Meaning Construction, Cultural Change and Digital Transformation

?

By Khattab Salman

?

?

Constructing meaning is a vital function people do all the time in their professional, political, or personal lives. They attempt to understand who they are, where they are going and their mission in their lives through understanding the meaning of the life they are leading. Some people frame the knowledge and the meaning constructed based on that knowledge in a paradigm or a set of rules and realities that govern their acceptance or rejection of beliefs, facts, and realities. (Kuhn 1996). Others look at that effort in a more spiritual way in an attempt to understand the Self[1] . Solomon (2002) stated that spirituality is a mere extension of that Self and furnish an understanding of our being in this world. He added that this would lead to discoveries of the soul, its relation to society, and the understanding of possible transformations that can be made to the Self.

?

These discoveries and understanding are part of the construction of meaning and can form the values that people can base on that understanding. However, these values and process of meaning making efforts should not be understood in isolation of several elements and factors. Philosophers discussed these factors in various different approaches. Karl Marx, for example, looked at the central understanding of life and the development of history in terms of class struggle based on economic situations and backgrounds (Sarup 1993). Nietzsche took a more radical approach in the construction of meaning when he declared that “I mistrust all systematizes and avoid them.?The will to a system is a lack of integrity” and that the construction of meaning and the values that are based on it should not be above questioning (Sarup 1993). He based this on the belief that these facts, realities and meanings cannot be questioned “within the framework of the system.” This lead other philosophers to ponder on the possibility of getting out of the system or the “Selves” to reach a new level of understanding (Nagel 1997) despite the fact that such an approach is difficult, according to Descartes, who emphasized that there are some cultural influences to it (Nagel 1997). A similar? approach to the construction of beliefs, facts and meanings underscored that many of them are “socially constructed” and that most of us are not aware of that (Goldman 2003) which makes the process of constructing meaning and the values based on them relative. Another factor emphasized in the process of constructing meaning is language. The major task of a meaning theory is to show how it is possible for a language to “effectively determine the meaning of meanings” of an expression or thoughts[2]. (Davidson 2001)

?

Transformation and Change

Being aware of the factors and elements that form our views and beliefs, meanings and knowledge, and values and realities makes the transformation process easier, smoother, and more successful. Identifying these elements, be them social, economic, cultural, or political places an emphasis on their importance in shaping our views and makes it imperative to consider them as factors playing a vital role in constructing meaning and values that govern our lives and dealings. This enables us to make a “paradigm-shift” from a certain embraced as accepted set of rules, realities, meanings, and knowledge to a more scientific revolution that takes us away from the subscriptions of people (Kuhn 1996).

?

Individual Philosophy and Approach

?

When we consider the elements mentioned above, the theories discussed, the factors playing a role, and the tools used to construct meaning, the approach to oneself plan and development would be easier. Take for example personal (social) and professional (practical) levels of life and how meaning is constructed through them. On a personal level, meaning is determined and influenced by social factors. The social factors are of two folds: social factors pertaining to ethnographical characteristic, and other factors related to domain of the targeted audience. Working or living in an alien environment to your social realm and dealing with people with different understandings and beliefs of social life, traditions, and values than yours can assist you to clarify how your set of beliefs and meanings are different. On the other level of social factors are also about the people. People have certain ideas and beliefs that are not usually in total compatibility with yours and it is useful to be aware of that fact when attempting to apply your set of rules and values, understandings meanings, beliefs and knowledge to a situation that involve other people[3]. A transformation need to be made and a compromise need to be reached between what you believe and think and the others’ convictions. This can be achieved firstly by realizing the situation, and secondly by understanding the elements that affect you and others at the same time. Being different is not bad, it is simply different.

On the professional level, things are slightly easier, but the transformation is far greater. In a working environment, you need to be aware of the different styles and approaches organizations on an individual (employees) and institutional levels (management) adopt. This awareness stems from the fact that certain work cultures determine how organizations operate and many times these cultures are rooted in the social system in which the organization functions. Organizations; especially large and well-established ones have a legacy of processes and business conduct that is exceedingly difficult to change. Knowledge Management is all about cultural change which can hinder the progress of organizations when adopting new visions and strategic directions. This means that when change is needed on a business level, a cultural change needs to take place before the business process reengineering can take place and be accepted, and as a result be successful. Let us take for example a straightforward process of automating a service. Electronic governments are widely misunderstood as an automation of a traditionally provided service. When an organization adopts an e-gov (or what is currently paraphrased as Smart Governments, cities or even companies) approach and gets to the nitty-gritty of it, it all boils down to automating[4] the service and making it available online. Many of the electronic government initiatives fail because of the lack of understanding of the mission statement and how to implement that mission. There is a failure on the level of making meaning out of the purpose of being on the side of these organizations opting for an electronic government trend. The United Kingdom electronic government efforts came to standstill in 2005 after hitting that snag and had to reevaluate the whole initiative that started five years earlier that on the same year it was to launch its full electronic government services (McNabb 2007). The first step is to make a cultural change, or a paradigm-shift in the way people perceive business or government services offered, and the first step in that effort is to unify the language (and in turn the meaning) everyone is using. You need to make sure that there is no miscommunication, misconception, or mispectation[5]. This brings us back to the role of language in constructing meaning, a fact that cannot be stressed enough. The second step is identification, and this must be achieved on two levels. The first one is the identification of goals and objectives of adopting an electronic government, e-services, or digital transformation initiative[6], and the other is the identification of the differences between the two environments of traditional government processes and services offered and the new “pristine” environment that the new automated/digitalized processes would be operating within. And believe me they are vastly different that in most cases they need two different sets of processes.

To conclude, we have to state that the construction of meaning on the individual or organization levels is a process that is influenced by several factors and elements that could make the difference between a successful or a failed process. The elements could be social, political, or others. It does not matter as long as they are identified in order for individuals or organizations to make the needed paradigm-shift they are targeting. The paradigm-shift makes it possible for all stakeholders to understand the reason of being, the cause of change, and the approach of making that change happen in a more meaningful manner.

?

?

?[1] The Self refers to any entity; persona, collective persona, business organization, a government, or even the entire human race. It depends on your Economies of Scale- so to speak!

[2] Those working in translation, especially cultural translations, realize the importance of this. At the height of the culture of translation from the Greeks, the Arabs became aware of this cultural dimension, which reflected positively on their understanding and contributions to Western culture later on.

[3] This becomes BIG in your management or leadership style.

[4] Digitization, digitalization, digital transformation…they are all applicable on certain levels and at certain points of time. It all depends on scope, objective, and strategy.

[5] Coined Term? ??= Wrong Expectation

[6] You don’t want to do it because everyone else is doing it, so it is nice to have!!

?

?

References

?

Davidson, D. (2001). Inquiries into truth and interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press

Goldman, I. A. (2003). Knowledge in a social world. New York: Oxford University Press????

Kuhn, S. A. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

McNabb, D. (2007). Knowledge management in the public sector: a blueprint for innovation in government. New York: M.E. Sharpe

Nagel, T. (1997). The last word. New York: Oxford University Press

Sarup, M. (1993). An introductory guide to post-structuralism and postmodernism. London: Pearson Education Limited

Solomon, R. (2002). Spirituality for the skeptic. New York: Oxford University Press

?