TEAM SENSEMAKING AND TEAM DECISION-MAKING The three phases of team sensemaking and its two-folded interrelation with team decision-making

(1)

TEAM SENSEMAKING AND TEAM DECISION-MAKING

The three phases of team sensemaking and its two-folded interrelation with

team decision-making

An empirical study at the municipality of The Hague

Submitted by: Paulien Elfring S2714647

Supervisor: dr. I. Maris - de Bresser Co-assessor: dr. Cees Reezigt

June 24th_{, 2019} Word count: 13011

Master Thesis

(2)

ABSTRACT

Nowadays, organizations are more often using teams to accomplish work. However, organizational change can hinder this accomplishment of work and impede team decision-making. It is believed that people experiencing such change situations are forced into sensemaking efforts. People in teams engage in collective efforts to make sense. It is nevertheless still not clear how team sensemaking can influence team decision-making in times of organizational change. In this study, the aim is to structure the team sensemaking process and then link it to the team decision-making process. A qualitative research in the form of interviews, observations and documents at the municipality of The Hague enabled me to study this topic. The empirical findings show that team sensemaking consists of three sequential phases. Furthermore, the interrelation between team sensemaking and team decision-making is two-folded. Firstly, the process of internal team decision-making appears to be part of team-sensemaking. Secondly, team sensemaking influences team case

decision-making by means of enhancing problem-solving capacity.

(3)

INTRODUCTION

Municipalities in the Netherlands have experienced a shift in responsibilities during the decentralization of youth care, work and income and care for the long-term sick and elderly in 2015. This decentralization of tasks called for a reorganization within the municipality of the Hague to be able to take over former government responsibilities. Although reorganizations cause confusion and stress, newly created teams and departments can allow for synergies that stimulate reaching shared goals (Tjosvold, 1988).

By working together in teams, people can accomplish something that is beyond the ability of individuals alone. Successful accomplishment is reached as a function of team members’ talents and the available resources, but also the processes team members use to interact with each other (Marks, Mathieu & Zaccaro, 2001). However, organizational change can make the successful accomplishment of work more difficult. The reason for this is that change interferes with common ways of achieving things. This forces people into significant sensemaking efforts concerning how to carry out their work in the newly created situation (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). Sensemaking generally occurs when people experience a surprising event or an ambiguous issue and it is associated with uncertainty and confusion for those involved (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). It is thus especially in these change situations that people try to make sense of the change and understand what and why it is happening; it is about creating accounts of what is going on (Weick, 1995).

However, since organizations are using teams to accomplish work, and thus most of the activities of people in organizations deal with collective efforts to make sense, there has been an increased amount of research focused on collective sensemaking (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Here, attention is paid to social interaction, intersubjective meanings and creating shared understandings. I would like to follow this direction of growing research, especially considering that this type of research at the team level is still scarce.

(5)

In order to do this, a clear framework of what team sensemaking is, what factors influence it and how team sensemaking is stimulated needs to be identified first. Prior research at the team level touched upon several aspects, but a clear framework is still missing. Studies so far considered sensemaking related to team mental models (Rafaeli, Ravid & Cheshin, 2009), team learning (Haas, 2006), team role-valuing (Rovio-Johansson & Liff, 2012) and a team’s interpersonal trust (Akgün, Keskin, Lynn & Dogan, 2012). Klein, Wiggings & Dominguez (2010) even analysed team sensemaking in particular and described the coordination of a team needed for team sensemaking to succeed. They nonetheless, did not empirically test their work. Therefore, I would like to use their work, in combination with existing concepts on collective sensemaking, to better understand team sensemaking during organizational change and in particular, discover what factors and processes are important for team sensemaking to take place. In this way, I hope to give a clearer overview of what team sensemaking is.

Hereafter, the influence of team sensemaking on team decision-making can be studied. A change situation can namely create conditions wherein the team process of decision-making can be impeded (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). Team sensemaking is believed to solve the paralysis of decision-making as the consequence of team sensemaking is a collective understanding of the situation, at which point the appropriate decision to make is evident (Klein et al., 2010). However, according to Weick (1993), even organizations that are good at decision-making can still falter, because of deficient sensemaking. It would be interesting to discover the link between sensemaking – and especially team sensemaking – and decision-making.

To the best of my knowledge no research has been done on the influence of team sensemaking on team decision-making. It is therefore, that I would like to find an answer to the following research question: “How does team sensemaking influence team

decision-making in times of organizational change?”. The aim here is to analyse how teams engaging

(6)

organizational reorganization impacts the way of working and how this has influenced the team’s decision-making process.

With these objectives, I firstly hope to handle the note of Maitlis & Christianson (2014) who pointed out the absence of research of sensemaking on key team processes. Further, I hope to comment on the call for explanation on how individuals who hold different pieces of information are able to collectively construct new meaning (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005). Additionally, I hope to contribute to the need of a better understanding of team work, team processes and team goal accomplishment (Marks et al., 2001).

The managerial relevance of this study is first and foremost for managers of a team who are interested in supporting key team processes such as decision-making. Further, managers can gain insight in how teams are operating and discover ways in which they can play a role in enabling team sensemaking. Understanding the processes and dynamics of teams will lastly enable human resource managers to select and train members of a team in the right manner.

(7)

LITERATURE REVIEW

Sensemaking and change

Originally, the concept of ‘sensemaking’ has been developed by the organizational theorist Karl Weick as an alternative way of looking at the process of organizing. Instead of looking at the outcomes of organizational processes, sensemaking presents a useful way to bring into light the social psychological processes that contribute to organizational outcomes by detecting insights into how individuals and organizations give meaning to events (Weick, 1995). According to Weick (1995) sensemaking is: grounded in identity construction, retrospective, enactive of sensible environments, social, ongoing, driven by plausibility rather than accuracy and focused on and by extracted cues. These seven interrelated properties constantly influence how people are engaged in making sense of their environment (Mills, Thurlow & Mills, 2010).

