Two great ideas have historically shaped the way that we think about how to organize collective action: bureaucracy and democracy. Both ideas are ancient, having taken original form in the earliest civilizations of which there is recorded knowledge; yet both are completely modern, having achieved their most enduring expressions in the political systems and social organizations of the 20th century. Just as Weber predicted early in this century, bureaucracy has come to be the dominant form of organization in every sector and especially in large institutions worldwide. And, while bureaucracy is not directly opposed to the spirit of democracy--and in fact, offers a system of opportunities for individuals based on rational criteria--its prevalence and rigidity do tend to limit possibilities for creative expression and the achievement of deep mutual understanding required in consensus-building. Although there have always been democratically or "alternatively" structured organizations--especially in the third or independent sector--a systematic questioning of bureaucracy in recent years has been coupled with a resurgence of interest in democratic organizational forms. Along with a number of other scholars in our field who have been working in this area (notably, Deetz, 1992, 1995), we maintain that it is important for communication scholars to consider more seriously the nature of democratic organizational communication practices. In this issue, we are pleased to present a collection of papers addressing the prospects for democracy within and between organizations.

Raymond Russell's article originated as a keynote address given to a conference workshop devoted to the theme of democracy in organizations sponsored by the Organizational Communication Division of the National Communication Association in San Diego, November, 1996. His address also previews some of the important themes that appear in this issue. In his remarks, Russell observes that democratic practices do not appear by accident in organizations. Instead, democratic practices are fostered by certain kinds of work, certain kinds of people, and certain kinds of social situations. More specifically, Russell points out that democracy is most likely to take root in organizations where communication is integral to the work that employees undertake, where it is important for members to cooperate, share knowledge, and teach each other skills. But democracy also draws sustenance from factors _outside_ the boundaries of formal organizations; at the level of the larger community as well as at work, democracy is more likely to be supported by particular kinds of people, whose social, cultural, and historical heritage involves a commitment to shared governance.

The other articles in this issue consider democratic processes from perspectives that are more or less "internal" or "external" to the boundaries of particular organizations. The articles by Buzzanell et al. and by Kassing focus on internal organizational processes. Buzzanell et al. examine leadership practices in a food cooperative and a quilting guild, both of which are grounded in ideological commitments to democratic decision making. The authors explore the way that images of invitation and dramaturgical performance practiced by leaders are critical to the fostering of involvement and consensus. Kassing, on the other hand, reminds us that democratic processes in organizations require taking seriously the possibility, indeed, the _inevitability_ of members' dissent. The model he constructs describes the origins of members' dissent, the factors that influence how members select strategies for expressing dissent, and the forms that expressed dissent may take.

The two remaining articles focus on the nature of democratic relationships and discourses between and among organizations, their stakeholders, and other organizations that comprise their environments. Metzler examines the intersection of organizational life with the public life of citizens, arguing that organizations are a critical site for discourse in the "public sphere". Her case study of citizen participation in environmental hearings, centering on the U.S. Department of Energy's nuclear weapons facility at Fernald, Ohio, shows that it may be useful to reconceptualize the traditional distinction between the public and private sphere of discourse. Ratliff focuses her analysis more specifically upon the environmental impact statement (EIS) as a site of negotiation between government organizations and the publics they serve. She finds that the dialogue that EIS statements stimulate between government organizations, businesses, citizen groups, and private citizens -- dialogue that should be democratic -- is in fact constrained by interest group polarization, arbitrary limits on topics for discussion, and unequal power.

An implicit theme running throughout these essays is that "democracy" must be considered not only as a set of ideals, principles, or even prescriptions, but also and perhaps especially as a set of communication practices. "Democracy" itself is polysemous, and its vitality in any particular organization or community or network will depend ultimately on how it is understood, put into practice, and modified by the parties involved. While democracy's future is being hotly debated in political, social, and economic circles today, we would like to highlight the concrete, situated practices by which democracy lives or dies; has meaning; and encounters obstacles, ironies and successes.

In closing, we would like to thank the editors and editorial boards of both _Communication Studies_ and the _Electronic Journal of Communication_, all of whom were willing to transcend those bureaucratic structures and disciplinary constraints that frequently impede alternative avenues of expression. It is fitting that this joint issue on Communication and Organizational Democracy should appear in both printed and electronic form. While many of the traditional aspects of the editorial process were maintained, our geographic dispersion required us to make collective editorial decisions via e-mail. Although the decision-making process at times seemed unwieldy, the extensive use of e-mail facilitated a deliberative process that was thoughtful, inclusive, and democratic. Indeed, the four of us hope that in some small way this joint issue represents the enactment of democracy *as* a set of situated, cooperative practices within our academic community.

Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Deetz, S. A. (1995). Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive and responsible workplaces. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

L'histoire de l'homme nous apprend que le concept de l'organisation de l'action collective a ete forme a partir de deux notions essentielles, a savoir: la bureaucratie et la democratie. Ces deux anciennes notions remontent a l'aube de l'apparition des temoignages ecrits de nos civilisations. Et il est bon de rappeler que ces deux notions sont toujours d'actualite puisqu'elles ont atteint leur plein epanouissement dans les systemes politiques et les organisations sociales du vingtieme siecle. Tout comme Weber l'avait prevu tout au debut de ce siecle, la bureaucratie s'est imposee dans l'organisation de tous les secteurs, et surtout dans les institutions importantes a travers le monde. Si la bureaucratie ne s'oppose pas de prime abord a l'esprit democratique -- on pourrait a la rigueur pretendre que la bureaucratie offre des structures fondees sur des criteres rationnels -- sa predominance et son manque de souplesse tendent neanmoins a limiter les moyens creatifs d'expression et a retarder la realisation d'une comprehension mutuelle et profonde necessaire a l'obtention de consensus. Quoique des organisations revetant une forme democratique ou toute autre forme aient toujours existe dans le secteur tertiaire ou independant, une mise en question de la bureaucratie ainsi qu'un regain d'interet pour les structures democratiques des organisations se sont fait jour ces derniers temps. De concert avec un certain nombre d'autres experts dans notre domaine qui se sont penches sur cette question (en particulier Deetz, 1992, 1995), nous soutenons que les specialistes de la communication ont tout interet a prendre au serieux les genres de procedes utilises dans la communication organisationnelle et democratique. Nous sommes heureux de proposer aux lecteurs de ce numero du Journal electronique de la communication un ensemble d'articles qui examinent les chances de succes que la democratie pourrait avoir au sein des organisations et entre ces memes organisations.

C'est le discours liminaire adresse a un congres consacre au theme de la democratie dans les organisations, et parraine par la << 0rganizational Communication Division of the National Communication Association>> qui s'est tenu a San Diego, au mois de novembre, 1996, qui est a l'origine de l'article de Raymond Russell. Dans son allocution il aborda les themes importants qui allaient etre developpes plus tard dans ce numero. Tout d'abord Russell fait ressortir que ce n'est pas l'effet du hasard qui regle les procedes democratiques employes dans les organisations. Ce sont au contraire certains types de travail, certaines sortes de gens et certaines sortes de situations sociales qui favorisent les procedes democratiques. Russell souligne explicitement que la democratie a le plus de chance de s'etablir la ou la communication joue un role important dans le travail des employes, ou la collaboration, l'echange des connaissances et l'apprentissage reciproque du savoir-faire sont essentiels a la bonne marche de l'entreprise. Mais la democratie se nourrit egalement d'autres elements situes en dehors des organisations structurees; c'est ainsi qu'au niveau de la collectivite et du lieu de travail la democratie a le plus de chance d'etre bien recue par certaines categories de gens que le milieu social, culturel et historique incite a participer a la gestion des affaires.

Les autres articles de ce numero font l'etude des procedes democratiques vus a travers une optique situee de part et d'autre des limites de certaines organisations specifiques. Buzzanell et al. et Kassing dans leurs articles arretent leurs reflexions sur des procedes organisationnels internes. Buzzanell et al. portent leur attention sur les procedes employes par la direction d'une cooperative de denrees alimentaires et d'une association de fabricants de dessus-de-lit matelasses, ces deux entreprises s'etant engagees a mettre en pratique les ideaux democratiques dans les prises de decisions. Les auteurs s'attachent a demontrer que les differentes tactiques que les chefs d'entreprise utilisent sur la scene de l'entreprise dans la presentation des lignes de conduite a suivre, revetaient une grande importance si on voulait favoriser la collaboration et obtenir un consentement general. En revanche, Kassing nous rappelle que les procedes democratiques mis en oeuvre dans les organisations exigent que l'on tienne compte de desaccords possibles et meme inevitables qui peuvent se produire entre les membres de cette organisation. Le modele qu'il construit decrit la genese des conflits entre les membres, les facteurs qui determinent de quelle facon les membres choisissent leurs strategies pour exprimer leur mecontentement et les formes que les dissensions exprimees peuvent revetir.

Les auteurs des deux derniers articles se concentrent sur la nature des relations democratiques et les discours entre les organisations, leurs commanditaires et d'autres organisations qui constituent leur milieu. Metzler examine le lieu de rencontre de la vie organisationnelle et de la vie publique des citoyens, estimant pour sa part que les organisations constituent un site critique pour la libre eclosion du discours dans le domaine public. Son etude de cas sur la participation des citoyens aux seances consacrees a l'environnement ou le debat portait sur les usines d'armes nucleaires situees a Fernald, en Ohio et placees sous l'egide du Ministere a l'energie atomique etasunien demontre bien qu'il serait utile de conceptualiser a nouveau la distinction traditionnelle entre le domaine public et prive du discours. Ratliff de son cote procede plutot a une analyse d'etudes d'impact qui avaient servi de matiere a des negociations entre les organismes gouvernementaux et les partis interesses. Elle a tot fait de se rendre compte que les dialogues engendres par les etudes d'impact entre les organismes d'Etat, le monde des affaires, les comites et les particuliers -- dialogues qui devraient prendre une forme democratique -- sont en fait restreints par la polarisation des groupes d'interets, par les limites imposees aux sujets de discussion et par une inegalite des pouvoirs exerces par les partis engages.

La conception de la democratie en tant qu'ensemble d'ideaux, de principes et meme de prescriptions, mais aussi et surtout en tant que modes de communication est l'idee maitresse qui se degage implicitement de ces essais. C'est bien connu que la democratie en elle-meme possede plusieurs contenus, et sa vitalite dans une organisation quelconque, une collectivite ou un reseau dependra en fin de compte de la facon dont elle est comprise, mise en oeuvre ou alteree par les partis impliques. Tandis que l'avenir de la democratie fait l'objet de vifs debats dans les milieux politiques, sociaux et economiques, nous aimerions mettre en exergue les manieres concretes et actuelles qui font vivre ou mourir la democratie, lui donnent un sens, lui dressent des obstacles, deviennent pour elle une source de derision et de reussite.

Pour terminer nous aimerions remercier les redacteurs et la redaction des <> et du <> qui tous ont bien voulu outrepasser les bornes des structures bureaucratiques et contourner les restrictions disciplinaires qui entravent souvent la bonne marche des idees exprimees hors des sentiers battus. II est juste que ce numero traitant a la fois de la communication et de la democratie organisationnelle paraisse sous une forme imprimee et electronique. Si on a garde en grande partie l'aspect traditionnel de la redaction, notre dispersion geographique nous a obliges a avoir recours a des decisions redactionnelles collectives par le moyen du courrier electronique. Bien que le processus de prise de decisions devint parfois encombrant, l'usage considerable que nous fimes du courrier electronique facilita le processus de deliberation qui s'avera etre reflechi, complet et democratique. En effet nous esperons, tous les quatre, que ce numero constituera quelque peu la representation de la democratie <> qu'ensemble de procedes de cooperation et de prises de positions au sein meme de la communaute universitaire.

Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Deetz, S. A. (1995). Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive and responsible workplaces. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Abstract. This article is an edited transcription of an address given to the preconference on Democracy in Organizations, sponsored by the Organizational Communication Division of the National Communication Association, November, 1996 in San Diego. The author argues that democratic organizations are fostered by particular kinds of work, people, and social situations that require communication aimed at cooperation, consensus-building, and shared decision making.

Abstract. In contrast to traditional bureaucracies, alternative organizations offer sites in which leadership focuses on opposing tensions between dualities such as individual- collective, power over-power with, inequality- equality, and autonomy-interdependence. We present two case studies of leadership in a food cooperative and a quilting guild, in which leaders and members construct processual themes and practices that can be captured by images of invitation and of dramaturgical foregrounding- backgrounding. These images are coherent enough to enable performance of varied democratic practices but are flexible enough to allow for dialectic tensions. This flexibility enables the cooperative and guild organizations to remain true to their participatory values despite external and internal changes.

Abstract. In this paper I reconceptualize organizational dissent as the expression of disagreements and contradictory opinions that result from the experience of feeling apart from one's organization. Employees experience dissent when they recognize incongruence between actual and desired states of affairs. The theory of unobtrusive control (Tompkins & Cheney, 1985), the theory of independent-mindedness (Gorden & Infante, 1987; Infante & Gorden, 1987), and the Exit-Voice-Loyalty model of employee responses to dissatisfaction (Hirschman, 1970) provide the framework for a model of employee dissent. The model proposed here incorporates four elements: (a) triggering agent; (b) strategy selection influences; (c) strategy selection; and (d) expressed dissent. In conclusion, I describe how examining variations in employees' expressions of dissent may contribute to our understanding of employee involvement practices, democratic organizational structures, and employee empowerment efforts.

Abstract. This article examines the potential of democratic processes to transform even the most bureaucratically-mired organization into an organization that has a more constructive relationship with its stakeholders and better represents and furthers the democratic ideals to which U.S. society aspires. After discussing Habermas's concept of the public sphere, the principle theoretical development focuses on the idea of organizations as the new public sphere; the issues addressed are whether or not they should be the public sphere and thus the role of organizations in a democratic society. These concepts are illustrated through a case study of the communication practices at the U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons facility at Fernald, Ohio. Finally, using the feminist critique of the public sphere to refine that concept, the article concludes that before organizations can become the new public sphere and function in the spirit of that concept, they must become more broadly democratic.

Abstract. A variety of literature exists on environmental impact statements (EIS) and their relative success or failure in providing the basis for full and fair discussion of environmental issues. Existing studies have generally examined printed copies of either draft or completed EISs. This study examines a public hearing held prior to the printing of a first draft, proposed, environmental impact statement to determine how government-citizen interaction at an initial hearing might impact the proposed draft EIS. It analyzes the public scoping hearings held in Salt Lake City, Utah, to determine the potential environmental impact of the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. It provides background on political action prior to the hearings, and focuses on governmental/political-citizen interaction at the hearings to examine the practical implications of political involvement in the process.