Making sense of social performance
Tecla Hoekstra
1384503
University of Groningen
MscBA Change Management
Faculty of Economics and Business
Internal supervisors: drs. A.J.E. Schilder & dr. K.S. Prins
External supervisor: drs. R. Jeukens
Hoffman Krul & Partners Management Consultants Businesspark Friesland west 27
Making sense of social performance
“If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there”
(The Cheshire cat, Alice in Wonderland)
ABSTRACT
This research focuses on the relationship between the theory of sensemaking and the social performance of social housing associations. Case study research is used to examine how sensemaking can contribute to the social performance of social housing associations. Furthermore, the variables that lead to joint sensemaking are defined. The results indicate that joint sensemaking between a social housing association and its stakeholders lead to a constructive relationship, increased acceptance of project plans and knowledge about the desired social performance outcomes in a neighbourhood. Variables that lead to joint sensemaking are a conscious selection of stakeholders, a focus on the construction of joint goals and the concretization of these goals. In the discussion, the implications for practice as well as theory are discussed.
Key words: Joint sensemaking, social performance, social housing associations
Acknowledgments
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION ...4
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ...6
2.1 Regulatory Framework of Social Housing Associations...6
2.2 Mapping Social Performance ...7
2.3 Sensemaking...8
Characteristics of Sensemaking ...9
Process of Joint Sensemaking... 11
3. METHOD ... 14
3.1 Data Collection ... 14
3.2 Data Analysis ... 15
4. DATA ANALYSIS ... 17
4.1 Within Case Analysis ... 17
4.2 Cross Case Analysis... 24
5. DISCUSSION... 27
5.1 Conclusions ... 27
5.2 Areas for Future Research ... 29
5.3 Limitations... 30
1. INTRODUCTION
“The social rented housing in the Netherlands has always had a very special place within European housing. It has been famous for its large market share (41 per cent of the total housing stock in the early 1990s), its relatively high quality and, mainly as a result of these two aspects, the relatively large numbers of tenant households who do not have a low income and live in social rented dwellings because they choose to live there” (Van Kempen & Priemus, 2002). The ministry of “Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer” (VROM) acknowledges that social housing agencies play a very important role in the society. However, the current role and functioning of the agencies is subject to discussion (VROM-raad, 2005). The image of the sector is poor because agencies are downplayed as being arrogant and disregarding to the quality of life within their neighbourhoods. Van Kempen & Priemus (2002) state that this negative image is further strengthened by the press who frequently mention the areas dominated by social rented dwellings as ‘problem areas’. According to Pieter Winsemius, a former minister of VROM, these so called problem areas have high unemployment rates, a low feeling of safety that together with violent behaviour of the youth brings along more and more problems (Volkskrant, 2006).
Social housing associations are furthermore criticised by the government for their huge financial assets. The former minister of the ministry of “Wonen, Wijken en Integratie”, Ella Vogelaar, therefore recently argued that associations should invest 250 million within the next ten years. This money should be spent to increase the liveability within the forty “attention areas” (Vogelaarwijken) appointed by Vogelaar (Volkskrant, 2008). Through their central position in neighbourhoods, social housing associations are assigned a central position in addressing these neighbourhood problems (VROM-raad, 2005; SER, 2005). In the “Actieplan Krachtwijken” the ministry of VROM (2007) implies that joint effort of both tenants and local organisations, such as social housing associations, is essential for the success of neighbourhood projects. Social housing associations therefore, more and more address their social responsibility and actively define a social agenda.
Conijn (2005) implies that as a result of this ambiguous context, the social performances of social housing associations do not always reflect the social needs of stakeholders. In other words, social housing associations are not always capable of assessing the social needs of their stakeholders. The central question underlying this research therefore is:
How can social housing associations make sense of their social performance?
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In this section the central question will be further justified, explained and elaborated. More focus will be given to the role of social housing associations and the current debate about their social performance. Furthermore, the theory of sensemaking will discussed as a method which social housing associations can use to make sense of their social performance. Last, the central question will further translated into two research questions and a conceptual model.
2.1 Regulatory Framework of Social Housing Associations
Since their privatisation in 1995 social housing associations are characterized as social entrepreneurs. According to Gruis (2007), this designation was introduced to indicate the new position of social housing associations between government, market and society. Committee de Boer (2005) furthermore argues that associations, in their position as social entrepreneurs, should take their tenants seriously, deliver value for money and practice their social position as optimal as possible.
In 1995 a new regulatory framework was developed for social housing associations which focused on measuring social policy outputs. In the “Besluit beheer sociale huursector” (BBSH, 1995) the ministry of VROM, in conjunction with the associations, specified five key performance targets:
- Improve the quality of the properties and ensuring long term maintenance standards; - Work at maintaining or improving the liveability of neighbourhoods;
- Encourage a sufficient supply of appropriate care and aid facilities for special groups, such as the elderly and the handicapped;
- House the target group (households with an income up to the modal point) on a preferential basis;
- Consult with the tenants on a regular basis regarding general and financial policy.
By appointing the liveability of neighbourhoods as a responsibility of social housing associations it has been made clear that although the care for liveability of neighbourhoods was originally the primary concern of the local authorities, associations need to contribute to this task because of their responsibility for the properties within those neighbourhoods (VROM Inspectie, 2004). However, the content of the performance targets are not precisely determined within the BBSH and consequently grant much space for interpretation. Furthermore, the supervision on these performance standards is complicated (Conijn, 2005). For social housing associations this means that within the boundary conditions of the BBSH there is still much leeway.
with their stakeholders whereas others emphasize the importance of an effective conduct of business. Furthermore, there are also associations who profile themselves as broad organisations that operate between living, care and wellbeing”. The differences that originate from this leeway are, according to Committee de Boer (2005), beneficial for the development of ‘best practices’ and the vitality of the sector. However, considering recent debates about the functioning of social housing associations, these best practices are yet to be found.
2.2 Mapping Social Performance
The broadly defined performance standards in the BBSH and the variety of contexts in which associations operate, arouse much discussion in practice as well as in politics. Conijn (2005) argues that in the report “Mensen, Wensen, Wonen” of VROM (2000) an initiative is started to formulate more concrete performance standards for social housing associations. This report was however not translated in actual legislation. Conijn (2005) stresses that the concretisation of the performance standards was certainly a step in the right direction. However, the strong hierarchical directing concept that was combined led to a lot of criticism because space to manoeuvre is needed to meet the challenges at the local level. Therefore, more and more associations, local authorities and other stakeholders work with performance agreements at the local level.
The vague formulations of the BBSH performance standards make it in any case hard, if not impossible, to judge the performance of social housing associations on effectiveness. To gain insight in this effectiveness it is, according to Conijn (2005) necessary to know what the desired social performance is. If this information is known, the actual performance can be compared to the desired performance. For associations it is however hard to gain insight in both their actual performance and the desired performance. Schouten en Remmé (2006) state that the reality of good business performance is constructed via different stakeholders’ views. In the case of social housing associations, these views are not universal and very subjective because each neighbourhood has its own dynamics and each tenant has a different view on for example the desired liveability, quality of properties and supply of care facilities in the neighbourhood. Deuten and de Kam (2007) acknowledge this notion an started an initiative to map the social performance of social housing associations. They claim that associations, as social entrepreneurs, should start an active dialogue with their stakeholders in order to discover the desired social outcomes.
FIGURE 1
Mapping Social Performance
Source: Adapted from Deuten and de Kam (2007)
According to Deuten and the Kam (2007) social performance can be understood by mapping the following aspects:
- Outcome: the desired social agenda (for example: Increased feelings of safety) - Output: the undertaken activities (for example: Removal of graffiti)
- Input: the investments expressed in financial and organisational resources (for example: €9.000)
According to figure 1, the first step in the process of reaching social performance is the definition of the outcome. Thorborg, Leidelmeier and Dassen (2007) conclude that this is not an easy step. In their research they take the example of the outcome “liveability” and state that: “Liveability is defined with much variation within different contexts. Agreement has been reached about the physical and the social dimensions as well as the objective and the subjective dimensions of the conception of livelihood. (…) The aim for uniformity in a practical definition of livelihood, for the ‘ultimate’ definition or for an irrevocable list of characteristics is discouraged.” In one neighbourhood or even in one household, differing opinions of the desired social outcome can be present. Tenants from differing age groups for example, will have corresponding differing views on “a safe neighbourhood”, “a nice neighbourhood” and “sufficient care facilities”. These differing context makes it hard for social housing associations to define a social agenda.
The social housing association, together with its stakeholders, should find a way in which they can jointly define the social agenda within this context. In this research the theory of sensemaking will be proposed, for it actively deals with the ambiguous context in which social housing associations operate and it provides support for social housing associations when dealing with stakeholders. The theory of sensemaking will be discussed in the next paragraph.
2.3 Sensemaking
Jeong & Brower (2008) delineate the process of organisational sensemaking in three stages: noticing, interpretation and action. They stress that noticing is a process in which individuals in organisations indicate to themselves some things in the outward situations, and in doing so mentally project their problematic plan of action. Otherwise stated, sensemaking can only occur when some things (cues) are noticed. Interpretation takes place when the individual connects these cues into a frame of references. Only in this way, the meaning of the cue can emerge. Noticing and bracketing is an incipient state of sensemaking. In this context sensemaking means basically “inventing a new meaning (interpretation) for something that has already occurred during the organizing process, but does not yet have a name, has never been recognized as a separate autonomous process, object, event. When bracketing occurs, the world is simplified” (Weick et al. 2005). Action is a process through which the individual makes real, or turns into reality, the idealized plan of action that is represented in his or her mind (Weick, 2001). This process is an issue of language, talk and communication. Situations, organisations and environments are talked into existence. From there, new cues can be the base for further noticing, interpretation and action.
Next, sensemaking will be elaborated by focussing on its characteristics and on the more practical process of joint sensemaking.
Characteristics of Sensemaking
Sensemaking will be further discussed by presenting the seven characteristics as stated by Weick (1995): grounded in identity construction, retrospective, enactive of sensible environments, social, ongoing, focused on and by extracted cues and driven by plausibility rather than accuracy.
1. Grounded in identity construction
Brickson (2007) proposes organisational identity as a construct that consists of participants’ shared perceptions of what their organisation is, thereby driving motivation and behaviour. Diagnosing the sensemaking processes of individuals might give insight in the identity of individuals in organisations and consequently it might explain why some firms act differently from others who face a similar external demand (Basu & Palazzo, 2008, 124).
2. Retrospective
3. Enactive of sensible environments
The construction of reality, as argued by Parry (2003, 243), takes place because people or organisations produce and construct the environment they face. “They act and in doing so create the materials that become the constraints and opportunities they face” (Weick, 1995, 13).
4. Social
Jeong & Brower (2008) stress that sensemaking in organisations is virtually sensemaking by individuals in interaction. This implies that the concept of sensemaking emerges out of the process of social interaction. “Considering that sensemaking is conscious meaning construction, this implication enlightens us that social interaction is a crucial mechanism enabling individual actors to engage in a conscious mode of meaning construction (Jeong & Brower, 2008, 241).
5. Ongoing
“It never starts because it never stops. You are always in the middle of sensemaking and your map is constantly updating” (Parry, 2003, 244). A person acts, makes sense of her actions, and then acts again, guided by the sense that she has already made (Seligman, 2002).
