Improving the attitude and system usage of recipients: Investigating middle- managers sensemaking and sensegiving processes within IT-change

(1)

2020

MASTER’S THESIS

LARS KOOLHOF S2745240 SUPERVISOR

DRS. H.P. (HELEEN) VAN PEET

CO-ASSESSOR:

DR. C. (CEES) REEZIGT

DATE: 5-1-2020

MSC BA TRACK: CHANGE MANAGEMENT WORD COUNT: 15.993

Improving the attitude and system usage

of recipients: Investigating

(2)

2

Abstract

The emergence of the phenomenon known as cloud computing represents a fundamental change in the way that IT services are developed, delivered, updated and used in modern organizations. Cloud computing services become true incubators for the new applications, meant to respond to the high demand of getting information fast and easy. However, the implementation of such information technology requires severe changes in behaviors, work processes, tasks and communications. It turns out that many employees and managers experience difficulties in adopting IT innovations like cloud computing.

Recent studies have underlined the important role middle-management plays in implementing change. As both subject to change as well as implementor, middle managers can both

facilitate or restrain IT-change like the implementation of cloud computing software. By focusing on the sensemaking and sensegiving practices of middle-managers this research addresses the important role that middle managers have towards improving the attitudes and system usage of recipients.

This research investigates the sensemaking and sensegiving practices of middle-managers, the relation between them and the effect that managerial behavior has on employees. The data is collected by taking in-depth semi-structured interviews with both managers and employees about the introduction and implementation of cloud computing software. This study took place in 7 departments of a large production company.

The results of this study reveal that middle-managers make sense of the IT-change following the system evaluation as described by the TAM-framework. Positive system evaluation results in middle-managers being more willing to take on a change agent role. Second, making the change recognizable by aligning cloud computing design with existing structures and work methods benefits system evaluation and thereby positively influences affective and behavioral attitudes. Finally, making the change recognizable allows middle managers to reduce the impact and pace of the change which may help to overcome intergenerational differences in relation to IT use and adoption.

(3)

3

1. Introduction

In the present digital age, organizations are faced with highly global, interconnected, and dynamic environments (Fonseca & Domingues, 2017). For companies a profound

consequence of the digitalization is the necessity to invest permanently amounts of money in equipment used to process and stock data (Nistoreanu, Dinca, & Schiopu, 2017). The

emergence of the phenomenon known as cloud computing represents a fundamental change in the way that IT services are developed, delivered, updated and used in modern organizations. Cloud computing services become true incubators for new applications, meant to respond to the high demand of getting information fast and easy (Plummer et al. 2008).

Cloud computing involves the practice of using a network of remote servers hosted on the Internet to store, manage, and process data, rather than a local server or a personal computer (Bakshi and Hemachandran, 2011). The biggest advantage of cloud computing is that resources and services can be licensed following a subscription model. This is beneficial to companies by avoiding the purchase of expensive equipment and staff to develop and maintain a self-owned system (Sasikala, 2011).

Another advantage is that employees have access anytime, anyplace, anywhere they want to their documents, email and agenda’s in a shared environment. This can benefit the

(6)

2 Towards an understanding of the processes that lead to successful change implementation, current literature has shown the importance of the internal circumstances under which change occurs (climate of change), the process of how IT-change is dealt with (interaction and communication) and the level of readiness for change (Armenakis, Harris, & Feild, 1999; Kotter, 1995).

In large companies the interaction and communication about large-scale, cross functional change initiatives often stems from top-management, via middle-management, to operational departments (Waddell et al., 2000). The hierarchical interaction and communication between organizational layers are key in order to facilitate change, managing readiness and resistance and achieve the desired outcomes. Due to their hierarchical position, middle-managers take a difficult and complex role of both recipient and change agent within the change process. Previously, middle management has often been singled out as the primary locus for resistance to radical change (Biggart, 1977; Miles, 1997). Most normative models of strategy tend to accord middle management a supporting role at best (Shrivastava, 1986); executives are advised to reduce equivocalness so that middle managers can act on clear instructions. Conventional wisdom suggests that middle managers tend to attenuate the pace and

magnitude of organizational learning (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1996). Executives view middle managers as part of the inertial systems and barriers to change that need to be co-opted, sidelined, or disposed of, if attempts at co-optation fail (Biggart, 1977; Tichy and Sherman, 1994). Such views overlook the role that middle managers may play in maintaining continuity during change processes.

For years, middle managers have been known as inflexible, unimaginative bureaucrats. However, more recent studies have underlined the important role middle-management plays in implementing change (Balogun, 2003, Wooldridge, Schmid, & Floyd, 2008). As both subject to change as well as implementor, middle managers enact different emotional patterns that constitute emotional balancing (continuity vs change) and facilitate organizational

adaptation (Hassard, McCann, and Morris 2009). Balancing and aligning these tasks is hard, but crucial to change success.

(7)

3 closely tuned to employee attitudes and they can act as a moderating influence preventing inertia on the one hand and chaotic change on the other (Huy 2002).

My study will focus on the sense-making and sense-giving processes of middle managers during technological change. These sensemaking and sensegiving processes describe the complex process of how middle-managers provide meaning towards the technological change (interpretations, thoughts, feelings etc.), how this affects their sensegiving behavior and which sensegiving practices they use to increase attitudes and system usage of their employees. Readiness and resistance towards change are key factors in determining the success or failure of change processes (Pieterse, Caniëls & Homan, 2012). Therefore, it is crucial to understand the links between the sensemaking-processes and actions of the middle-manager and the response of their employees.

Despite its importance previous studies have lacked focus on how interactions and

communications with middle-managers influenced employees’ emotions and sensemaking and vice versa (Bartunek, Balogun & Do, 2011). This study aims to contribute to the field of middle-manager’s sensemaking and sensegiving processes, IT adoption and hierarchical communication within organizations by filling the ill-explored gap that describes how middle-managers make and give sense of an imposed IT-change such as cloud computing. This study explores the effects that middle-manager’s sensegiving has on attitudes and system usage of employees. This leads to the following research question: How do middle managers make sense of IT-change such as Cloud Computing and give sense to improve the attitude and system usage of recipients?

