The Development of a Safety Narrative in Construction and the
influence of Stakeholders
Master Thesis
MSc Business Administration – Change Management
Dr. M.A.G. van Offenbeek
Thesis Supervisor
Dr. J.F.J. Vos
Co-assessor
Kiki Kool
S2123606
k.kool.1@student.rug.nl
Date: 23-01-2017
2
The Development of a Safety Narrative in Construction and the
influence of Stakeholders
A Master Thesis by Kiki Kool, University of Groningen MSc
ABSTRACT
3
Table of Content
1. Introduction……… 4
2. Literature review……… 5
2.1. The development of safety narratives………... 5
2.1.1. Safety and safety narratives………... 6
2.1.2. Narrative development……….. 7
2.2. Stakeholder influences……….. 8
2.3. Sensemaking in narrative development……… 8
2.4. Conclusion………... 9
3. Method………. 10
3.1. Research context: case setting……….10
3.2. Research approach: narrative interviewing……….. 11
3.3. Data collection……….. 11
3.4. Data analysis……… 13
3.5. Monitoring of Quality Criteria……… 14
4. Results……….. 15
4.1. Historical context ……… 15
4.2. The agency's safety narrative………. 16
4.3. The agency's stakeholders……… 18
4.3.1. Constructors……… 19
4.3.2. NAM……… 20
4.3.3. CVW……… 20
4.3.4. Stakeholders’ interrelations……… 21
4.4. The development of the narrative……….. 22
4.5. Conclusion……… 22
5. Discussion……… 24
6. Limitations & Future Research………. 25
References……….. 26
4
1. INTRODUCTION
In the Netherlands, employees in the construction sector have a 50% higher chance of being harmed in an accident at work than in other industries (CBS, 2015). In the Dutch construction industry, 5,7% of the employees have had an accident at work in 2014, of which 3,2% needed a recovery period longer than 1 day (CBS, 2015). Outstanding is the preponderance of physical rather than mental injuries; 3,8% and 0,3% respectively (CBS, 2015). Especially small construction companies face high rates of work related injuries compared to large companies, which often employ automated safety protocols and clear descriptions on how to handle situations (Ozmec, Karlsen, Kines, Andersen and Nielsen, 2015). In the smaller companies, safety measures are characterized by practice-oriented decision-making, negotiated between owner-manager decisions and employees' self-administration (Ozmec et al., 2015). Additionally, safety is rarely an explicit focus of employees, on whom owner-managers have little influence (Ozmec et al., 2015). The volume of accidents at building sites of smaller companies calls for safety measures.
Companies often try to increase awareness amongst employees by generating safety programs, such as Royal Dutch Shell’s “Hearts and Minds” (Hudson, Lawton, Verschuur, van der Graaf and Kalff, 2000). Such programs can be seen as a story being told, which hold certain key messages, and such messages can be seen as narratives (Vaara, Sonenshein & Boje, 2016). The concept of narratives has been around for a while; we have seen meso-level research on the topic of change by use of narratives before (Boje, 1991; Brown & Humphreys, 2003; Sonenshein, 2010). Narratives, organizational narratives in particular, are an increasingly popular mean for understanding management and organizational processes (Vaara et al., 2016). Vaara, Sonenshein and Boje (2016), all prominent writers in the field of narratives, have recently reviewed the concept of narratives. According to them, organizational narratives can best be defined as “temporal, discursive constructions that provide means for individual, social and organizational sensemaking and sensegiving” (Vaara, et al., 2016; p. 2).
In this research, the development of a safety narrative will be studied, in which different views and stories about safety are being exchanged between many different parties. Such parties are stakeholders, namely “any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by, the achievement of a corporation’s purpose” (Freeman, 1984; p. vi). When a narrative emerges among stakeholders in their communication, we may expect the narrative to be influenced by such interaction. This explicit and implicit sharing of the narrative shapes the narrative itself, an almost political dynamic that has been largely unexplored yet (Weick, 1995; Brown, 1998). This study may thus be marked as psychosocial, as it “reflects an interest in the psychosocial as a seamless entity, as a space in which notions that are conventionally distinguished, are instead thought of together, as entwined or possibly even the same thing” (Emerson & Frosh, 2004; p. 3). The recurrent shaping of a narrative, by looking at the different stakeholders having impact on the narrative as one entity, is a similar process of looking at all aspects of an entity. Thus, besides the safety narrative itself, this shaping effect will also be central in this research.
5
by investigating the narrative as the research object itself, instead of only using narrative approaches to other research objects or phenomena (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach and Zilber, 1998). The research question of this paper is:
How does an organization’s interaction with their stakeholders influence the development of the organization’s safety narrative?
Vaara et al. (2016) offer multiple research lenses for examining narratives, of which the interpretative lens is most appropriate, seeing narratives as a tool for social construction, where narratives are in the center of analysis. Looking at Burell & Morgan (1979), we see that their interpretive paradigm endorses such a view of narratives: it considers sociology to be homogeneous and harmonized, based on assumptions of society in which order, integration, consensus and stability are natural states. Additionally, the interpretive approach is of subjective nature, which “encompasses a nominalist ontology, anti-positivist epistemology, voluntarist approach to human nature, and ideographic methodology” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; p. 7). As this research deals with individual narratives, that are influenced by social construction, but also with a company-wide composite narrative, constructed by the employees of the company, there must be room for “the subjective experience of individuals in the creation of a social world” (Burell & Morgan, 1979; p.3). An interpretative lens includes room for the previously mentioned subjectivity, and thus for concepts such as sensemaking and narrative interviewing.
The literature review in chapter 2 will examine the key concepts of this thesis more thoroughly throughout the next chapter, namely narratives and safety narratives, stakeholder theory and narrative development, where after this chapter will be concluded by a research model. Next, the methodology section will elaborate on the case study and analysis methods, which shows the academic background and reasoning behind using certain tools and types of analysis over others. The results will show the findings of narrative interviewing related to different topics: the narrative, the stakeholders and the overall development over time of the narrative. The discussion section will elaborate on the findings and on the conclusions, that can be drawn from this research. Finally, some limitations of this research are shared in the final chapter.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, the different elements of the research question will be discussed. These elements are the narrative and more specifically the safety narrative, narrative development, stakeholder theory and sensemaking, which all together lead to the conceptual model given at the end of this chapter.
