In contrast, in the second line, if senior and middle managers calculate
engagement in communicative practices, it will be degenerative dialogue form
and oppositional in power-resistance relations. The result of change effects is
In the first line, communicative practices make
relation engagement by senior and middle managers lead to generative dialogue
form and facilitative in power-resistance relations. The result of change
effects is breakthrough.
of dynamics in the negotiation of meaning are illustrated by communicative
practices, form of dialogue, power-resistance relations and change effects. There are 2 groups of dynamics: the first group shows successful
negotiation and the second group shows failed negotiation.
Dynamics in the Negotiation of Meaning
The negotiation of meaning affects
organisational change through permeating of the role of power-resistance
relations (Thomas et al. 2011). Senior manager or change agent possibly has
prerogative in negotiating (Collinson 1994) and creating change. Employees also
set their target in order to protect themselves from unfair agreement. Nevertheless,
the outcome of negotiation is not always negative or oppressive due to the
power-resistance relations (Mumby 2005). Shared meanings of various actors in negotiation
encourage to success of organisational change (cf. Westley 1990).
The negotiation of meaning
“Power is productive, it produces reality, including
domains of objects, and rituals of truth and individual subjects” (Foucault
1979). In the same web of relations, power and
resistance preform concurrently which resistance always exists, so it will not
complete in power. “There are no relations of power without resistance”
(Foucault 1980). To overcome resistance, this relations
of power-resistance is unnecessary to oppress, but it should negotiate the
meaning with all involved actors (Rouse, 1994). The concept of power-resistance
relations focuses on “how relations of power and resistance operate together in
producing change, and in what ways” (Thomas and Hardy 2011).
Power-resistance relations and change
Secondly, Tsoukas (2005) and (2009)
views an organizational becoming as it highlights the
formative influences of language. “This perspective views organizations as
enacted in the micro-context of communicative interactions among individuals”
(Boden 1994 and Weick et al. 2005). The organisational
change is caused by new language as actors negotiate on meaning through
communicative interactions (Hardy et al. 2005 and Tsoukas 2005).
Firstly, organisations characterize
as ongoing change properties and enactments. Temporary change in organisation
is common and unavoidable condition (Bechky 2006), and formed by daily
“micro-interactions” of actors in local conditions (Tsoukas and Chia 2002).
becoming perspective from theoretical developments (Tsoukas and Chia 2002
and Carlsen 2006) can divided into 2 organizational aspects.
Managing organizational change
This approach center on “how different organizational
members contribute to the negotiation of meaning, and in what ways” (Thomas et
al. 2011). Change agents and change recipients are located in the same webs of
power relations which causes resistance and affects negotiations. Change agent
or senior manager has prerogative in meanings rather than recipient. Resulting
from wider power relations, the negotiation of meaning with lower level might
fail to get considerable influence (Thomas and Hardy 2011). Therefore, “the
negotiation of meaning is not unconstrained, it is a political process in which
not all actors have equal voice” (Hardy & Phillips, 2004).
Poststructuralist (Discursive) Approaches