Institutions & Sensemaking
“How institutional factors are both influenced by and influencing
the individual sensemaking process during a change situation”
by
Sjoerd Raterink University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
2
Abstract
3 Table of Contents Abstract ... 2 Introduction ... 4 Research Question ... 6 Literature Review ... 7 Institutions ... 7 Sensemaking ... 8 Frame of reference... 9
(Organizational Level) Institutions and Sensemaking ... 9
Institutional Control ... 10
Institutional Agency ... 11
Technology and Institutional Agency... 12
Framing, discourse and institutions ... 13
The Open Office ... 14
Methodology ... 15
Research Design ... 15
Data Collection ... 16
Data Analysis. ... 17
Findings... 19
Institutional constraints during the first phase of change ... 19
Breaking free of Institutional Control ... 22
Institutional Agency ... 27
Institutional Change through Sensemaking ... 30
Discussion and Implications ... 32
Institutional Change ... 32
Open Office Organizations ... 34
Research site ... 35
Conclusion ... 36
References ... 38
4
Introduction
“I want to go back to the place where things make sense, where I do not have to be afraid all the time” This is a quote out of the film Shawnshank Redemption (1994). Brooks Hatlin has finished his time in prison and is trying to adopt to a life outside of prison. As he has become so used to prison life, adjusting to life outside prison turns out to be almost impossible. After reading the letter with this quote, his former prison mates call Brooks: Institutionalized. This quote gives an example on how institutional factors can influence human behavior. This influence is the central point of this research.
For a long time it has been quite common for researchers to use a multi- level approach to conduct their studies on human behavior. (Chreim, 2006; Chreim, Williams & Hinings, 2007; Weber & Glynn, 2006). One example of these multilevel approaches that explain human behavior can be found in the structuration theory as first defined by Giddens (1979;1984). Central in this theory is the duality of social structure which states that human action both forms this structure and is constrained by this very same structure (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991). This duality of structure, that combines institutional theory with a human deterministic viewpoint on how structuration works, is used as starting point of this research (Figure 1).
As can be seen by the arrows in figure 1, structuration theory combines two different viewpoints. These arrows show the reciprocal relationship between the institutional realm and the realm of human action through three different modalities of structuration. Underlying this reciprocal relationship, other theories can be used to clarify how this reciprocal relationship actually is shaped.
One way that describes how structure influences human action is the effect of institutions on sensemaking processes. Sensemaking is the retrospective development of plausible reasons that rationalize how people act (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005). Weber and Glynn (2006), developed a framework that describes how institutions come forward in these sensemaking processes. This framework states that there are three ways of how institutions effect the sensemaking process:
5 priming, editing and triggering (Weber and Glynn, 2006). The main reason for building this framework was that there was little to no research on the influence of institutions on sensemaking processes. The conclusion of this research stated that people do not make sense in spite of institutions, but with them. Other research also states the importance of institutions. For instance, Chreim (2006) works with this „making sense with institutions‟ by concluding that managerial frames and institutional discourses constitute a context that enables and constraints individual framing.
When arguing that institutional factors have influence on the sensemaking process, this can also mean that institutional factors influence the way people perceive change. Sensemaking is said to be highly triggered by change, as change incurs a high degree of disruption of normal activities (Maitlis & Soneshein, 2010). So, with change, a sensemaking process is triggered. For this reason, a lot of research into the role of sensemaking in change situation is executed. However, when talking about sensemaking in change processes, the main focus is on how the change agents sensemaking effects recipient responses like resistance (Ford, Ford & D‟Amelio, 2010) or how recipient sensemaking is influenced by narratives from the change agents and can lead to a difference in the enactment of the change between recipient and agent. (Soneshein, 2010). These two main topics can be divided in sensemaking and change actors, in which sensemaking by actors in a change process is described and sensemaking and change types which describes sensemaking under different types of change (Maitlis & Soneshein, 2010). Little is said about the influence of institutional factors on sensemaking processes, which ultimately could lead to different attitudes towards change. So, are peoples responses to change caused by the influence institutions have on their sensemaking process? And how does this work?
6 situation triggers the possible alteration in the relationship between institutions and the sensemaking processes. In practice, knowledge on this relationship may lead to a better insight in change programs and how you can influence human behavior in order to cope with possible negative institutional factors. Furthermore, implementing a change that is opposing the existing institutions is even more difficult than change implementation that does not break with existing institutions (Battilana, Leca & Boxenbaum, 2009). This research hopes to give insight in how to cope with opposing institutions during change implementation by showing how they prevent people from changing. This results in the following research question:
Research Question
How does the reciprocal relationship between institutions and the sensemaking process work during a change situation?
7
Literature Review
In this section, the different theoretical concepts central in this research are further explained. Where possible, these concepts are linked to organizations and organizational change.
Institutions
The core presumption of institutional theory states that human behavior is constricted by values, rules, norms and taken for granted assumptions which prescribe how people should act (Smith & Graetz, 2011). These values, rules, norms and taken for granted assumptions can be seen as the ground on which institutions are created. An actor acts based on a mix of these cultural factors that lead to a blueprint which gives the actor certain boundaries. Over time, these specific actions result in the formation of institutions. These institutions can be seen as a mix of historical practices of different actors and understandings about how one should act. As institutional theory explains, it is not certain that people are aware of the different institutions guiding their behavior (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991). This makes it hard to find one clear definition of an institution.
The process of creating institutions often is seen as „creating reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).‟ This reality creating can be seen as the process by which organizational actors create a reality that is internalized by others. As a consequence, one can say that an institution can be anything, as long as it is part of the reality created in an organization. Therefore, it is likely that every organization has different institutions.
One definition of an institution is: any collective accepted system of rules (procedures, practices) that allows us to create institutional facts (Searle, 2005). Searle (2005) also suggests a way to determine whether something can be seen as an institution or not. To determine this, he argues that one needs to ask four questions:
1. Is it defined by a set of constitutive rules?
2. Do these rules determine status functions, which are in fact collectively recognized and accepted?
3. Are these status functions only performable in virtue of the collective recognition and acceptance, and not in virtue of the observer-independent features of the situation alone? 4. Do the status functions carry recognized and accepted deontic powers?
