Social Constructionism in the Context of Organization Development

Abstract

The world faces rapid changes that call for new epistemologies and methodologies that can generate innovative forms of “being” and “doing” within organizations. This article investigates conceptual and practical resources from the social constructionist perspective that can be useful in realizing the transformation of organizations. Initially, a global context of the world in change is described, explaining the consequences for organizations; then social constructionism is introduced as a postmodern epistemology and offered as a potential approach to the organizational development field in supporting research and intervention. Some perspectives for action and knowledge production are offered in the context of an organization. Finally, some resources with examples will be articulated; these new frameworks for action can be effective for organizations coping in times of change.

From Disunited to Joint Action

“…Due to rapid transformations in work environments, social constructionism is a useful approach to investigate change in organizations. There have also been ethical implications that have caused a move away from expert-based, hierarchical, and result-focused studies, to more participatory, co-creative, and process-centered ones (Camargo-Borges & Rasera, 2013). Billig et al (1988) have criticized studies that attempt to simplify people's argumentation into a measurable attitude or an opinion, ignoring the context of the argumentation and looking only for universal patterns of thinking.…”

“…Since the 1990s, it has been broadly recognized that knowledge and expertise create the basis for competitiveness in most organizations (Camargo-Borges & Rasera, 2013;Tsoukas, 2009;Yankelovich, 2001). Similar to the private sector, the public sector is also facing the need for extensive structural changes, and due to the changes in the operational environment, there are major economic and political pressures putting emphasis on achieving better efficiency.…”

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

“…Methodologically, this means that the research objective is not to prove and persuade about correct interpretations, but to broaden the possibilities of understanding the phenomenon (Camargo-Borges & Rasera, 2013). Looking at the meanings executive coaches attribute to triangular relationships, one can extend the views of understanding this phenomenon; considering if and how coaches reflect on possible conflicts of interest, one may see alternatives of reflection which can result in different courses of action.…”

“…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). This way, by understanding meanings executive coaches attribute to triangular relationships, one can expand the possibilities to understand executive coaching; pondering if and how coaches reflect on possible conflicts of interest in executive coaching, expands perspectives for coaching theorists and practitioners.…”

“…Social constructionism is a theoretical movement concerned with the ways knowledge is historically located and inserted in cultural and values practices (Burr, 2015;Camargo-Borges & Rasera, 2013). It also emphasizes that meanings and knowledge are created in relationships and dialogues (Cunliffe, 2008;Gergen, 2009;McNamee & Hosking, 2012).…”