Category predication work, discursive leadership and strategic sensemaking

Abstract

Categorization is known to play an important role in organizations because categories ‘frame’ situations in particular ways, informing managerial sensemaking and enabling managerial intervention. In this article, we advance existing work by examining the role of categorization practices in discursive leadership during periods of strategic change. Drawing on data from an ethnographic action research study of a strategic change initiative in a multi-national corporation, we use membership categorization analysis to develop a framework for studying ‘category predicates’ − defined as the stock of organizational knowledge and associated reasoning procedures concerning the kinds of activities, attributes, rights, responsibilities, expectations, and so on, that are ‘tied’ or ‘bound’ to organizational categories. Our analysis shows that discursive leadership enabled a radical shift in sensemaking about organizational structure categories through a process of ‘frame-breaking’ and ‘re-framing’. In so doing, the leader co-constructed a ‘definition of the situation’ that built a compelling vision and concrete plan for strategic change. We go on to trace the organizational consequences and material outcomes of this shift in sensemaking for the company in question. We conclude by arguing that ‘category predication work’ comprises a key leadership competence and plays an important role in organizational and strategic change processes.

"This is serious": enacting authority during managerial conversations

“…Third and finally, research (including Cooren's and colleagues' works) on the enactment of authority during conversation does not take into account the various moves and counter-moves through which such authority is collectively accomplished and negotiated. Prior research conducted on communicative practices during collective encounters in nonhierarchical groups demonstrated that through their discursive devices and rhetorical strategies, some participants are liable to place themselves in a relationship where they can gain access to some resources not available to others (Schneider, 2007: 189), or where they can achieve some effects not achieved by others, for instance by framing the issue under discussion in terms that are favorable to-or not incompatible with-their own view or interests (Mueller, Whittle, Gilchrist & Lenney, 2013;Samra-Fredericks, 2003Whittle, Housley, Gilchrist, Mueller & Lenney, 2014;Whittle, Housley, Gilchrist, Lenney & Mueller, 2015). With this mind, we contend that a detailed, processual analysis of the conversational practices of participants during their encounter may reveal more subtle and dynamic forms of power relationships, going beyond the compliance/opposition dichotomy demonstrated in prior works.…”

The role of the associate dean in UK universities: distributed leadership in action?

“…Here, we can see how important the role of language and communication are to distributed leadership processes in universities in order to 'get people on board' and for change to be initiated from within rather than from the top, as has been shown in research into business organisations (Whittle et al 2015;Wodak et al 2011). These findings have clear implications for the development needs of people who take on such roles, as well as for the focus and content of traditional institutional leadership development programmes which are often based on outmoded top-down training models instead of drawing on more relational approaches to management development (Preston and Floyd 2016).…”

“…The argument put forward by these authors is that in order to understand organisational leadership processes, it is necessary to explore leadership discourse, communication, and relational stances, and that leadership involves influence and meaning management distributed amongst several actors rather than necessarily just residing with one person in an appointed role (Fairhurst 2008;Fairhurst 2009). For example, Whittle et al (2015) focused on the role of leaders and discursive processes in shaping sense-making during a period of strategic change in a multi-national corporation and found that by framing formal organisational structures differently by using specific language practices, such as speaking directly to staff who are not in senior leadership positions and communicating clearly how they have the potential to initiate change, staff can be mobilised to challenge existing authority relationships. The argument being made here is that by empowering staff through communication strategies which highlight the potential agency and power they hold, change can be made from within rather than from the top.…”

“…Accordingly, although the practice of distributing leadership is widespread across the sector, associated issues such as problems with accountability and power (Bolden et al 2008;Corrigan 2013), differences between delegation and real authority (Owens and Valesky 2011), tensions between isomorphism and its perceived negative effect on academic values and identities (Blaschke et al 2014;Hartley 2009), and links to discursive leadership practices (Fairhurst 2008;Fairhurst 2009;Whittle et al 2015;Wodak et al 2011) have not been sufficiently addressed. It is these key issues that this article seeks to explore.…”

The dark side of professions: the big four and tax avoidance

“…As such, rhetorical framing 2 draws on the equally well-established higher order discourses of globalisation and complexity, propagated within the accounting industry. In an attempt to propitiate the PAC, externalisation is used in conjunction with the discursive tool membership categorization (Potter, 1996: 114, 133-139;Whittle et al, 2014b), which is about saying 'we are entitled to speak on behalf of a group, category of entities, of which we are a member', to emphasise that certain experiences are shared between the Big Four. Furthering the collective endeavour to exonerate and vindicate, stake transcendence is utilised to defend their privileged position as tax advisors for government.…”