La construction du sens dans une organisation religieuse : la créativité est-elle possible lorsque règne la norme?

Description
La construction du sens dans une organisation religieuse : la créativité est-elle possible lorsque règne la norme?

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 7
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information
Category:

Essays & Theses

Publish on:

Views: 0 | Pages: 7

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Tags
Transcript
  La construction du sens dans une organisation religieuse : la créativité est-elle possible lorsque règne la norme? Basque Joëlle 1 1 : Groupe de recherche langage organisation gouvernance (Log) - Site webUniversité de Montréal Département de communication Pavillon Marie-Victorin 90, Vincent d’Indy, local B-428 Montréal, Qué-bec, H2V 2S9 CANADA - Canada Cette communication s’inscrit dans le premier axe de pro-blématisation proposé dans l’appel à communication de cette conférence, à savoir l’adoption d’une approche com-municationnelle afin d’étudier les normes dans les orga-nisations. En effet, cette étude exploratoire vise à com-prendre quelles pratiques permettent aux membres d’une organisation religieuse de déployer de la créativité dans un exercice de construction de sens délibéré. Pour ce faire, nous avons eu recours au cas d’une église évangélique im-pliquée dans un processus de ré-orientation stratégique. xml:namespace prefix = o ns = «urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office» /> Les organisations religieuses sont identifiées, dans la littérature, comme des collectifs qui requièrent une adhésion à des croyances prédéterminées et des systèmes de références très rigides (Brown, 2006), (Boyce, 1995), voire hautement normés. Qui plus est, les études tendent à démontrer que les systèmes de référence des organisations religieuses encouragent une forme de réflexivité qui sert à légitimer et renforcer l’adhésion aux normes de l’organisation, plutôt qu’à développer et à explorer de nouvelles significations (Brown, 2006) (Boyce, 1995). Or, le but d’une ré-orientation stratégique est de redéfinir les intérêts collectifs et les objectifs à atteindre de l’organisation, selon un processus qui se veut mini-malement créatif, dans le but d’agir ensemble selon un objectif commun. Selon Burke (1950), l’action conjointe s’effectue en fonction de la perception d’un partage d’inté-rêts et d’objectifs communs, ce qui crée la consubstantia-lité (p. 21). Le partage d’intérêts est ainsi non seulement l’une des conditions de l’action conjointe, mais il en est également le produit. Weick, Stucliffe et Obstfeld (2005) abondent dans le même sens lorsqu’ils conceptualisent la construction du sens (sensemaking) comme une action quotidienne visant à réduire l’équivoque des situations dans le flot constant de l’expérience, ce qui constitue le premier intérêt en commun partagé par les membres de l’organisation (p. 410). La construction de sens est donc une façon de gérer l’incertitude au quotidien, ce qui pro-duit littéralement l’organisation, qui existe à travers les interactions des membres (p. 414). Les normes résultent généralement de ce processus de construction de sens. Elles en constituent une dimension importante à laquelle les membres ont recours pour définir et composer avec les situations routinières des organisations. Mais qu’arrive-t-il à ces normes lorsque l’on tente de redéfinir les intérêts et les objectifs, à travers une construction de sens délibérée ? Jusqu’à quel point les membres peuvent-ils faire preuve de créativité dans la construction du sens, lorsque la vie organisationnelle est marquée par un recours abondant à la norme afin de réduire les équivoques du quotidien ? Plus spécifiquement, quels éléments de la situation, en termes d’expérience concrète et de performance, encouragent la créativité et l’exploration de nouvelles avenues dans ce type d’exercice réflexif, compris comme une construc-tion de sens collective (Boyce, 1995, p. 109; Weick, 1995) ? Quelles pratiques tendent à diminuer l’aspect créatif et développemental de la construction de sens ? Afin de répondre à ces questions, nous avons effectué des obser-vations dans une église impliquée dans un processus de ré-orientation stratégique appelé « processus de refoca-lisation ». Étant déjà impliquée dans le processus en tant que participante, j’ai porté une attention particulière au déroulement et pris des notes résumant les observations réalisées sur le terrain. J’ai aussi procédé à une collecte de documents issus du processus comme les cahiers de notes de certains participants. J’ai également conduit une entrevue avec le modérateur du processus, afin de com-prendre certaines pratiques d’animation du point de vue de celui qui les performe, et obtenir des réponses à certains questionnements soulevés par les observations réalisées  jusqu’alors. L’analyse des données ethnographiques ainsi amassées m’a permis identifier trois éléments de la situa-tion qui ont mené les participants à démontrer de la créa-tivité dans la construction du sens, malgré une vie orga-nisationnelle hautement régie par la norme. Le premier élément observé est la façon dont le processus de refoca-lisation a été mis en acte par les participants aussi bien que par le modérateur. Le processus a été flexible sur le plan de l’application des directives relatives aux exercices de réflexion et les participants ont été encouragés à faire leurs propres découvertes relativement au contenu des échanges. Qui plus est, même si le modérateur semble avoir quelque peu orienté ces échanges en donnant