Leader sensegiving
How middle manager’ attitude influences leader sensegiving during organizational change
Esmé Gernaat S3140210
25-06-2018, Groningen
Master’s thesis
MSc Business Administration: Change Management Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen
Supervisor: dr. M.H.F. ridder de van der Schueren Co-assessor: dr. C. Reezigt
Word count: 12793
2 Abstract
Purpose - This study aimed to reveal the underlying mechanisms of the relationship between middle manager attitude towards the change and their sensegiving during organizational change.
Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on a multiple-case study carried out in two different organizations within the Netherlands. Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted and analyzed. To allow pattern finding the results were analyzed within-case and cross-case.
Findings - The results show a stable middle manager attitude towards the change over the whole process. The attitude towards the change seems to manifest itself mostly from the implementation phase of the process. The amount and type of sensegiving differed between the cases. Within one case the middle manager had a very outspoken positive attitude towards the change. It is interesting to see that in this case the manager decided to use extensively more symbolic sensegiving than in the other, more ambivalent, case. Besides, recipients were able to track the attitude towards the change of their middle managers better in the positive attitude case. Whereby it seemed to have contributed to a more smooth implementation process. Nevertheless, a causal relationship cannot be revealed within the scope of this research, but the results seem promising for future research.
Practical implications - With a better understanding of the process of sensegiving, organizations are able to account for these factors while setting up a change management program.
Keywords: change management, sensegiving, sensemaking, attitude towards the change, change leader, change process, middle management
3
1. Introduction
Change is an inevitable part of today’s business life (Burnes, 2017). In order to survive and succeed organizations need to adapt continuously to the evolving environment (By, 2005).
Unfortunately, successful organizational change is rare (Burnes, 2017; By, 2005). Some research even indicates that only one-third of organizational change can be considered as successful (Meaney and Pung, 2008). Besides, according to Balogun and Johnson (2005), the intended strategy often leads to unintended outcomes.
During organizational change an organization tries to establish conditions which are different from the current situation (Ford and Ford ,1995). The expectations of the organizational members thereby differ from their experience (Louis and Sutton, 1991). This creates a more conscious sensemaking mode (Brown, 2000; Weick, 1995); an attempt to achieve a
“meaningful framework for understanding the nature of the intended change” (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). According to Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld (2005) people first look for reasons to resume the disturbed activities. Which makes leader sensegiving -the attempt to affect employees’ sensemaking toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality- (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991) an important leadership activity during organizational change (Kraft, Sparr and Peus, 2018). Hereby, leader sensegiving can contribute to a positive attitude towards the change (Stensaker, Falkenberg and Gronhaug, 2008) and plays a significant role in effecting the change (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991; Kraft et al., 2018). With effective sensegiving, leaders are able to reduce stress and clarify the necessity of change to the recipient of the change (Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron and Byrne, 2007). According to Mantere, Schildt and Sillince (2012) leader sensegiving has been successful when employees develop the intended interpretive schemes.
The body of knowledge focusing on sensemaking and sensegiving is extensive. However, the sensegiving literature lacks an account of context (Maitlis and Christianson, 2013). Since the process of sensegiving is not context free, a-contextual studies have the risk of ignoring important factors (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2015). According to Hope (2010) it is striking that politics within this process has been given little focus in the extant literature. Especially since sensegiving is about influencing the meaning construction of others (Hope, 2010). Liu, Liao and Loi (2012) even indicate that organizational change may not motivate leaders to employ meaningful sensegiving. They indicate that it is possible that leaders force their self-interest upon followers. Therefore exploring the real intentions of leaders while engaging in sensegiving seems promising. Especially the pivotal role of middle managers (Glaser, Stam
4
and Takeuchi, 2016) during organizational change seems interesting. Middle managers have a dual role within the change; they are as well change recipient as change leader. Therefore exploring the relationship between their attitude towards the change (seen from their recipient role) and their sensegiving efforts (change leader role) can be seen as promising.
To the authors knowledge no comprehensive research in this field has been conducted.
Hereby it remains, surprisingly, unclear how middle managers attitude towards the change exactly influences leader sensegiving during organizational change. When it comes to effectuating the change the middle manager is of great importance. The middle manager is the change leader in direct contact with the employee, which makes him a key player in employee sensemaking. To be able to understand the interplay between middle manager attitude towards the change and sensegiving the following research question will be answered:
How does middle manager’ attitude towards the change influence leader sensegiving during organizational change?
According to Isabella (1990) employees experience different sensemaking needs during different phases of the change project, which affects leaders during their sensegiving efforts (Kraft et al., 2018). Within their research Kraft et al. (2018) argue for a process perspective on leader sensegiving. Therefore the focus of this study will be on exploring the relationship between middle manager attitude towards the change and sensegiving during different phases of the change project. Hereby, this study would enrich the understanding between middle manager attitude towards the change and sensegiving and offers an in practice perspective of the concept.
The objective of the study is to reveal the underlying mechanisms of the relationship and gain a deeper understanding of how middle manager attitude towards the change influences their sensegiving. With a better understanding of the process of sensegiving, organizations are able to account for these factors while setting up a change management program. Ultimately, leaders can be provided with specific information to be able to adapt their sensegiving to the needs of the recipients.
The next section of this thesis will deepen the understanding of the underlying theory in order to clarify the theoretical framework. Followed by the outline of the used methodology, which is based on the outlined theory. The third section will address the main results of the research.
Finally, a conclusion and discussion, which will include the limitations of the present study, can be found in the fourth section of this thesis.
5
2. Literature Review
To be able to provide a proper theoretical framework this literature review starts with a general introduction about organizational change and the middle manager role. This sets the stage for the more research question specific topics focused on attitude towards the change, sensegiving and sensemaking. Finally, a theoretical framework, based on the literature review, is given.
2.1 Organizational Change
Organizational change can take many forms. Change can be forced upon the organization, chosen by the organization, or it sometimes just seems to emerge (Burnes, 2017). Hereby change can be internal or external driven (Cawsey, Deszca and Ingols, 2016). According to Burnes (2017) the two dominant approaches of organizational change are the planned approach and the emergent approach. Within both approaches several different change models can be found (Burnes, 2017).
