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