Sensemaking of
organizational culture change
The impact of change recipients’ tenure on sensemaking
during organizational culture change
Martijn Visser - S3851060
University of Groningen – Faculty of Economics and Business Master of Business Administration – Change management
Supervisor: Dr. I. Maris-de Bresser Co-assessor: Dr. H. Bruns
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the influence of tenure on sensemaking during organizational culture change. It is studied how change recipients’ tenure affects the three phases of the sensemaking process as described by Weick (1995). The relationship between tenure and sensemaking is studied during an organizational culture change project within Saver Roosendaal. Fourteen interviews and an extensive document analysis were conducted to explain how tenure affects the creation, interpretation, and enactment phase of sensemaking during organizational culture change. It is found that tenure affects the interpretation and enactment process of sensemaking during organizational culture change. Based on their tenure employees made different interpretations of the change initiative and showed different behavior. No evidence was found for the effect of tenure on the creation phase of the sensemaking process. Results show that in studying sensemaking of organizational change it is important to look at all three processes because this study shows that tenure has different effects on each phase of the sensemaking process.
INTRODUCTION
Managing organizational change remains a challenging task. Especially change initiatives that aim to alter the norms and values of organizational members are difficult to manage (Weick and Quinn, 1999). Most of these change initiatives even fail (Rogers et al., 2006). Research in the field of organizational culture change is therefore very important. In understanding organizational change, organizational sensemaking is a concept that is of great importance (Ala-Laurinahoa, Kurki, & Simonsen-Abildgaard, 2017). Sensemaking is important during organizational change because in order to successfully implement change, individuals need to have reasonably similar interpretations of the changed situation (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). This means that employees need to construct a shared understanding of organizational reality (Maitlis, 2005; Ala-Laurinahoa et al., 2017).
or decisions people make based on their interpretation of the situation. During organizational change, sensemaking can be referred to as “understanding the situation”, and “knowing where the organization is going” (Hasan and Gould, 2001, p.78).
In research about sensemaking (eg. Balogun and Johnson, 2004; Luscher and Lewis, 2008) Sandberg & Tsoukas (2015) note that only a handful of studies include all three processes of sensemaking as described by Weick et al. (2005). They criticize previous research about sensemaking because it usually only addresses the interpretation process of sensemaking (e.g. Balogun and Johnson, 2004; Luscher and Lewis, 2008). These studies can be criticized because they treat the creation, interpretation, and enactment process as the same process. By doing so these studies assume that sensemaking and interpretation are identical. Studying all three processes is important because, as persistently claimed by Weick (1995), sensemaking and interpretation are in fact different concepts. Sensemaking involves “authoring as well as interpretation, creation as well as discovery” (Weick, 1995, p. 8), while interpretation assumes that a frame of meaning already exists (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Sandberg & Tsoukas (2015) call for more research on sensemaking that also addresses the creation process and the enactment process of sensemaking. They note that future studies about organizational sensemaking should consider all three processes of sensemaking (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). Maitlis & Sonenshein (2010) also acknowledge that much research about sensemaking has been developed independently of each other. They suggest “explicit integration of the main bodies of sensemaking research” (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010, p. 574). Therefore, this study will look at all three stages of sensemaking.
organizational change initiative (Iverson, 1996). Because change recipients’ response to change is based on their sensemaking, it is interesting to study if and how tenure affects sensemaking of organizational change. This call for research is also acknowledged by Kunar & Singal (2012), they question if and how change recipients’ tenure affects sensemaking in their study about sensemaking during organizational change.
It is interesting to study the relationship between tenure and sensemaking because according to Gordon & Johnson (1982), tenure might influence workplace behavior and employees’ attitudes. It is interesting to study the effect of tenure on sensemaking because sensemaking shapes behavior of employees (Weick et al., 2005). The actual effect of tenure on the three processes of sensemaking has not been studied so far. It is therefore academically relevant to extend previous work and explain the relationship between tenure and sensemaking during organizational culture change. This study is relevant because it increases our understanding about the factors that influence sensemaking and the processes of sensemaking.
Research in the field of organizational change also highlights the importance of understanding the impact of sensemaking during organizational change (e.g. Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Rerup & Feldman, 2011; Sonenshein, 2010). These studies show that change recipients’ response to an organizational change initiative is highly influenced by their sensemaking. It is important to study sensemaking during organizational change because Weick (1995) explains that to enable change, change recipients need to have coherent understandings of the change initiative. This study is therefore also relevant within literature about organizational change because it explains how tenure affects sensemaking, and consequently change recipients’ response to change. An increased understanding about how change recipients construct their response to organizational culture change is important because most of these change initiatives fail (Rogers et al., 2006). This illustrates the need for more understanding in this field of research.
Because this paper aims to explain if and how tenure affects sensemaking during organizational culture change, the research question is the following: How does tenure affect sensemaking
during organizational culture change?
