Advance Search

Network Direct Selling Organisations: a schismatic perspective

a schismatic perspective

Sonja Verwey
University of Johannesburg
Corné Davis
University of Johannesburg
Keywords:
Copyright and Licensing:
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Share:

How to Cite

Network Direct Selling Organisations: a schismatic perspective. (2022). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 31(2), 56-77. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v31i2.2082
  • Articles
  • Submited: November 10, 2022
  • Published: November 10, 2022

Abstract

Many studies have explored Network Direct Selling Organisations (NDSOs) because they create
many communicative contexts and demonstrate such a diverse range of communicative processes
that form and sustain this large industry. These organisations exist in more than 70 countries, and
have almost 88 million members who generate over US$132 billion annually (WFDSA, 2011).
This paper argues that although NDSOs can be differentiated from other types of organising, their
characteristics can be linked to some key premises in postmodern thinking about organising. It
utilises the schismatic metaphor identified by Morgan (1981) to generate further insights into the
study of individuals as composite unities of operationally closed self-creating systems that cocreate
organisations such as NDSOs. The schismatic metaphor is utilised to provide a powerful
framework for social analysis of organisations by identifying and discussing some theoretical links
between postmodernism, social autopoiesis, and second-order cybernetics.

pdf
pdf

Article Metrics Graph

Article Views | PDF Downloads
Chart Graph | Range Graph

References

  1. Ashcraft, K.L., Kuhn T.R. & Cooren, F. (2009). Constitutional amendments: "materializing" organizational communication. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 1-64.
  2. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903047186 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903047186
  3. Blühdorn, I. (2000). An offer one might prefer to refuse: the systems theoretical legacy of Niklas Luhmann. European Journal of Social Theory, 3(3), 339-354.
  4. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310022224840 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310022224840
  5. Borch, C. (2011). Niklas Luhmann. Abingdon: Routledge.
  6. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880524 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880524
  7. Bormann, E.G. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: the rhetorical criticism of social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58(4), 396-407.
  8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335637209383138 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00335637209383138
  9. Cooper, R. & Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: an introduction. Organization Studies, 9(1), 91-112.
  10. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900112 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900112
  11. Cornelissen, J.P. (2006). Metaphor and the dynamics of knowledge in organization theory: a
  12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00607.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00607.x
  13. case study of the organizational identity metaphor. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 683-708.
  14. Cully, M., Woodland, S., O'Reilly, A. & Dix, G. (1999). Britain at work: as depicted by the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, London: Routledge.
  15. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203279915 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203279915
  16. Contu, A. & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: the importance of power relations in learning theory. Organizational Science, 14(3), 283-296.
  17. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.283.15167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.283.15167
  18. Davis, C. (2011). A second-order cybernetic explanation for the existence of network direct selling organisations as self-creating systems. Doctoral dissertation. University of South Africa. Unpublished.
  19. Direct Selling Association South Africa. (2012). Presentation at the 2012 Annual Award Ceremony by Richard Clarke (Chairman).
  20. Direct Selling Association South Africa. (2012). Available online at: http://www.dsasa/ (Accessed on 2012/04/02).
  21. Gibbs, R.W. (Jr.). (2006). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 21(3), 434-458.
  22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x
  23. Geyer, F. (1995). The challenge of sociocybernetics. Kybernetes, (24)4, 6-32.
  24. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684929510089321 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/03684929510089321
  25. Halliday, M.A.K. (2005). A note on systemic functional linguistics and the study of language disorders. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 19(3), 133-135.
  26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200410001698580 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200410001698580
  27. Huzzard, T. (2004). Communities of domination? Reconceptualising organisational learning and power. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(6), 350-361.
  28. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620410550321 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620410550321
  29. Lemmens, M. (2004). Metaphor, image schemata and grammaticalisation: a cognitive lexicalsemantic study. Journée d'Etudes Grammar and Figures of Speech, 3, 1-8. Available online at: http://www.mlemmens/abstracts/abstrengposdiachr.PDF (Accessed on 2012/06/03).
  30. Lin, N. (2002). Social capital: a theory of social structure and action. North Carolina: Cambridge University Press.
  31. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815447 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815447
  32. Luhmann, N. (1981). The improbability of communication. International Social Science Journal, XXXIII(1), 122-132.
  33. Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems, in sociocybernetic paradoxes: observation, control and evolution of self-steering systems. In R.F. Geyer & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.). London: Sage..
  34. Luhmann, N. (1992). What is communication? Communication Theory, 2(3), 251-259.
  35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1992.tb00042.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1992.tb00042.x
  36. Luhmann, N. (1994b). Speaking and silence. New German Critique, 61, 25-37.
  37. https://doi.org/10.2307/488619 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/488619
