Running Head: The Influence of Boundary Objects on Sensemaking Processes

(1)

How Boundary Objects Facilitate the Interplay between Sensebreaking, Sensegiving and Sensemaking during Organizational Change: A Qualitative Case Study

Master Thesis

MSc BA: Change Management Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Groningen

Daliah Haidar S2947307 d.haidar@student.rug.nl

Supervisor: Dr. Ileana Maris-de Bresser Co-assessor: Dr. Cees Reezigt

(2)

1

Abstract

Planned change projects implemented by external consultants have become increasingly necessary nowadays. This demands organizational members to understand and make sense of changing conditions at the workplace that were suggested by outsiders. How do members manage to understand and act on new organizational meaning despite the existence of manifested thinking patterns and work routines? This study aims to explore how boundary objects such as process maps support a congruent understanding of organizational members and external consultants. I specifically examined the role of boundary objects in facilitating sensebreaking, sensegiving and sensemaking processes during organizational change. I conducted a qualitative case-study and examined a planned German firm’s organizational change project. Analyses showed that process maps aid collective discussions of change leaders and external consultants in visualizing and bridging different organizational conceptions. Moreover, situational factors emerged that seemed to influence the occurrence and effectiveness of a process maps’ function regarding the three sensemaking processes. Limitations and future research opportunities are discussed.

Keywords: Sensebreaking, Sensegiving, Sensemaking, Boundary objects, Organizational

(3)

2

Introduction

Over the last decades, increasingly complex and uncertain organizational environments make planned change projects an essential part of daily business. As change projects oftentimes question existing practices, visions and culture (Cawsey et al., 2016), change implementation difficulties are not to be underestimated. Many change projects initiated by organizational leaders already fail in the implementation phase, which frequently leads to severe consequences. Contrary, many change projects are successfully managed by external consultants (Kaarst-Brown, 1999), especially if there is reason to assume that internal change agents are not able to adequately motivate members or their role lacks objectivity, independence and sufficient power (Cawsey et al., 2016). Indeed, the success of change projects depends on the willingness and ability of organizational actors to collectively understand what is going to change, but more so, how and why. Once motivation and active participation is evident, change projects are more likely to reveal positive and long-lasting effects (Crant, 2000). But how do organizational actors reach a congruent understanding of a change project as a team? How is this understanding facilitated and supported by external consultants? These are questions that will be explored in this study.

(5)

4

Reviewing the literature of breaking and giving sense, it shows that these processes are mainly studied from the perspective of organizational leaders (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), despite the evidence that also other organizational actors can perform these practices (Vlaar et al., 2008). This makes a dynamic and collective interaction more likely than a top-down process. As consultants apparently become more relevant in implementing change, it is worthwhile to spend increasing academic attention on their work. Specifically, it is less well understood how they facilitate the processes of making, breaking and giving sense. While tools such as boundary objects are suggested to effectively support their work in clarifying change projects and managing group diversity among team members (Fenton, 2007; Star & Griesemer, 1989), underlying mechanisms that facilitate these effects are rather unclear.

Put together, the identified literature gaps are threefold. First, sensebreaking, -giving and -making processes as collectively performed by organizational members gained importance as a consequence of increasing demand of planned change. However, research that acknowledges the interplay between those processes is scarce. Second, while literature points out that hiring external consultants is oftentimes more successful compared to the work of internal change agents (Hoppmann et al., 2017; Kaarst-Brown, 1999), responsible mechanisms for such successes are only superficially explained. In accordance with this literature gap, past studies tend to focus on change implementations done by organizational leaders. However, research on external consultants should be considered more extensively in order to deepen the understanding of their different way of operating (Flack, 1997). Third, although consultants’ usage of boundary objects was shown to be powerful in achieving common sense of change projects, very few studies link these tools to processes of breaking, giving and making sense (see Fenton, 2007). I aim to close these identified literature gaps in examining the three processes as facilitated by external consultants and their usage of boundary objects when making sense together with organizational leaders and employees. This leads to the following research question:

How do boundary objects facilitate the interplay between sensebreaking, sensegiving and sensemaking in organizational change projects?

(6)

5

going to develop a comprehensive understanding of how employees and leaders relate to those boundary objects as they engage in dynamics of making, giving and breaking sense.

This study is of relevance to both academics and practitioners. First, an examination of the interaction between breaking, giving and making sense could enhance the understanding of the dynamics of these practices. This could finally contribute to organizational literature that aims to explore sensemaking processes from a social and dynamic perspective. Second, the generally sparse literature on sensebreaking practices needs to be acknowledged (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014) and deserves more research attention. Especially as being performed by external consultants and their usage of boundary objects. Third, the research focus on boundary objects as a facilitating role of the interplay between the three processes is innovative and deepens the understanding of how change implementations may benefit from them. Fourth, insights gained by this study may point to practical implications for external consultancies as they may develop new insights and practices that effectively enhance the way of using boundary objects.

In the following, I review literature that explains the role of external consultants in organizational change. Additionally, the processes of breaking, giving and making sense are outlined and brought into relation with consultant’s usage of boundary objects. Hence, the study’s methodology is be presented, along with a case description and methods to analyze the data. Finally, study findings, theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Literature Review

External Consultants in Organizational Change

Literature suggests quite substantial differences between organizational leaders and external consultants in terms of their roles and tools in implementing change. External consultants are hired due to their contribution of technical expertise and credibility (Cawsey et al., 2016). They need meaningful credentials in order to highlight their expertise and convince organizational members to change. Additionally, research identified the act of consulting by an outside individual for the purposes of implementing change as highly beneficial (Hu et al., 2014), as they are seen as having the ability to stimulate exploratory behavior among individuals and updating organizational meaning where organizational members are trapped by one-sided perspectives (Hoppman et al., 2017).

