Toward discourse centered understanding of organizational change

JAB397612 JAB47210.1177/0021886310397612Grant and MarshakThe Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

1University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia2American University, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:David Grant, Work and Organisational Studies, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia Email: [email protected]

Toward a Discourse- Centered Understanding of Organizational Change

David Grant1 and Robert J. Marshak2

Abstract

Although organizational change involves a complex set of communicative and language-based processes, discourse-based approaches for understanding and managing change dynamics have been relatively underutilized by researchers and practitioners. To help address this situation, this article advances an analytic framework for explaining how discourse and organizational change are mutually implicated. Drawing on the research literature, the constructive, multilevel, conversational, political, reflexive, and recursive nature of organizational change discourses are presented and discussed. Implications for research and practice are then reviewed.

Keywords

discourse theory, organizational change, constructionism and change

IntroductionThe linguistic turn in the social sciences (Alvesson & Krreman, 2000a) has led to the emergence of the new field of organizational discourse studies (Grant, Hardy, Oswick, & Putnam, 2004) and increasing interest in the relationship of organizational discourse with change processes in organizations (Marshak & Grant, 2008). These develop-ments are documented in, among other places, two special issues of this journal titled Discourses of Organizing (Vol. 36, No. 2, 2000) and Organizational Discourse and Change (Vol. 46, No. 1, 2010). The purpose of this discussion is to advance this line of inquiry and application by bringing together a wide range of the extant literature to

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science47(2) 204 235

2011 NTL InstituteReprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0021886310397612http://jabs.sagepub.com

at UNIV AUTONOMA METROPOLITANA on June 12, 2015jab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Grant and Marshak 205

suggest an analytic framework that encompasses multiple interrelationships involving discourse and change in organizations.

Before proceeding to a discussion of the benefits of such a framework and an outline of the presentation, we wish first to highlight two discursive difficulties we experienced in writing this article. One was wishing to speak to both researchers and practitioners interested in organizational change and not just discourse scholars per se. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science is an ideal location for such a treatment, but we were worried if we would be too academic for practitioners or not as thorough or detailed enough for organizational discourse specialists. In the end, we biased ourselves toward attempting to provide an account that is both thorough enough and applied enough to be valuable to multiple audiences. Although we hope there will be enough of interest for this broader audience, we fully realize that everyone might prefer more or less depth in the various parts of the presentation that follows.

The second difficulty is inherent to the subject matter: organizational discourse and change from a constructionist orientation. Put simply, we confronted the difficulty of writing about how discourse shapes social reality, including organizational change pro-cesses, in ways that did not tacitly imply that discourse and change were separate and independent phenomena, as opposed to mutually implicated aspects of the social con-struction of change in organizations. In other words, we sought to avoid writing in a way that implied that there are things called a discourse or change that lie over there and exist independently from each other and our account of them. Such a style would imply that discourses mostly serve a function of objectively reporting the way things are or could be. This undermines the constructionist orientation of this discussion wherein discourses shape and convey how things should be experienced, interpreted, and what actions should be taken (Gergen, 2000, 2009). Instead, the position of our discus-sion is in line with the observations made by, for example, Ford (1999) in his study of conversation and change, that there is no objective separation of discourse and phenom-ena; discourses construct phenomena and phenomena do not exist independent of dis-course (which is itself a phenomenon). We found, however, that the challenge of detailing this dynamic to a broader audience and focusing more on explaining discourse and change than on constructionist philosophy was a difficult oneat least for us. As a con-sequence, there are places that may subtly read as if we are writing about things that exist independently from our narrative even as we are suggesting that narratives are inher-ently constructive. Such a reading would not be our intent.

It may also be worth mentioning here the understanding of organizational change as used in this discussion. In most ways, we consider organizational change to mean some alteration (something is stopped, started, modified, etc.) in the existing organizational arrangements (strategies, structures, systems, cultures, etc.) and/or processes (planning, coordination, decision making, etc.). Again, however, a constructionist and discursive orientation frames that understanding in a more nuanced way than conventional usage. For example, the assertion that something is an existing arrangement is itself a discursive account that frames something in a particular way and for particular pur-poses. Thus, in one specific organizational context existing might imply something


206 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(2)

is outdated and there is a need to change to something new, whereas in another it might imply the benefits of stability based on proven performance. Consequently, organiza-tional change involves both things and the discursive accounts of those things in recursive relationships. In essence, discourses shape how people think about things (how they talk to themselves) and therefore how they act, and how people act and think about things shape their discourses. Changed actions therefore can lead to changes in conversation and changed conversation can lead to changed behaviors.

Bearing these understandings and caveats in mind, we turn to considering the contribution of a discourse-based analytic framework of organizational change. We believe that providing such a framework addresses a key limitation of most exist-ing studies that have considered organizational change from a discursive perspec-tive (e.g., Barrett, Thomas, & Hocevar, 1995; Heracleous, 2002; Heracleous & Barrett, 2001; Marshak, 2002). As valuable as these studies are in highlighting the significance of organizational discourse in relation to organizational change, they tend to focus on separate or segmented aspects of discourse and change rather than providing or suggesting a more encompassing understanding of the multiple dimen-sions and their interrelationships. Until more integrated approaches or frameworks are available, it therefore seems likely that discursive studies of organizational change will remain a relatively underutilised avenue of enquiry and that their potential con-tribution to understanding the processes and practices of organizational change will not be fully realized.

Aside from enhancing the development and integration of discursive studies of organizational change, our framework is intended to provide a number of significant and practical benefits. First, it directs attention to the communicative practices among participants, which are critical to effective change, and thus provides a basis for prac-tical insights into how discursive practices such as conversations might be managed to increase the likelihood of effective organizational change. In this way, we build on other scholarly examinations of the role of language in effecting organizational change (e.g., Buchanan & Dawson, 2007; Bushe & Marshak, 2009; Doolin, 2003; Ford, 1999; Ford & Ford, 1995; Ford, Ford, & DAmelio, 2008; Heracleous & Barrett, 2001; Marshak & Grant, 2008; Robichaud, Giroux, & Taylor, 2004).

A second benefit of our framework is that it highlights the processual and temporal aspects of organizational change and, thus, allows us to view change as a social accom-plishment that occurs in an iterative, ongoing fashion over time. This contrasts espe-cially with more episodic and teleological orientations to change (Van de Ven & Scott Poole, 1995). Specifically, the framework allows us to track change in a continuous fashion by following the change-related discourses used by actors on an ongoing basis rather than trying to ascertain their beliefs at discrete points in time.

Finally, we hope our discussion of discourse and change facilitates the further devel-opment of theory and research that attends to the multiple levels of analysis over which change occurs. Such an approach is attuned to the interrelationships between these dif-ferent levels of analysis. For example, it can show how the language of an individual draws on discourses operating at group, organizational, and societal levels (Alvesson



& Krreman, 2000b; Grant et al., 2004; Hardy & Phillips, 1999; Robichaud et al., 2004).

We present our argument in four main sections. First, we present a theoretical overview of organizational discourse in which we highlight four concepts that are critical to a discourse-centered understanding of change: discourse, text, context, and conversa-tion. In the subsequent section, we introduce the dimensions of our discourse centered framework for understanding change. In sum, these seven dimensions suggest that how things are framed and talked about becomes a significant context that shapes how change agents, affected employees, and other stakeholders think about and respond to a change related issue or situation, or even the possibility of change itself. Then, we discuss the ways in which this framework further legitimates and hopefully advances interpretive and, more specifically, discourse-orientated perspectives of change. In doing so, we consider the implications and benefits of the framework for organizational changerelated research and practice. A final discussion provides some summary and concluding comments.

