Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
Staff Only: A Study of Organisational Voice in the
Kitchen
Ricky, Yuk-kwan Ng*
This paper attempts to give attention to the concepts of the on stage
front/back stage languages and applied them to the context of
organisational studies.
It has considered how the voices of
organisations can contribute to an understanding of the team
dynamic in the kitchen. This study reveals long working hours, low
paid and the lack of personal life are the perpetual truth of working in
the kitchen while the implementation of a hierarchy solely depends
on the restaurant‟s management. Kitchens are gradually opened up
as a “glass palace” for the customers as showcases to cope with
their business strategies. The code of practice of working in an
open kitchen indicates that the voices being showed to the
customers and in actual uses are always segregated; it is
schizophrenic and chaotic. This study also finds that the voice of
authority hinders communication; it is regarded as orders instead of
two-way communications and will create uncertainty. Last but not
least, it is also realised that the self-regulated magic system to
generate team dynamic is of significance because most of the
outsiders strongly believe that chefs are team players.
1. Introduction
Day in and day out, while we are enjoying our „bon appetite‟ meals in the
restaurants, rarely that we will pay attention to what is happening inside the kitchens.
In many work organisations, the familiar distinction between front and back stage
(Goffman, 1959) is readily apparent and yet it is often the case that access to the
workplace is only gained via visual or textual media, that is, access to actual
locations is frequently prohibited (Kociatkiewicz and Kostera, 1999; Slemmons,
2005). Although we may have seen the real life kitchen from various documentary or
drama television programmes such as Kitchen from Hell or Jamie Oliver‟s Television
Series on BBC, these kinds of performed realities and „déjà vu‟ are considered as
clichés and may not able to unveil the behind the scene realities. To many people,
the concept of working in a kitchen may associate with the underpaid job in the
sweat shop, the relentless regimentation of the factory, or the rigid bureaucratic
organisational life. Most of the people regard the work conditions and activities in
the kitchen as the dark side of restaurants. Indeed in some restaurants, the details
of the activities in the kitchen are intended to be hidden from the customers.
Chances for a glimpse of what is going in the kitchen are slim. The saying of no
matter how nice a restaurant is, do not ever look into the kitchen seems to be a
perpetual truth. Like many other servicing industries, restaurants are operating both
at the stage front (the dining area) and back stage (the kitchen). So, they project
organisational images, at the stage-front, the best services are given to the
customers while the work environments and activities that make up the backstage
reality are deliberately segregated and are normally visible only to the employees.
________________________________________
* Dr. Ricky, Yuk-kwan Ng, Centre for Learning and Teaching, Vocational Training Council, Hong Kong.
Email:rickyng@vtc.edu.hk
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
2. Literature Review
Staff Only
Interestingly, the „staff only‟ sign on the kitchen door indicates that it is not just the
recipes are the best-kept secret but the work activities are also strictly confidential to
outsiders. In addition, the kitchen in a restaurant is notoriously known as a male
dominated arena filled with rough behaviours and coarse languages. Anthony
Bourdain, one of the most famous chefs in the world, describes the kitchen as a
“mad house” with distinctive subculture of “centuries-old militaristic hierarchy” and
garnished with “a mix of unwavering orders and nerve-shattering chaos” (Bourdain,
2001, p.3). Bourdain‟s assertions may be overly exaggerated, but reviews from
literature suggest that the notorious tradition and the mechanism of kitchen still
lingers. Arbend‟s ethnographic study on el Bulli, the world‟s best restaurant in
Spain, reveals that its maverick chef, Ferran Adria, manages his kitchen in a
rigorous and highly disciplined army type of operation. Despite the fact that Ferran
has a subliminal goal to revolutionize the restaurant business, he operates his
kitchen as if it was a machine, with everybody and everything in the right places all
working towards a common goal to achieve his so called „mise-en-place‟ concept. It
should be an amazing show to the customers because el Bulli adopts an open
kitchen plan and the work activities of his employees are presented behind the glass
wall. Tour to the kitchen is also available. El Bulli‟s kitchen best demonstrates
Gabriel‟s concept of the „glass cage‟ and „glass palace‟: Employees are exposed to
their customers, their work colleagues and the mangers for multi-dimensional
surveillance (Gabriel, 2005). Employees now working in kitchens are permit to be
seen through the glass wall, their activities at work are all unveiled while working
long hours under intensive labour and surveillance pressure. In a similar way to
theatre of alienation makes transparent the fact that the audiences are spectators of
the work of actors, so work in restaurants‟ open kitchens are moving in a similar
direction to impress customers. However, there are consequences to such acts.
