AN AGILE WAY OF WORKING – A CASE STUDY

I NTEGRATION CHALLENGES AFTER AN ORGANIZATION - WIDE TRANSITION TO

AN AGILE WAY OF WORKING – A CASE STUDY

Hilde Hardeman S3530949

MSc Business Administration - Change Management 1^st July 2019

Supervisor Cees Reezigt

Co-assessor Kees Zoethout

A BSTRACT

Change has become the standard for organizations to preserve their existence. Notably, more organizations transform to softer ways of working. In the transformation to softer ways of working, understanding the interpretations and meanings of organizational groups contribute to change acceptance and eventually change success. This research aims to explore how narratives differ between organizational groups and what the presumed implications of these differences entail. This research begins with reviewing the dominant literature in the hard and soft end of the project continuum and sensemaking and narratives.

This qualitative, exploratory research, was conducted at a large, globally active, Dutch financial organization. Through 36 unstructured interviews, the data was collected. Data analysis was performed by coding transcripts with the use of Atlas.ti. The results show different composite narratives between the business-group and IT-group; elaborated on the Actor-Network Theory, Value alignment, Social Identity Theory, and the concepts of group faultlines. These narratives show a negative-positive asymmetry, where the business-group takes a more negative perspective, and the IT-group is overall positive towards the new way of working. Within the negative perspective of the transition, there is an emphasis on challenges of integration, size differences, and the differences in opinions on the transformation process gave an insight into future challenges and directions.

The managerial- and theoretical implications of this research are insights into the structure and allocation of different organizational groups, to diminish challenges in the practical realization of a softer way of working.

Key words: Project management, Hard aspects, Soft aspects, Agile way of working, Sensemaking, Narratives, Actor-Network Theory, Value alignment, Social Identity Theory, Group faultlines.

T ABLE OF CONTENT

INTRODUCTION ...7

THEORY ...9

TWO ENDS OF A CONTINUUM ...9

SENSEMAKING AND N^ARRATIVES ... 11

METHODOLOGY ... 15

DATA COLLECTION ... 15

DATA ANALYSIS ... 17

RESULTS ... 19

THEME 1:CHANGE RATIONAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ... 20

THEME 2:AGILE IN PRACTICE ... 22

THEME 3:TRANSITION EXPERIENCE ... 25

T^HEME 4:M^ANAGEMENT ... 27

THEME 5:LEARNING ... 29

COMPOSITE NARRATIVES ... 30

DIMENSIONS OF CRAWFORD AND POLLACK ... 31

DISCUSSION ... 33

ACTOR-NETWORK THEORY ... 33

VALUE SYSTEM ALIGNMENT ... 34

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY ... 35

GROUP FAULTLINES ... 36

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ... 38

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ... 38

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 39

CONCLUSION ... 41

REFERENCES ... 42

APPENDIX A, PARTICIPANT OVERVIEW ... 47

APPENDIX B, TRANSCRIPTS INTERVIEWS ... 48

APPENDIX C, SECOND-ORDER CODEBOOK ... 49

APPENDIX D, OVERVIEW RESULTS ... 53

I NTRODUCTION

Change has become the standard for business organizations to preserve their success and existence (Al- Haddad & Kotnour, 2015; Ashurst & Hodges, 2010; Lewis, 2000). The changing environment forces organizations to continuously adapt and align their day-to-day operations (Jørgensen, Owen & Neus, 2009). More organizations use a project approach to pursue ever-changing organizational objectives (Andersen, Birchall, Jessen & Money, 2006). The literature suggests several approaches and methods for project management. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, an organization faces a variety of structures, systems, strategies and human resources, when they want to change (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015; Burnes & Jackson, 2011).

To understand aspects of project management better, Crawford and Pollack (2004) distinguish project management into hard and soft paradigms in projects. Although the distinction seems to be dichotomous, it should be seen as two ends of one spectrum (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014).

The hard end of the spectrum is associated with deductive reasoning, quantitative techniques and places emphasis on control and structure, whereas the soft end is related to inductive reasoning, qualitative techniques and emphasizes on learning and social processes (Pollack, 2007). While this contrast between soft and hard seems evident, what characterizes hard and soft is often used loosely and ambiguously (e.g., Atkinson, Crawford & Ward, 2006; Howell, Windahl & Seidel, 2010; Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014; Pollack, 2007).

As change has become the standard for organizations to exist, the most predominant notions in the literature are: ‘adaptive organization’, ‘flexible organization’ and ‘agile enterprise’ when dealing with an uncertain and unpredictable environment (Sherehiy, Karwowski & Layer, 2007). Agile methodologies indicate the soft end of project management (Howell et al., 2010), while stage-gate models indicate the hard end of the spectrum (Karlstrom & Runeson, 2005). Stage-gate models use fixed planning in product development, while agile methods seem more flexible. Agile methods focus on customer demands, face-to-face communication in teams, thereby emphasizing flexibility and adaptability of planning while people are working in creativity and productivity-enhancing environment (Conforto et al., 2016; Ghobadi & Mathiassen, 2015; Heeager, 2012).

Although there is an emphasis on the ‘flexible organization’ when dealing with an uncertain and unpredictable environment, the flexibility in softer projects can also produce ambiguity (Abolafia, 2010; Sherehiy et al., 2007; Weick, 1995). With this in mind, the inevitable phenomenon of sensemaking and narratives might be used as function and device to make sense of ambiguous organizational situations (Abolafia, 2010), as it shapes the multiple organizational realities.

Furthermore, sensemaking and narrative fulfill an essential role in the determination of organizational languages and beliefs. Sensemaking through storytelling is the preferred currency for human interaction

in organizations (Sohenshein, 2010; Boje, 1991, p.106). Sensemaking “involves the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing” (Weick, Sutcliffe

& Obstfeld, 2005, p. 409).

Sensemaking and narratives are emerging concepts in literature on organizational change. The narrative analysis offers promise in studying organizational change, identity, strategy, entrepreneurship, and personal transformation (Vaara et al., 2016). However, the current literature provides a limited explanation of the importance and functions of narratives in organizational change (Solouki, 2017). In order to complement contemporary literature, this research focuses on the construction of narratives of employees with different professional backgrounds and explores how the narratives of both groups differ. This research also tries to reveal the implications of these narrating differences in the new way of working.

