Communication Structures That Hold Us Hostage: Conceptualizing Unlistening as an Organizational Practice

Sanna Ala-Kortesmaa

International Journal of Business Communication2026https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884261422379article
ABDC C
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Listening is central to organizational life, yet many employees report persistent experiences of not being genuinely heard. This study conceptualizes such experiences as organizational unlistening and examines how they are socially coordinated and sustained despite rhetorical commitments to listening. Drawing on critical and sociocultural communication traditions and using Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) theory, the research analyzed 18 semi-structured interviews with employees. Thematic analysis identified a set of patterned communicative practices that normalize unlistening, including ritualized responsiveness, selective resonance, and symbolic legitimacy, showing how organizations structure what is heard and by whom. These findings reveal unlistening as an active, power-laden organizational practice that reinforces communicative closure and knowledge inequalities. They position unlistening as a distinct construct in business communication and emphasize the need for reflexive, system-level approaches to responsiveness that address communicative closure and sustain employee engagement.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884261422379

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{sanna2026,
  title        = {{Communication Structures That Hold Us Hostage: Conceptualizing Unlistening as an Organizational Practice}},
  author       = {Sanna Ala-Kortesmaa},
  journal      = {International Journal of Business Communication},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884261422379},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Communication Structures That Hold Us Hostage: Conceptualizing Unlistening as an Organizational Practice

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.