A SENSEMAKING PERSPECTIVE ON RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

(1)

A SENSEMAKING

PERSPECTIVE ON

RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

The implementation of the ProjectFactory at

the Genetics department of the UMCG

Ben van Duren

S2673770

benvanduren@gmail.com

University of Groningen

MSc BA Change Management

Master Thesis

Supervisor: Hille Bruns

Co-assessor: Oskar Roemeling

(2)

1

Abstract

(3)

2

Introduction

Although changes within organisations are happening at an increasingly faster rate (Rafferty, 2013; Lewis, 1999), a large number of changes still fails (Ford & Ford, 2010; Michel et al., 2013). Managers generally agree that the main reason for failed change is employee resistance (Ford & Ford, 2010; Kotter & Schlesinger 2008). Studies into employee resistance have examined this resistance on different levels of the organisation. A focus on the individual, however, has only recently gotten more attention and has quickly gained popularity (Oreg et al., 2011), adding valuable new insights to the field of resistance (Caldwell et al., 2004). In their literature review on change recipient reactions and their antecedents, Oreg et al. (2011) have shown which antecedents influence the behaviour of people during changes. These antecedents are treated in a static way, however, and the way employees make sense of these antecedents remains unexamined. This paper will add to the resistance literature by taking the first steps in filling this gap.

Sensemaking focusses on what its name suggests: the making of sense (Weick, 1995). It is a process where people try to comprehend and make sense of what is happening. The field of sensemaking has studied this by looking at what people construct, how they do this and what the effects of this are (Weick, 1995). Weick (1995) also mentions that for people to start making sense of things, there must be a trigger (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). The connection between sensemaking and change, and thus resistance, is a logical step to make, as change can be such a trigger.

Sensemaking and resistance have been connected in only a few studies. George & Jones (2001) show the effect of affective and cognitive dimensions on people’s sensemaking processes. While Sonenshein (2010) first introduced the idea of stability and progressive narratives, which he connected to change responses (resisting and acceptance). Sonenshein (2010), however, also argues that both types of narrative can lead to either change response. Balogun et al. (2015) provide empirical support for this claim and show that narratives, indeed, do influence action. However, these studies don’t focus on when sensemaking takes place and how it relates to resistance behaviour to changes within an organisation. In addition, both studies only focus on sensemaking during change. This study will focus on behaviour and take a broader view on sensemaking than just narratives.

(5)

4 process of sensemaking itself, usually in relation to emotions. Sandberg and Tsoukas (2015) also mention a lack of focus on action (also called enactment) in the current sensemaking literature. This paper will represent this area as it focusses on where sensemaking and resistance take place and to whom. Therefore, the main question asked in this paper is:

How does sensemaking relate to resistance to change within organisations?

In order to study this question, this paper builds on a case study conducted within the University Medical Centre Groningen (from now on: UMCG) in the Genetics-department. This department decided to implement a formal way of handling projects. This included creating new roles for employees, new activities and new documents. The change was aimed at improving the efficiency and ease of handling projects. The employee had to handle these projects next to his regular work. An internal document study, observations and interviews were used as the research methods to investigate this change and collect data.

Based on this case study, this paper will present three key findings. First it shows that before the change starts, the employees leading the change, engage in sensemaking about the change itself. When the change starts, they will take of a different role and help others make sense of the change. This pre-change sensemaking period is shown to influence adoption behaviour in one of the managers. Secondly, a sensemaking phase, after initial contact with the change, is found. During this phase, the employees undergoing the change do not engage in resisting, nor in adopting behaviour towards the change. Lastly, it is shown that resistance and adoption behaviour can exist at the same time. Employees can resist the global idea of the change, yet still adopt some features that are useful to them. This paper will fill the gap in our understanding of when employees make sense of the change and how this sensemaking influences resistance. By doing this, this paper also addresses calls made by both Sonenshein (2010) and Balogun et al. (2015) into the dichotomy between acceptance and resistance behaviour.

(6)

5 Managers can use this knowledge to improve their own sensemaking processes and better facilitate the sensemaking processes of their employees (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991).

Theoretical framework

Resistance

Resistance is an important field in the change literature, as resistance is often seen as a big influencer of the success for change (Ford & Ford, 2010; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008). In general, resistance is seen as behaviour of individuals that negatively influences the outcome or process of change (Ford & Ford, 2010; Bouckenooghe, 2010; Bovey & Hede, 2001; Carlstrom & Olssen, 2013). To better understand resistance, many researchers (e.g. Oreg et al., 2011; Lines, 2005; Bouckenooghe, 2010; Piderit, 2000) apply the definitions of attitudes by Elizur and Guttman (1976): affective, behavioural and cognitive, focussing on either emotional, behavioural or thinking processes. These three reactions are interrelated and thus a change in one of the levels will result in changes in the other levels (Lines, 2005). This paper will focus on the behavioural component.

The classification of resistance behaviour by Coetsee (1999) will be of help here as, this classification make resistant behaviour observable in the organisation. Coetsee (1999) defines five forms of resistance, being: acceptance, neutral/apathy, passive resistance, active resistance, and aggressive resistance. These definitions were later used by Lapoint and Rivard (2005) in multiple case studies of resistance to new forms of IT. In their studies, acceptance was embodied by the system being adopted and people reporting the implementation to be a success. In general, this implies that employees agree to the change and are willing to help it succeed. Their case study shows that before this acceptance is reached, employees tend to resist the change at first.

