意义制造和意义赋予:道德基础理论和有序方法相结合的成功变革管理概念

Matthias G. Will, I. Pies
{"title":"意义制造和意义赋予:道德基础理论和有序方法相结合的成功变革管理概念","authors":"Matthias G. Will, I. Pies","doi":"10.1108/JAOC-11-2016-0075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nChange management projects typically fail because they meet employee resistance created by emotional sensemaking processes. This paper aims to present an in-depth explanation for these failures and how change managers could avoid them.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis study presents an argument in the following three steps: it begins with an empirically well-established fact that attempts at change management often trigger negative emotional responses; the moral foundations theory is then used to identify the typical categories of emotional responses that may result in resistance to organizational change; and the ordonomic approach to business ethics is built upon to substantiate the diagnosis that, in many cases, emotional responses cause employees to behave in a way that is collectively self-damaging.\n\n\nFindings\nThe core idea of the current study’s contribution is that emotionally driven processes of sensemaking can easily become dysfunctional, especially in situations that require extensive change. Consequently, it should be top priority for managers to engage in sensegiving, which comprises: narratives that explain what is going on against the background of relevant alternatives and appropriate discourses that guide how employees form their expectations. In a nutshell, sensegiving attempts to reframe sensemaking processes.\n\n\nPractical implications\nEven if a win–win potential already exists, it can still be misperceived. If employees are used to thinking within a trade-off framework, this might trigger trade-off intuitions and negative emotions, in effect leading to a situation that makes everyone worse off. Such mental models might become a self-fulfilling prophecy. To counter such a tendency, sensegiving aims at a professional management of sensemaking processes. The task of successful change management, properly understood, is to create and communicate win–win potentials, ensuring that all parties involved understand that they are not asked to sacrifice their self-interest, instead they are invited to participate in a process of mutual betterment.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe literature on sensemaking draws attention to the empirical fact that resistance to change is typically driven by emotions. The moral foundations theory helps in exactly identifying which emotional dimensions are relevant in times of organizational change. The ordonomic approach to business ethics points out that – owing to their emotional nature – processes of sensemaking might fail, that they may mislead employees into behavioral patterns that are collectively self-damaging. Therefore, a top priority for management is to engage in sensegiving, that is, in (re-)framing sensemaking processes.\n","PeriodicalId":212698,"journal":{"name":"Change Management & Organizational Behavior eJournal","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sensemaking and Sensegiving: A Concept for Successful Change Management that Brings Together Moral Foundations Theory and the Ordonomic Approach\",\"authors\":\"Matthias G. Will, I. Pies\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/JAOC-11-2016-0075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nChange management projects typically fail because they meet employee resistance created by emotional sensemaking processes. This paper aims to present an in-depth explanation for these failures and how change managers could avoid them.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis study presents an argument in the following three steps: it begins with an empirically well-established fact that attempts at change management often trigger negative emotional responses; the moral foundations theory is then used to identify the typical categories of emotional responses that may result in resistance to organizational change; and the ordonomic approach to business ethics is built upon to substantiate the diagnosis that, in many cases, emotional responses cause employees to behave in a way that is collectively self-damaging.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe core idea of the current study’s contribution is that emotionally driven processes of sensemaking can easily become dysfunctional, especially in situations that require extensive change. Consequently, it should be top priority for managers to engage in sensegiving, which comprises: narratives that explain what is going on against the background of relevant alternatives and appropriate discourses that guide how employees form their expectations. In a nutshell, sensegiving attempts to reframe sensemaking processes.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nEven if a win–win potential already exists, it can still be misperceived. If employees are used to thinking within a trade-off framework, this might trigger trade-off intuitions and negative emotions, in effect leading to a situation that makes everyone worse off. Such mental models might become a self-fulfilling prophecy. To counter such a tendency, sensegiving aims at a professional management of sensemaking processes. The task of successful change management, properly understood, is to create and communicate win–win potentials, ensuring that all parties involved understand that they are not asked to sacrifice their self-interest, instead they are invited to participate in a process of mutual betterment.