(7)

6

sudden environmental change. Also, the study of Hoppmann et al. (2017) confirms the significance of external change agents in stimulating corporate sustainability investments compared to internal change agents. Furthermore, literature highlights consultants’ outside perspective and broader external knowledge as beneficial in identifying overlooked opportunities or threats (March, 1991). This enables to break path dependencies in order to find other, more effective ones (Hoppman et al., 2017; Sydow et al., 2009). Additionally, external consultants are considered to be ―knowledge providers‖ (Hu et al., 2014, p.32) who identify how to optimize organizational processes and provide concrete approaches in order to solve existing problems together with the client (Keeble et al., 1991).

Further, it is argued that the work of external consultants needs to provide sufficient support in order to help the client’s organization to achieve their goals themselves (Soriano, 2004). Therefore, giving advice based on expertise is an action intended to help and facilitate the understanding of milestones related to the consulting process (Soriano, 2004). This also underlines the process role of consultants, as identified by Kubr (2002), which calls for enabling actions and tools needed to support the client in understanding organizational processes. This is necessary, as the reasons and approaches for change in work routines need to be recognized and understood by organizational members in order to adjust their way of working (Cawsey et al., 2016).

In this research I aim to make a contribution to the literature in relating the role of external consultants to the organizational actors’ sensemaking processes, and examine how these are influenced by the interplay of consultants’ sensebreaking and sensegiving processes. Specifically, I am looking at how consultants build the boundary object in collaboration with managers and how they use this tool together with employees when trying to facilitate a shared understanding of a change project. The relevance of these three processes is highlighted by Vlaar et al. (2008), who states that if sensebreaking and sensegiving processes are absent, people are less likely to question and challenge the fundamental validity of current understandings. This possibly leads to cognitive myopia and less congruent outcomes of sensemaking processes, which in turn might cause failure of change implementation (Cawsey et al., 2016).

Making, Giving and Breaking Sense during Organizational Change

(8)

7

sensemaking processes of other actors. They usually exchange meaning and compare understandings of organizational reality with others’ understandings of what is going on in the organization (Cawsey et al., 2016). Based on that, several studies consider sensemaking of organizational change as being of social and discursive nature (Sonenshein, 2010; Maitlis, 2005). Past research on organizational sensemaking revealed that a fundamental shift in meaning is necessary to accomplish change implementations within an organization (Sonenshein, 2010). How do organizational actors accomplish this shift in meaning?

Maitlis and Christianson (2014) conceptualize sensemaking as ―a process, prompted by violated expectations, that involves attending to and bracketing cues in the environment, creating intersubjective meaning through cycles of interpretation and action, and thereby enacting a more ordered environment from which further cues can be drawn‖ (p. 67). Organizational change is characterized by uncertain conditions, in which organizational actors’ expectations are either met or not. Once the discrepancy between expectations and reality is severe enough, sensemaking processes extensively emerge in order to determine future actions. Thus, if violated expectations are encountered through the perception of environmental cues, people begin to interpret these cues and subsequently formulate certain actions enabling an intersubjective meaning construction. As a consequence, dynamic cycles of creating interpretations and actions emerge in which all organizational actors are involved. This dynamic characterizes the process of collective sensemaking (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). Hence, sensemaking is not only subjective but there is also ―a strong reflexive quality to this processes‖ (Weick, 1995, p.15), as not all members share the same knowledge, experiences and expectations that guide their interpretation of environmental cues. Consequently, active reflection on those interpretations leads to acts such as legitimizing, negotiating and justifying inevitable within the sensemaking context (Green, 2004).

(9)

8

Sensegiving is mostly examined from the perspective of organizational leaders, who strategically shape and influence the sensemaking processes of employees by suggesting a new vision based on extensive changes in the environment (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007; Dunford & Jones, 2000). For instance, Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) studied how a strategic change was initiated by an organizational manager who challenged existing beliefs of organizational reality by suggesting new visions and more successful directions. Others examined organizational managers who actively challenged the viability of previous meaning based on declining organizational performance (Sonenshein, 2010; Elsbach & Kramer, 1996). This rather one-sided and top-down perspective of examination tends to disregard other organizational stakeholders and external consultants as valuable practitioners of sensegiving practices, which leads to gaps in the scientific understanding of how sensegiving and sensemaking influence each other.

Indeed, Westley (1990) revealed how middle managers engaged in strategy shaping by means of discussions with their leaders that aimed to influence the understanding of organizational issues. Also, Sonenshein (2010) argued that employees receiving sensegiving practices by leaders may counter those propositions by means of resistance and active challenges based on their own interpretations. Furthermore, Hoppmann et al. (2017) investigated the work of external consultants in successfully stimulating sustainability events despite the presence of organizational inertia. As reported, the consultants identified and persuaded organizational members of opportunities for investments, helped to overcome path dependencies and were actively involved in implementing the change initiatives. Similary, Hu et al. (2014) studied how external consultants implemented planned organizational change by means of giving sense in the form of identifying current organizational states and improvement opportunities. They persuaded the client’s organization with identified solutions and achieved a collaborative implementation of change. Summarized, these studies reveal substantial evidence that sensegiving practices do not follow a simple top-down direction per se and that leaders are not the only source of sensegiving practices.

(10)

9

Sensebreaking is identified to be a prelude of sensegiving and aims to create a meaning void in which new meaning is introduced by sensegiving practices (Pratt, 2000). Therefore, it is mainly used in the context of destabilization (Giuliani, 2016). A prominent example is the situation of organizational change, where new justifications of environmental events are to be adopted (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Importantly, Maitlis and Christianson (2014) point out that sensebreaking actions such as questioning, redirecting and reframing can lead to positive outcomes of learning that essentially facilitates change implementations.

