MAKING SENSE OF TELEWORK: ENACTMENT IN HYBRID SETTINGS

(1)

Making Sense of Telework: Enactment in Hybrid Settings

Shaping reality through online and offline discourse

Peter Wouters – S2186322

MSc Business Administration - Change Management Date: 04-08-2017

E-mail: peterwouters93@gmail.com University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business Supervisor: M.L. Eveline Hage, PhD

Co-assessor: dr. I. Maris-de Bresser

(2)

ABSTRACT

Research on telework expresses ambiguous findings about the benefits of telework. Potentially, the answer could lie in the sensemaking perspective, yet this field is still heavily underdeveloped regarding technology influence. In order to solve this issue, the aim of this research is to strengthen the knowledge on technology influence by investigating how online and offline communication influence the sensemaking process of individuals. In order to do this, an ethnographic case study was performed and analyzed adopting a grounded theory approach. The findings are presented on the basis of a hybrid communication enactment model. The results of this study suggest that individuals can actively shape their perceived ecological change by positioning themselves in the flux of events, and through

accessibility of technology. Furthermore, this study suggests that media richness, and communication lag mediate the sensemaking of individuals. These findings strengthen the field of technology influenced sensemaking, and can help to understand the shaping of reality that individuals undertake in hybrid settings.

(3)

Information and communication technologies (ICT) provide organizations with the tools to change the way work is organized and performed (Boell, Cecez-Kecmanovic & Campbell, 2016). A growing amount of companies are allowing their employees to work at sites away from the traditional workplace as a way to relieve cost and space pressures and to create a greater awareness of sustainability and mobility (Sewell & Taskin, 2015). As a result, regular work-at-home among the non-self-employed population, has grown by 115% since 2005 (GlobalWorkplaceAnalytics.com, 2017). However, studies about the effects of telework set forth equivocal findings (Boell, et al., 2016). Some studies suggest benefits: highlighting the fact that information communication technologies provide employees with the tools to interact whenever and wherever they please. Other studies exhibit results that suggest that

telework could contribute to feelings of social isolation and a lack of workplace involvement (Boell et al., 2016). Other findings about telework present contradictory findings: some stating that telework improves work-life balance, while others reported a negative relation (Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2005; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Sørensen, 2011; Wheatley, 2012). These paradoxical and inconclusive findings about whether telework is ultimately a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ thing could be a sign that assumptions about the process of telework are questionable, and that a new research approach is necessary to investigate telework phenomena (Boell et al., 2016). This study aims to satisfy the call to make sense of the equivocality regarding telework settings by investigating the sensemaking process of actors in organizations.

Sensemaking is the discursive processes of constructing and interpreting the social world

(6)

gain more insights. A qualitative ethnographic case study is adopted in order to map the sensemaking process of individuals working in an autonomous team that use telework at their own accord. An

ethnographic case study offers an avenue for new theory development and is well suited for sensemaking research in general (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). The data that is gathered during the study will be analyzed using a grounded method approach, which allows the study to be as open as possible to fresh insights (Charmaz, 2011).

The case entails a team within an organization that utilizes offline and online communication simultaneously, which is defined in this study as hybrid communication. In addition, the autonomous nature of the team limits the top-down pressure on decision making. This study entails one research question and one sub question. The main research question is: how do individuals make sense in hybrid settings in which communication unfolds both online and offline? The sub question is: how and why do online and offline communication each individually or in combination influence sensemaking in a hybrid setting? Answering these research questions will strengthen the knowledge about the influence of technology on sensemaking. This knowledge could be used to understand the implications of telework and technology on sensemaking.

(7)

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

In a world where complexity, uncertainty and unexpected events are copious, sensemaking plays a key role for individuals to make sense of their beliefs. Within this chaos of events, sensemaking is the discursive processes of constructing and interpreting the social world (Gephart, 1993, p. 1485). In the history of sensemaking multiple layers of meaning have been developed. Therefore, the following section will lay a theoretical foundation of sensemaking, and position this study accordingly. These foundations can then be used to specify boundary or scope conditions of the theory that is developed (Suddaby, 2010). Hereafter telework and technology influence on communication are set forth.

2.1 The sensemaking process

Sensemaking is the process through which individuals work to understand novel, unexpected, or confusing events (Weick, 1995; Weick, 2005; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). Sensemaking starts with a flux of information in the form of an almost infinite stream of events and inputs that surround any organizational actor. These events form a chaos of inputs wherein an actor constantly finds itself interconnected with a raw flow of information. The interaction between the expectation of an individual's expectations and the flux of information may cause confusion when the two-pose ambiguity or equivocality (Weick, 2005; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).

Bracketing Ambiguous cues

(8)

between reality and expectation (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). A search for clarification initiates by noticing cues that prompt to rethink and extracting them from the ongoing flux of events. Firstly, the misalignment is extracted and bracketed in order to create some sense of order in the unfolding phenomenon amidst the constant flux. Bracketing is described as “Inventing a new meaning for

something that has already occurred during the organizing process, but does not yet have a name and has never been recognized as a separate autonomous process, object or event” (Magala, 1997, p. 324). Bracketing is thus the ability to put boundaries around a portion of the flow that one finds itself in when engaging in an activity or project (Weick, 2005).

Labeling information

After bracketing, the bound chunk of information is labeled so that it is more suited for

communicational exchanges (Chia, 2000). Labeling takes place through a strategy of “differentiation and simple-location, identification and classification, regularizing and routinization to translate the intractable or obdurate into a form that is more amenable to functional deployment” (Chia, 2000, p. 517). Functional deployment implies commanding labels on interdependent circumstances in ways that establish

consistency for the management, coordination, and distributing of narratives (Weick, 2005). During the labeling stages of sensemaking, types and categories still have ample plasticity considering they are socially specified and have to be adapted to local circumstances (Weick, 2009).