In their study, Lapoint and Rivard (2005) show that this resistance can exist in multiple forms. The first is the apathy level, where employees did not go to trainings and showed no interest in learning about the system. Talk about the change was ignored and people acted indifferently, which is the behaviour related to this form of resistance. Passive resistance was then shown by not working with the system, but holding on to old processes and bypassing the new system. So the change was largely ignored and employees acted like it didn’t happen. When the employees started voicing concerns and trying to persuade change agents to revert the change, the active resistance level was reached. Next, aggressive

resistance is characterised with strong internal conflicts and is an obvious threat to the organisation’s

(7)

6 Knowing in what forms resistance can be found in an organisation, we can now look at previous research on what influences resistance within the organisation. Within their literature review Oreg et al. (2011) identified several antecedents that influence change recipient’s reactions to change, being: the change process, perceived benefit/harm, and change content. The change process looks at the way the change takes place. Resistance behaviours can surface because of a lack of a clear change process or too little information. Perceived benefit/harm focusses on the expected outcome of the change and whether it will help the individual and/or the organisation. When employees consider a change to only be harmful to them, they tend to resist it. Lastly, change content relates to what is actually being changed (Oreg et al., 2011)

Sensemaking

The field of sensemaking has been in existence for some time. The concept was introduced to the field of organisational studies by Karl E. Weick in 1979, in his book The social psychology of organising (Colville, 1999; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). The real spark for sensemaking in the organisational and management field however, came when Weick published his book Sensemaking in Organisations in 1995 (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). From this point onward, sensemaking in organisations has been studied more extensively (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). Studies focussed on sensemaking on the emotional level (George & Jones, 2001), attitudes towards change (Lines, 2005) and possible influences on sensemaking from storytelling (e.g. Dunford & Jones, 2000; Colville, Brown & Pye; 2011), talking (e.g. Thurlow & Mills, 2009) and using narratives (e.g. Snell, 2002; Sonenshein, 2010; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Balogun, Bartunek & Do, 2015).

Changes are ambiguous events by nature (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010), which are common occasions for sensemaking (Weick, 1995; Steigenberger, 2015). This paper will treat sensemaking as a process and will focus on where it takes place and who engages in sensemaking at what moment during the change. Sensemaking will therefore be defined as adding new information to an already existing frame of reference (Starbuck & Milliken, 1988). When this happens, employees will thus increase their understanding and comprehension of the change process or change content (Starbuck & Milliken, 1988). By defining sensemaking in this way, sensemaking occurs both by communication about the change and by actually performing new tasks created by the change.

(8)

7 senses to pick up cues or triggers from the outside (social) world in order to make sense of things. Sensemaking also involves noticing, extracting cues and embellishing on what people extract (Weick, 1995). This property also emphasises the connection sensemaking has with the environment. As mentioned in the last paragraph, these cues can come both from communication with others or by actively engaging in the change. This property thus explains the “where” and “when” of sensemaking, as it is connected to certain events.

The second important property is that sensemaking is always retrospective. This means that an event must take place before an individual can actually make sense of it. This indicates that individuals can only make sense of things in the past. When this happens, individuals can then act on the event that occurred and see how this enactment changes the event. This will further enhance their sensemaking process. Some authors argue, however, that it is also possible to have prospective sensemaking, since we also try to envision things (Gephart et al., 2010). This idea is dismissed by Weick, who argues that we first have to create a future representation of the situation in our mind in which the future event happens. Sensemaking in this way is thus retrospective all the same, yet it occurs in an imaginary setting instead of in a real one (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015).

The third key property was touched upon earlier and is labelled the Enactive of sensible environments (Weick, 1995). This property connects the words “sense” and “making”, as it looks at how we act upon our sensible environment. Weick (1995) also argues that we have multiple options to choose from when acting on an event. This principle is clearly described by Stephen Covey in his 90/10 principle (Esposo, 2009). Here he tells the story of a father whose daughter accidently spills coffee on him. The father then gets angry at his daughter, causing a fight. This event then influences the father’s whole day, as the father get a speeding ticket since he now is in a hurry, has a fight with his boss for being late and then comes home to an angry daughter. If only the father had reacted differently, his whole day could have been a lot better. This example shows the third property of sensemaking, for the father is constantly influencing his environment and vice versa. The cue for sensemaking about this event to start was the spilled coffee, which in the father’s frame of reference is something ‘bad’. The reaction of the father, getting angry, was the catalyst of all next events. This property thus illustrates the interplay between the actor and his environment and that they cannot be separated.

(9)

8 Sonenshein, 2010). Adding the concept of sensegiving creates a prospective element for the sensemaking literature and is therefore supported by multiple researchers (Weick, 1995; Christianson et al., 2009), as it can be used to influence sensemaking (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). We should keep in mind however that sensegiving and sensemaking are not completely separate processes: there is a continuous interplay between them (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015).

Research usually assumes the sensegiver is a top- or middle manager who has to “lead” his employees in the change (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007; Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Sonenshein, 2010; Sharma & Good, 2013; Huy et al., 2014). The manager’s role in the sensemaking/sensegiving process is therefore interesting to investigate. Maitlis and Lawrence (2007) did this by looking at the situations in which managers engage in sensegiving. They found that managers mainly focussed their attention on complex and uncertain situations, so they could reduce the complexity and uncertainty. In addition, Maitlis and Lawrence (2007) found that the manager’s expertise on the subject and the content’s relevance for organisational performance influenced sensegiving by managers. Interestingly, they also found that for employees, sensegiving opportunities (meetings for example) were a very important moderator to engage in sensegiving towards their managers.

Sensemaking and resistance

A link between the sensemaking perspective and resistance to change has only explicitly been made in the paper of George and Jones (2001). This paper explores the affective and cognitive aspects of individual sensemaking during situation of change. The model that they present focusses on the development of a ‘frame of reference’ related to the change process. They identify seven stages related to updating the corresponding frame of reference. The transition to each next stage is threatened by resistance, which would threaten the sensemaking process of the employee. George and Jones (2001) argue that his could lead to inertia in the organisational change. The model and predictions are not based on empirical data, however, as George and Jones (2001) did not collect data to support their model. This study will add to the work of George and Jones (2001), as it will continue their sensemaking focus on resistance. This study does however differ in the way that it focusses on the behavioural aspects of resistance and that it will be based on empirically collected data.

(10)

9 changes. Both types of narratives can, however, lead to resisting and adopting behaviour (Sonenshein, 2010). Balogun et al. (2015) show that these narratives lead to responses to change because they influence the change recipient’s affective responses. This affect then leads to behavioural responses related to the change. The papers of Sonenshein (2010) and Balogun et al. (2015) thus add to the findings of George and Jones (2001), by showing that the affective responses influence action. George and Jones (2001), however, remain abstract and do not investigate this further. A more elaborate sensemaking view on the study of resistance can thus be a good addition to their studies. This paper will have a broader view on sensemaking than just focussing on the narratives.

Organisational members take the role of sensemaker and sensegiver at different times during the change. The change agent typically engages in sensegiving, as it is his/her role to lead the change and keep track of the change process. The change recipients are the ones directly undergoing the change and have to change their way of working, they thus engage in sensemaking. Balogun et al. (2015), however, argue that the dichotomy of change agent versus change recipient is one that is not that clear and requires attention from researchers. Managers can also hold a dual role of agent and recipient simultaneously (Sharma & Good, 2013; Balogun et al., 2015). Weick (1995) already found that sensemaking is a social activity and Balogun and Johnson (2005) show the lateral processes between recipients and how they make sense of a change together. Therefore employees can also be sensegiver and sensemaker at the same time. Balogun et al. (2015) then show that this sensemaking process leads to change action, which could be resistance. This paper will provide further clarity to when which actor engages in sensemaking and sensegiving and how this influences resistance.

Research design

This study investigated resistance to organisational change from a sensemaking perspective, making this an exploratory study, which looked for phenomena, situations, events, and meaning. When looking for one of these “qualities”, a qualitative method is most appropriate (Van Aken et al., 2012). The best way to explore these qualities is by conducting a case study, which will give deeper insight in these events (Eisenhardt, 1989). It will help push beyond our current “edge of knowledge”, as mentions by Blumberg, Cooper and Schidler (2014).

Research site

(11)

10 and knowledge development alike. The change that I studied was the implementation of a formal way of handling projects, labelled the ProjectFactory. The change was led by an active team of four employees: the change team. They investigated the current situation and were the first to make engage in sensemaking about the change. The decision to start the change was made quickly, while few people were up to speed on the change. Because of this, the sensemaking processes for both managers and employees occurred after starting the change. This makes this case very relevant for this study, because the sensemaking process of the management occurred parallel to that of the employees.

Before the change, employees already worked on projects. These projects were managed on an ad-hoc basis. No formal structure, project manager, planning, action points, etc. existed. This resulted in a lot of projects not being handled properly, increasing the runtime of projects, projects being ‘forgotten’ due to low support or a lack of communication and so on. For example, one project was discovered which had been lying around for almost 10 years. An initiative was started to bring structure to the way projects were being handled and to increase both the effectiveness and efficiency of projects. This includes the creation of a project board, which is responsible for which project starts and when it is done. The change also includes distinguishing project phases, decision-making structures and several documents to help guide the projects. The overall goal of the change was to finish more projects in a shorter timeframe and to ensure that the project results in useful benefits for the department. To reach this goal, the methodology of the ProjectFactory was chosen.

(12)

11

Data collection & analysis

I entered the Genetics department one month after the start of the implementation of the project factory and remained there for four-and-a-half months. During this time, I attended the weekly meeting with the change team, consisting of the manager of the sub-department ‘control’, two employees of that same sub-department, and an external consultant. Here we discussed the current status of the change and what problems were encountered during the implementation. Every month I met with the manager of the sub-department ‘control’ (also a member of the change team) to discuss my research progress and findings. In addition to these meetings I once attend the project-status-meeting, where the project leaders discussed the status of their projects and where issues about the project factory could be voiced. I also joined one of the project board meetings, in which the management presented the status of their projects and prioritised what new projects would start soon. In this meeting, the method of the ProjectFactory was also discussed, based on experiences from the managers.

During these meetings, I kept notes of remarks made by employees and management that could be relevant for my research or that indicated areas where problems were expected to arise. These observations have helped me get a sense of the change, what it was about and what challenges were being faced. I have also used the notes in setting up the interview-questions. This would ensure important problems or aspects were not being overlooked and helped create a more complete interview guide.

(13)

12 study of change and project management literature, were used as sensitising concepts for interviews (Bowen, 2006).

