Strategy Implementation and Strategic Control : Module 4 Discussion Question.

User Generated

uryyubhaq4

Business Finance

Description

Question 1:

In order to properly implement a strategic plan, organizations use structure, various control systems (budgets, variance analysis, policies and procedures, company rules), and culture.

Let us revisit General Mills and determine the relative effectiveness of the company’s strategic controls. Choose two implementation controls, and discuss whether or not you believe the controls you've selected effectively support the company's strategic choices. Be sure to defend your answer (critical thinking is required)!

Question 2:

Respond to the following:

As you’ve learned from the background readings, a key strategic control is that of organizational culture. Culture must fit with an organization's strategic choices. Poor alignment between culture and strategic choice is a sure-fire way to doom any strategic choice.

Of course, some organizational theorists would assert that an organization's culture cannot be "managed" in the truest sense of how one “manages" the processes and activities and things that exist within an organization. David Campbell (2000, p. 28) says that an organization

Is being constructed continuously on a daily, even momentary [italics added], basis through individual interactions with others. The organization never settles into an entity or a thing that can be labelled and described, because it is constantly changing, or reinventing itself, through the interactions going on within it. [At the same time, an organization] does have a certain character to it, such that, like driving on the motorway, not just anything goes (p. x).

Do you agree or disagree with the above? That is, can culture really be "managed"? What might this interpretation mean in the context of our current discussion related to “strategic controls”?

A few comments on the above: Many individuals believe that, while the notion of "culture" can be defined, no single individual (irrespective of his/her legitimate power) is capable of single-handedly moving an organization’s culture in one direction or another. These individuals suggest that the sheer number of formal and informal groups, structures, tasks, functional operations, and individual interactions that exist and occur within organizations (even moderate-sized ones) render the “management” of culture impossible (consider the potential number – and combination – of individual to individual, individual to group, and group to group interactions that are likely to occur within an organization at each and every moment (and then, there are endless numbers of contacts / interactions with external stakeholders as well). The possibilities are seemingly infinite -- or at least they are indefinite. In this view, an organization’s culture is abstract, fragmentary, fluid -- and even relative and momentary – how can such a thing be “managed” in the same sense that we “manage” people and organizational processes?

Reference:

Campbell, D. (2000). The socially constructed organization. London: Karnac Books.

Requirement:

1-2 Page Minimum per question, Double Space, Cite credible reference in APA format, answer each question separately. No need for introduction of General Mills. Read Attached Module 4 Background Reading

