The role of technology in collective sensemaking:

(1)

The role of technology in collective

sensemaking:

A sociomaterial approach on the change recipients’

sensemaking processes of unplanned organizational

change

Lisa Vermeulen - S2368889

Email: l.d.vermeulen@student.rug.nl

University of Groningen – Faculty of Economics and Business

Master thesis MSc Change Management

Word count: 12544

(2)

PREFACE

This thesis is written in a turbulent time of the pandemic of COVID-19 and terrible family circumstances, which required resilience on my part and flexibility in the process of my thesis. I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who helped and supported me to adapt and finalize this master’s thesis. Therefore, I want to express my special thanks to Ileana Maris-de Bresser, who with her patience and flexibility and support, has been a great supervisor. I want to express my gratitude to Antijn Koers who gave me the opportunity to complete my data collection despite the turbulent time of COVID-19. Finally, I would also like to express my gratitude to Albert Boonstra

(3)

ABSTRACT

This study examines the effect of technology on collective sensemaking and its three processes (e.g., Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2014). Weick, Sutfcliffe, and Obstfeld (2005) described the sensemaking processes as the creation and perception of cues, the creation of interpretations, and enactment. Previous studies have investigated sensemaking as a process of interpretation alone (e.g., Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). This study, however, adopted a sociomateriality approach to analyze the role of technology, whereby employees are seen as active users of technology who transform the way of communication and work. To test this view, a qualitative case study was conducted in a Dutch production company that underwent unplanned organizational change due to the national response to COVID-19. An analysis of interview data and archival data of conversations that occured between employees during the organizational change reveal that technology plays a hybrid role in the sensemaking process: it is both a mass communication medium and a communication and collaboration medium. The findings emphasize and show the empirical and theoretical value of examining all three employees’ sensemaking processes: which helps to research to differentiate the effects at each stage. Therefore, it is important to study the sensemaking of organizational change according to the three sensemaking processes outlined by Weick et al. (2005). The case study context of a production-oriented organization operating in a crisis situation revealed that the normally hindering effects of mass communication are supportive, during a crisis because this controlled way of communication reduces chaos. Based on the findings, a model was designed to visualize the hybrid role and its effects on employees’ collective sensemaking. This study was conducted in a production organization; therefore, it would be interesting for future research to examine the effect of technology on collective sensemaking in innovative type organizations, such as a corporation or tech-oriented company.

Keywords

(4)

1. INTRODUCTION

In 2020, the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) led the Dutch government to impose rules that affected many organizations in the Netherlands. The application of these governmental rules led to a major and unplanned organizational change. According to McKinsey (2020), companies had to change their business-as-usual approach with regard to customer service, dealing with suppliers, engaging with colleagues, and simply getting things done. Organizations needed to develop innovative strategies to accelerate the decision-making process while increasing efficiency and using technology in new ways. Managing unplanned organizational change is challenging, as it requires the organizations to adapt and change quickly (Edmonson, 2015).

The successful implementation of organizational change depends upon, among other factors, consistent actions taken by change recipients based on similar interpretations of the necessary change (Stensaker, Falkenberg, & Grønhaug, 2008). In other words, successful change depends upon employees’ interpretation of the experience of organizational change and how they adapt their behaviours following those interpretations. Together, these processes comprise the phenomenon of

sensemaking. In this context, sensemaking in organizations is “an effort to create orderly and coherent

(6)

According to the literature review conducted by Sandberg and Tsoukas (2014), they stated that the sensemaking process is always formed by a number of specific situational factors, such as the context, technology. This applies to information and communication technologies (ICT), which are seen as part of organizational work (e.g., Griffith, 1999; Korica & Molloy, 2010). These few studies have investigated how ICT influences organizational sensemaking but have not considered the three processes of sensemaking (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2014) and the call for a sociomateriality approach to understanding sensemaking (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). As ICT products and its functionalities are part of IT, hereafter, they will be referred to as information technology (IT). This study applies the sociomateriality approach, seeing IT and sensemaking as intertwined. This relationship has been neglected by previous research (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008) and therefore requires further research to better understand how employees and organizations use IT during each sensemaking process.

Studies have also investigated the supportive and hindering effect of IT in organizational sensemaking. IT tools offer support and limit sensemaking when individuals do or do not engage in technology-mediated sensemaking (Bansler & Havn, 2006; Berthod & Müller-Seitz, 2018), but the effects of the assumed sociomaterial relationship between IT and the three processes of the employee sensemaking have not yet been investigated. This makes it difficult for managers to determine how technology may best be used at which sensemaking process and in what context. Therefore, this study aims to determine what role technology plays in the three processes of employees’ sensemaking. First, is it supportive, or limiting, or both? Second, to identify what is happening under what circumstances during each process of employees’ sensemaking?

To address the previously mentioned literature gaps, this study aims to provide insight by means of exploratory research into technology’s role in the sensemaking of organizational change recipients. The research question is as follows: How does the use of IT influence employees’ sensemaking of unplanned organizational change? To answer this question, the researcher conducted a qualitative case study, including 15 interviews with employees of Suplacon, a medium-sized Dutch-based production company in the metal industry (Appendix A). Suplacon employees are collectively trying to make sense of the changing working conditions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The researcher collected archival documentation of information and communication shared through various IT mediums. The current COVID-19 crisis offers an opportunity to study the role of technology in sensemaking, as social distancing requirements have increased employees’ use of IT during this crisis.

(7)

employees better manage larger organizational crises and to mitigate the impact of larger crises by managing smarter (Weick, 1988). Second, a better understanding of the effects of various types of technology on collective sensemaking is relevant for managers, who could use technology more effectively and successfully during unplanned organizational change. Third, it is academically relevant to improve the understanding of collective sensemaking during unplanned organizational change as a sociomaterial practice. Furthermore, this research will complement the current literature using Weick's theory of organizational sensemaking and a sociomaterial approach grounded in agential realism.