6. Focused on and by extracted cues
“People make sense by extrapolating from familiar points of reference, or simple seeds which trigger a larger sense of what may be happening” (Parry, 2003, 244). Jeong & Brower (2008) further elaborate this by stating that in order for the individual to make sense of some things, it requires that the individual takes notice of those things in particular. They further claim that noticing is a process in which the individual actors single out some problematic stimuli as cues for further conscious processing out of their streams of experience. Weick (1995) emphasizes that to make sense of some things; people must notice the things that create the sensation.
7. Driven by plausibility rather than accuracy
Weick views the characteristics only as a rough guideline: “This listing is more like an observer’s manual or a set of raw materials for disciplined imagination than it is a tactic set of propositions to be refined and tested” (Weick, 1995, 18). The characteristics also do not give support for individuals or organisations who want to engage in sensemaking. Therefore, in the next paragraph, the process of joint sensemaking will be proposed as a process that can support organisations that want to engage in sensemaking.
Process of Joint Sensemaking
The interpretation and realisation of the firm’s social responsibilities are, according to Pater & Lierop (2006), shaped by the way the organisation interacts with its stakeholders. Hence, for organisations operating in complex environments, it is essential to understand how its stakeholders make sense of reality (Pater & Lierop, 2006). Although the idea of sensemaking is often applied in an organisational context, less attention has been paid to sensemaking processes among organisational stakeholders (Mailtis, 2005). The process of sensemaking leads an organisation to view its relationships with stakeholders in particular ways, which, in turn, influence its engagement with them (Basu and Palazzo, 2008; Schouten & Remmé, 2006). A model of sensemaking (figure 2) is proposed by Schouten and Remmé (2006) which can be used to give substance to stakeholder engagement.
FIGURE 2 Joint Sensemaking
Source: Schouten and Remmé (2006)
In this model, we find the combination that is so typical of Weick’s sensemaking concepts: both the organisation and the stakeholders will in some way engage in sensemaking both independent from
each other, in their interaction and in the processes of growth that result from the retrospective learning that fuels sensemaking (Weick et al, 2005).
The need for joint sensemaking originates when the organisation or one of its stakeholders confront events, situations or issues that are ambiguous or confusing. Also, misunderstandings in language can arise the need for joint sensemaking. The first step in the model therefore is to examine this misunderstanding or confusing situation. The second step in the process is that the organisation should select relevant stakeholders (or visa versa, depending on who takes the initiative for joint sensemaking) with which the issues should be discussed in order to make sense of the situation. Schouten and Remmé (2006) state that the third step of the joint sensemaking process is to map the sensemaking that each stakeholder is experiencing and, then, mapping the dialogue between them as a process of ‘joint sensemaking’. Joint sensemaking means that the company and its stakeholders jointly make sense of the specific challenge and of each other’s related opinions and terms of reference, and that they try to connect with each other in the thus established meaning (sensegiving)”. Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) explain the differences between sensemaking and sensegiving by arguing that sensemaking has to do with the construction of meaning by the involved parties as they attempt to develop a meaningful framework for understanding the current issues. Sensegiving on the other hand is concerned with the process of attempting to influence the sensemaking and meaning construction of others toward a shared redefinition of organisational reality. In this stage of action and engagement parties are striving for mutual understanding. Last, reflection and understanding of the discussed issues gives insight in the success of the joint sensemaking process. As already stated, sensemaking is ongoing; making joint sense of a situation or issue will provide grounds for further joint sensemaking.
Schouten & Remmé (2006) state that the process of joint sensemaking through listening to local stakeholders determines the success of dealing with business challenges. The competencies of listening, reflection and making joint sense of the situation are crucial. The relevance of joint sensemaking to the situation of social housing associations appears to be clear; “explicit efforts at sensemaking tend to occur when the current state of the world is perceived to be different from the expected state of the world or when there is no obvious way to engage the world” (Weick et al, 2005). Considering the current debates about the functioning and performance of social housing associations, the existing situation is clearly not satisfactory. The desired situation however, in terms of transparency and addressing social performance, is hard to define.
Based on the above, the following research question arises:
1) In which way can joint sensemaking contribute to the social performance of social housing associations?
Ifvarsson (2000) argues that sensemaking is an area of research where knowledge is lacking and where the creation of new knowledge is needed. The model presented in figure 2 does not give any substance for practical use of joint sensemaking by social housing associations. Which is why additional research for the variables that lead to joint sensemaking would be valuable. Therefore, to supplement the first research question, the second research question is stated as:
2) Which variables lead to joint sensemaking by social housing associations?
The conceptual model that results from the discussed topics can be pictured as:
FIGURE 3 Conceptual Model
Source: Author (2009)
In this model, the answers to the first research question are the mediating factors. The answers to the second research question are the variables that lead to joint sensemaking. In the next section the research methods that are applied in this research are pictured. The data collection method as well as the data analysis will be discussed.
Joint sensemaking Social performance
Variables
3. METHOD
This research used a qualitative methodology to address its two research questions. According to Gioia & Thomas (1996) qualitative methods are well suited to the study of dynamic processes, especially where these processes are constituted of individuals’ interpretations. “Because qualitative research typically examines issues from the perspective of the participant (rather than from that of the researcher), it is especially appropriate, and therefore frequently used, in the study of organisations members’ constructions and accounts” (Maitlis, 2005).
3.1 Data Collection
In this research a total of ten cases were examined for answering the two research questions. While cases could have been chosen randomly, random selection was neither necessary, nor even preferable because the goal of theoretical sampling was to choose cases that were likely to replicate or extend the emergent theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). For this reason, the social housing associations that were interviewed were chosen for their active approach in defining their social performance. The interviewees were four management consultants from the consultancy firm Hoffman Krul & Partners and five existing contact persons of these management consultants. Four of these contact persons were strategic directors and managers of the particular social housing associations who were actively involved in the strategic decision making within the association. The associations were located in different cities across the Netherlands. The interviewed consultants were not selected randomly, but instead were chosen for their expertise within the field of social housing and their former position as managing directors of social housing agencies. The employee of the department of “Ruimtelijke Ordening en Economische Zaken” (ROEZ) was particularly chosen for his major role in the realization of the performance agreements between the local authorities and the social housing associations in that particular city. Last, one consultant was selected due to his former position as project leader in the project of increasing the liveability in one of the forty ‘Vogelaarwijken’.