plu-sieurs exemples, cet effet a été contrebalancé par la pré-sence des « coachs », qui faisaient un suivi plus étroit des participants et les encourageaient à mettre de l’avant leurs propres idées et découvertes. Ceci est conséquent avec ce que Eisenberg a découvert dans son article sur le « jam-ming », ces expériences d’improvisation conjointe qui favo-risent la créativité et l’innovation : « To facilitate jamming experiences, an organization must create a structure for surrender, within which risk is rewarded, not punished, and work groups are kept sufficiently autonomous to en-sure the development and survival of novel ideas » (1990, p. 158). Ainsi, il semble que le fait de diverger de la norme a été une pratique encouragée et récompensée par les animateurs du processus, et donc acceptée comme telle par les participants qui y ont répondu avec enthousiasme. Le second élément favorable à la créativité que l’analyse a permis d’identifier a été l’accessibilité de diverses res-sources symboliques par les participants. L’appartenance à la culture québécoise, de plus en plus éloignée du cadre de référence judéo-chrétien, a fourni aux participants des expériences de vie variées qui dévient de la norme organi-sationnelle et auxquelles les participants ont puisé afin de faire de nouvelles associations d’idées et ainsi démontrer de la créativité (de Schietère, 1977). Enfin, le troisième élément de la situation favorisant la créativité concernait la dynamique du groupe. Les observations ont révélées que celle-ci était marquée par ce que nous avons appelé la « dissension minoritaire productive ». En effet, à plusieurs reprises quelques membres ont exprimé tout haut des ob- jections devant la façon de conduire le processus ou devant les options suggérées par le modérateur ou ses assistants, ce qui a encouragé les autres membres de l’église à explo-rer de nouvelles avenues dans le processus. Selon Mosco-vici, cité par Smith et Mackie (2000), lorsque des minori-tés réussissent à organiser efficacement leur dissension, cela peut stimuler la réflexion et favoriser l’émergence de nouvelles idées chez la majorité. Finalement, cette étude de cas démontre quels éléments de la situation peuvent permettre aux membres d’organisations ayant un cadre normatif très rigide de démontrer de la créativité dans la construction de sens collective. Une discussion sur la créativité inhérente à l’agir, telle que conceptualisée par Joas (1999), nous permet de conclure cette étude.  With this presentation I seek to respond to the first axis of questioning of the conference : “Communicational Ap-proaches to Norms in Organizations”. Indeed, the aim of this paper is to take a first step toward producing useful insights for organizations conducting creative reflexive exercises, in order to re-orient their goals or create new interpretations of their reality. As we see more and more organizations performing global or local strategic reorien-tations, this paper explores the following questions: “Is it possible to realize a reflexive process that is highly crea-tive and developmental in organizations where members are constrained by strong organizational norms, and share a strong core of values and truth claims ? ”. To answer this question, I look at the case of an evangelical church involved in a strategic reorientation.xml:namespace pre-fix = o ns = «urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office» /> Churches and religious organizations are identified, in the literature, as collectives “which demand compliance with a rigid set of predetermined shared meanings [and ]encourage a form of reflexivity that is self-confirmatory and self-satisfied, rather than explanatory and develop-mental” (Brown, 2006, p.738). However, strategic reorien-tations demand that new meanings be created in order to determine a new direction, and new objectives, in order to act together toward a same goal, and according to shared interests. Burke (1951) states that perception of shared interests happens in action. This is congruent with Weick’s conceptualization of sensemaking as something that occurs in the day-to-day reality of the organization, as an ongoing process of reducing equivocality (which he iden-tifies as the primal shared interest in organizations) while dealing with the “constant flow of experience” (Weick et al., 2005, p.410). Sensemaking is thus a way to collectively deal with uncertainty (p.414) and literally produces the organi-zation, which is “talked into existence” through collective action (p.409). Hence, not only does “organized meaningful action [emerge] from shared meaning”, as Boyce (1995) states, but more importantly, and according to Weick, col-lective action gives rise to shared meaning, or at least com-plementary meaning in terms of interests. Thus, we can imply, this is how organizational norms are created and enacted. But what happens to these norms, that are part of the constant flow of organizational life, when a deliberate sensemaking exercise, such as a strategic reorientation, is conducted? Which features of the situation, in terms of experiences and performance, can foster creativity in sen-semaking exercises conducted within organizations with rigid sets of norms and predetermined shared meanings? To conduct this study, I used three methods of data gathe-ring. First, as I was currently involved in the refocusing process occurring at my church, I started to take notes on my previous experiences with the process, as well as during the last sessions I attended as a participant. I thus used a participant observer method as a