2.1. The development of safety narratives
6
understanding stories, such as “the reflective product of looking back and making sense of stories constructed to make sense of life” (Hawkins & Saleem, 2012; p. 204).
Different types of narratives can be found, and Vaara et al. mention the distinction between individual and composite narratives in their paper (2016), which is a common classification in narrative research. This distinction is made between individual accounts and stories that are assessed from a narrative perspective, and composite narratives that capture the collective meanings of a group of (organizational) members. Such a composite narrative is put together by the researcher by collecting individual narratives from several organizational actors (Vaara et al., 2016). Looking only at individual narratives will not provide an organizational view, which is required in this research; by looking at the composite narrative too this level of research is reached. However, the individual narratives are still important to understand the different interpretations of the composite narrative and to make sure that all voices are mirrored correctly in the composite narrative, therefore both are taken into account in this research.
Besides types of narratives, we can also look at the different approaches to narratives. Vaara et al. offer a few different ones, of which the interpretative approach moves most away from traditional views. Traditional, more realist approaches consider narratives as representations or a form of data, whereas the interpretative approach goes beyond this use of the narratives. In this approach, “narratives are conceptualized as people’s constructions of organizational phenomena” (Vaara et al., 2016; p. 10). Hence, the organizational narrative analysis, as a research subject itself, is put central in the interpretative approach (Vaara et al., 2016). The interpretative approach, according to Vaara et al., views a narrative as the underlying, possibly unintentional structure which emerges in the form and action of storytelling (2016). Looking at the narrative as a research subject rather than using narratives as data to research another issue is put central in this research.
The foundations of interpretative narrative analysis can be found in literary studies such as Greimas (1987) or social psychological studies such as Bruner (1986). Though narratives find their origins in Foucauldian discourse analysis, with its roots in social understanding (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Willig, 2001), narrative analysis focuses on “the active constructing processes through which individual subjects attempt to account for their lives” (Emmerson & Frosh, 2004; 7). Within economic studies on organizations, management and change, interpretative narrative analysis is thus frequently linked to sensemaking (Weick, 1979), which deals with similar constructing as will be explained more in detail later in this chapter. However, in understanding a narrative, one must also understand the development of a narrative and how it came to be in the past, developed into the present and may be influenced in the future (Cunliffe, Luhman & Boje, 2004). Additionally, it is wise to look at the full spectrum of a safety narrative first, in order to fully explore the concepts in this research.
2.1.1. Safety and safety narratives
7
Jorgensen describes accidents as “sudden, unexpected and unplanned [events] and the consequences as harm to people, materials, production or other values” (2015; 47).
In the construction industry, specifically small construction companies, employees’ common understanding of safety is ‘to take care of oneself’, in a setting of laws, regulations and safety standards applied to practice in work situations (Ozmec et al., 2015; 281). Safety is often not a subject of communication, but seen as an individual issue rather than a collective responsibility (Ozmec et al, 2015). An explanation for lack of collective feeling can be found in the lack of an appropriate safety culture, which is needed to properly manage safety measures (Stolzer, Halford & Goglia, 2011). A safety culture can be described as the beliefs, norms and values that steer people towards actions and behavior regarding safety, and where an informed, flexible, reporting, learning and just culture leads to a positive safety culture (Stolzer et al., 2011). Such a safety culture is a prerequisite for safe behavior by individuals, and is thus an indicator of safety. The reason for lack of a safety culture that does not result in safe behavior in construction, is that the current culture is not appropriate to the environment or context in which the construction companies function (Smith & Graetz, 2011). Each company should foster a safety culture consistent with the challenges and expectations of its internal and external environment. If such a culture is non-existing, a safety narrative is likely to emerge. The development of such a culture often starts with the development of a sound safety policy and at the same time the enthusiastic promotion of that policy by top management or other parties (Parker, Lawrie & Hudson, 2006; Stolzer et al., 2011). Such a policy can be seen as a narrative, communicating the importance for safety in a certain way. By examining the development of narratives in the setting of safety, new insights on the topic of narratives may be exposed (Vaara et al., 2016), where this research will look for the influence that stakeholders have on the development of such a safety narrative.
2.1.2. Narrative development
The development of a narrative concerns the way it emerges and changes, due to the processes of sensemaking (Weick, 1979) and interaction (Sonenshein, 2010). Narrative development is a process; the mere creation of a narrative will not provoke change itself, but change almost necessarily involves a narrative’s temporal development (Vaara et al., 2016). The development of the narrative is not just a different beginning- and end-stage, but may develop throughout time. Therefore, this research analyses the narrative over different moments in time according to a time-line.
8
stakeholders on the development. Thus, the focus in this research is on typologies and characteristics in order to analyze the development of the narrative, and the way stakeholders had a share in that development.
2.2. Stakeholder influences
When looking at the development of an organizational narrative on a timeline, some critical incidents may have affected the development. Such incidents may be due to internal factors, but may also be caused by external parties, or otherwise called stakeholders (Freeman, 1984). Stakeholders can affect the narrative, or are affected by the narrative, which causes a reciprocal effect (Freeman, 1984). The stakeholder theory stresses the responsibilities a company has towards its stakeholders (Buelens, Sinding & Waldstrøm, 2011). However, beneath this theory and line of thinking one may find a broader set of ideas related to resources and power: organisations essentially are dependent on many different kinds of suppliers of resources, beyond just goods and services, but also financial resources and social legitimacy (Andriof, Waddock, Rahman & Husted, 2002). The stakeholder theory offers an additional view to the view of the company, moving beyond the sole purpose of an organization being profit maximization for shareholders or employers (Robbins & Barnwell, 2006). This external view is necessary when looking at narrative development in an organization, as the development may be influenced by stakeholders rather than internal factors only. When taking a stakeholder view, one considers that an organization is effective only if it takes into account the wider community that has an interest in the decision of the organization, even if this is at cost of profits (Caroll, 1996). And if an accurate picture of an organisation and it’s context is to be constructed, such as an organizational narrative, it will require the involvement of a wide range of people (Burnes, 2009).
