Social Constructivism and Organization Vision - Coursework Example

Social Constrictivism and Organization Vision Name Class Unit Introduction In the process of organisation change, leadership and management are needed (Graetz, 2006). Leaders and managers play a role in initiating change. It has also been proved that successful organizations use a socially constructed entity through legitimization which leads to reputation. Constructionist is an orientation in sociology and looks at the different ways in which reality can be known and constructed (Barkin, 2010). Interaction between people leads to creation of reality in an organisation. The interactions between individuals and the realities they create through these interactions leads to constructivism. The language used for understanding is the social artefact. The mind of an individual acts as the mirror for the reality (Fosnot, 2005). An organisation vision provides the ultimate long term goal of an organisation. The vision acts as the organisation global concept and gives a picture of the organisation future direction. It should have a philosophy that can help in uplifting the stakeholders in order to accomplish the goals. After a vision is achieved, the organization should revisit it. This is part of change as the organisation achieves the goals outlined in the vision (Ford, 1999). A vision must be realistic in the essence of constructionist vision. To achieve a vision, it has to be permanently constructed and reconstructed through interactions with others. This essay looks at the vision as a product of social constructivism. An organisation is able to construct internally through the use of dialogue, vision and mission which direct the members towards an objective. An organisation which fails to construct a vision is not able to meet the goals. In successful organisation, members take place in the reconstruction of vision regularly. Members meet to reconstruct the mission where they have a shared image for the organisation future (Barkin, 2010). An organisation is manifested as interactions of members’ mental models through a relational process. For one to implement change in an organisation, they have to focus on several aspects. The first aspect is looking for past members’ success and appreciating them (Jabri, 2012). This helps to motivate the employees. The leader is also supposed to understand the organisation context that had led to success in the past. The change leader is then expected to help the members to appreciate the experiences which have been discovered and use to encourage repetition (Ford, 1999). Using the constructionist perspective, it is argued that we are able to see what we believe. Appreciation is thus necessary to force an organisation to change. An organisation has the capability to orient itself with what will lead to their development. The multiple interactions by the people lead to an organisation which gives it a formative character in a constructivist view. The way an organisation operate, relate with members and ways of change leads to it being defined by a metaphor. The dynamic construction which is generated by the individuals leads to organisation change (Ford, 1999). The way in which people views an organisation is based on the interpretations that members give it. The manner in which the employees practice leads to the definition given to an organisation. The organisation vision should thus involve all members so that they are able to interpret is as their own (Jabri, 2012). The vision of an organisation is its motor which drives it and provides a direction. It acts as the source of the establishment of the organisation objectives. When the employees are not involved in coming up with the vision, they perceive that it is being imposed on them. The language in which the members of an organisation use to describe it services as a social artefact and a mirror of reality. The language is thus an engine for social reality and helps in making a map for the future (Ford, 1999). The role of the change agents is to come up with new realities which makes the people and more effective in coming up with the outcomes. This involves viewing the organisations as socially constructed realities. This have to involve a conversational perspective since socially constructed realities depends on them (Jabri, 2012). The reality is constructed and this is done through language. The focus in the organisation is more based on the language approach both in management and entire organisation. It is important to know that constructionist agree that the world cannot be known directly. The organisation that wants to implement change has to invent language that can enable them to talk and create what they know. This is the languages that enable the organisation to create reality (Ford, 1999). There are two types or realities that are created in an organisation. There is first order reality and second order realities. Both types of realities are created and maintained through conversations. This involves what is said and listened to by others (Jabri, 2012). Conversations are complex and involve what are spoken, listened, artefacts and symbols among others. The conversations used in an organisation can be a simple speech to an argument. It has been proven that conversations are not only the way in which reality is constructed but also an outcome of construction. Reality is constructed using linguistic products. What is described in an organisation can be created (Ford, 1999). Organisations can be looked at as comprised of conversations made of first order and second order realities. These are interconnected conversations that comprise the texture of the organisation. Conversations connect people and hence couple them in their tasks. The conversations constitute realities which are the organisations. The unit of work in managing change is conversation. Change managers have to work through conversations in order to bring about change (Sarbin & Kitsuse, 1994). The conversational perspective in social constructivism helps in understanding what change is made of. Change is a polyphonic phenomenon. Change is where the conversations are made, maintained and eliminated (Fosnot, 2005). This implies that change is made up of episodes of conversations which are organized on a specific theme. In change, both first and second order realities are combined together. Thus change is made up of unfolding conversations into conversations that already exist. Change will also depend on the realities in which they unfold to which determines what will change and what will not. Change agents are thus supposed to know that change happens in the first order realities (Ford, 1999). The main problem is the fact that it is hard to determine the type of conversations which will lead to