Abstract
In this essay, I describe how the concept of agency provides a central explanatory mechanism for structurational divergence (SD). For many years, in research and applied work in diverse organizational settings, I observed similar patterns of impasse rooted in cyclic conflicts. Intrigued, I set about developing an explanation for organizational phenomena that render people unable to break out of these negative cycles. I turned to the presumption that communication constitutes organization, Weick’s notion of collective sensemaking, and Weber’s iron cage, using structuration theory as a foundation for theory construction. The result was SD theory, which captures and explains negative communication cycles resulting from the intersection of incompatible meaning structures (Nicotera & Clinkscales, 2003, 2010; Nicotera & Mahon, 2013; Nicotera, Mahon, & Zhao, 2010).
Structuration is the process by which social structures are produced and reproduced in social practice, structure being both medium and outcome of social interaction (Giddens, 1984). When multiple incompatible structures are in simultaneous operation and equally obligatory, their concurrent structurational processes are divergent. As a phenomenon, SD manifests as recurrent unresolvable conflict—damaging relationships, obstructing goal-attainment, and impeding development at individual and organizational levels. In a recent study, we documented several SD cycles among nurses in a geriatric care unit (Nicotera & Clinkscales, 2010). An impasse between floor nurses and nursing administrators resulted in a conflicted scheduling process that led nurses to circumvent normal procedure, using sick calls instead of requesting days off. The resulting chaos led some nurses to quit. Both the sick calls and turnover caused shift staffing shortages, which resulted in scheduling problems. Thus, the scheduling problem perpetuated itself through the conflict cycle we identified as SD.
SD theory extends structuration theory and has two essential components: SD nexus and SD cycle (Nicotera et al., 2010). A nexus is “that place where multiple social structures interpenetrate—when an individual feels compelled to simultaneously fulfill obligations from multiple systems of social rules, each normatively sanctioned by its own structure” (Nicotera & Clinkscales, 2010, p. 32). SD nexus is rooted in institutional positioning. This contradictory interpenetration creates an internally inconsistent, troublesome structure, so the SD cycle emerges: unresolved conflict, immobilization, and inability to develop, which deepens unresolved conflicts. The hallmark SD symptom is immobilization, which is not lack of activity but “a frustrating lack of progress—feeling stuck in the same place, repeatedly facing the same problems, with no end to the impasse in sight. The emotional experience of immobilization is futility and hopelessness” (Nicotera, et al., 2010, p. 363).
In what follows, I define and situate agency in SD theory, briefly review SD research, and consider the potential for SD theory to advance organizational communication research.
Defining and Situating Agency From an SD Perspective
The conception of agency in SD theory is grounded in social cognitive theory (SCT; Bandura, 1986) and structuration theory (Giddens, 1984). SCT allows us to theorize the role of cognition in the context of structuration. Agency is the conceptual device used to explain why some SD nexuses escalate into SD cycles and some do not. As choices for action are constrained, agency is diminished and SD cycles emerge (Nicotera & Mahon, 2013). As Sewell (1992) notes, “To be an agent means to be capable of exerting some degree of control over the social relations in which one is enmeshed, which in turn implies the ability to transform those social relations” (p. 20). Following Bandura (2001), we therefore define agency as self-efficacy, “the human capacity to exercise control over one’s life. Agency is efficacy—ability to act meaningfully” (Nicotera & Mahon, 2013, p. 99). The human capacity for agency is inherent. Doing anything socially rests on agency, which is processual. Structure (re)produces social practice, which (re)produces structure. Agency is the driving force for the (re)production of structures—the fundamental process of structuration.
Giddens (1984) identifies types of rules that allow interactants to interpret every act/utterance (signification), judge its appropriateness (legitimation), and position themselves in a hierarchy (domination). Power is the transformative capacity to change the social and material world (Giddens, 1987), and structure refers to the socially shared meanings that provide the agency to re/produce and transform structure. Thus, agency does not imply power over others but empowerment to act meaningfully (Sewell, 1992).
In structuration theory, agency is enabled by knowledgeability of structure (Sewell, 1992). To enact (apply, create, transform) structure, one must know that structure. SD renders communication patterns (and thus structures) untransformable by rendering structure incomprehensible (Nicotera & Mahon, 2013). Knowing structure enables doing structure, but in SD, such knowledge is hidden or contradictory. While agency is central to structuration, previous explications of structuration do not address what happens to agency under the impact of equally compelling contradictory structures, and numerous other observers have identified the fundamental phenomenon of SD. For example, within communication studies, Pearce and Cronen’s (1980) unwanted repetitive patterns, Pearce and Littlejohn’s (1997) moral conflict, Stohl and Cheney’s (2001) paradoxes of participation, Babrow’s (2001) problematic integrations, and Barker’s (1993) concertive control might all be explained through the divergent interpenetration process explicated by SD theory.
Empirical SD Research
We have studied SD extensively in nursing for a number of reasons, including opportunity (Nicotera & Mahon, 2013). Nursing is a fertile setting where SD can be easily observed because of nurses’ positioning at a multitude of nexuses among institutional, organizational, professional, and cultural structures. While some specific issues in nursing are not relevant outside this setting, our ability to focus on a consistent set of constraints has advanced our development of SD theory, allowing a clear picture of divergent structurational interpenetration to emerge and allowing the development of a diagnostic measure (Nicotera et al., 2010). Nicotera and Clinkscales (2010) generate a set of parallel models illustrating divergence between different sets of oppositional structures resulting in SD cycles. Floor nurses held an ethic of shared responsibility in tension with upper management’s non-participatory decision-making practices. This divergence resulted in the scheduling spiral described earlier. Another example was a spiral of poor on-the-job training and instruction, resulting from a fundamental divergence between the relationally biased management style of the department director and the task-biased style of the assistant director. These oppositional expectations for action created a crisis of confidence in leadership, perceptions of abuse, and complaints to upper management about the director and her assistant that served only to deepen the divergence between their styles.
Observing the context-specific character of structures (e.g., scheduling) is less important than observing consistent patterns ensuing from problematic nexuses. Although health care institutions are unique settings, the organizational problems experienced in these contexts are indeed organizational, not clinical (Mintzberg, 1997; Ramanujam & Rousseau, 2006). SD research in nursing yields interesting conclusions. Communication skills for ordinary interpersonal conflict are ineffective for resolving SD (Nicotera & Mahon, 2013). Nicotera and colleagues (2015) estimate that 12% to 15% of nurses suffer from a problematic level of SD. This study, based on a sample of 713 nurses (57 hospital departments), revealed that burnout, role conflict, bullying, and organizational identification mediate the relationship between SD and important outcomes. Through a path model, SD explained 68% of the variance in job satisfaction and 45% in intentions to leave. The study also explored relationships between SD and quality indicators, indicating that SD may predict poor patient satisfaction, rising costs, increased errors, and increased turnover.
Agency is the driving force in the relation between action and structure. The denial of agency is the central mechanism through which SD nexuses develop into SD cycles. These explications allow application of SD theory to field interventions. Nicotera, Mahon, and Wright (2014) describe the design, implementation, and evaluation of an intervention to reduce SD and improve nurses’ work life and team-member relationships. An intensive 9-hr course provided training in conflict/SD analysis and dialogic conflict/SD management to hospital-based nurses. Pre-/post-test and control group comparisons showed that the course reduced negative conflict attitudes and behaviors, increased attitudes necessary for productive dialogue and conflict management, and reduced SD scores for those diagnosed as “high-SD” to below the diagnostic threshold. Participants understood workplace conflict better and felt more empowered to manage conflicts to sustain healthier workplace relationships.
Implications of SD Theory for Advancing Organizational Communication Research
The next step in this research program is to integrate Bandura’s SCT to clarify agency denial. Using Bandura’s notion of situational self-efficacy to operationalize agency denial and explicate the progression of SD nexus to SD cycle will require an SD-focused self-efficacy measure. A global self-efficacy scale across domains is unachievable and undesirable. “Scales of perceived self-efficacy must be tailored to the particular domain of functioning that is the object of interest” (Bandura, 2006, pp. 307-308). Narrative data from hospital nurses describing SD experiences will be examined to develop SD-focused self-efficacy scale items. In addition, the SD measure must be refined to distinguish SD nexus from SD cycle. These measures can then be used to investigate the extent to which self-efficacy prevents escalation of SD nexus to SD cycle. The intervention can be further developed, examining whether self-efficacy is improved by the training and whether that improvement reduces SD.
Explicating the conceptual function of agency in SD theory allows field applications. The integration of theory and practice is a significant advance in organizational communication studies. By making the function of agency explicit, SD theory can provide a model for the field to concretize abstract concepts that are usually presumed rather than explicated. Agency is a central assumption in organizational communication but is explicated by only a few theorists and rarely used empirically. SD theory promotes the application of agency in field research and practice.