‘The influence of multiple contexts on sense making processes in organizational change – a structuration perspective’

(1)

¹ Address: Ijsselstraat 75A, 9725 GE Groningen, a.f.oosterhuis@student.rug.nl, s2023113

² University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics of Business, Groningen, 9700 AV, The Netherlands

‘The influence of multiple contexts on sense making processes in

organizational change – a structuration perspective’

Anna Froukje Oosterhuis¹ Msc BA Change Management²

First Supervisor: Dr. C. Reezigt/ University of Groningen Second Supervisor: Drs. J.C.L. Paul / University of Groningen

September 2015

Word Count: 11.548

Abstract

Existing literature describes how institutional contexts influence sense making processes. This research contributes to this literature by providing a more comprehensive understanding of the influence of multiple institutional contexts on sense making processes. This study draws on a qualitative, single case study and it includes insights from in-depth analyses of interviews with fourteen members from all different levels and areas of the collaboration. Using Structuration Theory, this study analyzes the process of forming a collaboration with multiple institutional contexts. It argues that this collaboration is embedded in multiple contexts; parent organization, the context of the parent organization and the context of a collaboration. Several examples show how these different contexts affect the way actors and structure interact and are (re)produced. The analyses and discussion of the findings leads to a set of propositions that can function as input for future research on multiple institutional contexts.

(2)

2

1.INTRODUCTION

Recent literature has shown that institutional contexts play a role in sense making processes within organizational change (Hongwei & Baruch, 2009; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Zucker, 1991; Scott, 2003; Weber & Glyn, 2006; Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2006; Chreim, 2006; Reay et al., 2013). Although many authors describe the influence of institutional context on sense making processes, less is written about how institutions influence these sense making processes when they are embedded in multiple contexts. (Powel & Colyvas, 2008; Scott, 2008; Hannan & Freeman, 1989; Lander, 2014; Seo & Douglas, 2002). On the one hand there are theories about the phenomenon that institutional factors push the organization to take actions in searching and developing a new identity. This can be seen from the study of Ravasi et al. (2006), which stated that institutions are the triggers for identity sense making, and this in turn shaped the formation of a new identity. This finding is also found by Hongwei et al. (2009) in a study that aimed to learn how organizational identity changes with modifications in institutional and business environment. Besides that, institutionalized roles and templates for action function as input for sense making as shared cognitive structures that are taken for granted and that are imbued with value.

On the other hand, there is the juxtaposition of sense making, described by Weick (2005), who attempted to develop a more comprehensive view about the role of the institutional context in sense making processes. The effect of institutions on sense making processes is one way of interpreting how a structure influences human actions. Keeping structuration theory (Giddens, 1976;1979;1984) in mind, the way people perceive and make sense of change is influenced by institutional factors as well. The fact that institutional theory aims to address the issue of homogeneity, instead of variation, of organizational practices and forms (Dacin, Goodstein & Scott,2002) is typical for this theory. However, there is not much information about the institutions and the sense making processes in a situation where collaboration in multiple contexts takes place (Lander, 2014). Instead, most of the studies about institutional contexts and sense making processes within organizational change limit their attention to a change within a homogeneous population of organizations, instead of a change where multiple contexts are involved.

(4)

4

understanding the influence of institutions on sense making processes, attention should be paid to the nature and the type of institutions that influences these sense making processes.

This research tries to contribute to existing literature by providing a better understanding of the sense making processes in which actors from multiple contexts try to give meaning to a new business form (e.g. collaboration). Therefore, the main research question of this study is: “How do different individual stakeholders with different institutional contexts

influence sense making processes in organizational change?”. The study addresses the

importance of looking at how institutional contexts are of influence on the sense making processes within organizational change and on the collaboration. This research combines institutional contexts with structuration theory when analyzing the sense making processes in an organizational change, and by doing this it is a unique contribution to the existing literature. With this, organizations and management discover which influence the contexts have on how the included parties make sense of the institutions, and in turn might influence the change process in which multiple contexts try to work together. Figure 1 graphically represents the research question that will be addressed in this study.

Figure 1. Representation of the research question.

In the next section the theoretical framework of the main concepts – institutional theory, structuration theory, institutions, sense making processes, organizational change context and multiple institutional context collaboration - are given and literature concerning these concepts is presented and analyzed. The subsequent methodology section provides an explanation of the research design, followed by a short case description. Next, an overview of the results and the data gathered from the research is presented. Furthermore, key results will be discussed and linked to existing literature followed by the propositions. After the conclusion, limitations of the research as well as suggestions for further research are discussed.

Institutionalization/institutio nal contexts

- (in)formal rules

- Assumptions, values, behavior - Awareness of people - Taken-for-granted prescriptions

Organizational change process

New business form e.g. a collaboration

Sense making processes

- Logic of action; routine, strategic choices, sense making

(5)

5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

In this section the most important concepts will be addressed. First, institutional theory will be described and will be linked to structuration theory and sense making processes. Consequently, a critical look at these theories will be provided in an effort to identify and combine different theories. This addresses gaps in the literature on institutional theory and sense making processes in cases where multiple contexts are working together.

2.1 Institutional theory

When organizations aim to find new opportunities for entering new markets, industries, or organizational fields, the institutional perspective is crucial (Scott, 1995). Institutional theories are important in the social sciences and are nowadays a leading movement in management research (Dunning & Lundan 2008; Peng, Sun, Pinkham & Chen, 2009; Zoogah, Peng & Woldu, 2015). Over the years, a diverse range of thoughts has developed with respect to institutional theory across several disciplines which all focus on different forms of institutions. Holm (1995) criticizes institutional theory since actors can change their institutions while their actions, intentions, and rationality are formed by the same institution that they wish to change (p.398). This has been termed the paradox of embedded agency (Seo & Creed, 2002).