change. This makes change to look like an experiment. Using the constructed realities, it is hard to have change without individual change (Leitner & Thomas, 2009). To make new actions in an organisation, people have to change the context of their conversations. This is why there is need to change the organisation vision when the goal changes. An organisation change can also not occur without an individual change. The members must be ready to listen and also speak in a different way if they want to shift the organisation change (Ford, 1999). Managing change involves shifting conversations. When one is able to shift the conversation, it becomes possible for new actions and results to be seen in an organisation. This shows that in order to make change in an organisation, language shift is needed (Jabri, 2012). The contents that are in a shift help to fulfil the intentions. In an organisation change, nascent language becomes the new language and displaces the original language. This involves bringing new conversations and using them to replace the old conversation. There is a need to be a rate in which the new language is introduced for the change to be effective. When the rate is not favourable, there is bound to raise complaints and questions which can make the change to slow. The people involved can be proactive or reactive. The choice to talk of the possibilities or complains affects the rate at which change is carried out. Being reactive inhibits conversations in an organisation which reduces change velocity (Jabri, 2012). When people move from monologue to dialogue, it becomes easy to effect change. Entering into dialogue helps to reframe and create new conversation. It is important to know that people will only get into conversations in which they will be appreciated. People rarely participate where they are not appreciated (Fosnot, 2005). This can be one source of resistance to change that change agents have to look at. The order of discourse has to be changed by the change agent to avoid people becoming cynical. The employees become cynical to the change agents if they fail to change the discourse. The work of the change agent is to keep a complete conversation in which new opportunities can be created (Ford, 1999). Change process in an organisation is made up of four processes. The processes are; initiative, understanding, performance and closure. Initiative helps the organisation to start on a conversation. The ability of a change manager or leader to effectively carry out change is through ability to fully understand a conversation. The managers have to be involved in an interpersonal conversation in order to initiate change. This is the step where they experience resistance (Jabri, 2012). Change in an organisation enables people involved to be responsible for what they say and listen to. Peoples have to speak and listen as creators but not reporters. Through the conversation, change is created and those involved are responsible for it (Waddell, Cummings & Worley, 2011). Constructivism leads us to be responsible for the change that we build. Being responsible to what we talk involves taking charge of our right to contribute or not (Ford, 1999). Resistance to change is an attribution which is a second order reality. The change managers and leaders are responsible to ensure that they reframe the conditions and enable things to go on in a positive way. The change managers have a responsibility to make sure that those involved understands why something is being done to reduce resistance. As change is a language shift, resistance can be viewed as language management. The language shift is seen as an effort to change one identity and hence resistance is expected (Jabri, 2012). The organisation vision sets the goal that has to be achieved. In order to achieve the goal, change must be undertaken. This means that the organisation have to come up with change strategies that will enable the attainment of the set goals (Fosnot, 2005). The strategies have to involve communication and interactions which will enable change. The members in an organisation have to interact with each other in order to bring out change. The interaction has to be moderated by the change agent. Through change agent, it is possible to minimize or eliminate resistance. The organisation vision is thus a product of the social constructivism. The vision cannot be attained without social constructivism. Social constructivism enables the mission which is the driver for organisation change (Ford, 1999). Conclusion The essay has shown how social constructivism is associated with the organisation vision. Change is a process which involves dialogue between members. An organisation is able to construct internally through use of dialogue, vision and mission which direct the members towards an objective. Change process in an organisation is made up of four processes. The processes are; initiative, understanding, performance and closure. Change in an organisation enables people involved to be responsible for what they say and listen to. The members of an organisation will only be involved in discussions which they are appreciated. When not appreciated, resistance to change occurs. Resistance is a second order reality according to social constructivism. If all understands why change is taking place, they are able to become involved. The change managers and leaders have a responsibility to make sure that those involved understands why something is being done to reduce resistance. As change is a language shift, resistance can be viewed as language management. The organisation vision is thus a product of social constructivism. References Barkin, J. S. (2010). Realist constructivism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ford, J.D. (1999), Organizational change as shifting conversations, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(6), 480-500. Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Graetz, F. (2006). Managing organisational change. Milton, Qld: John Wiley & Sons Australia. Jabri, M. (2012). Managing organizational change: Process, social construction and dialogue. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Leitner, L. M., & Thomas, J. C. (2009). Personal constructivism: Theory and applications. New York, NY: Pace University Press. Pouliot, V. (2004). The essence of constructivism. Journal of International Relations and Development, 7 (3), 145. Sarbin, T. R., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1994). Constructing the social. London: Sage. Senior, B. (2002). Organisational change. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Waddell, D., Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2011). Organisational change: Development and transformation. South Melbourne, Vic: Cengage Learning. Read More