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Question 1: In order to properly implement a strategic plan, organizations use structure, various control systems (budgets, variance analysis, policies and procedures, company rules), and culture. Let us revisit General Mills and determine the relative effectiveness of the company’s strategic controls. Choose two implementation controls, and discuss whether or not you believe the controls you've selected effectively support the company's strategic choices. Be sure to defend your answer (critical thinking is required)! Question 2: Respond to the following: As you’ve learned from the background readings, a key strategic control is that of organizational culture. Culture must fit with an organization's strategic choices. Poor alignment between culture and strategic choice is a sure-fire way to doom any strategic choice. Of course, some organizational theorists would assert that an organization's culture cannot be "managed" in the truest sense of how one “manages" the processes and activities and things that exist within an organization. David Campbell (2000, p. 28) says that an organization Is being constructed continuously on a daily, even momentary [italics added], basis through individual interactions with others. The organization never settles into an entity or a thing that can be labelled and described, because it is constantly changing, or reinventing itself, through the interactions going on within it. [At the same time, an organization] does have a certain character to it, such that, like driving on the motorway, not just anything goes (p. x). Do you agree or disagree with the above? That is, can culture really be "managed"? What might this interpretation mean in the context of our current discussion related to “strategic controls”? A few comments on the above: Many individuals believe that, while the notion of "culture" can be defined, no single individual (irrespective of his/her legitimate power) is capable of single -handedly moving an organization’s culture in one direction or another. These individuals suggest that the sheer number of formal and informal groups, structures, tasks, functional operations, and individual interactions that exist and occur within organizations (even moderate-sized ones) render the “management” of culture impossible (consider the potential number – and combination – of individual to individual, individual to group, and group to group interactions that are likely to occur within an organization at each and every moment (and then, there are endless numbers of contacts / interactions with external stakeholders as well). The possibilities are seemingly infinite -- or at least they are indefinite. In this view, an organization’s culture is abstract, fragmentary, fluid -- and even relative and momentary – how can such a thing be “managed” in the same sense that we “manage” people and organizational processes? Reference: Campbell, D. (2000). The socially constructed organization. London: Karnac Books. Requirement: 1-2 Page Minimum per question, Double Space, Cite credible reference in APA format, answer each question separately. No need for introduction of General Mills. Read Attached Module 4 Background Reading Module 4 - Background STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION AND STRATEGIC CONTROLS Strategy is implemented using organizational design (structure), people, culture, and control systems. Strategy must successfully work through these elements in order to produce performance. No matter how well a strategy is conceived, if an organization's people cannot implement it, if the culture cannot support it, if the structure cannot coordinate it, and if the systems cannot measure and control it—the strategy will fail. We will start by considering how of each of these components individually link to strategy. By way of the Case analysis, we will examine the integration or "fit" between the various components and strategy. Structure Organizational structure refers to the manner in which the lines of communication of authority are established, the manner in which work is divided up among organizational members, and the way that communication and work are coordinated. Different types of structures support different types of strategies. The key elements of structure that have the greatest effect on the success or failure of strategy implementation are centralization, boundaries, networks, and virtual organization. Centralization • Centralization refers to the level of concentration of decision making. In a highly centralized organization, decisions are made by a relatively small number of people, usually concentrated at the highest levels of the organization. Standardization is common in centralized organizations, thus favoring economies of scale and efficient value chains. • Decentralized organizations are characterized by flexible and autonomous decision-making groups at operational levels in the organization. Such groups have the ability to rapidly adjust to changes in the marketplace and are well-suited to strategies that require innovation. However, because of duplication, economies of scale are difficult to achieve. Emerging Structures • • • Borderless Organizations: Taking cross-functional teams to a new level, the borderless organization does not just assemble teams with members from different organizational levels and functions. Instead, the borderless organization removes barriers both vertically (between levels) and horizontally (between functions or departments). The implications for strategy implementation include increased information, transparency, and flexibility. Alliance Networks: These are collections of suppliers, distributors, customers, and even competitors who have the ability to bring needed assets to bear on an urgent problem where there is insufficient time to develop the needed resources and capacities in-house. Organized and coordinated online, these networks can be mobilized and put to work instantaneously. Virtual Corporations: An extension of Alliance Networks, the virtual corporation is an extra-organizational coalition of people and organizations brought together expressly to work on a specific problem or project. They can be assembled rapidly and dispersed as soon as the project is over, representing the ultimate in flexibility and speed in strategy implementation. The following reading is an exposition on how various types of teams can be useful in strategy implementation: Pryor, M.G., Singleton, L.P., Taneja, S., and Toobs, L.A. (2009). Teaming as a strategic and tactical tool: An analysis with recommendations. International Journal of Management, 26 (2), 320-334. Retrieved on November 6, 2012, from ProQuest. (see attached) Review this presentation on Organizational Design by Professor Anastasia M. Luca, Ph.D. MBA. (see attached) Strategic Controls (Systems) Three organizational systems are essential to controlling strategy implementation: Accounting and budgeting systems: These systems can be complex and not easily adapted. If a new strategy requires data that is not easily accessible through existing accounting systems, implementation can be slowed, and a potentially successful implementation can be jeopardized. If a new proposed strategy does not fit a familiar pattern, decision making can be become risky and unpredictable. Information Systems: Information technology is playing an ever greater role in strategy implementation. IT provides point-of-sale information between retailers and manufacturers, streamlines logistics and distribution, and controls inventories. IT systems must be capable of providing the right information in the right format to the right people at the right time. Measurement and Reward Systems: Rewards can be used to shape behavior in the direction of meeting strategic objectives. Rewards must be connected to measures of goal attainment (e.g., specific increases in market share), and proper time horizons (future rewards for future goals). Review this presentation on Strategic Controls by Professor Anastasia M. Luca, PhD MBA. (see attached) People Strategies that are based on distinctive competencies or unique capabilities are often dependent on people and their skills to carry them out. Thus, for successful implementation, sufficient numbers of people with the right skill sets are essential. In-house or Import? Hiring raw talent and growing employees with the needed qualifications maximizes fit, but it can take years. Retraining existing workers with new skills can be problematic when old employees resist "learning new tricks." Hiring employees with needed skills external to the organization is faster, but there is no guarantee that even they will fit well within the organization’s culture. Motivation: It is not enough to have the right number of people with the right skills; people must also be motivated to work toward successful strategy implementation. Much is known about motivation, and many tools are available; these include tangible rewards (e.g., bonuses) and intangible rewards such as self-fulfillment. Perhaps the motivator with the most potential for eliciting long-term commitment to fulfilling the firm's strategic goals is that of empowerment, which gives employees the discretion and autonomy to use their initiative. The following article highlights the importance of having the right people in place to achieve strategic goals: Garrow, V. and Hirsh, W. (2008). Talent management: Issues of focus and fit. Public Personnel Management, 37(4), 389-403. Retrieved on August 29, 2014 from ProQuest. (see attached) Culture The fit between an organization’s culture and its strategy is critical. If a firm is depending on innovation to achieve differentiation, but the culture is risk averse or has a tendency to punish mistakes, the strategy will in all likelihood fail. Culture can support the strategy when three elements are in alignment: • • Shared values that are aligned with the corporate vision and strategic focus along with a management style that fosters behavior that will support the competencies that confer competitive advantage. Norms can act as strong controls for strategic implementation. They encourage behavior that is in alignment with shared values. People can circumvent rules, and they cannot be watched all of the time, but norms can promote the desired behavior even when nobody is watching. • Symbols model for employees what values and norms are important. Some important symbols include the vision and style of the founder of the company and folklore or stories that embody company values, rituals, and routines, and which reinforce the types of events and behaviors that are most desired and celebrated. The following reading ties together the importance of systems, strategy, structure, and culture. It is highly readable and will help you see how all of these elements are interdependent and must align to achieve successful implementation: Heneman, R. L., Fisher, M. M., and Dixon, K. E. (2001). Reward and organizational systems alignment: An expert system. Compensation & Benefits Review, 33(6), 18-29. Retrieved on November 6, 2012, from ProQuest. (see attached) Optional Reading Aligning organizational culture with business strategy. (2013, November). Towers Watson. Retrieved on August 29, 2014 from http://www.towerswatson.com/enUS/Insights/Newsletters/Global/strategy-at-work/2013/viewpointsqa-aligning-organizational-culture-with-business-strategy Durden, C. (2012). The linkages between management control systems and strategy: An organic approach. Proceedings from The International Conference on Accounting and Finance. Singapore: Global Science and Technology Forum. Retrieved on August 29, 2014 from ProQuest. (see attached) Klosowski, S. (2012). The application of organizational restructuring in enterprise strategic management process. Management, 16(2), 54-62. Retrieved on August 29, 2014 from ProQuest. (see attached) Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. THE SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED ORGANIZATION D A V I D CAMPBELL KARNAC EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. The Socially Constructed Organization EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. O t h e r titles in t h e Systemic Thinking and Practice Series edited by D a v i d C a m p b e l l & R o s D r a p e r published and distributed by Karnac A s e n , E N e i l Dawson, N . , & M c H u g h , B. Multiple Family Therapy: The Marlborough Model and Its Wider Applications Bentovim, A . Trauma-Organized Systems. Systemic Understanding of Family Violence: Physical and Sexual Abuse Boscolo, L &" Bertrando, P. Systemic Therapy with Individuals Burck, C . &L Daniel, G . Gender and Family Therapy Campbell, D Draper, R & Huffington, C Second Thoughts on the Theory and Practice of the Milan Approach to Family Therapy Campbell, D . , Draper, R., & Huffington, C . Teaching Systemic Thinking C a m p b e l l , D . , & Mason, B. Perspectives on Supervision v v v v Cecchin, G . , Lane, G , & Ray, W , A . The Cybernetics of Prejudices in the Practice of Psychotherapy Cecchin, G Lane, G . , & Ray, W . A . Irreverence: A Strategy for Therapists' Survival Dallos, R. Interacting Stories: Narratives, Family Beliefs, and Therapy Draper, R Gower, M . , & Huffington, C. Teaching Family Therapy Farmer, C . Psychodrama and Systemic Therapy v v Flaskas, C , & Perlesz, A . (Eds.) The Therapeutic Relationship in Systemic Therapy Fredman, G . Death Talk: Conversations with Children and Families Hildebrand, J. Bridging the Gap: A Training Module in Personal and Professional Development Hoffman, L . Exchanging Voices: A Collaborative Approach to Family Therapy Jones, E . Working with Adult Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse Jones, E . , & A s e n , E . Systemic Couple Therapy and Depression Krause, I.