(6)

6

One significant critique of early ‘new’ (neo-) institutional theory is that its focus is on homogeneity and persistence and lacks attention for the role of agency and interest in shaping action and behavior (DiMaggio, 1988). The recent work in new institutional theory tried to contribute by paying attention to variation and change (Goodstein 1994; Goodrick & Salancik, 1996; Oliver, 1997; Zoogah et al., 2015). Exogenous sources and perceptions, interpretations and enactments of institutional logics result in diversity of institutions. Furthermore, actors give meaning and life to the institutions and multiple institutional logics occurs. Attention should be given to examining the institutional fields or relational contexts where all the different logics are present (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2013). According to Thornton (2004), institutional logics can be defined as taken-for-granted social prescriptions (formal and informal rules, norms and routines) that enable actors to make sense of their situation by providing ‘assumptions and values, usually implicit, about how to interpret organizational reality, what

constitutes appropriate behavior, and how to succeed’ (p. 206). What Friedland & Alford

(1991) say is that in order to understand individual and organizational behavior it must be located in a social and institutional context. This context regularizes behavior and provides opportunity for agency and change. This theory is similar to the strategy of structuration, developed by Giddens (1984), who phrased the duality of social structure and action. Actors are constrained and simultaneously enabled by existing social structures.

(7)

7

This thesis has its focus on the above described new (neo-) institutional theory in which exogenous sources and perceptions, interpretations, and enactments of institutional logics result in diversity of institutions.

2.1.1 Institutions

Many definitions are given for the term institution. What Chae (2002) noted, is that all of these definitions center on inertia and stability (Scott, 2001; North, 1990; Jepperson, 1991). However, in line with the critique on the early new institutional theories, multiple authors (Chae, 2002; Barley et al., 1997; Bellah et al., 1991; Scott, 1995; Zilber, 2002) criticize the fact that these definitions ignore that institutions are subject to continuous change and in that, adapt to their environments. Instead, institutions support action and they are (re)produced through activities and social interactions. They increase specific behavior by setting bounds on rationality and restricting opportunities and alternatives. Once created, institutions function as external forces that help in determining how people make sense of their (business) environment and act in this environment.

What can be seen from the different definitions of institutions is that some studies focus on the political, cultural, economic and social dimensions of the national and industry institutions (Oliver, 1991; Zoogah et al., 2015), and on the other hand there are studies which have their focus on the informal and formal dimensions of institutions. In this thesis a combination of both types of institutions will be taken into account, because the political, cultural, economic and social dimensions of the national and industry institutions are more on the macro level, while the formal and informal dimensions are more on the micro level (Carson et al., 1999; Zoogah et al., 2015). Informal institutions are defined as informal constraints such as norms, conventions and codes of behavior (North, 1990). Informal institutional actors rely on norms of self-enforcement and cooperation, and formal institutions are defined as the institutions that are dominating the organizational context and are influencing industrial activities, because of their regulatory function (North, 1990; Zoogah et al., 2015).

2.2 Structuration theory and institutional theory

(8)

8

This means that a frame of mutual meanings will be communicated and a moral code of conduct will be recognized. So, institutionalization can be seen as part of structuration theory.

2.3 Institutional contexts and sense making

In line with structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), institutions form an antecedent to sense making processes and at the same time emerge from these sense making processes. In literature most attention has been focused on the latter (Thomas, Shawn, & Gioia, 1993). Wiley (1998) describes the analysis of institutionalization and sense making processes in ranging from the inter-subjective level, the generic subjective level to the extra-subjective level. Institutions are linked to the extra-subjective level and sense making is linked to the inter-subjective processes. Wiley (1998) developed a framework (Appendix 2) in which institutions can be seen as a symbolic code and the sense making process is the practice of using this code. Those two levels are linked through the middle level of his theory: the generic subjective level. Institutions connect the structures at the operational level to the meanings that arise from the individuals/organizational members who enact the structures in practice. Sense making involves perceptions, interpretations and actions (Daft & Weick, 1984; Thomas et al., 1993).

The study by Weick (1988) is the basis of the shift from the idea that a change will fail because of technological failures, to the idea that human aspects are more important during these change processes. Sense making processes are an important concept in this theory, and Weick et al. (2005, p. 409) define sense making as ‘the process that involves the ongoing

retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing’. Weick’s

(2005) examination of the above explanation of sense making suggests that the institutional context is interwoven with the sense making process instead of being an external structure. Institutions guide and edit action formation and are continually enacted and accomplished in ongoing sense making processes (Weick et al., 2005). Structuration indicates that structure, which are the ‘codes’ for social actions, and agency, which are the activities of the individual members, exist in a relationship that is of recursive nature. So, when looking at the topic of this thesis, the way people make sense of organizational change processes is influenced by institutions, but those same institutions are influenced and changed by the way people make sense during organizational change (Giddens, 1984; Busco, 2009).

2.4 Collaboration embedded in multiple institutional contexts

(9)

9

collaboration. This potential collaboration in the form of a new organization can be seen as a hybrid organization, which is defined as ‘an organization that incorporate elements from

different institutional logics’ (Battilana & Dorado, 2010, p.1420). Pache & Santos (2013) show

(10)

10

3. RESEARCH METHOD

In this section, the design of the study and the approach chosen will be clarified. This is followed by the case description. After this, the sampling and data collection will be described and the section will be concluded with the data analysis method that is used.

3.1 Design of the study

In order to identify the most important concepts during the period of the organizational change, and the influence of institutions on the sense making processes in this change context, a qualitative approach was chosen. The reason for using this approach was to accumulate an understanding of the meanings and the experiences of the individuals (Eisenhardt, 1989; Baxter et al., 2008). The idea of a qualitative research is that people give meaning to the objective world and to a relevant phenomenon (Tesch, 1990), which makes this type of studies useful for developing theoretical insights (Ozcan & Eisenhardt, 2009). Since the focus of this study is on the understanding of the experiences of the stakeholders of the collaboration, a grounded theory is used (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory focuses on the deeper understanding of the perceptions of and experiences with the change process (Eisenhardt, 1989; Mukhopadhyay & Gupta, 2014). Furthermore, this research can be defined as a descriptive case study, because several insights related to the phenomenon in a real-life context are provided (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994; 2003a; 2003b). The case that is used in this study was suitable because in this instance multiple institutional contexts tried to work together, which makes it possible to investigate the processes of interaction and sense making regarding organizational change towards a collaboration which includes stakeholders with all different institutional backgrounds.

3.2 Case description

(11)

11

common roles, competences and projects. After this set of meetings, three partners signed an agreement for cooperation. In 2013 they formally founded the cooperation and another partner, was involved in this process. After this phase, partners attempted to find structures and ways of working that would fit the concept. To ensure control and maintain continuity, a general manager was hired in 2014. Recently, another partner became a member as well and more members are expected in the near future.

3.3 Data Collection

(12)

12 {…}

Table 1. Functions interviewees

3.4 Data Analysis

(13)

13

4.RESULTS

This section provides an overview of the most important findings in order to answer the research question. First, an overview is given of the most relevant contexts which influences the collaboration between multiple actors. After this, several factors that show how multiple contexts influence the process of forming a collaboration are discussed.

4.1 Multiple contexts

During the research, several contexts are referred to as being of influence on the way actors of multiple contexts organize themselves within a collaboration. What can be seen is that certain practices, activities, strategies and structures are distributed and supported across a variety of boundaries. The most important boundaries in this case are the parent organization, the context in which the parent organization operates, and the context of the new organization, e.g. collaboration. Each context within the collaboration develops its own norms, agenda’s and boundary-setting rules, and it became clear that these can match, but can also partly contradict the structure of other contexts. Organizing and collaborating in multiple contexts is a process that involves powerful legitimizing and authorizing activities and because of that, the main interest is how the several structural properties of these contexts relate to the collaboration across multiple contexts and how these contexts become interrelated. Based on the literature described in the sections above, when organizing in multiple contexts three major contexts can be identified; the parent organization, the context of the parent organization and the context of the collaboration.

4.1.1 Parent organization

The first context to be identified is the parent organization, which can be defined as “certain authority structures, longer-term strategies, cultures and technologies that affect the

ways in which projects are organized” (Manning, 2008, p.32). Members of the organization

(14)

14

organizational members to the new organizational process, the collaboration. As one respondent stated ‘Every actor has his/her own kind of institution/organization where he/she comes from

and the things that has to happen within the collaboration will be launched/implemented in the parent organizations that are a member of the collaboration’. In line with this, an important

factor that influences the success of the collaboration is that the concept of a new collaboration that contains multiple kinds of organizations requires support from the members of the parent organizations. Each organization, each institutional context, has one or a few people who strongly believe in the concept of a new collaboration across multiple disciplines. These selected people form the board of the new organization. However, that these organizations have people who strongly believe in and support the concept does not necessarily mean that other members of the organizations believe in this multiple context collaboration as well. It became clear that members do not understand why the collaboration is founded and where the plans, goals and strategies are leading to. One director respond to this in the following manner ‘There

is some resistance within the organizations, all the directors contend with the fact that when they return to their parent organization, they have to explain repeatedly that the old way of working is not an efficient way of working anymore and they have to explain why it is urgent to change toward the new structure(s)’. Furthermore, respondents refer to their parent

organization as being a constraining force in the process. The dominating structures and rules of the parent organization constrict the new structure in the form of the collaboration. This can be seen in the following statement “Organizations tend to become solid, they have fixed habits,

fixed rules and everything is laid down in agreements and protocols”. When actors talk about

the collaboration they refer to their parent organization in a negative manner, they see this as a constraining force in forming the collaboration. As a result, the structures of the individual organizations and the new collaboration clash. Further statements that show the influence of the multiple parent organizations can be found in Table 2.

4.1.2 Context of the parent organization

Parent organizations as described and analyzed above are embedded in a wider context. Organizing in a collaboration with multiple institutional contexts involves the contexts of the parent organization. Respondents refer to the context of their parent organization as being a constraining force in the process of forming a collaboration. The following statement about the context of one parent organization is a good example ‘They want a lot, but not really doing it

(15)

15 to implement it’. Besides that the managing director noticed this as well ‘And then there are some regulations from Brussels and then they manage the things sectoral again and prioritize activities that are important for their supporters only’. Another actor described the importance

of the context of his/her parent organization for the involvement in the collaboration ‘We are

paid by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and they show the importance of the society movement. They say that we have to make sure that we get back in touch with the professional field and our environment and I think that the collaboration can help me to create that’. More

examples can be found in table 2.

Besides that, one director refers to the fact that his/her organization always worked together with another organization and because they have developed multiple projects together they built a long-term relationship with each other. Because of this they recommended the organization with which they worked together for a longer time, and they became a member of the collaboration as well. As a result, within the collaboration between the multiple parties they have to deal with even more interests, goals, agenda’s and practices and this will be of influence on the structure, strategy and thus the agenda and priorities of this collaboration in order to achieve a common agenda.