8 stated that social structure is not something that can exist without humans enacting on them (Giddens, 1976).
Very similar to Giddens is the definition of Barley and Tolbert (1997). They define institutions as shared rules and typifications that identify categories of social actors and their appropriate activities or relationships. To elaborate this, Barley and Tolbert (1997) state that the relation between institutions and social action, is the same as the relation between grammar and speech. Later this definition is adjusted by Scott (2003): Institutions are ‘cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulative elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life‟ This definition by Scott (2003) is also de definition used in this research as it lines up with the sensemaking process which is mainly about the construction of meaning.
However, there is something to keep in mind when using Scotts‟ definition. The definition seems only to focus on factors inside the organization. However, institutions can also be external factors. For instance, Greenwood and Hinings (1996) talk about external institutions such as the behavior of other similar organizations or regulatory pressures from the state or other agencies. This research focuses on institutional factors within the organization. And mainly how do these factors have their influence on individual behavior and the other way around.
During this research, the focus will be on one organization and the institutional realm within that organization. Therefore, whenever the term institutions is called, it needs to be related to as an institution associated with the research organization, or Organizational level Institutions (Barley and Tolbert, 1997). Talking in term of Figure 1 (Orlikowksi, 1992), this can be related to as the institutional realm, so the upper side of the figure.
Sensemaking
Individual behavior is highly determined by the way people make sense of things. Sensemaking is the basis for the enactment of both agents and recipients in change situations. Sensemaking is defined as: „The process of social construction that occurs when discrepant cues interrupt individuals’ ongoing activity, and involves the retrospective development of plausible meanings that rationalize what people are doing (Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005).‟ In other words, people develop a certain frame of reference with which they decide how to act upon certain phenomena. As this research follows Weicks‟ idea on how sensemaking works, this is the definition used. Specific for this definition is the fact that is shows that sensemaking has to be seen as an ongoing process which never ends (Weick, 2008; Gephart, Topal & Zahn 2010).
9 process is the way people interpret things and make a decision to act based on that interpretation(Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005).
Frame of reference
The result of a sensemaking process is that people are able to rationalize how they should act in a certain situation. In periods of relative stability, individuals construct patterns of significant meaning to construct their reality (Morgan, Frost & Pondy, 1983). These patterns of significant meaning can be called frames of reference. Once something happens, like a change in an organization, it is likely that events like this fall out of the current frame of reference. This is the point when new sensemaking processes are triggered. But how does this work during a change situation?
When trying to incorporate sensemaking in the structuration theory as presented by Orlikowsky and Robey (1993) the term frame of reference seems to have familiarities with their interpretive schemes. These interpretive schemes can be seen as generalized, shared stocks of knowledge that humans draw upon to interpret certain events or behaviors. By doing so, individuals are able to give meaning to their actions (Orlikowski & Robey, 1993). Interpretive schemes can be seen as the translation of institutions.
This research uses a change situation as its playfield. A change in the regular way of working makes people wondering how they should respond to the change and if they should change themselves. People look for meaning to base their actions on (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005). Whenever something unexpected or new happens, people ask themselves what is going on because they cannot make sense of the situation based on the existing frames of reference. Next, they come up with the previously posed question: “What should I do with it? (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005).” This process where new frames of references are created plus the actual action, is known as sensemaking.
(Organizational Level) Institutions and Sensemaking
10 Institutional Control
There is a growing acknowledgement of the importance of institutional effects on sensemaking (Weber &Glynn, 2006, Weber et al., 2005, Maitlis &Sonesheim, 2010). The main focus of this research is the influence of institutions on sensemaking processes in change situations. There are good theoretical reasons to believe that institutions are also influencing social acting in change situation.
One example which shows the influence institutions have on sensemaking is the Wicks (2002) study on the west mine disaster in 1992. This research showed that miners overlooked dangerous situations due to the fact that danger became „normal‟ to them. Therefore, the danger became institutionalized within their work. As a consequence miners became less aware of danger, and acted less cautious. This was the basis for several great mining disasters (Maitlis & Soneshein, 2010). Translating this to a change situation, this would imply that people‟s actions after a changes are highly influenced by the existing institutions, leading to the wrong change behavior without employees noticing it.
As described in the introduction, this research is trying to find out how institutional factors influence the sensemaking process and therefore „control‟ human action. This phenomenon is also known as institutional control (Lawrence, 2008). Weber & Glynn (2006) draw further on this implication by stating that institutions in the form of institutionalized combinations of identities, frames and performance expectations can very well steer action in a certain way.
A goal of this research will be to discover how these institutions „steer‟ peoples actions in change situations. So, in a change situation, do institutions guide sensemaking processes and influence the way individuals behave in a change situation and more importantly, how does this work?
Important in this process is the idea that social structures undoubtedly form constraints on human action (Barley, 1990). Barley (1990) states that many of these constraints are either unintentional in the sense that people are not conscious of these constraints. An institution can be seen as an example of factor which influences human action without the human being conscious of this influence. The main reason for this, is that the organizational structure can be seen as a blueprint for action (Barley, 1990). The challenge this research faces is to find out how institutional factors influence human action during a change process and for instance largely determine how people respond towards a change.
11 these scripts effect human change behavior. By doing so it is possible to discover how institutions have their influence on human action through the encodement in interpretive schemes during a change situation, as suggested in figure 1. Furthermore, it hopefully gives insight in how the already existing institutions and scripts are used during a change situation. As Gray, Purdy & Ansari (2015) suggest, the already existing behavioral norms and expectations often lead to the enactment of earlier frames. This means, that it might be possible that people interpret the change in such a way that already existing institutions and modalities are kept legitimate and prevent people from changing.