Essentially, sensemaking is about how different meanings are accredited to the same event. Sensemaking is an ongoing process that relies on past experience and interactions with others and confides on cues in our environment that make our sensemaking seem plausible. Through social processes of interaction, organizational members generate new understandings and interpretive frameworks (Balogun & Johnson, 2004), hereby constructing accounts allowing them to comprehend the situation and act collectively (Starbuck & Milliken, 1988). It is stimulated every time when there is an uncertain situation or when people experience ambiguity. Sensemaking is an enabler of change through creating order and coherent understanding in times of chaos (Weick, 1995). It is in those times that conflicting cues interrupt individuals’ ongoing activities and therefore they find themselves in a process of social construction to develop reasonable meaning to explain what is going on (Weick, 2005). The framework of Weick and its seven properties present a good way to understand change and change processes in organizations (Mills et al., 2010).

(8)

stimulates reframing, as actors try to make sense of discrepancies between expectations and new experiences (Balogun & Johnson, 2004) and alter their view which leads to possible new understanding and action (Argyris, 1993). Construction of new meanings is thus created through sensemaking, and it is such new meanings that construct new ways of organizing and understanding. This construction happens when individuals engage with others in order to build connections between seemingly divergent perspectives (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).

Furthermore, in the context of change, it appears that different inter-recipient sensemaking processes lead to both intended and unintended change outcomes (Balogun & Johnson, 2005), and different change processes lead to different patterns of schema development (Balogun & Johnson, 2004). In addition, Balogun & Johnson (2004) show the importance of middle managers interactions in shaping change, when senior management is absent. Further, Gioia & Thomas’ (1996) research touched upon how top management teams make sense in times of strategic change, where identity and image appeared key to the sensemaking process. Lastly, Lüscher & Lewis (2008) performed their study at the Lego Company where a major restructuring took place and studied the sensemaking process of managers in those uncertain times. In contrast to other studies, where it is explained that there are often inconsistencies, different patterns and other stories, this study shows how to actually work through the paradoxes of performing, belonging and organizing during the sensemaking process. It expands on the understanding of inconsistencies, contradictions and absurdities of their dynamic setting.

Additions to the framework of Weick

(9)

(Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991: 443). It entails influencing the sensemaking process of others by following staged actions to supply a viable interpretation of a new reality. Subsequently, others are influenced to adopt this as their own.

Next to this, sociological perspectives on sensemaking emerged. In contrast to the Weickian perspectives, where the focus lies on locating sensemaking in cognitive psychological processes and subjective states, the sociological perspectives have a future and present orientation and concentrate on the social aspects of intersubjective sensemaking. For the latter form, sensemaking can be found mostly in documents, social interaction, and conversations (Gephart, Topal & Zhang, 2010). Thus, it is of value to study sensemaking as a social process (Maitlis, 2005) to understand the collective and future oriented sensemaking process (Gephart et al., 2010). Maitlis (2005) studied these social processes empirically in symphony orchestras and looked into how interaction processes of leaders and stakeholders influenced their sensemaking process. Different forms of social processes unfolded as a result of the degree to which the different parties used sensegiving.

These studies present the significance of sensemaking in a change context, and the idea that when sensemaking fails, so too may a change initiative (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Although previously this literature stream has had an individual focus, the collective view is emerging and the collective sensemaking literature is growing. The next paragraph will elaborate on the transition from individual to collective sensemaking.

From individual to collective sensemaking

(10)

It appears, in light of increased technology use and increased changes in the workplace, organizations have adopted a team approach to work. Tasks nowadays are often considered too complex to perform by individual employees and therefore teams are formed (Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). Teams can be defined as “two or more people who interact interdependently with respect to a common goal and who have each been assigned specific roles to perform for a limited lifespan of membership” (Salas, Dickinson, Converse & Tannenbaum, 1992). Teams are believed to be more suitable for complex tasks because workloads can be shared, work behaviour of other members can be overseen, and expertise can be used on subtasks (Mathieu et al., 2000). For a team to work well together, it is nevertheless important to have a shared vision, good communication and role-valuing (Poulton & West, 1993; Freeman, Miller & Ross, 2000).

The rapid pace of change increases the ambiguity in which people have to work. Confronted by interpretations of information, knowledge and feedback, team members get into a process of sensemaking to construct meaning from these inputs (Weick, 1995). Nevertheless, the sensemaking of different team members is often divergent and not consistent. Thus, a team’s sensemaking demands more, especially considering the increasing amount of knowledge from sources outside the team (Haas, 2006). Hence, team sensemaking can be considered a challenge, as two or more team members are faced with an ambiguous situation. Interestingly, it is considered as an important factor for team’s operations and performances, because failure can be appointed to the failure of team sensemaking, where critical cues were ignored or teams failed to incorporate existing information (Klein et al., 2010).

Team sensemaking can be defined as “the process by which a team manages and coordinates its efforts to explain the current situation and to anticipate future situations, typically under uncertain or ambiguous conditions” (Klein et al., 2010: 304). The aim of team sensemaking is to reach collective understanding of the situation, at which point the decision-making is clear cut or at least simplified. It needs coordination of the team members while they search for data, incorporate the data and distribute inferences. Consequently, team sensemaking is more demanding than individual sensemaking as it requires additional coordination to reach consensus (Klein et al., 2010).

(11)

about other’s conceptions, while also transmitting their own. This might occur through sensegiving, where the meaning construction of others is influenced in your preferred direction (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Members then slowly revise their individual understanding of the situation as they advance their understanding of the project, the team and the environment. Finally, through recurring interactions individual understanding of the situation converges to a shared understanding of the situation (McComb, 2017).

Hereby, communication is key in team’s acceptance by different team members of the shared understanding. The communication itself can take a variety of forms, from non-verbal communication (gestures and eye contact) to verbal communication (written or digital text) and voice communications and occurs among individuals who are distributed across time and space (Cooke et al., 2017). A shared meaning can arise through conversation and non-verbal behaviour in face to face settings, in which people produce, negotiate and sustain a shared sense of meaning (Gephart et al., 2010). Rich communication helps members to learn about the thoughts and perceptions of other members (Rafaeli et al., 2009). According to Cramton (2001), this understanding of thoughts and perceptions among team members facilitates the congruence of the team’s shared understanding.

With regard to the existing team sensemaking research, to further enhance team processing and team sensemaking, Haas (2006) suggests different conditions that could be taken into account. Firstly, low levels of slack time can hinder team sensemaking because it limits the time and attention available to team members to interpret new knowledge. Secondly, it appears that members with more years of work experience – especially years gained in the focal organisation – have a greater sensemaking capability. Lastly, autonomy can yield more buffering time, which can be spent by focusing on sensemaking activities.

(12)

by looking at the study of Smart & Sycara (2013) and their computational model of collective sensemaking. In their simulation, trust came out to be an important factor in the sensemaking process in a military coalition setting. However, although simulations come close to reality, their model cannot capture features of collective sensemaking completely the same way as it is perceived in real world situations.

These before-mentioned studies on team sensemaking nevertheless tend to be in either a very specific setting, have focused on specific aspects or have not been empirically tested at all. Further, it occurs there has been no research when it comes to the influence of team sensemaking on a team process. The latter will be discussed in the following paragraph.

Team decision-making

Team decision making refers to a “team process that involves gathering, processing, integrating, and communicating information in support of arriving at task-relevant decision” (Converse, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas 1993: 222). Eminent aspects of this process are that members employ their own expertise, refine data, communicate significant information and help and advise other team members. Additionally, in this process, intra team trust is needed in order for a team to accomplish its tasks (De Jong & Elfring, 2010). Intriguingly, it turns out that organizations can be good at decision-making, but still do not succeed. This can be due to inadequate sensemaking (Weick, 1993). Particularly, sensemaking can be seen as the foundation of the decision-making process. It is a way that helps to clarify decision making and action: “you make sense of reality and, on the basis of that reality, you start doing things” (Giuliani, 2016: 220). It is also referred to as a springboard into action, because sensemaking turns circumstances into an understandable situation (Taylor & Van Every, 1999).

(13)

turn, may aid in completing operational tasks (McComb, 2017). For teams to perform effectively, it is required that the members are in possession of common or overlapping understanding of task requirements, procedures, and role responsibilities (Converse et al., 1993). A shared understanding among team members enables coordination of actions and make sure team members are ‘in sync’. On the contrary, when there is a less similarity in a team’s shared understanding, there is a great possibility of process loss and ineffective team processes (Mathieu et al., 2000). Thus, as mentioned before, if successful the consequence of team sensemaking is a collective understanding of the situation, at which point the appropriate decision to make is evident (Klein et al., 2010). That is because, only when people start to make sense of issues, they can start making decisions (Weick, 1993).

Research direction

(14)

METHODOLOGY

Research approach

This research uses qualitative methods to answer the research question. Qualitative methods are well suited to the study of dynamic processes, especially where these processes are constituted of individuals’ interpretations (Gioia & Thomas, 1996), which is the case in this study. Typically, qualitative research studies issues from the participant perspective rather than that of the researcher and it is therefore appropriate and frequently used in the research of organization members’ constructions and accounts (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). The aim of this study is theory building. This is appropriate when a phenomenon has previously not been addressed in academic literature (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012). Theory building can be described as a “purposeful process or recurring cycle by which coherent descriptions, explanations, and representations of observed or experienced phenomena are generated, verified, and refined” (Lynham, 2000b, p. 161). When it is done in the right manner, two kinds of knowledge should be produced: outcome knowledge in the form of explanative and predictive knowledge; and process knowledge in the form of increased understanding of how something works and what it means (Dubin, 1976). In my research I aim to produce both types of knowledge. Examining and explaining how team sensemaking influences decision making allows me to offer explanatory knowledge, whereas understanding team sensemaking and its important factors produces process knowledge.

(15)

Research context

Data was collected at the municipality of The Hague, at the education, culture & well-being department. After a reorganization in the department, the JMO and the team of directors of youth and social support came into existence on July 1, 2018. Within this team three sub-groups of directors were merged: 4 youth directors, 5 field directors and 6 multidisciplinary approach (mda) directors. Together, these sub-groups form the team of directors. Before the reorganization, the team of directors was non-existent and there were several separate groups who performed (partly) the tasks of the team as it is now.

The JMO was created to merge youth care, youth health care, access to social relief, protected living and the Social Support Act. This organization has the responsibility for the well-being of 120.000 growing residents of The Hague and to provide the appropriate care to more than 30.000 residents over 18 years old. The objective of the JMO is to achieve an integrated service of 0-100 years. The idea behind the reorganization and the creation of the JMO was to increase the visibility and accessibility of the case managers in each district of The Hague. The case managers are the contact point for the citizens of The Hague. A close collaboration between internal contacts, network partners and professionals such as youth workers, neighbourhood teams, schools, and the police is important. In this way, problems of the citizen can be solved in the best manner.

(16)

Data collection

Primary data was collected to address the research question. Semi-structured interviews were held with members of three groups within one bigger team, who are actively involved in decision-making with regards to internal work process decisions as well as case decisions. Semi-structured interviews allowed for open-ended probes, but also stimulated respondents to use their own jargon. In addition, semi-structured interviews guided the interview towards issues and concepts that respondents felt best represented their experiences and it produced ‘thick’ descriptive data (Gioia & Thomas, 1996). The interviews were divided into four themes and were based on an interview protocol (Appendix A) in order to ensure reliability (Yin, 2003).

The first theme consisted of questions about the reorganization, such as: “How has the reorganization affected your job?”. The second theme considered was team sensemaking. Several operational concepts were taken into account, such as the joint level of experience of a team (Klein et al., 2010), the extent to which there is created a shared vision (Akgün et al., 2012), and the clarity of team roles (Rovio-Johansson & Liff, 2012). Other questions in this theme were about the level of shared understanding in this team, and about communication. An example of a question in this theme is: “What factors influenced you as a team to come to a shared understanding?”. The third theme was about team decision-making and especially the change of the decision-making process after the reorganization. Here I asked for example: “When thinking about the situation before and after the reorganization, could you describe how things have changed with regards to the decision-making process?”. In the last theme, I connected team sensemaking and team decision-making. The main question in this theme was: “To what extent do you feel that a shared understanding has influenced your team in the decision-making process?”. To ensure construct validity, I operationalized my concepts based on previous studies. Additionally, my interview guide was assessed by an expert with the theoretical knowledge of the relevant concepts.

