Preface
WeenteredacademeatthetimetheSovietUnionandapartheidcollapsed. JustaswewerestartingourdoctoratesinorganizationalanalysisattheUniversityofAlberta,theseseeminglyimmutablestructuresthathadoccupied suchacentralculturalandpoliticalpositionsincetheSecondWorldWar(and forourentirelives),simplydisappeared.Ourseminardiscussions,and,perhapsmoreimportantly,endlessinformalconversationsinJavaU(ourfavorite campuscoffeeshop)andthePowerPlant(thegraduatestudentbar),were energizedandshapedbythesefundamentalsocialchanges.Wearguedfor hoursabouttheusefulnessofexistingtheoriesofsocietyandorganizationin understandingtheseevents,whetherthismattered,andwhattodoaboutit. OurentirePhDexperiencewasshapedbythechallengeof figuringoutwhat thesekindsofeventsmeantforsocialtheory.
Wewereespeciallymovedbytheimagesofcitizenswithsledgehammers breakingdowntheBerlinWallandeventuallydistilledourconcernsintoa question:wewantedtoknowwhy,ifsocialstructuresthatseemedasenduring asthesecouldbechangedbypeopleworkingtogether,werepurposefulagents soabsentfromthesocialtheorythatwewerestudying?Theworldwas evidentlynotjustmutableandchanging,itwaschangeablebythepurposeful actsofcommoncitizens!Thiswasanexcitingideathatwespentmanyhours discussing,andeventuallywritingabout.
Thesecondthingthataffectedhowwethinkaboutthesocialworldwasthe appearanceofanewversionofthe “endofhistory” argument.Manyphilosophersandsocialscientistsoverthelast200yearshavewrittenabouttheidea thatatsomepointaparticularlyenduringeconomic,social,andpolitical systemwouldappearthatwouldsignaltheendofsocioeconomicevolution (think,forexample,ofMarxandhiswritingsonthe finalcommunistsystem).
In1989,FrancisFukuyamapublishedanessayentitled “Theendofhistory?” inwhichhearguedthat,withthefalloftheSovietUnion,wewere witnessingnotjusttheendofaregime,buttheendofhistory.Fromhis perspective,thefalloftheSovietUnionwasnotjustthefallofagreatnation state,itmarkeddisappearanceoftheengineofhistory.Thegrandarccarved outbytheclashofcapitalismandcommunismthatcharacterizedthetwentiethcenturywasover.Asheargued(Fukuyama,1989:4):
WhatwemaybewitnessingisnotjusttheendoftheColdWar,orthepassingofa particularperiodofpost-warhistory,buttheendofhistoryassuch:thatis,theend pointofmankind’sideologicalevolutionandtheuniversalizationofWestern liberaldemocracyasthe finalformofhumangovernment. Butthisraisedasecondimportantquestionforus:howshouldwethinkabout andinvestigatethisnew,post-historicalworld?Withouttheclashofgreat ideologies,whatwouldbetheengineofchange?Orwaschangejustacharacteristicofsocialsystemsandnoenginewasneeded?Fortwobuddingsocial theorists,thisledtothesubstitutionofthemodernistideasofMarx,Weber, andDurkheimwiththepostmodernismofFoucault,Lyotard,andBaudrillard. Thecollisionoftotalizingideologiesandtheresultingstructuringoftheworld wasreplacedwiththeideathatchangewasdrivenbymuchsmaller-scale actions,andthechaosanduncertaintythatthisoftenentails.Thisalso meant,however,thatweneededabettertheoryofhowlocalactionleadsto socialstructure,somethingthatledustonewandexcitingtheoreticalareas suchassocialconstructionismandpoststructuralism.
Oursupervisorsandprofessorsweresomewhatbemusedbywherewewere goingwithallofthis.Theirfeelingscanbestbesummarizedbyacomment fromafacultymembervisitingtheUniversityofAlbertafromtheUniversity ofIllinoiswho,followingaparticularlycombativeseminarwhenoneofus triedtopresentsomeoftheseideas,said: “Thisisprobablyalltruebutwhydo youhavetosayit?Thereareperfectlygoodexistingtheoriestoexplainthese things.” Wedidn’tagree.
Incombination,theseeventsandtrendsprovidedthemotivationand contextthathavefueledalmostthreedecadesofworkandeventuallyledto thisbook.Wewantedtoexploretheroleofactorsintheconstructionofthe socialworldandcommunicatetheexcitingramificationsofwhatwefound.At thesametime,wewantedtounderstandthelimitsofintentionallocalaction andtrytodefinethepointatwhichthesocialbecomesunmanageableas largerforcestakeover.Indoingso,wehopedtoprovidearoadmapfor studyingandanalyzingpeople’spurposefuleffortstoshapethesocialworld. Webelievethisrepresentsanexcitingprojectandhopeyou finditasinterestingandhopefulaswedo.