Within this thesis we adopt the organizational change definition of Cawsey et al. (2016).
According to Cawsey et al. (2016) organizational change is: “planned alterations of organizational components to improve the effectiveness of the organization.” This definition assumes that organizational change is intentional and planned. Within the organization someone took the initiative to alter an organizational component. With adopting this definition we limit this research to planned change, which is important to notice since van den Heuvel, Schalk, Freese and Timmerman (2016) indicate that the nature of change is related as an antecedent to the attitude towards change. Other types of change fall outside the scope of this research.
To allow comparability between our results and those of earlier sensegiving research the change model of Bullock and Batten (1985) was adopted throughout this research. Although phased change models, like the model of Bullock and Batten, have limitations when it comes to representing the complexity of organizational change, it allows the researcher to gain insights into the role of time influencing the change process (Kim, Hornung and Rousseau, 2011).
The model of Bullock and Batten (1985) consists out of four phases. The first phase is called exploration. In this phase of the change process the organization becomes aware of the need for change. Within this phase no formal information about the change is accessible. Thereby employees try to gather as much information as possible (Isabella, 1990). This phase is
6
followed by a phase of preparation in which the change is planned. It is characterized with goal setting and data collection. During the third phase, implementation, the change is carried out. Within this phase employees need to gain a collective understanding of the change (Isabella, 1990). The implementation phase is followed by an evaluation phase in which employees evaluate the change effectiveness. Further, in this phase the change needs to be institutionalized (Bullock and Batten, 1985).
Finally, organizational change can be seen as top-down or bottom up, which is based on the role the initiating manager plays within the hierarchy (Raes, Heijltjes, Glunk and Roe, 2011).
The focus of this research will be on top-down change, since extant literature with a top-down perspective often portrays middle managers as reluctant executors (Balogun and Johnson, 2005). Which makes this an interesting research setting since other research assumes a more complex picture of the situation.
2.2 Middle Manager
As indicated above, extant literature with a top-down perspective portrays middle managers often as reluctant executors (Balogun and Johnson, 2005). While, in turn, extant literature with a bottom-up perspective emphasizes the pivotal role of the middle manager (Glaser et al., 2016). For instance, Cawsey et al. (2016) indicate that middle managers need to be key change leaders since change management emerges from the bottom and middle of the organization as much as from the top. They are the connection between the top managers of the organization and the operational employees.
Despite the different views when it comes to the function of middle managers, there seems to be an agreed definition about middle management (Harding, Lee and Ford, 2014). According to Harding et al. (2014) middle management can be seen as: “a position in organizational hierarchies between the operating core and the apex whose occupants are responsible for a particular business unit at this intermediate level of the corporate hierarchy that comprises all those below the top level strategic management and above first-level supervision.” Since there is an agreed definition about middle management we will adopt the definition used by Harding et al. (2014).
Within organizational change employees can take many roles. According to Cawsey et al.
(2016) five different types of roles can be found within organizational change; change implementers, change initiators, change recipients, change facilitators and change leaders. It is possible that one person plays multiple or different roles within the change (Cawsey et al.,
7
2016). Middle managers have a dual role within organizational change; they are change leaders and change recipients at the same time. According to Huy (2002) middle managers therefore continuously strive to manage their own emotions associated with the change in order to maintain operation continuity. However, they also have to manage the recipients emotions at the same time. They are the ones who receive employees responses to the change and are able to give meaning and possibly influence these responses (Oreg, Vakola and Armenakis, 2011).
2.3 Attitude towards the Change
Although sensegiving can occur at several hierarchical levels (Balogun, 2006), leaders act as the official representatives of the organization. Thereby they have access to specific organizational information (Brown and Humphreys, 2003). This makes them institutionally empowered for sensegiving (Brown and Humphreys, 2003; Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991).
Nevertheless, Filstad (2014) indicates that leaders might not always be motivated to engage in meaningful sensegiving during organizational change. It is possible that they force their self- interest upon followers, which can lead to demotivation and dissatisfaction (Liu et al., 2012).
Thereby the leader’ interpretation of the change is important since leaders can resist or support efforts to influence the change (Sonenshein, 2010). Which can be seen as interesting since change leader responses are crucial because of their direct effect on the change progress and change outcome (Oreg et al., 2011). In order to achieve successful organizational change the individual attitude towards the change therefore seems to be important (Xu, Payne, Horner and Alexander, 2016). Thus exploring the middle manager attitude towards the change seems promising.
Bouckenooghe (2010) indicates that our knowledge of attitude towards change has made limited progress over the past decades. People react different to change, whereas some cherish change others experience it as a source of stress and suffering (Bouckenooghe, 2010).
According to Oreg et al. (2007) these different perceptions are also reflected in the extant literature; people’s reactions to change are conceptualized in a variety of ways. The terminology “attitude toward change” is, within the extant literature, used interchangeably with for instance terminology like readiness for change, commitment to change and resistance (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Thereby several authors attempted to identify attitudes towards change (e.g. Lines, 2005; Vakola, Tsaousis and Nikolaou, 2004). Within the extant literature the dominant perspective on attitude towards change is viewed from the change recipient
8
perspective at an individual level of analysis (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Despite the growing number of studies, the field is unclear about the relationship between the different concepts.
A connection between these concepts can be found in the conceptualization of Elizur and Guttman (1976). They conceptualized attitude towards change as:
“Attitudes toward change is a multi-facetted concept comprised of a set of feelings about change, cognitions about change and intentions toward change. Each of these three facets reflects three different manifestations of people’s evaluations of a change” (p. 612).
Hereby they conceive attitude towards change as a tridimensional concept which is composed of the components; cognitive, affective and intentional. When it comes to the affective component they refer to the feelings someone has about the change, does someone see the change as positive or negative. The cognitive component refers to the opinion about the advantages or disadvantages, necessity and perceived usefulness of the change. Lastly, the intentional component refers to the actions taken in the future for or against change.
As indicated earlier, the conceptualization of Elizur and Guttman (1976) can be seen as an all- embracing umbrella, which is needed to be able to cover all change responses. Therefore we will adopt their definition of attitude towards change within this research.