Organizational DiscourseIn this section, we highlight the key theoretical approaches to research on organizational discourse that inform our analytic framework. Most discursive studies of organizations contribute to understanding organizational phenomena in two significant respects (Grant et al., 2004; Hardy, 2001; Tsoukas, 2005). First, as Hardy, Lawrence, and Grant (2005) assert, A discursive approach to organizational phenomena is more than a focus on language and its usage in organizations. It highlights the ways in which language constructs organizational reality, rather than simply reflecting it (p. 59). Research on organizational discourse thus pays attention to how actors draw on, reproduce, and transform discourses and demonstrates that as they do so they create, convey, and rein-force objects and ideas that come to constitute the social world (Alvesson & Krreman, 2000a; Keenoy, Oswick, & Grant, 2000; Mumby & Clair, 1997). Furthermore, it high-lights the effects of these discursive processes and objects for organizations in terms of their impact on members perceptions and actions (Chia, 2000; Phillips & Hardy, 2002). In other words, discourses are both integral to and constructive of organizational dynamics and change.

Second, discursive studies show discourses to be created and supported via socially constructive processes that involve the negotiation of meaning among different organi-zational stakeholders with different views and interests (Grant et al., 2004; Hardy et al., 2005; Phillips & Hardy, 1997, 2002). These explicit and tacit negotiations lead to the emergence of a dominant meaning that becomes an accepted or privileged discourse. In examining how such dominant meanings emerge, many discursive studies of orga-nizations have adopted a critical perspective seeking to show how different groups use their power to shape the social reality of organizations in ways that serve their interests (Hardy & Phillips, 2004; Mumby, 2004; Mumby & Clair, 1997). Dominant discourses are seen to rule in certain ways of talking about a particular



phenomenon that are deemed as acceptable, legitimate, and intelligible while also ruling out, limiting, or otherwise restricting the way key actors talk about or conduct themselves in relation to the phenomenon (Hall, 2001). At the same time, such studies have demonstrated that although some discourses related to a particular organizational issue may seem to dominate, their dominance is secured as part of an ongoing strug-gle among competing discourses that are continually reproduced or transformed through day-to-day communicative practices (Hardy, 2001, p. 28). Consequently, demonstrat-ing the role of power in establishing or challenging prevailing discourses is important to understanding organizational change.

Four concepts are critical to our discourse-based frameworks capacity to explain organizational change: discourse, text, context, and conversation. Discourse is instan-tiated in the daily communicative practices that are integral to social interaction and thus social structure (Heracleous & Barrett, 2001). Discourse is defined as a set of inter-related texts that, along with the related practices of text production, dissemination, and consumption, brings an object or idea into being (Fairclough, 1992; Hardy et al., 2005; Parker, 1992). Discourses, therefore, play a central role in constituting reality; they produce rules, identity, context, values, and procedures (Taylor, Cooren, Giroux, & Robichaud, 1996) and these in turn determine social practices through the ways in which they shape what can be said and who can say it (Deetz, 1992; Fairclough, 1992; Hall, 2001).

Discourses are embodied in texts, which come in a wide variety of genres (Yates & Orlikowski, 1992), including written documents, speech acts, pictures, and symbols (Grant et al., 2004; Hardy, 2001; Iedema, 2007; Taylor & Van Every, 1993). These texts are used to enact a variety of textual devices such as narrative, rhetoric, metaphor, humor, and irony (Hardy & Phillips, 2004). Studies of discourse highlight the importance of appreciating that it has an existence beyond any individual text or textual genre from which it is composed (Chalaby, 1996) and recognize the significance of textual devices since these have a performative effect. That is, they shape meaning, persuade others, legitimate interests, and reproduce social structure (Hardy & Phillips, 2004). The impli-cation of this approach is that when analyzing discourse researchers and change agents one should aspire to pay greater attention to the complex relationships among sets of texts and the various devices within these texts that describe and constitute organiza-tional realities (Phillips & Hardy, 2002).

Discourses do not exist or have meaning independent of context, even as they also create context. Accordingly, the concept of context and the fact that it is fundamental, not incidental, to the existence of discourse has been the subject of considerable dis-cussion and study among those interested in examining discourse in organizational settings. Discourse is shown to be constituted though temporal, historical, and social context (Sillince, 2007). Furthermore, it is itself constituted by other discourses and the texts therein; thus, notions of intertextuality come into play (Broadfoot, Deetz, & Anderson, 2004; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Keenoy & Oswick, 2004). This means that the negotiation of meaning surrounding any particular organization change will unfold through the complex interplay of both socially and historically produced texts



that are part of a continuous, iterative, and recursive process (Grant & Hardy, 2004). Such a perspective sees specific, micro-level instances of discursive action as contex-tually and mutually implicated with other macro-level meta or grand discourses that might exist within or external to the organization (Alvesson & Krreman, 2000b). Moreover, it also recognizes that discourses are always connected to other discourses which were produced earlier, as well as those which are produced synchronically and subsequently (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997, p. 277).

Finally, cross-contextual discursive work is carried out through a variety of commu-nicative practices. One form that these interactions can take is that of a conversation (Taylor & Van Every, 1993). We define a conversation as a set of texts that are produced as part of a dialogue among two or more people and that are linked together both tempo-rally and rhetorically (Ford & Ford, 1995; Robichaud et al., 2004). Bearing in mind our preceding observations about context, texts only exist as part of the same conver-sation if they are in some way responsive to each other (Easley, 2010), either directly or indirectly (a rhetorical connection), and if they are produced through chronologi-cally sequenced discursive acts (a temporal connection). Conversations are important in understanding the role of language in organizations: consequential action is not so much the result of disconnected utterances or isolated texts but, rather, is produced through ongoing linguistic exchanges among actors that draw on broader discourses and produce discursive objects that act as resources for action and for further conver-sations (Fairclough, 1992). Thus, conversations exist in a recursive relationship in which existing discourses provide resources to actors who engage in conversations that in turn produce, reproduce, and transform those discourses (Robichaud et al., 2004; Taylor et al., 1996).

In summary, we define organizational discourses and their related practices of con-sumption, production, and distribution as comprising sets of interrelated texts that can react to draw in and transform other discourses. Discourses bring into being an idea or object and can also challenge and change an existing idea or object. The texts within discourses can comprise written or spoken acts or they can be nonlinguistic and take the form of imagery and symbols. Specifically, texts shape and are shaped by conversations in which participants draw on, and simultaneously produce, discursive objects and ideas. Such a definition means that our discursive approach to organizational change is both inherently processual and contextual. The focus in this article, therefore, highlights the ongoing, often recursive and iterative processes through which change is enacted over time. At the same time, we acknowledge and examine the significance of context because it generates the discursive objects and ideas that permeate and influence the conversa-tions of the various actors involved in organizational change.

Using Discourse-Based Theory to Understand Organizational ChangeA number of studies have suggested that discourse theory and the analysis of organiza-tional discourse offer considerable potential for understanding the nature and complexity



of organizational change. For example, Sturdy and Grey (2003) have argued that discourse analysis, particularly where the approach adopted is context sensitive, would help move us further toward thinking beyond the organization as an isolated entity and might offer fruitful insights where integrated into studies that seek to iden-tify and evaluate the significance of institutional factors in the change process. Tsoukas (2005) suggests that compared with either a behaviorist or cognitivist perspective of organizational change, a discourse analytic approach offers greater potential for understanding the nature and complexity of change-related issues, particularly those pertaining to the construction of stability and change and the role of agency in effecting change. Heracleous and Barrett (2001) conceptualize discourse as a duality of communi-cative actions and deep structures, mediated by the modality of interpretive schemes, and develop a discourse analytic methodology based on the fields of hermeneutics and rhetoric. Using a longitudinal field study of an electronic trading implementation in the London Insurance Market, they use their methodology to explore the role of discourse in shaping organizational change through its influence on actors interpre-tations and actions. Their approach enables a better understanding of multiple perspec-tives in change processes, especially those involving ICT-related change. Analyzing ICT-related change in a New Zealand hospital during a period of public sector reform, Doolin (2003) argues discourse analysis enables the researcher to make sense of the processes that constitute organizations and the various mechanisms of ordering and orga-nizing employed by organizational actors. He shows how a clinical leadership narrative at the hospital was simultaneously discursive in its appeal to economic notions of effi-ciency and enterprise, social in the development of new accountabilities and relation-ships within the organization, and material in its use of information technology.