first means of col-lecting data from the field. Second, I collected documents from the field, such as notebooks from participants, or documentation about the process itself. Third, I conducted an interview with the process’s moderator. The aim of this interview was to gain insight on the rationale for the way he conducted the process. Analysis of the data thus collected leads me to conclude that three elements of the situation influenced collective sensemaking positively, in terms of creativity and development, even in a context marked by strong norms and predetermined share meanings. The first one was the way the reflexive process was enacted by the moderator and his colleagues as well as by the partici-pants. In this case, the refocusing process has been flexible in terms of content and the following of directives. The mo-derator tried to limit to a minimum his control over the par-ticipants, and instead to encourage them to complete the exercises with their own thoughts and discoveries. I also noted the moderator’s methods, who describes himself as a facilitator, and limits his roles as teacher and coach to create a productive context in terms of development and new thinking. Although he provided many examples that, as I observed, could hinder creativity, he tried to counter-balance this negative effect, which he considers important in relation to other matters, such as openness and liberty of sharing. The second contextual element that had a positive effect on creativity was access to multiplicity and diversity of symbolic resources to nourish reflections. This allowed participants to discover new possibilities and make new combinations of ideas to enact the environment. Final-ly, the third element that fostered creativity was the group dynamic, marked by what I call productive minority dissent. People seemed to feel free to express doubts and concerns about the process itself and its content, and at times a minority would lead the majority into creative and deve-lopmental thinking. Church leaders did not try to intervene to influence sensemaking, but instead participated in the process on the same level as the other church members, sometimes even engaging in productive minority dissent. Finally, this study shows that there can be a certain amount of creativity in reflexive exercises conducted by organiza-tions with rigid sets of norms and predetermined shared meaning. Indeed, because of the inherent creativity related to action and sensemaking, these sets of norms and shared meaning are constantly the subject of actualization, and specific practices of animation and enactment can foster more creative and developmental thinking.  Communiquer dans un monde de normes  l 44 Introduction As we see more and more organizations performing global or local strategic reorientations, I wondered: “Is it possible to realize a reexive process that is highly creative and developmental in organizations where members are constrained by rigid organizational norms, and share a strong core of values and truth claims”? Which practices foster creativity and exploration in collective sense-making (Boyce, 1995, p.109)? Which practices tend to hinder creativity? This questioning, which is both theoretical and empirical, is what led to this explorative case study. Organizational identification, sharing of interests and collective sense-making In their 2006 article regarding boundary dynamics between self and organizational identity, Kreiner et al. state that some people might feel a “craving for deeper meaning” that can be expressed by “a desire to afliate with an organization that can complete a sense of identity, vision, or purpose that may be missing from [their] life” (p.1329). Thus, organizational afliation can be conceived as a response to an inner yearning for a deeper sense of purpose in one’s life. This is particularly true with spiritual and/or non-prots organizations, where the main objective of members is not nancial, but is to serve others by providing help and care for those in need, or in the case of churches to help people and communities grow spiritually and socially. However, it is possible to see the need for identication as something other than an individual desire to embrace a bigger vision. Indeed, Kenneth Burke states that such identication, which he calls consubstantiality, is fundamental to cooperation itself to take place. Identity, for Burke, is a matter of sharing of substance, which emerges within acting together, in the performance of acting towards a perceived shared interest. As Cheney states, consubstantiality is the product of an identication process that leads the individual to adopt the perspective of the person he or she identies with (1983b, p.146). Thus, identication, in Burke’s thought, is sharing perspectives and goals through collective action. It is made in cooperation, hence Burke’s famous quote: “Identication is compensatory to division” (1950, p.22). Organizational identication through sharing of common interests and goals, then, is not only something that occurs to fulll an individual’s desire to adhere to a greater purpose, it also has a profound social function; it is fundamental to any cooperative endeavour, and is sustained by it.Deliberately determining a main objective together is thus a way to create this sharing of interests among members of an organization. In order to dene and x the motivations and objectives of the organization, members must join in what Boyce calls “co-creative sense-making”. She describes it as “the process whereby groups interactively create social reality, which  