This paper is structured as follows. First, the theoretical framework discusses major unplanned organizational change (Section 2.1), Weick’s sensemaking process (Section 2.2) and the three different sensemaking types (Sections 2.3 and 2.4). Section 2.5 introduces a conceptual model, combining Weick’s three processes of sensemaking and the idea of sensemaking as a sociomaterial practice, that serves as a basis for the present study (Section 2.5). Chapter 3 presents the methodology and case study. Chapter 4 presents the most important results of the research. In Chapter 5, the main findings of this research are analyzed and discussed (5.1). Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of the theoretical (5.2) and managerial implications (5.3), future research directions (5.4), and a summary conclusion (5.5).

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Major unplanned organizational change

Organizational change is a context-dependent and non-linear process, and there are two types of changes which may occur within an organization: planned and unplanned. Planned organizational change refers to deliberate decisions implemented to reach a desired organizational state (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Unplanned organizational changes are “organizational changes that are not foreseen prior to the need to change, often made necessary by shifts in the organizational environment” (Shaw, 2018, p.1). The type of organizational change implemented is based on internal and external factors, but unplanned organizational change is sometimes unavoidable. Major unplanned organizational change events may occur due to an external force, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This exploratory study had the opportunity to examine a major unplanned organizational change as a result of the unfolding COVID-19 pandemic, which has impacted the way organizations operate.

(8)

changing attitudes and human behaviour in relation to imminent change. During a crisis response, organizations transition from the current state to a new future state, from which the organization will continue to operate (Shaw, 2018). Lewin’s three-step strategy explains the transition process and the organizational crisis. Lewin (1951) suggests that managers can encourage unfreezing by sharing change information with employees so that the employees can recognize the need for change. In the event of an organizational crisis, the crisis causes a change in the organization’s status quo of the organization’s structure and activities (Shaw, 2018).

At the unfreezing stage, an organization is ready to undergo the unplanned changes that accompany the crisis response. After the unplanned changes, Lewin’s theory states that employees need to adjust to the newly implemented organizational changes (Shaw, 2018).

Implementing company-wide (unplanned) changes fuelled by a crisis affects the organization’s operational and procedural standards (Shaw, 2018). Therefore, during the crisis response, the organization must act quickly and to protect the organization (Shaw, 2018). Leadership style and communication are important in this process (Edmonson, 2015; Shaw, 2018), as the success of organizational change requires a shared understanding about why the change must occur and how employees are to behave under these new conditions (Balogun, 2006). In other words, how employees react and adapt to each type of organizational change is influenced by how employees collectively perceive the organizational change. This is why it is essential to gain more insight into organizational sensemaking, which helps make any type of organizational change possible.

2.2 Sensemaking during unplanned organizational change

Sensemaking has become an important theory in the research into the way employees give meaning and adapt to organizational change (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Sensemaking studies during major unplanned change events characterized by varying degrees of complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity (Weick et al., 2005). These sensemaking studies mainly focusing on organizational crises that triggered intensive sensemaking efforts (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2014), examples include the Bhopal gas leak (Weick, 1988), or the Colombia shuttle that faced a series of unexpected technical failures when the shuttle returned to Earth (Dunbar & Garud, 2009).

(9)

changed situation (Bansler & Havn, 2006). Therefore, Weick’s definition of sensemaking aligns with the research goal of this paper: that is, to investigate employee sensemaking during unplanned organizational change.

According to Weick (1995) sensemaking consists of three processes. The first process, the creation

and perception of cues, involves the bracketing of text-cues, noticing, and extracting cues from the

changing environment (Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). This process involves observing the changed situation and noticing that something has or will change. In the second process, creating

interpretations, change recipients give meaning to the situation and make sense of what is happening

(Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). In other words, this process involves employees making clear what the situation is all about. During organizational change, employees collectively create, interpret, and ascribe meanings to what is happening around them, the impact the organizational change will have on their jobs, and where the organization is heading (Weick, 1995). The last process of sensemaking is enactment, which describes the actions employees take and the decisions employees make based on their previous interpretations (Weick et al., 2005). During enactment, people learn from the changed situation (Weick, 1988) and act until the interrupted activity is satisfactorily restored; “that is, when sense and action are in sync again” (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2014, p.36). For example, when employees hear that they have to work from home, they might decide to borrow laptops from work or bring their computer screens home to create a more suitable home office.

This paper examines the whole sensemaking process in order to gain a deeper insight into Weick's three processes of sensemaking, especially since existing research focuses exclusively on the interpretation process and thus does not address the full effect of sensemaking (e.g., Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). The shortcoming in this respect is that interpretation only explains the finding meaning in what is already there by relating it to the inner world of the individual, whereas sensemaking is about the way people generate interpretations of the external

world (Weick, 1995).

(10)

2.3 Sensemaking as an individual process or a collective process

Current literature on sensemaking distinguishes between three different important sensemaking perspectives, namely the individual cognitive process, the collective social process, and the collective sociomateriality process (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). The latter perspective has been chosen as the theoretical basis for this study and the reason is explained in the section of sensemaking as a collective sociomateriality practice (2.4). However, to understand how the latter perspective developed, the former perspectives must be explained. The following paragraphs discuss the first two perspectives of sensemaking and their strengths and weaknesses.

Earlier research conceptualized sensemaking as an individual cognitive process aimed at making interpretations using a cognitive framework or interpretive schemes (Gioia, 1986; Weick, 1995; Elsbach, Barr & Hargadon, 2005; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). The sensemaker searches for explanations in their frameworks, such as organizational information about plans and expectations, in order to form an understanding of the changed situation. In this way, people can resume their interrupted activities and remain in action. If their resumption of work is uncertain, the sensemaker tends to substitute action for a more active mode of sensemaking (Weick et al., 2005). This final action of moving to an interpretive process indicates a social process. The most important limitation of viewing sensemaking as an individual cognitive approach, however, is that even when there is no interaction, complex social processes may play a role in the sensemaking process. Sensemaking is shaped by identity and influenced by the social context (Mills, 2005). Therefore, the individual might try to anticipate the thoughts and reactions of others (Kramer, 2017). The presence of others in the individual’s thoughts and their interactions with one another indicate that sensemaking is a social process; thus, sensemaking cannot be seen as an individual process (Bansler & Havn, 2006; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2014; Kramer, 2017).

