بررسی تطبیقی مکاتب معنابخشی در مطالعات سازمان و مدیریت (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
در دنیای حاضر روش هایی که مدیران به کار می گیرند، منبعث ازمعنابخشی آنان به محیط بوده وبراین اساس چگونگی معنابخشی مدیران به پدیده های موجود، نقش قابل توجهی بر کیفیت وچگونگی اتخاذ سیاست های آنان دارد چراکه درک ومعنا دادن به پیام های دریافتی از محیط زمینه سازاقدامات بعدی برای پاسخگویی به این نشانه ها است. بر این اساس نوشتار پیش رو با بهره گیری ازالگوی مطالعه تطبیقی جورج بِرِدی به مطالعه و بررسی تطبیقی نظریات و مکاتب معنابخشی موجود پرداخته و مترصدد است مشخص نماید در مطالعات سازمان و مدیریت کدام یک ازچارچوب های معنابخشی تبیین بهتری برای شرایط وپدیده ها ارائه می دهد. یافته های پژوهش مبین آن است که در مطالعات سازمانی چارچوب ارائه شده توسط وایک و اسنودن مبنای بهتری برای تحلیل پدیده های سازمانی بوده است. بر این اساس با درک معنابخشی می توان امید داشت تلاش های مدیران برای کنترل محیط پیچیده پیرامون خود بهتر ارزیابی شده و از آن به منظور هدایت کنش های سازمانی و شکل دهی به واکنش های افراد در محیط خود استفاده شود.Comparative Study of Sensemakinng Schools in Organization and Management Studies
In the new world, the methods that managers use to make policies are derived from how they making sense to the environment, and how managers interpret the existing phenomena, has a significant role on the quality and adaptation with their policies. In fact, understanding and making sense to the messages paves the way for the next steps to respond these symptoms. Accordingly, this article uses the Beredy model of comparative study to survey the existing theories and schools of sensemakinng and seeks to answer this question that how sensemakinng provides a framework for policy making in the organization? and in the organization and management studies, which of the existing sensemakinng frameworks provides a better explanation for conditions and phenomena? For this purpose, after examining the existing organizational sensemakinng schools, these two questions have been answered. Based on the research findings, by understanding the sensemakinng in the policy-making, it can be hoped that policymakers' efforts to control their environment are better evaluated and uses to guide organizational actions and shape the reactions of people in their environment.Introduction The increasing use of sensemakinng in organization and management research, has made it a relatively new theoretical structure in the research literature. Sensemaking activities are particularly critical in dynamic and turbulent contexts, where the need to create and maintain coherent understandings that sustain relationships and enable collective action is especially important and challenging. In this study, the concept of sensemakinng in different studies of organization and management is focused from the point of view of different researchers. scholars believe that in the literature that focuses on issues related to communication and organization, five different approaches to sensemakinng have a high position, which are:Karl Weick's Sensemaking in Organizational CommunicationDaniel Russell's Sensemaking in Human-Computer InteractionGary Klein's Sensemaking in Cognitive Systems EngineeringBrenda Dervin Sense-making in User StudiesDave Snowden and Organizational Sense-making in Knowledge ManagementBased on this, the current research studies and compares existing theories and schools of sensemakinng and tries to answer the question, how does sensemakinng provide a framework for policy-making in the organization, and which of the existing sensemakinng frameworks provides a better explanation for conditions and phenomena in the policy-making?Case study As mentioned, in the literatures of organization and management, five typologies of schools of Sensemaking have been introduced. These schools have been given the attention of researchers individually and separately, but as far as researchers have searched, these five schools have not been compared in a comparative study, and sometimes in some studies, a brief comparative review of at least two theories has been presented. Therefore, this study compares these schools Therefore, this study examines Comparative study of these schools. Materials and Methods The current comparative study has been done by using George Beredy's model in four stages: description, interpretation, Juxtaposition, comparison. according to this means sensemakinng was investigated from the perspective of different schools, and the texts taken from the existing theories were coded using the qualitative content analysis method and analyzed based on the Brady model, and after classifying the obtained information, the similarities and differences of sensemakinng schools were compared.Discussion and Results All sensemakinng schools have a purposeful effort towards better interactions to solve complex problems and reduce existing ambiguities. In all schools, sensemakinng is considered as a dynamic and continuous process, a dynamic process in which a person creates meaning in interaction with his environment, and this process does not stop and continues with the passage of time. Also, all schools emphasize the continuous interaction of the sensemaker with the environment. In addition, it is considered as a recurring cycle that the sensemaker makes efforts to reduce uncertainty and gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon and the conditions. On the other hand, in all theories of sensemakinng, the individual has a key role. It is the person who decides to start, finish, or ignore the process. In fact, sensemakinng in all schools strongly depends on the perspective and interpretation of the participant.However, based the findings of the present study, despite the mentioned similarities, the five schools of sensemakinng have differences from each other. Differences in the activity, unit of analysis, concept of sensemakinng, conflict style, Scope of influence, metaphors of sensemakinng, emphasis element, duration of conflict and …, which were discussed in this study.Conclusionsensemakinng as a new and specific approach to study organizational phenomena including policy-making has been described as a theory in various ways, and it should be seriously considered in organization and management studies. Therefore, in this article, the schools and theories of organizational sensemakinng were examined, and the commonalities and differences of the five schools were examined. According to the findings of the current study, all 5 schools of sensemakinng have a dynamic process in which sensemakinng is done through a repeating cycle during interaction with the environment in order to communicate more effectively, depends on the perspective of participant and sensemaker has a key role in the sensemakinng process. Nevertheless, Based on the time period, context, specific theory and ontology that each of the theorists of the five schools have conceptualized, sensemakinng will have different meanings and functions. Differences caused by the activity, unit of analysis, style of conflict, sphere of influence, emphasis element, duration of different conflict and etc., which causes the way of working in each school to be different. The findings of this study shown that in the organizational studies, where facing ambiguity is considered one of the inherent characteristics of organization and management, that in order to receive strategic information, managers must provide methods to reduce these uncertainties, Weick and Snowden's theories provide a better explanation of conditions and phenomena.
تبلیغات