2.4 Sensegiving
As already introduced, a lack of consensus within an organization can threaten effective change (Lines, 2007). During organizational change a multitude of diverging interests are at stake. Therefore individuals try to purposely affect the sensemaking of another person towards a specific direction (Fiss and Zajac, 2006). This interpretive process is called sensegiving (Fiss and Zajac, 2006; Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). According to Maitlis and Lawrence (2007) sensegiving is not only a prevalent activity, but also critically important for organizations in effecting change. Especially leader sensegiving can play a significant role (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991).
According to Foldy, Goldman and Ospina (2008) the desired outcome of the sensegiving process is a shift in the thinking and perceptions; a cognitive shift. Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) defined sensegiving as the: “process of attempting to influence the sensemaking and meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality".
Because of the wide applicability of the definition of Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) we will adopt this definition of sensegiving throughout our research.
9
According to Sonenshein (2006) sensegiving research has focused on two types of sensegiving tactics; symbolic and discursive. Symbolic tactics included aspects as personnel changes, holding meeting and reallocating resources (Sonenshein, 2006). For instance, the research of Kraft et al. (2018) revealed several symbolic strategies. One example of a symbolic sensegiving strategy is that leaders need to signal their availability to employees.
Discursive tactics are focused on making messages, contesting a proposal, explaining a situation and expressing an opinion (Sonenshein, 2006). For instance understanding the origins of rumors and taking in the concerns (Kraft et al., 2018). According to Mumford et al.
(2007) leaders can reduce stress and clarify the change when they use discursive and symbolic strategies.
2.5 Sensemaking
During organizational change recipients make sense of the change and develop a certain attitude towards the change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). As indicated earlier, building a shared understanding of the environment is critical to successful change (Lines, 2007; Weick and Roberts, 1993). This shared understanding can be realized by a process called sensemaking (Weick, 1995). Previous research has shown that change processes can trigger extensive sensemaking among employees (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). According to Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) during sensemaking employees attempt to achieve “a meaningful framework for understanding the nature of the intended change”. Weick (1995) indicates that sensemaking refers to the processes of interpretation and meaning production. In these processes people interpret phenomena and produce intersubjective explanations (Weick, 1995). In order to understand and explain the situation people try to structure the unknown (Waterman, 1990). Thereby sensemaking is a constant effort to cope with unique experiences (Weick, 1995). According to Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) sensemaking processes are triggered among all individuals who know about and are affected by the change process.
The body of knowledge about sensemaking is extensive (Maitlis and Christianson, 2013).
However, there is no agreed definition about sensemaking. Maitlis and Christianson (2013) identified several reoccurring themes about sensemaking. They combined these aspects in one integrated definition. They formulated sensemaking as: “a process, prompted by violated expectations, that involves attending to and bracketing cues in the environment, creating intersubjective meaning through cycles of interpretation and action, and thereby enacting a more ordered environment from which further cues can be drawn.”. Because of the completeness of their definition, we will adopt this definition in our research.
10
Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) indicate that the process of sensemaking and sensegiving affect each other as they occur. Hereby employees are viewed as actively taking part, they are not merely recipients (Stensaker et al., 2008). Sensemaking and sensegiving evolve over time (Isabella, 1990; Kraft et al., 2018). Thereby it is important that leaders frame their sensegiving in a relevant way which is suitable for the given change phase (Kraft et al., 2018). According to Foldy et al. (2008) leaders should use a particular set of sensegiving strategies to stimulate and authorize the desired cognitive shift.
2.6 Change Outcome
As indicated above, sensegiving seems to have an influence on the change outcome. In order to show how the attitude of the middle manager influences his or her sensegiving it seems relevant to incorporate the perceived influence on the outcome of the change. According to de Wit (1988) project success needs to be distinguished in two different objectives: project success and the success of the project management effort. He indicates that good project management can contribute to project success, but is not inherently linked. The success of the project can be measured according to the degree to which the project objectives of all stakeholders have been met (De Wit, 1988). Thereby it becomes very difficult to measure the success of a project objectively (De Wit, 1988).
The distinction made by de Wit (1988) is of great importance when it comes to this research.
As indicated above, it is possible that middle managers do not engage in meaningful sensegiving during the change, which can possibly influence the project management success.
Since the project management success is not inherently linked towards the overall project success it is interesting to investigate how and if the intentions of the middle manager influence the change outcome.
2.7 Theoretical Framework
This research consists of two main objectives: (1) to gain a deeper understanding of how middle manager attitude towards the change influences their sensegiving during organizational change and (2) to uncover new insights of how this influences employees.
With focusing on these objectives the research tries to reveal the real intentions of middle managers while engaging in sensegiving during organizational change. The theoretical framework, which is derived from the literature review, can be found in figure 1.
11
Figure 1: Theoretical framework
3. Methodology
In this section an overview of the used methodology is given. This sections starts with the study design. Which is followed by an explanation about the data collection. Finally, a brief insight in the method of analysis is provided.
3.1 Study Design
This paragraph discusses the overall approach within this study. It therefore starts with an overview of the research approach. Followed by the case selection criteria and a short introduction in the chosen cases.
3.1.1 Research approach. For this research paper an exploratory qualitative approach is used. At this moment more research is needed to develop a better understanding of the influence of attitude on sensegiving. The subject information in the literature is limited and does not offer a comprehensive understanding. Hereby it remains unclear if and how attitude influences leader’ sensegiving. To the authors knowledge no research is conducted in this area. Because of the lack of knowledge on this area, a qualitative approach is very suitable (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Eisenhardt, 1989). Further, a qualitative research allows the researcher to present the findings in participants’ own words and thereby to reveal the realities of leadership (Bryman, 2003).
To be able to address the whole system a case study research was chosen. Using case study research allowed the researcher to take a broad view on the problem from multiple perspectives (Blumberg, Cooper and Schindler, 2014). To enhance the generalizability of the conclusions of this research paper, a multiple case study analysis was conducted. According to Miles and Huberman (1994) multiple-case sampling increases the validity of the research.