Face-to-face interviews with employees are this research’s third data source, as they are a good way to obtain “rich and meaningful data” (Armenakis & Fredenberger, 1997, p. 2). The sensitising concepts helped me understand project-management jargon and ask meaningful follow-up questions while interviewing. During the interviews I used a semi-structured approach to ensure that the relevant information could be obtained, but still leave freedom and flexibility to explore concepts or faced problems (O’Leary, 2004). I conducted two rounds of interviews. During the first round, the questions were of a general nature, to get insight in the way the participants experienced the change and what change-related events had occurred during the change process. This round was finished when saturation was reached, and thus interviews provided no further insight in phenomenon (Eisenhardt, 1989). I conducted the second round of interviews after the initial analysis of the data. This round was specifically aimed at the sensemaking process and resistance to the change. The interview guides have undergone minor changes, based on results of previous interviews. Questions aimed at a specific problem or event were added if they were mentioned in earlier interviews. The interviews were recorded and I later transcribed them verbatim (Blumberg et al., 2014).

(14)

13

Code Name Role Date of interview

Length (in minutes)

INT1 Arthur Change agent 26/04/2016 49

INT2 Bernard Team leader 28/04/2016 36

INT3 Cathy Project leader/Project member 28/04/2016 32

INT4 Dennis Projectleader 02/05/2016 43

INT5 Elles Management 02/05/2016 23

INT6 Frank Management 03/05/2016 22

INT7 Gerald Management 09/05/2016 27

INT8 Hugo Management / Change agent 30/05/2016 28

INT9 Ian Project member 30/05/2016 29

INT10 José Project member 13/06/2016 33

Figure 1: Interview participants (Names are fictional to assure anonymity)

To analyse the data I used a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This theory advocates a rigorous and systematic analysis of the data. The approach is most suitable when the aim of the research is to develop new theory or explore a process (Kennedy & Lingard, 2009). To analyse this data, I used the program Atlas.ti. This software was made specifically for the analysis of qualitative data.

I coded the data from the first round of interviews using an open coding approach (van Aken et al., 2012), which means that no codes were set before the initial round of coding. I then applied theoretical coding to create categories (called families in Atlas.ti), based on the codes that I found during open coding. This analysis resulted in a collection of codes relating to sensemaking and one relating to resistance to change. Based on this analysis, I conducted a second round of interviews and a more elaborate literature study based on the results that hinted towards resistance and sensemaking. After this second round, I transcribed the interviews in the same way and then coded them using a selective coding approach. This means that I intentionally looked for instances of resistance and sensemaking in the data to clarify when and where they surfaced. The results of this selective coding will be presented in the next chapter.

Results

(15)

14 only the change agents go through a sensemaking process before the change starts. They did this, for example, by executing a pilot using the new methodology. The successful outcome of this pilot showed the effectiveness of the method. One of the managers started making sense of the change earlier than others, because of this exposure to the pilot. The second major finding of this paper is that after a sensemaking trigger, in this case a presentation, there can be a period of time where employees do not resist, nor adopt the change, but engage in further sensemaking. Thirdly, this study shows that after the sensemaking process adoption and resistance can exist simultaneously. In this case, resistance and adoption behaviours were aimed at different aspects of the change, namely its significance and the object of change. This result section will ground these findings in the data.

The pre-change sensemaking phase

This change was characterised by a “change team” acting as change agents and leading the change. The change can be divided into two separate phases of sensemaking, one where the change team engages in sensemaking and one where the change recipients engage in sensemaking. In the pre-change sensemaking phase, the pre-change agent is trying to find out what the pre-change should look like and how the new system works. The agent changes roles to sensegiver when the change officially starts, as it is the change team’s role to explain to the change recipients what the change context and process is. The data also shows that a pilot performed in the pre-change phase reduced resistance in one of the mangers. This manager showed adopting behaviour faster than the other managers. Two change agents explain their first sensemaking experiences before the change:

“And then the book [about the ProjectFactory] was presented and I said Guys, uh let’s have a look at this, because this looks a lot more pragmatic to me [than another method] and there was Hugo… I brought a couple of books with me and then it all started going […] …To really get started with the project factory…” (Arthur, change agent)

“From the moment that we thought “well, we need a tool [to solve this problem”, at that point we started looking at “so, what is the method [of the ProjectFactory]” and Arthur knew [the writers of the book]. So we both read the book and then we both became enthusiastic, because it fitted the kind of department what we are and then we presented [the ProjectFactory] as an idea.” (Hugo, change agent)

(16)

ProjectFactory-15 methodology was about, these two managers became convinced that it could solve their problem of ineffective project management. Both Arthur and Hugo mention the change starting or introducing the methodology to the department. The change team next performed a pilot. This pilot increased the change teams understanding of the methodology in more depth. The team learned here what other employees, who would later work with the system, have to learn during the change.