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThe literature on sensemaking draws attention to the empirical fact that resistance to change is typically driven by emotions. The moral foundations theory helps in exactly identifying which emotional dimensions are relevant in times of organizational change. The ordonomic approach to business ethics points out that – owing to their emotional nature – processes of sensemaking might fail, that they may mislead employees into behavioral patterns that are collectively self-damaging. Therefore, a top priority for management is to engage in sensegiving, that is, in (re-)framing sensemaking processes.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":212698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Change Management & Organizational Behavior eJournal\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Change Management & Organizational Behavior eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-11-2016-0075\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Change Management & Organizational Behavior eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-11-2016-0075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

变革管理项目通常会失败,因为它们遇到了员工在情感表达过程中产生的阻力。本文旨在对这些失败进行深入的解释,以及变革管理者如何避免这些失败。设计/方法/方法本研究通过以下三个步骤提出了一个论点:它从一个经验上公认的事实开始,即变革管理的尝试经常引发负面情绪反应;然后,道德基础理论被用来识别可能导致组织变革阻力的情绪反应的典型类别;商业道德的常规方法是建立在证实诊断的基础上的,在许多情况下,情绪反应导致员工的行为方式是集体自我伤害的。当前研究贡献的核心思想是,情感驱动的意义生成过程很容易变得功能失调,特别是在需要大量改变的情况下。因此,管理者的首要任务应该是参与感知,这包括:在相关替代方案的背景下解释正在发生的事情的叙述,以及指导员工如何形成他们的期望的适当话语。简而言之,赋予意义试图重构意义制造过程。实际意义即使双赢的潜力已经存在,它仍然可能被误解。如果员工习惯于在权衡框架内思考,这可能会引发权衡直觉和负面情绪,实际上会导致一种让每个人都更糟糕的情况。这种思维模式可能会成为一种自我实现的预言。为了对抗这种趋势,感官赋予的目标是对感官制造过程进行专业管理。正确地理解,成功的变革管理的任务是创造和沟通双赢的潜力,确保所有相关方都明白,他们不是被要求牺牲自己的利益,而是被邀请参与一个共同改善的过程。原创性/价值关于语义构建的文献让我们注意到一个经验事实,即对变化的抵制通常是由情绪驱动的。道德基础理论有助于准确地确定在组织变革时期哪些情感维度是相关的。商业道德的常规方法指出,由于其情感本质,意义建构过程可能会失败,它们可能会误导员工进入集体自我伤害的行为模式。因此,管理层的首要任务是参与意义赋予,即(重新)构建意义制造过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sensemaking and Sensegiving: A Concept for Successful Change Management that Brings Together Moral Foundations Theory and the Ordonomic Approach
Purpose Change management projects typically fail because they meet employee resistance created by emotional sensemaking processes. This paper aims to present an in-depth explanation for these failures and how change managers could avoid them. Design/methodology/approach This study presents an argument in the following three steps: it begins with an empirically well-established fact that attempts at change management often trigger negative emotional responses; the moral foundations theory is then used to identify the typical categories of emotional responses that may result in resistance to organizational change; and the ordonomic approach to business ethics is built upon to substantiate the diagnosis that, in many cases, emotional responses cause employees to behave in a way that is collectively self-damaging. Findings The core idea of the current study’s contribution is that emotionally driven processes of sensemaking can easily become dysfunctional, especially in situations that require extensive change. Consequently, it should be top priority for managers to engage in sensegiving, which comprises: narratives that explain what is going on against the background of relevant alternatives and appropriate discourses that guide how employees form their expectations. In a nutshell, sensegiving attempts to reframe sensemaking processes. Practical implications Even if a win–win potential already exists, it can still be misperceived. If employees are used to thinking within a trade-off framework, this might trigger trade-off intuitions and negative emotions, in effect leading to a situation that makes everyone worse off. Such mental models might become a self-fulfilling prophecy. To counter such a tendency, sensegiving aims at a professional management of sensemaking processes. The task of successful change management, properly understood, is to create and communicate win–win potentials, ensuring that all parties involved understand that they are not asked to sacrifice their self-interest, instead they are invited to participate in a process of mutual betterment. Originality/value The literature on sensemaking draws attention to the empirical fact that resistance to change is typically driven by emotions. The moral foundations theory helps in exactly identifying which emotional dimensions are relevant in times of organizational change. The ordonomic approach to business ethics points out that – owing to their emotional nature – processes of sensemaking might fail, that they may mislead employees into behavioral patterns that are collectively self-damaging. Therefore, a top priority for management is to engage in sensegiving, that is, in (re-)framing sensemaking processes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信