Creating a narrative

(9)

understanding and permits negotiated realities. This leads to a degree of consistency, coherence and continuity within a group (Brown, 1998). While realities are always partly shaped by discourse,

individuals remain the author of their own reality, so overlap of realities is not always perfect (Brown & Humphreys, 2003). Individuals use narratives to shape their own understanding of a situation (Brown, 1998; Brown & Humphreys, 2003) and can be used as a tool aimed at influencing the sensemaking progress of others (Brown, 1998). It is arguable that narratives are the sole foundation on which

organizations are build, because organizations are socially constructed through networks of conversations and dialogues (Ford, 1999; Ran & Golden, 2011). There is not a tangible line that allocates an

organization from the rest of all information. It’s the perception of individuals, based on discourse, that creates an organization. Therefore, the communication of narratives through dialogue is a critical factor in this study.

Sensemaking loops

When the plausible narrative resolves the ambiguity, it often gets retained in one's identity. This retained narrative allows for further action. Eventually this action feeds back into the world and could eventually lead to more equivocality. This restarts the continuous sensemaking loop of creation, interpretation and action (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015).

2.2 Variations within sensemaking

There are two variations in the field of sensemaking that will briefly be discussed in order to position this research. The two distinctions in the field attend to the cognitive versus social nature of sensemaking and the prospective versus retrospective nature of sensemaking.

Cognitive versus social

(10)

Moon, & Hoffman, 2006; Louis, 1980; Starbuck & Milliken, 1988). This cognitive process is carried out in the form of developing schemata, frameworks and mental models (Elsbach, Barr & Hargadon, 2005).

Nevertheless, most work in the sensemaking field delineates organizational sensemaking as a naturally social and discursive process (Maitlis, 2005; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). This variation on sensemaking states that sensemaking takes place between individuals, as meaning is negotiated,

contested, and mutually constructed (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Gephart, 1993). When considering the social aspect of sensemaking there are also variations who consider the collective aspects of sensemaking. Organizational sensemaking, for example, is the collective form of sensemaking defined as “a

fundamentally social process in which organization members interpret their environment in and through interactions with others, constructing accounts that allow them to comprehend the world and act

collectively.” (Maitlis, 2005, p. 21). Yet, in the sensemaking perspective adopted in this paper, sense is regarded as not always shared or agreed-upon, but rather implies that understandings are close enough for action (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). In addition, it is assumed that individuals are embedded in a

sociomaterial context, where their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the “actual, imagined, or implied presence of others” (Allport, 1985). Hence the sensemaking in this paper is considered social through discourse (Weick, 2005), but is analyzed on an individual level.

Prospective versus retrospective

Another variation in the literature can be found in the chronology of sensemaking. Sensemaking is sometimes considered to be a prospective process (Gephart, Topal, & Zhang, 2010), while most

literature characterizes sensemaking as a retrospective activity (Weick, 1995). Prospective sensemaking is “the conscious and intentional consideration of the probable future impact of certain actions and

especially non-actions, on the meaning construction processes of themselves and others.” (Gioia, Thomas, Clark & Chittipeddi, 1994, p. 378). It is argued that such prospective sensemaking may be more

(11)

However, most literature related to sensemaking considers sensemaking to be a retrospective activity (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). This retrospect is often captured in Weick's’ question: “How can I know what I think until I see what I say?” (Weick, 1995, p. 25). However, retrospective sensemaking does not completely neglect all forms of prospect, as Weick admits that actions are guided by future-oriented thoughts, such as plans. However, he argues that such plans are essentially derived from retrospective sensemaking (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). When one considers sensemaking about future events, one does so in the future-present tense, which sustains the retrospective nature of sensemaking (Weick, 2005). Even though the team in this study is occupied with product development, ample conformity was found with the notion of Weick that prospective sensemaking is always a retrospective activity based on a prospective portrayal of the future. Therefore, this study from this point on considers sensemaking as a retrospective activity. In short, this paper considers sensemaking the sensemaking process the process of shaping reality, integral to action in a social environment full of cues. When these cues contest the reality of an individual a retrospective process is triggered revolving around making sense through social interaction.

2.3 Sensemaking-related constructs

There are several constructs of the sensemaking perspective that have been brought to light in the sensemaking field. Three of these constructs have shown to be relevant in the light of this study:

sensegiving, sensedemanding, and sensebreaking. The section below defines these constructs.

Sensegiving

The first sensemaking construct, which has mainly proven relevance in strategic change and managing, is the construct of sensegiving. This sensemaking related activity constitutes out of all efforts aimed at influencing someone else’s sensemaking (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007; Sonenshein, 2010; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Sensegiving is specifically relevant in the field of strategic decisions and

(12)

recipients through narratives (Brown, 1998). Nevertheless, sensegiving is not an outright top-down process as the term might imply. Actors at any level of an organization, or outside its boundaries, may engage in sensegiving with others (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007). Next to that, sensegiving heavily relies on the interpretations and acceptation of the individuals that receive the sensegiving. In other words, the output of the sensegiving ultimately relies on the interpretation of the narrative. In addition, activities of sensegiving can be actively resisted even when the narrative is clear (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Some scholars argue that it is problematic to split sensemaking and sensegiving because separating the two actions makes it difficult to see that “givers” and “makers” of sense do not interact but intra-act. “Both are involved in the broader flow of sensemaking, whereby individuals are coupled with another and the world, creating sense out of whatever material are available to them (including each other’s

utterances)” (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015, p. 24). It is for this reason that some authors rather refer to sensegiving as “participatory sense-making” (Di Paolo, Rohde and Jaegher, 2010, p. 72).

Sensedemanding

Where sensegiving constitutes a pushing factors of sharing sense, sensedemanding fulfills a pulling construct of sensemaking. Sensedemanding is defined as “the use of strenuous efforts to acquire and process information so as to establish ‘a workable level of uncertainty’ and equivocality” (Weick 1969, p. 40). Sensedemanding originates from the fact that most individuals are unlikely to wait for others to clarify their situation (Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon & Sunnafrank, 2002). Examples of such behavior are cross-checking one’s own perception and interpretations with those of others (Matilis & Lawrence, 2007) and performing inquiries or asking questions (Ashford et al. 2003).

Sensebreaking

(13)

organizations fill the meaning of the void created through sensebreaking with new meaning (Pratt, 2000). Next to this, it can be applied to motivate people to reconsider the sense that they have already made, to question their underlying assumptions, and to re-examine their course of action (Lawrence & Maitlis, 2014).