Ofcourse,indevelopingthisproject,wehavehadhelpfromanumberof peopleandgroupsthatwewouldliketothankhere.First,wewouldlike tothankthefollowingpeoplefortheircommentsondraftmaterialand presentations:SallyMaitlis,EmilioMarti,EvaSchlindwein,GloriaKutscher, ReneWeidner,PedroMonteiro,GerryMcGivern,participantsinourEGOS sub-themesinCopenhagenandTallin,WriteClubmembersattheUniversity ofOxford,seminarparticipantsatWarwickBusinessSchool,theUniversityof Arizona,TilburgUniversity,andthe5thAustrianEarlyScholarsWorkshopin Management.
WealsowanttothankStephanieCrearyforthejoyandinsightshebrought toco-conveningwithusaseriesofEGOSsub-themesonsocial-symbolic work qualitieswebelievemayhaverubbedoffinthebetterpartsofthe book.WewanttothankoureditoratOUP,AdamSwallow,forhisguidance andpatience,aswellastheanonymousreviewerswhohelpedusclarifyour directionintheearlystagesofthebook’sdevelopment.Wealsowanttothank twoprofessorsattheUniversityofAlbertawhotaughtusthenandcontinueto inspireustoday BobHiningsandRoystonGreenwooddeservemuchofthe creditforanyacademicvaluethisbookmightdeliver(butofcoursenoneof theblameforwhatwegotwrong).
Moregenerally,inwritingthisbookwehavebenefitedfromconversations withagreatmanypeopleaboutourdevelopingideasaboutorganizations, institutions,selves,andwork.Theseconversationshavehelpedusimmeasurablyaswehavedevelopedtheideasthatpopulatethisbook.Therearefar toomanyofyoutolisthere,butwewanttoshoutouttoafewwithout whomthisbookwouldlooknothinglikeitdoes,andlikelynotexistatall: JohnAmis,StephanieBertels,GrahamDover,BrunoDyck,BryanGallagher, BobGephart,ChristianHampel,CynthiaHardy,PaulHirsch,DevJennings, MattKraatz,BernardLeca,MikeLounsbury,SteveMaguire,MichaelMauws, KamalMunir,ChristineOliver,CliffOswick,MarkusPerkmann,Davide Ravasi,MasoudShadnam,RoySuddaby,PaulTracey,CharleneZietsma,and TammarZilber.Weknowwearemissingmanyothers,butyouknowwhoyou are,andwethankyou.
Finally,wewanttothankourpartnersandfamilieswhomakethework bothpossibleandmeaningful.NelsonwouldliketothankCristinaforher patienceandsupportwhenitmusthaveseemedlikeitmightneverend.Tom wouldliketothankSally,Evan,Claire,Alice,andNina it’sdone.
ListofFigures
2.1.Integratedmodelofsocial-symbolicwork37
4.1.Aprocessmodelofselfwork86
6.1.Aprocessmodeloforganizationwork152
8.1.Institutionalworkassocial-symbolicwork222
10.1.Amodelofsocial-symbolicwork278
IntroductiontoConstructing OrganizationalLife
AttheheadofficeofalargeinsurancecompanyintheAmericanMidwest, RobertadePinalookedattheclockinthecornerofhercomputerscreenand sighed.SheonlyhadtwohoursuntiltheExecutiveCommitteemeetingwhere shewouldpresenthernewproposaltostrengthenthecompany’sdiversity andinclusionpolicy.AstheChiefDiversityOfficer,shewasdeeplycommitted toimprovingthewayLGBTQ+staffweretreated.Atthesametime,sheknew thatthediscussionofherproposalwouldbetricky,andthatthemembers oftheExecutiveCommitteewereinverydifferentplacesintermsoftheir thinkingongenderandsexuality.Itwouldbeachallengetogetthemtoagree tosupportherforward-lookingproposal,perhapsespeciallytheformation ofanLGBTcorporatenetworkandmentorshipprogram.Yet,Robertafelt stronglythatchangewasnecessaryiftheorganizationwastoreallysupport diversityandshewasexcitedbytheopportunitytomakearealdifference. Nowifshecouldjustconvincethecommittee!
Ataroundthesametime,PeterSpicerlookedoutofthewindowofhis fl at inLondon’sEastEnd.ThesettingsuncastawarmlightontheVictorian housesthatlinedthestreet,butPeterhardlynoticed.Hewasdeepin thought,mullingoverhowtoensure hisdemandingclientswerewell takencareofwhilehewasonhisupcomingpaternityleave.Becominga dadwassomethingthathewasreallylookingforwardto,butitcamewith signi fi cantchallenges,especiallyashewasthe fi rstpartnerinhis fi rmtotake paternityleave.And,asoneoftheyoungestpartners,hewasawarethathe stillhadmuchtoproveintheeyesofsomeoftheseniorpartners.ButPeter wasalsocommittedtoparticipatingfullyinbringinguphisdaughter.Hefelt stronglythattakingtheleavewouldhelphimtostartbuildingthesortof bondhewantedtohavewithher.Butheknewhewouldneedto fi ndaway tobebothasuccessfulpartnerandanengagedparentifhewastomakea successofthenextyear.
