Journal of Organisational Change Management, revisions
requested
Abstract
Here we develop arguments about how social realities are constructed in ongoing processes, exploring these arguments in relation to existing and potential constructions of change. First, we review different ways in which entities and their relations have been constructed in the literatures. One the one hand are mainstream constructions that seem to solidify or freeze individuals and organizations, treating each as if they have their own, independent, existence or reality. In this context, change is achieved by one stable existence acting to know and to influence some other independent reality. We contrast, this view with a critical alternative that assumes interdependent, socially constructed realities and relationships, and sees these as multiple and local-historical. A view of reality construction processes is outlined, showing how entities and relations may be viewed as constructions and exploring some implications for existing constructions of change. Section 2 puts these arguments 'to work' by focusing on processes in which stable realities and relationships can be constructed. We examine and illustrate selected 'generic' models presented as abstract formulations of possible co-ordination patterns. In Section 3 we explore how changed realities and relationships might be constructed - given processual-constructionist premises. A key feature of our argument addresses the question of how change might be constructed in relations between interdependent, multiple, different but equal social realities. A change methodology of this sort constitutes a radical departure from methods that continue to rely on mainstream assumptions and focus on reality 'contents' rather than processes.
Keywords: Social processes, change, social constructionism, relational theory
Within the literatures of organization behavior (OB), work psychology (WP), organization development (OD), and organization theory (OT), certain assumptions and approaches are identified as "mainstream" and others as "critical" alternatives (Thompson and McHugh, 1995). These are briefly overviewed before outlining one "critical" alternative. The latter theorizes communication processes as processes in which social realities and relationships are made and re-made. Arguments about these 'relational processes' then are further developed in relation to existing narratives of organizational change.
Dualism and Subject-Object Relationships.
"Mainstream" approaches treat social cultures and structures, and
individuals, as if they each exist independently, in their own right, so
to speak (Thompson and McHugh, 1995; see also Hollis, 1994; Hosking and Morley,
1991). For example, OB focuses on individuals and groups ‘in
organizations’; the organization left as a largely tacit and separately
existing context for individual action, perceptions, and satisfactions (e.g.,
Miner, 1980). In contrast, the literatures of OT have largely focused on organizations
e.g., as mechanical or organic systems seemingly separate from individuals’
activities and constructions (e.g., Child, 1977, 1984).
When objects are separated they also are related in some way. Mainstream literatures have been said to construct a "subject-object" discourse of relations (e.g., Dachler & Hosking, 1995; Fine, 1994; Harding, 1986; Reeves Sanday, 1988). The term "discourse" is here used broadly to refer to "anything that can be 'read' for meaning…(that) can be referred to as a text" (Burr, 1995p.51). Discourses include written and spoken language along with cultural products (e.g., building design, clothing…) and non-linguistically expressed acts. Their significance can be thought of in terms of what they do. The S-O discourse can be said to do three things. First, it constructs relationships between an acting Subject and an acted upon Object, for example, between an organizational leader or change agent, and an organization. Second, these relationships are made sense of with reference to the assumed characteristics and/or acts of entities. So, for example, organizational leaders are assumed to have vision or charisma (e.g., Lord, DeVader, and Alliger, 1986; Bennis & Nanus, 1985), organizations are assumed to have structures, and environments are characterized as complex or turbulent (see e.g., Child, 1977; 1984). Third, realities and relationships are assumed to be made by the Subject. It is the Subject who is understood acts to know and to influence ‘other’ as a knowable and formable Object. For example, organizational leaders are represented as those who act in order to know their organization and its environment. Further, on the basis of this knowledge, leaders act to (re)structure relations and change organizational performance (Child, 1972; Donaldson, 1985; Rifkin, 1996).
Dualist Narratives of Organizational Change.
These mainstream discourses of entities and relationships are reflected in
constructions of organizational change (see e.g., Fineman, 1991). One approach
focuses on individuals and changing individual characteristics. Examples
include Human Relations (see e.g., Guest, 1984;), job enrichment and goal
setting (e.g., Miner, 1980), and OD approaches directed towards developing self
awareness, building trust, and clarifying roles and roles relations... (e.g.,
Dyer, 1984; French and Bell,1990; Schein,1987, Kaplan, 1969; see discussions by
Fineman, 1991, & Hollway, 1991). A second approach focuses on organizations
and environments and their characteristics. With this starting point,
organizational change is considered to be planned and achieved through changing
organizational characteristics such as structures and technologies to ‘match’
environmental contingencies (e.g., Carnall, 1990; Evan, 1993).
In addition to the above, writings on change have come more and more to emphasize sense making (e.g., Tsoukas, 1994; Weick, 1979) and/or to speak of change processes (e.g., Wilson, 1992). However, mainstream discourses of entities and relationships usually remain. The individual continues to be constructed as an independently existing agent who makes sense of independently existing realities. Sense making is treated as an intra-individual cognitive activity (see e.g., Gardener, 1985) and conceptual language is assumed to represent the world/reality. Furthermore, strategic or planned change is assumed to be effected by individuals on the basis of cognitive maps ‘inside their heads’ and through social processes between (already theorized and already existing) entities. Of course where there is a mainstream there must be other streams.
Alternatives To Subject-Object Dualism.The above assumptions are developed in many different ways in very different theoretical frameworks. One general line of approach has been referred to as "social constructionism" - itself a very heterogeneous category - often including assumptions better known as social constructivist (Gergen, 1985). Social constructionism typically focuses on socially constructed products and the 'how' of social construction processes is largely ignored (e.g., see Pearce, 1992). In contrast, our current interest is in putting the above assumptions to work by showing how realities and relationships are constructed. In this paper, our particular concern is with the possible implications of a processual-constructionist view for narratives of stability and change.