The outline of the paper addresses after the introduction, the theoretical background on the role of middle-manager within change processes, sensemaking and sensegiving, managing technological change including attitudes and system usage and finally the literature on cloud computing will be discussed. Next, the procedures and related guarantees within the research design are discussed in the methodology. After the methodology, the findings of the study are presented and discussed afterwards. This discussion compares my findings to the existing literature and leads to new propositions. The discussion is followed by the conclusion which summarizes the main contributions of my research and describes the theoretical and

(8)

4

2. Theoretical Background

In trying to examine how middle managers make sense of IT-change such as Cloud

Computing and how they give sense to IT-change to improve the attitude and system usage of recipients, there must be provided a deeper understanding of the theoretical foundation for this question. In this part of the paper, the role of middle-managers within change processes will be discussed first. Thereafter, the role of- and relation between sensemaking and

sensegiving processes will be addressed. This is followed by an analysis of current literature on managing technological change in general, on attitudes and system usage more specifically and finally cloud computing is discussed as a newly developed IT-phenomenon.

2.1 The role of middle management in change processes

Due to their hierarchical position, middle managers are responsible for implementing large-scale change but they are also subject to it (Fernandez and Pitts 2007; Hassard, McCann, and Morris 2009). Thereby the middle-manager has the unique position to give information to higher management with key knowledge about operations. (Wooldridge et al., 2008). This dual role includes undertaking personal change (sensemaking) and leading his/her team throughout the change while finding a balance between providing continuity and change (Balogun, 2003)

Middle managers have been found to be critical in ensuring the success of large-scale change (Huy 2002). This is because they can be important in the change process as they make organizations run and can be a source of new ideas (Osterman 2009). Effective middle managers tend to have contributing ideas about implementing change, they have extensive formal and informal networks, they are closely tuned to employee attitudes and they can act as a moderating influence preventing inertia on the one hand and chaotic change on the other (Huy 2001). Therefore, middle managers are, more often than not, vital actors within change processes and key contributors to change success.

When senior management initiates a change project, the best one can hope for is early

adoption and support from a critical few who can gradually spread the new ideas (Miranda et al., 2016). These people aren't necessarily at the higher levels of the organization. Many senior executives confine themselves to looking only one level down from the top and

(9)

5 feelings of misunderstanding and mistrust. As executives dig deeper in the organization, they should watch for the qualities among middle management.

Huy (2001) describes different qualities that senior management should seek in middle-managers to successfully implement a change initiative. Middle middle-managers should be early volunteers, express positive critics. possess informal power, are versatile and score high on emotional intelligence. Senior management should pay attention to middle managers' interests and recognize their psychological needs (Sonenshein, 2010). When people think that their intellectual and emotional worth is valued, they're far more likely to stay and help. A new executive's fresh ideas don't have a prayer of succeeding unless they're married to the operating skills, vast networks, and credibility of veteran middle managers.

Huy (2001) continues that it is a key task of middle managers to maintain continuity while also implementing change. This tension between continuity and change also exists on the individual level. Employees seek predictable relationships, dependable resources, and consistency in behavior and thinking, while simultaneously seeking new stimulation and personal development (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007). From the dual role that middle-managers have in the change process different emotional patterns arise. Aligning and balancing personal thoughts and feelings and recipients’ opinions and reactions is key to facilitate change. Based on a three-year inductive field study of an attempt at radical change in a large firm, Huy (2002) shows how middle managers displayed two seemingly opposing emotion-management patterns that facilitated beneficial adaptation for their work groups: (1) emotionally committing to personally championed change projects and (2) attending to recipients' emotions.

With his analysis Huy showed that low emotional commitment to cultural and structural change led to organizational inertia, whereas high commitment to change with little attending to recipients' emotions led to chaos. The enactment of both patterns constituted emotional balancing and facilitated organizational adaptation: change, continuity in providing quality in customer service, and developing new knowledge and skills.

2.2 Sensemaking and Sensegiving

Human’s actions in an organization are largely determined by existing ideas about the

(10)

6 during a change it may be that the existing cognitive frameworks cannot be used to guide action. There is then a "gap" in the cognitive framework (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Patriotta & Brown, 2011). Then it is necessary to provide new meaning to the environment. (Balogun, 2006, Weber & Manning, 2001). This process of scanning, interpreting and providing new meanings is labelled as ‘sensemaking’ (Balogun, 2006; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Patriotta & Brown, 2011, Rouleau, 2005).

As a cognitive process, sensemaking is the primary site where meanings materialize that inform and constrain action (Mills, 2003). Existing research on sensemaking has focused on its role as a socially embedded process where meaning is materialized through language, talk and communication (Weick et al., 2005). Members of an organization make sense of

processes or activities in the organization by fitting them into an interpretative scheme or system of meaning that has developed through experience and socialization.

The sensemaking process is influenced by ‘sensemaking triggers’. Sensemaking triggers can include specific discontinuous events, activities, information or environmental changes that do not fit in current interpretive schemes or cognitive frameworks. Sensemaking triggers can create discrepancies and make people feel uncomfortable. To restore this feeling, people need to alter their interpretive schemes and cognitive frameworks which lead to changes in

attitudes and behaviors (Homan, 2005).

Besides individual sensemaking triggers, sensemaking is also influenced by the interaction of the individual with others (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Hereby, the social-cultural context of the organization is an important aspect (Rouleau, 2005). Together people develop a shared meaning or understanding. This process is often referred to as the ‘social process of interaction’ (Balogun, 2006) or the social learning process (Homan, 2005).

Balogun (2006) shows that this process can take place both between and within hierarchical organizational levels and in both formal (presentation, memo’s) and informal (private talks during or after work) settings. Mills (2010) showed the importance of informal

communication on sensemaking, especially sensemaking of formal communication. He also shows that informal communication plays a key role towards creating a collective

understanding.

(11)

7 alignment of interpretation. They point to the importance of employees’ perceptions of

organizational support for what lies ahead. Further they found that inter-recipient sensemaking processes lead to an emergent and unpredictable change process.

Sensemaking triggers and individual interpretation (from current schemata) that leads to the development of new schemata through social processes of interaction. From this process emergent change outcomes occur that can be congruent or counteracting compared to the imposed changes. To achieve the desired outcomes, managers need to guide the sensemaking process in order to align cognitive frameworks (Balogun, 2006).

The concept of Sensegiving describes someone’s efforts to influence the way that another party understands or makes sense (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). It involves the attempts to gain support and alter the meaning construction of others towards a preferred definition of organizational reality (Rouleau, 2005). Sensegiving takes place in the form of stories, symbols and other sensegiving practices that are used to influence the sensemaking process of others (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991).

Although these processes (sensemaking vs sensegiving) appear to be conceptually different, the boundaries of each are permeated by the other. As discourse and action, sensemaking and sensegiving are less distinct domains (Hopkinson, 2001) than two sides of the same coin – one implies the other and cannot exist without it. Therefore, in order to successfully manage change processes, one must be aware of both sensemaking and sensegiving practices and their relationships.

Most works on sensemaking and sensegiving take little account of how managers use their implicit knowledge to make sense of a change, partly because they generally target the action of top managers. The way middle managers participate in change differs from

top-management. Given their hierarchical position, they do not share the same level of

consciousness of corporate strategy as top managers (Floyd and Lane, 2000; Westley, 1990). An interesting way of understanding how tacit knowledge is part of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving processes is to closely examine middle managers’ participation into these

(12)

8 relationships to sensemaking and the latter relate more to sensegiving. These way in which sensemaking and sensegiving processes are executed changes over time, which indicates the flexible character of both concepts.

2.3 Managing technological change

IT adoption enables complementary business processes and work practices, reduces costs, and improve products and services in terms of convenience, timeliness, quality, and variety

(Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000) IT is adopted by firms as part of a system of mutually reinforcing organizational changes (Milgrom and Roberts, 1990). Adopting IT without organizational change, or vice versa, organizations can not only benefit much less from new technology but also create disruptions with existing organizational practices and social structures

(Brynjolfsson et al., 1997)

An organization’s social structure is accomplished through communication and interaction among members (Giddens, 1984; Goffman, 1983). Sharing information and processing new information are an important antecedent to organizational change as it has the potential to alter an individual’s perception and behavior in the end (Daft & Weick, 1984). From an information processing view (Galbraith, 1973; Tushman& Nadler, 1978) an organization is an information-processing entity, in which information plays a key role in defining an

organization’s social structure.

Leonardi (2007) states that new IT implementation provides new informational capabilities by allowing for new ways for creating modifying, transmitting and storing information. Thereby it disrupts an established social structure, constituted by informal advice networks. In that way it creates new patterns of social interaction. Besides that this is a change in itself, an altered social structures also allows for future changes as it forms a fruitful basis for innovation (Marsiglio, & Tolotti, 2018).

A complete IT intervention consists of complementary organizational changes, an implementable solution with minimal misfits with the existing organization and an organization primed to appropriate the potential benefits of the solution (Markus, 2004). Unless decisions about new IT and business processes changes are integrated, the likelihood of an incomplete or misaligned solution is great.

(13)

9 solutions; they lack the other supportive changes required for use of the IT solution to yield the desired results. This makes the solution not workable. Misaligned solutions conflict so seriously with the existing organization that they are likely to be rejected.

The technology acceptance model (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw 1989) describes that users do accept and use technology based on their perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Perceived usefulness is described as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance". Perceived ease-of-use is

defined as "the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free from effort". Together they make up the individual’s attitude toward using and subsequently the behavioral intention to use. The actual system use is a derivative of an individual’s or group’s intention to use.

2.3.1 Attitudes and system usage of Technological change

Within the technology acceptance model, the attitude towards the change is key as it is determining someone’s intention to use which forms the basis for actual use. Piderit (2002) states that the intention to behave is, together with the emotional and cognitive dimension, one of three dimensions that form the attitude. In other words, Piderit (2000) states that the intention to use is part of the attitude towards the change rather than a consequence as the TAM-model concludes. By "the intention" Piderit relates to a plan or resolution to take some action, rather than a plan to try to achieve some goal

Offenbeek, Boonstra & Seo (2012) complement that there is a key difference between actual use of a system and the attitude towards the change. They propose a two-factor behavior-oriented framework which is directed towards identifying and categorizing user reactions to IS implementation. The first factor describes the acceptance of the IT-solution on a continuum from high use to low use. The second continuum relates to the level of support/resistance. To conclude, the framework classifies four different groups: (1) supporting users; (2) resisting users; (3) resisting nonusers; and (4) supporting non-users.

(14)

10 When new IT gets introduced in workplace, people confront it and struggle to make sense of it. Over time, they need to assimilate the system: learning to use the system so that it is

eventually fused into everyday work practices and routines. People therefore create familiarity pockets (Yamauchi & Swanson, 2010). The familiarity pocket described the situation where people build initial familiarity with the system, a little bit through a trial and error process at first, and when they have figured out how certain things work, at some point some of these people will satisfice with that, they find that they know enough and they stop worrying or exploring other features.

However, when people get more into an explore-to-innovate mode (Bala and Venkatesh, 2016) additional benefits can be achieved. Therefore, people need to step outside their familiarity pockets and try to expand and adapt those familiarity pockets. When people go beyond their familiarity pockets, it allows them to learn, explore and maximize the benefits of the IT-solution.

Yamauchi & Swanson (2010) describe a 5-stage, idiosyncratic, learning process of how people deal with new IT solutions and how familiarity pockets are formed and developed. First, in initial interactions with a system, the user goes through trial-and-error rather quickly and establishes a minimal pocket of preliminary routines. As familiarity is gained, he or she seeks help from others to cope with inevitable troubles. Then extending the familiarity pockets by incorporating these experiences into more elaborate moves, understandings, and eventually, full routines. With increased routinization, through repeated performances, the pocket is reinforced.

2.4 Cloud computing

In the last few years the notion of cloud computing has come to light as a dynamic and optimistic answer to the dares linked to declining IT financial resources and widening IT necessities. Plummer et al. (2008) defined cloud computing “a style of computing where massively scalable IT-related capabilities are provided as a service using Internet technologies to multiple external customers”.

(15)

11 storing without knowing the setting and alignment of the system that distributes the facilities (Mujinga,2013).

Bakshi and Hemachandran (2011) identified some of the benefits of cloud computing such as reduced cost and consumption model, faster provisioning of systems and applications, the right size to address business changes, ease of integration, highly secure infrastructure, and compliant facilities and processes. Cloud computing describes the means of delivering all information like computing power applications, infrastructure to end user as a service.

Without understanding the underlying technology, it allows people to do things that they need from the cloud. It manages a large number of highly virtualized resources (Amma et al., 2014).

However, the implementation of such new information and communication technology requires severe changes in behaviors, work processes, tasks and communications. Due to its severe impact, many employees and managers experience difficulties in adopting IT

innovations (Attaran and Woods, 2018). However, not much work has been carried out in the area of barriers or hindrances to its implementation. Raut et al. (2018) found, through an extensive literature survey and opinions that there are three most significant implementation barriers related to the introduction of technological change, namely, (1) lack of

confidentiality, (2) lack of top management support and (3) lack of sharing and collaboration. First, a lack of confidentiality is found to be significant as cloud computing strongly relates to sharing personal data and documents. This implies that these documents and data can be accessed without individual authorization on the system which is not in favor of technology adoption (Ackerman, 2012). Second, top management support does not always provide a supportive environment by providing adequate resources to adopt a new technology like cloud computing (Lee and Kim, 2007). Third, lack of information sharing and collaboration is found to be the most critical factor causing the failure of technology adoption (Sultan, 2011).

Panahifar et al. (2014) identified the inter-relationships among the barriers to collaboration in high tech industries and found that lack of visible and efficient leadership was found to be a major implementation barrier.

2.5 Conceptual framework

(16)

12 implemented, middle-managers start to make sense of the change, its implications and its applications (personal sensemaking practices). Then the middle-manager translates the sensemaking process to his/her department trough sensegiving practices. Then the recipient makes sense of the proposed change based on the middle-managers sensegiving practices and the benefits (perceived usefulness) and characteristics (perceived ease of use) of the system. The recipient translates these sensemaking processes into an attitude towards the change which includes the cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions. Together these dimensions form the attitude which guides actual system usage. The middle-manager will then evaluate the system usage and makes sense of the recipient’s actions and attitudes towards the change. Following this sensemaking process, the manager refocuses his/her sensegiving approach to stimulate further use.

(17)

13

3. Methodology

3.1 Justification of the research approach

Academic literature on middle-managers sense making processes, related interactions and communications and managing resistance and readiness towards IT change is very fragmented and lacks deeper understanding about the elements that influence these relationships.

Therefore, theory development will help to explore this business phenomenon (Van Aken, et al., 2005). Qualitative research helps to identify and explain the factors that build these relationships. It is beneficial to explore rich data collection by in-depth interviewing both middle managers and recipients about their values, attitudes, emotions and behaviors towards the change process to enrich our knowledge about the phenomenon.

Theory development research aims at offering preliminary insights in which and how

different practices, interactions and communications alter the relationships between the sense-making process of middle managers and the response of recipients towards the change

process. Eisenhardt (1989) states that addressing such questions are most suited for qualitative research, since the research question requires an in-depth understanding of the underlying relationships and need rich explanations based on practice.

3.2 Case selection

The aim of the research is to provide a broad insight on the relations between the main concepts. For the case selection, a change initiative was required where middle managers had a role in the implementation of IT change in their department. Additionally, it was important for the case selection that the cases were selected based on different levels of system usage to look at the similarities and differences of middle-manager’s sensegiving practices among cases.

(18)

14 Three departments, which together form Group A, were selected that were believed to score high on system usage according to the change agent, indicating a successful implementation of the new system. The selected departments with high system usage are the projects

department, human resource and controlling. All cases were expected to work intensively with the new system by making use of both the basis and sophisticated features of the system. On the other hand, three departments, which form together Group C, were selected that tend to have more difficulties in adopting the system and score low on system usage. The selected cases were the customer service department, the technical department and the production department. One intermediate department, Group B, was chosen which scores averagely on system usage according to the change-agent. The selected case was the technical support department as this department was expected to use the basic functions of the system but lacked use of more sophisticated applications.

Furthermore, to answer the research question both insights of middle management and employees are required. From each department the manager and one employee (department representative) were interviewed for a total of 14 semi structured interviews. The interview protocol for both middle-managers and recipients is attached in Appendix 1. Both

perspectives were compared and analyzed to get a complete picture of the sensemaking and sensegiving processes and practices that guide IT-adaption.

During the interviews it became clear that the expectations of the change agent were largely confirmed. However, it turned out that the customer service department and the technical support department needed to be switched between the groups as system usage of the customer service department was at an intermediate level, where the technical support

(19)

15 Figure 2 Overview departments and interviewees

3.3 Data analysis

The analysis of the semi-structured interviews provides new insights on relationships between the sensemaking and sensegiving processes of middle-managers and the system evaluation, attitudes and system usage of recipients. By using systematic comparison, the relationships between the concepts are explored. The data was collected through recording the interviews and transcribing the interviews afterwards. A deductive codebook, which includes seven higher order concepts and thirteen categories, was used for coding the transcripts to secure that all main concepts were covered. Examples of deductive codes that were used are

perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use to describe recipient’s system evaluation and the cognitive, affective and behavioral dimension of attitudes. From the interviews also inductive codes appeared, which resulted in five categories and twelve codes. Examples of inductive codes are making the change recognizable, generation conflict and prioritization. Both codebooks are attached in Appendix 4. After coding the interviews an analysis was performed on all seven cases separately (within-case analysis) and afterwards cases were systematically compared during the cross-case analysis.

3.4 Reliability and validity

Researchers agree that validity and reliability are key concepts in qualitative studies (Konradsen, Kirkevold, & Olson, 2013). Validity and reliability increase transparency and decrease the opportunity that the research involves researcher bias in qualitative research (Singh, 2014). During the research the researcher must ensure reliability and validity of the study in order to maintain neutrality, and trustworthiness (Golafshani, 2003).

(20)

16 during analysis by ensuring that coding is done systematically. To ensure this, both deductive and inductive codebooks have been written to code and analyze the interviews in a systematic manner. Further the bias of participants is reduced by interviewing different participants of seven different departments.

Validity in qualitative research indicates consistency and trustworthiness regarding activities and events associated with the phenomenon as signified by the study results explored in the research (Golafshani, 2003). Validity in data collection means that your findings truly

(21)

17

4. Results

In this section, the results are discussed. First, the change project is described. Secondly, the within-case analysis of cases 1 to 7 is described. Finally, a cross-case analysis is described in which the 7 cases are compared to look for similarities, differences, and patterns.

4.1 The change project

For this study, I looked at the adoption process of a newly introduced software solution, namely Office 365. The introduction of Office 365 included (1) major changes to the Intranet of ESKA B.V., (2) new communication channels, (3) and altered existing collaboration methods by introducing a new way of sharing and storing documents and data. The change agent stated that there were significant differences between departments in the extent to which the new system is being used. In the category “high system usage” the departments

Controlling, Human Resource and Projects were chosen. The intermediate department with “average system usage” was Technical Support. In the category “low system usage” the departments Customer service, the Technical Department and Production were chosen. These specific departments were chosen based on differences in work activities, experiences of the change agent and total employees within these departments. These factors were considered to stimulate rich data collection and get a complete overview of the processes that guide

sensemaking and sensegiving processes.

During the interviews it became clear that system usage in the Technical support department was low and within the customer service department system usage was at an

average/intermediate level. Because both departments have changed categories this did neither hinder rich data collection nor the cross-case analysis.

4.1.1 Office 365

Office 365 is a line of subscription services offered by Microsoft as part of the Microsoft Office product line. Microsoft allows use of the Microsoft Office functionalities over the life of the subscription, as well as cloud-based software as a service products for business

(22)

18 4.1.2 ESKA B.V.

ESKA B.V. is a producer and supplier of top-quality graphic cardboard. ESKA B.V. is located at 2 locations and offers work for around 350 employees. According to the change agent, ESKA B.V. believes that cloud computing has the future and views it as a key step towards more efficient work processes, more cross departmental collaboration and

organizational learning. Therefore, it purchased Office 365 and does it stimulate the use of it in all of its departments. However, the change agent. notices that there are enormous

differences in adoption rate among middle-managers and employees. Some employees have fully adopted the software and wouldn’t give it up for the whole world. Others are more skeptical and some do not even want any part of it.

To stimulate and support the adoption process ESKA B.V. appointed a project leader (change agent) within the ICT department. This change agent is specialized in the use of Office 365 and spreads its applications throughout the firm. The change agent gives presentations and training to the different departments. These presentations and training sessions are voluntary which is in line with the vision of higher management about Office 365. Office 365 is presented as one of the tools that are available, but not mandatory, for employees to enhance their job performance by facilitating document access everywhere, new communication tools and possibilities to automatize work processes.

4.1.3 Timeline

This segment provides a more detailed timeline which describes how the change was introduced and implemented.

2016 – Purchase of Office 365

2017 – Seven key users were selected across different departments by the initial change agent. Key users were selected based on personal interest in new IT solutions. This was done with the intention that they could assist a third party with the development and implementation process.

June 2018 – Decision was made that hiring a third party was too expensive and therefore Office 365 needed to be developed internally. A change agent was hired after his traineeship with the specific task to further develop and implement Office 365.

(23)

19 newly developed Intranet. Initial problems were related to difficulties in finding documents, people being unknown about the features and applications of the system, the system being to complicated, low perceived ease of use and people’s low capability of working with

computers.

November 2018 – present – Office 365 was introduced with an emergent approach to all employees within ESKA B.V. From the spring of 2019, presentations about the features of Office 365 are given, on a voluntary basis, to all users to make people familiar with its applications. Middle managers are stimulated to take a leading role in its use and provide feedback. People are invited to ask for help, receive training and give feedback, however response rates are relatively low.

4.2 Within-case analysis

The within-case analysis consists of a description of the case, a description of the middle-manager’s sensemaking and sensegiving practices. This is followed by employees’

sensemaking. And finally, the attitudes and system usage of the recipients and, if insight is available, the department as a whole is described.

4.2.1 Case 1 – Projects department

Case 1 is the department “Projects”, which is responsible for preparing and carrying out technical related projects. These projects relate to buildings and technique. The department has 1 manager and 8 employees. According to the change agent and the interviewees, system usage is high in this department.

4.2.1.1 Middle Management Sensemaking

During the interview with MM1, it became clear that there is Role Duality but there were no problems associated to this. In his interview, it was emphasized that MM1 was not assigned a leading role during the introduction-phase: “I was not appointed as an ambassador to

promote the project”, and felt a change recipient at that time: “I just started using it the system because it was there, just like other colleagues.”. However, MM1 acknowledged that

he became a change-agent over time: “People see me, being their manager, as the first point

of contact in case of questions. When you get these questions, you need to do research for information and your role starts growing”.

(24)

20

me more decisive.” MM1 emphasized this enthusiasm about Office 365 by stating: “I would definitely not want to go back; I really see the advantages”. However, at first the perceived

ease of use was low because the system felt “Annoying” for MM1 because of troubles with saving and opening documents.

4.2.1.2 Middle Management Sensegiving during change

During the interview it was made clear that MM1 made the change recognizable by aligning Office 365 with the structures that were used before the implementation of the new system: “I

promote a structure within Office 365 that looks familiar to how we worked before because this makes the transition smaller”.

The interviews also showed that MM1 takes a facilitating, encouraging and supportive role. According to MM1 the facilitating role is the easiest to fulfil as he said: “The least

challenging role is to get information-sessions from ICT.” About his encouraging role MM1

stated: “I have in particular a role to create enthusiasm by stating advantages and

encouraging my employees to use it.” The supportive role helps to make people more familiar

with the system as MM1 said: “I give explanation to increase the trust in the system”. 4.2.1.3 Employee Sensemaking

During the interviews with E1 it was stated that the new system provides efficiency gains that result in high perceived usefulness: “The availability of data anywhere results in less walking

back and forth, printing and waiting for information”. Within the projects department, the

system is perceived to be used without much effort as E1 stated: “Office 365 is a very

intuitive system, very easily manageable.” However, at first the system felt “Annoying” for

E1 because of troubles with saving and opening documents.

E1 states that the perceived ease of use benefited over time from using a work-method that made it possible to follow the old-structure within the new system. This work method was introduced by MM1 and implied that the advantages of the new system can be used without large changes to the data-storing structure. E1 stated about this work method and the

recognizability of the system: “It helps to adopt the system because it makes the structure

more recognizable and trusted and thereby makes the change less significant.”.

E1 recognized the facilitating, encouraging and supportive roles that MM1 fulfilled and stated that that this approach stimulated sensemaking processes in general and the perceived

(25)

21

benefits of the system” E1 adds to this that MM1 is “very accessible” and “proactively seeks information within the department” about experiences with the system.

4.2.1.4 Recipient’s attitudes towards change

At the cognitive level E1 believed that Office 365 is important because “Old functionalities

and applications will no longer be supported in the future.” However, initially the new

system caused troubles at the affective level as E1 stated about his initial feelings: “If the

system keeps working like this then it will become difficult to adopt.” Over time the affective

state of E1 has improved as he stated: “I do not want to work without it” and he is “happy

that it is available.”

E1 relates the change being “too significant for others” to the behavioral dimension of attitude as a key reason why people do “not have the intention” to use the system. E1 adds that

making the change more recognizable helped to smoothen the transition and that this

positively influenced this affective and behavioral attitude as he said: “After we used the old

structure within the new system, I became much more positive and started using the system more intensively because it provided more guidance within the new system”.

MM1 underlined E1’s perceptions and added to this that use of the system offers great

advantages as it “increases efficiency, saves time and just delivers money in the end” but that to maximize the advantages that there “need to be steps made” across the company. At the affective level the initial problems with saving documents might have resulted in some people turning away from the system as MM1 clearly stated: “If you have invested a lot of time and

energy in your documents and you lose these because of system failure, I can imagine that you have had big troubles and you start complaining or even throw the system aside.” MM1

notices at the affective level that this not the case for everyone as he notices at other

departments that the change is often seen as “too significant” and “does not feel familiar.” 4.2.1.5 System usage

During the interview E1 clearly provided insight in how his current routines with the system were formed. At the initial stage trial and error took place as he was “just trying”. After a short period of time preliminary routines were formed and inevitable troubles arose. E1 said about this period: “The system and the work method with the system had to improve,

(26)

22 information sessions of the change agent, the work method that made the change more

recognizable played a key role: (E1:) “After we changed the structure, it allowed us to work

more intensively with the system.” This has resulted in more extensive use and more elaborate

moves over time as the department started using the “more sophisticated applications of

Office 365”. Due to repeated use, pocket reinforcement took place as the system is now used “without having to think”.

Further E1 reports about the unclarity that exists about the system: “there are too much

information and communication channels, what do we need to use. It only works if everyone uses the same channels otherwise people will miss crucial information.” MM1 underlined this

feeling and believes this stems from the role uncertainty of the ICT-department and that his might hinder system usage: “Which role has ICT in making systems mandatory. I know that

ICT struggles with this question as well. That the system can be used without obligation makes it possible to ignore the system”

4.2.2 Case 2 – Human Resource

Case 2 is the department “Human Resource”, which is responsible for all HR-activities including recruitment and selection, development, temporary workers, training and

sustainable employability. The department has 1 Manager and 3 employees. According to the change agent and the interviewees, system usage is high in this department.

During the interview with MM2, it became clear that Role Duality did not play a large role in this department. MM2 did “not see a big role” for herself to stimulate the use of Office 365 because “it was adopted automatically” within the department. She even admitted that she was “maybe the most skeptical in first instance and needed some persuasion” relating to her role as change recipient. E2 added that MM2 “needed to learn the system, so we helped her as

a department in its entirety”.

MM2 had difficulties with the transition stating about her first reaction: “Is this okay? We had

arranged it all so well, where can I find it now and how does it work?” MM2 stated that

introduction was “unclear” and labelled the communication and lack of introduction about the change as “bad”. According to MM2 there was “too little assistance and

communication” before “suddenly introducing the system”. Due to the fact HR is a small

department MM2 stated that “all decisions were made in joint consultation.” It was

(27)

23 build a structure that is useful within the department. After a year MM2 thinks the new system has proven itself to be “awesome” and “even bought it privately”. During both interview with MM2 it was stated that the perceived usefulness of Office 365 was high. Both perceived it as a great tool to have “always access to information” and “always work in the most current

files”.

During the interviews, MM2 and E2 both emphasized several times the high degree of

independence within the department. This formed the basis for a natural process of individual adoption in which people discovered the system on their own and “discussed it together”. Although MM2 did not see a large role for herself she played a key role in facilitating

information from the ICT department. At first, she “didn’t know what to do with the system” but a departmental information session provided by the change agent “helped enormously” to make its applications “insightful” and “make decisions to set the system up”. E2 added that the manager had a role in “bringing the department together” but underlined that the role of the middle-manager was small during the change.

4.2.2.3 Employee sensemaking

During the interview with E2 it became clear that the perceived impact of the change was low as he experienced the change as “not that large”. E2 added that the perceived ease is a result of own design choices: “The search function can be difficult but that has everything to do

with how you organize it yourself.” Inter-recipient sensemaking was key as the department

made these design choices together. E2 is was stated that the perceived usefulness of Office 365 was high across the department. It is perceived as a great tool to have “always access to

information” and “always work in the most current files”.

4.2.2.4 Attitudes towards change of recipients

At the cognitive level E2 believed that the system helps to “increase efficiency” and adds that this it is “a development which you really can't live without as a company”. E2 notices a generation conflict resulting in different emotions about the change: “A large part of the

population of the company have grown up without technology. For them this change might cause fear because technology can be felt as a danger for their own employment.” Although

E2 is older too, his behavioral intention was more positive towards the change because “you

(28)

24 Although MM2 initially felt “lost” due to the lack of introduction about the system, she underlined the perceptions of E1 and believes that Office 365 is important because “It is an

important step towards automizing processes”, and also recognizes the intergenerational

differences that exist when adopting new systems: “most elder employees have difficulties in

adopting the new IT systems as the have not grown up with these applications”.

4.2.2.5 System usage of recipients

Office 365 is now part of the everyday work activities within the HR department: (E1)

“Everything that we had at a local server, is now in Teams. We do everything within Office 365.” According to E2, the interaction with ICT was perceived to be high resulting in the fact

that, together with ICT, the HR department build applications for material delivery and “plans

to build more applications in the future”. Within the adoption process help seeking turned out

to be crucial within the HR department. The information sessions provided by the change agent helped to understand the system and allowed more deliberate moves. MM2 stated: “The

presentation was great; it helped a lot to better understand the system and use it at a different level”.

4.2.3 Case 3 – Controlling

Case 3 is the department “Controlling”, which is responsible for the preparation of financial reports for different departments and for the company as a whole. The department has 1 Manager and 3 employees. According to the change agent and the interviewees, system usage is high.

During the interview with MM3 it became clear that Role Duality was present but that no problems arose. At first, he needed to increase understanding “by investigating the

functionalities of the system” relating to his recipient role during the change. The benefits of

the system relate to improvements in “cooperation” and “sharing, storing and retrieving

information in an efficient way”. MM3 adds that the more elaborate application “contribute to the atomization of processes” which provides many advantages to increase the effectivity

and efficiency of its users. For MM3 the perceived usefulness changed over time. In first instance it was difficult to start using the system: “a lot of searching”. But increasing the recognizability by “making changes to how data was stored towards a more familiar

(29)

25 Once the benefits became clear, MM3 developed more of a change agent role: “When I

discover something, than I will show that in the department”. This change agent role has

grown further overtime because MM3 “saw more advantages” because his “understanding of

the capabilities of the system grew”.

During the change MM3 developed a supportive, encouraging and role-model role. These roles composed “assisting in case of problems”, “communicating the change”, “initiating

new applications and setting a good example” and “stimulating employees to come up with new ideas”. While stimulating enthusiastic employees to make additional steps, MM3 also

tries to minimize the burden on employees that perceive more difficulties to work with IT-applications: “I don't want to bother people who have less with ICT, then I consider whether

it is absolutely necessary”. E3, who can be classified as an enthusiastic user, recognizes the

encouraging and role-model role of his manager: “MM3 sets a good example and stimulates

us to come up with new ideas”. By implementing the change MM3 also focused on excluding

alternatives by making the use of the system “the only way forward”. E3 added to this that

“there is not really an alternative to the use of the system because all information is available only there” and recognizes that this helps to adopt the system as “it gives all employees a little push to discover the new system”.

The impact of the change was perceived high but not problematic. E3 said about the

implications of the change: “We had three cupboards with paper information, now everything

is digital. That requires a completely new way of thinking about data management, but I am an advocate of this new approach”. The perceived usefulness of Office 365 is perceived high

but E3 mentioned that the perceived of use was initially low by saying: “the system has an

illogical structure that you have to get through” but followed by stating that the system

provides “great advantages” and becomes “easy to work with” if you get through the first learning phase. Inter recipient sensemaking played a key role in this first phase: (E3) “we

(30)

26 4.2.3.4 Attitudes towards the change of recipients

From the cognitive dimension it became clear that both MM3 and E3 view Office 365 a key system to facilitate (E3:) “more efficient work processes” because (MM3:) “sending around

documents is no longer of this time”. During the interview with E3 it also became clear that at

the affective level and behavioral level, personal interest in ICT played a key role in forming his attitude towards IT change: “I feel excited and interested about all the possibilities that

new IT developments bring to society and how we can apply this to ESKA B.V.”

MM3 and E3 both perceive the group attitude within the department as very positive and engaging towards the change as (E1:) “everyone contributes to using and sharing information

through the system”

4,2,3,5 System usage of recipients

E3 labeled the controlling department as “pioneers” of Office 365. E3 linked this to the core function of controlling by saying: “we need information easily accessible to do our job as

controllers, we live by these data. Office 365 is a great tool to do so”. E3 referred to a trial

and error approach to learn the system as he “was just clicking through the system”. The lack of introduction and emergent approach of the change might have caused some people in other departments (E3:) “to give up”. E3 continued by stating that at the controlling department inter-recipient sensemaking helped to “initially get things going by solving problems and

learning the system together”. In order to be able to make a next step in the use of the

system, help from the ICT department was necessary to allow more elaborate moves. The extensive interaction between the ICT department and controlling made this support easily accessible: (MM3) “We cooperate often with the ICT-department about the atomization and

digitalization of processes and setting up a data warehouse”. About the first interactions with

the system MM3 also stated that it “was a lot of searching and discovering for most

employees” underlining the perceptions of E3 of a trial and error approach to learn the

system.

4.2.4 Case 4 – Customer Service

(31)

27 However, during the interviews, it became clear that actual system usage was at an

“average/intermediate” level.

During the interview with MM4 it became clear that Role Duality was present but that no problems arose from this. MM4 experienced the impact of the change as low. She illustrated this by saying: “initially I didn’t notice much difference, only that you just had to see where

the information was now”. MM4 is convinced of the usefulness of Office 365 as a tool to “increase cooperation within and between departments”, “archive more efficiently”, “share files more easily” and “communicate more effectively”. However, she stated that the lack of

introduction that she received caused “some confusion” about how and when to use the system and made it “difficult to immediately embrace” the change. To develop an

understanding about how the system could be used, informal communication played a key role for MM4: “you have your contacts with other departments that provide insight in how

they apply the system. And then you see if that is also applicable to our department”.

However, in her interview was emphasized that she took “after a short period of time” a change agent role by communicating the advantages of the change and encouraging use of the system. During the interview with E4 it became clear that MM4 took different active roles during the change process.

By facilitating support, assisting employees and encouraging further use MM4 aimed at increasing the use of the system and minimizing inevitable troubles. However, according to MM4, there were still some employees that experienced “significant difficulties”. She divided these people into two categories of those “who are willing to but are not capable yet” and those “who have the capacities but do not want to adopt”. To cope with these different categories, she took two different approaches. By assisting and facilitating support she tries to increase the capabilities of the first group: (MM4) “I sit next to these people and try to guide

them through the system”. For the other group she takes a more imperative role aimed at

excluding alternatives: “People that are not willing need some slight coercion. Then I make

clear what the expectations are and talk to them about that.” However, this tactic was only

used when absolutely needed as MM4 stated: “as long as it does not affect their performance

(32)

28 4.2.4.3 Employee sensemaking

In contrast to the manager, the impact of the change was experienced high by the employee:

“It was an enormous change. All buttons and information were at a different place making it extremely difficult to work”. E4 described the system as “hard to get used to”. Later the

perceived ease of use increased as routines were formed by (E4:) “repeatedly working with

it”. Relating to the perceived ease of use and high perceived usefulness he continued by

saying: “in the past you had to search the server in all kinds of files and folders to find the

right information. Now you can get to the right file with a few clicks.”

E4 highly recognized the change agent role of his manager by describing her role as a

“driving force” towards adoption and use of the system. E4 remembered that MM4

introduced the change as “a system with a lot of possibilities that would help us to share and

store data and document in a well-arranged manner”. E4 recognized that MM2 excluded

alternatives and stated that this stimulated use of the system and increased perceived usefulness: “The information I needed was only there, so I had to use the system. Which

caused some uncertainty but then I saw that it was really handy and useful”

4.2.4.4 Attitudes towards the change of recipients

E4 stated less explicit about his perception of technological innovation: “you can't escape it. I

think that it is positive if it makes work easier”. At the affective level E4 mentioned that the

introduction of Office 365 caused uncertainty and some frustration: “in first instance it was a

bit of a shock. It was very difficult to do my job and that was certainly not pleasant”. E4 also

recognized intergenerational differences as E4 clearly stated: “the older generation did not

grow up with IT-systems, this makes adopting new application extremely difficult. They do not naturally have that backpack of knowledge”. This also relates to the behavioral dimension as

E4 continued: “If new IT applications have proven to be complicated in the past, this can stop

people from discovering a new system”.

When the employees became more familiar with the system MM4 also noticed that there was a generation conflict within the department. Where the younger employees picked up the new system “almost by themselves”, it took the older employees “significant more effort”. MM4 referred to the cognitive dimension of attitude of adopting recipients when she said: “It is key

(33)

29 4.2.4.5 System usage of recipients

During the interview with E4 it became clear that there are large differences in adoption rates within the Customer Service department that were caused by the generation conflict and by work tenure: “those people who work here the longest have the most difficulty in changing

their way of working” However, the encouraging and compelling role of the manager has

resulted effect among all employees. By excluding alternatives, which implies that working with the system was made technically the only way to get access to data and information, serious improvements have been made as E4 stated: “everyone has developed routines in

working with the system since there was no alternative”. After the difficulties that many

experienced initially, information sessions provided by the change agent were arranged. This resulted in (MM4) “a greater understanding of the functionalities” department wide, which allowed new methods of applying the system.

4.2.5 Case 5 – Technical support

Case 5 is the department “Technical support”. Technical support is a newly formed

department (1 year) which is responsible to provide technical support to the customer and the internal organization. The department has 1 Manager and 5 employees. According to the change agent system usage in this department was at an “average/intermediate” level. However, during the interviews, it became clear that actual system usage was low. 4.2.5.1 Middle Management Sensemaking

Role duality is present for MM5 but no complexities associated were mentioned. Initially MM5 focused on his change recipient role: “At the start I needed to master the system

myself”. During this process MM5 notices large advantages in relation to the “availability of information and enhancing cooperation” within the department. MM5 further believes that

Office 365 “can bring huge improvements” by effectively sharing and storing all available data.

After learning the system the change agent role became more emphasized: “I see it as my job

to communicate the change and explain why and how are going to implement the change”.

This implies that MM5 feels a responsibility to carry his team through the change.

Furthermore, MM5 stated that he feels it his responsibility that all employees can adjust to the pace of the change: “All employees need to get along with the change step by step because

(34)

30 During the interview it became clear that despite the encouraging and supporting role of the manager, the adoption of the system was lagging behind. MM5 argued that he is a role-model by “communicating the change and setting a good example” but that “people are difficult to

convince as they have worked years in a certain way”. MM5 further mentioned that he

actively encourages employees to use the system and sometimes takes an imperative role to stimulate use of the system: “sometimes you have to take mandatory actions to stimulate the

use of the system”.

E5 describes both the perceived ease of use and usefulness of the change as low: “Every time

there is an update or new system you have to search for the right buttons, that’s only difficult. And the things that you get extra, I would not know what the benefits are”. It is noticed by E5

that the adoption of IT systems benefits from inter-recipient sensemaking as he experienced with previous systems: “When I started with Excel, I received a few tips from a more

advanced user, which helped me a lot. Maybe that would also be a possibility for this system”. Furthermore, he stated the learnability of the system was low as it is “hard to start with” and that learning the system has not happened because of his high workload: “Maybe if I had more time, I would have investigated the system on my own but for now I’m just too busy and don’t see the advantages”.

E5 only partially recognized the sensegiving efforts as described by MM5 by saying: “He

promotes it a bit and tries a bit to get us along”. Furthermore, it became clear that the efforts

of MM5 have not helped to increase adoption of the system. E5 states that he used “ways

around the system” because he is not convinced that using the system is necessary nor

beneficial.

4.2.5.4 Attitudes towards the change of recipients

E5 he feels passed as he says: “somehow we never get an official course when something new

is introduced. I would like to be better informed”. This causes some frustration as he adds: “then I am struggling and everything gets stuck and then I have to ask for help again”. These

frustrations and feelings strongly relate to the lack of behavioral intention to use the system as E5 concludes: “then I'm done with it and I work the old way again”. At the group level E5 notices similar developments: “another colleague, who is just before retirement, no longer