Sensebreaking is also mainly studied from the perspective of the leader who aims to challenge the status quo and present beliefs of organizational members (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). For instance, Mantere et al. (2012) showed how an organizational director used sensebreaking attempts such as discrediting and questioning in order to challenge present organizational strategy. Similar to the case of sensegiving, there is also significant evidence that other organizational stakeholders such as employees, middle managers and external consultants engage in sensebreaking practices. For instance, consultancies operating as ―advisory services‖ (Kubr, 2002, p.7) break and give sense especially when identifying problems of present organizational states and persuading how these need to be solved (Hu et al., 2014; Kubr, 2002).

(11)

10

While Vlaar et al., (2008) showed that the combination of sensegiving and sensebreaking practices turned out to be a crucial, their results did not point to underlying mechanisms that facilitated this dynamic. I am going to deepen existing literature by exploring facilitating mechanisms that take place in this dynamic. I aim to understand how this dynamic is influenced by consultant’s and organizational member’s usage of boundary objects as tools to manage group diversity propelled by different perceptual beliefs. In the next section, I am going to explain boundary objects’ role within change management.

Boundary Objects as Sensemaking Facilitators

Boundary objects are tools such as process maps, diagrams, figures and documents that enable the effective conveyance and management of information during a change project (Fenton, 2007). Importantly, they are used by external consultants to make organizational accounts and change projects concrete and visualize information in a rational way, compared to language tools and storytelling techniques used by organisational leaders that are more emotional in nature. Star and Griesemer (1989) conceptualized boundary objects as being composed of three dimensions, namely interpretive flexibility, material (organizational) structure and scale (granularity) of the boundary object. According to Star and Griesemer (1989), interpretive flexibility describes the possibility of diverse ways in which boundary objects can be interpreted by organizational actors. They explicate that ―their difference depends on the use and interpretation of the object‖ (Star, 2010, p. 602), which highlights the versatility of these tools. Furthermore, the material structure and scale of boundary objects refer to the way in which they are arranged so that a cooperative work environment despite diverse meanings among team members can be facilitated (Star, 2010; Star & Griesemer, 1989). In that sense, boundary objects are considered to be ―organic infrastructures‖ which are flexible enough to allow for individual usage needs but also robust to the extent that they ―maintain a common identity across sites‖ (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 393). While these objects differ in their exhibited meanings depending on from which perspective one interprets them, they are still in essence commonly recognized in order to convey the same kind of information (Star & Griesemer, 1989). In that sense, boundary objects are crucial in facilitating shared understanding among team members and manage diverse conceptions of organizational reality (Star, 2010).

(12)

11

processes, and visualize how an organization currently operates and where changes need to happen (Matsumoto et al., 2005; Werr et al., 1997). Although process maps have been superficially researched (Melão & Pidd, 2000), they seem to be persuasive especially in manufacturing and production sectors.

As Werr et al. (1997) suggest, process mapping is a method to concretely explain a changes’ purpose, its dimension, its time frame and involved implementers. Moreover, the study of Fenton (2007) demonstrated how internal consultants of a bank used process mapping as a change initiator in order to visualize work flows and to leverage change initiatives. The examined strategic change was facilitated through ways of simplifying, operationalizing, and embedding strategy within other communication devices. Similarly, Okrent and Vokurka (2004) showed that process mapping contributed to a successful change implementation of a planning system. Further, it is proposed that process maps are more easily understood than other communication devices, and are essential in provoking sensemaking processes (Fenton, 2007).

Towards a Conceptual Model

Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model of my study. Accordingly, the dynamic

interplay of organizational actors’ sensemaking processes, happen in the context of the organizational change project. Following the logic of organizational literature, the starting point is when the consultant enters the organization in order to manage the change project. The first step is to engage in understanding the status quo of the organization as it is at this moment and to screen for improvement opportunities. Embedded in this process are the consultant’s practices of breaking and giving sense that are interwoven (striped arrow in Figure 1). Specifically, in the first instance, the consultant breaks sense of the change leader’s existing meaning and destabilizes current conceptions of organizational reality in order to gather fine-grained information about the present organizational state. Additionally, these practices make the change leader more susceptible for improvement opportunities (Vlaar et al., 2008). Concurrently, the consultant introduces new understandings and meaning by sensegiving practices in order to modify thinking patterns of organizational conceptions. This interwoven process of sensebreaking and sensegiving practices triggers learning processes on the part of the change leader. These facilitate an active engagement with the change project (Soriano, 2004), which is important for a successful change implementation.

(13)

12

Christianson, 2014). Specifically, the employees receive sensegiving practices of leaders and consultants, while engaging in sensemaking processes in order to adjust their behavior and thinking patterns. By means of this sensemaking process, employees collectively reflect and discuss their original organizational conceptions and the proposed changes (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). This intersubjective sensemaking process serves to construct a shared understanding about the current way of operating yet also the desired organizational future state as suggested by the consultants.

According to Star and Griesemer, (1989, p. 414) boundary objects are used to make interpretations more concrete in every stage of the change process, and to function as ―anchors or bridges‖ of several social worlds. Therefore, these objects concretize and distribute information in that it can be more easily and effectively discussed among several groups of actors (Oswick & Robertson, 2009; Star & Griesemer, 1989). Similarly, according to Fenton (2007), it is assumed that in mediating the perspectives that are exchanged, boundary objects are able to support and facilitate a shared understanding of what is going to change, how and why. The two dashed arrows in Figure 1 represent this mediating role.

Methods

Research Approach: Qualitative Case Study

(14)

13

nature (Yin, 2009). Furthermore, based on the social and collaborative character of these three processes (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014) it is feasible to situate my study into the interpretive paradigm (Maxwell, 2004). The interpretivist paradigm acknowledges that research is conducted in a social context constructed by human nature and that diverse conceptions of reality can only be accessed through sensemaking and shared meaning (Gichuru, 2017).