After the assignment there was a discussion how joint sensemaking could contribute to the social performance of social housing associations. The important answers that resulted from this discussion and the differing reference frames of the participants served as input for the semi structured interviews. In addition, also answers to the research questions were given by the participants.
Before the interviews began, a short introduction into the theory of joint sensemaking was given to the interviewees. Consequently, the interviewees were asked to describe their experience in joint sensemaking. Examples were given by the interviewees in which joint sensemaking had taken place. Further questions depended on the given answers of the interviewee. The goal of the interviews was to explore how the joint sensemaking process took place in the described setting and what kind of social performance results the process had on the short and on the long term. Furthermore, questions were asked which variables did and did not stimulated the joint sensemaking process. The interviewees were given freedom of speech in order to create an opportunity for rich data collection and to reduce the effect of the researcher’s bias as much as possible. In this way, often multiple answers were given to research question one and research question two. Throughout the interviews notes were made about what was said by the interviewees. From these notes the interviews were drafted into a concept version of the interview report. The interviewees provided archival sources, like annual plans, analysis reports, business plans and project plans, that were used to supplement the given answers. The interview report was send back to the interviewees for verification. Anonymity was guaranteed to all interviewees.
Closure of the data collection was reached when saturation had occurred, or in other words, when the incremental improvements to theory were minimal (Eisenhardt, 1989; Suddaby, 2006).
3.2 Data Analysis
4. DATA ANALYSIS
To compare the cases with one another, both within case analysis and cross case analysis were used in this research. By doing so, generalizations that represent multiple accounts could be created.
4.1 Within Case Analysis
The answers given by interviewees to both research questions are shown below. This in-dept within analysis allows the unique patterns of each case to emerge before the researcher generates patterns across cases. Also, this within case analysis gives a rich familiarity with each case, which accelerates cross-case comparison (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Case 1
During the interactive workshop individual sensemaking, sensegiving and joint sensemaking were explained to the participants. The output of these discussions were several views on how sensemaking could contribute to the social performance of social housing associations. First, the consultants and the employees of the social housing association argued that it would be an attractive and useful theory to make subjects discussable, in for example mission and vision sessions and in merger processes. Second, they inclined that sensemaking would be beneficial in the process to reach agreement with stakeholders on visions and goals and when work needed to get synchronized. Third, they stated that to make conscious decisions and to jointly define short and long term goals with stakeholders, sensemaking was needed. And last, sensemaking would be beneficial when concrete goals, for example the liveability in neighbourhoods are to be defined and as a tool to decide on which grounds associations should work together with stakeholders.
Case 2
A city in the north of the Netherlands has a tradition of cooperation between the community and the social housing associations. Both parties acknowledge that they are important stakeholders of each other and that they share the same goals:
“This intense cooperation between the community and social housing associations strengthens the feeling of togetherness. Both parties are intrinsically motivated to contribute to this city, because we are proud of it”.
associations was important input for discussion. The associations proposed the assignment of more responsibility to the tenants in the neighbourhoods. By only drafting the boundary conditions for each neighbourhood, tenants and local organisations could have more leeway to increase the liveability within their own neighbourhood. Professionals and tenants should make neighbourhood investments plans, in which they could assign money to the preferred plans. Initially, this proposal was not enthusiastically accepted by all twenty five members. The smaller associations felt left out. Also, the community reacted reserved. Formerly, these kinds of budgets had to pass the community council for approval. The proposed plans did not include this step. Furthermore, some community officials had their own agenda because they represented a specific policy domain. From that frame of reference they contributed with their individual sensemaking process. To overcome the differences in expectations and lack of enthusiasm the project leader led them to see the bigger picture; the end goal. Every party involved wanted more liveable neighbourhoods. In a very pragmatic way the project leader encouraged sensegiving processes, in which the parties should come to an agreement. In the end the proposed plan was altered in a few domains, but the basic idea remained the same. The results after two days were concrete performance agreements to increase the liveability within the neighbourhoods. Tenants can increase the liveability in their neighbourhoods in the way they desire and are assisted by professionals. The budget for the plans comes from the community and the associations. In this way, tenants have the feeling they can make a difference. By these activities trust can be restored in the neighbourhoods. In a few years, a survey among inhabitants of the city can give insight in the long term results of the performance agreements.
Case 3
A social housing association situated in the east of the Netherlands became more and more aware of the increasing needs of tenants. These tenants were for example the elderly who needed extra care facilities in and around their house. For this reason the association decided to collaborate with the local care organisations.
“The choice for these particular care organisations was legitimated because of their explicit expertise in the area of care and wellbeing”.
of the desires and wishes of tenants was an important input for the project. Resistance occurred however, when this vision was further translated into individual contributions to the project and individual consequences of the desired outcomes. By addressing the different opinions in discussions and meetings parties had the possibility to address the source of this resistance. An external project leader guided these discussions. Retaining the focus on the shared vision was beneficial to this process. It was important to constantly keep the focus on concrete customer directed plans during these meetings because in this way, it was prevented that personal stakes would influence the project. Moreover, the intensive focus on agreement and shared goals increased the acceptance of the project plans. Furthermore, informal contact increased between the project members which led to more sociability.
