实践中的制定逻辑:批判现实主义视角

IF 3 Q2 MANAGEMENT
Florian Hemme, Matthew T. Bowers, J. Todd
{"title":"实践中的制定逻辑:批判现实主义视角","authors":"Florian Hemme, Matthew T. Bowers, J. Todd","doi":"10.1080/14697017.2019.1703025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Drawing from critical realism, institutional logics, and sensemaking, we examine how changing field level logics are encoded and enacted in organizational practice. In this paper, we make evident the problems inherent in attempting to characterize logics solely based on their observable macro-level structures and highlight in particular the challenges associated with appropriately distinguishing between final logic instantiations and the fluid processes underpinning their formulation. Consequently, we offer a meso-level explanation of how or why logics can be combined in practice. In the present case, the two prevailing logics coexisted because their respective actors encoded them in different ways and because distinctions between peripheral and central logic expectations were borne out of the process through which they were interpreted. Finally, we offer a contextualized interpretation of these enactment processes under consideration of the idiosyncratic features found in public service organizations. MAD statement This article sets out to Make a Difference (MAD) for change agents tasked with implementing complex organizational transformation initiatives. Documenting how the practical implementation of novel expectations depends on employees’ personal backgrounds and histories, we challenge the applicability of one-size-fits-all approaches. We highlight instead the need to attend to the differences in change perception and interpretation that are bound to arise when diverse groups of people work in separate branches or locations of the same organization and do not share sensemaking models or meaning giving frameworks.","PeriodicalId":47003,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT","volume":"20 1","pages":"122 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14697017.2019.1703025","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enacting Logics in Practice: A Critical Realist Perspective\",\"authors\":\"Florian Hemme, Matthew T. Bowers, J. Todd\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14697017.2019.1703025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Drawing from critical realism, institutional logics, and sensemaking, we examine how changing field level logics are encoded and enacted in organizational practice. In this paper, we make evident the problems inherent in attempting to characterize logics solely based on their observable macro-level structures and highlight in particular the challenges associated with appropriately distinguishing between final logic instantiations and the fluid processes underpinning their formulation. Consequently, we offer a meso-level explanation of how or why logics can be combined in practice. In the present case, the two prevailing logics coexisted because their respective actors encoded them in different ways and because distinctions between peripheral and central logic expectations were borne out of the process through which they were interpreted. Finally, we offer a contextualized interpretation of these enactment processes under consideration of the idiosyncratic features found in public service organizations. MAD statement This article sets out to Make a Difference (MAD) for change agents tasked with implementing complex organizational transformation initiatives. Documenting how the practical implementation of novel expectations depends on employees’ personal backgrounds and histories, we challenge the applicability of one-size-fits-all approaches. We highlight instead the need to attend to the differences in change perception and interpretation that are bound to arise when diverse groups of people work in separate branches or locations of the same organization and do not share sensemaking models or meaning giving frameworks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47003,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"122 - 99\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14697017.2019.1703025\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2019.1703025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2019.1703025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要:从批判现实主义、制度逻辑和意义构建出发,我们研究了不断变化的领域级逻辑是如何在组织实践中被编码和实施的。在本文中,我们明确了试图仅基于可观察到的宏观层次结构来表征逻辑所固有的问题,并特别强调了与适当区分最终逻辑实例和支撑其表述的流体过程相关的挑战。因此,我们提供了一个中观层次的解释,说明逻辑如何或为什么可以在实践中结合。在目前的情况下,两种主流逻辑共存,因为它们各自的参与者以不同的方式编码它们,因为外围和中心逻辑期望之间的区别是在解释它们的过程中产生的。最后,我们在考虑公共服务组织的特殊特征的情况下,对这些制定过程进行了情境化的解释。本文为执行复杂的组织转型计划的变更代理人设定了“做出改变”(MAD)。通过记录新期望的实际实施如何取决于员工的个人背景和历史,我们挑战了一刀切方法的适用性。相反,我们强调需要注意变化感知和解释的差异,当不同的人群在同一组织的不同分支或位置工作并且不共享语义模型或意义赋予框架时,这些差异必然会出现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Enacting Logics in Practice: A Critical Realist Perspective
ABSTRACT Drawing from critical realism, institutional logics, and sensemaking, we examine how changing field level logics are encoded and enacted in organizational practice. In this paper, we make evident the problems inherent in attempting to characterize logics solely based on their observable macro-level structures and highlight in particular the challenges associated with appropriately distinguishing between final logic instantiations and the fluid processes underpinning their formulation. Consequently, we offer a meso-level explanation of how or why logics can be combined in practice. In the present case, the two prevailing logics coexisted because their respective actors encoded them in different ways and because distinctions between peripheral and central logic expectations were borne out of the process through which they were interpreted. Finally, we offer a contextualized interpretation of these enactment processes under consideration of the idiosyncratic features found in public service organizations. MAD statement This article sets out to Make a Difference (MAD) for change agents tasked with implementing complex organizational transformation initiatives. Documenting how the practical implementation of novel expectations depends on employees’ personal backgrounds and histories, we challenge the applicability of one-size-fits-all approaches. We highlight instead the need to attend to the differences in change perception and interpretation that are bound to arise when diverse groups of people work in separate branches or locations of the same organization and do not share sensemaking models or meaning giving frameworks.
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
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Journal of Change Management is a multidisciplinary and international forum for critical, mainstream and alternative contributions - focusing as much on psychology, ethics, culture and behaviour as on structure and process. JCM is a platform for open and challenging dialogue and a thorough critique of established as well as alternative practices. JCM is aiming to provide all authors with a first decision within six weeks of submission.
×
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