-B. Culture and System in Family Therapy Mason, B., Sawyerr, A . Exploring The Unsaid Robinson, Public Smith, G . Wilson, J. M - Divorce as Family Transition: When Private Sorrow Becomes a Matter Systemic Approaches to Training in Child Protection Child-Focused Practice: A Collaborative Systemic Approach Work with Organizations C a m p b e l l , D , Learning Consultation: A Systemic Framework Campbell, D . , Coldicott, T., & Kinsella, K . Systemic Work with Organizations: A New Model for Managers and Change Agents C a m p b e l l , D . , Draper, R & Huffington, C A Systemic Approach to Consultation C o o k l i n , A . Changing Organizations: Clinicians as Agents of Change Haslebo, G & Nielsen, K . S. Systems and Meaning: Consulting in Organizations Huffington, O , &c Brunning, H . (Eds.) Internal Consultancy in the Public Sector: Case Studies M c C a u g h a n , N . , & Palmer, B. Systems Thinking for Harassed Managers v v C r e d i t C a r d o r d e r s , T e l : +44 (0) 20-8969-4454; F a x : +44 (0) 20-8969-5585 Email: shop@karnacbooks.com EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. The Socially Constructed Organization David Campbell Foreword by John Shotter Systemic Thinking and Practice Series Work with Organizations Series Editors David Campbell & Ros Draper London & New York KARNAC BOOKS EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. First published in 2000 by H. Karnac (Books) Ltd, 118 Finchley Road, London NW3 5HT A subsidiary of Other Press LLC, New York Reprinted 2002 Copyright © 2000 David Campbell The rights of David Campbell to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted in accordance with §§ 77 and 78 of the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A C L P . for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 1 85575 245 0 10987654321 Edited, designed, and produced by Communication Crafts Printed in Great Britain by Biddies Ltd, zuww.biddlesxo.uk www .karnacbooks.com EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. CONTENTS EDITORS' FOREWORD FOREWORD vii ix by John Shotter 1 Introduction PART I A conceptual framework CHAPTER ONE Social constructionism and systemic thinking 7 PART II A m o d e l of c o n s u l t a t i o n CHAPTER TWO Outline 37 CHAPTER THREE The contract and the consulting environment v EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 43 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. VI CONTENTS C H A P T E R F O U R Focus and action C H A P T E R F I V E Structures for the future P A R T III Case illustrations C H A P T E R SIX Conversations and beliefs C H A P T E R S E V E N Learning the hard way Final thoughts REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. EDITORS' FOREWORD T his book represents a significant development of the concept that underpins the Systemic Thinking and Practice Series. For a number of years, the ideas of social construc­ tionism have been interweaving with those of systemic thinking, and many practitioners use concepts and techniques from both fields with equal facility. However, in this book the author has distinguished the different fields very clearly, while discussing the links between them. He has expanded this series by moving systemic thinking closer to one of its neighbouring fields of thought. A n alternative title for this book might be "Social Con­ structionism in Action", for the author has taken the ideas of constructionism from the philosophy seminar into the world of organizational consulting. He has put them to work in many challenging situations across a wide range of organizations, which he describes with many first-hand examples. It is a personal book because the author describes, in detail, how he works with various types of organizations. His idiosyncrasies mingle with his efforts vii EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. Viii EDITORS' FOREWORD to frame his work within a social constructionist model, and the reader certainly does learn how he works. The book will be of interest to anyone who works in organiza­ tions. Although the author writes about his consultation work, the book is also rich in discussion about what makes organizations tick. There are, for example, many suggestions about initiating "essential conversations'' within an organization whether one is in the position of an employee or in that of an external consultant. David Campbell Ros Draper London June 2000 EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. FOREWORD John Shotter I t used to be thought that when we talked of organiza­ tions and of organizational behaviour, there was something already there of a definite character to be talked about. David Campbell, however, takes a quite different social constructionist stance in this book towards organizations and organizational behaviour. It is a stance that works in terms of "the relatedness of everything around us". Thus, as he sees it, an organization is something that "is being constructed continuously on a daily, even momentary, basis through individual interactions with others. The organization never settles into an entity or a thing that can be labelled and described, because it is constantly changing, or re­ inventing itself, through the interactions going on within it". It is a dynamically changing setting for its members' actions, just as when driving down a multi-lane motorway we all must react and respond to how we are placed at any one moment in relation to all the others around us. In other words, strangely, whether we are workers within " i t " or consultants from outside " i t " , we do not exactly know what we are talking about when we claim to be talking about " a n organization". Yet, it does a have certain charac­ ix EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. X FOREWORD ter to it, such that, like driving on the motorway, not just anything goes. "It" is something we have to get a sense of. We need a set of methods for socially constructing between us—those of us within " i t " and those of us outside—yet further features, refinements, or elaborations of something fluid and still developing. This is David Campbell's achievement in this book. As he remarks in the Introduction (in a way that, to my mind, is rather unnecessarily apologetic), the ideas he presents are not meant to represent the world. Indeed not. For the task is not to give an accurate picture of what already exists, but to bring into exist­ ence what does not yet exist—a new facet or feature of a practice that suddenly makes (socially constructs) a connection or link be­ tween things that could have been connected, but were not. In the past, when researchers thought that of necessity they had to be scientific, it is as if they came on the scene too late and looked in the wrong direction. They looked back as intellectually trained individuals, in terms of a special research tradition, to discover supposedly already existing hidden centres of influence (to which their tradition was especially oriented), claiming that these gave people's behaviour in an organization its structure. But now, what David Campbell wants to do is to come on the scene much earlier, to treat everyone involved as operating prior to the time of them receiving any special training in one or another intellectual disci­ pline. We are all treated much more as just ordinary, everyday people. Indeed, in an unapologetic fashion, he declares that he has written this book "resolutely for practitioners' . A n d central to it is conversational talk: it is the consultant's task not to solve an organization's problems for it, but to create a number of safe con­ versational forums within an organization such that those within it can come to create the new relations between themselves that are necessary for new ways forward. 7 This emphasis on face-to-face conversational talk is why Campbell emphasizes the use of metaphors and gives working examples. For, in teaching a practice, it is precisely these two moves that are important. This is because, along with a relatedness, we must also put an emphasis on people being spontaneously responsive to each other—this is where the inherent creativity of dialogue comes in. When someone says, "Look at it this way", and then gives a new metaphor for what is going on in the organiza­ EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. FOREWORD XI tion, others find themselves responding to it in new ways, in ways that suggest new connections between things not previously noticed. Examples too are very important in this way. Wittgenstein (1969) is well known for remarking that "not only rules, but also examples are needed for establishing a practice. Our practice leaves loop-holes, and the practice has to speak for itself (p. 139). Thus it is that we find that talk of "striking" examples helps in establishing a new practice. They "tell" us a new way of respond­ ing, and, in so doing, they establish new ways of seeing, new forms of perception for use in making sense of all the other "things" we encounter in the practice, Hence Campbell's extensive use of examples in this book. Principles need interpreting; they arouse unending intellectual debate. The final proof of this book, says Campbell, will be in "whether the ideas and examples are presented in a way that is perceived as trustworthy, persuasive, and, ultimately, useful". A n d he has achieved it marvellously well. But this is not just Campbell's task, the consultant's task, but, as any good manager in an organization knows—as we all in our everyday lives know—it is the task we all face in attempting to get the others around us to coordinate their actions with ours in achieving something worthwhile. This book will be a resource for all those inside and outside organizations to draw on. EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. Introduction A p p a r e n t l y , Samoans engage i n w h a t is called a maaloo exchange. F o r example, if I have d o n e s o m e t h i n g w e l l a n d y o u c o m m e n d m e for it, the maaloo exchange requires that I r e s p o n d b y recognising y o u r essential assistance i n m y successful performance. In other workers the other-as-sxtpporter is central to S a m o a n understanding. F o r instance . . . after a g r o u p o f travellers return f r o m a trip a n d are greeted w i t h a w e l c o m e h o m e , the exchange might be: " W e l l d o n e the t r i p " , to w h i c h the r e t u r n i n g travellers r e s p o n d : " W e l l d o n e the staying b a c k . " E . Sampson, 1993, p. 68 S ocial constructionism is a growing field of study. It is also a very loosely assembled body of knowledge, which makes it easier for theorists and writers to select one or two compo­ nents and carry them away to define and develop their own versions of social