“We have read the project factory book in the summer, last summer. So between that summer and the start of the ProjectFactory in the department, we had a little, Arthur and me, experiment with the umm methodology of the ProjectFactory. Karel has a sub-department, a laboratory department, which was running a couple of projects that we wanted to do ourselves. Separated from the fact that we had to do it with the ProjectFactory, we just had a couple of projects that we wanted to do and we thought “if we want to get started with it anyway, lets immediately see if the methodology from the ProjectFactory works, let’s just use it and see what we think of it”. So we already did a project with the directions of the ProjectFactory with the three of us [, being me, Arthur and another member of the change team], something like that, and we got a little experience. And that’s why I think Karel adopted the change before [name of another manager], who did not have knowledge of this” (Hugo, change agent)

Here, Hugo explains that they experimented with the methodology of the ProjectFactory on a couple of projects before starting the ProjectFactory in the department and that they got a little experience. The change team first engaged in a small experiment, which can also be called a pilot of the new methodology. A pilot can be seen as a way of sensemaking of the change before actually changing. Afterwards, Hugo mentions that Karel adopted the change before another manager, whose department had not gone through a pilot. Hugo says that he believes that the pilot is the reason for this different outcome. Even though both managers did not participate in the pilot, this shows that there is a connection between pilots and being aware of how successful they are does affect resistance. The pilot acted as a trigger to start the sensemaking process for Karel. After this pilot, the change was officially introduced to the management and the implementation started. The next quote explains the new role of the change team as sensegivers:

(17)

16 Gerald explains how the change team is helping him. He mentions Arthur to be a useful help for him and his team. This shows the supporting role the change agents took at this point of the change. He mentions that Arthur helps his employees with how to handle things and also with how things can be done differently or can be formulated in another way. The fact that the employees ask questions like “is this right?” and “did we have to do this differently?” means they are not yet familiar with the change content and are looking for the right way, indicating a sensemaking process. They rely on Arthur for help with these questions. Arthur helps them with their sensemaking processes and is thus engaged in sensegiving himself. The quote shows that the managers themselves were also undergoing a sensemaking process and require help of the change team.

Change recipient sensemaking

The employees also had to start working with the new system and thus had to learn what the new system is about and how to work with it. The change communication towards employees started on a rather short notice with an article in the monthly department-newspaper (the GroninGen), one month before the official start. In the article, employees were told they could apply for a training that would make them project leaders, one of the new roles in the ProjectFactory. The training consisted of an in-depth explanation of what the change was going to be about and what effect it would have on the everyday work of employees. The next quote explains the training and presentation and how employees reacted to it:

“Umm well, I think that the people who the project, um the first… those who followed the first training round, including me, that those are very enthusiastic and that they know about, “well, this and this is going to happen at first” and well um, Hugo gave a presentation at the time and then it started, questions came about what it is exactly and are we going to work with it as well? “Well, yes we are going to work with that as well” is what you say then “and this is what it is on an abstract level” and you see within our meetings with the workgroup, that once in a while somebody holds a talk about uh… to create support. […] well to tell something [in the workgroup meetings] and then the same, same terminology returns, so to, well, that’s what you are going to talk about. Then you see questions coming, some people find it very difficult that they haven’t had the training, because they want to dive in deeper themselves and also at the time they want to become a project member. Well, as a project leader, you then have to give a lot of extra information, because they didn’t attend the training and this causes the first projects to run longer. But I do think most employees are rather enthusiastic, but I do hear from people that they want a more in-depth training than just the presentation for all employees of an hour to, well, understand it all a bit better” (Dennis, projectleader/employee)

(18)

17 explained what the change was about. He also mentions talking about the terminology in the workgroup meetings. We here see that Dennis has gained knowledge during the trainings. After the presentation, other employees came up to Dennis to ask questions about the change. This indicates that the presentation triggered the people to ask questions and thus start to make sense of the change. Dennis, who during the trainings already got an understanding of the change, and thus started sensemaking earlier, acts as sensegiver by answering the questions of his colleagues. Interestingly, Dennis is a regular employee and not a (middle-) manager. This shows that employees can have a dual role of sensemaker and sensegiver as well. Their role as sensegiver is based upon their knowledge of the change because of earlier sensemaking.

The quote shows that Dennis had to give “a lot of extra information” on the change and because of this, the project ran longer than expected. Dennis engaged in sensegiving by giving this extra information, while the employees whom he told this information to were therefore engaging in sensemaking. This quote shows that sensemaking and sensegiving influenced the length of the project. The questions and time spent on talking about the change indicate that the employees showed an eagerness to learn about the change. This eagerness started after the presentation from Hugo, which acted as the trigger. So even though employees were not yet accepting or adopting the change, they also weren’t resisting at that point. Employees were simply making sense of the change. This shows that before showing resisting behaviour, employees experience a period of sensemaking.

Simultaneous adoption and resistance

Another interesting phenomenon occurred in one of the departments of Genetics. This sub-department already used project-based work in their everyday operations. These projects were either focused on internal improvement or were done at the request of external customers. This sub-department had a methodology that resembles the methodology of the ProjectFactory, but with a different terminology and structure. This existing system could still be used in the sub-department itself, yet the ProjectFactory would be used for projects at the department level. The ProjectFactory was therefore seen as a treat to the time spend on their own projects, yet it was also seen as a method to further improve the current way of working on projects. The next quotes show why the change was perceived as a treat:

(19)

18 do not belong to the ProjectFactory and a part is research. But if you look at the projects across sub-departments, then those are competition for me between the projects we do internally and those externally, because they all are projects.[…] There is a fixed pool of resources where you can take from […] So in reality the projects from the ProjectFactory are being sponsored from projects that I can do for third parties, so that is the logical reasoning […] I was one of the people who was complaining before the start of the change, about, well, that you, that it is fun that you never fill in anything at “Budget”, but for me it doesn’t feel that way, because I have to get [the time and resources] from somewhere else. (Frank, manager)

Frank explains that this sub-department handles internal projects, external projects and the projects above this sub-departments. He claims to have a fixed pool of resources and he explains that the new projects that run in the ProjectFactory are being sponsored from third party projects. This indicates that the new projects he has to handle with the ProjectFactory methodology will cost him time and resources, which he then will not be able to spend on other projects. The “fixed pool” shows a zero-sum-game, indicating that resources can only be spend once. This results in a perceived threat to the projects he is doing for external parties. Frank also mentions that he has been complaining about not filling in a budget for projects. This is a part of the ProjectFactory-methodology, which Frank explains he doesn’t agree with. We see here that Frank resisted the change at first and that he perceived the change as a treat to this current work. The fact that Frank has been complaining about the change and him specifically mentioning the “budget” indicates that he already went through a sensemaking process, as he is ‘enacting his sensible environment’. The resistance he shows by complaining thus follows sensemaking. He does however also tell that his department partly adopted the change:

“Well, the funny thing is, the sub-department reacts… uh or not much, except that once in a while they say: “That has to be a project in the ProjectFactory” and of course they cast all kinds of things in the ProjectFactory-mould. So what does work pretty nicely, there we did our uh project meetings in a different way than before, because before we only used our [name of existing method]-methodology. But that, that doesn’t prescribe that much about how you have to define such a project, while the ProjectFactory does do that. So then you’ll immediately say “hey, that’s interesting, because we didn’t have a clear principal here”, because there then are normally three or five, so you say “hey that’s weird, that should just be one of them” […] yes, [the ProjectFactory] is an addition for us that I did not expect, because… well we have our own world with [name of existing method] and the world of the ProjectFactory, those are two different [worlds]. The ProjectFactory, I thought, is not that important for me, you know. That is really just for over the departments boundaries. […] But you see that that also internally, also the projects we are doing within our sub-department, that those umm are changing.” (Frank, manager)

(20)

19 that the methodology of the ProjectFactory is being used for internal products, as an addition to the already existing methodology. Thus, parts of the methodology are used, while the previous quote shows resistance. Frank talks about resistance toward the whole system, yet shows adoption behaviour to some of its features. While he perceives the whole system as a threat, he considers the features of the system useful to some extent. Applying a sensemaking perspective here shows that an understanding of the change can both result in the (selective) adoption of features and in resistance to the change at the same time.

In this result section I showed how my three major finding emerge from the data. The data first show that a pre-change sensemaking phase exists where the change agents make sense of the change themselves: before the actual change starts and they take the role of sensegiver. The change agents did this by reading the book that explained the change methodology and performing a pilot project. This pilot project was shown to be a trigger for Karel to start the sensemaking process before the others did influencing his adoption behaviour. The second finding shows that employees engage in sensemaking before showing either adopting or resisting behaviour. This was shown by employees actively requesting more information by asking questions. The employees asked these question to colleagues who already went through a sensemaking process which in this case was a formal training. Thirdly the data shows simultaneous adoption and resistance behaviour in one department. Employees barely use the ProjectFactory as was intended, but they do adopt some of its features in their current way of working. Hereby showing resisting behaviour to the system as a whole, yet adopting behaviour towards its features.

Discussion and conclusion

This paper applied a sensegiving perspective to resistance to change. This section of the paper will examine the three major findings of this study and will connect them to already existing literature on sensemaking and resistance to change. Furthermore, implications and limitations of this study will be explained and I will present possibilities for future research.

Discussion

(21)

20 others make sense of the change and thus engage in sensegiving. The change team gave presentations and supported employees when they first started working with the new methodology. The pilot that was performed can be seen as an example of how the pre-change sensemaking influenced the sensemaking during the change.

This finding adds to the literature on sensemaking, as this literature has been focussing on the role of the change agent in sensemaking and sensegiving processes during the change (Sharma & Good, 2013; Balogun et al., 2015; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Maitlis & Lawrence 2007; Giangreco & Peccei, 2005; Hope, 2010). Van der Heijden et al. (2012) showed that managers keep making sense of the change during the entire change. My paper adds to this knowledge by showing that change agents also make sense of the change before actually changing. The sensegiving that managers take part in during the change is based upon their pre-change sensemaking process. In this case, the change agents did a pilot in one of the departments, which was shown to make one manager engage in sensemaking at an earlier phase than other managers, who were not aware of this pilot. A pre-change sensemaking process by change agents has, to my knowledge, not been mentioned in earlier literature.

We have seen that Karel engaged in sensemaking faster than the others and at a later phase also adopted the change more quickly. A possible reason for this is Karel’s familiarity with the pilot. This relates to findings by Stensaker and Meyer (2012), who wrote a paper on the effects of previous change on resistance to change. They found that previous experience with change could reduce resistance to changes as employees get more change capabilities. My findings add to Stensaker and Meyer’s (2012) finding by showing that a pilot can also be sufficient to influence resistance to change. My findings also show that employees do not have to be involved in this pilot to be influenced by it. This could mean that the employee doesn’t gain the change capacity that could reduce further future resistance to change. (Stensaker & Meyer, 2012)

(22)

21 content. Sensemaking behaviour must thus lay somewhere in between these two levels of resistance, as employees do not adopt or ignore (or fight) the change.