This research aims to answer the following research question: How do composite narratives vary between different organizational-groups after the implementation of an organization-wide transformation and what are the presumed implications of these differences for the new way of working?

The following sections will contribute to exploring the research question. First, in the next section, the theory on hard and soft aspects of project management is examined, and the use of narrative as sensemaking in organizational change is elaborated on. The methodology section consists of the research strategy, data collection, and data analysis, which entails more extensive information.

Furthermore, in the results section, the different perspectives of both participant groups are explained in detail. The second to last part discusses the theory, data, and results. The final section presents the conclusion of this research.

T HEORY

In organizational literature, project management and change management are often related and used interchangeably. This research uses the term project management. Hornstein (2015) elaborates on the interchangeability of the two terms by suggesting that organizational change is an unavoidable consequence of project implementations. Organizations need to use project-based initiatives as tools for organizational change to ensure success (Parker, Charlton, Ribeiro & Pathak, 2013). Söderlund (2010) illustrates that ever more business projects incorporate change elements. Also, Kloppenborg and Opfer (2002) and Leybourne (2007) conclude that more efforts are made to identify the importance of social and psychological approaches to project success, but the implementation of change continues to be a business problem that cannot be resolved by exclusively focusing on project processes and goals.

These authors made an essential contribution to the understanding of the interchangeability of project management and change management.

T

The literature on project management distinguishes two seemingly opposing paradigms: the hard paradigm and the soft paradigm (Crawford & Pollack, 2004; Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014;

Pollack, 2007). These two ends of a continuum are further categorized by Crawford and Pollack (2004) within a framework based on seven dimensions. These dimensions are (1) goal/objective clarity, (2) goal/objective tangibility, (3) success measures, (4) project permeability, (5) the number of solution options, (6) degree of participation and practitioner role, and (7) stakeholder expectations. The following paragraph elaborates on these dimensions.

First, the degree of definition of goals refers to the clarity of goals and objectives. At the hard end of the continuum (i.e., the technical side) the goals are highly defined and do not need further examination (Lane, 2000). Whereas the other end of the continuum, at the soft behavioral side, goals, and objectives are ill-defined (Andersen et al., 2006). Second, tangibility refers to how tangible the goals and objectives are. Typically, on the hard end, the goals are defined in clear, measurable terms. When, in fact, on the soft end, projects with intangible goals are more challenging to define, having to rely on subjective interpretation and judgment (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). Third, success measures appear in two forms: quantitative or qualitative. On the hard end of the continuum, quantitative measures are used to measure success, while on the soft end, qualitative measures are more common (Jaafari, 2001).

Fourth, project permeability refers to the external influences on goals, processes, and outcomes. In investing project permeability, it is necessary to distinct scope, boundary size, boundary fixity, and boundary permeability of the project (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). When permeability is high, including a wide variety of stakeholders, it would be beneficial to gain insights from multiple perspectives. The fifth dimension refers to the number of solutions. On the hard end, the focus lays on optimization of the predetermined solution, while the soft end emphasizes learning, participation and exploration and

questioning of underlying assumptions. The sixth dimension refers to the degree of participation and practitioner role, which is different on both ends of the continuum. In the hard end, team members are experts in their own fields with clear boundaries and are non-participating in project completion.

Conversely, the soft end of the continuum involves participation and collaboration, where several views of the participants are essential on many issues, and people are encouraged to cross professional boundaries (Daniel, 1990). Finally, the dimension of stakeholder expectations is mentioned. The hard end of the continuum sees people (stakeholders) within a system as convertible. People’s actions are assumed to be foreseeable and determined by the environment. Whereas in the soft end, central concerns are culture, meaning, and value and awareness of differences between people in those aspects are fundamental. Therefore, in the soft end, people are understood as part of a complex structure but with individual expectations. Moreover, the interaction between stakeholders is needed to complete projects successfully (Crawford & Pollack, 2004).

All in all, the hard end of the continuum includes projects with clearly defined goals/objectives, physical artifacts based on quantitative measures. These projects are not subject to external influence and focus on the refinement of a single solution. At the soft end of the continuum, projects have ambiguously defined goals/objectives, are abstract in concept and have qualitative measures. These projects are subject to external influences and focus on exploring many alternative solutions (Crawford & Pollack, 2004).

The choice of implementing a project with a focus on the hard end of the spectrum has its advantages.

For instance, an organization can communicate easily top-down over desirable results and emphasize the importance of projects (Sirkin, Keenan & Jackson, 2005). Nevertheless, Wateridge (1999) states that projects are perceived as failed because managers do not focus on the soft and subjective criteria.

Although Sirkin et al. (2005) emphasize the hard end of the spectrum, they acknowledge that soft dimensions cannot be ignored. Even more, the soft dimensions are identified as critical success factors (Andersen et al., 2006; Jaafari, 2001; Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014; Pollack, 2007).

It is important to emphasize that a project with the application of only hard or soft dimensions will not lead to success. Within the literature, several authors underline the importance of combining both ends of the continuum. For instance, Karrbom Gustavsson and Hallin (2014) highlight that the hard and soft aspects of project management need to be addressed as two ends of a continuum and not a dichotomy.

In the same line of reasoning, Söderland and Maylor (2012) argue that the successful implementation of project management needs the combination of both hard and soft aspects.

As touched upon in the introduction, the hard and soft end of the continuum indicate different working methodologies (i.e., stage-gate models or agile methodologies). The term agile needs further explanation. There seems a lack of consensus in the definition of agile, according to Conforto et al.

(2016), as he states that the way agile is defined as open for multiple interpretations. Conforto et al.

(2016) reviewed the literature around agile in order to attempt to define ‘agility’. They defined ‘agility’

as:

“Agility is the project team’s ability to quickly change the project plan as a response to customer or stakeholders needs, market or technology demands in order to achieve better project and product performance in an innovative and dynamic project environment.” (p. 667)

For instance, Highsmith (2004) interprets agile as the “ability to create and respond to change in order to profit in a turbulent business environment” (p. 16). Besides, Qumer and Henderson-Sellers (2008) define agile as the “persistent behavior or ability of a sensitive entity that exhibits flexibility to accommodate expected or unexpected changes rapidly […]” (p. 281).