(11)

A shortcoming of Weick’s sensemaking and the assumed collective element is that he neglects the role of the objects that people interact with, such as technology. Most management research does not address the role and the influence of technology within organizations (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008). While the role of technology has been recognized in previous research (e.g., Blau et al., 1976) and calls for greater attention to the artefacts of the technological medium in organizational studies (Weick, 2001; Stigliani & Ravasi, 2012). Future research should therefore not focus exclusively on the socially constructed process of sensemaking (Stigliani & Ravasi, 2012), as technology shapes interpretations during social interactions and thus influences sensemaking (Stigliani & Ravasi, 2012; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2014). Furthermore, exclusively seeing sensemaking as a socially constructed process ignores the increasing use of technology within organizations and the way organizational sensemaking develops.

2.4 Sensemaking as a collective sociomateriality practice

The sociomateriality perspective recognizes the relationship between technical objects (material) and human interactions (social) in the daily organizational context. The perspective arose from criticism of the two previous research perspectives’ view of technology in organizational life. The first perspective describes the relationship between materiality of IT and employees’ social interactions as one-way, as separate independent entities (e.g., Blau et al., 1976; Huber, 1990; Aiman-Smith & Green, 2002). The other perspective considers the relationship as a two-way interaction, a reciprocal relationship between the two interdependent entities (e.g., Barley, 1986; Prasad, 1993; Boudreau & Robey, 2005). However, both perspectives - social and material - have blind spots when it comes to technology and the organizational environment (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008). In both perspectives, technology is seen as temporary, a tool operating in the background that supports the work of employees only in certain organizational situations (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008). This shows that these studies only examine the materiality of IT from a user perspective: how users interpret IT.

(12)

state that there is always a separation between technology and the employees’ interactions with the technology itself. The relationship between these two entities becomes sociomaterial when the entities are brought together to interact with each other (Leonardi, 2013).

This study assumes a sociomaterial approach grounded in agential realism because this sociomaterial approach emphasizes the materiality of IT. Because technologies have different functions, there are different ways of using them, which can influence collective sensemaking. To illustrate this sociomaterial perspective, Orlikowski (2007) used the example of a mobile device in an organizational context. In her study, employee communication became entangled with the technological medium of a Blackberry and the way this technology was used. The employees’ use of technology was formed by its design and the settings (Orlikowski, 2007). As such, the use of this mobile device originated from sociomaterial activities and was not simply the result of the Blackberry’s material features that made communication more efficient and effective. Furthermore, Stigliani and Ravasi’s research (2012) into product developers emphasizes the importance of sharing materialistic or tangible artefacts through a technological medium that helps create, express, and improve understanding. In this way, technological mediums enable collective sensemaking through their mediating role in the transition from individual to collective sensemaking (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).

It is clear that technology influences the sensemaking process of employees. A study conducted by Griffith (1999) shows that technology may act as a trigger for sensemaking, and Korica and Molloy (2010) demonstrated how technology affects the employees’ social relationships and professional identities. However, the disadvantage of technology’s influence on the sensemaking process is that technologies have “[...] several possible or plausible interpretations” (Weick, 2001, p.148) due to their different functionalities. In other words, these different interpretations are the result of the technologies and the individuals who determine how to use them in specific situations. Technology can, therefore, not only support but also hinder the employees’ sensemaking process (Bansler & Havn, 2006; Berthod & Müller-Seitz, 2018). However, the effect of IT on the three sensemaking processes of change recipients has not yet been studied using a sociomaterial approach. In this paper, the effect of IT is explained by examining the sociomaterial interactions of the users and by analyzing the functions and effects of the technological medium used. Thus, the relationship between the use of IT by change recipients and their sensemaking processes during the unplanned organizational change is examined.

2.5 Conceptual framework

(13)

(2014) and Sandberg and Tsoukas’ (2014) calls for additional research into the role of technology in organizational sensemaking. Examining the three processes of sensemaking and approaching sensemaking as a sociomateriality practice helps one understand the process of technologically mediated sensemaking in more detail. Unplanned organizational changes are expected to trigger further technologically mediated sensemaking, as more employees are required to work from home or work at the office in shifts. Thus, employees are expected to be more engaged in technologically mediated sensemaking, which makes unplanned organizational change in the time of COVID-19 a fascinating context from which to investigate this phenomenon.

A conceptual model (Figure 1) was created based on the above theorizing and the current global context of COVID-19. This model was used to examine the role of technology in the three processes of sensemaking. The last phase of sensemaking is expected to lead to the change outcome, which indicates the recipient’s understanding of the changing working conditions and the actions to make the new working conditions possible. The three sensemaking processes are illustrated separately, as the role of technology may differ for each process if sensemaking is supported or hindered by technology. In this research, employees’ use of technology in each process of sensemaking is examined. The study also investigates whether the processes differ among change recipients according to their use of technology. This conceptual model was empirically investigated in an exploratory case study conducted at Suplacon. The study was conducted by means of employee interviews and an analysis of archival data shared through different types of IT. These arguments comprise the conceptual framework of this study, as shown in Figure 1.

(14)

3. METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research approach (Section 3.1) and case description (Section 3.2) and describes the data collection (Section 3.3) and the data analysis techniques (Section 3.4).