BackacrosstheAtlantic,MarieTremblantwasaddressingameetingof CLASSE,astudentactivistgroupatalargeuniversityinMontreal,Canada. MariewassketchingoutthearrangementsthathadbeenmadeforrepresentativesofCLASSEtojoinaprovince-wideplanningcommitteetoagreeonthe planforanupcomingstudentprotestagainstuniversityfeesinQuebec.One ofthemembersraisedherhandtoaskaboutthegoaloftheprotest.Marie explainedthatthegoalsweretwofold.First,toputpressureonthegovernmenttocommittoreversingtherecentdecisiontoraisetuitionfeesand, second,tochangethewaypeopleinQuebecthoughtabouttherightofyoung peopletoanaffordableeducation.Thissecondgoalwastheonethatreally animatedMarie.Herexcitementaboutchangingsocietalattitudestowardfree universityeducationshowedinhervoiceandbodylanguageassheexplained moreaboutthissecondgoalandenthusiasticallypitchedherviewofthe possibilitiesforthefuture.
Roberta,Peter,andMarieareconstructingorganizationallife,includingthe rulesandroutinesthatshapeandenableorganizationalactivity,theidentities ofpeoplewhooccupyorganizations,andthesocietalnormsandassumptions thatprovidethecontextfororganizationalaction.Weusetheterm “constructing” toemphasizethewaysinwhichpeopleandgroupsengagein purposeful,reflexiveeffortsrootedinanawarenessoforganizationallifeas constructedandthereforechangeable.Thiskindofpurposefulactionisthe focusofincreasingscholarlyattentionacrossmanagementandorganizational research,withgrowingstreamsofresearchdevelopinginareaslikestrategy work,boundarywork,identitywork,institutionalwork,andmanyothers.
Thesedisparatestreamsofresearchshareanappreciationoftheimportance ofpurposeful,reflexiveeffortsinshapingorganizationallife.Missingfrom theseconversations,however,isarecognitionoftheunderlyingsimilarities amongtheactionsofaninsurancecompanyexecutiverevampingherorganization’spoliciesandroutines,alawyernegotiatinganewidentityasbotha parentandaprofessional,andastudentleaderinfluencingthesocietalconversationonaccesstohighereducation.Alsomissingisrecognitionofhow theseformsofactioninteract:scholarshavelargelyfocusedontheefforts ofpeopletoshapeorganizationalroutines or personalidentities or societal assumptions,whilethewaysinwhichtheseeffortsandtheirimpactsare interwovenandinterdependenthasbeenlargelyoverlooked.
Ouraiminthisbookistodevelopaperspectivethatcanovercomethese limitationsandprovideabasisforscholarstoexplorepeople’seffortstoshape thesocialworldoforganizations,notasisolatedformsofaction,butasabroad familyofactivitieswithessentialcommonalitiesaswellasimportantdifferences.Whatconnectstheseformsofactionistheircommonfocusonshaping
whatwerefertoas “social-symbolicobjects”—combinationsofdiscursive, relational,andmaterialelementsthatconstitutemeaningfulpatternsinsocial systems.Inorganizationallife,social-symbolicobjectsincludeelementsofthe organizationsuchasstrategies,boundaries,andtechnologies,aswellasthe identities,emotions,andcareersofmembers,andthebeliefs,assumptions, andcategoriesthatpopulateanorganization’sinstitutionalcontext.Because people’seffortstochangethesocialworldarefocusedonsocial-symbolic objects,werefertotheseeffortsas “social-symbolicwork,” whichwedefine aspurposeful,reflexiveeffortsintendedtoshapeormaintainsocial-symbolic objectsinorganizationallife.
Inthisbook,wedevelopasocial-symbolicworkperspectiveonanalyzing andunderstandingthesocialworld,andseeitascomplementarytoexisting structuralandprocessualapproaches.Ourfocusisontheeffortsofinterestedactorsworkingtoaffectthesocialandsymbolicworldaroundthem. Thisinvolvesashiftfromexaminingtheroleofsocialstructuresinshaping socialactionortheprocessesthatunderpinsociallife,toexaminingthe actorsandactionsthatshapethosestructuresandprocesses,transforming themaswellasholdingtheminplace.Wearguethatbyexaminingthe intentionaleffortsofpeopleandgroupstoshapethesocialworld inaddition to thesemoreconventionalapproaches,wecancometoaricherunderstandingofthesocialworld,howitcametobethewayitis,howitisheldin place,howitchanges,andperhapsmostimportantly,whoitisthatmakes thesethingshappeninthe fi rstplace(seeBox1.1foranillustrationofthe differencesbetweenstructural,process,andworkperspectives).
