viewPDF.jspcontentType=Article&Filename=html/Output/
Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/1680130304.pdf
Introduction
The adaptation and innovation of an organisation depends upon management constantly revising tools and finding solutions through reflective and reflexive practices. In radical restructuring that is often required during unpredictable circumstance communication is seen as a vital link to success. Johansson and Heide note the vastness in literature on the importance of communication and it's relationship to organisational change. Primarily focus has been on conception to implementation of planned changes. The authors reveal a significant absence in literature on the communication perspective by which change programs are installed. Citing Lewis and Seibold's review on implementation of planned organisational change, the authors conclude that research would benefit if the implementation of planned change was seen as a communications phenomena.
Johansson and Heide cite Weick who suggests that the main barrier to new thinking is ontological and epistemological commitments of the researchers. Critical evaluation is required to understand research perspectives.
Planned or emergent organisational change
Popular literature in change management indicates a linear process with developmental stages. Johansson and Heide point to studies that suggest change is developed through slow and routine processes, and focus should be on 'changing' not 'change' - an appreciation that change is evolution rather than determinate and causal. Unanticipated change results from planned change. Johansson and Heide have observed two approaches to change processes - a traditional approach, describe and explain planned changes; or an emergent approach, aiming to understand change processes.
Perspectives on communication
In understanding the functional role and effect communication has in an organisation, flow of communication has been studied rather than content and meaning. Critics have argued that this oversimplification suggests communication becomes nothing more than transmission. The interpretive perspective seeks to generate insight and understanding. A meaning- centred view of the organisation allows social construction of ongoing processes that makes organisational life.
Three approaches: tool, process and social transformation
Johansson and Heide observed three common approaches to communication during change:
- used as a tool;
- used as a socially constructed process; and
- used as social transformation.
Communication as a tool
Popular press and academic literature placed emphasis on:
- participation - members feel more included, committed and in control;
- realistic acknowledgement of information - prior warning and open dialogue;
- vision and objective - justification.
Communication as a socially constructed process
Change is understood to be a phenomena that occurs within communication. Interactions and communications build the framework of social reality. Planned change can be seen as an occasion to create new social realities. From this perspective, communication can be used to either report existing realities, or change social realities. Change processes are a result of individual sense making processes. Delivery of communication facilitates planned processes in sense making for the organisation as a whole. Uncertainties and ambiguities are resolved. However, Johansson and Heide argue that this does not resolve alternatives of choice. Communication follows a linear sequence from concept to plausibility. Experimentation is required for individuals to make sense of a process. Employee profiling indicates that backgrounds, interests, positions and the like influence multiple ways of meaning making. Individual sense making shapes organisational consensus. Johansson and Heide cite Tsoukas and Chia who advocate the role and importance of communication as a daily process where members act, improvise and function during change processes. Scholars are interested in how individuals approach change in sense-making with a particular focus on the narrative. Narrative expression is important in sense making as a means of structuring experience. Johansson and Heide citing Weick, Bruner and Fisher suggest that the narrative (actions of either the conscious or unconscious) conveys a starting point of action and direction for future action. Research on background conversation from Ford, Ford and McNamara indicates that individual experience direct or tacit is reflected in narratives. Resistance can be broken down to underlying assumptions and expectations, to be overcome through communication by constructing discourse. Managerial tasks in sense making through story telling constitute the framework of interpretation. Johansson and Heide cite Langer and Thorup who disagree with story telling. They indicate that story telling is a management tool for discipline with monophonic properties. A polyphonic story telling process needs to be addressed. Johansson and Heide reflect that change is a process that takes time.
Communication as social transformation
The added dimension of power highlights the struggle for sense making and negotiated meaning. Johansson and Heide indicate that there are multiple levels of reality as proposed by Beech and Cairns and cite Boolin's work on discursive practices of managers reproduced by members that cements legitimacy. Attention is drawn to collaborative discourse, multi-level conversation, where knowledge construction and understanding of the organisation takes place. Researchers also focus on the negotiation of social change and action. Organisations are seen as political sites and discourse of emotion and identity are analysed. Current literature in organisational discourse indicates that 'control' and 'empowerment' are key terms in developing a new language that create a positive emotional response. Line manager response favoured 'command and control' style management that challenged power relations where different groups compete to structure social reality. Also noted are Heracleous and Barrett who link discourse and context, and discern patterns in communications and the hidden assumptions. Clashes in discourse at structural and communicative levels explain the lack of common ground on which to base dialogue. Change that occurs at communicative levels may not similarly occur at stakeholder level. Johansson and Heide cite Ashcraft whose study on occupational identity found overt consent to be a form of resistance. Talking about a process while activating the opposite constitutes cooperation with management and resisting legitimate authority or a shared world view.
Johansson and Heide select Andersons' proposal to stabilise organisations through voicing current practice as a means of linking past, present and future. Transformation occurs when past meaning is translated into future meaning. However, the authors note that Alvesson and Karreman suggest discourse analysis should consider the inconsistencies of narrative text. Reductionist approaches must distinguish process from agency.
Conclusions
The authors agree with Caldwell that most knowledge available in organisational practice lacks cumulative logic. Discursive processes are unique to each organisation, but in considering communication as a tool, a process and a social transformation, there is an opportunity for theory building. The challenge for future researchers is to consider the strengths and weaknesses of communication as tool, process and social transformation. Integrative approaches will highlight certain areas at a time. Concepts of effective change and resistance to change should be examined. Background conversation has become an important link in communication, and investigation is warranted. Communicative actions should consider what is hidden in the non verbal.
No comments:
Post a Comment