A distinction can be made in type of stakeholder; Freeman has laid out the foundations for stakeholder theory, explaining the basic difference between internal and external change pressures by stakeholders (1984). Internal change pressures come from owners, suppliers, customers or employees, whereas external change pressures come from the environment in general (Freeman, 1984). In the case of safety narratives, the narrative may originate out of internal or external pressures, and the narrative may be a tool for internal or external pressure for change on the parties involved as well. Different stakeholders are expected to have different influences on the company’s narrative, which is looked at in this research.
2.3. Sensemaking in narrative development
9
managerial perspective (Ford et al., 2008). Hence, this research is focused on the sensemaking within the company and the development of the narrative from it, and the interaction process when other stakeholders try to influence or make sense of the narrative. As such, one of the characteristics of successful sensemaking is that it limits the alternatives available, and focuses on peoples’ attention on a narrow range of short-, medium- and long-term issues (Burnes, 2009). In this research that may be indicated by an organizational focus, which is represented in the narrative on certain short-term or long-term issues, and such issues are connected to certain critical incidents and stakeholders.
2.4. Conclusion
Based on the literature review, we can draw a conceptual model of this research, figure 1, showing how the different concepts interact with each other. The development of an organisational safety narrative over time T0 until Tx in an environment of critical incidents, can be analysed by use of composite narratives, and the difference in them over time. The critical incidents can have a direct effect on the formation of the narrative, or an influence over time, and thus must be taken into account. The development from one narrative to the next, which may range from a slight adaptation to complete change, may also be influenced by stakeholders. In this research, these stakeholders are represented in the narratives about them by individuals, rather than narratives by the stakeholders themselves. The interpretative approach to narratives allows for using narratives the interpretation of stakeholders. Through these representations of stakeholder influence, the individuals together shape the composite narrative, in which the stakeholders are taken into account, and the narrative may be adjusted towards such an influence. Thus, we find that individual sensemaking leads to individual narratives about stakeholders, which influences the development of the composite narrative.
10
3. METHOD
The literature review shows that there is limited empirical research on the development of narratives, though many theories have been established. Therefore, this research will consist of a case study design, in order to develop more solid theory about the effects of a company’s interaction with stakeholders on narratives about safety. A case study is appropriate because according to Eisenhardt “the case study is a research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings” (1989: p. 534). In this research these dynamics are time, and interaction with stakeholders, which are present within the setting of the safety narrative, researched at an agency.
Firstly, the case setting will be given, after which the research approach and design are shown. These sections highlight which interview techniques and analysis methods lie at the base of this research. Finally, the data collection section shows exactly how the data was collected. This explains the chain of evidence that was used in this research, which leads to the result section.
3.1. Research context: case setting
The research will be conducted at an agency that tries to ensure safe work in the construction industry, named Vlink. The goal of the agency is to increase awareness on safety and actual safe work, to create a new standard of quality in the sector. The direct cause for the creation of Vlink is the increase in earthquakes in the northern provinces of the Netherlands, which has resulted in almost 50.000 reports of damage to houses. The construction companies are up for the task of repairing them, yet do not always meet proper safety requirements as set by the party responsible for reparations and the initiator of the agency. As shown by Ozmec et al. (2015), small construction companies are more subject to high rates of injuries compared to large construction corporations, who have very strict safety protocols and a culture that includes care for safety that small companies often do not have. As Vlink is trying to improve this situation, their narrative development and the interaction with involved parties will be researched. Those parties are the construction companies (management and workers), hereafter named constructors; the initiator of the whole process, the Dutch national gas company, hereafter named NAM; and the executive office, who receives the insurance claims and distributes work amongst constructors, hereafter named CVW. Due to the scope of this research, the stakeholders are only researched by questioning the foundation members about these stakeholders, not researching the stakeholders themselves.
Furthermore, this research is supported by a consulting party that works together with the agency. We will see that the base methodology and ideas of the foundation find their roots in this consulting party’s work. This has no direct influence on the research, however needs to be taken into account when analyzing the narratives; some may originate from experience at the consulting party instead of experience at the agency, and a clear distinction must be made.
11 3.2. Research approach: narrative interviewing
Traditional approaches to interviewing, such as question-and-answer interviews, leave less room for interview mistakes, but also lack depth of information reached from the interview (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). Narrative approaches to interviewing assumes the researcher’s responsibility to be a good listener and the interviewee to be a story-teller rather than a respondent (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). Emerson & Frosh (2004) provide clear examples of narrative interviewing and guidance for practice. Narrative interviewing should provide the possibility to collect narrative in ways that allow participants to thoughtfully talk about the issues with which the researchers, and hopefully the participants themselves, are concerned (Emerson & Frosh, 2004). This approach has been applied in this research during the interviews. According to Emerson & Frosh’s methods, this is most commonly achieved by having relatively ‘open’ questions, but only if the unit of analysis is clearly established. This means, that the researcher is responsible for theorizing and selecting areas of interest, while resisting ‘ascriptivism’ (Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 1995; 108): “to find ways of working with texts so the original narrator is not effaced, so he or she does not lose control over his or her words” (Riessman, 1993; 34). This final step however is more at matter when transcribing the interviews than during the interview itself (Emerson & Frosh, 2004), which has been assured during transcribing the interviews in this research. The unit of analysis in this research (Yin, 1993) is the agency, which was selected as the case in this research. However, within the agency as a unit of analysis, an embedded unit of analysis (Yin, 1993) is the narrative of the agency. However, different types of data were gathered at the agency, making this the major unit of analysis. The types of data used in this research, and the way they were collected, will be elaborated on more thoroughly in the following section.
3.3. Data collection
The data collection of this research knows four parts, namely document analysis, one initial round of interviews, observations, and a second round of interviews.
Part 1: Document analysis. Initial data collection to research the development of the narrative, has been done
by evaluating the company’s documents. Document analysis informed the preliminary research phase, forming the base of the later narrative analysis. Materials consisted out of a year report, three management summaries, a communication plan, and a memo (Appendix A). This document analysis was further used as the base for the development of the timeline used during round 2 of interviews.
Part 2: Round 1 of interviews. The foundation has 6 employees, who have been interviewed individually for
12
interviewees and the system of stakeholders in which the foundation operates (Appendix B, table B1). The interview scheme can be found in appendix C.
