Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Figures
- Contributors
- Book part
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Premeeting Activities and Context
- Part III The Meeting Itself
- Capturing and Understanding Dynamics and Processes of the Meeting
- 12 Meetings as Interactional Achievements
- 13 Multimodal Perspectives on Meeting Interaction
- 14 Toward a Theory of Strategic Meeting Interaction
- 15 Social Dynamics at Work
- 16 Networks in Meetings
- 17 Effective Leader Behaviors in Regularly Held Staff Meetings
- 18 They Meet, They Talk…but Nothing Changes
- 19 Relative Status and Emotion Regulation in Workplace Meetings
- 20 Dynamic Affect in Team Meetings
- Tools and Models for Promoting Meeting Success
- Part IV Special Types of Meetings
- Part V Synthesis and Conclusion
- Book part
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
18 - They Meet, They Talk…but Nothing Changes
Meetings as a Focal Context for Studying Change Processes in Organizations
from Capturing and Understanding Dynamics and Processes of the Meeting
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2015
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Figures
- Contributors
- Book part
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Premeeting Activities and Context
- Part III The Meeting Itself
- Capturing and Understanding Dynamics and Processes of the Meeting
- 12 Meetings as Interactional Achievements
- 13 Multimodal Perspectives on Meeting Interaction
- 14 Toward a Theory of Strategic Meeting Interaction
- 15 Social Dynamics at Work
- 16 Networks in Meetings
- 17 Effective Leader Behaviors in Regularly Held Staff Meetings
- 18 They Meet, They Talk…but Nothing Changes
- 19 Relative Status and Emotion Regulation in Workplace Meetings
- 20 Dynamic Affect in Team Meetings
- Tools and Models for Promoting Meeting Success
- Part IV Special Types of Meetings
- Part V Synthesis and Conclusion
- Book part
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Abstract
In this chapter, we discuss how meetings relate to organizational change management. We present a coding instrument that assesses meeting talk in terms of change or sustain talk, two psycholinguistic constructs that are supposed to facilitate or inhibit organizational changes and that represent participants' readiness versus their resistance to change. We present a step-by-step guideline on how the dynamics of readiness and resistance to change within one meeting can be graphed using a time-sensitive measure that we call the R-index (i.e., for readiness and resistance to change). We show how two theoretical frameworks – Lewin's field theory and the transtheoretical model of change – are related to the operationalization of change talk and sustain talk in meetings. Finally, we discuss how the R-index can be used as a dynamic measure of change readiness in meetings.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science , pp. 413 - 439Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
Amrhein, P. C., Miller, W. R., Yahne, C. E., Palmer, M., & Fulcher, L. (2003). Client commitment language during motivational interviewing predicts drug use outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 862–878. doi:10.1037/0022–006X.71.5.862CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, E., Spruijt-Metz, D., Moyers, T. B., Smith, C., Rohrbach, L. A., Sun, P., & Sussman, S. (2014). Bidirectional relationships between client and counselor speech: The importance of reframing. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28(4), 1212–1219. doi:10.1037/a0036227CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403. doi:10.1111/j.1745–6916.2007.00051.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertholet, N., Faouzi, M., Gmel, G., Gaume, J., & Daeppen, J.-B. (2010). Change talk sequence during brief motivational intervention, towards or away from drinking. Addiction, 105, 2106–2112. doi:10.1111/j.1360–0443.2010.03081.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. London, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: Back to the future? Journal of Change Management, 4, 309–325. doi:10.1080/1469701042000303811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. H., & Shadish, W. R. (2008). Solomon four-group design. In Lavrakas, P. J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (pp. 829–830). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Clifton, J. (2006). A conversation analytical approach to business communication: The case of leadership. Journal of Business Communication, 43, 202–219. doi:10.1177/0021943606288190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, J. (2009). Beyond taxonomies of influence: “Doing” influence and making decisions in management team meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 57–79. doi:10.1177/0021943608325749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 541. doi:10.2307/258787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33, 362–377. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.31193235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gautam, K. (2005). Transforming hospital board meetings: Guidelines for comprehensive change. Hospital Topics, 83, 25–32. doi:10.3200/HTPS.83.3.25–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 1–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hill, A. D., White, M. A., & Wallace, J. C. (2014). Unobtrusive measurement of psychological constructs in organizational research. Organizational Psychology Review, 4(2), 148–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgins, D. C., Ching, L. E., & McEwen, J. (2009). Strength of commitment language in motivational interviewing and gambling outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23, 122–130. doi:10.1037/a0013010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. (2007). Toward a comprehensive definition of readiness for change: A review of research and instrumentation. In Pasmore, W. A. & Woodman, R. W. (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 16, pp. 289–336). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
