Building an organizational change communication theory

The difficulty of communicating during organizational change has intensified with the prevalence of continuously changing organizations (Buchanan, Claydon & Doyle, 1999). The difficulty faced by managers is compounded by the lack of studies examining organizational communication within a context of organizational change (Eisenberg, Andrews, Murphy, & Laine-Timmerman, 1999; Lewis & Seibold, 1996). Not surprisingly then, is there a paucity of organizational change theory to guide further research and practitioners. This paper addresses the lack of organizational change communication research and contributes to theoretical development of communication during organizational change. A model of change communication during continuous change is presented from the analysis of two longitudinal empirical studies. Central constructs of the model are the monologic change communication, the dialogic change communication and the background talk of change. Further Van de Ven and Poole's (1995) Process Theories of Change are extended to consider the sequencing of the three constructs. The findings suggest that the sequencing of the dominant change communication approaches is informed by an alignment of individual communication competences and organizational change communication expectations.

The impact of unique characteristics of projects and project-based organisations on knowledge transfer

Knowledge has been recognised as an important organisational asset that increases in value when shared; the opposite to other organisational assets which decrease in value during their exploitation. Effective knowledge transfer in organisations helps to achieve and maintain competitive advantage and ultimately organisational success. So far, the research on knowledge transfer has focused on traditional (functional) organisations. Only recently has attention been directed towards knowledge transfer in projects. Existing research on project learning has recognised the need for knowledge transfer within and across projects in project-based organisations (PBOs). Most projects can provide valuable new knowledge from unexpected actions, approaches or problems experienced during the project phases. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the impact of unique projects characteristics on knowledge transfer in PBO. This is accomplished through review of the literature and a series of interviews with senior project practitioners. The interviews complement the findings from the literature. Knowledge transfer in projects occurs by social communication and transfer of lessons learned where project management offices (PMOs) and project managers play significant roles in enhancing knowledge transfer and communication within the PBO and across projects. They act as connectors between projects and the PBO ‘hub’. Moreover, some project management processes naturally facilitate knowledge transfer across projects. On the other hand, PBOs face communication challenges due to unique and temporary characteristics of projects. The distance between projects and the lack or weakness of formal links across projects, create communication problems that impede knowledge transfer across projects. The main contribution of this paper is to demonstrate that both social communication and explicit informational channels play important role in inter-project knowledge transfer. Interviews also revealed the important role organisational culture play in knowledge transfer in PBOs.

Developing a participatory impact assessment approach and action research culture within a communication for social change organisation in Nepal

Developing an effective impact evaluation framework, managing and conducting rigorous impact evaluations, and developing a strong research and evaluation culture within development communication organisations presents many challenges. This is especially so when both the community and organisational context is continually changing and the outcomes of programs are complex and difficult to clearly identify.----- This paper presents a case study from a research project being conducted from 2007-2010 that aims to address these challenges and issues, entitled Assessing Communication for Social Change: A New Agenda in Impact Assessment. Building on previous development communication projects which used ethnographic action research, this project is developing, trailing and rigorously evaluating a participatory impact assessment methodology for assessing the social change impacts of community radio programs in Nepal. This project is a collaboration between Equal Access – Nepal (EAN), Equal Access – International, local stakeholders and listeners, a network of trained community researchers, and a research team from two Australian universities. A key element of the project is the establishment of an organisational culture within EAN that values and supports the impact assessment process being developed, which is based on continuous action learning and improvement. The paper describes the situation related to monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and impact assessment before the project began, in which EAN was often reliant on time-bound studies and ‘success stories’ derived from listener letters and feedback. We then outline the various strategies used in an effort to develop stronger and more effective impact assessment and M&E systems, and the gradual changes that have occurred to date. These changes include a greater understanding of the value of adopting a participatory, holistic, evidence-based approach to impact assessment. We also critically review the many challenges experienced in this process, including:----- • Tension between the pressure from donors to ‘prove’ impacts and the adoption of a bottom-up, participatory approach based on ‘improving’ programs in ways that meet community needs and aspirations.----- • Resistance from the content teams to changing their existing M&E practices and to the perceived complexity of the approach.----- • Lack of meaningful connection between the M&E and content teams.----- • Human resource problems and lack of capacity in analysing qualitative data and reporting results.----- • The contextual challenges, including extreme poverty, wide cultural and linguistic diversity, poor transport and communications infrastructure, and political instability.----- • A general lack of acceptance of the importance of evaluation within Nepal due to accepting everything as fate or ‘natural’ rather than requiring investigation into a problem.