We shall shortly outline some central premises concerning 'the how' of relational-construction processes. However, it is important to note that our premises are not intended as substantive claims. Rather, they resemble Giddens' social theory of structuration, (e.g., Giddens, 1979) in that they express the "potentials of the phenomena that constitute the domain of inquiry" - potentials may be very differently realized in the varying "empirical flux of events" (Cohen, 1989,p.17, emphasis in the original). Further, our talk of relational construction could be said to constitute a "style of thinking" (Chia, 1995) that falls within the range of what some call "postmodern" (Gergen & Thatchenkerry, 1996). We assume a "weak ontology of becoming" rather than a "strong ontology" of entities, attributes, and discrete acts (Chia, 1995, p579). This processual-constructionist approach is, as yet, little explored in the field of management and organization studies (but see e.g., Campbell, Coldicott, & Kinsella, 1994; Cooper & Law, 1995; Hosking, Dachler, & Gergen, 1995).
In the present perspective, entities-with-characteristics are viewed as social realities that arise in processes. The social realities of who a person is, of organizations, of cultures and relations, are considered to be constructed and reconstructed in ongoing communications. This contrasts with the mainstream and social constructionist approaches in which entities are treated as if they exist ‘outside’ of and prior to relationships and realities. How construction processes might be viewed is the subject of the remainder of this section. We only outline our premises because the arguments and justifications are extensively discussed elsewhere. In particular, literatures such as the philosophy of inquiry, feminism and feminist critiques of science, the sociology of knowledge, social psychology, and micro sociology have made major contributions (e.g., Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Burr, 1994; Gergen, 1994; Harding, 1986; Potter, 1996; Sampson, 1993; Slife & Williams, 1995; Woolgar, 1996). In addition, we only sketch our premises in this section since the remainder of the paper explores them in relation to change and change processes – our central concerns. So, now we overview the 'how' of relational construction processes.
Realities and relations are constructed in written and spoken (conceptual) language as well as through co-ordinations of non-verbal actions, things, and events. Terms such as text-context and act-supplement are used to speak of what is co-ordinated or related; we use these terms interchangeably. A text or act may be a handshake or other non-verbal gesture; may be conversations about markets, writing a report, or waiting at a bus stop; may be playing in a string quartet, making cakes, or eating... A text is any action or artefact available to be made relevant or irrelevant, meaningful or meaningless, good or bad, by being co-ordinated with (supplemented) in some way (e.g., Dachler and Hosking, 1995; Gergen, 1995).
Co-ordinations necessarily implicate multiple, simultaneous and interrelated act-supplement relations, many of which are tacit. Take as a text (act), for example, some newly announced corporate mission. Con-texts might well include, for example, discourses of local and of corporate management, of previous change initiatives, of motivation, discourse of what's happening elsewhere in the business world… Further, not one, but multiple social realities are likely to be made in the course of such co-ordinations. For example, the mission statement may be spoken of as the latest management joke, used as the basis for team briefings, referenced in development workshops and so on.
This view of construction processes concerns ‘here and now’, ongoing, communications. In the course of these processes, "stabilized effects" - identities, social practices, social structures - are produced (Chia, 1995, p.586). This means that being a 'local', being culturally competent, is achieved by relating in ways that are locally warranted (Weigert, 1983). So, for example, someone stands at the bus stop rather than lying in the road and the bus stops; this way of co-ordinating works and becomes an ongoing and stable social practice. In other words, some social realities come to seem relatively fixed and be taken-for-granted as 'how the world really is'. However, we should not forget either the essential artfulness - artificial rather than natural - of these "effects" or the processes that make and re-make them. In addition, 'here and now' co-ordinations both resource and constrain what follows. Another way to say this is that relating is historically and socially located. Communicating some company mission statement might well make no sense (non-sense) unless resourced by discourses concerning, for example, collective working, management hierarchies, 'singing to the same song sheet'… And, once particular co-ordinations become "stabilized effects", other possibilities are constrained.
Relational processes make people and worlds as social realities; they construct self in text-context relation to some not-self or other. This means that self and other exist (as social realities) only in relation (e.g., Harre, 1979; Mead, 1934; Weigert, 1983). One implication is that who someone is (identity) becomes multiple rather than singular, variable rather than fixed. Furthermore, self-making and world (other) making become understood as complementary - like yin and yang each ‘is’ only in relation to the other. On this view, relational processes are thought of as "reality-constituting practice(s)" that both constrain and resource self and organizational identities, cultures…all social realities (Edwards & Potter, 1992, p.27). Relational processes construct markets, management, hierarchy, all social realities. At the same time, they construct these realities as good or bad - fiercely competitive markets, weak or strong management, too much hierarchy and so on.
Last, in the present view, discourse of entities-with-characteristics and subject-object relationships are social constructions. Entities, for example, are viewable as "stabilized effects" constructed and maintained in ongoing processes, and constructions of self and other arise in interdependent relation. This contrasts with the more usual assumption that self and not-self each exist as independent realities in subject-object relationships. So now relational processes, whilst they may construct subject-object relationships, do not have to do so. Some interesting questions result for how change may now be differently constructed. But first, a summary:
Our premises about construction processes can be briefly explored by reflecting on existing constructions of change and change issues. This will provide a context in relation to which subsequent sections can implement processual-constructionist premises in relation to the how of stability and change.
Change processes are the norm, stable effects are an ongoing achievement.In addition, and unlike mainstream discourses of organizations, the present arguments provide the basis for theorizing both stability and change. Unlike subject-object dualism that sets personal and organizational change apart, processual-constructionist arguments integrate talk both of individual and organizational change whilst avoiding reducing one to the other. They do so by treating persons and organizations as social realities made and changed in relational processes. As a consequence, those interested in organizational change now may consider relevant any processual-constructionist arguments, regardless of their particular substantive focus, for example, in the literatures of therapy (e.g., Anderson, 1997; McNamee, 1989), communications theory (e.g., Watzlawick et al, 1967), or feminist writings (e.g., Flax, 1987; Harding, 1998).
Change as a construction process.
Shifting ontology away from entities-with-characteristics to relational
processes shifts the locus of change away from people and organizations.