Atmosphere is tense; exchanges of causal talks are forbidden in the kitchen; the
only communications are the hierarchical orders given by the chefs and the
responses must be heard from their subordinates. The calls and responses are
short and direct, loud and rapid with no extra room and time to contemplate. The
Spanish words “Quemo” with its literally meaning „I burn‟ (but can be applied to a
variety of situations in the kitchen) and “Oido” („heard it‟, „got it‟) are the most
frequent exchanged codes and utterances. According to Arbend, those are the
sounds of a well-run kitchen, the hums of a machine as called by el Bulli‟s chef
Eduard (Arben, 2011). Unlike stressing the use of various approaches to convey
clear messages to employees to reduce uncertainty and equivocation through the
use of rich, intermediate and lean media for communication in most organisations
(Daft and Lengel, 1986), the direct calls and responses in el Bulli‟s kitchen make a
perfect opposite example. In this case, the most-simple approach is adopted: the
military style short and direct commands to avoid miscommunications.
Organisational Voices
It is not surprisingly to see different styles of languages are being used in
restaurants. Language in the dining room is rhetoric, polite and answers are in
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
discreet details. On the contrary, language inside the kitchen is blunt, harsh and
coarse. Second opinions during work are not acceptable and very often, there is
only one man commanding. Addressing the voices of organisations, Everett
contends that the hierarchy voice is “the voice of authority” and it will jeopardize work
relationships (Everett, 2011).
Interestingly, the voice of authority finds its
appropriateness in the kitchen comfortably. Resemblance to the strict hierarchy
structure of an army, the executive chef, like an experienced general, commands,
choreographs and synchronizes his chef de cuisine, sous-chefs and their
subordinates to finish the cooking tasks. Afifi and Weiner contend that interpersonal
communications depending on a range of psychological factors (Afifi and Weiner,
2004). In the kitchen, the commands and orders act as a significant factor of
organisational culture for employees to share common values and goals. It is the
short, direct and rapid words that energizes the employees and keeps the kitchen
boiling. Coarse languages are always heard in the kitchen, even in a Michelin Star
restaurant such as el Bulli, for example, “[we] need more ears. That is a sea
cucumber? That is a fucking zucchini” (Arbend, 2011, p.11). It is astonishing to
know that most employees regard the occasional “F” words (but as told by a chef
working in a fine-dining restaurant, it is the most frequent word in a lot of kitchens)
as pushers that draws individual attention and motivates the team rather than verbal
insults and abuses. What fascinate me are the everyday languages being used in
restaurants, in particular, the schizophrenic of voices in the stage front (the dining
area) and the back stage (in the kitchen). Is the voice of authority a necessary in the
kitchen? How does it feel to work in an environment being constantly harassed and
abused by coarse language or rather it is this specific language that drives and
generates the team dynamics in the kitchen?
