Title: Social construction during online conversations about organizational
change, Literature Review
Name of author(s): Sandra Cristina dos Santos Costa
Organization affiliation/position(s): Universidade Europeia
Address: Estrada da Correia, nº53. 1500-210 Lisboa.
Email address: sandracosta@europeia.pt
Stream – Organizational Learning
Submission type – Refereed paper
1
Introduction
Organizational Change (OC), is extremely important to Human Resources Management
(HRM). Human Resources (HR) behavior can be affected by OC. OC’s implementation
failure, may compromise the company’s future. Despite the wide scope of the literature
on OC and related subjects, most studies, are about Consequent Changes (CC). These
existing studies approach change almost exclusively in a planning perspective.
Inconsequent organizational changes (IOC), have been clearly forgotten in the literature.
IOC don’t have direct impact on the employee’s daily routines, its consequences result
from social constructional processes. In fact research indicates that social construction
about change occurs on conversations, revealing also that online conversations, amplify
the process of social construction relatively to face to face conversations. Good
understanding of processes of social construction may lead to more efficient
communication/creation of IOC, and less traumatic impacts on employees, reducing
resistance to change and consequent failure of OC.
In this context, this literature review is about social construction of OC through online
forum conversations. The aim of this literature review is to demonstrate the importance
of online conversations and social construction about OC. Therefore later it will lead to a
study where the main research question will be: How do online conversations transform
IOC in CC?. This paper structure is the following: First part theoretical base. Second part
discussion third part conclusions
Keywords: Organizational Change, online social construction, online conversation,
sensemaking
Theoretical base
This paper analyzes the following concepts: organizations, organizational change, social
construction, sense making, conversations and online conversations. These concepts are
briefly described now.
Organizations
2
Organizations can be considered as socially constructed realities in which the reality we
know is interpreted, constructed, enacted, and maintained through discourse (Berger and
Luckmann, 1966; Holzner, 1972; Searle, 1995; Watzlawick, 1984a; Weick, 1979), and it
can also be understood in terms of networks of relationships and interactions.
Organizations are also understood as interpretive systems and cognitive processes are
central to understanding attitudes, behaviors and organizational decisions. Organizations
are social constructs or tools, products of individual and collective actions. Weick’s
concept of organization is adopted (Weick, 1987).
Organizational change
OCs are incontestable, literature on OC and related subjects is very wide. Authors, like
Smith (1982); Weisbord (1988); Woodman (1989); Barnett & Carroll (1995); (Jeffrey D.
Ford, 1995); (Lima & Bressan, 2003); Van de Ven & Poole (2005), Neiva & Paz (2007;
2012), Ruona & Choi (2011), (Hutchison 2001), defined and classified the concept, types,
contents and processes of OC. Several dimensions of OC were identified in the
presentation of relevant types of changes, such as continuity or discontinuity of time, the
object, the intensity, the speed, the intentionality of change, the response time to external
environment, the role of those involved in the process, and also the period in which the
change occurs. Burke and Litwin (1992), proposed a distinction between
Transformational Change and Transactional Change, a few years later, Weick and Quinn
(1999) presented the same king of changes under different names (continuous and
episodic), and again few years later Burke (2011), reaffirms the distinction between
Transformational and Transactional Changes. Weick and Quinn (1999) find out that there
are two major types of changes that are analyzed in the literature: the continuous changes
involving small advances over time and are cumulative and episodic changes as a result
of organizational imbalance. According to Van de Ven and Poole (2005), this
differentiation reflects trends in the study of organizations and visions, as well as different
methodological approaches to the study of organizational change.
However, most of the studies are about CC, changes that have direct impact on everyday
work of employees, approaching the theme most of the times in a planning perspective
and besides the conceptual issue and the evolution of the field. Most of the considered
3
concerns were the need to specify what type of change is under discussion, and which are
its object and contents.
Inconsequent Changes (IC), are changes like logo color changes, carpet color change,
wall painting change, changes have no impact at all on employees, daily work however
can influence employee’s attitude on work and have not been quite studied.