2.4 Enactment Theory

One conventional model in organizational theory capturing the sensemaking process in organizations is the enactment theory. The enactment model, depicted in figure 1 below, depicts the enactment theory (Weick, 2003).

Figure 1. Enactment theory model. This figure illustrates the stages of enactment which an individual goes through during sensemaking (Jennings & Greenwood, 2003; adopted from Weick, 1979, p. 132).

The enactment model describes the somewhat counterintuitive loop of retrospect by capturing enactments carried out on the basis of beliefs and frameworks for understanding (Sutcliffe, 2013; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). The model depicts how action, based on retained beliefs and identity,

occasionally demand reconsideration in the light of ecological change. This reconsideration happens retrospectively by creating a plausible narrative, which gets retained through discourse, and then allows for further action.

Enactment

(14)

about perceiving. It is this initial implementation of reality that is preserved by the word enactment” (Weick, 1969, p. 165). The notion of ‘initial implementation of reality’ captures the essence of the enactment element, and is a critical constituent of the sensemaking perspective. It highlights the notion that the reality of an individual is pivotal in the actions that are carried out. This also holds that acts can by definition not be ‘bad’ or ‘good’, but these labels only apply after an act has prompted a base for reflection and interpretation (Weick, 2005). In addition, this implies that an act cannot be the same as a mistake, but “A mistake follows an act. It identifies the character of an act in its aftermath. It names it. An act, however, is not mistaken, it becomes mistaken” (Paget, 1988, p. 56).

Selection

During enactment, an individual can be prompted by cues of ambivalence or equivocality. Such cues lead to selection, which is the first steps of creating order in the ongoing flux when enactment is interrupted by ambiguity. During selection, bracketing and labeling slowly start to reduce the possible meanings of the observed cue into a manageable disquisition. Selection manifests through a combination of retrospective attention, mental models, and articulation (Weick, 2005). The final output of the selection phase is a plausible account that provides some sense of order and “makes sense” in the light of the event that has occurred. (Brown, 2000; Maitlis, 2005; Weick, 1995; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). However, during the selection phase the plausible story is still relatively tentative.

Retention

(15)

2.5 Telework

This study places sensemaking in organizations in the context of individuals working in an autonomous team that is allowed to work away from the office. Working away from the office while having access to all data and being connected through information systems is defined as Telework. This practice of detaching workers from a central workplace is seeing an increased amount of popularity (Harrison, Johns & Martocchio, 2000) and is a growing global practice (Davey, 2012). Telework is an alternative work arrangement in which employees perform tasks elsewhere that are normally done in a primary or central workplace, for at least some portion of their work schedule, using electronic media to interact with others inside and outside the organization (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Baruch, 2001; Feldman & Gainey, 1997). There is a substitution of place involved in telecommuting, which typically is home, although telework centers and remote offices are alternative locations (Davis & Polonko, 2001; Hill, Miller, Weiner, & Colihan, 1998).

Online communication

(16)

Drawbacks of online communication

However, next to the affordances that technology offer, there are also drawbacks of technology mediated communication when compared to offline communication. Firstly, technology mediated communication can lead to a reduction of face-to-face contact and as a result can decrease the frequency and depth of communication between telecommuters and other organizational members. Next to that, one can rely less on visual inspection and observation, demonstration of problems, nonverbal expressions (e.g. facial or body movements) expressions and ongoing or spontaneous conversation during online

communication (Vlaar et al., 2008). Moreover, when using electronic messaging, feedback often takes longer to be transferred, and the extent and rate of information transfer also decreases (Boell et al., 2016). On top of this, electronic messages can only contain what can be collected and processed through

machines. This excludes feelings, intuitions and context, which makes individuals observing electronic data at a disadvantage against individuals experiencing the real-world event (Keick, 1985). On top of the inefficiencies in the rate and quality of electronic messaging, the changes in physical distance also create a psychological distance which interferes with trust and closeness of teams (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Finally, individuals who manage the influx of information have limited processing capacity (Keick, 1985) and might not be able to deal with the copious amounts of information received through online and offline channels.

Media richness

The distinction between online and offline communication can help to label different channels, but it does not always grasp the appropriateness of a channel for the distribution of information. For example, face-to-face communication in comparison to phone calls enables the use of facial and body movement. As a result, offline communication is more elaborate than technology-mediated

(17)

(18)

3. METHODOLOGY

This study aims to develop new theoretical understanding in the field of organizational

sensemaking in hybrid settings i.e. telework and face-to-face in the office. At this moment, the existing literature is heavily underdeveloped when it comes to the technology influence of sensemaking efforts in organizations (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). This study aims to gain a deeper understanding on “how” the organizational sensemaking process unfolds when individuals within a team are allowed to use

technology to communicate when working away from the office. Since the field is underdeveloped, an explorative qualitative research method is adopted in order to develop more initial insights. A qualitative approach allows participants to provide their own understanding of a particular situation through their own word and perceptions, which allows for uncovering links among concepts and behaviors. These insights can be used to generate and refine theory (Miles & Hubermans, 1994).

Embedded case study

Within this study there will be made use of an embedded case study. A case study in general is a study with a focus on understanding the dynamics presented within some single or multiple settings (Yin, 1984). Single-case studies feature the largest extent of the sensemaking literature, because this type of research applies well to everyday and extreme examples of sensemaking (Yin, 2003). However, methods that compare multiple instances of sensemaking have the potential to provide additional theoretical insight (Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013), and are more likely to specify potential boundary conditions on theory (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). In order to utilize the benefits of a multiple case study, within only one organization, this study will use an embedded case design. The organization in the case makes use of the scrum-planning method. Within this method work is based around ‘sprints’, which are timed cycles of planning, starting off with the planning of events and refining the workload, daily start-ups, reviewing accomplished tasks and conducting a retrospective of the

(19)

Ethnography

Value can be created when using fine-grained data collection when studying sensemaking. one especially useful method to do this is micro-ethnography (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Ethnography is the research method of recording the life of a particular group and entails sustained participation and observation in their milieu, community, or social world (Charmaz, 2011). This method can be used to reveal how participants make sense from moment to moment, exploring both hidden qualities of

unfolding process and how it relates to teamwork, coordination, and strategizing processes (Brown, 2000; Christianson, 2014; Cooren, 2004; Hindmarsh & Pilnick, 2007; Liu & Maitlis, 2014). Next to the insights in the group process, research participant observation is a powerful tool in the theory development of organizational sensemaking, because researchers are able to provide first-hand accounts of their own sensemaking experiences as well as the observed sensemaking of others (Bechky, 2006).