The interviews follow the approach of Kvale and Brinkman (2009), which allows for extraction of narratives from the interviewee by the researcher, by asking questions about a specific episode, an institutional period, or a life story. Hence, the interviews are semi-structured, based on the initial literature review and document analysis, though leaving room for additional questioning (Myers, 2013). After a question was asked, the researcher’s main role was to “remain a listener, abstaining from interruptions, occasionally posing questions for clarification, and assisting the interviewee in continuing to tell his or her story” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; 155).
Part 3: Observations. The foundation provides training sessions and workshops, of which a few were attended
in order to observe whether the narrative changed in practice rather than during the interviews. One observation took place at a meeting where a certain topic on the safety issue was discussed with a group of 15 constructors. The second observation took place at a day-long workshop about employees conscious safety leadership behavior, which 20 constructors attended. The first meeting was voluntary, the second was mandatory in order to perform construction work in the given region. In both meetings, employees of the foundation interact with each other and with stakeholders, showing their narratives in use which provides an additional view to the issue, besides only the interviews. The observations were used for gathering more understanding of the whole issue that the agency deals with, and from this understanding developing better, more in-depth questions of the interviews than would have been possible without the observations.
Part 4: Round 2 of interviews. A second interview was then held with each of the interviewees, in order to
evaluate the interpretations of previous findings by the researcher, and get more in-depth data about stakeholder involvement. This interview ensured a reflective moment, where results and thus narratives found were mirrored, in order to capture reactions and possibly counternarratives (Appendix B, table B2). The researcher first interpreted the document analysis, drawing a time-line from these documents. The timeline was then adjusted by the researcher, for other elements as found during the first round of interviews and the observations. These insights were added to the time-line or corrected for errors in the time-line, and then put into the interview scheme (Appendix C)
13 3.4. Data analysis
Next, the large amount of data from the interviews was analyzed. According to Lieblich et al. (1998), working with narrative research requires dialogical listening (Bakhtin, 1981) to three voices: the voice of the narrator, found in interview transcription or recordings; the theoretical framework, which provides the conceptual and operational definitions of concepts and tools for interpretation; and a “reflexive monitoring of the act of the reading and interpretation”, a sense of self-awareness of the decision process of drawing certain conclusions for the material over others (Lieblich et al., 1991; p. 10). These voices can all be found in this research.
Having a mass of unstructured, qualitative data, many researchers feel the urge to break data down using some kind of system, where a coding system is most commonly used (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). However, coding often leads to researchers overlooking the complete picture of their data (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). Hence, the Gestalt psychology is more of use here, where the principle is that the whole is greater than the sum of all parts (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). The founder of Gestalt, Wertheimer, claims that only by looking at the whole structure of data insights will emerge, where after different components themselves will be understood (Murphy & Kovack, 1972; Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). Using Gestalt influences in narrative development analysis can be found when using multiple documents written at different moments in time, building a holistic picture together (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). This approach is also explained as a holistic-content perspective (Lieblich et al., 1998), which is applied in this research and can be found in appendix D, table D1.
The holistic content perspective was applied to the document analysis performed in this research, which can be found in Appendix A. Initial interview analysis was also done by use of this perspective, as can be found in Appendix B, table B1. The goal of the holistic content analysis was initial data reduction, and in order to preserve the narratives as well as possible, little translation from Dutch to English has been done in this stage. Therefore, when the interviews were analyzed, first the transcripts were made by the researcher, and then read again, until certain foci of the entire story emerged. Clauses of interest were highlighted for clarity, and initial foci were written down. Next, definitive foci were determined based on the themes of the clauses, most of which were similar to the foci of the questions posed in the interview, due to the fact that these emerges throughout all interviews and form a good base for comparison. Next, a cross-analysis within the different foci and between the different foci was been performed to search for outstanding similarities and differences, across all interviews.
14
first round of interviews, and the timeline based on the document analysis, as the different times and critical incidents have had effect on the development of the narrative too. Combined, this gives table B2 in Appendix B.
In order to process the data into the reduced form as presented in the tables in the appendices, the ideas and example of Miles and Huberman (1994) have been used to form the tables of results and models used in this research.
However, a more specific type of analysis can help to structure the findings of initial analysis (Boje, 2001). As this research aims to understand the development of an safety narrative, deconstruction is another suitable analysis tool. The deconstruction of language goes back to 1967, when it was first mentioned and explained by Jacques Derrida as de-sedimentation rather than demolition of phrases (Cai-Hillon, Hillon and Boje, 2012). Later picked up by other scholars, Boje (2001) further defined deconstruction as a tool that “points out the instability, complex movements, process of change, and the play of differences and heterogeneity” (2001: p. 18). Within the post-modern perspective, “deconstruction can be used as an umbrella term under which many of the most important changes in narratology can be described, especially those which depart from the very scientific analysis by which it operated before poststructuralist critiques impacted on literary studies’ (Currie, 1998: 3). The guidelines for deconstruction can be found in appendix E, table E1. When examining the development of the safety narrative of Vlink, this method was a guiding principle to analyze different narratives and search for dichotomies and differences.
3.5. Monitoring of Quality Criteria
15
4. RESULTS
Knowing how the data has been collected and analyzed, we can now look at the content of that data. In this result section, four topics are elaborated on with their accompanying data, showing the findings of this research. First, a historical context is given, as this will provide the case setting more specifically and the context in which the quotes can be placed. Next, the safety narrative of the agency is displayed, which shows the narrative and the way it has changed from the initial start to the current state of the narrative. However, this does not explain how it has changed, rather indicates that is has changed. Therefore, we will also show the way stakeholders are present in the playing field of the agency and the way they have influenced and still influence the agency. Finally, the overall development of the narrative will be shown, in a table where the narrative is shown over time, with the context and stakeholders taken into account. This table concludes the result section, and conclusions about the influence of stakeholders on the development of the narrative can then be drawn.
4.1. Historical context
The narrative of the agency can be found in quotes taken from the interviews and the documents. However, it is necessary to take the recent historical context into account, as the narratives have been formed and changed over time. During this period, certain critical incidents (CI) and developments (CD) in the environment or context of the agency influenced the development. These incidents and developments can be found in table 1.
