Sensemaking and influence tactics: A hidden battlefield or the essential road
to successful change?
A study on the impact of lateral influence tactics on the process of sensemaking in “norming” teams.
Cato van Citters S3525899
c.h.van.citters@student.rug.nl Supervisor: dr. I. Maris-De Bresser Co-assessor: dr. H.C Bruns
22nd of June 2020
Master Thesis
MSc Change Management
Faculty of Economics and Business University of Groningen
2
ABSTRACT
Context - Despite the recognition of growing importance of research in political behavior in team
sensemaking, the possible impact of lateral influence tactics on the process of sensemaking is still undertheorized. There is an increasing emphasis in organizations to develop autonomy in teams, which create stimuli for political behavior and influence tactics to create a shared understanding. The creation of a shared understanding is an important element of the norming phase of team development, which serves as an excellent context for the exploration of lateral influence tactics in team sensemaking.
Objectives - The researchers aim to examine the impact of lateral influence tactics on each phase of the
sensemaking-cycle from Weick (1995) in norming teams.
Methods - This research is conducted by a single-case study with multiple embedded subcases. The data is
collected through interviews and secondary data. These methods provide the input for the iterative relation between data collection and analysis.
Results - In this study, the triggers that started sensemaking were threefold: a change in managerial span of
control, knowledge accessibility and work dynamic. The perceived cues of norms and values are in line with social and professional interaction, and job-related characteristics. Members influence what cues others perceive by showing example behavior. These cues form the input for the interpretation towards vertical and horizontal alignment. This interpretation is influenced by critical evaluations of perspectives, and the creation of a common ground. Resulting from this interpretation, actions are created in the form of knowledge coordination or interpersonal supportive behavior. Influencing enactment is shown as stimulation by verbal communication or stimulation by behavior.
Conclusions – This study shows that lateral influence tactics impact all three stages of the
sensemaking-cycle by Weick (1995). It contributes by revealing that lateral influence tactics are a part of the social construction of reality from sensemaking, and together endorse the establishment of norms and values in a team to achieve team effectiveness. Consequently, this knowledge helps practitioners to adjust change strategies to prevent obstacles in the sensemaking process of team members, in order to fasten the way to team effectiveness after change.
Key words: Sensemaking, team development, lateral influence tactics, political behavior, team
3
1. INTRODUCTION
The nature of organizational life is nowadays full of ambiguity and uncertainty (Mailtlis & Christianson, 2014). The future of organizations is getting more unpredictable, and changes continue to take place at an increasing rate (Ashmos & Nathan, 2002). Autonomy in teams is a key organizing principle to survive these dynamics, with collaboration within teams as a vital aspect (Einola & Alvesson, 2019). Research has shown that teams are the sensors that can vitalize an organization, as teams through their development can shake up the organization and make organizations flexible to meet future demands (Ashmos & Nathan, 2002). In order to reach this, a team needs to develop towards group maturity (Bennis & Shepard, 1956). Yet, practitioners and researchers are starting to realize that teamwork is not a result of independent activities. Instead, teamwork is a result of how team members interpret episodes and activities that take place in their environment (Einola & Alvesson, 2019). To develop successfully towards shared goals, a team needs a substantial level of a shared understanding (Einola & Alvesson, 2019; Klein, Wiggings, Dominguez, 2010). This is channeled through multiple team development stages (Tuckman & Jensen, 1997). It involves an implicit, complicated process (Smircich, 1983), called sensemaking. When studying this, the concept of lateral influence tactics come into play as well. The meaning and connection of the three concepts are described as follows.
Sensemaking was introduced by Karl. E. Weick in 1995 and is defined as the process of organizational actors attaching meaning to external events to resolve the uncertainty in their environment (Weick, 1995). Weick proposed three phases in his sensemaking-cycle: perception of cues, interpretation and enactment. Yet, this theory is used in a variety of ways. A large majority of studies do not make the distinction between the first two phases but treat them as the same (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2014). Also, debates arise whether sensemaking is a retrospective or prospective process (Gioia, Thomas & Chittipeddi, 1994), and whether it is a social process between individuals or a cognitive process that solely happens in individuals (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). In this research sensemaking is approached as both prospective and retrospective, as prospective sensemaking is viewed as being derived from retrospective sensemaking. Moreover, sensemaking is a social process, triggered by organizational change, and viewed through all three phases of the sensemaking-cycle.
4
importance of sensemaking throughout the five stages of team development by Tuckman & Jensen (1997) is undertheorized. It is assumed that the norming stage requires the most of the teams’ sensemaking in order to create a shared understanding, as this is the stage in which shared norms and values are being defined (Tuckman & Jensen, 1997).
Knowing the social aspect of sensemaking, and the importance of sensemaking in the norming stage, the question arises of what and how interactions within relatively autonomous teams specifically impact sensemaking. Autonomous, norming teams are characterized by their susceptible to political and power dynamics (Ferris & Treadway, 2012) and the presence of influence behavior between its’ members. They create shared understanding as they argue, convince and persuade each other (Ashmos & Nathan, 2002). Members that demonstrate this political behavior in teams use influencing tactics on the peer-level, known by the term lateral influence tactics (Ferris & Treadway, 2014; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), which is a concept of increased interest by scholars (Kipnis, Schmidt & Wilkinson, 1980). Weick (1995) pointed out the complexity of sensemaking in a social world and the impact of political behaviors in the following quote: “Sensemaking is about accounts that are socially acceptable and credible... It would be nice if these accounts were also accurate. But in an equivocal, postmodern world, infused with the politics of interpretation and conflicting interests and inhabited by people with multiple shifting identities, an obsession with accuracy seems fruitless, and not of much practical help, either.”
- Karl E. Weick (1995:61)
In this quote, Weick (1995) expresses the impossibility of accuracy in sensemaking because of the social and equivocal aspects of the environment that makes these accounts non-generalizable. This expression demonstrates overlap with the social and equivocal environment of team development, whereby political behavior through influence tactics is expected to play a role in sensemaking. These three concepts appear to be interwoven. Scholars express the need for further research regarding the role of political behavior in sensemaking (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Maitlis & Soneshein, 2010), especially in influence tactics (Cialdini, 1998; Maitlis & Soneshein, 2010), as well as the need for investigation regarding sensemaking on the team-level (Ashmos & Nathan, 2002; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Klein, Wiggins & Dominiguez, 2010). These calls for research indicate a lack of theoretical understanding and empirical research on the interplay between the three concepts. Studying this interplay can lead to new knowledge that supports clarification of these concepts in academic literature.