becomes the organizational reality” (1995, p.109). Thus embracing a constructionist perspective, Boyce organized two occasions for members of the non-prot spiritual organization she observed to meet and share stories about their experience in the organization. Boyce rst believed that creating occasions for co-creative sense-making would open the way for new interpretations of organizational reality (1995, p. 109), she thought the participants’ stories would serve to develop a shared  purpose that would be new and somewhat creative. This is not what happened, because, the author explains, members telling divergent stories were excluded, and stories of experiences that do not support the main point of view of the organization were not told (1995, p.129). Furthermore, the core shared beliefs and norms of the organization were not seen as one that could be changed based on the experiences of members. Consequently, the context did not favour co-creative sense-making, and resulted in what Brown (2006) calls “a form of reexivity that is self-conrmatory and self-satised” (p. 738). Moreover, organization members do not see their organization as socially co-constructed, but unsurprisingly they take it for granted, as well as their belief system and norms, as a source of motives and objectives. What about, then, churches and church conventions that organize their own sense-making activities, that aim to draw from individuals’ experiences to “refocus” their churches? Indeed, in the last twenty years or so, Christian churches have felt the need to redene and re-orient themselves as groups and as spiritual communities (Murray, 2004). Are those processes doomed to failure because of a strong set of norms and predetermined  beliefs? What can foster creative and developmental sensemaking practices and dening of objectives within organizations with constraining norms and a strong shared belief system? Sensemaking and creativity in action In order to answer these questions we need to go further theoretically regarding sensemaking and creativity in action. First, let us take seriously Burke’s stance that consubstantiality is acting together, which implies that the perception of shared interests happens in action. This is congruent with Weick’s conceptualization of sensemaking as something that occurs in the day-to-day reality of the organization, as an ongoing process of reducing equivocality while dealing with the “constant ow of experience” (Weick et al., 2005, p.410). Sensemaking is thus a way to collectively deal with uncertainty (p.414) and literally produces the organization, which is “talked into existence” through collective action (p.409). Hence, collective action gives rise to shared meaning, or at least complementary meaning in terms of interests. Therefore, Weick’s denition of sensemaking has a high heuristic value for understanding how daily interactions between members contribute to the denition of situations and shared interest, and to the enactment of the environment that makes the organization. It allows us to see sensemaking as produced Creative sense-making practices in organizations with rigid sets of norms  and predetermined shared meanings Joëlle BASQUE , Université de Montréal  Communiquer dans un monde de normes  l 45 in action, whether it is in deciding what to do in quotidian situations in organizations, or in interacting in deliberate events of re-orienting or refocusing. Whether the sensemaking is planned or not does not matter; it will happen when members of the organization act together, as in Boyce’s study (1995), or with the refocusing process currently going on at my church and in my church association.As we are conceptualizing sensemaking as rooted in action, let us draw from a theory of action to see what can be the role of creativity in it. Hans Joas, in his book The Creativity of Action (1996), provides an interesting stance on the matter. Contesting traditional assumptions and theories stating that action is guided mainly by previously determined motivations 23 , Joas proposes a conceptualization of action as being essentially creative rather that teleologically oriented. His model is not in total opposition with the traditional models of rational action and normatively oriented action; it is a model that is presented as overarching the two others (1996, p.4). His goal is to present the inherent creative aspect of all human action, a component of action not adequately expressed in other models (Joas, 1996, p.4). In order to do so, he presents action as being guided by the situation in which it takes place (which serves to determine practical goals and motivations), as well as by prereexive dispositions of the body (which is the the individual’s link with the concrete situation) (1996, p. 160). Joas explains that motivations are never the cause of the act itself, but are one of its phases, meaning that motivations are established as the action unfolds, in relation with the situation (p.162). The situation precedes the action, calls for it, but the goals and the situation are interdependent from the beginning, in a quasi-dialogical manner (p.161). Also involved in this process is the body itself, which conditions the  possibilities of the action and is the interface of the individual’s relation with the situation. These prereexive conditions of the  body guide the action, which in turn is the condition for the discovery of our values and needs, in a concrete situation (p.163). This is where creativity lies; as we discover what we need and what we want in action, we become someone new and the