Resume_Gudova_Е.А_ (1136930), страница 2
Текст из файла (страница 2)
Sharma, A. Gupta, J. Ferguson, T.Asad, and many others contributors to the field of political anthropology andanthropology of state.Among the Russian researchers who developed the problems of change inorganizations of various types, it is possible to single out the works of I. Pavlyutkin,I. Chirikov, N. Bogatyr (Conroy), V. Radaev, M. Sokolov, E. Guba.Processual approach allows one to literally observe organizing (K.E. Weick)at the micro-level. According to Weick and his followers, communication andnarratives of participants play a significant part in organizing. A “narrative turn” inorganization studies was greatly developed by B. Czarniawska, Y. Gabriel, D.
Boje,G. Patriotta, A.D. Brown, M.E. Boyce, I. Collville, S. Sonenshein, E. Vaara andmany others.This work attempts to take a processual approach to organizational change inthe case of Russian Post reorganization. This will allow one: to analyze the actual12Official IPC website https://www.ipc.beOfficial UPU website http://www.upu.int/en.html7mechanics of changes and interactions of involved participants at the micro-level; topay attention to the locality and temporality of [organizational] change; To track theinterrelations between institutional, practical, material and linguistic aspects of theemployees’ world-making. Particular attention is paid to employees’ stories, aspieces of interpretations of ongoing events, and some following processes andactions based on these interpretations.Aim and objectives of the workThe aim of this work is to substantiate the heuristic and empirical value of theprocessual approach toward organizational change analysis on the example of theRussian Post.Primary specific objectives of this work are:1.
To compare and summarize existing approaches to change in an “entified”organization and organization understood as a process2. To demonstrate methodological advantages of organizational ethnography,stories and narratives as tools for processual approach to organizational change3. To identify and justify the specifics of national postal operators and FSUE the“Russian Post” in particular as organizations4. To analyze the process of Russian Post reorganization in 2013-2016,difficulties and disagreements among its actors5. To identify how different employees and groups of employees interpretedongoing changes and actions of the organizationThe subject of the work: organizational change in Russian Post structure andinternal processes during the reorganization in 2013-2016.The object of the work: communication, narratives and stories of employees,which reflect their subjective perception of the change process in the Russian Post.8Personal contribution in problem development and data collectionThe research reveals that processual approach to organizational change is ameaningful framework for investigating internal structure of change at the level ofemployees’ interaction, and linking the micro- with macro, various contexts oforganizing of the Russian Post in 2013-2016.The heuristic value of organizational narratives and stories is demonstratedthrough combining various sources and methods of data collection integrated by thelens of classical organizational ethnography.
The applied methodology indicatesmultivocality of organizational voices and various interpretations of current events,and offers a fruitful and new for Russian sociology organizations framework ofanalysis.The topics of communication, knowledge, power, time and identity in theorganization turned out to be the strongest stress points in Russian Postreorganization and the way it was experienced and reinterpreted by the staffmembers. These topics were revealed by the author in five stories told by differentemployees.
The results of the research can be useful for improving communicationin geographically and hierarchically distributed organizations, as well as fordeveloping practical recommendations for managing organizational changes.The results of the research were presented at two All-Russian and fiveinternational scientific conferences. Theoretical assumptions and empiricalmaterials of the research were used in the course “Main sociological approaches inorganization studies” for 3rd year students of the HSE Department of Sociology in2016 - 2018.Theoretical backgroundA conventional model or organizational change was not accepted due totheoretical and disciplinary diversity, neither at the turn of the 20th and 21st9centuries, nor in recent years3.
However, most studies distinguish planned andemergent organizational change4. The former are subject to managerial intentionsrelated to possible shifts in strategy or structure and productivity. Emergent changeis a form of reaction to various demographic, social, economic and politicalchallenges of the environment5.Critics of this approach argue that planned changes are too reactive,intentional and unique, while changes are not always an answer to external (orinternal) problems.
Change occurs constantly in the actions of various participantsand at different organizational levels, it’s hard to distinguish the beginning and theend of it6. Organization is more of a pattern that is shaped and emerging from change.(Tsoukas, Chia, 2002: p. 568) Organizational constitution through change in anattempt of ordering, and planned change is needed only if this attempt fails7.Change does not always contain a precise intention; it can be a side effect ofindividuals’ reflection of ongoing events and gained experience8. There is nothingexceptional about change as well, it is a natural process.
