In contrast, in the second line, if senior and middle managers calculateengagement in communicative practices, it will be degenerative dialogue formand oppositional in power-resistance relations. The result of change effects isstanding off.In the first line, communicative practices makerelation engagement by senior and middle managers lead to generative dialogueform and facilitative in power-resistance relations. The result of changeeffects is breakthrough.Patternsof dynamics in the negotiation of meaning are illustrated by communicativepractices, form of dialogue, power-resistance relations and change effects. There are 2 groups of dynamics: the first group shows successfulnegotiation and the second group shows failed negotiation.
Dynamics in the Negotiation of Meaning The negotiation of meaning affectsorganisational change through permeating of the role of power-resistancerelations (Thomas et al. 2011). Senior manager or change agent possibly hasprerogative in negotiating (Collinson 1994) and creating change. Employees alsoset their target in order to protect themselves from unfair agreement. Nevertheless,the outcome of negotiation is not always negative or oppressive due to thepower-resistance relations (Mumby 2005). Shared meanings of various actors in negotiationencourage to success of organisational change (cf. Westley 1990).
The negotiation of meaning”Power is productive, it produces reality, includingdomains of objects, and rituals of truth and individual subjects” (Foucault1979). In the same web of relations, power andresistance preform concurrently which resistance always exists, so it will notcomplete in power. “There are no relations of power without resistance”(Foucault 1980).
To overcome resistance, this relationsof power-resistance is unnecessary to oppress, but it should negotiate themeaning with all involved actors (Rouse, 1994). The concept of power-resistancerelations focuses on “how relations of power and resistance operate together inproducing change, and in what ways” (Thomas and Hardy 2011).Power-resistance relations and changeSecondly, Tsoukas (2005) and (2009)views an organizational becoming as it highlights theformative influences of language. “This perspective views organizations asenacted in the micro-context of communicative interactions among individuals”(Boden 1994 and Weick et al. 2005). The organisationalchange is caused by new language as actors negotiate on meaning throughcommunicative interactions (Hardy et al. 2005 and Tsoukas 2005).Firstly, organisations characterizeas ongoing change properties and enactments.
Temporary change in organisationis common and unavoidable condition (Bechky 2006), and formed by daily”micro-interactions” of actors in local conditions (Tsoukas and Chia 2002).An organizationalbecoming perspective from theoretical developments (Tsoukas and Chia 2002and Carlsen 2006) can divided into 2 organizational aspects.Managing organizational changeThis approach center on “how different organizationalmembers contribute to the negotiation of meaning, and in what ways” (Thomas etal. 2011). Change agents and change recipients are located in the same webs ofpower relations which causes resistance and affects negotiations. Change agentor senior manager has prerogative in meanings rather than recipient. Resultingfrom wider power relations, the negotiation of meaning with lower level mightfail to get considerable influence (Thomas and Hardy 2011).
Therefore, “thenegotiation of meaning is not unconstrained, it is a political process in whichnot all actors have equal voice” (Hardy & Phillips, 2004). Poststructuralist (Discursive) Approaches