A discussion on the importance of conversation in organisational change
Steve Ryan, 17 Aug 15

INTRODUCTION

Change is often forces upon organisations, be it through internal forces (e.g. a change in organisational strategy) or external forces (a change in government legislation or customer demand) (Jabri, 2012, p. 4). No matter the reason, it is important that managers, leaders and change agents are able understand the change process, predict issues and react appropriately.
In an effort to further our understanding of organisational change, this paper will discuss how change is relational and, therefore, the product of mundane conversations. In achieving this, the paper will consider the meaning of organisational change, the meaning of conversations and social construction, and the role of conversations within change. In discussing these definitions and examining the role of conversations within organisational change, we will be able to highlight fictions within the change process and identify methods of negating them.

UNDERSTANDING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE

The definition of change is one that has been discussed and debated by philosophers throughout the ages. An ancient criterion of change states that an object, x, changes if and only if there are distinct times, t and t’, and property p, such that x has p at t and fails to have p at t’, or vice versa (Lombard, 1978, p. 63). This criterion looks at change in the widest sense. To understand organisational change, we need look deeper into what creates change, how the change affects individuals and an organisation, and how to successfully navigate the issues associated with change within an organisation.

To successfully understand organisational change, we use one of two broad modes: the rationalist and social/relational modes. Within the rationalist approach, each element is considered independently, with systems, structure and strategy separable from the individuals that make up the organisation (Jabri, 2012, p. 26). In approaching each of these elements individually, the mode fails to promote cohesion within an organisation and is less likely to promote organisational identification. This approach also restricts the overall view of change agents, inhibiting their ability to link elements and identify systemic issues. These shortfalls are obviously not ideal and further clutter the complicated process of organisational change.

The alternative mode applied towards organisational change is that change is a social construction and relational. In approaching change this way, it is viewed as a collaborative effort, with the process unfolding over time as participants agree on the organising rules of their interactions and behaviours (Jabri, 2012, p. 27). In implanting a relational approach towards change, organisations are able to give employees significant ‘buy-in’ to the process through conversation; this improves organisational identification, and can reduce change resistance. This view also enables change agents to approach the change holistically, ensuring that the reason for change, and the individual or organisation subject to the change, are viewed simultaneously (Jabri, 2012, p. 26). Achieving this ensures that all factors are taken into account, giving the organisation the best change of change implementation.

The preferred mode of understanding organisational change is therefore through the relational mode. This method is preferred given its holistic approach and the ability to facilitate and acknowledge employee contribution. In taking this approach to understand organisation change, change agents reduce the risk of entrapping themselves in restricted thinking, giving the organisation the best chance of successfully implementing the change.

UNDERSTANDING MUNDANE CONVERSATIONS AND SOCIAL
CONSTRUCTION

Before we can understand the role of conversations within organisational change, we must first fully understand conversations and social construction independently. A conversation is more than what is said and listened to between people; when looking in depth, a conversation is a complex information-rich mix of auditory, visual, olfactory and tactile events. They may last a single utterance or take a century to convey (Ford, et al., 2002, p. 106). Conversations are everywhere; they are used to share our stories, make sense of our experiences, and are a key element of social construction (Jabri, 2012, p. 30). Social construction in itself is the ability of individuals to develop a joint understanding of the world through sociology and communication (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 61). An individual’s (Muran, 2002)perception of the world around them is developed through their social interactions. With this in mind, we see that participants of different socially constructed realities have different perceptions of the world around them, and as a result they will engage in different actions (Ford, et al., 2002, p.
106). This is highlighted in the way individuals interpret everyday experiences. An example may be dining in a restaurant, where individuals can have quite contradictory perceptions of a restaurant based on conversations had before, during and after their time dining there. In understanding the concepts of conversation and social construction, we begin to see their importance within the implementation and management of organisational change in the relational mode.

THE ROLE OF CONVERSATIONS IN ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE

As discussed, an individual’s perception of the world is developed through the conversations they have as part of their social interactions; similarly, an individual’s perception of organisational change is also developed through social construction. This is demonstrated with every change in an organisation being initiated through conversations, and the focus of the conversations dictating the direction of the change (Jabri, 2012, p. 85). Conversations therefore, play a large role in the complete change process, with the ability for managers, leaders and change agents to understand this role becoming increasingly important. This is demonstrated by the ability of simple and mundane conversations to contextualise the change, create preparedness for the change, and explain and negate the resistance towards change. Contextualising Organisational Change
For any type of organisational change to occur, there must be multiple different background realities that contextualise the change (Ford, et al., 2002, p. 108). These background realities consist of two types of narrative: the cultural narrative and the voice narrative. In approaching change through conversation, a change agent must take into consideration both narratives to complete their understanding of the organisation. The cultural narrative is often the dominate narrative, told from senior management, dictating how individuals are to behave and what they are supposed to be doing (Jabri, 2012, p. 82). This narrative is often easily observed, and the only narrative taken into consideration when implementing organisational change.
However, taking only this narrative into consideration can create issues, with change agents missing a large part of the organisation’s story.