As more organizations transform to an agile method, that emphasizes flexibility and adaptability, organizations are depending more on people’s interpretations of the underlying meaning and involved values of projects. Therefore, it is essential to understand how the rationale behind interpretations and meanings regarding the project’s content and goals come about and how this rational influences people’s actions (Solouki, 2017). As the previous description of the soft end of project management reveals, the behavioral side, subjective interpretation, learning, and participation, are important links between these soft aspects and sensemaking and narratives. In order to develop an understanding of the evolving rationales, the following section will elaborate on the importance of narratives and sensemaking in studying organizational change.

S

N

Sensemaking “involves the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing” (Weick et al., 2005, p. 409). Thomas, Clark, and Gioia (1993) explain sensemaking as an active process that involves the interaction of information seeking, meaning ascription, and associated responses. The active process of sensemaking is described by Weick (1979) by explaining three interlinked mechanisms: enactment, selection, and retention. The first mechanism is enactment, which Weick (1979) describes as the active role organizational members have in creating the environment. Therefore, the enactment process directly influences the view on the external environment. The activity of enactment produces strange displays that are often unlike anything that the individual or the organization has seen before. Those novel situations can produce equivocality (e.g., ambiguity) of which individuals are trying to make sense in a thoughtful way. The second mechanism is the selection that involves the limitation of the possibilities of interpretations. The selection process attempts to utilize existing frameworks (i.e., frames of reference) build from previous experience. After the selection follows the retention mechanism; this involves a relatively straightforward storage of the products of successful sensemaking, these products are called enacted environments.

Weick’s mechanisms of enactment, selection, and retention relate strongly to the group and individual narratives. Narratives provide means for maintaining or reproducing stability and promoting or resisting change in and around organizations (Vaara et al., 2016). Several authors (e.g., Boje (1991); Brown (2002); Sohenshein (2010); Vaara et al. (2016)) explain narratives by integrating sensemaking in their definitions. Sohenshein (2010) and Vaara et al., (2016), define narratives as the discursive constructions that provide a tool for individual, social, and organizational sensemaking and sense giving. In addition, Boje (1991) explains that storytelling (i.e., narrating) is the preferred sensemaking currency for human interaction in organizations (p.106). Lastly, Brown (2002) integrates sensemaking and narratives, as he explains that sensemaking is a conversational and narrative process (p. 69).

Given the interchangeable conceptualization of sensemaking and narratives, it is important to consider the impact of narratives in giving meaning to events (Pentland, 1999). Since people not only tell stories but also execute them as well, it is important to analyze narratives in organizational change (Pentland, 1999). Especially when organizational change is transformative, that leads to radical organizational transformation, the construction of narratives suits the interpretation of a process (Dalpiaz & Di Stefano, 2017; Girod & Whittington, 2015).

Vaara et al. (2016) present three distinctive approaches to organizational narratives: a realist approach, a poststructuralist approach, and an interpretative approach. From a realist perspective, narratives are the representations of other phenomena, and narratives are a means to study things that exist independently of the narratives. The poststructuralist approach focusses on “[…] uncovering the complexity, fragmentation, and fluidity of narrative representations” (Vaara et al., 2016, p. 505). The final approach, and focus for this research is the interpretative approach. In the interpretative approach, narratives are developed as people’s constructions of organizational phenomena and have played a central role in the organizational narrative analysis (Gabriel, 2000). In organizational studies, this approach is frequently linked with the overall theoretical framework of sensemaking (Weick, 1979).

Within the interpretative approach, there are two distinct forms: individual narratives and composite narratives. The individual narratives “focus on the individual accounts or stories” (Vaara et al., 2016, p.504). Composite narratives focus on “interpretive patterns to build a composite narrative that captures the collective meanings of a group of organizational members” (Vaara et al., 2016, p.504).

As depicted in the previous paragraphs, people’s constructions of organizational phenomena are the overarching focus of this research. People’s narratives are essential phenomena in any project implementation either on the hard or soft end of the spectrum. As emphasized, the combination of both aspects is of eminent importance (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014; Söderland & Maylor, 2012).

In this retrospective research, two organizational groups of a large financial organization are compared in terms of their composite narratives about organization-wide transformation.

Based on the theory described the research question is stated as follows: How do composite narratives vary between different organizational-groups after the implementation of an organization-wide transformation and what are the presumed implications of these differences for the new way of working? Next, in the following section, will be elaborated upon how the research has been conducted.

METHODOLOGY

This qualitative exploratory research into the narrative construction after an organization-wide transformation builds further on previous research on the ambiguous and equivocal composite narratives at the selected case site (e.g., de Boer, 2017; Mein, 2018; Poortstra, 2018). The qualitative research, conducted at the selected case site, used a single case study to build on and refine existing theory. A single case study was appropriate in this research, because of the lacking the explanation of causal links between the construction and aim of different narratives of different groups (Eisenhardt &

Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2003). Furthermore, it explained the different narratives during different phases of the organization-wide transformation.

The case site for this exploratory qualitative research was a large global, Dutch financial organization, that operates in forty countries, with its headquarters located in Amsterdam. Cooperation between the financial organization and the University of Groningen made the execution of this research possible.

The institution is divided into two branches: Wholesale- and Retail banking services. Retail banking provides products and services to individuals, small and medium-sized enterprises, and mid-corporates.

Wholesale banking, on which this research was focused, has three main product areas: Lending Services (LS), Transaction Services (TS) and Financial Markets (FM), and provides products and services to corporate, multinational organizations. Since 2013, the organization has been facing a major change;

from using traditional project management methods towards a new way of working: the agile way of working. First, IT Retail has been transformed into the agile way of working, followed by Retail as a whole, after that, IT Wholesale and eventually, Wholesale has fully faced the transformation in late 2018. The change at Wholesale has affected around 5.000 employees globally.

D

Within the context of this single case study which builds on previous research, the choice was made to tap into two different sources of data: interview data and secondary data. Within the stage of data collection, upholding ethical guidelines was essential, especially within the financial industry where the case study took place. Therefore, all research team members have completed Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) certificate programs, before the start of the research, focusing on data management, plagiarism, confidentiality and privacy, and research misconduct. Because of the nature of the research containing personal perspectives and stories from the employees and management of the organization, these ethical guidelines have been handled with care. In addition, the explorative nature of the research requires a clear description of the reliability, validity, and controllability (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2014). Therefore, these issues were addressed thoroughly, as can be read in the following paragraphs.

In order to capture the individual and composite narratives about the transition towards the agile way of working, a total of 36 unstructured interviews were held in two months, starting in April 2019. For validity reasons in this explorative research, the interviews were kept unstructured. Also, this type of research requested that the researcher did not influence respondents by use of steering questions (Willig, 2013). Interview data were collected using numerous and highly knowledgeable informants who viewed the organization-wide transformation from diverse perspectives (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).

Controllability of all 36 interviews was assured by note making during the interviews and afterwards.

The unstructured interviews started with two pre-formulated questions: ‘What is [name of organization]

according to you? And what is your role in the organization?’. These two questions were the starting point for formulating clarifying questions to uncover underlying narratives of the respondents, where the focus was on discovering the how and why of participants’ perspectives on the transition (Yin, 2003).

Building a network and familiarizing with the day-to-day operations was essential in order to create a diverse and objective data pool of respondents, Appendix A shows the overview of the respondents. A starting point was a meeting with a former research student, now working for the financial institution.

From this, the first five respondents emerged, which created the next step in a more specific strategy for selecting research respondents. To establish contact with only five respondents, was a deliberate choice, to limit the potential bias from the selected case site, as they could propose participants according to their preference. Furthermore, a snowball sampling method was used to increase reliability (Blumberg et al., 2014). Each interviewee was asked for new compelling respondents, which turned out to be a valuable source.

Moreover, a purposive sample was taken, which means that the participants were selected through four predetermined general criteria to ensure a diverse, representative pool of respondents (Guest, Bunce &

Johnson, 2006). The first criterium was based on internal organizational data: an overall gender distribution of 70% males (n = 25) and 30% females (n = 11), which represents the gender distribution of the Wholesale organization. The second criterium was an equal distribution of the three product areas, 33% in Lending Services (n = 12), 33% in Transaction Services (n = 12), and 33% in Financial Markets (n = 12). The third criterium was an equal distribution of three job areas, business-employees (n = 4), IT-employees (n = 4) and management (n = 4), within each product area. The final criterium was to interview as many respondents possible that were participating in previous research.

With permission, all interviews were recorded, and respondents were ensured of the confidentiality regarding the relationship between the identity and content of the interviews. Two researchers were attending each interview, while the third researcher was responsible for transcribing the interview.

Transcriptions of the interviews can be found in Appendix B. This way of the collaboration of the researchers made sure that terms of reliability and validity in this research were met. Moreover, every

researcher held specific knowledge about the content of all interviews. After each interview, the two researchers who conducted the interview updated the third researcher with the information before transcribing. These discussions aided the reliability of the results and validity, as a means of providing feedback towards the interview process itself and eventually on the content of the interview.

After that, interviews were transcribed and coded before analysis, which is discussed below. After transcription, the recorded interviews were deleted, and transcribed documents were only accessible to the research students and the thesis supervisor from the University of Groningen.

This research also made use of secondary data of the previous MSc Change Management research students, which consisted of previous research data, including lists of earlier respondents and transcripts of those interviews. These data were used as a selection criterion: a comprehensive source of potential participants and participants who had previously been involved. In contacting these potential respondents, it was made clear that this information stays confidential within the boundaries of the research as a whole, referring to the confidentiality as explained above.

D

Three researchers worked closely together during the period of data collection and data analysis to reach an intersubjective agreement. All interviews were recorded, with permission, which allowed for transcription, where after the coding program Atlas.ti, version 8 was used to support coding and analyzing the gathered data, as well to increase the research reliability (Richards, 2014; Woods, Paulus, Atkins, & Macklin, 2016; van Aken, Berends, & van der Bij, 2007).

The transcripts were analyzed by coding the transcription of the interviews. The streamlined code-to- theory model was used as a reference to establish the adapted code-to-theme model (Saldaña, 2009).

The coding process had an inductive nature, which yielded that the labels of the codes emerged from the transcribed interviews reflected repeated patterns in the qualitative empirical data (Thomas, 2006).

In the first-order coding, the codes emerged from the data by reading through excerpts of the transcriptions (Wolfswinkel, Furtmuller & Wilderom, 2013). This process started after the first five interviews, where each researcher individually coded the same transcript, after which the codes were analyzed collaboratively to assure a consistent coding process. Besides controlling researcher bias, this increased the inter-rater reliability and validity of the study (van Aken et al., 2007; Cohen, Cohen, West

& Aiken, 2013). After collaboratively assuring a consistent coding process, the transcripts were individually read sentence by sentence and notes were made to achieve a state of immersion with the gathered data. In addition, passages were summarized in one or two words around the codes. The transcripts are thus analyzed and read by highlighting essential findings and insights. Each researcher coded 12 transcripts individually with the use of Atlas.ti (version 8.4.2), which increased the reliability (van Aken et al., 2007). After all, transcripts were coded individually, and the codes were merged into

one Atlas project; this resulted in 777 codes. These 777 codes were evaluated and, based on their relevance and similarities, again merged into first-order codes. For instance, physical dispersion and geographical dispersion were pooled together, which eventually resulted in 173 first-order codes. These codes gave an initial view of the grand codes, which were the basis for the second-order coding process.

Second-order coding resulted from multiple phases of integration. The initial 173 codes were evaluated and integrated, again based on relevance and similarities, into 96 codes. Eventually, after reading through the codes again some codes were merged or discarded, that resulted in 47 second-order codes that are depicted in a codebook, Appendix C. From the second-order codes 13 categories were established, based on similarities and overlap. These categories are “a word or phrase describing some segment of the data that is explicit” (Rossman & Rallis, as cited in Saldaña, 2009). These categories emerged from reading through the transcripts and summarized passages again, to gain more familiarity with the data and establish patterns. The categories that emerged from the second-order coding were integrated into the established codebook. Finally, from the categories, five different themes emerged.

A theme ‘is the outcome of coding, [...] and not something that is in itself coded’ (Saldaña, 2009, p.

13). The overview of the process from second-order coding into categories and themes is seen in Figure 1, see results.

In order to present the narratives clearly and coherently, this research focused on two participant groups with different professional backgrounds. The first group (n = 25) consists of participants with a business background, whereas the second group (n = 11) consists of participants with an IT-background. Both groups stem from different product areas. In the following section, the results are discussed where the differences between the business-group and the IT-group are explained.