These examples of discursive perspectives of change are not meant to provide a comprehensive overview of such studies. Rather, they are used to demonstrate some of the potential contributions that a discourse-centered framework for addressing organi-zational change might makeboth in terms of how we think about and understand change and how we might go about researching and practicing change. At the same time, they also exhibit two interrelated problems that underlie such studies. First, taken either independently or as a combination, none of the studies attempts to provide a comprehensive or integrated discourse-based approach to change. There seems to be an assumption that such an integrated perspective exists, but it is not discussed, or is underspecified. In short, such a perspective, if one exists, and any associated explana-tory framework, is implicit and not fully articulated. Second, by virtue of this under-specification, the value of the observations and results of studies of organizational discourse and change are open to question or even undermined.

What is therefore needed is a more explicit and comprehensive framework inclusive of various considerations regarding organizational discourse and change. Such a frame-work would have several benefits. First, it would give discourse analytic studies a more substantial grounding and might enhance their credibility. Second, it would demon-strate the value of understanding the important role and impacts of discourse in study-ing and effecting change to the wider community, that is, nondiscursive academics and



practitioners. More specifically, for those interested in studying or managing discursive change, such a framework could inform them of those discourse-related aspects of change that they would need to practice or pay attention to.

Constructing a Discourse-Centered Analytic FrameworkIn the remainder of this section, we suggest the interrelated dimensions of a discourse-centered framework for organizational change (see Figure 1). Its core premise is that basic assumptions about organizing and organizational change are created, sustained, and, over time, transformed through discourse (Barrett et al., 1995). Thus, the ways things are framed and talked about plays a significant role in shaping how change agents, affected employees, and other stakeholders think about and respond to an organizational changerelated issue or situation.

The framework comprises a number of key constructs that highlight the need to take into account and understand the significance of discourse in relation to planning and effecting organizational change. In presenting the framework, we discuss these constructs sequentially but do not imply some sort of lock-step process; rather, we separate them for analytic purposes only, fully realizing that they likely overlap in time and space. This is why Figure 1 presents the framework as comprising iterative and interrelated relationships and processes versus linear, sequential ones. To illustrate the importance of thinking about discourse and change in these ways, consider the following abbreviated illustration about change at a fictitious companyAjax. The illustration is intended to point to the need to think about discourses and change in multidimen-sional and mutually implicated ways:

Ajax companys strategy and operations have been shaped by continual references to the founders maxim to always own and control your destiny. This led to decisions to operate independently, to own versus rent, and to use directive lead-ership styles. Recently, influenced by media articles and business conference presentations about out-sourcing and off-shoring, the CEO suggested that the Ajax top team consider out-sourcing as a strategy to improve financial perfor-mance. The ensuing discussions drew on discourses about the quality of rented employees, the family-centered values of the company, trends in the industry, academic debates about out-sourcing, prospects for the future, and so forth. When the Vice President of Human Resources worried aloud about the unions reaction with a major contract re-negotiation pending, the discussion polarized into a debate about out-sourcing saving costs versus costing jobs. Convergence on a clear way forward was not forthcoming and the CEO suggested having a task force study the matter carefully and come back with a proposal in six months. In later hallway conversations several of the top executives wondered if the boss had gone soft because the CEO had not made the decision and told people to implement it. Several weeks later the CEO attended a business roundtable where one of the topics was Executive Paralysis by Analysis Leads to Underperformance. Reflecting on how



the out-sourcing discussion was handled the CEO convened a meeting of the top executives to press the urgency of improving financial performance and then asked for specific proposals. When none emerged the CEO again suggested out-sourcing as a way to enhance share-holder value and forcefully argued for its adoption. This time there was agreement to move forward, although a few of the executives lamented to each other that the founder would never have done this, and wait until it gets to the Divisions, theyll never support this.

There are multiplelevels of linked

discoursesinfluencing

change

Change narrativesare constructed

and disseminatedvia conversations

Changediscourses emerge

from acontinuous,iterative and

recursive process

Alternativediscourses exist

and may be drawnupon

Reflexivityincreases theefficacy of the

discourses usedby change agentsand researchers

Power processesshape thedominant

discourse aboutchange

Discourse isconstructive;changing the

dominantdiscourse leads to

change

Figure 1. Discourse and organizational change: An analytic framework



Here we can see many of the interrelationships we will be highlighting in the frame-work and get a sense of the ongoing, iterative and recursive nature of discourse and change. Furthermore, as will be described in the framework, the significance of power and the use of various discourses to support or block out-sourcing are demonstrated.

The Constructive Properties of DiscourseWe begin our exposition of the framework by reiterating a central premise that arose from our introductory overview of theory pertaining to organizational discourse and change: Discourse is constructive and shapes behavior by establishing, reinforcing, and also challenging the prevailing premises and schemas that guide how organizational actors interpret experience. Therefore, changing the existing dominant discourses will support or lead to organizational and behavioral change. In the remainder of this section, we extend and elaborate further on this fundamental premise to present a discourse-based framework of analysis. We do so by considering several key additional dimen-sions, nuances, and intervening factors.

Levels of Change-Related DiscourseBased on the research literature, it is possible to identify five levels of discourse that merit attention in relation to organizational changethe intrapsychic, the micro, the meso, the macro, and the meta.

At the intrapsychic level, a discourse might manifest itself in the form of internalized stories and introjected beliefs that an individual tells himself/herself. As Gergen (1997, 2000) has observed, we rely heavily on psychological language in making sense of ourselves and others, and this language is built into many of our patterns of relation-ship. Studies of various organizing processes using an intrapsychic approach have demonstrated how discursively constructed meanings rooted in cognitively unconscious scripts, schemata, frames, and conceptual metaphors affect sensemaking (Gioia, Donnellon, & Sims, 1989; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999; Lord & Kernan, 1987; Marshak et al., 2000; Weick, 1995) and form part of the subtext of social interaction. Such cognitive frames and schemas both influence and are influenced or shaped by discourses operating at other levels. The significance of discourse at the intrapsychic level and specifically in the context of organizational change has been recognized by, for example, Jacobs and Heracleous (2005). These authors highlighted how strategic innovation at a case study firm required shifts in mental maps and models among employees and that these were identified and altered through conversation. Despite this work, intrapsy-chic approaches to the study of discourse and change are relatively underdeveloped. Marshak et al. (2000) have suggested that the paucity of such material stems from the relative infancy of discourse studies within organization and management theory and the dominance of researchers with organizational sociology rather than psychology backgrounds. They also suggest that many discourse scholars feel more comfortable with the conventional perspectives of language found in sociolinguistics and, more



recently, the postmodern turn such that they tend to focus on discerning the social meaning(s) of discourse as opposed to individual motivations and the psychological origins of words (Marshak et al., 2000).