3.1 Research approach: Qualitative case study

The purpose of this study is to explain how IT influences employees' sensemaking during an unplanned organizational change. There are two main reasons this study uses a qualitative case approach. First, the aim of a qualitative case study is to generate a theory, based on empirical data, about the influence IT has on collective sensemaking during an unplanned organizational change. Since “qualitative research attempts to understand and make sense of phenomena from the participant’s perspective” (Merriam, 2002, p. 6), an exploratory research question is better answered through a qualitative study than a quantitative one (Glaser & Strauss, 1965). Moreover, Edmondson and McManus (2007) argue that “how” and “why”' research questions can best be addressed through a qualitative research approach.

Second, this study’s exploratory research question allowed for the application of a qualitative case study. The greatest advantage of a case study is that it allows the research to simultaneously examine the phenomenon and its real context (Yin, 1981), which is necessary for this research paper. Moreover, the strength of applying a case study is that it provides these insights using multiple sources of evidence. This characteristic is essential to the subject of this study, as sensemaking is a complex sociomaterial phenomenon. Employees could not precisely remember the sensemaking process of unplanned organizational change during the interviews and did not always consciously perform tasks in which multiple qualitative strategies might provide additional insights. Therefore, both interviews and documentation of conversations between employees were used in this study, the application of which are explained in more detail Section 3.3.

(15)

were drawn from the connections that were discovered within the data provided by individual employees.

3.2 Case description

This field research was conducted at Suplacon, a supplier of high-tech, sheet metal components for 400 companies in the Netherlands and abroad. The organization operates in various specialties, namely welding, expedition, edge banding, and laser cutting. Suplacon employs approximately 100 people and is a flat organization that distinguishes between the business functions of purchases and sales, directed by the commercial director, and the production department, directed by the technical director and the various production managers (i.e. foremen) (Appendix A). This company was chosen as an appropriate research setting as the unplanned organizational changes are a continuous process, and employees need to understand the new working condition caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced most Dutch companies to adjust their daily operations. For production companies such as Suplacon, the consequences are even greater, as the employees must work in shifts and a few employees have to work from home. Suplacon’s board of directors communicated the consequences the new operational activities had for the employees through the use of IT and verbal explanations (see Section 4.1 for more detail). Suplacon, therefore, provides an ideal research setting for analyzing technology’s role in employee sensemaking during times of unplanned organizational change.

3.3 Data collection

The qualitative data needed to analyze IT’s influence on the collective sensemaking processes were collected through interviews and documentation. This is in line with Yin (2009), who argued that multiple sources of evidence are necessary for data triangulation. In other words, multiple data sources guarantee construct validity (Yin, 2009). This paper allows for triangulation by reviewing the literature, conducting interviews (see Table 1), and analyzing communication through different IT mediums (see Table 2). These methods are discussed in greater detail in the following sections so that other researchers are able to replicate the findings (Van Aken, Berends &, van der Bij, 2012).

3.3.1 Interviews and participants

(16)

The interviewees were selected by means of snowball sampling (Noy, 2008), which means that each interviewee determines who will be interviewed next. This technique was chosen because although S_FM1 had sent a research invitation to Suplacon employees, the invitation did not yield a sufficient response. Therefore, the researcher decided to switch to snowball sampling so that enough respondents would be reached. The researcher ultimately interviewed 14 employees (Table 1). All interviewees are coded with the company initials, followed by their function: BM indicates the interviewee is practically a part of the board, INT is used for interns, FM is used for the managers (i.e. foremen), and OW is used for office workers. Due to the COVID-19 crisis, video interviews were conducted using Skype. This method ensures, to some extent, that verbal signals could be communicated during the interviews, and this method adhered to work-from-home guidelines. The interviews were semi-structured, so there was room for probing, and follow-up questions allowed the researcher to discover other possible topics that would otherwise remain undetermined. The interviews lasted about 30 to 60 minutes. Table 1 provides an overview of the study sample and details of the interviews conducted.

(17)

Suplacon?” The second part consisted of questions about the role of IT and its influence on the three

processes of employees’ sensemaking. Therefore, the three processes of sensemaking were used to divide this section. Construct validity was ensured by distinguishing between the three sensemaking processes during the interviews. The first phase of sensemaking (the creation and perception of cues) is aimed at determining the cues the interviewees consciously experienced during the organizational change; for example, “When did you start noticing the consequences COVID-19 had for Suplacon?” The second phase of the sensemaking process (interpretation) is about giving meaning to the changing working conditions surrounding email and other uses of IT. For example, “How did you make use of

the IT in internal communication concerning the changes caused by COVID-19?” In the final phase

of sensemaking (enactment), an attempt was made to identify the action steps employees took based on their interpretations, such as “Moreover, if you relate this to your use of IT, how would you

describe the change compared to the situation before COVID-19?” The closing questions were used

to determine the next employee to be interviewed and document the conversations that took place using IT as a result of the unplanned organizational change (see Table 2). However, the interview protocol changed during the data collection; these changes are discussed in Section 3.4. The interviewer emphasized the employees’ anonymity. All interviews were conducted and recorded in the employee’s native language (Dutch) and transcribed to increase the reliability and construct validity of the findings.

(18)

During the interviews, information about the organizational change communicated through IT was requested (see Table 2), as it could provide more context for the technology mediated sensemaking. The secondary data consisted of conversations that occured between colleagues and were conducted over email and WhatsApp. These data were transcribed and merged with the interview transcripts (Appendix E) and various internal newsletters on the impact of COVID-19 on company working conditions (Appendix C).

3.4 Data analysis

Data were collected and analyzed according to Strauss and Corbin (1990), who stated that these processes are interrelated and must be carried out simultaneously. Because the analysis might provide new insights for the next round of interviews, the interview protocol was adjusted. Employees were asked how they use email to make sense of the organizational changes, as the researcher expected that people’s internal technology-mediated sensemaking was triggered by the information presented in emails. However, none of the employees used email to understand the impact of their changing work conditions. Therefore, the researcher added questions to determine when the employees would answer those emails, and look beyond email communication, the researcher added questions to learn how employees view other types of IT.

