Rhetorical Enthymeme: The Forgotten Trope and its Methodological Import

Date01 March 2020
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12377
Published date01 March 2020
Rhetorical Enthymeme: The Forgotten Trope
and its Methodological Import
LOIZOS HERACLEOUS,PROFESSOR
1
SOTIRIOS PAROUTIS
2
and ANDY LOCKETT PROFESSOR
3
1
Professor of Strategy and Organization, Strategy, Warwick Business School, University ofWarwick, Coventry CV4 7AL
2
Strategic Management, Warwick BusinessSchool, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL
3
Entrepreneurship, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL
Despite growinginterest in rhetoricalanalysis by managementscholars, the study of enthymemesor arguments-in-
use, arguablythe mainstay of rhetoric,has been scarce. Weargue that enthymemeanalysis holds promise inenabling
researchers to accessagentsshared beliefs,in turn shedding light on organizational processes.We draw fromtwo key
studies of enthymeme analysis; one interpretivist and one objectivist, to propose a mixed methods approach that
combinesthe situationally-specific,grounded insightsof the former,with the confirmation, populationvalidity aspects
of the latter.
Keywords: Rhetoric; enthymeme; shared beliefs; cognitive maps; mixed methods
Introduction
Rhetorical analysis has gained traction in organization
theory since the 1990s (Sillince and Suddaby, 2008;
Browning and Hartelius, 2018), following the rhetorical
turnin the humanities in the latter 20thcentury (Gaonkar,
1993). Organization theorysattention to rhetoric has been
selective however (Zald, 1996). One fundamental aspect
of rhetorical analysis, the study of enthymemes or
arguments-in-use (Fisher, 1988), has remained scarce in
our field. This is surprising given both the central role of
enthymemes in rhetoric (Hartelius and Browning, 2008;
Hossfeld, 2018), as well as the potential of enthymemes
to provide access to agentsideational worlds,
and illuminate s hared beliefs or m ental models
(Heracleous, 2006).
We have known for quite some time that agents
cognitions have consequences on their context (Thomas
and Thomas, 1970). Individualsdecisions are shaped by
their mentalmodels of the world and pertinent issues(Daft
and Weick, 1984; Porac and Thomas, 1990; Walsh,
1995). Agentsmental models influence what they pay
attention to and how they interpret their external
environment; this further shapes mental models and
subsequent organizational outcomes (Barr, Stimpert and
Huff, 1992; Hodgkinson, 1997; Tripsas and Gavetti,
2000; Wright et al., 2013). Scholars have drawn on a
range of methodologies and techniques for eliciting
managerscognitive maps (Huff, 1990; Huffand Jenkins,
2002). Textual data (interviews, stories, discussions,
metaphors)are the primary inputs for the majorityof these
approaches. These are analyzed to derive cognitive maps
or repertory grids, that are seen as representations that
establish a particular domain, pinpoint the main entities
in that domain, and the interrelationships among those
entities (Huff and Jenkins, 2002; Hodgkinson et al.
2016). Enthymemes, when represented as argument
structures(e.g., Heracleous and Barrett,2001; Heracleous,
2006), by virtue of presenting key conceptual entities in
agentsmental models, and their interrelationships, can
be seen as under-studied types of cognitive maps.
We draw from two exemplars of enthymeme analysis,
one employing an interpretivist, inductive, theory
development approach (Heracleous and Barrett, 2001)
and one employing an objectivist, deductive, theory-
testing approach (Green et al., 2009). In doing so we
propose a mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2009;
Creswell et al., 2003; Molina-Azorin, 2016; Paroutis,
2017) that can combine the emergent, inductive insights
of interpretivism with the population validity aspects of
objectivism. Our approach follows in the tradition of
efforts to treat different paradigmatic approaches as
Correspondence: Loizos Heracleous, Professor of Strategy, Warwick
Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL. E-mail
loizos.heracleous @wbs.ac.uk
DOI: 10.1111/emre.12377
©2019 European Academy of Management
European Management Review, Vol. 17, 311326, (2020)
potentially complementary rather than presuming
irreconcilable conflict between them (Lee, 1991;
Pettigrew, 2013), a position supported by a pragmatist
orientation to research (Rossman and Wilson, 1985).
We develop and illustrate the steps involved in our
approachthrough an analysis of texts surroundingNokias
turnaround strategy. We selected Nokia for analysis
because of the promin ence and strategic c entrality of the
burning platformmemo sent by CEO Elop to Nokia
employees (Ziegler, 2011). We outline what Creswell
(2009; Creswell et al. 2003) refers to as a sequential
exploratorymixed methods design, and Morse (1991)
as a sequential triangulationdesign. We then discuss
the potential of rhetorical enthymemes to deliver insights
to actorsideational worlds or shared beliefs.
