6.4.1 Signification and Communication
The analysis of the interviews in this case study showed that the interpretative scheme between the respondents was both enabling and constraining. Respondent R5C drew on
his past experience in order to develop more attractive ways of communicating with other members of staff, which helped to guide his actions in uncertain and ambiguous situations. Giddens refers to ‘discursive consciousness’ as “What actors are able to say, or to give verbal expression to, about social conditions, including especially the conditions of their own actions” (Giddens, 1984:374). Respondents R5C and R6C were able to articulate the reasons for their actions and this rationalisation provided reasons for their action and to what is referred to as ‘discursive consciousness’. The two respondents R2C and R5C by virtue of their interpretative schemes (stocks of knowledge) were able to adopt influential positions and were in control of their own areas of expertise. The meanings of signification were established through the interactions between members of staff. The respondent R2C was critical of the lack of corporation from other managers, who were not serious in their responses to his call for sharing their resources. Fear of change and lack of technical knowledge were cited as constraining factors (R5C, R6C).
6.4.2 Power and Domination
On the subject of power and domination the project manager was in charge of a centralised allocative and authoritative resources that imposed power and domination through centralised control. Giddens (1979:100) argues that the actual materiality of resources is not significant, but rather, the “capabilities or capacities of agents to command either allocative or authoritative resources”. The lack of consultation on a wider scale (beyond the management level), and a top-down approach had resulted in an indifference to the technology adoption (R4C). The senior management support and commitment was perceived to be an enabling factor (R2C, R3C). According to Surrey et al (2005) management support is perceived, as an important factor that can enable or hinder the adoption of technology. The relationship between members of staff (R3C, R5C, R6C) was an enabler of technology adoption. Another important enabler was the financial strength of the farm, which saved time by not relying on external funding (R4C).
6.4.3 Legitimation and Sanctions
The communication of meaning, the operation of power relations, and the enactment of normative sanctions occur simultaneously and in an integrated fashion in social practices and interaction. Giddens (1984) argues that actors draw upon modality of norm for the sanction of social behaviour. This case study had a technology strategy plan developed by senior management, which was communicated by top-down approach. The strategy plan
had received mix reactions; those in favour of technology adoption showed enthusiasm (R2C, R5C, R6C, R1C) and there were others who offered verbal support but showed little effort in the adoption and diffusion process. The institution did not have any mechanism in place for considering bottom up initiatives, which restricted the innovation process. This was contradiction with the literature on innovation processes that suggests the need for an open and responsive structure that allow for diffusion of innovation (Roffe, 2004).
There was evidence of cultural norms that influenced the adoption of technology. Trust building is one of the applications of halal in halal supply chain (Tieman, 2011). There was a perception amongst the respondents (R2C, R5C, R3C) that in the absence of trust in the supply market, technology was adopted to reduce the degree of mistrust of the supply chain. In this sense halal (inherently good) as a value emerges out of the very way in which figurations of relationships are patterned and operate. Halal encourages good practice and opposes fraud and corruption (Jordac, 2010). Thomson (2001) states that trust is one of the foundations of successful collaborations. In general, management had succeeded in creating an environment that supported good practice (R5C). Giddens refers to institutionalised features as structural properties of the social system, giving ‘solidity’ across time and space (Giddens, 1984:24). From the findings of this case study it is evident that respondents perception of poultry supply chain was that it did not include halal as structural property.
6.5 Case Study D
6.5.1 Signification and Communication
In this case study respondents drew on interpretative schemes to make sense of actors’ own actions and the actions of others. ). It is evident that individuals used their position to draw upon interpretative schemes, which Giddens refers to as social positioning. According to Giddens (1984) when an actor has been given a definite identity within a social group “the social positions are constituted structurally as specific intersections of signification, domination and legitimation which relates to the typification of agents” (Giddens, 1984:83). At the structural level the senior manager was the drive behind the motivation for the technology adoption; a fact acknowledged by all the respondents. Although, there was no strategy plan drafted for this farm, but there were set targets that
had to be met (R2D). The respondents were aware that their actions were existential for the farm. On the effect of strong managerial personality, Thieme et al (2003) argue that the greater the senior management the more likely that there will be close cooperation and cross-functional activities amongst staff members. This fact was evident in the comments made by a number of respondents (R2D, R3D, R4D). The assistant manager (R2D) drew on support from the senior manager to challenge and replace the traditional practices in the farm and this type of support from senior management resulted in change (Henry, 2001).
