Sensemaking and Sensegiving Interaction between the middle manager and change recipient during change

(1)

Interaction between the middle manager and

change recipient during change

Sensemaking and Sensegiving

Master Thesis, MSc Business Administration, Change Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

June 22, 2015

(2)

Abstract

This thesis describes a qualitative research aiming to contribute to existing literature by investigating the interaction process between the middle manager and its change recipients. This is done by means of middle managers’ sensegiving and change recipients’ sensemaking. Moreover, how this interaction process contributes to a shared understanding of the change. Hence, the role of the middle manager and the change recipients during the interaction process are both included, taking a bilateral perspective. For this qualitative research, a multiple case study was conducted in which four middle managers and ten change recipients participated. The findings of this thesis suggest that while the change recipient makes sense of the change, during everyday work practice, the middle manager at the same time influences the sensemaking process by sensegiving. The middle manager tries to guide the sensemaking process of the change recipients into a proposed definition of reality. Moreover, an intensive interaction during the change process contributes to the creation of a shared understanding.

Keywords: organizational change, sensemaking, sensegiving, practice theory, shared

(3)

Table of contents 1 Introduction 5 2 Theoretical background 9 2.1 Context 9 2.2 Key actors 9 2.2.1 Middle manager 10 2.2.2 Change recipient 10 2.3 Sensemaking 11 2.4 Sensegiving 12 2.5 Interaction process 13 2.6 Shared understanding 15 3. Methodology 17 3.1 Research design 17 3.2 Case context 18

3.2.1 Case 1: Adjustment hour allocation supermarket 18 3.2.2 Case 2: Reorganization administration department hospital 18

3.2.3 Case 3: Merger of five unions 19

3.2.4. Case 4: Consolidation two department hospital 19

3.3 Data collection 19

3.3.1 Operationalization of concepts 20

3.4 Data analysis 22

3.5 Quality criteria 23

4. Results 24

4.1 Case 1: Adjustment hour allocation supermarket 24 4.1.1 Middle manager’s sensegiving 24

4.1.2 Change recipient’s sensemaking 24

4.1.3 Interaction process 25

4.1.4 Shared understanding 26

4.2 Case 2: Reorganization administration department hospital 26

4.2.1 Middle manager’s sensegiving 26

(4)

4.4 Case 4: Consolidation of two departments hospital 31

4.5 Cross-case results 34

4.5.1 Comparison of middle manager’s sensegiving 34 4.5.2 Comparison of change recipient’s sensemaking 34

4.5.3 Comparison interaction process 35

4.5.4 Comparison Shared understanding 35

5. Discussion 36

5.1 Main findings 36

5.1.1 Change recipients’ sensemaking 36

5.1.4 Interaction process and shared understanding 37

5.2 Theoretical and practical implications 38

5.3 Limitations and further research 39

6. Conclusion 41

References 42

Appendix I 51

Appendix II 54

(5)

1 Introduction

“It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things”

(Machiavelli, 1950).

In this highly competitive and continuously evolving business environment, embracing change is essential to any organization for long-term survival (By, 2005; Rowden, 2001). Therefore, the ability to cope with change can be regarded as one of the most important forms of competitive advantage (Burnes, 2014). According to Sonenshein and Dholakia (2012, p. 1), the implementation of a change can be seen as “a game of high stakes”; an organization can reinvigorate due to a successful change, but failure can lead to disastrous effects (Hofer & Schendel, 1978; Sonenshein, 2010). Hence, the complexity of organizational change calls for extensive examination (Gilley, McMillan, & Gilley, 2009). The importance of understanding change is evidenced by data indicating that the percentage of change failures is still over 70 per cent (i.e. Balogun & Hope Hailey, 2004; Beer & Nohria, 2000). More recent articles note the fact that this rate is still not decreasing (i.e. Jacobs, van Witteloostuijn, & Christe-Zeyse, 2013; Jansson, 2013; Michel, By, & Burnes, 2013). Even though, an extensive amount of research on change failure has already been done, additional research is still needed that might help to explain the high change failure, and potentially decrease it.

Previously, change management research adopted a unilateral approach. It emphasizes primarily on how change agents should create the change or how change recipients should adopt the change. This, however, disregards that during organizational change, change agents and change recipients interact and influence each other. Nowadays, the focus is moving to a more bilateral perspective, by looking at both the change agent and the change recipient (i.e. Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008; Sonenshein, 2010). Existing research still not takes the interplay between manager and recipients into consideration (Sonenshein, 2010) and there remains much to be understood. Hence, more research is needed that addresses the bilateral perspective in organizational change situations.

(6)

Maitlis and Sonenshein (2010), attention to managers is important but in most change initiatives, the driving forces behind the implementation of a change are the frontline employees. This is underlined by Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph, and DePalma (2006), who recognize the lack of attention to change recipients’ experiences of change. Furthermore, the interpretation of a change can differ dramatically between a change recipient and a change agent, “The same intervention can be interpreted quite differently by its various constituencies, who ascribe different meanings and values even to ostensibly mutually beneficial initiatives” (Bartunek et al., 2006, p. 183; Moch & Bartunek, 1990). Therefore, change recipients’ sensemaking is highly relevant regarding change success. Following the request of (Bartunek, et al., 2006), this study will focus on change recipients’ sensemaking.

In addition, further research is required on the influence of middle managers, as change agents, on change recipients’ sensemaking. This is important since middle managers’ actions during a change influence the outcome of the change (Stensaker & Falkenberg, 2007). Even though top management determines that a change needs to take place, the middle managers are responsible for the execution of the change (Gilley, McMillan, & Gilley, 2009). Also, it is deemed necessary to establish a greater understanding of how managers influence the interpretations of recipients and facilitates change in organizations (Balogun & Johnson, 2004). Besides, Balogun (2003) stresses the lack of research about the contribution of middle managers during change. Hence, following the request of Balogun (2003), there is more research required on the concept of middle managers as change intermediaries. Therefore, this research focuses on middle managers’ sensegiving.