Even when organizational change, doesn’t affect directly the employees every day’s
work, it may cause them uncertainty and fear about what’s going to happen after, and in
conversations with others the social construction of meaning about change can be
influenced negatively affecting it’s motivation and consequent behavior. (Jimmieson,
Terry, & Callan, 2004)
The difficulty that organizations have to make changes and that literature faces to explain
them, is often related to the overemphasis on rationality of change management processes
that is considered simplistic and reduced the person to a mere shill (Beer and Nohria ,
2000; Bovey & Hede, 2001; George & Jones, 2001; Holbeche, 2006; Soumyaja et al,
2011; Townley, 2008).
Many authors, criticized the reductionist and simplistic rational view of organizational
change from the human social context and favored research focused on people, and their
social construction, addressing the importance of the role of the individual feelings,
attitudes, behaviors, emotions as agents, and the role of conversations on social
construction of meaning as facilitators and responsible for the success of change.
(Giddens, 1984, Ford & Backoff, 1988, Poole & DeSantis, 1990, Kotter, 1990, George
and Jones, 2001; Antoni, 2004; Judge et al, 1999;. Wanberg and Banas, 2000; Vakola and
Nikolaou, 2005 Huy, 1999; Chrusciel, 2006; Herkenhoff, 2004).
The use of factors that facilitate or hinder change is necessary to understand what can be
identified by the members of the organization and its relationship with the perception of
the occurrence of CC and IC. Authors like, (e.g) Greenwood & Hinings (1996), Oxtoby,
McGuiness and Morgan (2002), Slack & Hinings (2004), Litaker, Ruhe & Flocke (2008),
Weiner, Amick & Lee (2008), Judge & Douglas (2009), have emphasized the importance
of establishing organizational readiness for change and recommended various strategies
4
for creating it. That’s to prepare this readiness for change that human resource managers
should be aware of human sensemaking about oc during online conversations.
Social construction
Social constructivism emphasizes the active role of conversations in the construction of
reality. People’s ideas about the world are constructions, even if the universe isn’t a
"mental object". During conversations, people can’t ignore the categories of knowledge,
meanings, stories, experiences and sensations. Reality goes from static to a dynamic –
becoming a concept where people are networks, with patterns of interaction, modulating
its own reality as it happens. Social construction happens in a sequence of interactions
and conversations; people concerned with same “problems” in the social context of other
actors, engage about ongoing circumstances from which they extract cues and make
plausible sense retrospectively, while enacting with more or less order into those ongoing
circumstances (Weick et al., 2005). It can also be reinforced by networks that are not only
as groups of individual cognitions in the heads of individuals, organizations, but also as
structures which nurture negotiation, persuasion and reinforcement between individual
interactions (Kildulf and Tsai, 2003)
Social construction of meanings has been considered as one indicative factor of
organizational capacity of change creating a new wide area of research, Prochaska,
Norcross & DiClemente (1994), Cunningham et all (2002) understand the construct
change capacity as –readiness for organizational change - correlating it with readiness,
but looking exclusively to the person, looking for it’s psychologically and behaviorally
condition which can allow or not the process of change. This position is compared to
those presented by Slack and Hinings (2004), Litaker et al. (2008).
Sense-making
Karl Weick, suggests that the term means simply “the making of sense” (weick, 1995). It
is the process of “structuring the unknown” (Waterman, 1990) “enabling us to
comprehend, understand, explain attribute, extrapolate, and predict” (Starbuck &
Miliken, 1988). Is also the activity that enables us to turn the ongoing complexity of the
world into a “situation that is comprehended explicitly in words and that serves as a
springboard into action” (Weick, Surcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005).
5
Sensemaking involves, and requires the articulation of the unknown, because, sometimes
trying to explain the unknown is the only way to know how much you understand it.
(Ancona, 2012) The move to the complex occurs as new information is collected and new
actions are taken. Then as patterns are identified, and new information is labeled and
categorized, the complex becomes simple once again, now with a higher level of
understanding. Sense-making is most often needed when our understanding of the world
becomes unintelligible in some way. This occurs when the environment is changing
rapidly, presenting us with surprises for which we are unprepared or confronting us with
adaptive rather than technical problems to solve (Heifetz, 2009).
