ماهیت دینامیکی حسابهای اجتماعی: بررسی اینکه چگونه فرآیندهای تفسیری بر اثربخشی حساب تاثیر می گذارند  The dynamic nature of social accounts: An examination of how interpretive processes impact on account  effectiveness

1. Introduction Organizational theory tells us that effective change can be achieved by altering the mind set of organizational members so that their behaviors align with organizational goals and routines (Rouleau, 2005). Social accounts1 are a particularly effective way of achieving this change (Cobb & Wooten, 1998; Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003; Tucker, Yeow, & Viki, 2013), in seeking to alter and contradict any initial response derived from rumor or speculation, and transform behavior to the advantage of the organization. Providers of social accounts consciously use this communication tool to explain, to control (Cobb, Stephens, & Watson, 2001), or to change and mitigate behaviors which might undermine change efforts (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999). The social account specifically explains the actions of decision-makers, with the strategic aim of influencing the employment experience of organizational members (Bies, 1987; Cobb & Wooten, 1998; Folger & Cropanzano, 2001; Shaw et al., 2003). In giving a social account, the employer intentionally directs employee understanding towards a politically driven direction (Cobb et al., 2001). The aim is to create alignment between account giver and receiver (Cobb & Wooten, 1998:75), with the giver influencing the receiver’s affective reactions and behavior (Bies, 1987; De Cremer, van Dijk, & Pilluda, 2010; Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). Research has found that what information the account needs to contain (Bies, 1987; Cobb & Wooten, 1998; Frey & Cobb, 2010), and what the ideal recipient characteristics would be (Van Dijke & De Cremer, 2011) are important for accounts to successfully achieve their intended strategic outcome and change employee view-points. Theory is much less developed when we consider how social accounts get interpreted, specifically; the recipient’s active role in this process and the influence of time and context. An issue we aim to address. In social accounts literature it is often assumed that only top-down communications have the power to shape change, often conveniently separating the content of a social account from more complex human aspects of change. Social accounts are unlike other forms of communication because they are specifically given by the employer (often a manager) to the employee for the purpose of achieving a specific strategic outcome (i.e. reframing a change, putting a positive spin on the consequences of an action, or so attempting to legitimize an action by appealing to a shared goal valued by everyone). Hence, achievement of the desired strategic outcome (in relation to this initial intent) is integral to this form of communication.