Case 4
A viable city is an important objective for a social housing association situated in the north of the Netherlands. By making an “agenda for the future” the association gave their stakeholders the possibility to give feedback on their plans of the coming year. Important stakeholders were the municipality, social housing associations, care homes, institutions, tenants and educational institutions. These stakeholders were chosen for the fact that they emitted the energy and the willingness needed for the plans. Also, the potential extra value stakeholders could deliver to the plans was an important criterion. The involved parties received the agenda in order for them to prepare feedback on the plans of the association. Consequently, meetings were held with the involved parties to acquire their vision on a ‘liveable and complete’ city. The goals of these meetings were to stimulate bonding between the local parties as a basis for further cooperation.
“Conflicts of interest were definitely present during discussions. It was important to make clear choices between these different interests and to simultaneously clarify these choices.”
This way, stakeholders could influence the future of the association. But nevertheless, the responsibility for these plans remained with the association. A technical chairman led these discussions and made sure that parties were open to one another. This openness was important to reach the undisclosed interests of individuals. The discussions worked towards conceptualizing an accurate, mutual (problem) analysis. Together with this analysis, the focus of the discussions aimed at the desired outcomes of the plans. This focus prevented parties would lose sight of the end goal. Also, mutual understanding was stimulated by making sure parties spoke the same language.
Case 5
look beyond their own frame of reference to the common goal were invited to join the project. Those parties that remained radiated the energy that was needed. This energy came from their drive to contribute to their social responsibilities. Furthermore, they understood that cooperation was needed in this project. The meetings were regarded successful when consensus about the project goals and plans was reached. Preventing that people would not speak on the same level was done by clearly appointing the desired social outcomes and by making concrete project plans. Working in this way produced much energy. De right individuals were present during meetings and the cooperation was convenient and efficient. Focussing on the common goal certainly contributed to these results.
“It was not necessary to look for the objective truth; it was sufficient for the parties to reach consensus on a common goal.”
During discussions the priorities each party had were brought to the attention and different opinions were accepted. Making choices between these differing priorities and opinions was done in a transparent way.
Case 6
In the daily business of the social housing association in the east of the Netherlands the human being is central; the city is considered to be a living mechanism. Addressing their social responsibility is done in both a reactive and a pro-active way. At the district level geographical entities are addressed. The association and local professionals jointly work to increase the vitality of these districts. They consider it to be of great importance to listen to the needs of tenants when drawing up project plans. At the neighbourhood level the term liveability plays an important role:
“Only tenants can outline the liveability in their neighbourhood. Outputs that are desirable for one tenant may be dreadful for others. Differing living environments are necessary.”
capacity. Actively working together with stakeholders increases the acceptance for the liveability activities. Evidence of this can be found in the local newspapers. On the long run the goals of this cooperation are a less divided city, more possibilities for tenants and more empowerment of tenants. These goals are translated in the business plan in the form of ambitions, success factors and boundary conditions. If possible the association aims to use time-lines and measurable output. In this way the goals are made workable.
Case 7
A social housing association situated in the west of the Netherlands considers itself to be a social organisation. The goal of the association is to help people climb the metaphorical ladder; in first place the housing ladder. But it could also be the social ladder. According to this association, liveability is equal to the experience of the individual. For that reason, copying neighbourhood plans from other cities or even from the same city is useless. Each neighbourhood has its own dynamics and asks for custom made plans. The social housing association chooses to work at the lowest aggregation level; a neighbourhood or a complex (for example a flat or family houses). In contrast to the community, associations generally have the advantage that they are closer to their tenants. During neighbourhood control meetings the needs and desires come forward. Tenants, the police, the social housing association, employees of care institutions and civil servants attend these meetings. These stakeholders are local actors who often also live and work in the neighbourhood. These individuals have the same common goal; an appealing, vigorous and liveable neighbourhood. In this way individual initiatives for neighbourhood improvement are easier accepted and thus more effective. This easy accessible way of working is appreciated by the local parties. Prove of this can be found in the results of the liveability investigation. By means of written and telephone questionnaires measurement of inhabitant satisfaction is measured. The results indicate that tenants really appreciate the performances in the neighbourhoods of the city.
“The intensive cooperation with local stakeholders on neighbourhood level gives insight in the problems present in neighbourhoods. Stakeholders can learn from each others experience and can gain better insight in the target groups”.
Translating the strategy into concrete plans is difficult. A confusion of tongues between these two levels is common.
Case 8
A social housing association in the west of the Netherlands positions itself as a social organization. The business units of the associations have their own social plan for their own districts. This way of working ensures that the association has close ties with its tenants and that are aware if problems are present in neighbourhoods. The joint goal of each business unit is to develop successful living environments and viable neighbourhoods. Every tenant has a different definition of a viable and liveable neighbourhood. The association sees ‘empowerment’ of tenants as the best way to overcome this subjectivity. Working with social capital asks for more guidance on social performances. For that reason, the association is open to an active dialogue with its stakeholders. Performance indicators used in districts are often larger than the task of the association. Consequently, in cooperation with local parties an explicit social agenda was defined. Surplus value was created by this cooperation between local parties and the association, because it prevented overlap between activities addressing the same problems. Furthermore, each stakeholder looked at the neighbourhood from its own frame of reference and expertise. In this way, mutual learning was stimulated. Local parties for cooperation were chosen on intuition; often these parties had congruent social goals in the neighbourhoods. Moreover, these parties were willing to invest their time and energy in the projects. The association, tenants and these local parties were intrinsically motivated to address the problems at hand. Acceptance of project goals and ambition to reach these goals were very important. However, conflicts of interests between the various parties were inevitable. In case of conflict, it was needed to balance the ambitions of the associations with the expressed opinions in a transparent way. Personal interests of individuals were sometimes mixed up in arguments. These statements were ignored as much as possible for they did not lead to constructive discussions.