Change talk no longer focuses on objectively identifiable and relatively stable
states (e.g., unmotivated or motivated, centralized or decentralized). Rather,
attention now goes to processes and how they construct, reproduce, and change
social realities and relationships. Of course processes involving multiple
simultaneous text-context relations may simultaneously construct multiple
social realities and these multiple realities could include both
stability and change. Our processual-constructionist view does not presume that
e.g., the newly announced mission statement is some thing about which all could
and should agree, barring ill will and incompetence. Agreement and freedom to
disagree now are viewed as a more a matter of power relations rather than of
knowledge and rationality. Power becomes understood as constructed in multiple
act-supplement co-ordinations and in relations between them (Gergen, 1995) - as
we shall see next.
Change as power over and power to.
Dualist assumptions privilege subjects' constructions in subject-object
relations. For example, a theorist might assume that an appointed change agent's
constructions of reality necessarily have more value than other constructions.
Indeed, both theorist and change agent might suppose that others are relevant
only as objects to be known and changed. Various commentators have spoken of
subject-object relations as a relationship of "power over", that is,
power of subject over object (see Gergen, 1995; Harding, 1986). And many change
methods seem to be of this sort. For example, dialogues about differing
constructions of reality often get embroiled in relations of power over - either
to get one reality construction warranted as right and the other(s) wrong or to
reduce the differences to some(one’s) consensus construction. Such ways of
relating are, indeed, encouraged the assumption of independently existing
realities and knowledge of the same. Power over may, for example, be constructed
in talk therapy intended to change relations between life partners (e.g.,
Anderson, 1997). Equally, it can be true of attempts to get all organizational
participants to ‘sing to the same song sheet’, to buy in to some shared
metaphor or mission statement, or to 'be flexible' (e.g., Carnall, 1990; Dyer,
1984).
When considered on the basis of our processual-constructionist premises, subject-object relationships and power over can be seen to be just one relationship possibility. An additional possibility is an inclusive and non-hierarchical view of Self and Other and relationship – just as yin is in yang and yang in yin - in text-con-text relation (Hosking, 2000). Such ways of relating are relatively under-explored in discussions of relating in general and change in particular (but see e.g., Reason, 1994; Campbell, Coldicott, & Kinsella, 1994). Constructing multiple different realities viewed as equal, rather than better or worse in some objective sense, can be thought of as "power to" sustain multiple local cultures. And non-hierarchical ways of relating might be better than power over in relation to at least some local realities. This view should not be confused with liberal-humanitarian discourses of participative democracy or personal growth; such discourses remain perfectly consistent with entitative constructions and subject-object relations. Rather, we are now speaking of construction processes that: are open to multiple local-cultural standards; recognize and work with power as an inevitable quality of relational processes; enable ways of being in different but equal relations (e.g., Brown & Hosking, 1986; Fine, 1994; Eisler, 1990).
Resistance to change now is radically re-conceptualised.
When viewed on the basis of a processual-constructionist perspective,
mainstream assumptions are seen to locate talk of resistance to
change in subject-object relationships. One entity (subject) is presumed to be
acting upon another entity (as object). The subject is constructed in relation
to discourses of intention, agency, and planning of change; the object is
constructed as resisting, known, and potentially formable (see e.g., Hollway,
1991; Giddens, 1979). The metaphor is either mechanistic e.g., overcoming
resistance arising from inertial forces, or organic e.g., overcoming individual
defence mechanisms arising from previously adaptive behaviours. In the context
of these taken-for-granteds, resistance is something Other has or does and has
to be overcome e.g., by education or teambuilding (see e.g., O’Connor, 1995);
"social change can be accomplished only as rapidly as resistances are
overcome and removed" (Jaques, 1947 in Hollway, 1991p.120). In the present
perspective, attempts to overcome resistance through more power over will
reproduce subject-object relations. This means that they probably reproduce the
status quo rather than changing it. Perhaps this is why change attempts are so
often felt to be more of the same, even when the content seems so different (TQM,
BPR, visioning…). The present view suggests that social realities and
relationships are maintained or changed in construction processes. The present
view makes it possible to leave aside notions of a singular reality,
subject-object relationships, and the emphasis on change programmes in terms of
predefined content. We now shall explore how realities and relationships are
maintained; how they can be changed is the subject of the final section.
Earlier we borrowed a characterization of Giddens' work on structuration to note that our processual-constructionist premises are intended to express "the potentials of the phenomena that constitute the domain of inquiry" (see Cohen, 1989, p17). In this section we explore these potentials in a manner similar to that of linguists who have employed formal grammars to express the potential sentences in a language - rather than try to list all empirical eventualities (e.g., Chomsky, 1957). We do so by outlining generic models as abstract formulations of some possible co-ordination patterns, borrowing from and developing notations from systems thinking. In this way we can illustrate how stable or changed constructions - as content - may be produced.
Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch (1974), Fisch, Weakland, & Segal (1982) and more recently Senge (1990) view problems as achievements where much of the effort required to maintain stasis is contributed (unknowingly by the participants) as solution-oriented behavior. They argue that very often an attempted solution plays a key part in problem maintenance, so constructing "games-without-end". In such games, one or more act-supplement co-ordinations continue to reference taken-for-granted(s) that reproduce and maintain the status quo. In the following discussion we consider one of Watzlawick et al’s examples, along with a teaching case, as examples of selected co-ordination processes, games-without-end, and the dynamics of stability and change. A number of diagrams are offered as 'content-filled' illustrations of our generic models. Each model is intended (a) to be consistent with our relational premises (b) to generate possible change interventions and ways to reflect on them, and therefore (c) to be useful in enabling 'new' ways of going on in relation.
Competition For Who Will Be Subject.
Figure 1, after Watzlawick et al (1974), provides an example of a
game-without-end in which two sailors, A and B, are coordinating in the
balancing of a boat.
FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE
Fig. 2 summarizes Watzlawick et al.’s analysis of this game using Senge’s (1990) notation. In Senge’s terminology, this is a positive feedback pattern and illustrates the archetype of "escalation".
FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE
Watzlawick and his colleagues reflected on this pattern to note that both A's and B's attempts to balance the boat (by leaning further out) actually contribute to the problem, leading to "more of the same".
Turning to our processual-constructionist terminology, each act-supplement co-ordination reconstructs (maintains) a subject-object frame of reference. So, for example, each might say "I" (self) am being overbalanced (causally effected by) by "him" (other). We have shown that co-ordinations can be thought of as (re)constructing three interconnected realities of self (e.g., person), other (e.g., person or organization), and relationship (e.g., subject-object). Fig. 3 characterizes the discourses in which a particular self-in-relation-to-other is constructed in the boat example. Each discourse is characterized as follows:
* theme or event constructions
* self (in relation to construction of other)
* other (in relation to construction of self)
* relationship between self and other
FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE
The symmetrical interlocks in the boat example become yet more apparent when modeled as follows.
FIGURE 4 ABOUT HERE
.The boat example illustrates stasis-producing co-ordinations where both discourses reference similar text-context relations and both construct Other in symmetrical and opposed ways. Subject-object co-ordinations maintain stasis either (a) in competition for who will be subject, or (b) in tacit agreement of subject-object differentiation and who occupies which position in the relationship. Either way, subject-object co-ordinations construct "power over". Other illustrations of stasis-producing processes can be given where the competition is not only for who will be subject in some shared (taken-for-granted) reality but also competition for whose very different version of reality will prevail. The AW&B case is presented as an illustration of this sort. It is based on a published business case, but has been elaborated and changed in order to illustrate and facilitate the appreciation of a processual-constructionist perspective AW&B is run as a simulation with participants, usually managers, for example doing an MBA, assigned to management and consultant roles.
Competition Over What Is Real And Good.
The case materials present AW&B as one of three biggest national
producers of aircraft wheels and brakes. In the mid 1950’s UK Aerospace
accepted AW&B’s tender to manufacture and supply braking systems for a new
Royal Airforce (RAF.) plane. However the brake did not meet AW&B’s
promises and gave many serious problems. As a result, UK suspended them as a
supplier and gave them no further orders, leading not only to losses on the
original order, but to the even greater loss of continuing business in spares
and replacement parts.
In the summer of 1967, UK invited bids for the wheels and braking system for a new light fighter plane. AW&B put in an especially low cost bid, responding to very tight deadlines. Management spoke of the proposed project in terms of buying themselves back into the business, improving the state of their order books, and helping the local economy. UK were attracted by relatively low cost and by the proposed design which was for a smaller and lighter brake than was usual; AW&B got the contract.
The initial design and construction plans were produced by John Wilson, a long time specialist in aircraft brakes, and Chief Engineer of the aircraft brake department. Wilson appointed a recent graduate, Stewart Losely, to be executing engineer and to take charge of the qualification tests according to procedures and standards prescribed by the military. The brake was delivered by the stipulated deadline in June 1968 along with the required qualification report containing the test data and protocols to show that the brake met requirements and was ready for the flight tests.
During the flight tests several dangerous situations arose; it became clear that the brake fell a long way short of military requirements. UK made several inquiries to AW&B before finally demanding to inspect the original test data. When eventually they were allowed to do so they found significant discrepancies between the original data and the report. As a result, a fact-finding committee was established consisting of officials from the military, UK, and AW&B. In October of that year AW&B withdrew their brake system and qualification report and offered a new improved brake at the same price. At the same time Losely, the executing engineer, and Keene, the technical reporter who put the documentation together, both resigned.
The case materials given to the consultant group contain extensive first-hand reflections - represented as having been obtained by them in their internal inquiry through narrative interviews with those directly involved. In the simulation, 'the consultants' and another group given the role of AW&B management start by considering their case materials in order to analyze what happened and why. The consultants explore the differing constructions of reality as described in their version of the case and prepare a report for the management group. After a meeting where management and consultants are supposed to come to a common view, all participants reflect on their own group's relational processes and constructions of self, other, and relationship.
For the purpose of illustration we can look at reality constructions in the case and one theme in some detail i.e., constructions of knowledge and truth. The AW&B engineers constructed knowledge in relation to discourses of higher education and professional training, specialist engineering expertise and experience in performing engineering tasks. These constructions were reflected in actions such as following set procedures, precision measurement and exact calculations. Technical standards were regarded as being there for determining the precise truth of the matter. Procedures, calculations, and data were viewed as either right or wrong; there was nothing in between. In contrast, managers in the case spoke with pride of building their knowledge through practical experience/long length of service. They spoke of the ‘big picture’ in terms of local community issues, order books, long term survival ...(and not just engineering details) and valorized their own ability to understand strategic issues. Engineering data were looked on as needing to be interpreted to bring out the general picture. In this way the truth was made evident - especially for those who otherwise wouldn’t understand. The discourses of managers and engineers can be modeled as before.
FIGURE 5 ABOUT HERE
In contrast to the earlier boat example, the two voices in the AW&B case construct very different social realities. Each fishbone below denotes interlocking polar opposites in which the upper line features the engineers’ texts, and the lower line, that of the managers. In each case, what one voice constructs as good the other constructs as bad.
precise calculationsAself fudgingAother
\-------------------------------------/
/ \
nit-pickingBother general pictureBself
valorise technicalAself prioritize strategic criteriaAother
\-------------------------------------/
/ \
can’t understand strategic issuesBother strategic issuesBself
technical competenceAself bureaucraticAother
\-------------------------------------/
/ \
young upstarts Bother chain of commandBself
truth/factsAself liesAother
\-------------------------------------/
/ \
conflicting mass of dataBother appropriate interpretationsBself
success ==
solving technical problemsAself expedientAother
\-------------------------------------/
/ \
out of touchBother success == orderbooksBself
Given the above, the mutual construction of self and other might look as follows.
FIGURE 6 ABOUT HERE
The above provide potentially useful models of stasis maintenance as a co-ordination process. The discourses of management and engineers interlock, restricting subsequent co-ordinations to the small set that fit. Managerial changes such as firing the guilty and tightening up procedures would be likely to be constructed by engineers as yet more bureaucracy, expedience, fudging etcetera - reconstructing subject-object relations and, in this context, a game without end. This, in turn, raises the question of how realities and relationships can be changed - the issue to which we turn next.
Joining and Acting From Within: A General Change Strategy
In the martial art of Aikido a deliberately non-contentious stance is taken to an attack. Rather than attempting to stop an incoming blow, the skilled practitioner allows the energy of the blow to continue and supplements it in a way that does not warrant it as an attack. Aikido offers an elegant metaphor for a relational approach to change, and in particular highlights the shift from relations of 'power over' between entities in subject-object relation, to 'power to' construct multiple local realities and relations.
Some cybernetic systems approaches to psychotherapy attempt to work in similar ways (e.g. Fisch et al, 1982; Gordon and Meyers-Anderson, 1981). They too, emphasise the importance of accepting and using client’s discourses and then making new resources available is; we term these aspects 'joining' and 'acting from within'. Joining co-ordinates or 'interlocks' with other’s proffered reality. In the case of relationships between consultants and client, one aspect of joining is to complement the client’s discourses of self in relation to other(s), including consultants. For example, a client may position the consultant as expert - as knowing – and self as not knowing (object). At first consultants might act in acceptance of this relationship. But then they may act from within - offering new text-context (act-supplement) relations as possible resources for self and world enlarging. This could mean the emergence of relations of "power to" - relations in which participants share "relational responsibility" (McNamee and Gergen, 1999) for ongoing constructions rather than remaining in subject-object relations (e.g. Farrelly & Brandsma, 1974).
It is worth making explicit that our processual-constructionist premises, unlike entitative conceptions, do not separate knowing and influencing. This is in marked contrast to intervention/change methodologies that speak of data gathering, analysis, intervention design, and implementation as shifts from analysis to intervention. In the view taken here, all acts - asking questions, voice tone, words used, posture… and the artifacts that result (interview findings, percentage summaries, diagnostic classifications…) - influence how a process may go on. These acts may or may not help to enlarge possible worlds and possible ways of being in relationship.
Our processual-constructionist arguments allow us to reflect on existing change methods and to generate possible ways in which co-ordinations can create new resources, so constructing power to go on in changed ways. Perhaps the most obvious candidate for de-constructive reflection is the set of approaches that attempt change through explicit discussion; this is where we shall start.
Explicit Discussion About Relationships.
One common change method turns some of what previously was taken for
granted into the explicit subject of a spoken dialogue, questioning that which
previously was unquestioned. Change approaches of this sort include t-groups and
assumption ‘surfacing’ techniques such as those of Argyris (1985), Senge
(1990) or Isaacs (1993). So, for example, in the AW&B simulation the
consultants might work with managers and engineers to make explicit some of
their previously tacit self-other-relationship constructions.
From a relational perspective, explicit discussions of self-other relations can have many pitfalls (Bass & Hosking, 1998, Hosking & Bass, 1998). In every AW&B simulation in which we have been involved explicit discussion reconstructs subject-object relations - making more-of-the-same. Argyris' discussion of deutero learning, the problems trainees experience, and their resistance to change may be similarly interpreted (Argyris, 1985; Bouwen & Hosking, 2000). It seems that dialogues about self-other and relationship very easily develop into a game-without-end. One reason for this may be that attempts to clarify and explain necessarily introduce further material to work on - and so more equivocality (Garfinkle, 1967) such that relating becomes tied up with discussing 'what kind of relationship this is'. However, and perhaps more importantly, a game without end is necessarily constructed when a discussion process tacitly constructs a subject-object relationship in paradoxical relation to discussion content (Bateson, 1972). For example, a manager's attempt to enable others may be co-ordinated with as constructing 'more of the same' in terms of relationship. When e.g., a consultant, leader, or OD expert, is coordinated with as if s/he were presuming greater knowledge and influence then again, subject-object ways of relating are ongoing.
Presupposition.
Presuppositions participate in the maintenance of stasis through their hidden
quality; they also may be a resource for change. The use of presuppositions
allows tacit reference to be made to new resources - and staying tacit
means that questioning and subject-object patterns become less likely (e.g.,
Grinder & Bandler, 1975; Watzlawick, 1978). Following from our processual
premises, presuppositions need not be verbal and will implicate self-other
relations. Further, if we are right about the limited role of explicit
discussion, presupposition - as a way of tacitly changing aspects of context -
seems especially promising. Applying these reflections to the AW&B case,
another possible change method could be to work tacitly with the
co-ordinations in which subject-object relations were constructed. This could
include, for example, changing the artifacts and practices that contribute to
the construction of such relations e.g., the presence of executive parking
spaces and dining room, senior management perks, job titles... Of course, such
changes can still be constructed as more-of-the-same, especially when
coordinated with in relation to cynicism about management fads. If management’s
actions were constructed as manipulative this would again reproduce subject -
object relations.
Stories and Re-Storying.
We have seen that explicit problem-solving discussion may construct a
competition for whose version of reality is right and who knows best. However,
it could be possible to construct self-other relations without constructing
subject-object relationships; one way is in audience-storyteller relations. For
example, a consultant might work with a narrative metaphor, joining with clients
to develop new narrative resources. Methods for re-storying or re-authoring
self-other and relations are becoming increasingly popular e.g., in family
therapy and change work (e.g., White & Epston, 1990; Friedman, 1995). Change
approaches such as Future Search (Weisbord and Janov, 1995) and Appreciative
Inquiry (Cooperrider & Shrivastva, 1987) along with metaphorical (e.g.,
Barrett & Cooperrider, 1990) and performative approaches (Boal, 1992) can be
re-storied (from a relational-constructionist perspective) as means by which the
locals generate their own (multiple) new discourses of self, other, and
relations without getting trapped in subject-object relationships.
Metaphors.
The ubiquitous involvement of metaphor in the construction of reality has
been addressed by many writers (e.g. Barrett & Cooperrider, 1990; Bateson,
1972; Lackoff & Johnson, 1980; Palmer & Dunford, 1996). One method
works with "operating metaphors" (e.g. Barrett &
Cooperrider, 1990; Lackoff & Johnson, 1980). These are seen to provide
enormous resources for change because they are, so to speak, bundles of
inter-related text-context/act-supplement relations (discourses) and therefore
are often referenced in ongoing processes. For example, given the operating
metaphor of "business is war" there is likely to be a corporate
uniform, practices constructing a hierarchical chains of command, fixed
procedures, valuing of obedience and loyalty, and so on. AW&B - a military
equipment supplier - seemed to construct a culture of this sort. We have noted
that change methods commonly attempt to change metaphors through talk, analysis,
and critique. Our present discussion suggests a shift in emphasis to ways of
relating that are non-conceptual, tacit, both-and, and heterarchical rather than
subject-object (see e.g., Hosking, 2000).
Including Other Voices.
Our processual-constructionist perspective opens up a landscape of possibilities
to add to mainstream discourses of pre-existing entities, pre-existing
identities, individual acts and mono-logical relations. Our perspective suggests
that it is never ‘just’ a therapist or a consultant, co-ordinating with a
client, but rather a "speaking of many with reference to many
contexts" (Dachler & Hosking, 1995, p.7). Multiple ongoing
constructions of self, other and relations may be given space in a great many
ways. For example, multiloging may be enabled by including the 'voices' of
other(s) with whom a client is in relation, even in the physical absence of
those 'others'. One way to do so is through approaches in which participants
perform or act out various voices in some relational dynamic (see e.g., Holztman
& Morss, 2000). In his 'individual' change work, Farrelly offers
possibilities for clients to relate to particular voices by acting them out in
the here-and-now of the therapeutic session (see Farrelly & Brandsma, 1974).
This way of going on is easily combined with other methods of culture change
(e.g., Bate, 1990). Furthermore, large-scale organizational initiatives such as
search conferences, Future Search, participative action, and responsive
evaluation increasingly attempt to include 'all' possible voices.
Shifting What’s Narrated.
The methods previously outlined initially join with some act/text then go on to
introduce new possibilities. However a contrasting method could be to resist
warranting some reality claim. This can be transformational when, for example,
it challenges taken for granteds about the client-consultant relationship
and/or challenges the reality of some problem locally being given
ontology. Refusing to warrant someone's problem statement can open up the space
for them to ‘go on’ differently. A number of systemic change management
methodologies seek to avoid a problem orientation - and related discourses of an
independently existing reality, analysis of the same, blame, looking back… -
and instead shift to requesting appreciation of what is done well, constructing
possible futures and the like. These include "appreciative inquiry" (Cooperrider
& Shrivastva, 1987), constructionist-systemic work (Campbell, Coldicott,
& Kinsella, 1994), and Future Search (Weisbord 1992; Weisbord & Janov,
1995). We will discuss the last mentioned as an illustration of change processes
that can construct 'power to'.
Future Search
Future search (FS) conferences involve getting multiple voices together,
including e.g., customers, suppliers, community groups… in order to enlarge
possible ways of going on in relation. FS agents spend a great deal of time in
advance of such a conference negotiating a set of procedural rules to be
observed during the conference. The rules are designed to focus attention on
future possibilities - instead of past problems, and to give space to many
potential futures i.e., multiple realities - rather than one consensus strategy
or policy.
When considered on the basis of processual-constructionist premises, FS practices have a number of beneficial features. In the negative, these include avoidance of expert - non-expert relations, avoidance of explicit discussion of self-other relations, avoidance of problem solving… all practices that we have suggested are likely to (re)construct subject-object relations. Put positively, a benefit of FS is that it can be self and world enlarging (Harding, 1998) by enabling new ways of going on in relation. This can be the case when e.g., everyone has a voice, when voices construct heterarchical relations (equal rather than right/wrong, better-worse), when multiple realities are warranted, and when listening is no longer a means to compete over who will define ‘the game’. Following from our earlier discussion, agreement of what are presented as procedural rules might provide an effective presupposition that tacitly introduces new ways of going on in relation. Further, our relational-constructionist premises suggest that the value of such conferences may not be so much the content of the particular reality constructions that emerge - since that content will be local and historically contingent. Rather the major benefit may be in new ways of relating - ways that are multilogical, constructing "power to" in different but equal relations.
We began by suggesting that a processual-constructionist style of thinking remains relatively undeveloped in the literatures of OB, OT, and OD. By outlining processual-constructionist premises and working through some of their implications we were able to show that this style of thinking offers new possibilities. Important amongst these was the identification of subject-object relationships and the newly emergent possibility that self and other could usefully be considered as inter-dependent existences capable of constructing multiple, different but equal, realities. This allowed us to reflect on some of the many ways that approaches to change, and commonly used change methods, construct subject-object relationships. Similarly, it became possible to consider relations that are inclusive and "eco-logical" (yin-yang) rather than exclusive and ego-logical (Hosking, 2000), constructing "power to" rather than "power over". There seems much to be gained from approaches: that emphasize processes rather than content; that facilitate inclusive multiloging; that respect multiple local realities, and that develop local resources for continuing local development.
Time to Stop Talking About It.
There were two good friends, Chokei and Hofuku. They were talking about the
Bodhisattva’s way, and Chokei said, ‘Even if the arhat (an enlightened one)
were to have evil desires, still the Tathagata (Buddha) does not have two kinds
of words. I say that the Tathagata has words, but no dualistic words’. Hofuku
said, ‘Even though you say so, your comment is not perfect’. Chokei asked
‘What is your understanding of the Tathagat’s words?’ Hofuku said, ‘We
have had enough discussion, so let’s have a cup of tea!’ (Suzuki, 1970,
p.54-55)…
Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, Language, and Possibilities: A Postmodern Approach to Therapy. New York: Harper Collins.
Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy, Change, and Defensive Routines. Boston: Pitman
Barrett, F J and Cooperrider, D L. (1990). Generative Metaphor Intervention: A New Approach for Working with Systems Divided by Conflict and Caught in Defensive Perception. The Journal of Behavioral Science, Vol 26 No 2, pp 219-239.
Barrett, F J, Thomas, G F and Hocevar, S P. (1995). The Central Role of Discourse in Large-Scale Change: A Social Construction Perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol 31 No 3, September 1995, pp 352-372.
Bass, A. & Hosking,D.M. (1998). A Changed Approach To Change. Aston Business School Research Paper Series. RP9808
Bate, P. (1990). Using The Culture Concept in an Organization Development Setting. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol 26 No 1, pp 83-106.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps To An Ecology Of Mind,.NY: Chandler.
Bennis, W., and Nanus, B., (1985). Leaders: The Strategies For Taking Charge. New York: Harper & Row.
Boal, A. (1992). Games For Actors And Non-Actors. Trans: Adrian Jackson. London: Routledge
Brown, M.H. & Hosking, D.M. (1986). Distributed Leadership and Skilled Performance as Successful Organization in Social Movements. Human Relations, 39 (1), pp65-79.
Bouwen, R. & Hosking, D.M. (2000). Reflections On Relational Readings Of Organizational Learning. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9 (2), pp.267-274.
Burr, V. (1994). An Introduction To Social Constructionism. London:Routledge.
Campbell, D. Coldicott, T. & Kinsella, K. (1994). Systemic Work With Organizations. A New Model For Managers And Change Agents. London: Karnac Books.
Carnall, C. (1990). Managing Change In Organisations. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International.
Chia, R., (1995) From Modern to Postmodern Organisational Analysis. Organization Studies, 16, 4,pp. 580-604.
Child, J. (1972) Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role Of Strategic Choice. Sociology, 6, (1), pp. 1-22.
Child, J. (1977, 1984). Organization: A Guide To Problems and Practice. London: Harper and Row.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Cohen, I., (1989). Structuration Theory. Anthony Giddens and the Constitution of Social Life. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Cooper, R., and Law, J., (1995). Organization: Distal and proximal views. in S. Bacharach., P Gagliardi., and B. Mundell (eds) Studies Of Organizations. The European Tradition. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Cooperrider, D. & Shrivastva, S. (1987) Appreciative Inquiry into Organization Life. Research into Organizational Change and Development, 1: 129-169
Dachler, H.P., and Hosking, D.M., (1995). The Primacy Of Relations In Socially Constructing Organizational Reality, In: Hosking, D.M., Dachler, H.P., and Gergen, K.J., 1995, Management and Organization: Relational Alternatives to Individualism, Aldershot: Avebury.
Donaldson, L. (1985). In Defence of Organization Theory, Cambridge: CUP.
Dyer , W.G., (1984). Strategies for Managing Change. Addison Wesley.
Edwards,D. and Potter,J., (1992).Discursive Psychology, London: Sage.
Eisler, R., (1990). The Chalice and the Blade, London: Unwin.
Evan,W. (1993). Organization Theory: Research and Design. Macmillan.
Farrelly,F., and Brandsma,J.(1974). Provocative Therapy, Capitola, CA: Meta Publications.
Fine, M., (1994). Working The Hyphens: Reinventing Self and Other in Qualitative Research, In: Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln,Y.S., Handbook of Qualitative Research, London: Sage.
Fineman, S., (1991) Change In Organisations. In Smith,M (ed). Analysing Organizational Behaviour. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Fisch, R. Weakland, J. & Segal, L. (1982). The Tactics of Change. SF: Jossey Bass.
Flax, J. (1987). Postmodernism and Gender Relations In Feminist Theory, Signs, 12, 4, pp. 621-643.
Friedman, S. ed. (1995). The Reflecting Team In Action. Collaborative Practice in Family Therapy. London: The Guildford Press
Gardener, H. (1985). The Mind’s New Science, NY: Basic Books.
Garfinkle, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Gergen, K and Thatchenkery, T J., (1996). Organization Science as Social Construction: Postmodern Potentials. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol 32 No 4,356-377.
Gergen, K.J. (1985). The Social Constructionist Movement In Modern Psychology, American Psychologist, 40, 266-275.
Gergen, K.J. (1994). Realities and Relationships, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gergen, K.J. (1995) Relational Theory And The Discourses Of Power, In: Hosking, D.M., Dachler, H.P., and Gergen, K.J., 1995, Management And Organization: Relational Alternatives To Individualism, Aldershot:Avebury.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems In Social Theory. Action, Structure And Contradiction In Social Analysis. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Gordon, D. (1979). Therepeutic Metaphors, CA: Meta Publications.
Gordon, D., & Meyers - Anderson,M., (1981), Phoenix: Therapeutic Patterns Of Milton H. Erickson, CA: Meta Publications.
Grinder,J., & Bandler,R., (1975). Patterns Of Hypnotic Techniques Of Milton H. Erickson M.D. Volume 1, Meta Publications.
Guest, D., (1984). Social Psychology And Organisational Change. In Gruneberg,M. & Wall,T., (eds). Social Psychology And Organizational Behaviour. Chichester: Wiley.
Harding, S., (1991). Whose Science? Whose knowledge? Buckingham: Open University Press
Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question In Feminism. Milton Keynes: OUP
Harding, S. (1998). Is Science Multicultural? Bloomington: Indiana University Press
Harre, R. (1979). Social Being: A Theory For Social Psychology. Oxford: basil Blackwell
Hollis, M. (1994). The Philosophy Of Social Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holtzman, L. & Morss, J. eds (2000). Postmodern Psychologies, Societal Practice, and Political Life.
Hollway,W. (1991). Work Psychology And Organizational Behaviour: ManagingTthe Individual At Work. Chichester: Sage
Hosking, D. M. (1999). Social Constructions as Process: Some New Possibilities for Research and Development. Concepts and Transformation, 4, 2, 117-132.
Hosking, D. M. (2000). Ecology in Mind: Mindful Practices. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 9 (2), pp. 147-158.
Hosking, D.M. (1995), Constructing Power: Entitative and Relational Approaches, In: Hosking, D.M., Dachler, H.P., and Gergen, K.J., 1995, Management and Organization: Relational Alternatives To Individualism, Aldershot: Avebury.
Hosking, D.M., and Bass, A. (1998) Constructing Changes Through Relational Dynamics. Aston Business School Research Paper Series, RP9813
Hosking, D.M., and Morley, I.E. (1991). A Social Psychology Of Organising, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Hosking, D.M., Dachler, H.P., and Gergen, K.J. (1995). Management And Organization: Relational Alternatives To Individualism, Aldershot:Avebury.
Isaacs, W.M., (1993) Taking Flight: Dialogue, Collective Thinking, And Organizational Learning. Organizational Dynamics, Fall, pp.24-39
Lakoff,G., & Johnson, M., (1980). Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago Press.
Lord, R., DeVader, C. and Alliger, G., (1986). A Meta-Analysis Of The Relation Between Personality Traits And Leadership Perceptions: An Application Of Validity Generalization Procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, pp.402-410
McNamee, S., (1989) Challenging The Patriarchal Vision Of Social Science: Lessons From A Family Therapy Model. In K.Carter and C. Spitzack (eds). Doing Research On Women’s Communication: Perspectives On Theory And Method. New Jersey: Ablex.
McNamee, S. & Gergen, K.J. eds (1998). Relational Responsibility: Resources for Sustainable Dialogue. Sage
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miner,J.B., (1980). Theories Of Organisational Behaviour. Illinois:The Dryden Press
O’Connor, E.S. (1995). Paradoxes of Participation: Textual Analysis and Organizational Change. Organization Studies, 16 (5), pp.769-803.
Palmer, I and Dunford, R., (1996). Conflicting Uses of Metaphors: Reconceptualizing their use in the Field of Organizational Change. Academy of Management Reveiw, Vol 21 No 3, 691-717.
Pearce, W.B. (1992). A ‘Camper’s Guide To Constructionisms’. Human Systems; The Journal of Systemic Consultation and Management, 3, pp. 139-161.
Reason, P. ed (1994). Participation in Human Inquiry. London: Sage
Reeves Sanday, P. (1988). The Reproduction Of Patriarchy In Feminist Anthropology. In M. McCanney Gergen (ed) Feminist Thought And The Structure Of Knowledge. New York: New York University Press
Rifkin, G., (1996) Green Buttermilk And Some Real Leadership: Can It Be Learned? Forbes, April, pp.100-108.
Sampson, E. E. (1993). Celebrating The Other, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Satir, V. (1972). Peoplemaking. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.
Senge, P.M. (1992). The Fifth Discipline, London: Doubleday.
Sims, D., Fineman, S., and Gabriel,Y., (1993). Organizing And Organizations, London: Sage.
Slife,B.D. and Williams, R.N. (1995). What's Behind The Research? Discovering Hidden Assumptions In The Behavioural Sciences. London: Sage
Suzuki, S. (1970). Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind: Informal Talks On Zen Meditation And Practice. New York: Weatherhill.
Thompson,P. and McHugh,D. (1995). Work Organisations: A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Macmillan
Tsoukas,H., (1994), New Theories In Organizational Behavior, London: Butterworth.
Uyeshiba, K. (1970). Aikido. Tokyo: Kodansha.
Watzlawick, P., (1990). Munchhausen’s Pigtail, NY: W.W. Norton.
Watzlawick, P., Bavelas,J., Jackson,D., (1967). Pragmatics Of Human Communication, NY: W.W. Norton.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., and Fisch, R., (1974). Change: Principles Of Problem Formation And Problem Resolution, NY: W.W. Norton.
Watzlawick,P., (1978). The Language Of Change, NY: W.W. Norton.
Weick, K. (1979). The Social Psychology Of Organising, 2nd Edition, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Weigert, A.J. (1983). Social Psychology: A Sociological Approach Through Interpretive Understanding. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press
Weisbord, M. and associates (1992). Discovering Common Ground. Berrett-Koehler.
Weisbord, M. and Janov, S. (1995). Future Search: An Action Guide To Finding Common Ground In Organizations And Communities. Berrett-Koehler
White, M. & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative Means To Therapeutic Ends. NY: W.W. Norton.
Wilson, D., (1992). A Strategy Of Change: Concepts And Controversies In The Management Of Change. London: Routeledge.
Woolgar, A.B. (1996). Psychology, qualitative methods, and the ideas of science. In Richardson, J.T.E. ed. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods For Psychology And The Social Sciences. Leicester: BPS Books
Figure 1. Two sailors attempting to balance a boat, after Watzlawick et al, 1974
Figure 2. Escalation pattern in the boat balancing example
Figure 3. Two voices in the boat balancing example
VOICE A
____________________________________________________________
Reality: B keeps leaning too hard and I have to lean back
____________________________________________________________
Self: I have control, am responsible, effective, aware
____________________________________________________________
Other: Has no control, is not responsible, ineffective, unaware
____________________________________________________________
Relationship: Self as subject dealing with Other as capricious object
____________________________________________________________
VOICE B
____________________________________________________________
Theme: A keeps leaning too hard and I have to lean back
____________________________________________________________
Self: I have control, am responsible, effective, aware
____________________________________________________________
Other: Has no control, is not responsible, ineffective, unaware
____________________________________________________________
Relationship: Self as subject dealing with Other as capricious object
____________________________________________________________
Fig 4. Mutual construction of self and other in boat balancing example
Figure 5. Two voices in the AW&B case
VOICE A
____________________________________________________________
Theme: Engineer’s narrative of brake scandal
____________________________________________________________
Self: Precise technical calculations, valorize technical criteria, technical competence, truth/facts, success = solving technical problems
____________________________________________________________
Other: Fudging, prioritize strategic criteria, bureaucratic, lies, expedient
____________________________________________________________
Relationship: Voice B dominates Voice A
____________________________________________________________
VOICE B
____________________________________________________________
Theme: Manager’s narrative of the brake scandal
____________________________________________________________
Self: General picture, strategic issues, chain of command, appropriate
interpretations, success = order books
____________________________________________________________
Other: Nit-picking, can’t understand strategic issues, young upstarts,
conflicting data, out of touch
____________________________________________________________
Relationship: Voice B dominates Voice A
____________________________________________________________
Figure 6. Mutual construction of self and other in AW&B case