Conversations
The broad view of conversations as “a complex, information-rich mix of auditory, visual,
olfactory, and tactile events” (e.g.. Cappella & Street,1985: 2), as conversations include
not only what is said, but also what is done in correlation with what is said (i.e., a gestalt).
(Jeffrey D. Ford, 1995), claims that conversations may include symbols, artifacts,
theatrics, and so forth, that are used in conjunction with what is spoken. This view is not
inconsistent with the understanding of conversations as clusters of interrelated speech
acts.
(Jeffrey D. Ford, 1995) study was an introduction to the conversations of producing
intentional change so the focus was only with the spoken aspects of conversations.
According to Ford and Ford (1995) conversations are written verbal interaction between
two or more people that can range from a single speech acts, e.g. "do it", to an extensive
network of speech acts which constitute arguments (Reike and Sillars, 1984), narratives
(Fisher, 1987), and other forms of discourse (e.g. Boje, 1991; Thachankary, 1992).
Conversations may be monologues or dialogues and may occur in the few seconds it takes
to complete an utterance, or may unfold over an extended period of time lasting centuries,
e.g. religion.
A single conversation also may include different people over time, for example, when a
board member’s tenure expires during the process of changing corporate policy.
Jeffrey D. Ford, 1995, proposes that, although participants will engage in many
conversations, there are four different combinations of speech acts that correspond to four
6
different types of interactions in the intentional change process. The specific content,
sequence. tone, and so on, of these inter actions will vary, but the emphasis a change agent
puts on certain speech acts will define the stage of development of the change. The four
conversations are initiative, understanding, performance, and closure.
Online Conversations
However at online forum conversation this face to face communication can’t be viewed,
so it can’t influence OC sensemaking.
Online forum conversations can be the key to the analysis of the dynamics of
organizational change processes. Since the informal conversations not prescribed
relationships within organizations, characterized by ties of affection, belonging, security,
support, social support and bonding and refer to a set of spontaneous interactions in which
the person is understood as an active subject, the relate to others and to take formal and
non-prescribed social roles. (Wellman et al., 1996). J.V. da Cunha, W.J. Orlikowski
(2008) considered “online forums are not necessarily cooperative spaces for neutral
exchange of information and ideas”. It can promote social construction of meanings.
Online conversations affects the sensemaking (perception) of the change serving the
dissemination and sharing of meanings mechanism, assuming that organizations are
located in unstable environments and need to be adapting to survive.
According to Cunha, João V. (2007), there are 4 types of Face to Face conversations each
one leading to one purpose.
Discussion
In this section it’s discussed the Role of information during organizational change and
Online discussion forums and organizational change Implications for practice
Role of information during organizational change
One of the managerial challenges facing organizations is the effective implementation of
organizational change programs that minimize feelings of uncertainty and associated
threat. As discussed by Milliken, (1987) uncertainty in the work context is a crucial need
for the provision of information during periods of organizational change.
7
Sutton and Kahn (1986) argued that when profound organizational change is imminent,
employees go through a process of sense-making in which they need information to help
them establish a sense of prediction (e.g., the time frame for organizational change) and
understanding (e.g., the need for organizational change) of the situation. Feelings of
workplace uncertainty can be reduced by providing employees with timely and accurate
information concerning the organizational changes, either through formal or informal
communication channels (see also Ash ford, 1988). It is important to note, however, that
providing detailed information about the change event may be difficult or simply not
possible, especially during the early phases of the implementation process. As noted by
DiFonzo, Bordia, and Rosnow (1994), if a particular issue cannot be addressed, then it is
best to explain why it cannot be answered. In a case study analysis of a manufacturing
firm that had developed an effective change communication strategy, DiFonzo and Bordia
(1998) found that letting employees know when the provision of information was
incomplete and providing them with a timeline for when information would become
available helped to minimize the emergence of damaging rumors, as well as reducing
anxiety associated with uncertainty. However, as noted by Sutton and Kahn (1986), it is
still preferable for those responsible for the implementation process to keep such periods
of uncertainty to a minimum.
According to Sutton and Kahn (1986), prediction and understanding are likely to have a
direct relationship with employee adjustment to organizational change, as well as acting
as potential buffers in the stress—strain relationship. In this respect, prediction and
understanding may reduce the negative effects of change-related stressors on employee
adjustment. Indeed, the notions of prediction and understanding have received research
attention as potential buffers of the negative effects of work stress on employee
adjustment. There is some evidence in the broader occupational stress literature indicating
that the negative effects of role stress on employee adjustment are most apparent for
individuals with low levels of prediction and understanding concerning the work
environment (e.g., Jimmieson & Terry, 1993; Tetrick & LaRocco, 1987). In the context
of organizational change there is a growing body of research examining the main, and to
a lesser extent, the moderating effects of a variety of different information-related
constructs on employee adjustment.
8
Authors like, Miller and Monge (1985), Brockner, De Witt, Grover, and Reed (1990),
Schweiger and DeNisi (1991), Shaw et al. (1993), studied the impact of information
during change, in different contexts.
Also according to Kotter, 2000 one of the 7 steps needed for change not to fail is
“communicating the vision – Using every vehicle possible to communicate the new vision
and strategies teaching new behaviors by the example of the guiding coalition (Kotter,
2000).
Online discussion forums and organizational change
Online forums used as toll of organizational change, can be a very good help to improve
organizational change acceptance and understanding. It can also help to lead employees
about that change as a good factor. (Cunha, J. V. D., and Orlikowski, 2008)
(Cunha, J. V. D., and Orlikowski, 2008) research has shown that participants invest part
of their identity in views they share online, and if such views get challenged, personal
attacks and ‘‘flame wars” may result (Burnett & Buerkle, 2004; Lee, 2005). In spite (or
perhaps, because) of such social dynamics, online forums have been found to be effective
spaces to build various communities of interest, where groups of individuals share and
develop information online about a specific topic (Gongla & Rizzuto, 2001; Wasko &
Faraj, 2005).
Online forums are also frequently used for coordination. Organization-specific online
forums are commonly used to coordinate activities across organizational and
geographical boundaries because they facilitate the distribution and integration of work
among members who may never meet face to face (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). The
online forums allow members to mutually adjust their efforts, and to work towards
developing a shared language, a joint history, and over time, possibly common values and
beliefs (Lakhani & Von Hippel, 2003). Further, as online forums provide a repository of
communications exchanged, the historical and ongoing documentation of members’
interactions, agreements, and procedures serves as a useful collective memory.
These online forums, however, are not without difficulties, and a number of researchers
have
documented
complications
and
conflicts
associated
with
information,
interpretations, and interests that arise as groups try to coordinate their work across time
and space (Cramton, 2001; Hinds & Bailey, 2003; Mortensen & Hinds, 2001).
9
When debates and disputes persist for prolonged periods, the community may be
polarized into different and possibly incompatible accounts of its shared experience
(Smith, 1999), with members becoming increasingly disengaged and alienated over time
(Leizerov, 2000; Mortensen & Hinds, 2001). However, conflict may also serve as an
occasion to take stock of a community’s values and beliefs, generating a renewed
commitment to common goals (Kollock & Smith, 1996). For example, studies of taskoriented virtual communities (e.g., open source software development) find that informal
leaders, especially those whose expertise or performance have earned them a central
position in the community, can play a crucial role in turning disputes into productive
exchanges by offering a fresh interpretation of the challenges jointly faced by the
members (Koch & Schneider, 2002).
Online forums have also been used to seek and provide emotional support, as when
participants discuss personally challenging problems or disorders with others who share
common circumstances, for example, a chronic disease, an addiction, or mental illness
(Galegher, Sproull, & Kiesler, 1998). Such use of online forums often involves providing
detailed information about the experiences, treatments, and consequences of the shared
difficulty, and, more importantly, also offers relief through the direct support of others
(Turner, Grube, & Meyers, 2001). The possibility of anonymity (or pseudonymity), which
allows participants to openly discuss their experiences online while avoiding personal
disclosure or embarrassment (Bowker & Tuffin, 2002), it’s a powerful feature. The online
nature of the interaction in these forums allows individuals to choose how to present
themselves to others, affording the shaping of virtual identities that can reduce the threats
to face entailed by co-presence, especially when is hard to give opinion face to face.