Nevertheless, the researcher’s role in the organization during the research process is a delicate and important facet. While ethnographers may adopt a variety of roles, the usual aim throughout is to maintain a more or less marginal position, thereby providing access to participant perspectives but at the same time minimizing the dangers of over-rapport (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). In the case of this study the researcher will be a full-fledged actor within the organization, and will continue to carry out activities in the organization during the study. This makes the role of the researcher that of a complete participant, which implies that a researcher tries to pass as an ordinary participant in a scene (Karp 1980; Pettinger 2005). Complete participation is attractive because immersion in an organization provides opportunities to obtain inside knowledge and avoid the trouble of access negotiations. For this reason, there are even scholars that have suggested that complete participation is the ideal to which researchers should aim (Jules-Rosette 1978; Ferrell & Hamm, 1998).

Case selection

(20)

where individuals can choose to communicate online or offline. The ambiguity of hybrid settings is interesting because it serves as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, digital communication channels offer the opportunity to interact with colleagues who would otherwise be unavailable. While, on the other hand, online communication often leads to a decrease in communication effectiveness and closeness of teams (Boell et al., 2016; Daft & Lengel, 1984). Secondly, investigating a team through an ethnographic study enables to capture sensemaking in smaller disturbances, whereas most studies on sensemaking follow major events (Feldman, 2000; Turner & Rindova, 2012). Finally, because the case entails an autonomous team this study has the opportunity to gain insights into the decision-making process of individuals unhindered by a top-down decision making.

The case entails a dynamic team in a young organization, developing projects and technology education for primary and high school. Sensemaking is relevant in the case since the new product development of the team is innovative and has to adapt to the rapidly changing environment. Individuals constantly have to deal with the ambiguity of how their new products capture the need of the market place. The team makes use of a scrum method to plan their activities.

Grounded theory

The data will be analyzed with a grounded theory approach, which implies that the research will not be conducted with a set of predefined theoretical concepts or hypothesis, or with a particular body of literature in mind (Charmaz, 2011). The process of information gathering and the application of suitable theory will be carried out as an iterative process in which the researcher constantly aims to discover new topics for theory in de data. Nevertheless, a body of theory on telework, organizational sensemaking and IT enabled communication is already developed, which will not be ignored at the early stages of the research. This disarms the concern of Suddaby (2006) that grounded theory is often used as an excuse to ignore existing literature. This paper will look for the “practical middle ground” on which the empirical data gathering can be based, without losing the openness to new insights in the research process

(21)

Data Collection

This data collection took shape in the form of observations, interviews and documentation of online conversations. The investigation of multiple sources allowed to approach findings from multiple angles. This form of triangulation was employed in order to strengthen the substantiation of constructs and propositions (Eisenhardt, 1989). The main source of data was provided by six semi-structure interviews. These interviews were performed by one researcher, and were all taped with recording devices. This provided the option to re-hear interviews to assess overlooked elements of the interview. Next to this, it allows for an outsider to hear the interviews first-hand to make their own judgement about the interviews. During interviews, questions were asked related to experiences, opinion and personal behavior regarding telework. The aim was to get a better understanding on the perception of individuals working at the organization. In addition, personal experiences while involved in telework were

investigated. Interview protocols (see appendix I & II) were developed. These protocols aided in

comparability between answers, and increasing the reliability of the research (Yin, 2009). The interviews were conducted and transcribed in Dutch. Hereafter the codes and presentation of relevant quotes were translated to English, always aiming for retaining maximum accuracy of the message in translation.

Observations were conducted with the aim to acquire ‘thick’ descriptions of the case (Geertz, 1973). The researcher was actively observing through the lens of a researcher for six weeks. However, work related activities already started seven months before that, which already contributed for established rapport and understanding of the company. During activities in the field, notes were collected about interesting observations. In addition, bi-weekly scrum planning sessions were taped, reheard, and

analyzed. Hereafter these observations were related to findings that came up during interviews. On top of that, all observations eventually contribute to the understanding of the researcher regarding the case (Charmaz, 2011)

(22)

Ensuring quality criteria

The research results are measured for controllability, validity and reliability to improve the intersubjective agreements of the results (Aken, Berends & Bij, 2012). In order to account for controllability there was made use of written memos summarizing the research activities (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In addition, memo-writing constituted the pivotal intermediate step between data

collection and writing drafts of papers (Charmaz, 2011). These memos contributed a detailed and precise description of the research process and thought processes which led to the creation of theory (Appendix III). On top of assuring controllability, these memos allowed for retracing thought processes, and returning to gaps that are identified early in the research process (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Memos were documented and can be made available for reviewing in order to create maximum transparency. Early in the process there will be made use of memos to direct and focus further data collection. Basic questions such as: “What are people doing?” And “what process is at issue here?” are questions that featured the research process at this stage (Chamaz, 2011). In the later stages of the research focus of the memos was describing emerging and changing categories, and identifying beliefs and assumptions that support it.

Finally, in order to have control over the instrument bias there was made use of multiple research instruments during interviews and observations. Respondent bias was accounted for in the analysis of the results, by taking into consideration to what extent the results were independent of the respondents in the study, and what aspects need investigation on a wider variety of respondents (Aken, et al., 2012).

Data Analysis

Data collection and theory development were carried out in an iterative fashion during this study, as is inherent to grounded theory (Charmaz, 2011). The initial stages of the study consisted of

(23)

that, the data was analyzed critically. For example, during the coding process it was noticed that some answers during interviews were somewhat induced by the line of questioning of the interviewer. These answers were labeled as ‘forced answers’ and were left out of analysis.

Table 1: Initial & Focused Coding

Initial coding Focused coding

Dave 25 11 Eve 48 11 Jasmin 22 12 Sanne 9 Max 14 Rupert 12

Total unique codes

71 14

Some of the findings were discussed with individuals participating in the research. This was valuable as gathering feedback from participants in interpretive studies is “the single most important way of ruling out the possibility of misinterpreting the meaning of what participants say and do or what the researcher observed, and the perspective the participants have on what is going on” (Kaplan & Maxwell, 2005, p. 45).

