Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Raelin (2013)
The manager as facilitator of dialogueOrganization, 20
R. Goodin, J. Dryzek (2006)
Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-PublicsPolitics & Society, 34
Peter Gronn (2002)
Distributed leadership as a unit of analysisLeadership Quarterly, 13
Rune * (2004)
Influence of participation in strategic change: resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievementJournal of Change Management, 4
J. Raelin (2011)
From leadership-as-practice to leaderful practiceLeadership, 7
Jane Mansbridge (2015)
A Minimalist Definition of Deliberation
Zaheeruddin Asif, H. Klein (2009)
Open and free deliberation: A prerequisite for positive designInf. Organ., 19
A. Cunliffe, M. Eriksen (2011)
Relational leadershipHuman Relations, 64
K. Parry, A. Bryman (2006)
Leadership in organizations
Andrea Felicetti (2018)
A Deliberative Case for Democracy in FirmsJournal of Business Ethics, 150
A. O'Neill, Muayyad Jabri (2007)
Legitimation and group conversational practices: implications for managing changeLeadership & Organization Development Journal, 28
P. Woods (2004)
Democratic leadership: drawing distinctions with distributed leadershipInternational Journal of Leadership in Education, 7
L. Crevani, Monica Lindgren, Johann Packendorff (2010)
Leadership, not leaders: On the study of leadership as practices and interactionsScandinavian Journal of Management, 26
J. Raelin (2012)
Dialogue and Deliberation as Expressions of Democratic Leadership in Participatory Organizational ChangeJournal of Organizational Change Management, 25
Journal of Public Deliberation, 6
L. Bobbio (2010)
Types of DeliberationRegular Issue
L. Carson, Janette Hartz-Karp (2005)
Adapting and combining deliberative designs : juries, polls, and forums
Brigid Carroll, L. Levy, D. Richmond (2008)
Leadership as Practice: Challenging the Competency ParadigmLeadership, 4
J. Lindell (2014)
Fostering organizational change through deliberations: the deliberative jury in a university settingTertiary Education and Management, 20
J. Dryzek (2009)
Democratization as Deliberative Capacity BuildingComparative Political Studies, 42
R. Gill (2002)
Change management--or change leadership?Journal of Change Management, 3
Muayyad Jabri, A. Adrian, D. Boje (2008)
Reconsidering the role of conversations in change communication: A contribution based on BakhtinJournal of Organizational Change Management, 21
Richard Buck (2007)
Why Deliberative Democracy?Contemporary Political Theory, 6
F. Graetz (2000)
Strategic change leadershipManagement Decision, 38
Jane Mansbridge (2000)
What Does a Representative Do? Descriptive Representation in Communicative Settings of Distrust, Uncrystallized Interests, and Historically Denigrated Status
J. Raelin (2011)
The End of Managerial Control?Group & Organization Management, 36
J. Dryzek, S. Niemeyer (2008)
Discursive RepresentationAmerican Political Science Review, 102
Bob Doherty, H. Haugh, F. Lyon (2014)
Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research AgendaINTL: Other Global Business Issues (Topic)
R. Goodin (2005)
Sequencing Deliberative MomentsActa Politica, 40
J. Raelin (2016)
Imagine there are no leaders: Reframing leadership as collaborative agencyLeadership, 12
M. Wood (2005)
The Fallacy of Misplaced LeadershipWiley-Blackwell: Journal of Management Studies
André Bächtiger, S. Niemeyer, Michael Neblo, M. Steenbergen, J. Steiner (2010)
Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, their Blind Spots, and ComplementaritiesJournal of Political Philosophy, 18
Joshua Cohen (2005)
DELIBERATION AND DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACYPhilosophy, Politics, Democracy
Michael MacKenzie, Mark Warren (2012)
Deliberative Systems: Two trust-based uses of minipublics in democratic systems
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine deliberation in the context of organizational change and introduce an organizational jury as a change facilitator.Design/methodology/approachThe research is based on an empirical study of four organizational juries that were organized by a non-profit organization in Finland. The main data of the study consist of a survey that the juries’ participants filled in. The data are triangulated with observations of jury meetings and relevant documents including pre-jury information package, jury presentations and juries’ proposals. In the analysis, the paper adopts deliberative democracy criteria to assess the inclusiveness, authenticity and consequentiality of the deliberative process.FindingsThe research findings suggest that the juries increased the inclusiveness of decision making and the quality of deliberation about the changes among the employees. The results indicate that juries facilitated the change process by providing a means for information sharing and building a shared understanding among the stakeholders. The main weakness of the juries was their low consequentiality.Originality/valueDeliberative jury method provides a participative way to build and preserve socially shared meanings in an organizational change context. However, the studies on the use of deliberative forums in the organizational context are still scarce. Thus, the study provides an important addition to the existing research literature.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal – Emerald Publishing
Published: Sep 9, 2019
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.