Steaming, Cooking and Working
Apparently, kitchen is a kind of organisational life that remains mysterious to a lot of
people. The late Jazz musician Miles Davis once used the concepts of “steaming”,
“cooking” and “working” to name his albums to highlight the spontaneous and
harmonious improvisations of his quintet during their gags. In the same vein, it is
presumably that there is a magic system, mechanism and voice that keep the
kitchen boiling. It is of this curiosity that triggers the thoughts to take a close look
into the back stages of restaurants for a better understanding of the kitchen
confidential. In sum, this short paper has attempts to give attention to the concepts
of the on stage front/back stage languages and applied them to the context of
organisational studies. It has considered how the voices of organisations can
contribute to an understanding of the team dynamic in the kitchen. The following
empirical work which accompanies this paper gives attention to how such language
can be used to reveal the work culture in the kitchen.
3. The Methodology and Model
The qualitative approach, ethnography and interpretivism
With an aim of exploring particular social and cultural phenomena in the restaurant,
or more specifically the voices being used in the kitchen, this study adopts a
qualitative approach and is set in the interpretive paradigm. The reason of using
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
qualitative approach for this study is because over the years, the use of qualitative
research approach for exploration of social behaviours has been widely advocated
and used in social science. It emphasises the importance of understanding the
processes through which human beings concretise their relationship to their world
(Morgan & Smircich, 1980). The use of a qualitative approach has been regarded
as more appropriate for seeking an understanding of particular and specific
phenomena (Casebeer and Verhoef, 1997). Using qualitative approach for this
study, the researcher collects open-ended, emerging data with the intention of
developing themes from the data, and makes knowledge claims based primarily on
the multiple meanings of individual experiences. To explore the inside stories in the
kitchens, it is important to discover and constitute meanings in the light of
experiences of the chefs‟ individual engagements in everyday life and thus to
interpret the individual truth and subjective opinions though the lens of his/her own
experiences. The method is inductive; insights are generated from the interviews
and the ethnographic studies.
To enable a detailed look and first-hand experience of the activities in the kitchens,
ethnography will be adopted in order to draw behavioural patterns and themes for
analysis.
Ethnography requires field participation and engagement, using
observation, in-depth interviews, documentation by written logs as well as visual
media such as photographs and films (with sound recordings) to observe social
patterns (Gummensson, 1991), and “to collect and analyse data of a particular
phenomenon with as little hypothesizing as possible” (Montiel, 1985, p.49).
Ethnography enables the researcher to identify the “essence” of human experiences
concerning a phenomenon in a study, and to understand the “lived experiences” by
studying a small number of subjects through extensive and prolonged engagement
to see patterns and relationships of meaning (Moustakas, 1994 as quoted in
Creswell, 2003 p.15). It is hoping that the use of ethnographic studies would able to
provide insights for a better understanding of the „staff only‟ activities and
interactions in the kitchens.
Interpretive research in management and organisation studies has traditionally been
closely identified with the understanding of local meanings and the everyday world.
Organisational voices and team dynamics in the kitchen are constructed by the
employees in terms of their specific social-historical and cultural background and
their experience of interactions in the work environment. Organisations and
workspaces are well described as communities sharing common societal
characteristics that facilitate the interactions of people. Interpretivism proposes that
by engaging in the world and interacting with others and the environment, people
interpret their individual experiences to construct meanings. It does so by analysing
text, languages, common sense knowledge in different areas of daily life as well as
the inner world of human consciousness, in order to reveal the reality (Burrell and
Morgan, 1979). The goal of the researcher, therefore, is not to capture some preexisting or ready-made world presumed to be available „out there‟, but to understand
the process of symbolic “world making” (Schwandt, 1994), through which the social
world is on-goingly accomplished. Adopting qualitative and interpretative approach
in this study allow an exploratory study by involving the perspectives from those who
participate to discover insight and understanding.
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
The Empirical Work
This empirical study adopts a combination of interview and ethnographic field study.
Data will be collected from experts: the chefs by face-to-face interviews with a
structured questionnaire. Each interview of the participated chef will be selected as
an individual case study because of their job distinctiveness and work experiences in
the catering industry. A total of four interviews will be conducted. Two chefs will be
selected from a Michelin three-star Western cuisine restaurant and two chefs from a
renowned Chinese cuisine restaurant in Hong Kong. They will be selected by the
use of a number of pre-determined criteria as suggested by Dempster (2008).
These include: 1) a number of years of direct work experience in the respective
industries; 2) experience at a senior level of management; 3) experience in working
as a member in the industry, and working alongside with other specialised workers in
restaurant or kitchen; and 4) experience in managing the whole kitchen and the
management of the catering production process. For analysis, data collected from
the interviews will be transcribed from the audio recordings. They will be sorted then
categorised for comparisons to generate themes. Additional ethnographic field
studies will be carried out by the researcher in the kitchens of the two restaurants to
understand the “lived experiences” through engagement to observe patterns and
relationships of meaning.
Because of the extended procedures required for special approvals to conduct the
interviews and the ethnographic studies, at the time of writing this paper, the
researcher was only able to conduct a pilot test in one of the restaurants. A 45minute interview was conducted with a junior chef of a Michelin three-star French
restaurant followed by an ethnographic field study to observe the activities in the
open kitchen. During the field study, the researcher adopted a naturalistic approach
and was participated as a customer, sat in front of the open kitchen for a three-hour
meal and took notes of the activities in a non-intervention manner. After the meal, a
journal was written based on the notes to write reflections from the first hand field
experience for analysis.
Case One
Junior chef (participant A) of a Michelin three-star French restaurant
Participant A is a junior chef in a Michelin three-star French restaurant in Hong
Kong; he has been working in this restaurant for a year. Before working in this
restaurant, he was working in a few restaurants in Hong Kong‟s grand hotels.
Although his experience of working in the industry is only little more than three years,
his board experiences of working in different kinds of restaurants provides multiperspectives on the work life in the kitchen. A 45-minute interview was conducted
with participant A to draw his views on the organisational voices, work life, work
culture, common values and goals and team dynamic in the kitchen.
The ethnographic study in the Michelin three-star French restaurant
A field study was conducted in the restaurant a week before the interview with
participant A, the reason of that was to avoid any bias and preconception that may
result from the interview with participant A. This arrangement allowed the
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
researcher to enter the field with as little of pre-existing concepts as possible in order
to observe the „world-making‟ process. The researcher was participated as a
customer at a table in front of the open kitchen. The junior chef‟s colleagues were
not notified to avoid the Hawthrone effect. The researcher used a naturalistic
approach to observe the activities in the kitchen. Notes were taken and a reflective
log was written after the field study to categorise the activities and patterns to draw
insights.
4. The Findings
Findings from the interview with participant A
Flat versus bureaucratic management system
The concept of working in a kitchen may associate with the underpaid job in the
sweat shop, the relentless regimentation of the factory, or the rigid bureaucratic
organisational life is partially truth. Participant A agreed that “working in kitchen is
always a job with long working hours, low paid and has no personal life, no matter
how big a restaurant you are in” but “it is not really factory alike”, because it all
depends on what kind of restaurant you are working in. He expressed his view that
in some big hotel‟s restaurants, there are strong hierarchies and bureaucracies while
in some private restaurants, the rankings are not so obvious, for example, in the
three-star French restaurant he is working has a flat hierarchy; the executive chef is
the commander and the rest of the staff bear the same rank. He admitted that it is
good because “we have chances to get our hands on different tasks and work on the
whole food processing process and furthermore, we learn from each other”. He
carried on and said “there is a high staff turnover rate because of the high demand
resulted from the high standard and of course, the underpaid and long working
hours are significant factors that drive people away”. The findings confirm that long
working hours, low paid and the lack of personal life are the key factors of working in
the kitchen while the rigid hierarchy depends on the restaurant‟s management. A
flat management system is adopted in private restaurants and a rigid bureaucratic
management system is being implemented in hotel‟s restaurants.