Institutional Agency
However, it is not sufficient to state that institutions only, in a cognitive way, constrain the way people behave. Institutions themselves are also influenced by sensemaking as institutions are constantly evaluated (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005). So, even the most stable institutions have to be seen as dynamic, as even those institutions need to be constantly reaffirmed (Weber & Glynn, 2006). When you translate this to change situations, this would implicate that apart from the influence from institutions on the way people respond to change, institutions themselves also can be altered through the way people react to change. Therefore the aim of this research is to find a possible explanation for the way institutions are influenced by the way people react to change. So, how do actions on the micro level influence a change in institutions on the macro level.
Another name for the influence of human action and sensemaking processes on institutions is institutional agency). Institutional agency refers to individual actions that influence, transform and create institutions (Lawrence, 2008). At the base of this institutional agency lies institutional entrepreneurship (Smith & Graetz, 2011). This term refers to the specific actors that have influenced the creation of new institutions or the transformation of old ones (Maguire, Hardy & Lawrence, 2004). So, one could say that the way these institutional entrepreneurs rationalize their actions influences the creation and transformation of institutions. In other words, it is their sensemaking process that form the foundation of institutional change. This research aims on figuring out how these institutional entrepreneurs make sense of changes, and how they use this sensemaking process to produce or reproduce institutions.
The link between organizing and sensemaking further indicates the connection between sensemaking and the development of institutions. According to Sandberg and Tsoukas (2014), organizing can be seen as the outcome of an evolutionary process. Through this process, groups of individuals become organized to the extent of having a consensus of common tasks. This consensus can be seen as an institution. An example of such a consensus could be norms or behavioral rules, which are enacted through interpretive schemes (e.g. frames of reference).
12 institutional change can be reached. For instance (Battilana, et al. 2009) presented a model of institutional entrepreneurship, in which they explained how institutional change can be reached by using people who were able to break with the existing institutions. In my view, sensemaking plays a vital role in this „letting go‟ of the old scripts/frame of references that encoded the existing institutional realm. Therefore, this research tries to find answers on how people can make sense of changes, thereby starting to reinvent the existing interpretive schemes..
Another example of the importance of human agency in the reformation of institutions is the research presented by Smets, Morris and Greenwood (2012). They developed a model in which practices theory plays a vital role in how institutions are formed. They also state that practice theory, by which they seem to mean agency, is not yet developed enough in the field of institutional change. As Smets et al. (2012) mainly look at institutions on a higher level than the organizational level. This leaves questions on how the institutions at the organizational level change because of practices at the micro level. This research tries to fill in some of that blanks and tries to add to the usage of practice theory to the research field of institutional change. Previous research started to fill in these gaps, the previous sections give insight on these matters.
Technology and Institutional Agency
Previous research covered the relationship between institutions and technology based on the principles of structuration theory (Orlikowski, 2000). Copying this to change, this might give insight on how people make sense of changes and more importantly, how they are able to break with old institutions. Orlikowski argued that there are three possible reasons for people to enact to new technologies. These three options are: intertia, application and change. The last of these three options (change) explains that people change their traditional ways of doing things by the application and use of new technology (Orlikowski, 2000). What they say by this, is that the use of new technologies often leads to a change in the structure. So, when considering a change situation, the new behavior may lead to a change in structure, possibly through the use of new technologies that go along with the change. This is line with Giddens ideas on structuration, as he found that all human action can transformed the already existing structure, or in this case institutions. Nothing ever is really fixed or routinized (Giddens, 1984). However, how do you make sure that people are acting towards the change as intended?
13 . As a reaction to the idea that structural constraints are overlooked, Boudreau & Robey (2005) took a more balanced viewpoint. They suggest that there are social influences on human agency, which means that humans cannot really do what they want as their behavior always is constrained. . One of the main findings of Boudreau & Robey (2005) states that is very difficult to predict how people react towards an change in the information technology system. This makes is also difficult to control. This gives reason to believe that the way people react towards an even bigger change are also unpredictable and uncontrollable. One aim of this research is figuring out how this works, how do people react towards change and what is the role of different social structures in this. Can reactions towards the change really not be controlled or does a reaction almost always have its relation with the already existing organizational level institutions and can you predict reactions if you know about the institutionss?
There are other viewpoint in previous research that draw further on the structuration ideas of Giddens (1984) as well. Feldman and Pentland (2003) found a difference in the ostensive en the performative aspects of routines. Ostensive being the way a routine is „on paper‟ and performative being the way people acted the routine. They found that these two are clearly different, but for a great also are reliant on each other. The ostensive part can be seen as the structural part, or in therms of figure 1 the institutional realm, where the performative part only shows in the bottom half of figure 1: human action. Furthermore, Feldman & Pentland (2003) clearly indicate how people are able to enact towards and change certain routines by the interplay between the ostensive and performative aspects. When talking about enactment and institutions it may very well be possible that there also are differences in between enactments and the institution itself. As institutions are enacted through interpretive schemes which serve as scripts for action, this doesn‟t seem unlikely. Feldman and Pentland (2003) talk about the retrospective selection of routines, or how people choose to act upon routines. Routines are constantly changing through the difference between the ostensive and the performative aspect. It is possible that under normal circumstances, it works the same with institutions. But how does this work during a change situations in relation to institutions on the organizational level? If changes make it impossible to go on with the already existing routine and institutions that go along with that, how do people base their actions? Do institutions change faster as a consequence? Or do people try to hold on to the old routine even though they know that they should work differently according to the new change?
Framing, discourse and institutions
14 The strength of the research of Gray et al. (2015) is that they are even able to explain how single interactions can lead to difference in frames. This is interesting because, whenever a change is implemented, this should also mean that individual responses to change, can ultimately lead to differences on a higher level, for instance on institutions on the organizational level. Interestingly, one of the proposes for further research (Grey, et al. 2015) was how framing processes enable or constrain latitude. When translating this to this research during a change implementation, it is interesting to find out if and how peoples sensemaking (and thereby framing) has it effect on the latitude during a change. So, is someone able to comprehend the use of the change or are individuals constrained by already existing frames?