(17)

conversation with the team manager of the team of directors (notes Appendix B). Selection of the interviewees went via email, where I received all the contacts of the team from the team manager and people approached me to make an appointment. This may indicate a self-selection bias (Robinson, 2014), however it appeared some directors could not participate due to holiday or sick leave. Moreover, since from every sub-group of the team people have participated, this group can be considered representative for this team. The interviews took place at the municipality of The Hague, except for one that took place at the Homeless Counter of The Hague. The interviews took between 45 minutes and 60 minutes.

As well as conducting interviews, I observed two team meetings at the municipality of The Hague in order for me to better understand their role and the type of cases they are handling as well as to get better grip on their interaction process. The first team meeting I observed took 2 hours and the second meeting took 1 hour. I used the book chapter on observations of Merriam (2009) to create an observation scheme (Appendix C), where specific factors and points of attention are listed. This allowed me to create a range of structure in observing (Merriam, 2009) as well as to increase the reliability of my observations (Yin, 2003). The main factors that I paid attention to were: the physical setting, the participants, activities and interactions, conversation, subtle factors and my own behaviour. Besides attendance of interviewees, there were two participants present who were not participating in the interviews. This increases the representativeness of the team.

My role in both observations was observer as participant. The group was informed about my observer activities and observing was my main role (Merriam, 2009). This method allowed for a wide array of information, however, the level of information disclosed was controlled by the group members. Thus, there is a possibility of participant bias. However, to mitigate against this and to enhance the validity, I ensured the group the data is confidential, and they are participating anonymous. Throughout the meetings I took notes as much as possible of what is observed as this remembered me of what has happened during the observation. The field notes with the details of each observation can be found in appendix D.

(18)

up-to-date versions. Selectivity bias might be present, where an incomplete collection of documents is selected (Yin, 1994). However, the interviewee suggested herself to send documents and the documents have been checked and revised where necessary by a second person. Besides, the team manager even added an extra document. The documents describe what a director is, when the help of a director can be asked, and give instruction to directors how to proceed in cases. The fact that I collected data from multiple sources increases my study’s construct validity (Yin, 2003), reliability, and credibility (Van Aken, Berends, & Bij, 2012; Bowen, 2009).

Data analysis

Data analysis was done in line with Eisenhardt’s (1989) method, which entails analysing each individual respondent’s data by reading, coding and interpreting each interview. The interview transcripts were coded by use of Atlas.ti. After conducting and transcribing two interviews and one observation, questions 3d, 6 and 17 were considered less relevant as those appeared to be often explained when asking other questions. The interviews were immediately transcribed after conducting each interview. In this way, I could hear where I needed more probing and it enabled me to shift my focus in the following interviews. The coding process started after 7 interviews and served as means for my last interviews.

During the first reading, I identified numerous first-order terms and concepts, such as ‘trainings’ and ‘meetings’ and ‘different execution of directors role’. All along, I wrote my thoughts and initial ideas down in Memo’s in Atlas.ti. This helped me to later - when all the interviews were coded – assemble the concepts into categories, such as ‘creating a shared understanding’ and ‘lack of consensus about the way of working’. Next, I assigned second-order labels to capture categories at a higher level of abstraction and more general labels were generated such as ‘formulating roles and ways of working’. The process has been iterative, whereby it was necessary to relabel quotes, combine codes and reform groups as the process progressed. The most important codes and groups are depicted in the codebook (Appendix F). Every code has its own description and a matching and most-fitting data quote example for controllability.

(19)

to triangulate comparative data in order to recognize and understand shared concepts and processes. The documents and the notes of the conversation with the team manager are also used as comparative data. This data has not been coded but serves as background information and substantiation of statements made in the interviews and observations. This triangulation can be seen to increase the validity of my research as I searched for convergence among multiple, different sources of information (Creswell & Miller, 2000).

RESULTS

In line with the formulated objectives, the results section is divided into two parts. The first part consists of team sensemaking and its underlying factors. In this research, three different sequential phases of team sensemaking came forward. Each phase has its own unique characteristics and different aspects play a more important role at different points in time. However, these phases are certainly interrelated and interconnected and have some overlapping aspects. The first phase is about attraction to like-minded people whom you trust and with whom you can make sense of the new situation and new job. The second phase is related to formulating roles and ways of working. The last phase is about defining future collective goals. Consequently, to better understand team sensemaking, these different phases will be elaborated on. The role of the team manager over these three phases is shortly described as well. The second part focuses on the process of team decision-making and its interrelation with team sensemaking. The focus here is on team decision-making in terms of case solving capacity.

Team Sensemaking

Phase 1: Attraction to the like-minded; an informal way of information sharing

After July 1, 2018 a searching phase started, where people that were being placed in the new director’s team tried to understand the situation and to get grip on their job as director. As GDH8 explained: “Yes searching. Exploring. Searching with each other, mainly

(20)

well as within the larger organization. In this exploration phase, interpersonal trust plays an important part as this enables sharing thoughts and feelings with each other:

“We are not afraid to talk and tell each other what we think, we are not afraid to be judged by it. That has to do with the trust we have in each other, in the team, in the team manager. That is very nice to have.” (GDA6)

They try to comprehend their job and share information with regards to their work approach of handling cases. This happens through talking to each other, mostly in a more informal manner where they quickly approach each other in the hallway or their work desk. “What you

also have when you sit at your desk, you ask each other, ‘oh I get this case now, how would you handle this?’ Yes, that happens through talking a lot (GDH5)”. “You will talk with each other about it. But yes, I think mostly in an informal way of exchanging and discussing (GDA3)”.

Yet, talking and sharing thoughts, ideas and feelings, is mostly done with people whom you trust and those can be considered like-minded. This is based on several aspects.

First, sharing an experience together such as the reorganization and the application procedure to become a director makes people feel closer.