Besides, multiple case studies are known as more robust than the results of single case studies (Blumberg et al., 2014). The case study method allowed the researcher to explore and investigate the stated theory with a real-life phenomenon (Blumberg et al., 2014).
Attitude towards change
• Affective
• Cognitive
• Intentional
Leader sensegiving
• Discursive tactics
• Symbolic tactics
Employee sensemaking
Change outcome
• Process
• End result
12
Within this study two different cases were studied. To allow theory building from case study research this study was based on the theory-development process of Eisenhardt (1989). Which involves selecting a not extensively addressed business phenomenon, using multiple data collection methods, conducting within-case and cross-case analyses, and a literature comparison. (Eisenhardt, 1989).
3.1.2 Case selection. As indicated earlier, in order to allow theory building the theory- development process of Eisenhardt (1989) was used throughout the process. The selection of cases is very important in order to be able to build theory from the case studies (Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles and Huberman, 1994). Therefore the case studies were selected on the following selection criteria: (1) the case described a recent change project within an organization in the Netherlands (2) the change entailed regular contact between the leader and the recipients (3) the researched teams consisted out of a minimum of 4 recipients (4) the leader had a leading role within the change project (5) the recipients were directly involved and directly related to the leader. Besides, in order to allow cross-case comparison, both cases were initiated from the top (top-down change) and planned.
3.1.3 Case description A. Organization A is a public organization focused on safety and security within the Netherlands. This case study was conducted at an operational team, who are responsible for the safety and security in a specific focus area. Recently, two of these, originally geographically dispersed, operational teams were merged. Which resulted in the closure of one facility and thereby the move of these employees towards a different location.
The merger changed the work routines of both groups. The process was initiated from the top.
3.1.4 Case description B. Organization B is a juvenile prison located in the Netherlands. The case study was conducted at an operational team, who are responsible for the daily affairs. The change process was focused on changing work routines; it focused on empowering and centralizing the mentor of the client. The process was initiated from the top.
3.2 Data Collection
The data collection took place from February to June 2018 in the Netherlands. To allow triangulation of data multiple types of fieldwork were conducted, which will be discussed below.
3.2.1 Interviews. Potential participants were contacted e-mail or phone to request their consent to participate. Within each case six interviews were conducted. The distribution of interviews can be found in table 1. The interviews focused on the sensegiving efforts of the
13
middle manager during the change project and their attitude towards the change. The recipient interviews focused more specific on how the recipients perceived the sensegiving efforts of the middle manager. The interview of the middle manager focused more specific on how he perceived his own sensegiving. Hereby both perspectives were integrated. It is important to notice that the respondents were asked to base their answers on the experiences from one specific change project.
Within the research two different interview guides were used; one for the middle manager and one for recipients of the change. The interviews were semi-structured and partly based on an interview guide used in earlier research on sensegiving (Kraft et al., 2018). These questions were combined with more specific questions based on extant literature focused on attitude towards change. The interview guides were tested within two interviews within case A. After these pilot interviews the interview guide was slightly adjusted in order to receive richer data.
The data of the pilot interviews is included within this research.
Using a semi-structured interview guide increased the cross-case comparability. The semi- structure left room for additional information and interpretation of the participant. Thereby the interviews vary between the different participants (Fylan, 2005). The used interview guides can be found in Appendixes B and C.
The interviews were scheduled at the participant’s offices. When there was no office available the organization’s canteen was chosen. All interviews were audiotaped and before the interview started participants were requested to fill in a written informed consent. The transcripts and data files of the interviews can be provided upon request.
Case Leader(s) Recipients
A 2 (AT1, AT2) 4 (AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4)
B 2 (BT1, BG1) 4 (BR1, BR2, BR3, BR4)
Table 1:Distribution of the interviews
3.2.2 Secondary data. To supplement the interview data secondary data was included in the case analysis. The secondary data within this study was focused on e-mails between the leader and the recipients, internal news articles about the change and official documents about the change. Hereby the researcher was able to track the official communication about the change process.
14 3.3 Data Analysis
The data analysis phase started with a data reduction (Miles and Huberman, 1994). In order to minimize data loss the interviews were recorded and transcribed literally. Both, the interviews and secondary data was coded manually based on deductive and inductive codes. The deductive codes were based on relevant literature. Inductive codes emerged throughout the coding process. The used codebook can be found in Appendix A. After the coding process the data was structured following the earlier mentioned process perspective.
To permit conclusion drawing and find repetitive patterns, the coded data was be displayed.
The collected data was analyzed per case and cross-case to allow pattern searching. Starting with a within case analysis allowed the researched to gain initial familiarity with both cases individually (Eisenhardt, 1989). Besides, it allowed the researcher to find the unique patterns within each case (Eisenhardt, 1989). The cross-case analysis was used to find patterns, similarities and differences between the cases. Which allowed the researcher to search for evidence of a relationship between leader attitude towards change and leader sensegiving during organizational change. Finally, the results of the analysis were compared with the extant body of knowledge on sensegiving. Which resulted in propositions to extend the existing literature (Eisenhardt, 1989).
4. Results
Within this section we will discuss the results of both case studies. In order to give meaning to what is happening in each case we will start with two separate case analyses. These separate analyses are followed by a cross-case analysis in order to find repetitive patterns. The cross- case analysis focuses on the similarities and dissimilarities between the cases. The analyses are structured following the change model of Bullock and Batten (1985) discussed in the literature review.
4.1 Analysis Case A
This change process was focused on combining two geographically dispersed teams into one.
This involved moving one team from their original location (location A) to a new location (location B), combining their work processes, and merging both teams in one functional team.
The process was initiated from the top.
4.1.1 Phase 1: Exploration. Within the first phase of the change process the organization becomes aware of the need for change. Within this phase there were still two team leaders (middle managers) active, one for each separate team. It is a phase in which
15
employees face uncertainty due to circulating rumors. Which is highly visible in this case;
several participants indicate rumors about the closure of the location as a result of other organizational changes (AR1, AR2, AR3, AT2). This can be exemplified by the quotation:
“What gave you a bit of a feeling; this is not going to last very long." (AR2).