TheIntellectualFoundationsofOurBook
Theintellectualrootsofthisbookarebothold ourargumentsdrawonideas aboutthenatureoflanguagethatwere firstsuggestedmorethanacentury ago andnew theybuildonrecentscholarshipinthesocialsciencesthat hasfocusedonunderstandingtheheterogeneousrelationshipbetweenagency andsocialstructure.Asapreludetothechaptersthatlayoutourargumentsand exploretheconceptsweareproposing,wewilldiscusssomeoftheseideas andhowtheyunderpinourframework.
TheIntellectualRootsofSocial-SymbolicObjects
Theconceptofasocial-symbolicobjectarisesoutofthelongarcofincreasing interestin,andappreciationfor,theroleoflanguageinsociallife.This “linguisticturn” (Rorty,1967)reflectsagrowingrecognitionthatlanguageis
Box1.1. STRUCTURE/PROCESS/WORKVIEWS
“It’snotpersonal,Sonny.It’sstrictlybusiness.” (MichaelCorleone, TheGodfather)
Inthe1972crimedrama TheGodfather,AlPacinoplaysMichaelCorleone,arecentIvy LeaguegraduatewhomustunexpectedlytakeoverfromhisfatherastheDonofa NewYorkcrimefamily.ThemoviechroniclesMichael’stransformationfromreluctant outsidertoterrifyinglyeffectivecrimebossfollowingtheattemptedmurderofhisfather. Thestoryprovidesausefulexampletoconsiderhowsocialphenomenoncanbe analyzedfromthethreeperspectiveswehavediscussedinthischapterinorderto highlighttheunderlyingassumptionsandcontributionofeachperspective.
Structuralperspective.First,fromastructuralperspective,thestorycanbeunderstood asonewherethepatternedsocialarrangementsinplaceinAmericansociety,andinthe socialmilieuoftheCorleonefamily,inescapablyshapeMichaelandturnanIvyLeague graduateheadingforaconventionaljobinacompanyintothedonofoneofthebiggest crimefamiliesinAmerica.Michael’sinitialdesiretoavoidenteringthedarkworldofthe Mafiaisirrelevantinthefaceofthepressuresthatarecreatedbythesocialstructuresin whichheisembeddedandthatinexorablydrawhimintotherolehehasalways avoided.Thesestructureswork “behindtheactor’sback” toshapeMichael’sactions andinterestsinwaysthatleadtoanalltoopredictableoutcome.Theimportant contributionofastructuralperspectiveisthatithighlightsthelargersocialforcesthat areatworkandfocusesonexplainingthepredictablepatternsinoutcomethatoccurin socialsystems.
Processperspective.Aprocessperspective,ontheotherhand,isnotaboutpredicting theoutcomebutratherrevealingtheongoingmovementand fluxthatcharacterize socialsystems.Fromthisperspective,thesocialworldisnotasetofstructuresthat requireidenti fication,butratheracomplexprocessthatneedstobedescribed.Itisnot, therefore,thelargerstructuresthatareofinterestbutratherthepatternsinthechanges thatoccurandthemechanismsthataredrivingthesechanges.InthecaseofMichael,it istheprocessthroughwhichheundergoesthistransformationandthemechanismsthat driveit.Theattemptedmurderofhisfatherandtheresultingchaosinhisfamilybecome triggeringeventsforatransformationinhowhethinksabouthimselfandhisroleinthe family.Theincompetenceofhisbrothersandthelackofleadershiptheydisplayaddto thecomplexprocessthatreshapesMichael.Fromthisperspective, flowreplacesstability,asthefocusofattentionmovestounderstandingthesequenceofeventsthatoccur throughtimeandthepatternsofchangeinaparticularsocialworld.
Social-symbolicworkperspective.Finally,aworkperspectivechangesthefocus onceagain.Ratherthanattendingtooutcomeorprocess,aworkperspectivefocuses ourattentiononMichael’seffortstochangehimselfandtheCorleonecrimesyndicate. Inthe film,weseeMichaelperformanumberofdifferentkindsofworkashefashions anewidentityforhimselfasdonoftheCorleoneempireandasheworksatthe organizationalleveltomaintainandstrengthenaspectsoftheorganizationthathe believestobeimportantwhilealsoworkingtoremovepracticesandchangeboundarieswhereappropriate.Fromthisperspective,thepurposefuleffortsofMichaelto changeormaintainhisidentity,theorganizationanditsboundaries,andtherelation betweentheorganizationandthebroadersocialenvironmentbecomethefocusof attention.
notsimplyatoolforcommunicatinginformation,butthatitplaysanactive roleinconstitutingsocialreality.Fromthisperspective,wordsdonotdescribe apre-existingworldthatwehavediscovered;instead,theworldthatwe encounterisconstitutedbytheconceptsthatareavailableinlanguageto divideitupandmakesenseofit.Thisviewoflanguageasbeingmorethan a “mirrorofnature” beganinphilosophywithwriterslikedeSaussure(1983) andWittgenstein(2009),andwentontoprofoundlyinfluencework firstin thehumanitiesand,somewhatlater,inthesocialsciences.Thisshiftinour understandingoftheroleoflanguageinconstitutingsocialrealityhasledtoa fundamentalchangeinhowscholarsworkingfromthisperspectivethink aboutandstudysocialphenomena.