Prior to the coding process, the researcher read all transcripts separately and thoroughly. Next, conspicuous text fragments were highlighted and coded using ATLAS.ti. To analyze the interviews, the researcher used the coding approach of Strauss and Corbin (1990), distinguishing between open,

axial, and selective coding. Open coding was used to assign codes to chunks of data which relate to

(19)

4. FINDINGS

In this chapter, the findings are presented. First, the unplanned organizational change and the internal email communication related to the organizational change are presented. Then, the different coding categories and the most important findings within each process of the employees’ collective sensemaking are described. At the end of each sensemaking process, technology’s role and influence in the respective process is discussed.

4.1 Unplanned organizational change and its IT communication flow

Suplacon’s organizational change focused on maintaining the prescribed governmental measures and included additional measures taken to allow continued operations. Both governmental and essential organizational measures were implemented in March 2020. The national measures were communicated through a national press conference and included the following: employees are to maintain 1.5 metres distance from one another; to stay home when they have a cold, cough, sore throat, or fever; to wash their hands more often; to cough into their elbows; to avoid shaking hands; to avoid big groups and limit social contact; and to work from home whenever possible or to work in shifts (Rijksoverheid, 2020). In addition to the national measures, the essential measures Suplacon implemented internally are as follows: the production department started working in morning and evening shifts and employee breaks were split between the production department and the administrative department. Because Suplacon is a production company, working from home is impossible for most employees, so they continued working within the organization.

The collected internal communications related to the organizational change consists of an email, two newsletters, and a sticker which was visible to the employees in the workplace (Appendix C). In the first email from the board of directors to Suplacon employees, sent March 15, the national and internal measures outlined above were shared. In addition, employees who had to deal with childcare problems or consider their partner’s work could continue to work from home after consulting their managers. Moreover, the company shared an extended COVID-19 protocol in a company newsletter issued on March 31. On April 2, an additional newsletter was sent which shared the trajectory of the floor markings within the organization. These directional markings on the floor were necessary so that physical distance could be more easily maintained.

4.2 Employee creation process and the influence of technology

(20)

creation: physical and behavioural changes, change information received through personal communication, and change information received through IT. However, the first two categories describe observed cues in the working environment in more detail, as most employees were still working in their office during the unplanned organizational change.

The first category of cues observed by the change recipients were physical and behavioural changes in the workplace. For example, most employees have observed the notices with the government request for employees to keep their distance from one another. As S_INT3 mentioned, “those papers on the

wall, they showed pictures of puppets standing 1.5 metres apart from each other”. The employees

also perceived physical changes to the working environment to facilitate compliance with the specific requirement of maintaining distance. As S_OW1 explained: “[...] more than half of the chairs were

removed. Desks were situated further apart, there is a walking direction [indicated on the floors]”.

Most employees noticed the new walking route; respondent S_INT2 explains that: “[...] when I came

back to the office, there were all those new rules, one and a half metres distance, a new walking route. However, they are easy to follow”. Some employees also mentioned their own behaviour and that of

their colleagues to maintain physical distance and refrain from shaking hands. Respondent S_OW2 explained that:“[...] no longer shaking hands and keeping a distance of 1.5 metres made me realize

that something was going to change fundamentally”. Respondent S_OW2 also mentioned the internal

measure of limiting external visits: “in the beginning, for example, you could no longer shake hands,

so you planned as few visits as possible”. As a consequence, some employees perceived the

technological change as a result of the limitation on external visits: “[...] you see a lot more virtual

conversations in an office like we are now” (FM_2).

The second category is the perceived cues of organizational change received through personal communication. This category contains cues of different (possible) national and internal measures. Before the national measures were instituted, several employees mentioned that Suplacon’s owner had already announced that the company might be changing hygiene requirements. This speech surprised many employees, as they could not yet imagine these organizational changes. Interviewee S_INT 3 explained that “he said the corona period would come and that we already had to take this into

account. That was during the period when the 1.5 metres distance had not yet been introduced”. In

the beginning, employees wondered about the national measure of working from home. However, as respondent S_INT6 emphasized, the data show the employees observed the cue for the internal measure to continue working in the office: “but yes, you also heard in the corridors that it was not

extreme. Even with the measures taken, yes, we are not going to let everyone work from home, and we would not close the whole production department". Furthermore, after the organizational change

(21)

physical distance. Thus, all employees perceived many offline cues related to the unplanned organizational change because work at the office continued.

The last observable cues is the information about the unplanned organizational change received through different types of technology. Most employees observed external cues related to the national government’s social distancing measures; interviewee S_FM1 explained: “that the time would come

that you had to keep your distance, but of course, everyone was watching the news, at least most people, so all this information was told. Therefore, I was already aware of it”. Some employees also

mentioned messages they received from suppliers or client companies with cues communicating their own organizational changes. S_FM2 stated, “I do get many emails from customers and suppliers

about how they do it and how they work”. Therefore, many employees first expected that the

unplanned organizational change would mean they would begin working from home. However, mail and newsletters provided a cue of internal measures for employees to continue working at the office, thereby providing clarity and supporting the employees’ collective sensemaking of the unplanned organizational change.

The internal cues observed through IT include information about the change, sent through email, additional newsletters, various WhatsApp messages, and narrowcast messages in the office. Virtually all employees mentioned the cues of the email or newsletters before the researcher introduced them during the interview. Some employees found the national measures of social distancing and hand washing and similar internal measures and read about them in the internal newsletters. Moreover, interviewee S_INT1 explained: “that an email had been sent to [to tell employees] there are walking

lines”. Some employees stressed that important messages, such as updates about the unplanned

organizational changes, were shared in a general WhatsApp group. Respondent S_IN2 explained that:“[...] a company-wide WhatsApp group was created by the company to discuss these corona

issues”.