To contribute to this gap in literature, this study aims to answer the following research question: “How do lateral influence tactics impact the sensemaking process of changing team norms and values within the norming stage of team development?”
5
effectiveness during times of change. In a world with more emphasis on autonomy in teams, it is valuable to examine how teams interact and create norms and values, as it is a crucial aspect toward team effectiveness. Organizational life is changing in an increasing rate, requiring from all actors to adapt quickly and become familiarized with continuous changing realities.
The research took place at Gasunie; the leading European gas and energy infrastructure company based in The Netherlands, and in the team LAO (Planning & Development) specifically. Gasunie undertook a large downsizing in 2018, resulting in less but larger teams. This change shifted responsibilities from management to the teams, as the managers do not possess specified knowledge and perform a general role. The LAO team consist of highly trained professionals, which are currently going through the norming stage of team development as described by Tuckman & Jensen (1997).
This study consists of a comprehensive literature review to provide the basis of research (ch.2). This is followed by the methodology, where the methods of data collection and analysis are elaborated (ch.3). The results of data collection and analysis are included in the subsequent chapter (ch.4), followed by the chapter for the discussion of this study (ch.5). The final part of this report consists of references and appendices.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides a review of relevant literature for answering the research question. An exploration of the concept of sensemaking and team sensemaking is the beginning of this review (2.1), followed by team development (2.2), and political behavior and lateral influence tactics (2.3). These components are positioned in a research framework (2.4). The concepts in this review serve as a sensitizing tool rather than strict measurements, given the qualitative nature of this research.
2.1 Sensemaking of change and team sensemaking
6
Although sensemaking is broadly researched, there is no dominant definition of this phenomenon. Yet, research up until now shows two critical distinctions: the first one being a process within individuals rather than between individuals, and the second one being its nature as retrospective rather than prospective. Sensemaking within individuals is seen as an individual cognitive process of interpretation, triggered by stimuli, and made explicit in their mental models. Elsbach, Barr & Hargadon (2005) created a framework from empirical case-study research in the past 15 years. This framework shows the link between situated cognitions as transitory perceptual frames, created from the synergy between individual cognition and context. This differs from sensemaking between individuals, as from this perspective sensemaking occurs through the social process of negotiation, which creates a socially constructed meaning (Mailtlis & Christianson, 2014). Balogun & Johnson (2004) integrate this perspective in their empirical research by highlighting the socially negotiated nature of schema change and managers’ social interactions in shaping change. The concept of prospective sensemaking is introduced by Gioia, Thomas and Chittipeddi (1994), who emphasized the probable impact of future events on the current process of sensemaking. This interfered with the retrospective viewpoint on sensemaking from Weick (1995), which views sensemaking as the process of shaping experience into meaningful patterns based on memories of past experiences (Weick, 1995). A combination of prospective and retrospective sensemaking is common in literature as well. Stigliani & Ravasi (2012) created a model from their study on how material, retrospective cues on individual, group, and between-group level function as the basis for prospective sensemaking. They show in their model the role of social interaction in sensemaking by including sensemaking on group-level and between group-level.
Past research shows that the sensemaking-cycle of Weick (1995) is regardless of age, still the academic baseline for sensemaking. The cycle consists of three phases: perception of cues, interpretation and enactment (Weick, 2012, 1995; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2014).
7
Despite the acceptance in the academic world for the three phases in the cycle, most researchers focus only on one or two phases. Sandberg & Tsoukas (2015) conducted a literature review consisting of 147 studies and found that only 1% of the studies take all phases into consideration, and 84% does not make the distinction between the “perceiving of cues” and “interpretation” phases. Combining the first two phases makes sensemaking interchangeable to interpretation, which increases ambiguity on the accuracy of these studies.
In this research, the focus is on sensemaking in teams, and viewed as a social process. A “team” is a distinctive group, which is more task oriented than other groups, and in which there is a set of rules and rewards for its members (Adair, 1986). The interaction in teams consist of discussing and arguing about individual and shared interpretation of processes, such as organizational change (Ashmos & Nathan, 2002). This creates a fruitful field for sensemaking. In the process of team development, individuals with different preconceptions face the challenge to develop as a team and form a shared understanding (Winter, 2003). Sensemaking in teams is needed to reach a collective understanding of the situation and to define the appropriate direction and needed actions. According to Klein et al. (2010), sensemaking is more difficult due to its macro-cognitive nature, which makes team sensemaking a greater contributor to accidents compared to the individual level (Klein et al., 2010). When reviewing the literature on sensemaking in teams, it becomes clear that the way the researchers interpret the process of sensemaking for individuals influences the viewpoint on sensemaking in teams. This leads to different mental models related to team sensemaking. Guiette & Vandenbempt (2013) argue that the team mental model results from task- and team-related determinants. These determinants are: the level of coherence in routine enactment, the level of equivocality of expectations, dominance of organizational discourse, shifts in organizational identification, the degree of cross-understanding between thought worlds (Guiette & Vandenbempt, 2013). Klein et al. (2010) provide team sensemaking strategies and corresponding behavioral markers that distinguishes team sensemaking and individual sensemaking. These strategies are: identifying a frame, questioning a frame, reframing by comparing frames, reframing by creating a new frame, and elaborating a frame (Klein et al., 2010). Current studies in literature describe the research landscape and the behaviors in team sensemaking, but the study on the role of possible endogenous factors in this process seems not included yet. Therefore, this research aims to widen the knowledge of team sensemaking by integrating the possibly interrelated concepts of lateral influence tactics and team development, which are explained in the next paragraph. 2.2 Team development
8
(Bonebright, 2010). Storming is a period of conflict in the group. The absence of unity arises around interpersonal issues. This creates visible or less visible emotional responses to other members and tasks, especially when members need to engage in self-understanding and/or self-change (Bonebright, 2010). The members express their individuality and show resistance towards group structuring (Tuckman, 1965). When resistance is overcome, the norming stage is present. This occurs when group cohesion develops through the formation of rules and norms. Acceptance of others’ opinions and characteristics grows, and conflicts are avoided to ensure in-group feeling and harmony (Tuckman, 1965). The group members start to create shared mental models to explore how to work effective as a group. The group is in the performing stage when they develop ‘functional role relatedness’ (Tuckman, 1965), by making roles more flexible and adapt roles to improve task activities. The last stage of the model, adjourning, is added after a review by Tuckman & Jensen (1977) to incorporate the concept of “life cycle”, introduced by Gibbard & Hartman (1973). The adjourning stage illustrates the separation (or “the death”) of the group (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). This model has become the ‘most predominantly referred to and most widely recognized in organizational literature’ (Miller, 2003, 122), as this incorporates a large set of articles dealing with group development (Tuckman, 1965). This serves as argumentation to use this model as the leading model for team development in this research.
A limited amount of empirical and theoretical research is deviated from the model of Tuckman (Thorpe, 2010). Dunphy (1968) empirically examined self-analytic groups and defined six group-development phases: maintenance of external normative standards, individual rivalry, aggression, negativism, emotional concerns, and high affection. The phases of individual rivalry, aggression and negativism are parallel to the “storming” stage, and emotional concerns and high affection can be seen as “norming” from the model of Tuckman (Thorpe, 2010). Mann (1967), deviated from Tuckman’s model by offering his five-stages of group development, resulting from a factor analysis: initial complaining, premature enactment, confrontation, internalization, separation, and terminal review.
9
consensus-seeking, increased supportiveness, and we-feeling (Maples, 1988). Harmony, trust, and the acceptance of members’ identities and roles stimulate cohesiveness, participative decision-making, and egalitarian leadership (Weber & Kaman, 1991). This comes to the fore when team members instead of a manager take the responsibility for problem solving, correcting, and confronting mistakes and encourage success in the team (Johnson, 2010). The members’ ability to influence each other and contribute to sensemaking while arguing, convincing and persuading each other, plays an important role in this stage (Ashmos & Nathan, 2002). Examining the impact of lateral influence tactics in sensemaking in a norming team, can help to understand how these processes are connected.
2.3 Political behavior and lateral influence tactics
Despite the confirmation in literature that political behavior occurs in both team development and sensemaking, empirical evidence is lacking about how multiple accounts compete during change, and what insights this brings into the politics of sensemaking (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Maitlis & Soneshein, 2010), especially on the team-level (Ferris & Treadway, 2012). The definition of political behavior in this research is from Valle and Perrewe’s (2000, p. 361): “the exercise of tactical influence which is strategically goal directed, rational, conscious and intended to promote self-interest, either at the expense of or in support of others’ interests”. As this definition describes, political behavior is demonstrated by influence tactics in order to maximize interests (Ferris & Treadway, 2014; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). This strong discursive ability suggests a tighter integration of sensemaking and influence research (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010; Cialdini, 1998), as the ability to influence is crucial for shaping meanings of others, and provides the opportunity to act in a way that advocates preferred meanings (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991).
In the past, researchers were interested in examining how subordinates could be influenced to increase productivity (Kipnis, Schmidt & Wilkinson, 1980, Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). Later, researchers’ interests grew in studying the ways in which people influence others for their personal benefits (Kipnis et al., 1980). An important series of studies by Kipnis et al. (1980) examined influence tactics in which the initiator of an influence attempt aimed to gain something from the target. They developed eight dimensions of influence: assertiveness, ingratiation, rationality, sanctions, exchange of benefits, upward appeal, blocking and coalitions. These dimensions are modified by Falbe & Yukl (1992) into nine influence tactics (Appendix A). The effectiveness of these influence tactics varies depending if the target is a subordinate, superior or peer. Enns, Huff & Higgings (2003) did empirical research on the effectiveness of lateral influence tactics on the influence outcome, based on the influence tactics from Falbe & Yukl (1992). They categorized three ‘influence outcomes’ into three: resistance, compliance or commitment1. They tested six influence tactics and excluded inspirational appeal and legitimating, as these tactics relate to superior-subordinate interaction and therefore do not match the focus on lateral influence. The significant, effective lateral influence tactics
1
10
towards the influence outcome are rational persuasion, personal appeal, exchange, and pressure. During this research, these four lateral influence tactics will be used as a sensitizing tool to discover the impact of influence tactics within sensemaking of norms and values in “norming” teams.
2.4 Research framework
The framework of this research is shown in Figure 1. This research examines a team found in the “norming” stage of the team development model by Tuckman & Jensen (1997). To establish a shared understanding, norming teams are making sense of norms and values. Therefore, attention will be given to how members translate the cues through the three sensemaking phases of Weick (1995). To understand how lateral influence tactics impact this sensemaking process, we examine per phase which tactics are used. By examining this, we ultimately provide an overview how sensemaking of norms and value occurs per phase, and which lateral influence tactics are used to influence this process.
3. METHODOLOGY
This chapter includes the research design (3.1), case description (3.2), the data collection (3.3) and analysis (3.4).
3.1 Research design
11
research topic from the perspectives of people. The explanatory research question of this study supported the qualitative nature of the case study method (Yin, 2012) and can therefore be used in an interpretive way to build theories (Watson, 2018). This method integrated complex conditions of the case, such as the context, and therefore offered a broader horizon than studying fixed variables. Case studies are characterized by a variety of data sources, also known as triangulation (Watson, 2018). The used methods for triangulation are mentioned in 3.3. According to the basic types of designs for case studies by Yin (2012), this study can be defined as a single-case design with embedded subcases. This means that this study is executed in one organization: Gasunie, with multiple units of analysis: the different subgroups in the team. This is explained in the following case description.
3.2 Case description
Gasunie is the leading European gas and energy infrastructure company in The Netherlands. In 2018, Gasunie started a large organization-wide restructuring of departments. The change was initiated after receiving orders from the national regulator to meet European benchmark measurements, which led to a decrease of 15% in the workforce with the aim to increase internal efficiency. This resulted in the formation of less but bigger teams with a general manager, leaving more autonomy at the team-level. The department, GTS, consists now of three teams, and this study focuses on one team: LAO (Planning & Development). LAO consists of 38 employees, divided in five relatively flexible subgroups, with as their main task to plan the transportation of gas throughout The Netherlands. When new projects come up, members from LAO’s subgroups form a project group. These team members are trained professionals with specific knowledge that is only applicable in Gasunie. They experienced long periods of stability, as the company has always been in financial welfare and change only occurred sporadically. The resulting culture from stability, the highly specialized expertise of members and the sudden structural changes provide an excellent context to study how lateral influence tactics play a role in sensemaking in teams. The researcher served as an intern at Gasunie during the research period, which helped to get an understanding of the culture and context of LAO.
12
3.3 Data collection
Doing a case study is beneficial for theory building when triangulation is adopted (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012; Flick, Kardoff & Steinke, 2004). Triangulation intends to prevent blind spots by combining multiple methods. It has a positive effect on the validation (Flick, Kardoff & Steinke, 2004), and decreases instrument bias (Van Aken et al., 2012). The most desired convergence is achieved when at least three independent sources are used to examine the same events (Yin, 2012). This study contains two methods, as observations were no option due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The methods that were used are interviews and usage of secondary data. To compensate for the missing data from observations, the interview participants were instructed to answer four in-depth questions before the interview via a digital question form (Appendix B). This way the participants’ thinking process already started and simplified answering in-depth questions during the interview about the complex topics of (implicit) sensemaking and lateral influence tactics.
3.3.1 Interviews
The interviews were semi-structured. The number of interviews is determined by achieving theoretical saturation and resulted in 16 interviews of approximately 45 minutes. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the interviews were conducted digitally. A limitation of digital interviewing is that it is perceived as energy consuming, resulting in a shorter concentration span of interviewees (Jiang, 2020). The participants’ preparation by filling out the question form prior to the interview helped to decrease the interview duration without giving in on data quality. The interviews started with generic questions about their work experience and the organizational change. Then, each stage of the sensemaking-cycle is represented by multiple questions, including at least one question to explore the lateral influence tactics. As these phases are highly interrelated, questions do not follow each other in the same order as the sensemaking phases. The perceived cues phase was operationalized by asking about the participants’ preferred values in a team, how he/she experiences these in the current team, how the participant notices from colleagues’ what values they find important (lateral influence tactics), and how these values are operationalized on the work floor in norms. Interpretation is operationalized by asking how the participant communicates his/her preferred way of teamwork to colleagues, what his/her view is on any changes in teamwork, what the perceived impact is of this change, and how the participant experiences the communication from colleagues about their perception on this change (lateral influence tactics). Enactment is operationalized by asking how the norms and values are shown in his/her behavior or communication, and how the participant notices if colleagues appreciate or punish certain behavior in teamwork (lateral influence tactics).
13
3.3.2. Participants
The selection of participants was based on stratified sampling. This method divides the sample population in smaller strata based on common characteristics. Then, the researcher randomly selected the sample in the same proportion as the total population. Integrating stratified sampling created a representative level of diversity in the sample and decreased chances of respondents’ bias (Van Aken et al., 2012). The characteristics for the sampling were gender, the subgroup, and generic function weight. The job structure in Gasunie consists of generic jobs titles, which contain personalized tasks per employee. In this job structure, the weight of generic job titles presents the corresponding responsibilities. The difference in responsibilities could have influence on the impact of lateral influence tactics, and therefore is taken into consideration during sampling. Table 1 shows the composition of the participants.
Subgroup Gender Function Interview duration
1. Removed before uploading in Thesis Archive to ensure participants’ anonymity.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
Table 1. Composition of participants
There was a possibility for biased answers from participants, as they might have perceived potential harm in exchanging confidential information related to this topic. To minimize this bias, the confidentiality of participation was emphasized as well as the possibility to provide feedback on the transcript.
3.3.3. Secondary data
14
implementation. This information triangulated with the interview data, as it supported the data from interviews by establishing a clearer perspective of the research context.
3.4 Data Analysis
The transcriptions were converted into software Atlas.Ti. The coding process included three stages: open, axial, and selective coding (Wolfswinkel, Furtmueller & Wilderom, 2013). Data analysis occurred simultaneously to the data collection, as this was an iterative process and could lead to adjustments in the interview guide when new insights emerged (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). The codebook is included in Appendix D.
During the analysis, the three sensemaking phases of Weick (1995) were retrieved from the data, plus the factual changes that form the sensemaking triggers. Every open code started with an abbreviation: ST (Sensemaking trigger), PC (Perceiving cues), I (Interpretation), or E (Enactment), followed by a code name. When data revealed influencing tactics, it was coded with one of the same abbreviations, followed by “-(i)”. Examples of open codes were “PC(i): Showing example behavior”, or “E: Verbally stimulating pro-activeness”. Each open code was connected to a definition. In some cases, the definition was (as little as possible) adjusted to broaden the span of the code to connect related quotations. This ensured that all quotations apply to the code(s) they were connected to and supported the process of combining open codes to create axial coding. As the data collection and analysis happened simultaneously, some open codes were created parallel to the data collection. This helped to discover a pattern during data collection, as the researcher could use follow-up questions in the interview when perceiving signals that were in line with the discovered pattern in the analysis. This is known as the data-analytic process of constant comparison, whereby the interpretations and findings are compared to existing findings from the simultaneous data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The open coding process was finalized after the creation of a network of open codes in Atlas.Ti that showed each open code per sensemaking phase in table-form. This network is similar to the codebook.
After the data collection, axial codes were created. These codes form the umbrellas of the open codes and were formulated based on the resemblance between open codes. The following general questions were aimed to answer per stage to find the correct formulation of overarching axial codes: What overall changes led to sensemaking triggers according to the data? (ST); What norms and values did participants perceive? (PC); What are participants interpreting (towards)? (I); What behavioral patterns can be retrieved from the data? (E).
15
sensemaking triggers and phases. The open and axial codes were once more analyzed in chronological order, to find links in the data. The fluidity of the process of sensemaking makes the analysis of these cause-effect links challenging, as a clear beginning and end in sensemaking and the creation of norms and values cannot be defined. Some open codes do not explicitly link to previous and/or following phases. Therefore, this study only includes links that were made explicit by participants to minimize researcher bias. These links are visualized in an arrow scheme in Appendix E and elaborated in the next chapter, where not only the links but all the results from this study are described.
4. RESULTS
This chapter presents the results from the data collection. The creation of norms and values is a fluid process. They evolve from previous individual or team experiences, combined with new behavioral or organizational triggers, and together shape the norms and values of today. Therefore, this study provides only a snapshot of the continuous recreation of norms and values in the context. In this chapter, the discussed norms and values were already existent from past experiences or created in the norming phase after the organizational change. For the latter, the novelty of the norms and values is mentioned.
To preserve the unique aspects of each phase of the sensemaking process, this chapter presents the phases separately, while acknowledging that one phase can serve as input for the other phases. The chapter starts with a description of the organizational change (4.1) and the sensemaking triggers it generated (4.2). Next, the perceived cues from these triggers are elaborated (4.3), followed by the interpretation phase (4.4). The last phase of the sensemaking-cycle, enactment, explains how participants translate the interpretations to actions and behavior (4.5). In each phase attention is given to how influence tactics impact the corresponding sensemaking process. Since sensemaking is a continuous process (Weick, 1995), the links between enactment and previous phases are made explicit as well (4.6). This chapter ends with a summary and a revision of the research framework (4.7).
4.1 The organizational change
16
Gasunie mentioned as focal points of attention: finding the balance between the staffing quantity and the tasks and responsibilities, and the effects of a larger span of control. The context of this study is in the LAO team. This team was founded in February 2019 and is a combination of three separate teams that had overlapping work processes. Within this team there are multiple groups that work independently but also have overlap due to projects where a combination of specialized knowledge is required. This team was introduced to a new manager, originally from a different discipline in Gasunie. Now, the team reached the norming phase. The following paragraphs describe the results from the interviews and describe how the lateral influence tactics impact the sensemaking of norms and values across the three phases of the sensemaking-cycle by Weick (1995) in a norming team.
4.2 The sensemaking triggers
Based on the interviews with participants, it became clear that from the participants’ perspective, three factual changes were having a significant impact on their collaboration: changes in managerial span of control, changes in accessibility of knowledge, and in work dynamic. These changes triggered the sensemaking process regarding norms and values in the team.
The first and most impactful trigger according the participants was the change of the managers’ span of control. The manager did not fulfill the specialized and participative role anymore but focused instead on providing direction and strategy building, which required a new way of working for the participants. Interviewee 10 described it as follows: “There was some concern about how this would turn out, managing this amount of people. This is only possible if you manage the team on the general outlines and step away from the content.” Corresponding to this change, another trigger was the different ways of communicating information by the management. This means that participants experienced a higher need to retrieve information from peers, as the manager was less aware of the specialized content compared to previous managers: “Now, we do not hear that much anymore, we have to figure it out ourselves.” (Interviewee 16).
The second impactful trigger for participants was the change in accessibility of knowledge, as according to all, the voluntary resignations led to significant knowledge loss in the team. Interviewee 3 expressed this as: “Most of them were knowledge owners, especially those who left and started retirement”. The merger of multiple teams led to less physical distance between colleagues, which was a positive development according to the participants, because it resulted in higher accessibility of knowledge: “Now we can quickly ask a question in the room next to yours or at the coffee machine.” (Interviewee 2). The long-term employment was also viewed as a trigger that affects the way of working together, as organizational stability used to be the norm, but started becoming an exception: “… That was very secure and sure, and now you are released in the meadow.” (Interviewee 15).
17
different capabilities.” (Interviewee 1). “We are all extinguishing fires now: work now very ad hoc. […] That is becoming the new working method, I suppose.” (Interviewee 3). The next paragraph explains the perceived cues, partially resulting from these sensemaking triggers, and the corresponding lateral influence tactic.
4.3 Perceived cues
4.3.1.Perceived cues from the sensemaking triggers
From these sensemaking triggers, the participants expressed several cues they perceived in the collaboration regarding norms and values. These cues are divided in three categories: perceived cues in social interaction, professional interaction, and job-related characteristics.
The participants perceive openness as one of the main values in social interaction with colleagues. They experience an open atmosphere to address feedback. Interviewee 15 described this as: “Whenever something’s wrong, we can easily talk about it. That is nice, we work together in an open and honest atmosphere.” This is accompanied by the perceived importance of having fun together. The content of work required highly specialized knowledge and work is sometimes perceived as individual. Therefore, almost all participants indicated the importance of having fun in the team: “A couple of jokes every once in a while are very important. We work hard and very seriously, so without a laugh it becomes difficult to put the work into perspective.” (Interviewee 10). A third cue that participants perceived regarding norms and values is trust. This is perceived as important by them, as they stated that teamwork is only successful when you can trust each other in work and in personal related issues: “I think it is very important that I can trust my colleagues […] that they do the work they are supposed to do, and that I can trust them with personal issues.” (Interviewee 13).
18
organization […] But I think this is very important, knowledge sharing, and I feel we are very open about this.” With this, it became clear that next to knowledge sharing, participants found the readiness to help each other an important value in their collaboration. This value is mentioned by all the participants which according to them, shapes the team culture. “Whenever a colleague comes with a question, I will always try to help him or her the best I can.” (Interviewee 15). This is in line with the fourth value: the shared drive for achievement in the team. The perspectives of participants pointed out that they perceive a group feeling of working together towards goals, which emphasizes the connection between the values in the professional interaction. According to them, the organizational change caused a growing importance of this value in the team, as participants shared the same experience that connected them towards their goal: “As a team we are all in the same boat, and we try together to keep Gasunie on track without falling over. ” (Interviewee 3). Besides the cues related to social and professional interaction, some cues corresponding to job-related characteristics. The first cue is the value of quality. It became clear that in this team, participants strived for higher quality in work as this is the key element for performance: “Rubbish in is rubbish out. The impact of one’s work goes through the whole project” (Interviewee 5). The second value the participants perceived is the freedom to plan work and take responsibility. Three quarters of the participants argued that the freedom and responsibility to plan work and make decisions is an important element in their collaboration. Interviewee 7 expressed this as “I think that most people experience, just like me, a freedom and responsibility that is pleasant to have.”. Next to the quality and the freedom to plan work and take responsibility as important values participants perceived, it became clear that they noticed a stronger demand to work with more risk since the organizational change. Participants expressed how they need to act less risk-aversely and take decisions with a large impact with less available information and support. Interviewee 6 explained this in the following way: “In a technical way of speaking: if you turn the knob counterclockwise for years, and something changes and you have to turn it to the right, you have to know for sure why this is possible and that it will not damage anything if you do that.”. The values regarding job-related characteristics like quality and working with more risk stem from the sensemaking trigger of change in accessibility of knowledge. The experienced knowledge loss due to voluntary resignation is the main reason for this. Interviewee 3 expressed this by the following quote: “15 percent of the people left, which means that 30 percent of the knowledge is gone […] Therefore, quality is dropping in work […]. We do not have time anymore to analyze, and now have to play quick and dirty instead”.
4.3.2 Lateral influence tactics in the perceived cues phase
19
think ‘Hey, that looks nice, maybe I want it as well!’ It becomes kind of a new norm.”. The following paragraph includes a description of the interpretation phase, how the perceived cues led to interpretation and the corresponding lateral influence tactics.
4.4 Interpretation
4.4.1. Interpretation of the perceived cues
When talking about the experienced changes, participants expressed their feelings, beliefs, or perceptions of the cues, which refers to the interpretation phase. When the participants were interpreting the changes in their surroundings, they build their own realities through interpretation towards horizontal and vertical alignment.
Interpretation towards horizontal alignment stands for the feelings, beliefs or perceptions the participants have that questions or amplifies the alignment in the team. With the changes, participants expressed their feeling of uncertainty on how to use a new norm or value in the team. This was especially the case regarding the new value of working with higher risk, as this seemed to be difficult for participants to incorporate in their daily work: “We have to be less risk-averse as a team, but we have no further guidelines to test what the boundaries are.” (Interviewee 3). These uncertainties were connected to the felt need of the participants for restructuring tasks and responsibilities. Participants expressed how these developments lead to misalignment in tasks and responsibility in the team: “After the change I would’ve expect a reorientation on your duties and responsibilities. To my knowledge, this has not formally happened yet.” (Interviewee 1). Before the change implementation, the Executive Board mentioned this as a focal point of attention, which is for these participants still highly relevant. The organizational change also led to the feeling of participants to be more connected with each other, as they expressed their felt need for togetherness, the perception of island forming between groups and the experienced difficulty to approach colleagues. “Now we operate more in islands and have no longer regularly direct contact with other groups” (Interviewee 14). The increased span of control and the change of managerial role are the main reasons for the felt need to be more connected: “You have to have a unifying factor, and that was previously the management.” (Interviewee 1). Yet, due to the change in managerial span of control and managerial role, participants had the feeling that the understanding of each other’s work grows, as they have to work more intensively to achieve horizontal alignment: “As we have more responsibility as a team, we get a better understanding of what each of us does.” (Interviewee 4). Also, the change in accessibility of knowledge stimulated professional interactions, and with that also the integration towards horizontal alignment. This was especially the case for the felt need for restructuring tasks and responsibilities and the felt need for togetherness. Interviewee 1 expressed the link by the following quote: “Something that does not help in clarity and direction is the closing and mergers of departments. You would expect a reorientation on your duties and responsibilities. To my knowledge, this has not formally happened yet.”.
20
levels. In the interviews, the participants explained that the choices made on managerial level were perceived as far away from the work floor because of the change in managerial span of control. This resulted according to them in a felt distance to the organizational goals and strategy. Interviewee 1 described this as follows: “To translate the organizations’ direction to mission, vision and strategy on departmental-level, we need shorter communication lines.”. Because of this, participants mentioned that they tended to check with colleagues to what extent they work towards the shared desired direction: “I can no longer test whether I am moving in the right direction. […] And that does not help in your, uhm, feeling that you are all moving in the same direction, because you no longer know where the others are moving towards either.” (Interviewee 1). Yet, participants also showed the interpretation towards vertical alignment by expressing their feeling of acceptance of changes in their environment, and embracing change as the right way forward “We also have to move forward, sometimes you just cannot keep the situation as is.” (Interviewee 4). The dilemmas that participants experienced in feelings show a discrepancy between expectations and reality: values they perceived as important include mutual dependence and the shared drive for achievement, while they indicated that they experienced island forming in the team and a felt need for togetherness as well. This shows the true dilemmas that the interpretation phase can bring along, as the team members struggled to follow and apply those norms and values in their daily work.
4.4.2. Lateral influence tactics in the interpretation phase
When interpreting changes in the environment, there are several lateral influence tactics that impact the process of interpretation. Participants demonstrated that these influence tactics are two-fold: they tended to use critical evaluations on others’ perspectives, and the creation of a common ground.
These critical evaluations on perspectives are described by participants as the act of asking deeper to the “why” behind one’s perspective. With this tactic, participants tended to make others question why they understand something in a certain way: “I am not looking for one trick, but for the ‘why’.” (Interviewee 3). Interviewee 6 explained as well: “[…] She will always ask her question “why”, regardless of the situation, or how many times she already asked. I always try to answer as seriously as possible; it makes me more aware.” Another way of critically evaluating one’s perspective is when participants solely communicate the downside of change. Multiple participants expressed that this affects their perspective and understanding about the change. Interviewee 6 mentioned: “You always have a group of people who immediately argue from a negative point of view. Some will always have a negative attitude towards it. […] This leaves me with an annoyed feeling about it.”
21
we both agree.” (Interviewee 14). The second way of creating a common ground by participants is bringing colleagues at ease when they expressed concerns about the change. “You always have people who immediately express their opinion like "if this all changes, how can we still cope with it?". Then I always say "take it easy, everything will be different tomorrow. First, take it easy.” (Interviewee 16). The third way of using this influential tactic, is when participants directly set expectations before collaborating by expressing preferred ways of working. This way, a participant influences one’s interpretation on how to use norms and values when working together: “I always say in a conversation when you are going to do a project together: “if there is something you dislike or would like to see differently, say it. I prefer not to hear it via others.”. (Interviewee 4). The following paragraph includes the enactment phase, how previous phases led to forms of enactment and the corresponding lateral influence tactics.
4.5. Enactment
4.5.1 Enactment of norms and values
Enactment is action that result from the interpretation phase. The participants’ actions from interpretation towards horizontal and vertical alignment can be distinguished in two categories: actions to enhance knowledge coordination and interpersonal supportive behavior.
22
Next to using action to create knowledge coordination, participants showed that they perform actions based on their interpretation by interpersonal supportive behavior. With this behavior, participants showed the ability of the team to help each other to fulfil personal or professional goals or wishes. They showed this by expressing three kinds of actions that are in line with this category. The organizational change led to new realities and dilemmas, where help was appreciated. Therefore, participants expressed how they offer support to colleagues, as a pro-active act whenever one recognizes that another is in need. Interviewee 4 mentioned: “An emergency occurred in the gas transportation, and two colleagues came in my room and stayed next to me until eight o'clock in the evening to solve the issue together.”. The second form of enactment by the participants is related to this, as it described the act of approaching colleagues when they need help: “Whenever I don’t understand something, I ask my questions to colleagues and they will help me further.” (Interviewee 16). The third form of enactment in interpersonal supportive behavior, was mirroring pleasant behavior. In the interviews, participants expressed that whenever they are exposed to pleasant behavior of a colleague, he or she is likely to mirror this behavior to other colleagues as well: “I get help from others when needed, and I appreciate that, so I will help people with their questions as well.”. (Interviewee 2). Both knowledge coordination and interpersonal supportive behavior are responses of the change in knowledge accessibility, the changes in values in professional interaction and integration towards horizontal alignment. The perceived knowledge loss stimulates horizontal alignment and uses action in knowledge coordination and interpersonal supportive behavior to cope with the changes caused by the organizational change. An example for both links is expressed in the following quote: “When we were working on a project, but something went wrong. Then you notice how people from all different disciplines put their work away and helped us solve this problem.” (Interviewee 9).
4.5.2 Lateral influence tactics in the enactment phase
When deciding and performing a suitable behavioral response to new realities, participants noticed that influence tactics can play a significant role. Participants indicated that in the team, people tend to reward or correct actions from others. The rewarding or correcting of others, stems from the comparison with the observed behavior and the existing norms and values in the team. These actions can be categorized as influence by verbal communication and as lateral influence by behavior.
23
critical questions whether certain actions are appropriate: “Then critical questions are asked. In the sense of, did you ask him or her about what they think about this?” (Interviewee 3). As participants perceived more autonomy in the team, they used verbal communication to stimulate pro-activeness by encouraging colleagues to take initiatives: “When collaborating with someone, I always tend to ask first “what is according to yóú the right thing to do?”, in order to prevent people only thinking in line with what the organization thinks. That helps to wake people up and stimulates personal commitment.” (Interviewee 5). Next to using verbal communication, participants also tended to stimulate others by their behavior. Participants experienced a sense of influence when one is showing a discrepancy between verbal and nonverbal communication in conversations. In these situations, participants expressed that they are unsure how to behave corresponding to the existing norms and values, as the other is showing mixed signals of what is accepted behavior in the situation. Also, showing increased pro-activeness in behavior by taking (shared) initiatives was another way to influence others’ behavior according to the participants: “I see that people are taking more responsibility, which works contagious. And if it’s not correct what we do, then we will hear it sooner or later.” (Interviewee 5).
4.6 Summary and elaboration of the research framework
24
5. DISCUSSION
This chapter discusses the empirical results from this study. First, the main findings of this research will be discussed while comparing to existing literature. Second, theoretical and managerial implications are described, followed by the limitations and suggestions for future research based on this study. This chapter will end with a conclusion to answer the research question.
5.1 Main findings and propositions
The aim of this study was to examine the impact of lateral influence tactics on the sensemaking process of norming teams. In the introduction of this study, the quote of Weick (1995) formulates how sensemaking accounts cannot be accurate due to the equivocal, postmodern world, infused with politics. This study reveals that we can confirm Weick’s statement. Perceiving sensemaking as a social phenomenon amplifies the complexity of defining a beginning and end of the sensemaking process, and with that, confirms that accuracy in sensemaking is impossible. The findings of this study show that the concepts of sensemaking, team development and influence tactics are interwoven and together shape the ongoing creation of ways of working in organizational life. It reveals that lateral influence tactics have an impact the sensemaking process and elaborates on the structure of the sensemaking process of team norms and values. To discuss this outcome, two main findings are defined, which are divided in multiple propositions. The first main finding is related to team sensemaking of norms and values, and the second main finding is related to the impact of lateral influence tactics on each phase of the sensemaking-cycle of Weick (1995).
25
to perceive cues that are constructing their perceptions on the team’s social and professional interaction, and job-characteristics. Ashmos & Nathan (2002) argued that teams offer the place for arguing and discussing individual and shared interpretations of processes when making sense, which corresponds to the perceived norms and values in interaction. Giuette & Vandenbempt (2013) stated that team sensemaking consists of task- and team-related determinants. These determinants can be translated to the job-related characteristics (task-related) and social and professional interaction (team-related). When these cues are perceived, they attempted to integrate these cues in their current mental models. The complexity of combining new cues to current mental models is made explicit by the experienced dilemmas that participants faced when they had to familiarize themselves with cues. It becomes clear that new cues lead to feelings, perceptions and beliefs that question or strengthens the perceived ability to achieve horizontal and vertical alignment in the environment. This is in line with the nature of the norming stage, as the goal is to create a shared understanding (Winter, 2003). These interpretations towards alignment serve as the base for behavioral responses in the enactment phase. The result of this process are actions with the aim to coordinate the teams’ knowledge, and actions that carry out interpersonal supportive behavior. Members of norming teams are exploring how to work effectively as a group (Tuckman, 1965), which explains the importance of knowledge coordination to cope with new realities. As Maples (1988) argues, norming teams are characterized with increased supportiveness, which is in line with interpersonal supportive behavior.
Proposition 1: When making sense of norms and values, team members perceive cues in line with social- and professional interaction and job-related characteristics, interpret these cues towards horizontal and vertical alignment, and show behavior to coordinate knowledge and/or show interpersonal support behavior.
The second main finding of this study is that lateral influence tactics do have a substantial impact on each phase of the sensemaking-cycle of Weick (1995) in norming teams. This study shows that the cues one perceives can be influenced by team members that show example behavior. The discrepancy between expectations and observations is created by showing this example behavior, which is supported by Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld (2005) as an indicator for perceived cues.
Proposition 2: Showing example behavior is a tactic that can be used to influence which cues team members perceive.
26
Yukl & Falbe (1992), as this tactic emphasizes the use of group or peer support to create a shared understanding about the matter.
Proposition 3: Tactics to influence interpretation are the practice of critical evaluations and the attempt to create a common ground between team members.
When participants respond to a change with their behavior, lateral influence is used to activate, punish, or reward others’ actions by verbal or behavioral stimulation. These tactics show overlap with the influence tactic of “rational persuasion” from Falbe & Yukl (1992), as it stands for the usage of arguments and factual evidence to convince someone. Using verbal or behavioral stimulation can be logical tools to achieve the desired outcome of rational persuasion.
Proposition 4: Enactment can be influenced by using verbal and behavioral stimulation to activate, punish or reward others’ actions.
5.2 Theoretical contributions
27
5.3 Managerial recommendations
The managerial implications of this study are related to new insights for change agents or managers into the sensemaking of teams. Due to this study, practitioners know that with organizational change, norming teams tend to perceive cues that are in line with social and professional interaction and job-related characteristics. When a practitioner knows that mainly these cues are extracted from the environment by norming teams, he or she can integrate these cues in the communication about the change and shape these cues to transfer the change initiative in the best way. Next, the members will interpret towards horizontal and vertical alignment, which consists of dilemmas about how to use cues into their daily life. A recommendation for practitioners is to orient if team members are facing these dilemmas. Supporting employees by creating evaluation meetings to discuss these dilemmas could contribute to a smoother interpretation of the change, leading to better adaptation of the new reality. Lastly, norming team members respond to the interpretation by coordinating knowledge and showing interpersonal supportive behavior. With this knowledge, practitioners can recognize when norming team members are responding to change via their behavior, which provides opportunities for practitioners to channel desired behavior to enhance team effectiveness. The corresponding influence tactics contribute to the practitioners’ understanding on how change initiatives are mentally processed towards a shared understanding by the team. It helps understanding the complex underlying (verbal or nonverbal) communication that form the root of shared understandings of a team. When practitioners notice these behaviors, they can stimulate it when it creates cohesiveness by using rewards and discourage it when it creates divergence by punishments.
5.4 Limitations and future research
28
5.5 Conclusion
29
REFERENCES
Adair, J. (1986). Effective team building. London: Pan Books Ltd.
Adler, P.A. & Adler, P. (1998). Observatoinal Techniques. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S.
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.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 523–549.
Bennis, W. G., & Shepard, H. A. (1956). A Theory of Group Development. Human Relations, 9(4), 415– 437.
Bonebright, D.A. (2010). 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman's model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111-120.
Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. L. (2015). Grounded Theory. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, SAGE, London.
Cialdini, R. B. (1998). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: Perennial Currents.
Cronin, M., Weingart, L. and Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 571–612.
Corbin, J.M. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Dougherty, D.S. & Drumheller, K. (2006). Sensemaking and Emotions in Organizations: Accounting for Emotions in Rational(ized) Context. Communication Studies, 57(2), 215-238.
Dunphy, D. (1968). Phases, roles and myths in self-analytic groups. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 4(2), 195-225
Einola, K. & Alvesson, M. (2019). The Making and Unmaking of Teams. Human Relations, 72(12), 1891-1919.
Elsbach, K.D., Barr, P.S., & Hargadon, A.B. (2005). Identifying Situated Cognition in Organizations. Organization Science, 16(4), 422–433.
Enns, Huff, & Higgins. (2003). CIO Lateral Influence Behaviors: Gaining Peers’ Commitment to Strategic Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 27(1).
Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). CONSEQUENCES FOR MANAGERS OF USING SINGLE INFLUENCE TACTICS AND COMBINATIONS OF TACTICS. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 638–652.
30
Flick, U., Ernst K. & Steinke, I. (2004). A Companion to Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications Ltd: London.
Gephart, R.O., Topal, C. & Zhang, Z. (2010). Future-oriented sensemaking: Temporalities and institutional legitimation. Process, Sensemaking and Organizing, 275-312.
Gibbard, G. S., & Hartman, J. J. (1973). The oedipal paradigm in group development: A clinical and empirical study. Small Group Behavior, 4(3), 305–354.
Gioia, D. A. & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.
Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and Strategic Change in Academia: The Dynamics of Sensemaking and Influence. Organization Science, 5(3), 363–383.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine
Houtman L., Kotlarsky, J., Hooff, van den, B. (2014). Understanding knowledge coordination dynamics in traditional and fast-response IT organizations. Thirty Fifth international Conference on Information Systems, Auckland, 1-16.
Jiang, M. (2020). Video chat is helping us stay employed and connected. But what makes it so tiring - and how can we reduce ‘Zoom fatigue’? BBC World, Remote Control.
Johnson, P. (2010). Four Steps to Effective Collaboration. Young Adult Library Services, 9(1): 17-19. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440–452.
Klein, G., Wiggins, S. & Dominiguez, C.O. (2010). Team Sensemaking. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(4), 304-320.
Kumar, R. (2014). Research methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd
Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 271– 282 Magala, S. J. (1997). The making and unmaking of sense: The Emergence of a New Paradigm in Organizational Sciences. Organization Studies, 18(2), 317–338
Maitlis, S. & Christianson, M.K. (2014). Sensemaking in Organizations: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57-125.
Maitlis, S. & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1998). Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 551-580.
Mann, R.D. (1967) Interpersonal styles and group development. New York: John Wiley.
Maples, M. F. (1988). Group development: Extending tuckman’s theory. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 13(1), 17–23.
31
Miller, D. (2003). The stages of group development: A retrospective study of dynamic team processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences. 20(2), 121–43.
Miller, D. L. (2009). The Stages of Group Development: A Retrospective Study of Dynamic Team Processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 20(2), 121–134.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
Moran, J.W. & Brightman, B.K. (2000). Leading Organizational Change. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12(2), 66-74.
Mortelmans, D. (2009). Handboek Kwalitatieve Onderzoeksmethoden (4th ed). Leuven, BE: Acco Nederland.
Sandberg, J. & Tsoukas, H. (2014). Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1). Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339-358.
Sonenshein, S. (2010). We’re Changing—Or Are We? Untangling the Role of Progressive, Regressive, and Stability Narratives During Strategic Change Implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 477–512.
Stahl, G.K., Maznevski, M.L., Voigt, A. & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 690–709.
Stigliani, I., & Ravasi, D. (2012). Organizing Thoughts and Connecting Brains: Material Practices and the Transition from Individual to Group-Level Prospective Sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1232–1259.
Tenenbaum, G., & Driscoll, M.P. (2005). Methods of research in sport sciences: quantitative and qualitative approaches. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer
Thorpe, S. (2010). Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal. International Association of Facilitators.
Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 65(6), 384–99. Tuckman, B.W., & M.A. Jensen. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–27
Valle, M. & Perrewe, P.L. (2000), “Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Tests of an implicit assumption and expanded model”. Human Relations, (53)3, 359-386.
Van Aken, J., Berends, H., & Van der Bij, H. (2012). Problem solving in organizations: A methodological handbook for business and management students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