R ESULTS

Figure 1 shows the data structure model. This model depicts the transition from second-order codes, into categories and eventually in themes, as explained in the method section. This process was repeated with the categories, and finally, the five different themes emerged: (1) Change rationale and implementation, (2) Agile in practice, (3) Transition experience, (4) Management and (5) Learning.

From the detailed analysis of the transcripts, a pattern emerged. Perspectives of both groups, business and IT, towards the change vary in most themes but show similarities in others. This section describes the narratives of the two groups, along with the five themes. A brief overview of the results can be found in Appendix D.

From these different narratives, a new central point emerged: internal challenges, which refer to the experienced integration challenges of both groups in the new way of working. Therefore, in the

Figure 1: Data structure

subsequent paragraphs, the different themes are described according to the perceived internal challenges, focusing on the perceptions of the business-group and the IT-group. Thereupon, the results are juxtaposed with the seven dimensions of Crawford and Pollack (2004), as elaborated on in the theory. The end of this section presents an overview of the composite narratives of both groups.

T

1: C

This paragraph describes the narratives of the different groups regarding the change goals, change approach, and the change vision.

Change goals. The business-group and the IT-group share the positive perception on the transition to the agile way of working; specifically, the perception and appraisal of the flatter hierarchical structure is equal. Perspectives differ regarding the goal of agile and suitability for this type of organization. First, the perceptions of the business-group and the IT-group differ regarding the goal of agile. From a business-group perspective, the goal of agile is perceived as positive with a slightly skeptical undertone, as illustrated in the following statement: “I can find myself in agile by making it clear where your centers of gravity are, where your workload is, there's nothing wrong with that. That's very good, measuring what you know. I think that's a really good point, it goes too far for me to work with green, yellow, and red smileys” (LS_02, from business-group). In comparison to the business- group, the IT-group perceives the goal of agile as positive and practical, without the slightly skeptical undertone. “[...] it also helps them to cut it into smaller pieces so I think that's also the power of agile”

(TS-P_01).

The suitability for this type of organization is perceived as challenging from the perspective of the business-group, where the emphasis is on that agile, as organized within IT, does not work for business.

“It might work, agile, but not IT agile. So, you can't, work with sprints, stories and stuff like that, like in the IT-world, I don't see that fitting in with commerce” (TS-P_11). To put it another way: “[...] I think from a business perspective, […] I have looked up quite a few things about agile, I have not read anywhere how to do agile with business” (TS-T_01). From the IT-group, there is a positive perspective on the overall suitability. Even though agile is not a one size fits all solution. “[...] when you implement this you sort of pick and choose elements out of it. So, you never would implement all of it, that wouldn’t make sense” (LS_03).

Table 1: Narratives on change goals

Narratives on change goals

Business-group IT-group

Goal of agile Skeptical undertone in applicability Positive about practical applicability Suitability Agile does not fit in business Not a one-size-fits-all solution

Change approach. The business-group and the IT-group share the perception that the transition towards agile has an overall IT-focus. Overall there are differences in perceptions towards the design, structure, and transformation of agile, all relating to the change approach.

From a business-group perspective, the structure of the squads (i.e., the agile term for teams) is highly focusing on the IT-component. Besides, the business-group perceives challenges in being underrepresented in squads. “What they are starting to discuss now, is to potentially restructure these squads, because right now these squads are all driven by IT. And if you look at the headcount of the tribe, it's I think 99% IT” (FM_02). Also, the IT-group perceives challenges within the structure of the squads, for instance, in terms of not understanding the business-group. “[...] And the technical person says well yeah if you talk about finance or processes, they say I don’t understand you. So, you see the clear difference, they don’t understand each other” (TS-P_09).

Regarding the transition towards agile, there are different and challenging perspectives between the business-group and the IT-group. First, the business-group perceives the preparation for the transition as not enough. “I think that if you let people work agile, you should at least explain the principle well and really be allowed to spend a day with people to take part in that story [...]” (TS-T_01). In contrast to the business-group, the IT-group does not experience this because they were already working agile.

Another noticeable difference is the perceived pace of the transition. From a business-group perspective, the transition towards agile is too fast, as the following statement shows: “[...] I find at times, I think, well. At times I thought it was too fast, but that was in the beginning, because of course you can only experience how things work in practice when you experience it yourself” (LS_06).

Conversely, the IT-group perceives the transformation as too slow, again as they were already working agile. “The start-up period has been quite long, in April it was announced and it took the whole summer, but people do have the expectation, that expectation is so high that it could never have been fulfilled”

(TS-P_02).

Table 2: Narratives on change approach

Narratives on change approach

Business-group IT-group

Design Transition has an overall IT-focus

Structure Underrepresented in squads Not understanding business Transformation Not enough preparation, transition to agile is

too fast.

Run-up to official implementation is too slow

Change vison. The business-group and the IT-group perceive the vision and focus of the change different. From the perceptions of the business-group, the focus needs to be on the customer, while they perceive that the focus is on IT. Also, there is a challenge to put the focus on customer

demands, as the following statement illustrates: “My role is to take that piece with me to the customer and translate the input from the customer into the squads to make sure that we at least develop what the customer actually wants. Of course, that's the theory. Yes, in practice that is still quite difficult”

(TS-P_11). From an IT-perspective, the focus should be to find the balance between business and IT, as the statement shows. “[...] ‘A lot of IT needs’ that deliver little business value, and that’s where you have to find each other every time and make sure that there is a good balance and that ultimately the customers also see the improvements.” (TS-P_01).

The business-group perceive the change vision as a top-down decision, that had to be translated in lower hierarchical layers for people to identify themselves with the vision. “We have the chapter leads, the IT area leads and IT leads, we are the leadership team. We had to define a strategy and a vision where each person, from his or her role in a squad, can see or find him-/herself in to identify what they really contribute to that strategy” (TS-T_05). The IT-group takes a more cynical perspective; their belief has faded. “[...] It has really come to a point, whether they still believe in it or not. But 30% of people no longer believe in it” (TS-P_02).

Table 3: Narratives on change vision

Narratives on change vision

Business-group IT-group

Change focus Need for focus on customer demands, in practice this is challenging.

Need to find a balance between business and IT

Change vision The vision was just decided from the top The vision has faded and believe is lost

T

2: A

This paragraph describes the narratives of the different groups regarding the agile components, organizational climate, and employee climate.

