The paper "The Role of Background Conversations" is a great example of management coursework. Resistance to change in organisations is seen to occur as a result of personal experiences and evaluation with regard to the reliability of others (Lewis, 2006). Normally, efforts are put to alter these factors for the purpose of wining support and overcoming resistance. However, such understanding tends to ignore the socially constructed reality of resistance whereby individuals respond more openly to background conversations in which any change initiative is introduced than to the particular change itself.
In overcoming the resistance to change, the change agents have some work to do. Background conversation is considered an implicit and unspoken against which the so-called explicit and foreground conversations occur (Ford and McNamara, 2002). Background conversation is context and reality and takes place due to experience with direct and inherited tradition and offer a way through which an individual listen to and a possibility of what is said or unsaid (Ford and McNamara, 2002). It tends to constitute an organisational culture. Therefore, background conversation often than not facilitates the work of change agents. The work of the agent of change is mostly to bring into line and fit organisations, through involvements to an existing reality.
The effectiveness of such interventions is viewed as a demo of an agent of change capabilities to properly mirror reality and the ability to fit in the suitable intervention for that actuality (Elliot, 2005). Thus, the fruitful change initiative eventually depends on the capability of the change agent to accurately mirror reality and select and institute interventions that are appropriate to that reality. Change agents, therefore, must use interventions not to generate superior configuration with a ‘ true’ reality but to just construct, deconstruct or reconstruct the prevailing realities in order to produce different performance (Ford and McNamara, 2002).
This paper will detail out the importance of background conversations and their roles in facilitating the work of change agents and in overcoming resistance to change. Background Conversation and Change agents Each reality tends to yield a specific view of life whereby what is said always derives its meaning straight from the background conversations and not from a one-to-one conversation with an object (Elliot, 2005).
Meanings are typically derived from the on-going interacts and understandings in the development of particular realities. Such meanings and understandings are found within the communication protocols comprising different realities. In this context, change agents act and relate to conversations that give them the world but not to the external world of the employees, nor to an internal world constituting feelings, thoughts or meanings. Nevertheless, background conversations often constitute contexts and realities that frame a change initiative and offer the change agent vocabularies for the resulting action and reaction (Fleming, 2005).
We can define a change agent as an individual from inside or outside a given organisation with the responsibility of transforming an organisation by taking into consideration matters like the organisational effectiveness, productivity, improvement and development. In the process of instituting change in an organisation, change agents have the responsibility of ensuring that they overcome the resistance that may result. And resistance to change is viewed as the function of background conversations and these conversations constitute realities for the participants (Fleming, 2005).
Buchanan, D. and Dawson, P. (2007). Discourse and Audience: Organizational Change as a Multi-Story Process. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 669-686.
Burr, V. (2007). Social Constructionism. 2nd ed. Taylor and Francis, Kindle Edition.
Elliott, J. (2005). Using Narrative in Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Sage Publications.
Fleming, P. (2005). Metaphors of resistance. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 45-66.
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. and McNamara, R.T. (2002). Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change, 15(2), 105-121.
Johansson, C. And Heide, M. (2008). Speaking of change: three communication approaches in studies of change, Corporate Communications. An International Journal, 13(3), 288-305.
Lapointe, L. and Rivard, S. (2005). A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3),461-491.
Lewis, L.K. (2006). Employee perspectives on implementation communication as predictors of perceptions of success and resistance. Western Journal of Communication, 70(1), 23-46.
Martin, T.N. and Huq, Z. (2007). Realigning top management‟s strategic change actions for ERP implementation: how specializing on just cultural and environmental contextual factors could improve success. Journal of Change Management, 7(2): 121-142.
Moldofsky, L. (2001). Friends, Not family: it‟s time for a new maturity in the trans-Tasman relationship. Time Pacific, April 20, 2001, No. 17, available online at http://www.time.com/time/pacific/magazine/20010430/friends.html
Mumby, D.K. (2005). Theorizing resistance in organization studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1). 19-44.
Nah, F.F.H. and Delgado, S. (2006). Critical success factors for enterprise resource planning implementation and upgrade. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2006, 99-113.