A model of schematic information processing

Schema change has not been ignored by organizational researchers, yet, there is a fundamental key issue that makes existing approaches insufficient for the needs of the current work, and, hence, calls for the development of a new theory. That is, the focus of researchers on the lower levels of the organizational hierarchy (Labianca, Gray & Brass, 2000). More precisely, within the scope of change management, schema theory

(Lau & Woodman, 1995) has mainly focused on identifying antecedents for enabling change in employees’ schemas. The yearning outcomes are expected to be employees’ positive attitude towards the already initiated change as well as increased participation and commitment on their behalf (i.e. Arzenšek, 2011; Balogun, Johnson, 2004; Chiang,

2010; Kayser, Walker & Demaio, 2000; Lau, Tse, & Zhou, 2002; Liu, Lui & Man, 2009; Thompson, & Ryan, 2012). This area of research is indeed useful for the change literature, yet irrelevant to the nature of this work, since its results ignore the necessary schematic changes at an individual-leadership level (Thompson & Ryan, 2011), where the call for transformation will be made in first place. In addition, the necessary demands for a schema change to occur at an individual level have also been disregarded, since the analysis has been restricted mainly in shared schemas and belief

systems (Labianca, Gray & Brass, 2000) which are considered from an overall organizational perspective (i.e. Björkman, 1989).

Figure 9. Schematic interpretation of information (Based on Axelrod, 1973)

Driven by the described fundamental difference in focus, the researcher sought a model that combines two major “ingredients” of this work, individual schemas and information processing, so that it can be used as the basis for further analysis. Among the schema based models that were identified in the literature (i.e.Beck, & Clark, 1997; Braune & Foshay, 1983; Labianca, Gray & Brass, 2000; Noble, Boehm-Davis &

Q.1: Does Interpretation of the case already exist? Q.2: Does Information Contradict Schema? Q.3: Is there any old un- interpreted Information ? Seek a Satisfise - Schema Combine old and new information

Affix Blame

Blame old interpretation: Downgrade old source’s

credibility Cancel previous

interpretation Blaming the discrepant

message is a type of resistance (sec. 5.3). Downgrade

source credibility Exit with old interpretation

Exit with new interpretation Exit without interpretation Blame new message Either Or In a change process the message is discrepant (sec.3.2) Receive Message: Source name Partial specification of a case Case type Seeing no discrepancy when the message is discrepant is a type of

resistance (sec. 5.2). Specify: modify and

extend specification using the selected schema Upgrade accessibility of

the schema Upgrade source credibility Upgrade confidence in the

interpretation No Yes No The person is baffled: Downgrade source credibility Succeed Yes Axelrod (1973)

The change process in the reflective state. (chapters 6, 7 & 8)

No

Fail

Grosz, 1986; Norman, & Bobrow, 1976:118; Reger &, Palmer 1996), Axelrod’s (1973)

has been discerned, mainly because it demonstrates, through a simple logic of yes or no step-questions, the channels that information should pass through when it is processed by schemas. Hastie (1981:45) has also developed an identical, yet simplified version of Axelrod’s (1973) model, which, however, was discarded due to its lack regarding the depth of analysis. In addition to its detailed perspective, Axelrod’s (1973) model is widely known as the incipience of the schematic approach in political science

(Bolland, 1985), and its logic has been utilized in studies of decision making, in which it provided deeper understanding and insight (Lee, Chung & Kim, 2004). The previous evidence led the researcher to appraise Axelrod’s (1973) model as the best available choice for the basis of this work’s arguments.

Figure 9 illustrates Axelrod’s (1973) model with slight changes in the expression of the steps, for better clarification and compatibility with the current work’s terminology. The logic of the model is quite simple and linear. More precisely, the individual goes through a set of Yes or No questions (i.e. Hastie, 1981) with the aim of identifying a schema that will enable understanding of the incoming message3_{. Based on the chosen} schema the individuals have three alternatives, exit with the old interpretation, exit with a new interpretation or exit without an interpretation (Peterson, 1985). However, despite the fact that the model seems suitable to be utilized as the theoretical basis of the current research, it is necessary to modify some of its elements in order to reflect the special conditions regarding change, which prevail in this work. The areas in which changes should be applied are coded with different colours and mainly concern the input and outputs of the model. The following section will present the changes in the input and the respective implications, which are essentially what drives the changes in the outputs that will be discussed throughout the work.

3 _{It should be clarified at this stage, that when the incoming information are sophisticated} enough the individual utilizes a lot of schemas, and probably their subschemas, in order to interpret the case (i.e. Norman, & Bobrow, 1976:118; Rumelhart, 1980:42). However, for reasons of simplicity the word schema(s), within the scope of the current work, will refer to a holistic schema(s) which lies in the top of the schematic hierarchy and includes all those schemas that were utilized to interpret the discrepant message (sec. 5.4).

3.2 Facing a discrepancy: An essential but undesirable reality