Agile components. The perspective of the business-group and IT-group are different concerning the challenges in the agile ceremonies, agile coaches, support, and setting priorities. The business-group perceives the ceremonies as challenging with respect to the integration of their sprints with IT. “I'm a bit involved in sprints and that's it. A sprint of my team is completely different than mine would be” (TS-T_01). Even more, the business-group perceive, the agile ceremonies as time- consuming, as the following statement shows: “For example, every week on Thursday the day is completely full of discussions: sprint review, retrospective, sprint planning. That whole Thursday is completely full. Then I just miss a whole day once every two-weeks. Every day a short stand up, every Wednesday two hours of refinement. That's all, in addition to what's already in place, in terms of projects and consultation and test meetings.” (TS-P_06). Conversely, the IT-group takes a positive perspective and does not mention challenges. “I mean of course, scrum is part of the agile way of

working. So, it gives us these ceremonies. You can use these to plan your work for the next two weeks and look back” (TS-P_09).

The perspectives regarding support of the agile coaches show noticeable differences between the business-group and the IT-group. The business-group perceives the work of agile coaches as positive and even as a key success factor. “We now have an agile coach, which in my opinion is a key success factor for this to succeed. You really need someone very neutral and independent who helps you to ask challenging questions, who does not have a hidden agenda, who has purely as an agenda to make this model and way of working succeed” (TS-P_10). Though, they notice that agile coaches have limited time because there are only 20 agile coaches on 5.000 people. The business-group perceives that they do not always get the support they need. “The feedback from the agile coach is: you have to find out for yourself” (TS-T_03). The IT-group shares the perspective that the coaches have to divide their time and cannot be available full time. Besides, the IT-group already has experience in working agile and state they not always need an agile coach. “[…] We made it up from practice, we didn't have an agile coach or anything like that” (FM_05).

The business-group has a shared, dominant perspective: priority-setting is hard and challenging. “The agile methodology in which you actually say that we plan every quarter, every sprint, there is a real field of tension. There it is, I just see challenges that cannot always be solved in an agile way” (FM_06).

The IT-group takes a different perspective, where they perceive setting priorities as an advantage of agile. “And it also helps them to cut into smaller pieces so I think that's also the power of agile. When you bring the most important pieces or the most-risky pieces to the front, it helps a lot” (TS-P_01).

Nevertheless, they perceive challenges in setting priorities. “The sprint planning itself in the team is going well. There are a few teams that don't make their sprint continuously, because they get a lot of incidents, so you can't work on the planning. So, they have to adjust that” (TS-T_02).

Table 4: Narratives on agile components

Narratives on agile components

Business-group IT-group

Ceremonies Ceremonies take a lot of time Ceremonies help to plan the work Agile coach Agile coach is a success factor No need of support from agile coach Priorities Setting priorities is challenging Priorities as an advantage, but challenging

Organizational climate. In the category of organizational climate, most challenges appear within integration between business and IT and the dependencies between departments. As both groups perceive the integration between business and IT as a challenge, this shows a dominant narrative. Within the business-group, the perceptions explain challenges in communication and the impact for the business. “Like they speak two different languages, and this is also a search, put two different

disciplines together and says work together” (TS-T_04). Also, the IT-group perceives challenges in communication; however, they explain this as a difference in professional backgrounds and character traits, as the following statement explains: “[...] the customer journey experts having the business background, they are just kind of, it was made in that way, they can do the talking much more easily.

And the engineers have been more behind the screens or just talking to their colleagues, so that [collaboration] isn’t going that fast at the moment” (TS-P_09). Furthermore, the IT-group perceptions on the challenging integration with business focus on the discrepancy between the number of IT-people and business-people. “There are two blood groups that have been put together, in which 90% are IT people. When you add 10% business, you have bus-dev-ops. That's not possible” (TS-P_03).

Another challenging aspect of the organizational climate is dependencies. Dependencies refer to the perceived difficulties concerning the reliance on other groups in the new way of working. The business- group explain why and how there are dependencies: “[...] that's just the tricky part of a service organization, you're just very dependent on what other parties make for you, while vice versa that dependence isn't there” (TS-P_10). Moreover, respondent LS_02 underlines the unilateral perspective of dependencies in business: “We don’t have squads, we don’t have sprint. These are all forms working towards a delivery, with a sprint. We don’t have that, we do depend on sprints from the IT department when it comes to developing something”. In contrast to the unilateral perspective of the business-group, the IT-group takes a bilateral perspective of dependencies, where they emphasize the dependencies towards each other. “[...] all teams have a lot of dependencies towards each other there, so all processes are usually spread over several applications and teams” (FM_07).

Table 5: Narratives on organizational climate

Narratives on organizational climate

Business-group IT-group

Integration between business & IT

Business and IT have different languages Business and IT are different people Integration has an enormous impact on

business

Size differences between business and IT produce difficulties.

Dependencies There are unilateral dependencies There are bilateral dependencies

Employee climate. In the category of employee climate, the business-group and IT-group share similar perspectives on autonomy, communication, mindset, and responsibilities. Both groups emphasize the need for squads to have autonomy because they have better insight into the tasks. As respondent R_01, from a business-perspective, explains: “[...] the teams have to make those decisions because in the end they have a full understanding of everything they have to do”. Besides, both groups share the perception that communication is an important aspect when working together. “Talking to each other much more, communication is a great asset within agile. Whether you take the role of the product owner or the squads” (AC_01, from business-group). The final shared perspective between

both groups regards the mindset. A change in behavior (i.e., mindset) is essential for the success of the transition. As respondent FM_05, from the IT-group, explains: “It's a matter of adjusting your mentality to go along with a new way of working. If you want to do that together, you can do it”.

Finally, within the responsibilities, both groups emphasize the importance of the new collective responsibility and the ambiguity within new roles. “Um, we actually had joint responsibility for this, but we also had split responsibility for it. [...] and now you feel much more that you just have one responsibility, so to speak” (TS-T_05, from business-group). As respondent TS-T_02, from the IT- group explains: “the CJE [Customer Journey Experts] are still very much in search of their role. That was what caused them at first – not so much a clash – but some distance between the team members, as they wait for what is coming to them”. In the category of employee climate, there are no differences between the business-group and the IT-group.

