The paper 'Role of Social Construction in the Making of Organizational Vision" is a great example of management coursework. Social construction is the method through which society develops certain beliefs regarding a phenomenon. It is a way of forming a social construct through human choices (Allen 2005). A social construct is a notion or an idea that is obvious and appears to be a reality to the ones who accepts it. Social construction is a product of the society and the society is a product of human beings. A good example of social construction is how individuals are identified as coming from a specific ethnic group or race (Allen 2005).
An organizational vision is a clear and comprehensive picture of the organization or the business at a certain point in the future. Organizational involves the process of a business declaring its objectives and the vision acts as a guide in the organization’ s decision making (Cole, Harris & Bernerth 2006). Social construction plays an important role in coming up with an organization vision since the organization must work closely with society.
The society here can be the various stakeholders as well as the external business environment (Allen 2005). This essay will analyze the social construction theory; give the characteristics of an effective organizational vision and the role of social construction in coming up with an organizational vision as well as the role of managers and technology. The social construction theory The theory is perceived to work on the basis of some assumptions that are very important in showing how workers and other stakeholders contribute to the development of organizational culture by the vision discourse. These assumptions include: According to Allen (2005, p.
35), “ Meaning arises from social systems rather than from individual members of the society” . Bearing in mind that an organization is a system, its existence will be highly determined by how the workers relate not where the business is located or the resources it has. In the event that the management will not include the workers in coming up with the vision of the organization, they are expected to follow and accept the ideas brought to them (Caldwell 2003). This means that workers will come up with their own vision as they interact and this will be a vision that is constructed socially (Johansson 2004). Knowledge is constructed on the basis of the historical, social and political situation (Cole, Harris & Bernerth 2006).
This means it is very important to understand these situational factors when interpreting the vision of an organization. An organization can, therefore, be affected by the external environments hence it must consider the interests of the society (Hosking & McNamee 2006). The third assumption is that language is equally important in meaning construction.
Social construction theory looks at organizational vision as a result of the members of the society’ s discussions through interactions with the use of language (Johansson 2004). In social construction, social action and knowledge are interrelated issues. The way workers in an organization will perceive the vision of the organization will affect the organization’ s operations (Hosking & McNamee 2006). The various aspects of a good organizational vision with reference to social construction input in coming up and realizing organizational vision are very important (Hosking & McNamee 2006). It is good to understand that an organizational vision is a broader concept than the vision statement.
The vision statement is a way to express a vision; this gives social construction a significant role to play in building the organization vision. As change is inevitable in every social setting, organizations should be able to adopt the necessary change in adopting a positive social construction and revising the negative social constructions (Ford, Ford & Mcnamara, 2002). These aspects include the following.
Allen, B.J. (2005). Social constructionism. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), Engaging
organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives (pp. 35-54).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Caldwell, R. (2003). Change leaders and change managers: Different or complementary?
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5): 285-293.
Cole, M. S., Harris, S. G., & Bernerth, J. B. (2006). Exploring the implications of vision,
appropriateness, and execution of organizational change. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 27(5): 352-367.
Dvir, T., Kass, N. & Shamir, B. (2004). The emotional bond: Vision and organizational
commitment among high-tech employees. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 17(2): 126-143.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W. & Mcnamara, R. T. (2002). Resistance and the background
conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2): 105-
Harrison, R. (1970). Choosing the Depth of Organizational Intervention. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 6(2): 181-202. Doi: 10.1177/002188637000600204
Hosking, D. M. & McNamee, S. (2006). The social construction of organization. Malmö,
Johansson, A. W. (2004). Consulting as story‐making. Journal of Management Development,
23(4): 339-354. doi:10.1108/02621710410529794
Kannan-Narasimhan, R. (2012). Behavioral integrity: How leader referents and trust matter to
workplace outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2): 165-178.
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management
leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2): 321-241.
O'Donovan, J. (2005). Lender liability. London: Sweet & Maxwell.