Analyses of discourses at the micro level focus on the detail of language in use by individuals. Such analyses can offer a range of insights into the attitudes, affiliations, orientations, motives, and values of a given organizational stakeholder (Salzer-Morling, 1998; Watson, 1994). For example, a number of studies have focused on the metaphors within individuals language to reveal their thinking and perception about the organiza-tion at which they work (Oswick & Montgomery, 1999) and specifically their disposi-tion toward organizational change (Marshak, 1993; Palmer & Dunford, 1996).

Beyond the individual focus of the micro level, it is possible to consider discourse at the meso level (Alvesson & Krreman, 2000b) to explore the interpersonal. Such analyses concern talk-in-interaction (Silverman, 1999) and in many instances can be said to be ethnomethodological in orientation in that they explore the role of discourse in shaping social order in everyday organizational conduct (Boden, 1994; Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). At this level, discursive interac-tions will have an impact on the actions and behavior of individuals within a localized context, for example, a department or among a specific group of actors who socially interact on a regular basis. It is through discursive activities in such settings that issues such as conflict, negotiation, roles, norms, and cliques manifest themselves within organizations (Carroll & Payne, 1991; Hamilton, 1997; OConnor & Adams, 1999; Woodilla, 1998). In this respect, meso-level interactions are highly significant to effecting changethey can influence whether or not a change is considered and then either impede or facilitate its implementation.

Macro-level discourses (also referred to as grand discourses) can be viewed as an aggregation and accumulation of an amalgam of meso-level discursive interactions in organizations (Alvesson & Krreman, 2000b; Boje, 2001; Grant et al., 2004). Interactions such as conversations and texts coalesce to form the dominant think-ing, institutional practices, and collective social perspectives within an organization (Anderson-Gough, Grey, & Robson, 2000; Ford & Ford, 1995; Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2004; Robichaud et al., 2004). A number of change-related studies have shown how this process plays out. For example, Fiss and Zajac (2006) suggest that for man-agers to respond to market changes and instigate successful strategic change, they will become involved in a series of meso-level interactions with various actors within and external to their organizations to persuade them of the value and purpose of the change. These interactions require them to frame the change using a language that fits with divergent stakeholder interests and which decouples advocacy with actual implemen-tation of the change itself.

Meta-level discourses (sometimes referred to as mega discourses) have been described as discourses that are recognized and espoused at the broader societal level and across institutional domains. As such they might address more or less standard ways of refer-ring to/constituting a certain type of phenomenon (Alvesson & Krreman, 2000b, p. 1133). These include phenomena such as business reengineering, the market,



new public management, sustainability, and organizational change itself, as well as the taken-for-granted premises and possibilities governing an industry or organiza-tional sector (Wolfram Cox & Hussard, 2010).

We make two further points about the levels of discourse highlighted in our frame-work. First, we do not suggest that there is any hierarchy at play here. Thus, for exam-ple, we do not seek to privilege our first level of discoursethe intrapsychicas the basis for all discourses and the texts therein at subsequent levels. Second, we acknowl-edge that discourses at different levels do not exist independently of each other. A particular discourse can simultaneously exist at several different levels, such that the organization might be regarded as a meta-conversation (Robichaud et al., 2004). In line with our earlier observations about context, the texts within any level of discourse are linked to, and informed by, discourses and the texts that operate from other levels. This intertextuality means that it is important to identify and analyze specific, micro-level discourses pertaining to change, within say a conversation, and to then place them in the context of other meso, macro, or even meta discourses (Boje, 2001; Robichaud et al., 2004). For example, Fairclough and Thomas (2004) examine the meta-discourse of globalization showing how it permeates and becomes integral to other discourses operating at various other levels within the organization. In the case of organizational change, this might involve discourses of globalization being used to explain and justify to the organizations members the need for a range of changes in work and organization. The emerging meta-discourses of Green or Global Warming are other examples.

The Construction Through Conversation of a Prevailing Narrative of ChangeNarratives are textual devices that focus on common themes or issues and that link a set of ideas or a series of events (Czarniawska, 1999; Czarniawska-Joerges, 1997; Gabriel, 2004; Polkinghorne, 1988; Rhodes & Brown, 2005; Ricoeur, 1983). In par-ticular, Narrative constructs that relate consequences to antecedents through event sequences in context over time thus appear to be particularly relevant to understand-ing the unfolding of complex organizational change processes (Buchanan & Dawson, 2007, p. 672). A key discursive practice in the construction and dissemination of nar-ratives of change is conversation (Buchanan & Dawson, 2007; Ford & Ford, 1995, 2008; Marshak & Grant, 2008; Robichaud et al., 2004).

Conversations communicating a narrative pertaining to organizational change often assume storylike qualities. That is, they might evoke a plot in which the characters play out key events as the narrator experienced them or wishes them to occur. As Cohen and Mallon (2001) have observed, these storylike qualities have meant that some theorists use the concepts of narrative and story interchangeably (Polkinghorne 1988; Weick, 1995), whereas others maintain that if they are to be valuable analytically, these terms must be more clearly differentiated (Gabriel, 2004). In this article, we adopt the same position on this matter to that of, for example, Czarniawska (1999) and Polkinghorne



(1988). This is that narratives move to being stories where they bring a plot to the fore, which attempts to link events together, and enables a better comprehension of one event in relation to others.

The significance of storylines or narratives to effecting organizational change can-not be underestimated for they convey the prevailing or intended rationales supporting change or stability. As Marshak and Grant (2008) have noted

Changing consciousness or mindsets or social agreementsfor example about the role of women in organizations, or about hierarchical structures, or even about how change happens in organizationswould therefore require challeng-ing or changing the prevailing narratives, stories, and so on that are endorsed by those presently and/or historically in power and authority.(p. 14)

Brown (1998), for example, shows how managers charged with implementing an IT-related change initiative deployed a particular narrative to legitimate their actions and interests. Others have shown how stories are a way of managing change, particu-larly culture change, and how change is often constituted by changes in the narratives that participants author themselves (Brown & Humphreys, 2003; Kaye, 1995). Narratives and stories have also been used as diagnostic tools by which to understand organiza-tional norms and values and as a means to help people make sense of change. They have also been used to enable people to envision potential future realities derived from proposed strategic change (Barry & Elmes, 1997, Boje, 1991; Dunford & Jones, 2000).

Discourse, Power, and the Political Milieu Concerning ChangeThe ways in which power dynamics help shape the prevailing or privileged discourse about a specific change and the phenomenon of organizational change is a central concern of a constructive, discourse-based approach to change. As Mumby (2004) has observed, organizations are political sites where particular discourses are formulated and articulated by particular organizational actors in ways that shape and influence the attitudes and behavior of other organizational members.

Where scholars have sought to examine the relationship between power and dis-course, their work has been informed by the work of Foucault (e.g., Foucault, 1976, 1980). A particularly helpful studyone that assists in understanding the relationship of power and discourse in the context of organizational changeis provided by Hardy and Phillips (2004). These researchers propose analyzing the relationship using a framework of analysis where power and discourse are mutually constitutive. . . . In other words, discourse shapes relations of power while relations of power shape who influences discourse over time and in what way (p. 299).

The mutually constitutive relationship of discourse and power and its significance to the change process is apparent in several respects. For example, the conversations about change-related issues held among actors with differing interests will involve the meanings attached to these issues being negotiated, reinforced, and privileged by those



actors drawing on their various power resources. Assuming there is some social agree-ment resulting from these tacit discursive negotiations, a dominant narrative emerges that will influence how the change is conceived, understood, and should be implemented (Marshak & Grant, 2008). For example, conversations may be used to establish a need for change, in the shape of an environmental shift, an organizational problem, or a political agenda (Ford & Ford, 1995).