Sensegiving. The uncertainty experienced by employees (employee sensemaking) was, according to several interviewees, not adequately addressed. According to the recipients both team leaders did not actively address the existing rumors or demonstrated attentiveness towards the employees. One participant indicates: “It was a process in which we would work together more closely. (…) but it was said that is was temporary.”(AR2). Some participants mentioned that they knew that the organization decided to repel the building in 2019 (AR3, AR2). The emotional fears experienced by some employees were not addressed. Thereby the amount and type of experienced sensegiving seems to be too low to address the concerns.
Attitude towards the change. For employees it was difficult to discover the opinion of the team leaders about the change (cognitive component). The amount of sensegiving in this phase can be considered as low. One participant even expresses: “Well I sometimes feel (…) that they think like: well, I have to go through my time without too many problems and then I'll leave.”(AR3). This participant indicates that team leaders often work for a short time at one location, which reduces the connection between a team leader, the location, and the employees. Which, according to participant AR3, influences their opinion, but also their feelings (affective component) about the change. When it comes to the affective component the participant indicates: “So if you do not have that connection then you also have no problem with the farewell” (AR3).
4.1.2 Phase 2: Preparation. Within this phase the change becomes more concrete.
When it comes to this case the preparation phase can be characterized by confusion. It became clear that employees had to work on a temporary basis at location B and they were moved quickly after the decision. At this moment it was still unclear that this move was not temporary. This was also the phase in which a new team leader, one for both teams, came in;
“Well I would become a team leader of (A) when I came in. That was actually the intention.
And last minute they indicated that I had to work on (B).” (AT1). Within our analysis, this phase ends when it becomes clear that the employees had to stay at location B.
Sensegiving. As indicated in phase 1 there were some rumors about the closure of the location and location A was already working more closely with location B. Nevertheless,
16
employees indicate that they had the feeling that it was a very sudden decision (AR1, AR2, AT1). The change itself was communicated via a general e-mail (AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4, AT2). Which made it difficult for employees to make sense of the meaning of the change.
Which can be exemplified by the quotations: “And all of the sudden it was decided that we had to shut down.”(AR1) and “If there are good reasons for the closure, then I have peace with that. If it is well argued. (…) But in my opinion, that was not the case.”(AR2). The decision to communicate the decision via e-mail was based on the low availability of the employees (AT2). Therefore it was impossible to get all employees at one moment at the same place (AT2). Employees indicate that the amount of sensegiving in this phase can be considered as low; the communication about the change consisted out of two separate e-mails.
Both e-mails are in the possession of the researcher.
The first e-mail consisted out of some general announcements and the announcement of the closure of location A. It gives a short explanation about the closure and thereby can be seen as discursive sensegiving. It gives meaning to the change, but does not allow direct interaction.
Nevertheless, the e-mail indicates that the team leader is available for questions. Which demonstrates a certain amount of attentiveness (symbolic sensegiving). The second e-mail had a more practical focus and did not came from one of the team leaders. It focused on the practical side of the closure (e.g. emptying closets).
The experienced sensegiving did not allow room for emotions. Which can be exemplified by the quotation: “We were confronted. It was not a question. It was more a comment.” (AR2).
One recipient mentioned that he had the feeling that it was easily passed over (AR2). Which can be exemplified by the quotation of a participant from location B: “From what I heard, it really hit them like a bomb.”(AR1). Within this phase employees from location A indicate that they needed some understanding for their situation (AR2). When it comes to allowing room for emotions, one participant mentions; “They throw everything on imposed from above.”(AR3).
Nevertheless, team leader AT2 indicates that he had several conversations with employees from location A. He tried to address the concerns and to give meaning to the change. He indicates that he got the feeling that people were not open to his story (AT2). Thereby he experienced a lack of mutual trust. Further he indicates high resistance towards the change.
Which can be exemplified by the quotation: “It seemed to be a battle. I always had the feeling that I needed to defend and justify myself for something I had no influence on.”(AT2).
17
Attitude towards the change. The amount of sensegiving experienced by employees can be considered as low. Employees indicate that they don’t have the feeling that the team leaders really had an opinion about the change itself. Within this phase a new team leader came in. Employees indicate that they think that it is very difficult for a new team leader to really have an opinion or even some feelings about the change (cognitive and affective component). The “new” team leader indicates: “These are thing that I have no influence on.
When the organization decides, then we will go that way.”(AT1). The participant also indicates: “I think that I have less troubles with change than the others.” (AT1). These quotations can indicate that her opinion and feelings about change, but not specifically this change, could have influenced her sensegiving as she perceives it as something decided from above.
Within this phase team leader AT2 was still highly involved. He indicates that he really wanted to do the best thing for the organization. In his opinion merger both teams was the best and only thing to do (cognitive component). Thereby he indicates that he thinks that the decisions made were the right thing to do. Besides, according to AT2 it was the only possible solution. Nevertheless, he also indicates: “If it is up to me personally then I would rather have had a full team on A and a full team in B.”. He indicates that he expressed those feelings towards the employees, but that the change was a necessity. Which gives the feeling of an ambivalent attitude towards the change.
4.1.3 Phase 3: Implementation. After a short preparation phase, the implementation followed quickly. Employee sensemaking (employees originally originated at location A) was focused on frustration. The change felt sudden and employees had the feeling that there was no room for an emotional response. Within this phase only one team leader was still active and the two teams were merged in the course of the implementation process.
Sensegiving. The team leader indicates about her sensegiving in this phase: “At the beginning, I left it a bit at its own. I came in new and I’m not going to say we are going to do it like this.”(AT1). She also indicates: “We looked at it for a while in the hope that it would fade. But people stayed negative.” (AT1). She indicates that at some point in time she was done with it and decided to combine both teams into one new team in order to overcome the negativity. Which can be characterized as symbolic sensegiving. As she indicates: “I consciously kept people who strengthen each other in their negativity apart.”(AT1).
Employees were therefore not actively involved in the process. The team leader felt that they
18
were too opinionated to be involved. The new team composition is discussed and later on sent by e-mail (AT1, AR1). Becoming one team is considered as a group process in which the team leader was not actively involved (AT1, AR1).