In line with the aim to draw conclusions about ―how‖ certain effects come about, the current study is of qualitative nature and makes use of a single-case study research design (Yin, 2009). This case study design consists of multiple sources of data collection in order to arrive at in-depth conclusions concerning rare or everyday phenomena that can be observed in real-world settings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). In this study, three data sources are drawn from, namely standardized-open ended interviews, observations in the field setting and an analysis of a document (i.e., process map).

Finally, in order to achieve well-defined results within case studies, it is necessary to determine the level of analysis (Yin, 2012). Concerning my research design, the level of analysis is the group-level as social processes are investigated. Referring to the basic types of case study designs (Yin, 2012), my study fits into the characteristics of an embedded, single-case study. This is due to the fact that I am limited to one change project (i.e., single-case) in one specific organization. Within this single-case study, I will collect data from three groups (i.e., embedded units) of organizational actors, namely consultants, change leaders and employees on sensegiving, sensebreaking and sensemaking processes (Yin, 2012). Consequently, the conclusions of this study will also be on the group level. However, the level of data collection (i.e. the observation unit) will be the individual level (i.e., the single employee that is interviewed).

Research Site

(15)

14

organization is forced to ensure a re-certification in order to signalize quality standards of processing steps.

The Change Project

The main goal of this change project is to achieve a re-certification that assesses whether daily organizational processes actually reflect the universal standards of a certified quality management. In order to get a re-certification, the whole organization needs to analyze work procedures, practices and structures in terms of opportunities to cut costs, increase efficiency, simplification and conformance to norms. Hence, the focus of this change project is to firstly record the actual organizational state, and then, optimize it. Finally, it is aimed to transfer the desired end state into actual organizational practice so that every organizational member adheres to this new working standard.

As these changes can be fundamentally disruptive for the organization, an external consultancy was hired specializing on quality management purposes. Notably, the consultants make use of a process map (i.e., boundary object) that captures organizational work processes and key components by depicting the whole organizational value chain. This process map is an essential part of a certified quality management and needs to be implemented in daily business after it has been refined according to quality standards. The collaboration between the consultancy and the client’s organization already started a year ago when the consultants gathered information about the organizational state. However, the change project stagnated due to unfavorable firm conditions. Now it is in its implementation phase, and will continue during and after my study.

Data Collection

(16)

15

posing identical questions to each individual, the participants are still allowed to answer in their own manner (Turner, 2010). Additionally, follow-up questions can be asked by the researcher in case important topics emerged that need elaboration (Turner, 2010).

I used 17 standardized-open ended interview questions (see Appendix 1), which were grouped into five themes (i.e., change project information, sensebreaking-, sensegiving-, sensemaking processes, boundary object). One example question of sensebreaking is: ―How

do you question organizational beliefs/work processes among others?” Sensegiving was

measured questions like: ―How do you challenge present beliefs about the organizational

status quo among others?” Sensemaking was measured by questions like ―How would you describe the communication dynamics during the meeting?” Finally, questions such as

―Please explain how you use the process map concretely to illustrate your own ideas in that

process” were used to examine the role of the process map. By means of the interviews, I

aimed to obtain individual data that points to insights on how each participant subjectively perceived the group meetings in terms of the atmosphere, communication dynamics, and own communication.

Observations. Observations in a field setting are crucial sources of data that focus on real-world events that involve human action (Yin, 2012). Additionally, observations help to channel researcher’s attention onto insights that can be followed up by interviews (Yin, 2012). Consequently, a rather objective but fine-grained monitoring of happenings may lead to information that participants would usually have missed to reveal during interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Observations were an essential part of data collection in my study in that they objectively revealed communication dynamics that explained how the three sensemaking processes naturally occur and how they relate to the process map. By means of the interviews, I followed-up on these communication dynamics in order to gather individual data from the actors concerning individual perceptions. Moreover, I conducted two observations at different times. I recorded these meetings for analysis purposes and additionally took notes. Appendix 2 depicts my observation scheme that I used for both observations. I conducted the observations from the ―observer as participant‖ role (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p.124). Respectively, my observer role was known to the organizational actors but I was not involved in any activities.

(17)

16

59 minutes. The second meeting also took place at the client’s organization, and happened four weeks after the first meeting. It took about 46 minutes. For the purpose of this meeting two external consultants, two change leaders and six members of the client organization were present. This meeting aimed to introduce the change project and the process map to the employees. With regards to both observations, I focused on similar indicators in order to examine my key concepts.

Regarding sensebreaking practices, I looked for communication (i.e., questions, statements, comments) with questioning and challenging character. In the first observation I primarily expected the consultant to engage in questioning how and why this organization had come to present work procedures. For the second observation, I expected these questions to be especially emergent on the part of the employees, in that they question the way the process map was built or why certain change project objectives were selected. In order to examine sensegiving practices, I looked for communication aimed at convincing others of own standpoints or expertise. Specifically, I expected to observe a collective exchange of differentiated knowledge or opinions. For the first observation I expected sensegiving processes among the leader and the consultant when exchanging different types of knowledge. Regarding the second observation, I expected to observe sensegiving processes among all types of actors.

Concerning collective sensemaking practices, I looked for communication dynamics that involved attempts of justification or negotiation between different types of actors. In both observations, I expected to observe sensemaking processes in the way the actors came to collective agreements about the topics, for example by exchanging different types of standpoints and reaching an agreement. Finally, with regards to both observations, I expected and focused on observing a usage of the process map for visually clarifying arguments.

Documents. The analysis of documents as a third source for data analysis within a case study is highly valuable and might deliver additional information, which have not already been gathered by interviews or observations (Yin, 2012). As I aim to investigate the role of a process map during organizational change, I analyzed the process map’s characteristics and structural arrangement of components in order to understand how its composition might support a congruent understanding among all participants. Appendix 5 depicts the process map.