The power to control a narrative associated with a particular change initiative enables the power holder(s) to sustain particular ideological investments in dominance over other alternative (including oppositional) practices (Rhodes & Brown, 2005). Brown (1998), for example, has observed that leaders of organizational change tend to be particularly aware of the importance of fostering legitimacy for themselves and their change initiatives to help secure employee acquiescence, enthusiasm, or commitment. Fostering such legitimacy may involve the construction and use of a narrative that omits and manipulates information about a particular theme or issue in ways that attempt to influence the understanding of others and reinforce the rightness of the change initiators.

These dynamics illustrate the potential political component of conversations and the narratives that may be constructed and deployed through them. Moreover, they demon-strate that discursive practices, including conversation, have the potential to render sig-nificant political effects that result in the differential distribution of advantage among individuals and organizations (Fairclough, 1992; Mumby & Clair, 1997).

Alternative Discourses of ChangeWhat any particular group believes is reality, truth, or the ways things are is a social construct that is created, conveyed, and reinforced through discourse. This implies the possibility that there may be potentially multiple realities in any given situation (Boje, 1995, 2001). Moreover, it means that different groups or strata or silos of an organiza-tion might develop their own discourses about a particular change issue through nar-ratives that define the way things are as they see and experience them (Shaw, 2002; Ford & Ford 2009). The extent to which any groups particular discourse and associ-ated narratives come to dominate the meaning attached to the change issue is linked to power dynamics as discussed above. Often, however, there may be a struggle among different actors and interests to establish a dominant meaning, such that discursive closure is rarely complete leaving space for more latent, coexisting or counter discourses to gain attention or even dominate. These discourses may be localized, that is, more prevalent and representative of views about the change among a particu-lar group within an organization or they may be more widely held (Marshak & Grant, 2008). The extent to which they take hold and are regarded as challenging dominant discourses will vary from individual to individual and group to group (Ford et al., 2008; Ford & Ford, 2009). Furthermore, they could be expressed in several forms. Outright resistance would of course be one form, but so too would be discourses that express denial, ambivalence, or different perspectives about the organization and change (Fossum,



1989; Piderit, 2000; Scott & Jaffe, 2004; Teram, 2010). Moreover, whether a discourse could be regarded as counter may depend on ones position in relation to it.

Although there is a tendency to regard these alternative discourses as operating to the detriment of change, two strands of literature suggest they can be viewed in ways that can work to the benefit of change processes and outcomes. First, alternative discourses should be identified and rather than dismissed and used to diagnose the reasons as to why change is failing to gain traction among key actors (Ford et al., 2008; Rhodes & Brown, 2005). Second, some commentators have suggested that dominant discourses define, constrain, and impose too much closure on organizations (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1997; Czarniawska, 1998; Gabriel, 1995, 2000). Thus, where leaders of change identify, acknowledge, and sponsor the plurivocality (Boje, 1995) and heteroglossia (Bakhtin, 1981) that alternative discourses represent, a greater opportunity for more innovative and radical change is provided (Boje, 1995, 2001; Rhodes, 2001). In like manner, a number of commentators have suggested that those leading or facilitating change engage in discursive practices such as conversation and dialogue, narrative, and story-telling in ways that intentionally draw out and use these alternative discoursesoften so as to frame new shared meanings and change mindsets that go on to create significant and beneficial change in organizations (Bushe & Marshak, 2009; Ford & Ford, 1995; Gergen, Gergen, & Barrett, 2004; Marshak & Grant, 2008; Shaw, 2002; Stacey, 2001). For example, Gergen et al. (2004) provide two examples of specific approaches used to this effectthe Public Conversations Project (Chasin et al., 1996) and Appreciative Inquiry (e.g., Bushe & Kassam, 2005).

In sum, then, the identification and implementation of organizational change would seem to require recognition of the existence and significance of alternative discourses and the importance of managing them such that they are not detrimental of the change process and its outcomes or may even work to its benefit.

Discourse and Reflexivity on the Part of Change Agents and ResearchersAn appreciation of the significance of discourse in relation to change processes and their outcomes encourages change agents to be open to the possibility that a pri-mary way to effect change in social systems is by changing the prevailing discourse. Changing the discourse involves changing the conversations and narratives and the texts therein that create, sustain, and provide the enabling content and context(s) for the way things are. This, in essence, adds discourse, at multiple levels, as an impor-tant target and lever for organizational change and further requires change agents to be more reflexive about what they say and hear in relation to change than is often the case. In particular, change agents need to be sensitive to the emergence of discourses that are different from their own, and if necessary respond to or even draw on and appropriate these alternative discourses in ways that benefit the change process (Ford et al., 2008).



Reflexivity on the part of change agents extends to appreciating that discourses are co-constructed by those who author and introduce them and by the various interlocu-tors and readers who engage with them (Ybema et al., 2009). As such, change-related discourses are a representation constructed to attain a particular impact on their intended audience, and this effect is in fact part of the construction process. The ways in which change narratives are interpreted and the responses they receive may influence the direction that those who author them make. This may, for example, involve, through conversation, the author devising a narrative that she/he believes to be commensu-rate with what the audience assumes to be the case and wishes to hear (Brown, 1998; Czarniawska, 1998). This suggests that for change agents there is a responsibility to constantly reflect on and, if necessary, adjust their language in response to its effects on the intended audience (i.e., those charged with implementing and practicing the change). Here, notions of argumentation, rhetoric, issue selling, and other linguistic and semiotic devices related to dramaturgy, impression management, and influencing tactics might come into play (Dutton, Ashford, ONeill, & Lawrence, 2001; Fairhurst, 2007; Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996; Harvey, 2001; Walker & Monin, 2001).

Given the mutually constitutive relationship between power and discourse, there is also a need for change agents to reflect on the discourses of change and how these might be indicative of, and impact on, power relationships between themselves and those they are seeking to influence as well as the power relationships between and among other key actors. In other words, change agents need to recognize and attend to the organizational power and political processes underlying the situations they address and the methods they employ. This should be seen as an ethical if not a practical imperative (Marshak & Grant 2008).

Finally, several researchers have pointed out that the researchers studying and report-ing on change related discourses need to acknowledge that they are party to a process of positioning (Davies & Harr, 1990) whereby they and the subjects jointly produce narratives (Czarniawska, 1998). Others have observed that discourse analysis requires the researcher to report their results as a plausible story. As a result, their own version of events may be privileged over the voices of those who they seek to study (Brown, 1998; Easley, 2010; Knights, 1992; Kykyri, Puutio, & Wahlstrm, 2010; Watson, 1995). In the form of published articles in prestigious journals, these accounts contrib-ute to the narratives about change and may be deployed later by those seeking legiti-macy for their preferred storyline.

Change, Discourse, and RecursivityFor the authors and various co-locutors of change-related narratives, these discourses are not a one off experience. Rather, they are used on an ongoing basis to maintain and further the interests of particular groups or individuals, and people continually draw on them to make sense of the events that continually unfold around them. Accordingly, as suggested by the earlier Ajax example, discourses at multiple levels are pro-duced, disseminated, and consumed as a continuous, iterative, and recursive process



(Grant & Hardy, 2004; Robichaud et al., 2004; Taylor et al., 1996). This means, as Keenoy and Oswick (2004) observe that, The past, the present and the future are simultaneously embedded within a discursive event (p. 138), that is, what is said in the present is influenced by the past and will influence the future. It is also a process whereby the conversations and narratives associated with a particular discourse do not simply appear from nowhere, imbued with a particular meaning. Over a period of time, and through negotiation, power, and various political processes, the meanings that they convey, along with the socially constructed realities, agreements, and mindsets that they construct, will emerge and alter (Grant & Hardy, 2004; Mumby, 2004).