A call to reconsider some simple dichotomies was made in multiple studies (Sonenshein, 2010; Ford et al., 2008; Balogun et al., 2015).These studies mention that there also is a dichotomy relating to resistance versus acceptance. My findings show that they are not a simple dichotomy. While Balogun et al., (2015) argue that acceptance and resistance can be found simultaneously, I hereby show that they can also both be absent and that there is a third option, namely a sensemaking phase. This finding is important as it shows a phase that precedes resistance or adoption, during which more information can be provided about the change. Managers can choose to explain more about the change content, as this is the first object of resistance (Lapoint & Rivard, 2005) This finding also adds to Sonenshein’s (2010) findings, as he mentions there might be more behavioural options than adopting, championing and resisting change.

The third major finding is that it is possible for a combination of adoption and resistance behaviours to the change to exist. This time in line with the findings of Balogun et al. (2015), who also found that these two reactions can co-exist and who requested more research on this phenomenon. In my study, one department already had a similar methodology to manage projects. They were found to very slowly adopt the new methodology of the ProjectFactory for projects across the sub-department level, yet were at the same time found to have added features of the ProjectFactory’s methodology to their own projects. This indicated passive resistance and adoption behaviour simultaneously. One possible reason for the co-existence between resistance and adopting behaviour shown in this paper is sensemaking. Employees made sense of the change as a threat to their already existing work, but also as an addition to their existing practices. This differs from the findings of Lapoint and Rivard (2005), who found that first object of resistance are the features of the change content, while the resistance here is against the effect on other activities. One possible explanation for this difference in findings is that Lapoint and Rivard’s (2005) study focussed on an IT implementation, whereas this study focused on a project methodology implementation. The features were part of the IT-system, while here the features are documents and, in this case, time spent on projects.

Theoretical and practical implications

(23)

pre-22 change sensemaking phase adds to the literature on sensemaking by introducing another moment where sensegiving occurs that is currently unexplored. This paper also showed that activities, like the pilot, performed during this period influence the resisting and adopting behaviour employees exhibit towards the change.

The second finding showed the existence of a phase where sensemaking took place. This phase occurred right after the change was communicated in a presentation and showed by the change recipients asking questions and not adopting or resisting the change. This finding answers calls from other research to further explore the dichotomies that exist in the sensemaking field (Sonenshein, 2010; Balogun et al., 2015). The third finding also relates to this call, as it shows that resistance and adoption can co-exist, because these behaviours have different objects of resistance. The new way of working can affect other activities in the department, yet add features to the existing systems.

On a general level, this study adds a behavioural perspective to sensemaking. It adds to the literature as it focusses on where, when and who is sensemaking, supplying a more practical take on the concept of sensemaking. Sandberg and Tsoukas (2015) found that very little studies focus on the enactment of sensemaking, a gap that this paper begins to fill. In addition, George and Jones (2001) wrote a paper similar to this one, which focusses on the affective and cognitive responses of people to sensemaking. With a focus on behavioural responses, this paper complements George and Jones’s (2001) study, by adding the third dimension of Elizur and Guttman (1974). The literature on resistance was strengthened as sensemaking was shown to influence resistance. A new occurrence was shown right before resistance or adopting behaviour occurs, which is likely to have influenced on the surfacing of resistance. Further research should elaborate on this finding.

(24)

23 2010) can help the change to become more accepted. The last finding adds to this by showing that sensemaking can lead to both resistance and adoption behaviour simultaneously. A good and elaborate sensemaking process is therefore important to reduce resistance. Managers should also be reluctant to judge employees when they find resistance, as employees could also be showing adopting behaviour.

Limitations

The first limitation of this study is related to the fact that the studied change was led by a change team. Previous research on sensemaking has focussed on of the (middle-) manager as the change agent. During the implementation of the ProjectFactory, the managers and employees were making sense of the change in the same period of time. Although the change agent still had to make sense of the change before implementing it, it could have influenced the occurrence of resistance and sensemaking by the managers. The fact that a dedicated team was especially set up to choose a methodology and lead the change could influence the extent and importance of the pre-change sensemaking phase.

The second limitation is the fact that this research was based on a total of ten interviews. Data was obtained at multiple hierarchical levels of the organisation to get a good representation of the department’s stance on the change. This does however mean that the data that was collected was spread thin over the different levels. The first round of interviews also wasn’t focussed on sensemaking and resistance, but on the change in general. This means that the presented results are only representable for the data in a limited way.

Future research

(25)

24 The moment where resistance, nor acceptance was present, but where employees purely engaged in sensemaking should also be investigated further. This paper used a behavioural focus on resistance and used the model of Coetsee (1999) to analyse it. This finding therefore rests upon the assumptions of this model. More research on this sensemaking phase before resistance occurs is needed to verify this finding. More insight in this moment of sensemaking could enable managers to deal with this phase more effectively and reduce resistance later during the change. I believe this can make changes easier for everyone.

Lastly, although this paper put some steps in the right direction when dealing with dichotomies that are currently present in change, more research on this subject is required. The finding that adoption and resistance can occur simultaneously is interesting, and it would be useful to get more information on how this works. Insight in this phenomenon can help managers deal with resistance more effectively, as they can focus on different types of adoption. For example, they could start with features that are adopted fast and hereby show the effectiveness of the change. It is therefore interesting to find if adoption of part of the change, influenced adoption of the other parts of the change.

Conclusion

This study applied a sensemaking perspective to resistance to change in organisations. It focussed on behaviour and where and when which employees engage in sensemaking. The findings of this study include the existence of a phase before the change is implemented where the change agent himself makes sense of the change content. Future research is encouraged to focus on this phenomenon and how it impacts change. The findings also show that a sensemaking perspective can extent our knowledge of resistance and the occurrence of it. This paper showed that a sensemaking phase which precedes resistance exists. This finding, however, is based on the method used to analyse resistance and requires further verification by future research. The results also showed another insight: that resistance can exist, while adoption of some features of the change is possible at the same time.

