Organizational Change as Discourse: Communicative Actions and Deep Structures in the Context of Information Technology Implementation.

Heracleous, Loizos; Barrett, Michael

doi:10.2307/3069414

Cited by 429 publications

(403 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

390

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The response has been to move away from a conception of structures as immutable, invariable, determining social objects, to the structural properties or conditions of possibility which are variably instantiated or enacted through different social practices (Giddens, 1984;Weick, 1995). Heracleous and Barrett (2001), for example, distinguish between two dynamically interconnected levels: a surface level of communicative actions and a deeper level of discursive structures, tied together through actors' interpretative schemes. They argue that 'structures have no existence other than their instantiation in action and as memory traces (or interpretive schemes) orienting agents' conduct .…”

Section: Towards a Politics Of Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maybe Bacon Had a Point: The Politics of Interpretation in Collective Sensemaking1

Marshall¹,

Rollinson

2004

Br J Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite major contributions to theories of organizational knowledge from socially situated, practice-based approaches, there remains a blind-spot in this literature concerning power and politics. This paper makes some initial attempts to address this absence by thinking about how far alternative theories of power/knowledge can strengthen and extend practice-based approaches to knowledge. The need for a detailed analytic of the multiple techniques, strategies, and expressions of power/knowledge in concrete social situations and the different ways in which they come together through specific episodes of enactment is highlighted. To illustrate this, we draw on an ethnographic study of an inter-organizational collaboration in the telecommunications sector. This illustration focuses on struggles over meaning during a problem-solving encounter during the later stages of a project for developing and implementing new software for telephone exchanges. 1 We are grateful for the challenging and thoughtprovoking comments provided by Haridimos Tsoukas and two anonymous referees. We would also like to thank colleagues at the Universities of Brighton and Sussex for their insightful guidance and acknowledge the invaluable contribution of all those people who participated in the research.

show abstract

Section: Towards a Politics Of Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maybe Bacon Had a Point: The Politics of Interpretation in Collective Sensemaking1

Marshall¹,

Rollinson

2004

Br J Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the other studies that do exist, most have emphasized the importance of regulative and cognitive pressures in driving institutional change (e.g. Delbridge & Edwards, 2013;Heracleous & Barrett, 2001;Huy, 2001). Significant attention to the interplay between regulative, normative, and cognitive pressures to affect organizational change has not been as forthcoming.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulative, Normative, and Cognitive Elements of Organizations: Implications for Managing Change

Palthe

2014

MOS

128

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing support from current and seminal work on institutional theory, this paper explores the role of three elements involved in the management of change -regulative, normative, and cognitive. While organizational change traditionally deals with challenges associated with changing technologies, structures, and employee abilities, effective change also depends on the values and behavioral reasoning that originate in the institutional contextwhether people have to change, ought to change, or want to change. A conceptual model reflecting the interplay of these systems on organizational change is presented, and implications for change management research and practice are extended.

show abstract

“…In contrast to what Geertz (1973) describes as the symbolic, multi-leveled, polysemic and situated thick description of cultural meanings, these rhetorics and rituals of the modern rational organisation portray change programmes in thin instrumental, formalistic, one-dimensional and universal terms (Foss, 2001;Kotzee & Wanderer, 2008;Waltzer, 1994;Zafirovsky, 2003). Such thin interpretations of change programs view them through a functionalist lens (Heracleous & Barrett, 2001) as unitarist, acontextual and narrowly rationalistic in character (Collins, 1998). This public orthodoxy is dominated by mechanistic and organic metaphors (Morgan, 1980).…”

Section: Through Thin and Thickmentioning

confidence: 99%

An introduction to the 5M framework: reframing change management education

Badham¹,

Cançado

Darief³

2015

BAR, Braz. Adm. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a reflective and critical rhetorical framework capable of replacing traditional approaches to change management and its education. This framework conceptualises managing change as the Mindful Mobilising of Maps, Masks and Mirrors and provides a comprehensive integration of the processual, practice and critical academic literature on change management. It adopts a drama-tic approach, combining dramaturgical and pragmatic approaches to organisations and change. This paper introduces the framework, the manner of its delivery as an MBA subject, and the varying perceptions of its nature and impact held by a number of mature middle management MBA students who had attended the course. The documentation of student interpretations draws on the learning diaries completed by MBA students in two deliveries of the subject at a leading business school in Australia. It is argued that the framework provides a working model of a reflective and critical approach to change management that resonates with mature managers, and concludes with recommendations for future research and development.

show abstract

Organizational Change as Discourse: Communicative Actions and Deep Structures in the Context of Information Technology Implementation.

Cited by 429 publications

References 0 publications

Maybe Bacon Had a Point: The Politics of Interpretation in Collective Sensemaking1

Maybe Bacon Had a Point: The Politics of Interpretation in Collective Sensemaking1

Regulative, Normative, and Cognitive Elements of Organizations: Implications for Managing Change

An introduction to the 5M framework: reframing change management education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About