Identificación de la Competencia 1) Competencia Directa y Potencial

In the context of inter-organizational conflict, change in conflict, learning, and identity results from practitioner engagement between organizations. Change is anchored in feedback and feed forward cycles, through the praxis (activities) of practitioners (individuals) and practices of organizations or groups (see Figure 3-4: Practice-Practitioner-Praxis). Praxis Identity Learning Conflict Practice Identity Learning Conflict feedback / feed-forward

Figure 3-4: Practitioner-Praxis-Practice

However, engagement between individuals from organizations in conflict may trigger actions, such as defensive routines and an over reliance on past experiences, that inhibit their ability to learn (Fiol et al., 2009; D. Gioia & P. Poole, 1984). Information complexity and/or the need to preserve a positive self-concept also tend to work against experimentation and hence learning (D. Gioia & P. Poole, 1984). A relatively automatic enactment of existing practices by individuals will tend to reinforce existing identities and conflict. Consequently certain

conditions may be required to allow for experimentation to occur.

Organizational learning between organizations in conflict may then depend on individuals‟ ability to tap into a range of less salient identities and particularly into identities based on communities of practice or roles. While an individual‟s

Practice Organization 1 Praxis Identity Learning Conflict Practice Identity Learning Conflict feedback / feed-forward Organization 2 Praxis Identity Learning Conflict Identity Learning Conflict feedback / feed-forward Practitioner Engagement

behaviour is usually an expression of their more salient identities (P. Burke, 1980; P. Burke & Reitzes, 1991), when opportunities to express that identity are

unavailable individuals will often reorder the importance of existing identities (Serpe, 1987). Field studies have shown that contextual factors can render some identities much more meaningful than others (R. Brown, 2000). Experiments in psychology have demonstrated that common group membership (cross

categorization) reduces in-group bias (e.g. Deschamps & Doise, 1978). This is important in the case of engagement between “enemies” as engagement forms a common group and raises the possibility of new activities that result from

activation of a different identity.

Communities of practice, such as the community of scientists, provide individuals with common vocabulary and practice with which to engage and address each other (J. Brown & Duguid, 1991). Whereas within an organization it is often role and social identities that differentiate individuals, in engagement between “enemies” an otherwise less salient social or role identity may provide an opportunity for them to connect. Also, in a relatively new inter-organizational relationship behaviours are not entrenched, permitting more individual leeway. Employing the practices associated with their common identity allows

practitioners to explore new activities in response to the conflict. While

engagement between individuals from organizations in conflict is likely to evoke the strong emotions (K. Weick et al., 2005) necessary to instigate

experimentation (i.e. new activities), I propose that it is the presence of multiple social and role identities that enable individuals to constructively engage, so that feedback from experimentation leads to new interpretations and integration.

While the existence of common social or role identities is necessary, given the influence of organizational identity, it may not be sufficient to ensure

enactment of new behaviour in response to feedback. For such enactment to occur something must loosen the hold that this collective identity places on individual actions. Researchers have suggested that feedback from the external environment “destabilizes” individuals‟ perception of their organization‟s identity (e.g. D. Gioia et al., 2000; Hatch & Schultz, 2002). Although minor

inconsistencies between external perceptions and internal beliefs regarding their organization‟s identity are likely to trigger defensiveness, a serious discrepancy may induce organizational members to reevaluate their understandings and alter their actions (D. Gioia et al., 2000; Whetten & Mackey, 2002). Consequently, in order for the individuals to experiment with new actions that run contrary to the dominant logic, their respective organizational identities must be in some state of flux.

When members‟ collective understanding of organizational identity is in a state of flux, perhaps as a result of a crisis in the industry or a merger, the characteristics of the organization that are central, enduring and unique become less clear. This leads to ambiguity regarding the organization‟s practices. As a result the constraints that the organizational identity formerly placed on

individuals‟ activities may relax and their individual, social and role identities become relatively more important. In this situation the presence of common social or role identities can facilitate new activities based on those common identities. In addition to supporting new activities this has the potential to shift the relative focus of individuals away from identity differences between themselves

and their organizations. With this shift the more socio-cognitive aspects of the conflict may become the focus.

In addition, the extent to which an individual identifies with their

organization‟s identity influences whether they will change their behaviour in response to feedback that is inconsistent with that identity. For behavioural change to occur individuals must identify strongly with their organization‟s

distinctive characteristics. When individuals do so, enacting behaviour related to the organizational identity is more likely to take relative priority over their other identities. This is especially the case if the individual is over-identified with their organization (McGregor & Little, 1998; Schwenk, 2002). The extent to which an organization‟s identity aligns with institutionalized norms in its industry, also

impacts the likelihood that individuals will be bound by institutionalized norms and logics. Hence, the level of an individual identification with their organization‟s identity, along with the alignment of that identity with the norms in its category, determine the potential for individuals to alter their behaviour and to shift

emphasis to aspects of the conflict other than identity differences. The interaction of identification and organizational identity can relax the constraints on individual praxis in the same way that they are relaxed when an organization‟s identity is in flux.

To summarize, conflict, identity, and learning serve as filters through which the individuals make sense of feedback. Feedback that is consistent with their understanding will not prompt any change in praxis. Feedback that is inconsistent with their understandings may prompt a different interpretation of the situation, resulting in experimentation with new activities or the activation of a new identity.

As stated above the extent to which individuals will consciously experiment with new actions in response to conflict is a function of the interaction between their social or role identities and their respective organizations‟ identities. I proceed on the premise that individuals‟ subsequent praxis in response to feedback is related not only to their understanding of the conflict but also to their identities, their learning, and to the learning and identities of the groups and organizations with which they identify. These are conditions for engagement between individuals.