Page 96 - Parimad teadustööd 2013/2014

TALLINNA ÜLIKOOLI ÜLIÕPILASTE 2013/2014. ÕPPEAASTA PARIMAD TEADUSTÖÖD / ARTIKLITE KOgUMIK SOTSIAALTEADUSED
even bigger schemata, which corresponds well with research done by Maturana and Varela, but also re- flects Jung’s collective unconscious.
Key to peoples mind and heart
Maturana and Varela (1987) give communication professionals a relevant hint by highlighting the bio- logical structure of the receiver as an important aspect in cognitive experience. That is, if not perceived, adapted to existing patterns, information will float by and will not make sense to the receiver. According to Mark and Pearson (2001) archetypes are the keys to our mind that are universal enough to unlock recognition and make sense. The “valances” that archetypes possess even cut across cultures. Referring to Buhl (1991) Christensen, Firat and Cornelissen (2009) argue that it is not a passive activity by the audi- ence to receive corporate messages, instead it is ultimately a creative process in which the receiver adapts the message according to his pre-existing patterns and biological structure of cognition, taking the parts that are familiar to him and placing them into a context meaningful to the receiver.
Since the times of Galileo, Newton, Laplace, and descartes, predictability has been one of the presup- positions of science, as Gershenson (2013) notes in his article and continues by accepting that in recent decades, however, chaos and complexity have made an entrance to scientific fields making practition- ers realize that not even deterministic phenomena are predictable. As Ortega (2012) has suggested, real world systems in communication processes are not a matter that can be designed in detail, they are not entirely controllable and are hard, if not impossible, to understand or predict entirely, even if we add the science of complexity in this setting. The pre-assumption of communication processes as complex sys- tems will yet help us more effectively to understand and explain them. Indeed, we may give guidelines, construct identity management models, but it still reminds one of a simplification of real life and would hardly be able to cover all the aspects influencing the process and its outcome. Hall (2005) complements this by adding “the fabric of an organization is comprised of many and varied physical, human, and economic components that in many cases are complex in their own rights” (Hall 2005: 181). Ortega has stated that “the real world systems in communication process cannot be completely designed, controlled, understood, or predicted, even by the sciences of complexity” and adds that “they are more effectively understood and explained as complex systems” (2012: 273).
Luiga model of corporate branding and identity management
Having in mind the complexity of the corporate identity management paradigm, ongoing interaction and evaluation has become the norm these days. Corporate identity management should be perceived as a creative process that continually aligns the narrative and visual vocabulary of the brand with the goals of the organization. To deliver a more holistic approach to corporate branding and identity management taking into account recent research and to help adopt multidimensional thinking and to cope with com- plexity I suggested a model that aims to go beyond the conduit model of communication and emphasizes interaction and ongoing evaluation of the process, its outcomes, but also competitors and the environ- ment in which the organization operates. For that purpose also the Boyd OOdA loop is integrated into the model.
A multidisciplinary approach does come in handy when dealing with corporate identity construction as it is a very complex matter. Shifting from linear thinking is inevitable to understand the fruitful es- sence of corporate communication and to handle it. Accepting unpredictability is not a highway to chaos, rather it is a realistic understanding that there are very many interactions that influence the process and it is not actually possible to see all the vacancies created during that process. There are many variables that determine the results and it is acceptable that there are several truths at the same time. Adopting an at- titude of permanent vigilance but also abandoning the temptation of certainty are surely helpful because certainty is just a moment between two complex stages. As Gershenson (2013) illustrated the situation, it is not possible to understand the behavior of a system based on the behavior of the parts only, as much of the meaningful content is happening on the level of interactions in-between those parts. Corporate identity construction is not a process to design in detail and it is not entirely controllable, so putting a
96