However, only the board could push information through the general WhatsApp group. Therefore, employees passively used this technological medium to receive information. Other media were used for updates on external developments of the national measures, such as press releases (S_OW2) and

“extensive use of passive use of technology via RIVM guidelines, and news sources” (S_BM1). Some

employees even stopped passively following external cues; for example, S_INT5 stated, “I do not

watch the news anymore. If there is something newsworthy or important, you will hear it automatically”. Some employees in managerial positions explained that they were actively choosing

which external cues to follow about possible unplanned organizational changes. S_OW4 explained, “I

(22)

and then you gather information about what you think is going to happen”, and S_BM1 explained

they “have often searched the internet for exceptions and adapted measures with regard to the

COVID-19 measures in the production environment”. In this way, employees have made active use of

mass communication through self-selected sources of information that suit their needs. In contrast, they have made passive use of the mass media to remain informed of national measures. A consequence of all these different external media cues is the hindering effect described by employee S_FM2: “too much information is not good of course, then you have to filter and think for yourself

‘what is good?’ But that was especially bad in the beginning”.

Finally, the use of technology was intensified; the organization used technology to transmit information about organizational changes made to comply with the new government rules. However, most of the cues of the internal change measures were observed at the workplace. The data related to the creation and perception of cues indicate that technology plays a role in transmitting cues; it was used to communicate information about the organizational change. For example, employees followed the national measures that were communicated through the television (i.e. press conference); in this way, they used technology passively. Furthermore, the internal measures and rules communicated via email, newsletters, the general WhatsApp group, and narrowcasting were the means of cue transmission about organizational change. More specifically, only the administrators could post information in the general WhatsApp group; the rest of the company’s employees could merely view this information and were not allowed to respond. Similarly, with regard to narrowcast cues, employees could see change information presented on a screen, but they could not respond. Therefore, employees primarily use technology to passively perceive information. However, IT also supported the cue process of collective sensemaking by spreading the information about the unplanned organizational change. With this information, employees were able to engage in personal conversations about the unplanned organizational change.

4.3 Employee interpretation process and the influence of technology

This section discusses the influence of technology on employees’ interpretation of the change. It distinguishes between two processes within the interpretation phase: (1) employees’ interpretation of the digital and general communication flow of the organization before and during the organizational change, (2) the type of sensemaking during the organizational change. It seems that during the change process, while many cues were perceived online via various technology types, the interpretation of these cues happened offline, at the organization.

(23)

(e.g. email, WhatsApp, Microsoft Teams) during their work. However, for the unplanned organizational change, the internal communication flowed hierarchically, with the board informing managers of the changes in meetings or via technology (e.g. email or WhatsApp). Managers then informed their reports of the changes in weekly meetings. Their managers were also employees’ point of contact for asking questions and reporting illnesses. The organization used email newsletters throughout the organization for the most practical matters of the month. Email communications were used “[...] to inform and involve everyone in the company”(BM_1). This information was also digitally displayed in the cafeteria (i.e. through narrowcasting) to increase employee involvement. Thus, before the unplanned organizational change, technology’s main role within the company was a means of mass communication. During the weekly meetings, managers also discussed the announcements they received from the board and the monthly newsletter, including further explanations from the board if they were necessary. Asking questions and seeking solutions was the central goal of these meetings. Although email and department WhatsApp groups were also used for internal communication, the main flow of internal organizational communication happened in person, which reflects the open-door culture of the company. Technology’s role in external communication acted as that of a collaboration medium: communication with suppliers and customers mainly occurred via email, phone calls, and in-person meetings, depending on the situation and the importance of the external stakeholder.

The current internal digital communication reached some employees “via a WhatsApp group or a

general newsletter, which everyone just received” (S_FM3). The company’s communications about

the change was regarded positively by all interviewees. Therefore, the supporting characteristics of email use were the speed and range of the communication, as it could reach most employees. Even the employee with a negative attitude towards the newsletters (S_INT1) saw something positive in the digital way of the communication of the change. This employee S_INT1 explained that they:“have to

say respect. They made direct contact to communicate all measures to the employees. There are also people who did not watch the press conference; no news. However, this happens from within the company as well, and we want to prevent that from happening. So, they did the right thing there”.

(24)

However, email’s negative effect on collective sensemaking was that some employees indicated that not everyone reads their email. Moreover, some employees also noticed that they could not send questions to the sender because it was an automatically generated email. Interviewee S_INT4 argued that “they should not have been made as an automatic email, but just like a regular email where you

can ask your questions”. During the organizational change, the board had also set up a general

WhatsApp group to be used for mass communication, with only managers being allowed to post. Employees perceived this to be supportive for the sensemaking process,“[...] especially because

chaos could be avoided. Otherwise, people talk about it when something is being communicated” (S_INT3). Furthermore, the general WhatsApp group was viewed positively because of the speed with

which people read their WhatsApp messages compared to their emails. However, BM_1 explained the barrier of using this general WhatsApp group: “there are a few people who object, and if a few people

leave the WhatsApp group, it also loses its strength”.

The employees’ sensemaking can be divided into three categories: individual sensemaking, social sensemaking, and technology mediated sensemaking. First, individual sensemaking describes the employees’ individual thoughts regarding the organizational change. The results showed that many employees considered the consequences the organizational change could have on their working conditions. This was especially true with regard to the work-from-home scenario, as interviewee S_OW1 explained: “you then start thinking about working at home, [...] and then about working as

much as possible within the company. I personally prefer working within the company”. However,

some employees did not consciously think about the changes because the information was straightforward or because planning the change was not their responsibility. Furthermore, some employees felt that the organizational change had little personal impact on them personally. In contrast, if an employee felt responsible for implementing the changes, the employee was more concerned about the national impact of the pandemic on companies.