When the initial codes came to a stage in which they represented an adequate saturation of the observed situation, the coding gradually progressed to the focused coding stage. Focused coding means using the most significant and/or frequent earlier codes to sift through large amounts of data (Charmaz, 2011, p. 57). The gradual refinement of the first set of codes led to a comprehensive, yet

(24)

4. RESULTS

The results will be presented based on the research questions. First the research question: “how do teams make sense in hybrid communication setting in which communication unfolds both online and offline?” will be answered. The second part of the results will answer the sub question by relating the findings to the developed model.

4.1 Sensemaking in hybrid settings

The offline and online sensemaking processes observed in the study complied with the

enactment-selection-retention loop as elucidated in the enactment theory. When cues are noticed, they are converted into a tentative narrative, that through retention leads to new action. In this case, many of these sensemaking loops were offline and planned.

For example, at the start of every sprint a two-week planning was held in which user stories about deliverables were created. Such user stories were short stories about the requirements of deliverables in the form of a narrative through the eyes of a user. A goal for the two-week timeframe was set, and anomalies, such as special events or one-time events are discussed. Hereafter the deliverables were sliced into manageable tasks, and worries and interdependencies were expressed by the team. This is where much discourse about ambiguity was cleared up, and the goal of such meetings was to come up with a clear planning for the next two weeks. When there was a major disturbance during the sprint, an ad-hoc offline meeting was planned, or someone was tapped on the shoulder in order to be able to conduct in discourse. Some individuals expressed how they would go to the office if they were facing ambiguity: “I picture [ambiguity] like a sort of fog ... when something is ambiguous than its foggy for me. In that state, I wouldn't be able to do something for four hours at home.”

(25)

out using online communication to reach one of his colleagues. “I was burdening myself with my own questions, and I couldn’t answer them myself. I then reached out to Dave.” In addition, work related ambiguity was also discussed with individuals unrelated to the organization. For example, one individual explained how he would pose questions to his girlfriend, using an adopted narrative. “When I’m working at home and my girlfriend is around, I sometimes ask her questions as well. Often not about specific content, but in a more global sense, because perhaps this could answer my questions too.” What can be concluded from this is that the sensemaking process in an online/offline situation still remains its nature of ecological change, creation, interpretation and retention as captured in the enactment model. In addition, narratives can be communicated through online and offline channels.

(26)

Perceived Ecological change

In order to represent the sensemaking that was perceived in this case, a distinction can be applied by separating the flux of information and the section that is perceived by individuals. This is based on the belief that an event can only become part of someone's reality once the information is perceived. It’s the perceived reality, and not the flux that does not enter the realm of perception that matters for the

sensemaking process. Making a clear distinction allows to understand how individuals are constantly confronted with externalities, but only the ones they are exposed to.

The way in which information technology is relevant in sensemaking is how it helps individuals to perceive information that is not always physically reachable. One could say that information

technology increases the range of bodily senses of human beings. Human beings get to access a part of something that is out of reach of vision, touch and hearing by enhancing the scope of our perception through a technology-mediated construct. Figure 2, presented below, is a graphical representation of the enactment model observed in this case. Figure 2 shows how individuals conceive information from the overall flux of events through technology and senses, which leads to an individuals’ own version of perceived ecological change.

Figure 2. Perceived Ecological change

The difference with the more classical enactment theory is the separation between the overall flux of events and the perceived ecological change. The original ‘ecological change’ is reconsidered as

‘perceived ecological change’, which constitutes out of sensory, and technology enabled information. The perceived ecological change influences the enactment, while actions carried out during enactment feed back into the flux of events, positioning and accessibility mediate the influx of sensory and technology enabled information.

Flux of Events Perceived Ecological

Change

Enactment Technology-enabled information

(27)

Positioning

Positioning is the action that individuals carry out which dictates the sensory information that they are susceptible to. Physical proximity is always relevant since it offers a burgeoning number of cues that could lead to sensemaking. Within an office where physical proximity between colleagues was close, many cues arose as triggers for sensemaking. For example, a colleague who would come back from a pilot project would almost always give a short recap of how the pilot went. This could act as unintended sensebreaking for someone that overheard the conversation, by creating ambiguity about the project that they were working on themselves. This form of unintended sensebreaking was not perceived in

combination with online communication. Another example is how one individual in the office would receive an email from a client and would heave a sigh over its content. This could be a cue for someone else to ask “what is wrong?”. This question would lead to a discussion, as a result both would be up-to-date about the content of the email. On top of this, many individuals in range would eavesdrop on the conversation which also made them aware of the information and the corresponding narrative of the two colleagues in discussion. This discourse would not have ensued without the perceived cue of the sigh by another individual. A final example is how colleagues often looked over each other’s shoulders and would ask each other the question: “what are you doing right now?” This form of sensedemanding, would often trigger a sequence of sensegiving and sensemaking. Such open-ended discourse was not observed during telework settings, likely because the visual cues of others behavior were less conspicuous.

Accessibility

(28)

“Our meetings are often not in a quiet space where you could use such digital equipment. It’s often quickly in between other activities while sitting in a beanbag”

Finally, it is the choice of individuals how they use technology which decided to what extent technology has an influence on their perception. For example, some colleagues would intentionally ignore messages during times that they were not occupied with work, while others would always promptly react. One respondent, vouching for a lack of accessibility in the weekend, stated: “During the weekend I always leave my laptop in my bag in order to not be confronted with work”. In addition, someone else noted: “When I’m at the office and I’m unoccupied someone could always still reach out to me. However, when I go to the store while working at home, and I leave my phone at home, I’m completely cut off from the office”. On the other hand, others expressed that accessibility for work related information was basically constant: “When I’m not really doing anything and someone from work sends me a message while I’m not working, then I don’t mind to look at it at all.”