Data Analysis

(18)

17

analysis software ATLAS.ti. In the first instance, I read through all transcripts separately to get a broad and holistic overview of the gathered data. In addition to that, I separately examined each interview and conducted a within-case analysis in order to gain familiarity with the data. By means of descriptive open coding I worked through the interviews separately in order to cluster specific topics (i.e., categories) together and condense the interviews’ content to get a deeper understanding of it. As a second step, I created codes of the categories by means of axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). For this step I used the conceptual definitions of all research constructs in order to group the open codes and their related quotes into these categories. Appendix 3 presents the codebook on open coding. Examples of categories are:

firm situation; process map; sensegiving. Examples of open codes are: questioning organizational beliefs; challenging organizational beliefs; negotiation. After that I made use

of selective coding to generalize patterns about how the categories are related (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). This was an important step for data analysis, since this study aims to find out who engages in breaking, giving and making sense, with what effect, and how the process map relates to each process. The codebook on selective coding is provided in Appendix 4. An example category is: three-staged process of change implementation. Examples of selective codes are: goal of stage 1; purpose of the process map in stage 1; sensegiving in stage 1. Finally, in order to answer the research question, I formulated reliable and generalizable statements of the cross-case comparisons of how each individual indicated to use the process map for breaking, giving and making sense (Eisenhardt, 1989). The recordings and the notes of the two observations were analyzed using similar codes as the interviews. Appendix 7 includes the transcripts of both observations.

Research Quality

Construct validity. Construct validity ensures that operational measures of the study are correctly selected and applied, in order to rule out biases that stem from subjectivity when collecting data (Yin, 2009). My study approach is able to ensure construct validity as multiple data sources are used (Yin, 2009). The interviews are based on standardized open-ended questions that were developed based on definitions in the literature in order to capture the research concepts’ characteristics. The observation scheme is based on recommendations by Merriam and Tisdell (2015) in order to ensure a comprehensive and well-grounded observation method.

(19)

18

degree of generalizability, a stable broader theory that serves as a comparison towards case study findings is able to rule out this problem (Yin, 2009). Similarly, my assumptions and research design are embedded into theoretical literature that enables an analytical generalization of findings (Yin, 2009). Consequently, not only the case study design but also the theory behind my proposals allow for external validity. However, research findings might need to be followed up by different change projects and companies in order to increase the generalizability of the results (Yin, 2009).

Reliability. The reliability of a study specifies whether other researchers are able to generate the same findings in a different context by simply following the research methods in terms of data collection and analysis as specified by the current research (Yin, 2009). For this aim, a case study protocol was developed, consisting of the interview and observation schemes, which are offered in the Appendix. Interview transcripts are shared as well. This is important as the objective of reliability is to ―minimize the errors and biases in a study‖ (Yin, 2009, p. 45). These biases can stem from the researcher itself (i.e., research bias) or from the context and situation of doing research (i.e., instrument bias, situation bias, respondent bias). In order to overcome the research bias, I tried to stay as objective as possible and have conceptual definitions aside when interpreting the findings. I reduced the instrument bias by using standardized data gathering methods such as standardized open-ended interviews. Additionally, I used several different questions to measure the same construct within the interviews. Moreover, I specified operational methods and steps of data collection in detail to achieve reliable conclusions. Next, as every member of the organization was affected by this change project, data collection from actors of diverse occupational positions and levels was enabled. This ensured diversity among individual data sources and enabled to achieve more generalizable conclusions (Yin, 2009), which also minimized respondent bias. Finally, I reduced the situation bias in observing the field setting in two observations at different stages of the change project.

Results

(20)

19

factors that emerged from the data that elaborate why the three sensemaking processes might have been absent for some participants. When analyzing the interviews, I codified the consultants as C1 and C2, the change leaders as CL1 and CL2, and the employees as E (i.e., E1-E8). The codebook in Appendix 4 on selective coding can be used as a guideline of the presented quotes in the results section.

Firm Condition

Interviews and observations revealed important insights about the current external and internal condition of the firm. Consultants as well as organizational members described factors that pose tremendous difficulties to daily business. Respectively, the organization faces a highly uncertain environment that is characterized by increasing competition and complexity of customer demands. As this firm is a manufacture, not every product demands the same production schedule or amount of material. Consequently, it is oftentimes impossible to predict when a product is ready for delivery. This difficulty is additionally amplified by unreliable suppliers of production material, whose supplies are oftentimes erroneous, incomplete, or severely delayed. These circumstances are highlighted by the following quotes:

“(…) due to political regulations and environmental changes it is not easy to plan daily business and strategic moves. This is why this rather small firm has to restructure itself to counter this market complexity and uncertainty in order to survive in the long run” (C2).

“There are increasing problems with suppliers of material that oftentimes does not happen on time. Sometimes they deliver wrong material or production material is missing” (E2).

(21)

20

“Moreover, the current organizational processes, structures and routines are too

complex and somewhat inefficient. It is the aim to reduce this complexity and increase management and production efficiency” (C1).

“The shortage of personnel is definitely one factor that increases interpersonal issues, since we are sometimes overwhelmed by the workload and cannot really handle it effectively” (E1).

Change Project

It is necessary to establish an internal quality management, which is transferred into practice and is adhered to and understood by every organizational member. This new quality management aims to be more transparent and to reduce production complexity by making the overall production sequence more fluent. Consequently, resource inefficiencies are aimed to be reduced by means of re-structuring and simplifying production steps regarding all departments. The following quote summarizes these points concisely:

“Generally, the whole production process and management process of this firm needs to be made more efficient and effective. There are many working steps that cause too much time and resources (…). These changes are specifically needed regarding the quality management and the re-certification in order to make our whole organizational operation more efficient and workable” (CL1).

