Agile within a global banking firm: Aligning narratives during an ongoing organization-wide transformational change

Agile within a global banking firm: Aligning

narratives during an ongoing organization-wide

transformational change

A study into distinctive narratives and how they affect change both top-down and bottom-up

Author: Ivar Visser

Student number: 3251802

Course: MSc Thesis BA Change Management

Student email: i.a.visser@student.rug.nl

Supervisor: dr. Cees Reezigt

Co-assessor: dr. B.C. Mitzinneck

Research stream: Qualitative research – case study

Abstract

Nowadays, it is apparent that organizational change initiatives often unravel differently than intended, intertwined with underlying soft processes which are at play and which can subsequently influence the outcome of an organizational change initiative. Many organizations do not seem to be aware or interested in these soft processes whilst they impose to be major decisive factors regarding change success. This research adds to the existing organizational change literature by studying how narratives of organizational levels, through sensemaking, are distinct from each other and what impact this implies. The case site is outlined as a major international financial institution which is transforming itself to the Agile way of working. Through qualitative research in an attempt to grasp the narratives regarding the change, a total of 36 interview were held. The accumulated and gathered data was analyzed using Atlas.ti and thereby composite narratives could be formulated per organizational level. The results indicate that these composite narratives are predominantly distinct on the different

organizational levels and therefore the crack in the middle is identified. These different organizational narratives are examined upon from the Actor – Network theory to explain the cause of these difference in narratives, whereas the sensemaking cycle and the value systems concept have been used to explain the causes and implications of the identified crack in the middle. It became apparent that the different organizational levels had distinctive narratives, alongside the concepts hard and soft which is

interpreted differently. The theoretical implication of this research is the identified crack in the middle as a serious hinder factor and barrier to sensemaking and the materialization of a change initiative. Organizations in general can take advantage and benefit from this by constantly realizing and being aware of different socially constructed realities and hence narratives and should aim to influence the underlying processes which stand at the forefront.

2

Table of content

Change rationale and implementation ... 15

Agile in practice ... 16 Transition experience ... 19 Management ... 22 Learning ... 23 Composite narratives ... 25 Discussion ... 27 Actor-Network Theory ... 27 Sensemaking ... 29

Value alignment and narratives ... 31

Managerial implications ... 32

Theoretical implications ... 33

Limitations and further research ... 33

Conclusion ... 34

References ... 35

Appendices ... 39

Appendix I: List of interviewees ... 39

Appendix II: Codebook ... 41

3

Introduction

Nowadays, it is apparent that organizational change initiatives often unravel differently than intended. Organizational change is considered as a context-dependent, unpredictable, non-linear process in which intended strategies can often lead to unintended outcomes (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Sonenshein (2012) posits that failure of implementing strategic change can lead to catastrophic consequences, including firm death. Burnes (2009) disclosed that if anything, the speed, magnitude, unpredictability and hence the importance of change have increased considerably. McKinsey and Company (2008) supports this view by a global survey which concluded that only by changing constantly could organizations hope to survive. As a result: “managing change has become the ultimate managerial responsibility, as firms continuously engage in some form of change- from shifting organizational boundaries, to altering firm structure, to revising decision-making processes” (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008, p. 221), and in order to become efficient and effective, continual organization-wide changes need to be conducted (Cummings & Worley, 2007).

Moreover, due to the increased turbulence and unpredictability of the world around us, organizations are ought to be more agile, more responsive to changes (Sherehiy, Karwowski, & Layer, 2007). Agile processes address the challenge of this unpredictable world by relying on individuals and their creativity rather than on processes (Dyba, 2000; Nerur, Mahapatra, & Mangalaraj, 2005). This need of agile and agility demands a change at the individual-, the group-, and the organizational level. Here, it interferes with the multiple underlying (soft) processes which are at play and which can subsequently influence the outcome of an organizational change initiative. It is important for organizations to be aware of these processes which occur at different organizational levels in order for them to be able to influence these processes, aimed at overcoming resistance and mobilizing support. As Burnes (2005) puts it: “there is a consensus that organizations are facing unprecedented levels of change and that, consequently, the ability to manage change is, or should be, a core organizational competence” (p. 73). Burnes (2005) elaborates that despite this consensus, successful organizational change has proven to be a very elusive creature, following the very high failure rate, sometimes peaking 80% or even more. The exact reasons or explanations behind this extreme failure rate remain rather obscure.

4

language, beliefs and convictions which are either reinforced or impaired, in turn creating new organizational realities and making the enactment cycle (Weick K. , 1995), complete. As more as these narratives are scattered and distinct from each other on different organizational levels, multiple socially constructed realities exist, which in turn can seriously hinder change initiatives.

Therefore, this research focusses on how narratives of employees on different organizational levels are distinctive from one another through the process of sensemaking in an organizational-wide transformation. The HQ of this global banking firm thus is the perfect research site and setting for this kind of research, since its orientation in 2015, leading up to the Agile implementation in January 2019. The global banking firm is the first bank in the Netherlands to adopt and integrate the Agile way of working.

This research hence builds forth upon the earlier research projects conducted by students from the university of Groningen who illuminated the narratives, as the purpose of this research is to describe and outline the different levels occurring at the organizational levels during an Agile implementation and transformation, as well as outlining the implications these differences have on the transformation. Following this explanation, this paper examines the following research question:

How do narratives of different organizational levels differentiate from each other through sensemaking within an organization-wide change and what are its implications?

5

Theory

Within the theory section, an overview of the dominant and important literature between the sections agile, sensemaking and organizational narratives is given.

Agile

The definition of Agile is dispersed within the literature spectrum as there is no single and agreed upon definition of the term. Highsmith (2004) focuses on ability while interpreting Agile as the “ability to both create and respond to change in order to profit in a turbulent environment” (p. 16), whereas Boehm & Turner (2005) define Agile as “lightweight’ processes that employ short iterative cycles, actively involve users to establish, prioritize, and verify requirements, and rely on a team’s tacit knowledge as opposed to documentation” (p. 32). On the same vein with Highsmith (2004), Qumer & Henderson-Sellers (2006) follow this ability interpretation of Agile by outlining it as “the persistent behavior or ability of a sensitive entity that exhibits flexibility to accommodate, expected or unexpected changes rapidly” (p. 261). Concludingly, Conforto, Amaral, da Silva, Di Felippo & Kamikawachi (2016) propose a complete definition of agility, which expresses: “Agility is the project team’s ability to quickly change the project plan as a response to customer or stakeholders needs, market or technology demands in order to achieve better project and product performance in an innovative and dynamic project environment” (p. 667).

