After Salem, P – The seven communication reasons organizations do not change (2008).
Organizational transformation involves changes in core features e.g. goals, authority relationships and organizational structure, markets, and technologies (Aldrich and Ruef, 2006; Rao and Singh, 1999). Management has made efforts to direct discontinuous second order change strategically (Nadler et al., 1995). These strategic initiatives have been successful only about one third of the time (Cameron and Quinn, 1999; Meyer et al., 1995). Enduring improvement appears to be impossible without a change of culture (Cameron and Quinn, 1999, p. 9).
Culture is the set of embedded communication practices that distinguishes one group from another. Accomplishing transformational change involves replacing current competencies, routines, and rituals with other stable communication practices. Strategic initiatives whose purpose was to change the organization’s culture have succeeded less than 20 percent of the time (Smith, 2002). What this data suggest is that most legitimate systems – the established cultures – are robust and resistant to strategic initiatives. What management intends as transformational change may be integrated into the organization as simple adaptations.
The complexity of organizational change
The study of change in social systems has a long history. In the 1960s, Buckley (1967, 1968) argued that social systems continually experience natural tensions due to the variety in the system’s environment, to the variety and behaviors of the members within the system, and to the interaction between external and internal sources. The tension stimulates learning and the regrouping of components or actions. The changes may assist adaptation to various tensions, but they may also lead to goals, states, etc. the system has never experienced (Buckley, 1968). Buckley thought of society as a “complex adaptive system,” and he was concerned with how systems developed properties to insure their viability (Buckley, 1967, 1968, 1998). In 1968, Buckley hoped developments in mathematics would soon match the conceptual richness of these ideas.
Advances in non-linear dynamics would appear to be developments Buckley had desired. The two most recent bodies of work concern chaos theory and complexity theory (Holland, 1995; Kauffman, 1993, 1995). Both theories assume system interactions are part of an auto-catalytic process. Auto-catalytic or self-reinforcing processes have three properties:
- the processes are iterative or repeated;
- the processes are recursive, meaning the outputs for one iteration are the inputs for the next; and
- the processes are multiplicative (i.e. non-linear or non-additive), suggesting that small effects may accumulate or aggregate to have bigger impacts later.
When researchers model processes as auto-catalytic, they employ formulas or algorithms with mathematical relationships that reflect these properties.
Weick’s sense-making model describes organizing as a function of such an auto-catalytic process. Sense is a function of a cue plus a frame plus a connection between the frame and the cue (Weick, 1995). However, the framing cycle does not occur once. It occurs repeatedly until individuals remove equivocality and make plausible sense (Weick, 1979, 1995, 2001). When individuals communicate, they may make sense together, and so, communication draws attention to the social and cultural aspects of making sense. Sense-making involves a framing process that may reflect or may change culture. The frames may come from culture, and local sense-making may accumulate to alter cultural frames. When transformational change occurs, there are changes in cultural frames and communication practices.
The formulas also contain parameters or constants that determine the intensity of properties and, especially, the intensity of the interaction between properties or agents. Organizational researchers generally regard parameters as environmental conditions or as aspects of the strategic course of an organization (Thietart and Forgues, 1995). Common organizational parameters include:
- the diversity of membership and organizational processes, and
- the richness of the connectivity between social actors (Stacey, 1996).
These are common parameters, and a change in the critical values of these parameters would be necessary to reach a state where transformation was possible. These changes often accompany or are part of changes in core features mentioned in the introduction. Changes in second order parameters are inherent in major strategic initiatives and should produce transformational change. The initiatives, even the changes in second order parameters, have not produced the intended outcomes very often. Mostly, there was no change in the organization’s culture.
Chaos and complexity researchers refer to the result of one iteration of an auto-catalytic process as a phase and any pattern in a sequence of phases as an attractor. For example, a phase may be the configuration of agents after one iteration, and a repetition in a sequence of configurations would suggest an attractor. The pattern of phases around an attractor is a basin of attraction. Of course, the parameters, parameter values, and nature of the process itself limit what phases are possible. Chaos and complexity researchers refer to the range of all possible outcomes as a phase space. A particular account of a particular event would be comparable to a phase, and a pattern in several accounts would be an attractor (Stacey, 2001, 2003). The various accounts that lead to an organizing theme, the attractor, and the variations in the central theme would be part of a basin of attraction. A universe of discourse would be comparable to a phase space. One way of interpreting the failed efforts at transformational organizational change is to regard these strategic efforts as maintaining or just modifying the old organizing themes within the original universe of discourse.
A bifurcation point is a state of turbulence where second order change may be possible. The system may now move between at least one old basin of attraction and one new one (Polley, 1997). It is a time of great tension between the old and the new, and the system must “choose” its future (Prigogine and Stengers, 1984). Once at a bifurcation point, the system may move to one of five states:
- The old may dominate, and the system may return to the previous stable state
- The new may dominate, and the system may move to a new stable state
- The system may maintain a tension and oscillate between two or more states. This pattern may be a relatively stable pattern of oscillation between points, but it may involve so many points in a cycle that it may appear to be unstable.
- The system could pass through many bifurcation points, alternating patterns of stability and instability and leading to evolutionary changes in which one transformation builds on previous ones. A particular bifurcation point may be part of a transformational instability.
- The system might have passed through many bifurcation points leading to a continuous unstable pattern. What appears to be random is limited or bounded by the auto-catalytic processes. The system’s “choice” at a particular bifurcation point depends on the general nature of the system, the history of past “choices,” parameters and their values, and the nature of auto-catalytic processes. Studying an organization at a bifurcation point would be an excellent way to learn about communication and organizational change.
Stacey (1996) described organizational change as conflict between a legitimate system and a shadow system. In this model, the natural tensions of everyday life drive an informal and emergent structure, the shadow system, and the accumulation of tensions may challenge the already dominant culture and formal structure, the legitimate system. Stacey’s description parallels Buckley’s (1967) older description of social change involving in- and out-groups. A change in parameter simply speeds the process and movement to one or a succession of bifurcation points.
The complexity of organizational change involves an accumulation of differences. Social actors construct novel behaviors or behaviors repeated with some modifications as part of auto-catalytic processes. Some auto-catalytic processes encourage greater novelty or modification while others discourage deviation. Various behaviors occur in relatively stable or unstable conditions. The tensions between these behaviors and the conditions are the basis for the relative stability of the social system, the system’s structure. Communication patterns may suggest underlying organizing themes, attractors, or there may be permutations around central themes, basins of attraction. The local activities of social actors may disrupt the tension and lead to a state, a bifurcation point, where the system may change its nature. That is, alternative basins of attraction may develop. The localized variety within the system, the shadow system, may naturally accumulate to challenge the established structure and process, the legitimate system. However, there may be some external disruption of parameters that stimulates the shadow system to challenge the legitimate system.
The communication reasons organizations do not change
When organizational members communicate during intense change, they will generate organizing themes about uncertainty or a lack of information about specific changes. Uncertainty is an inability to describe, predict, or explain (Salem and Williams, 1984), and complaints of inadequate information are common in organizations (Daniels and Spiker, 1983). However, information is not part of artifacts such as memos, reports, or websites. Organizational members create information and knowledge as they make sense (Salem, 2007; Weick, 1995). Communication is a social process in which individuals can make sense together, and artifacts are only an opportunity for making sense, an opportunity for conversation. Complaints about inadequate information are complaints about the lack of opportunities to make sense together.
Many approaches to change assume management will direct and control the process (Miller and Cardinal, 1994). Often, it is impossible to involve many people in making everyday decisions, and managers or a small group tend to simply “download” decisions to others. Management expects compliance, but this approach fails to gain acceptance or support for routine management decisions or decisions during change processes (Clampitt and Williams, 2007; Robbins and Finely, 1996). Commitment to transformational change will not happen without communication, and lots of it.
Uncertainty, a lack of information, and a sense that there were few opportunities to reduce uncertainty were common themes in all the studies.
Organizations fail to change when too many people believe they are not getting enough information about the changes. It may be impossible to meet everyone’s information needs. However, the need to know more is less disruptive when there are many opportunities for everyone to make sense of the changes. Without the entire organization participating in conversations about change, transformational change will not occur.
When organizational members communicate during periods of intense change, they will generate organizing themes about identification. Self-concept is the organized set 339 of perceptions one has about one’s self (Cushman and Cahn, 1985). An aspect of self-concept is self-identity, and the organization of various self perceptions associated with organizational roles constitutes one’s organizational identity (Pratt and Foreman, 2000). Describing one’s self as female is part of one’s self-identity, but describing one’s self as a department head is part of one’s self-identity and also part of one’s organizational identity. A person may have multiple identities (Mead, 1934/1962), and multiple organizational identities (Cheney, 1991). For example, an organizational member may identify one’s self by one’s professional role, as part of a sub-unit, a unit, a department, a division, the company, or as a worker.
Individuals develop self-perceptions through interaction (Mead, 1934/1962), and organizational identification emerges in the communication members have with each other about each other. There are many ways members’ communication works to develop identification (Cheney, 1991; Lammers and Barbour, 2006; Scott, 2007). One avenue during change efforts is to develop a shared vision and another is to involve many in strategic planning processes (Robbins and Finely, 1996; Senge et al., 1999). Change will disrupt organizational identities, and members want to know what they will become and what the unit, division, or organization will become. Without communication that builds global and shared identification, members will resort to the older more local and independent identities.
During periods of intense change, organizational members will communicate about trust. Trust is an expectation, assumption, or belief of positive or non-negative outcomes that one can receive from another person’s future actions during uncertainty (Bhattacharya et al., 1998). Uncertainty implies vulnerability, and most contemporary definitions of trust include some belief in the positive intentions, behavior, or outcomes of another (Rousseau et al., 1998). Distrust is characterized by fear, skepticism, cynicism, and wariness (Lewicki et al., 1998). Mistrust, undefined in the literature, would be an inability to predict the value of engaging with another.
When organizational members distrust the agents of change or each other, strategic initiatives fail. Employees often distrust management during periods of planned change. A common way for members to express this distrust is to discuss organizational politics and the distrust members feel about how management might distribute resources.
Lack of productive humor
Humorous communication increases during intense organizational change. Humor is a form of communication that promotes laughter from discordant meanings or relationships (Duncan, 1982). Humorous communication works as a reframing mechanism (Wendt, 1998), and humor can be a norm and value as part of the culture (Trice and Beyer, 1993). Humor can be productive in the workplace by bringing social actors closer together, reducing stress, managing paradox, and building cohesiveness, but it can also be negative by being self-defeating, derisive, or part of anger (Geddes and Callister, 2007; Malone, 1980; Martin et al., 1993, 2003; McPherson, 2005; Romero and Cruthirds, 2006; Stacey, 1996). Organizational members can encourage or discourage change by how they use humor.
Poor interpersonal communication skills
The level of interpersonal communication skill will affect the direction of organizational change. Communication competence is an ability to accomplish goals with appropriate communication behaviors (Spitzberg and Cupbach, 1984).
Appropriateness refers to meeting the normative expectations of others in the social situation as well as using those behaviors most appropriate for the task at hand. Competence requires the performance of various communication skills and the perception of others that the performance was appropriate.
Three skills appear on most lists of communication skills related to competence:
- Responsiveness refers to those behaviors that attempt to understand the other and to communicate that understanding. These include verbal behaviors such as paraphrasing, validating, and asking questions and nonverbal behaviors such as head nods, vocal encouragers, and back channeling.
- Openness refers to those behaviors an actor employs to improve the other’s understanding of the actor. Behaviors such as using personal language, being specific about experiences and feelings, and self disclosure may be part of openness.
- Flexibility is the ability to change communication behaviors in different situations. Being flexible means adjusting to different goals, tasks, people, and situations, and the competent communicator makes these adjustments in an appropriate way.
When members lack communication skills, communicating about change will be more difficult. Members will have difficulty making sense of change, feel greater uncertainty, identify less with the organization and its changes, and distrust others more.
Intense change is a turbulent time, and the likelihood for conflict increases. Conflict is an expressed struggle over perceived differences (Folger et al., 2005). Individuals manage conflict in one of three general ways. Avoidance means never having to confront differences directly. Competitive tactics involve direct confrontations but may vary from argument about positions and ideas, to bids and counter offers, to verbal aggression and even violence. Integrative communication involves creating common goals, offering to help each other achieve individual goals, brainstorming to develop action plans, and creating common systems of accountability. People perceive integrative conflict communication as competent, competitive or controlling strategies as effective but inappropriate, and avoidant strategies as least competent (Gross et al., 2004).
In a time of intense organizational change, confronting differences is important. Conflict should exhibit a clash between newer conversational themes and older ones. Such conversations provide an opportunity to test strategic initiatives against older assumptions and expectations, and these conversations are the means for constructing emerging alternative identities, relationships, accounts, routines, and values (Griffin, 2002; Shaw, 2002). Members contrast emerging communication practices with older ones.
An inappropriate mix of loose and tight coupling
Getting to a bifurcation point capable of producing transformational change involves an accumulation of differences and a natural loose coupling of current behaviors. But when the system moves to a transformed state, it exhibits tighter coupling and the emergence of order from disorder. The development of some hierarchy of activity is common when systems emerge from transformational phase transitions such as the bifurcation points far from equilibrium (Barabasi, 2002). Decentralized structures may be best at initiating innovation and change, but there must be some centralization to implement (Rogers, 1995). The combination of factors noted above suggests organizational members may resist transformational change by loosening the couplings between each other as they cope with the initial disruptions of change and failing to construct tighter couplings as part of moving to a different set of routines and rituals.
Organizational members can decouple their system in three ways (Kingdon, 1973):
- Fragmentation is a process of decoupling goals. Fragmentation is a process of emphasizing local or individual goals at the expense of organizational wide segmentation is the global distrust, primarily of management. The distrust plays a role in the tendency to avoid conflict. Organizations experiencing dissociation and segmentation will have a difficult time accomplishing a unified effort. goals, and fragmentation is the last type of decoupling to occur.
- Dissociation is a process of decoupling horizontal units. There was evidence of dissociation in the tendencies to localize identities. Members identified with their local units and had little appreciation for other units or the whole.
- Segmentation is a process of decoupling vertically.
Sustaining transformational change involves the proper mix of loose and tight coupling.
Communication during failed change efforts seldom involves enough communication opportunities, lacks any sense of emerging identification, engenders distrust, and lacks productive humor. These problems are compounded by conflict avoidance and a lack of interpersonal communication skills. Members’ communication decouples the system, sheltering the existing culture until it is safe for it to re-emerge later. No change in the intended direction is likely.
Results from this research point to the limitations of management communication and impersonal communication. Much of management literature assumes an exclusive place for management, as if managers were not a part of the organizations they manage. There is also the tendency to associate communication with the production of a message, as if finding the right words in the announced change would automatically bring commitment to the changes. Changing an organization’s culture is a task in and of itself, a task in addition to the tasks already going on as part of the routine business of an organization. Changing the communication practices of organizational members involves a give-and-take in which the change agents might change. Change is a messy business, and transformational change will not happen unless management is willing to tolerate the ambiguity and the sense that emerges in communication.
Results also reinforce the importance of communication skills in hiring practices. Communication occurs when two or more people in a social relationship create messages to make sense of the episodes they are creating. The process is inherently interpersonal. Hiring people with basic communication skills and training people in these skills not only improves the chances for sustaining a vibrant organization, but it also assists people in the rest of their lives as well.
Adler, M. (1967), The Difference in Man and the Difference it Makes, Holt Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY.
Agar, M. (2004), “An anthropological problem, a complex solution”, Human Organization, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 411-8.
Aldrich, H. and Ruef, M. (2006), Organizations Evolving, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Argyris, C. (1992), On Organizational Learning, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Barabasi, A. (2002), Linked: The New Science of Networks, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T.M. and Pillutla, M.M. (1998), “A formal model of trust based on outcomes”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 459-72.
Buckley, W. (1967), Sociology and Modern Systems Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Buckley, W. (1968), “Society as a complex adaptive system”, in Buckley, W. (Ed.), Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist, Aldine, Chicago, IL, pp. 490-513.
Buckley, W. (1998), Society: A Complex Adaptive System: Essays in Social Theory, Gordon and Breach Publishers, Amsterdam.
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagnosing Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Cheney, G. (1991), Rhetoric in an Organizational Society: Managing Multiple Identities, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.
Clampitt, P.G. and Williams, M.L. (2007), “Decision downloading”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 77-82.
Cushman, D.P. and Cahn, D.D. (1985), Communication in Interpersonal Relationships, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Daniels, T.D. and Spiker, B.K. (1983), “Social exchange and the relationship between information adequacy and relational satisfaction”, Western Journal of Speech Communication, Vol. 47, pp. 118-37.
Duncan, W.J. (1982), “Humor in management: prospects for administrative practice and research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7, pp. 136-42.
Duran, R.L. (1983), “Communicative adaptability: a measure of social communicative competence”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 31, pp. 320-6.
Folger, J.P., Poole, M.S. and Stutman, R.K. (2005), Working through Conflict: Strategies, Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, 5th ed., Longman, New York, NY.
Geddes, D. and Callister, R.R. (2007), “Crossing the line(s): a dual threshold model of anger in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, pp. 721-46.
Gilbert, N. and Troitzsch, K.G. (2005), Simulation for the Social Scientist, Open University Press, New York, NY.
Griffin, D. (2002), The Emergence of Leadership: Linking Self-organization and Ethics, Routledge, London.
Gross, M.A., Guerro, L.K. and Alberts, J.K. (2004), “Perceptions of conflict strategies and communication competence in task-oriented dyads”, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 32, pp. 249-70.
Hernes, G. (1976), “Structural change in social processes”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82, pp. 513-47.
Holland, J. (1995), Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Kauffman, S. (1993), The Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Kauffman, S. (1995), At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-organization and Complexity, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Kingdon, M. (1973), Matrix Organization, Tavistock Press, London.
Lammers, J.C. and Barbour, J.B. (2006), “An institutional theory of organizational communication”, Communication Theory, Vol. 16, pp. 356-77.
Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J. and Bies, R.J. (1998), “Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 439-58.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
McPherson, J. (2005), “Team humor during high-tech organizational change: subcultural integration, departmental differentiation, yet bureaucratic reproduction”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association Meeting in New York, NY.
Malone, P.B. (1980), “Humor: a double-edged tool for today’s managers?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5, pp. 357-61.
Martin, R.A., Kupier, N.A., Olinger, L.J. and Dance, K.A. (1993), “Humor, coping with stress, self-concept, and psychological well-being”, Humor, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 89-104.
Martin, R.A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J. and Weir, K. (2003), “Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: development of the humor styles questionnaire”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 48-75.
Mead, G.H. (1934/1962) in Morris, C.W. (Ed.), Mind, Self, and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Meyer, A.D., Goes, J.B. and Brooks, G.R. (1995), “Organizations reacting to hyperturbulence”, in Huber, G.P. and van de Ven, A.H. (Eds), Longitudinal Field Research Methods: Studying Processes in Organizational Change, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 66-111.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Miller, C.C. and Cardinal, L.B. (1994), “Strategic planning and firm performance: a synthesis of more than two decades of research”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 1649-65.
Monge, P.R., Bachman, S.G., Dillard, J.P. and Eisenberg, E.M. (1982), “Communicator competence in the workplace: model testing and scale development”, in Burgoon, M. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 5, Transaction, Brunswick, NJ, pp. 505-28.
Nadler, D.A., Shaw, R.B. and Walton, A.E. (1995), Discontinuous Change: Leading Organizational Transformation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Polley, D. (1997), “Turbulence in organizations: new metaphors for organizational research”, Organization Science, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 445-57.
Pratt, M.G. and Foreman, P.O. (2000), “Clarifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 18-42.
Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. (1984), Order out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature, Bantam, Toronto.
Rao, H. and Singh, J.V. (1999), “Types of variation in organizational populations: the speciation of organizational forms”, in Baum, J.A.C. and McKelvey, B. (Eds), Variations in Organization Science, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 63-77.
Rausch, G.A. (2005), “Beating the competition: the benefits of nonprofit coalition building”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western States Communication Association Meeting in San Francisco, CA, February.
Robbins, H. and Finely, M. (1996), Why Change doesn’t Work: Why Initiatives go Wrong and How to Try Again – and Succeed, Peterson’s, Princeton, NJ.
Rogers, E. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Romero, E.J. and Cruthirds, K.W. (2006), “The use of humor in the workplace”, Academy of Management Perspectives, May, pp. 58-69.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 393-404.
Salem, P.J. (1999), “The changes and challenges for organizational communication in the next century”, in Salem, P. (Ed.), Organizational Communication and Change, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, pp. 3-27.
Salem, P.J. (2004), “A longitudinal study of organizational communication climate”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association Meeting in New Orleans, LA, May.
Salem, P.J. (2007), “Making sense of knowledge management”, Vestnik, Vol. 5, pp. 47-68.
Salem, P.J. and Williams, M.L. (1984), “Uncertainty and satisfaction: the importance of types of information in hospital communication”, The Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 75-89.
Salem, P.J., Barclay, F. and Hoffman, M. (2003), “Organizational culture at the edge: a case study of organizational change”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association Meeting in San Diego, CA, May.
Scott, C.R. (2007), “Communication and social identity theory: existing and potential connections in organizational identification research”, Communication Studies, Vol. 58, pp. 123-38.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. and Smith, B. (1999), The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations, Currency Doubleday, New York, NY.
Shaw, P. (2002), Changing Conversations in Organizations: A Complexity Approach to Change, Routledge, London. Sheil, A. and Houser, M. (2003), “The unintended consequences of intentional conduct: a structurational analysis of organizational change”, paper presented to the National
Communication Association Convention in Miami, FL, November.
Smith, M.E. (2002), “Success rates for different types of organizational change”, Performance Improvement, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 26-33.
Spitzberg, B.H. and Cupbach, W.R. (1984), Interpersonal Communication Competence, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Stacey, R.D. (1996), Complexity and Creativity in Organizations, Barrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Stacey, R.D. (2001), Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and Knowledge Creation, Routledge, London.
Stacey, R.D. (2003), Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity, Prentice-Hall/Financial Times, New York, NY.
Thietart, R.A. and Forgues, B. (1995), “Chaos theory and organization”, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-31.
Trice, H.M. and Beyer, J.M. (1993), The Cultures of Work Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. and Fisch, R. (1974), Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution, Norton, New York, NY.
Weick, K.E. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Weick, K.E. (2001), Making Sense of the Organization, Blackwell, Oxford.
Wendt, R.F. (1998), “The sound of one hand clapping: counterintuitive lessons extracted from paradoxes and double binds in a participative organization”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 11, pp. 232-55.