Huisman, M. (2001). Decision-making in meetings as talk-in-interaction. International Studies of Management and Organization, 31, 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., & Seidl, D. (2006). The importance of meetings: How the structure of meetings affect strategic change in oranisations. London, UK: Advanced Institute of Management Research.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., & Seidl, D. (2008). The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy. Organization Studies, 29, 1391–1426. doi:10.1177/0170840608096388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S. (2006a). Kompetenzen messen, bewerten, entwickeln. Ein prozessanalytischer Ansatz für Gruppen. [Measuring, evaluating, and developing competencies – a process analytical approach for groups] Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer-Poeschel.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S. (2006b). Self-directed work groups and team competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 1–21. doi:10.1348/096317905×53237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130–158. doi:10.1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S. & Meyers, R. (2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 267–294. doi:10.1080/13594320701693209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Montasem, K. (2009). Ein Kompetenzmodell als Basis. Professionelle Video-Analyse im Coaching [A competence model as a basis. Professional video analysis in coachings]. Coaching-Magazin, 4, 44–49.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S., Tiscar-Lorenzo, G., Montasem, K., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2009). act4teams®: Die nächste Generation der Teamentwicklung. [act4teams: The next generation of team development] In Kauffeld, S., Grote, S., & Frieling, E. (Eds.), Handbuch Kompetenzentwicklung [Handbook of competency development] (pp. 191–215). Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer-Poeschel.Google Scholar
King, I. W. (2003). Making space: Valuing our talk in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1205–1223. doi:10.1111/1467–6486.00377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klonek, F. E. (2014). Energiemanagement als Change-Prozess gestalten – Das EU-Projekt Re-Co [Framing energy management as a change management process – The EU project Re-Co]. Paper presented at the 7th Forum Energie –Energieeffizienter Campus, Clausthal, Germany.Google Scholar
Klonek, F. E., & Beier, T. (2014). “Wir sparen hier gar nichts ein!” – Wie gehe ich mit Widerstand von Nutzern um? [We don't save here anything! How do I handle user resistance?] Paper presented at the 7th Forum Energie – Energieeffizienter Campus, Clausthal, Germany.Google Scholar
Klonek, F. E., Isidor, R., & Kauffeld, S. (2014). Different stages of entrepreneurship: Lessons from the transtheoretical model of change. Journal of Change Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/14697017.2014.918049Google Scholar
Klonek, F. E., & Kauffeld, S. (2012). “Muss, kann…oder will ich was verändern?” Welche Chancen bietet die Motivierende Gesprächsführung in Organisationen [“Do I need to, am I able to…and do I even want to change?” Which potential does motivational interviewing offer for organizations]. Wirtschaftspsychologie (Pabst Science Publishers), 14, 58–71. Retrieved from www.tu-braunschweig.de/Medien-DB/aos/hinterlegte-pdfs/klonek___kauffeld_2012_muss_kann_oder_will_ich_was_veraendern.pdfGoogle Scholar
Klonek, F. E., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Listen and repeat –but listen carefully! What language reveals about your building partner's motivation to engage in re-commissioning. Re-Co Services Newsletter, March, 2–3. Retrieved from www.re-co.eu/sites/default/files/files/Re-Co_Newsletter_No3_JSI_2013–06–14_Final_P.pdfGoogle Scholar
Klonek, F. E., & Kauffeld, S. 2015). Talking with consumers about energy reductions: Recommendations from a motivational interviewing perspective. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google ScholarPubMed
Klonek, F.E. & Kauffeld, S. (in press). Providing engineers with OARS and EARS: Effects of a skills-based vocational training in motivational Interviewing for engineers in higher education. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning.Google Scholar