Kitchens are showcases
Participant A agreed with the saying of “no matter how nice a restaurant is, do not
ever look into the kitchen” by saying that “nearly all kitchens are dirty except they are
brand new: the floor is always wet, garbage and the leftover from food processing
are scattered and there are always smell from food, grease and other leftover”. He
also commented that nowadays restaurants are projecting an organisational image.
At the stage front, the best services are given to the customers while the work
environments and activities that make up the backstage reality are deliberately
segregated and are normally visible only to the employees. He said “nowadays,
restaurants are similar to show business. Customers always want to take a look into
the kitchen to see the cooking process out of curiosity. Kitchens are gradually
opened up to customers as showcases. To project a professional image to the
customers, in the front, waiters always look smart, have nice glooming and in the
kitchen, chefs always wear gloves, make sure that there are no water marks on
plates and tableware and the chefs do not touch plates with bare hands, just to
name a few”. The above reveals that restaurants and kitchens are being used as
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
showcases as part of the business strategies.
Schizophrenic and segregated voices
Participant A agreed that in some restaurants, there are psychological schizophrenic
of voices in the stage front (the dining area) and the back stage (in the kitchen),
saying that “it happens but not so obvious in the restaurant I am working in. Indeed,
most of the kitchens are in stages of chaotic during work; you will hear swear words,
yells, shouts and quarrels like communications. Arguments happened because of
the individual working styles: Different people have their own work systems and their
own work stations. The perceptions of the old and new staff also raise arguments
and the heat in the kitchen”. This comment shows that no matter how eager
restaurants trying to furnish themselves with a professional image, the voices that
are being showed to the customers and in actual uses are always segregated, it is
full of schizophrenic and chaotic voices.
Code of practice to work in a „glass cage‟
Responding to the question whether the open kitchen is the „glass cage‟ and „glass
palace‟ that employees are exposed to their customers, their work colleagues and
the mangers for multi-dimensional surveillance, participant A assets that “An open
kitchen generates more pressure. We have to beware of what we do, for example,
to avoid inappropriate gestures and behaviours”. There is also a code of practice in
an open kitchen, “we have to clean the drops of sauce using napkins instead of
hands, even though it is better to do it using cleaned bare hands to show the
customers that we are hygienic in handling food. Before we cook a new dish, we
need to clean up our stations in the sake of showing to the customers even though it
is not necessary. The concept of showing the customers a clean and tidy workplace
is important, even only for one minute”. Interestingly, he said that working in an
open kitchen, “stronger pressure is from the manager rather than the colleagues and
there is not that much pressure from the customers but after all, working in an open
kitchen needs a higher emotional quotient (EQ)”. The responses indicated that
although working in the „glass cage‟ and „glass palace‟, work pressure is mainly from
manager and the code of practice rather than the customers.
Short commands and orders create uncertainty
Regarding the gender issue, the rough behaviours and “the voice of authority”
approaches to convey clear messages to employees to reduce uncertainty for
communication. Participant A admits that nowadays, there are more women
working in the kitchen but the gender issue still exists, especially in the Chinese
culture. “Women usually have privileges, for example, they are exempted from
lifting heavy stuff and they can leave earlier or have more tolerances from the chefs,
so they do not have to suffer from the overly rough behaviours and languages from
the male co-workers”. Of course, voices of authority and coarse language exist, “the
orders and commands are essential in the kitchen culture. They generate passion,
power and they are dynamic and also a means for ventilation of grieving”. He further
says that “commands from the chefs are non-negotiable orders: Do it or you will die”,
he continued “but somehow these simple commands are not really clear messages,
instead they create uncertainty because people dare not to ask. They are fine for
simple tasks but not for complicated tasks” and he believes that “it is better to give
detailed orders, for example, one chef told my colleague to boil the lobster for three
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
minutes but didn‟t explain to him that he needs to think about the size and whether
the water are boiled before putting in the lobster or the other way round. Very often,
short and simple commands and orders are given because of the rush and time”. In
participant A‟s view, he considers the voice of authority hinders communication; he
considers them as orders instead of two-way communications. He cites an
interesting example to illustrate one of the functions of this kind of order is to get the
dish out timely, he says “do you know that we work faster than the MacDonald‟s?
We have to get a dish out in one minute”. It seems the simple “do it or die”
command in turn created uncertainty for communication and one should regard
them as task-oriented orders to get the job done in a timely manner but as
participant A comments “if the orders and commands go to an extreme, it will
generate a negative effect that reduces confidence”.
The magic system: self-regulating
Asking whether there is a magic system that contributes to the team dynamic in the
kitchen, astonishingly, participant A responds that “to outsiders, a kitchen seems to
be working as a team but actually it is not because there are so many parties and
people tend to work on their own task. The magic system should be the selfregulated system; one needs to be smart to work in the kitchen, to find out one‟s
particular surviving mode”. He considers that the ideal magic system would be “a
good management system that plans the work process well with the necessities
such as staff familarisation and training; however, in most of the kitchens, it does not
exist because chefs normally do not have management backgrounds. There are no
briefing sessions before the day of work and as I said before, people go selfregulated, both physical and psychological”. He continues to say that “sadly,
nowadays, the common goal and values are to maintain the stars of the restaurant.
Team dynamic should come from the leadership of the executive chef and
colleagues and instead of the salary and the fame of working in a Michelin Star
restaurant”. To end the interview, he asks whether the researcher has ever heard
that the phrase “„I love cooking‟ but it has become a self-sarcastic joke in kitchens
because people only work for money and fame instead of having a passion to food”.
Surprisingly, without saying that there is no team dynamic in the kitchen, the above
reveals that there is not magic system that contributes to the team; people are selfregulated to search for their particular surviving modes. The ideal magic system to
generate team dynamic in the kitchen would be “a good management system”
instead of the endeavour to maintain the stars of the restaurant.
Findings from the ethnographical study
An ethnographic field study in the Michelin three-star French restaurant
A few noteworthy points were observed during the field study and they are:
Restaurant as show business
It is observed that the restaurant tried very best to entertain the customers and give
them an exception dining experience. The experience is both visual and taste: from
the state-of-the-art interior design of the restaurant, to the deliberately placed
dinning-tables facing the open kitchen and the too orderly set-up work stations and
the showing of expansive equipment in the kitchen reveal that the open kitchen,
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
together with the fame of Michelin stars chef constitutes the concept of the
restaurant as show business. The waiters in the restaurant, the chef and his
subordinates in the kitchen are well-groomed and they reminded me of the overly
beautified scenes in films. They were doing their jobs as if they were acting on film
set. As seen, everything is choreographed and demonstrated to customers; a clean
cut on the Kobe beef, an artistic drop of the sauce on the plate, a painstakingly
shaped chocolate cake are just a few examples that observed. Without a doubt and
triangulated with the responses from the interview, restaurants are now in show
business and kitchens are being used as showcases as part of the business
strategies.
Code of practice and team dynamic in action
During the meal, it is observed that that people working in an open kitchen acted
polite and gentle; talks were sparse, and no rough behaviours and coarse
languages were seen and heard. People in the kitchen were concentrated on their
own tasks and there was a sense of team dynamic and people were working
towards a common goal: to provide timely services without scarifying the quality and
the elements to please the customers. This observation once again coincides with
the findings from the interview that code of practice is in force in the open kitchen
because of the „glass palace‟ effect. In contradict to participant A‟s responses, team
dynamic did exist as observed. It was rather a subconscious work attitude than a
deliberated act.
5. Summary and Conclusions
Although limited by the samples of participants and the single field visit, this pilot
study reveals the front stage and back stage organisational culture and behaviours
in restaurants. Long working hours, low paid and the lack of personal life are the
perpetual truth of working in the kitchen while the implementation of a hierarchy
solely depends on the restaurant‟s management. Restaurants are trying to get away
from the notorious notion of “no matter how nice a restaurant is, do not ever look into
the kitchen”. Kitchens are gradually opened up as a “glass palace” for the
customers as showcases to cope with their business strategies. However, the
coarse languages, rough behaviours are unavoidable but they are tuned down to
follow the code of practice of working in an open kitchen. It indicates that the voices
being showed to the customers and in actual uses are always segregated; it is
schizophrenic and chaotic. This study also finds that the voice of authority hinders
communication; it is regarded as orders instead of two-way communications. The
simple orders and commands will create uncertainty and generate negative effect
that reduces confidence. It is also realised that the self-regulated magic system to
generate team dynamic is of significance because most of the outsiders strongly
believe that chefs are team players and there must be team dynamic in the kitchen.
It is hoping that making references to the preliminary findings of the pilot study, the
on-going in-depth study will enable a better understanding of the organisational
voice and work culture in the kitchen.
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
References
Afifi, Walid A. and Weiner, Judith L. 2004, „Toward a Theory of Motivated
Information
Management. Communication Theory, vol. 14, No. 2, May, 2004, pp.167-190.
Anderson, Donald. L. 2005, ““What you'll say is?…?”: Represented Voice in
Organizational Change Discourse". Journal of Organizational Change
Management,
vol. 18, Issue: 1, pp.63-77.
Arbend, Lisa. 2011, The Sorcerer‟s Apprentices. London: Simon and Schuster.
Bourdain, Anthony. 2001, Kitchen Confidential. London: Bloomsbury.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. 1979, Sociological Paradigms and Organisational
Analysis.
Heinemann.
Casebeer, A.L. and Verhoef, M.J. 1997, Combining Qualitative and Quantitative
Research
Methods: Considering the Possibilities for Enhancing the Study of Chronic
Diseases.
Chronic Disease in Canada.
Retrieved Feb 25, 2003 from (LTSN) database on the world wide web:
http://www.hs-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/cdic-mcc/18-3/d_e.html
Creswell, John. 2003, Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods
Approaches. Second Edition. California: Sage Publication.
Daft, Richard and Lengel, Robert. H. 1986, Organizational Information
Requirements,
Media Richness and Structural Design. Management Science, vol. 32, No. 5,
May,
1986, USA: The Institute of Management Science.
Everett, Ken. 2011, Designing the Networked Organization. New York: Business
Expert
Press.
Gabriel, Y. 2005, Glass Cage and Class Palaces: Images of Organization in ImageConscious Times. Organization. vol. 12(1): 9-27.
Goffman, E. 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
Gummensson, Evert. 1991, Case Study Research. Qualitative Methods in
Management
Research, SAGE Publications. Newbury Park, Calif.
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
Kociatkiewicz, J. and Kostera, M. 1999, The Anthropology of Empty Spaces,
Qualitative
Sociology, 22 (1): 37-50.
Lecercle, Jean-Jacques. 1990, The Violence of Language. London: Routledge.
Linstead, S.A., Maréchal, G., and Griffin, R.W. 2010, Special Issue on the Dark Size
of
Organization. Organization Studies, 39(04), pp. 509-511.
Phipps, Shelly. 2001, Beyond Measuring Service Quality: Learning from the Voices
of the
Customers, the Staff, the Processes, and the Organization. Library Trends, vol.
49,
No. 4, pp.635-641.
Schwartz, Dona. 1989, Visual Ethnography: Using Photography in Qualitative
Research.
Qualitative Sociology, 12(2), Summer 1989.
Strange, S. M. 1974, Reason and Violence- Philosophical Investigations. NJ:
Littlefield,
Adams and Co.
Taylor, James. R. and Cooron, Francois. 1997, What Makes Communication
„Organizational? How Many Voices of Collectivity Becomes the One Voice of
Organization? Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 27, Issue 4, pp.409-438.