  38. Luhmann, N. (1994a). "What is the case?" and "what lies behind it?" The two sociologies and the theory of society. Sociological Theory, 12(2), 126-139.
  39. https://doi.org/10.2307/201859 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/201859
  40. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. California: Stanford University Press.
  41. Luhmann, N. (1996). Membership and motives in social systems. Systems Research, 13(3), 341-348.
  42. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1735(199609)13:3<341::AID-SRES92>3.0.CO;2-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1735(199609)13:3<341::AID-SRES92>3.0.CO;2-5
  43. Luhmann, N. (2001). Notes on the project 'Poetry and Social Theory'. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(1), 15-27.
  44. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632760122051616 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02632760122051616
  45. Luhmann, N. (2002). Theories of distinction. California: Stanford University Press.
  46. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503619340 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503619340
  47. Manning, S. (2010). The strategic formation of project networks: a relational practice perspective. Human Relations, 63(4), 551-573.
  48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709340954 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709340954
  49. Martens, W. (2006). The distinctions within organizations: Luhmann from a cultural perspective. Organization, 13(1), 83-108.
  50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508406059643 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508406059643
  51. McCourt, W. (1997). Discussion note: using metaphors to understand and to change organizations: a critique of Gareth Morgan's approach. Organization Studies, 18(3), 511-522.
  52. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800307 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800307
  53. Moeller, H. (2006). Luhmann explained: from souls to systems. Chicago: Open Court.
  54. Moeller, H. (2012). The radical Luhmann. New York: Columbia University Press.
  55. Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), 605-622.
  56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392283 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392283
  57. Morgan, G. (1981). The schismatic metaphor and its implications for organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 2(1), 23-44.
  58. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068100200103 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068100200103
  59. Morgan, G. (1998). Images of organization. The executive edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  60. Mützel, S. (2009). Networks as culturally constituted processes: a comparison of relational sociology and actor-network theory. Current Sociology, 57(6), 871-887.
  61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392109342223 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392109342223
  62. Nassehi, A. (2005). Organizations as decision machines: Niklas Luhmann's theory of organized social systems. Sociological Review, 53(1), 178-191.
  63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00549.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00549.x
  64. Overton-De Klerk, N. & Verwey, S. (2012). Towards an emerging paradigm of strategic communication: core driving forces. Conference proceedings. International Corporate Communication and Marketing Conference, Rennes Business School, Rennes, France, 18-19 April 2012.
  65. Peterson, A.P. & Albaum, G. (2007). On the ethicality of internal consumption in multilevel marketing. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, XXVII, 317-323.
  66. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134270403 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134270403
  67. Putnam, L.L. & Nicotera, A.M. (2009). Communicative constitution of organization is a question: critical issues for addressing it. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 158-165.
  68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909351581 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909351581
  69. Rasch, W. (2000). Niklas Luhmann's modernity. Paradoxes of differentiation. CA: Stanford University Press.
  70. Schoeneborn, D. (2011). Organization as communication: a Luhmannian perspective. Management Quarterly, XX(X), 1-27.
  71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318911405622 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318911405622
  72. Seidl, D. & Becker, H. (2006). Organization as distinction generating and processing systems: Niklas Luhmann's contribution to organization studies. Organization, 13(9), 9-35.
  73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508406059635 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508406059635
  74. Stagoll, B. (2006). Bateson at 100. ANZJFT, 27(3), 121-134.
  75. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1467-8438.2006.tb00710.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1467-8438.2006.tb00710.x
  76. Stichweh, R. (2000). Systems theory as an alternative to action theory? The rise of 'communication' as a theoretical option. Acta Sociologica, 2000, 43, 5-13.
  77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016990050079644 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00016990050079644
  78. Storey, J., Quintas, P., Taylor, P. & Fowle, W. (2002). Flexible employment contracts and their implications for product and process innovation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1-18.
  79. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190110092758 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190110092758
  80. Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2001). Network theory and analysis. University of Twente. Available online at: http://www.cw.utwente.nl/theoreenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Communication%20Pro (Accessed on 2010/01/19).
  81. Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2010). Outline of a multilevel theory. Available online at: http://www.utwente.nl/gw/vandijk/research/network_theory_plaatje/a_th (Accessed on 2010/12/06).
  82. World Federation of Direct Selling Associations. (2011). Available online at: http://www.wfdsa.org (Accessed on 2011/11/11).
How to Cite
Network Direct Selling Organisations: a schismatic perspective. (2022). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 31(2), 56-77. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v31i2.2082

Send mail to Author

Send Cancel

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Custom technologies based on your needs

  • ORCID
  • Crossref
  • PubMed
    • Clarivate