One recipient mentions explicitly that he had the feeling that the team leader was not receptive for employee emotions (AR2). When faced with problems and challenges these were not addressed appropriately. The participant mentions for instance: “In my opinion there was no understanding.” (AR2) and “There is just no communication. Or too little, while we are often only two doors away” (AR2).
During the process “negative employees” had several conversations with the team leader. On one hand, these conversations opened their eyes when it comes to having a positive work experience. Nevertheless they missed questions like: “why are you negative?”.
Attitude towards the change. When it comes to the closure of location A, the team leader indicates that she did not mind that this choice was made. In her opinion it was something decided by the organization. Which can be exemplified by the quotation: “If the management decides on this, there will probably be a good reason for it.”(AT1). Thereby she based her cognitive appraisal on the decision of the management. She thereby considers the change as useful and necessary.
She indicates that her feeling about the change itself did not change. Nevertheless her feelings during the change did change, but this was merely focused on the reaction of the recipients.
She did use symbolic sensegiving, the merger of the teams, in order to overcome negativity.
Thereby she adjusted her sensegiving based on the affective component of attitude towards the employees (and not necessarily the change itself).
Employees (AR2, AR3) indicate that the team leader does not express her opinion about the change towards them. Which can be exemplified by the quotation: “They are not going to say that they find it a pity that location A is closed.” (AR3). Thereby it is difficult for employees to track the leader attitude about the change.
4.1.4 Phase 4: Evaluation. In this phase employees make sense of the outcome of the change and the contributions in phase 1 to 3. The change itself, combining two teams, seems to be successful. Employees seem dissatisfied with the indirect outcomes of the change.
Employees got the feeling that they are abandoning the core business of the organization.
19
Sensegiving. The change has now entered the last phase of the process. There seems to have been paid little attention for reviewing the change. There seems to be little room for an open dialogue to learn from mistakes (discursive sensegiving). Which can be exemplified by the quotation of the team leader: “Recently they started all over again. And then I think it is done. This is the situation.”(AT1). Hereby the change climate is not sustained (symbolic sensegiving).
Attitude towards the change. As indicated earlier the attitude towards the change of the team leader did not change across the process (AT1). As indicated in the interview: “This is how the organization works.”(AT1). This perception about how the organization works seems to influence the team leaders’ attitude towards the change; she indicates that management probably had good reasons for initiating this change. Which could have influenced her appraisal of the necessity and perceived usefulness of the change. The sensegiving in this phase of the change did not focus on evaluation. It is possible that the earlier mentioned evaluation influenced the shown sensegiving.
4.2 Analysis Case B
This change process was focused on the redesign of the primary process. Which involved creating a core team for the youthful, less different employees involved in the process and a change in the process of treatment. Hereby employees had to take a different role in the process. They needed to take more responsibility and a more active involvement in the process. Within this case the change was initiated by the team leader and the behavioral scientist of the team. The process was initiated from the top. Since the role of the behavioral scientist within this process is in line with the definition of middle management from Hardy et al. (2014) the researcher decided to include her sensegiving and attitude towards the change in the results of this research.
4.2.1 Phase 1: Exploration. The first phase of the process was difficult to track. The team already worked for a while with a similar vision. They already tried to center the mentor of the youthful, but they were still in an initial phase. Which was initiated by the behavioral scientist. The interviewed team leader was in this phase not yet involved. To the authors knowledge no rumors about the new project existed.
4.2.2 Phase 2: Preparation. Within our analysis this phase starts with the publication of the advisory document of the project and is followed by several meetings about the project.
Although the advisory document was published before the new team leader came in, we will
20
mainly focus on the part in which he is involved. Since the results of the project became visible in this period. In the beginning of the project there was a pilot group involved. We do not include this in our analysis since the pilot group had little influence on how the process went within this team.
Sensegiving. The sensegiving within this phase can be characterized as participative.
The project was discussed in a team meeting to get everyone on the same page (BT1, BR1, BR2, BG1). Which can be characterized by the following quotation: “We have said within our team meeting (name of project) is of course very important. Do we all agree? Everyone said yes. Then we said how are we going to do that. How do we get there as a team.”(BT1).
Hereby employees were able to contribute to the change. During this process the team leader offered guidance to the employees. To overcome role ambiguity he also made the responsibilities clear (BT1). Employees mention that the change felt very natural (BR2).
Nevertheless they do indicate that they haven’t heard that much about the project itself (BR1).
Which can be explained by the quotation: “We haven’t used the term (project name) much.
But instead we indicated; if you want to help those youthful we have to treat them. Thereby we focused on the intrinsic motivation of the employees”(BG1). With this quotation the behavioral scientist indicates that she prefers talking about a vision instead of a project.
Attitude towards the change. Within this change two change leaders can be found; the behavioral scientist and the team leader. The behavioral scientist indicates that she already worked with a similar vision. She saw the advantages and usefulness of the change. Although she preferred a different way of implementing that originally initiated by the organization she was positive about the change. The team leader indicates: “I liked the idea immediately. The question was more: how are we going to organize that” (BT1).
4.2.3 Phase 3: Implementation. Within our analysis the implementation phase starts after the team meeting. The focus of the employees seem to be on the positive aspects of the change. As indicated earlier, they had the feeling that the change felt natural (BR1, BR2).
Which can be exemplified by the quotation: “It felt like they raised us with it.”(BR1). It was in line with the vision of the organization and their vision of how to treat. The influence of the project was visible for employees; youthful responded positively on the new way of working.
Which also motivated employees. Although the change was initiated from the top, both change leaders indicate that they initiated the change in phases. Nevertheless, employees did indicate that they would have appreciated to receive more information about the project.
21
Sensegiving. As indicated above the project was initiated phased. Employees indicate that both change leaders are available when needed (BR2, ). There was room for making mistakes and trying new things. When faced with uncertainty the behavioral scientist tried to convince the employee of its own capacities (BG1). She also compliments them when things are going in the right direction, which motivates employees. Which can be exemplified by the quotation: “By saying you’re doing that very good. Maybe you can think of this. I have the feeling that the team as a whole becomes stronger and stronger.”(BG1). The behavioral scientist was during the process mostly involved content wise. The role of the team leader is seen as facilitating (BR2, BR3). Someone who solves problems and has your back (BR3, BR4). Participant BR4 indicates that this gives a feeling of safety. Besides, he tries to motivate them by indicating that they still can do better (BR4, BT1).
Attitude towards the change. The attitude towards the change of both change leaders can be seen as unchanged compared to the last phase. It fits in their vision about treatment and how they want to manage employees (BT1, BG1). Their attitude became more visible to employees. Employees experience that both change leaders become enthusiast when things are heading in the desired direction (BR2, BR4). Which can also be exemplified by the quotation: “Our team leader mentions that he is proud of us as a team.” (BR4).
4.2.4 Phase 4: Evaluation. Although not all aspects of the project are already implemented, the process did enter the evaluation phase. Within this team most employees are able to work according to the implemented vision (BG1, BT1). Thereby the focus of the project shifted; several employees indicate that it is time to go beyond the initial plan (e.g.
BR4). Currently, the project is evaluated within multiple workshops (BT1, BR1). Which allows the organization to learn from the process (BR1).
Sensegiving. The dominant sensegiving mode within this phase focused on receiving feedback and creating dialogue (BR4). The upsides and downsides of the change were discussed within the workshops. Besides, both change leaders focused on the positive aspects achieved with the change. Which can be exemplified by the quotation: “We have consciously said that we also have to dwell on the things that are going very well and that we thought we would never achieve.” (BG1).
Attitude towards the change. The attitude towards the change of both leaders did not change over time. They are still positive about the change. Within this phase their positive is also highly visible for employees.
22 4.3 Cross-case Analysis
In order to allow pattern finding a cross-case analysis was conducted. The results of the previous within-case analyses are compared with the use of visual representation of the data, which can be found in appendix D. Hereby a number of similarities and dissimilarities are revealed.
4.3.1 Attitude towards the change. In both cases the leader attitude towards the change seems stable over the whole process. Nevertheless, the attitude towards the change manifests itself mostly from phase 3. Within case A it is visible that the intentional aspect comes in; based on her own sensemaking of the change the leader decides to take action in order to make the change a success. When it comes to case B the change became more visible for employees. Employees were able to recognize the feelings their change leaders have towards the change (affective component). Thereby they experience the attitude of the change leaders within their sensegiving. Which really differs from case A, within case A people are not able to recognize the feelings or opinion of their change leaders. Although both interviewed change leaders indicated that they did mention their opinion within their sensegiving.
The most striking difference between both cases can be found in the attitude towards the change itself. Within case A the leader attitude towards the change can best be described as ambivalent. At least not outspoken positive. Which is in sharp contrast with case B, in which both change leaders are outspoken positive when it comes to the vision of the change. Which raises the question if this difference explains the difference in experienced leader attitude towards the change. It is clear that within case B the expressed attitude motivates employees throughout the process. Whereas employees within case A struggle with this part. The researched changes have both a huge influence on the work of the employees, both with its pros and cons. But the change within case B seems to be a smoother process.
4.3.2 Sensegiving. The type and amount of sensegiving differs within both cases throughout the process. The amount of sensegiving is lower within case A. Especially when it comes to symbolic sensegiving. Within this case symbolic sensegiving only comes into play as a reaction on employee sensegiving. In contrast to case B where symbolic sensegiving can be found throughout the process. Within case B the sensegiving focuses more on participation. Whereas within case A the sensegiving focuses on sending the message.
Thereby the sensegiving in case A is mainly focused on discursive strategies. The sensegiving strategies within case B are focused on both discursive and symbolic strategies.
23
Although the sensegiving differs between the cases, it is clear that the change leaders within both cases respond with their sensegiving to the perceived needs of employees. If there is a causal relation between the choice of sensegiving strategy remains unclear. Nevertheless, the differences between the sensegiving strategies can be seen as interesting.
When it comes to how leader attitude influenced their sensegiving during the change we can identify three main aspects within these cases; amount of sensegiving, type of sensegiving and visibility. When it comes to visibility employees are mostly able to recognize affective components of leader attitude. It is clear that within case B these components motivated employees throughout the process. Hereby a positive attitude towards the change seems to influence leader sensegiving in an effective manner.
4.3.3 Theoretical framework. The theoretical framework provided earlier (see figure 1) seems to stay intact. Although no causal relations can be revealed with this research, there seems to be enough information to assume an influence between attitude towards change and sensegiving. Before the framework can be extended the relations indicated above need to be researched more extensively, for instance in a more quantitative way.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
This researched aimed to find out how middle manager attitude towards the change influences leader sensegiving during organizational change. With the analysis of two different cases insights into this research question were generated. Within this section we will discuss the results this research revealed in combination with the extant literature.
5.1 Sensegiving
Our research revealed that the amount and type of sensegiving during organizational change differs over the process. During the change the managers responded to the perceived needs of the employees. Which supports the findings of earlier research of Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991). Within their research Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) indicate that employees actively take part in the sensemaking and sensegiving process, they are not merely recipients of the change (Stensaker et al., 2008). Besides, it also supports the findings of Isabella (1990) and Kraft et al. (2018) who indicate that sensemaking and sensegiving evolve over time. Hereby these findings can be seen as in line with the extant literature. It is clear that within both cases employees experienced different sensemaking needs during different phases of the change, which affected the managers during their sensegiving efforts. These findings confirm the
24
statement of Isabella (1990) and Kraft et al. (2018) in which they indicate that employees experience different sensemaking needs during different phases of the change project.