Alongthisinfluentialarc,twocontributionshaveparticularlyinspiredour approachtoconceptualizingsocial-symbolicobjects.The firstwasthepublicationofBergerandLuckmann’s(1966) Thesocialconstructionofreality.We inheritfromBergerandLuckmannaninterestinunderstandinghowpeople, throughlanguage,interaction,andreflection,assemblesocialrealityfrom theirdirectexperiencesandtheirinheritedhistories.TwoaspectsofBerger andLuckmann’sargumentareofparticularimportancetotheperspective wearedeveloping.The firstisinstitutionalization,which,forBergerand Luckmann,describestheprocessthroughwhichmeaningisassignedto setsofhabitsandroutines.Thesecondislegitimation,whichinvolvesthe constructionofexplanationsthatjustifyinstitutionstonewgenerations ofparticipantsinsocialarenas.Forus,thesetwoprocessesarecentralto understandingtheconstructionandmaintenanceofsocial-symbolicobjects andarethuscentraltotheaimsofthisbook.
ThesecondsourceofinspirationcomesfromtheworkofMichelFoucault, whoinaseriesofmonographsincluding Thebirthoftheclinic, Madnessand civilization,and Thearchaeologyofknowledge,establishedanapproachto understandingtheoriginsandevolutionofsocial-symbolicobjectsthathas profoundlyinfluencedagenerationofscholars,demonstratingnotonlythat realityissociallyconstructed,butthattheprocessesthroughwhichthat constructionoccursareinfusedwithheterogeneousformsofpower,someof whichmaybetiedtoconflictbutothersdistinctlynotso.
Inthisbook,theimpactofFoucault’swritingcanbeclearlyseeninourown attemptstounderstandthehistoricalevolutionofthesocial-symbolicobjects onwhichwefocus.Beforeexploringthesocial-symbolicworkassociatedwith particularobjects,we firstexaminethehistoryofthoseobjects,developing ourownshort “archaeologies” thathelpexplainhowandinwhatwaysthe social-symbolicobjectshavebecomethetargetsofsocial-symbolicwork.Our specificapproachtothisquestionisinformedbywriterswhohaveemphasized thedistinctivehistoricalshiftsassociatedwithmodernityandpostmodernity (Bauman,2000;Giddens,1991;Harvey,1989;Jameson,1991;Lyotard,1984).
Foreachofthemainsocial-symbolicobjectswediscuss,weexplorehowthey weretransformedinthetransitionstomodernityandpostmodernity,and howthesetransformationsmadepossiblenewkindsofsocial-symbolicwork.
Toillustratetheideaofasocial-symbolicobject,considertheconceptofan endangeredspecies.Thisideaisnowwidelyaccepted,itappearscommonlyin everydayspeech,andlistsofendangeredspeciescanbefoundonvarious websites.Buttheideaofan “endangeredspecies” isnotsimplyadescriptor denotingthatonlyafewmembersofaspeciesexist.Instead,itbringswithit aninescapablesensethatforaspeciestobeendangeredisabadthingthat demandsaction.Thismoralimperativehas,insomecountries,beentranslatedintolawsthatspecifytheactionsthatmustbetakentoprotectspecies identifiedasendangered.Thetermemergedfromworkdoneovermorethana centurybyavastarrayofconservationists,huntingorganizations,governmentagencies,andscientists.IntheUnitedStates,thetermwaseventually codifiedinaseriesoflegislativeacts,culminatinginthe1973Endangered SpeciesAct.Consequently, “endangeredspecies” isnowasocial-symbolic objectthatbringswithitideasabouthowtorecognizeaspeciesasendangered aswellasamoralimperativeforactiononceoneisidentified.
