p.6 Law (2004)... whose image of organizations is an unmanageable, messy, constantly infolding and unfolding mass:

"The mass has contours which may have names, but it is a matter of definition as to where and when one contour stops and another begins. The mass twists and unfolds continuously, which is why practitioners experience it as an unfolding process, a flow of possibilities, and a conjunction of events and open-ended interaction occurring in time" (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002:572).

These images mean that things that apparently seem stable, calm and constant are an illusion in a fluidly connected world.

p.6 the world is limitlessly interconnected when change and movement are inevitable parts of the perceived reality. All events are unique, even if they are reminiscent of previous events. In the perception of organizations as process, change and temporality are consistent and becoming elements, whereas the perceived stability is a linguistic construction... we can attempt to construct alternative concepts for the ones that traditionally are static. Seen from a process perspective, these alternatives can be a helpful way to orient oneself when working with organizations.

p.7 Here I have chosen to describe two significant sets of concepts to support the process view of organizations. These sets are:

1. Becoming - understood as potentiality, opportunity and actuality
2. Organization and sensemaking

p.7 "Becoming is like a (...) ceaseless activity, an enormous energy, which is constantly in the process of being produced by the very forces that it drives" (Bakthin 1986)

The word becoming has its origins in Aristotle's philosophy about man's potentiality and actuality. Potentiality describes man's opportunity space whereas actuality, according to Bergson, has to do with the present moment: "The present is only the 'tip' or 'cutting edge' of an indivisible, unfolding experience or becoming that constitutes our particular existence. The present is, then, an instance, an 'actuality'..." (Middleton & Brown 2005:64)... The word becoming is thus the interwoven process that contains potentiality and actuality.

p.7 "The notion of potentiality is fundamental for the understanding of existence, as soon as the notion of process is admitted. If the universe be interpreted in terms of static actuality, then potentiality vanishes. Everything is just what it is. Succession is mere appearance, rising from the limitation of perception. But if we start with process as fundamental, then the actualities of the present are deriving their characters from the process, and are bestowing their characters upon the future. Immediacy is the realization of the potentialities of the past, and is the storehouse of the potentialities of the future. Hope and fear, joy and disillusion, obtain their meaning from the potentialities essential in the nature of things. We are following a trail in hope, or are fleeing from the pursuit in fear. The potentialities in immediate fact constitute the driving force of process." [Whitehead (1938:99-100) [cited in] Hernes 2006:60]

p.8 As described by Whitehead in 1938, there is a risk that potentiality may disappear if the world is described only through the static nature of actuality. According to Whitehead, in such cases there is a danger that organizational movements will stop... Through the process view, both actuality and potentiality are present in the event. This results in the organization always being on its way to becoming something different as well as always "to be repeated in a moment of becoming in a new and different form" (Deleuze 2005: 38). When potentiality and actuality are present, one can speak of the organization being in a state of becoming. The concept of becoming should help us maintain the process view of the organization as a whole.

p.8 Weick goes on to say that we are always forced to work with words and visual models that are simpler than the world we are trying to organize.

p.9 From this understanding of process, the fundamental instability and infinite interpretations of language mean that sense is a fluid phenomenon that moves across time and space (H. Bergson in Mittleton & Brown 2005:65). This in turn means that sense is instable [JLJ - 'unstable' might be intended here] and that we thus inevitably take part in a constant process of sensemaking through our linguistic acts.

p.10 What does it mean, this moveable and living view of our organization and our work as constructionists moving towards something that is perpetually becoming something else? It presents us with an opportunity to deconstruct the image we call organizational stability in order to see organizations as constant changes and movements. It gives rise to a new inevitable creativity, because we break with all notions of stability. Everything becomes possible.

p.10 Here are a few non-empirical assertions, in relation to working with organizing based on a process theoretical perception... By not perceiving organizations as constant changes, streams of interactions and conversations and as a flow of situated initiatives, we make it difficult to overcome the issues that we are faced with today... We must stop talking about development plans and innovation projects that aim for specific results... Everyone is already changing - work on their potentiality... The constantly emerging relationship between individuals is the most interesting language game to develop, because organizations cannot exist without relationships. Here constructing dialogues becomes essential