Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques

Building Leadership Effectiveness This program encourages leaders to develop practices that transform values into action, vision into realities, obstacles into innovations, and risks into rewards. Participants will be introduced to the five practices of exemplary leadership: modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart Coaching & Communicating for Performance Coaching & Communicating for Performance is a highly interactive program that will give supervisors and managers the opportunity to build skills that will enable them to share expectations and set objectives for employees, provide constructive feedback, more effectively engage in learning conversations, and coaching opportunities. Skillful Conflict Management for Leaders As a leader, it is important to understand conflict and be effective at conflict management because the way conflict is resolved becomes an integral component of our university’s culture. This series of conflict management sessions help leaders learn and put into practice effective strategies for managing conflict.

기독교 사역과 Leadership

Men and Women of the Corporation

Recent analyses of organizational change suggest a growing concern with the tempo of change, understood as the characteristic rate, rhythm, or pattern of work or activity. Episodic change is contrasted with continuous change on the basis of implied metaphors of organizing, analytic frameworks, ideal organizations, intervention theories, and roles for change agents. Episodic change follows the sequence unfreeze-transition-refreeze, whereas continuous change follows the sequence freeze-rebalance-unfreeze. Conceptualizations of inertia are seen to underlie the choice to view change as episodic or continuous.

/pdf/organizational-change-and-development-1ld3nf3mhy.pdf

Organizational change and development

What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

Sensemaking’ is an extraordinarily influential perspective with a substantial following among management and organization scholars interested in how people appropriate and enact their ‘realities’. Organization Studies has been and remains one of the principal outlets for work that seeks either to draw on or to extend our understanding of sensemaking practices in and around organizations. The contribution of this paper is fourfold. First, we review briefly what we understand by sensemaking and some key debates which fracture the field. Second, we attend critically to eight papers published previously in Organization Studies which we discuss in terms of five broad themes: (i) how sense is made through discourse; (ii) the politics from which social forms of sensemaking emerge and the power that is inherent in it; (iii) the intertwined and recursive nature of micro-macro sensemaking processes; (iv) the strong ties which bind sensemaking and identities; and (v) the role of sensemaking processes in decision making and change. Third, while not designed to be a review of extant literature, we discuss these themes with reference to other related work, notably that published in this journal. Finally, we raise for consideration a number of potentially generative topics for further empirical and theory-building research.

/pdf/making-sense-of-sensemaking-in-organization-studies-2awybct3at.pdf

Making Sense of Sensemaking in Organization Studies

This paper contributes to the timely debate on research into boards and their effectiveness by focusing on context, process and time, which are crucial to understanding board dynamics. It also explores key principles of board process research, and advocates the need to strengthen its theoretical and methodological foundations in order to challenge the analytically particular assumptions of agency theory. The paper concludes that there is still much more to be researched in this area and encourages work that explores variation in board process and director effectiveness in different organizational contexts, as well as seeking to go beyond the board to address their impact and effectiveness in the broader organizational and external context.

Studying Board Context, Process and Dynamics: Some Challenges for the Future

This article aims to challenge some of the assumptions which we make in our understanding of leadership, through empirical illustration from a large organization where a chief executive endeavours to ‘lead’ global change. The continuing search for the Holy Grail, which seems to characterize interest in leadership, implies that research efforts are perhaps being directed at ‘solving the wrong problem’. Leadership as a form of social influence is hard to distinguish from many other influences in relationships between people yet, it is argued, its emphasis on moving towards future action encourages a conception not dissimilar to organizing. The case analysis developed in this article goes on to reframe leadership as an example of sensemaking. It concludes that while sensemaking will never replace leadership as a focus or topic of interest, to understand leadership as a sensemaking process helps illustrate more clearly what happens in the daily doing of leading.

Leadership and Organizing: Sensemaking in Action:

This article describes an holistic model of intervention geared to achieving transformational change by interweaving culture and structure through the warp and weft of leadership processes. That is, it brings together organization design and organization development by advocating a culturally sensitive approach to organization structuring. Our emphasis is on process throughout and our thesis is based on empirical evidence. We undertook a lengthy action research project (which we prefer to call "action ethnography") at a large hospital trust in England. In the process of elaborating this field study, we move from an organization which was seen to be "gridlocked" and to have "lost its steering capacity", through one which was bringing development and design together by way of pilot projects and transitional structures, to one where collective dialogue and debate finally led to some collective and sensible sensemaking.Exploring this relationship between culture and structure enables us to put people back into design and with them, their meanings, aspirations and assumptions. It also means that we are careful to avoid detailing specific design choices or offering organizational archetypes: this article is primarily about the process issues that surround redesign rather than organization design per se, as indeed any redesign is ultimately highly specific and context-driven. Instead, however, we articulate a four-phase change model, focusing on the delicate processes by which to reframe the culture-structure relationship, enabling an organization to move towards fundamental change.

Towards A Culturally Sensitive Approach To Organization Structuring: Where Organization Design Meets Organization Development

Simplexity is advanced as an umbrella term reflecting sensemaking, organizing and storytelling for our time. People in and out of organizations increasingly find themselves facing novel circumstances that are suffused with dynamic complexity. To make sense through processes of organizing, and to find a plausible answer to the question ‘what is the story?’, requires a fusion of sufficient complexity of thought with simplicity of action, which we call simplexity. This captures the notion that while sensemaking is a balance between thinking and acting, in a new world that owes less to yesterday’s stories and frames, keeping up with the times changes the balance point to clarifying through action. This allows us to see sense (making) more clearly.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0018726711425617

Annie Pye

Papers

Making Sense of Sensemaking in Organization Studies

Studying Board Context, Process and Dynamics: Some Challenges for the Future

Leadership and Organizing: Sensemaking in Action:

Towards A Culturally Sensitive Approach To Organization Structuring: Where Organization Design Meets Organization Development

Simplexity: Sensemaking, organizing and storytelling for our time