4.1.3 Context of the collaboration

Besides the parent organizations and the context of these parent organizations, respondents refer to the context of the collaboration as well. The collaboration is seen as a newly developed structure, a new organization and this organization has to deal with its context(s). An important example of this is the involvement of the collaboration in a European network in order to get funding for their activities in the form of European subsidiaries. Because of this involvement, the activities and projects are very much in line with the already existing European subsidiary themes. Those who are responsible for the project development of the collaboration have their focus on these themes ‘I am constantly looking for possibilities to get (European)

subsidiaries for the work we do,, I don’t do anything else besides subsidiary hunting at the moment, because then I can show that it works at the (European) subsidiary level. I think that is very important to get commitment and besides that, to get more funding’.

Other important contexts are the grassroots, the governmental level and the Province of Groningen, as the managing director of the collaboration describes ‘You constantly have to

(16)

16 switch your activities to the Provincial level’. One project to which every respondent refers is

the project called ‘levend landschap’. This is the first and at the moment the only large project performed by the members of the collaboration. One respondent illustrates what the factors for the collaboration in the form of a project like this are ‘And that project is something we are

going to do in the name of the collaboration of all the involved contexts. It has been a major struggle since the Province presented its demands, the ‘Rijksdienst of cultural heritage’had their own interests etcetera’. Regarding the governmental and provincial structures there are

several things mentioned about the way these institutional contexts influence the collaboration. At one hand actors state that the governments have a constraining influence on the collaboration ‘One important constraining factor that lays beyond us are the formal structures like the city

council, the college, the Provincial council and so on’. It is striking though that the actors have

the feeling that the Province is supportive regarding the concept of forming a collaboration across multiple disciplines and with multiple contexts involved ‘We have the idea that there is

support from the Province regarding this experiment, the main reason for this is that they have a representative who is very enthusiastic and supportive about and regarding this process’.

Especially at the governmental level they experience resistance and they see this as a constraining factor for the success of the collaboration. What almost every respondent says is that ‘at the governmental level there is more resistance, four municipalities are involved in the

collaboration, however there are two municipalities that are very enthusiastic and supportive and they function as enabling forces in this process. The other two municipalities are not positive at all, try to seek problems all the time and they are not helping us further in the process, they are constraining forces for the process of forming this collaboration’. Table 2

(17)

17

1.Parent organization  ‘The most important thing in the whole process is the effort it cost for the organization to change things internal, in their home organization so that they can collaborate with other organizations, which is very much underestimated by everyone’ – GC003

 ‘Where they all struggle with is that they are not accustomed to working together in this new way, they are not able to operate within the new organization, new collaboration when the organization where they are a member of does not change as well’ – GC001

 ‘If you consider every organization separately then you see that processes, procedures and schedules are leading and that has everything to do with the own structure of the different organizations’ –GC002

 ‘Make sure it is institutionalized within the various organizations’ – GC001

 ‘We have certain guidelines, but I do have the position in which I get a lot of freedom and possibilities, because the organization has interest in it as well’ – GC008

 ‘It is a whole new level of thinking than that the existing organization where you come from is used to, sometimes you just do it, and when you fail that’s too bad’ – GC005

 ‘What I notice is that it is not obvious for the people in the organization to automatically make the link with the Gebiedscoöperatie. And vice versa it is not happening as well, when the cooperation invents something they most of the time pass us. So that it runs very smoothly between the various organizations and the cooperation is not something that is very obvious, there is still room for development’ – GC010

 ‘The work that we do does not match with the development direction of the Gebiedscoöperatie ‘ – GC010 2.Context of the parent

organization

 ‘My focus has always been European, which I will always tell them’ – GC001

 ‘There was a foreman very positive and enthusiastic, but the supporters are not as involved as he/she is, and what you see is that when there is also external pressure through a rule imposed from higher layers, than they have the habit to regulate things at the sectoral level again – GC002

 I have the feeling that he is still in, however if nothing comes out for his/her supporters/followers I think he drops out’ – GC006

 ‘That has everything to do with the own culture, whether or not they fulfill the requirements of education and there are a set of regulations’ – GC002

 ‘The highest level of bosses in Driebergen, that takes longer for Staatsbosbeheer to produce insights in this area’ – GC003  Staatsbosbeheer is a contractor of the public affairs. And because of the political pressures there are more and more troubles with the responsibilities as they were. They say we should be much more involved in society, we have to open up and therefore the organization is forces to position themselves and the management gave me a period of five years to test the concept of the Gebiedscooperatie’ – GC008

 ‘Landschapsbeheer was submitted to the subsidy of the Province ,they got a lot of provincial money. Only that flow was closed, they saw that coming and they also saw that the Gebiedscooperatie have received money from the Province, so they wanted to become a member’ – GC006

3.Context of the collaboration

 ‘So I am here to meet and connect with people and organizations, but I do not get that chance because the thought that we must come here to build and connect is not there really’ – GC12

 ‘The themes developed by the collaboration is in line with the four themes of Europa’ - GC006

 ‘But the step, the leap that he also has in mind is the translation of the European Programs towards the region’ – GC012  Cause the people, not the bosses/directors because they already agreed with each other but they never talk about the operational level and the performance in practice, so the people who have to implement the operational activities they are running against the very problems’ – GC003

 ‘The directors obviously cannot know all the details about where it should go, and they often do not even know what details are addressed and they have to link that with the layer below them’ – GC005

 ‘There is a councilor who gets it, thus we are aligned and he also supports us in getting us in the right position. He will not make it more difficult for us, but rather easier’ – GC012

 ‘You also have to deal with directors from the ancient period who are still focused on focused on working supply-oriented’ – GC006

 ‘There are two municipalities who are very supportive and positive about the concept, and there are two municipalities who are constraining forces regarding the process’ – GC011

(18)

18

 ‘And the province had to recognize projects, but they also did this very reluctant. I think there was a whole side of civil servants with a certain concern regarding the collaboration and the whole process’ – GC007

 ‘The province has a positive view, but when it comes to dealing with concrete things then there are still all procedures and agreements. And what you notice is that there are some people who see that the collaboration will yield something and these kind of people will cause something to happen, they are very supportive in the process’ – GC012

 ‘Then there was a larger project pulled under the umbrella of the collaboration, because the province has a positive view and a supportive attitude about the collaboration’ – GC002

Table 2. Context factors by respondent group.

4.2 Organizing in multiple contexts

In the above section, three important contexts are described. These affect the way actors work together and give meaning to the collaboration. Below some examples are given that show how these multiple contexts influence the way of working within a social system, such as the collaboration.

4.2.1 Shared vision

Almost all respondents state that it is very important that the stakeholders of the collaboration have a shared vision regarding the collaboration process. One managing director says the following ‘You are very busy in trying to achieve a shared ambition, to have a shared

vision and I very much like this about this process’. A respondent who is more positioned at the

operational level also finds it important to have a shared vision about the process ‘It is the

conviction that we have to develop a collaboration that everyone agrees on’. The importance

of having a shared vision is mentioned in every interview and it is important to have this across the multiple contexts within the collaboration. In order to gain commitment for the process it is critical that members from all layers within the parent organization as well as within the new organization get the vision of the change process towards multiple context collaboration. The following statements supports this ‘There are many different parties and I think for some it is

very clear you know, but for others the vision differs, how much people take in depends on how much they can understand it, how much they identify with the vision’. Actors find it difficult to

(19)

19

collaboration ‘How you fulfill the joint ideas of making something of the collaboration also has

to do with the thoughts and expectations that the involved partners in the collaboration have put a number of steps, but it became clear that the organization internally have not understood what this exactly contains. The parent organizations have to change internally and I think for most organizations it is still a long process before they understand what the collaboration is about and what the parties have to contribute and deliver’. A good example of how the context

of the several parent organizations affects how the involved actors work together in the collaboration is mentioned by multiple respondents. There was a meeting with the partners about the management of a certain area in the region. During that meeting it became clear that the partners did not agree upon how they are supposed to perform maintenance in the region. The following observation reflects how they have come to a common idea ‘So they start talking

about what the common final idea was and this took a while. Then they agreed and in this case it became clear that the frame of reference of one of the parties was used regarding the policy for maintenance’. This is an example of how the creation of a shared vision between multiple

contexts take place.

4.2.2 Different interests, goals, agenda’s

A second important factor that is mentioned across all respondents is the difference in interests, goals and agenda’s that the multiple actors involved in the collaboration have. Every parent organization has its representative(s) who is (are) present in the board of the collaboration. These members try to find ways in which the collaboration structure (e.g. goals, agenda’s and strategies) matches with the activities of their parent organization. One of the respondents says ‘Every actor has their own agenda, they are participating in the process with

different, unequal goals. The stakeholders at the operational level have a shared agenda, but the directors do not have this’. The managing director of the collaboration observes that

multiple parties involved have different goals/interests and refers to this as follows ‘The

members of the board indicate that they see that other members from other parties have different goals, interests, plans and agendas when it comes to a new collaboration embedded in multiple contexts’. As multiple managers reflected ‘Everybody participates with their own interests so I guess you can say that the goals that everyone has, regardless of the fact that all have the drive to come to a special approach and methodology, differs across the members’.

(20)

20

who performs these tasks already. This is well reflected in the following statement ‘I see that

the parties want to work together, but my idea is that if you collectively want to perform something that it is important that we really do that collectively. What I now see is that it goes more on terms of the party who already performing it’.

Besides that, the collaboration is seen as a new structure, a stand-alone operating structure that has its own interests, goals and agenda. As involved actors reflected ‘I think

everyone is trying to give meaning to the new structure, everyone is participating from their own interests, and that does not always correspond to the interests of the collaboration’. The

developed so called ‘ambition programs’, documents in which every organization wrote down her own goals, ambition’s and agenda with respect to the collaboration, were referred to by multiple respondents, ‘These ambitions must be brought together, must be compressed and they

should be hanging here in each area/location so that we are constantly confronted with it. And if you find something nonsensical or unfitting, you can change and adjust it’ and ‘So all participants, each party at an organization, have also written down their own ambitions and goals. We also adjust a kind of overview with what each party would like to achieve, what their ambitions are’. Almost all respondents indicate that it is very important to translate the goals,

plans, interests and ambitions that each parent organization has towards the collaboration, as well as to translate the common program towards the different organizations. One good example of this is ‘I think it is the challenge on the one hand to show the value of the joint cooperative

approach, and besides that be able to indicate why the member institutions join us. How do we achieve our own goals and ambitions? We are coming together now about twice a year where we have that kind of conversation with each other and we try to indicate what our focus should be’. Another manager indicates that the ambition programs are insufficiently developed in detail

but thinks that this is very important to understand each other’s working methods ‘There is a

lack of knowledge in order to work with ambition programs. The programs are very much directed from one organization. I think that the ambition programs must be much more developed through the parent organization in order to be able to work with them’.

The link between the managing level of the collaboration (board of directors at an abstract level) and the operational level of the collaboration is something that respondents refer to in a negative way. One respondent who works on the common agenda and priorities, at the managerial level, states ‘We have been busy developing and establishing the common ambitions

(21)

21

abstract, managerial level and the operational, practical level is not that strong at the moment ‘That plan made at the abstract level is not something that fits with the daily experience and

workstyle of the supporters/members if the organizations, it is important that you have to find the connection with the supporters’. This affects the collaboration because as a result of the

above mentioned mismatch, multiple actors state that they rather withdraw from the project activities since they do not understand it clearly or find it impossible to carry out project activities in practice.

4.2.3 Time and capacity

The available time and capacity of the multiple organizations differ and thus affects the way the collaboration operates. Almost all respondents refer to the limited amount of time they have. As one manager explained ‘They do not have time to fully engage in the collaboration,

no capacity as well, they are all very busy with their original work’. Respondents who work at

the operational level, as well as the respondents working at the managerial level state that they have to do too much work within the available time period. They see the collaboration and the work that they have to do within this collaboration as something they have to do next to their actual work what they are doing already within their parent organization. They know that they should be doing certain activities, because they have too little time they are prioritizing their activities. One manager noted ‘I think it has to do with time and the fact that we are too busy

and have less space to do it. And with priorities, setting different priorities, collaborate is not that easy after all’. A respondent who focusses on the operational level said ‘I hear partners saying that they cannot work on activities of the new collaboration next to their activities that they already need to do for their organizations. I think this is a structural fallacy, you need to come here to do the same things as you did but then here. I am a little bit upset about this since this is not how I see the process’.

Besides time, the available capacity brought in by the partner organizations is an important factor. One respondent reflected on this ‘How you develop the joint idea of forming

a collaboration always have to do with the available capacity and manpower the organizations have’. Not only the partner organizations needs to have available time and capacity, the new

organization, e.g. the collaboration of multiple contexts, needs to allocate more time and resources as well in order to develop the process better. This statement is confirmed ‘You

especially need more time and that there are more people who will fully work on the process’.

(22)

22

Because of this he/she is less satisfied and less motivated to bring in more of the available time and capacity the organization has. A good example of the fact that the available time and capacity that parent organizations deliver has influence on the collaboration, is that every member organization of the collaboration has a certain task that he/she has to fulfill. One respondent mentioned that all the partner organizations have certain qualities that they bring in and because of this the new organization e.g. the collaboration saves a lot of time and is able to focus on other activities ‘Staatsbosbeheer always provides their legal knowledge, when talking

about the financial administration we ask AOC Terra to look at it, when we need expertise and insights about nature and landscape management we ask Landschapsbeheer Groningen which provides its expertise in that area. What you see is that knowledge and capacity is also brought into the are form the partner organizations of the collaboration’.

Another respondent refers to a regularly organized meeting in which members of the involved organizations come together and discuss possibilities regarding potential projects. Every time they do so, they are looking for possibilities and especially people who can contribute to the development of these new projects. The main goal of this meeting is that stakeholders who work at the operational level need to translate the themes on which the collaboration focuses on, described at a more abstract level, into a workable project for the practical/operational work field. What becomes clear when talking about this structure, is that the stakeholders of which the members of the collaboration expect to contribute to this type of meeting, refer most of the time negatively to this meeting. The original idea sounds perfect to them, but the meeting in practice is not how they expect it to be ‘I find it a good thing, however

I miss a lot of people from the partner organizations. I come here because I have the hope to meet new people and find new opportunities and link ideas with multiple networks, however I do not meet anyone new since nobody is present’. This is an example of how they try to build

the new structure, e.g. a collaboration, in which the partner organizations who has capacity and time available for joining this meeting are more present in the collaboration process.

4.2.4 Project development

(23)

23

development does not fit well with the operational field. At this moment the focus is mainly on the subsidiaries at the national and international level ‘The division project development is

responsible to find funding at the national and international level. This will result in a set of questions which will be answered in all kind of research projects/research papers and the output of these papers is something you include in your journey to find new funding’. On the

other hand, the project development is very much oriented towards education ‘What you see is

that parties who have the opportunities, the money, time and resources available get the most attention and time. Project development is very much education focused at the moment, there are great things that are initiated from education’. Managers as well as respondents at the

operational level find it striking to see that there is one partner who invests a lot of hours, knowledge and capacity into the collaboration, which makes it a dominant institution regarding the project development process ‘I think the education partner is a good example, they have a

cash flow that they use for this collaboration and in exchange educational objectives must be served. That determines what the content and process of a project looks like’. Most of the

project ideas were initiated by the partner who brings in the most capacity, money and resources. There are multiple respondents at the managerial level as well as at the operational level, who are not that positive about the link with the project ideas and what the project implementation looks like ‘European collaboration, a high focus on education, that is not

something that fits with the daily experiences of the people who have to implement and work on the projects, there is insufficient connection between the two’. This statement is confirmed by

another respondent ‘It is important to arrange capacity, people who make the translation of

abstract project development at a higher level into practice’. One good example of how the

context of the collaboration is determining for the collaboration is that the project development is adjusted to the prevailing regulations, subsidiaries and other funds. This can be seen from the following remark; ‘Landscape itself is not recognized by Europe as being eligible, only

biodiversity as a theme is recognized since this is one of the four themes of Europe. So now we rebuilt the Levend Landschap programs in order to fit the themes’. And also the following

shows this process clearly ‘There are certain funds that were not distributed but were very

important for those organizations. And then there is a whole new pattern where we recently had a very good conversation with Staatsbosbeheer and the agricultural sector in which we will see how we have to proceed together. As a result of this conversation we now will jointly deploy a piece of policy and management from another project in the region’.

(24)

24

positive phenomenon in the collaboration which will benefit the project development. One managing director describes this ‘On paper, there is a certain order in the various themes and

as managers we will be responsible for a theme, change to a context that we are not accustomed to, I find that very positive’.

Having presented both the multiple contexts in which the collaboration take place, and examples of how these contexts influences the way actors collaborate, the following section will interpret and discuss the results. Furthermore, it will link the results to existing theories in order to develop propositions.

5. DISCUSSION

In this section the central objective is to answer the main research question ‘How do different

individual stakeholders with all different institutional contexts influence sense making processes in organizational change?’ and to develop sound propositions. In order to do so, the

main results of the research from the data analyses are linked to existing literature. 5.1 Confrontation with literature

(25)

25

because they are familiar with it and because it is expected from them. With the formation of a new structure, in the form of the collaboration, the actors are trying to adapt the existing structures of their parent organizations in line with this new structure. As has been mentioned in the analysis, the degree to which the parent organization adapt their structure and strategies in line with the new collaboration structure differs, since some parent organizations change their structures more than others. This has to do with the degree to which they see their interests served and protected by the formation of the collaboration. Actors are continuously observing and assessing the circumstances and the consequences of their actions for themselves as well as others, and at the same time (re)producing the same structural circumstances under which they act (Manning, 2008). Some parent organizations do not succeed in adapting internally to and focusing on the new collaboration. This is due to the fact that members of the organization interpret the collaboration by using their own frame of reference (Weick, 1979). When these members have the idea that their interests are not served by the new frame of reference (e.g. the collaboration) they do not see the added value of being involved in the process. So, actors involved in the collaboration process all have their own frame of reference when interpreting the collaboration and it is likely that these frames clash. By showing this, the study contributes to the existing literature gap that describes that little is revealed about how the incorporation of logics is achieved inside organizations (Greenwood et al., 2011; McPherson & Sauder, 2013; Pache & Santos; 2013). Furthermore, the new structure is influenced by the institutions in the organizational field (parent organization and context of the collaboration), like the governmental structures. By interacting with these parties, it became clear that these institutions adapt their structures over time in line with the activities and structure of the new collaboration. In addition, this goes the other way around since the new collaboration structure adapts its structures and strategies in line with the already existing structure in the organizational field.

(26)

26

(re)produced by the actors in social practices. Sense making theory (Weick, 1979) explains this formalization process of the collaboration as well. The involved actors interpret the collaboration by using their own frame of reference and as these actors perform activities, make decisions and define goals, over time their frame of reference will be adapted and will become stable within the new institution/organization. Thus, the institution will be created by the actors through a process of negotiations and interactions that lead to shared expectations and interpretations of certain behavior (Barley et al., 1997; Berger et al., 1967). Studies focused on this by explaining that collective meaning is a result of shared history and ongoing interactions (Berger et al., 1976). Fundamental in the process of institutionalization is the appearance of collective meaning from shared experiences (Reay et al., 2013). Multiple institutional contexts influence the core mission, strategy and vision of the organization (Jones et al., 2012; Pache et al., 2013b;). Furthermore, organizations (e.g. the collaboration) which are confronted with multiple institutional logics (multiple institutional contexts) reflect these different logics in their structures and practices (Greenwood et al., 2011; Kraatz & Block, 2008; Besharov & Smith, 2014). Findings of this study show that there are clashing frames of references (clashing institutional contexts between the parent organization and the collaboration) which influence the formalization of the collaboration. Respondents often refer to these contexts as being something negative and being a constraining factor regarding the process of forming a new institution. Scholars associate multiple institutional contexts in organizations with contestation and conflict (Zilber, 2002; Battilana et al., 2010; Tracey, Phillips & Jarvis, 2011; Besharov et al., 2014).

When looking at the new institution (collaboration between multiple institutional contexts) it is striking that certain institutions are more dominant with regard to the implementation of the collaboration especially when looking at the project development. One explanation is that when institutions, involved in the collaboration, brought in more manpower, knowledge, financial cash flows (authoritative and allocative resources) have more power and abilities to work on the project development, plans and agenda. For example, the division that is responsible for the project ideas and development consists of people coming from one institutional context. Since this context brings in more resources, they have more power and abilities to impose requirements on the form of the projects, which makes this institutional context a dominant institution within the collaboration.

(27)

27

and agenda. It is very important that these goals are in line with the frame of references of the different actors. When these actors perform these actions in line with the established goals their interpretational space decreases and the frame of references will be adapted. When these goals are not institutionalized within the parent organizations, the leader of the collaboration will address this to them since they agreed on the fact that their purpose is the institutionalization of their common goals. This is a way of sanctioning with the purpose of organizations to adapt their goals to the agreed structure in the future. Giddens (1976,1979,1984) describes in his discussion of structuration theory and sense making processes that the defined modalities are all connected to one another. In this study about the influence of multiple institutional context on the sense making processes, the link with the three modalities are visible. Through the presence of multiple actors with different institutional contexts, the actors have different interpretations, perceptions and enactment about and with the new structure, e.g. collaboration. Because of this the structures and contexts of the parent organization often clashes with the structures and contexts of the collaboration. In the process of forming this new structure, it became visible that the structure is then adjusted to the different interests and a frame of mutual meanings is achieved. The institutional context that brings in the most resources is most evident in the new structure (collaboration) and the working methods, which is created within this new structure is used as the standard norm for the collaboration.

(28)

(29)

29

5.2 Propositions

This section posited some propositions in order to provide researchers with a starting point to tests concepts of how multiple contexts work together in a collaboration. The developed propositions are presented below and are based on the findings presented in the discussion.

First, by analyzing the contexts that are mentioned as an important influence on the creation and formation of the collaboration between multiple actors, three main systemic contexts are identified. The structural conditions of one context, e.g. the organization, is shaped by conditions of the parent organization, the context of the parent organization and the context of a collaboration. Therefore, this study supports the findings of previous research (e.g. Barley & Tolbert, 1997; Manning, 2008; Pache & Santos, 2013) showing that structural conditions of a systemic context are shaped by larger contexts.

Proposition 1: Collaboration with actors from multiple institutions is embedded in multiple contexts and sense making processes, e.g. parent organizations, the context of the parent organization and the context of the collaboration.

Multiple institutional contexts result in multiple interpretations and perceptions about the structure of the collaboration. Actors interact and make sense of this structure, a frame of mutual meanings is achieved and the structure of the collaboration is formed. Respondents all mentioned that having a shared vision regarding the concept of the collaboration is crucial in order to gain commitment and trust from each other as well as from the context of the individual organization and the collaboration.

Proposition 2: All stakeholders involved in the multiple contexts collaboration will try to interpret the confusing multiple institutional contexts through interactions with others which result in a shared vision across stakeholders which will have a positive impact on the overall success of the change process.

(30)

30

this is often not the case and as a result of this the actors are limited in their capacity to actively work together. Something that is often mentioned is that at higher managerial level in the collaboration the formulated ideas and plans should match with the practical implementation in (the context) of the parent organization. However, these ideas often do not match the details and specifics that are important with regard to implementing in practice.

Proposition 3: Forming a collaboration with multiple institutional contexts will result in a mismatch between the managerial higher abstract level and the practical implementation because of conflicting contexts of the parent organization and the context of the collaboration.

Project development is an important process within this phase of creating the collaboration. Projects in which the multiple institutional contexts are involved are seen as the output, the result, of the collaboration. Within the project development ,insufficient use is made of the available resources of the involved organizations. Actors comment on this by stating that the fact that not all actors bring in the same amount of resources could be an important reason for actors to withdraw. Since they see insufficient results for their own organization, it provides no added value to them.

Proposition 4: When project development not contains the use of available resources from all different context, the involved actors find it hard to stay enthusiastic and extend effort in the process.

As the discussion of the analysis above shows, the amount of resources (time, manpower, knowledge, cash flows), brought in by the individual organizations affect the extent to which they operate within the process. The institutional context that have more resources available are more dominant in this process. A significant example of this is that the project development of the collaboration process is very much focused on the priorities of the organization that invests the resources mentioned above in the process.

(31)

31

6. CONCLUSIONS

This research provides a more comprehensive understanding of how and which multiple institutional contexts influences the sense making processes within a collaboration with multiple actors. This process in which multiple actors attempt to give meaning to a new type of structure could best be analyzed using structuration theory, as this theory provides interesting insights as to the way in which interaction between actors and structure should take place. It was used to analyze how actors influence the development of the new structure, and how the actors were on the other hand influenced by this same structure. The results of this study show that the new structure (e.g. a collaboration) was embedded in multiple systemic contexts; the parent organizations, the context of the parent organization and the context of the collaboration. So, the structural properties of the multiple contexts are linked to each other and reflects the contexts in which they are embedded. Important factors that influences the creation of a collaboration are shown and therefore the findings of this research can contribute to explaining how and which multiple institutional contexts influence the way in which actors try to make sense of a new structure (e.g. collaboration).

7. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

(32)

32

investigate more deeply into the characteristics of the involved institutional contexts. In this study the focus was on providing a deeper understanding of how multiple contexts influence the sense making process when actors try to collaborate. It would be interesting to focus more on the specific structural properties of the multiple institutional contexts to explore which properties play an important role in this process.

8.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

(33)

33

9. REFERENCES

Arksey, H., & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for Social Scientists: and Introductory Resource

with Examples. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: the impact of change recipient sensemaking, Organization Studies, 26(11), 1573-1601. Barley, S.R., & Tolbert, P.S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links

between action and institution: Cornell University ILR School.

Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial micro-finance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 6: 1419-1440.

Baxter, P. & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S.M. (1991). The good

society. New York: Knopf.

Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday. Besharov, M.L., & Smith, W.K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations; explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364-381.

Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2015). The macro and the micro of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of management review. 1, 49-75.

Busco, C. (2009). Giddens’ structuration theory and its implications for management accounting research. Journal of Management & Governance, 13(3), 249-260.

Carson, S.J. Devinney, T.M., Dowling, G.R., & John, G. (1999). Understanding institutional design within marketing value systems. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 115-130.

Chae, B. (2002). Understanding information systems as social instruments: Dynamic Institutional theory. Texas A&M University.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory; a practical guide through qualitative

analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded Theory as an Emergent Method. In S.N. Hesse-Biber& P. Leavy (Eds), Handbook of Emergent Methods (pp. 155-172). New York: The Guildford Press. Chreim, S. (2006). Managerial frames and institutional discourses of change: Employee

appropriation and resistance. Organizational studies, 26, 1261-1287.

Corbin, J.M., & Strauss, A.L. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and

(34)

34

Dacin, M.T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W.R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1),45-57.

Daft, R. L., & Weick, K.E. (1984). ‘Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems’.

Academy of Management Review, 9,284–295.

De Dreu, C.K.W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889–905.

DiMaggio, P.J. (1988). Interest and Agency in institutional theory. In Lynne G. Zucker (ed.). Institutional Patterns and Organizations: 3-21. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review. 28, 147-160.

Dunning, J.H., & Lundan, S.M. (2008). Institutions and the OLI paradigm of the multinational enterprise. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25 (4), 573-593.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management

Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Frels, R.B., & Onquegbuzie, A.J. (2013). Administering Quantitative Instruments With Qualitative Interviews: A Mixed Research Approach. Journal of Counseling and

Development, 91(2), 184-194.

Friedland, R., & Alford, R.R. (1991). Bringing Society Back in: Symbols, Practices and

Institutional Contradictions. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Giddens, A. (1976). New Rules of sociological method. London: Hutchinson

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: action, structure and contradictions in

social analysis. University of California Press.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: introduction of the theory of structuration. University of California Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A.L., (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Goodrick, E., & Salancik, G.R. (1966). Organizational discretion in responding to institutional

practices: Hospitals and cesarean births. Administrative Science Quarterly. 41, 1-28. Goodstein, J.D. (1994). Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: employer

‘The influence of multiple contexts on sense making processes in organizational change – a structuration perspective’