As a result, we can argue that accessibility influences to what extent technology-mediated information reaches the perceived ecological change of an individual. Accessibility is defined as the access to technology, quality of technology, and technology in use, which dictates to what extent individuals are susceptible to technology mediated stimuli. Combining all elements discussed above creates an updated enactment model:

(29)

4.2 The influence of online and offline communication on sensemaking

Based on this model the sub question: “how and why do online and offline communication each individually or in combination influence sensemaking in a hybrid communication setting?” will be answered. The results to this sub question are twofold: The first part of the answer to the question show that communication does not have to influence the sensemaking process at all, as long as there are no cues. The second part highlights the relevance of media richness and communication lag.

No sensemaking without cues

Results of this study indicate that human beings are not always in a state of ‘sense making’ but sometimes events, regardless of the context, already make sense. One respondent explains how sometimes there is no ambiguity at all, and tasks can be carried out in any context:

“When I’m doing a task and I know exactly what to do ... In other words, when I have gathered all information I need, and I don’t need anyone else at that moment, but I just need to focus to develop it ... These are the tasks that I take home”

In other words, working in or outside office walls does not by definition mean that there has to be a difference in the effect of communication on the sensemaking process of individuals, as long there are no ambiguous cues that trigger sensemaking. In this case respondents expressed that there were some routine tasks, like sending emails, preparing pilot lessons and video-editing, which were so clear that they could be carried out from any location without issues. Therefore, one can conclude that communication channels do not influence sensemaking, as long as sensemaking is not triggered.

Sensemaking in a hybrid setting

(30)

external influence. For example, when creating new projects, ambiguity would be experienced whether the projects would fit the target audience, and if the content could convey intended vision of the

organization. In addition, feedback from clients would constantly have individuals doubting their work. Both online and offline communication influenced sensemaking by allowing narratives about this ambiguity to be shared. In this case, communication online and offline were used to create a workable level of uncertainty. This was not a process that changed when online and offline communication were combined or co-existed. When available, face-to-face communication was often the preferred channel for sensemaking. In addition, the observations showed that the labels ‘online’ and ‘offline’ are no adequate labels to differentiate in the suitability of communication to resolve ambiguity. It was found that

communication effectiveness was mediated by the speed and media richness of the interaction. However, these characteristics were based on the use of the media by individuals, not the inherent quality of a channel. Next to that, there is not always a choice between online and offline communication. When people are not close to each other, online communication is always the better media at that moment in time, since offline communication is not available.

Media richness

The media richness of communication is the ability of information to change understanding within a time interval (Daft & Lengel, 1984). This study suggests that neither online or offline communication by definition have better media richness, but it depends on the way that this

(31)

In this case face-to-face communication during office hours was plentiful, and therefore most of the sensemaking was intentionally scheduled around time slots that most people would be present at the office. On the other hand, telework was often used as a way to get away from discourse and as a tool to create a workable environment elsewhere. Whenever ambiguity during telework would become

impracticable, individuals would often interact with colleagues later at the office. However, if a deadline would undermine the option to communicate face-to-face at a later time, users would often use phone calls in order to facilitate reciprocal communication without being face-to-face.

Communication lag

(32)

(33)

Explanation of the model

This study aimed to uncover how individuals make sense in hybrid communication settings. The results of this study are summarized in the ‘hybrid communication enactment model’ as presented in figure 4. Building on the enactment model (Weick, 1979), it shows how individuals can actively moderate the perceived input of the flux of events, by actions of positioning and managing technological

accessibility. The information coming from the flux of events is mediated by media richness and communication lag. During enactment, which is defined as action based on an initial implementation of reality, cues of ambiguity can trigger sensemaking. Such cues arise from discrepancies between perceived ecological change and enactment. When sensemaking is triggered, the process of selection ensues. During this section of the model individuals bracket and label the part of the flux that creates ambiguity, and create a narrative fitting their social context. Hereafter retrospect and interaction with other individuals ensue in order to reach a plausible narrative that will be retained for further enactment. The

(34)

5. DISCUSSION

These findings help to understand how individuals undertake action to expose or evade stimuli, and how these stimuli contribute to their sensemaking process through perceived ecological change. This description of sensemaking in hybrid settings helps to fathom how individuals are exposed to ecological change in an age where technology is playing a role in almost everyone’s life. These results offer an optimistic view because they present how ‘free’ individuals are often in charge of the stimuli that they are exposed to. Information overload is something that can be actively resisted and environments can be balanced around the amount of communication that is necessary to act efficiently.

This study was conducted with the consideration of sensemaking as a discursive process, based on Weick’s work (1969; 1995; 2005). However, the field of sensemaking is far more heterogeneous than this perspective on sensemaking alone. There are also variations on sensemaking that consider a more individual-cognitive, or collective-social view on sensemaking (Brown, Colville & Pye, 2015). We can’t help but see some elements of these perspectives represented in the updated enactment model as

presented in this study. Perceived ecological change and selection in relation to enactment seem

especially sensitive towards an individual-cognitive perspective on sensemaking. For example, cognitive dissonance could be important when converting perceived change to enactment. Whereas cognitive mental models could be relevant in converting enactment to selection. While this study stands by its foundation that sensemaking is discursive in nature, it would be interesting to see if, and how, other perspectives on sensemaking would fit the updated enactment model.

There were also hints in this study that suggest that the loop consisting of enactment, selection and retention can vary in elapsed time. As indicated by ‘Communication lag’ discourse during

(35)

contexts. This complies with the findings of Sandberg & Tsoukas (2015) who noted that “the notion of ‘process’ remains relatively vague (p. 19)”. Additional research could focus in on the time that it takes to reach a state of ‘sense’ when sensemaking takes place in (partly) technological mediated setting, and when a state of ‘sense’ is achieved in such settings.

Marshall & Sandberg (2011) noted that the few studies that did investigate sensemaking in virtual settings, imposed Weick’s real world theory of sensemaking on the virtual environment, failing to

acknowledge and address the unique challenges of the virtual environment and the potential consequences for how sense is made in those environments (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015, p. 22). What this study

uncovers is that without prepositioning the paper towards Weick’s real world theory, the enactment theory also applies to virtual settings when combined with an offline setting. This only partly disintegrates the concern raised, since it does not resolve the concern about total virtual settings. However, then the question to what extent a complete virtual setting really exist can be raised. For the reason that online communication is eventually subject to the sensemaking of human beings.

