Decoupling between policy and practice through the lens of sensemaking and sensegiving
More details
Hide details
University of Economics in Katowice Michał Kapias, PhD University of Economics in Katowice
Online publication date: 2016-06-10
Management 2016;20(1):225–238
Any organizations, pursuing their goals, they should take into account others, as they are compelled to a joint coexistence. In order to grow, they need plans and rules of conduct. But not always what was intended is actually implemented. That discrepancy is called decoupling. This phenomenon may be due to different levels of acceptance and implementation of rules, which is associated with the process of sensemaking and sensegiving. The first phenomenon involves the creation of meaning, where the new rule is not yet fully developed and understood, and so it must be properly interpreted only to implement the action. In this process, people give meaning to their experiences. If the process of creating a sense is successful, occurring practices are accepted by the members of the organization, and finally implemented. Sensegiving is about exerting influence in terms of the proper understanding of the rules, in order to create an appropriate definition of organizational reality. Moral attitude of employees may be important in minimizing the effect of negative attitudes associated with decoupling. Therefore, there is a need for constant training of employees in ethical issues. The aim of the article is to present the potential significance of sensemaking and sensegiving for decoupling, and explain the role of increasing ethical awareness for neutralizing decoupling resulting from conscious actions of organizational actors.
Bromley P., Powell W.W. (2012), From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world, “The Academy of Management Annals”, No. 6.
Cole W.M. (2012), Human rights as myth and ceremony? Reevaluating the effectiveness of human rights treaties, 1981-2007, “American Journal of Sociology”, Vol. 117 (4).
Crilly D., Zollo M., Hansen M. (2012), Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures, “Academy of Management Journal”, No. 55.
Drori I.; Ellis S. (2011), Conflict and power games in a multinational corporation: sensegiving as a strategy of preservation, “European Management Review”, Vol. 8, Issue 1.
Finney H.C., Lesieur H.R. (1982), A contingency theory of organizational crime, “Research in the Sociology of Organizations”, No. 1.
Frege G. (2001), Schriften zur logik und sprachphilosophie, Felix Meiner Verelag, Hamburg.
Gałkowski J.W. (2002), Zasady etyki zawodowej - etyka biznesu, [in:] M. Borkowska, J.W. Gałkowski (eds.), Etyka w biznesie, TN KUL, Lublin.
Gioia D.A.; Chittipeddi K. (1991), Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation, “Strategic Management Journal”, No. 12 (6).
Gondo M.B., Amis J.M. (2013), Variations in practice adoption: the roles of conscious reflection and discourse, “Academy of Management Review”, No. 38.
Jennings P.D., Greenwood, R. (2003), Constructing the Iron Cage: Institutional Theory and Enactment, [in:] R. Westwood, S. Clegg (eds.), Debating organization: pointcounterpoint in organization studies, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., London, UK.
Jonas H. (1996), Zasada odpowiedzialności. Etyka dla cywilizacji technologicznej, Wyd. Platan, Kraków.
Kamiński J. (1986), Respondere, [in:] W. Wołodkiewicz (ed.), Prawo rzymskie. Słownik Encyklopedyczny, PIW, Warszawa.
Kapias M. (2011), Odpowiedzialność moralna fundamentem odpowiedzialności społecznej organizacji, [in:] G. Polok (ed.), Społeczna odpowiedzialność - aspekty teoretyczne i praktyczne, „Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach”, No. 64.
Kapias M., Polok G. (2014), Public relations - kreowanie czy odczytywanie sensu, [in:] A. Frączkiwiecz-Wronka, J. Gołuchowski, A. Adamus-Matuszyńska (ed.), Public relations. Doskonalenie procesu komunikowania w przestrzeni publicznej, „Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach”, No. 185.
Kofta M. (1989), Orientacja podmiotowa: zarys modelu, [in:] Kofta M. (ed.), Wychowanek jako podmiot działań, Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa.
Krąpiec M.A. (1998), Metafizyka, TN KUL, Lublin.
MacLean T.M., Behnam M. (2010), The Dangers of Decoupling: The Relationship Between Compliance Programs, Legitimacy Perceptions, and Institutionalized Misconduct, “Academy of Management Journal”, Vol. 53, No. 6.
Maitlis S., Lawrence T.B. (2007), Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations, “Academy of Management Journal”, Feb, Vol. 50, Issue 1.
Maryniarczyk A. (2004), Plura listyczna interpretacja rzeczywistości, Polskie Towarzystwo Tomasza z Akwinu, Lublin.
Meyer J. W., Rowan B. (1977), Institutional organizations: Structure as myth and ceremony, “American Journal of Sociology”, No. 83.
Picht G. (1981), Odwaga utopii, PIW, Warszawa.
Podsiad A., Więckowski Z. (1983), Poczytalność, [in:] Mały słownik terminów i pojęć filozoficznych, Wyd. Pax, Warszawa.
Sauder M., Espeland W.N. (2009), The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change, “American Sociological Review”, Vol. 74 (1).
Scott R.W. (2008), Institutions and Organizations. Third ed., Sage Publications, Inc, Thousands Oaks, CA.
Stinchcombe A.L. (1997), On the virtues of the old institutionalism, [in:] J. Hagan, K.S. Cook (eds.), Annual review of sociology, No. 23, Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA.
Ślipko T. (1974), Zarys etyki ogólnej, WAM, Kraków.
Tchorzewski A.M. de (ed.) (1998), Odpowiedzialność jako wartość i problem edukacyjny, wyd. WERS, Bydgoszcz.
Thornton P.H., Ocasio W. (2008), Institutional logics, [in:] R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, K. Sahlin (eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, Sage Publications, London, UK.
Vaughan D. (1999), The dark side of organizations: mistake, misconduct, and disaster, “Annual Review of Sociology”, No. 25.
Weick K.E. (1993), The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster, “Administrative Science Quarterly”, No. 38.
Wojtyła K. (1995), Elementarz etyczny, Wyd. TUM, Wrocław.
ISSN:1429-9321 (1997-2019)