Change research often implies that the way change recipients understand the change is or ought to be similar to the way the middle manager does. However, as argued by Bartunek et al. (2006), there is no ground whatsoever to assume change recipients and middle managers share the same understandings. Moreover, the way to best achieve the goals of change may radically differ (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Sonnenstuhl, 1996). According to Balogun and Johnson (2004), gaps in the understanding of organizational change can differ significantly. Therefore, reaching a shared understanding of what the change is about may have a considerable impact on the success of the organizational change.

(7)

study focuses on change recipients’ sensemaking process. Moreover, the influence of the middle manager by sensegiving on the sensemaking processes of the change recipient is studied. Furthermore, it will focus on the interaction process between middle managers and change recipients and how this affects the shared understanding of the change.

This study will add value to change management literature in various ways. Firstly, it will contribute to the literature stream about sensemaking and sensegiving. Although several researchers studied the concepts of sensemaking and sensegiving, less is known about change recipient sensemaking and the influence of sensegiving by the middle manager on change recipients’ sensemaking. Furthermore, current research mainly adopted a unilateral approach instead of taking the change recipient and change agent both into consideration. It is striking that most previous research essentially concentrated on the effects of the change recipient or the change agent on a change without considering their interaction. Therefore, it is theoretically not sound to suppose that a successful change is solely created by the attributes of one individual. Hence, it is of importance to fill this cap in the current literature. Finally, this research expands the scientific knowledge in change management literature.

This study will contribute to practice by giving a better understanding of change recipients’ sensemaking and the influence of middle managers on change recipients’ sensemaking by sensegiving. Moreover, it gives a better understanding of how the middle manager and the change recipients engage in an interaction process and how this influences the change. This may help practicing managers improve a change implementation and, as a consequence, a decrease in the percentage of change failure.

The objective of the thesis is a contribution to existing literature by empirically investigating the interaction between middle managers and change recipients and how they engage in sensemaking and sensegiving in their everyday work practices by means of four case studies. To achieve this objective, the following research question has been proposed:

(8)

The goals of this research are the following;

 To understand how change recipients engage in sensemaking in their everyday work practices.

 To apprehend how middle managers engage in sensegiving in their everyday work practices.

 To grasp a better understanding of the interaction process between middle managers and change recipients.

 To discern how the interaction process affects a shared understanding.

(9)

2 Theoretical background

This section presents literature regarding sensemaking, sensegiving, interaction process and shared understanding. Before the elaboration of the main constructs, it is important to first provide the context in which this research takes place and subsequently a definition of the key actors. Thirdly, the concept of sensemaking by change recipients is explained. After which, sensegiving by the middle manager is discussed. Then, the interaction process is elaborated upon. Lastly, this section ends with the shared understanding.

2.1 Context

Organizational change is the context in which this research is placed. Organizations can encounter different types of change. This can be a major change - a merger, downsizing, restructuring; but also lesser changes - departmental reorganizations, opening new branches, improvement production processes. According to Cawsey, Deszca, and Ingols, (2012), literature on organizational change categorizes changes into two types, namely, incremental change and radical change. Nevertheless, “the perception of the magnitude of the change lies in the eye of the beholder” (Cawsey, et al., 2012, p. 18). According to Barnett and Carroll (1995), organizational change involves by their very nature a conversion of an organization between two points in time. The changes considered in this research contain planned initiatives imposed by top management. The examined cases will be outlined in the Methodology section.

2. 2 Key actors

(10)

processes, and changes required to satisfy middle and upper management proposals” (Gilley, McMillan, & Gilley, 2009, p. 39; Lussier, 2009).

Therefore, middle managers and frontline employees are bearing the brunt of the implementation of a change. Research showed that both the change recipient (i.e. Shin, Taylor, & Seo. 2012; Szabla, 2007; Vakola, 2013) as well as the middle manager (i.e. Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Higgs & Rowland, 2011) play a prime role in the success or failure of change in organizations. Moreover, neither the middle manager nor the change recipient can lead the change by oneself to a success. They are inextricably connected and dependent on each other. Hence, this study focuses on the change recipients and the middle manager.

2.2.1 Middle manager

The middle managers are those “with special responsibility for the planning, implementation and outcome of strategic change” (Lines, 2007, p. 144) which is appointed to them by top management (Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts & Walker, 2007). The middle manager plays a vital role during change since, in most cases, they link top management, those who initiate the change, with the change recipient, those who are on the receiving end of the change. Moreover, Thomas and Dunkerley (1999) stress that middle managers act as change agents between top management and change recipients. Huy (2001) suggests even that middle managers are more influential than top management. That is because, Huy (2001) argues, middle managers are more related to the employees and have more time to interact with their employees.

2.2.2 Change recipient

(11)

2.3 Sensemaking

The acknowledgement of Bartunek et al. (2006) to gain a better understanding of change recipients’ experiences of change suggests a need to study their interpretations of change. Therefore, this study adopts a sensemaking perspective. Sensemaking is about “how people appropriate and enact their realities” (Brown, Colville & Pye, 2015, p. 265) and is especially critical, due to their incurred disruption, in dynamic and turbulent circumstances (Weick, 1993), such as change situations (Ford et al., 2008).

According to Brown et al. (2015), there are a lot of different definitions of sensemaking. Nevertheless, it is generally hold that “sensemaking refers to those processes by which people seek plausibly to understand ambiguous, equivocal, or confusing issues or events” (Brown et al., 2015, p. 266). People try to apprehend what is going on when they confront “novel, unexpected, or confusing events” by the process of “extracting and interpreting cues from the environment” (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014, p. 58). As Weick (1993, p. 635) stressed, “The basic idea of sensemaking is that reality is an ongoing accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs”.

To achieve change, there needs to occur a shift in individuals’ schemata (i.e. Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Labianca, Gray & Brass, 2000). A schemata is a mental model, which guide and give meaning to the daily activities and influence phenomena individuals respond to and how (Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Labianca et al., 2000; Schutz, 1964). As a data reduction device it enables individuals to make sense of the complexities of an organizational change (Lockett, Currie, Finn, Martin, & Waring, 2014). Labianca et al. (2000) argues that once a schemata is established, it has the tendency to endure and resist change.