Table 6: Narratives on employee climate

Narratives on employee climate

Business-group IT-group

Autonomy There is a need for autonomy

Communication Communication is important

Mindset Need to adjust mindset

Responsibility Collective responsibility

T

3: T

This paragraph describes the narratives of the different groups regarding the positive-, negative- and ambivalent experiences.

Positive experience. The business-group and the IT-group have a dominant perspective on the positive experience, where they perceive transparency, communication, collaboration, and flexibility as advantages of agile. “I like the concept of agile of breaking up things. You've probably heard slicing the elephant [...] It creates huge amounts of flexibility [...]” (FM_01, from business- group). Furthermore, the overall business perception is positive. “I don't see a deal-breaker to say "you really have to stop this immediately” (LS_04). Like the business-group, the IT-group perceives the transition as a positive experience, as they were already working agile. “Overall it is going good. Like I said that we already have been working in the sprints, that we are quite used to” (LS_01). In the category of positive experience, the perspectives of both groups are similar in the advantages of agile;

however, they show differences in the concept of 'positive'.

Table 7: Narratives on positive experience

Narratives on positive experience

Business-group IT-group

Advantages Perceive advantages of agile

Positive There are no deal-breakers Positive, as we were already working agile

Negative experience. The business-group has several dominant perspectives towards negative experiences caused by the transition to the agile way of working. First, there is frustration because of challenging dependencies between squads. As illustrated by respondent FM_01: “So there needs to be some sort of aligned priority across the various squads, because if each squad can build their own priority, knowing that they have dependencies on other squads, you're going to get stuck very quickly” (FM_01). The IT-group, who were working agile, perceives that traditional ways are still active, as illustrated by the following statement: “I try to deliver like crazy here, but due to certain obstacles, that is not always possible, but on the other hand they say that I must deliver because plans have already been made based on those deliveries. Yes, but we work agile, so if it doesn't work for me, the other side has to adjust the plans again. So, we still do targets, or KPIs, what you want to call it, at the annual level and pretend to be agile” (TS-T_02).

Second, there is a dominant perspective, within the business-group towards the loss of productivity.

“There is a lot of productivity loss, in recent months because we had to spend time in the new structure, a new tooling, find each other again just within the organization” [...] (TS-T_05). In addition, respondent TS-T_04 explains: “[...] but I think the whole transition, I'll take a swing at it, it would cost 20-25% productivity”.

Table 8: Narratives on negative experience

Narratives on negative experience

Business-group IT-group

Dependencies Frustration because of dependencies Traditional ways are still active

Productivity Productivity loss ---

Ambivalent experience. As emphasized by the IT-group in the previous theme, traditional ways of working are still active. About this, another perception is shared by both groups, as they highlight ‘falling back into old roles. The business-group, explains these challenges by the old informal structure that is still present in the organization. “[...] informal structures will become more prevalent in an organization, which is often the case, I think, because quite a lot of people are holding on to it. If it is unclear, fall back on the structure again” (TS-P_08). The IT-group acknowledge that people fall back into ‘old roles’, but explain this through the high workload they experience. As respondent TS-

P_02, from IT-group, explains: “What you see then is that as soon as things start to go wrong, there is actually a return to old expertise and roles, and that is what I see now actually happening over the past month [...]”

Table 9: Narratives on ambivalent experience

Narratives on ambivalent experience

Business-group IT-group

Old roles Old informal structure still exists High workload cause people to fall back into old roles

T

4: M

This paragraph describes the narratives of the different groups regarding management concepts and management actions.

Management concepts. Within both groups, there is a shared, dominant perspective:

Management is still very top-down, that does not meet terms of the agile way of working. The business- group perceives this as something that needs to be changed, as respondent FM_01 explains: “So, it cannot just be top-down and it cannot just be bottom-up. There needs to be some dialog”. Besides, respondent FM_02 from the business-group explains the discrepancy between the top-down control and high workload on the lower levels. “[...] the choices are being made top-down, but there is not a lot of transparent. As [organization] we say we still think too much we do this and this, and in the end we only have so many hands”. From the perspective of the IT-group, it makes sense that there still is top- down control. As respondent TS-T_02, from IT-group, explains: “[...] but, of course, they too are controlled by others. I'm not saying that it is an easy one to solve. [...] But they [senior management]

too are managed and have to give feedback to their boss”.

Furthermore, there is a shared perspective on the importance of leadership. The perception of business- group emphasizes the importance of leadership in terms of motivating people. “[...] Underestimate how important management is, what kind of people there are and how they are, how you can take people with you and motivate them. That is in combination with the agile way of working very important. So, agile way of working without good leadership is really killing” (TS-P_08). Moreover, IT-group emphasizes the importance of leadership to bridge the gap between business and IT. “It [bridging the gap] is, but it would really take blood, sweat and tears. [...] as a community I think it is possible. But the crucial role would again be for the leadership there” (TS-P_09).

Table 10: Narratives on management concepts

Narratives on management concepts

Business-group IT-group

Top-down Cannot be top-down, need for dialogue. Management is still top-down, they receive feedback too.

Leadership Leadership is important to motivate people. Leadership to bridge gap between business and IT.

Management actions. The business-group perceives side-steering as something that happens because of the nature of the organization and did not change because of the transition to agile; this still is a challenge in daily operations. As respondent FM_07 explains: “There are actually two things, the statement is we let go of everything, and the teams do it themselves, but the teams cannot do everything themselves, and in addition I think senior management does not let go of everything, is still reasonable steering, in the sense of this is or is not the priority”. Within the IT-group there are different experiences regarding management action. The IT-group explain the concept of side-steering (i.e., directing or moving people) as: “What I mean by that is that IT-management brings things into the team without proper coordination with product owners to get things done” (TS-T_07). From another perspective within the IT-group, this side steering diminishes because of the agile way of working. As respondent LS_01 explains: “[…] So, you had product owners but you still had traditional managers. So there used to be like two centers of power. Maybe power is the wrong word, but there were two centers from where you could be driven to the work. And at this moment this has changed.”

The selection process entails the selection of current employees for the new roles within the agile way of working. The business-groups perceives the selection process was transparent and a relevant aspect of the transition. “Oh, that's a transparent process. It's a vacancy that anyone can apply for. And then when you are invited, you also have an interview with two senior managers I didn't know and one external recruiter” (LS_06, from business-group). However, the IT-group questions if the right people were selected in the right way, as respondent LS_03 explains: “[…] when you then see people being hired for senior positions, who don’t have any clue about agile, experience zero, knowledge zero […]”.

Table 11: Narratives on management actions

Narratives on management actions

Business-group IT-group

Steering Side-steering is still existent Side-steering is there, but diminishes.

Selection Transparent selection process Questions the transparency and criteria of the selection process

T

5: L

This paragraph describes the narratives of the different groups regarding evaluation and time.

Evaluation. Both groups share the perspective that the organization needs to learn and grow within the agile way of working. From the business-group’s perspective, there is a practical perspective, which lays its focus on solutions to improve the structure organization. As respondent FM_03 explains:

“Well before you had some sort of hierarchy. Although in itself that was not bad but, there was a formal hierarchy. And now there is not, or much less. We're much more dispersed, well, that's where you'll need find your way in between and around. Because I think it's too much”. The IT-group takes a bottom- up perspective, as illustrated: “Because there is so much to learn, they are constantly feeling overwhelmed about how much they should know, or how much they should learn. And it is a gap that just needs to be filled in from where we started in and where we have to keep going” (TS-P_09).

Table 12: Narratives on evaluation

Narratives on evaluation

Business-group IT-group

Improvement Organizational structure needs to improve and focus on solutions, top-down perspective

Organizational members need to learn, bottom-up perspective.

Time. The business-group experience required time as costs. As respondent TS-T_01 illustrates: “[…] there are so many things in between. That I notice that filling in the forms still takes a lot of time and energy. Because I just have to think about that every time […] And at a certain moment that should happen more by itself”. The IT-group perceives time as a necessary investment for the organization to grow. “So, there's been a lot of change at the same time, so you have new teams on a moving train. [...] It just takes time to form new teams” (TS-T_02).

Regarding the maturity of the organization, there are different perspectives between the business-group and the IT-group. The business-group perceive the teams as not yet mature, whereas the IT-group speaks of the challenge in a ‘maturity dip’ as they were already working agile. “[…] or you'll get what I call the maturity dip. That you shift things, but that it never reaches the level you had before” (FM_04, from IT-group).

Table 13: Narratives on time

Narratives on time

Business-group IT-group

Time Experience required time as a cost Needs time to improve Maturity Teams are not yet mature There is a maturity dip

C

The business- and IT-group share the perception that the change approach has an overall IT-focus, there is autonomy in the squads, communication is essential, mindsets need to be adjusted, and there are advantages in the agile way of working. What is interesting are the different perceptions in the other categories. Table 14 and 15 illustrates the composite narratives.

Table 14: Overall composite narrative: business-group

Overall composite narrative: business-group

In general, the business-group takes a rather negative perception on the agile way of working. The business- group has a slightly skeptical perspective towards the suitability of agile in business. Also, this group perceives challenges in focusing on customer demands. Furthermore, challenges occur in the allocation of people in squads, due to the underrepresentation of business. They perceive the preparation towards the transition as not enough. Moreover, they emphasize the importance of an agile coach; they perceive coaching/support as little. Regarding agile components, the business-group perceives the ceremonies as time- consuming and setting priorities as challenging. According to the business-group, the collaboration between business and IT has an enormous impact on the business. They perceive that both groups speak different languages. Furthermore, they take a unilateral perspective regarding dependencies between delivery and service. Regarding the overall transition experience, they perceive no deal-breakers. They are ambivalent towards the existence of the old informal structures, as it might cause people to fall back into old roles.

Moreover, they perceive the need for a dialogue between the organization's top and bottom, express the importance of leadership to motivate people. Finally, they perceive the need to improve the organization, where the focus needs to be on practical solutions.

Table 15: Overall composite narrative: IT-group

Overall composite narrative: IT-group

In general, the IT-group takes a more positive perspective on the agile way of working. As the IT-group was already working agile, they experience the applicability of agile as positive and emphasize that it is not a one size fits all solution. Furthermore, their perceptions towards the collaboration with business explain the need for a proper balance. Regarding the agile components, they perceive the ceremonies as a tool to plan their work, where setting priorities are perceived as an advantage yet challenging. The collaboration between business and IT as challenging; IT does not understand the business, business, and IT are different people, the difference in the delegation of business and IT produce difficulties. Furthermore, the IT-group takes a bilateral perspective on dependencies. Regarding the overall transition experience, they emphasize that traditional ways are still active, and people fall back into ‘old roles’ because of the high workload. Moreover, they perceive that management is still top-down, and leadership is essential to bridge the gap between business and IT. Finally, in order to grow and overcome the maturity dip, both the organization and its members need to learn.

These composite narratives show the different perspectives of the business-group and the IT-group towards the transition and the practical realization of the transition. These different narratives display a gap between business and IT, that result in challenges in the execution of the agile way of working. The following section will juxtapose the composite narrative with the framework of Crawford and Pollack (2004).

D

C

P

Figure 2 shows the perceptions of the business-group (the blue pattern) and the IT-group (the green pattern) referring to six (out of seven) dimensions of Crawford and Pollack (2004). Success measures are excluded because the success of the agile way of working is not established and cannot be measured.

In Figure 2, the outer-line illustrates the soft end of the continuum, the middle-line shows mix between hard and soft, and the inner-line illustrates the hard end of the continuum. So, from the inside out the figure shows the results of the dimensions from hard to soft.

According to the IT-group, the transition towards the agile way of working has a clearly defined final goal. The business-group agrees but also recognizes the involvement of human beings and cultural considerations (Checkland, 2000), and has a more mixed perception towards the clarity of the goal. The business-group perceives the tangibility of the goal towards the soft end. They recognize the tangible result, and also the importance of complex interactions. The other dimensions show no differences between the business-group and the IT-group. The project permeability is perceived as soft, because of the influence of stakeholders on the practical realization of the agile way of working. By choosing the direction towards agile, the organization commits to one solution: the agile way of working. Therefore, the number of solutions is perceived on the hard end. Both groups recognize the need to adapt, but emphasize it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Squad members need to be participative, collaborative and facilitating. Therefore, the degree of participation is perceived as soft. Finally, the industry of the organization requires a degree of interaction between stakeholders. Hence, the expectations of stakeholder are perceived between the hard and the soft end. The following section will discuss the results with other relevant theoretical perspectives.

Figure 2: Application of the dimensions of the framework of Crawford and Pollack (2004)