“We have a past together. We have experienced a difficult reorganization. […] but there were people, well, they were very unstable, which is of course normal after a reorganization. A lot of emotions are released. Thus, it is therefore that our small group got even stronger.” (GDH6)

The shared experience of making an assessment for applying and helping each other in this assessment has created strong connections. As a GDH9 states: “We have supported each

other. In that sense, because it was a very exciting period, and preparing the assessment”.

Secondly, what made those connections even stronger is the fact that within the new directors’ team, people found themselves in another phase and had to deal with different issues.

(21)

let go of their former job. But for the field directors, it was harder because they also have to deal with some old tasks”. (GDH7)

Some directors had some experience in this role already but had to get used to the new team.

“My role did not change so much, except that we have a new team, which takes time. Because you need to get to know each other (GDH3)”. Others got a whole new job, “Well for my employment it meant that the job I had, was not there anymore. So, I had to do a whole new job (GDH2)”. People feel most related and get attracted to those that are in the same change

phase. This division of change phases is confirmed in the conversation with the team manager (Appendix B).

Thirdly, the novelty of the group obstructs the so-called togetherness, according to GDH3. They do not know each other all that well, and there is no experience in working with the whole group. They have to start building this group experience. As GDH8 states: “Yes

absolutely [there is a change in team dynamics and energy]. I have the feeling we have to start all over again”. In contrast, within smaller groups, most of them already knew each other and

have worked together before. This creates a safe climate: “We [mda directors] feel, from what

I also hear from the others, we feel very safe together” (GDH6).

Another factor that marks the beginning phase is the spread of people over several work locations. This has had impact on the director’s team and the trust within the team:

“Yes, in the beginning it was weird, because we were at the Spui [main work location now], but the field directors were at the Binckhorst [other work location]. Or some others on another floor here in the building. That meant we only saw each other once in a while. Back then, it did not feel very familiar or trustworthy or something”. (GDH2)

(22)

Phase 2: Formulating roles & way of working; a formal way of information sharing

As time passes, the team is better able to understand the function of a director and starts to create a shared understanding. Passing time is needed to create a shared understanding:

“Things are a process, sometimes you need to leave things be. You come back to it later, you take time to think. People need to let it sink in. Let things be for a while, let time pass by. Think about it, write things down. We got a lot of space for it”. (GDH9)

This also becomes apparent in the conversation with the team manager. He backs the idea that it is impossible to work out everything on paper before the start of the new team. It is a process and “They have to gradually work things out together” (Team manager).

The main focus here is on shaping their role and their way of working. According to GDH7, “What we’re doing now, is laying the fundamentals for our position. So, these are big subjects

we discuss and expand together”. These are all based on their created shared vision, which is

presented in one of the documents; the brochure (Appendix E)

“So, we have a shared vision, where we think well, in principle, every citizen who needs it deserves support. […] and we with team directors, we think it is important to help everyone in an appropriate way, regardless laws and regulations “. (GDH2)

The team “wants to serve the citizen as broadly as possible” (GDH7) and with the creation of the new youth and community department the “visibility, convenience, accessibility” (GDH7) is enlarged.

Predominantly, creating this shared understanding happens through talking to each other in meetings. “By talking to each other and discussing the questions you have. How are you doing

it, how do you handle this. Put things on the agenda during the meetings. Get clarity there (GDH8)”. Additionally, as GDH7 explains, “It is nice we sit together, one shared work location. And we have planned several meetings. Those things help”. It is in those meetings that they

get grip of the situation and their role: “Well, in our work meetings we have thought together

(23)

(GDH7)”. During the observations of such meetings (Appendix D), the team showed that there

is a safe climate as all members expressed their thoughts and opinions and questions were asked for clarification. Some, for example, revealed their struggles with their role and their approach to handling cases and others gave advice on how they would handle it. Additionally, the team showed that they indeed work hard on the specific arrangement of the director function by for example discussing which intervention possibilities a director has in solving cases and which taskforces and budgets they can consult. Furthermore, it appeared that to create a same way of working, the team is working on an overarching registration system. Next to the meetings, trainings play an important factor in creating shared understanding of their director role.

“We have had trainings about the whole custom fit approach. And soon we have a training about directorship. Those are good trainings, for us as a team. You become closer. You brainstorm about cases, and you come to an unambiguous mindset”. (GDH4)

Another important part in creating the fundamentals is creating consensus about the way of working. Through an interactive process as a team (meetings and trainings), they have to come to collective decisions about the way of working as director, their work processes and the application procedure for new cases. Here, it all becomes “…more formal and bigger. Because

this is about our work processes (GDH7)”. The collective decisions of the team are mostly

about “The tasks we have to do and for example the custom fit approach. And of course, we

contribute to the work processes and decide about them (GDH6). Besides, consensus is needed

for decisions: “If you are in agreement about what you are doing [as a director], and you have

consensus, it helps in making logical decisions (GDH2)”. Decisions are then documented

privately and publicly (Appendix E). The team created for example a public brochure. “It is a

blueprint [the brochure] of where we want to go. This is our way of working and this is also how we think it should be (GDH3)”. It says something about when the help of directors can be

asked and how to ask and apply for help.

However, it appears that although through making decisions collectively, the interpretation of the role and the execution of tasks still differs. “If we look at the vision and the main features

(24)

everybody is executing the same actions (GDH7)”. A helping factor towards one work approach

is the growth of collaboration among directors in handling cases. “You notice that we seek

collaboration. We are on the right track (GDH1)”. This helps in the creation of a shared

understanding.

“What helped me mostly within the team, is the handling of cases together. […] the interaction has helped me most. Because then you see how someone takes action, and why someone takes action. Then you can talk with each other about it. […] to take up cases together, figuring things out, yes that contributes to coming closer in terms of your way of working”. (GDH7)

The growth in collaboration is also due to the fact that they see the value of the team and the collaboration: “The collaboration with colleague directors from other disciplines becomes

closer and more intensive. You need each other and you agree to something (GDH1)”. There is

a growth in sharing and involving each other in cases and asking for advice. They need each other’s expertise: “We need the directors. Because if it is about kids, there are always adults,

and it is always about money, and it is always about housing. So, we need one another (GDH3)”

and “If you’re one team it becomes easier, you ask each other’s expertise. You are one team

now, you are easier approachable for the other (GDH6)”. This is all made easier by the fact

that they now share one work location. The teams of different disciplines become one affiliative team:

“In the first team sessions we were not that conversant with each other. Meanwhile – because we share one work location, have joint meetings, and handle cases together – then you notice that a team starts to arise”. (GDH2)

The team thus gets to know each other better, are building work experience together and start to focus on the same job; the interpersonal trust as depicted in phase 1 has grown and people are sharing their thoughts and ideas more throughout the whole team of directors. Lastly, the importance of creating a shared understanding to be able to communicate clearly to internal and external partners comes to the fore:

(25)

consensus about what we do. Also, about communication to the outside world and the choices we make with each other. We need to communicate in the same manner to each other”. (GDH2)

This communication is important, as there needs to be a clear understanding for others what to expect from the directors. This was supported during one of the observations where it was discussed that people from outside the team of directors sometimes not completely understand the director role. This can complicate the upscaling process of cases and the collaboration between internal and external partners. They hope the printed version of the brochure and the spread of it will provide some clarification. Once the fundamentals are clear, a future focus can set in where more details about the work approach are elaborated on and the team feeling can progress.

Phase 3: Defining future collective goals; combining formal and informal

The last phase is about leaving the past behind “Let go of a piece of luggage (GDH9)” and that differs for each directors discipline: “We all have our specific luggage” (GHD9). But letting go creates space for the current director’s role, “Yes, sometimes you need to step aside

and leave your old role behind and then start learning (GDH3)”. As mentioned in the previous

phase, the interpretation of the role and the execution of tasks still differs. From here on there needs to be a focus on sharpening the role for each director and a focus on the details based on the shared understanding created in phase 2. “The challenge lies in working towards a

uniform work process. Not only for the directors MDA, but also the field and youth directors. To make one clear work approach (GDA8)”. “That everybody in actual practice handles cases in the same manner (GDA4)”. To be able to do this, GDA 7 suggests sharing even more cases

together:

“It would be great to share more cases, at the intervision type of level. […] we need to be triggered to think about our own handling. And give each other reflection. Besides getting to know each other better in this way, it will make the case level higher. Make it qualitative better”

(26)

In this way, a learning process is stimulated. “It would be interesting to rotate more with the

other subgroups [from the other disciplines]. To get space to learn from each other (GDA10)”.

This is confirmed at one of the observations, where it is said “we also want to learn from each

other”. The case discussions for the whole team will be formally organized, where everyone

needs to prepare a case to be discussed. In the end, sharing cases, discussing them in meetings and learning from each other in this way, will help in stimulating one uniform work approach in practice.

Next to this, the team feeling is an important factor: “It is important that the larger team also

starts to feel like your own team (GDA6)”. Over time, the interpersonal trust – as important

factor mentioned in phase 1 – is growing and people start to familiarize more and more with each other. “Also, in the collaboration over the whole team, to create more the ‘we’ feeling,

this is us, this is what we do (GDA10)”. “We are now in the phase of becoming one team (GDA1)”. Important here is that they get to know each other better in an informal way: “She has taken the initiative to organize drinks, just a bit informal (GDA3)”.

These two factors – in combination with unambiguous communication as commented in phase 2 – will help in the overall positioning and in being better able to understand “with

whom are which responsibilities (GDA6) “.

“It is also about positioning yourself in the whole organization. Towards the whole JMO [youth and welfare organization], as well as the partners in the chain. So that they also know which role we have”. (GDA9).

The role of the team manager

The team manager is the manager of the team of directors. Across these phases, the role of the team manager may not go unnoticed. It appears that on different levels the manager has played an important role. To start with: “He is the binding force. He keeps us

together. He makes sure we literally sit together (GDA3)”. Besides, he makes sure the team

keeps on moving forward. “He is a leader for the whole team. He takes his moments. He

(27)

then asks for our feedback (GDA2)”. These factors have helped for the team to come together

and to create a shared understanding. But most important is the fact that in the beginning “We have had a couple of sessions together with him. Like, how are we going to fulfil this. So

there [in those meetings] have been set the first steps (GDA9)”. But he also has given them

their own space “we have got a lot of space from our manager (GDA2)” to develop their own shared understanding as a team. In the conversation with the team manager it became clear that he does not exactly know how the team is executing everything; he is there to define the broader perspective, but the team can work things out their own way. An example of this becomes apparent during one of the observations, where it appears the team could send in their own development points in terms of case discussions and work approach for the team. The team has to appoint leaders to work out each of those points. Additionally, the documents (Appendix E) have all been created by input of the team and this also shows they have had their own space to create their own understandings.

The interrelation of team sensemaking and team decision-making

In the former part, collective decision-making about the director role and way of working has been discussed in phase 2. Now, this part concentrates on decision-making in terms of case solving; finding the best solutions for problemacy of the citizen of The Hague. Team sensemaking leads to more collaboration and a better use of expertise. These can be considered important aspects of problem-solving capacity. Before I move on to explain those aspects, it is important to mention the decision-making power the team of directors has:

“The role of directors also means we have decision-making power. It is not possible to bring that up for discussion by other parties. Let it be clear, at the point where you ask help from a director, he/she is going to make a decision. […] sometimes it means you will decide against what the municipality likes. But also, another party may not like it. But then, it is the way it is”. (GDA9)

The expertise knowledge and power of a director is useful “That is what you need to bring to

light issues and bottlenecks (GDA4)”. Consensus about what you are doing, as reached in

successful team sensemaking, contributes to be taken seriously by other parties “the more

(28)

Regarding collaboration as stimulated in the team sensemaking process, it is found that bringing forth issues and especially solving them works better in collaboration. “The broader

the knowledge, the broader you can approach the problem, the better it will suit, to come to the best solution (GDA3)”. Coming to the best solution entails asking for advice “We often ask for advice. […] before, we needed to figure things out ourselves. Thus, in terms of collaboration we have made progress (GDA1)”. A shared responsibility becomes present, where solutions

and decisions are made together:

“We had such a case recently. It needs to become a shared responsibility. Talking together, making appointments together. Deciding on what needs to happen in order to help the family. By that I do not only mean the family in the crisis center, but also the child who lives somewhere else, that child needs to come back as well. Then we need to make a plan together.” (GDA10)

A shared understanding of each other’s role and expertise as identified in team sensemaking helps thus in asking advice from others, and this in turn also helps smoothening the beginning of a case process. This advances then the decision-making process where decisions can be made quicker, which is beneficial for the case applicant.

“Instead of that they plod over stalled cases, they ask us. You see it happening more often. We walk by more often. ‘Can you read with me, can you look at this case’. This is great. Because then you can say right at the beginning of a process, hey we need to go leftwards, or we need to go rightwards”. (GDA3)

Moreover, team sensemaking leads to a shared understanding of a uniform way of working (as recorded in the documents). This helps in seeing better what you stand for and where you want to go. This fosters the decision-making process. “It makes it easier. If you all aim for the

same. One way or another, but in the end we all want to go the spot on the horizon (GDA6)”.

Furthermore, as result of successful team sensemaking consensus about their role and the way of working is reached. As a consequence, expertise can be better used, and this contributes to efficient and effective solutions:

(29)

an important part of the problem. Thus, it contributes to an efficient and effective solution, where in the end, the family or the professional benefits from”. (GDA3)

However, although having a shared understanding and a shared vision is beneficial, having consensus about everything diminishes quality of decisions. A critical view is needed.

“It slows it down [the decision-making process], but it makes it sharper. Then, the delay, is less relevant. That is then being part of it. If you are completely on the same page, and you all say, okay let’s do it this way, and there is no critical eye, you can come across pitfalls. You need some sharp-mindedness”. (GDA9)

Lastly, some shed light on future prospects – which is an important part of team sensemaking – in relation to decision-making. As one respondent explains: “If we come to an advice and

decision in the same manner. […] I hope you will see it in the quality of decisions. And the quality of giving recommendations (GDA4)”. Besides, getting to know each other and creating

trust will help as well: “You have to carry a vision. You need to justify that in your

decision-making, why you do something. But also , that you know, ok there is a decision, and you trust enough on the expertise of the others to accept it (GDA1)”.

To visualize the results, I created to so-called “team sensemaking – team decision-making

(30)

(31)

DISCUSSION

The aim of this research was to examine how teams engaging in sensemaking

influence team decision-making in times of change. Hereby, the research question presented was: “How does team sensemaking influence team decision-making in times of

organizational change?”. It was found that team sensemaking is interrelated to team decision-making in two ways. First, team decision-making can be seen as part of team sensemaking. To wit, making collective decisions about work fulfilment and work processes triggers creating a shared understanding. Secondly, team sensemaking contributes to successful team decision-making by means of strengthening problem-solving capacity. Furthermore, next to team decision-making, several other factors play an important role in team sensemaking. Sensemaking consist of three sequential phases, where every phase has its own important factors. Although different factors are important at different points in time, the phases are interconnected and together shape team sensemaking. In the sections below, I discuss the findings per objective to support this answer.

Team sensemaking and its underlying factors and processes

(32)

suggested aspect of joint level of experience by Klein et al. (2010) as important factor in group sensemaking. Further, in most cases, it meant that people got attracted to people whom they know. In contrast to Akgün et al. (2012), familiarity (team members knowing each other prior to the formation of the team) does play an important part. Especially in the beginning, where you need to create a safety place to be able to share your view. People share more information to like-minded people, which encourages to understand each other’s perceptions.

Proposition 1: Attraction to like-minded people is the starting point for team sensemaking

The next phase is concerned with creating a shared understanding of the role and way of working. This finding supports the idea of Sandberg & Tsoukas (2015), where people engage in sensemaking to realign their way of working after a change has disturbed common work processes. It is also consistent with the note that understanding team members’ roles are important when members try to reach co-operation and make sense of different meanings (Rovio-Johansson & Liff, 2012). The present study found that people create a shared understanding through formal means and collective decision-making. It appeared that by means of spending time together in the form of meetings, trainings and collaboration on cases as well as creating a brochure and other documents, people’s perspectives converge to a shared understanding. It is confirmed that rich communication indeed helps in understanding perceptions of other team members (Rafaeli et al., 2009). Surprisingly, location appears to matter as sharing a work location stimulates talking, asking advice within the team and collaboration on cases. This contrasts previous literature, where proximity (talk with one another without using a phone) did not seem a significant factor for team sensemaking (Akgün et al. 2012).

(33)

(meetings and trainings), can be seen as part of team sensemaking. The process of team-decision-making is therefore interwoven with the process of team sensemaking.

Proposition 2a: Creating a shared understanding of roles and way of working through

formal means is an important element of team sensemaking

Proposition 2b: Creating a shared understanding through collective decision-making

about work fulfillment and processes is an important element of team sensemaking

Additionally, the findings of this study suggest that creating a shared understanding is important in order to communicate about the role to internal and external partners. The brochure appears to be an important factor in this communication, and without collective decision-making, unambiguous communication is not possible. This finding is consistent with Gioia & Thomas (1996), where managers are molding new images of how they would like the organization to be perceived by internal and external stakeholders.

Moving on to the last discovered phase of team sensemaking: defining future collective goals. After the first two phases, the team can build further on their established roles, way of working and increased collaboration and hereby focus on future prospects. This part corroborates the notion of prospective sensemaking of Gioia et al. (1994), whereby future impacts are considered and where there is a focus on the projection of a desired future image. Future impacts in this research are in the form of having reached one uniform work approach stimulated by learning and the creation of team feeling. The desired future image entails the favorable positioning of the team in the larger organization. This research highlights that prospective sensemaking is an important part of successful team sensemaking.

Proposition 3: Defining future collective goals is an important element of team sensemaking

Proposition 4: Team sensemaking consist of three different sequential phases

(34)

and where the leader gives a framework for their empowered activities. In addition, by giving people autonomy, they can spend more time on sensemaking activities (Haas, 2006). The manager is the binding factor in the change process of the team. On the one hand, he organizes formal meetings where perceptions and ideas can be shared and serve as a way to create shared understanding within the team. On the other hand, he gives the team space to make their own decisions about their work processes and on how to fulfil their job. This can be seen as a sensegiving mode, where the team manager is making sense for others by guiding others in their sensemaking and is in agreement with the note that managers engage in activities that are key to the effectiveness of the change process (Gioia & Chittipeddi. 1991).

Proposition 5: The team manager can be seen as stimulator of the three phases of team sensemaking

The interrelation of team sensemaking and team decision-making

In relation to my second objective, this research found that the interrelation between team sensemaking and team decision-making is two-folded. Firstly, as discussed in the previous part, decision-making about internal work processes appears to be a part of team sensemaking. Secondly, the interrelation of team sensemaking and team decision-making lies in case solving. Team sensemaking leads to broader problem-solving capacity and therefore to qualitative better case decision-making. This finding is a new insight in the team and sensemaking literature. Yet, it fits the line of expectation and follows well upon previous literature. As described by Mathieu et al. (2000), a shared understanding would increase the ability to coordinate actions better and ensures team members are more ‘in sync’. It also fits the expectation that a shared understanding will contribute to successful completion of operational tasks (McComb, 2017). Additionally, the importance of incorporating existing information to let team operations and performances succeed, as indicated by Klein et al., (2010) is confirmed with this research by showing that using the information from the people with the right expertise will increase the value of the decision made for the citizen.

(35)

from the beginning of the process. With a broader view of the right expertise, the problem can be approached better. Fascinatingly, the aspects as described by Converse et al. (1993) which are important in team decision-making, emerge to be part of or be stimulated by team sensemaking: ‘employ their own expertise, refine data, communicate significant information and help and advice other team members’. The intra team trust aspect and its influence on task accomplishment (De Jong & Elfring, 2010) indirectly comes back as well, as trust is interwoven in the team sensemaking process. Finally, these elements together lead to a more efficient and effective decision-making process and brings forward better solutions for the citizen of The Hague. Thus, the note of Weick (1993) seems to be true: only when people start to make sense of issues, they can start making decisions.

Proposition 6: Team sensemaking influences team decision-making by means of enhancing problem-solving capacity

To give a clear overview, all the propositions are visualized in the team sensemaking – team

(36)

(37)

Theoretical contributions

The present research advances the sensemaking literature by showing that team sensemaking consists of three sequential phases. This is a new insight in the collective sensemaking literature and was made possible by the specific nature of my research setting where three sub-groups formed a new team. Previous research about collective sensemaking has discovered several aspects that are of importance to team sensemaking – and of which some are confirmed in this research as illustrated previously. However, structuring this team sensemaking process appeared to have never been done. This research therefore gives a structured empirical meaning to the proposed definition of Klein et al., (2010: 304): ‘process by which a team manages and coordinators its efforts to explain the current situation and to anticipate to future situations’. The processes and factors to explain the current situation are depicted in phase 1 and 2 and are respectively informal and formal in nature. Phase 3 describes the processes of defining future collective goals and can be seen as a way to anticipate to future situations. Hence, this research creates order out of chaos by highlighting three different phases of team sensemaking.

Interestingly, this finding also advances the study of Balogun & Johnson (2005) where I create order in social processes and suggest that informal social processes (phase 1) are followed by formal social processes (phase 2). Moreover, this result extends previous literature by being more specific in what sort of recurring interactions and conversations a shared sense of meaning is created (Gephart et al., 2010; McComb, 2017). This three phases framework also gives explanation on how individuals could collectively construct new meaning (Weick et al., 2005). By following the three phases, where informal as well as formal social processes are covered, people in a team can collectively create a shared understanding.

(38)

Not only does this framework advance the sensemaking literature, it also offers meaningful insights with regards to team work and processes and therefore contributes to the work presented by authors such as Marks et al. (2001) and Mathieu et al. (2000). This study shows how social interactions within a team are an important factor in team processes. This study specifically explains when and which social interactions and factors are mostly relevant for an effective team process to take place (in this case collective decision-making).

Managerial implications

For managers interested in supporting team decision-making in times of change, this study offers several insights. Especially, to make valuable decisions, managers are advised to stimulate a team to understand the team’s role and each other’s expertise. In order to do this, managers of newly created teams are recommended to firstly pay attention to more informal team activities focused on getting to know each other and building trust. Thereafter more formal team activities could follow such as trainings, meetings and decisions about internal documents. After this, a combination of the two can take place to stimulate learning as well as team building, which will foster decision-making on the long term. Furthermore, this study hopes to make managers more aware of their role in a change process, whereby it became apparent that it is useful when managers allow for opportunities for employees to form their own views, but at the same time provide employees structure in this process. Another practical implication would be for human resource managers to design a team thoughtfully, keeping in mind the aspects of like-mindedness. If none of these aspects are present it could potentially hinder a team to build trust. This could for example obstruct collaboration among team members with different expertise which is in turn important in team decision-making.

Limitations and future research

(39)

governmental institution is expected to be different to for example the work in a corporate organization. More diverse contexts could be studied, to see if the findings hold.

Furthermore, this research is specifically about team sensemaking of a newly created team after a reorganization. However, team sensemaking could also happen in an existing team that experiences another type of change or ambiguous event. Then, other aspects of team sensemaking might be more important. In line with this, the flow of phases is mostly adapted to this team. In future research, the phases could be tested in other types of teams and context. It would be of value to see if the same aspects that are of importance in the different phases apply also to other teams. Additionally, the phases may not be exhaustive, thus future research is needed to reconsider those phases and hereby take the proposed propositions in mind. Lastly, the presence of the researcher may have had an influence on the responses of informants and on the actions of individuals observed. Further, the interviews and observations were held at a specific point in time and therefore has has limited me to observe over time how informants interact, interpret and develop their shared understandings. These two limitations can be avoided by spending a long period on site. However, due to time constraints I could not spend a long period of time on site. Future research could therefore conduct a longitudinal study and use the propositions presented.

TEAM SENSEMAKING AND TEAM DECISION-MAKING The three phases of team sensemaking and its two-folded interrelation with team decision-making