Narratives and sensemaking of an organizationally-based environmental disaster.
| Autor | Guimaraes, Paulo Cesar Vaz |
| Cargo | Report |
Introduction
Disasters derive from critical events that cause an urgent threat to the core functions of a social system and the consequences for individuals, society and environment are bad and irreversible (Freudenburg, 1997; Quarantelli, Lagadec, & Boin, 2007).
There are naturally- or socially-caused disasters (Beamish, 2002; Gephart, 1984; Turner, 1978). Socially-based disasters develop through an incubation period and may be identified at their beginning. Socially-caused disasters generate more severe and long-lasting negative social, economic, cultural and psychological impacts than natural ones (Freudenburg, 1997). This is due to three main reasons: the indetermination of harm, the development of corrosive communities and sociocultural disruption (Hirschman, 1994). Disasters represent a type of event that pushes the limits. In more formal terms, they represent a focusing event, which amounts to an occurrence able to alter the formulation of one side's agenda and serve as a catalyst for mobilization, when groups seek to expand their sphere of influence (Birkland, 1998). The sensitivity associated with disasters stands out, in fact, in the communicative strategies between the actors, when, most of the time, mutual accusations prevail, aiming to find a culprit to punish, and setting out a sense of social justice. Accusation is not a deviation in gentlemanly conduct but a necessary social act for the maintenance of relations with others (Tilly, 2008), activating three logics: reconciliation, retaliation and reparation. However, a fourth possibility might be added: preserving the status quo with the continuity of normal life without social transformations (see Catino, 2008; Gephart, 1993).
An organizationally-based environmental disaster (OBED) is the type of socially-caused disasters that results from an organization's "exploitation of ecosystem resources and have potentially adverse effects on the ecosystem" and serial social effects (Gephart, 1984, p. 206). OBEDs are political phenomena (Gephart, 1984) that involve the power of corporations, governments, and society in the context where events take place.
Gephart, Van Maanen and Oberlechner (2009) present two organizational perspectives on risk that address the issue of accidents and disasters: the Normal Accident Theory (NAT) (Perrow, 1999) and the cognitive perspective of sensemaking (Weick, 1995, 2010). With NAT, Charles Perrow (1999) inserts the idea of problematic risk into organizational theory. He concludes there is a proliferation of plans where complex interactions between each unit of the production process predominate, with no possibility of foreseeing which one will take place and when. This state of things is helped along by the predominance of a high coupling between units, which accelerates the disruptive process and makes it difficult to intervene to come up with solutions. As Perrow (1999) links events to the social, political and economic context of organizations, his apparatus proves competent for describing organizational phenomenon from a macro scope. Weick (1995, 2010), with his perspective of sensemaking, opts to focus on the micro aspects of organizational life. In synthesis, actors in an organization seek to make sense of what they do through sensemaking, by interpreting and explaining the organization. The strongest efforts towards sensemaking are verified when the world is seen to be different from the expected, or when actors have difficulty discerning how to engage with the world (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006), like in disasters.
This work investigates the narratives of corporations, public agencies, politicians, unions, lawyers, public attorneys and community in different public inquiries undertaken as a response to an organizationally-based environmental disaster (Gephart, 1984) in Brazil. In order to understand the phenomenon, the paper creates a framework that integrates sensemaking (Gephart, 1984; Weick 1995, 2010), narrative analysis (Brown, Gabriel, & Gherardi, 2009; Patriotta, 2003; Rhodes & Brown, 2005), and theatrical metaphor (Czarniawska, 2006; Gioia & Poole, 1984; Wood, 2002). Then, the conceptual framework is used to analyze five public inquiries of an ongoing pollution caused by Shell's actions of producing, storing and dumping toxic chemical products in Vila Carioca, So Paulo, Brazil since the 1940s. The analysis uncovers relationships between public management, corporations and society through their narratives, which are imbued with the contradictions, revealing how meanings were selected, legitimized, codified and institutionalized in a manner that resembles a theater play.