Another important factor during the seems to be communication. Recent research gives reasons to believe that communication is key for the usage of institutions for human action (McPherson & Shauder, 2013). In other words, communications set up the way people can make sense of institutions. The conceptualizations, used to communicate institutions can be seen as discourse. So, one can state that discourses, have similarities with the earlier handles frames of references, scripts and most importantly: interpretive schemes.
During a change situation, it may be very well possible that these discourses help people to be able to comprehend the use of change or constrain actions (Cornelissen, Durant, Fiss, Lammers & Vaara, 2015). Anyhow, as recent research seems to point out, discourses and the communication processes that go along with them seem to have a vital role in the possible rebirth and renewal of institutions (Cornelissen et al., 2015). So, when trying to find out how existing frames constrain human action during a change situation, studying the communication processes and existing discourses seem to have an important role in the sensemaking processes of employees during a change situation.
The Open Office
As this research covers a case of a change from a traditional office to an open office approach, it is interesting to see if and what the existing literature knows about these matters. This gives insight in what the important factors are in this field of research.
15 Later research already started out to fill in these blanks but the focus remained largely on job satisfaction and performance (Kacmar, Witt & Zivnuska, 2003; Golden, 2006 ) this research tries to jump in a more unknown field as far as changes to an open office are made. How and do institutions have their effect on individual sensemaking processes during a change to an open office?
Methodology
Research Design
For this research, a case study is conducted. The goal of this study was to find out how people actions are constituted during a change situation. Hereby, trying to understand how employees reacted to a change. The focus in this process was on getting to know the interpretations people had on the implemented change. To do so, getting to know about the feelings and thoughts on the change was a key focus point. For this research, an mainly inductive approach is used. This means that the data gathering process was not determined by already existing theories and only in a later phase of the analysis deductive methods are used. As the data was processed, interesting theories were analyzed during the collection phase. However, there is no theory grounded in the collection of the data or analysis.
A grounded theory research approach was used as this proved to be useful when new situations are researched (Stern, 1980). The „new situation‟ this research faces is the influence of a all out change in work processes on the structuration process. In these situation, grounded theory is very well suited to discover what problems or situation exist in the social scene in an organization and how the employees coped with these things (Stern, 1980).
Another advantage of using grounded theory is the possibility to combine inductive and deductive methods. This makes it possible to incorporate existing theoretical explanations into the data analysis. As the field of structuration has already got much attention in the past, there should be good additions to our findings. The main goal of this all is to find theoretical constructs that can explain actions in a social context (Stern, 1980). In this case, how institutional factors affect the sensemaking process and vice versa. Lastly, as is common with grounded theory research, the data collection and analysis phase occurred simultaneously.
The research took place in a large, public transport organization. The first reason that makes this organization particularly interesting as a research site, is that not long ago is was governed by the Dutch state. Since a few years it has been denationalized. This makes it very well possible that the institutions formed during the time as a nationalized company still work through in daily processes as denationalized company. This can make it a fertile research site.
16 employees and hopefully changed institutional factors as well. As a fact, former routines are no longer valid as a result of the change to an open office. As discussed in the theoretical paragraph, it is interesting to see how people react towards the new situation and make sense of the change. All taken together, this makes it an ideal ground to discover how institutional factors influence the individual sensemaking process and how those very same individual behaviors are likely to alter institutional factors.
As stated, the most interesting aspect of the public transport organization is the change to an open office. This project started in 2012 with the direction trying to find a suitable way to fill in the much needed renovation of the main office building. Once conducting info at other big organizations they choose to make the step to an open office. After this decision, a plan was formed to get the whole organization from everybody having his or her own working space to a flexible working environment. In this plan, the three B‟s were found to be most important: Bricks, Bytes and Behavior. Bricks standing for the planned renovation of the building, bytes for the new IT applications needed to transfer to an open office and behavior for the change humans needed to undergo. The organization choose to roll out this project a department at the time. Therefore, this research incorporated only those departments already making or have made the change to an open office. Within these departments, every employee was permitted to give an interview. So, finding enough respondents was not a problem.
Data Collection
Interviews were the main source of data for this research. Tape recorded interviews were conducted with the members of these departments to discover how they made sense of the changes and what were the main reasons for the actions they chose to handle the change. Furthermore, tape recorded interviews were held with change managers who guided the change to an open office on different departments. By doing so, it becomes possible to see if institutions are typical for one department or are valid for the whole organization. This made it easier to find the underlying often unconscious institutions that played a part in the sensemaking process of the individual members of the organization. By using change managers and employees on different hierarchical levels, it became possible to acquire date from people directly in touch with the strategy of the research organization and people less in touch with these strategies. The advantage of this is that it might bring differences in the sensemaking processes within these actors, as some have a bigger picture and some don‟t. Apart from that, change managers and people higher in rank seem likely to make use of the change right away. They can be seen as „power users‟ and can be very well used to get to know why and how people make use of the change (Bourdreau & Robey, 2005).
17 positively, the appointment was set. After each interview, the recorded tape was transcribed and used as data. In total 12 interviews were conducted before theoretical saturation was reached.
During the transcribing of the material, the first analysis of the data was done. The main reason to do so was to be able to use this data as input for the next interview. The point of doing so is to be able to discover the main lines and make sure that possible relationship between variables were either confirmed or rejected. The number of interviews depended on when theoretical saturation was reached and no new insights are given during the interview. All the interviews were taken in Dutch, so had to be translated for the cause of this research.
The aim of these interviews is to add knowledge to the existing field of research on sensemaking in change organizations by coming up with a possible explanations for the reciprocal relationship between institutional factors and individual sensemaking.
This research strives for inter-subjective agreement. This is defined as the consensus between the actors dealing with a research problem (van Aken, Berends & van der Bij, 2012). According to Yin (1994), there are three important quality measures: controllability, reliability and validity. These three are the main factors for reaching inter-subjective agreement (van Aken, et al., 2012).
Controllability is defined as the degree to which other researchers are able to replicate the research and use it to verify the reliability and validity criteria. To make sure that this research is replicable to other researchers, a detailed description on how this research is conducted will be given in the research method section. Lastly, field notes during the whole research will be saved and used to show why and how certain decisions are made.
Reliability states the degree to which the results of the study are independent of the characteristics of the study. To control for researchers bias insights of other master students, on how certain things need to be seen, will be used throughout the whole study. Besides using only primary data in the form of semi structured interviews, this research will also collect secondary data in the form of organizational characteristics. This multiple data gathering method (triangulation) will control for the instruments bias. The respondents bias is controlled for by interviewing respondents from different departments and moreover by interviewing change managers who had experience with different departments. Further, to check for validity, it is important that the propositions in this research are possible and justified by the way they are generated (van Aken, et al., 2012
Data Analysis.
18 clearer. Certain aspect told by other respondents were tested in later interviews in order to confirm their viewpoints.
The second step was to link all the highlighted parts to each other and find possible causalities. Codes were given and links between the highlighted parts were made. After this first coding phase it was necessary to reduce the codes to the key variables. This is in line with what Glaser and Strauss call „core variables.‟(Stern, 1980). After these variables were defined, variables already found in existing literature have been used to see if previous research already found links between certain variables. For instance think about variables as inertia, reinvention and intensification. Appendix I gives an overview of the codes used. Many of this variables/codes already are mentioned in the theoretical section of this research. As the ideas of structuration are shown in Figure 1, that was the figure used as a framework to describe how institutions at the organizational level have their influence on human behavior during an organizational change.
19
Findings
Institutional constraints during the first phase of change
The first step for a logical explanation to the research question is by finding a possible causal explanation for the institutional constraints on individuals at the start of the change. As state in the previous sector, once a change happens in an organization, there are institutional factors in play which have their influence on the sensemaking process of the individuals.
Previous research shows several interesting explanations for the influences of institutional factors on the sensemaking process. The most relevant findings are those as presented by Weber & Glynn (2006). In their research they state that there are three possible ways for institutions to have its effect on institutional behavior. These three being: priming, editing and triggering (Weber & Glynn, 2006). The underlying thought of this is that institutions guide human behavior in such a way that patterns of interaction and action are formed. In a change situation the organization always has a set of institutional factors before the change starts, the results of this research indicate that especially during the beginning phases of the change, sensemaking processes guided by the existing institutions on the organizational level.
In the case of the public transport organization used for this research, these institutions are very deeply rooted in the organization. This due to the fact that it is a mature organization and the working routines have been the same for a long time. This logically effects the way people initially respond to the change to an open office, mainly because there sensemaking process is for a part dependent on the already existing institutions.
One of the features of an open office is that there are no longer fixed working schedules, because people have opportunities to work elsewhere, for instance at home. However, within the research organization this initially led to the wrong impressions because the employees could not make sense of the new situation. Fragment 1 shows that already institutions seem to have its influence on the change responses. In this case, employees see working at home as a bad thing. The way they see it, someone only can be working as long as they are at the office.
Fragment 1 I: What does the an open office in your company look like nowadays?
R: Many employees start with working at home for a maximum of one day a week. Many of them don‟t have an answer on the question: “why only once a week?””
I: Do you have any ideas on this matter?
20 R: Well, if someone is working at home, others can‟t really check what they are doing. Often this leads up to the
believe that someone isn‟t working at all. Ideally, people will not look to when or where someone is working, only to if the work is done when it should be done.
Fragment 1 shows signs of old scripts being enacted in new situations. As stated in previous literature ( Gray, Purdy & Ansari 2015) the already existing behavioral norms and expectations often lead to the enactment of earlier frames. So, although the open office is meant to be a system in which people come and go to work as they please, old behavioral norms still keep on being enacted in the earlier stages of the change. In terms of Barley and Tobey (1997), people keep on enacting the old scripts or interpretive schemes in terms of Orlikowski and Robey (1991). This causes people to make sense of the change in ways it is not intended to be. So in order to make the change a success it is necessary to break with old scrips like the one shown in figure 1, as they represent the encoding of existing institutions at the organizational level. In terms of Barley and Tobey (1997), when experiencing phenomenon like this, one needs to find a way to revise or replicate the current scripts in ways that they do not encode the already existing institutions that are opposing the change.
Apart from cases as fragment 1 being classified as enacting an old script, it is also an example of what Bourdreau and Robey (2005) call inertia. Situations as fragment 1 show that people start out to use the change to an open office as little as possible. This is normal during the beginning phases of a change and, as Boudreau and Robey describe, is also often seen whenever talking about technological change. As the change investigated in this research is even broader, one can seem to draw the conclusion that with a change to an open office, inertia will often be the case during the first stages. The next stage identified in previous research is reinvention which means that people try to work around things that constrain the old way of working (Boudreau & Robey, 2005). In a way, the example of only working at home for a maximum of once a week, can even be an example of this.
Another interview (Fragment 2) with a team leader shows how differences between different locations have their effect on the change to an open office. This team leader experienced one department being much more willing to accept the ways of working that goes along with the open office, than a department on another location.. It even shows to be that bad, that people corresponding towards old institutions, make life hard for people who are able to make sense of the change and are able to formulate another script opposing the old one.
Fragment 2
I: Are their differences between different departments?
R: Yes, what we can see is that our department in Utrecht already works very well according to the ideas of an open office, but on the other side, our department in Rotterdam is struggling.
I: Any ideas on how this difference is caused?
21 turned down. In Rotterdam, the senior managers responded to this by turning of the pc‟s at the office to check how long it would take for someone who was working at home to call and ask what was happening.” Examples like this show how deep the feelings are that one can only be working for as long as they are at the office.
This shows how certain rules make people not willing to accept the change to an open office immediately. In this case, the institution can be seen as the rule that everyone should be at the office in order to be working, so it fits in the current frame of reference to be at the office. People for themselves, rationalize with this institution by not taking more than one day at week for working at home. They seem so to do this, because if they take more days at home, others might feel that they are slacking work. So, they are not able to make sense of working more days at home and thereby are not able to rationalize this behavior.
Previous research on situations where two frames overlap shows that in situations like the one described in fragment 2, it is the more dominant frame that prevails (Gray, Purdy & Ansari (2015). As one looks at the way „structure of dominance‟ (figure 1) is defined, it shows that these are power interactions that enforce certain pattern of action in a collective. In the example shown in fragment 2, the old frame seems to be dominant, hence leading to most people making sense of the change according to the already existing institutions. So, in order to make a change successful, one should find a way to break with the old frames that cause unwanted change behavior.
This shows how institutional factors can prohibit people from acting towards a behavior which the change prescribes. In this case, a situation where people work where they want, whenever they want. In other words, the outcome of people‟s sensemaking process does not lead to the required rationalization that you can also be working as long as you are at home because of the already existing institutions and existing frame of reference. In terms of figure 1, people base their actions on the existing interpretive scheme which can be seen as the script of the significant institutions (Barley & Tobey, 1997).
22 Breaking free of Institutional Control
This section tries to give an answer on how people are able to break free from old interpretive schemes and create „new‟ human action. This phase is very similar to what Bourdreau & Robey (2005) call „improvised learning.‟ What is meant by this is people, learning to see how the new way of working should be. Important is that this learning process goes along without the use of any existing structure. This is structure is what this research means by institutions and the interpretive schemes that go along with that. In other words, „new sensemaking.‟ Only by moving people to act in a different way than the dominant patterns of action (Barley & Tobey, 1997) describe, it is possible to make them see that these old patterns are indeed out of date. This section describes how certain key factors can start up this process.
Management Support to break with existing interpretive scheme
As the previous section showed, peoples change behavior seems highly influence by the already existing institutions and interpretive schemes/scripts/frames that go along with these institutions. In order to make a change a success, it is necessary to make people change their actions and construct new frames of references which stands for a new legitimate pattern of action. What are possible factors that make people let go of the usual and change their rationalization in favor of the change. How can existing frames of reference be altered? As Figure 2 shows, this is a step that can only be done at the individual level as sensemaking is an individual process. In this case the individual sensemaking process needs to be cut loose of the regular institutions in order to result in a different change behavior.
Amongst the interviewed people, a few didn‟t have any problems with the change to an open office. Although long in the organization, still the found out that sometimes existing patterns need to be changed. The following fragments (3 and 4) give an example on how it worked for them. Fragment 3 shows how vital it is that managers also break with the old rules of working. Once they do not support the new required behavior of the employees, their employees seem to fall back into their old way of working and thereby their old rationalizations of how they should act. By not supporting or showing negativity towards the changes, they seem to feed the old rationalizations thereby preventing people from showing the right behavior. Therefore, management support seems to be one factor that can be more important than old institutional factors in individual sensemaking. Previous research also indicates this (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991).
Fragment 3 I: Can you explain what the program means to you?
23 more freedom in choosing my own working hours.
I: And it used to be like that?
R: Yes, it was all strictly time based. Now, the output is the most important factor. I: But does everyone feel that way? Or are there people who still have the old guidelines?
R: Well what I feel is that the managers are the ones with the biggest problems. I think it is a vital change in the way we work around here and that the managers should be the ones setting the right examples. The great advantage we have is that our manager really is a supporter of the whole an open office thing. I think it is greatly due to her, that the implementation is so successful in our department.
As one looks to why management support is evident in helping people to make sense of a change and behave the way it is intended, the term discourse again springs to mind. In the introduction of this research became clear that there has not yet been much theoretical research into the impact of micro discourses on discourses on a higher level (Chreim, 2006). Cornelissen et al. (2015) already found that discourses, as translations of existing institutions, have impact on if and how people are able to comprehend changes. What you see in fragment 3 (and in fragment 4) is that the way managers talk about the change is vital for people to be able to understand the change. When the discourse of higher ranked individuals is opposing the change, it is more likely that the discourse with the lower ranked employees also is negative towards the change. This because of the fact that higher ranked individuals normally have more power, and therefore their interactional norms have the ability to enforce their patterns of action towards others. So, in order to make people being able to make sense of the change it is important that discourses on a higher hierarchical level are in line with the change. Otherwise, micro level discourses on the lower hierarchical levels will remain the same, resulting in people not changing their behaviors at all and keep confirming to the existing institutions by using old discourses. When managers do make use of new discourses, positive towards the change, lower ranked employees are able to see how and why they should change their existing pattern of behavior. In a change situation focus during the beginning stages of the change is making sure that every manager responsible for a changing department is able to adjust his own pattern of action in line with the change.
Fragment 4 shows how management support (and a positive discourse) played its role to break free from the already existing conceptual framework. In terms of figure 1, how to break free from the existing interpretive scheme and create new human actions.
Fragment 4
R: We have gotten the opportunity to think more freely on how we are going to do things. There is a larger grey area. I found this a better way to work, but I also found that many of my fellow employees didn‟t found this better. It was not the way we were used to do things, so they kept on working the old ways.
I: Do you have an idea on how this is caused?
24
I: But how do you think these conceptualizations can be changed?
R: I feel a lot of feedback is necessary to bring about change. Next to feedback is a supportive manager. For me, the support of my manager was comforting and made the change much easier. I will follow her blindly. Nowadays I don‟t even think about having to work according to a schedule.
The influence of Technology
Apart from management support, the performance of the new IT systems also seems to have its influence. If an IT program does not fully work from the starting point on, people will turn against the changes. When for instance, old IT programs aren‟t shut down, most employees will still uses their old ways. By doing so, they prevent the change from succeeding. This seems to be caused by al lack of urgency to use new systems, or the unavailability of all the functions within a new system. A vital point in breaking from old habits therefore seems to be to shut down the old IT programs in use. Fragment 5 shows how people feel about this.
Fragment 5
I: What often comes forward within this organization, is a lack of urgency to commit to an open office, why is this caused?
R: It is correct that people often do not change their way of working. For me, this is caused by the low usability of programs like sharepoint. People often have all the facilities like an iPad to be able to work everywhere they want, but if the programs do not work they give up very easily. For me, this would be the same.
I: So the lack of urgency is caused by poor IT performance?
R: Tools like the iPad and programs like sharepoint are a condition to be able to be a an open office. If you don‟t fully have access to these conditions, an open office just is out of the order. Look, it is possible to just let everybody know that we are going to commit to an open office. You can make agreements and whatever you like, but as long as the old systems are up and running and the new system do not work properly from the start, nothing will change.
When connecting fragment 5 to the already existing literature on the relationship between technology and change, it seems logical that people do not change if the new technologies are not working properly. Inertia often is the first reaction to people when presented with a new technology (Bourdreau & Robey, 1997). This only gets stronger when it doesn‟t work as it should. You give people a rationalization to keep on working the old way, using the old interpretive scheme translating old institutions. When the IT performance is optimal and the management support is high, people seem to be able to realize that the new way of working isn‟t that bad. Quite frankly, you can‟t blame these employees either. So, especially when changing to a an open office organization, it seems to be vital to have your IT systems up and running and close the old ones. Otherwise, inertia will be the most rational option and the old interpretive schemes remain „in charge.‟
25 knowledge. Once this process of creating new knowledge start, new interpretive schemes will arise leading to changing institutions. This is illustrated by fragment 6, which is about an employee who is working according to the ideas of the open office, but sees that many of the fellow employees aren‟t.
Fragment 6
I: So, the ideas of the change to an open office are not fully recognized by your fellow workers?
R: Well, the use of sharepoint and the iPad should make it possible for everyone to work where
they want. But, because of the low usability there is just no reason to change. I have learnt that I can work wherever I want. Even if I don‟t have a regular work space I will manage to do my job for instance in the lobby. Other people did not learn this yet, because they‟ve never experienced it.
I: How would you change this?
R: Well first of all, nothing will change if the technologies aren‟t usable. But once that is done, I
would advise to close off the old channels so that people need to be using the new ways. Then, over time, they will experience the same things as I did.
Information is key
Apart from management support and IT performance, a lack of information about the future situation seems also be vital for an individual to change their ways of thinking. As fragments 7 and 8 show, people are often anxious and uncertain about the new situation. Are they still able to do their work as they should? Is it going to be more difficult? These are questions that need to be answered to the fullest in order for people to break with the old interpretive schemes and choose a new action. Once people learn that these new actions are indeed actually better and easier as the old ways of working (Fragment 8). It will become common knowledge, to act the new ways and this may lead to the adjustment of interpretive schemes. This will be explained in the next section.
Fragment 7 shows, how information during the first phases of the new ways of working is vital to make people change their minds. Where people first often are holding on to the old ways of working, and not see the advantages a change to an open office brings, they won‟t change their behaviors. Once more information is given and people are given the possibility to contribute to the change program, they seem to adapt the change and will lead the change in behavior. Hence, break with the old interpretive schemes.
Fragment 7
I: Are the people in this organization bound to their ‘old ways of working?
R: For, sure, especially during the startup phase, the initial reactions of the people in my department was negative towards an open office. In our situation, even our manager was negative and initially wanted to say no to the project. Luckily I managed to talk him round to at least begin with the project. I really don‟t understand why people are negative towards changes as long as they do not know what the changes really are.
I: And what is the current situation? Did people change their views?
26 What I found is that people gave much value to having their own working space and this was the main cause of the initial resistance.
I: Is it only due to a lack of information about the new situation? R: Yes, I do believe so.
I: How did you solve this?
R: There is a standard program for the change to an open office. We had the opportunity to customize this program. We did this by initializing two workgroups. Everyone was free to take part in these groups. The first member of these groups was a person who was very negative during the first meeting. So, people who don‟t support the change are taking the change to cooperate. So, they turned around. For this is mainly due to the fact that they received
more information on the change to an open office.
I: Did you personally have contact with this person?
R: No, but it was someone who is normally not willing to take part in workgroups. So the only thing I can think of, is that the extra information on what were his possibilities were the main trigger for him.
So, to be able to make of sense of the change and choose the wanted behavior without holding on to old institutional factors, information of the employees seems a vital factor. When thinking about it, how can you expect your employees to make sense of a change when they don‟t have all the information about it? They likely will be loyal to their old ways of working and thereby keep old institutional factors alive, because they don‟t even know what the new way of working really is. Fragment 8 gives another example of how a lack of information can lead to a change in the sensemaking process. Especially during the startup phase of a change, people are uncertain about a few things: how does is effect my position and will I be able to do my job under the new circumstances? Because the new ways of working cannot be rationalized with the current frame of reference, people seem to be led towards a new frame of reference. Information seems vital in this process as it gives employees sense to behave according to the change.
Fragment 8 gives reason to believe that once you take out these uncertainties by providing enough information, people are able to make sense of the acquired new behavior. Furthermore, fragment 6 shows that exemplary behavior will also lead people to change their minds earlier.
Fragment 8
I: Is it your idea to change people without them noticing it themselves?
R: The story I tell is always focused on making thing better and easier. There a few people who don‟t want it better or easier. Many people even want to change, the only thing is that they don‟t know how they should do it. If you show them the possibilities and other ways of working, they will adapt their own ways of working. It is mainly the story that cuts it for them.
I: So, resistance is not something you often come across?
R: Well, during the beginning of a change it is very likely to have resistance. For instance, here people were
27 iPad works very well for others, better then the laptop does for them. At that point they all want a iPad. It‟s just like how it used to be in primary school, if you saw someone play soccer, you wanted to play soccer too.