6

Sensemaking

Organization-wide changes in working methodology generally implies a paradigm shift. This affects the organizational members involved which have to cope with ambiguity, uncertainty and complexity. Especially, dynamic contexts intensify experiences of complexity, ambiguity and equivocality (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). Sensemaking allows people to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity by creating rational accounts of the world that enable action (Maitlis, 2005).

On the same vein, organizational members seek to clarify what is going on by extracting and interpreting hints from their environment, using these as the basis for a plausible account that provides order and makes sense of what has occurred, through which they continue to enact the environment (Maitlis S. , The Social Processes of Organizational Sensemaking, 2005; Weick K. , 1995; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005).

The theoretical patriot within sensemaking is Karl Weick. Weick (1995) outlines sensemaking as the process of constructing interpretations of ambiguous environmental stimuli, being concerned with “placement of items into frameworks comprehending, redressing surprise, constructing meaning, interacting in pursuit of mutual understanding, and patterning” (p.6) and for that it would happen especially ‘when an expectation is disconfirmed’ (p.5).

Next to the definition given by Weick (1995), there are several prevailing definitions within the theoretical realm of sensemaking. According to Maitlis & Christianson (2014), ‘Sensemaking is the process through which people work to understand issues or events that are novel, ambiguous, confusing, or in some other way violate expectations’ (p. 57). Sensemaking involves the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). The definition of Maitlis & Christianson (2014) has been chosen as a social-level lens for this research on account of effectively emphasizing the ambiguity that organizational members have to cope with, especially being present in the researched organization. This is also strengthened by Maitlis (2005), who states that sensemaking activities are particularly critical in dynamic and turbulent contexts, where the need to create and maintain logical understandings that sustain relationships and enable collective action is especially important and challenging.

7

place from the 2000’s onwards, where the relationship between sensemaking and language, narratives and discursive practices became more important (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).

Extracted from the theory, sensemaking and narrative are often used interchangeably, suggesting that they are intertwined somehow. Generally speaking, sensemaking is often referred to as the process or activity while narratives are the vehicle or instrument. Acknowledging that these two concepts seem to be intertwined, the narrative literature stream will now be examined as an individual concept to deepen the understanding and underlying rationale.

Narratives

According to Sonenshein (2010), “A narrative is a discursive construction that actors use as a tool to shape their own understanding (sensemaking), as a tool to influence others’ understandings (sensegiving), and as an outcome of the collective construction of meaning” (p. 480). Another predominant definition describes that narratives are “specific, coherent, creative re-descriptions of the world, which are authored by participants who draw on the (generally broad, multiple and heterogeneous) discursive resources locally available to them” (Humphreys & Brown, 2008, p. 405). For the sake of lucidity and simplicity, the definition of Sonenshein (2010) has been chosen to work with in this study because it more accurately highlights the inherent nature and role of sensemaking within the development of narratives.

Moreover, narratives exist at both the individual and collective levels (Sonenshein, 2010), and allow for multiple perspectives on change (Buchanan & Dawson, 2007), and broad types of meanings which could play a vital role in change (Heracleous & Barrett, 2001). In addition, narratives are depicted to be mobilized in various kinds of ways, involving intentional storytelling, but also as being used and reproduced in many other ways as well as part of discourses and communication (Vaara, Sonenshein, & Boje, 2015). Within the heart of the narrative as sensemaking literature is the notion that managers use narratives instrumentally to enhance organizational legitimacy (Brown A. , 2005; Abolafia, 2010). Furthermore, organizational narratives are said to have an both an ontological and epistemological function as strategy-makers can use narratives to construe organizational reality (Czarniawska, 1997; Weick K. , 1995) and influence audiences’ interpretations of that reality (Dalpiaz & Di Stefano, 2017; Fenton & Langley, 2011). It consequently seems that the literature on narratives is quite of an instrumental nature, explaining that strategy-makers can exert some influence in using and influencing narratives, which can be important in overcoming audiences’ inertia during organizational change and for mobilizing support for change.

8

Brown, Stacey, & Nandhakumar, 2008; Weick K. , 1995; Sonenshein, 2010), and the two can be seen as inseparable in the enactment process of organizational members while coping with ambiguity and uncertainty during organizational change.

All in all, after having reviewed the particular literature streams of sensemaking and narratives, it can be observed that these literatures fall short on explaining how narratives can change over time through organizational members’ sensemaking. This study will add to this shortcoming by examining the flow and trajectory of organizational members’ narratives by highlighting how these changes and evolve over time, and what kind of implication this has, both on the narrative-construction process as the change implementation itself.

Revisiting the research question, (How do narratives of different organizational levels differentiate from each other through sensemaking within an organization-wide change and what are its implications?) the literature provided a deepened insight and understanding in the underlying mechanics and the characteristics of the two concepts of narratives and sensemaking and their interrelatedness.

9

Methodology

The case site for this qualitative research is a large global, Dutch financial organization, that operates in forty countries, with its headquarters located in Amsterdam. The institution is divided into two branches: Wholesale- and Retail banking services. Retail banking provides products and services to individuals, small and medium-sized enterprises and mid-corporates. Wholesale banking, on which this research is focused, has three main product areas: Lending Services (LS), Transaction Services (TS) and Financial Markets (FM), and provides sophisticated products and services to corporate, multinational organizations. Since 2013, the organization has been facing a major change; from traditional project management methods towards a new way of working, the agile way of working. The change at wholesale has affected around 5.000 employees globally. First, IT Retail has been transformed into the agile way of working, followed by Retail as a whole, thereafter IT Wholesale and eventually Wholesale has fully faced the transformation in late 2018. The focus for this research is on the Wholesale banking organization.

This qualitative research into the narrative construction in an organization-wide transformation, builds further on previous research conducted towards the ambiguous and equivocal composite narratives at this case site. Cooperation between the financial organization and the University of Groningen made it possible to conduct this research. Therefore, the case site was especially appropriate for the research into the narratives.

The qualitative research used a single case study to build on and refine existing theory. A single case study was appropriate in this research, because of the explanation of causal links between the construction and aim of different narratives of different groups (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2014).