“The focus of discussions should lie on those parts that bind the parties. Differences will always remain present. Cooperating parties should however always keep a constructive working relationship”
This open attitude of the association offers more effective social performance results as a result of a better fit between project plans and desires from tenants and local parties. By letting these stakeholders participate in the process, projects are better accepted. Furthermore, tenants can express their view on a liveable and viable neighbourhood more clearly. By justifying the choices the association makes between the differing social interests and tasks, more transparency is created.
Case 9
organisation the association saw opportunities to invest outside their region. The community agreed with this plan on the condition that its members would concede. The chairman of the association led the first members meetings. Tenants, councillors and members of the tenants association were present. The proposal was to invest money in a social project initiated in another city. The association decided to proceed with these plans on the condition that there would be sufficient social acceptance. At first the members reacted negatively. Their arguments were that the money should not be wasted in a vague project and they had some doubts about the amount of surplus financial assets of the association. Agreements were met with tenants, members and councillors to define some boundary conditions in order to deal with these insecurities. During the process of nine months the association always took the feedback seriously.
“Furthermore, the association actively tried to translate the plans to the experience of tenants, members and councillors. It was very important to speak the same language.”
The persons present at this meetings on their turn had the feeling they could influence the boundary conditions of the project. Discussions were not made personal but were always focussed on the content of the situation at hand. An indirect result of this approach was a change of culture. Formerly, a poor relationship between the association and its tenants existed. However, at the end of the project less resistance from tenants was experienced overall. Also, there were less discussions on plans and proposals. Legitimating opinions and decisions based on power position fortunately did not occur within this project. A previous experience with this way of working learned that is was not beneficial for the project.
Case 10
and actively listened to the discussion. By means of voting, the most important opportunities were listed.
“For the social housing associations it was very informative to listen to the different views and opinions of the different stakeholders. Differing frames of references gave insight in the current situation in the neighbourhood.”
The result of the ‘Kans Spel’ was that the social agenda was put forward. After the game, the social housing association knew what matters are important for its stakeholders. On the web log of the association positive reactions from stakeholders were found.
4.2 Cross Case Analysis
Coupled with within-case analysis is the cross-case search for patterns. This analysis is performed by selecting categories before looking for within-group similarities. In table 1 and table 2 these categories are displayed. The mediating factors in table 1 and the variables of table 2 correspond with the drafted conceptual model.
TABLE 1
RQ1: How Joint Sensemaking Can Contribute to the Social Performance of Social Housing Associations
Case Mediating factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
An increased feeling of tenants that their voice is heard x x
Making conscious decisions with stakeholders x
Reaching agreement and to focus on a joint vision and on joint goals x x x Decide on which grounds stakeholders should work together x
Preventing that personal stakes are put forward x x
Increased acceptance of project plans x x x x x
Establishing a constructive relationship between the association and stakeholders x x x x x x x
Making matters discussable x
Increasing mutual learning and replenishment between parties x x
Defining concrete performance agreements x
Knowing the desired outcome in neighbourhoods x x x x x
Source: Author (2009)
sensegiving of the stakeholders. The interviewee in case 6 indicated that prove of this shared acceptance could be even be found in the local newspaper. Case 8 and 9 demonstrated that increased acceptance of project plans occurred because stakeholders could share their frame of reference and through sensegiving could influence the shared meaning construction.
Case 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 endorse that joint sensemaking leads to a constructive relationship between stakeholders. This constructive relationship contributes to the social performance of social housing associations. In case 2 the interviewee argued that a better relationship between the stakeholders was the result of sensegiving by both involved parties. Also, the intense cooperation between the community and social housing associations strengthened the feeling of togetherness. The interviewee in case 3 underlined that joint sensemaking led to more informal contact an more sociability between stakeholders because the differing reference frames and opinions were actively addressed. According to the interviewee in case 4, trough joint sensemaking, bonding between the stakeholders and the social housing association was stimulated. Discussing case 5, the interviewee remarked that the positive energy that was present at the meetings between the social housing association and its stakeholders came through their drive to contribute to the social responsibilities. The joint meetings further strengthened this positive energy. Endless discussions about cause and effect relationships were prevented by making use of joint sensemaking. Case 6 endorsed these findings by emphasizing that the intensive cooperation between stakeholders and the social housing association produced much energy. Regarding case 8, the interviewee argued that as a result from the joint sensemaking process, more transparency was created because the association actively justified the choices made between the differing social interests. The interviewee argues that this transparency would lead to more thrust from society. And last, the interviewee in case 9 remarked that as an indirect result of the joint sensemaking process, the culture between the social housing association and its stakeholders overall was more positive.
place. This open dialogue was also organized in case 10, by making use of a game element. Also in that way, the social desires of stakeholders were brought forward.
TABLE 2
RQ 2: Variables that Lead to Joint Sensemaking
Case Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Make a conscious selection of stakeholders x x x x x x x
Invite those stakeholders who have the authority to make decisions x x
Make performance goals concrete x x x x x x
Focus on common end goal x x x x x
Make transparent choices when there are conflicts of interests x x x
Meetings are led by a panel chairman x x x x
Source: Author (2009)
As outlined in table 2, various variables lead to joint sensemaking. According to the interviewees in the cases 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 the social housing association should definitely pay attention to their selection criteria of stakeholders with which joint sensemaking is going to take place. When stakeholders are selected, the selection on their willingness (case 4, 5) and intrinsic motivation (case 2, 8) to join the project is important because it strengthens the relationship between the parties. Those parties will also have a drive to contribute to their social responsibilities. Also, when stakeholders share the same goals (case 7, 8) as the social housing association, a fundament for joint sensemaking is present. Furthermore, experience (case 2, 6, 7, 10) with the local neighbourhood or expertise in a field of business (case 3, 6, 10) makes the joint sensemaking process more efficient.
The interviewees in the cases 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 underlined that goals and visions should be translated into concrete and workable statements. In doing so, the social housing association and the stakeholders made sure that they spoke on the same level (case 5). It furthermore prevented a confusion of tongues (case 7). By making goals and visions concrete, ambitions, success factors, boundary conditions, time lines and measurable outputs were defined (case 6). In this way, the individual contributions to the stated goals could be made visible so that the individuals could relate to the goal using their own reference frames (case 3,9 ).
5. DISCUSSION
In this last section the research questions and the results from the case analysis are connected. The new insights that are generated by this research are discussed and interesting areas of future research are described. The implications for research as well as the implications for practice are given. Last, the limitations of this research are proposed.
5.1 Conclusions
During the interviews, the interviewees were granted with much freedom of speech. As can be seen in the within case analysis, this resulted in a rich amount of variables and factors that through the cross case analysis resulted in answers to the stated research questions. In this section the findings of both the within case and the cross case analysis are further elaborated using supporting literature.
The first research question focused on the way in which joint sensemaking can contribute to the social performance of social housing associations. As discussed in the previous section, the case study research indicates that various factors have amediating effect. First, it was found that joint sensemaking leads to an increased acceptance of project plans. The interviewee in case 8 for example argued that by letting stakeholders participate in the joint sensemaking process, project plans were better accepted. This result is underlined by Schouten & Remme (2006) who state the stakeholder engagement that is central in joint sensemaking, ensures that interventions are welcome and appropriate.
Second, the results imply that joint sensemaking leads to a constructive relationship between the social housing association and its stakeholders. As stated in case 2: “the intense cooperation between the community and the social housing association strengthened the feeling of togetherness”. Ifvarsson (2000) reconfirms this finding by stating that a sensemaking approach will lead to the building of trust between the involved parties. Beierle & Konisky (2001) similarly describe that joint sensemaking can improve relationships between the organisation and its stakeholders by resolving conflict and building trust. Pater & Lierop (2006) take a different perspective by stating that the sensemaking dialogue is essentially aimed at mutual learning in a fair and un-coercive manner. That sensemaking leads to shared understanding is further confirmed by Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld (2005).
sensemaking, the organisation can obtain insight into the ways in which various stakeholders conceive reality and also why these stakeholders perceive reality that way. The interviewee in case 7 stated that the intensive cooperation with local stakeholders gave insight in the current problems and the desired solutions. Beierle & Konisky (2001) reconfirm this result by arguing that stakeholder involvement can produce tangible societal benefits in terms of making decisions that better reflect public values and incorporate public knowledge. Weick (1987) takes a confirming perspective by addressing that stakeholder participation complicates the strategic decision-making processes and, through that complication, increases the likelihood that organisations will be able to effectively process the uncertain, equivocal information that surrounds decision making.
The second research question addressed the variables that lead to joint sensemaking by social housing associations. As a result of the case analysis, three variables were found that led to joint sensemaking. The first implication was that a conscious selection of stakeholders leads to joint sensemaking. Schouten & Remme (2006) reconfirm this finding by stating that the right stakeholders need to be selected in terms of their potential impact on the organization and their role in society. They further describe that in the process of joint sensemaking it has proven to be highly important to have the right people involved with the right “seniority”; people with a wide range of deeply developed skills and with sufficient knowledge of both the external world of the stakeholders as well as the knowledge of the internal organization. In terms of sensemaking, they further imply that it is determining whether the right people are involved, which has proven to be a key determinant for success. Pater & Lierop (2006) add the notion that sensemaking also needs stakeholders that are able and willing to adopt a sensegiving role. In case 2, this notion came forward because the involved parties were intrinsically motivated to contribute to the city. This motivation led to a better sensegiving role of the participants. Pater & Lierop (2006) furthermore take the perspective that the selection of stakeholders is not confined to those groups and individuals who threaten the organisation. Instead, other stakeholders, like those who are powerless or non legitimate, can equally contribute to understanding and resolving the issue at hand. In the cases, many times the tenants were invited to share their visions in the joint sensemaking process. A better insight in the target group was a direct result. The interviewee in case 9 stated: “Only tenants can outline the liveability in their neighbourhood. Outputs that are desirable for one tenant, may be dreadful for others. Differing living environments are necessary.”
experience of tenants in an attempt to speak the same language. In this way, both their joint sensemaking and sensegiving were more effective
The third variable that results in joint sensemaking is the focus on joint goals. As stated by the interviewee in case 8: “Although different opinions are inevitable, the focus of discussion should always lie on those parts that bind the parties. The cooperating parties should always keep a constructive working relationships.” Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld (2005) see sensemaking as a ground to treat plausibility, incrementalism, improvisation and bounded rationality as sufficient to guide goal-directed behaviour. Pater & Lierop (2006) reconfirm this by stating that organisations and stakeholders can engage in a process of sensemaking in order to achieve a joint strategy.
5.2 Areas for Future Research
This research raises important questions for future research on joint sensemaking. The research findings can be translated into hypotheses as input for further research according to the research method of Eisenhardt (1989). In this way, theory building can take place. Although this study examined certain relationships between joint sensemaking and important performance related outcomes, it would be valuable to consider if particular forms of joint sensemaking are likely to produce certain performance outcomes. Thomas, Clark & Gioia (1993) reconfirm this by stating that the need to build the understanding of the cycles of sensemaking and the organizational outcome relationship, multiple field research may be needed in the light of the complex, temporal dimensions involved in such research. Another area connected to this research is the literature on stakeholder involvement. It would be interesting to integrate research on joint sensemaking and stakeholder involvement to research their commons grounds and differences.
show if these variables lead to more successful joint sensemaking between parties. Also, it would be interesting to reveal which factors lead to unsuccessful joint sensemaking. Social housing associations in that way could make their joint sensemaking more effective. The last implication to practice, is that the results of this research could help the management consultants from the consultancy firm Hoffman, Krul & Partners in the development of their tool named “de Waarde®ing” (2009). With this tool they will be able to assist social housing associations with the difficult task of dealing with social performance and the creation of social value. An evaluation of “de Waarde®ing” might produce interesting findings that can be used in further research on the topic of joint sensemaking. Last, the applicability of the results to other institutions, for example the local authorities, tenants or care institutions, might give a more profound insight in how joint sensemaking can contribute to social performance in general. Understanding this will bring us closer to the success factors of joint sensemaking and closer to dealing successfully with social performance.
5.3 Limitations
Suttclife and Obstfeld (2005) sensemaking strikes some people as naïve with regard to power distributions and politics. People who are powerful have unequal access to roles and positions that give them an unequally strong position to influence the process of joint sensemaking. In this research the use of power was discussed, but the impact on the research findings were not significant.
REFERENCES
Ashmos, D. P., Nathan, M. L. 2002. Team sense-making: a mental model for navigating uncharted territories. Journal of Managerial Issues. 14(2): 198-217.
Ayres, L., Kavanaugh, K., Knafl. K.A. 2003. Within-Case and Across-Case Approaches to Qualitative Data Analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 13(6): 871-883.
Basu, K., Palazo, G. 2008. Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review. 33(1): 122-136.
Beierle, T.C., Konisky D.C. 2001. What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19: 515-527,
Besluit Beheer Sociale Huursector (BBSH). 2005. Woningwet.
Brickson, S. 2007. Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review. 32: 864-888.
Commissie De Boer. 2005. Lokaal wat kan, centraal wat moet; nieuw bestel voor woningcorporaties. Adviesrapport in opdracht van Aedes vereniging van woningcorporaties en het ministerie van VROM.
Conijn, J. 2005. Woningcorporaties: naar een duidelijke taakafbakening en heldere sturing. Amsterdam: RIGO Research & Advies BV.
Deuten, J., de Kam, G. 2005. Weten van Renderen. Rotterdam: Stuurgroep Experimenten Volkshuisvesting.
Fossgard-Moser, T. 2005. Social performance: key lessons from recent experiences within Shell. International Journal of Business in Society. 5(3): 105-118.
Freedman, R.E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Marshfield: Pitman
Gioia, D.A. Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Strategic Change Initiation. Strategic Management Journal. 12(6): 433-448.
Gioia, F.A. Thomas, J.B. 1996. Identity, Image and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly. 41: 370-403
Gruis, V. 2007. Bedrijfsstijlen van woningcorporaties. Onderzoeksverslag Habiforum. Delft: University of Delft.
HKP. 2009. De Waarde®ing. http://www.hkp.nl/pagina/1722/maatschappelijk-rendement
Ifvarsson, C. 2002. Sensemaking in small organisations; a conceptual analysis and tentative synthesis. Paper for a discussion at the “K.K. Project Meething”. Luleå University of Technology.
Jeong, H.S., Brower, R.S. 2008. Extending the Present Understanding of Organizational Sensemaking; Three Stages and Three Contexts. Administration & Society. 40(3): 223-252.
Jeurissen, R. 2004. Moral complexity in organisations. In Pater, A., van Lierop, K. 2006. Sense and sensitivity: the roles of organisation and stakeholders in managing corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review. 15(4): 339-351.
Maitlis, S. 2005. The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal. 48(1): 21-49.
Mezias, J.M., Starbuck, W.H. 2003. Managers and their inaccurate perceptions: Good, bad or inconsequential? British Journal of Management. 14(1): 3-19.
Pater, A. Lierop, van, K. 2006. Sense and sensitivity: the roles of organisation and stakeholders in managing corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review. 15(4): 339-351.
Parry, J. 2003. Making sense of executive sensemaking; A phenomenological case study with methodological criticism. Journal of Health Organization and Management. 17(4): 240-263.
Priemus, H. 1996. Recent changes in the social rented sector in the Netherlands. Urban Studies. 33(10): 1891-1908.
Schouten, E.M.J., Remmé, J. 2006. Making sense of corporate social responsibility in international business: experciences from Shell. Business Ethics: A European Review. 15(4): 365-379.
Seligman, L. 2000. Adoption as sensemaking: toward an adopter-centered process model of IT adoption. Association for Information Systems. 361-270.
Sociaal Economische Raad. 2005. Ondernemerschap voor de publieke zaak. Den Haag: SER
Suddaby, R. 2006. From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal. 49(4): 633-642.
Thomas, J.B., Clark, S.M., & Gioia, D.A. 1993. Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: linkages among scanning, interpretation, action and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal. 36: 239-270.
Thorborg, H.W.M., Leidelmeijer, K. & Dassen, A.G.M. 2006. Leefomgevingskwaliteit en leefbaarheid; naar beleidsevaluatie en onderzoek. Bilthoven: RIGO rapport.
Van Kempen, R., Priemus, H. 2002. Revolution in Social Housing in the Netherlands: Possible Effects of New Housing Policies. Urban Studies. 39(2): 237-253.
VROM-inspectie. 2004. Een beschrijving van ontwikkelingen in de sociale huursector. Toezichtverslag Sociale Huursector 2003. Groningen: VROM inspectie.
VROM. 2000. Mensen, Wensen en Wonen. Nota Wonen. Den Haag: VROM.
VROM. 2007. Actieplan Krachtwijk; van Aandachtswijk naar Krachtwijk. Den Haag: VROM.
VROM-raad. 2005. Voorbij of vooruit? Woningcorporaties aan zet. Den Haag: VROM-raad.
Weick, K. 1987. Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California Management Review, 29(2): 12- 127.
Weick, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Weick, K.E. 2001. Making sense of the organization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Weick, C.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organizational Science, 16(4): 409-421.
Volkskrant, 1 november 2006, Winsemius slaat alarm over probleemwijken