world acquires new signications for us (p.163). Thus, creativity is involved in action itself, as we set goals in the core of action, discover our needs and actualize our values. This way of conceiving creativity in action can also be found, although in different terms, in Eisenberg’s denition of “jamming” 24  as an experience that foster closeness and improvization in coordinated action (1990, p.139). In fact, Eisenberg, citing Holquist (1983), states that meaning is co-constructed in social interaction and has an intersubjective aspect (1990, p.141). Thus, in order to avoid an individual bias to understanding of sensemaking, he proposes jamming as an experience of joint action that encourages both cooperation and individuation (p.146), and as a good occasion for improvization and creativity to occur. Jamming is presented as a way to “balance autonomy and interdependence in organizing” (p.139) and happens in specic contexts of surrender and freedom. Relying on a set of basic rules and complementary skills, “each player sets up interesting  possibilities for the others and keeps the action going” (p.154). Creativity occurs through these new possibilities produced in joint action, possibilities that cannot be previously expected or planned as such. As in Joas’ view, creativity in action is conditioned and encouraged by the specicity of the situation, as well as by body dispositions of the players. Goals, values and needs are determined in action. However, Eisenberg explains that in order for jamming to happen, a specic context is needed, a context that can be more or less planned: “To facilitate jamming experiences, an organization must create a structure for surrender, within which risk is rewarded, not punished, and work groups are kept sufciently autonomous to ensure the development and survival of novel ideas” (1990, p.158). Finally, creativity, in scientic literature, is often a term that is taken for granted, as the main occupation of a specic type of workers: “creative workers” (Gotsi et al., 2010; Elsbach, 2009). Creativity has also been used as an indicator of an organization’s effectiveness and productivity (Crosby, 1972; Dauw, 1971). Creativity being a hard term to conceptualize (Sawyer, 2006), I will rely, for the purposes of this paper, on denitions derived from Joas and Eisenberg, with some reference to organizational and management studies. Neither Joas nor Eisenberg denes the concept of creativity, but in their thinking, creativity refers to the discovery of new inclinations and the performance of new actions (by improvizing). Similarly, creativity in organizational studies often refers to “something new”, meaning new ideas or actions, not driven or informed by, and not taken from, past experiences (see for instance Heath, 2007, p.154, 157). Creativity can also refer to imagining new contexts or domains of application for successful ideas (Hargadon and Sutton, 2000, cited by Ford, 2002, p. 643), or basically the art of making new combinations (Hafaele (1962), Aznar (1971), Kneller (1965) cited by de Schietère, 1977). The theoretical implications we can draw upon for our analysis are that creativity, understood as having new ideas or making new combinations of ideas related to values, need and interests, is both the product of and the condition for collective action, and thus sensemaking. Favourable context or situation is crucial to foster greater improvization and creative sensemaking. I therefore propose the following research question: “Which features of the situation, in terms of experiences and performance, can foster creativity in sensemaking exercises?” Methodology  To conduct this case study, I used three methods of data gathering. First, as I was currently involved in the refocusing process occurring at my church, I started to take notes on my previous experiences with the process, as well as during the last sessions I attended as a participant. I thus used a participant observer method as a rst means of collecting data from the eld. I was an active observer, as I participated in the process of refocusing. Second, I collected documents from the eld, such as notebooks from participants, and documentation about the process itself. Third, I conducted an interview with the process’s moderator, who is not a member of the church but is a pastor from another congregation of the same church association. The aim of this interview 23    As stated in the rational model of action, abundantly developed by Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action  (1937) 24   Eisenberg borrows the term from music and sports, and describes it as “instances of uid behavioural coordination that occur without detailed knowledge of personality” (1990, p.139). Creative sensemaking practices in organizations with rigid sets of norms  and predetermined shared meanings  Axe 1  Communiquer dans un monde de normes  l 46 was to gain insight on the rationale for the way he conducted the process. This method of data collecting allowed me not only to observe the group dynamic and the moderator’s situated practices on the eld, but also to comprehend how the moderator understood his role as such and what his goals were in the process. Moreover, as a participant observer I contributed to the unfolding of events during the process. With this high degree of  participation, the researcher’s subjectivity is fully tainted by the experience. However, being a full participant in the process allows a better intimacy with the context and a close understanding of unfolding events. Already knowing the people involved in the process allowed me to have a comprehensive interpretation of discourse and action, as I had a previous and in-depth knowledge of the group and its dynamics.  