Second, the results showed that most employees indicated that their interpretation process of the changes occured by discussing the changes in their internal and their external social networks. It was formed by discussing the change with colleagues and in conversations with suppliers who continue to supply components; “how can we have a conversation together, as we normally do, and yet try to

meet the arrangement” (S_INT2). This social sensemaking mainly occurred when the effects of the

organizational change were not yet fully developed. To illustrate, interviewee S_FM2 explained that

“[...] in the beginning, [the new measures] were a bit vague for everyone. Once I asked: “but how do we deal with [the drivers], because I hear from our driver that some [production] companies don’t allow [the drivers][..] to go in. But, how do we do that [within Suplacon]?”. Moreover, social

(25)

Interviewee S_FM1 stated that “you talk about all the rules that have been agreed upon in the

workplace. So, this has been shared with everyone because not everyone watches the news”.

Third, employees’ internal communications showed that they used technology as a communication or collaboration medium when something negatively affected their work. In such situations, the use of technology could help employees complete their tasks. For example, where the interns (S_INT2 and S_INT6) would normally communicate face-to-face, they now sent their colleagues emails confirming their appointments or assignments. One employee (S_BM1) described the use of technology as convenient for urgent internal matters. Interviewee S_INT 4 explained that although employees frequently used to carpool, the company now recommended against it. However, face-to-face communication was preferred to technologically mediated communication. This preference could be related to an unwritten rule within the organization: if an employee had a question, they were to go to their manager. This preference for face-to-face communication was also endorsed by the managers:

“we can just walk towards each other. You can walk in everywhere if you want. So it is an open culture, in terms of consultation” (S_FM2). However, technology mediated communication (i.e.

email) was used for external communication and collaboration with customers and suppliers. For instance, to communicate with other companies about their change approach, S_BM1 explains that they “also talked a lot with fellow companies about applying the measures within their working

environment”. However, most employees indicated that external communication had changed; this is

discussed in more detail in the following section (4.4).

(26)

through email, newsletters, the general WhatsApp group, and narrowcasting) and a collaboration and communication medium (i.e., through email, WhatsApp, and the telephone).

4.4 Employee enactment process of the employees and the influence of technology

This section discusses the influence of technology on the employee enactment sensemaking process. In other words, it discusses how employees apply the new measures and what role technology plays in this process. This section is further divided into two categories of working from home or working from the office and the corresponding feelings of the changed social and technological behaviour in these situations. The data show that many employees feel that their social behaviour has not changed much, apart from hygiene and social distancing measures, as their main activities continue to occur in the office. However, technology’s impact on employees’ enactment process during unplanned organizational change did change for office employees.

First, working from home was an enactment of the employees’ interpretation of the national recommendation that one should work at home if possible. Several Suplacon employees began working from home, including the vital programmer and employees and interns in the marketing, sales, IT, and human resources departments. Interviewee S_INT1 explained that in “those two days I

worked from home because I believed I had to”. However, several employees stated that they soon

returned to the office because it was possible to meet the national social distancing rule in the office. Many employees also indicated that they prefer to work in the office rather than at home because of the children who are at home and the uncomfortable work space at home. Some office employees worked from home from one day up to a maximum of three weeks, as it became increasingly clear during the unplanned organizational change that it was possible to maintain the national and internal measures in the office. However, working from home was not possible for the production employees, as FM_2 highlighted: “I mean, the boys have to work on the machine, and they cannot bring it home

with them, and that is the tricky part. I can still program from home, but I cannot talk to the boys at the workplace, so I just have to be here”. Some employees emphasized that, as a result of this, the

board asked office employees to return to the office: “Otherwise, the whole office was empty, and that

did not motivate people. And then the production department also wanted to work from home” (S_INT5).

Technology assumed a more important role while office employees were working from home, as it was the only way employees could communicate and collaborate with their colleagues. Interviewee S_INT1 explained that they had to send their internship supervisor several emails asking for direction, when “normally, you simply drop by to discuss matters''. Likewise, S_INT4 stated, “you mainly

(27)

intensive”. The use of technology allowed work to continue and supported employees’ collective

sensemaking during unplanned organizational change. However, technology also prevented some home-based employees from engaging in technology-mediated sensemaking of the unplanned organizational change because some internal measures, such as not sitting next to another in the canteen and rescheduling external appointments, were not clearly communicated to those employees working from home. Interviewee S_INT 4 explained that “the new rules were there. I got to know

some of the rules through the email, but as I said before, there were also rules passed on verbally”,

and as S_INT1 explained: “so then you go to the office for two days, and then [work arrangements]

are also arranged [in the workplace], and then you think what are we talking about? Yes, the information flows are not optimal”. One of the office employees also noticed that the collective

sensemaking of a new product was hindered if employees worked from home during unplanned organizational change: “they want to work from home, [...] but if you want to show [someone]

something, it gets a lot harder” (S_FM2). There was a clear preference for personal communication in

the production department. This preference could have to do with the fact that production employees used little technology besides the production machine in their work.

The perception of changed technological behaviour of employees split between production staff, office employees, and interns, who felt that their use of technology had not changed, and office employees and interns who felt that their use had changed. S_INT4 explained that no change had occurred “because the persons I can communicate with are situated in the company”. Similarly, interviewee S_FM2 stated that “this is my first Skype session [ever], [...] so for me, it has not

changed much.”. On the other hand, S_INT 6 explained little had changed besides “the deployment of [Microsoft] Teams”. Some employees explained the new internal use of Microsoft Teams so that the

national measure to maintain distance could be guaranteed. Although some interns indicated that they had changed their internal technological behaviour to send more emails to reduce their personal contact with others, others stated that they no longer used technology that way because social contact was still possible as long as people maintained their distance: “no, actually. It just went the way it

went, only I do not get so near people anymore” (S_OW4). According to some office employees, use

of technology (i.e. email, telephone, and Microsoft Teams) increased for external communications because external visits were limited and went against the guidelines of some external partners. For example, S_FM2 states that “suppliers who had appointments here and who could not come in, those

appointments were cancelled. That happened via Skype or Zoom”, and S_INT4 said that “there are also a lot more calls; you will notice that. Many things are discussed by telephone, and yes, of course this is because you cannot visit customers”. Technology is the only way to communicate and

collaborate with those external partners, as S_INT6 explained: “but now you have, say, no choice

(28)

call or use [Microsoft] Teams. So, it is a big advantage”. As a result, some employees indicated they

are now more open to using different technologies in the future.