From traditional rhetoric to shaping
shared beliefs
Rhetoric is discourse with intent to persuade, posing
instrumental and pragmatic concerns (Gill and Whedbee,
1997). The appropriateness of rhetorical devices and
argument typesdepends on the situational context (Bitzer,
1968; Hossfeld,2018), since accordingto Aristotle (1991)
rhetoric is an ability, in each [particular] case, to see the
availablemeans of persuasion(Rhetoric,1: 2: 1). In terms
of classical rhetoric, this persuasive power can be
accomplished through a combination of appeal to ethos,
or the character of the speaker; to pathos, or emotional
engagement of the audience; and to logos, or logical
argument.
These appeals find expression through enthymemes,
rhetorical arguments in action where one or more
premises remain unexpressed (Eemeren et al., 1997).
Aristotle didnot offer a clear definition of theenthymeme,
even though he referred to it as a syllogism from
likelihoods or signs(Seaton, 1914, p. 1). Bitzer (1959,
p. 408) suggests that the enthymeme is distinctive from
a logical syllogism in that it is characterized by probable
rather than universal premises and conclusions, that it is
formally deficientsince one or more premises are not
expressed, that its contents are related to human affairs,
and finally that it is potent in terms of persuasion because
its premises are drawn from the audience.
Similarly, Conley (1984) suggested that the
enthymeme is a type of deductive argument employed
for purposes of persuasion. It is truncated in that one or
more premises are not stated, and the premises that are
stated are usually probabilities rather than certainties.
The rhetoric does not state all premises since in that case
the argument would be too verbose and awkward, and
assumes that the audien ce takes for granted the un stated
premises. The audience supplies the unstated premises,
connected to the audiencesvaluesandattitudesinthe
process of interpreting the enthymeme. The process of
supplying unstated premises contributes to the persuasive
power of the enthymeme.
An example of a simple enthymeme is: Itsraining
(premise 1). I am leaving the house soon (premise 2). I
need an umbrella to protect myself from the rain (premise
3). Therefore, I have to take an umbrella with me when I
leave (conclusion). If someone states the conclusion that
Im leaving and taking an umbrella with me,the
audience will likely supply the unstated premises 1 to 3.
Note that there are further unstated premises that one
could assume here; for example that it is raining in this
area rather than in another area; that the rain will still be
continuingwhen I leave the house; that I will needto walk
in the rain rather than just get in the car in the garage and
drive to anothergarage; that the umbrella willonly protect
me if it functions well; and more. Mentioning all these
premises every time an argument is made, would render
communication so awkward and verbose as to be
inoperable. Therefore, many premises are unstated and
assumed by the audience, drawing from shared
knowledge.
Modern rhetorical analysis has however diverged from
classical formulations. In the traditional rhetorical
situation, as understood in Aristotles Rhetoric (1991)
and other classicalauthors (Conley, 1984), theassumption
is that there is a single orator,with a focus on a single text
such as a speech, deliveredat a certain point in time, to an
audience that is assumed to be largely homogeneous in
background and interests. Rhetorical analysis in social
and organization theory however (e.g., Scott, 2002;
Suddaby and Greenwood, 2005), has shifted from this
traditional, unitary conception, towards a more pluralist,
hermeneutic approach concerned with the effects on
rhetoric on the social construction of reality (Berger and
Luckmann, 1966; Bitzer, 1968; Sillince and Suddaby,
2008); what has been called constitutive rhetoric
(Charland, 1987). This hermeneutic mode of rhetorical
analysis (Heracleous and Barrett, 2001), aligned with the
rhetorical turnin the humanities (Gaonkar, 1993)
examines bodies of texts arising from groups of actors at
different points in time rather than single texts arising
from single speakers at a certain point in time; and
assumes that stakeholders are heterogeneous with
potentially incompatible interests. These bodies of texts
are seen as discourses patterned by structural properties
such as root metaphors, central themes, or frames, which
have socially constructive potential (Heracleous and
Hendry, 2000).
Such empirical applications of rhetoric have
transcended the clas sical analytical approa ch focused on
particular rhetorical devices or other technical elements,
seeking rather to understand the nature and effects of
broader rhetorical strategies (Sillince and Suddaby,
2008; Symon, 2008)or rhetorical practices (Jarzabkowski
L. Heracleous et al.
©2019 European Academy of Management
312

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT