Võim on kõikjal ja eikuskil, st seda ei saa omada. Ometi püüavad inimesed teisi mõjutada ning keelekasutus on üks igapäevasemaid vahendeid selleks. Siinviidatu leidiski oma koha siinses voos põhjusel, et (1) tegeleb võimu ja tähenduse loomise küsimustega organisatsioonis, mis on siinse voo üks keskseid valdkondi, (2) aga ka põhjusel, et võimu ja tähenduseloomise küsimused on minuni jõudvas retoorikas enamasti ülelihtsustatud või isegi alahinnatud või alaväärtustatud.
Research on sensegiving has examined how actors exercise power when they attempt to influence the sensemaking of others (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991; Maitlis, 2004; Maitlis and Lawrence, 2007). Scholars have also used a sensemaking lens to examine power and politics in organisational change (Brown and Humphreys, 2003; Clark and Geppert, 2011) and how sense is made in public inquiries (Brown, 2004, 2005; Gephart, 1993). Others have developed a ‘critical sensemaking’ perspective that helps us to understand how inequality and exploitation are perpetuated or challenged (Aromaa et al, 2018; Helms Mills, Thurlow and Mills, 2010).
In this paper we follow suggestions to focus on discourse to understand how power operates in and through language in sensemaking (Brown et al, 2014; Maitlis and Christianson, 2014; Weick, 2001). While there are alternative discursive theories and methods (Phillips and Oswick, 2012), we argue that Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) offer a fruitful avenue for elucidating the role of power in sensemaking.
Tähendusloome on tegevusõna:
These new perspectives are important for our purposes because they highlight a movement away from the cognitivist tradition toward a conceptualization of sensemaking as activity that is linked with social structures, processes, and practices.
Liikumine võimu käsitlusest episoodilisena, võimu käsitlemisena süsteemina:
Schildt et al. (2020) have recently sought to differentiate between the forms of power that operate in sensemaking. The authors noted the need to move beyond ‘episodic’ conceptions of power to appreciate power in its ‘systemic’ form in organisational change. They propose that power in its ‘systemic’ form, as the taken for granted knowledge structures and identities which “shape the way actors see the world and act” (Schildt et al., 2020: 242),
In this view, power is not a ‘possession’ – something that an actor can “have” or “own”. Rather, power is a dynamic phenomenon because it manifests itself in processes that reconstruct social relations between actors (Foucault, 1980; Fleming and Spicer, 2014). This view of power resonates with the classic work of Lukes (1974), Foucault (1980) and Clegg (1989) in that it is not only a matter of one actor getting another to do something they would rather not do in situations of overt conflict or struggle (Dahl, 1957). It also includes the more ‘systemic’ power that occurs when conflict is suppressed and existing power structures are viewed as legitimate (Willmott, 2013; Fleming and Spicer, 2014).
Diskursuse kui sotsiaalne tähendusloome mehhanism:
“discourse provides the social mechanism through which meanings are enacted”. This discourse, as spoken language or a written text, provides shared ‘mental models’ or ‘cognitive representations’ (Glynn & Watkiss, 2020: 1338) upon which we can collectively act. This discourse could be something as simple as a shared metaphor or something as complex as a shared storyline (ibid: 1343). As such, discourses are both the “ingredients” and “products” of sensemaking (ibid: 1343),
Diskursiivne võimekus ei ole võrdne:
Discursive ability is not evenly distributed because certain actors have the kinds of linguistic capital (Bourdieu, 1991) associated with perceptions of sensegiver legitimacy and expertise – while others do not.
Tähendusloome on kollektiivne protsess!
As Weick (2003: 186) points out, sensemaking is a “collective, social phenomena between people” and is not as an “isolated individual phenomena inside a single head”.
Kuidas asjad “normaalseks” muutuvad?
Van Dijk (1998: 78) uses the terms “normalization and unification” (van Dijk, 1998: 78) to describe situations when certain ways of talking and thinking become established as the ‘norm’ for the group and the group begins to ‘unify’ around these shared mental models (van Dijk, 1998: 78).
Diskursuse konstitueeriv omadus:
Thus, we propose discourses have constitutive power effects insofar as certain cues in our perceptual environment only come to be ‘bracketed in’ to our attention, and ultimately made meaningful, if the available discourses enable us to single them out from the “undifferentiated flux of raw experience” (Chia, 2000: 517).
Kuidas võimustruktuurid muutuvad?
Change in power structures occurs when new ways of making sense are created and begin to gain acceptance, triggered by shifts in discursive strategies, genres or discourses.
“Kuidas ma saan teada, mida mõtlen enne kui ma näen, mida ütlen?”
Early on, Weick recognized the key role of language in sensemaking, pointing out that “words figure in every step” (Weick, 1995: 106) of the sensemaking process and repeating the well-known and muchcited phrase “how can I know what I think until I see what I say?” (Weick, 1979: 5; 1995: 12; 2001: 95)
Vaara, E., & Whittle, A. (2021). Common sense, new sense or non‐sense? a critical discursive perspective on power in collective sensemaking. Journal of Management Studies