Combining sensemaking, narrative analysis and theatrical metaphor constitutes an theoretical contribution to the analysis of organizationally-based environmental disasters, since it generates a revelatory insight (Corley & Gioia, 2011) of how social actors enact scripts that position themselves and other actors in the public realm.
In the introduction of this paper, we work with the definition of disasters and its relationship with communities and organizations. Next, there is a literature review on sensemaking and narratives, which provides the basis for our analysis. The third section presents the research design, showing how public documents can be used as sources for research in sensemaking, and how data analysis was conducted through the adoption of document-parsing code made up of different verbs that mark the phases of Turner's model (1976). The fourth section presents the case of the ongoing pollution in the areas occupied by Shell in the Vila Carioca and the reaction of political actors. Then, we present our findings, detailing the different roles enacted by the actors. In the last section, we discuss the results and highlight the findings.
Sensemaking Approach to Disasters
Weick (1995) describes seven properties which are intrinsic to sensemaking, which must be seen as a process: (a) based on the construction of identity; (b) retrospective; (c) acting within the environment; (d) of a social nature; (e) under construction; (f) characterized by evidence; and (g) directed by plausibility and not by accuracy. The retrospective characteristic of sensemaking is essential in order to allow that in their construction of self, people may find values and priorities, in the sense of guaranteeing themselves clarity about who they are and how to act. In other words, looking towards the past is not reduced to understanding what happened, but to clarify what happens now and what is the actor's role. As Weick (1995) points out, sensemaking removes the uncertainties about the time when events took place and produces a plausible story for the present. The proposition that the process of sensemaking should join with the actions taking place within the environment stems directly from the concept of enactment in the Weickean universe. Here, the word enactment is used in the sense of interaction between the actors in a process, in a chain that involves change, interaction, selection and retention.
The sensemaking process is social and political (Clark & Geppert, 2011; Gephart, 1984, 1993). Its essence is the event, created through interaction with others. "Acts and speeches design non-linear cycles that build identity" (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005, p. 412). The characteristics of the cycle inform that the sensemaking process does not have a well-defined beginning or end and, when interrupted, incites reflection and can even incur a collapse of meaning (Weick, 1993). Disruptions in meaning are clearly disturbing, based on the perception that people become emotionally alert and need a new scenario to return to normality, especially due to new emerging complexities (Colville, Pye, & Carter, 2013).
Escaping the rationalist tradition, in which a decision would be backed by precise and well-based information, the sensemaking perspective understands that the organizational phenomenon is guided by clues that are plausible for the actors in scene. What is necessary is for these to continue being motivated to act, finding versions for their roles that depend on what they consider to be reasonable (Weick et al., 2005). However, "the construction of identity and the plausibility is the characteristic that distinguishes sensemaking in cognitive psychology" (Weick et al., 2005, p. 416). Between them, it is hard not to value the construction of identity, a dimension under great pressure in post-modernity. Sveningsson and Alvesson (2003) recognize the diffusion of research on how people and organizations structure selves and point to a certain recurrence of studies in which identity takes on static aspects. A more promising path lies in the emphasis of the dynamic aspects and in the endless struggles taking place throughout the meaning process (Bird, 2007).
Critical events, such as disasters, represent moments of sensemaking failure; which is only reestablished through official reports of post-crisis analyses (Boudes & Laroche, 2009). Sensemaking properties help to understand the actions, activities and sensemaking processes that occurred within and between several organizations that operate in a disaster (Mills & Weatherbee, 2006).
Sensemaking, narratives and public inquiries
Sensemaking is one of the more relevant among the fields that use narrative analysis, since stories can be accepted as a means for interpreting and bringing meaning to the events experienced (Rhodes & Brown, 2005). For organizational studies, narratives make the interlacing of an organization's everyday characteristics viable and are a mechanism by which people reflect and talk about themselves, in the context of the organization, exposing existing perceptions. The advantage is in the minimization of the filters, helped along by the events taking place. Thus, narratives become imbued with the contradictions between people, revealing how meanings are selected, legitimized...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