6.5.2 Power and Domination
Senior managers had power and domination control and used it to shape the direction of developments by setting operational targets. The respondents perceived that they were able to exert their influence through the implementation of a transparent policy. Respondent R2D draw on his stocks of knowledge of technical understanding in guiding his actions. The respondents perceived the guidelines for achieving the set targets as innovative and an asset (R4D, R2D). Studies have shown that communication at team level (R3D) helped in making sense of technology and providing psychological support (Mason, 2003; Oliver, 2005) Flexibility, such as open door policy and ease of communication was another enabler that helped to raise the confidence of staff members, hence reinforcing their trust (R5D, R6D). In this case study there was evidence that interactions between different sectors were harmonious and there existed a sense of competition in proposing new innovative ideas (R3D, R4D, R2D).
6.5.3 Legitimation and Sanctions
Giddens (1984) states that power can be a source of constraint and a means of getting things done. There was a technical guideline that provided a rigid and standardised approach imposed on the rest of the staff, which was perceived as an asset. In this case study there was flexibility and an open door policy on the innovative ideas and for developing guidelines and but, at the same time, conformance to the guidelines was required from all without exception; there were various sanctions for non-conformers such as peer pressure and reporting to higher managers, which seemed an effective policy. Giddens (1984) states that these kinds of sanctions on conformance need some sort of agreement from those who are subject to them. The use of sanctions was justified in order to allow for sustainability and it was argued that uncertainty of the supply market and
inability of the farmers to pass on the actual cost to the consumers had left no room for complacency (R1D).
6.6 Case Study E
6.6.1 Signification and Communication
This case study presented two main structures of signification in the interpretative schemes that respondents drew upon in their interactions. The interaction between the management, in facilitating technology transfer, and members of staff formed the first structure. The second structure was evident through the technology strategy plan alongside consultations; these were the structures of significations for the participants. All the respondents without exception were able to describe their actions by drawing on the farm’s strategic aims and objectives of adoption of technology. The respondents demonstrated consistency in their meanings of signification in their interactions. The management provided a common sense of purpose through the technology strategy for the respondents to help them explain and rationalise their actions.
All the respondents perceived the technology to be aligned with their roles and the perception of changing their practice did not undermine their position by facing uncertain situations, and they therefore remained in their comfort zones and continued with their routine patterns of behaviour. Giddens (1984) describes this as ‘ontological security’ where through the experience of positive and stable emotions, chaos and anxiety is avoided and meaning is given to individual lives. Turner (1991:532) describes this as “the sense of trust that comes from being able to reduce anxiety in social situations”. The Islamic values, once understood logically and objectively by the respondents, facilitated their understanding of technology and reduced the threat of uncertainty, which created a stable environment and consequently ontological security for individuals. In this respect, the Islamic value (halal) had acted as an enabler in the smooth adoption of technology (R3E, R4E, R5E, R1E).
6.5.2 Power and Domination
On the concept of power and domination the respondent R1E was recognised as an established and experienced farm manager with a good track record and reputation in poultry industry, which legitimised his position within the farm. The farm’s performance in remaining disease free for a substantial period of time was due to the authoritative
structures of domination brought about by R1E. Giddens (1984) explains authoritative structures of domination in the following way: authoritative structures of domination are constructed through the institution’s authority relationships involved in mobilising power, which is related to the way interests of different groups are represented in a social group. Giddens (1984) further explains the relationship of authoritative structures and legitimation structures as being connected through the institution’s authority relationship, since the authority relationship may be normative in generating a view of which interests are perceived as legitimate. The control over the customised training programmes, and participation in poultry related conferences and exhibitions (R1E), provided the mechanism for structures of domination in allocative resources.
6.5.3 Legitimation and Sanctions
Modality of norm with the two components of legitimation and sanctions was evident in the development of the farm’s directives, which were the outcome of a series of consultations and training sessions (R1E, R2E, R3E, R4E). Sharing the knowledge of the risks posed by the supply market legitimised the adoption of technology, as it was perceived necessary. The role of Islamic values in general and acting to some degree in accordance to halal requirements was claimed by R3E, R1E, and R5E to have been both legitimising and sanctioning.