Table 1. Critical incidents and developments in the recent history of the agency.
Critical incidents and developments
CI1: Formation of the platform in cooperation with NAM
- After a while we received funding, and that was the official beginning of the platform. From that moment on, we really started – F2
CI2: Formation of the Foundation in cooperation with NAM
- The creation of the foundation changed the relationship between the NAM and Vlink, as it became more formal. For us, we got more focus on our internal processes; how do we manage, what does this foundation mean for us? – F3
CD1: Increase in knowledge about the situation
- Over the years, we have gained more insight in how exactly this playing field works and which mechanisms are in place, understanding the situation and issue at hand better – F4
CD2: Decrease in demand for constructors
- When we started, we did many visitations; then the amount of jobs became less, and companies only need us when they are working on a job – F4
- At first there was talk about tens of thousands of jobs that needed to be done – F2
- At one point the amount of jobs decreased, while the pressure on quick results was still there, which gave a very skewed image to the constructors, and that did not help in creating a 'safety first' mindset – F1
CD3: Constructors link the agency only to earthquake related work
- The number of jobs in the field decreased, which means we have less work too; constructors only associate us with the jobs related to the earthquake restorations, not safe construction in general, and thus we depend on the amount of jobs they have – F6
CD4: Shaping of the target group based on economic factors
- We now differentiate between different types of companies, where we used deal with all types but now have a specific focus on middle- to large sized companies: they are looking for opportunities, want to grow and want to engage in safe behavior – F2
CD5: The environment and playing field are subject to many changes
16 4.2. The agency’s safety narrative
As explained in the methodology section, the researcher composed the safety narrative of the agency from the document analysis, first round of interviews and observations. In the second round of interviews, all interviewees agreed on this dominant, composite narrative of the agency in the second round of interviews, with some comments that were taken into account, resulting in the following composite safety narrative:
Safety deals with technics, procedures, and assumptions, beliefs and behavior. The last category, of assumptions, beliefs and behavior, is the focus of the agency, as behavior is guided by assumptions and beliefs. Key in changing safety behavior, which is the ultimate goal of the agency, is to become aware of one’s beliefs about safety. The reason that unsafe behavior is still present at construction sites, is that there is very little awareness about one’s own leadership role and safety-leadership in general, and there is much pressure felt by constructors to perform first and be safe second, rather than the other way around. Whereas the focus is often
on procedures or technique, the agency tries to open the conversation about the human side of safety; there should be zero accidents, and human life matters.
This narrative is the dominant narrative in the agency, though some of the interviewees expressed some diversions of interpretation. These mainly had to do with personal interpretation of this narrative, where some would lay the focus more on the human aspect based on personal experience. For example, interviewees with more experience in the construction industry themselves tended to stress this human aspect more strongly than others with a consultancy background.
Human suffering should be avoided at any time – F2 Safety is an urgent matter; it is about life and death – F5
Other interviewees added that even though they agree on the safety narrative, some realistic nuance can be found. Changing behavior may be the end-goal, but there are also smaller accomplishments to be found in the process of trying to change safety behavior:
When discussing safety, the key is to open the discussion about safety in the first place; it does not even matter which exact topics are discussed, but the fact that safety is being discussed is the first step – F1
Not all issues can be solves by awareness, that will not change the world. We need to approach this issue one step at a time – F6
17
management, where the agency tries to encourage management to promote safety too. Before, the focus of Vlink was mainly on changing the behavior of the employees, the constructors on the work floor, rather than addressing management too.
Another change in the narrative of the agency that is found, is that the approach for changing safety behavior has changed. Initially, the agency was very focused on getting as many companies as possible to join, though now the agency has specialized more on individual approaches with certain companies that are ready for change. The agency has also moved more towards cooperation in the field with all parties, rather than only changing the behavior of constructors.
Table 2. The Narrative of Vlink and its changes
Initial Narrative of Vlink (T1)
Current Narrative of Vlink (T5)
Quote from interview Focus on treating people
as professionals
Focus on trying to change the playing field of parties rather than professionals alone
We are looking, and working more differentiated now. First we had to pioneer to get people to treat each other as professionals, but we noticed that some companies just were not ready for that. There, we had to take a step back, and just push for clear rules. So now we actually try to set up little trajectories of multiple interventions, during a few months – F3
Focus on trying to show that safety is about behavior rather than procedures and technique
Focus on trying to show that safety is about behavior rather than procedures and technique but also about how to guide such behavior as a leader; strong focus on leadership
The message of safety being not only about rules and technique, but also behavior, has remained. However, we have become more thorough in our conviction that the position of a leader is also very important in ensuring safety – F4
Focus on creating awareness of one’s own safety behavior
Focus on getting the basics right before trying to change behavior, which comes next.
The message for safety and behavior has not changed. However, at first we loathed the idea of rules, and nowadays we are promoting the clear, procedural approach to safety too. We try to engage in the conversation about clear rules and regulations with management, and once that is applied correctly we can move towards promoting safe behavior – F6
We have adjusted our message, as we continuously find out that the issue at hand is even more basal than we expected. The target group is not as well established as we thought in every domain. So sometimes we have to get the basics right first as a concept such as ‘leadership’ often is misunderstood – F5
Generic approach to all construction companies
Specific individual toolbox approach
We now have a spectrum of tools that we can apply to help a certain target group, and provide a more individual, personalized approach – F1
Work with construction companies alone
Work with all parties in the field
Our intervention-line has changed. We used to only approach constructors, but nowadays we try to intervene in the playing field more and more. In the near future we will work together with constructors and the CVW to create better safety rules. So different parties should be more aware of the effects of their and other’s actions. And to intervene in these issues is completely different from developing safety tool, like we used to – F4
18
why these changes have taken place, we must also take the stakeholders' influences into account and, as will happen in the end of this chapter, take a look at the larger picture.
4.3. The agency’s stakeholders
Initially, the interviewees were asked to identify the stakeholders that they had experienced to have influence on the agency. Three were mentioned by all interviewees: the NAM, the CVW and the constructors. The NAM is the initiator of the project, the National Gas Company that is responsible for the drilling, and thus the earthquakes and damage control in the region. Additionally, the NAM is also the initiator of the platform that later became the Agency, which it funds. The CVW is the executive party that directs the constructors in assigning work amongst them and providing the contact with the people who need restorations to be done. The constructors are the ones performing the work assigned, and are the customers of the agency. The latter tries to influence the constructors into working more safely in these restoration-jobs. During the first interview round, these stakeholders were described as prominent stakeholders whom are able to influence the agency and, therefore, taken into account from that point on in this study.
The NAM is our direct client/principal and sponsor – F1
The CVW is the large executive party, the big client of the constructors – F3
The constructor is the central stakeholder for us: our customers. We see constructors and contractors as one group, one customer. For me, the constructors are in the midst of all we do. We take more from them than from any other stakeholder – F6
Looking at the role of the agency in the field, the agency is seen by interviewees as independent from other parties:
Every party in our environment has influence on us and vice versa, but the way that we deal with that influence depends on the way that we view ourselves and how we think we should respond, thus influencing the way we actually respond or are influenced – F1
We adjust ourselves the moment we feel that we are not making an impact. This is an indirect influence of our stakeholders, whereas the Agency itself is an independent party. We are not dependent on the opinion or judgement of anyone, nobody
determines our actions – F1
19
Additionally, the agency also tries influence its stakeholders in order to change their narrative into one that promotes safety, especially that of constructors as this is the main goal of the agency. Since the focus of the agency has moved towards trying the intervene in the playing field too, they now also try to influence the other stakeholders. This influence attempt is also drawn, where direct influence is indicated by a solid arrow and indirect influence by a dotted arrow. This results in the following stakeholder map:
Figure 2: Stakeholder map: initial and current situation
In the following sections, quotes are provided to support the arrows drawn in the stakeholder map. First, the initial situation is explained, including the relationships between the agency and its stakeholders, but also the interrelationships between the stakeholders. Then, some changes in the map are explained as well, which leads to the current situation.
4.3.1. Constructors
Firstly, the constructors are a stakeholder that the agency tries to influence. This party is considered to have the most influence on the agency:
We try to change the way constructors think about safety; that it is about behavior and assumptions rather than technical tools. We make visits at construction sites and facilitate the conversation – F4
Constructors make you think about your approach all the time, through feedback and the way that they are engaged by the approach or not. And at sometimes that directly influences the way we work, but we try not to go that way – F6
In the end, constructors do not open their mouth, and we developed our own tools completely, not in cooperation – F5
20
4.3.2. NAM
The NAM has a different relationship with the agency, as the NAM is a direct founder of the agency and there is a professional bond between them. However, NAM does not interfere directly in NAM’s doings and neither does the NAM in Vlink’s.
We are still financially dependent on the NAM so there is a certain influence. There was a certain collaboration while sharing ideas in the start-up phase, but we have always operated independently from the NAM – F3
The NAM wanted to do something with safety, but never formulated a clear vision about the issue, we brought that to the table – F5
Hence, the arrow between NAM and Vlink is solid, as due to its financial dependence on the NAM, Vlink is influenced to a larger extent by the NAM than the other way around. Therefore, the arrow between Vlink and the NAM is dotted, as Vlink does not interfere with the work of the NAM and tries to put focus on the other stakeholders rather than NAM.
4.3.3. CVW
The relationship between the agency and the CVW started out as a very complicated one, which led to limited contact and a very restrained mutual influence.
When we started off, we send out a memo regarding the position of us, the CVW and other parties in the playing field, that was not received well; it was misunderstood, and led to a certain antipathy against us – F5
At that point, we were a threat to them, as we tried to intervene and they were not ready for that, did not understand our intentions and they were overwhelmed by all parties that wanted something from them – F3
At one point, we decided to not try and cooperate with the CVW, and just let them be. We were never really involved with them in the first place, they just represented the constructors and we tried to intervene there. But we let that go – F6
We try to influence the way [the CVW] performs as a principal of the constructors, and similarly they influence us, by inviting us to meetings and providing us with leads. But we have a free will in how we handle with assignments. They will not tell us how to do
our work, but they do ask critical questions from which we can learn – F3
The CVW allows us to do our work by acknowledging us to be a compulsory part of the contract for constructors, in that sense we need them to support us. But they do not determine the way we teach the constructors about safety – F3
The CVW has not contributed to our understanding of the issue at hand or any other influence on our sensemaking of safety in this case – F5
21
4.3.4. Stakeholders’ interrelations
Additionally, the interviewees all indicated that there are also certain influences found between the stakeholders themselves. As said before, the environment is subject to many changes as earthquakes are unpredictable and many different parties and interests are involved, but also legislation. The three prominent stakeholders of the agency do not only deal with the agency, but also with each other in a dynamic playing field, where all of these parties are interconnected. This interaction is expressed in the following quotes:
The NAM and the CVW have a connection, but we are a separate party from them who kind of dingle between them all trying to intervene – F1
The NAM creates contracts for the constructors, that are distributed by the CVW. The NAM has put their own safety rules into these contracts, but constructors do not take them into account as they do not understand them and do not see the value of them. –
F2
As they put the safety rules into the contracts, the NAM put themselves in the playing field, though actually trying to take distance from the whole situation at this moment – F4
The NAM is the client of the CVW, the CVW is the client of the constructors, and the agency is a separate player in this field but funded by the NAM. And in this field, there are many different understandings about what safety is and what safe work should
encompass – F4
The constructors try to please the CVW, as they assign the jobs and thus the money. If that means that you cannot use a safe scaffold in order to provide a cheaper offer and get the job, so be it, otherwise you lose the job and you lose income. The CVW and
thus the NAM directly above them, are mostly responsible for this type of unsafe work due to cost-cutting – F4
The NAM has tried to push rules into the contracts with constructors, which do not make sense and that constructors do not follow. Safety is something you can enforce, but only when done right, and only if it helps increasing awareness to enforce rules. This is once again a failed attempt to intervene in the playing field by the NAM, causing safety to be less of a priority, and that does not
benefit our position – F4
These quotes indicate some additional relations between the stakeholders; the NAM has an indirect influence on the constructors by trying to push the rules for safety, which harms the mind-set of the constructors. However, the NAM never directly interferes with the constructors but deliberately founded the CVW for that. The CVW has a direct arrow with the constructors, as their clients. The constructors had no connection to CVW or NAM, as such an influence has not been expressed by the interviewees. Finally, the NAM and CVW have a direct arrow too, as indicated in the first quote. The NAM is the founder of the CVW and thus has direct influence. The CVW has no known influence on the NAM.
Altogether these relationships lead to the left model, initial situation, in figure 2. This is the situation as was at hand when Vlink started, and the stakeholders themselves are still existing in the environment of the agency. However, some shifts have taken place in the mutual relationships between the different stakeholders and the stakeholders and the agency. The following quotes explain how some of the relationships changed over time:
22
By becoming an official foundation, we now have a professional, controlling, relationship with the NAM, where they take their distance and to not meddle with our work – F2
In September 2015 we had somewhat more negative contact with the CVW, whereas that unfroze in the next half year. We achieved a more active, cooperative bond – F4
As the CVW asked us to provide workshops, we got more work this year. That is definitely a positive influence of the CVW – F2 The pressure from the CVW on the constructors has increased, they try to please the CVW more and more. As the CVW distributes
the work and thus the money, constructors try to please them, even when that means working unsafely – F4 Now we just have to hope that the CVW will change, or that the constructors will rise to the occasion and stand up – F6
These quotes represent a few changes in the stakeholder field. The NAM has taken some distance from both the CVW and Vlink. There is still an indirect relation between the NAM and these two parties, as the NAM is still founder of both parties and has formal influence, through for example funding, but does not act upon this influence directly. The connection between the CVW and Vlink, however, became more direct; there was better cooperation between the parties. Finally, we see that the arrow of the CVW towards the constructors has become thicker; the CVW exercises more pressure and influence onto the constructors, which is a movement perceived by Vlink, as shown in the last two quotes.
Altogether, this results in the model on the right sight of figure 2. A development in the field of stakeholders had influence on the development of the narrative of Vlink too. In the next section, the narrative of Vlink will be looked at, but with the historical context and the stakeholders taken into account and conclusions will be drawn.
4.4. The development of the safety narrative
We have identified some critical incidents that have taken place in the environment of Vlink, the narrative of Vlink itself and the changes in this narrative over time, and the way stakeholders intervene in the field of the agency. This paragraph aims to summarize the result section, providing an overview of all previous information in appendix F. Instead of only looking at the narrative at the beginning and the end, we now show 5 moments in the development of the narrative, accompanied by contextual information and information on the influence of stakeholders at certain points. In table F1, appendix F, it is also indicated how the transition to the next phase took place. These scenarios were discussed with the interviewees, who gave feedback on the findings and adjusted some details that were interpreted wrongly by the researcher. These adjustment are taken in to account in this table.
4.5. Conclusion
23
Looking back at the research question of this research, and the results as mentioned above, we can say that the stakeholders of the agency have influenced the development of the narrative the following way. Firstly, looking at the overall development of Vlink’s narrative, the biggest change is that the employees of the agency now realize how the mechanisms in the playing field work. When Vlink started out, the first year, there was a very large focus on developing tools and providing clear materials, developing ways to support constructors in working safely and tools to get them to be aware of their own behavior and the way that affects others. Though this focus is still present, the view of the consultants of Vlink has expanded; through experiences in the field, they found that only trying to change human behavior at construction sites will not change the industry and will not create safe behavior. In order to change the way people act with regards to safety, the system and the playing field has to change too. This means that the NAM and CVW must be willing to play according to rules, in order to create a sort of ‘level playing field’, where each constructor has to deal with the same safety standards. This means that they can only compete with each other on quality of work, rather than on price only; when the constructors compete on price, they often try save money on having less safety precautions, and safety ends up being a cost instead of a benefit. Such a system, that promotes safe work over cheap work, has to be in place before the current narrative, changing behavior, can be viable. The change of now dealing with the issue in different way is a direct influence of all the stakeholders in the playing field that affected the development of the narrative of the agency.
24
5. DISCUSSION
After elaborating on all elements and concepts of the research question in the literature review, explaining the methods used in this research and displaying its results, this section presents and reflects on the research question provided by this study and its limitations. The research question ‘How does an organization’s interaction with their stakeholders influence the development of the organization’s safety narrative?’ has been discussed and answered for a specific case. As shown in the conclusion of the previous chapter, in this case study we found that the stakeholders had a large impact on the agency’s narrative, namely completely changing its focus from a narrative directed only at constructors, towards intervening in the entire playing field. This change is guided by the stakeholders, as they have a larger impact in the playing field than expected, where the constructors are guided in their behavior by the rules and priorities of the CVW and NAM. Through this influence on constructors, the NAM and CVW thus influence the agency too, who are now adapting their approach towards the narrative from constructors only to the entire playing field.
Additionally, the effect of two critical developments taking place in the environment of the agency and of the stakeholders had quite a large impact on the agency: the increase in knowledge about the situation (CD1) and the decrease in demand for constructors (CD2). This indicates that in future research, the effect of contextual developments, and incidents too, may be an issue to explore more in depth.
Having defined narratives as “temporal, discursive constructions that provide means for individual, social and organizational sensemaking and sensegiving” (Vaara, et al., 2016; p. 2), we find that in this research this definition was appropriate: the interviewees used their expressions and narratives to make sense of their environment and stakeholders, and have shared stories about the situation in the playing field as they have perceived it to have changed. Based on documents, observations and interviews, and in congruence with the conceptual model, we see that the interviewees have expressed their narratives about the stakeholders, and a composite narrative was compiled from the different individual narratives. This implies shared sensemaking amongst the interviewees.
The link between narratives and stakeholders, that has not been explored yet, can therefore be considered to be the largest contribution of this study. In this specific case, the stakeholders had a large influence on the approach of the agency towards the issue, and the relationships between the stakeholders and the agency are very dynamic. This made the case a very appropriate tool to answer the research question. Additionally, the empirical evidence for stakeholder influence on the development of a narrative additionally shows that not only stakeholders, but the entire playing field and the environmental context of an organization should be taken into account when researching an organizational narrative.
25
shows, stakeholders can have a large influence on the organization, and by understanding one’s own narrative and the exact influence by stakeholders, one can better anticipate for this influence. One might limit or extend influence, depending on the goals of the organization. Additionally, by becoming more aware of one's own narrative, one may also be better able to promote such a narrative and know exactly how to position oneself when dealing with stakeholders.
6. LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH
This research has some limitations that need to be taken into account. Firstly, the interpretative approach that has been applied in this research calls for some critical reviewing. Due to this approach, and the qualitative nature of this research, one must be aware that the judgement of the researcher lies quite heavily on this research. The choice of quotes, choice of narrative approach, type of questioning are all dependent on the sensemaking process of the researcher, which is very subjective.
Furthermore, the stakeholders are only represented in this research through narratives about the stakeholders by interviewees. This is a point for future research, which might want to look at narratives from the stakeholders point of view as well. In this research, the stakeholders are subject to the sensemaking process of the interviewees, who might have a different sensemaking of the stakeholders and the entire playing field than the stakeholders themselves would have.
Finally, only one case was examined in this research and in order to draw conclusions about the influence of stakeholders on the development of an organization's narrative, more cases must be studied. The theory that has been developed in this research needs further examination and studying in order to be tested and confirmed. A different case, in a different industry for example, might show different results that can be looked at by future researchers.
26
REFERENCES
Andriof, J., Waddock, S.A., Rahman, S., & Husted, B. (2002). Introduction: JCC The issue: Stakeholder Responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Summer, 16-18.
Aken, J.E. van, Berends, H. & Bij, H. van der (2012). Problem solving in organizations; A methodological handbook for business and management students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin: University of Texas
Boje, D.M. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly. 36 (1), 106-126
Boje, D.M. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational & communication research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Brown, A.D. (1998). Narrative, Politics and Legitimacy in an IT Implementation. Journal of
Management Studies, 35(1), 35-58
Brown, A.D., & Humphreys, M. (2003). Epic and tragic tales: Making sense of change. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science. 39 (2), 121-144
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Buelens, M., Sinding, K. & Waldstrøm, C. (2011). Organisational Behaviour (4th ed). London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education
Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change. Essex: Pearson Education Limited
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis; Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London: Heinemann Educational.
27
Carroll, A. (1996). Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South Western College Publishing.
CBS, 2015. Arbeidsgevallen vooral in Landbouw, Horeca en Bouw. Accessed at: 04-05-2016.
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2015/46/arbeidsongevallen-vooral-in-landbouw-horeca-en-bouw
Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making Sense of Qualitative Data. London: Sage Publications.
Cunliffe, A.L., Luhman, J.T., & Boje, D.M. (2004). Narrative Temporality: Implications for Organizational Research. Organizational studies, 25(2), 261-286
Currie, M. (1998). Postmodern Narrative Theory. New York: St. Martin’s Press
Dailey, S., & Browning, L. (2014). Retelling stories in organizations: Understanding the functions of narrative repetition. Academy of Management Review, 39(1), 22-43
Drupsteen, L., & Guldenmund, F. W. (2014). What is learning? A review of safety literature to define learning from accidents and disasters. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 22(2), 81-96.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management
Review, 14 (4), 532-550
Emmerson, P. & Frosh, S. (2004). Critical Narrative Analysis in Psychology: A Guide to Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy
of Management review, 33, 362-377
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management; A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Greimas, A. (1987). On Meaning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Hardy, C., & Maguire S., 2010. Discourse, Field-Configuring Events, and Change in Organizations and Institutional Fields: Narratives of DDT and the Stockholm Convention. Academy of Management
28
Hawkins, M.A., & Saleem, F.Z. (2012). The omnipresent personal narrative: story formulation and interplay among narratives. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25 (2), 204-219
Hollway, W. & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research Differently: free association, narrative and the interviewing method. London: Sage Publications.
Hudson, P.T.W., Parker, D., Lawton, R., Verschuur, W.L.G., Van der Graaf, G.C., & Kalff, J. (2000). The Hearts and Minds project: Creating intrinsic motivation for HSE. Paper SPE 61095 presented at 2000 SPE conference on HSE in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Stavanger
Jonker, J., & Pennink, B. W. (2010). The Essence of Research Methodology. Berlin: Springer.
Jørgensen, K., (2015). Prevention of “Simple accidents at work” with major consequences. Safety
Science, 81, 46-58.
Kvale, S. & Brinkman, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R. & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative Research; Research, Analysis and Interpretation. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 47. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Maitlis, S. (2005). The Social Processes of Organizational Sensemaking. The Academy of
Management Journal, 48 (1), 21-49
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (3nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Murphy, G. & Kovach, J.K. (1972). Historical Introduction to Modern Psychology, (6th edition, first published 1928). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Myers, M.D. (2013). Qualitative Research in Business & Management (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
29
Parker, D., Lawrie, M., & Hudson, P. (2006). A framework for understanding the development of organizational safety culture. Safety Science, 44, 551-562.
Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage Publications
Reissner, S. C. (2011). Patterns of stories of organisational change. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 24(5), 593–609
Riessman, C.K. (1993). Narrative Analysis. London: Sage Publications
Robbins, S.P., & Barnwell, N. (2006). Organisation Theory; Concepts and cases (5th ed). Frenchs Forest NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Sköldberg, K. (1994). Tales of change: Public administration reform and narrative mode.
Organization Science, 5(2), 219-238
Smith, A.C.T. & Graetz, F.M. (2011). Philosophies of Organizational Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Sonenshein, S. (2010). We’re changing – Or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. The Academy of Management
Journal, 53(3), 477-512
Stolzer, A.J., Halford, C.D., & Goglia, J.J. (2011). Implementing Safety Management Systems in Aviation. Surrey: Routledge.
Vaara, E. (2002). On the discursive construction of success/failure in narratives of post-merger integration. Organization Studies, 23(2), 211–248
Vaara, E., Sonenshein, S., & Boje, D. (2016). Narratives as Sources of Stability and Change in Organizations: Approached and Directions for Future Research. The Academy of Management
Annuals, 1-66. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1080/19416520.2016.1120963
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Weick, K.E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disasters.
30
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Wilkinson, S. & Kitzinger, C. (1995). Feminism and Discourse: Psychological Perspectives (eds). London: Sage Publications
Willig, C. (2001). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology. Buckingham: Open University Press
