The point, then, is that a constitutive view of organizations as communication enables us to
question and investigate key organizational realities, not just accept them as given. We can
question the existence of the organization—its structure, its forms of power, its guiding
assumptions, its norms of operations—and so on. If these organizational features are not
“natural,” but rather came into existence through specific communication processes, then we
can examine the implications of those communication processes and explore ways of
communicating that lead to more favorable organizational outcomes for more people.
We can examine, for example, how certain patterns of interaction give rise to norms of conflict
resolution, or how the taken‐for‐granted values of a particular industry or sector shape the
practice of leadership, or how interpersonal dynamics affect the success of an organizational
change initiative. We can look at how certain views of masculinity or femininity are connected
to communication practices, or how our very identities are often created and sustained through
organizational communication. We can uncover hidden forms of power and control that are
embedded within communication processes. We can explore ways to make organizations more
equitable and representative by surfacing alternative voices. We can figure out how to make
organizations more productive, adaptive, and responsive through organizational
communication that encourages innovation and collaboration. Whatever the case, a
constitutive view of organizations as communication provides a much stronger explanatory
framework to understand the complexities of organizing and communicating.