were affected by the change and focused on their sensemaking of the change. The organization, Saver, recently implemented new safety interventions that aimed to achieve a change in organizational culture. These interventions were thought out by psychologists and were intended to make employees take responsibility for their safety, and the safety of others. The change’s aim was to change employees’ values about safety and can therefore be seen as organizational culture change. The question is how sensemaking affected the outcomes of the change initiative. Answering this question helps identifying how the processes of sensemaking are related, how sensemaking differs among employees with different tenure, and because change recipients’ response to change is based on their sensemaking, also explains the effectiveness of the change initiative. This study is relevant for managers implementing organizational culture change because it explains one of the factors that influence the sensemaking process of change recipients during such initiatives. This is understanding is relevant because it may help managers facilitate the sensemaking process of change recipients more effectively and thereby implement change more successfully. In the following section of this paper, organizational culture change, the concept of sensemaking, and tenure are discussed in a literature review. Hereafter, the methodology of this research is further explained. The results of the interviews are discussed in the findings and analyzed in a discussion which will lead to a conclusion of this paper.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Organizational culture and change
In studies about organizational culture, culture is usually described as something the organization has (eg. Baek, Chang, & Kim, 2019), although some scholars define it as something the organization is (eg. Smircich, 1983), meaning that an organizational culture defines what the organization is. The question if an organizational culture is shared among the whole organization or only parts of it depends on your perspective of making sense of organizational culture. Martin (1992) proposes three perspectives of making sense of an organizational culture, namely integration (only one culture), differentiation (multiple subcultures in an organization) and fragmentation (questions if an organizational culture even exists).
Schein (2004) argues that there are three levels of organizational culture. Schein (2004) explains these levels of culture by the visibility of the cultural phenomenon to the observer. The first level consists of cultural artifacts. These are the phenomena that can be observed, either felt, seen, or heard (Rajala, Ruokonen, & Ruismäki, 2012). In other words, this means that a culture is expresses through cultural artifacts. The second level includes the espoused beliefs and values of organizational members. These concepts dictate the cultural artifacts that are observable for people (Schein, 2004). The third level consists of the basic underlying assumptions. These are the concepts that are very much taken for granted within a group and are very hard to change (Rajala, Ruokonen, & Ruismäki, 2012). Changing the cultural artifacts, values and beliefs, or underlying assumptions is a way of achieving organizational culture change (Armenakis et al., 2011).
2001) while others question if managers have the capacity to change an organizational culture (eg. Filby & Willmott, 1988) and argue that other peoples’ beliefs are unmanageable.
Maitlis & Sonenshein (2010) highlight the importance of shared meanings during organizational change. Although shared meaning of change recipients is important during organizational change, there is much debate about to what extend meaning can be fully shared (Balogun and Johnson, 2004; Labianca et al., 2000; Maitlis, 2005). Meaning that change recipients will possibly construct different meanings about information or events. The construction of shared meaning will be discussed in the following section of this paper about sensemaking during organizational change.
Sensemaking
Sensemaking is an extensively studied concept in the field of organizational change management (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991; Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). Organizational change is an occasion for sensemaking (Weick, 1995) because it requires people to observe and interpret a new situation (Balogun and Johnson, 2004). Sensemaking is a process that people use to understand a changed situation and therefore especially important during organizational change (Weick 1995). Sensemaking is used by many authors (eg. Aula and Mantere, 2013; Balogun and Johnson, 2004; Maitlis, 2005) to explain how recipients of organizational change develop an understanding of the change (Helpap & Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, 2016). In other words, sensemaking means that people shape their own understanding of a situation.
Sensemaking involves the interaction of information, giving meaning to this information, and finally respond to it (Thomas, Clark, & Gioia, 1993). This means that, for example, during an organizational change initiative change recipients observe the information, or in other words see the change. Hereafter change recipients interpret this information and give meaning to it. Finally, they respond to it and take action or make decisions based on their interpretation. This means that based on the way people make sense of a situation (sensemaking) actions are determined and people start doing things (Giuliani, 2016). It can therefore be seen as an approach to explain actions. This description of sensemaking highly corresponds with the three phases of sensemaking as described by Weick (2005). Both authors see sensemaking as a process in which people engage with information (cues), interpret this information, and respond to it by taking action or making decisions. Weick et al. (2005) describe sensemaking as a process that involves creation, interpretation, and enactment.
More specifically, the sensemaking process starts with creation, in terms of organizational change this means that people notice the changed situation. In other words, people sense that the normal situation is interrupted by something new. People observe that something has been or will be changed. The second phase of the sensemaking process describes the interpretation of the noticed changed situation. The interpretation phase involves the process in which people assign meaning to events (Thomas, Clark, & Gioia, 1993). The third and last phase of the sensemaking process is the enactment phase. This involves the actions that people make based on their interpretation (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). Sensemaking is enactive because the actions that people make become part of the environment that they consequently interact with and observe as new cues (Weick, 1995). People play a role in constructing the reality that they are part of and observe (Sutcliffe, 2013).
Enactment means that the actions people take create more ingredients to make sense of (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).
Some authors (eg. Brown, 2000; Gephart, 1997) describe sensemaking as a conversational process. Sensemaking can be seen as a conversational process because the process takes place both verbally and non-verbally (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Balogun & Johnson (2005) write that to give meaning to a situation, individuals engage in conversations, seek for information, observe non-verbal signals, and exchange past experiences with others (Isabella, 1990; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Gioia et al., 1994; Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Labianca et al., 2000). Sensemaking is conversational because people engage with others or with the environment to make sense of a situation. The conversational aspect of sensemaking is important for this study because these processes of interaction are of critical importance during organizational change (Balogun & Johnson, 2005).
Tenure and sensemaking
Sensemaking always takes place in a context, this means that there are always factors that influence the sensemaking process. Many studies (eg. Cornelissen, 2012; Pye, 2005) focus on what these factors are and how they influence sensemaking. A literature review about sensemaking by Sandberg & Tsoukas (2015) suggests that the factors that influence sensemaking are almost endless. They found that the main factors are language, identity, cognitive frameworks, emotion, politics, and technology (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). As discussed, there is a need for more research on the factors that influence sensemaking, such as how tenure affects sensemaking (Kumar & Singal, 2012).
In academic research about tenure, scholars have found that tenure is related to performance, because experience is acquired via long tenure (Simsek, 2007), leadership (Eacott, 2010), employee turnover (Wright, 1993), and as discussed, might influence workplace behavior and employees’ attitudes (Gordon & Johnson, 1982). It is clear that employees’ tenure affects many phenomena within organizations. Although there are many studies about how tenure affects these concepts, the effect of tenure on sensemaking has not been studied so far. In this paper tenure is explained by the time an employee has been employed for a particular job. This means that the relationship between the time of employment of change recipients and sensemaking during organizational culture change will be examined.
Conceptual framework
This study aims to explore the relationship between tenure and sensemaking during organizational culture change. From the literature review we know that sensemaking can be described as a process of creation, interpretation, and enactment (Weick, 2005). We also know that tenure affects many organizational phenomena and that it is interesting to study if and how tenure affects sensemaking during organizational culture change. This relationship has not been studied so far.
Figure 1: Conceptual model
METHODOLOGY
In this qualitative study, it is examined how change recipients’ tenure affects their sensemaking during organizational culture change. This paper uses an interview-based qualitative approach. Research of qualitative nature is focused on the exploration of a specific topic (Blumberg, Cooper, & Schindler, 2014). The research question of this paper asks for a qualitative approach because of two reasons. Firstly, qualitative data is appropriate in theory generation (Lee, Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999). This paper aims to explain how employees’ tenure affects the processes of organizational sensemaking during organizational change. Answering this question can be seen as generation of theory on factors that affect sensemaking during organizational change.
connections of concepts, as nascent research questions. They argue that in case of a nascent research state a qualitative research approach is most appropriate. Because this paper aims to explain how tenure affects sensemaking during organizational change, the research question can be seen as a nascent research question and thus a qualitative research approach has been chosen.
This study uses a single-case design which means that the relationship between tenure and sensemaking was examined during an organizational culture change initiative within one organization. Interviews with employees of different tenure were used to explain the relationship between tenure and sensemaking during organizational change. This means that two groups of employees were formed based on their tenure and questioned about their sensemaking. The results of these two groups were compared to be able to answer the research question. In this study interviews and document analysis were used to collect data. These methods of data collection are discussed later in this paper.
Research setting
As discussed, this study was conducted as a field study. A field study is a type of research that relies on the collection of data in real organizations (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). This study was conducted at Saver NV in Roosendaal, the Netherlands. Saver NV is the organization that is responsible for garbage collection and processing, and cleaning of public areas for the municipalities of Bergen op Zoom, Halderberge, Roosendaal, and Woensdrecht. Saver employs around 200 people and aims to make maximum use of waste by recycling garbage as new raw materials. Saver NV has a very diverse workforce with employees with different age, experience, tenure, and gender.
implemented change enables this study to analyze the sensemaking of change recipients and determine if and how their tenure affected their sensemaking during the organizational change.
Data collection
Date of the interview Duration of the interview Location of the interview Tenure of interviewee
Respondent 1 22-04-2020 31 minutes Roosendaal Long Respondent 2 24-04-2020 35 minutes Roosendaal Long Respondent 3 29-04-2020 33 minutes Roosendaal Long Respondent 4 20-04-2020 31 minutes Roosendaal Long Respondent 5 22-04-2020 30 minutes Roosendaal Long Respondent 6 23-04-2020 40 minutes Roosendaal Long Respondent 7 23-04-2020 52 minutes Roosendaal Long Respondent 8 01-05-2020 37 minutes Roosendaal Short Respondent 9 30-04-2020 37 minutes Roosendaal Short Respondent 10 30-04-2020 30 minutes Roosendaal Short Respondent 11 20-04-2020 37 minutes Roosendaal Short Respondent 12 16-04-2020 32 minutes Roosendaal Short Respondent 13 01-05-2020 38 minutes Roosendaal Short Respondent 14 01-05-2020 33 minutes Roosendaal Short
Table 1: Details of the conducted interviews Data analysis
described by Weick et al. (2005). Meaning, the data was scanned for examples of the creation, interpretation, and enactment processes of sensemaking. These deductive codes were used as axial codes in the codebook in Appendix 2. Inductive codes were used to discover important findings that were specific for Saver NV. Examples of these codes are “feeling of responsibility for safety” and “observed conversations about safety”. The findings based on these codes were used to analyze how sensemaking took place for the two groups of respondents. The data was analyzed in a process of within-case analysis and cross-case analysis. Yin (2014) explains the importance of both within-case analysis and cross-case analysis because of the ability to compare findings among the individual cases. This means that the beforementioned codes were used to analyze the sensemaking process within the group of respondents with the same tenure and also to compare the sensemaking process among the two groups.
Validity and reliability
Following the recommendations of Yin (2014) and Brink (1993), several strategies have been executed to ensure the validity and reliability of this paper. The validity of research concerns the accuracy and truthfulness of findings (Le Comple and Goetz, 1982). In terms of validity it is important to mention that multiple sources of data were used in this paper to strengthen construct validity (Yin, 2014). Furthermore, theory about sensemaking was used to develop an interview protocol and ensure an accurate measurement of the sensemaking process. The reliability of a study is mainly explained by its replicability (Hak, 2004). The process of data collection and analysis is explained in detail to ensure transparency of methods and strengthen the reliability of this study. A second strategy used to improve the reliability of this study is collecting data anonymously, because it encouraged respondents to answer the interview questions truthfully.
confirmation of his own beliefs (Klayman, 1995). During the research process I tried to reevaluate respondents’ answers as much as possible and challenge my own beliefs to overcome this bias.