In the enactment phase, technology is understood as a communication and collaboration medium because it (i.e. telephone, email, Microsoft Teams) has supported, more than usual, communication between employees (both at home and in the office) and external partners. Internally, the company agreed to conduct all communication digitally unless there was no choice but to meet in person. However, few employees actively used technology to interpret internal measures because internal measures were usually discussed in person. However, the use of Microsoft Teams did play a supporting role in internal efforts to comply with social distancing requirements. Thus, technology’s main role lies in allowing employees to actively communicate and collaborate with one another and in supporting the enactment process of employees’ collective sensemaking during the unplanned organizational change.

4.5 Summary of the findings and the outcome of the change

Based on the data, the two roles of technology and their supporting or hindering effects on processes of the collective sensemaking of employees are identified and summarized in Table 3 on page 29. As illustrated, technology played a hybrid role in employees’ collective sensemaking: it was both a means of mass communication (i.e., through email, newsletters, the general WhatsApp group, and narrowcast messages) and a collaboration and communication medium (i.e., through email, WhatsApp and the telephone). This hybrid role supported collective sensemaking while the company underwent unplanned organizational changes. Ultimately, all individual processes of sensemaking have a positive effect on the implementation of the unplanned organizational change.

(29)

(30)

5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

The goal of this study is to determine the effect of technology in each process of collective sensemaking during unplanned organizational change. In this chapter, the main findings of the role of technology in sensemaking and how they relate to the sociomateriality approach are discussed (Section 5.1). Then, the theoretical contributions (Section 5.2), managerial implications (Section 5.3), and study limitations and suggestions for further research are explained (Section 5.4). Finally, Section 5.5 concludes the paper.

5.1 Hybrid role of technology and the sociomaterial approach

The findings of this study show that technology influences employees’ collective sensemaking of the unplanned organizational change. This study suggests that technology has a hybrid role which implies both a positive and negative effect on Weick et al.’s (2005) processes of sensemaking, as illustrated in Figure 4. Effect variations depend on the role that technology plays in each process and how the change recipient experiences the various effects of the function capabilities of the IT medium. Overall, technology has a supportive effect on employees’ collective sensemaking of unplanned organizational change.

Figure 4: The effect of IT on collective sensemaking

(31)

This is not surprising given the sociomaterial approach of Orlikowski (2007), the specific materiality of the IT in this study plays an active role in the organization’s communication processes. In other words, as a non-human actor, IT played an important role in steering the sensemaking process. The managers chose these mass technologies because they suited the current situation: a necessary unplanned change. The functions of the used technologies allowed the managers to engage in mass communication in the exact ways they wanted. Therefore, most employees used technology passively in the perception and interpretation processes, as they could not respond to the information given by management. Employees had no choice but to consume the given information. Here, technology and managers worked together and, to some extent, actively shaped the creation and interpretation processes. This is in line with the Maitlis’ idea (2005) that leaders and other stakeholders influence and determine the form of sensemaking. The findings indicate acute and guided collective sensemaking occurred at Suplacon: this form of sensemaking was triggered by a high need for change information, and authorized (social) positions dominate the collective sensemaking process during the unfolding of the crisis. This is consistent with the study of Stieglitz, Mirbabaie, and Milde (2018). In the case of Suplacon, mass communication is used to push the change cues and steer collective sensemaking into face-to-face communication with their managers and the board of Suplacon. Thus, the organization used technology as a mass communication tool to control observable cues, to avoid creating noise and contradictions in the cues presented in a group chat, and to ensure clear messaging of the required changes.

(32)

research, which argues that transparent two-way social interactions are essential for effective sensemaking in crisis situations.

Third, the findings show that employees’ use of technology is changing in the enactment process and that new technologies are being adopted, including Microsoft Teams. Here, technology assumes a unique role as it represents the only way for employees to communicate with colleagues who work from home and with external partners. Because sociomateriality depends on the way the organization uses the technology, its role is more present in some processes of sensemaking than in others. In the enactment process, it is used actively because it transforms the way employees communicate about their work. This is supported by Orlikowski’s sociomateriality approach (2007). Furthermore, this study demonstrates the ability to adapt employee practices by adopting new technologies, which is in line with Edmonson (2015) who proposes that employees are flexibele, agile and creative in adapting during unplanned organizational change.

5.2 Theoretical contributions

The theoretical contributions of this study to the literature on organizational sensemaking are threefold. First, this study responds to Maitlis and Christianson’s (2014) call for additional research into technology’s role in collective sensemaking. The findings suggest that technology has various effects on the perception of cues, the creation of interpretations, and the enactment processes during times of unplanned organizational change. Previous studies mainly focused on the interpretation process, treating it as the whole sensemaking process (e.g., Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). While Sandberg and Tsoukas (2014) had already acknowledged that the sensemaking process should not be viewed as one process but as three different processes, as discussed by Weick et al. (2005). Studying all three processes of sensemaking is important, as only then a full understanding of its effect of sensemaking can be achieved. This research also suggests that IT might have both hindering and supporting effects on employees’ collective sensemaking. This is in line with previous studies on technology and sensemaking claiming that IT might have both a hindering and supporting effect on collective sensemaking (Bansler & Havn, 2006; Berthod & Müller-Seitz, 2018). However, this study has further advanced the literature by showing how the role of technology and its effects on the three sensemaking processes should be examined and why this research approach is necessary. This study emphasizes and shows the empirical and theoretical value of examining all three processes: which helps to research to differentiate between the effects at each stage.

The role of technology in collective sensemaking: