Rhetorical Power, Accountability And Conflict In Committees: An Argumentation Approach*

Abstract

The general aim of the paper is to shift interest in group communication in organizations in general and in committees in particular away from a prescriptive and rationalistic view detached from the organizational context towards a more analytical approach which takes account of important organizational issues of conflict, power and accountability. The paper outlines a theoretical model containing 11 propositions. The model contains definitions of rhetorical power (defined to be distinct from positional power), rhetorical accountability (defined to be different from organizational accountability for a task) and rhetorical conflict and contains 12 rhetorical variables which are language categories, and eight non‐rhetorical variables. These language categories are argumentation elements which can be identified within any committee transcript such as proposals, challenges and questions and which have been derived from previously published and validated coding schemes. The model predicts that committee members will seek to maximize their rhetorical power by using some language categories and avoiding others, and that they will seek to vary the amount of rhetorical accountability they wish to claim depending on the likely success or failure of the project being discussed. The model also predicts that the proportions of language categories within any committee transcript will change depending upon how open or hostile the committee debate is, and that the proportions of language categories will also be changed by attempts by committee leaders to reduce rhetorical conflict by using some language categories and avoiding others. Several relations between rhetorical power and rhetorical conflict are hypothesized. According to the model, rhetorical power and rhetorical conflict can be manipulated by participants in beneficial ways only under some circumstances (those which characterize an open rather than a hostile committee debate). The model is related to several important non‐rhetorical variables.