RESULTS
The findings of this research are presented in three parts. The first part of this chapter explains the creation, interpretation and enactment phase of the sensemaking process of change of employees with long tenure. In the second part of this chapter the sensemaking process of employees with short tenure is explained. Lastly, the findings of both groups are compared.
Creation process of employees with long tenure
In this section the observed cues by employees with long tenure are explained. The observed cues are categorized into three categories of observed changes. Firstly, the physical observed changes in the change recipients’ working environment. A part of the change initiative involved making safety rules more visible by introducing signs and road markings. The signs and road markings are commonly observed cues of the change by employees with long tenure. These changes were observed by almost all of the respondents. Respondent 6 explains: “we got a blue square on the street, but no one knew what it meant”. This quote illustrates that the actual change in road markings was observed but also highlights that the reason of the change was not clear. Respondent 3 explains: “It was sometimes unclear, but they changed the road markings and also some signs” and Respondent 5 explains: “Here on site as well with the road markings, paths, and new signs. I saw them at the entrance and at the parking lot, signs with the new rules, so to speak”.
The third observed cue by change recipients with long tenure are informative meetings about the change. These meetings and the provision of information by management was less observed than the other two cues. The data shows that employees with long tenure feel like the change was not explained extensively. Respondent 1 explains that “not much was explained about the changes about safety” and Respondent 6 explains: “what happens around here, I do not think many of us feel very informed”. These quotes show that employees with long tenure feel like they were not informed about the change and the goal of the change. Rather, they feel like the change just happened without them knowing why. However, Respondent 4 explains: “we were informed about the importance of safety during meetings” and “It was discussed in a central meeting […] we hear about it then, but I do not feel like there has been much communication about the safety changes”. These quotes show that some change recipients with long tenure observed informative meetings about the change, and others feel like not much information about the change has been shared with employees.
Interpretation process of employees with long tenure
In this section the understanding of the change initiative of employees with long tenure is analyzed. The interpretation process can also be categorized into three categories. Firstly, the change recipients’ understanding of the importance of the change. One of the change initiative goals was to make employees feel and act like safety is foremostly important during the execution of their work tasks. It is interesting to see that almost all of the employees with long tenure find safety very important and name safety as an important aspect of business operations without knowing the focus of the interview. Participants were asked to explain what is most important in their job. Respondent 4 explains “The safety of course! You know that it is the most important” and Respondent 5 explains “What is important, safety I think”. These quotes illustrate that employees with long tenure find safety very important and most of them name this as a prerequisite in their job.
It is also interesting to see that sensemaking takes place collectively. When participants were asked about the importance of the change, they also explain that they talk about it with colleagues. Respondent 5 explains: “Yes my colleagues say it is getting worse and worse with these rules”. This means change recipients talk to their colleagues about the change and develop an understanding collectively. Respondent 2 explains that employees usually hang out with employees of the same tenure. He argues that: “Yes sure, you certainly have groups, we usually sit in the back and the new people in the front”.
A second common interpretation of employees with long tenure is the feeling of responsibility. One of the main goals of the change initiative at Saver is making employees feel responsible for their own safety and the safety of others. It is interesting to see that respondents with long tenure are very certain about the fact that they are responsible for safety within the organization, and also for the safety of their colleagues. This feeling of responsibility is illustrated by the following quotes by Respondent 1: “For sure, I am responsible for my own safety but also for my colleagues’ safety, everyone has to think about themselves but of course you have to look out for someone else as well” and by Respondent 5: “you are always responsible for your own safety, and also for the safety of your colleagues”.
The third common interpretation in this group of employees is their understanding of the need for change. Respondent 1 explains: “If the rules are not obeyed […] the company can get a fine” and Respondent 6 explains: “Like I said, I think it is because of liability”. Both quotes illustrate that employees with long tenure connect the change initiative with financial liabilities of the company. They believe the change was needed because it will prevent consequences for the company. This is also explained by Respondent 3: “if something happens and the situation was not safe, then the company is screwed, if they come to investigate the situation” and Respondent 7: “they can revoke the company’s certifications”.
Enactment process of employees with long tenure
quote illustrates that the change in road markings was observed but did not lead to a change in behavior because, according to the respondent, behavior and identity cannot simply change. Respondent 1 also explains that: “my behavior actually remained the same”. The reason of unchanged behavior might be that employees in this group sometimes interpreted the importance of the change as a bit overdone.
The second commonly described behavior within this group of employees is addressing other people’s behavior. Employees in this group explain that they usually do not address colleagues when they see unsafe behavior. Respondent 2 explains:
“They want me to do it, but I am not the team leader around here […] I do not like to be the snitch […] I feel like we have an anti-snitch culture around here, you just do not do that, we do not get paid for that. That sounds strange but that is a task for people in the office who get paid for that”
This quote illustrates that the respondent is aware of the change and understands that the company expects employees to address unsafe behavior of colleagues. However, the respondent did not change his behavior because he feels like it is not his job. It is interesting to see that this respondent feels like it is not his job to address unsafe behavior, while a common response in this group of employees is the feeling of shared responsibility of safety, as discussed in the section about the interpretation process. Respondent 6 also explains: “Because no one does it, we all say we do, but no one does” and Respondent 3 explains: “we do not do that that much […] because I am not a snitch, I see it like that”. Not addressing unsafe behavior is a very common response in this group of employees when they were questioned about their behavior after the change.
