Studying Metaphors‐in‐Use in their Social and Institutional Context: Sensemaking and Discourse Theory

The appropriated language: Dominant stories as a source of organizational inertia

“…Therefore, by regarding the semantic aspects of storytelling, the meaning affixed to the concepts available to tell stories and make sense within the organization (Fairclough, 1992; Van Dijk, 1995), we are able to contribute to the current discussion on the role of dominant stories in the interplay between organizational stability and change (Brown, 2006; Dawson and Buchanan, 2005; Gabriel, 2008; Geiger and Antonacopoulou, 2009; Murgia and Poggio, 2009). Furthermore, a semantic approach also allows us to advance our understanding of the label-making aspect of authoritative sense-making, and therefore the role of storytelling in restricting and enabling the sensemaking process (Brown, 2004; Jordan and Mitterhofer, 2010; Pye, 2002). Thus, the aim of this article is to explore the role of semantics when storytelling acts as a source of organizational inertia.…”

“…Dominant stories exercise their power by fixing meaning (Brown, 2004), and arguably this meaning is fixed not only at story level, but also at a semantic level, giving words and concepts a certain, local meaning, which restricts the storytelling possibilities in that organization. To this end, we suggest that storytelling (Boyce, 1995) and sensemaking (Weick, 1995) be complemented with a semantic approach (Fairclough, 1992; Van Dijk, 1995), which allows us to take into consideration the micro-level of storytelling and sensemaking: the words used to tell a story and to label its actors and events (Jordan and Mitterhofer, 2010). This follows the suggestion by Whittle and Mueller (2012) that focusing on micro-linguistic tools allows us to explore how collective sensemaking is achieved through contesting storytelling.…”

An Analysis of the Social Meanings of Conflict in Nonprofit Organizations

“…I find that we can trace processes of conflict management to perceptual frameworks of meaning, which are guided by institutionalized meanings. While institutions act as interpretive frames, they do not determine specific kinds of sensemaking (Jordan & Mitterhofer, 2010), since, as shown by the study, individuals draw upon a diversity of, and sometimes conflicting, interpretation repertoires. Through ethnography, I was able to capture both overtly and covertly expressed forms of conflict.…”

“…This process occurs retrospectively, when people bracket their experience and give it meaning (Weick, 1995;Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). How a conflict is framed must be understood within the context in which the conflict occurs (Bartunek, Kolb, & Lewicki, 1992;Mather & Yngvesson, 1980) as social processes of sensemaking and framing are thoroughly embedded in the wider social and institutional context in which they occur (Jordan & Mitterhofer, 2010;Weber & Glynn, 2006).…”