Three-Staged Process of Change Implementation Stage 1: Assessment

As this stage happened outside of my data collection period, I used the interviews for the analysis. Accordingly, it emerged that the first instance in the consultation process is to get to know the client’s organization in terms of all departments and production steps before actually providing improvement suggestions. For that purpose, the initiation meeting was the first step in the change implementation approach. It took place at the client’s organization and involved the external consultants and the organizational (i.e., change) leader. The following quotes clarify the implementation approach and the current phase of consultation:

(22)

21

“Currently we are trying to get an overview of where the problems actually lie in the whole organizational operation process and I think the process map serves as a basis for us to discuss where changes need to happen” (CL1).

Whereas from the perspective of the consultants this meeting served to become familiar with the client organization and its overall functioning in order to create a preliminary process map, the change leader elaborated on essential organizational work processes and provided detailed insights into operations. Respectively, a collective discussion about management and production issues emerged during this meeting, which also aimed to identify overall improvement opportunities based on operational difficulties. Regarding the investigation of sensebreaking, -giving, and -making processes, the data provided crucial insights into the consultation approach and the positioning of the consultants when assessing the organizational state. Specifically, this meeting appeared to be mainly characterized by sensegiving and sensemaking processes. The organizational leader elaborated on firm functioning and overall firm situation and thereby engaged in sensegiving practices. The consultants were taking notes and listened to the elaborations, while they simultaneously made sense of the presented information in order to assess and understand organizational reality. The following quote provides evidence for this analysis:

“Yes, in general it is the case that you do not know the organization when entering it for the first time. That means you need to get an overview of how the organization operates etc. Once having created this bigger picture, you sit down with the organizational leader or department leader and again collect information on the work processes, whether they are carried out correctly or not and whether it is necessary to improve them from their perspective” (C1).

The interviews revealed that the consultants were the only party that additionally engaged in sensebreaking practices while assessing the current organizational state. They asked open questions (i.e., ―why-questions) in order to assess why certain work processes happen that way. According to the consultants, this also served to get a detailed understanding of the leader’s thinking patterns and to achieve a certain consciousness level about organizational processes in order to stimulate a collective solution finding process:

(23)

22

experience. This expertise is gathered and will be incorporated into the change process” (C2).

The consultants also elaborated, that within their consulting service, it is not primarily the goal to have their improvement suggestions implemented, but rather to get a grasp of how the organization operates in detail and specifically, what norms and values are present among organizational members. Accordingly, it is essential to achieve that understanding and to provide support in formulating and framing organizational goals that are in accordance to that:

“We do not actively challenge the current organizational state, we just ask why things are done as they are done currently in order to understand thinking patterns. This is due to the fact that we do not have the extent of expertise and knowledge of the organization and industry that our client has” (C2).

As the construction of the process map was started by the consultants after this meeting, it did not yet have a role in these initial processes of giving and breaking sense. The interviews with the consultants and the change leaders specified the process map’s role regarding the change project once it has been created:

“If we look at the organization we see intersections between processes, departments etc. The process map is necessary to visualize these relationships and intersections and to arrange them into a logical sequence of organizational operation. (…). So, the process map serves for a first acquisition of current organizational processes, and aims to describe in detail the exact “how” of operations and procedures as they happen in reality” (C2).

“It is important for the employee to see where on the process map he/she finds himself/herself, and if necessary to understand what to change, how to change it and what impacts this might have on other work processes regarding other colleagues” (CL2).

I confirmed this elaboration based on my analysis of the process map. It appeared to be very clearly structured in simplifying the whole organizational value chain. Since I am an unexperienced user myself, I found that no prior experience with the usage of a process map was needed in order to navigate through it and to get a broad but also detailed overview of the firm’s functioning. The process map can be seen in Appendix 5.

(24)

23

The second stage of the implementation approach considers the meeting in which the preliminary version of the process map was collectively discussed by the two consultants and one of the change leaders. The goal was to complete the process map, to confirm it and, if necessary, to refine or extend it. As the observations revealed, both parties engaged in exchange of individual expertise and negotiation based on their standpoints of how to refine the process map in the best interest of the quality norms and organizational capacities. While the consultants were experts in the field of quality management and elaborated which organizational norms and standards are required in order to get certified, the change leader had a more detailed and well-grounded knowledge of organizational structures, capacities and risks.

Analyses of the first observation revealed a very lively and focused communication dynamic between the participants, in which both parties seemed to be equally empowered and involved. The interviews suggested a very similar impression. Specifically, regarding the investigation of sensebreaking, -giving, and -making processes, this meeting was characterized by a tight interconnectedness of sensegiving and sensemaking processes. Both, consultants as well as the change leader, were alternating in the positions of giving and making sense. While, consultants engaged in sensegiving practices by means of drawing on their general process expertise and on norms of the quality management in order to suggest how the organization could incorporate them into daily functioning, they also needed to make sense of the leader’s sensegiving practices in the form of explanations and justifications of organizational processes and capacities to incorporate certain quality requirements.

An example of that collective sensegiving and sensemaking dynamic can be drawn from this first observation. Specifically, the conversation sequence was about the inclusion or exclusion of a certain category from the quality management handbook, called ―development‖. While this term indicates that a firm has the capacities to invent whole new products for its customers, the current firm actually draws from a basic repertoire of products, which can be modified according to customer demands. One of the consultants clarified that this category can only be included in the process map if the firm is actually capable of fulfilling the category’s quality and process demands in practice. The change leader explained why this is not possible regarding firm resources, and both parties came to the agreement of excluding this point from the process map. This dynamic interaction of making and giving sense was also highlighted by the interviews:

(25)

24

could not capture otherwise. People in such communications are always equally empowered to influence the development, topics and process of the communication” (C2).

“We reviewed every step as defined in the process map in order to collectively complete it as far as possible. We also discussed some points of the quality management norms in detail since I am not as experienced with these matters (…)” (CL2).

With regards to the boundary objects used in this second meeting, the observation revealed important insights. Specifically, the consultants used a computer and a program which enabled a direct editing of the process map that was visually transferred on to a screen so that everyone in this room could follow the modifications and refinements they made based on the collective discussion. Consequently, as highlighted by the interviews and observations, a crucial role of the process map emerged at this stage (i.e., in comparison to the assessment stage, where the process map had no role). The process map was actively referred to by both parties in order to visualize what was communicated to finally support a congruent understanding by bridging different types of knowledge and expertise. One of the consultants even highlighted the process map in different colors to demarcate different layers. This additionally served to clarify the whole construction and structure of the process map and eased the sensemaking process for the change leader. The following quotes describe the (general) role of the process map regarding this meeting:

“Change projects are always characterized by a somewhat anticipative hypothetical nature. Consequently, we need to visualize and simulate what we are planning to do, in order to assess consequences and risks of the actual outcome. So, process maps are not only visualizing but also simulating” (C2).

“In this case the process map as a visualizing tool was so far missing in this firm. This tool will be highly beneficial in order to really achieve a congruent understanding of how processes need to be executed in a rather standardized manner” (CL2).

Stage 3: Kick-Off

(26)

25

last meeting, the goal was to gather information about values, opinions and improvement suggestions of the employees regarding the change project and the process map itself:

“The meeting in which every member will be involved will serve the goal to reveal and discuss information about the change project and the process map and to inform the employees what is going to happen. Of course we aim to gather information on what the employees think might need to change, but this is will not be the primary goal” (C2).

As the employees had not seen the process map before and had also not yet been confronted with detailed information concerning the change project, the consultant engaged in a sensegiving process. This was visible during the observation. Specifically, he began to explain how the process map is structured in detail and continued to ask the employees about any improvement suggestions. As this question ended up in interrogative silence, the consultant continued as follows:

“We want to collectively achieve a system that ensures and increases organizational sustainability. We want to use the current stressed and predicament situation of the firm in order to improve its sustainability and to increase organizational effectiveness and efficiency so that you can continue to produce the same good products as before. We can only collectively achieve an effective system and relieve your problematic firm situation if you participate” (C2, observation 2).

(27)

26

“The communication dynamic regarding this meeting was rather passive and not very lively, at least from the part of the employees. The organizational leaders tried to stay as passive as possible, as we aimed to gather opinions or suggestions from the employees primarily, but there was not much interaction” (CL1).

The observation confirmed these statements and mainly highlighted a rather one-directional way of communicating. While the consultant encouraged all organizational members, and specifically the employees, to ask questions and state their opinions based on the presented information, they stayed abstemious throughout this meeting. Consequently, a rather tense and uncomfortable communication atmosphere emerged. One could feel that the meeting was squeezed in between daily business and no one had the time and the mind-set to think about the project or the process map in detail. Therefore, the meeting was relatively short and ended rather abruptly. Apart from sensegiving and sensemaking processes, no sensebreaking processes were evident on the part of the leaders. Also, the consultants did not engage in sensebreaking as shown by the data. Additionally, the observation did not point to sensegiving or sensebreaking practices on the part of the employees. The interviews confirmed this analysis and additionally revealed that the employees felt in need of more information in advance in order to prepare themselves for this meeting:

“We simply got a notification that we have a group meeting in which this should be discussed. And I think based on that, we did not had a chance to prepare ourselves for this meeting (…)” (E4).

Finally, no collective exchange of ideas, questions or opinions on the part of the employees was visible during this observation. This finding was especially confirmed by the interviews, in which all employees agreed on the fact that they did not yet engage in any examination of the process map or the change project, and therefore, could not come up with any improvement suggestions or questions. Consequently, it needs to be considered that their sensemaking processes were absent during this meeting. They also reported that they had not collectively discussed these topics within an internal firm meeting or independently among colleagues either before or after this meeting. This points to the fact that at the time of conducting the interviews, the employees had not engaged in sensemaking processes so far. The following quotes underline this finding:

(28)

27

With regards to the process map in this meeting, it emerged that its role became weaker compared to the second meeting. The observation did not reveal any occurrences in which the organizational members used it to give, break or make sense. Only the consultant used it in order to visualize its components and structure. Additionally, the interviews revealed that the process map has not yet been used for collective discussions about the change project:

“Well, in terms of the change project, there has not yet been a situation in which I have used the process map to justify my ideas or critique, (…)” (E1).

Situational Factors

Having established that the employees were extremely passive, the interviews were necessary to follow up on this finding. Influencing factors that (hypothetically) appeared to determine the likelihood for breaking, giving and making sense emerged. In the following, each research concept is briefly discussed in terms of these situational factors. Figure 3 summarizes these findings.

Sensebreaking. Besides the limiting effects of organizational blindness due to a long and successful firm history, especially the overwhelming daily workload seemed to reduce the likelihood of questioning organizational beliefs. Specifically, the lack of time and limited cognitive resources to rethink work procedures might have been a reason for decreased sensebreaking activities during daily business but also during the firm meeting. Organizational members further elaborated that they work in a routinized fashion and usually do not encounter situational opportunities in order to question why certain work processes are executed that way. The following quotes highlight these two factors clearly:

(29)

28

“Well I need to be concentrated when I am at the work place, especially when the products are tested, mistakes can always happen that would have severe consequences, so there are many work practices that simply are routinized and automatic that we have always done this way and have never really questioned in essence” (E2).

Sensegiving. Nearly all organizational members agreed on the fact that for dynamic discussions characterized by sensegiving and sensemaking processes in which all members are equally involved, a sufficient basis of (diverse) knowledge, expertise, or opinions needs to be present. While the employees have not yet engaged in sensemaking processes and additionally, were not as involved in the project planning as the consultants or the leaders, they could not come up with improvement suggestions during the meeting and were not prepared to ask questions either. Therefore, the lack of prior information and personal standpoints about the topics limited the ability to take part in the discussion:

“More information beforehand would have been helpful so that we could already have acquainted ourselves with what is going to happen and what is unclear for me etc. Then I could have prepared questions beforehand and directly asked them during the meeting with everyone being there. Because now, we just sat there and listened to what the consultant was talking about (…). So, all information that was discussed was rather new to me and I needed to first of all think about it in order to formulate questions” (E5).

Moreover, another limiting factor of sensegiving processes seemed to be organizational member’s resignation. This resignation evolved due to bad experiences in the past that concerned the quality management system but also the general organizational condition due to overwhelming workload and customer complexity. It emerged that specifically the employees do not have the impression that the current organizational condition will change in the upcoming time or that their active participation in this discussion or the general change project would relieve the current organizational situation. Many of them experienced past situations in which they came up with improvement suggestions, which however were not followed up:

(30)

29

“What is slightly frustrating is that suggestions for changes of work steps oftentimes just peter out” (E3).

Sensemaking. As became evident from the interviews with the employees, sensemaking processes were mainly absent due to the fact that they have not yet actively been involved in the change project so far. This was due to time constraints and the lack of prior internal firm meetings in order to discuss the change project in detail. The process map was also not introduced to the employees before the third meeting so that they were not able to make sense of it individually and to formulate opinions/questions beforehand. Additionally, it emerged that the introduction elaborations were a bit too short. This might have led to lack of information and the impression of rushing through the meeting, which limited the readiness for sensemaking on the part of the employees. Finally, it also became evident that a printed version of the process map would have been very supporting in making sense of it. The following quotes underline these findings:

“Regarding the last meeting, we were really limited in time as well. (…) Sadly, the meeting was rather quick and I had the impression that it was rather fitted in between all other stuff but not really scheduled so that everyone could take a minute to think about it or reflect back” (CL1).

“I think it would have been more helpful if we had the process map printed (…) in order to make well-grounded suggestions” (E7).

Process map. All members pointed to certain situational factors that possibly influence the usage or non-usage of the process map. Specifically, the interviews revealed that a clear structure avoids confusion and increases usage likelihood:

“(…) I would say that as long as the process map is easy to handle, it is actually used by the organizational members” (CL1).

(31)

30

“We are currently not extensively encouraged by the leader to use it regarding the change project or daily business, that is why I never spend time to get familiarize myself with it” (E2).

Discussion

In accordance to the identified literature gaps regarding sensemaking processes and the role of boundary objects in facilitating them during organizational change, the aim of this study is to answer the following research question: How do boundary objects facilitate the

interplay between sensebreaking, sensegiving and sensemaking in organizational change projects? This study found that the boundary object visualized and bridged diverse

organizational conceptions and aids sensegiving and sensemaking processes among consultants and leaders when collectively creating this object for purposes of a change project. However, due to insufficient data it could not be concluded how boundary objects facilitated sensebreaking attempts among consultants, leaders and employees. Similarly, as the employees did not engage in sensegiving or sensemaking practices during collective discussions, this study also failed to examine its role in these attempts. This answer is further elaborated on below. I will discuss the findings with regards to my research objectives and in relation to existing literature.

(32)

31

Furthermore, the consultants used the process map as a visualizing tool to explain the change’s dimension and specified who will be involved in which step of the change process. Consequently, organizational members were supported in locating their personal role and necessary actions in the change project. This confirms the studies of Werr et al. (1997) and Okrent and Vokurka (2004) regarding the identified benefits of using a process map as a method to distribute and visualize information effectively across a diverse group of actors.

Regarding the third research objective, it can be concluded that change leaders used the process map in a similar way as the consultants, namely to visualize own standpoints and argumentations. This finding, again, confirms the study of Fenton (2007). However, it should be noted that contrary to that study, the current research showed a clear engagement of change leaders in using the process map and not only the consultants as proposed by Fenton (2007). This finding highlights and confirms the versatility and manageability of boundary objects across divers groups of actors, as proposed by Star and Griesemer (1989). Moreover, the current findings confirm Gioia and Chittipeddi’s (1991) study of organizational leaders’ sensegiving practices, by supporting the notion that sensegiving practices were rather executed by leaders in comparison to employees. Similar patterns were evident in the current study that found employees to be passive during the collective meeting.

Proposition 1: Process maps as boundary objects facilitate a shared understanding of change projects among consultants and change leaders in that they visualize meaning when collectively giving and making sense.

(33)

32

seemed to be an influencing factor, as several employees pointed to its manageability as an important factor determining its usage.

Proposition 2: Employee’s attempts of breaking, giving and making sense of by means of process maps might depend on situational factors such as usage encouragement and process map construction.

Theoretical Contribution

Concerning literature on the three sensemaking processes, this study made essential contributions. In terms of the identified research gaps and the lack of understanding the underlying mechanisms through which boundary objects facilitated a congruent understanding among diverse groups of individuals, this study achieved crucial answers. While Vlaar et al. (2008) emphasized the collective and interactive dynamic between sensegiving and sensemaking their findings did not point to explanations of mechanisms that facilitated this beneficial dynamic. In that regard, the current study extends this literature in explaining the underlying mechanism of boundary object’s benefits for sensemaking processes. Specifically, their visualizing and simplifying character was responsible for the facilitation of collective sensemaking and sensegiving processes of organizational members. Furthermore, the current study extends previous literature in identifying boundary objects as tools to provoke, stimulate and aid people’s sensegiving and sensemaking processes in order to arrive at shared understandings. In this way, the present study also explains the findings of Okrent and Vokurka (2004), who showed that process mapping contributed to successful change implementation but did not specify how this finding related to sensemaking processes. Finally, building on Fenton’s (2007) examination of organizational change as facilitated by process maps, the current study did not only confirm that process maps provoke sensemaking processes but also essentially facilitate sensegiving processes between change leaders and consultants, which extends Fenton’s study. Put together, in light of the current findings, boundary objects bridged sensemaking and sensegiving processes by means of visualizing and simplifying the exchange of information, thereby enabling an effective way of collectively reaching shared understandings.