The firstimportantaspectofthisexampleinvolvestherelationshipbetween “endangeredspecies” asasocial-symbolicobjectandtheworlditdescribes.At thispointinhistory,theconceptofendangeredspeciesexistsaspartofasetof interrelatedconceptsthatmakeupaparticularviewofthenaturalenvironmentandallowformsofactionnotpossiblewithouttheseconcepts.Endangeredspeciescanbeidentifiedintheworldandactiontakentoprotectthem (ornot).Endangeredspeciesarerealinthesensethattheyarepartofsocial reality,ratherthanimagined, fictional,orunrealinsomeotherway.Atthe sametime,endangeredspecieswerenotsomethingouttherewaitingtobe found,butwereconstructedthroughmoreorlessintentionalhumanactivity. Therewereno “endangeredspecies” untillawmakers,scientists,environmentalactivists,andothersengagedinworkthatmadethisconceptmeaningful thatis,performedthesocial-symbolicworkthatmadeitreal.Priortothe introductionandwidespreadacceptanceofthisterm,therewerepopulations ofanimalsofwhichonlyafewremained;buttherewereno “endangered species” thatdeservedprotection.Thisconceptwassociallyconstructedand incomingintobeingallowedparticulargroupsofanimalstobeidentifiedas endangeredspeciesandtreatedassuch.
TheIntellectualRootsofSocial-SymbolicWork
Whilethebroaderliteratureonsocialconstructionfocusesprimarilyon howsocialrealityisconstructedandthenatureofthesocial-symbolic objectsproduced,morerecentstreamsofliteraturehavebroughtincreased
attentiontotheroleofactorsworkingpurposefullytoshapeprocessesof socialconstruction.Questionsabou ttherelationshipbetweenagencyand socialstructurehavelongoccupiedacentralplaceinsocialscienceof course.Relativelyrecentwriting,however,hasmanagedtomovebeyond thesteriledebatesthatpositionedagencyinoppositiontostructureas primaryexplanationsofhumanbehaviorformuchofthehistoryofsocial science.Instead,scholarshaveproposedanunderstandingofagencythatis more fluid,situational,heterogeneous,andrelational(Battilana,2006; Emirbayer,1997;EmirbayerandMische,1998;Fine,1992;Giddens,1984). Suchaconceptionofagencyiscoretoourunderstandingofsocial-symbolic work,asitsuggeststhepossibilityofactorsengaginginpurposeful,reflexive effortstoshapesocialrealitywhileatthesametimethesocialrealityinwhich theyareembeddedisprovidingthemwiththemotivations,resources,and constraintsthatshapethoseefforts.
Layeredontopofthisunderstandingofagencysitsaswatheofscholarship exploringtheworkthatgoesintoshapingspecifickindsofsocial-symbolic objects thegrowingbodyofresearchthatpromptedustowritethisbookin the firstplace.Althoughwesituatethisbookprimarilyinrelationtomanagementandorganizationalresearch,interestintheworkdonetoshapesocialsymbolicobjectshasemergedacrossthesocialsciences,includinginsociology, psychology,economics,politicalscience,andanthropology.Therecognition ofawideanddisparaterangeofsocial-symbolicobjectshastriggeredwriting onsuchformsofsocial-symbolicworkasidentitywork,emotionwork,values work,bodywork,strategywork,technologywork,institutionalwork,and genderwork.Wewilladdresstheconceptualcommonaltiesthatbindthese streamsofwritingtogetherinChapter2,butfornowitissufficienttonotethat theyallshareaninterestinwhathappensattheintersectionofsocialconstructionandagency.Theyallaskaparallelsetofquestions how,why,andinwhat contextsdopeopleworktoconstructasocial-symbolicobject?
Returningtoourexampleof “endangeredspecies,” thesecondimportant partofthisexampleinvolvesthewaysinwhichtheemergenceoftheconcept “endangeredspecies” anditsapplicationtodenoteparticularsetsofanimals as “endangered” wastheresultofextensiveeffortsbyawidearrayofactors.In thelanguageofthisbook,actorsperformedsocial-symbolicworktobringa social-symbolicobjectintobeing.Whiletheappearanceoftheideaofan “endangeredspecies” (withallofitscomplexity)wasobviouslynottheresult oftheeffortsofasingleactor,theeffortsofactorsplayedanimportantrolein bringingitintobeing.Awholerangeofenvironmentalists,academics,politicians,andmanyothersplayedimportantrolesinbringingthisconceptinto being.Atthesametime,otheractorsworkedtounderminetheconceptand argueforotherconceptualizationsofthenaturalworld.Tobeclear,wearenot claimingthattheintentionaleffortsofactorsrepresenttheentireexplanation
forthisconcept’sappearance,butwedobelievethatsucheffortsplayan important,andforusfascinating,partoftheprocessesofsocialconstruction thatleadtotheappearanceofsocial-symbolicobjects.
MapoftheBook
PartIincludesthisIntroductionandChapter2,anditisherewherewe developthecoreideasthatanimatethisbook.Chapter2beginsbyintroducingthehistoricalshiftsthatestablishthebook ’ scontext:thetransitionstomodernityandpostmodernitythattransformedsocialrealityin waysthatledtopeople ’ spurposeful,re fl exiveeffortstoshapepartsofsocial realitythatwerepreviouslyacceptedasimmutable givenbynatureor God.Wethendeveloptheconceptofsocial-symbolicwork,de fi ningthe concept,reviewingitstheoreticalunderpinnings,andprovidinganintegratedframeworkwewillusethroughoutthebook.Weendthechapterby introducingthethreeformsofsocial-symbolicwork selfwork,organizationwork,andinstitutionalwork thatareexaminedindetailinthenext partofthebook.