The second narrative, the voice narrative, is the more subtle story offering change agents the ‘ground truth’ about the organisational practices and procedures. This narrative is invaluable to change agents in that it facilitates an understanding of the realities of the workplace (Jabri, 2012, p. 82). The voice narrative must be unlocked through conversation and consultation with those in the workplace who are otherwise overlooked. By identifying the voice narrative, change agents can become aware of many factors that may not have previously been taken into consideration; this can facilitate a critical assessment of the dynamics of the situation within the workplace
(Jabri, 2012, p. 84). By taking into consideration both narratives, change agents can develop a situation with enhanced communication. This situation will enable the creation of a greater case towards change, lowering the potential for resistance and increasing acceptance of the systems, procedures and practices to be implemented
(Jabri, 2012, p. 84). In succeeding in this, change agents can contextualise the change to all parties, facilitating the successful implementation of the change with minimal disruption. Creating Preparedness for Change
Engaging in conversation early within the change process is essential to create preparedness within an organisation. These conversations ensure that the change is appropriate for the organisation, gaining popular support from the individual employees and, most importantly, allowing them to develop a single perception of the change through social construction. By engaging in constructive conversations with both management and individuals at the base level, change agents can identify both narratives early within the change process. This enables change agents to gain a full understanding of the organisation, and improves the likelihood of successfully implementing the change.

At the individual level, conversations in preparation for change present change agents with an opportunity to acknowledge individual achievements and identify areas of expectation shortfalls within the organisation (Ford, et al., 2002, p. 114). These conversations provide change agents with an indication of individuals’ thoughts and commitments for the future, as well as an opportunity to identify the underlying assumptions towards organisational change. Simultaneous to providing change agents this essential information, the approach enables individuals to challenge, engage and explore the idea of change, increasing their level of acceptance (Ford, et al., 2002, p.
112). This opportunity for individuals to challenge, engage and explore the idea of change not only assists in gaining popular support for change, through an increased understanding, but also assists in developing organisational identification. It is important, however, that these conversations are not left too late, otherwise it will be impossible to implement individuals’ suggestions, negating the benefit of their input.

The most important consequence of engaging in conversations in preparation for change is that it assists in developing a single view towards change. By having all members of the organisation discussing the idea of change in preparation, each individual can present different perspectives and contest others’ ideas. This process will ultimately allow individuals to combine their experience and reflections, influencing the direction of the change and developing a commonly accepted perspective towards the change (Jabri, 2012, p. 88). Through developing a commonly accepted perspective within the preparedness phase, change agents reduce the risk of resistance later on, smoothing the implementation process.

To summarise, engaging in conversation in preparedness for change is essential. It enables change agents to identify both narratives early within the process, assists in gaining popular support, and helps to create a single view towards change.

Dealing with Resistance To Change
There are many different reasons why individuals resist change. No matter the micro reason, the macro reason is generally due to a perception that the change will threaten the way that an individual perceives the world. It is, therefore, important that change agents understand how the change may impact the way that an individual perceives their world, and that they can effectively negate these impacts. To understand these impacts, and subsequently resistance to change, change agents must identify and describe the source of the resistance, and choose and implement strategies to address and overcome the source (Ford, et al., 2002, p. 106). This is only achieved through detailed conversations with all parties involved in the change.

A common understanding of why an individual perceives that change will threaten the way that they perceive their world is that it derives from personal experience.
However, this understanding fails to acknowledge that the resistance may be a result of social construction, with individuals responding to background conversation rather than the change itself (Ford, et al., 2002, p. 105). In neglecting to acknowledge that the resistance may be a result of social construction, change agents restrict the methods that they can use to negate the resistance, and reduce their likelihood of successfully implementing the change. By acknowledging that the resistance may be a result of social construction, change agents are provided with a method of reducing the resistance through conversation.

When viewing resistance to change as a result of social construction, change agents must distinguish the negative background conversations; this is achieved, not by changing, but by reinventing the background conversation (Ford, et al., 2002, p. 112).
To do this, change agents must entirely undo what currently existed and create something new. By reinventing the background conversation, a new context can be given to the change, the resistance can be negated, and closure can be provided. Once the background conversations have been reinvented, the resistance towards the change should be diminished and the change can be successfully implemented. Therefore, it is evident that conversations play a key role in diminishing resistance to change and facilitating its successful implementation.

CONCLUSION

Within the organisational environment, change is unavoidable. For managers and leaders to operate successfully, they must have a detailed understanding of organisational change. It is imperative that change is viewed as relational, and that it is recognised that mundane conversations can and do have a large impact on how change is implemented and received.
We demonstrated this by discussing the meaning of organisational change, the meaning of conversations and social construction, and detailing the role of conversations within change.
We have also highlighted how change must be viewed as relational, the importance of conversations within organisation change, and areas in which they can be used by change agents to ensure success.

Bibliography
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T., 1966. Society as a Human Product. New York: Anchor Books.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W. & McNamara, R. T., 2002. Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Chnage Management, 15(2), pp. 105-121.
Jabri, M., 2012. Managing Organizational Change: Process, Social Construction and Dialogue.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Johansson, A. W., 2004. Consulting as Story-Making. The Journal of Management Development,
23(3/4), pp. 339-354.
Lombard, L. B., 1978. Relational Change and Relational Changes. Philosophical Studies: An
International Journal for Philosophy in the Tradition, 34(1), pp. 63-79.
Muran, C. J., 2002. A Relational Approach to Understanding Change. Society for Psychotherapy
Research, 12(2), pp. 113-138.
Raymond, C., 2003. Change Leaders and Change Managers:Different of complementary. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24(5/6), pp. 285-293.