Orientations to Social Constructionism: Relationally Responsive Social Constructionism and its Implications for Knowledge and Learning

Cunliffe, Ann L.

doi:10.1177/1350507607087578

Cited by 233 publications

(277 citation statements)

References 49 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

264

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Meanings are derived from both language and social interactions (Peñaloza & Venkatesh, 2006) and reflect both understanding and the interplay with the individual's lifeworld (Cunliffe, 2008;Edvardsson et al, 2011). While Berger and Luckmann (1966) argue that meanings only emerge through social interactions amongst individuals, it is in the production and reproduction of these social interactions where value and meaning are co-created, and finally, a social reality could be understood (Edvardsson et al, 2011).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internal brand co-creation: The experiential brand meaning cycle in higher education

Dean

Arroyo-Gamez

Punjaisri

et al. 2016

Journal of Business Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Higher education (HE) institutions need to adapt to the global environment but the complex nature of HE highlights the role of marketing and the internal market in realizing the brand identity, creating a challenge for developing a shared brand meaning. This research explores how employees co-create brand meaning through their brand experiences and social interactions with management, colleagues and customers. Using a phenomenological approach, the findings highlight that brand meaning commences from historical, superficial brand interactions. Employees then develop brand meaning further through a series of brand interactions and social interactions. Bridging the internal branding and the co-creation literature, this study conceptualizes the evolving, co-created nature of employees' brand meaning in the experiential brand meaning cycle. This study extends Iglesias and Bonet's (2012) work and illustrates the function of employees as readers and authors of brand meaning, emphasizing the crucial role of brand co-creation in guiding employees' brand promise delivery.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internal brand co-creation: The experiential brand meaning cycle in higher education

Dean

Arroyo-Gamez

Punjaisri

et al. 2016

Journal of Business Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the organizational context the members of organization negotiate meanings about their experiences, shaping those experiences in conversations, with the aim to becoming more thoughtful, careful, and reflexive about what they do (Cunliffe, 2008). Engaging in this process leads to understand where the level of organization is, being a potential to discover effective resources in organization development.…”

Section: On Sensemakingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sensemaking occurs in ongoing interactions between people, a constant substrate that shapes interpretations, "inventing a new meaning for something that has already occurred during the organizing process, but does not have a name" (Magala, 1997, p. 324). Everything is interwoven in particular and generalized with others (Cunliffe, 2008). In this ongoing process people from organization "make sense of equivocal inputs and enact that sense back into the world to make it orderly" (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005, p. 410).…”

Section: On Sensemakingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Engaging in this process leads to understand where the level of organization is, being a potential to discover effective resources in organization development. The sense emerges continually as members of organization interact with others (Cunliffe, 2008), meaning living in conversation, in dialogue and utterances where "everything is in relationship to others: other person, other idea, other conversation" (Cunliffe, 2008, p. 131). According to this intersubjective world, the organization's reality can be reshaped, rethought, in order to transform it (Lustig & Ringland, 2010;Somerville & Farner, 2012;Cojocaru, 2012).…”

Section: On Sensemakingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Co-constructing meanings in organizational development

Galbin

2017

PROSOC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper adopts a social constructionist perspective to explore how organization is emerging through meanings constructed. In this context organization becomes meaningful as a result of the interaction between its members. A significant metaphor dealing how sense is made in organization is sensemaking. Starting with a brief literature review on this remarkable metaphor the purpose of paper is to emphasize the potential influence of sensemaking in organizational development, specifically on changing process, decision making, and emotions. Sensemaking pays attention to conversations' context, and introduces fresh ideas for meaning making associated with the experience of interacting with others. A key element in this ongoing process is language used in organization allowing the accomplishment of other new interpretations and possibilities to discover effective practices for organizational development. Finally, the paper suggests some further directions emphasizing the reflection of self relational in constructing meanings as a predictable way for organizational knowledge, learning and change.

show abstract

“…It also emphasizes that meanings and knowledge are created in relationships and dialogues (Cunliffe, 2008;Gergen, 2009;McNamee & Hosking, 2012). From this view, the research objective is to expand the options of understanding the phenomenon (Camargo-Borges & Rasera, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drawing the Triangle: How Coaches Manage Ambiguities Inherited in Executive Coaching

Pliopas

2017

BAR, Braz. Adm. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive coaching is a common leadership development intervention whose complexity is underestimated. The triangular relationships between coachee, coach, and organization give rise to conflicting interests (FatienDiochon, 2012). This study examines how coaches perceive triangular relationships and reflect on conflicts of interest and ethical issues. During semi-structured interviews, nine coaches drew their interpretations of how triangular relationships unfold in executive coaching processes. Coaches' explanations were categorized into three groups. There are coaches who understand executive coaching as a harmonious and congruent process, called naïve; some coaches rely on the coaching process to deal with conflicts of interest, and we called them procedural. Other coaches are skeptical when dealing with conflict of interests in triangular relationships, and were called suspicious. In order to support coaches facing ethical dilemmas that may be present in triangular relationships in the executive coaching process, the ethics of the profession perspective developed for the educational sector by Shapiro and Stefkovich (2016) was adapted and integrated into Carroll and Shaw's (2013) ethical maturity perspective. This adapted model offers coaches an integrative and dynamic view to foster their development and ethical maturity.

show abstract

Orientations to Social Constructionism: Relationally Responsive Social Constructionism and its Implications for Knowledge and Learning

Cited by 233 publications

References 49 publications

Internal brand co-creation: The experiential brand meaning cycle in higher education

Internal brand co-creation: The experiential brand meaning cycle in higher education

Co-constructing meanings in organizational development

Drawing the Triangle: How Coaches Manage Ambiguities Inherited in Executive Coaching

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About