Extant literature indicates that the desired outcome of sensegiving is to stimulate and authorize the desired cognitive shift (Foldy et al., 2008). In both cases the sensegiving efforts were focused on purposely affecting the sensemaking of the employees towards the desired direction. Stensaker et al. (2008) indicate that leader sensegiving can contribute to a positive attitude towards the change. Which is mainly visible in case B, the case in which the change leaders have an outspoken positive attitude towards the change. Interestingly, within case A the sensegiving efforts of the team leader do not visibly contribute to a positive attitude towards the change. Which is in contrast with the findings of Stensaker et al. (2008). Which can also be seen in the light of the research of Mumford et al. (2007). Mumford et al. (2007) indicate that with effective sensegiving leaders are able to reduce stress and clarify the necessity of change to recipients. Within case A recipients were not able to mention the necessity of the change. Besides, the experienced stress during the change can be considered as high. Case B shows a different picture; the amount of stress during the change was low and employees knew why to change. Conceivably this can be related to the research of Mumford et al. (2007) in which they indicate that effective sensegiving occurs when change leaders use both, discursive and symbolic strategies. The use of symbolic sensegiving strategies within case A can be considered as very low. Therefore it would be interesting for future research to test the relationship between the use of symbolic sensegiving strategies and a negative or ambivalent attitude towards the change.
5.2 Attitude towards the Change
Although the sensegiving efforts of the change leaders vary over the process their attitude towards the change stays relatively stable. Throughout the process employees did use sensegiving efforts but apparently this did not change the leader attitude towards the change.
Whereby we can assume that the leader attitude towards the change is created in a very early stage of the change. Besides, tracking the leader attitude towards the change turned out difficult when it came to the more ambivalent attitude towards the change. These findings can be related to the research of Huy (2002). Huy (2002) indicates that middle managers continuously strive to manage their own emotions associated with the change in order to maintain operation continuity. Within case A, the ambivalent case, the change leaders actively tried to maintain operation continuity and actively tried to keep their own emotions apart. This balancing is less visible within case B where both change leaders are outspoken positive.
25
Since the change leader vision of the change is in line with the vision of the organization they apparently do not need to keep their own emotions apart. Moreover, they express their own emotions more often throughout the process in order to motivate employees.
Earlier research revealed that leaders might not always be motivated to engage in meaningful sensegiving during organizational change (Filstad, 2014). Furthermore, some research even indicates that it is possible that they force their self-interest upon followers (Liu et al., 2012).
Our research did not reveal those political processes. Within both cases the change leaders were motivated to engage in meaningful sensegiving during the change. Even when they did not completely agree with the chosen method or direction. Our research did reveal that within the ambivalent case the amount of sensegiving was remarkably lower than within the positive attitude case. However, it remained unclear if these aspects are causally related. Nevertheless, these findings can be seen as interesting and a good starting point for further research.
5.3 Conclusion
Although our research was not able to reveal a causal relationship between attitude towards the change and sensegiving, the differences between both cases are striking. Attitude towards the change was in both cases are relatively stable phenomenon and revealed itself to employees mainly from the implementation phase. The amount of sensegiving within the ambivalent case can be considered as low and less effective compared to the case with a more positive attitude towards the change. The outspoken positive attitude towards the change within case B motivated employees to effectuate the change. Besides, within case B more participative sensegiving methods were chosen. Hereby it would be interesting for further research to test the relationship between that a positive leader attitude towards the change and effective sensegiving. Besides, as indicated earlier, testing the relationship between the use of symbolic sensegiving and an ambivalent or even negative attitude towards the change would also be interesting. Our case shows a low amount of symbolic sensegiving and thereby less effective sensegiving throughout the process.
5.4 Theoretical Implications
Our research extents the extant sensegiving literature with a more political focus. It reveals the importance of leader attitude towards the change when it comes to effectuating change.
The research revealed that change leaders were not aware of a political process when it comes to sensegiving. They did not actively used sensegiving towards their employees for their own
26
purposes. It remains unclear if this is related to context factors as organizational culture.
Thereby these findings do extent the extant literature but need to be interpreted with caution.
5.5 Practical Implications
The research shows a sharp contrast between a case with a positive and a case with a more ambivalent attitude towards the change. Although both cases end up with an effectuated change, the case with the positive attitude was experienced less stressful. These results show the importance of getting your change leaders (in this case middle managers) on board.
Thereby the most important practical implication of this research is the importance of convincing your change leaders of the necessity and usefulness of the change.
5.6 Limitations
It is plausible that a number of limitations might have influenced the results obtained. All results need to be seen in the light of this research. Since the research was exploratory no hypotheses were tested. Besides, our research was conducted within two specific cases.
Whereby we were limited in the number of interviews and cases. As indicated by Eisenhardt (1989) between four and ten cases would have worked better in order to have convincing empirical grounding. Our findings should therefore be taken as indicative rather than as a representative.
Further, as indicated within our literature review, our research was limited to planned change.
Which can be seen as an antecedent when it comes to attitude towards change (Heuvel et al., 2016). Thereby it can be interesting for future research to repeat this research in a different setting. Besides, to allow comparability between our results and those of earlier research we adopted the change model of Bullock and Batten (1985). However, during our research it appeared to be difficult to track the mentioned phases within the model. The change processes were not that clear cut. Thereby the model does not represent the complexity of organizational change.
27 References
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: the impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11): 1573-1601.
Balogun, J. (2006). Managing change: Steering a course between intended strategies and unanticipated outcomes. Long Range Planning, 39(1), 29–49.
Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), 483-500.
Blumberg, B. F., Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2014). Business research methods.
McGraw-hill education.
Bouckenooghe, D. (2010). Positioning change recipients’ attitudes toward change in the organizational change literature. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(4), 500-531.
Brown, A. D., & Humphreys, M. (2003). Epic and tragic tales: Making sense of change.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(2), 121–144.
Brown, A. D. (2000). Making sense of inquiry sensemaking. Journal of management studies, 37(1).
Bryman, A. (2003). Research methods and organization studies (Vol. 20). Routledge.
Bullock, R. J., & Batten, D. (1985). It's just a phase we're going through: a review and synthesis of OD phase analysis. Group & Organization Studies, 10(4), 383-412.
Burnes, B. (2017). Managing change (7th edition). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
By, T.R. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of change management, 5(4), 369-380.
Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2016). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit (3th edition). Sage
De Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International journal of project management, 6(3), 164-170.
Drori, I., & Ellis, S. (2011). Conflict and power games in a multinational corporation:
Sensegiving as a strategy of preservation. European Management Review, 8(1), 1-16.