Description of the process The “refocusing process” used in the church I studied is something that can be considered as a tool to fulll their need for re-orienting. The process has been followed by many churches from this specic convention for 15 to 20 years now. The moderator denes it as “strategic planning adapted for churches”. While the process can be applied to groups of various sizes, it is always subdivided with subgroups of six individuals. Each individual has a guiding notebook that contains instructions as well as spaces for writing (taking notes and doing the exercises). The moderator leads the sessions, with the help of several coaches, one of whom is assigned to each subgroup. The process consists of two main phases. The rst one is dedicated to the refocusing of individuals, the second to the refocusing of the group. Each phase consists of three or four events, where people gather together to do exercises and exchange ideas. The rst phase consists of exercises whereby participants build their life stories by identifying and ordering major events, persons and circumstances. Further exercises serve to analyse the life stories thus constructed and redene the participants’ personal values, goals, life objectives and the concrete means to achieve them. Similar steps are used for the second phase, during which the church as a collective is the focus. The data for this paper is drawn from the rst phase of the process.  Analysis I identied three features of the refocusing process as it occurred in the case I observed that seem to have fostered creative and developmental sensemaking. These three features are: 1) the enactment of the process itself (how the guidelines were applied  by the moderator and coaches, and how the participants responded); 2) the multiplicity and diversity of symbolic resources available to the participants; 3) the group dynamic (marked by productive minority dissent.). 1) Enactment of the process The refocusing process is well structured and organized. Participants have steps to follow, questions to answer, and the moderator makes sure that everything goes according to the plan. At the same time, the process allows for some exibility in its application, and gives a wide liberty for participants to ll in with what they want. In other words, participants are invited to answer open questions, without any explicit expectations in terms of what they can or should answer. For instance, the rst step of the process is to put together the life story of the participants, in a conceptual and textual form. Participants identify persons, events, and circumstances that they feel have marked their lives. Participants are free to change elements of the process if they do not feel these elements are suitable or useful to them. For instance, one could choose to identify only life circumstances, arguing that “persons” and “events” are included within them. Participants are also not pressured to include a pre-conceived turning point one could expect from a Christian perspective, such as “conversion”. Participants are free to put anything they want in their notebooks. They can also choose what or how much they want to share with others. The process is thus proposing a coherent set of steps to follow, but is exible in terms of content and enactment. People can make counter-suggestions, in response to which the moderator will sometimes adjust the process according to what the participants want. This is consistent with some of the features that Eisenberg identies as important in situations that encourage jamming and novelty: letting go of control, and autonomy of the participants (1990, p.158).At the beginning of the process, the moderator brought many nuances to his explication of the steps to follow, and gave a lot of latitude to participants. Participants were not constrained to following the process with precision. The moderator clearly explained that participants could choose to use whatever they felt would be helpful and useful for themselves. Also, during the interview, I learned that he considers his role as being one of a “facilitator”, as prescribed by the process, instead of a moderator. He insists on the use of the word “facilitator”, and describes it as: “the one who creates the best context for people to make their own discoveries. Thus, the facilitator does not tell people what they should do, what should be the content or how they should answer the questions, but it is the person who will create a favourable environment where people can exchange and, through  performing exercises, make their own discoveries on their own”. Interestingly, this idea of helping people make their own discoveries recalls Joas’ take on creativity in action, where people make discoveries regarding motivations, needs and interests. We can also see that this is consistent with Eisenberg’s idea of creating favourable contexts for jamming. Nevertheless, I observed that the facilitator sometimes intervened in ways that hinder creative ideas or novelty by orienting the content of the participants’ answers For instance, he often gave several examples, sometimes even taken from his personal life. When the time came to write down one’s own “purpose statement”, all the examples given, though varying in length and in Creative sensemaking practices in organizations with rigid sets of norms  and predetermined shared meanings
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks