A case study on employee’s sensemaking process during the implementation of an organizational innovation

(1)

A case study on employee’s sensemaking process during

the implementation of an organizational innovation

Master Thesis

August 15, 2017

Nina Oldenkamp

s2783622

Supervisor: I. Maris- de Bresser

Co-assessor: M. L. Hage

Word count excl. abstract, table of content, references and appendices: 12. 941

MSc Change Management

Faculty of Business and Economics

(2)

1 ABSTRACT

In order to understand what happens between adoption of organizational innovation and the actual implementation this study examines how employee‘s sensemaking process takes place. Furthermore, there is limited insight into what actually triggers sensemaking. Therefore, this study examines employee‘s sensemaking process of organizational innovation in order to gain an understanding what actually triggers sensemaking and how employee‘s sensemaking process takes place. A single-case study approach was applied in order to observe and gain a better understanding of the phenomenon (organizational innovation and sensemaking). In total, 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted with employees who were affected by or involved with the organizational innovation. It was identified that the three phases (creation, interpretation and enactment) are related and build on each other towards a response about the organizational innovation. Key findings about the sensemaking process are 1. First impressions and an internal trigger inherent in a person that is intrinsically-motivated to continuously think about improvements/changes are additional triggers that triggered employees to become consciously aware of the new kanban board. 2. The sensemaking process mainly took place on a collective basis. 3. Employees experience the organizational innovation as a minor change and have to make small adjustments. 4. Employees expressed two kinds of responses (accepting or championing) towards the organizational innovation and an additional outcome identified in this research is attitude changes. Finally, this study identified that the organization is lacking an implementation strategy which could possibly influence the sensemaking process.

(3)

2

Innovation is a well-researched topic among academics and acknowledged as a key source of gaining competitive advantage (Drucker, 1985; Schumpeter, 1912). Nowadays, the need for innovation has not been greater because of the increasing dynamics of competition, market and environment (Drejer, 2002). The competitive situation is changing towards a hyper-competition and due to this are firms not able to gain sustainable competitive advantage, but instead have to continuously innovate (Drejer, 2002; Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). Previous studies mainly focused on the technological aspects of innovation. As Damanpour and Aravind (2011, p. 424) argue, ―most theories and models of innovation process and outcome are based on empirical studies of technological innovations‖. There are several other types of innovation that have not received the attention they should (Birkinshaw, Hamel & Mol, 2008). One of these types of innovation is organizational innovation. Organizational innovation is an undeveloped topic and in the systematic literature review of Crossan and Apaydin (2010) it was identified that only 3% of the reviewed papers dealt with administrative processes and management practices. Even though authors have recognized the importance of organizational innovation and a few recent studies have been conducted, there is still a call to explore this type of innovation (Damanpour & Aravind, 2011; Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). Further studies are necessary to develop a better understanding of organizational innovation.

A comprehensive definition of innovation is composed by Crossan and Apaydin (2010, p. 1155) ―Innovation is: production or adoption, assimilation, and exploitations of a value-added novelty in economic and social spheres; renewal and enlargement of products, services and markets; development of new methods of production; and establishment of a new management systems. It is both a process and an outcome‖. This definition shows that innovation is both internally conceived as well as externally adopted. This study focuses on organizational innovation since this part of innovation is underdeveloped. Organizational innovation is defined as ―new ways to organize business activities such as production or research and development and have to do with the coordination of human resources‖ (Edquist et al., 2001, p. 15). Damanpour and Aravind (2011) have conceptualized organizational innovation in two ways; generation (development) and adoption (use). The former (generation) is the innovative outcome such as a product, technology or service which is new to the organizational population. The latter (adoption) is the actual implementation of the new product, technology or practice which is new for the organization.

(5)

4 implementation and if organizations are not able to achieve the intended benefits the innovation will fail (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). Individuals such as employees are of significant influence in whether or not the implementation will succeed, but there are not many authors addressing the individual level of analysis. Different authors have highlighted the lack of focus on individuals and urge that individuals matter and should be the central actor in organizational innovation processes (Felin & Foss, 2005; Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). Therefore, this study focuses on the micro-level in organizational innovation. This study focuses on individuals who are described as: the employees in an organization who have to adopt the organizational innovation, and from now on referred to as ‗employees‘.

Balogun (2006) as well argues that there is a need to focus on how individuals are making sense of things and why. Hence, the second concept of this study is sensemaking. It is important to understand how employees respond to changes and their sensemaking process has to be examined, because intended and unintended change outcomes could be explained by the interpretations of employees (Balogun, 2006). According to Weick (1995; Weick et al., 2005) sensemaking can be defined as ‗the process of social construction that occurs when discrepant cues interrupt individuals‘ on-going activity, and involves the retrospective development of plausible meaning that rationalize what people are doing‘. This thesis is interested in how sensemaking takes place during the implementation of an organizational innovation. Assuming that due to organizational innovation employees‘ on-going activities are disrupted, it is expected that the employee‘s schemata shifts towards a more conscious state in which employees interpret and make sense of disruptions. By examining the sensemaking process it is analysed how an employee‘s daily activities are disrupted and interpreted during the implementation of an organizational innovation.

(6)

5 how employee‘s sensemaking takes place and what exactly triggers employees to change their current schemata during an organizational innovation.

The research question of this thesis is as following:

“How does employee sensemaking take place and what triggers employees sensemaking during the implementation of an organizational innovation?”

This study is of significant importance because if implementation fails, the organizational innovation also fails and an organization will not achieve the intended results. This is of great interest for managers since this study will enhance them with a better understanding of how employees respond to organizational innovation. This study will enable managers to learn and gain a deeper understanding of how implementations succeed or not and how (un)intended outcomes occur. This study contributes to the current change management literature by answering the call to focus on the micro-level processes of organizational innovation as well as examining what triggers sensemaking. Thus far there is limited research on these concepts and this study will further explore them.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Organizational innovation

Over the years the definition of organizational innovation has developed from initially the entrepreneurial perspective of Schumpeter who defined organization innovation as; ―The carrying out of the new organization of any industry, like the creation of a monopoly position … or the breaking up of a monopoly position‖ (Schumpeter, 1983, p. 66). Towards a corporate perspective of innovation which is described as ―new ways to organize business activities such as production or R&D (…) have to do with the coordination of human resources‖ (Edquist et al., 2001, p. 15). Thus, organizational innovation is not a reorganization of the entire industry or a technological revolution, but it is internally focused on organizational structure and procedures which facilitates organizational change and growth (Damanpour & Aravind, 2011). In general, organizational innovation could be defined as the generation or adoption of new ideas or behaviours within a firm (Damanpour & Aravind, 2011). The role of adoption process is important for this study, because the adoption process includes implementation (usage of innovation). This study focuses on the implementation of organizational innovation, meaning that this study focuses on innovation as a process.

(7)

6 innovativeness (OI) and process theory (PT). DI addresses the spread through of an innovation over time and/or space. OI addresses determinants of the organization's innovativeness. PT refers to the process of innovation within an organization. In PT a sequential pattern of events are the theoretical core constructs (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). These core processes include adoption, defined as the decision to adopt or reject the innovation and implementation defined as the actual implementation of the innovation. This study will adapt the PT perspective, as this study focuses on process dimension of organizational innovation and specifically the implementation process. It is argued that it is of higher importance to know what an organization does (implementation) and not what an organization has decided to do (adoption) (Wolfe, 1994). PT is a theoretical lens that investigates the nature of the innovation process and in this study applied to investigate the implementation stage of organization innovation. The following section will further explain the concept of organizational innovation implementation.

2.2 Implementation of organizational innovation

Implementation is defined as ―the process of gaining targeted organizational members‘ appropriate and committed use of an innovation‖ (Klein & Sorra, 1996, p. 1055). This phase is where the members actually should ‗use‘ the organizational innovation. The importance to focus on the implementation phase is based on Wolfe (1994) critique on innovation research. Wolfe (1994) argues that the innovation research is ambiguous and inconsistent with regard to the innovation stage. Implying that other authors have not specified the innovation stage well enough and it is of importance to carefully define the stage upon which researchers focus. Furthermore, Wolfe (1994, p. 417) argues that ―it is more important to know what an organization does (implementation) than what is has decided to do (adoption)‖. Klein and Knight (2005) complement this argument by saying that not innovation failure cause organizations to fail to capture the expected benefits, but implementation failure is the key reason. Klein and Sorra (1996, p. 1057) described innovation implementation as ―the transition period during which [individuals] ideally become increasingly skilful, consistent, and committed in their use of an innovation. Implementation is the critical gateway between decision to adopt the innovation and the routine use of the innovation‖. This definition of innovation implementation will be used in this research, because it highlights the importance of implementation as well as the importance of individuals.

(8)

7 organizations are able to achieve the intended benefits of the adopted innovations (Klein & Sorra, 1996). This is specifically interesting for this study, because if not the intended benefits are achieved, unintended outcomes are the result. Unintended outcomes is seen as a failure of the implementation and in order for managers to understand this, they have to learn and gain a deeper understanding how individuals make sense of the organizational innovation. Both concepts; individuals and sensemaking are further explained in detail in later paragraphs, but first a deeper understanding of organization innovation implementation is necessary.

2.3 Responses to organizational innovation implementation

The implementation stage of organizational innovation is where employees actually have to ‗use‘ the innovation. A few authors have studied this stage and what is mainly interesting for this study is what employee‘s responses are towards the innovation. By examining employee‘s responses to the implementation the focus is on individuals, which is important to this study. Furthermore, this study is interested in the actual implementation of organizational innovation referring to usage of the organizational innovation. Therefore, the focus of the implementation stage is on how the individual‘s respond to innovations. Klein and Sorra (1996) developed a model that shows several implementation outcomes (resistance, avoidance, compliance and commitment) and identified determinants of the effectiveness of organizational implementation. This is important to review, because this thesis is interested in the usage of organizational innovation when it is implemented. Klein and Sorra (1996) realized that, to achieve intended benefits of the innovation, innovation itself does not ensure the innovation implementation (appropriate usage). Klein and Sorra (1996) developed a model based on Schneider‘s conceptualization of climate. An organization‘s climate for the implementation of a given innovation is described as ―targeted employees‘ shared summary perceptions of the extent to which their use of a specific innovation is rewarded, supported and expected within their organization‖ (Klein & Sorra, 1996, p. 1060). A strong implementation climate is realized when the organization enables a climate that supports and guides employees through for example training.

(9)

8 Other studies such as Frambach and Schillewaert (2002) did conduct a study with an individual perspective towards innovation adoption. They argue that ―attitudes can change and be influenced‖ (Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002, p. 171) and identified three factors that influence an individual‘s attitude towards acceptance of innovation. One of the limitations of this study is that it only focuses on factors that enhance adoption, but none of these factors explain the reason for not adopting innovation. Despite that, their study takes an individual perspective and argues there is limited research with respect to innovation acceptance which is a prerequisite of a successful implementation. Therefore, Frambach and Schillewaert (2002) suggest that further research is necessary to analyse the role of personal characteristics and organizational and social processes. Additionally, what is missing is that it is assumed that individuals either accept the innovation or not. However, what is the process that leads to the outcome? And the question arose, is resistance really so negative?

Ford, Ford and D‘Amelio (2008) argue that resistance could be a resource for change. As Knowles and Linn (2004) confirm, reactions could have even strengthen the implementation of a change. Reactions not only being dysfunctional obstacles, but can be an asset and resource. An advantage of resistance is that it helps keep the conversation alive or that resistance can strengthen a participant‘s commitment to the implementation (Ford et al., 2008). There are several studies to identify the type of responses towards changes. One of them is Sonenshein (2010) who identified three responses. Namely; resisting, championing and accepting. Interesting in this study is that it identified two types of resistance; significant-negative implying that employees have concerns with regard to loss of identity and insignificant-negative emphasizing that the change did not meet employee‘s expectations and is not ambitious enough. Despite that Sonenshein did not focus on innovation adoption, but it does has an individualist perspective and focuses on how individuals response to changes. The individual level is of importance to study and is more in depth explained in the following paragraphs.

2.4 Individuals/micro-level

(10)

9 Crossan and Apaydin (2010) identified a few studies that conducted research at the micro-level. One of them is Orlikowski and Gash (1994), they examined how technological development, use and change in organizations influence the way people act around technology. In order to examine the interpretations that people develop around technology they proposed a conceptual framework and three domains were identified. Nature, Strategy and Use of technology are the interpretations participants made about the technology. The limitation of this study is the focus on technological innovation. There are many other studies that studied the technological type of innovation, but this is one of the few studies taking a micro-level perspective. Orlikowski and Gash (1994) argue that the identified domains can serve as a basis for future research in this area (technology). However, the organizational innovation type is underdeveloped and further research is required in this area. Therefore, instead of focusing on the technological level, this study focuses on the micro-individual level in organizational innovation.

Previous studies such as Klein and Sorra‘s (1996), studied how users respond to innovation implementation, but took an organizational perspective. Frambach and Schillewaert (2002) also suggest that future research is required to analyse to role of personal characteristics. Thus far, there is limited research with respect to the individual perspective and further studies are required in this area (Framback & Schillewaert, 2002; Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). The micro-level in this study will specifically focus on recipients, the members of the organization who have to use the organizational innovation. These recipients are hereafter called; ‗employees‘. In order to be able to combine this micro-level with organizational innovation the concept of sensemaking will be used. The following section will further explain sensemaking.

2.5 Sensemaking

(11)

10 surprising or confusing‖. These cues violate expectations and trigger the sensemaking process. Maitlis and Christianson (2014) argue that sensemaking is a process in which cues that violate expectations trigger the sensemaking process and regard it as a social process instead of individual. Maitlis and Christianson (2014, p. 67) redefined sensemaking and present an integrated definition of sensemaking ―a process, prompted by violated expectations, that involves attending to and bracketing cues in the environment, creating inter-subjective meaning through cycles of interpretation and action, and thereby enacting a more ordered environment from which further cues can be drawn‖.

From these definitions and explanations with regard to sensemaking this study sees sensemaking as a process in which employees try to understand organizational innovation. The initial definitions define sensemaking as a reference frame for individuals which they will use when to decide how to act in certain situations. This reference frame of individuals also could be seen as an individual‘s schemata. During the sensemaking process an individual‘s schemata shifts, because an individual‘s existing schemata cannot understand the related activities and events. Due to this disruption an individual‘s sensemaking process is triggered and an individual tries to make sense of the discrepancy (Balogun, 2006). Previous research of Louis and Sutton (1991) explained this shift in individual schemata as the cycle in cognitive processing.

Louis and Sutton (1991, p. 58) explained that there are two cognitive modes (automatic and conscious mode) and they argue that ―sensemaking is equivalent to functioning in a conscious mode‖. The concept of schemas was adopted to describe cognitive structures and in this study the definition of individuals‘ schemata is adopted. Balogun (2006, p. 31) defines individuals‘ schemata as ―the mental maps or memory models that individuals have about their organization‖. During stable situations without disruptions the existing schemata is not triggered and routine of interactions occur (Balogun & Johnson, 2014). However, during instability an individual‘s schemata is triggered and they move to a more conscious mode of sensemaking in which individuals try to make sense of the discrepancies (Balogun, 2006). This process is interesting for this study, because when individual‘s schemata is triggered intended and unintended change outcomes occur (Balogun, 2006). Meaning that individual‘s sensemaking process determines how they will respond to discrepancies.

(12)

11 developed. Enactment is the final process in which the actors act on the more complete sense of the interrupted situation. Even though enactment is the final process it does not mean that at this stage the process ends. During this stage actors engagement may lead to iteration of the process. It is an on-going process until the interrupted situation is restored and sense and action are in balance again (Weick, 2005).

Despite Weick‘s explanation of the sensemaking process several studies have argued that the actual process of sensemaking remains vague (O‘Connel, 1998; Sang & Brower, 2008). Hong-Sang and Brower (2008), argue that it is not clear what the actual sensemaking process is. Sandberg and Tsoukas (2015) identified that the majority of sensemaking studies focus on the interpretation process. Therefore, they suggest that there is a need for sensemaking studies that focus on the creation and enactment process or even better, studies that take into account all three processes. Hence, this study focuses on all three process of the sensemaking process on the individual level. However, this study is also open to examine the collective sensemaking process. As recent studies on sensemaking argue that sensemaking is a collective process carried out by multiple actors in organizations and sensemaking is a mutually constructed social process (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). Gephart, Topal and Zhang (2010, p. 284) complement this collective process of sensemaking and argue that ―sensemaking is an on-going process that creates an intersubjective sense of shared meaning through conversation and non-verbal behaviour in face to face settings where people seek to produce, negotiate, and sustain a shared sense of meaning‖. Thus, recent studies show that sensemaking is not only an individual process but also a collective process. Therefore, this study will not only focus on individuals, but also the collective process sensemaking. As Hong-Sang and Brower (2008, p. 225) argue, ―individuals are not isolated entities. They are living subjects in interactions with others‖. Another understudied aspect of sensemaking is concerned with what triggers sensemaking in the first place. Therefore, in addition to the sensemaking process this study is also interested in what actually triggers sensemaking. This will be further explained in the next sub-section and from this the conceptual framework is build.

2.6 Sensemaking triggers

(13)

12 A literature review of Sandberg and Tsoukas (2015) identified five events that categorize sensemaking triggers. These five events are major planned events, major unplanned events, minor planned events, minor unplanned events and hybrids of events. Studies that studied events that set off sensemaking are grouped in these five categories. Sandberg and Tsoukas (2015, p. 12) limited their study by ―distinguishing five broad event categories within existing literature‖, and do not specifically identify what actually triggers sensemaking. Louis and Sutton (1991) look at different types of triggers than Sandberg and Tsoukas (2015) and provide trigger situations which actually trigger sensemaking and does not characterize triggers like Sandberg and Tsoukas (2015). Therefore, this study will examine what actually triggers sensemaking based on Louis and Sutton (1991).

Louis and Sutton (1991) argue that there are three kind of situations in which individuals become consciously engaged. 1) Unusual or novel situation, a unique or unknown situation that is not experienced before. 2) Discrepancy, a situation when there are unexpected failures, frustrations or a disruption. 3) Deliberate initiative, when people are explicitly asked to think or try something new. However, it is not just the situation but also the predisposition and experiences of the individual that contributes to engagement of sensemaking. Therefore, further study is needed to examine the role of experience and the effects on the ability to switch cognitive gears (Louis & Sutton, 1991). Studies argue that Louis and Sutton (1991) provide the most explicit discussion of triggers in sensemaking process (Griffith, 1999). The three identified triggers are situations in which employees change from the unconscious use of scheme (habits of mind) to conscious attention and development of scheme (active thinking). Louis and Sutton (1991) acknowledge that noticing is of high importance for sensemaking. As Starbuck and Milliken (1988, p. 36) argue ―noticing determines whether even consider responding to environmental events. If events are noticed, people make sense of them; and if events are not noticed, they are not available for sensemaking‖. Hence, noticing is the first step towards sensemaking. This is in line with Weick‘s (1995) process of sensemaking, as creation includes noticing. Therefore, this study will adopt Louis and Sutton (1991) sensemaking triggers and will examine what actually triggers employees to deploy their sensemaking process during the implementation of an organizational innovation.

(14)

13 sensemaking process. This study will look more closely at what actually triggers sensemaking according to Louis and Sutton (1991) identified situations in which actors are more likely to become consciously engaged. The second phase, interpretation is the process where employees make sense of the interrupted situations and give new meaning to the situations. As already explained some authors think of this as an individual process while others argue that it is a collective process. Therefore, this study will be open to examine both the individual and collective process of sensemaking. The third phase, enactment is the process where employees act upon their newly developed sense of the interrupted situation. During this process this study will examine how employees respond to the interrupted situation. In order to identify how employees respond Sonenshein (2010) theory is adopted in which Sonenshein identified three types of responses toward change, namely resisting, championing and accept.

Figure 1. Conceptual Model

3. METHODOLOGY

(15)

14

3.1 Research strategy: a qualitative case study

This thesis conducted its research at an innovative technology company who recently implemented an organizational innovation, which is described below. In order to gain a better understanding how employees make sense of organizational innovation a single-case study strategy is applied. This approach is chosen as a case study aims to describe the phenomenon in depth (Merriam, 2002). A qualitative research is applied as this thesis is interested in understanding a phenomenon and describes in depth how employee‘s sensemaking takes place. Patton (1985, p. 1) explains qualitative research ―is an effort to understand situations in their uniqueness as part of a particular context and the interactions there. … The analysis strives for depth of understanding‖. Advantages of qualitative research are that the researcher is able to expand his or her understanding through for example (non) verbal communication and explore unusual or unanticipated responses (Merriam, 2002). The end result of a qualitative research is descriptive in which the researcher is able to transfer what was learned during the search for meaning and understanding of to the phenomenon. There are several approaches, but in this study a case study is applied. A case study is described as ―an intensive description and analysis of a phenomenon or a social unit‖ (Merriam, 2002, p. 8). A case study concentrates on a single phenomenon and is able to describe the phenomenon in depth. Yin (2014) argues that a case study unique strength is the ability to deal with multiple evidences, such as documents and interviews. Both data collection methods will be applied and more in depth explained in the next section.

3.2 Case description

The research setting of this study is an innovative technology company located in the Netherlands. At the business unit this thesis conducted its research there are about 2000 employees and they are specialized in developing and producing innovative technological products such as shavers. For the planning of production for shavers they use a kanban board (KB). The KB is a scheduling system and functions as a communication tool that enables the moulding department to communicate status, progress and issues. The organizational innovation that was implemented is with regard to the KB and will be further explained in the following paragraph.

(16)

15 moulding department is now able to better deal with the increase in diversified products and there is peace at the workplace, because everyone knows what to do and when to do it, and are able to plan maintenance ahead. The change itself was not a change in the system, because the kanban methodology is still the same. However, by changing the visibility of the KB, there is a more formalized structure in making decisions and planning production. See Appendix D for an example of the KB. For the innovative technology company this is an organizational innovation, because it is new to the organization and started from a creative idea during the kaizen event. From hereinafter the organizational innovation will be called NKB.

3.3 Data Collection

Within qualitative research studies there are three major sources of data. As primary data collection semi-structured interviews are held. In addition, secondary data is obtained through collecting and analysing documents of the innovation. Case studies typically consist of combining several data collection methods (Eisenhardt, 1989). Eisenhardt (1989) argues that the best method for selecting a case is theoretical sampling. Based on this the case should involve an organization that recently adopted the organizational innovation and is implementing this. The innovative technology company started developing the NKB at the beginning of this year and implemented the NKB right after the kaizen event.

Interviews

Interviews in this study are semi-structured interviews with mainly open-ended questions. Open-ended questions encourage respondents to provide facts, but as well share their opinions on the matter (Yin, 2009). Semi-structured interview contains of a mix of structured questions, but still provides room for additional questions (Merriam, 2002). In order to ensure that all interviews obtain the same information an interview guide is made, which can be seen in Appendix B. Advantages of using an interview guide is that during the interview the interviewer is able to explore, probe and ask additional questions if necessary, but still all interviews are systematically conducted (Patton, 1987). The aim of conducting interviews was to gain insight into what triggered employee‘s sensemaking, how they interpreted the NKB and what their responses were.

(17)

16 selected with different roles and functions within the organization. The stakeholders during the kaizen event, facilitator, production manager, team leads and logistic engineers were interviewed. In addition to this group there are several other employees, such as operators, assistant production manager and maintenance employees. A few of these were also interviewed, because they were not part of the kaizen event, but affected by the organizational innovation. Appendix A provides an overview of all interviewees. The supervisor informed all interviewees and scheduled them. The interviews were all face-to-face, confidential, at the same office and lasted between 15 and 60 minutes. The interviews were audiotaped and the use of recording the interviews enabled the interviewer to be more attentive to the interviewee (Patton, 1987).

The interview guide (Appendix B) was structured according to the conceptual model (Figure 1). First general questions were asked to gain information about the NKB. Additionally, questions were asked what actual triggered them to consciously engage with the NKB to determine the creation stage. For example; ‗how did you became aware of the change project?‘ was asked. Furthermore, questions were asked with regard to the interpretation stage about how the interviewees processed the organizational innovation and if this was done collectively. For example; ‗how did you experience this change project and how did you deal with this?‘ Lastly, questions were asked how the interviewees responded to the organizational innovation which is part of the enactment stage. For example; ‗how did you respond during a novel situation?‘

Documents of NKB

The documents with regard to the NKB were provided by the organization and provide insights in the development and implementation of the NKB. The aim of gaining insight in these documents was to gather information about the process of how the NKB was implemented during and after the kaizen event. With regard to sensemaking the documents show how a group who were part of the kaizen event together as a group worked toward the development and implementation of the NKB.

(18)

17 and did not receive any information or updates about the developments during the kaizen event.

3.4 Method Data Analysing

The data collection and data analysis took place at the same time. After each interview round the interviews were transcribed and read carefully. From the gained insights in the analysis process the next data collection round was adjusted accordingly. In this case the interview guide was adjusted after each interview round. Corbin and Strauss (1990) also argue that data collection and data analysis should be iteratively. For the coding process the method of Mortelmans (2009) was applied. This method consists of several steps. The first step is open coding based on inductive and deductive codes. Inductive codes were developed based on insights from the interviews and deductive codes were developed from existing literature (Thomas, 2006). The second step is axial coding. Axial coding is described as connecting codes in order to create categories (Mortelmans, 2009). Finally selective coding is applied to link the axial codes in order to integrate the codes and refine the theory. The last step combines all gathered information, including the documents and in the end the research questions was answered. The coding process is in more detail explained in the following paragraph.

(19)

18

3.5 Quality criteria

In order to provide inter-subjective agreement this study should meet three quality criteria; controllability, reliability and validity (Aken, Berends & van der Bij, 2012). Controllability is the degree of how other researchers are able to replicate the research (Aken et al., 2012). This will be met by describing in detail how the data was collected and analysed. In order to make the interviews controllable, interview formats were used. Furthermore, the development of the codebook followed a stepwise process and provided insight in how the collected data was coded and categorized.

Reliability is also important for this study and should be independent of three biases. These biases are research biases, instrument biases and respondents biases (Aken et al., 2012). Research biases will be controlled through recording the interviews and conducting the interviews by the same interviewer. The recordings provides the opportunity to re-hear the interview, this ensures that elements will not be overlooked. Furthermore, the interviewer does not have to take notes and is able to transcribe the interview at a later moment. This enables the interviewer to be an observer. Having the interviewee conducted by the same interviewer prevents biases, because interpretations are made by the same interviewer. Instrument biases are controlled by using multiple research instruments. Which in this study are semi-structured interview and documents. Using multiple research instruments instrument biased is controlled because both instruments complements and corrects each other (Aken et al., 2012). Respondent‘s biases should be controlled in order to ensure that the research results are independent of the respondents included in the study (Aken et al., 2012). This is controlled by using semi-structured interviews and an interview guide. Reliability of respondents was protected by including both management level and operators and see if they agree or not. Furthermore, internal document analysis was included to confirm if the process described on paper was the same as the actual process perceived by the employees.

Validity is important to show that the research results are generated in a justified way (Aken et al., 2012). By using multiple measures construct validity is ensured. External validity is ensured by using different departments for the interviews. Internal validity is ensured when possibility of alternative explanations is ruled out as much as possible which is done during the data analysis.

4. RESULTS

(20)

19 sensemaking, how employees responded to and enacted the change is discussed.

The organizational innovation in this case is the implementation of the NKB. Documents provided by the supervisor of the organization contain information about the kaizen event that was held to come up with a solution and improvement of the KB. As explained by the documents, a kaizen event is a one week event, where the employees have the time and resources to, together, develop an improvement/change. In this case the kaizen event was held by the moulding department who encountered several problems with the KB. Prior to the kaizen event there is a checklist to prepare for the kaizen event. This checklist contains information about what the team lead and facilitator has to do before being able to start with the kaizen event. These are activities such as; determine the scope of the kaizen event, appoint team members, determine reason, goal and deliverables of the kaizen event. When everything was organized the kaizen team which consists of a lead, co-lead, facilitator and other stakeholders such as logistic engineer were able to start their kaizen event. The one week kaizen event is a pre-organized event and supervisor also provided documents with regard to the planning of this kaizen event. The planning of the kaizen event show certain activities for each day such as brainstorm sessions, set rules and deliverables and management team update to inform them about the progress so far.

During the interviews with the participants it became clear how the kaizen event was experienced and how they dealt with it. As previously indicated there was missing information about the actual implementation of the NKB. Since the documents only provide information about the process where they develop and decide to implement the NKB. However, the main finding in this document is missing information about how the NKB is actually implemented. Therefore, during the interviews there were questions asked to gain a deeper understanding of the actual implementation and the implementation approach used in this case. The results of this will be more elaborated on in the following section.

4.1 Implementation approach

The kaizen event was used as implementation approach where a group develops an improvement/change and implements this via the kaizen event. During the interviews it was confirmed that the implementation was via the kaizen event. Interviewee 2.5 confirmed this and said: ―Via the

kaizen event .. we only did one work area.” Interviewee 1.2 elaborated on this and explained their

implementation approach: ―It‟s a pilot … So the old and new world still exists. We implemented it by

involving the leaders of the operators. And by taking them into the process of creating the new system.‖ The actual implementation where the team of the kaizen event actually implemented the NKB

(21)

20 organization. Interviewee 4.2 who is a manager said: “Implementation is not more than just hanging

up the board and work in the new way of working”. However, interviewee 3.3 who is an operator

reported that “On average you see with projects that „there is a fence! Let‟s throw it over there

(referring to change).” Interviewee 2.3, also an operator, confirms this feeling and said: “We were supposed to get some explanations about the new system. But we didn‟t get that, or too late. That part, I missed it. Because we actually had to figure it out ourselves.”

From the interviews it became clear that the NKB is implemented in one work area and functions as a pilot. Furthermore, by involving the team leads in the developments process of the NKB support was created. However, there is no further information about an actual implementation strategy for when the NKB was implemented and how appropriate usage was gained. The interviews confirm that there is missing information about the actual implementation strategy. Additionally, higher and lower level employees perceived the change approach differently. Higher level employees assumed that by hanging up the NKB the implementation was completed while, lower level employees felt that they missed information and had to figure out themselves how the NKB worked. From these results it could be argued that there is a lack of implementation strategy.

4.2 Creation stage: sensemaking triggers

As explained in the literature review, there are three kinds of situations in which individuals are triggered to become consciously engaged, namely; novel situation, discrepancy and deliberate request. During the interviews there were questions asked what triggered employees to become consciously engaged with the NKB. In addition to all three triggers a few additional triggers came forward in the analysis. These will be further elaborated on in the following sections.

Novel situation

A novel situation was experienced after the kaizen event when the NKB was implemented. Interviewee 1.2 described the first day as: “When the new group started, they were woken up and

confronted with the new situation/change.” When the employees, who were not part of the kaizen

event, for the first time were confronted with the NKB they had a first impression. This first impression triggered them consciously think about the NKB. This is a newly identified trigger and could be seen as a sub-trigger of a novel situation. The comments below illustrate what employee‘s first impressions were. Interviewee 1.1 said: “It‟s not that different from the old way, only the

(22)

21 categorized in; minor change, chaotic/messy, positive/clear and confusing. The first impressions of employees show how employees for the first time become aware of the NKB and engage in their sensemaking process. For example employees whose first impression was a minor change compared the NKB with OKB and said that the NKB was not that different from the old situation, but better even though the content remained the same. Another employee whose first impression was confusing/messy started their sensemaking process by discussing it with their colleagues and/or asking questions to their team lead. As interviewee 1.1 said in response to experiencing a novel situation: ―Consult with

others as soon as possible”. Discrepancy

A discrepancy situation was experienced at the logistics department. Interviewee 4.2 explained: “When, logistic engineer, explained to us the (kaizen) event and what they came up with …

there was a friction … they felt; you cannot just change the KB when you only have been here for a month. There was some friction within the logistic department, where it was unclear.” Another

interviewee elaborated on this and explained why there was a friction: “There are stakeholders, one of

them was in my team (logistic engineer). But apparently the group behind (logistic department) have a strong opinion, but weren‟t involved.” (interviewee 2.5) This example illustrates that, because one

group felt excluded they experienced a discrepancy which caused a conflict within the logistic department. Due to this conflict the logistic department started to discuss the NKB as a group and this initiated their sensemaking process. The logistic department realized that the NKB affects all and are going to walk on it as a team and communicate things the way they should be. This case illustrates that sensemaking happens during these group discussions.

Deliberate request

A deliberate request where a person responds to a request where he/she is explicitly asked to do so is experienced by several interviewees. Interviewee 1.3 commented: “Yes, by my team lead. To

keep thinking about improvements.” Another said: “They are open to our ideas. My team lead and production manager, they stimulate improvements (interviewee 2.3).” These comments illustrate how

(23)

22

Additional trigger

Besides the triggers suggested by literature there is an additional trigger identified during the analysis of the interviews. Unlike the external identified triggers there are employees who do not have to be triggered externally by a novel situation, deliberate request or discrepancy, but there are some interviewees who expressed that it‘s something that comes from their inner self. For example interviewee 2.4 said: “I think daily about it. I have lots of ideas.” Another explained that: “I‟m being

paid to think about these things, but I also like to do it. Seeking problems and find solutions. (Interviewee 2.5)” Interviewee 3.2 also expressed that he/she likes to think about improvements “I think about it every day, it‟s a fact … I think about how it can be improved.” This trigger could be

characterized as an internal trigger that is inherent in a person him/herself; intrinsic motivation. It is a personal characteristic that people like to think about improvements and changes and do it on a daily basis. This intrinsic motivation does not explicitly trigger a person to engage in their sensemaking process, however, sensemaking is a continuous process where in this case a person continuously thinks about improvements and changes. Therefore, in this case is a person not externally triggered by a situation, but engages a person continuously in their sensemaking process.

Another interesting finding is that some employees are not aware of the content of the NKB, but still switch to a conscious mode and engage in their sensemaking process. An interviewee explained that due to the lack of organizational communication about the NKB some employees are not aware of the NKB. As interviewee 2.2 said: “I heard that there would be a kaizen event …. what

the new system is I don‟t know, because I don‟t know the content.” Because of the lack of involvement

and communication this interviewee experienced a discrepancy and felt left out. This triggered him to switch to a conscious mode and actively think about the NKB. Another interviewee, who is aware of the change, but does not switch to a conscious mode. Interviewee 2.1 explained that: “I only attended

the daily updates and provided my input for maintenance but besides from that I did not really think about it (referring to NKB).” This implies that although the person is aware of the change he is not

triggered to consciously think about the NKB and engage in his sensemaking process. This could be explained that he did not experience any of the three triggers (novel situation, discrepancy, deliberate request). Furthermore, the interviewee explained that: “In my opinion we in principle already have

this system and that actually nothing is different than before.” From this could be argued that in this

case an employee‘s conscious mode was not triggered, because the NKB was not significant for him and did not influence his way of working.

4.3 Interpretation stage: how sensemaking takes place

(24)

23 identified that the sensemaking process mainly takes place on a collective basis. Sensemaking is carried out by multiple actors once the NKB was implemented. When the NKB was implemented the interviewees expressed that they collectively processed the NKB. Interviewees perceived the NKB as a novel situation and this triggered their collective sensemaking process as employees started discussing the NKB with colleagues and team leads. Interviewee 2.3 said: “We helped each other,

because we all have to do it … We had to figure out ourselves how it worked. We did this together and shared the gained information.” Interviewee 2.5 comment could explain why they collectively make

sense of the new kanban system: “We are very open with each other, colleagues support me … we are

all behind this.”

How employees interpret the NKB is the phase were employees give meaning to the new situation. The interpretations that are generated by the triggers will be further explained.

Novel situation

The NKB is perceived as a new situation that in overall could be identified as a minor change. Interviewee 1.1 said: “Only one work area changed and that is relatively small. So the impact is

relatively small.” Interviewee 2.3 had to same opinion and commented: “There isn‟t changed a lot. It‟s a bit of the same of the last system. Only now it‟s clearer what we have to produce, when to switch and also when to plan new orders.” The NKB as a minor change triggered employees and led people

to learn work with it. For example interviewee 1.3 said: “I already work very ordered (neat). So for

me, I didn‟t have to get used to the new system … The kanban board is changed, but well. If you work with it a few days you will know how it works.” Interviewees also explained that by asking questions

and consult with others they interpreted the new situation. Interviewee 3.1 said: “Asking a lot of

questions … asking again and letting explaining what do you mean exactly?” Another commented on

this issue and said: ““Purely, get things clear. And consult with others.” (interviewee 1.1).” A novel situation triggered employees to become consciously aware of the NKB and this led employees to asking questions and consult with others in order to interpret the NKB.

Discrepancy

During a discrepancy employees were triggered to consciously think about the NKB and dealt with the discrepancy by asking questions or discussing it with their team. Interviewee 2.2 reported that: “At first I thought if it isn‟t important then it‟s not meant for us. Suit yourself. And later, it‟s

beneficial for everyone and put aside your own and go and get this information yourself. For the greater good.” Someone else explained that as a team they worked it out and said: “We discussed it together and it led to discuss these things more often and be more transparent (interviewee 4.2).” By

(25)

24

Deliberate request

Employees among themselves challenged each other as interviewee 1.2 said: “I challenged

others. Sometimes I gave them an idea and let them think about it. If you provide people with concepts and don‟t tell them exactly what to think/do and just let them process it for themselves and stimulate them. They come up with the ideas themselves. Together and not because I told them so.” By

challenging others and guide them in their sensemaking process where an individual together with his colleagues come up with an idea illustrates how employees together process the given information instead of directly telling them what to do. By doing this are employees stimulated to come up with new ideas and consciously think about the NKB and improvements. During a deliberate request all interviews accepted it and fulfilled that request. However, the underlying reason to accept a deliberate request is different among the interviewees. Interviewee 3.1 commented on this issue that you do not have choice. Another said that because you are stimulated to do so you accept it. Interviewee 1.3 said:

“They are open to our ideas. My team lead and production manager, they stimulate improvements.” Interviewee 2.5 explained that he/she accepts because of his/her inherent self-motivation and said: “Was I commanded to do this? Indirectly yes, but if no one had said so I would also have done it.” Additional trigger

This last comment is also related to the newly found trigger. Some employees were not externally triggered, but self-motivated to continuously think about changes and improvements. This inner trigger in a person makes him/her to continuously engage in their sensemaking process by thinking about improvements on a daily basis. Before the NKB was implemented some employees were already thinking about improvements with regard to the KB. This person was not asked to, did not experience a novel situation or discrepancy, but it is a person characteristics that this person was already thinking about the NKB. This implies that besides the external triggers some people do not need to be triggered to become aware of the NKB, but that there are internal factors such as personal characteristics that triggers a person.

Another important issue is that the NKB is perceived as a minor change and for some did not affect their way of working but the NKB enabled them to work in the desired way. As interviewee 2.1 said: “Well, in principle we already worked like this. Only we couldn‟t really do it and were always

behind … and now (because of the NKB) it all goes well.” Due to, either the minor change that did not

significantly affect someone‘s way of working, or being part of the development of the NKB themselves, employees did not have to develop a new schemata. As interviewee 1.3 explained: “For

(26)

25 impact of the NKB could be explained by the content of the NKB. Interviewee 3.3 commented on this issue: “The appearance is fresh, new and nice. Better than the old system. A bit more clearer, but it

has the same content. The machines have to produce to supply the clients and that‟s how we earn money. So the content is the same.” From this could be argued that due to a minor change people did

not have to change their schemata but only make small adjustments. These small adjustments are about learning how the NKB works and following the new rules. For example the production follows a particular flow everyone has to obey.

4.4 Enactment: Responses of sensemaking

As the conceptual model indicates an outcome of sensemaking are responses. In this case how a person reacts to the NKB. The interviews identified two types of responses, either accepting or championing the NKB. Interviewee 3.4 accepted the change and said: “I just go with the change and

when I have questions I will ask them. When it‟s unclear.” Interviewee 3.3 elaborated on this and

explained how he expressed his accepting response “Use the tools you get and use them as they are

meant and not for other purposes.” Other interviewees who expressed championing responses towards

the NKB were for example interviewee 2.1: “Championing, because I am a big advocate of this

change.” and interviewee 2.4: “Championing, I‟m always very positive. I like changes.” The analysis

identified two ways how a person expressed his championing responses, either via a positive attitude towards the NKB or convincing others of the NKB. Interviewee 2.4 has a positive attitude towards the NKB and said: “If someone comes I always respond positive „Yes, let‟s do it‟.” Interviewee 3.1 explained how he expressed his championing responses by trying to convince others “People, who

don‟t know a lot, take them with you to the new board, show them with a proud feeling we did something good … Now getting people convinced that other departments will also adopt.”

Another outcome identified in the analysis of the interviews is attitude changes. Throughout the sensemaking process a person‘s attitude changed toward the NKB. Some felt that their attitude changed negatively while others attitude changed more positively during the sensemaking process of the NKB. Interviewee 1.1 explained his negative attitude change: “Well, at first it was better, but later

more negative. Because well, certain things that were done … Because of the choices that were made I think, why? It doesn‟t add anything. It‟s not what we agreed upon.” interviewee 2.3 explained why his

attitude changed more positively: “At first it looked a bit messy, but well, when everything was worked

out so that we could really work with it, it became more positive.” The reason behind this, either

positive or negative, attitude change is either due to improvement of the change process or teamwork. As interviewee 2.3 explained: “At first it was messy, but later when everything worked it became more

positive. Because it‟s more positive/beneficial for us.” Interviewee 2.4 explained that because of the

(27)

26

And it was a really nice group and we all went for it.” A positive attitude change could also be linked

with championing responses. As some explained that they expressed championing changes via a positive attitude. These attitude changes explain that during the sensemaking process a person attitude toward the change is altered. The examples illustrate that for example a person does not have a negative attitude toward the change itself, but the way the NKB is implemented. Or a person has initially a negative attitude, but it became more positive after seeing the benefits. This could mean that a person initial attitude toward the NKB is altered in the interpretation phase due to for example the implementation approach. The implementation is of high importance and a lack of implementation strategy could be the cause of attitude changes from positive to negative and vice versa.

The sensemaking process is a continuous process and in the interviews it is identified that the implementation of the NKB is even a trigger itself for more changes. Since the organization is unable to implement the NKB to other work areas due to too little storage. However, due to this implementation employees are triggered to think of a solution that is applicable for all work areas. Furthermore, the engineering department experienced a friction due to the implementation of the NKB. This was also a trigger in itself for the engineering department to evaluate why there was a friction. In the end the engineering department came to the conclusion that within the department there should be more transparency and involvement about projects of the department. Both observed situations describe how sensemaking is a continuous process which illustrates that sensemaking does not end and returns to the creation phase.

5. DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to gain more insight into how employee‘s sensemaking takes place during an organizational innovation and what triggers employees to engage in their sensemaking process. This chapter provides a summary of the key findings and a comparison with the literature. Then, the theoretical and managerial implications are discussed followed by the limitations and directions for future research. Finally the conclusion, in which the research question is answered.

(28)

27 impressions and an internal trigger inherent in a person that is intrinsically-motivated to continuously think about improvements/changes‘. The analysis also identified that the sensemaking process in this case mainly takes place on a collective basis. As for the interpretation phase it was identified that in overall the employees saw this change as a minor change and that the change did not have a large impact on their daily way of working. Employees had to make small adjustments and when necessary employees asked questions for clarification or figured it out with their team. Finally, employees expressed two kinds of responses, either accepting or championing. An additional outcome for responses towards the new kanban system is attitude changes. Throughout the sensemaking process a person‘s attitude changed, either positively or negatively. The key findings will be further elaborated on and compared with literature in the following section.

5.1 Comparison with literature

The organization used the kaizen event as implementation approach. During this event the NKB was developed and decisions were made to implement the NKB. As discussed in the theoretical section this is seen as the adoption phase where the decision is made to implement an innovation (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). There was no information about an actual implementation strategy where to organizations aims to target employees to get appropriate and committed use of the NKB. It could be argued that the organization is lacking an implementation strategy. This is of importance as Klein and Knight (2005) argue that implementation failure is the key reason organizational innovations do not succeed. However, in this case the implementation did not fail as the employees either accepted or championed the NKB. This could be explained by the NKB being a minor change and only one work area implemented the NKB as a pilot. For the sensemaking process this implied that employee‘s schemata did not require a shift and only small adjustments were made.

(29)

28 to their team lead to gain clarity. The trigger of first impressions influenced the way sensemaking took place, because by discussing or asking questions employees did not individually interpret the NKB, but together as a group. As recent research also argues, sensemaking is a collective process instead of an individual process (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Gephard, Topas & Zhang, 2010). The analysis identified that sensemaking indeed mainly took place on a collective basis. This study showed that sensemaking was based on interactions between employees where they helped each other and together made sense of the NKB.

This is the second stage of the sensemaking process and interpretation is the phase were employees give meaning to the NKB. This is influenced by the creation phase, because based on the triggers employees became aware of the NKB and develop an initial sense of the NKB. For example, an employee experienced the NKB as a minor change and compared the NKB with the OKB and felt that it was not that different. Due to this minor change, employee‘s schemata did not require a shift and only small adjustments were made. In case the NKB was unclear employee‘s asked questions or figured it out themselves. Employees learned how the NKB worked while working with it and sharing information among each other. Since employees interpreted the change as a group and the NKB was experienced as a minor change all accepted the NKB and did not show any resisting behaviour towards the NKB. This shows how the interpretation stage leads to responses in the enactment stage.

(30)

29 with regard to attitude changes could indeed be influenced by the (lack of) implementation strategy.

Based on the results and discussion the conceptual model of this thesis is revised. Figure 2 represents a new conceptual framework and shows that the three stages of the sensemaking process are related and influence each other. The dotted arrows show how the creation stage determines an initial sense initiated by the triggers. This influences how employees interpret and give meaning to the NKB which is in this case collectively. The second dotted arrow shows how the interpretation stage leads to accepting or championing the NKB. Another outcome of the enactment stage is attitude changes which is possibly influenced by the implementation strategy. Finally, the sensemaking process is a continuous process and in this case the NKB in itself is a trigger where employees think about a solution to implement the NKB in all work-areas. The straight arrows represent this continuous process as the process starts again with creation and does not end.

(31)

30

5.2 Theoretical and practical implications

This research extends our knowledge of the sensemaking process during the implementation of an organizational which was needed as Crossan and Apaydin (2010) identified that organizational innovation is an undeveloped topic. The organizational innovation, NKB, was the research context for this study and this research offers insight into how the three stages of sensemaking influence each other and lead to certain outcomes during the implementation of an organizational innovation. Additionally, this research fills in the gap between adoption of innovation and actual implementation (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010) by gaining an understanding of what happened between the adoption of an organizational innovation and the actual implementation. Furthermore, Maitlis (2005), Sandberg and Tsoukas (2015) argued that there was limited insight of what actually triggers sensemaking. This study complemented this by examining employee‘s sensemaking process and it became clear what actually triggered employees to engage in their sensemaking process.

The findings of this study offer several managerial implications. Firstly, this study identified that the organization lacks an implementation strategy. This could be the cause of attitude changes toward the NKB. Secondly, attitude changes can change and could be influenced. Knowing this the organization has to consider their implementation approach and how this possibly influences employee‘s responses toward the NKB and how this could be influenced. Thirdly, employees could be, besides the external triggers, also be internally triggered by their inherent self-motivation. This could be based on a person‘s characteristics. Lastly, sensemaking is a continuous process that does not end. In this case the implementation of the NKB is even a trigger in itself. Since the current system is not able to be implemented in the whole department and only implemented in one work-area. However, employees do realise there has to be a change. This triggers employees to think of a solution and what could be possibly a solution which is implementable at the whole department. Thus, it is important to be aware the sensemaking process continues and how to deal with this.

5.3 Research limitations and directions for future research

(32)

31 There are several directions of further research. For example future studies could investigate the additional triggers of first impressions and internal trigger (a person‘s intrinsic-motivation). It is needed to assess if these triggers also in other environments uphold. It would also be interesting to see if personal characteristics might influence this. Furthermore, additional research is required to assess if attitude changes uphold as an outcome of sensemaking. Also further research is necessary to see if there is a relationship between (lack of) implementation strategy and attitude changes during the sensemaking process.

5.4 Conclusion

A case study on employee’s sensemaking process during the implementation of an organizational innovation