References

van Aken, J., Berends, H., & Van der Bij, H. (2012). Problem solving in organizations: A

(26)

25 Armenakis, A. A., & Fredenberger, W. B. (1997). Organizational change readiness practices of

business turnaround change agents. Knowledge and Process Management, 4(3), 143-152.

Balogun, J., Bartunek, J. M., & Do, B. (2015). Senior managers’ sensemaking and responses to strategic change. Organization Science, 26(4), 960-979.

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization studies, 26(11), 1573-1601.

Bartunek, J. M., Rousseau, D. M., Rudolph, J. W., & DePalma, J. A. (2006). On the receiving end sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others. The Journal

of applied behavioral science, 42(2), 182-206.

Blumberg, B. F., Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2014). Business research methods. McGraw-hill education.

Bouckenooghe, D. (2010). Positioning change recipients’ attitudes toward change in the organizational change literature. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(4), 500-531

Bovey, W. H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organisational change: the role of defence mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7), 534-548.

Bowen, G. A. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International journal of qualitative

methods, 5(3), 12-23.

Carlstrom, E., & Olsson, L. E. (2014). The association between subcultures and resistance to change– in a Swedish hospital clinic. Journal of health organization and management, 28(4), 458-476.

Christianson, M. K., Farkas, M. T., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Weick, K. E. (2009). Learning through rare events: Significant interruptions at the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Museum. Organization Science,

20(5), 846-860.

(27)

26 Colville, I. D., Waterman, R. H., & Weick, K. E. (1999). Organizing and the search for excellence: Making sense of the times in theory and practice. Organization, 6(1), 129-148.

Colville, I., Brown, A. D., & Pye, A. (2012). Simplexity: Sensemaking, organizing and storytelling for our time. Human Relations, 65(1), 5-15.

Dunford, R., & Jones, D. (2000). Narrative in strategic change. Human relations, 53(9), 1207-1226.

Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of management journal, 34(3), 517-554.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management

review, 14(4), 532-550.

Elizur, D., & Guttman, L. (1976). The structure of attitudes toward work and technological change within an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(4) 611-622.

Esposo, W. M. (2009) Know the ‘90/10 principle’ that leads to a better life. Retrieved from: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/458694/know-9010-principle-leads-better-life

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy

of management Review, 33(2), 362-377.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2010). Stop blaming resistance to change and start using it. Organizational

Dynamics, 39(1), 24-36.

Gephart, R. P., Topal, C., & Zhang, Z. (2010). Future-oriented sensemaking: Temporalities and institutional legitimation. In T. Hernes & S. Maitlis (Eds.), Process, sensemaking, and organizing (pp. 275–312). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation.

(28)

27 Glaser B. G., Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. Chicago: Aldine Publications

Giangreco, A., & Peccei, R. (2005). The nature and antecedents of middle manager resistance to change: evidence from an Italian context. The international journal of human resource management,

16(10), 1812-1829.

van der Heijden, A., Cramer, J. M., & Driessen, P. P. (2012). Change agent sensemaking for

sustainability in a multinational subsidiary. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(4), 535-559.

Hope, O. (2010). The politics of middle management sensemaking and sensegiving. Journal of

Change Management, 10(2), 195-215.

Huy, Q. N., Corley, K. G., & Kraatz, M. S. (2014). From support to mutiny: Shifting legitimacy judgments and emotional reactions impacting the implementation of radical change. Academy of

Management Journal, 57(6), 1650-1680.

Kennedy, T. J., & Lingard, L. A. (2006). Making sense of grounded theory in medical education.

Medical education, 40(2), 101-108.

Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard business review,

86(7/8), 130.

Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005). A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS quarterly, 461-491.

Lewis, L. K. (1999). Disseminating Information and Soliciting Input during Planned Organizational Change Implementers’ Targets, Sources, and Channels for Communicating. Management

Communication Quarterly, 13(1), 43-75.

Lines, R. (2005). The structure and function of attitudes toward organizational change. Human

(29)

28 Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving

forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57-125.

Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations. Academy

of management Journal, 50(1), 57-84.

Michel, A., Todnem By, R., & Burnes, B. (2013). The limitations of dispositional resistance in relation to organizational change. Management Decision, 51(4), 761-780.

O'Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. London: Sage.

Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524.

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of management review, 25(4), 783-794.

Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness a multilevel review.

Journal of Management, 39(1), 110-135.

Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2015). Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S6-S32.

Sharma, G., & Good, D. (2013). The work of middle managers sensemaking and sensegiving for creating positive social change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(1), 95-122.

Snell, R. S. (2002). The learning organization, sensegiving and psychological contracts: A Hong Kong case. Organization Studies, 23(4), 549-569.

Sonenshein, S. (2010). We're Changing—Or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of Management Journal,

(30)

29 Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In D. C. Hambrick (Ed.) The executive effect: concepts and methods for studying top managers (pp. 35-65) Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Steigenberger, N. (2015). Emotions in sensemaking: a change management perspective. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 28(3), 432-451.

Thurlow, A., & Helms Mills, J. (2009). Change, talk and sensemaking. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 22(5), 459-479.

Weick, K. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, Addison-Wesley.