PartIIcomprisessixchapters.InChapter3and4,social-symbolicwork becomespersonal: “selfwork” describesthepurposeful,reflexiveeffortsof individuals,collectiveactors,andnetworksofactorstoconstructandshapes specificselves,boththeirownandother’s.InChapter5and6,weintroduce “organizationwork,” whichwedefineaspurposeful,reflexiveeffortsofindividuals,collectiveactors,andnetworksofactorstoconstructandshapes organizations.Thisformofsocial-symbolicworkhasreceivedlessattention asageneralcategoryofsocial-symbolicworkthanselfwork,butisrelatedto long-standingdiscussionsoforganizationalculture,symbolism,andsocial networks.InChapter7and8,weconsider “institutionalwork”—purposeful, reflexiveeffortsofindividuals,collectiveactors,andnetworksofactorsto constructandshapesinstitutions whichinmanywaysisthemostvisible formofsocial-symbolicworkandtheformthathasthemostdeveloped overarchingtheoreticalschema.Whilewebelievetheseformsofsocialsymbolicworkarethemostusefulfromthepointofviewofmanagement andorganizationalresearch,thereare,ofcourse,manyotherformsofsocialsymbolicworkthatmaybeofinteresttoothersocialscientists.
Chapters3,5,and7focusonconceptualizingthethreedifferentforms ofsocial-symbolicwork.Eachbeginswithanarchaeologyofthesocialsymbolicobject(theself,theorganization,institutions)focusingonhowit becamethetargetofpeople ’seffortstoshapeit.Thesesectionsmirrorour discussionofthetransitionstomodernityandpostmodernitythatbeganin Chapter2andshowhoweachofthoset ransitionswasassociatedwitha
reconstructionoftheself,organizations,andinstitutionsinwaysthat motivatedandallowedgreater fl exibilityinhowthosesocial-symbolic objectswereconstructed.
Thechaptersthengoontointroducetheformofsocial-symbolicwork associatedwiththesocial-symbolicobjectthatithasdiscussed selfwork, organizationwork,andinstitutionalwork.Weorienttheseconceptualizationsaroundthreekeydimensionsofsocial-symbolicwork:discursive,relational,andmaterial.Ratherthantrytocataloguesubcategoriesofeachformof social-symbolicwork,wearguethatthesethreedimensionsarepresentin everyinstanceofsocial-symbolicwork,althoughperhapsmoreorlessobvious andimportanttoitseffects.
InChapters4,6,and8,weexamineexistingstreamsofmanagementand organizationalresearchthatfocusontypessocial-symbolicwork.InChapter4, weexamineemotionwork,identitywork,andcareerworkastypesofself work.InChapter6,weexaminestrategywork,boundarywork,andtechnologyworkastypesoforganizationwork.InChapter8,weexaminepractice workandcategoryworkastypesofinstitutionalwork.Foreachofthese literatures,wereviewtheiremergenceinmanagementandorganizational researchandthenexploretheimplicationsofunderstandingthemastypes ofsocial-symbolicwork.
PartIIIincludesthreechapters,inwhichwepanoutandconsidertherelationsamongdifferentformsofsocial-symbolicwork,discusshowresearchers mightstudysocial-symbolicwork,andexaminetheimplicationsofthesocialsymbolicworkperspectiveforscholarship,action,andunderstandingthe broaderworldaroundus.
InChapter9,weexploretheopportunitiesasocial-symbolicworkperspectiveprovidesforresearch.Webeginbyexamininghowsimultaneouslyconsideringmultipletypesofsocial-symbolicworkormultiplesocial-symbolic objectsmightprovidenewconceptualopportunities.
InChapter10,weturntothequestionofhowsocial-symbolicworkmight beexaminedempirically.Todoso,weprovideanextensiveguidetostudying social-symbolicwork,includingsuggestionsfordevelopingresearchquestions,doing fieldwork,analyzingdata,andwritinguptheresults.
Finally,Chapter11concludesthebookbyrevisitingouroriginalmotivation forwritingitanddiscussingwhysocial-symbolicworkisinterestingboth academicallyandpractically.Webeginbyexploringwhat’sinterestingabout social-symbolicworkfromascholarlyperspective.Wethendiscussmore practicalissues,includingimplicationsofasocial-symbolicworkforsocial innovation,managingworkforcediversity,andentrepreneurship.WeconcludeChapter11bydiscussinghowasocial-symbolicworkperspectivecan behelpfulinunderstandingourday-to-daysocial,technological,andnatural worlds.