(12)

Sensemaking guides change recipients to apprehend the imposed changes. Sensemaking is influenced by the old schemata and sensemaking triggers. Old schemata are “The existing ways of thinking which individuals hold about their organization, and provide them context within which change is initially made sense of” (Balogun & Johnson, 2005, p. 1587). Sensemaking triggers can be defined as “The events and happenings identified as triggering intersubjective sensemaking during change” (Balogun & Johnson, 2005, p. 1587). These include designed change goals and interventions which are “Actions taken to deliver the planned changes” (Balogun & Johnson, 2005, p. 1579). During the process of intersubjective sensemaking, change recipients share and discuss their experiences and interpretations with colleague recipients. In the study of Balogun and Johnson (2005), it is argued that change recipients arrive at certain developing schemata through the process of intersubjective sensemaking which eventually lead to intended or unintended change outcomes. Developing schemata are “the interpretations that change recipients arrive at” (Balogun & Johnson, 2005, p. 1587).

In the empirical study it will be examined how change recipients engage in sensemaking in their everyday work practices and how this will lead to developing schemata. As pointed out shortly in the introduction, the developing schemata is influenced by middle manager’s sensegiving and the interaction process between the middle manager and the change recipients. Therefore, the importance and development of shared schemata will be further discussed in the ‘shared understanding’ section.

2.4 Sensegiving

The recognition of the need for further research on the influence of middle managers on change recipients’ sensemaking leads to the adoption of a sensegiving approach. The study of Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) found that leader sensegiving is of high importance during organizational change. This is also underlined by various other studies (Corley & Gioia, 2004; Dunford & Jones, 2001; Bartunek, Kim, Necochea, & Humphries, 1999). Different authors (Gioia & Chittipeddia, 1991; Hopkinson, 2001) argued that sensemaking is incomplete without sensegiving. Rouleau (2005, p. 1415) stated that sensemaking and sensegiving are “two sides of the same coin”.

(13)

Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991, p. 442), define sensegiving as “The process of attempting to influence the sensemaking and meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality”. Sensegiving can be seen as an “interpretive process” whereby one actor tries to affect the other actor (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 435).

Through sensegiving, middle managers try to guide the sensemaking processes of change recipients towards some proposed vision (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). In addition, sensegiving can also induce a sense of urgency through the shattering of obsolete or misaligned meanings and the diffusion of new meanings (Sonenshein 2010). Whenever the current interpretive schemata is no longer suitable, this creates instability in employees’ way of understanding the organization (Poole, Gioia & Gray, 1989). Therefore, the existing schemata has to be replaced with a revised one (Ranson, Hinings & Greenwood, 1980). Hence, an opportunity is created for the middle manager to gain the support from change recipients, communicate their thoughts about the change, and to influence them (Rouleau, 2005).

In the empirical study it will be researched how middle managers engage in sensegiving in their everyday work practices and what kind of influence this has on the sensemaking process of the change recipients.

2.5 Interaction process

In general, previous studies on sensemaking and sensegiving have focused on middle managers and change recipients. Little is known, however, about simultaneous behaviour. According to Weber, Thomas, and Stephens (2015), further research is needed to disentangle the dynamics by which middle managers and change recipients interact.

(14)

crisis present situations of change”. For instance, due to that “structures or routines fail to provide for what is necessary for proceeding by everyday routine” (Bueger, 2014, p. 14). By means of interaction, the actors dispute about the meaning of the change and reflect on how to proceed (Bueger, 2014). In addition, actors in a practice “discuss and argue about whether the new situation can be accommodated into existing practices, adjustments need to be made or new practices need to be introduced or invented” (Bueger, 2014, p. 14).

Following the argument of Schatzki (2001), phenomena such as meaning and change “occur within and are aspects or components of the field of practices” (Cetina, Schatzki, & Savigny, 2005, p. 11). While, during sensemaking, people try to understand what is going on and give meaning to the phenomena, during sensegiving, meaning construction is attempted to be influenced. Nicolini (2012) states that sensemaking, and sensegiving, appears from the practices performed in the organization. Therefore, as practice theory argues, sensemaking and sensegiving take place while people engage in their everyday work. Moreover, the sensegivier and sensemaker participate in “cycles of understanding and influence” (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 447). Performing a practice necessitates adjustment to changing circumstances and situations. Hence, practice is “neither mindless repetition nor complete invention” (Nicolini, 2012, p. 5). This is underlined by the statement that practice theory allows space for “initiative, creativity, and individual performance” (Nicolini, 2012, p. 4).

However, the perspective of practice theory moves away from the idea that sensemaking and sensegiving is a cognitive process. Practice theory considers sensemaking and sensegiving as emerging from everyday work interaction Therefore, it is a different way than the cognitive perspective, that tries to clarify behaviour and phenomena as something resulting from the mind of the individual (Nicolini, 2012).

(15)

2.6 Shared understanding

By means of sensemaking and sensegiving, the change recipient and middle manager engage in a process of interaction. In this way change recipients arrive at meanings and interpretations about the change. The interpretations of what the change is about are the developing schemata. These developing schemata reinforce the emergent change outcomes which become apparent through actions and behaviors in the form of intended and unintended change consequences (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Change recipients are likely to behave in a way consistent with the intended outcomes, when the meaning and interpretations they develop are in essence the same as the initiators of the changes. If the meaning and interpretation developed are dissimilar from those intended, counteracting change consequences may be the result (Balogun & Johnson, 2005).

Building a shared understanding is essential since people often use “the same label for different concepts, and use different labels for the same concepts” (Vreede, Briggs, & Massey, 2009, p. 127). Moreover, the importance of shared understanding is stressed by the fact that discrepancies in interpretations regarding the change can obstruct effectivity (Mohammed, Ferzandi, & Hamilton, 2010). As Brittner and Leimeister (2014) argue, sharedness commonly designate the extent to which actors’ mental model are in essence corresponding. Hence, this will contribute to the realization of common purpose.

(16)

(17)

3 Methodology

This section elaborates upon the methods utilized in answering the research question and will provide methodological choices that have been made during the research process. First, the research design of this study will be explained. Subsequent the case context will be outlined in order to explain the cases. Furthermore, the data collection and data analysis are discussed. This section will end with a consideration of the quality criteria.

3.1 Research design

To address the research question, data is collected by studying multiple cases. Qualitative methods are highly suitable to study dynamic processes, particularly where individual’s interpretations are central (Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Maitlis, 2005). This research applied a multiple case study since this allows the collection of comparative data, which has the advantage over single cases to be more accurate and generalizable (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). Moreover, a case study approach suits particularly well, since it enables to grasp a comprehensive understanding of a complex social phenomenon (Yin, 2013). Fundamental to the multiple case study method are replication logic and extension (Eisenhardt, 1991). Replication helps to recognize patterns more easily and minimizes the probability of randomness. Extension means that the individual patterns together will draw a more comprehensive theoretical picture.

(18)

Access was gained to organizations via the personal network of the researcher. After receiving the name of the contact person of each organization who was willing to participate in the research, they were contacted by email or telephone to propose the research and make arrangements concerning the interview. The contact person provided the researcher with names and e-mail addresses of change recipients/middle manager who were willing to participate in this research. According to Marshall (1996), this is also known as convenience sampling where the most accessible individuals are selected. After receiving the names of the participants, they were approached by e-mail in order to schedule an appointment.

3.2 Case context

The selected organizations were operating in the Dutch market, both profit and non-profit. It should be noted that the data from the reorganization case is previously used in a research during the course Change and Human Factors. The interview protocol for this case differentiated slightly from the other three cases. However, due to the fact that additional questions were asked during these interviews, the needed data could be gathered.

3.2.1 Case 1: Adjustment hour allocation supermarket

The first case of this research included a supermarket in the North of the Netherlands with almost 200 employees. In January 2015 this supermarket faced a decline in turnover. Therefore, top management decided that cost saving measures were necessary for this particular supermarket. Hence, an adjustment in the allocation of hours has been made. This change influenced, to a greater or lesser extent, all the departments and employees. In two of the three departments, they actually reduced the labor hours. After the initial change, they had to reduce again. This time, the turnover decrease was due the fact that an external party decided to stop purchasing their products at this particular supermarket. Therefore, they lost another € 15.000 of turnover and another amendment needed to be made in the hour allocation.

3.2.2 Case 2: Reorganization administration department hospital

(19)

reduction plan was the implementation of an assessment. Every employee had to carry out the assessment and those who did not perform well could be declared unfit for their job. Besides the digitalization, more uniform work processes were deemed necessary to increase efficiency.

3.2.3 Case 3: Merger of five unions

The change included a merger of five unions. These unions already operated under the same name, but still had their own board of directors. Which resulted in a lot of consultation situations. A merger was necessary to be more efficient and effective together, but also to survive. Moreover, their position also depends on the amount of union members. The more members, the more people they represent, the more influence they have on the government policy regarding employment and earnings.

3.2.4 Case 4: Consolidation of two departments hospital

The organizational change concerned the consolidation of two departments, namely the facility department merged with the construction and infrastructure department within a hospital in the North of the Netherlands. In addition, the surface area for which they are responsible will expand by two different locations. The consolidation was necessary due to the complementarity of the departments. Moreover, a lot of frustration was experienced because of bad collaboration.

3.3 Data collection

In depth face-to-face interviews have been conducted, utilizing a semi-structured interview guide (Hennink, Hutter, & Bailey, 2011). This type of interview combines the advantages of consistency across interviews and allowing the interviewees to talk freely and add important insights as they emerge during the interview (Myers, 2013). Prior to the interviews, two guides were developed for the two categories of actors, namely the change recipient and the middle manager. A protocol was followed to stay on course as data collection proceeds (Yin, 2013). The interview guides can be found in Appendix I.

(20)

regarding the change?’. Additionally, probing questions were asked to establish details. Two categories of actors from diverse organizations were interviewed, namely 4 middle managers and 10 change recipients. Since the participants are from different organizations they encountered different organizational changes. As a consequence, these multiple cases contributed to the reliability of this research. Part of the interviews have taken place between May 6 and June 10 2015, lasted between 20 and 70 minutes in length and were in Dutch. The interviews of the Reorganization case have taken place between October 2 and 15 2014. In total 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted, an overview is depicted in table 1. The interviewees were asked for permission to record the interview, so the researcher was able to transcribe the interview as accurate as possible.

Table 1 Overview interviews Case 1 Adjustment hour allocation Case 2 Reorganization Case 3 Merger Case 4 Consolidation of two departments Middle Manager 1 1 1 1 Change Recipient 2 4 2 2 Total 3 5 3 3 3.3.1 Operationalization of concepts

(21)

Firstly, the concept of sensemaking refers to “Those processes by which people seek plausibly to understand ambiguous, equivocal, or confusing issues or events” (Brown et al., 2015, p. 266). It is about how change recipients arrive at particular interpretations about imposed changes. As explained in the theory section, these interpretations are influenced by the old schemata, sensemaking triggers, and intersubjective sensemaking (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Therefore, questions like: ‘How were you informed by the manager about the change?’ and ‘What was the reason for the change?’ were asked to operationalize old schemata and sensemaking triggers.

Furthermore, sensegiving concerns “The process of attempting to influence the sensemaking and meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality” (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 442). As clarified in the theory section, middle managers attempt via sensegiving to influence the sensemaking processes of change recipients toward some proposed definition of reality (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Hence, this led to questions like: ‘How did you handle the reactions on the initiated change? And ‘Did you try to influence the attitudes of the change recipients regarding the change?’.

Thirdly, the interaction process, following practice theory, takes place while the middle manager and change recipients engage together in their everyday work. Accordingly, questions like ‘How often and about what did you consult those affected about the change?’ and ‘Did you inform the manager about the important matters regarding the change process?’ were asked.

(22)

3.4 Data analysis

Data analysis required first a within-case analysis and then a cross-case analysis (Yin, 2013; Miles & Huberman, 1994). After the collection of the qualitative data, transcribing the interviews was the subsequent step. Transcribing and coding was done at the same time. The aim of coding is to “fracture the data and rearrange them into categories that facilitate comparison between things in the same category and that aid in the development of theoretical concepts” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 96).

This research has made use of axial coding and selective coding. First, axial coding was performed. Axial coding is the “Process of relating categories to their subcategories” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 123). Axial coding makes use of the combination of deductive and inductive approaches. The deductive codes were developed out of existing literature. For instance, ‘designed change intervention’ derived from Balogun and Johnson (2005) and ‘sensegiving’ derived from Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991). Subsequent, selective coding, defined as “The process of selecting the core category, systematically relating it to other categories, validating those relationship, and filling in categories that need further refinement and development” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 116) was utilized in order to classify the statements appertaining to one code in various sub-categories. Next, inductive codes emerged from the data, this was done by “reading the data and noting the issues raised by participants” (Hennink et al., 2009, p. 218). Inductive codes are highly valuable since they reflect the issues important to the participant, which may be unlike from those expected by the researcher (Hennink et al., 2011). A concrete example of an inductive code is ‘interaction process’.

Coding was done in Microsoft Word. To ensure a higher level of reliability in the coding process (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and reduce researcher bias (Turner, 2010), all the transcripts were double-coded by the researcher. A fellow master student, Maureen Offenberg, of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen reviewed the codes. Discrepancies in coding were discussed and when consensus was reached, the codes were, whenever necessary, adjusted. A coding scheme can be found in Appendix II, in which codes, code categories, and examples from the data are described.

(23)

3.5 Quality criteria

The most important quality criteria are controllability, reliability, and validity (van Aken, Berends, & van der Bij, 2012).

Controllability is a prerequisite for the evaluation of validity and reliability of this study. Controllability is sought by describing all procedures in detail. This detailed description enables a later researcher to replicate the research (van Aken et al., 2012).

The objective of reliability is to diminish the errors and biases in a study (Yin, 2013). Van Aken et al. (2012, p. 206) state that the results of a research are reliable when “they are independent of the particular characteristics of the research and can therefore be replicated in other studies”. Three potential sources of bias should be combated. First, research results should be independent of the researcher who carried out the study. To overcome this bias, as already explained in the data analysis section, a fellow student reviewed the codes (Turner, 2010). Moreover, by means of an interview protocol consistency was guaranteed across interviews (Myers 2013). Second, the results of this study should be independent of the respondents. This is sought by interviewing respondents from different hierarchical layers, so that different perspectives are taken into account. Lastly, the results should be independent of the circumstances. Therefore, all respondents were told that the interviews are anonymously and information will be kept confidential. Moreover, the interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis on site. Since the respondents were interviewed in their own workspace, this made them more comfortable to speak freely about the changes. In addition, the interview started with a relatively easy question to make the respondents at ease (van Aken et al, 2012).

(24)

4 Results

The results are structured by the four different cases. Per case, the results will be presented with respect to the central concepts. For every case, a table can be found in appendix III that demonstrates the coding categories. This section concludes with a cross-case analysis.

4.1 Case 1: Adjustment hour allocation supermarket 4.1.1 Middle manager’s sensegiving

Concerning the sensegiving process, interviewee data suggests that the middle manager, the supermarket manager, has done a lot to influence the change recipients. In order to change the old schemata of the recipients, the middle manager convened a meeting in which he explained the situation and told that change was necessary. Resulting from the explanation of the middle manager why the change was a necessity and the presented hard figures, both recipients, the manager of the cash desk department and the manager of the fresh department, were able to support the change. Moreover, the middle manager scheduled personal meetings with the change recipients to talk about the influence and consequences of the change for their specific department. Another example of sensegiving by the middle manager was motivating the change recipients.

Due to sensegiving of the middle manager, the interpretation of what the change is about changed. For instance, one recipient encountered sensemaking triggers which he could not account for and therefore experienced some indistinctness: “It was still a bit vague for me”. However, as he explained: “However, the middle manager also did not know how to execute the change”. Later on, the middle manager could provide more detailed information, which gave clarification for the change recipient. Moreover, this example shows how the middle manager functions as a link between top management and change recipients. The recipients asked for more information regarding the change, the middle manager gets this information from top management and influences then again the change recipient.

4.1.2 Change recipients’ sensemaking

(25)

department, while the activities stayed the same. The cost reduction measures were in sharp contrast with the old schemata. Since they lived in luxury for the past nine years, according to the manager of the fresh department.

Due to these triggers, intersubjective sensemaking between recipients took place in the form of rumors about what might happen. By means of middle manager’s sensegiving, as analyzed in the previous section, the interpretations of the change recipients of what the change is about are slowly starting to shape. For instance, “We have made an adjustment in our hour allocation” is the interpretation where the manager of the cash desk department arrived at.

4.1.3 Interaction process

When it comes to the interaction between the middle manager and the change recipients, it can be derived from the data that while there was not much flexibility about the goal of the change, there was a lot of interaction about the implementation of the change.

The middle manager elaborated that if you do not do the implementation process together you will not make it. Moreover, during the everyday work practices, by means of conversations, they tried together to find an optimal way to implement the change. By combining their knowledge they could make each other aware of certain possible obstacles and effects: “If you do this in department A then this will be the influence in department B”. Furthermore, during these meetings between the middle manager and the change recipients, the middle manager asked the change recipients for tips and tricks and the change recipients in turn came up with ideas.

Once a week, the middle manager and change recipients have a meeting. During these meetings, the change is being discussed in order to see if one of the departments encounters any problems regarding the execution of the change. Moreover, the middle manager gives the change recipients feedback. In addition, the change recipients give each other feedback. To ensure that the implementation runs as smoothly as possible.

(26)

Even though a lot of interaction took place, both recipients mentioned that the separate departments could have worked more coherently and that it would have been better if they had shared more information with each other. It would have created more understanding for each other’s actions.

4.1.4 Shared understanding

From the interviewee data, it can be said that the understanding of the change corresponds between the middle manager and the change recipients. Besides, recipients even keep an eye on each other in order to prevent that they will return to the old situation. However, the middle manager did not checked if he was on the same page with the change recipients as he said: “I do not know if they had a different vision”. Nevertheless, according to both recipients it was not possible to have a different understanding of the change and in their view everybody was in accordance.

Furthermore, by means of the interaction process, they came to a shared understanding of how to implement the change. Together, they concluded that the labor hours of two of the three departments should be revised downwards while keeping the cash decks department intact. As they all tried to work in accordance with the implementation plan, it could be concluded that they behave consistent with the intended outcomes. Consequently, there exists a shared understanding between the middle manager and the change recipients.

Besides congruent behavior, a counteracting behavior has been found. Namely, the omitting of several processes. According to the manager of the fresh department, the omitting of processes could have been prevented by more consultation between the departments.

4.2 Case 2: Reorganization administration department hospital 4.2.1 Middle manager’s sensegiving

(27)

recipients. This is underlined by a statement of a recipient who said that: “He positioned himself as a mediator”.

Shortly after the appointment of the middle manager, he observed a lot of fear and uncertainty. Hence, there was no base for the change. Despite the fact that the middle manager could not guarantee job security, he created a work place where feelings of safety and security were topics of discussion again. Furthermore, the middle manager made appointments with all the change recipients to become acquainted. In this way, he became more available to them. From this trusting relationship, the middle manager was able to positively influence the change recipients and, according to a recipient from the medical administration department: “from that trusting relationship he build further”.

Since the middle manager was able to retrieve trust, he could continue with the change based on that trust. The middle manager tried to influence the recipients by talking a lot with them, explaining the reason why standardization of work processes was necessary, assisting, showing understanding, stimulating, showing possible advantages of the change, joining staff meetings. Moreover, the middle manager also gave the recipients more freedom and delegated responsibility. The feeling that the recipients now also have a say in the process influenced them positively.

As can be derived from the data, the middle manager was capable to show the benefits of the standardization of work processes. In addition, he accomplished even to enthuse one of the change recipients. One recipient said: “X his personal approach, really worked for me, in the sense it gave the change a face. In this way it is not just a cold measure which is pressed up”. Moreover, another recipient mentioned that his approach broke a lot of resistance.

(28)

These triggers led to intersubjective sensemaking between colleagues in the form of rumors and interpretations that recipients shared with each other. Even though the middle manager was appointed after the assessment and the redundant people were already gone, uncertainty was still experienced. As explained in the previous section, the middle manager was able to restore trust and broke a lot of resistance. He was able to get a large part of the change recipients on board. Due to middle manager’s sensegiving, change recipients perceived the change as more positive and their interpretations about the change transformed. Before the influence of the middle manager, one of the change recipients said: “I think the change is a deterioration. I now have the feeling that I just work in some kind of a store. Supply and demand. It’s an economy. The specialists that have the highest price tag attached, which make the most money, for them most work is done”. After the influence of the middle manager, the same change recipient said: “We knew that we had to do it with each other so we put our best foot forward”. It should be noted that some recipients still perceive the change as negative, even after they have seen the new way of working.

The interaction process is described from the moment the middle manager was engaged. Before the appointment of the middle manager, there was no middle manager who gave direction to the change recipients.

With regard to the uniformity of the work processes, the middle manager had a lot of interaction with the change recipients during their everyday work practices about the best way to make the processes standardized. Firstly, the middle manager talked and consulted the change recipients about how to implement the change. One of the change recipients said: “He planned many meetings in which we had our own input”. Furthermore, by interacting with the change recipients, the middle manager could comply with the demands of the change recipients. For instance, the middle manager adjusted his pace to that of the recipients. Moreover, the middle manager also tried to get everybody on the same page, as stated by a recipient: “He said to me: ‘If you don’t agree with something, come to me. So we can talk about it and find a solution together’”.

(29)

there were no participants in this study who showed this behavior, no recipient interview data exist supporting this statement.

Concerning the shared understanding of the change, the middle manager and change recipients seemed to be largely in agreement about the reason for the change. Since all the recipients came up with the same reason why the change was necessary. With regard to the implementation of the standardized work processes, the middle manager tried by means of interaction to develop a shared understanding. Furthermore, the middle manager aimed to have a shared vision: “I want to see if we could get somewhere by means of common interest”.

Moreover, the middle manager encouraged the change recipients to find a common denominator. In this way, they were able to take over each other’s tasks when necessary. According to the middle manager, they began to do this themselves. Since the change recipients behaved in a way consistent with the intended outcomes, this can be regarded as if they understand each other. Hence, they have a shared understanding.

4.3 Case 3: Merger of five unions 4.3.1 Middle manager’s sensegiving

Interviewee data suggests that the middle manager, manager local policy, has done a lot to positively influence the change recipients.

(30)

The middle manager also did not hesitate to talk with the people who were very resistant. It can be derived from the data that the middle manager influenced and sometimes pushed the change recipients into the right direction. A few recipients could not handle this change and the middle manager made arrangements with them. These recipients left the organization.

The middle manager has been declared redundant. Since May 2015, both recipients have a new manager. The secretary explained that she is having a hard time with the new middle manager because she barely communicates with her. The change recipient declared that she would have experienced the change completely different if the new manager would have been the manager during the change.

A merger of five unions triggered the sensemaking process of the change recipients, a secretary and a director of the local and regional policy. Interventions were designed such as the launch of communications via intranet and the construction of a new business culture. From the data, it can be derived that the new structure challenged traditional working relationships and the old ways of thinking. The change recipients were accustomed to work for the other four unions by supporting and facilitating activities. After the merger, the change recipients from this particular union are going to work with the other four organizations, as a whole.

These triggers led to intersubjective sensemaking. It can be inferred from the data that comments and stories were exchanged between change recipients. These comments often indicated a feeling of uncertainty, particularly about the chance of losing their job.

By the aid of middle manager’s sensegiving, as previously analyzed, the change recipients arrived at interpretations and meanings about the change. Both change recipients realized that the change was necessary to survive, to become more close to their members, and to have more influence on the government policy regarding employment and earnings. The director of regional and local policy said: “It is about how to create a more powerful position”.

(31)

Nevertheless, there was a lot of interaction between the middle manager and the change recipients. In the everyday work practices, the middle manager tried to find out which of the change recipients needed more attention. By means of conversations, the middle manager was able to recognize and take away concerns regarding the change. During these conversations, the middle manager was able, by means of sensegiving, to influence the meaning construction of the recipients. Moreover, while engaging in this interaction, the recipients were able to give meaning to the change. One of the recipients mentioned: “Our manager regularly convened meetings. In this way, she was able to involve everybody into the latest developments regarding the change”.

Regarding the shared understanding, it can be inferred from the data that the middle manager and the recipients shared the same reasons for the need for- and goal of the change.

Moreover, by means of sensegiving and the interaction process, the middle manager tried to get everyone on the same page. The middle manager stimulated the recipients to ask questions and give their opinion about the change. In this way, the middle manager was able to understand them and to provide clarity and guidance. Furthermore, it can be derived from the data that the middle manager really took the lead and tried to engage everybody into the trajectory. One of the recipients stated: “She walked ahead of her people as a captain, in order to create shared vision”.

In addition, the secretary stated that she is trying to get into contact with the secretaries of the other four unions. Hence, this behavior can be considered as matching with the intended outcomes of being one organization. Therefore, her interpretations could be regarded in essence the same as the middle manager.

4.4 Case 4: Consolidation of two departments hospital

(32)

4.4.1 Middle manager’s sensegiving

From the data it can be derived that the middle manager, chief technical management, tried to diffuse the new meanings of the new structure by providing as much information as possible and informing the change recipients of the latest developments during team-meetings. Even though both recipients, coordinator monitoring and control and coordinator maintenance and facilities, immediately saw the benefits of the consolidation, it was still necessary to guide them into the right direction. Some others needed some more persuasion. Therefore, the middle manager tried to show them the benefits of the change. The middle manager explained: “Particularly during conversations. Do you see any benefits? What is stopping you? What would you like to see?”.

The middle manager also tried to give sense to the change by joining work meetings. In this way, he enabled himself to diffuse the new meanings of how the change needs to take place. While they are still trying to find out how to actually consolidate the two departments, it is very important that they are working to the same proposed goal.

From the data, it can be inferred that the change recipients encountered sensemaking triggers. The designed change goal included the consolidation of the facility department with the construction and infrastructure department. In addition, the surface for which they are responsible will expand by two different locations. Therefore, change interventions were designed such as the notification about the change via intranet and the establishment of working groups. These groups are responsible for the implementation of the change. Concerning the old schemata, both recipients noted that these two departments were not able to efficiently work together.

These triggers led to intersubjective sensemaking. Interpretations and meanings about the change were affected by middle manager’s sensegiving. Hence, the coordinator of maintenance and facilities said: “We want to have a better cooperation”.

(33)

communication took place between the middle manager and the change recipients. As the middle manager mentioned: “I have no idea how it works at the work floor. I can at best drawing the outlines. Even though, the draw the outline, I need information from the work floor. By means of conversations I am trying to create the outlines”.

Moreover, every two weeks the middle manager has a meeting with the change recipients. During these meetings, they are talking about the strategic plans and how they see the future. By means of these meetings, the middle manager was able to guide the interpretations of the change recipients. When he noticed they were heading in the wrong direction, he tried to adjust these interpretations and, therefore, influenced the meaning construction. Due to this interaction process, the change recipients were capable to develop an understanding of the change.

From the interviewee data, it can be inferred that the understanding of the change corresponds between the middle manager and the change recipients. Since both parties came up with the same arguments why the change was necessary and the possible benefits.

Predominantly, the middle manager was able to get an understanding of the change recipients’ interpretations about the change through interaction. By means of sensegiving, he could adjust the meanings when necessary in order to create a shared understanding.

(34)

4.5 Cross-case results

4.5.1 Comparison of middle manager’s sensegiving

For all four cases, it can be concluded that the middle managers participated in sensegiving activities during the change. Different ways of engaging in sensegiving has been found in the four cases. In all four cases, de middle managers engaged in sensegiving by explaining and pointing out the necessity of the change to the recipients. In three of the four cases, the presentation of advantages of the change has been found as a sensegiving activity. In the case of the merger, the middle manager not only proposed advantages on organizational level, but also on personal level. Moreover, in all cases, the middle manager convened or joined meetings with the recipients in order to provide information and diffuse new meanings. Besides these group meetings, sensegiving on individual level was also present in all cases. For instance by face-to-face discussions. In the case of the hour allocation adjustment and the reorganization, the middle managers showed stimulating and motivating as sensegiving activities. Finally, in the case of the reorganization and the merger, middle managers actively engaged in sensegiving activities in order to reduce uncertainty.

4.5.2 Comparison of change recipients’ sensemaking

The sensemaking process will be compared by means of old schemata, triggers, intersubjective sensemaking, and developing schemata.

Regarding the old schemata, it can be said that these varied between the change recipients since the cases contained different changes.

With respect to the sensemaking triggers, in three of the cases, recipients were triggered by the notification about the change via intranet. In the case of the hour allocation adjustment, a meeting in which the change was announced triggered the recipients. Moreover, the goal of the change of the hour allocation adjustments and reorganization corresponded with each other, since they both comprised cost reductions. The case of the merger and consolidation had the same goal, nevertheless the scale differed.

Concerning the intersubjective sensemaking, in every case this happened by means of rumors and stories, which were shared in the corridors. Notably, in the case of the merger, the middle manager even encouraged the recipients to talk with each other about the change.

(35)

4.5.3 Comparison interaction process

When it comes to the comparison of the interaction process, it can be concluded that in three of the four cases there was a lot of flexibility regarding the implementation of the change. It has been found that in these cases, a lot of interaction between the middle manager and the change recipients took place, in order to determine the implementation process. Both parties participated in interaction by means of conversations, communication, meetings, and individual discussions. During the interaction, advice and tips were for instance shared. In all four cases, interaction took place in order to get a grip on the interpretation of the recipients. By means of conversations, the middle manager was able to ascertain whether there is more clarification, attention, or guidance needed. In the case of the reorganization, the middle manager was able, by means of this interaction, to discover that the pace of the change was too high.

4.5.4 Comparison shared understanding

(36)

5 Discussion

The final section presents the discussion and conclusion of this research. Firstly, the main findings will be discussed. After which the theoretical and practical implications are demonstrated. This section will conclude with limitations of this study and further research.

5.1 Main findings

The aim of this study was to investigate the interaction between middle managers and change recipients by means of sensemaking and sensegiving. Moreover, the influence of this interaction process on the shared understanding of the change. Therefore, the following research question has been proposed:

How do middle managers and change recipients engage in sensegiving and sensemaking during change? And what are the effects of this interaction process on the shared understanding?

The results of this study reveal that change recipients, by means of sensemaking, were able to arrive at meanings and interpretations. In line with the study of Balogun and Johnson (2005), change recipients engage in intersubjective sensemaking with colleagues affected by the old schemata and sensemaking triggers. Subsequently, as expected, change recipients arrive at meanings and interpretations about the change. However, as not incorporated in the model of Balogun and Johnson (2005), these interpretations are influenced by the middle manager. In line with the research of Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991), the middle manager influences the meaning construction of the change recipient. Hence, one could say that the middle manager tries to guide the interpretations towards some proposed definition. Moreover, as already suggested by different authors (Gioia & Chittipeddia, 1991; Hopkinson, 2001; Rouleau, 2005), it appears that sensemaking is indeed incomplete without sensegiving.

5.1.2 Middle manager’s sensegiving

(37)

addition, as expected, the middle manager tries to guide the sensemaking process of the change recipients into a proposed definition of reality (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). The middle manager facilitates, as expected (Balogun & Johnson, 2005), the sensemaking process. The tactics used to change the schemata of the recipients depended on the individual needs. Moreover, inducing a sense of urgency and providing information to diffuse the new meanings are activities that show sensegiving behavior (Sonenshein, 2010). Furthermore, middle managers engage in sensegiving activities when they try to gain the support of the change recipient (Rouleau, 2005).

From the results section, it can be derived that in all cases a lot of interaction between the middle manager and the change recipients took place. In line with the research of Bueger (2014), during these interactions the change recipients and middle manager talked about the meaning of the change and, in three of the four cases, it has been found that conversations were held regarding the implementation of the change. Furthermore, change recipients and middle managers participated in sensemaking and sensegiving during these interactions. While the change recipient tried to make sense of what the change is about, the middle manager engaged in sensegiving behavior to guide the change recipient, when deemed necessary, into the right direction. During this interaction, the change recipient is able to share its interpretations regarding the change with the middle manager. This, in turn, enables the middle manager to determine if their interpretations are aligned. Hence, the middle manager can offer more guidance, if needed, in order to steer the recipient in the right direction. This finding corroborates with the study of Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) who argue that sensemaking and sensegiving processes happens at the same time and repeatedly. Finally, as expected from the research of Nicolini (2012), both actors’ sensemaking and sensegiving processes appears from the practices performed in the organization. The findings suggests that sensemaking and sensegiving happens during everyday work activities.

5.1.5 Interaction process and shared understanding

(38)

of a shared meaning. In line with the research of MacKay and chia (2013), interaction can steer behaviors that are in line with the intended outcomes. Moreover, when the implementation plan of a change needs to be developed, knowledge was pooled and discussions took place. This is underlined by the research of Isaacs (1993), who argues that discourse holds promise as a means for promoting collective thinking. In addition, Weber and Manning’s (2001) study found that employees, who are actively involved in change, were more capable to change their schemata. Hence, intensive interaction about the change can contribute to the creation of a shared understanding.

Furthermore, during interaction, the change recipient is able to share its interpretations regarding the change with the middle manager. This, in turn, enables the middle manager to determine if their interpretations are aligned. Hence, the middle manager can offer more guidance, if needed, in order to steer the recipient in the right direction in order to create a shared understanding.

5.2 Theoretical and practical implications

(39)

shared understanding. More specifically, this research has revealed that the interaction process between the middle manager and the change recipients play a major role in the creation of a shared understanding.

This research contributes to practice by showing one way that might contribute to the creation of a shared understanding. To be more precise, this thesis provides a better understanding of the interaction between the middle manager and the change recipient during organizational change. It acknowledges the importance of the interplay between the skills of the manager to give meaning and the skills of the change recipient to interpret the change. Moreover, this thesis showed the importance of the middle manager on change recipients’ interpretations regarding the change. Hence, the awareness of the effects of middle manager’s sensegiving and intensive interaction on the contribution of a shared understanding may help practical guidance for middle managers about how to successfully implement a change.

5.3 Limitations and further research

Though this research led to interesting results, the findings should be viewed in the light of the limitations of this study. These limitations, in turn, steer direction for future research. Several limitations to this study need to be acknowledged.

(40)

(41)

6 Conclusion

The aim of this research was to investigate how the change recipient engages in sensemaking and the middle manager in sensegiving during change, to grasp a better understanding of the interaction process between the middle manager and the change recipient, and whether and how the interaction process contributes to a shared understanding of the change.

Concerning the sensemaking process, the findings of this study reveal that change recipients are able, by means of sensemaking, to apprehend the change. The meanings and interpretations where change recipients arrive at are influenced by the old schemata, sensemaking triggers, intersubjective sensemaking, sensegiving by the middle manager and the interaction between the middle manager and the change recipient. Moreover, since the sensemaking process is influenced by sensegiving, it can be concluded that sensemaking cannot be regarded without sensegiving.

With respect to middle manager’s sensegiving, the middle manager tries to influence the establishment of change recipients’ meanings and interpretations about the change. Furthermore, middle managers engage in sensegiving by inducing a sense of urgency, providing information to diffuse the new meanings, trying to gain the support of the change recipients, and trying to guide the sensemaking process of the change recipients into a proposed definition of reality. It has been found that middle managers try to adapt their sensegiving behavior to the needs of the change recipient.

With regard to the interaction process, the findings reveal that sensemaking and sensegiving occurs during everyday work activities. While the change recipient tries to make sense of what the change is about, the middle manager engages in sensegiving behavior to guide the change recipient, when deemed necessary, into the right direction. In addition, during these interactions the change recipients and middle manager talk about the meaning of the change and about how to implement the change.