Research has shown that participating in these communities may help participants
overcome the identity challenges associated with various physical, social, and
psychological hardships (see Cummings, Sproull, & Kiesler, 2002).
All three of these purposes for using online forums—information sharing, coordination,
and emotional support—may be valuable in both the design and implementation of
change and in the mobilizing of resistance to it. As many of these online forums extend
within and across organizations, it’s also expected that their use in change efforts will
entail a scale that would have been difficult to manage with traditional communication
media.
10
A number of studies suggest that online networks can facilitate social change by
increasing the pace and reach of that change, while also enabling additional innovations
and improvisations (Kling, 2000; Morrison, Roberts, & Von Hippel, 2000). People may
engage in online interactions to share their experiences and adaptations with others, and
in this way reduce the overall disruption occasioned by the change that is experienced by
the broader community. Online forums may also provide access to various forms of
assistance that can help users incorporate the changes in their everyday work practices
(Cecez-Kecmanovic, Moodie, Busuttil, & Plesman, 1999). This allows those involved in
implementing the changes to deal with objections and questions early, gaining the
opportunity to know about and address some of the obstacles to change as they arise
(Orlikowski, Yates, Okamura, & Fujimoto, 1995).
The availability and use of online forums may also enable change agents or managers to
communicate directly with the people most affected by the change, rather than relying on
the more formal and sometimes opaque social networks that exist within large
organizations and communities. Studies of online activism suggest that online
communication spaces may be used to craft shared interpretations of a virtual
community’s goals and conditions for action (Leizerov, 2000; Wilson & Peterson, 2002).
Once produced, this sense of shared fate can then be used to enlist members’ commitment
towards some specific changes.
However, other studies, have shown that online forums may also be used to mobilize and
organize resistance to change (Kahn & Kellner, 2004), for example, facilitating the online
synchronization of large-scale, offline demonstrations against globalization (Leizerov,
2000; Smith, 2001), a phenomenon that has been referred to as ‘‘smart mobs” (Rheingold,
2002). Research on the use of online forums to oppose change has suggested that
participants’identities may be enrolled in practices of resistance (Langman, 2005).
Identification with the online community enables the development of common beliefs,
language, interests, and memory (Burnett & Buerkle, 2004; Diani, 2000; Summers-Effler,
2002), lowering the requirement to frequently share explicit information and engage
specific coordination mechanisms to mobilize and organize the action of participants
(Bennett, 2003).
While there have been some studies of the use of online forums to shape social change,
there has been no systematic assessment of their role in framing people’s interpretations
11
and experiences of organizational change. As a result, there are no strong indications to
suggest certain outcomes are more likely than others. Given that the research results that
are available point in different directions, it’s expected that attempts to use online forums
to influence meanings, identities, and actions will be used in multiple, contingent, and
emergent ways within organizational change processes.
Implications for practice
Considering the rapid growth, wide use of online communities, it’s important to establish
the connection between conversations and sense-making about change, for better conduct
change communication. If a set of conversation types is created it will improve the
acceptance of OC, minimizing change negative impacts risk.
If the correct speech acts about IC and its consequences are known they can be correctly
used with great benefits for company.
Conclusions
According to (Jimmieson, Terry, & Callan, 2004) “organizational change can be viewed
as a critical life event, which has the potential to evoke stress reactions and other negative
consequences on employees”. As the reviewed literature, indicates conversations are a
strong form of making social construction. Even when it occurs online opinions and
emotions are expressed strongly leading to an amplified construction of meaning.
Considering also that the process of company readiness for change is connected to the
perception of the person about its own personal conditions to the real process of change.
Silva & Vergara, 2002, defend that organizational change can be more or less traumatic
to persons. From this perspective, organizational change can’t be analyzed only at the
level of strategies, requiring change initiator to think about, the role of individuals and
it’s online conversations in this process as well as the meaning that the changes have for
The motivation of the employee was also found to be significantly correlated to
continuing commitment to proposed change (Daif & Yusof, 2011), it’s extremely
important to accomplish the understanding of social constructing about change as way of
involving the employee.
12
Increased communication of change is the first mechanism for the creation of availability
change among individuals, (Kim, 2011) – acting as a tool for conveying information,
create understanding, share experiences and sensemaking. In cases where the
communication process fails, "noise" and rumors accelerate the negative aspects of
change and increase resistance to change. (Becher, 2003; Wanberg and Banas, 2000;
Reichers et al, 1997; Armenakis and Harris, 2002; Bernerth 2004).
To implement organizational change considering the social action in the organization and
the people who participate in it (Weick and Quinn, 1999) requires that members involved
in changing understand, internalize and adopt the intended (organizational) goals. (Smith,
2001; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Considering the manager as the most visible
representative of an organization and as such, is the link that bounds employees to the
course of change (Parker, 2012), understanding the online forum conversations of it’s
employees can help him to perform this task.
To understand the process of change in organization is critical that the focus on the
individual engages in the context of change, considering that the way individuals
construct the meaning of change significantly affects the results. (Parish et al, 2008;
Balogun, 2006; Stensaker et al, 2007.).
To better understand the process of sensemaking thru social construction of individuals
and groups inserted in a context of inconsequent and planned organizational change,
feelings and emotions, such as: fear; uncertainty; anxiety; insecurity; psychological
contract breach; procedural justice; perceptions of opportunities and threats, experienced
by those can be examined, and treated on time, of correct treatment is given to online
forum opinions.
Taking into account that existing research of organizational change communication is
considered consider critical to the success of it, that online forums are an excellent way
to exchange ideas and social construction of meaning. In future study’s, conversations
held around changes though distant and inconsequential for employees, during the talks
held became consequential, or they were given a new significance or meaning should be
analyzed.
13
Therefore online forums can be a way of constructing change. In the future it’s aimed to
define a set of recommendations on what type and gender of conversations may originate
CC from IC. It’s also hoped to study the networks that perform and originate CC from
IC.
In further studies, it’s aimed to conclude that there is theoretically a strong link between
studies of social construction and the field of study of cognitive processes. The people's
perception of environmental stimuli (organizational change) varies during online
conversations.
And it’s intended to articulate two important phenomena in the field of organizational
studies: the formation and dynamics of informal social networks in work their online
conversations and the construction of meanings and sharing across organizational actors
about the processes of change taking place in the organization. The approach of these two
phenomena is related to the need to understand the role of online conversations in the
sensemaking of organizational changes. In turbulent environments, online conversations
can influence either as a leverage or as a restraining force to change.
REFERENCES
Ancona, D. (2012). Framing and Acting in the Unknown. In The Handbook for teaching
Leadership (pp. 3–19). SAGE Publications, Inc;
Armenakis, A.A., & Bedeian, A.G. (1999). Organizational change: a review of theory
and
research
in
the
1990s.
Journal
of
Management,
25(3),
293-315.
Doi:10.1177/014920639902500303
Barnett, W.P., & Carroll, G.R. (1995). Modeling internal organizational change. Annual
Review of Sociology, 21, 217-236. Doi:10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195001245
Bouckenoghe, D., Devos, G., & Van Den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational change
questionnaire – climate of change, processes, and readiness: development of a new
instrument.
The
Journal
of
Psychology,
143(6),
559-599.
Doi
10.1080/00223980903218216
Bressan, C.L. (2001). Uma contribuição à compreensão do fenomeno de mudança
organizacional a partir da percepção gerencial (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade
de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brasil.
14
Buono, A.F., & Kerber, K.W. (2010). Creating a sustainable approach to change: building
organizational change capacity. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 75(2), 4-22.
Burke, W. W. (2011b). A perspective on the field of organization development and
change: the zeigarnik effect. Journal of applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 143-167. Doi:
10.1177/0021886310388161
Burke, W. W. (2011a). Organization change: theory and practice (3rd ed.). Los Angeles:
Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
Burke, W.W., & Litwin, G (1992). A casual model of organizational performance and
change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523-545. Doi: 10.1177/014920639201800306
Choi, M. & Ruona, W.E. A. (2011). Individual readiness for organizational change and
its implications for humam resource and organization development. Human Resource
Development Review, 10(1), 46-73. Doi: 10.1177/1524484310384957;
Cramton, C. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed
collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.
Cunha, J. V. D., and Orlikowski, W. J. (2008). Performing catharsis: The use of online
discussion forums in organizational change. Information and Organization, 18(2), 132–
156. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008.02.001
Cunningham, C.E, Woodward, C.A., Shannon, H.S., Macintosh, J., Lendrum, B.,
Rosenbloom, D. & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: a longitudinal
study of workplace, psychological, and behavioral correlates. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 377-392. Doi: 10.1348/096317902321119637
Daif, K., &Yusof, N. (2011).Change in higher learning institutions: Lecturers’
commitment to organizational change (C2C). International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 2(21): 182-194.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effect of
determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590. doi:
10.2307/256406
15
Danna, E.C, (2012). Capacidade organizacional para mudança: estudo de caso de uma
organização pública legislativa (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade de Brasília,
Brasília, DF, Brasil.
Eisenhardt, K.M., & Martin, J.A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic
Management Journal, 21 (10/11), 1105-1122. Doi: 10.1002/1097-0266 (200010/11);
Fischer, H. C. R., & Lima, S.M.V. (2005). Validação de instrumento para diagnóstico de
condições facilitadoras de mudança organizacional. Revista Psicologia Organizações e
Trabalho, 5(1), 13-44;
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional
change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 541–570;
Glor, E. D. (2007). Assessing organizational capacity to adapt. Emergence: Complexity
and Organization, 9(3), 33-46.
Goodman, P. 5., & Kurke, L. (1982). Studies of change in organizations: A status report.
In P. 5. Goodman (Ed.), Change in organizations: 1 46. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gravenhorst, K. M. B. Werkrnan, R. A., & Boonstra, J. J. (2003). The change capacity of
organizations: general assessment and five configurations. Applied Psichology: An
International Review, 52(1). 83-105. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00125
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change:
bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review,
21(4), 1022-1054. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1996.9704071862
Hatum, A., & Pettigrew, A. M. (2004). Adaptive responses under competitive pressure:
organizational flexibility in an emergent economy. Management Research: The Journal
of
the
Iberoamerican
Academy
of
Management,
2(2).
97-114.
doi:
10.1108/15365430480000504;
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE;
Huber, G. P., Sutcliffe. K., Miller, C. C., & Glick. W. H. (1993). Understanding and
predicting organizational change. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational
change and redesign (pp. 214-454). New York: Oxford University Press.
16
Hutchison, S. (2001),"Communicating in Times of Change,"Strategic Communications
Management, 5, 2(February-March), 28-32.
Jeffrey D. Ford, L. W. F. (1995). The Role of Conversations in Producing Intencional
Change in Organizations.pdf, 541–570;
Jimmieson, N. L., Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (2004). A longitudinal study of employee
adaptation to organizational change: the role of change-related information and changerelated self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1), 11–27.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.9.1.11;
Judge. W. Q.. & Blocker. C. P. (2008). Organizational capacity for change and strategic
ambidexterity: flying the plane while rewiring it. European Journal of Marketing,
42(9/10).915—926. doi: 10.1108/03090560810891073
Judge. W. Q., & Douglas. T. (2009). Organizational change capacity: the systematic
development of scale. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(6), 635-649.
doi: 10.1108/09534810910997041
Judge. W. Q. & Elenkov. D. (2005). Organizational capacity for change and
environmental performance: an empirical assessment of Bulgarian firms. Journal of
Business Research, 58(7). 893-901. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.01.009;
Kotter, J. P. (2000). Leading Change Why transformation Efforts Fail;
Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2009). Social construction of reality. In S. Littlejohn, & K. Foss
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory. (pp. 892-895). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE
Publications,
Inc.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.fau.edu/10.4135/9781412959384.n3
Lima, S. M. V., & Bressan, C. L. (2003). Mudança organizacional: uma introdução. In S.
M. V. Lima (Org.). Mudança organizacional; teoria e gestão (pp. 17-63). Rio de Janeiro:
FGV.
Litaker, D., Ruhe, M., & Flocke. S. (2008). Making sense of primary care practices,
capacity for change. Translational Research, 15(5), 245-253. doi: 10.1016/j
.trsl.2008.09.005
17
Mignerey, J. T., Rubin, R. B., & Gorden, W. I. (1995). Organizational entry: an
investigation of newcomer communication behavior and uncertainty. Communication
Research, 22(1). 54-86. doi: 10.1177/009365095022001003
Mintzberg, H., & Westley, F. (1992). Cycles of organizational change. Strategic
Management Journal 13(2). 39-59. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250130905
Neiva, E. R., & Domingos. S. G. (2011, setembro). Validaçãoo de instrumento para
avaliação da capacidade organizacional para a mudança. Anais do Encontro Nacional da
Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, Rio de Janeiro.
RJ. Brasil, 35.
Neiva, E. R., & Paz. M. G. T. da (2007). Percepção de mudança organizacional: um
estudo em uma organização pública brasileira. Revista de Administração Contemporânea,
11(1), 31-52. doi:10. 1590/S1415-65552007000100003
Neiva, E R., & Paz. M. G. T. da (2012). Percepção de mudança individual e
organizacional: o papel das atitudes, dos valores, do poder e da capacidade
organizacional. Revista de Administração, 47(1). 22-37. doi: 10.5700/rausp1023;
Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic
communication: The metastructuring of technology in use. Organization Science, 6(4),
423–444;
Oxtoby, B., Mcguiness. T., & Morgan. R. (2002). Developing organizational change
capability. European Management Journal, 20(3). 310-320. doi: 10.101 6/S02632373(02)00047-6;
Parker, M. M. (2012). Managing not to Change : A Mixed-Methods Analysis of
Anosognosic Management and the Indirect Impact on Organizational Change, 9(5), 112–
125.
Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W., & Cameron, K.S. (2001). Studyin organizacional
change and development: challenges for future research. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(4), 697-713. Doi: 10.2307/3069411
Porras, J., & Silvers, R. (1991). Organization development and transformation. Annual
Review of Psychology, 42: 51 78.
18
Prochaska, J.O., Norcross, J.C., & DiClemente C.C. (1994). Changing for good: the
revolutionary program that explains the six stages of change and teaches you how to free
yourself from bad habits. New York: W. Morrow;
Proulx, T., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). The Five “A”s of Meaning Maintenance: Finding
Meaning in the Theories of Sense-Making. Psychological Inquiry, 23(4), 317–335.
doi:10.1080/1047840X.2012.702372
Romm, C. T., & Pliskin, N. (1998). Electronic mail as a coalition-building information
technology. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 16(1), 82–100;
Slack, A.J., & Hinings, C.R. (2004). Strategic change and the role of interests, power and
organizational capacity. Journal of Sport Management, 18(2), 158-198.
Smith, K. (1982). Philosophical problems in thinking about organizational change. In P.
Goodman (Ed.), Change in organizations: 316 374. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Soparnot, R, (2011). The concept of organizational change capacity. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 24(5), 640-661. doi: 10.1108/09534811111158903
Staber, U., Sydow, J. (2002) Organizational adaptative capcity; a structuration
persperctive.
Journal
of
Management
Inquiry,
11(4),
408-424.
doi:
10.1177/1056492602238848
Van de Ven, A., & Poole, M.S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying
organizational
change.
Organization
Studies,
26(9),
1377-1404.
doi:
10.1177/0170840605056907;
Ven, A. H. Van De, & Sun, K. (2009). Breakdowns in Implementing Models of, 58–75;
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and
knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57;
Weick, K. E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster.
Journal of Management, 16(3), 571–593;
Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Man Gulch
disater. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652;
19
Weick, K.E., & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual
Review of Psychology. 50, 361-386. doi: 10.11 46/annurev.psych.50. 1.361;
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the Process of
Sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133;
Werner. B. J., Amick. H., & Lee. S. Y. D. (2008). Conceptualization and measurement
of organizational readiness for change: a review of the literature in health services
research and other fields. Medical Care Research and Review, 65(4), 379- 436. doi:
10.1177/1077558708317802
Woodman, R.W. (1989). Evaluation research in organizational change: arguments for a
“combined paradigm” approach. In R.W. Woodman & W.A. Pas.More (Eds.) Research
in Organizational Change and Development (Vol. 3, pp. 161-180). Greenwich, CT:JAI
Press.
20