Data collection

10

Interviews

In order to capture the narratives of employees and management moving through the transition towards agile working, a total of 36 unstructured interviews were held during a two-month period, starting in April 2019. Interview data was collected using numerous and highly knowledgeable informants who viewed the organization-wide transformation from diverse perspectives (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). The unstructured interviews started with the pre-formulated question: ‘What is [name of organization] according to you? And what is your role in the organization?’. These questions were the starting point for formulating clarifying questions to uncover underlying narratives of the respondents, were the focus was on discovering the how and why of certain processes.

Building a network and familiarizing with the day-to-day was essential in order to create a diverse and objective data pool of respondents. A starting point was a meeting with a former research student, currently working for the financial institution. From this, the first few respondents emerged, which created a starting point for a clearer strategy when it comes to selecting research respondents. Furthermore, each interviewee was asked for new interesting respondents, which is snowball sampling (Blumberg et al., 2014) and turned out to be a valuable source. Moreover, a purposive sample was taken, which means that the participants were selected through three predetermined general criteria (Guest, Bunce & Johnson, 2006), to ensure a diverse, representative pool of respondents. The first criteria were based on internal organizational data: an overall gender distribution of 70% males (n = 25) and 30% females (n = 11), which represents the gender distribution of the organization. The second criteria was an equal distribution of the three product areas, 33% in Lending Services (n = 12), 33% in Transaction Services (n = 12), and 33% in Financial Markets (n = 12). The third criteria was an equal distribution of three job areas, business-employees (n = 4), IT-employees (n = 4) and management (n = 4), within each product area. The final criteria was to interview as many respondents possible that had been participating in previous research.

With permission, all interviews were recorded, and respondents were ensured of the confidentiality regarding the relationship between the identity and content of the interviews. Thereafter, interviews were transcribed and coded before analysis, which is discussed below. After transcription the recorded interviews were deleted, and transcribed documents were only accessible to the research students and the thesis supervisor from the University of Groningen.

Controllability, validity and reliability

11

interviews by one of the researchers. The reliability and validity of the study was assured by the constant and thorough collaboration between the researchers, as the researchers conducted discussions considering the content of the research.

Controllability was assured by the notes made by the researchers during and after the 36 interviews, as well as keeping a close and structured track of all the data collected in a logbook. Moreover, this funneled down in three different versions of the final codebook which were saved in order to capture every researchers’ specific focus, whilst making sure the research can be replicated. Lastly, reliability of the research was increased by using specific coding software, Atlas.ti version 8 (van Aken, Berends, & van der Bij, 2012), which is further elaborated upon below in the data analysis.

Secondary

data

This research has made use of secondary data of the previous MSc Change Management research students. This data consists of previous research data, including lists of earlier respondents and transcripts of those interviews. This data was used as selection criteria: a general source for potential participants and participants who had previously been involved. In contacting these potential respondents, it was made clear that this information stays confidential within the boundaries of the research as a whole, referring to the confidentiality as explained above.

Data

analysis

Three researchers worked closely together during the period of data collection and data analysis to reach an intersubjective agreement. All interviews were recorded, with permission, which allowed for transcription where after the coding program Atlas.ti, version 8 was used to support coding and analyzing the gathered data, as well to increase the research reliability (Richards, 2015; Woods, Paulus, Atkins, & Macklin, 2016; van Aken et al., 2012). Two researchers were attending each interview, whilst the third researcher was responsible for transcribing the interview. Therefore, every researcher held specific knowledge about the content of all interviews. After each interview, the two researchers who conducted the interview, updated the third researcher with the information before transcribing.

12

codes, which were reduced and merged into 173 first-order codes. These codes were reviewed and merged again into 96 first-order codes, where after 47 second-order codes emerged. These second-order codes emerged from reading through the transcripts and summarized passages again, to gain more familiarity with the data and established patterns and from the interrelations between codes. These 47 second-order codes established the codebook and gave an initial view of the grand categories which were the bases for the themes.

13

Results

In this section, the results of the research are presented according to the 5 themes and 13 categories, as showed in figure 1 on the next page. In accordance with the focus of this research, the narratives of the different organizational levels have been captured and henceforth, a segmentation has been created into squad, lead and senior management- level. Mostly due to the unstructured nature of the conducted interviews, a very rich and wide array of data was collected. By intensely analyzing and studying the transcripts and realizing first-order and second-order coding, specific categories and themes emerged. The perspectives within the data show interesting commonalities and discrepancies regarding to the different themes.

These categories and themes form the architecture of the results and illuminate the different narratives that currently exist on the different organizational levels. Moreover, the result section funnels down in an overview of the composite narratives that emerged to the surface.

14

Second-order codes Categories Themes

Figure 1: Data structure

Before agile Change goal Suitability Change motive/agenda Change goal Design Structure Kick-off Transformation

Change approach Change rationale and

implementation Change vision Focus Vision Agile ceremonies Agile coaches Support Priority Team/squad Tribe Agile components Agile in practice Business & IT Complexity Dependency

Organizational climate Agile in practice

Autonomy Communication Mindset

Responsibilities Employee climate

Knowledge Location External envir Integration Advantage agile Energy Positive Value Positive experience

15

Change rationale and implementation

The following section highlights the narratives on the change goal, change approach and change vision.

Change goal

Overall, the three different levels define clear goals of what they think the change should accomplish. The squad and lead level experienced the goal of agile to be similar; being able to work better together, in a fast-moving environment. All organizational levels were predominantly positive in terms of the suitability of agile for the organization and believe agile is here to stay, embracing the change. Surrounding the change motive and agenda, perceptions are equal, meaning the urgency to improve and change is shared on the different organizational levels. The situation before agile is painted predominantly in a somewhat negative light mostly on lead and squad level, whereby as to before, significant improvements have been realized, as TS-P_10 outlines: “In the past you just had a pure hierarchy with an account manager, and an assistant account manager who told you have to do this in this way”. Senior management widely expressed that continuously improving is the way to move forward in the current competitive environment.

Narratives on the change goal

Table 1: Narratives on the change goal

Change approach

Considering the change approach, all three organizational levels were genuinely positive in particular regarding the kick-off in January, illustrated by SM_01: “We had a fantastic kick-off in January, it was really amazing. We said to each other if we want to make this a success, we have to make this a mega happening, and we did. For 2 days, 2000 men, top speakers, extremely well prepared, it was fantastic to organize”. This opinion is more than shared on lead and squad level, as TS-P_08 reflects: “The energy on that day was amazing, well organized, nice catering, nice speakers, good music. It brought a lot of energy and I think that was the highlight”.

Narratives on the change approach

Table 2: Narratives on the change approach

Senior Management Lead Squad

Only improvement is renewal Reacting faster to changes in market, working better together

Reacting faster to changes in market, working better together

Senior Management Lead Squad

Really positive, in particular on kick-off

Kick-off stands out, high energy

16

Change vision

Concerning the change vision, senior management holds a strong and broad vision on what agile means for the organization, focusing on empowering the people and stimulating talent. As SM_03 puts it: “I’m really result-driven, but I always believe in talent and craftmanship, which aligns perfectly with each other and if you believe that those are your drivers, talent and craftmanship, that talent makes the difference in a company, than you catch the essence of agile in my opinion. It starts with craftmanship and talent”.

Contrastingly and interestingly, the lead and squad levels do not resonate with that vision, as their narratives have a more negative connotation. TS-P_10 illustrates: “And that is different from the run-up that we had in November; it was very different in my opinion. It was, that’s my vision on it, it was way more from the senior management to make a mark. Sort of like: we are the first wholesale bank who is going agile, not per se because they believe in a certain philosophy”, whereas TS-P_02 states: “I was talking about that with X, the last two times it has come to, that everybody is now, or they believe in it or they don’t. But 30% of the people don’t believe in it anymore and the rest…”. In general, the vision is currently present and mainly introduced through the kick-off mentioned earlier on, but it is not lived and carried lower in the organization.

Narratives on the change vision

Table 3: Narratives on the change vision

Agile in practice

The following section describes the narratives on the agile components, organizational climate and employee climate.

Agile components

The agile components incorporate a wide span of different subjects expressed by different levels. First of all, a major concern raised by the lead and squad level is the amount of time agile and its ceremonies consume, although the added value is understood and appreciated. LS_04 describes: “My day as circle lead is 60% to 80% meetings, unfortunately, which is quite a lot”. A second dominant topic are the agile coaches and perceived support in which the different organizational levels have different, contrasting viewpoints. Senior management generally believes that the low number of agile coaches is justified and that squad and lead level have to learn incrementally. On the contrary, voices heard on lead and specifically squad level resemble:

Senior Management Lead Squad

Empowerment, stimulating talent. Strong vision

Not sharing and carrying vision entirely, skeptical on SM

17

TS-T_01: “You are just stumbling on, till now I experience the support as very little. I think if you want to make the people work agile, at least you should explain the core really good and take a day to really involve people in that story instead of saying there is something on the internet, good luck”.

The squad level perceives the support of the agile coaches more mildly and acknowledge that in order to learn, one must experience. As TS-T_02 mirrors: “The agile coaches have limited capacity, they are not around fulltime. I’m not saying they should, but there only is ‘so much’ what they can do”.

Another dominant expressed subject was the current perceived working together of the team and squads, whereby the lead and squad level are moderately positive. Cohesion is slowly starting to grow and the ceremonies are handled sufficiently, although points for improvements are present, as TS-T_02 notices: “The dark side is that there needs to be a lot of tuning, because we have small teams, each with their own purpose. Because of that, people have the tendency to sit in their own cocoon and say, this is my role and then forget what kind of impact that has on the rest of the world, what requires more tuning”.

Narratives on agile components

Table 4: Narratives on agile components

Organizational climate

The organizational climate incorporates seasonal changes on the different organizational levels. Firstly, all levels uphold the common notion that the organization itself is very complex and maneuvers in a very complex environment, as TS-P_03 outlines: “One thing I heard in the presentation which almost always came back was how massively complex the landscape is with a lot of dependencies”. Secondly, it is commonly raised that currently there are a lot of dependencies, within the tribes and between squads. These dependencies seem to be interrelated with voices heard surrounding the location, echoed on all levels. TS-T_07 tells: “Not so long ago we had a tribe retro and then I asked, just do it in Bunnik instead of everything by a conference call or Skype sessions”, in addition, TS-P_01 cumulates: “The condition to success is or that the team has enough trust in each other or is in one location from the start”.

Senior management acknowledges the difficulties experienced location-wise as well, as SM_01 describes: “But the complexity of Wholesale, because we are in different countries with all our business-units, makes it more complicated than it was for retail. At retail people are often together at one location which is the purpose of agile, we here have to handle with people who are in Amsterdam, one in Romania

Senior Management Lead Squad

Conscious made decision with regards to agile coaches

Time consuming, left out in the open, convinced of added value, less perceived lack of support

18

and people who are in India. Yes, how you do you that? How do you create close proximity in an organization that is organized internationally?”.

Moreover, the external environment poses its challenges, equally perceived on all levels, with a high emphasis on executing work while conforming to regulatory demands. SM_03 elaborates on the external environment: “There are recurring themes which are important and then check if there are sufficient measurements made or if it is a generic problem. How the technology develops itself, a bit of external monitoring”. Building onto this, LS_03 tells us: “If you’re living in an eco-system which isn’t understanding agile or is working in the opposite direction, then you will always have a hard time. If everyone would pull into the same direction then it would be simple and easy, but that is unfortunately not where we are in the banking industry”.

Furthermore, perceived knowledge and knowledge-sharing is raised as an issue on squad and lead level. It is generally perceived that a lack of knowledge is present and hence a lack of executing the work that needs to be done daily. TS-T_01 says: “I think that agile stays and can work properly, I only think that a lot of education is needed to make it work”. LS_04 explains: “I think that a lot of managers on my level, all middle-managers, except the agile coaches, maybe could use trainings and courses”.

Lastly, integration-wise, the narratives are leaning towards a negative perception in particular on squad and lead level, whereas senior management understood and expected the integration to be ‘bumpy’ and difficult. On the squad and lead level, TS-P_08 illuminates: “What I can say about other departments, well that there is less energy, less interaction, less smiling, I have that feeling with a number of departments. I don’t know what the cause is, whether it is me, whether it is good or bad, I just notice it”.

Narratives on organizational climate

Table 5: Narratives on organizational climate

Employee climate

The employee climate is marked with different perceptions on all levels. Firstly, perceived autonomy varies from high to low, whereby mostly on the lead level autonomy is perceived as low. LS_04 explains: “Does the Senior Management of this company walk agile. Because I question if I experience the same autonomy that I give to my teams. To individually think which choices are wise. I think the autonomy should grow and must be greater”. Bridging to the senior management, SM_02 tells

Senior Management Lead Squad

Conscious of biggest difficulties, clear view of

external threats and complexity

Aware of, and dealing with complexity and regulatory demands. Struggling with dependencies. Experience difficulties related to location, focus on knowledge creation and sharing, momentum lost

19

us that “People have the idea that they have more self-determination, to use that word for once. I think that feeling is there actually, which is more pleasant”.

Secondly, communication is strongly and widely acknowledged to be improved since the implementation whereby specifically the communication between teams, squads and stakeholders is improved, as LS_05 outlines: “What works pretty well in the relative short time till now is communication. I have 23 people reporting to me subdivided in 3 teams and I see that the communication among them is improved”. Where communication is widely praised, the perceived mindset on different levels contradict each other somewhat. Senior management holds the general perception that the whole organization has not fully changed in mindset, whereby lower levels voice mixed perceptions on this matter. For example, on lead level TS-P_05 tells: “Yes, I see a better mindset, attitude, listening to each other and understanding that there is a different view. I also see that people go back to their old habits, including me”, and on squad level TS-T_04 explains: “Irrelevant but relevant, there are a lot of things with which we say we are in the new organization but at the same time we are a little bit in the old organization, which is a really curious phenomenon”.

Lastly, responsibility is generally felt and understood on both levels, although some difficulties have been experienced, more aiming at the architecture of for example teams. Specifically, on lead level the most difficulties were experienced and outspoken, as TS-P_06 discloses: “The hardest part I think is, we had teams with responsibilities and those teams changed. People had a set of tasks and went to a squad but those tasks didn’t always fit in that squad anymore”.

Narratives on employee climate

Table 6: Narratives on employee climate

Transition experience

The following section describes the transition experience, divided into positive experience, negative experience and ambivalent experience.

Positive experience

Judging from a distance, a profuse amount had positive experiences with the transition, echoed on all organizational levels, also referring to the high energy that is contained within the organization. Yet, that high energy seems to have peeked from the kick-off and awareness is raised on holding that momentum in order to capitalize on it. TS-P_08 elaborates: “Well then the day after follows, then you start, everyone comes together, you are a squad and look at each other and say okay, we’re going to work agile now, but what is it. So, you notice the energy was really high on that day and will probably

Senior Management Lead Squad

Looking down, feeling that there is more autonomy, general feeling of mindset not fully tilted

Perceived better mindset and communication, at the same time old habits, struggling with responsibilities, low autonomy

20

be a bit lower on the days after because that is just reality. I’m aware of, we need to watch out for that energy to stay”.

Zooming into the positive experience, senior management is mainly positive on the transition in its whole, which is also shared on lead and squad level, Illustrated by SM_02 “It went much more gradually then everyone would expect. I think that, from the beginning there was very high energy with everyone involved to do something with this. It results in much good, people are really more positive about this way of working compared to the old one” and TS-T_04: “I see new things, I see more on the front, I’m watching how the whole agile transition takes place, and I sincerely enjoy it. I sincerely think the transition is joyful”.

Moreover, one of the greatest advantages which is interrelated with the positive experience is the named transparency, mainly on the lower levels. FM_05 deepens: “Transparency, for the people you’re working for, that everyone can see what you’re doing, why you do things”. Also, feedback giving and receiving is said to be slightly greater, but room for improvement is immanent. Generally, the lower organizational levels are convinced that agile in its totality is valuable for the organization but at the same time uphold the belief that agile in itself is not valuable, the important part rests in the application of it and how it is used within the organization, as LS_02 outlines: “I’m convinced that there are good elements in it, but ING is a really big company with a lot of different disciplines and I do not believe in one size fits all. I believe in my world and do not think that agile is the solution to everything, but I’m also convinced that you can extract things that are really useful”.

Narratives on positive experience

Table 7: Narratives on positive experience

Negative experience

Moving over to negative experiences, a substantial amount also had quite an outspoken negative experience with the transition. First of all, the loss of productivity is widely experienced on the organizational levels. SM_02 tells: “Because it is a big organization, it has to take a different approach than you normally would do. A high amount of productivity leaked away, let’s be honest. Organizational change does not come random, so I’m curious”. Moreover, uncertainty is prevalent in the lower organizational levels, whereby people are worried on the potential impact the transformation has had or can still have. Illustrated by TS-P_02: “I’m hearing the first people now who are seriously in doubt

Senior Management Lead Squad

Mainly positive on transition in totality

Positive on transition and current energy, skeptical on adding value through its application, slight improvement in feedback

21

about leaving with all the things they see happening”. Senior management generally is aware of the uncertainty present lower in the organization, SM_01: “The concept is embraced very easily, until everyone realizes ‘but this also can have consequences for me’. So, there is a discrepancy in between what people hear, but they’ve also heard that 30% disappeared. So, people are getting nervous on the impact it has on them”.

In addition, interaction on the organizational levels are somewhat perceived to be diminished whereas the frustrations and/or negative emotions have increased. This is intertwined with the widely shared notion that time is still a very important aspect and more of it is needed to tremble into calmer waters.

Narratives on negative experience

Table 8: Narratives on negative experience

Ambivalent experience

Considering the ambivalent experiences within the organization, this ambivalence is defined as narratives which are not explicitly positive nor negative. Firstly, massively shared on all levels is the awareness of ambiguity, holding on to old structures and yet more prevalent is the falling back in old roles, as TS-P_03 demonstrates: “You see that the people need to get used to, when someone is under pressure, he is very quickly inclined to exhibit old behavior. The pressure on the organization is very high, to deliver. So, you see that people are very quickly inclined to step back to old behavior”.

The energy and momentum created from the kick-off is perceived to have died down a little when the organization actually started to work agile, as SM_01 illustrates: “It was fantastic organizing the event, after that you see us falling back into reality and clinging on to old structures et cetera”. The organization, and more importantly its people perceive difficulties of embracing agile for the full 100%, crystallized mindsets and routines are obviously difficult to change, as also TS-P_08 describes: “In every organization if time passes by, the informal structures will eventually get the upper hand in an organization, that is often the case I think because a lot of people are clinging on. If it is not clear, falling back to the old structure”. Lastly, in particular on the squad level, agile is perceived as having positive sides on one side but simultaneously challenges on the other, creating an amount of ambiguity and ambivalence.

Senior Management Lead Squad

Loss of productivity, aware of uncertainty lower in

organization

Loss of productivity, perceived less interaction and increased frustration, lot of uncertainty

Loss of productivity, lot of uncertainty, worrying,

22

Narratives on ambivalent experience

Table 9: Narratives on ambivalent experience

Management

The following section describes, and is divided into management concepts and management actions

Management concepts

Perceptions on management and secondly on what management actually entails, is, and does, is distinct on the different organizational levels. Firstly, although the agile way of working depicts leadership above a management approach, the lead and squad level perceive the senior management to be still somewhat top-down management. For example, LS_05 illustrates: “Whereby the road of bottom-up for me personally was completely open but the reality showed that it was very much top-down”.

The interesting part is that senior management seems to acknowledge and perceive this the same, as if it almost would seem that it is indelible, as SM_01 highlights: “So the room to maneuver, what the intention was, became bigger on paper. In reality we have become stricter, ‘you have to do this’, unfortunately. You see that discrepancy. ‘You said you would give us space, but in the end, you decrease our space’ and at the same time we receive orders from the top like cut 10% in costs, then we just have to do that”.

Narratives on management concepts

Table 10: Narratives on management concepts

Management actions

Management actions are perceived differently the lower organizational levels. On lead level, it is widely experienced that side-steering and micromanaging still takes place. While, at the same time, the need for clear guidelines and frame setting is apparent. TS-T_05 discloses: “That in terms of management you have one homogeneous whole instead of different parts, those are not completely aligned because we have splitted budgets, demand and supply”. Also, it is felt that senior management doesn’t let go, and is hence somewhat steering in terms of priority and FTE.

Senior Management Lead Squad

Aware of losing momentum and falling back

Ambiguity on work roles, falling back in old roles and routines, difficulty embracing agile fully

Ambivalence the strongest, exhibiting old behavior, patterns and routines, difficulty embracing agile fully

Senior Management Lead Squad

Nice on paper, reality is different

Top-down, micromanaging, SM no overview on lower levels, SM not walking the talk

23

Moreover, there was quite some experienced uncertainty within the selection process, particularly on squad level, alongside an outspoken decreased commitment. TS-P_02 illustrates: “So the drive and commitment to work in the new agile way was much less presence because it was thought that I’m going to be placed anyway, which was communicated on beforehand. There were 600 places and also 600 vacancies”. In addition, some of that uncertainty could be explained on senior management level as they experienced some difficulties in the selection process in the restructuring and basing the architecture for the agile way of working. SM_01 tells: “The stratification, because you have to start recruiting at the highest level, then the level below and they have to do the rest. In

particular with the second layer it went wrong, the first layer was nice on time, well arranged, we did that ourselves. In a very special way actually, the hiring manager never sat at the table - From that perspective, refreshing appointments here and there, I almost replaced 60%-70% of the management. Beneath that another 30%-40%, fine by me. It is nice to see, of course it goes wrong here and there, that’s how it works.

Narratives on management actions

Table 11: Narratives on management actions

Learning

The following section describes the narratives with regards to evaluation and time.

Evaluation

Within the realm of learning, narratives differ surrounding the subject of evaluation. Firstly, on lead and squad level voices are raised regarding to subjects they’re still struggling with in the current organization, often linked to (higher) management, which they think can be improved looking at the future. LS_03 tells: “In a way I think you need to shake up the management tier. You can only shake up that group by changing people, you need to have senior management sending some really strong signals, and I believe it is not good enough to just like, we’re doing a road show around the world and we need to accelerate it, we need to accelerate. You would visibly need to kick some ass, in a sense of alright if you don’t want to support that, for me it is more important to have a manager who has a good understanding of what the organization wants to become, rather than having the content knowledge of whatever. That, I think would be important”. On the lead level this same perspective with regards to management is shared, as LS_04 illustrates: “My own manager has way too much distance, I need to follow what the functional lead wants from me. Regarding to that I say, are we finetuning enough between each other. We do have a big journey to make on management level”. Moreover, squad and lead level widely acknowledge that everyone is currently in a major learning

Senior Management Lead Squad

Aware of impact of restructuring

Uncertain selection process, experienced side-steering and micromanaging, need for clear guidelines

24

phase, which is connected to the perceived success of the transition. That bridges perfectly with another subject that has been expressed widely in terms of something that is needed: time.

Narratives on evaluation

Table 12: Narratives on evaluation

Time

Narratives are considerably aligned on all different levels in terms of agreeing upon that (more) time is needed in order to ‘see’ results and to get used to the new working methods and teams. Firstly, senior management is generally aware of time needed before it rests down. SM_01 discloses: “So, we see a line, we see that it is taken on, but we’re not there yet. That costs a year I think, to really get this right and maybe we need to interfere in a few places. But we give people the opportunity to learn the job, play the game. Every other quarter we keep a close watch, this year is the evaluation round, a more formal evaluation. In the end of the year we make a balance where we stand, what is going well, what isn’t going well, where do we see problems. But it’s still early days, we’re only active for one quarter. We know that this implementation has 1 to 2 years introduction time”.

Secondly, in relation to the working methods on lead and squad level, it is generally shared that more time is needed to get used to the new status quo. Lead level more visibly refers to the time needed for forming and working properly within teams; TS-T_02 explains: “So there was much change happening simultaneously, so you have new teams on a moving train. Those new teams needed to work and deliver all of a sudden, because everyone is waiting for it. Forming new teams just takes time”. Whereas squad level recurrently shares that a lot of time is ‘lost’ in their eyes to the agile ceremonies and rituals, although generally, it is believed that the new agile way of working is the correct one for moving forward. TS-P_06 tells: “We’re now, if I look at myself, so many time is lost with meetings. That doesn’t really add to my opinion to say that ‘we have improved”. Moreover, specifically on squad level it is perceived that maturity within teams yet has to ripe, again, more time is said to be logically needed in order to be able to be more mature and work together more effectively.

Narratives on time

Table 13: Narratives on evaluation

Senior Management Lead Squad

Management mindset needs to change, everyone is learning

Management mindset needs to change, everyone is learning

Senior Management Lead Squad

Aware of a substantial amount of time for the change to settle

Need time, focus on the forming of teams which takes considerable time

25

Composite narratives

After the results of the research have been presented, composite narratives can be drafted on the different organizational levels. These composite narratives are somewhat concluding and general in their definition to show the overall narrative of the concerned group. Although all levels for example agree upon the notion that more time is needed, they differ on a great variety of other subjects. The most prevalent and outspoken narratives are shared below. All groups identify and share the common reason and need for change, to react faster to the complex market and its changes.

Overall composite narrative senior management level

Overall composite narrative lead-level Overall composite narrative

squad-level It is strongly emphasized that they are

aware of the general problems shared lower in the organization but are somewhat in a stalemate in terms of solving those problems due to demands from higher on in the absolute top of the organization.

Senior management clearly obtains a wider scope and perspective, also looking internationally with a strategical mindset. Contrastingly to the lower organizational levels, they perceive that there is more autonomy, are positive on the transition in totality but are aware of the loss of experienced productivity and the uncertainty lower in the organization. Admit that agile in theory looks nice on paper but that the reality is different.

The strong vision of senior management is not completely shared and adopted, more outspokenly deal with complexity and are as an organizational level more emphasized on the retention of knowledge through knowledge creation and sharing, in an attempt to tackle experiences problems. From a higher level, still struggling with old habits and more than squad level, experiencing low autonomy but at the same time more aware of positive energy present in the organization and looking on how to use it.

On the other hand, corresponding with the squad level, experiencing lots of uncertainty and frustration and contrasting to the squad level experience less integration and ambiguity on work roles. Moreover, feeling of top-down management and steering takes place, whilst more time is needed for everything to settle down.

Management style is generally perceived as top-down and directive whereby it is believed that the management mindset needs to change in order to move forward. There is a gap in the vision shared by senior management and the vision perceived on squad level, who are struggling with dependencies, uncertainty, continuous pressure.

Due to that, there is an occurrence of old habits and routines, less drive and commitment and the feeling that lots of time is lost. Overall, feeling not ‘in touch’ and connected with in particular senior management level but logically experiencing problems from decisions made at that level.

26

Interestingly, as the squad level is situated further away from the senior management level, they have less mixed or negative perceptions towards the lead level. Almost every narrative is faced and aimed at senior management or these narratives incorporate experienced difficulties from decisions made at senior management level, which also yields for the lead-level. In other words, mixed or ‘negative’ narratives from both the lower levels are aimed to the senior management in terms of discontent. In addition, senior management has a somewhat more elusive and philosophical, less concrete narrative when talking about the whole organization within the agile transition. Although this is understandable seen the enormous composition of the organization and the span-of-control, this makes it more intangible at the same time. The overall composite narratives above do illustrate the

27

Discussion

This research seeks to answer the general research question: How do narratives of different

organizational levels differentiate from each other through sensemaking within an organization-wide change and what are its implications? Within the discussion section, the causes, implications and underlying differences in narratives will be examined upon from an Actor Network Theory (ANT) perspective. This theory helps explain the difficult translation of the narratives from top-down and bottom-up, both not reaching each other. The sensemaking cycle of Weick (1995) and the value systems theory of Burnes & Jackson (2011) helps explain the causes and implications of the crack in the middle. Firstly, a quick recap of the most important results is given below. Secondly, from the theories described above, the results are examined upon and interpreted from a theoretical lens after which propositions have been drafted based on connecting the empirical results with the theory.

The essence of the most striking results both on squad and lead level are the expressed uncertainty, frustration, ambiguity on work roles, pressure and dependencies. Moreover, less drive and commitment are apparent, autonomy is experienced as low and the management-style is perceived as top-down. Furthermore, the vision from senior management is not carried through lower in the organization, whereby explicitly more time is pronounced to be needed to fully adopt and work conform the agile way. In addition, senior-management is mainly aware of expressed problems lower in the organization but are in a stalemate due to orders from higher on. Senior management perceive more autonomy to be present in the organization and express to be aware of issues shared lower in the organization. Lastly, these results funnel down in the described crack in the middle which hinders the top and bottom layer to reach each other in terms of narratives.

Actor-Network Theory

28

of people and objects and thus their relational networks (Law, 1994), as actors and networks are in a constant process of creation, reformation, stabilization and dissolution (Pollack et al., 2013). The wider literature depicts that the best time to investigate this process is during the process of creation of new associations, whereby Porsander (2005) notes that connections are most visible when they are created. “It is by means of studying the construction of the connections between the actions that the process of organizing can be grasped” (p. 18). Hence, the ANT is highly applicable and suited to the current research study, as these networks of connections are continuously being created, reformed and dissoluted between top-down and bottom-up. Connecting the empirical results, both squad & lead level and senior management are active within this constant process, but the translation of the narratives is hindered. Top-down and bottom-up are not interacting with each other, causing the translation of narratives to be seriously hindered and clash. Commitment and drive are low whereas frustration, uncertainty and ambiguity are high, hence, there is a huge discrepancy in the narratives of the different organizational levels, predominantly with regards to the transition experience. The lower organizational levels are expected to adopt this new agile way of working while their narratives are not in alignment with that what is expected from higher on in the organization. Due to this misalignment in narratives the organization has much to gain in an attempt aligning these narratives, imposing a tremendous challenge. Proposition 1: An inadequate involvement of the change initiators recognizing and paying attention to

29

Sensemaking

The organization-wide transition into the new agile way of working was decided upon and implemented top-down and involved the lower organizational levels. Due to this, each group created their own contrasting narratives opposed to the higher organizational level. The impact of the change resulted in decreased commitment and, among others, increased uncertainty whereby the lower levels experienced considerable ambiguity. In a situation of ambiguity, individuals and groups engage in the enactment, selection and retention-cycle (Weick, 2005), as pictured in figure 14 below.

Figure 2: Enactment, selection and retention-cycle, adapted from Weick 1979, p. 132

Currently, the squad level is continuously hovering between trying to engage in enactment through making sense of their sensed ambiguity, and trying to realize selection within the current experienced situation. Under the constant expressed pressure, uncertainty and worrying evolved and influenced their drive and commitment negatively whilst they’re struggling to get used to the expected working method and mindset. Additionally, although less than lead level, squad level also raised serious concerns regarding the competency and management style of those holding the top positions in relation to the new agile way of working. Lead level has raised stronger concerns about senior management, experiencing low autonomy and interaction which fueled their frustration and experienced ambiguity on work roles. Both the squad and lead levels particularly voiced that more time is needed to get used to the agile way of working, while at the same time the experienced ambiguity does not seem to decline. This implicates that both the squad and lead level are constantly trying to engage in selection and retention of a new constructed reality but do so in vain, as this experienced ambiguity seems to go beyond the actual sensemaking capabilities of the squad and lead level. Hence, they never actually reach the retention phase, causing any possible selection to be followed again by enactment, making this a vicious cycle and causing the crack in the middle as previously mentioned.

30

which they top-down forced the new agile way of working upon. Expressed being conscious of the problems raised lower in the organization, they seem to not be fully aware of the multiple and conflicting socially constructed realities which are present in the current organization. The next step for senior management is to identify, align, and leverage these socially constructed realities in an attempt to make all organizational levels engage in a shared retention. Moreover, senior management should strive to actively be engaged in the influencing of the sensemaking processes active in the lower organizational levels in order to realize this.

Proposition 2a: Groups cannot go through the enactment, selection and retention cycle while the

ambiguity created by unaligned narratives is too high, causing it to be beyond the sensemaking capabilities of these groups as it triggers a new cycle.

Proposition 2b: Not recognizing and acknowledging multiple socially constructed realities minimizes

31

Value alignment and narratives

32

Noticeably, the narratives which in turn describe the values are not aligned. From figures 3-5 we can conclude that both the squad and lead level perceive the organization as soft whereas they perceive the change approach and change content to be hard. The implementation of the new agile way of working was disguised as soft but was actually perceived as hard, top-down implemented by both the squad and lead level. This discrepancy in perceived hard versus soft also fueled and caused the uncertainty, ambiguity and frustration as shared by both squad and lead level. Contrastingly, senior management views the organization, change approach and change content as soft, creating non-alignment overall.

Proposition 3: Distinct perceptions on hard and soft concepts from different organizational levels

lead to a limited change acceptance.

Managerial implications

The presented outcomes of this research are valuable both to managers and employees within organizations for that it sheds light on the underlying mechanisms at play within sensemaking and according narratives which can affect employees’ and managers’ propositions involved in the change. As organizations nowadays are almost continuously in a fluid state of transition at different levels, it is important for managers to be aware of existing narratives which might differ from each other. The most significant outcome of this study is that all organizational members should be aware of, and keep in mind that there possibly are different socially constructed realities alive in the organization. The challenge for in particular management lies in identifying and recognizing the differences that these narratives impose, in order to be able to attempt aligning these narratives. This study explicitly showed that non-aligning narratives can hinder change acceptance and support and hence is an important lever which managers should aim to control.

33

Theoretical implications

This study connected the Actor-Network Theory (Pollack et al., 2013), the sensemaking cycle of Weick (2005) and the value systems theory (Burnes & Jackson, 2011) to obtain multiple perspectives on narratives. This led to new insights as it demands further clarifications. Firstly, this research adds to the existing body of knowledge regarding change success and failure factors by identifying the crack in the middle as a result of non-aligning narratives, which appeared to be a serious impediment for sensemaking and the translation of narratives. Moreover, it identified that a non-alignment in values plays a significant role in the acceptance of change interventions, and thereby adds on the call for future research by Burnes & Jackson (2011) to further determine the impact of value alignment on the successful implementation of change projects.

Secondly, the results of this study provided additional insight and perspective on the sensemaking processes of lower organizational groups as it in turn stressed the paramount importance of these sensemaking process, in particular in relation to change acceptance, in alignment with research of Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld (2005) and Maitlis & Christianson (2014).

Limitations and further research

Although the researcher put effort in ensuring validity, reliability and controllability, this research was subject to certain limitations. Firstly, as van Aken et al., (2012) posits, the richly gathered data which was gathered through the inherent unstructured nature of the interviews made it difficult to interpret the data. Secondly, the gathered narratives are solely retrieved through interviews, although the researcher could have made use of the organizations’ artifacts and documents as these are an equal source of narratives and would have provided an additional and strong perspective. Hence, this also increased the biasedness of the researcher in the gathering and drafting of the (composite) narratives and is important to consider for future research on narratives, aimed at integrality and extensiveness of the narratives. Thirdly, the participating interviewees were initially predominantly provided from the organization and further on partly selected by the researcher, using snowball sampling. As a result, this gave a somewhat biased view on the organization-wide change, which bridges to future research.

34

is posed in the managerial implications, how and if managers are able in identifying narratives in order to be able to align them, deserves strong attention in further research.

Conclusion

35

References

Abolafia, M. (2010). Narrative Construction as Sensemaking: How a Central Bank Thinks. Organization Studies, 3, 349-369.

Aken, J. v., Berends, H., & Bij, H. v. (2012). Problem Solving in Organizations - A Methodological Handbook for Business and Management Students. Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press . Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From Intended Strategies to Unintended Outcomes: The Impact of

Change Recipient Sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1573-1601.

Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2005). Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional development organizations. IEEE Software, 22(5), 30-39.

Brown, A. (2005). Making sense of the collapse of Barings Bank. Human Relations, 58(12), 1579-1604.

Brown, A., Stacey, P., & Nandhakumar, J. (2008). Making sense of sensemaking narratives. Human Relations, 61(8), 1035-1062.

Browning, L., & Morris, G. (2012). Stories of life in the workplace: An open architecture for organizational narratology . New York: Routledge.

Buchanan, D., & Dawson, P. (2007). Discrouse and audience: Organizational change as multi-story process. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 669-686.

Burnes, B. (2005). Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 73-90.

Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change (5th ed.). London: FT: Prentice Hall.

Callon, M., Latour, & B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Levathan: how actors macro- structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In In Knorr-Cetina, K. D. & Cicourel, A. V. (Eds.), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology, Towards an integration of Micro and Macro Sociologies (pp. 277-303). London: Routledge & Kegan.

Conforto, E., Amaral, D., da Silva, S., Di Felippo, A., & Kamikawachi, D. (2016). The agility

construct on project management theory. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 660-674.