I: So, the biggest reason for resistance is uncertainty?
R: Yes, you have to let your people know that they are not alone. You have to help them to change. Look, I never give up. In time everyone will be able to make sense of the change as long as you explain everything to them properly especially during the first phase of the change.
So, to conclude, it seems possible to influence people‟s sensemaking process in such a way that institutional factors do not matter as much as they normally would. Management support, IT Performance, exemplary behavior and informing your employees seem to be examples of factors that can influence people to break with the enactment of the existing interpretive schemes. These new enactments will lead to improvised learning which makes it possible for people to really get to know the advantage of the new actions. With this new common knowledge, adjustments to the existing interpretive schemes can be made, leading to revised institutions on the organizational level. The next section will explain how this step works.
Institutional Agency
Once the sensemaking process is altered in such a way that people can fully make sense of the change, they will start acting as they should be according to the change. These new actions are likely to form new institutions or adjust existing ones (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991). Is it possible to describe how these new institutions are formed during a change situation?
In the date, three variables came forward that can present an explanation for the development of new institutions. Before one can even speak of a change in institution, first the new behavior or rationalization have to be embraced by the majority of the employees. This mainly because an institution and the interpretive schemes that go along with this, will only be in „charge‟ for as long as the majority of the group acts towards it (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991). Therefore it is important that you hold on to the wanted behavior and do not let the old interpretive schemes prevail. One important factor in the transition towards a new institutions and altered interpretive schemes is the regularity or frequency of events (Gray et al. 2015). So, when talking about a change, it is important that people keep on enacting the new ways of working. Fragment 9 shows how employees during the transition towards an open office feel that they need feedback on their work to keep on encouraging them.
Fragment 9
I: Are there any examples on people falling back to their old behavior?
28 which steps they need to take to get them where we want them to be. We are constantly talking to people to keep them on the right track.
I: So, you’re creating some kind of rhythm?
R: Yes! I just know that it work well to keep on giving feedback. You need to kind of socaialize people to act the way we want them to. If there are no consequences for unwanted behavior, they will fall back to their old ways. You need to prevent that and let them get used to the new ways.
I: Do you have any examples of this?
R: Well, what we used to do is only sanction people after a long time of working the wrong way. When we did this, it always came in as a shock. People lost motivation because of this. By giving them constant feedback, you prevent these situations from happening. It just works that way!
As fragment 9 shows, once you‟ve succeeded in a change in rationale, it is vital that you keep this rationale legitimized. By constant feedback, one makes sure that there will be regularity in certain actions. As long as you keep up this regularity, in the long run, people will know how to act. It becomes normal to them. This can be seen as the revision of an interpretive scheme, a new way of working becomes normal. According to the principles of structuration, this new interpretive scheme will eventually lead to an altered institution. le to change their old habits and even longer to really make them behave the way you want to automatically. The necessity of giving constant feedback greatly lies in hands of those on higher hierarchical positions. As discussed earlier, management support has a big role changing people‟s behavior. Earlier research already showed that these factors, remain important for the construction of new interpretive schemes (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991).
As can be shown in the following fragment of an employee who used to look negative towards working at home but nowadays fully adapted to the an open office principles. In other words, over the open office became part of his frame of reference
Fragment 10
I: How was the idea of an open office communicated towards the employees?
R: Well, of course first, we had a meeting. Apart from that it all went quite gradual. For instance letting the idea of working 9-5 go was a quite slow process. I saw the things my colleagues did, for example walking in the office at 11am. At first I felt this was not done, nowadays I don‟t bother at all. Quite honest, I still have the idea that I have to work a certain amount of hours. I think that has to do with the generation I‟m a part of. Although I also have days when I work only 6 hours, but also days of 12 working hours. This is fine, but it took some time before I accepted this to be fine.
I: What has caused this change? What made you get used to this?
R: Well, what I said earlier. It is good for me to see how others are doing it and how they reach similar results by working in an easier fashion. This is refreshing for me and makes me see that they are doing ok as well.
29 much attention for those who do change. And, as fragment 11 of an interview with a manager shows, when they attain good result, they are more likely to change themselves too. This can be seen as an increase in scope, more people are getting to know that the new way of working is the best. The longer this goes on, the more likely it becomes that the new way of working becomes the new standard. Or, becomes the new interpretive scheme.
Fragment 11
I: How did people react toward the changes in your department?
R: Well that is kind of funny. I always start out with a small group of people. In this case I started with the supply of iPad to a small group of people. Further, I always try to explain how people can improve . Once I had this group done, they were all very happy with the results. For me, they became ambassadors. This results in other people also wanting to work the new way because they spread the word by themselves
I: How long did this take?
R: That depends, but in this case it took around six months to get to this level.
When talking about an increase in the number of people applying the new way of working, the term scope is already known in research. Gray et al. (2015) already found that an increase in scope at the micro level often leads to an adjustment or construction of a new frame. This also seems to be the case when talking about a change, as long as more people show the new change behavior, it is likely that a new interpretive scheme (or frame) is constituted. Further, fragment 11 shows how discourses at the micro level can have their impact. One can state that the positive discourses spread out and for a larger group of people become „the number one discourse.‟ This in itself shows how interpretive schemes can change due to adjustments at the individual level.
The time it takes to change or create an institution is dependable. As fragment 11 already shows, it is not clear how long it takes for people to adopt to a new frame. It is what Barley & Tobey (1997) the objectifation and externalization phase that one can speak of the formation of an institution. However, once a frame is altered and remains legitimate and dominant it is only a matter of time before an institution is altered or created. Just the unconscious influence of institutions on human change behavior, the construction also is fairly unconscious. This is shown in fragment 12.
Fragment 12
I: Can you say that you’re fully adjusted to the open office?
R: Yes, for instance, I don‟t even notice it anymore when someone is walking in at 11 o‟clock. During the startup phase, this was more difficult.
I: I can imagine that, what was the turning point?