constructionism. I have found this both stimulat­ ing and frustrating. It is difficult to pull the diverse strands into one coherent framework, but on the other hand the field invites creative application of the ideas. However, there has been very 1 EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 2 INTRODUCTION little systematic application of social constructionist ideas to w o r k d o n e w i t h organizations. T h i s lack is what this b o o k is about. T h i s is a field o f s t u d y a n d practice I c a n contribute to. F o r several years I have b e e n u s i n g social constructionist ideas, b o t h as a n e m p l o y e e a n d a staff m e m b e r i n several places of w o r k a n d as a consultant to v a r i o u s s m a l l organizations i n the private a n d p u b l i c sector. T h i s b o o k is a n opportunity to gather m y experiences to­ gether a n d reflect o n the w a y s social constructionist ideas have h e l p e d (or, i n some cases, not) organizations to o v e r c o m e obstacles a n d move forward. T h i n k of this b o o k as a metaphor. It contains ideas that are not m e a n t to represent the w o r l d but m a y nevertheless help y o u , the reader, s u r v i v e i n y o u r o w n organization or m a k e effective inter­ ventions as a consultant to other organizations. I like the m e t a p h o r of a toolbox, w i t h each of these ideas being u s e d to h e l p tackle a particular p r o b l e m , b u t m y female colleagues have said: " H o w typical of a m a n to choose the metaphor of the toolbox!" O n e of t h e m offered instead the metaphor of a chest w i t h m a n y drawers, e a c h one containing ideas for a different purpose. I h o p e y o u w i l l choose y o u r o w n metaphor. W r i t i n g this b o o k has h e l p e d m e to identify what is c o m p e l l i n g , for m e , about organizations—the potential for continuous interac­ t i o n w i t h others that allows m e to "take a stand" i n m a n y s m a l l w a y s throughout the d a y a n d to have others r e s p o n d to m e , g i v i n g m e feedback about where I stand or w h o I a m . A t the same time, l i v i n g w i t h i n a n organization allows m e to "lose myself" i n some­ t h i n g m u c h larger, m o r e powerful, a n d m o r e mysterious t h a n m y o w n life. I grew u p i n a family that h a d strong opinions, a n d since I was the last c h i l d , I felt that the family values were not o p e n for nego­ tiation b y the time I came along. It was as t h o u g h one h a d to accept t h e m "lock, stock, a n d barrel", or find some other means of ex­ p r e s s i n g one's voice. So I a m today fascinated b y the w a y realities are created a n d h e l d i n place t h r o u g h a social process, a n d h o w a n i n d i v i d u a l c a n take part i n the process w i t h o u t l o s i n g his o r her o w n voice. F o r m e , social constructionism is a m e t a p h o r that helps m e take another step f o r w a r d . Part I of the b o o k presents the ideas I have selected a n d fitted together as m y o w n v e r s i o n of social constructionism. I h a v e a m a l ­ EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. INTRODUCTION 3 gamated the ideas of many people in the field to create a frame­ work for understanding a bit more about how organizations work. Part II reflects my attempts to put the social constructionist framework to work. I want to quash any illusions that this is an advanced or fully conceptualized enterprise. I am on the lower rungs of this ladder, but I have taken the time over the past several years to think differently about my work with organizations. I am in the process now of trying to develop new techniques of con­ struction that are consistent with the theoretical framework. Several years ago I read a quotation from one of the balloonists who had attempted to circumnavigate the globe. After a ditched attempt, he said: "I don't think we have failed—we have just found another way that didn't work." With this attitude of learn­ ing from experience, I am presenting in Part III two extended case illustrations—one that appeared to have a good outcome and one that did not—which the reader might like to try to generalize from to his or her own work setting. I hope that the reader will appreciate from these consultations the experimental nature of the book—the attitude that "we will simply have to try certain things and wait to see how the organization responds". The book ends with some final thoughts on social construc­ tionism and work with organizations. For those readers who are familiar with social constructionist concepts, you may be more interested to read how some of the work has been done, and I suggest you begin at Part II, which is based on real case examples, and then perhaps return to Part I for a review of the conceptual framework. (I have tried reading the book in this way, and it does seem to work.) I have written this book, resolutely, for practitioners. I am not trying to develop the various intellectual debates in the field, of which there are many, but rather to touch on the relevant concepts and theoretical arguments that will enhance the practice of living within or working with organizations. The final proof of the book, for me, is whether the ideas and examples are presented in a way that is trustworthy, persuasive, and, ultimately, useful. EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. PART I A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. CHAPTER ONE Social constructionism and systemic thinking S ystemic thinking is a way to make sense of the relatedness of everything around us. In its broadest application, it is a way of thinking that gives practitioners the tools to observe the connectedness of people, things, and ideas: everything connected to everything else. Certainly, people from all walks of life—from the mystic to the medical practitioner, from the ecologist to the engineer—are "thinking systemically" when they address the in­ terconnectedness within their field of vision, but within the social sciences, and particularly the field of family therapy, the discourse about the relatedness of people has been heavily influenced by general systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 1950; see also Ashby, 1956) This body of theory has been advanced and applied to the social sciences over the past 30 years by such people as Anderson, Goolishian, and Winderman (1986), Bateson (1972), Boscolo, Cecchirt, Hoffman, and Penn (1986), Hoffman (1981,1993), Keeney (1983), and V o n Foerster (1981), and readers should turn to these sources for a fuller unfolding of systemic thinking. General sys­ tems theory has given us all a language to organize the world in 7 EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 8 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK certain ways. Advocates speak about differences which constitute the mutual feedback that connects people and reveals a pattern of behaviour. They speak of behaviour acquiring meaning from the context in which it is observed by an active observer of one part of the larger system which represents the whole. A n d these tools have been applied to many different clinical and organizational settings, to such an extent that there is now a rich body of knowledge, or a discourse, that generates clinical practice, research methodologies, and, of course, dialogue amongst its adherents. Many of these concepts were developed in the field of family therapy, where practitioners found that thinking of the family as a system was a metaphor indispensable for their work. However, most people in this field acknowledge that during the early 1980s a paradigm shift was taking place from traditional general systems theory, known as "first-order cybernetics", to­ wards "second-order cybernetics" which placed the observer firmly within the system that he or she was observing. The empha­ sis shifted towards the constructs that the observer brought with him or her as the observation of a family began and, then, towards the reciprocal influence that the observer and the family had upon each other. Rather than viewing a system as something connected by feedback and difference, the emphasis shifted towards the system as a meaning-generating entity. The reciprocal activity be­ tween the observer and the family resulted, in some mysterious way, in creating new meanings for all those who participated in the process. The way was opened for new models or metaphors that would shed some light on the mystery of collaborative mean­ ing-making. Social constructionism emerged from a different academic tra­ dition and poses different types of questions. Its roots lie i n the field of sociology and, in particular, George Mead's "symbolic mteractionism" (1934a), which offered the view that we construct our own identities through interaction with others. However, Berger and Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality (1966) is usually cited as the seminal text that launched this new field. They described a social process whereby ideas are placed in the public domain and then become "true" as they are taken up in various forms of public debate and turned into "objective facts". EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. SOCIAL C O N S T R U C T I O N I S M A N D SYSTEMIC T H I N K I N G 9 The philosophical tradition of post-structuralism (Saussure, 1974) led various thinkers to reconsider the modernist view of a truth "out there" waiting to be discovered, and literary critics such as Bakhtin (1993) suggested that the meaning of literary texts did not reside in the intention of the author or the embedded struc­ tures of the text itself, but, rather, in the way that the reader constructed his or her own meaning from within his or her own temporal and cultural context. From the field of psychology, Kenneth Gergen (1985) and Rom Harre (Harre, 1979) have explored the concepts of self and identity. Gergen proposes that we are not one "self" but con­ struct different "selves" to create 'Voices" to influence relation­ ships around us. Different voices are required in different contexts, and it is these voices that are the basis of our sense of self. Harre takes this thinking one step further by saying that our sense of identity results from the way beliefs about our self are conveyed to us through language. He would argue, for example, that the lan­ guage of Western societies is dominated by the logic of individuals making active choices in their environment, which contributes to the notion that we must then have "selves" capable of autonomous activity. Whereas the central concern of systems thinking has been iden­ tifying the patterns that connect different parts of a larger system, social constructionism has always asked how people work together to produce the realities that we all live by. It distinguishes itself from systemic thinking by moving from the question of "what is happening" to the question of "how does it happen", or from the "observation of pattern" to the "explanation of action". I am sure that many readers will have their own explanation of the evolution of social constructionism as a parallel trajectory to systems thinking, but my own version is that systemic thinking was adopted as the predominant metaphor for many therapists, because one of its pioneers—the anthropologist and biologist Gregory Bateson—was invited to join a research project in the 1960s with a group of family therapists interested in the origins of schizophrenia. They developed models of pathological communi­ cation in families, culminating in 1956 in the double-bind theory. These concepts were highly influential in the fledgling field of EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 10 A C O N C E P T U A L FRAMEWORK family therapy. However, had one of the followers of Mead's sym­ bolic interactionists, perhaps a sociologist, been invited to join this group, the course of development might have been very different! But, in the end, both systems theory and social constructionism are metaphors that enable us to function in a particular context. Whereas the metaphor of systems thinking helped us make sense of interconnectedness and ecology, perhaps the metaphor of social constructionism facilitates an understanding of the way realities are