本論文探討Facebook的執行長Mark Zuckerberg對組織爭論的回應，聚焦於該CEO從2017年1月1 日至2018年4月30日在自己粉絲專頁上所發佈的貼文。本研究主要的目的為深入了解Mark Zuckerberg如何採用修辭策略來回應組織的爭論。 Mark的具體語錄挑戰了社會對個人寫作風格與通過強調三種修辭策略，包括：信譽、邏輯、情感的互動，來回應的既定想法。他的寫作風格是一個「因果」的對話，包括支持的例子。 然而; Mark使用了信譽如一個比邏輯和情感更有簡單易懂的描述能力之工具，表示他以使用Facebook作為個人以及公司故事的一部分。

Abstract:
This paper investigates the organization contests responding from Facebook CEO, with particular focus on Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook status from 1 January 2017 to 30 April 2018. The purpose of this paper is to contribute with insights into how Mark Zuckerberg adopting rhetoric strategy to response the organization contests. The specific context of Mark challenges established ideas of social responding about personalized writing style and interactions by highlighting three rhetoric strategies: ethos, logos and pathos. His writing style is a dialog of cause and effect, including supporting examples. However, the use of Facebook as a share of personal stories as well as the company, found that Mark used Ethos, which has the ability to describe simple and easy to understand more than logos and more official than pathos.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES	V
LIST OF FIGURES	V
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION	1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW	4
2.1	RHETORICAL VIRTUES IN A MODERN COMMUNICATION CHANNEL	4
2.2	RHETORICAL STRATEGY	4
2.3	FRAMING CONTEST	7
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY	9
3.1	SAMPLING INFORMATION	9
3.1.1	Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook	9
3.2	A SPECIFIC CONTEXT – CRITICISM OF FACEBOOK	11
3.3	TEXT SELECTION AND ANALYTICAL APPROACH	14
3.3.1	Selection Methods	14
3.3.2	Analytical Approach	17
CHAPTER 4: FIDINGS	20
4.1	RHETORICAL FORMS: LOGOS, ETHOS, PATHOS	20
4.2	RHETORIC FORM AND CONTENT	21
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION	25
APPENDIX A. FACEBOOK INC.	28
APPENDIX B. MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG	32
APPENDIX C. CHAN ZUCKERBERG INITIATIVE	34
APPENDIX D. EXAMPLE OF SPECIFIC CONTEXT	35
APPENDIX E. EXAMPLE IN RHETORICAL FORMS	39
REFERENCES	55

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The meaning of Persuasive strategies	6
Table 2: Example of Select Methods	14
Table 3: Example of Select Methods (continue)	15
Table 4: Example of Select Methods (continue)	16
Table 5: Number of Rhetorical Forms	20

LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure 1: Example of organization contests with the rhetoric and the authority	8
Figure 2: Number of Status (January 2017 – April 2018)	9
Figure 3: Number of emotions and shares (2017)	10
Figure 4 : Zuckerberg’s Status Categories (January 2017 – April 2018)	11
Figure 5 : Facebook Critics Timeline	12
Figure 6: Timeline (Related to Zuckerberg’s Facebook status)	13
Figure 7: Process for analyzing organizational rhetoric	18
Figure 8: Rhetoric and framing contest	23
Figure 9: Most famous social network sites worldwide as of January 2018, ranked by number of active users (in millions)	29
Figure 10: Facebook’s Monthly Active Users (MAUs) in million	31

Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53(9), 1125-1149.
Aristotle, O. (1991). Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, trans. George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1, 3-5.
Bitzer, L. F. (1992). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1-14.
Boyd, J., & Waymer, D. (2011). Organizational rhetoric: A subject of interest (s). Management Communication Quarterly, 25(3), 474-493.
Carton, A. M., & Lucas, B. J. (2017). How Can Leaders Overcome the Blurry Vision Bias? Identifying an Antidote To the Paradox of Vision Communication. Academy of Management Journal, amj.2015.0375. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0375
Conger, J. A. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. The Executive, 5(1), 31-45.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637-647.
Corbett, E. P., & Connors, R. J. (1999). Style and Statement, Oxford University Press.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (1997). Communicating the vision: Rethorical devices in the speches of charismatic business leaders, Work and Organizational Psychology.
Fidelman, M. (2012). IBM study: If you don't have a social CEO, you're going to be less competitive. Forbes.
Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2004). Organizing knowledge processes in the multinational corporation: An introduction. Journal of International Business Studies, 340–349.
Gill, A. M., & Whedbee, K. (1997). Rhetoric. Discourse as structure and process, 1, 157-184.
Green Jr, S. E., Babb, M., & Alpaslan, C. M. (2008). Institutional field dynamics and the competition between institutional logics: The role of rhetoric in the evolving control of the modern corporation. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 40-73.
Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 755-778.
Hartelius, E. J., & Browning, L. D. (2008). The application of rhetorical theory in managerial research: A literature review. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 13-39.
Heracleous, L. (2006). Discourse, interpretation, organization. Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, M. F., & Ford, D. J. (2009). Organizational rhetoric: Situations and strategies. Sage.
Hopkins, N., & Reicher, S. (1997). Social movement rhetoric and the social psychology of collective action: A case study of anti-abortion mobilization. Human Relations, 50(3), 261-286. 
Jameson, F. (2014). Representing capital: A reading of volume one. Verso Books.
Jarzabkowski, P., & Sillince, J. (2007). A rhetoric-in-context approach to building commitment to multiple strategic goals. Organization Studies, 28(11), 1639-1665.
Jarzabkowski, P., Sillince, J. A., & Shaw, D. (2010). Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for enabling multiple interests. Human relations, 63(2), 219-248.
Karlberg, M., & Mral, B. (1998). Heder och påverkan: att analysera modern retorik. Natur och kultur.
Kennedy, G. A. (1994). A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton University Press.
Madestam, J., & Falkman, L. L. (2017). Rhetorical construction of political leadership in social media. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(3), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-10-2016-0204
McCroskey, J. C., & Young, T. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Communication Studies, 32(1), 24-34.
Parmelee, J. H., & Bichard, S. L. (2012). Politics and the Twitter revolution. How Tweets Influence the Relationship between Political Leaders and the Public, Lanham, MD.
Pondy, L. R. (1983). Organizational symbolism (Vol. 1). Jai Pr.
 
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theories of speech acts. J. Searle.—Cambridge.
Sillince, J. A. (2006). Resources and organizational identities: The role of rhetoric in the creation of competitive advantage. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(2), 186-212.
Stone, D. A. (1997). Policy Paradox: The art of political decision making (Vol. 13). New York: WW Norton.
Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35-67.
Tunby Gulbrandsen, I., & Nørholm Just, S. (2013). Collaboratively constructed contradictory accounts: online organizational narratives. Media, Culture & Society, 35(5), 565-585.
Utz, S., Schultz, F., & Glocka, S. (2013). Crisis communication online: How medium, crisis type and emotions affected public reactions in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Public Relations Review, 39(1), 40-46.
van der Meer, T. G., & Verhoeven, P. (2013). Public framing organizational crisis situations: Social media versus news media. Public Relations Review, 39(3), 229-231.