It is essential then that any discourse-based framework about change include an appreciation of recursivity and these critically important dynamics. As obvious as this point may seem, many analyses of discourses in organizational settings, though based on theories that emphasize recursivity, seem to take it as a given. As a consequence, they insufficiently reflect on and demonstrate the significance of this recursivity and the actual processes by which it plays out. Instead, discourses are often studied as if they are constructed at a fixed point in time without considering how it is that the discourse has, over time, evolved into its present form. In short, it appears that discourses tend to be studied in such a way as to imply stasis over their more dynamic characteristics.

This emphasis on stasis is contrary to models of organizational change that see it as having a temporal dynamicone in which change whether planned or unplanned, continuous or episodic, seeks to take effect over a period of time. For this reason, stud-ies by those such as Brown and Humphreys (2003) have sought to show how organi-zational change might be constituted by changes, over time, in the narratives that participants author. Similarly, those such as Vaara (2002) have shown how the mean-ings and discourses attached to change are not fixed or determined but are instead changed by key actors as they reflect on, interpret, and react to the change itself. Others such as Rhodes (2001) have shown how over a period of time particular meanings and discourses attached to organizational changes become dominant and act as a means of social control in the workplace by prescribing particular managerially approved behavior and values.

We have sought in this section to outline an analytic framework drawing on an exten-sive range of the discourse and change literature to help explain and demonstrate the importance of discourse in shaping the thinking and behavior of the key actors in orga-nizational change. In the following section, we consider the implications and benefits of this for further research and practice concerning organizational change.

Discussion and ImplicationsOur discourse-based framework offers three overarching contributions to the theory and practice of organizational change. First, it invites researchers and change agents to approach organizational change from an interpretivist orientation and with an under-standing that language in its many manifestations is constructive and central to the estab-lishment, maintenance, and change of what is and what could be. A discourse-based



researcher or change agent, therefore, might engage organizational change situations by asking questions and taking actions that other more objectivist perspectives might not consider or even notice. Second, it brings together a range of studies and ideas pertaining to organizational discourse and change that have not previously been linked into a single framework. In doing so, we recognize that it draws together research that is based in some cases on differing theoretical positions and traditions. We believe, how-ever, that the heuristic value of a single framework that attempts to encompass much of the extant literature on discourse and change is an important step in advancing discursive theory and applied approaches to organizational change. We hope this will encourage a more multidimensional and comprehensive understanding of the complex role and impacts of discourse in its many manifestations on organizational change processes and encourage further integration and theory development. Finally, the framework emphasizes the interactive and recursive aspects of all of its components. In the past, many discursive studies of change have focused on only one or a few of the components and not infrequently with an implied or actual linear, causeeffect orienta-tion. Although perhaps difficult to achieve, researchers and practitioners should think about organizational change in more contextual, nonlinear, and ongoing terms.

These three overarching contributionshow discourse and organizational change is interpretive, multidimensional, and recursively ongoingwill be further discussed below, along with other implications for research and action. Table 1 provides a sum-mary of some of the key research and change agent questions and considerations raised by the framework and discussed below.

Research ImplicationsAn analytical framework that can be used to consider how discourse contributes to stability and change in organizations invites a range of inquiry and theoretical specula-tion for researchers. Foremost is a clear focus on language-based phenomena as being critical in the construction of change processes and not just as reporting methods or archival databases. The discursive construction of change should now be added to the list of critical considerations in any change effort (Marshak & Grant, 2008). For dis-course-oriented and other researchers, it thus becomes important to consider questions such as how, precisely, do discourses construct social reality, especially regarding orga-nizational change. This includes whether they can be intentionally planned and man-aged to achieve specific change results or whether, as some have argued, they are the core processes of nonlinear, continuous change (Shaw, 2002; Stacey, 2001). Such ques-tions invite researchers to move beyond the analysis of existing discourses and their impacts on investigations into the various ways by which influential discourses are established, maintained, challenged, and changed. In other words, to more explicitly consider the dynamics of discourse and change processes rather than the implicit stasis found in many current studies.

Unlike a great deal of current research that tends to focus primarily on one or a few levels of discourse (e.g., micro, macro, meta), the framework also suggests that discourses do not exist or influence at one level of behavior alone. Nor are they stratified and



Table 1. Questions for Researchers and Change Agents to Consider

Premise Research Questions Change Agent Questions

Discourse is constructive; changing the dominant discourse leads to change

How do discourses influence behavior and construct social reality, especially regarding organizational change?

Are some types of discourses more influential than others?

Can discourses be intentionally planned and managed?

What discourses (narrative, story, metaphor, etc.) are holding things the way they are?

How can discourses that are supportive of an intended change be established and maintained?

There are multiple levels of linked discourses influencing change

How do different levels of discourse influence and inform each other?

Are some levels more influential than others in general or in certain settings?

Must all levels be changed for change to occur or can you just change one or a few levels?

How might we seek to change the discourses at multiple levels to support a change effort?

Changing a discourse at one level may be easier or more important than at another, so what levels should we attempt to target?

Change narratives are constructed and disseminated via conversations

How do conversations construct and disseminate governing narratives?

Are some types of conversations more influential than others?

Are conversations to establish a change different from those to maintain the status quo?

How can we use conversations as opportunities to construct new premises and possibilities?

How are prevailing narratives reinforced in day-to-day conversations throughout the organization and how might we change those conversations?

Power processes shape the dominant discourse about change

How are dominant discourses established and maintained?

How can power be mobilized to change a dominant discourse?

Are some types of power, political processes, and/or actors more influential in creating change and/or maintaining stability?

Who are the actors who will be most influential to the intended change and how can their discourses and conversations be altered to support your change?

How can we create settings where different actors and interests communicate, or where there is greater power equalization among the discussants, or where the nature of the conversation is different?

(continued)



Premise Research Questions Change Agent Questions

Alternative discourses exist and may be drawn on

What are the sources of alternative discourses and how are they sustained despite a dominant discourse?

How can an alternative discourse be appropriated and deployed in a change situation?

What are the political processes involved in the use of alternative discourses in change efforts?

How can we identify and use alternative discourses that may exist at multiple levels to advance and support our change?

What forms of organizational power and political processes can we use to suppress counter discourses to our change effort?

Reflexivity increases the efficacy of the discourses used by change agents and researchers

In what ways might the favored discourse of the researcher or school of thought influence research about organizational change?

What methods, techniques, or processes might be most helpful to support greater reflexivity in researcher studies and reports about organizational change?

How might reflexive insights be best incorporated into the research process?

How can we maintain a stance of reflexivity about our orientations and biases in order to stay open to possibilities and challenges?

How do we incorporate into and modify our discourse about change to best respond to reactions and alternative discourses?

Change discourses emerge from a continuous, iterative and recursive process

How are discourses about change established and maintained during a continuous, iterative and recursive process?

Are there any particular bifurcation points or processes that are particularly influential in change initiatives?

How might this continuous, iterative and recursive process be managed to advance or support a specific change?

Because there is no specific beginning, middle, or end to a change initiative, how will we continuously monitor and manage our discourse to stay on message?

Because the discourses related to a desired change will be subject to continuous alteration, how can we stay alert to new opportunities and openings to advance our initiative?