APostscript:ShouldYouReadThisBook?
Wewrotethisbooktobethought-provokingandusefultopeopleinterested inhowactorspurposefullyparticipateinthesocialconstructionoforganizations.Weareassumingthatyouareprobablyanacademicorastudent,but youmayalsobesomeonewhoisinvolvedinchangingorganizationsasajob orapassion.Inanycase,inthispostscriptwewilltrytoprovidesome thoughtsonwhyyoumight findthisbookworthreading.
Thisbookwillbeusefulifyouareagraduatestudentstudyingmanagement andorganizations,eitherinbusinessschoolsorinrelatedareas,suchashealth administration,education,sociology,organizationalpsychology,andsocial work.Studyinginthesedomainsyouwillbeawareofthetremendousinterest thathasemergedacrossthesocialsciencesintheroleofactorsandagencyin shapingorganizations,communities,andsocieties.Thisbookwillallowyou toparticipateinthisgrowingresearchcommunitybyprovidingyouwithan integrativetheoreticalframeworkthatcanprovidethefoundationforempiricalstudies;concisereviewsofeightdistinctstreamsofrelatedliteraturethat includeformsofworktargetingtheself,organizations,andinstitutions; archaeologiesoftheself,theorganization,andinstitutionsthatclarifyhow eachbecametheobjectofsocial-symbolicwork;andsuggestionsoffurther resourcesifyouwishtopursueparticulartopicsindepth.
Thisbookwillalsobeusefulifyouarealreadyengagedinresearchona particularkindofsocial-symbolicwork,suchasidentitywork,strategywork, orinstitutionalwork.Althoughtremendousprogresshasbeenmadeinunderstandingmanyofthesedistinctkindsofsocial-symbolicwork,theimpactand insightsassociatedwiththesestreamsofresearchhavebeenconstrainedby thenarrowfocusadoptedbymostscholarswhotendtoexploreindividual formsofwork,largelyignoringtheoverlapsandintersectionswithother forms.Recentresearchhasbeguntoexploresomepointsofconnection betweenformsofsocial-symbolicwork,butwithoutanoverarchingframeworktheseeffortshaveremainedisolatedandadhoc.Ifyouarestudyingone ofthesekindsofwork,thisbookwillprovideawayofembeddingyour researchinabroadersetofproblemsandissues,abasisforconnectingyour findingstothoseinalliedresearchdomains,andasystematicapproachto articulatingthelinksbetweendifferentformsofwork.
Youmightalso findthisbookusefulifyouareworkinginorinspiredby socialconstructionisttraditions,includinginterpretivemethods,discourse analysis,practiceandprocesstheory,historicalmethods,narrativeanalysis, studiesoforganizationalcultureandsymbolism,andthesocialstudiesof scienceandtechnology.Althoughthesedifferenttraditionslargelyexhibita mutualsympathy,theirscholarlyprojectstendtowardsegregationrather thanintegrationbecausetheyaretypicallymotivatedbyorframedinterms
ofidiosyncraticissuesratherthanbysomecommonsetofproblems.Thus, youmight findvaluablethetheoreticalframeworkwedevelop,whichcan accommodateawiderangeofsocialconstructionistmethodsandlenses,and providesacommonpointofdepartureforsocialconstructioniststudiesof organizationallife.
Wealsothinkyouwill findthisbookvaluableifyouareamanagementand organizationalscholarwhofocusesontheroleofagencyinorganizational processesandpracticessuchasleadership,strategy,organizationalchange anddevelopment,creativityandinnovation,andentrepreneurship.Although thisbookisnotaboutthesetopicsdirectly,webelieveithasmuchtooffer scholarshipinthesedomains.Eachoftheseorganizationalprocessesdepends significantlyontheabilityofmemberstoengagesuccessfullyinspecificforms ofsocial-symbolicwork,asmightbeclearlyillustratedbytheimportanceof identitywork,strategywork,andboundaryworkinlaunchinganentrepreneurialventure.Morebroadly,theconceptofsocial-symbolicworkandthe frameworkweprovidecouldbeofsignificantvalueindevelopingholistic analysesofcomplexorganizationalprocesses,suchasthecorporatetransformationscurrentlybeingtriggeredbydigitaltechnologies.
Finally,ifyouaresomeonewhoisnotanacademicbutratherhasaprofessionalorpersonalinterestinchangingorganizations,thenwethinkthatyou, too,will findthisbookinteresting.Itcontainsarangeofideasandexamples thatwillprovideyouwithnewwaystothinkaboutwhatorganizationsare andhowtheycanbechangedbyactorsworkingpurposefully.Ourdiscussions alsoincludeideasabouttheselfandsocietythatwehopearehelpfulin conceptualizingandunderstandingwhatcanbechanged,howitcanbe changed,andwhomightbeabletochangeit.
