Second, the social construction perspective emphasizes the active role that members take in creating the organization. Members may decide to create a new department, change a structure, adopt new titles, or change a process. While an individual member may not have the choice to change a certain policy, the policy is one developed by organizational members and created for the organization’s benefit. Relationships among supervisors and employees are not confined to rigid role-based interactions, but are multidimensional and can be friendly, cold, formal, sociable, and so on. Relationships between coworkers or departments are more complex than simply sharing orders or instructions between them and can be cooperative or contentious, relaxed or rigid. The social construction perspective illustrates the active choice that we make in creating these systems and relationships. This implies that OD practitioners should create situations in which people can choose a different organization to create, such as new policies, processes, roles, or relationships. Accepting this adaptability gives practitioners and organizational members the freedom to create changes that they desire to see (within boundaries, frequently, that we also agree to respect). While this does not deny the importance of leadership in change or the financial or environmental realities, it places an equal emphasis on everyday conversations that occur in the organizational network among all participants.
Third, the social construction perspective helps OD practitioners to see the importance of communication in creating change (J. D. Ford & Ford, 1995):
Stories, myths, rituals, and language use are not simply reflections of organizational meanings; they are the ongoing dynamics that constitute organizational life. Meanings, then, do not reside in messages, channels, or perceptual filters. Rather, they evolve from interaction processes and the ways that individuals make sense of their talk. (Putnam, 1983, p. 40)
Words and their context are important, and the interpretive processes that we use to make sense of words often go unexplored. Consider a situation in which an organization, under financial pressure and rumors of layoffs, is required by law to send out an annual benefits notice to all employees. The notice states that following an involuntary termination, employees are eligible for continued medical benefits for a length of time following termination. From the perspective of the human resources benefits department, this is an ordinary compliance activity, but from an employee’s perspective, it could be alarming to receive such a notice unexpectedly mailed to one’s home, considering the context. OD practitioners can become attuned to context, language, and interpretation mechanisms and help organizational members become more explicit about their interpretations. They can understand the context for interpretation of any particular message and make better recommendations about how communication will be received. Jeffrey and Laurie Ford (1995) write that communication is not just another part of change, but it is the primary means by which change occurs.
Finally, the social construction perspective stresses that organizational change has as its foundation a change in meaning. Sensemaking logics lie beneath values, beliefs, and attitudes, as well as organizational practices, identities, and processes. Simply changing a practice, a role, a title, or a department name does not always change the underlying interpretive processes that members have adopted. Consequently, the approach assumes that change can best be accomplished when organizational members have the opportunity to work together to define new practices (Weick, 1995).
Approaches to Organizational Change Consistent With a Social Construction Perspective
Approaches to organizational change consistent with a social construction perspective look quite different from those explained earlier that are consistent with a systems theory perspective, as they recognize that change is a “messy” and unpredictable phenomenon (Shaw, 1997). Calling these approaches “models,” in the sense that we have just seen, is also misleading because they question the very structures that systems theory assumes. Instead of locating organizational change in categories such as leadership, strategy, or rewards, the social construction perspective explains change as a change in interpretive mechanisms, conversations, communication, meaning, and cognitive schema. “This, in turn, implies that a primary way to effect change in social systems is by changing the prevailing discourse,” write Marshak and Grant (2008, p. 39).
In fact, the very idea of organizational change is rethought in this perspective. Weick (2000) argues that “the breathless rhetoric of planned transformational change, complete with talk of revolution, discontinuity, and upheaval, presents a distorted view of how successful change works” (p. 223). He argues that most models contrast change with inertia, whereas if we recognize that organizations are never really in inert states at all, we become more interested in the ongoing “ebb and flow” (p. 230) of organizational life. As Jeffrey Ford (1999) points out, what constitutes a change is ambiguous and can mean different things to different people. Most change models tend to presume that a change is a single, easily identifiable phenomenon that members could point to and identify as “the change.” Most practitioners and organizational members, however, recognize that change has multiple parts, some of which may or may not be successful, and that these have multiple meanings for various audiences. A widespread organizational change affects different employee groups in different ways, so a single definition of the change may not be possible. Instead, as we have learned, the social construction approach is interested in what the change means to people, recognizing that this meaning may shift and adapt at various points in time. Consequently, social construction approaches to change tend to emphasize continuous change rather than episodic change, privileging the role of language and discourse in change (Weick & Quinn, 1999).
Jeffrey Ford (1999), for example, argued for a definition of organizational change as “shifting conversations,” in which people use different language to understand and accomplish change. When change occurs, it does so “when one way of talking replaces another way of talking” (Barrett, Thomas, & Hocevar, 1995, p. 370). Jeffrey and Laurie Ford (1995) describe four different kinds of conversations that occur during organizational change: conversations that initiate change, conversations that seek to understand change, conversations for performance, and conversations for closure. No one mix of conversational types is right for every change, they note:
The successful implementation of change is a function of conversations that reflect the evolving context and progress of the change, including the results produced and breakdowns to be resolved. Identifying an appropriate conversational pattern, therefore, is a pragmatic issue of determining which type of conversation is most likely to work in the current situation, trying it, seeing what happens, and making adjustments in and to subsequent conversations. What this means is that change managers may find a conversational mix that is effective in one change but ineffective in another. (J. D. Ford & L. W. Ford, 2008, p. 448)
This approach can explain how, when change does not proceed as expected, certain conversations may not have taken place at all, or may have taken place unsuccessfully.
This model of change-as-communication calls into question the categories discussed in earlier models (e.g., structure, systems, leadership, culture), because those factors are only relevant to the extent that organizational members draw upon them in conversation. Understanding how a change is proceeding depends on careful study and attentive listening to how language has changed (Anderson, 2005b). Echoing MacGregor’s recommendation to listen carefully to managers’ implicit theories, Jeffrey and Laurie Ford (1995) write, “Managers’ assumptions about how ideas are related can be discovered through a study of their conversations about change, particularly during conversations for understanding” (p. 563). Thus, this approach sees change not as an abstract set of influences among boxes, but as a series of conversations where change can be discussed and debated, and new ideas can emerge.
Also proposing a social construction model for change in their popular work How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work, Kegan and Lahey (2001) have written about seven new language shifts that leaders can encourage to support change:
1 From the language