Table 1. (continued)



isolated from each other. Instead, multilevel discourses about the ways things are, and should be, help frame and reinforce each other in cyclical and recursive patterns (Marshak, 1998). For example, societal narratives about globalization influence the prevailing stories about what specific industries must do to survive global competition; these then frame organizational debates about what strategies to adopt, managerial con-versations about specific actions to take, and individual stories to rationalize behavior. In turn, conversations reinforce (or sometimes challenge) these prevailing stories and narratives, thereby providing ongoing data and linkages demonstrating the correctness (or incorrectness) of the prevailing discourse. More multilevel research to determine the degree and extent of discursive linkages and how they reinforce or sometimes challenge the status quo are needed (Robichaud et al., 2004). Such research might also include consideration of the processes by which discourses are established, maintained, or changed at different levels as well as how different levels of discourse interpenetrate, influence, and inform each other.

Increased research focus on the discursive aspects of day-to-day conversations that enliven and recreate the prevailing narratives about the way things are, the nature of change, what changes are needed or not, and so on, is also needed. For example, how, specifically, do conversations construct and disseminate governing narratives? When manager X talks with manager Y, or members of Division P interact with members of Division Q, how do these conversations convey, reinforce, and/or challenge the prevail-ing storylines that interpret how things should be experienced and, therefore, the need for and opportunities for change (Ford, 1999)? This also raises the question of whether some types of conversations are more influential in fostering change than others in terms of who has them, what they are about, and when, where, and how they take place (Ford & Ford, 2008). Moreover, in addition to position and power, what other factors may be influencing conversational impacts? It might also be important to begin to distin-guish between conversations that reinforce stability and those that might promote change or challenge the status quo. Are conversations to promote a change different from conversations to maintain the status quo and if so, in what ways?

The explanatory framework that we propose highlights a need for more research into the specifics of power as linked to stability and change at different discursive levels. There is a growing body of literature about discourse and power (e.g., Hardy & Phillips, 2004), but not necessarily directly linked to different discursive levels during change episodes. What political processes and resources of power are involved in, for exam-ple, how dominant discourses are established and maintained at the different discur-sive levels identified by the framework? Furthermore, are discourses at some levels of system more influential than others; perhaps by creating unacknowledged hierar-chical containers or frames for thinking at other levels? For example, in organizational change do higher or more encompassing levels of discourse (macro, meta) have greater influence over lower levels (micro, meso) than vice versa? In terms of power and stability versus change: Are some types of power, political processes, and/or actors more influential in creating change versus maintaining stability? Finally, more research into the specific mechanisms through which stability is challenged and new narratives



established in the workplace during everyday conversations and communications is needed.

The view of organizations as inherently plurivocal (Boje, 1995), even when a domi-nant discourse may exist, highlights the need for further research on concepts and theories of plurivocality and how it may impact on change in organizational settings. This would also include inquiry into how latent, coexisting, or counterdiscourses are dismissed, or can be appropriated and deployed in change situations (e.g., Clark & Jennings, 1997). Finally, given that power dynamics are involved in maintaining or overthrowing a dominant discourse, more inquiry into how political processes are involved in the way alternative discourses are defeated or deployed in change efforts would advance our understanding of plurivocality, power, and change.

The framework also suggests how discourse in its many manifestations does more than simply convey information, but instead frames, contains, and otherwise constructs the social realities governing individual and organizational action. It thus highlights the responsibilities for researchers to aspire to be more reflexive about the frames and narratives that may be guiding the construction of their research hypotheses and inter-pretation of findings (Alvesson, 1999). Absent a reflexive stance that encourages the researchers to both notice whatever is their favored frame(s) and to consider the value of using some alternative(s), and the potential for bias or misreading a situation from the point of view of the actors involved is increased. Some specific questions that might encourage a reflexive stance in conducting research on organizational change include the following: In what ways might the favored discourse about change of the researcher influence this research project about organizational change? What methods, techniques, or processes might be most helpful to support greater reflexivity in research studies and reports about organizational change, including the potential need for more inter-disciplinary or multitheoretical studies? Furthermore, how might reflexive insights be best incorporated into studies of change, for example, through specific protocols or report sections?

The ongoing and iterative nature of discourse and change suggests the importance of adopting a research orientation guided by premises of continuous interaction rather than stasis or quasi-equilibriums that tacitly imply fixed starting and stopping points (Lewin, 1947). For example, Stacey (2001) argues that conversations are an essential aspect of a transformative teleology wherein

movement is towards a future that is under perpetual construction by the move-ment itself. There is no mature or final state, only perpetual iteration of identity and difference, continuity and transformation, the known and the unknown, at the same time. (p. 60)

Shaw (2002) echoes the same theme:

Above all I want to propose that if organizing is understood as a conversational process, an inescapably self-organizing process of participating in the spontaneous



emergence of continuity and change, then we need a rather different way of thinking about any kind of organizational practice that focuses on change. (p. 11)

These views add a discursive perspective to the current theoretical debate about episodic versus continuous change concepts (e.g., Weick & Quinn, 1999). In terms of research design, it invites an orientation that the researcher is always stepping into an ongoing conversation that may have certain established boundaries but is also constantly evolving and changing. This places additional emphasis on contextual studies particularly in terms of process, temporal, and intertextual aspects (Barry, Carroll, & Hansen, 2006). It also suggests the need to account for the possible recursive effects of different levels of system over the timeframe of the study or change effort. Illustrative questions that researchers might consider include the following: How can discourses about change be established and maintained if a change itself is a continuous, iterative, and recursive process? If discursive change is an ongoing process, are there any particular points, stages, or types of processes that are particularly influential in a change initiative? Finally, how might a discursively continuous, iterative, and recursive process be best managed to advance or support a specific change objective? Or, as Stacey (2001) and Shaw (2002) from a complex responsive systems perspective ask: Can it be?

Action ImplicationsFor the change agent, a discursive orientation to change means going beyond most current advice (e.g., Cummings & Worley, 2009; Kotter, 1996) and applying methods that foster attention to the ways in which discursive phenomena, at multiple levels, and in multiple ways, create and hold the current way things are (Bushe & Marshak, 2009). How do day-to-day conversations reinforce preferred ways of thinking estab-lished by historical, organizational, political, or other contexts? What are the most salient or powerful discursive phenomena one should pay attention to with respect to organizational change efforts: stories, metaphors, narratives, discursive contexts, rheto-ric, power processes, and so on?

There are a number of strategic implications for change agents if, as indicated by our framework, change is a function of multilevel, discursive phenomena. First is the need to better understand how different levels of discursive phenomena influence and rein-force each other and thereby create a web of reinforcing narratives, stories, metaphors, and conversations that can make alternative discourses and change more difficult. This means that change agents may need to identify, use, or attempt to change the discourses at different levels (e.g., micro, meso, macro) to support a specific change effort. For example, it may do little good for a unit leader to put forward a new narrative about social responsibility if the prevailing tacit or explicit discourses at corporate or more local levels reinforce contrary messages, for example, about profitability above all else. Strategically, it is also possible that changing discourses at one level may influence discourses at other levels, thereby providing change agents with alternative targets or levers depending on their resources, access, and opportunities. One example of this



would be seeking to influence macro-level corporate discourses by changing meso-level conversations among lower level managers.

The importance of conversations to socially construct reality and frame experience versus simply convey objective information needs to be more carefully understood and cultivated by those advancing change agendas. Change agents should realize that talk is also a form of action (Marshak, 1998), so all conversations and communications can be used to create new premises and possibilities. This also means that they should pay attention to how prevailing narratives are reinforced in day-to-day conversation and dialogue throughout the organization (Gergen et al., 2004; Thatchenkery & Upadhyaya, 1996). They would then need to seek to intentionally introduce new narratives to alter those conversations, possibly by changing the types of questions asked (Block, 2008).

Change agents also need to acknowledge the mutually constitutive nature of power and discourse captured in our framework. Doing so opens up the possibility of better understanding the power and political processes that may be shaping any given change effort and of then attempting to engage in directly influencing, co-opting, and altering those processes (Marshak & Grant, 2008). Such an approach might, for example, involve asking key diagnostic questions such as who are the most influential actors regarding the intended change and how can their storylines and conversations be altered to support the change? Change agents would also need to cultivate skills and exercise actions asso-ciated with creating settings where actors with different interests and power bases can productively communicate, or where there is greater power equalization among the discussants to foster the emergence of new or different possibilities. Change agents might also benefit from knowing how to identify and enlist alternative discourses to advance and support desired changes. Understanding how various forms of organiza-tional power and political processes are used to suppress nonconforming discourses could lead to consideration of new and different change tactics. For example, exploring ways to amplify any accepted portions of an alternative discourse, as a way to bring into question one or more aspects of the dominant discourse.

For the change agent, reflexivity might be more difficult than for the researcher. Change agents have more of an advocates orientation than an analysts and may be more oriented toward promoting their favored discourse about change than being reflexive about the implicit narratives and frames that may be biasing how they approach a change situation. If we assume plurivocality in organizations, this may also predispose the change agent to ignore or misinterpret important information coming from others who are guided by alternative narratives. For example, the difference between how change agents and change recipients interpret resistant behaviors can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies and self-protective stories by change agents (Ford et al., 2008). Consequently, although difficult, it would enhance the effectiveness of change agents to maintain a stance of greater reflexivity to stay open to such possibilities and chal-lenges. Otherwise change agents will always be limited by the bounds of their own dominant ideologies and preferred narratives about change.

Finally, our framework urges change agents, the same as researchers, to view the change process as ongoing, iterative, and recursive rather than as a linear journey from



a current state to some future state. Consequently, change agents adopting a more discursive orientation will need to know how to join an existing conversation, shift it in new directions, and monitor and maintain new conversations over time (Bushe & Marshak, 2008, 2009). In other words, they will need to be mindful that there is no specific or discrete beginning, middle, or end to an organizational change initiative. In addition, because organizational discourses are open to continuous alteration, change agents should watch for emerging opportunities and openings in the prevailing discourse(s) to introduce their initiative into the conversation. For example, changes in meta-level discourses (being green) may be appropriated to create opportunities to introduce new possibilities or practices into more localized conversations (it might save energy if . . . ).

Concluding CommentsThe change-related framework that has been developed in this discussion demonstrates the potential contribution of a discourse-based approach to understanding and manag-ing the processes and practices of organizational change. It proposes that a number of critical constructs determine how organizational change is framed and talked about and thereby influence change processes and outcomes. Multiple levels of discourse, and the historical, social, and political contexts in which change occurs, are all shown to be significant. The construction of change-related narratives and their communication through conversations are shown to be fundamentally important to the ways in which people think about, describe, and make sense of change. The framework also sug-gests there are latent alternative discourses that can be blocked, or activated and deployed, by key actors in change efforts. The role of the change agent and researcher in co-creating discursive realities and the significance of their practicing reflexivity are also highlighted. The recursive, iterative, and ongoing nature of discourse that leads to alterations over time is shown to be significant to understanding the nature of organizational change itself.

We hope this framework and discussion invites a more applied orientation to orga-nizational change among discourse scholars and a more scholarly orientation among change agents to the ways in which discourse can be constructive of action. Finally, we hope that our suggestion that change orientations need to be not only discourse-based but also multilevel, plurivocal, reflexive, iterative, recursive, and power sensitive will become part of the ongoing narratives of those who plan, manage, and study organiza-tional change.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.



References

Alvesson, M. (1999). Methodology for close up studies: Struggling with closeness and closure (Institute of Economic Research Working Papers Series). Lund, Sweden: Department of Business Administration, Lund University, Sweden.

Alvesson, M., & Krreman, D. (2000a). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 136-158.

Alvesson, M., & Krreman, D. (2000b). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53, 1125-1149.

Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C., & Robson, K. (2000). In the name of the client: The service ethic in two professional service firms. Human Relations, 53, 1151-1174.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Barrett, F. J., Thomas, G. F., & Hocevar, S. P. (1995). The central role of discourse in large-scale change: A social construction perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31, 352-372.

Barry, D., Carroll, B., & Hansen, H. (2006). To text or context? Endotextual, exotextual, and multi-textual approaches to narrative and discursive organizational studies. Organization Studies, 27, 1091-1110.

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

Block, P. (2008). Nothing is next. OD Practitioner, 40(4), 35-37.Boden, D. M. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge, England: Polity

Press.Boje, D. M. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of performance in an office supply

firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 106-126.Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as

Tamara-Land. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 997-1035.Boje, D. M. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational and communications research. London,

England: Sage.Broadfoot, K., Deetz, S., & Anderson, D. (2004). Multi-levelled, multi-method approaches in

organizational discourse. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 193-211). London, England: Sage.

Brown, A. D. (1998). Narrative, politics and legitimacy in an IT implementation. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 40-57.

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

Buchanan, D., & Dawson, P. (2007). Discourse and audience: Organizational change as multi-story process. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 669-686.

Bushe, G. R., & Kassam A. F. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational? A meta-case analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 161-181.

Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (2008). The postmodern turn in OD. OD Practitioner, 40(4), 9-11.



Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (2009). Revisioning organization development: Diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45, 348-368.

Carroll, J. S., & Payne, J. W. (1991). An information processing approach to two party negotiations. In J. S. Carroll & J. W. Payne (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 3-34). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Chalaby, J. K. (1996). Beyond the prison-house of language: Discourse as a sociological concept. British Journal of Sociology, 47, 684-698.

Chasin, R., Herzig, M., Roth, S., Chasin, L., Becker, C., & Stains, R. (1996). From diatribe to dialogue on divisive public issues: Approaches drawn from family therapy. Median Quarterly, 13, 323-344.

Chia, R. (2000). Discourse analysis as organizational analysis. Organization, 7, 513-518.Clark, V., & Jennings, P. D. (1997). Talking about the natural environment. American Behavioral

Scientist, 40, 454-464.Cohen, L., & Mallon, M. (2001). My brilliant career: Using stories as a methodological tool in

careers research. International Studies of Management & Organization, 31(3), 48-68.Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2009). Organization development and change (9th ed.).

Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.Czarniawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.Czarniawska, B. (1998). A narrative approach to organization studies. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.Czarniawska, B. (1999). Writing management: Organization theory as a literary genre. Oxford,

England: Oxford University Press.Davies, B., & Harr, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the

Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43-63.Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization. Albany: State University of

New York Press.Doolin, B. (2003). Narratives of change: Discourse, technology and organization. Organization,

10, 751-770.Dunford, R., & Jones, D. (2000). Narrative and strategic change. Human Relations, 53, 1207-1226.Dutton, J., Ashford, S., ONeill, R., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling

and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 716-736.Easley, C. A. (2010). Expanding a conversation: Is how we live as a culturally diverse society

congruent with our underlying assumptions, methodologies and theories regarding change? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46, 55-72.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Fairclough, N., & Thomas, P. (2004). The globalization of discourse and the discourse of glo-

balization. In D. Grant, C. Harvey, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 379-396). London, England: Sage.

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction: Discourse studies: Vol. 2-A. Multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 258-284). London, England: Sage.



Fairhurst, G. T. (2007). Discursive leadership: In conversation with leadership psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1173-1193.

Ford, J. D. (1999). Organizational change as shifting conversations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 480-500.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 541-570.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2008). Conversational profiles: A tool for altering the conversational patterns of change managers. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 445-467.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L.

Toward discourse centered understanding of organizational change

Documents

Transcript of Toward discourse centered understanding of organizational change