construed from the voices of many people from many parts of the world. This book explores the possibility that this metaphor will also help us understand our relationship to organizations. What follows is a discussion of the specific conceptual tools that I have found useful in creating my own social constructionist model for work with organizations. De-construction before construction The critics and philosophers who de-constructed literary criticism challenged a basic assumption that meaning was inherent in the structures of literary texts, and they suggested instead that each reader should create his or her own meaning within a specific cultural context. The "meaning" of a Jane Austen or Henry James novel today is to be found in the interpretations made by the readers, from certain cultural backgrounds and at the present time. Edward Said (1994) has discussed the cultural biases that Western Europeans or Americans bring to their interpretation of non-West­ ern literature. The legacy of this literary debate has been the licence to review the assumptions underlying some cherished concepts in contempo­ rary social sciences. Erica Burman (1994) in her book Deconstructing Developmental Psychology has examined the cultural influences that lead us to make certain assumptions about how children develop, and Phoenix, Woollett, and Lloyd (1991) have applied the same critical lens to the process of motherhood. What all of this suggests is that it is not possible to study the way realities are constructed without first examining the underly­ EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. SOCIAL C O N S T R U C T I O N I S MA N D SYSTEMIC T H I N K I N G 11 ing assumptions—the basic paradigm—that the participants bring with them to the process. It is clear that the basic tools for our thinking are rooted in certain paradigms and belief systems, such as scientism, Cartesian duality, formal logic, or systemic pattern; if we accept these tools without challenge, we will never be able to think beyond the paradigm itself. This is highly relevant for organizational life. Organizations, as we shall see, certainly create their own belief systems, and then people within them find it a struggle to discover new solutions within the old paradigm. A culture for de-constructing basic as­ sumptions may be essential as a first step. Knowledge is constructed between us The central premise of social constructionism is that knowledge is constructed between us. The traditional view that the world exists "out there", and that we use our brains, logic, and language to discover the truth of the world, is being supplanted by the idea that the realities we observe are created by mutual influence with other people. For example, within an organization individuals have their own views, and when they begin to interact with others they inevitably constrain or influence others towards some ways of thinking and feeling and away from other ways of thinking and feeling. Over time, the mutually constraining process produces a "house paradigm" that all have come to believe, because they have no other. The philosopher Richard Rorty makes this point beautifully by quoting a passage about poetry from Harold Bloom's Kabbalah and Criticism: The sad truth is that poems don't have presence, unity, form or meaning . . . What then does a poem possess or create? Alas, a poem has nothing and creates nothing. Its presence is a prom­ ise, part of the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Its unity is in the good will of the reader . . . its meaning is just that there is, or rather was, another poem, [in Rorty, 1989, p. 122] EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 12 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK "Let us give up the failed enterprise of seeking to "under­ stand" any single poem as an entity in itself. Let us pursue instead the quest of learning to read any poem as its poet's deliberate misinterpretation, as a poet of a precursor poem or of poetry in general, [p. 43] I understand this to suggest that a poem is an attempt to de­ construct a small part of the world we know. A poet deliberately challenges accepted interpretations, challenges understanding, and sets the reader on another course. Language as a social process One of the central assumptions underpinning social construction­ ism is about language. Social constructionists distinguish a preWittgenstein concept of language as a medium to connect us to the real world from the Wittgensteinian definition of language as a set of tools that enables us to build realities as we describe them (Wittgenstein, 1953). The former definition of language suggests that there is a world of thoughts, feelings, and objects "out there" which is separate from a " m i n d " , in our possession, that observes, describes, and makes sense of the world out there. Language is the medium that connects the self to reality and allows us to carry out this opera­ tion. Language, through grammar and vocabulary, may or may not be sufficient for the task of accurate description. This view leads to questions such as: "Does my description fit the world?" or " A m I being faithful to the true nature of the self?" Rorty, who has helpfully evaluated these ideas, says that these assumptions will naturally follow "once we accept the idea there are non-linguistic things called 'meanings' which it is the task of language to express, as well as the idea that there are non-linguistic things called 'facts' which it is the task of language to represent" (1989, p. 13). A n alternative view of language has been presented by Kenneth Gergen (1994) as a central platform of social construction­ ism. This is that the function of language is not to represent reality but to enable us to engage in social relations, and the meanings EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. SOCIAL C O N S T R U C T I O N I S M A N D SYSTEMIC T H I N K I N G 13 that we construe about the world result from these social inter­ actions. H e draws on Wittgenstein's argument that words acquire their meaning "through the ways they are used in patterns of ongoing exchange" (Gergen, 1994, p. 52). Gergen also refers to Austin's (1962) definition of the perfor­ mative aspect of language, which emphasizes, not whether it corresponds with fact, but whether language fits into a social act and helps to coordinate the actions of the people involved in the act, Gergen is leading towards the position that language helps us to maintain relationships with "communities of understanding", such as employees within an organization, and it is these commu­ nities that will define the realities they want to adhere to. Metaphor The social constructionist view of language is a pragmatic one. Some words or ideas are more successful in helping us to cope with life. I am reminded of the story of the airline pilot who is more successful with the concept "the earth is round", whereas the architect designing a tennis court is more successful with the concept "the earth is flat". Language is judged on the basis of its usefulness in helping people coordinate their thoughts and actions within various communities, such as families, readers of books, players of games, and, of course, work colleagues. Other writers have described the evolutionary view of lan­ guage—that is, new words and concepts killing off the old to adapt to a changing environment. Rorty (1989) makes the point that if you take the view that language is a medium, you might say that Galileo made a discovery—"he finally came up with the words which were needed to fit the world properly" (p. 19)—whereas one who sees language as pragmatic and evolutionary might say that he hit upon a tool that happened to work better for certain purposes than any previous tool. "Once we found out what could be done with a Galilean vocabulary, nobody was much interested in doing the things which could be done with an Aristotelian vo­ cabulary" (p. 19). EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 14 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK R o r t y goes o n to discuss ideas about metaphor, a n d as a consultant interested i n change I have f o u n d these v e r y h e l p f u l . H e begins b y m a k i n g a distinction between the literal a n d m e t a ­ p h o r i c a l , not i n terms of two sorts of m e a n i n g but as a distinction between the familiar a n d the unfamiliar. M e t a p h o r s are u n f a m i l ­ iar; they have not yet been absorbed into " m e a n i n g f u l " language. M e t a p h o r s d o not have meanings; rather, they are tossed into a conversation—the equivalent of m a k i n g a face or p u l l i n g a p h o t o ­ g r a p h out of y o u r pocket. These are w a y s of p r o d u c i n g a n effect o n y o u r conversation partner, but they are not w a y s of c o n v e y i n g a specific message. It is not appropriate to respond to a metaphor b y a s k i n g : " W h a t exactly are y o u t r y i n g to s a y ? " If one had wanted to say something—if one had wanted to utter a sentence w i t h a meaning—one w o u l d presumably have done so. But instead one thought one's a i m could be better carried out by other means. . .. A n attempt to state that mean­ ing w o u l d be an attempt to find some familiar (that is, literal) use of words—some sentence w h i c h already had a place i n the language game. [p. 18] Fitting into the familiar is also constraining the participants to o n l y certain meanings that have already been agreed u p o n , whereas the m e t a p h o r m a y be used i n conversation to introduce a difference to the c o n v e n t i o n a l m e a n i n g of the w o r d s b e i n g used. C e r t a i n metaphors w i l l catch on, others w i l l not. T h i n k of D N A o r i g i n a t i n g as a metaphor, w h i c h offered n e w tools to the scientific c o m m u n i t y a n d has n o w become part of the language game—that is, it has specific m e a n i n g a n d can be p r o v e n to be literally true or literally false, u n t i l a n e w metaphor arrives to lead science to new u n d e r s t a n d i n g w i t h i n the gene project. The p r o b l e m w i t h the liter­ a l l y true or false sentence, according to Rorty, is that it becomes a " d e a d m e t a p h o r " w h i c h allows us to accept certain truths about o u r conversations a n d to stop searching for n e w meanings: " T h e literal uses of sentences are the uses w e can h a n d l e b y o u r o l d theories about w h a t people w i l l say u n d e r various conditions. T h e i r m e t a p h o r i c a l use is the sort w h i c h makes us get b u s y d e v e l ­ o p i n g a n e w t h e o r y " (p. 17). W h a t is the relevance of metaphors for the social construction­ ist v i e w of organizations? If w e can appreciate that w e organize EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. SOCIAL C O N S T R U C T I O N I S M A N D SYSTEMIC T H I N K I N G 15 much of our thinking about organizations in metaphorical con­ cepts such as "cooperation requires compromise" or "time is a resource", we become aware that this is not a "truth" but a meta­ phorical construction that highlights certain properties or relations while suppressing others. We can appreciate that metaphors re­ flect cultural values, and therefore we can look outside the organi­ zation towards the wider social discourse to understand some of the ideas that drive the organization. A n d , finally, we can appreci­ ate that because metaphors allow us to " d o certain things better than others", we can evaluate metaphors for their capacity to help us do things. If they are not helpful, they can be jettisoned for new metaphors that stand up to the test of pragmatic usefulness. The meaning of the "self" "If the b o d y h a d b e e n easier to u n d e r s t a n d , n o b o d y w o u l d h a v e thought that w e h a d a m i n d / 7 R. Rorty, 1980 For some time, social constructionists have argued that, in Western societies, we all operate with a mistaken notion of what an " i n d i ­ vidual" is and how we develop a sense of self (see Mills, 1940). These are complex philosophical arguments, for which readers may want to refer to other sources, but several of them can be spelt out here. Sampson (1993), for example, criticizes the Western em­ phasis on the individual as an economic unit, with his or her own thoughts and the ability to act in an autonomous fashion. Sampson argues that, on the contrary, we learn who we are in relation to others, and we act as the result of many influences from the envi­ ronment around us, many of which we are not aware of. Shotter (1989) offers a fascinating account of the way language encourages us to develop a sense of the self which is bounded by our own skin. The use of the pronoun " I " encourages us to locate one's own self somewhere inside, "as something unique and dis­ tinct from all else that there is", and it is the existence of this "self" that guarantees one's personal identity. The " I " becomes the source of all thought, meaning, and language. The self becomes EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 16 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK the "knower", "distinct from what there is to be known, able to gain knowledge from the world in an individual and autonomous way" (p. 137), which locks us into a hermetic Cartesian dualism. But compare this with the pronoun "me", which is experienced as an object that we can possess like any other. "Me-ness" is equiva­ lent to other attributes or qualities such as intelligence, height, or freckles. If "me" is somehow external, then it also belongs to other worlds. It can have originated from other sources and can be con­ nected to other external experiences. Shotter elaborates by referring to the work of Benveniste, who claims that "I" does not have a consistent reality in the way the noun "chair" does, but is made up and defined in a unique way each time it is used: "What then is the reality to which I and you refer? It is solely a 'reality of discourse' and this is a strange thing. I cannot be defined except in terms of 'location'. I can only be identified by the instance of discourse in which it [the I] is pro­ duced" (Benveniste, 1971, p. 218), The "self" created by others " F r o m our b e g i n n i n g as children, a n d continuing o n into our lives as adults, w e are dependent u p o n b e i n g addressed b y others for whatever f o r m of a u t o n o m y w e m a y achieve." Shotter, 1993, p. 143 Our sense of who we are depends upon what meaning others make of us and how they convey that meaning back to us. This is an essential premise that underpins all of social constructionist thinking: the sense of who one is, the self, the I, are all constructed in the interaction between the individual and others. "People owe what stability and constancy and uniqueness and identity they may appear to have" (Shotter, 1993) to the practices and activities that enable them to make their differences known and recognized by other people. In other words, the constancy in our lives is not a reflection of an inner self that repeats its actions and beliefs over and over, but, rather, a function of being in consistent, supportive, and respectful relationships that enable individuals to receive con­ sistent messages from others. EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM AND SYSTEMIC THINKING 17 Contemporary social constructionists emphasize this process as a life-long and continuous function of communication. Because we each need an audience to confirm the meaning of what we say and do, much of the aim of language is to preserve an audience and to gather from it the responses we need to maintain an evolving sense of identity. This places us not in an ontological context of "being who we are", but in a moral and pragmatic context of saying and doing the necessary things to maintain dialogue with an appropri­ ate audience, Shotter says: I act not simply "out of my own plans and desires . . . but also in some sense in to the opportunities offered me to act. . . . And my action in being thus "situated takes on an ethical or moral quality. I cannot just relate myself to others around me as I myself please: the relationship is ours, not just mine, and in performing within it I must proceed with the expectation that you will intervene in some way if I go "wrong", [p. 144] 7 /7 77 77 We have now travelled a long way from the idea that language is a medium to connect the self to reality. Social constructionists take the view that we use language to coordinate the relationship between ourselves and our audience and, through the coordina­ tion, to arrive at a meaning for what we are doing and what is going on around us. The coordination seems to work something like this: in social settings we are continually negotiating with others about how to position ourselves, or "how to be", in order that others will acknowledge us, attribute meaning to our behav­ iour, and make us accountable for who we are and how we are behaving. We are continually attempting to mean something to someone else. A n d if we are communicating in order to create a meaning­ making relationship with others, we must pay attention to how others might respond to us. Again in Shotter's terms, " a n under­ standing of how they might respond is part of our understanding of who they are for us" (1993, p. 145) or what they mean for us, and we hope that they will have similar thoughts of what we mean to them. Mills makes the powerful point that "rather than expressing something which is prior and in the person, language is taken by other persons as an indicator of future actions" (in Shotter, 1993, p. EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 18 A C O N C E P T U A L F R A M E W O R K 141). For me, these ideas have clarified two important issues for organizational life. The first is that employees are doing several things when they communicate with each other, one of which is trying to clarify what they should do next within the conversation but also within the organization as a whole. The other issue is that when they are communicating, they are involved in a mutual meaning-making process. In my experience, the time spent ad­ dressing these issues in working with organizations has been time well spent, as I discuss later. Discourse In order to place this meaning-making activity in a wider social context that is appropriate to organizations, we need to review the concept of discourse. This is defined by Burr (1995) as " a set of meanings, metaphors, representations, images, stories, statements and so on that in some way produce a particular version of events". Since each conversation creates its own version of events, there is a limitless number of metaphors and larger social discourses that can be created to represent an event or a thing, like an organization, to the world. For example, Morgan (1986), in his influential Images of Organisations, essentially spells out eight possible discourses that can be used to represent organizations, using labels such as "the organization as a political system", a "machine", a "brain". Within each discourse, there are theories, practices, structures, and opera­ tions that cohere to give some meaning to the behaviour of the people working within the organization, and these are expressed in company reports, notice-boards, employment practices, as well as the conversations around the water-coolers. Burr also highlights the recursive, two-way process between discourses and the things that people actually say or write about— that is, discourses can be revealed in the things people say, but these things are dependent for their meaning on the discursive context in which they appear. The social constructionist view is that the organization is not made up of individuals, each with their own attitudes or opinions that they bring to the conversation to influence others; rather, the things people say are thought of as EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM AND SYSTEMIC THINKING 19 "instances of discourse" or "occasions where particular discourses are given the opportunity to construct an event in this way rather than that" (Burr, 1995, p. 50). This is a crucial point because, as each organization creates discourses about itself, this enables us to see more clearly the organizational influence on individual behav­ iour. Let us take, for example, two discourses that "appear" in most agencies I have observed: the discourse of hierarchy and the discourse of shared responsibility. A discourse of hierarchy might represent the agency as a structured organization, with some people at higher levels making decisions and passing them down to those working at lower levels. Within this discourse, some information should only be available to a few people, employees should do what they are asked by those above them, and different responsibilities should be reflected in different rates of pay. Standing around the water-cooler, the employees drawing on this discourse might be expected to say things like: " M y manager is not giving me clear guidelines about my work", or "We need a special group of senior people to sort out this problem". A different discourse within the same agency might represent it to the world as a place where everyone is consulted before impor­ tant decisions are made, "but it means we have to share the responsibility if things don't work out". This discourse would aim to represent the agency in a different way by drawing attention to different aspects and working practices and, most importantly, by creating different implications for how people should behave in the agency. Conversations drawn from this discourse might sound like: " N o one has a clear vision of where this organization is go­ ing" or " W h y don't we meet to prepare some proposals for the others to consider?" Opportunities and constraints Within the framework of organizational discourse, certain ideas and actions are possible whereas others are constrained. One can see from the previous examples that a "discourse of hierarchy" will encourage, make possible, or afford only certain ways of thinking and acting, and while employees are acting within the EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 20 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK opportunities offered by that discourse, any alternative actions that are associated with the "discourse of shared responsibility" are not made possible. There is one great advantage in moving away from the view that organizational behaviour is motivated by individual attitudes and beliefs, and towards this view of organizational discourse. It enables us to see more clearly the operations at work that influence our behaviour on a daily basis, and it gives us the tools to change these operations if we choose so to do. Organizational behaviour can be seen as an attempt by individuals to create meaning with other people and then to position oneself within a wider discourse in the organization. This process can be brought into the light of day. But we still need some conceptual tools that allow us to understand how discourses are created, how they influence behav­ iour, and how they can be de-constructed. The individual in social discourse I want to suggest that each of us is motivated by the desire to take part in meaning-constructing relationships with others, and part of this process is being recognized for what we feel we are "really experiencing" and then having this validated through the ability to influence people and events from our own point of view. In other words, we can only be sure that we are acknowledged for what we are if we observe the effects of our "having influence" upon rela­ tionships around us. I have argued above that each conversation that takes place in an organizational context is an attempt to have the meaning of our words acknowledged through dialogue; on a larger scale, I think that people choose certain aspects of the dis­ courses available to them to have some power and influence to control events around them. For example, if one powerful discourse in an organization is about providing the best possible service to clients regardless of pay and working conditions, it will be difficult for an individual to be recognized as having a different view (such as an urgent need for improved pay and working conditions) if he or she can only be EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. SOCIAL C O N S T R U C T I O N I S M A N D SYSTEMIC T H I N K I N G 21 influential within that particular discourse. To speak within the discourse may compromise the individual who wants to say some­ thing very different, whereas to speak outside the discourse may afford that person less power to influence the organization. This seems to me a very helpful idea: that individuals in organizations often have to compromise between positioning themselves within parts of the discourse which allow them to express what they are experiencing, on the one hand; and parts of the discourse which afford them power and influence, on the other. Gergen (1989) has explored these ideas with his concept of "warranting voice". He suggests that we present representations of ourselves that are most likely to "warrant voice", or to give our own version of events some validity and legitimacy. Those people in organizations whose voices prevail are those with authority and power; those in powerful positions "warrant voice" more easily than others. But organizations will have many voices competing for influence, and the people who "warrant voice" are also those who can "use the discourses" most effectively—that is, to speak their own mind within the powerful discourses of the organization or to initiate new ideas from within the discourse of the old. Position Another central idea in social constructionism is the concept of position. Think for a moment about the relationship we may have with a parent or child or partner. It is multifaceted in that there are many concepts of partner in our minds: the partner at home, at work, in the kitchen, in the bedroom, with children, with his or her parents, happy, angry, exercising, eating, and so on. Each of these versions of a partner is the result of a series of events that are brought together in our minds to make a meaningful pattern. The partner participates in many relationships and groups that offer her or him certain positions that she or he can take in that par­ ticular context. For example, the child of a farming family or of alcoholic parents is offered a finite number of positions to take within the relationships and the discourse in that community. EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 22 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK If we move from the concept of self towards the concept of position, it gives us the ability to see people occupying many dif­ ferent positions in many different discourses. This leads to a view that dialogue is not between selves taking the " I " position, but between two people in different positions within a larger discourse who are able to shift positions as they are influenced by the other's position in the dialogue process. Power "Being unable to fortify justice, we have justified force." Blaise Pascal, Pensies To understand the way discourses and individuals within them compete for power and influence, many social constructionists have turned to the writings of the French philosopher Michel Foucault (1972). His great contribution to the field is his historical analysis of the way society has controlled its citizens through the creation of institutions such as medicine, law, and education, each with its own ideology about how people should behave in society. These institutions define normal behaviour by creating expertise, or what Foucault calls "knowledge", which brings power with it. Power is not a quality that some people possess and others do not, but, rather, it is the ability to draw on certain discourses, or bodies of knowledge, to define the world in a way that allows you to do the things you want. He describes a dynamic relationship among different dis­ courses in society such that any prevailing discourse—such as "This organization should be driven by clear policies"—is continu­ ally subjected to critique and challenge from other competing discourses. Power and resistance are two sides of the same coin. A n y prevailing or "dominant" discourse has power only in rela­ tion to other discourses that present alternative views. It is as though the power of the dominant discourse is seen in the relative weakness of alternative discourses. Only when the dominant dis­ course ceases to be " i n dialogue" with alternative discourses can EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. SOCIAL C O N S T R U C T I O N I S M A N D SYSTEMIC THINKING 23 p o w e r n o longer be exercised a n d force then u s e d to get w h a t one wants. B u r r (1995) emphasizes this point i n the f o l l o w i n g w a y : Y o u could say if it were not for this resistance, there w o u l d be no need to re-affirm constantly the truthfulness of these dis­ courses. For example, if the notion that " a woman's place is i n the home" were really secure i n its position as a prevailing truth or dominant discourse there w o u l d be no need to keep asserting it. [p. 71, emphasis added] Foucault does not believe that dominant discourses are "thought u p " b y p o w e r f u l people, but, rather, that the social a n d c u l t u r a l conditions of our lives give rise to certain w a y s of representing the w o r l d a n d a l l of us. T h e n , once a discourse is available, it becomes appropriated b y people w i t h p o w e r a n d influence i n o u r society: writers, journalists, scientists, politicians, captains of i n d u s t r y , a n d so forth. B y attempting to understand the social a n d cultural events that give rise to n e w discourses, or w h a t he calls the "archaeology of k n o w l e d g e " , a n d the w a y they are t u r n e d into d o m i n a n t d i s ­ courses t h r o u g h the exercise of p o w e r , he hopes to be able to challenge the legitimacy of particular d o m i n a n t discourses a n d to i l l u m i n a t e the " m a r g i n a l i z e d " discourses that have not been so p o w e r f u l l y represented. The implications of these ideas for organizational life are enor­ m o u s . F o r example, I have f o u n d it v e r y h e l p f u l to t h i n k of the organization as a p o l i t i c a l arena i n w h i c h d o m i n a n t discourses organize d a i l y activity i n an environment i n w h i c h the alternatives have become devalued a n d m a r g i n a l i z e d . It c a n be v e r y h e l p f u l to discuss w i t h a n organization the reasons w h y a d o m i n a n t d i s ­ course has come into b e i n g — a n d remains i n p l a c e — a n d i t c a n be equally h e l p f u l to discuss the alternative discourses that are crucial to keep d o m i n a n t discourses i n place. (This process is d i s ­ cussed further i n part II.) This difficulty i n stepping outside the d o m i n a n t discourse is one of the greatest obstacles to o r g a n i z a ­ t i o n a l change. EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 24 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK * Time Another process that makes change difficult in organizations is that we may begin to see the dominant discourse as universal and timeless. A s creatures of habit and pattern, we avoid chaos by giving meaning to the patterns we see around us, which means that we are likely to fit today's experiences into yesterday's expla­ nation—for the ease of "getting on with life". Yet if we can create a version of Foucault's "archaeology of knowledge" to define a dis­ course as suitable for a particular context and at a particular time, it will mean that new discourses will be needed for the new context that arises with the passage of time. Time also calibrates the process of change in a non-blaming fashion. So often I find that people have become attached to par­ ticular discourses, and then the political struggle to change the dominant discourse becomes personal and gets laden with much extra baggage from the past. O n the other hand, if evolving dis­ courses are seen as products of the passage of time, it becomes easier for people to let go and assume that new discourses will be required, regardless of the power struggles involved. This is. the first step in bringing everybody on board the process of change. The dialogic " M o v i n g closer a n d closer a p a r t . . . " A . D . H o p e , poet Bakhtin (1986) cautions that understanding and empathy can be­ come a kind of fusion that suppresses dialogic communication and creates another platform for monologic communication. True dia­ logue cannot occur if one party is defined by the standpoint of another. Defining the other is a common means of establishing power and dominance over another person or group, and there­ fore dialogue only happens when each party is coming to the conversation free of control by the other. A n y dominant group will lose its advantage in a true dialogue. EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. SOCIAL C O N S T R U C T I O N I S M A N D SYSTEMIC T H I N K I N G 25 Much of my own work with organizations centres around try­ ing to create dialogue, and I use many of these ideas as my starting point. For example, the employees in any agency must believe and see that the organization is fair, and they must also be aware of what they might lose as well as gain by opening up a dialogue. Finally, I try to create an interest in what might be learned about themselves or their departments, and what might be learned about others, through a dialogic conversation. I am continually trying to prepare an environment in which people will allow themselves to be influenced by others. Hermens and Kempen (1993) have done some interesting re­ search into the dialogic process. They propose that a dialogue is not a two-stage process but a three-stage process: "In the first step, A might say: 'this is my view.' In the second step, B responds: T have another way of seeing i t / In the third step, A changes more or less his or her initial view: 'Now I look at it in another way'" (p. 158). Hermens and Kempen were able to support this view with a research study that demonstrated the way subjects had changed initial assumptions in ways that were directly influenced by the values put forth by his or her partner in dialogic exchanges. The other " T h e 'otherness' w h i c h enters into us makes us o t h e r . " G . Steiner, 1989, p. 188 Perhaps the most powerful critique of the Western Enlightenment idea of a unified, authentic self is the ethical and moral one. Many writers have turned their attention to the process by which our sense of identity, our sense of self, rests on our relationship with the non-self or the "other" (Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 1996). To be a man, we must experience women as the "other"; to be white, we must experience black as the "other". But, as Sampson (1993) as­ serts, "it is wrong to assume that self and other are always equal contributors to the co-constructive process. Some have more power to set the terms of co-construction than others" (p. 143), and EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 26 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK he continues: "the point is simple: if I find myself in and through you, but no longer control the you that grants me my self, then I am forced to deal with a self that is beyond my control, and I may not always enjoy this self with which I must now contend" (p. 155). * ** " W h a t the d e v i l are they u p to?" C Geertz, 1979 Some writers, such as Geertz (1979) and Bakhtin (1981), warn that suppression of true dialogue happens when one partner in a dia­ logue is seeking fusion into "one-ness". The anthropologist Geertz says that, in trying to understand the native's point of view, the aim is "not to achieve some inner correspondence of spirit with your informants . . . but rather to figure out what the devil they think they are up to" (p. 228). * ** " W e w o u l d rather d i e than be ethnocentric, b u t ethnocentrism is precisely the conviction that one w o u l d rather die than share certain beliefs." R. Rorty, 1991 If one assumes, then, that dialogue only takes place between people who recognize "otherness" or difference between them, we should look further to see what is being said about difference. For a number of years the works of Bakhtin and his colleague, Voloshinov, have been studied by scholars from the fields of liter­ ary criticism, psychology, philosophy, and communication theory, which has led to the coalescence of a body of theory known as the "dialogical" approach to the understanding of the psychology of human behaviour. Of course, this is a big subject, for which read­ ers should refer to the original writings; however, I want to discuss several of their concepts that I have used to understand organiza­ tional behaviour. De Peuter (1998), writing about Bakhtin's work, says: I want to suggest that the ideals of autonomy, integration, co­ herence and authenticity may, like the concept of identity EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. SOCIAL C O N S T R U C T I O N I S M A N D SYSTEMIC T H I N K I N G 27 itself, be reconstructed as situated, joint productions defined on the boundary of identity and difference and constituted by the equal forces of synthesis and dispersion, order and disarray. We must fully overcome the Cartesian self/other di­ chotomy to understand "properties" of selves as liminal, in neither the mind nor the text but between interlocutors, real or imagined, and allow for the often silenced centrifugal partners in the dialogue of selfhood, [p. 38] Sampson (1993) refers to Derrida—"presence is built on ab­ sence, identity on difference" (p, 90)—and goes on to say that "Concealed within any positive statement of meaning is an absent, other meaning, suggesting that difference, rather than identity is necessary to our understanding" (p. 89), Bakhtin argues that communication is in continual tension be­ tween contrary forces: the centripetal forces, which push towards unity, agreement, and monologue; and centrifugal forces, which push towards multiplicity, disagreement, and heteroglossia—or what we might call "multiple voiced-ness". Even a single word embodies this tension. Take, for example, the word "chair"; when this word is uttered, it connects the listener to the concept of "chair" and to some representation of all the chairs he or she has known. The speaker and the listener are in the same communica­ tion "ballpark", and this is the centripetal force held within that word. O n the other hand, saying the word "chair" also presents the speaker as a particular, individual person, who is referring to a different set of objects known also as chairs, and this is the cen­ trifugal force. To put it differently, a word connects to a general concept understood by both parties, but it also has a specific mean­ ing offered by the speaker which the listener aims to understand in its particularity. "Each word is a little arena for the clash and criss­ crossing of differently oriented social accents" (Voloshinov, 1929, p. 41). "Each word reflects and refracts other words and 'our' words reflect and refract not merely 'our' thoughts, but also the thoughts of those with whom we might be disagreeing" (Shotter & Billig, 1998, p. 16). I have found that these ideas grab people's imagination power­ fully. They speak of the central dilemma of working in organiza­ tions, which is that we seek some kind of unity while remaining EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 28 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK unique and different from our colleagues. Bakhtin continues be­ yond this exposition to talk of the necessity of holding onto these contrary forces within ourselves and not retreating into a narrative about ourselves that is built upon unity and understanding—that is, to leave space for disunity, disagreement, and, particularly, lack of understanding of the other. This brings us back to Geertz mem­ orable phrase: "What the devil to they think they are up to?" 7 Certainly mystics and philosophers have been saying similar things for eons, and more recently Bateson (1972), a fount of in­ spiration for systemic thinking, coined the phrase "embrace the contraries", but what Bakhtin particularly contributes to this pro­ cess is the possibility to see it in action through our use of daily language. He raises our awareness of how words connect to others and how they must also depart from them. He is suggesting that dialogues can be undermined by too much "reflection" of common meanings, and they can also be undermined by too much "refrac­ tion" of particular individual meanings. In a thought-provoking article, Sallyann Roth (1999) addresses this issue by posing the questions: " H o w can I speak fully when speaking fully may reveal that we simply cannot understand one another?" and "What kinds of actions and contexts encourage me to turn my passion to enquiring about things I do not or cannot understand?" (p. 95). We must be very careful about too much understanding. The organization as a construction The socially constructed organization is just that: socially con­ structed. But it is being constructed continuously on a daily, even momentary, basis through individuals interacting with others. The organization never settles into an entity or a thing that can be labelled and described, because it is constantly changing, or re­ inventing itself, through the interactions going on within it. I have often thought how helpful it would be if agencies placed a sign above their entrance-way which read "under construction". But the implications of this view challenge much of the current thinking about organizations and should be examined more EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. SOCIAL C O N S T R U C T I O N I S M A N D SYSTEMIC T H I N K I N G 29 closely. The traditional view is that there is a thing known to us as our agency or organization which we know by observing the pat­ terns of behaviour going on around us. We may then compare our observations with those of others to enrich our pool of experience, and then we create an abstract idea of "my organization" in our mind. "This is what Datacom P L C is about", or "This is the kind of organization we are in the mental health team". But—and this is a very important "but"—the concept of seeing an organization as a social construction is itself a social construction. It is dangerous to take a one-sided view of organizations—that is, that they are only social constructions—and lose sight of every­ thing else that an organization " i s " . A n organization is also real people, policies and rules, desks and computers, and budgets that create realities and constraints that become the substance of socially constructed conversations—but the "constructed" world and the "material" world cannot and must not be separated from each other. So we are in need of some new ideas to help us through this dilemma. I have found some very helpful conceptual tools in the writing of Bruno Latour (1993). He suggests that our experiences reside within three domains. Each domain represents a different aspect of our total experience, and each has its own language and concepts to describe the world around us. I have rephrased his language to explain the domains in the following way: one domain is the domain of the material and scientific, and the language to describe this domain is the language of facts; another is the domain of social construction, whose language is social discourse and rhet­ oric; and the final domain is that of the political, which uses the language and the operation of power. None of these domains should be explored without reference to the others, but each can be seen as having its own characteristics distinct from the others. What is important to Latour is the way people move amongst these domains and pull discrete elements together. If we apply these ideas to our current discussion, it becomes easier to place the socially constructed organization in context. It becomes one perspective among a range of perspectives. Latour emphasizes that a fully representative picture of our world must tolerate and move amongst all these domains. What becomes inter­ EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 30 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK esting then is not social constructionism exclusively, but the inter­ action amongst these domains in our attempts to describe the world. (But that is certainly the subject of another book.) Organizational culture Ways of thinking about the organization, whether it be a social construction or a structured entity, are enshrined in the concept of organizational culture, which is some composite of the discourses and the activities within an organization which turns it into an abstraction and represents it as a whole. From the social construc­ tionist point of view, the great problem with this is that certain experiences are selected over others to become the building blocks of the culture. Someone, or some group, holding some position in the organization is saying: 'These are important features of our culture, and they will be enshrined in the discourses that are privi­ leged in our organization." When interactional activity becomes abstracted or theorized in this way, we begin to attribute meanings to our interactions on the basis of the way behaviour fits into our preexisting concept of the organizational culture. When this hap­ pens, the creative, liberating power of dialogic conversations to create new meanings and, in effect, reinvent the organization is lost. Bender (1998) puts it thus: We are socialised by taking on roles in which our actions are determined to a large degree by the a priori social understand­ ing of these roles. In the moment of everyday life, action is mainly repetitive and stable because we have clear ideas of what a situation will entail in the ways we and others are expected to act in it. [p. 186] This view invariably focuses on the wider role of the organization, the community, or society at large. I am taking a position that deliberately shifts the emphasis of organizational life away from the static concept of a structured organization and towards a more dynamic concept of evolving discourses that are maintained by dialogic communication, but, in turn, determine which dialogic conversations are possible. I also EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/8/2018 8:11 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 369321 ; Campbell, David.; The Socially Constructed Organization Account: s3642728 Copyright © 2000. Routledge. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. S O C I A L C O N S T R U C T I O N I S M A N D SYSTEMIC T H I N K I N G 31 want to shift emphasis from the organization as a thing that qin be named to the organization as an ongoing process created by its members. Culture and discourse influence "from above", but indi­ viduals also bring their own particular "identities" to the process of selecting which positions within the available discourses they want to take in order to create dialogue with their colleagues. Responsibility: a socially who constructed is responsible for organization? One of the powerful "systemic" tools that a practitioner can bring to her or his work with organizations is the concept of the organi­ zation as a whole made up of parts. It leads to the valuable work of clarifying primary tasks and creating mission statements that en­ able workers to pull in the same direction; I have written about using these concepts elsewhere (Campbell, 1996). However, there is a danger in moving too far down this road. Seeing an organiza­ tion as a ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

There you go. All the best buddy

Running head: STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION AND STRATEGIC CONTROL

Strategy Implementation and Strategic Control
Student’s Name
Institution

Date

1

STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION AND STRATEGIC CONTROL

2

Question One

Strategy implementation is a process that is critical to any organization and can determine
the long-term growth and success of a company. One big challenge in a company strategy
implementation is to know if the chosen strategy is the appropriate or right one or if any
adjustments need to be done. This process is easier when a company has strategy implementation
control in place (Rothaermel, 2015). There are several types of strategy controls that General Mills
could use to ensure the success of procedures or policy choices.

One of the implementation strategy control that General Mills utilize is the milestone
review based on each company segment growth analysis. A key role of a strategy implementation
control is to ensure that the company is aware of wheth...


Anonymous
Excellent! Definitely coming back for more study materials.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags