Creating a shared understanding in virtual settings: using
facilitating factors to overcome contextual obstacles
A case study on how and to what extent a shared understanding is created by change agents
with change recipients in virtual settings
University: University of Groningen
Study: MSc BA Change Management
Course: Master Thesis for MSc BA Change Management
Supervisor: dr. J.F.J. Vos
Second Assessor: dr. O. P. Roemeling
Student & Student number: Leon Dusée: S3146758
Date: 22-6-2018
Wordcount: 14.491 (excl. references & appendices)
Telephone number: +31623709560
E-mail address: l.dusee@student.rug.nl
Acknowledgement: I would like to offer a great word of thanks to Janita Vos for her support, advise
2
Abstract
The usage of virtual teams is increasing, while research around this is still in its early stages. More specifically, research around how a shared understanding is created during organizational change in virtual settings is also in its infancy, although organizations are constantly facing changes and employees are more frequently part of virtual teams. Having a shared understanding is key to encourage opportunities for innovation and value creation. However, it is expected that the virtual setting influences the ability to create a shared understanding. The aim of this study is to investigate how and to what extent change agents, who are the initiators of the change, create a shared understanding of an organizational change with change recipients, who are affected by the change, in virtual settings. To build theory around this phenomenon, semi-structured interviews and observations were conducted to collect the information needed. The results imply that the virtual setting creates several obstacles that change agents need to overcome to create a shared understanding about an organizational change. For example, obstacles around the level of change recipients’ participation and the way of communication of both change agents and change recipients arise. To overcome these obstacles, change agents use various additional interventions, such as informal phone calls and middle managers to translate the information to their teams. It is perceived as difficult to create a shared understanding on how the change should be conducted in virtual settings and to create a shared understanding with change recipients on the lowest hierarchical levels. These insights provide a granular understanding of how this phenomenon unfolds in practice and how this process can be optimized. This helps change agents in defining their actions when they initiate a change to create a shared understanding of an organizational change in virtual settings.
Key words: shared understanding, organizational change, virtual setting, participation, communication,
3
Table of Contents
Abstract... 2
Introduction ... 4
Literature Review ... 7
Managing change in a virtual setting... 7
Shared understanding ... 8
Creating a shared understanding ... 9
Creating a shared understanding in virtual settings: Towards a research framework ... 11
Methods ... 13 Research site... 13 Case selection ... 14 Data collection ... 16 Data analysis ... 19 Results ... 22 Within-case analysis ... 22 Case 1 – Production ... 22
Case 2 – Projects & Turnarounds ... 25
Case 3 – Maintenance ... 27
Case 4 – Engineering ... 29
Cross–case analysis: similarities and dissimilarities between the cases ... 32
Discussion and conclusion ... 36
Summary of the findings ... 36
Theoretical implications ... 37
Practical implications ... 40
Limitations and suggestions for further research ... 41
Conclusion ... 42
References ... 43
Appendix 1: The Change journey ... 51
Appendix 2: Interview Protocol Change Agents ... 52
Appendix 3: Interview Protocol Change recipients ... 55
Appendix 4: Research logbook ... 58
Appendix 5: Observation scheme ... 62
Appendix 6: Overview observations... 63
Appendix 7: Codebook ... 64
4
Introduction
Technological developments have changed the way organizations are organized in recent decades. For instance, developments in the areas of internet and telephony have changed how work is organized (Vlaar, van Fenema, & Tiwari, 2008). An outcome of these developments is that organizations are using virtual teams more often. Research on the use of virtual teams in organizations from 80 countries demonstrated that in 2016, 85% of respondents worked partly or entirely in virtual teams (Solomon, 2016). This percentage is expected to increase in the coming years, as companies expand geographically and telecommuting becomes even more common. A virtual team can be defined as “a team whose members are geographically distributed, interact electronically through the use of computer-mediated communication and are functionally diverse” (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002, p.189).
Organizations and employees face several benefits from working in virtual teams. For example, employees can socialize and acquire new skills, because they are able to connect with other employees around the world (Warr, 2008). However, organizations and employees also face several challenges when using virtual teams. For instance, communication breakdowns are likely to arise, as virtual teams struggle to effectively work and communicate with each other. Interestingly, communication is a precondition for success in conducting work, and it becomes even more important when work is conducted by teams from multiple geographic regions (Daim, et al., 2012). Working in virtual teams has also increased concerns about the creation of a shared understanding among team members and managers (e.g. Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007; Vlaar et al., 2008). The reason for this concern is that people working in different locations hold different accounts and may have different perceptions of reality (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007; Witt, 2000). A shared understanding exists when people have the same view on the why, what and how (Stensaker, Falkenberg, & Gronhaug, 2008). Extensive research has illustrated that the presence of a shared understanding is key, because a lack of it can restrict opportunities for innovation and value creation (e.g. Lepak, Smith, & Taylor, 2007; Sandberg & Targama, 2007).
5 are constantly facing changes and employees are more frequently joining virtual teams (Salomon, 2016; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002).
Organizational change can be described as a non-linear, context-dependent, and unpredictable process in which intended strategies frequently lead to unintended outcomes (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Various studies centered around organizational change support the view that attempts to implement organizational change are primarily unsuccessful (e.g. Beer, 2000; Burnes, 2004; Elrod & Tippett, 2002; Pettigrew, Woodman & Cameron, 2001). One of the reasons for unsuccessful organizational change is the inability of employees to cope with shifting organizational expectations. These are changes that dramatically modify the cognitive and behavioral interactions of employees with the world around them (Huy, 2002). This reason underpins the importance of creating a shared understanding during organizational changes to ensure that the change leads to the intended change outcomes and new group routines, rituals, norms, assumptions, and beliefs are created based on this shared understanding (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Weick, 1995). Research from Balogun and Johnson (2005) demonstrated that the social processes of interaction can create a shared understanding between the change agents, who are the initiators of a change, and change recipients, who are affected by the change (Heyden, Fourné, Koene, Werkman, Ansari, 2017), which has a direct impact on change outcomes. During the social processes of interaction, employees make sense of the organizational change (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Therefore, sensemaking plays a central role in the creation of a shared understanding (Stensaker et al., 2008), while sensemaking is experienced as exceptionally difficult, yet vital, for employees (Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008).
6 environments (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). Moreover, as mentioned previously, little is known about how change agents create a shared understanding with change recipients of an organizational change in virtual settings, despite the fact that this is described as an important element to achieve intended change outcomes (Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Bartunek et al., 2011). Therefore, this study attempts to fill this gap by building theory on how and to what extent change agents create a shared understanding with change recipients in virtual settings (Bartunek et al., 2011; Kraft, Sparr, & Peus, 2015; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015).
This study also has practical relevance. First, it provides insights into how change agents create a shared understanding with change recipients in virtual settings with the aim to achieve intended change outcomes. Second, this research gains insights into what the influence is of the virtual setting on the extent to which a shared understanding is created between change agents and change recipients. Third, this study offers an overview of how a shared understanding is created between multiple hierarchical layers and which obstacles are faced in this process. The data was collected via semi-structured interviews and observations within four departments in which an organizational change is taking place in a virtual setting. Within these four cases, a multi-level study was conducted to gain insights into how a shared understanding is created between multiple hierarchical layers in an organization that primarily works virtually. That makes this setting suitable for answering the following research question:
7
Literature Review
To be able to build theory on how and to what extent change agents create a shared understanding with change recipients in virtual settings, the central concepts of this study will be outlined in this literature review. The first part of the literature review focusses on managing change in a virtual setting. Afterwards, a shared understanding will be defined and the concepts that play a central role in how a shared understanding is created will be discussed.
Managing change in a virtual setting
Organizations are currently experimenting with several forms to organize and leverage their human assets. One result of this trend is the creation of virtual teams which represents an important new way of organizing teams (DeSanctis & Monge, 1999). Commonly, a team can be defined as “a group of two or more individuals who must interact cooperatively and adaptively in pursuit of shared valued objectives” (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001, p.221). Virtual teams are teams that are not able to see each other face-to-face, either because members work in different regions or because their workplaces are difficult to visit, as is the case with employees who work offshore in the oil and gas industry (Sivunen, 2006). In this study, the definition of a virtual team is based on the definition used in the studies of DeSanctis and Monge (1999), Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999), and Kanawattanachai and Yoo (2002): “a team whose members are geographically distributed, interact electronically through the use of computer-mediated communication and are functionally diverse” (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002, p.189).
8 teams (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002). Finally, communication breakdowns are likely to arise because virtual teams struggle to effectively work and communicate with each other, even though communication is a precondition for team success. The importance of communication increases when work is conducted by teams from different geographic regions (Daim et al., 2012). Given the above challenges, it is expected that these influence the change process in a virtual setting. For example, communication can provide information that help employees to understand the proposed changes, while the virtual setting creates obstacles around communication (Griffith et al., 2003; Lewis & Seibold, 1998).
Organizational change can be described as a non-linear, context-dependent, and unpredictable process in which intended strategies frequently lead to unintended outcomes (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Nowadays, organizations act in highly competitive markets where organizational change becomes necessary to stay competitive (Senior & Swailes, 2010). Within organizational changes, it is critical to ensure that a shared understanding is created, as this leads to intended change outcomes (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Two vital actors are outlined in the literature on organizational change: change agents and change recipients. Change agents are the initiators of a change, while change recipients are the actors that are affected by the change (Heyden et al., 2017). Change agents in virtual settings frequently lack opportunities to physically meet subordinates and to share experiences or information face-to-face (Rico, Alcover, Sánches-Manzanares, & Gil, 2009). Therefore, it can be more difficult to influence the social processes of interaction between employees during organizational changes to ensure that a shared understanding is created (Balogun & Johnson, 2005).
Shared understanding
9 During an organizational change, a shared understanding exists when change agents and change recipients have the same views on the why, what, and how of the change (Stensaker, et al., 2008). Various studies have demonstrated that multiple meanings in organizations arise from various sources. These sources include, for example, subcultures, networks, and occupations (e.g. Martin, 1992; Van Maanen & Barley, 1984; Weick, 1979). Therefore, employees from different occupational communities have different work experiences because of the division and specialization of labor. Scholars who have studied these communities advocate that employees bring very different perspectives to their work practices, because of the way they make sense of organizational events (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). These different perspectives likely make it even more difficult to create a shared understanding. In order to influence these perspectives to create a shared understanding, the concept of sensemaking plays a central role (Stensaker et al., 2008). Sensemaking is defined as “the process of social construction which occurs when discrepant cues interrupt individuals’ ongoing activity, and involves the retrospective development of plausible meanings that rationalize what people are doing” (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010, p.551). Change recipients’ participation and communication of both the change agent and change recipients are linked to sensemaking because they contribute to the development of a shared understanding for and commitment to change among change recipients. Moreover, change agents can also apply additional interventions to create a shared understanding (Stensaker et al., 2008).
Creating a shared understanding
10 coupled with other implementation activities that create a shared understanding for and commitment to the change (Stensaker et al., 2008).
Communication can be defined as “an exchange of information, occurring through both verbal and nonverbal channels, between two or more team members” (Marlow, Lacerenza, Paoletti, Burke, & Salas, 2018, p.146). A distinction is made between two different communication methods: one-way and two-way communication. One-way communication is a method by which information can move in only one direction (Chang, Ibarra, & Vergis, 1988). Two-way communication differs, because in this method both parties can communicate in both directions (Owari & Hayashi, 2008). Communication, and more specifically the two-way dialogue between change agents and recipients, is important when a shared understanding must be created. This two-way dialogue is frequently described as the sensemaking and sense-giving process between change agents and change recipients, because during the sensemaking process, the change agent and change recipients are actively shaping the change outcomes (Stensaker et al., 2008). Therefore, as previously stated, sensemaking plays central role in the creation of a shared understanding (e.g. Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Gioia & Thomas, 1996). Due to the individual sensemaking process, everyone holds particular cognitive frames as a result of their own context and background. This leads to different individual interpretations of the change, which has implications for the responses to the change and the extent to which the change leads to the intended change outcomes (Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Furthermore, sensemaking is described as a social process that takes place in relational contexts. Therefore, through interacting with and observing others, individuals engage in sensemaking (Balogun, Bartunek, & Do, 2015; Huy, 2011; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Rouleau & Balogun, 2011; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). However, when the change agent and other team members work from different locations, it is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to observe others, and therefore at least part of the sensemaking process is lacking.
11 into face-to-face conversations and inter-actions” (Wiley, 1988, p.258). Therefore, sensemaking is primarily a conversational and narrative process. This involves a variety of communication, both formal and informal and spoken and written (Brown, 2000; Gephart, 1993, 1997). To infer and give meaning to activities, individuals engage in conversations and negotiations in which stories, rumors, information, and experiences are shared. During these conversations and negotiations, individuals take note of verbal and non-verbal signs and signals, which may include, the behavior and actions of other individuals (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Isabella, 1990; Labianca et al., 2000; Poole et al., 1989). As a result, changes in attitudes and ways of working occur through the shifts in conversation and language that employees face during organizational changes (Barrett, Thomas, & Hocevar, 1995; Brown & Humphreys 2003; Ford & Ford 1995; Heracleous & Barrett 2001). Therefore, the actual changes are shaped during the social processes of interaction between employees, which occurs through sensemaking triggers. These contain, for instance, information from the change agent (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Another important element of communication is consistency. Research from Stensaker et al. (2008) has shown that inconsistency leads to frustration among change recipients. Furthermore, inconsistency creates insecurity about the consequences of the change and about who is controlling the process.
Besides the influence of change recipients’ participation and communication between the change agent and recipients on a shared understanding, change agents can also conduct additional interventions to create a shared understanding (Stensaker et al., 2008). Change agents’ interventions are the deliberate actions from change agents intended to improve the success of a change project (Rodon, Sese, & Christiaanse, 2011). An example of an intervention of change agents is using middle managers as a mechanism to send the message of the change agent to team members (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1997). Another intervention is the use of consistency between corporate intentions and the translation of these into operational practices. This is not regarded as a simple process, due to the varying interpretations of change recipients (Bartunek et al., 2006). Finally, change agents must further develop corporate ideas into strategic directions for their own departments (Stensaker et al., 2008).
12 Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002). Moreover, difficulties around communication in virtual settings are expected, while virtual settings should lead to equalized levels of participation (Hollingshead, 1996; Straus, 1996). However, currently, no research has focused on how a shared understanding is created in virtual settings and what the role is of change recipients’ participation, the way of communication of both change agent and recipients, and change agents’ additional interventions in the creation of a shared understanding in this specific context (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). This, in combination with the increase in usage of virtual teams and the increase of organizational changes (Solomon, 2016; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002), and the importance of the existence of a shared understanding to achieve intended change outcomes (Balogun & Johnson, 2005), makes this research relevant to conduct. Figure 1 illustrates the central concepts of this study via a research framework that will form the basis for the data collection described in the following section.
13
Methods
The aim of this research is to provide insight into how and to what extent change agents create a shared understanding of an organizational change with change recipients in virtual settings. Since this phenomenon has not been explained in academic literature, the theory development research approach fits the goal of this research (van Aken, Berend, & van der Bij, 2012). Therefore, this study derives information from the empirical world by conducting interviews and observations. This study includes four cases selected on theoretical sampling, as recommended by Eisenhardt, in which the aim of the research is theory development (1989) and an embedded case design is applied (Yin, 2003). Looking at the parts of the empirical cycle, this research follows the first part (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2011; Groot & Spiekerman, 1969), of which the following step is to observe this phenomenon in practice (van Aken et al., 2012).
During the data collection phase, it is important to be clear about the position of the researcher in the field (Pratt, 2009). At the time of this research, I was also an employee within the research site. However, I was not working for the asset, and therefore did not personally or professionally know the interviewees. This avoided a situation in which information was collected about close colleagues (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005). During the data collection phase, it was ensured that the information was analyzed anonymously. Furthermore, to avoid a role conflict, employees were only met during the data collection phase, for example, during interviews (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005).
Research site
14 entire asset is crucial. These characteristics should also be considered when this research is reproduced in another setting.
In this research, the change agents are the general managers of the departments. The employees of these change agents were approached as change recipients, because they are directly influenced by the change. However, some employees also have managerial responsibilities, and they need to communicate with and engage their employees in the change. Therefore, they are both responsible for implementing the change and are recipients of the change (Balogun & Johnson, 2004). One of their tasks was to discuss the messages of the change agent with their employees. A multi-level research approach was used in this study to investigate how this process unfolds among the various hierarchical layers. Multi-level research collects data from several units of analysis (Snijders & Baerveldt, 2003). With this research design, it was possible to investigate how a shared understanding is created between a middle manager and a supervisor and between a supervisor and an employee after a shared understanding is created between the change agent and the concerning middle manager. This creates a more integrated understanding of how this phenomenon unfolds across various levels in an organization (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Between the cases, replication logic was used, which means that the cases were treated independently in that each case can confirm or disconfirm the conceptual insights that emerged during the research (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Paré, 2002). This was achieved by using a standard interview format to allow for systematic comparison. Additionally, observations were used to collect additional insights.
Case selection
15 of ten employees, three employees were interviewed, while in a team of three employees, one employee was interviewed. Detailed characteristics of the selected cases is shown below.
16 The teams within the cases have a different geographical set-up influencing the geographical dispersion, which is shown in the figure below. Additionally, the dotted circles show the different teams within each case.
Figure 2: Overview cases and teams
Data collection
17 In total, 19 semi-structured interviews were conducted. The reason a different interview protocol was used for the change agents was that questions that were asked to the change recipients, regarding how the change agent creates a shared understanding, should be framed differently to ask the change agents about their perception of how they create a shared understanding. By using semi-structured interviews, it was possible to target the central elements of this study. Furthermore, the use of semi-structured interviews was insightful due to the perceived causes, explanations, and inferences (Yin, 2013). Additionally, by interviewing both change agents and recipients, the respondents’ biases were controlled for. This ensured that all crucial roles were represented in the sample (van Aken et al., 2012). Moreover, a logbook was developed with extensive notes to enhance the possibility of replication of this study, which also increased the controllability. The logbook is shown in Appendix 4 and is based on the process of building theory from case study research (Eisenhardt, 1989).
18 Table 2: overview of change agents and recipients (case 1-4 respectively)
19
Data analysis
The first step in the data analysis process was that all recorded interviews were transcribed. After this, a codebook was developed based on the first insights gained during the interviews and observations, the interview protocol and observations scheme, and the literature review. The first codes that were part of the codebook were the deductive codes, which are codes based on the literature review. An example of a deductive code is the definition of participation. An example of how the interview protocol and the first insights were used to develop codes is one of the questions, which was: “Via which channels do you inform your employees about the change journey?” Therefore, the second order theme was virtual communication channels, and based on the first insights, the first order codes were developed. These codes are called inductive codes, because these emerged from data that was collected via the interviews and observations (Fereday, 2006). During the coding process, codes were deleted, added, or altered; the final codebook is presented in Appendix 7 (Rowlands, 2005). The observations were analyzed by writing down notes at the time of the observation and by expanding the notes as soon as was possible after each event (Spradley, 1979). The e-mails, video blogs, and PowerPoint presentations were coded based on the codebook.
22
Results
First, a within-case analysis was performed to define similarities and dissimilarities within the cases. The data structure formed the structure for the within-case analysis. Afterwards, the cases were compared crosswise and similarities and dissimilarities between the four cases were assessed. The individual codes of the interviewees, as shown in table 2, were used to indicate the source of the quotations.
Within-case analysis
Case 1 – Production
The first case is within the Production department. This department had two different departments, one in the United Kingdom and one in the Netherlands. As a result of the change journey, these two departments were merged into one, and a focus on standardization was introduced.
Virtual setting
To inform all the employees about the change journey, the change agent used town halls. As stated by 1CA:
“I use town halls to inform the employees about the change journey.” Additionally, to discuss the change
journey more detailed, he used team meetings. Team meetings were regarded as the most effective method to inform his team members, because “Then they can ask questions, you have short lines and you can
explain what you mean.” Contrastingly, e-mails are, according to both the change agent and change
recipients viewed as the most inefficient channel, because as mentioned by 1CA: “People do not read them,
because they are overloaded with information.” The recipients feel that they were informed by town halls,
but also via other channels. These include, as stated by 1CR7: “Video blogs, websites, newsletters, team
meetings and e-mails.” Five of the seven recipients also think that team meetings are the most effective
method for obtaining information about the change journey, because, as explained by 1CR6: “You can have
that interaction and discussion.”
Obstacles and facilitating factors
The main obstacle to work virtually, according to the change agent, is that it is difficult to let employees participate during the sessions which are held in English. The reason for this is that “Employees do not feel
comfortable to speak English in public, so they normally won’t say anything.” According to the change
recipients, the obstacles are that they may get easily distracted during virtual meetings and have the inability to read someone’s body language. As mentioned by 1CR4: “Sometimes you are sitting behind your screen
and following a meeting and then you get a message and that distracts you.” Additionally, both the change
agent and the recipients agree that the virtual setting makes it more difficult to create a shared understanding of the change journey.
23 increase the level of participation. Another intervention to optimize the shared understanding is, as explained by 1CR3: “There are a lot of good initiatives on the work floor, but for this input is never asked.
That should be stimulated.” Therefore, it is key that the change agent stimulates the employees to provide
input. Another facilitating factor impacting the shared understanding of the “how” of the change journey is through creating sessions where the change agent clearly explains what he expects from all employees. As stated by 1CR3: “Really, ensure that you are clear, so which direction do you want to follow and which
elements you want to change.”
Change recipients’ participation
The change recipients primarily participate by ensuring that their department reaches the objectives of the change journey, as mentioned by 1CR2: “Where I show my involvement is the way I am driving that within
my plant unit but also finding areas where I say: "Ok, some of this process, in the way it currently exists, will not help us in that change journey, so what are we going to do differently?" The virtual setting hinders
the level of participation of employees and their understanding. The explanations for this, according to the change recipients, is that it requires more effort, it is difficult to pay attention to virtual meetings, and there is a perceived language barrier. This was also observed during a town hall, where no questions or interactions were observed from the remote locations that dialed in during the information session.
Way of communication of both change agent and recipients
Analyzing the interaction between the change agent and the change recipients reveals that only two recipients, who were team members of the change agent, had one-on-ones with the change agent. The other recipients only spoke to the change agent during town halls and by e-mail. The most effective methods for creating a shared understanding in virtual settings with respect to communication are, according to the change agent, to use a consistent and clear messages and communicate regularly. For example, as stated by 1CA: “You need to say the same message a lot, so via another town hall or video blog, and it takes longer
to get a shared understanding when you work virtually.” Additionally, the change recipients viewed these
two elements as helpful in creating a shared understanding, but they also had the feeling that the utilized management terms from the change agent were ineffective because, as reasoned by 1CR7: “They use terms
like end-to-end processes and they use it out of nowhere. Sometimes you think that they think you understand this directly, but at the office they are working the entire day with this and always talk about these terms, but this is not the case at the offshore platforms.”
Change agents’ additional interventions
24
“Because they are working on platforms and in shifts.” To create a shared understanding of what needs to
be changed, the change agent also does the following: “You need to take them by the hand and explain what
they can do. For example, where they can write an instruction and how they should write an instruction, so you have to show each step.” The change agent focuses, with his change approach, primarily on ensuring
that the middle managers can engage with their own teams about the change journey, because, as mentioned by 1CA: “They need to pull the change.”
The extent to which there is a shared understanding
Regarding the “why” of the change journey, the change agent believes that the reason for this change journey was centered around the four pressure points, which include safety performance, production levels, increased cost levels in combination with lower oil and gas prices, and the declining reputation. The change recipients did only not mention the issues around safety as a reason for the change journey. The change agent expressed that there was not a shared understanding about the why of the change: “The understanding
is mixed, because it depends on the perspective of the employees, so the UK side is different than the NL side, because they know more about the problems in Groningen.” Four of the recipients did think that there
was a shared understanding about the why of the change, while three recipients thought that there was a gap between the understanding of the leaders and that of the front-line employees, as explained by 1CR2:
“If you do ask people why we are doing it, I think you may not get the same level of consistency.”
Concerning the “what” of the change journey, the objective of the change journey was 0/90/10, which means 0 incidents, 90% of the time the production platforms should produce gas for 10-dollar per barrel, according to the change agent. The change vision was: “To become the most competitive and
innovative operator in the Southern North Sea.” Analyzing the understanding of the change recipients about
what needed to be changed, then, three recipients also stated that what needed to be changed was the 0/90/10, while three other recipients only mentioned that more cash should be delivered. Interestingly, no recipient mentioned the vision of the change journey.
A shared understanding of how the change should be conducted was also not optimal, according to the change agent. As mentioned by 1CA: “We need to do a lot of work around the front line, only in my
own direct team everyone knows how we need to change.” This gap is also described by the change
recipients. For example, as stated by 1CR3: “This is mixed, because you do not talk with the entire group
25
Case 2 – Projects & Turnarounds
The second case is within the Projects & Turnarounds department. In the change journey, the department also became responsible for the execution of the projects, rather than only for the preparation.
Virtual setting
The channels that the change agent used to inform her staff about the change journey included e-mails, team meetings, video blogs, and telephone calls. These channels were also recognized by the two change recipients. The most efficient channel to create a shared understanding was to use the channels which stimulated a two-way dialogue. This was also underpinned by the change recipients; for instance, as mentioned by 2CR1: “I personally like the conversation element.” Both the recipients and the change agent agreed that e-mails were not effective in creating a shared understanding. As mentioned by 2CA: “It is hard
to put your passion in an e-mail.”
Obstacles and facilitating factors
An obstacle was the used management terms, because, as described by 2CA: “These terms will feel empty
and then you will lose them. But if you describe the term without mentioning the labels then you will get them on board.” Another obstacle was described by 2CR1: “The biggest difference are the nonverbal clues that you miss.” A final obstacle was the lack of a clear virtual meeting, which results in a lack of clarity.
Regarding facilitating factors in creating a shared understanding in a virtual setting, the change agent expressed that it was important to build a relationship: “You need to put effort in building a
relationship, and then you can follow the trend when you work virtually and you need to ask how it goes, so try to create a dialogue.” The importance of the dialogue and building a relationship was also
underpinned by the recipients; for instance, as mentioned by 2CR1: “Therefore, the two-way dialogue is
important and boundaries and accountability need to be respected as well of course.”
Change recipients’ participation
Studying the change recipients’ participation, they focused on meeting the targets of the change. This was also observed during a team meeting, where they discussed the status of the goals. However, the virtual setting hinders the level of participation, according to the change agent: “This makes it more difficult. I
especially saw that people in England were struggling with getting involved in the change journey until I gave them the freedom.” The change recipients confirmed the difficulty to participate when working
virtually, particularly during bigger meetings such as town halls, as mentioned by 1CR2: “The reason why
people do not respond in town halls is the perceived difference in seniority, and the perception that there is a lot of people on the call and what if I am asking a stupid question.” The change agent tried to improve
26
a slide pack and someone in the UK does not agree with what I mentioned in a slide, then I change it directly during the meeting.”
Way of communication of both change agent and recipients
The way the change agent tried to create a shared understanding was described as follows: “I repeated it a
lot, so every meeting I repeat it.” Besides, the change agent clarified, in her communication, why the change
should be conducted. More emphasis on communication was placed with the team members of the change agent, because: “They have to tell this message to their team members.” This was also confirmed by the interaction between the change agent and her team members when 2CR1 stated, in response to the question of how often he communicated with the change agent about the change journey, “Every week on average.”
Change agents’ additional interventions
An additional intervention used by the change agent was “Calling important people, the informal and
formal leaders, in a group after an information session to find out how things are going, and to get a feeling how their level of understanding is.” Another intervention from the change agent was, as she described, “I also regularly join their meetings to tell my story.”
The extent to which there is a shared understanding
Analyzing the “why” of the change journey, the change agent thought that it was due to the declining gas prices, and that the asset would not survive it. In contrast, the change recipients thought it was due to increasing operating costs, the decrease of gas prices, and the changed reputation of the organization. Interestingly, there is no gap in understanding according to the change agent, as mentioned by 2CA:
“People really know why the change was initiated.” This is also recognized by the recipients, as stated by
2CR1: “I don't think there is any lack of clarity about the why.”
Concerning the “what” of the change journey, what needed to be changed, according to the change agent, was: “Ensuring that we become competitive on the long term.” Recipient 2CR1 thought that what needed to be changed was: “Produce more gas cheaper and safely.” Contrastingly, recipient 2CR2 thought that “0/90/10/15 are the goals.” Looking at the extent to which the change agent thought that there was a shared understanding about what needed to be changed, “I think this is quite clear, because we have an
informal atmosphere, and everyone talks with each other.” The recipients, however, thought it was mixed,
as mentioned by 2CR1: “I would say that it varies and depends on your level within the business.” Obtaining a shared understanding of how the change should be conducted was the most difficult part of working virtually, because, as mentioned by 2CR1: “I think everyone is comfortable with the intent
and the desire. You then get down to a method of execution and you may have then different views.” As a
27
“Otherwise they will not come up with new ideas.” However, the change recipients struggled with the task
of identifying the “how” and the role of the change agent in this. The struggle was also observed during a team meeting, where an employee mentioned that he was uncertain about his task in a change journey-related project.
Case 3 – Maintenance
The third case is within the Maintenance department. The change journey impacted this department by placing significant pressure on their costs, which resulted in the decision to insource contractor employees during the organizational change and to remove employees from platforms and let them operate unmanned.
Virtual setting
The change agent used various channels to inform his employees about the change journey: “I use team
meetings to inform my direct reports and the onto-ones which are every week. Besides, I sometime use e-mails, town halls and video blogs to inform all employees.” These channels were also mentioned by the
change recipients. The change agent believed that one-on-ones were the most effective way to create a shared understanding of the change journey. The change recipients thought that, primarily, the video blogs were very effective in obtaining a shared understanding, as mentioned by 3CR2: “The videos are very
powerful.” E-mails and newsletters were, in contrast, seen as ineffective. A reason for this, as discussed by
3CR1, was: “I get sometimes hundred e-mails on a day and then you receive an e-mail with a newsletter
with a lot of text and then I do not look at it, because I do not have time and energy for this.”
Obstacles and facilitating factors
One of the main obstacles to working virtually, according to the change recipients, is, as mentioned by 3CR3: “You can get overloaded with stuff that doesn't add value, which can be a distraction.” Additionally, as explained by 3CR4, individuals miss the ability to physically be together: “I guess if you are in a room
with people having a meeting it got a lot of benefits that we all know. You can pick up the body language and you can use whiteboards and things in the room, and then you can be more creative in a face-to-face meeting compared to when you are in a virtual meeting.” Furthermore, the used management terms were
viewed as an obstacle by the recipients.
A facilitating factor, according to the change recipients, were the provided examples. Another factor that facilitated the creation of a shared understanding was, as stated by 3CR3: “Keep communicating
and those guys that don't ask the questions during the Huddles, you need to do it one-to-one with them in a less public environment. You need to tease them out.” Finally, a higher level of participation is helpful,
according to the change agent, because: “Then people will feel more empowered and contribute more and
28
Change recipients’ participation
Only one change recipient participated in a specific project within the change journey, while the others participated by ensuring that the objectives in their department were met. The change recipients also had the feeling that participation in general helps to create a shared understanding; for example, as stated by 3CR4: “This absolutely helps. I mean, last year I was pretty busy and I stopped dialing in on the more
regular meetings and when I stopped this, I realized how much I was missing.” The way the level of
participation could be optimized, according to the change agent, is to have more regular contact with the employees that are not part of his own team. Moreover, as mentioned by 3CR1, it would be helpful “to put
more energy in creating a dialogue and sometimes drop a name to make someone awake during a meeting, because otherwise they will be e-mailing during a virtual meeting.”
Way of communication of both change agent and recipients
Analyzing the interaction between the change agent and the change recipients, both sides confirmed that they had regular contact with their own teams. Additionally, the focus lied on regular communication and giving examples, as stated by 3CR3: “You really need to frame your message in the direction of your
audience.” However, this was perceived as difficult by the change agent, because: “Primarily you talk to a bigger group and within this group there is also a variation in what they do.” Framing the message was
also discussed in the change agent’s meeting with his own team. In this meeting, the change agent said:
“You need to frame the material into your own site, because they are more interested in the future of their own site.” In particular, interaction with employees at the lower hierarchical levels is important in creating
a shared understanding, because in the end they are responsible for conducting the proposed changes. Therefore, the change agent should, as mentioned by 3CR4: “Put additional effort on those individuals in
his team to get a shared understanding.”
Change agents’ additional interventions
An additional intervention used by the change agent to create a shared understanding about what needed to be changed was, as discussed by 3CR2: “This is through the network that we created. On a network of
peers across all the production units.” Additionally, the change agent shared his own goals to make sure
everyone was aligned with them. The way the change agent tried to create a shared understanding of the “how” of the change journey was to show things that he expected and to be a role model for his own team members so they could copy him. In this process, the change agent used a data-driven approach, as mentioned by 3CR4: “He very often put up some data.”
The extent to which there is a shared understanding
29 was the increased operating costs, decreased oil and gas prices, and changed reputation of the organization. Regarding the extent to which the change agent thought there was a shared understanding, he mentioned:
“There will be a difference in this, because people do different things.” Three recipients thought that there
was reasonable alignment in what people thought it was about, while 3CR2 stated: “I think if you look at
the real high level, kind of black and white, people will come down to costs.” The change agent did not do
anything special to create a shared understanding of the reason for the change. This was also the case during the observed team meeting, because only the “what” and the “how” of the change were discussed.
Concerning the “what” of the change journey, it was, according to the change agent, the 0/90/10. This was also recognized as the goal by the recipients, but two also mentioned the change vision, as stated by 3CR4: “To become the best operator in the Southern North Sea”. Looking at the extent to which there was a shared understanding of what needed to be changed, the change agent had the feeling that this was also mixed; for example: “I do not know if it is understood correctly at the lowest level”. The change recipients see difference between the various production units, because they translated the change journey to their own production area.
Studying the “how” of the change journey, the change agent mentioned that the employees were struggling with creating a visual dashboard that had added value. According to the change recipients, this was a journey they were working on. As mentioned by 3CR2: “The dots that are still being connected is
how they deliver on those and what I say is connecting the dots. I think a lot of people really know, but they have not connected themselves to the journey.”
Case 4 – Engineering
The fourth case is within the Engineering department. This department was a combination of Maintenance and Engineering, but during the change journey it was separated. The focus of this department is to ensure that the reliability of all the offshore production platforms and gas plants is optimal.
Virtual setting
The virtual channels that the change agent used to inform his staff about the change journey were the monthly information sessions with the employees, the onon-ones with employees, town halls, and e-mails. These channels were also mentioned by the change recipients. For example, as mentioned by 4CR2: “We got the video blogs, we got town halls, we got e-mails, we got the engineering meetings, and any of the
ad-hoc meetings on particular things.” According to the change agent and recipients, the most effective
method to use was, as mentioned by 4CA: “When it is about general information, then an information
session. When it is more specific, a one-on-one.” An ineffective method included e-mail, according to the
30
the priorities people are already struggling with reading their e-mails and mostly it is not clear what the action is for them, so translating the message into a location is very difficult, but important.” The change
agent primarily used e-mails after an information session to come back to his follow-up actions. For example, after the observed team meeting on the 24th of April, the change agent sent an e-mail with the
presented slides and how Engineering fits within the energy strategy, which was a follow-up action for that meeting.
Obstacles and facilitating factors
The main obstacle of working in a virtual setting is that it is difficult to create a shared understanding and to verify whether it is in place, due to the missed body language and the lack of participation during virtual meetings. As described by the change agent: “I think it negatively contributes, because it mostly is one-way
communication due to the limited possibilities to participate in a discussion for employees.” Another
obstacle is that the visuals that are around in Assen, as the observed dashboards about the performance per platform, are not around in the remote locations, as mentioned by 4CR1: “In Assen, the visual, there is a
continuously tv message or some audio-visual playing around and people see the posters. You have a visible influence and that is missing here.” A final obstacle is that it is harder to interpret a message virtually and
the number of e-mails is rising.
The facilitating factor of working in a virtual setting is that it saves money and travel time. Another facilitating factor is the use of consistent messages, as stated by 4CR1: “When the message is consistent
and clearly communicated, when the message clearly translated the need for it, the why part, the what part and the how part, then it becomes a lot easier.”
Change recipients’ participation
The virtual setting was viewed as a blocker by both the change agent as the change recipients in the way they could participate. For example, as mentioned by 4CA: “Virtual works badly, people are also more
creative if they physically can sit in a room and can write things down. This is really hard to facilitate with teams that work remotely.” The way the change recipients attempted to participate was by trying to meet
the departmental targets that were linked to the objectives of the change journey. The way the change agent tried to improve the level of participation was by using more two-way communication channels in team meetings, where he frequently asked the employees for their opinion as observed during a team meeting.
Way of communication of both change agent and recipients
31
you (the employees) can help with setting up a plan.” The importance of regular communication was also
mentioned by the change recipients. For instance, 4CR1 mentioned: “It needs much more follow up and
much more closed watch on how the message is really understood, because you can't just assume things that everyone is on the same page through a phone call or a video conference. Therefore, it is important to stay connected with the crowd after information sessions.”
Change agents’ additional interventions
The change agent focused on creating a dialogue during all information sessions. This was also recognized in the observed team meeting of the change agent, where the focus lied on the dialogue between the change agent and the employees. Another intervention included testing how things were going via the team leads, as mentioned by 4CA: “A combination of my one-on-ones with the team leads and by testing how things
are going.”
The extent to which there is a shared understanding
Analyzing the reasons for the change journey, the following are the four pressure points as mentioned by the change agent: increased costs, the competition for investment, the low oil and gas prices, and the decreased reputation of the organization. Looking at the viewpoint of the change recipients on this, according to 4CR1, the reason was: “We are not competitive at all.” According to 4CR2, the four pressure points were also the reasons for the change journey. The change agent has the feeling that: “At individual
level there are differences in the extent to what people know about the details behind specific things like the four pressure points.”
According to the change agent, what needed to be changed was: “Reaching the 0/90/10/15.” This was also seen by the two change recipients as what needed to be changed. The change agent felt that there was a shared understanding on this element, but the following was perceived as difficult: “It is hard to
make the softer elements around ways of working like improving the efficiency specific, because there are several ways to achieve a goal.” This shared understanding was also recognized by the change recipients,
for example, as stated by 4CR2: “I would say that people understand what they need to do.”
Studying the “how” of the change journey, the change agent had the feeling that the shared understanding was mixed, because: “It depends per person and location how interested someone is in the
change.” This lack of shared understanding was also recognized by the change recipients. The uncertainty
32 shared understanding about how the change should be conducted was seen as the most difficult part, because as mentioned by 4CR1: “You could get a more or less the message but not the package around it.”
Cross–case analysis: similarities and dissimilarities between the cases
While all departments were impacted by the same change journey, the specific impact differs per department. A dissimilarity between the cases is that all departments did not all use the same channels to get in contact with their employees. All change agents used team meetings and e-mails to inform the employees about the change journey, while case 4 was the only one that did not use video blogs. Channels where a two-way dialogue could be created were perceived as most effective, such as team meetings or one-on-ones, while e-mails were in all cases seen as an ineffective method.
The obstacle mentioned in each case was the inability to see the body language of employees. Furthermore, employees got easily distracted during virtual meetings, as mentioned in case, 1, 3, and 4 and it was harder to participate and create a dialogue due to the insecurity felt, because the sessions were held in English. Additionally, the utilized management terms made it more difficult to obtain an understanding of the change journey, as described in cases 2 and 3.
There were also facilitating factors described, but these were not shared within all cases. For instance, regular engagements with employees were described as beneficial in cases 1 and 3, where it was important to have a consistent message. Furthermore, having a relationship with an employee can help to overcome obstacles, as mentioned in case 2. Finally, smaller sessions should stimulate the level of participation, as described in case 1.
A similarity between the cases is found regarding change recipients’ participation, because within all cases it was mentioned that it is more difficult to participate in a virtual setting. As described in cases 1 and 4, it also felt impossible to be creative due to the lack of, for instance, a whiteboard on which things can be written down during a meeting.
Another similarity is found in the extent to which the change agents communicated with the change recipients that were not directly part of their team. The emphasis of the change agents lied at creating a shared understanding with their own teams and ensuring that they conveyed the right message to their own teams. Interestingly, the gaps in understanding that were mentioned existed at the lower hierarchical levels.
33 change agent tried to influence the social processes of interaction, as described by Balogun and Johnson (2005), in a virtual setting. The change agents in cases 3 and 4 put more emphasis on their team leaders by testing how they implemented the change to ensure they communicated the right message to their teams.
Comparing the shared understanding of the “why” of the change journey, in all cases the increase of costs, decrease of oil and gas prices, and the changed reputation were mentioned as reasons for the change journey as part of the mentioned four pressure points. Leadership alignment was only mentioned in case 3 and safety only in cases 1 and 4. The influence of the virtual setting on this part is that it creates a lack of clarity, and the change agent depends on the line managers to tell their messages to their own teams.
Regarding the “what” of the change journey, in case 1 and 3 the focus was on 0/90/10, while the focus in case 3 and 4 was also on 0/90/10/15. An explanation for this is that these two departments only have impact on the goal of 15-dollar development costs. In cases 1, 2 and 3, the area of misalignment lied at the lower hierarchical levels. The influence of the virtual setting on this is that, in case 1, the difficulty was experienced around creating a clear vision for the change recipients.
36
Discussion and conclusion
Summary of the findings
The aim of this research was to build theory on how and to what extent change agents create a shared understanding of an organizational change with change recipients in virtual settings. This study demonstrated that obtaining a shared understanding in virtual settings is perceived as more difficult compared to settings where face-to-face contact is available. Several obstacles were observed that hinder the process of creating a shared understanding. More specifically, the management terms used, in combination with English as the used language, made it difficult for employees to participate in meetings. Additionally, the inability to observe body language, the tendency to get easily distracted, the missed onsite conversations, and the difficulty to participate virtually create a challenging environment for both change agents and change recipients to create a shared understanding.
To overcome these obstacles, this study demonstrates that change agents should use facilitation factors to minimize the impact of the obstacles. These are: provide smaller sessions in the mother language of the participants, increase the number of engagements where a consistent message is communicated, provide examples about how the change should be conducted, stimulate the level of participation by giving pre-work before a meeting and use simple key terms and invest time into building relationships with recipients.
This study shows that the virtual setting can hinder the level of change recipients’ participation. The change recipients primarily participate in the change journey by ensuring that the objectives of their departments are met. Additionally, it was found that two-way communication methods are perceived as the most effective way of communication and that change agents mainly communicate with the change recipients that are part of their own team. These employees are perceived as important actors within the change journey, because they should communicate the messages of the change agents to their own team. Several additional interventions are used by the change agents to create a shared understanding. One of the additional interventions that is used is having one-on-ones with the middle managers. Interestingly, one of the change agents tried to influence the understanding of the change recipients by conducting informal telephone calls after information sessions, which is a similar, but virtual, way to influence the social process of interaction between recipients as was demonstrated by Balogun and Johnson (2005).
37 levels, but gaps are still observed. A lower level of shared understanding is prevalent on the “how” of the change throughout the organization. One of the reasons for this is that the virtual setting has a more significant impact on this element of a shared understanding, due to the absence of the possibility to work and brainstorm together in a room with, for instance, a whiteboard, to get a shared understanding about the change approach. Figure 5 visualizes the research framework based on the findings of this research:
Figure 5: Process of creating a shared understanding in virtual settings
Theoretical implications
38 influence of the differences in backgrounds and culture of employees on the level of shared understanding in virtual teams. In particular, the obstacles pertaining to the difficulty seeing someone’s body language, the ability to get distracted during meetings, the possibility that people do not read information or attend meetings, the misinterpretation of information, and the difficulty of participation are valuable insights derived from this study that contribute to theory about the obstacles that originate from a virtual setting. Additionally, this finding goes beyond the studies that focused on sensemaking in virtual settings (Berente et al., 2011; Faraj et al., 2004; Myers, 2007), because it acknowledges the exceptional obstacles of the virtual context and the potential consequences for how sensemaking occurs in those settings (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). This theoretical contribution results in the following proposition:
Context specific factors influence the process of creating a shared understanding between change agents and change recipients.
As mentioned by Stensaker et al. (2008), change recipients’ participation, the way of communication of both change agent and recipients, and additional change agents’ interventions play an important role in creating a shared understanding during organizational changes, but primarily difficulties around communication are expected to arise in virtual settings. This study shows that these difficulties exist in virtual settings and confirms the importance of consistent messages (Garvin & Roberto, 2005; Stensaker et al., 2008). This study is also in line with the results of the study by Griffith et al. (2003), which shows that communicating virtually will negatively influence the richness of information and that it is difficult to create an atmosphere of cohesion. However, this study provides a deeper insight into these results and contributes to an understanding of the origins of such obstacles (Hinds & Mortenson, 2005). The main cause for this is that the use of e-mails, while frequently used in virtual teams as demonstrated by Bailey et al. (2011), the inability to observe someone’s body language and the used management terms hinder the effectiveness of communication in creating a shared understanding. Additionally, the need of change recipients to receive examples of the change agents about how they should change to get an understanding about this element is consistent with the study of (Ouedraogo & Ouakouak, 2018). This research reveals that employees need to know what is expected from them during an organizational change, so they can make the change a reality. Therefore, this study provides further insights into the existing theory of the origins of the obstacles of communicating virtually. This theoretical contribution results in the following proposition:
39 The importance of change recipients’ participation in creating a shared understanding is confirmed in this study, as described by Stensaker et al. (2008) in non-virtual settings. However, the findings of this study show that participation is experienced as difficult. One of the reasons for this is the ability to not attend meetings or do other things during meetings. This observation expands the research of Baralou and Tsoukas (2015) on how employees can participate during virtual meetings, because it shows that employees cannot only choose to leave a meeting without notification, but it also shows that employees do other things, like e-mailing, when they do not have the ability to leave the meeting without being notified. Therefore, this study conflicts with the results of Hollingshead (1996) and Straus (1996) which mention that virtual settings should equalize the level of participation and that a virtual setting should lower the barriers to participate. This study indeed shows that people have the feeling that they can give more anonymous feedback, but the virtual setting significantly hinders the level of participation. The theoretical contribution of this study on participation in virtual settings is not only the observation that it is more difficult, but also several facilitating factors to improve the level of change recipients’ participation are investigated. For instance, asking the participants of a meeting to do some pre-work before the meeting should help the participants get a basic understanding of the discussed phenomenon, which may make them feel more comfortable to participate in virtual settings. The importance of member involvement is confirmed by Tai and Pai (2013), which implies that member involvement plays the most important role in triggering proactive participation. Additionally, member involvement could increase the change recipients’ level of commitment (Ouedraogo & Ouakouak, 2018). This theoretical contribution results in the following proposition:
The facilitating factors mentioned in this study positively influence the level of change recipients’ participation that contributes to the extent of shared understanding between change agents and change recipients of the change.