If changes are a uniqueintermediate period on the path to stability, they are broken down into several stages.This set of frozen immobilities paradoxically replaces and flushes the essence ofchange itself9.Huber, George P., Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, C.
Chet Miller, and William H. Glick. 1993. ‘Understanding and PredictingOrganizational Change’. P. 265 in Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improvingperformance. Vol. 215.; Dunphy, Dexter. 1996. Organizational Change in Corporate Settings. Sage PublicationsSage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA.; Coghlan, David. 2017. ‘How Might We Learn about the Philosophy of ODCResearch from 24 Volumes of ROCD? An Invitation to Interiority’. Pp.
335–61 in Research in OrganizationalChange and Development. Vol. 25, Research in Organizational Change and Development. Emerald PublishingLimited.4Burnes, Bernard. 2004. ‘Emergent Change and Planned Change – Competitors or Allies?: The Case of XYZConstruction’. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 24(9):886–902Many other examples may be found in Journal of Organizational Change Management or Research in OrganizationalChange and Development precisely established for research in organizational change5Huber et al., 19936Orlikowski, Wanda J. 1996.
‘Improvising Organizational Transformation over Time: A Situated ChangePerspective’. Information Systems Research 7(1):63–92.7Weick, Karl E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing (Second Edition). New York: Addison- Wesley.8Isabella, Lynn A. 1990. ‘Evolving Interpretations as a Change Unfolds: How Managers Construe Key OrganizationalEvents’. Academy of Management Journal 33(1):7–41.; Gioia, Da and K. Chittipeddi.
1991. ‘Sensemaking andSensegiving in Strategic Change Initiation’. Strategic Management Journal 12(6):433–48.; Fiss, Peer C. andEdward J. Zajac. 2006. ‘The Symbolic Management of Strategic Change: Sensegiving via Framing andDecoupling’. Academy of Management Journal 49(6):1173–93.; Tsoukas, Haridimos and Robert Chia. 2002.
‘OnOrganizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change’. Organization Science 13(5):567–582.9Seidl, David. 2009. ‘Book Review: Tor Hernes Understanding Organization as Process: Theory for a Tangled WorldRoutledge: London and New York 2008. 221+ Xviii. 978-0-415-41729-7’. Organization Studies 30(1):124–128.;310The processual approach, which gained popularity around 1980's, representedorganizational change as ongoing, unpredictable and political.
According to thisposition, the “inner” perspective, as the focus shifts to temporality, integrity,openness, strength and potentiality of change10. We should not be limited byestablished forms and a nouns, but switch for process and verbs. Therefore, it’s notan organization, but organizing through the actions of participants11 (Bantz 1989).K. Weick introduced the term sensemaking12 to define the way actors organizetheir flow of experience, endow what is going on with a certain meaning, and actupon it. “Sensemaking involves the ongoing retrospective development of plausibleimages that rationalize what people are doing” 13. It is the core of organizing, becauseit reduces uncertainty and allows actors to work out a common definition of asituation and use it in the following actions.
Organizing is responsible forinterpreting ambiguous and uncertain signals from the environment, and allows theorganization to communicate its inner and outer signals.The approach may seem oversimplified, but Weick’s initial interest is therelationship between the subjective cognitive and intersubjective social levels ofevent perception. The way meanings and definitions of the situation arise in the headof each particular actor in the organization can easily affect the entire organization14.The outcomes may depend on relations of power and authority, frame, language andother aspects15.Hernes, Tor. 2008. Understanding Organization as Process: Theory for a Tangled World.
Routledge.; Tsoukas,Haridimos and Robert Chia. 2002. ‘On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change’.Organization Science 13(5):567–582.10Helin, Jenny, Tor Hernes, Daniel Hjorth, and Robin Holt. 2014. ‘Process Is How Process Does’. Pp. 1–16 in TheOxford handbook of process philosophy and organization studies.11Weick, Karl E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing (Second Edition). New York: Addison- Wesley.; Bantz,Charles R.
1989. ‘Organizing and the Social Psychology of Organizing’. Communication Studies 40(4):231–40.12Weick, Karl E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Vol. 3. Sage.13Weick, Karl E., Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, and David Obstfeld. 2005. ‘Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking’.Organization Science 16(4):409–421.14Weick, Karl E. 1993. ‘The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster’. AdministrativeScience Quarterly 38(4):628–52.; Weick, Karl E. 2010. ‘Reflections on Enacted Sensemaking in the BhopalDisaster’. Journal of Management Studies 47(3):537–50.15Maitlis, Sally and Marlys Christianson.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
