W6 Literature Synthesis
Cite each paragraph.
Min six references.
You need to look at trying to synthesize thoughts, trying to bring different thoughts together into one. The thought comes together and leads to the new thought that you would want to conclude with.
Historically, the organisational change and crisis literature assumed that employees assessed change and crisis and reacted definitively to it by accepting or rejecting it. However, it has become increasingly clear that most employees do not react as definitively as was once assumed. Instead, organisational change can be met with confusion, uncertainty and ambivalence. Given the potentially disastrous impact that silent resistance can have on change, scholars are increasingly focussed on ensuring that employees voice their opinions during change.
Given this week’s required readings and your further research, complete a 750-1,000 word Literature Synthesis by Saturday that:
• Critically evaluates key arguments from both a scholarly and a practitioner-oriented point of view;
• Critiques underlying assumptions evident in the articles and identifies any new insights for practice and scholarship;
• Extends the thinking and application of your review with additional resources and experiential analyses.
Your Literature Synthesis will be brought to the Learning Set for further consideration to inform the problematising of the workplace-based problem you have chosen for this module’s CAL Project.
• Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H. & Worthington, F. (2001) ‘Power, control, and resistance in the factory that time forgot’, Journal of Management Studies, 38 (8), pp.1053–1079.
• Fleming, P. & Spicer, A. (2003) ‘Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and resistance’, Organization, 10 (1), pp.157–179. doi:10.1177/1350508403010001376.
• Morrison, E.W. & Milliken, F.J. (2000) ‘Organizational silence: a barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world’, Academy of Management Review, 25 (4), pp.706–725.
• Orton, J.D. (2000) ‘Enactment, sensemaking and decision making: Redesign processes in the 1976 reorganization of US intelligence’, Journal of Management Studies, 37 (2), pp.213–234.
• Piderit, S.K. (2000) ‘Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multi-dimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change’, Academy of Management Review, 25 (4), pp.783–794.
• Vince, R. & Broussine, M. (1996) ‘Paradox, defense and attachment: accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change’, Organization Studies, 17 (1), pp.1–21.