(36)

6. CONCLUSION

This research has built on enactment theory to capture the sensemaking process of individuals in a hybrid communication environment. The results of this study show how online and offline

communication channels affect the sensemaking process that individuals go through. This development in the sensemaking theory was necessary in order to clear the way for developments to the field of

technology influence on sensemaking (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015) and it satisfies a call for new research approaches from the field on telework (Boell et al., 2016). The results of this study show how individuals can take control of their perceived reality by navigating the endless flux of events through positioning themselves and accessibility of technology. Finally, the relevance of media richness and communication lag during sensemaking are highlighted. These developments in the field of sensemaking bring us one step closer to understanding the ambiguity coming from telework. There are still more steps to take, but at least the sensemaking process with reference to hybrid communication makes a bit more sense.

Managerial implications

The model explains how technology mediated information can reach individuals regardless of location. This study has two main managerial implications. Firstly, managers can use this knowledge to understand how online and offline information and communication channels within an organization influence the sensemaking, and therefore actions, of individuals. Secondly, change agents can consult the model to better understand behaviors towards change during change processes.

Future research

Additional developments in research could focus on the impact of positioning and accessibility on collective sensemaking, by relating the updated enactment model to organizational sensemaking.

(37)

21). It would be a compelling avenue for future research to investigate the impact of positioning and accessibility on organizational sensemaking. In addition, the model developed in this paper focused solely on the social aspect of sensemaking. Yet, the central sections of the model directly related to enactment suggest a large role of cognitive processes. Therefore, we propose further research into 1) The effect of Positioning and accessibility on mental models and 2) The effect of Positioning and accessibility on identity.

Limitations

This study lamentably has some limitations. The work of the participants in this case is the creation of a project-based technology curriculum for education and therefore the job is only suitable for employees with adequate knowledge of technology. As a result, the technology proficiency of the

(38)

7. REFERENCES

Allport, G. (1985). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),

Handbook of social psychology (pp. 1–46). New York: Random House.

Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 383– 400.

Baruch, Y. (2001). The status of research on teleworking and an agenda for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(2), 113–129.

Bechky, B. A. (2006). Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations. Organization Science, 17(1), 3–21.

Boell, S. K., Cecez‐Kecmanovic, D., & Campbell, J. (2016). Telework paradoxes and practices: the importance of the nature of work. New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(2), 114-131. Brown, A.D. (1998). Narrative, politics and legitimacy in an IT implementation. Journal of Management

Studies, 35: 35-68.

Brown, A. D. (2000). Making sense of inquiry sensemaking. Journal of management studies, 37(1). Brown, A.D., & Humphreys, M. (2003). Epic and tragic tales: Making sense of change. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 39: 121-144.

Brown, A. D., Colville, I., & Pye, A. (2015). MDaking sense of sensemaking in organization studies. Organization Studies, 36(2), 265-277.

Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4, 359-380.

Chia, R. (2000). Discourse analysis organizational analysis. Organization, 7(3), 513-518.

Christianson, M. K. (2014). Making sense again: Updating around an unexpected event. Working paper, University of Toronto.

(39)

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.

Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization science, 12(3), 346-371.

Cunliffe, A., & Coupland, C. (2012). From hero to villain to hero: Making experience sensible through embodied narrative sensemaking. Human Relations, 65(1), 63-88.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554 –571.

Davey, M., 2012. Top of worry list: Work, work, work, work. In: The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 May. Retrieved from, <http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/management/top-of-worry-list-work-work-work-20120504-1y47u.html>.

Davis, D. D., & Polonko, K. A. (2003, April). Distributed work in the virtual office: A national study of telework and work outcomes. Paper presented at the meeting of

Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of

cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information systems research, 9(3), 256-274.

Di Paolo, E. A., Rohde, M., & De Jaegher, H. (2010). Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social

interaction, and play. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Toward a New

Paradigm for Cognitive Science (pp. 33–88). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

Elsbach, K. D., Barr, P. S., & Hargadon, A. B. (2005). Identifying situated cognition in organizations. Organization Science,16(4), 422–433.

(40)

Feldman, M. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11, 611–629.

Ferrell, J., & Hamm, M. S. (Eds.). (1998). Ethnography at the edge: Crime, deviance, and field research. UPNE.

Ford, J. D. (1999). Organizational change as shifting conversations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(6), 480-500.

Gajendran RS, & Harrison DA. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524-41.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures (Vol. 5019). Basic books.

Gephart, R. P. (1993). The textual approach: Risk and blame in disaster sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1465-1514.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic management journal, 12(6), 433-448.

Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization science, 5(3), 363-383. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. Routledge.

Harrison, D. A., Johns, G., & Martocchio, J. J. (2000). Changes in technology, teamwork, and diversity: New directions for a new century of absenteeism research. Research in personnel and human resources management, 18, 43-92.

Hill, J. E., Miller, B. C., Weiner, S. P., & Colihan, J. (1998). Influences of the virtual office on aspects of work and work/life balance. Personnel Psychology, 51, 667– 683.

(41)

Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization science, 16(3), 290-307.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Lang, K. R. (2005). Managing the paradoxes of mobile technology. Information systems management, 22(4), 7-23.

Jennings, P. D., & Greenwood, R. (2003). 6bConstructing the iron cage: Institutional theory and enactment'. Debating organization: point-counterpoint in organization studies, 195.

Jules‐Rosette, B. (1978). The veil of objectivity: Prophecy, divination, and social inquiry. American Anthropologist, 80(3), 549-570.

Kaplan, B., & Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems. Evaluating the organizational impact of healthcare information systems, 30-55.

Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2013). Temporal work in strategy making. Organization science, 24(4), 965-995.

Karp, D. (1980). Observing behavior in public places: Problems and strategies. Experiencing Fieldwork: An Inside View of Qualitative Approaches to Social Research. Newbury Park, CA. Sage.

Keick, K. E. (1985). Cosmos vs. chaos: Sense and nonsense in electronic contexts. Organizational Dynamics, 14(2), 51-64.

Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. IEEE intelligent systems, 21(4), 70-73.

Latest Telecommuting Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved August 3, 2017, from http://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/telecommuting-statistics

Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1984). An exploratory analysis of the relationship between media richness

and managerial information processing (No. TR-DG-08-ONR). TEXAS A AND M UNIV COLLEGE STATION DEPT OF MANAGEMENT.

(42)

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative science quarterly, 226-251.

Magala, S. J. 1997. The making and unmaking of sense. Organ. Stud. 18(2) 317–338.

Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21-49.

Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations. Academy of management Journal, 50(1), 57-84.

Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57-125.

Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edition. Sage: London.

Paget, M. A. (1988). The unity of mistakes: A phenomenological interpretation of medical work. Temple University Press.

Pettinger, L. (2005). Representing shop work: a dual ethnography. Qualitative Research, 5(3), 347-364. Pratt, M. G. 2000. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ambivalent: Managing Identification Among Am Way

Distributors,"

Ran, B., & Golden, T. J. (2011). Who are we? The social construction of organizational identity through sense-exchanging. Administration & Society,43(4), 417–445.

Ramirez, A., Walther, J. B., Burgoon, J. K., & Sunnafrank, M. (2002). Information‐seeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer‐mediated communication. Human communication research, 28(2), 213-228.

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).

(43)

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, 53(3), 477-512.

Sørensen, C. (2011). Enterprise mobility: tiny technology with global impact on work. Springer.

Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense.

Stigliani, I., & Ravasi, D. (2012). Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: Material practices and the transition from individual to group-level prospective sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1232-1259.

Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of management journal, 49(4), 633-642.

Suddaby, R. (2010). Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(1), 14-20. Sutcliffe, K. M. (2013). Sensemaking. In M. Augier & D. Teece (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of

strategic management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Advance online publication. Retrieved from http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137294678.0623

Turner, S. F., & Rindova, V. (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change, Organization Science, 23, 24–46.

Van Aken, J., Berends, H., & Van der Bij, H. (2012). Problem solving in organizations: A methodological handbook for business and management students. Cambridge University Press.

Vlaar, P. W., van Fenema, P. C., & Tiwari, V. (2008). Cocreating understanding and value in distributed work: How members of onsite and offshore vendor teams give, make, demand, and break sense. MIS quarterly, 32(2), 227-255.

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

Weick, K. E. (1979). Cognitive processes in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 1(1), 41-74.

(44)

Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Oxford: Blackwell.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization science, 16(4), 409-421.

Weick, K. E. (2005). Managing the unexpected: Complexity as distributed sensemaking. In R. R. McDaniel Jr. & D. J. Driebe (Eds.), Uncertainty and surprise in complex systems: Questions on working with the unexpected (pp. 51–65). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Weick, K. E. (2009). 6a Enacting an Environment: The Infrastructure of Organizing. Debating organization: Point-counterpoint in organization studies, 184.

Weick, K. E. (2010). Reflections on enacted sensemaking in the Bhopal disaster. The Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 537–550.

Wheatley, D. (2012). Good to be home? Time‐use and satisfaction levels among home‐based teleworkers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 27(3), 224-241.

Yin, R. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

(45)

APPENDIX

Appendix I: Interview protocol A Introduction

All the information that we discuss here is strictly between you and me. Everything I hear during this interview will never be used against you in any way shape or form during work. Everything will purely be used for my research. In addition, there are no wrong or right answers, I’m purely interested in your experiences. All right then, I would like to start off with an Introduction

1. How long have you been working for ITurnIT, and what kind of activities are involved in? 2. On what kind of locations are you active when you’re working for ITurnIT?

For this study, I’m focusing on all the task that we do within the scrum team. So, this entails the development of lessons, and basically all other tasks within our team.

General

3. When we only consider the task you do in the team, how often do you do tasks outside of the office?

4. On what basis do you decide whether you go to the office to work or anywhere else? 5. What do you do when you get surprised by something that you did not expect while you’re

working outside of the office?

6. How much of what’s going on at the office do you notice when you’re not physically present?

7. Would you like to work outside of the office more often?

Telework

8. Where do you work when you’re not working in the office?

9. Could you describe a typical day when you’re working outside of the office? 10. What kind of tasks do you do when you’re not working at the office?

(46)

12. Do you notice any differences between working at the office or from anywhere else? 13. To what extent do you feel like you have to ‘catch up’ to things when you’ve worked from

home?

No telework

14. Why do you choose to always work from the office?

15. What has to happen before you would work more outside of the office? 16. What do you think of the fact that not everyone always works from the office? 17. Could you describe a typical day when you’re working from the office?

Influence of telework

18. What kind of influence does it have on you that everyone is free to work outside of the office?

19. How do you deal with new situations when you’re not working at the office? 20. What do you think of the fact that everyone is free to work outside of the office? 21. Do you experience 100% freedom to work from home?

22. What do you think when a colleague tells you that he or she is going to work from home? 23. How do you communicate online with your colleagues?

Team

24. What do you think that others think of the fact that we can work from outside of the office? 25. To what extent is it clear to you when someone is working from home and when not? 26. How do you communicate with the team outside of the office?

27. To what extent do you consider people that are working at home while you have meetings? 28. How do you use slack (Instant messaging program)?

Conclusion

29. If a company would just start using telework, would you have any advice for the employees? 30. Is there anything you would like to ask me?

(47)

Appendix II: Interview protocol B Introduction

All the information that we discuss here is strictly between you and me. Everything I hear during this interview will never be used against you in any way shape or form during work. Everything will purely be used for my research. In addition, there are no wrong or right answers, I’m purely interested in your experiences. All right, then I would like to start off with an introduction question:

Introduction

1. When we consider the activities you do within the scrum team, how often do you do activities outside of the office?

2. What are differences that you experience coming from the fact that we are all allowed to work outside the office?

General Questions

3. On what basis do you make the choice if you work at the office or somewhere else?

4. What are the differences that you experience between working at the office or outside of the office?

5. How much of the things that happen at the office do you get to know, when you are not there yourself?

6. Why do you not work at home more often?

7. To what extent is work part of your private life? Does this have to do with the fact that you work from home sometimes?

Communication

MAKING SENSE OF TELEWORK: ENACTMENT IN HYBRID SETTINGS

Making Sense of Telework: Enactment in Hybrid Settings

Table of Contents