, A.A. (1989), “‘1984’: the commercial”, in Berger, A.A. (Ed.), Political Culture and Public Opinion, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 175-86. Bode, R.A. (1994), “Gandhi’s theory of nonviolent communication”, Gandhi Marg, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 5-30.


263

CCIJ 11,3

264

Bromley, D.B. (1993), Reputation, Image and Impression Management, Wiley, New York, NY. Burrowes, R.J. (1996), The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Cheney, G. and Christensen, L.T. (2001), “Organisational identity: linkages between internal and external communication”, in Jablin, F.M. and Putnam, L.L. (Eds), The New Handbook of Organisational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, Sage, London. Collins, C. (1991), “Cultural narratives as argumentation”, in van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J.A. and Willard, C.A. (Eds), Proceedings of the Second ISSA Conference on Argumentation, University of Amsterdam, 19-22 June, pp. 746-53. Coulson-Thomas, C. (1992), “Strategic vision or strategic con?: Rhetoric or reality?”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 81-9. Czarniawska, B. (1997), Narrating the Organization – Dramas of Institutional Identities, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Dalton, D. (1993), Mahatma Gandhi: Nonviolent Power in Action, Columbia University Press, New York, NY. Davis, S. and Meyer, C. (1999), Blur: The Speed of Change in the Connected Economy, Warner Books, New York, NY. Dhir, K.S. and Vinen, D. (2005), “Managing corporate respectability: concept, issues, and policy formulation”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 5-23. Dowling, G. (2001), Creating Corporate Reputations: Identity, Image, and Performance, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fombrun, C.J. (1995), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Gadamer, H.G. (1975), Truth and Method, Crossword, New York, NY. Gandhi, M.K. (1949), Non-Violence in Peace and War, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad. Gangal, S.C. (1960), The Gandhian Way to World Peace, Vica and Cox, Bombay. Gardberg, N. and Fombrun, C.J. (2002), “For better or worse – the most visible American corporate reputation”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 385-91. Gimenez, J.C. (2002), “New media and conflicting realities in multinational corporate communication: a case study”, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 323-43. Goldberg, M.E. and Hartwick, J. (1990), “The effects of advertiser reputation and extremity of advertising claim on advertising effectiveness”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 172-9. Gorsevski, E.W. (1999), “Nonviolent theory of communication: the implications for theorizing a nonviolent rhetoric”, Peace & Change, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 445-74. Green, P.S. (1992), Reputation Risk Management, Pitman Publishing, London. Janis, I.L. (1982), Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. Johnstone, H. (1965), “Some reflections on argumentation”, in Natanson, M. and Johnstone, H. (Eds), Philosophy, Rhetoric, and Argumentation, The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA. Kay, J. (1993), Foundations of Corporate Success, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Martin, B. and Varney, W. (2003), “Nonviolence and communication”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 213-32. Merton, T. (1965), “Gandhi and the one-eyed giant, preface to M.K. Gandhi”, Gandhi on Nonviolence, New Directions, New York, NY. Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1982), “Predation, reputation, and entry deterrence”, Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 27, pp. 280-312. Murphy, S.M. (1996), “The rhetoric of nonviolent conflict resolution: toward a philosophy of peace as a social construct”, PhD dissertation, University of South Carolina, Dissertation Abstracts International, September, Vol. 57, No. 3, p. 1140A. Naess, A. (1974), Gandhi and Group Conflict: An Exploration of Satyagraha. Theoretical Background, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. O’Connor, E.S. (1995), “Paradoxes of participation: textual analysis and organizational change”, Organization Studies, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 769-803. Peterson, S.J. (2004), “From discourse to activism: trajectories of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s nonviolence philosophy in literature of resistance”, PhD dissertation, University of Rhode Island, Dissertation Abstracts International, December, Vol. A 65, No. 6, p. 2213. Phillips, N. (1995), “Telling organizational tales: on the role of narrative fiction in the study of organizations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 625-49. Potter, K.H. (1971), “Explorations in Gandhi’s theory of nonviolence”, in Power, P.F. (Ed.), The Meanings of Gandhi, The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, pp. 91-117. Pruzan, P. (2001), “Corporate reputation: image and identity”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 50-64. Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (2000), The Role of Corporate Reputation for Multinational Firms: Accounting, Organizational, and Market Considerations, Quorum Books, New York, NY. Rindova, V.P., Becerra, M. and Contardo, I. (2004), “Enacting competitive wars: competitive activity, language games, and market consequences”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 670-86. Rosenberg, M. (2003), Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life: Create Your Life, Your Relationships, and Your World in Harmony with Your Values, 2nd ed., PuddleDancer Press, Encinitas, CA. Rubin, J.Z., Pruitt, D. and Kim, S. (1994), Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Ruth, J.A. and York, A. (2004), “Framing information to enhance corporate reputation: the impact of message source, information type, and reference point”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 14-20. Sayre, S., Wells, L. and Moriarty, S. (1996), “Penetrating the cultural curtain: apple’s ‘1984’ commercial goes to Russia”, World Communication, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 91-103. Scott, L.M. (1991), “‘For the rest of us’: a reader-oriented interpretation of apple’s ‘1984’ commercial”, Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 67-81. Shapiro, C. (1982), “Consumer information, product quality, and seller reputation”, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 13, pp. 20-35. Shapiro, C. (1983), “Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputation”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 98, pp. 659-79. Sharp, G. (1973), The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Porter Sargent, Boston, MA.


265

CCIJ 11,3

266

Sharp, G. (1992), “198 methods of nonviolent action”, in Fahey, J. and Armstrong, R. (Eds), A Peace Reader: Essential Readings on War, Justice, Non-Violence, and World Order, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 476-9. Skerlep, A. (2001), “Re-evaluating the role of rhetoric in public relations theory and in strategies of corporate discourse”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 176-87. Snowden, D. (2001), “Story telling as a strategic communication tool”, Strategic Communication Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 28-31. Stiehm, J. (1968), “Nonviolence is two”, Social Inquiry, Vol. 38, pp. 23-30. Toth, E. (2000), “Public relations and rhetoric: history, concepts, future”, in Moss, D., Vercˇicˇ, D. and Warnaby, G. (Eds), Perspectives on Public Relations Research, Routledge, London, pp. 121-44. Vashisht, K. (2005), “The model Mahatma”, available at: www.hindustantimes.com/news/ 7705_1286402,0095.htm (accessed 28 April, 2005). Vendelø, M.T. (1998), “Narrating corporate reputation: becoming legitimate through storytelling”, International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 120-37. Weber, T. (2003), “Nonviolence is who? Gene sharp and Gandhi”, Peace & Change, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 250-70. Weidenbaum, M. (2003), “Business ethics: everybody’s favorite oxymoron”, Executive Speeches, Vol. 17, p. 15. Wulfson, M. (1998), “Rules of the game: do corporate codes of ethics work?”, Review of Business, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 12-7. Zeddies, T.J. (2002), “More than just words: a hermeneutic view of language in psychoanalysis”, Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 3-23. Zyglidopoulos, S.C. (2004), “The impact of downsizing on the corporate reputation for social performance”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 11-25. Corresponding author Krishna S. Dhir can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints