Studying the Process of Changing the Employees’ Meaning Construction Due to the Manager's Discursive Activity

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• Saeid Sehat ¹
• Mahdi Yazdanshenas ¹
• Hamed Dehghanan ¹
• Amir Safari Moghadam ²

¹ Associate Professor, Department of Management and Accounting, Faculty of Business Management, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

² Ph.D. Student in Business Management, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/tmj.2024.80336.1390

Abstract

 
1- INTRODUCTION
Implementing the strategy is one of the most significant and challenging topics for organizations and leaders. Successful organizational change can transform the organization's business, and interest in studying in this field, especially taking care of the meaning model, is increasing. Many failures are caused by paying attention to secondary results and not paying enough attention to the main cause. Employees are one of the most important factors to be considered in the strategy implementation process. The construction of meaning plays a critical role in employees' response (resistance, acceptance, or cooperation) to the new strategy. This reaction is of behavioral and cognitive type and is rooted in the employees' understanding. Lewin's 3-stage approach is accepted by Many organizational change experts. Many models of changing the meaning construction suggest that the process of changing the meaning in the minds of employees may also consist of these three stages of Lewin; First, managers destroy the old meaning construction of the organizational reality in the minds of employees, then they create a new meaning construction, and finally, they consolidate the new meaning construction (refreezzing). This article takes a look at the process of changing the meaning-making in the minds of employees by comparing it with Levin's model. The major difference between this article and some others in this field is its focus on two points. First, in this article, only certain types of specific meanings of discoursive activity are emphasized, and at the same time, it refers more to how the manager influences the meaning change process.
 
2- THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In the past, articles have mostly looked at the meaning-making of employees by managers with a negative approach. Therefore, in this view, any sense-making of employees, such as the meaning they give to change, was considered a resistant force. Leaders were only seeking to break down the previous meaning structure of the employees. More recent studies have shown that the perception of employees, which is rooted in the past and the meaning construction of employees, is not only an obstacle to change but can also act as an effecting factor in implementing a new strategy. The change in the meaning structure of employees can be a factor in the success of the change.
 
3- METHODOLOGY
Narrative and thematic analysis methods were used to analyze data to investigate the change in the meaning construction. Thematic analysis was nested in the narrative analysis method as a tool for better data analysis. The narrative analysis makes it possible to investigate the meanings of the manager in their discursive activities, and the thematic analysis identifies the themes of the narrations. The main focus in this case was on changing the meaning construction, and the impact of discoursive activities on this issue was considered more. Narrative analysis takes a deeper look at how the content of discourse activity is used and refers specifically to how experiences and issues are interpreted. Thematic analysis is a method for data analysis to understand the factors affecting the identification of criteria for understanding interpretations of employees.
 
4- RESULTS & DISCUSSION
In the narrative analysis, the narrations that contained many different meaning units were identified. The leader tries to change the employees' meaning construction using these narratives. These narrations are usually mentioned in several meetings and periods. In the following, all narrations were analyzed by thematic analysis. To categorize themes and better understand the relationship between discursive activity and meaning construction, pay more attention to more resonant themes. This process was stopped when extracting new themes was no longer possible. In the end, with a theory-oriented point of view, coding was done based on specific theories and hypotheses. There are three main axes explicit from Lewin's change model. The themes of identification are placed around these axes. In the first step, discursive activities seemed to be focused most on expressing the defects in the existing situation. This concept is repeated in different ways, even in disappeared businesses. Finally, the focus was on the desired goal and refreezing new conditions.
 
 
5- CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS
In this study, by reviewing and summarizing the findings, we came across several fundamental approaches: the first and most important approach, which was the main research question, referred to the analysis of the change process in the employees' meaning construction and its compliance with Levine's model. In Levin's model, first, the defrosting process occurs by attacking the existing conditions, then the change phase, and finally, stabilization and refreezing occur. In the defrosting stage, measures like identifying the need for change, specifying what needs to be changed, encouraging the employees to change old behaviors, ensuring the full support of senior managers for the change, and paying attention to understanding concerns and doubts. Narratives that refer to the current situation's lack of appropriate response to new environmental changes and consider the existing jobs as inferior or the existing structure as inefficient are included in this section. It seems that after studying the time course of narrations and the number of their repetitions in these intervals, it is possible to present such a picture of it. In other words, narratives and themes that try to attack the existing meanings and systems of employees are placed in this stage. The second approach is that the discursive activities happening in the direction of change in the meaning construction are not separate phases and sometimes act together. Maybe this is due to the difference in the capacity of people to change. For example, a group needs more repetition and meditation to change its meaning construction.

Keywords

• Meaning
• Organizational Leadership
• Lewin’s Theory of Change
• Content Analysis
• Narrative analysis

References

Abdolahzadeh Rafi, H., Rahim nia, F., & Khorakian, A. (2021). Detecting the Experts' Mental Patterns towards Readiness for Change in Mashhad Municipality. Transformation Management Journal, 12(2), 49-76. doi: 10.22067/tmj.2021.31064.0

Armenakis, A. A.; Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46: 681–704.

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 523–549.

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005. From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26: 1573–1601.

Barry, D., & Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. Academy of Management Review, 22: 429–452.

Bartunek, J. M. (1984. Changing interpretive schemas and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 355–372.

Beer, M.; Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to corporate renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Berelson, B. 1952. Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Boje, D. M. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational and communication research. London: Sage.

Brown, A. D., & Humphreys, M. (2003). Epic and tragic tales: Making sense of change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39: 121–144.

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 1–34.

Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Buchanan, D., & Dawson, P. (2007). Discourse and audience: Organizational change as multi story process. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 669–686.

Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 173–208.

Currie, G., & Brown, A. D. (2003). A narratological approach to understanding processes of organizing in a UK hospital. Human Relations, 56: 563–586.

Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging “resistance to change.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35: 25–41.
Donnellon, A.; Gray, B., & Bougon, M. G. (1986). Communication, meaning, and organized action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 43–55.

Eisenberg, E. M. (1984. Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51: 227–243.

Eisenberg, E. M.; Murphy, A. G., & Andrews, L. (1998). Openness and decision making in the search for a university provost. Communication Monographs, 65: 1–23.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 25–32.

Fiol, M. C. (2002). Capitalizing on paradox: The role of language in transforming organizational identities. Organization Science, 13: 653–666.

Ford, J. D.; Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33: 362–377.

Gabriel, Y. (1995). The unmanaged organization: Stories, fantasies and subjectivity. Organization Studies, 16: 477–501.

Gabriel, Y. (2004). Narratives, stories and texts. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse: 62–77. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gephart, R. B. J. (1993). The textual approach: Risk and blame in disaster sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1465–1514.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul: West.

Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 7–41.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Labianca, G.; Gray, B., & Brass, D. J. (2000). A grounded model of organizational schema change during empowerment. Organization Science, 11: 235–257.

Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24: 691–710.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.

Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 57–84.

Maitlis, S., & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick 1988. Journal of Management Studies, 47: 551–580.

Miller, V. D.; Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change, 22: 59–80.

Murphy, A. G. (1998). Hidden transcripts of flight attendant resistance. Management Communication Quarterly, 11: 499–535.

Pentland, B. T. (1999). Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24: 711–724.

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25: 783–794.

Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sehhat, S., Safari moghadam, A., Ashary, M., & Pani, B. (2021). Identifying Some Metaphorical Functions in Organizational Leadership. Organizational Behaviour Studies Quarterly, 10(1), 1-28.

Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 169–188.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20: 510–540.