Klonek, F. E., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. K., & Kauffeld, S. (2014). The dynamics of resistance to change: A sequential analysis of change agents in action. Journal of Change Management, 14(3), 334–360. doi:10.1080/14697017.2014.896392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kritsonis, A. (2005). Comparison of change theories. International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity, 8, 1–7.Google Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). A sequential analysis of procedural meeting communication: How teams facilitate their meetings. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 365–388. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.844847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Meinecke, A. L. (2014). Observing culture: Differences in U.S.-American and German team meeting behaviors. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 252–271. doi:10.1177/1368430213497066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, K. (1952). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. London, UK: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Logan, L. R., Hickman, R. R., Harris, S. R., & Heriza, C. B. (2008). Single-subject research design: Recommendations for levels of evidence and quality rating. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 50, 99–103. doi:10.1111/j.1469–8749.2007.02005.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, D. R., Button, M. L., & Westra, H. A. (2014). Measuring motivation: Change talk and counter-change talk in cognitive behavioral therapy for generalized anxiety. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 43, 12–21. doi:10.1080/16506073.2013.846400CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mangold. (2010). INTERACT quick start manual V2.4. MangoldInternational GmbH. Retrieved from www.mangold-international.comGoogle Scholar
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.) New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Mirivel, J. C., & Tracy, K. (2005). Premeeting talk: An organizationally crucial form of talk. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 38, 1–34. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ober, S. (2010). Interaction archetypes: Keys to group difculty and productivity. In Schuman, S. (Ed.), The handbook for working with difficult groups: How they are difficult, why they are difficult and what you can do about it (pp. 169–188). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Paulsen, H., Klonek, F. E., Meinecke, A., Schneider, K., Liskin, O., & Kauffeld, S. (2013, August). Driving and hindering forces in group discussions: Analyzing change and sustain talk in a software engineering project. Poster presented at the INTER. COM Symposium, Braunschweig, Germany.Google Scholar
Paulsen, H. F. K., Klonek, F. E., Rutsch, F. & Kauffeld, S. (in press). Ready, steady, go! Veränderungsbereitschaft in der Interaktion messen [Measuring readiness for change in social interactions]. PERSONALquaterly.Google Scholar
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25, 783–794. doi:10.2307/259206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preget, L. (2013). Understanding organizational change as an interactional accomplishment: A conversation analytic approach. Journal of Change Management, 13(3), 338–361. doi:10.1080/14697017.2013.822675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 19, 276–288. doi:10.1037/h0088437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12, 38–48. doi:10.4278/0890–1171–12.1.38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prochaska, J. O., Velicer, W. F., Rossi, J. S., Goldstein, M. G., Marcus, B. H., Rakowski, W. F.,…Dena Rossi, S. R., (1994). Stages of change and decisional balance for 12 problem behaviors. Health Psychology, 13, 39–46. doi:10.1037/0278–6133.13.1.39CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rautalinko, E., & Lisper, H. O. (2004). Effects of training reflective listening in a corporate setting. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 281–299. doi:10.1023/B:JOBU.0000016712.36043.4fCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., Shanock, L., Scott, C., & Shuffler, M. (2010). Employee satisfaction with meetings: A contemporary facet of job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 49, 149–172. doi:10.1002/hrm.20339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogelberg, S. G., Shanock, L. R., & Scott, C. W. (2012). Wasted time and money in meetings: Increasing return on investment. Small Group Research, 38, 543–569. doi:10.1177/1046496411429170Google Scholar
Schwartzman, H. B. (1989). The meeting: Gatherings in organizations and communities. New York, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shorey, R. C., Martino, S., Lamb, K. E., LaRowe, S. D., & Santa Ana, E. J. (2014). Change talk and relatedness in group motivational interviewing: a pilot study. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2014.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, G. W. (2013). Toward a process-based approach of conceptualizing change readiness. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49, 333–360. doi: 10.1177/0021886313475479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, D. J., & Creed, A. S. (2013). Sharpening the focus of force field analysis. Journal of Change Management, 1–20. doi:10.1080/14697017.2013.788052Google Scholar
Tepper, S. J. (2004). Setting agendas and designing alternatives: Policymaking and the strategic role of meetings. Review of Policy Research, 21, 523–542. doi:10.1111/j.1541–1338.2004.00092.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terry, L. D. (1987). The conference as an administrative strategy for building organizational commitment: The CWA experience. Labor Studies Journal, 12, 48–61.Google Scholar
Wheeler, L. (2008). Kurt Lewin. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1638–1650. doi:10.1111/j.1751–9004.2008.00131.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6
- Cited by