##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Alba Maria del Carmen González-Vega https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4660-5075

Juan Morúa Ramírez https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5080-5243

Alejandra López Salazar https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3927-9603

Sergio Méndez Valencia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6865-6661

Abstract

Organizational intervention, from the traditional viewpoint, overlooks the subjective and political dimensions, which establishes the need for critical approaches that integrate the complexity of organizations. Considering this, two questions arise: How can the manifestation of organizational dysfunctions be provoked from the perspective of the subjects? What tool should be used to construct the diagnosis prior to intervention? The objective of this research is to propose a way of constructing organizational diagnoses prior to intervention from a constructionist perspective, using the organizational dysfunctions of the MAGESE method as discursive and analytical devices that favor the collective construction of meanings regarding organizational reality. Methodologically, the study is based on an intervention in two organizations in Mexico (a public school and a small enterprise) through a multiple case study. Data collection comprised 17 semi-structured interviews—which captured the experience of the subjects without restricting contextual specificities—non-participant observation, and documentary analysis. The findings show the importance of rethinking intervention from a critical approach that prioritizes dialogue among actors for the joint construction of reality, as well as the need for tools that serve both to establish the initial diagnosis and to carry out the subsequent comparison and evidence the changes. Likewise, the results show the analytical potential of the method for identifying critical and structural dysfunctions in both organizations. It is concluded that qualitative methodology is a valuable resource for in-depth organizational diagnoses, since it allows access to the subjective and political dimensions of organizational life and generates inputs to guide intervention processes, underscoring the relevance of the sustainability of changes. Finally, it is acknowledged as a limitation that the proposal does not possess a universal character but rather is constituted as a methodological strategy aimed at initiating intervention processes in organizations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Section
Empirical Studies with Methodological Reflection

How to Cite

González-Vega, A. M. del C., Ramírez, J. M., Salazar, A. L., & Valencia, S. M. (2026). Organizational Intervention: A Qualitative Analysis Using The Magese Method. New Trends in Qualitative Research, 22(4), e1351. https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.22.4.2026.e1351
References

Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (1996). Critical theory and postmodernism approaches to organizational studies. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 255–283). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030.n8

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1968). La construcción social de la realidad. Amorrortu.

Cabrera-Quezada, M. E. (2025). Intervención social en contextos de vulnerabilidad. Biblioteca Ciencia Latina. https://doi.org/10.37811/cli_w1191

Carrillo-Andrés, S. A., Martínez-Cervantes, N. F., & Morales Franco, E. (2015). De la consultoría a la intervención, algunas consideraciones. Gestión y Estrategia, (48), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.24275/uam/azc/dcsh/gye/2015n48/Carrillo

Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (1990). El actor y el sistema. Alianza.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2024). Organization development and change (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Espinosa Infante, E., & Lozano Carrillo, O. (2017). La intervención en las organizaciones: Apuntes para pensar su importancia. En E. Espinosa Infante (Ed.), Diferentes miradas en la organización (pp. 241–272). Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Azcapotzalco. https://doi.org/10.24275/uama.8714.8915

Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

Flick, U. (2015). El diseño de la investigación cualitativa. Morata.

Geertz, C. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford University Press.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/258605

González Vega, A. M. del C., Vázquez Arellano, L. E., & Ramos García, J. M. (2021). La observación en el estudio de las organizaciones. New Trends in Qualitative Research, 5, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.5.2021.71-82

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.

Marshak, R. J. (2006). Covert processes at work: Managing the five hidden dimensions of organizational change. Berrett-Koehler.

Mintzberg, H. (2002). La estructuración de las organizaciones (7.ª ed.). Ariel.

Montaño, L. (2009). Organisational models and culture: A reflection from Latin America. European Journal of International Management, 3(2), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2009.024319

Montaño, L., & Rendón, M. (2015). La intervención organizacional como dispositivo de dilucidación de la responsabilidad social. Gestión y Estrategia, (48), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.24275/uam/azc/dcsh/gye/2015n48/Montano

Morúa-Ramírez, J. (2022). El emprendedor, entre lo dinámico y lo cognitivo: Bases teóricas y de intervención. Fontamara.

Morúa-Ramírez, J., & Méndez-Valencia, S. (2024a). Diseño y uso de indicadores de desempeño para fenómenos dinámicos: Una reflexión constructivista. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 30(4), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.31876/rcs.v30i4.42979

Morúa-Ramírez, J., & Méndez-Valencia, S. (2024b). Metodología cualitativa y los procesos de intervención. En C. A. Rodríguez Castañón & J. C. Neri Guzmán (Eds.), Metodología de la investigación: Recomendaciones prácticas por científicos mexicanos (pp. 82–93). FIDSO.

Pacheco, A. (2015). Intervención organizacional: Primeras aproximaciones conceptuales. Gestión y Estrategia, (48), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.24275/uam/azc/dcsh/gye/2015n48/Pacheco

Ramírez Martínez, G., Vargas Larios, G., & de la Rosa Alburquerque, A. (2011). Estudios organizacionales y administración. Contrastes y complementariedades: Caminando hacia el eslabón perdido. Fórum Doctoral, (3), 7–51. https://publicaciones.eafit.edu.co/index.php/forum-doctoral/article/view/2771

Savall, H. (2003). An updated presentation of the socio-economic management model. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810310459756

Savall, H., Zardet, V., & Bonnet, M. (2008). Mejorar los desempeños ocultos de las empresas a través de una gestión socioeconómica. Organización Internacional del Trabajo; ISEOR.

Schutz, A. (1993). La construcción significativa del mundo social: Introducción a la sociología comprensiva. Paidós.

Weber, M. (1983). Economía y sociedad. Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.