Creation process of employees with short tenure
A second commonly observed cue in this group of employees is the presence of conversations about safety since the change. A few respondents with short tenure explain that unsafe situations are immediately addressed since the change. Respondent 9 explains: “Ehm yes colleagues speak up to you more if something is not right” and Respondent 12 explains: “If you walk on the terrain you will hear immediately that you have to wear your safety vest now”. Both quotes illustrate that employees with short tenure feel like safety issues are more commonly addressed than before.
The third, but less observed cue by employees with short tenure is the provision of information about the change by Saver’s management. A few participants in this group explain that they were informed about the change by their managers. Respondent 11 explains: “we got instructions from our team leaders […] I was also informed by the colleagues that I work with directly”. This quote not only illustrates that informative meetings about the change were observed but also that safety is a matter that is discussed among colleagues. Respondent 9 explains: “our team leader informed us about the change very well”. These informative meetings about the change are less commonly observed cues by employees with short tenure than the beforementioned cues in this section.
Interpretation process of employees with short tenure
In this section the understanding of the change initiative of employees with short tenure is explained. The interpretation process for this group of employees can be categorized into three categories. Firstly, the change recipients’ understanding of the importance of the change. One of the change initiative goals was to make employees feel and act like safety is foremostly important during the execution of their work tasks. When employees with short tenure were asked what is the most important during the execution of their job, a common response did not involve anything about safety. Respondent 14 explains: “I think efficiency is the most important for the organization, that everything runs smoothly” and Respondent 9 explains: “It is important that the job will be done, but also that is happens neatly. That is surely important”. It is interesting to see that this group of employees explains efficiency and neatness of working processes as the most important matters during the execution of their job.
Respondents with short tenure feel like the company or a certain person within the company is responsible for their safety and the safety of their colleagues. Respondent 8 explains: “The company itself is responsible of course, that is not one person” and Respondent 14 explains: “I believe that is Lia, I spoke with her last year as well about my safety”. Respondent 10 explains: “I do not know who is concerned with safety here”. It is interesting to see that most of the employees in this group assume that someone within the company or the company itself is responsible for safety and a few respondents are not sure who it is, but also assume that there should be a certain person who is responsible for safety.
The third common interpretation of respondents with short tenure is their understanding about the need for change. Employees in this group explain that the change was needed because it helps the company prevent accidents and injuries. Respondent 9 explains: “the change was important to prevent accidents, because a human life is everything” and Respondent 14 explains: “I think they want zero accidents at work, so they do not have people who drop out in the middle of a day or drop out at all”. Both quotes show that employees in this group feel like the change was needed because of the safety and well-being of employees and the goal of the change is understood as preventing accidents and injuries.
Enactment process of employees with short tenure
within this group show behavior that was aimed for with the implementation of the change initiative. This type of behavior shown in the enactment phase of sensemaking was also observed as a cue in the creation phase. As discussed, employees in this group observed more conversations about safety.
Comparison of the creation process of employees with different tenure
Comparison of the interpretation process of employees with different tenure
Looking at the interpretation process of sensemaking during the change, the results show three important differences. Firstly, looking at the importance of the change employees with long tenure commonly interpret safety as the most important matter during the execution of their work tasks. They explain that safety is very important and most of them see safety as a prerequisite in their job. It is interesting to see that when employees with short tenure were asked about the importance of the change a common response did not involve anything about safety. Employees in this group see efficiency and neatness of working processes as the most important matters during the execution of their job. Secondly, one of the main goals of the change is to make employees feel responsible for their own safety and the safety of others. Both groups interpreted this feeling of responsibility very differently. Employees with long tenure are certain that they are responsible for safety themselves while employees with short tenure commonly felt like someone within the organization or the organizational itself was responsible.
Lastly, the interpretation about why the change was needed is also very different. Employees with long tenure think that the change in safety regulations was needed because of financial reasons and the liabilities of the company and do generally not speak about the safety of employees. Respondents with short tenure interpreted the change as needed because of the safety and well-being of employees. Concluding, this means that tenure has an impact on the interpretation process of sensemaking during organizational change because employees with different tenure interpreted the change’s reasons and importance very differently. The results also show that sensemaking takes place collectively and because Respondent 2 explains that employees of the same tenure usually hang out with each other, tenure also affects their collective sensemaking. This means that employees with long tenure usually only discuss the change with other employees with long tenure.
Comparison of the enactment process of employees with different tenure
behavior changed because of the change initiative. Secondly, the results show that employees with long tenure usually do not address colleagues when they see unsafe behavior. Employees with long tenure feel like it is not the right thing to do to speak up about unsafe situations and act accordingly. It is interesting to see that although employees with long tenure feel like they are responsible for their own safety and the safety of others, they do not address a colleague when they observe unsafe behavior. On the other hand, employees with short tenure explain that they do address colleagues when they observe unsafe behavior. This is also interesting because this group of employees felt like they were not responsible for the safety of others. Concluding, this means that tenure also affects the enactment process of sensemaking because employees of different groups of tenure behave differently.
Outcome of the change
As discussed in the conceptual framework of this study, the last phase of the sensemaking process leads to the outcome of the change. The outcome of the change is determined by the enactment phase of the sensemaking process because it describes or indicates the behavior of change recipients. The goal of the change at Saver was to create an organizational culture in which safety is the most important and employees feel responsible for this and take actions to achieve this. These desired actions include to work safer, according to new rules, and to address unsafe behavior when they see it.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to explain the relationship between change recipients’ tenure and their sensemaking during organizational culture change. The findings of this study show that employees’ tenure affected their sensemaking of the change initiative. Looking at the three processes of sensemaking as described by Weick (1995), differences in sensemaking were found in the interpretation phase and in the enactment phase of the sensemaking process. Employees with different tenure observed the same cues in the creation process of their sensemaking. This means that tenure did not affect the creation phase of the sensemaking process.
Looking back at the research question of this paper; “How does tenure affect sensemaking
during organizational culture change?”, this means that tenure affects sensemaking, but the
impact is different for each phase of the sensemaking process during organizational culture change. We see that tenure affects the interpretation and enactment process of sensemaking but does not affect the creation process of sensemaking during organizational culture change. Employees make different interpretations and therefore assign different meaning to the change according to their tenure. Tenure also influences the enactment process of sensemaking. This means that employees behave differently during/after an organizational culture change initiative because of the effect of tenure on their sensemaking.
Theoretical implications
This study shows that employees’ tenure affects sensemaking during organizational culture change. This is not surprising because many studies have shown the effect of tenure on employees’ behavior within organizations (eg. Gordon & Johnson, 1982; Simsek, 2007). When looking at the theoretical implications of the effect of tenure on sensemaking during organizational culture change, it is important look at the specific effect of tenure on each phase of the sensemaking process. No important differences were found in the creation phase of the sensemaking process. This means that employees with different tenure observe the same cues during the change. This seems logical because why would the time that a person has been employed for a certain job affect what they observe of the change.
of the change, the feeling of responsibility, and the need for change than employees with short tenure. This means that the time an employee has been employed affects how they understand an organizational culture change initiative. The differences in interpretation can possibly be explained by employees’ work experience. We know that work experience is acquired via long tenure (Simsek, 2007). Employees with longer tenure therefore usually have more work experience. It might be that employees with more work experience are more aware of the current state of the organization and therefore interpret the importance of the change differently. Change recipients with short tenure possibly understood the change as more important because they are not fully aware of how the company operates and what is needed to improve. On the other hand, change recipients with long tenure might have found the change as a bit overdone because they are more aware of this.
on their sensemaking. This study therefore also helps understanding why employees, with different tenure, have a different response to organizational change, because it explains that tenure affects their sensemaking of the change. Furthermore, this study shows that tenure has a different effect on each phase of the sensemaking process. Tenure does not affect the creation phase of the sensemaking process but does influence the interpretation and enactment phase. Employees develop a different understanding of the change (interpretation) because of the time they have been employed for a certain job. Employees also behave differently (enactment) during organizational culture change because of their tenure.
Secondly, this study also contributes to the literature about sensemaking because it highlights the importance of including all three processes of sensemaking in research. The importance of the inclusion of all three processes was already acknowledged by Sandberg & Tsoukas (2015). They note that only a handful of studies include all three processes of sensemaking as described by Weick et al. (2005). They criticize previous research about sensemaking because it usually only addresses the interpretation process of sensemaking. This study also shows that sensemaking should not be viewed as one process because individual factors, such as tenure, do not have an impact on all of the three phases of the sensemaking process. It is important to look at all three processes of sensemaking in research because individual factors can have a different effect on each process. This is in line with the arguments made by Weick (1995) who persistently claims that sensemaking and interpretation are in fact different concepts. Studying all of the three processes of sensemaking is important because only then a complete understanding can be achieved. The actual effect of a contextual factor on sensemaking can only be studied if all three phases of the sensemaking process are analyzed.
important to look at all three phases of the sensemaking process because contextual factors can have a different effect in each phase. A complete understanding about sensemaking can only be obtained by looking at all of the three phases.
Managerial implications
This study also has implications for managers involved in organizational culture change projects. First of all, our increased understanding about the factors that influence sensemaking can help organizations manage organizational culture change initiatives more effectively. Understanding the effect of tenure on sensemaking may reduce uncertainty of a change initiative because managers know that people of different tenure will develop a different understanding of the change and will also act in a different manner. For managers this means that attention should be given to the differences in tenure during organizational change. This will enable them to facilitate change recipients’ sensemaking more specifically. As Balogun & Johnson (2005) argue facilitating change recipients’ sensemaking is more important than directing and controlling the change.
Managers implementing organizational culture change should keep the differences in tenure of change recipients in mind. As this study shows, employees with different tenure developed a different understanding of the change. It is therefore important for managers to listen to both groups of employees with different tenure and do not assume that these groups of employees will respond the same to an organizational change initiative. By listening to both groups of employees, managers will develop an understanding about how employees of different tenure interpreted the change. This will enable them to facilitate their sensemaking more specifically. For example, if a group of employees is not certain about the need for change, this particular aspect of the change can be explained more elaborately to this group of employees.
Johnson (2005), it is important to be clear about the purpose and expected outcome of the change and develop a shared understanding of these goals.
Limitations
There are a few limitations of this study that are important to mention. Firstly, the outbreak of the Corona virus and the safety regulations because of this pandemic limited my ability to gather research data for this study. Doing observations to gather more information about the sensemaking process of both groups of employees was not possible because of national rules of social distancing ordered by the government of the Netherlands. Direct observations were supposed to be used as a third method of data collection. The goal of using multiple data collection methods was to create a richer understanding of the relationship between tenure and sensemaking. The results of observations could have provided more data about the impact of tenure on the enactment phase of the sensemaking process. More information about employees’ behavior in the enactment phase could have been gathered and used to explain the differences in behavior more completely. Findings about the enactment phase are now purely based on interviewees’ answers.
Secondly, in studying the impact of tenure on sensemaking during organizational change other factors were not considered. Meaning that the possible impact of individual demographic characteristics, such as age and gender, of respondents was not considered in the analysis of data. The differences in sensemaking can possibly also be explained by age because employees with short tenure were generally younger than the employees with long tenure. Besides, the pool of respondents consisted of thirteen male employees and one female employee. A more equally divided pool of respondents would have made the results more generalizable. Besides demographic characteristics of the respondents, individual professional characteristics, such as position, were also not considered in this study. It is likely that employees’ sensemaking of the change differs according to their position in the organization.
guaranteed. This means that researcher or respondent bias might have influenced the findings of this paper and affect its reliability.
Future research recommendations
This study increased our understanding about how tenure affects sensemaking during organizational culture change. However, the findings of this study raise a few questions. Firstly, the findings show that tenure affects sensemaking, but it is not completely clear why tenure affects how people interpret change and why this affects their behavior. This relationship needs more empirical testing. Future research should focus on elaborating this relationship and explain the reasons why tenure affects how people give meaning to change initiatives and behave during organizational change. Furthermore, the relationship between tenure and sensemaking has been studied in the context of organizational culture change. The findings of this study should therefore only be used in similar contexts. New research should test the influence of tenure on sensemaking in other contexts, such as change of organizational structures or processes. Examining the influence of tenure on sensemaking in more contexts will make the findings of this study more generalizable.
As discussed in the limitations of this paper, this study focused on only one factor of influence on the sensemaking process. Future research that aims to explain the factors that influence sensemaking should include multiple factors to gain a more complete understanding of what factors affect sensemaking and how they affect sensemaking. It would be relevant to study multiple factors together because it will help explaining the actual effect of contextual factors. Was it really tenure that affected the sensemaking process, or could the differences in sensemaking also be explained by, for example, age or gender? Future research should focus on creating a more complete understanding of the factors that influence sensemaking and combine research about the factors that have been studied so far.
Conclusion
References
Ala-Laurinahoa, A., Kurki, A.-L., & Simonsen-Abildgaard, J. (2017). Supporting
Sensemaking to Promote a Systemic View of Organizational Change – Contributions from Activity Theory. Journal of change management, 17-4, 367–387.
Allen, D.K. (2003) Organizational climate and strategic change in higher education: organizational insecurity, Higher Education, 46(1), pp. 61–92.
Apker, J. (2004). Sensemaking of change in the managed care era: a case of hospital-based nurses. Journal of Organizational Change Management 17-2, 211-227.
Armenakis, A., Brown, S., & Mehta, A. (2011). Organizational culture: Assessment and transformation. Journal of Change Management, 11(3), 305-328.
Aula, P., & Mantere, S. (2013). Making and breaking sense: an inquiry into the reputation change. Journal of Organizational Change Management.
Baek, P., Chang, J., & Kim, T. (2019). Organizational culture now and going forward. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 32(6), 650-668. Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager
sensemaking. Academy of management journal, 47(4), 523-549.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1573-1601. Battu, H., McMaster, R., & White, M. (2002). Tenure and employment contracts: An
empirical investigation. Journal of Economic Studies, 29(2), 131-149.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A. and Biggadike, E. R. (1995) ‘Strategic Change: A New Dimension of Human Resource Management’ in G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen and D. T. Barnum (eds) Handbook of Human Resource Management. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2014). Business Research Methods. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.
Bridgman, T. and Willmott, H. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Critical Management Studies, The Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-27.
Brink, H. I. (1993). Validity and reliability in qualitative research. Curationis, 16(2), 35-38. Brown, Andrew D. (2000) Making sense of inquiry sensemaking’. Journal of Management
Studies 37/1: 45–75.
Burnes, B. (2017). Managing change (Seventh). Pearson Education Limited.
Cummings, TG and Worley, CG (2001) Organization Development and Change (7th edition). South-Western College Publishing: Mason, OH.
Dodou, D., & de Winter, J. C. F. (2014). Social desirability is the same in offline, online and paper surveys: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 487–495.
Eacott, S. (2010). Tenure, functional track and strategic leadership. International Journal of
Educational Management, 24(5), 448-458.
Edmondson, A., & McManus, S. (2007). Methodological Fit in Management Field Research.
The Academy of Management Review, 32-4, 1155-1179.
Filby, I and Willmott, H (1988) Ideologies and contradictions in a public relations department. Organization Studies, 9(3), 335–51.
Gephart, Robert P. (1997) ‘Hazardous measures: An interpretive textual analysis of
quantitative sensemaking during crises’. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18: 583– 622.
Gioia, D., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433-448.
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 370– 403.
Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: the dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization
Science, 5(3), 363–363.
Giuliani, M. (2016). Sensemaking, sensegiving and sensebreaking. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 17-2, 218-237.
Gordon, M. E. and Johnson, W. A. (1982). 'Seniority: A review of its legal and scientific standing', Personnel Psychology, 35, 255-280
Hak, T. (2004). Waarnemingsmethoden in kwalitatief onderzoek: methodologie van kwalitatief onderzoek. Huisarts En Wetenschap, 47(11), 205–212.
Hasan, H., & Gould, E. (2001). Support for the sense-making activity of managers. Decision
Support Systems, 31(1), 71-86
Helpap, S., & Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, S. (2016). Employees’ emotions in change: Advancing the sensemaking approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(6), 903-916.
Hornung, S., & Rousseau, D. M. (2007). Active on the job-proactive in change: How
autonomy at work contributes to employee support for organizational change. Journal
Isabella, Lynn A. 1990 ‘Evolving interpretations as change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events’. Academy of Management Journal 33/1: 7–41.
Iverson, R. (1996). Employee acceptance of organizational change: The role of organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7, 122-149. Jones, Q, Dunphy, D, Fishman, R, Larne, M and Canter, C (2006) In Great Company:
Unlocking the secrets of cultural transformation. Human Synergistics: Sydney.
Klayman, J. (1995). Varieties of confirmation bias. Psychology of learning and
motivation, 32, 385-418.
Konlechner, S., Latzke, M., Güttel, W., & Höfferer, E. (2019). Prospective sensemaking, frames and planned change interventions: A comparison of change trajectories in two hospital units. Human Relations, 72(4), 706-732.
Kumar, P. and Singhal, M. (2012) ‘Reducing change management complexity: aligning change recipient sensemaking to change agent sensegiving’, Int. J. Learning and
Change, Vol. 6, Nos. 3/4, pp.138–155.
Labianca, Giuseppe, Barbara Gray, and Daniel J. Brass 2000 ‘A grounded model of organizational schema change during empowerment’. Organization Science 11/2: 235–257.
Lee, T., Mitchell, T., & Sablynski, C. (1999). Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 161-187.
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of management Journal, 51(2), 221-240.
Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. The Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21–49.
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57-125.
Maitlis, S., & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988). Journal of management studies, 47(3), 551-580. Martin, J. (1992), Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Martin, J. (2002) Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).
Ogbonna, E and Harris, LC (2002) Managing organisational culture: insights from the hospitality industry. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(1), 33–53.
change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524.
Payne, R.L. (2002) Culture and climate: how close can they get? in: N.M. Ashkanasy, C.P.M. Wilderom and M.F. Peterson (eds) Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, pp. 163-
176 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).
Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H. (1982) In Search of Excellence, New York: Harper & Row. Pye, A. (2005). Leadership and organizing: Sensemaking in action. Leadership, 1(1), 31-49. Rajala, I., Ruokonen, I., & Ruismäki, H. (2012). Organizational culture and organizational
change at arts universities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 45, 540-547 Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational
schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management
Journal, 54(3), 577-610.
Rogers, P, Meehan, P and Tanner, S (2006) Building a Winning Culture. Bain & Company: Boston, MA.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: SAGE. Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2015). Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its
constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 36, 6-32.
Schein, E. (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass). Simsek, Z. (2007). CEO tenure and organizational performance: An intervening
model. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6), 653-662.
Smircich, L. (1983), “Concepts of culture and organizational analysis”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 339-358.
Smollan, R., & Sayers, J. (2009). Organizational culture, change and emotions: A qualitative study. Journal of Change Management, 9(4), 435-457.
Sonenshein, S. (2010). We're changing—Or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy
of Management Journal, 53(3), 477-512.
Steffens, N., Shemla, M., Wegge, J., & Diestel, S. (2014). Organizational tenure and employee performance: A multilevel analysis. Group and Organization
Management, 39(6), 664-690.
Sutcliffe, K. M. (2013). Sensemaking. The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management.
Thomas, J., Clark, S., & Gioia, D. (1993). Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 239-270.
Waterhouse, J., & Lewis, D. (2004). Communicating culture change. Public Management
Review, 6(3), 353-376.
Weber, P. S., & Manning, M. R. (2001). Cause maps, sensemaking, and planned
organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(2), 227-251. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual review
of psychology, 50(1), 361-386.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization Science 16-4, 409–421.
Wright, T. (1993). Correctional employee turnover: A longitudinal study. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 21(2), 131-142.
APPENDIX A – INTERVIEW PROTOCOL General questions
Question 1: What kind of job do you have at Saver?
Question 2: Since when are you employed for your current job? Question 3: How would you explain the organizational culture? Question 4: What do you think is most important in your job?
Creation process
Question 5: How did you observe the change? Question 6: When did you observe the change?
Question 7: What did you observe? (What did you see, hear, felt?)
Interpretation process
Question 8: What did the change mean to you?
Question 9: Why do you think the change was initiated? Question 10: Why do you think the change was important?
Question 11: What do you think Saver wants to achieve with the changes? Question 12: What do you think about the content of the change?
Question 13: What is expected of you in the field of safety at work?
Question 14: Who do you think is responsible for your and your colleagues’ safety? Question 15: How do your colleagues feel about the change?
Question 16: Why do you think it is important to address unsafe behavior? Question 17: What would be the risks if the change was not implemented?
Enactment process
Question 18: What actions did you take? Question 19: Which decisions did you make?
APPENDIX B – CODEBOOK
Axial code Open code Definition of the code
Explanation of when the open code or axial code is used
Quote from the data
illustrating the open code or the axial code
Creation phase of sensemaking of the change In the creation phase people notice the changed situation. They observe cues. (Weick, 1995).
This code is used when the data explains how the participant observed the change. Communication about the change.
This code is used when participants explain what was communicated about the change by managers.
Respondent 1: “not much was explained about the changes about safety”
Observed physical change
This code is used when participants explain that they observed physical changes in their working environment Respondent 5: “Here on site as well with the road markings, paths, and new signs. I saw them at the entrance and at the parking lot, signs with the new rules” Observed
conversations about safety
Axial code Open code Definition of the code
Explanation of when the open code or axial code is used
Quote from the data
illustrating the open code or the axial code
Interpretation phase of sensemaking of the change The interpretation phase involves the process in which people assign meaning to events (Thomas, Clark, & Gioia, 1993).
This code used when the data explains how participants understand the change. Importance of the change
This code is used when participants explain what they think is important in their job. Respondent 14: “I think efficiency is the most important for the organization, that everything runs smoothly” Need for the
change
Axial code Open code Definition of the code
Explanation of when the open code or axial code is used
Quote from the data illustrating the open code or the axial code Enactment phase of sensemaking of the change The enactment phase involves the actions that people make based on their interpretation (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015).
