A Study into the Dynamics of Emergent Change - A Structuration Perspective An Extreme Case Analysis into the effects of Psychological Ownership

A Study into the Dynamics of Emergent Change - A Structuration Perspective

An Extreme Case Analysis into the effects of Psychological Ownership

MSc BA Change Management Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Groningen March 2016

Ad van Dorpen s2597144 Robbin Jan Elbers s1865676

Liza Jongbloed s2016362 Reinder van Sluis s2590441

First Supervisior: Dr. C. Reezigt/University of Groningen Co-assessor: Dr. B.J.M. Emans

Word count: 16187

Abstract

Preface

This thesis is part of a larger project that consists of four separate theses. Each researcher focuses on a different yet related topic. Consequently, each thesis has a certain overlap with the others and sections such as the introduction or methodology are therefore present in all theses.

1. Introduction

“Change is not only the product of engineered effort, nor solely the result of completely free improvisation of organizational players, but a complex process that happens somewhere on the edge between order and chaos”. -

(Maimone & Sinclair, 2014)

This quote displays the complex and ambiguous nature of organizational change. While the planned approach to change depicts organizations as stable entities that move from a current unsatisfactory state to a desired future state (By, 2005), the emergent approach, on the other hand, sees organizations as entities that are continuously adapting to their ever-changing environment (Burnes, 1997). While the importance of emergent change processes intensified over the years, few empirical studies regarding this change have been conducted (Burnes, 2014; Higgs & Rowland, 2011). To understand why emergent change works, it is important to identify factors contributory to this emergent process (Ford & Ford, 1995; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001; Porras & Silvers, 1991). According to By (2005), it is too difficult for senior managers to effectively identify, plan and implement the necessary organizational responses from the emergent approach perspective. Therefore, the responsibility for organizational change has to become increasingly devolved (Burnes, 2014; By, 2005). This claim is supported in literature; research has demonstrated that employees play a major role in the success or failure of change initiatives (Shin, Taylor, & Seo, 2012; Van Knippenberg, Martin, & Tyler, 2006). In the case of emergent change, it happens when actors continually improvise by making sense of and acting coherently in the world around them (Orlikowski, 1996). Consequently, emergent change should be considered as a social process. Besides being a social process, emergent change is also a political process, since different actors in a social system struggle to protect or enhance their interests and must work together and make sense of the ambiguity inherent in the process due to its complex nature (Burnes & By, 2012). A social system is defined as the patterned series of interrelationships existing between individuals, groups and institutions and forming a whole (Luhmann, 1995). It is through interaction that actors adjust their web of beliefs and habits of actions to obtain new experiences (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). This implies that to enhance this sensemaking process to bring about emergent change, actors should regularly interact within the context of change. A high level of activity could, therefore, be an indication of a high level of interaction. Activity within this research was defined as “doing in order to transform something” (Kuuti, 1995, p.22). Activities are generated by actors in a social system, they are aimed at achieving change and they stimulate an interaction process.

refers to patterns of interaction and sensemaking involved in the pursuit of emergent change activities in the cases under study. More specifically, how these social practices are related to an increased level of activity is important within this study. Therefore, the question this research aims to answer is:

What is the relationship between social practices which actors create, share, negotiate and institutionalize through interaction, and the level of activity within emergent change initiatives?

The results of this study contribute to a better understanding of the processes through which emergent change comes about. Since it is important to enhance our understanding of managing change in complex and uncertain environments, this study might be of managerial interest. Specifically, it may provide practitioners some guidance on how to initiate and facilitate emergent change, by proposing guidelines on which factors to stimulate and eliminate during the process to create activity. Furthermore, this study has theoretical significance by providing more explanatory research within an immature theoretical field.

2. Literature Review

to fundamental change. It is important not to view emergent change activities as happening within an isolated social system but as the result of on-going improvisation by multiple actors within interconnected social systems. To study how unanticipated variations in practices occur, by looking at activities within an emergent change process, the change process itself cannot be analysed exclusively on an individual, group or organizational level. Structuration Theory offers a solution to this problem; it provides concepts that effectively bridge these levels of analysis, thus building a more complete social theory (Hartman, 1988; Robey & Markus, 1998). It is a theory to investigate how and why activity within an emergent change system is constituted, interpreted, shaped and institutionalized.

2.2 Structuration Theory

The structuration theory, created by Giddens (1984), aims to explain how humans interact in society. Within this theory, all dualisms of social theory are rejected (MacKay & Tambeau, 2013). The most important notion of the theory is the ‘Duality of structure’, which sees “structure as the medium and outcome of the conduct it recursively organizes; the structural properties of social systems do not exist outside of action but are chronically implicated in its production and reproduction” (Giddens, 1984, p.374). Social structures provide the contextual rules and resources that allow human actors to make sense of their own acts and those of other people (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991) and condition social practices. Social practices refer to the activities within a social system that produce, reproduce or change this system and involve interaction between humans, which is situated temporally and contextually (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991). Furthermore, social structures established by prior human action come to define and shape individuals’ interactions, which subsequently recreate this social structure anew (Orlikowski and Robey, 1991). Enacted social structures however, cannot be viewed in a vacuum, because interaction within a social system can be enabled and shaped by social structures that might be the product of prior human interaction within another social system. Therefore, the process of structuration operates at multiple levels of analysis: individual, group and social system (organization and society) (Orlikowski and Robey, 1991).

Figure 1. The three pillars of structuration

2.2.1 Structure of signification. From an emergent perspective, organizational transformation is an on-going improvisation enacted by organizational actors who continually try to make sense of and act coherently in the world (Orlikowski, 1996). Within emergent change, important concepts such as sensemaking, interpretive schemes and/or frames of references can be linked to the first pillar within Structuration theory, i.e., the structure of signification. The structure of signification consists of all the social rules that are formed by interaction and communication and which subsequently constitute and enable further interaction. These social rules are also mediated by the individual’s and group’s frames of reference (interpretive schemes). These frames are viewed as templates that help organizational members understand and interpret events (DiSanza, 1993; Weick, 1995). However, frames, i.e. ways of looking at the world, can differ between actors. As a result, frames can be (partially) appropriated, edited, but also resisted by different employees (Chreim, 2006). Furthermore, when these frames emerge in organizations, whether by managers or employees, they are seldom self-contained. They resonate with, or are derived from the wider institutional environment and potentially shape discourses within this environment. Therefore, individual and organizational frames, or interpretive schemes, are intertwined with wider discourses that go beyond the individual and the organizational meanings (Chreim, 2006).

and the reflexive monitoring of action. Giddens (1984) defines reflexive monitoring of action as: “the purposive, or intentional character of human behaviour, considered within the flow of activity of the agent” (p. 376).Through this reflection and creation of meaning, all humans are able to consciously shape and create social systems and structures (Fuchs, 2002)

The understanding and meaning creation of organizational change is mediated by the individual’s context, way of thinking and interaction with colleagues (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Cornelissen (2012) mentions the importance of language in this process, as it is a resource for individuals to understand novel situations, to articulate a role for themselves, and to cope with the voiced or perceived expectations of other actors in the organization. Through sharing of accounts, which are “descriptive constructions of reality embodying possible interpretations of events”, collective construction of meanings is created (Maitlis, 2005; Stigliani & Ravasi, 2012). Therefore, redirecting continuous change is to be sensitive to discourse, and to understand that people’s interpretations differ and so their attitudes towards a change initiative can differ as well. This on-going cyclical sensemaking process can lead to the revision of old frames or development of new frames, leading to possible institutionalisation of new ways of working within a social system (Weick, 1995).

2.2.2 Structure of domination. An emergent change process is a political process with different groups struggling to protect or enhance their own interests (Orlikowski & Yates, 2006). Through the mobilization of allocative and authoritative resources, different groups can exercise power to transform social structures, while at the same time these resources are structural elements that influence the allocation of power (or structure of domination). These resources are almost always asymmetric, and only when this distribution is challenged, can the existing structure of domination be modified (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991).

process. The role of managers and their power positions can have an influence on the change process since they often try to control or shape sensemaking processes (Filstad, Geppert, & Visser, 2011). Managing change should, therefore, be seen as a political process, invested in power structures and interrelated with knowledge (Filstad et al., 2011).

2.2.3 Structure of legitimation. Actors derive the legitimacy of their actions from the norms and rules of the social system they associate with. To facilitate emergent change these norms and rules need to encourage experimentation, divergent thinking, rule-breaking and foster a climate in which people are free to own their own power, think innovatively, and operate in new patterns (Bechtold, 1997). Strong norms and beliefs will become shared throughout the group due to conformity; individuals change their own norms and beliefs to be able to continue identifying themselves with the group (Vonk, 2007). The structure of legitimation entails the higher-level morals that determine how people act or interact, through the use of norms. These norms constitute legitimate or appropriate behaviour, on which interaction is sanctioned. Moral sanctions are used among people to condone inappropriate behaviour. At the same time, human interaction shapes the norms and rules that determine how people act or interact. Therefore, norms are both produced and/or reproduced rules that entail legitimate or appropriate behaviour (Giddens, 1984; Orlikowski & Robey, 1991).

The three pillars of structuration are all interrelated and reciprocal within an emergent change process, and should therefore not be considered in isolation. For example, power exercise becomes legitimate and more successful when it is in line with organizational norms and values. Additionally, within an interconnected social system, actors might derive the legitimacy of their actions from another social system. Therefore, overlapping social structures have to be taken into account. Figure X shows a visual representation of overlapping social structures. An actor (A) interacts within the social system of the organization or department (X) he works in, where context-specific structures influence that actor’s actions. At the same time the actor (A) collaborates with another actor (B). This collaboration (Z), is new and ambiguous, and so actor A and B makes sense of their new social context (Z) by drawing upon what they know from their own social system (X and Y).

3. Methodology

To research the process of an emergent change, a theory development approach was used. The first two steps of the empirical cycle: observation and induction help to develop new and expanding theoretical insights in the academic field of emergent change. This approach results in a set of propositions that can be tested in follow-up research (Aken, Berends, & van der Bij, 2012, ch. 2). A case study method is used, because the intimate connection with empirical reality in individual cases increases the likelihood of generating novel theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). The research design of the study, consists of the following steps (taken from Eisenhardt, 1989):

First, the research focus was determined, to prevent becoming overwhelmed by the data. The research focus based on Giddens’ Theory of Structuration (1984) resulted in the following research question: ‘What is the relationship between social practices which actors create, share, negotiate and institutionalize through interaction, and the level of activity within emergent change initiatives?’.

Second, multiple cases were selected to enhance the reliability of the study. An extreme case approach was chosen to show extremes in the level of activity present in the emergent change context. This approach to case analysis illustrates the contrasting characteristics that highlight the differences under study, and enables the recognition of patterns (Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002). The cases were selectively chosen based on the following criteria: 1) the case is considered as an emergent change process, 2) the level of activity within the case is either high or low and 3) the time interval between activities is short or long.

Third, multiple data collection methods, including interviews, observations, and secondary data sources were used to remedy the shortcomings and biases of each instrument (Aken, Berends, & van der Bij, 2012, ch. 13). Four researchers were involved in the data collection and analysis, serving researcher bias. The researchers’ multiple insights and perspectives contributed to the ‘creative potential of the study’ (Eisenhardt, 1989, p.538), and enhanced the quality of observations, resulting in more confidence in the findings.

Fourth, the researchers entered the field. In doing so, field notes and observations were documented to create consciousness of what is happening in the research. To serve researcher bias, the interviews and observations were conducted by at least two researchers. Interviewees with different backgrounds and functions were selected (e.g. employees, consultants or citizens) with approximately the same number of respondents per case, to account for subjectivity and bias.

3.2 Case Description

The cases selected for this research are Changelabs within the Municipality of Groningen, the governing body in the municipality of Groningen. In March 2015, the organizational development team (ODT) of the municipality introduced a new initiative called “Changelabs”, in line with the coalition agreement ‘For Change’, presented by the City Council for the upcoming years. The Changelabs initiative targeted the goal of the coalition agreement: to bring the municipality and its citizens closer together. For a period of nine months, eight Changelabs, with each a different topic chosen by the City Councillors of a specific domain, were set up to experiment with new ways of working together.

Public organizations like the municipality have been said to have bureaucratic structures and tight control, to ensure values such as accountability, legality and reliability. Unlike this rigid structure, Changelabs were encouraged to ignore all bureaucratic principles and experiment freely, and not to worry about deadlines and results. Each Changelab was supposed to have two people facilitating the entire process: the external and internal driver. The external driver, from this point on considered as the ‘External Change Agent’, is an external consultant hired to apply his expertise in managing change to the project. The internal driver, henceforth described as the ‘Internal Change Agent’, is a civil servant employed by the municipality, who is appointed to ensure an organizational learning effect and to bring the citizens and municipality closer together. From these criteria, it can be derived that the change process is emergent in nature, as there are no predetermined steps and decisions made are unpredictable and evolve over time. Another actor within the Changelabs is the Central Coordination Team (CCT), which is a group of civil servants, some of whom have introduced the Changelab initiative, who were appointed to make sure that everything runs smoothly within the Changelabs. The CCT see themselves as facilitators within the Changelabs, in that they know what is going on and can help when needed, but they are not active participants or controllers.

Because the Changelabs operate independently from each other and are guided by change agents with different personalities, they provide a diverse population to select cases from. The cases were selected following the aforementioned criteria. Four cases were chosen as more would be too time-consuming within the specific time frame, and less would not allow for valid and reliable research. The four case descriptions from Changelab A, B, C and D, will be further explained in appendix I.

3.3 Data Collection

In the first interview round, unstructured interviews were conducted to do a preliminary research. No standardised protocol was used, in order to receive as much information as possible. Twelve interviews were conducted which lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. The interviewees were selected from different functions within or outside these Changelabs (e.g. the Central Coordination Team, External Change Agents and Internal Change Agents). The goal of these interviews was to develop an understanding of the process in order to establish the research topic and determine the level of activity to select the cases.

After selecting the research topic and the four cases, another interview round was held. In this second interview round, consisting of twelve semi-structured interviews each lasting between 60 and 90 minutes, the interviewees were chosen regarding their level of involvement within the four chosen cases. Next to different functions like the Internal- and External Change Agents and the Central Coordination Team; involved citizens were interviewed. The focus of this interview round was finding concepts that are relevant within the emergent process of these Changelabs.

The third interview round consisted of ten interviews, which lasted between 30 and 70 minutes. Semi-structured interviews were used to gain more insights in the specific chosen topics and to enable deeper probing into the responses of the interviewee (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). The interviewees were selected because of their involvement within the cases, and most of them were also interviewed in the previous round(s). The third round of interviews focused on the four research topics of the researchers in order to find patterns and mechanisms within these topics. The topics were established from the data from the previous two interview rounds.

Next to these three interview rounds, observations were held to create insights in the process of the Changelabs and to enrich the data of the conducted interviews. This resulted in observations of different types of meetings (e.g. gatherings about the Changelabs, planning workshops and reflection sessions). Observations were done by making field-notes during the meetings. The focus was mainly based on behaviour, roles of the participants and the content of the meetings.

The third data-gathering instrument is analysing secondary sources (e.g. written documents). These resources were used during the whole research to get a better understanding of the process within the Changelab, to clarify the start of the Changelabs. Documents were provided to us by the municipality directly, obtained through Facebook groups, the Internet or provided by some of the participants.

3.4 Data Analysis

deductive codes. Each interview with the accompanying codes was critically reviewed by another researcher in order to increase the reliability. The concepts derived from change literature were translated into main deductive categories, to which codes could be assigned. This was done with the intention to find out if these preliminary factors in the literature were of influence within our data. Inductive coding was used to capture emerging contextual matters that could not be explained by the preliminary factors. This combination of both types of coding led to the coding scheme, as displayed in appendix VI. The information derived from the second round led to four concepts of interest that were further researched within the third round of interviews.

Immediately following the interviews, the researchers used self-recordings to capture the most important moments during the interview and their general impression. The observations of the meetings, like the field notes, were also coded inductively and deductively. In a similar way, documents were analysed to find relevant aspects and patterns regarding the formulation and the process of the Changelabs. Furthermore, by documenting all activities within a logbook, a detailed overview is given on how this research is structured and carried out, therefore ensuring controllability.

3.5 Coding and Categorising

Below, an overview is provided of the steps taken to develop the final coding scheme for the analysis of the interview transcripts and field notes. Step 1 and 2 took place after the preliminary data collections, which were explorative interviews that were not transcribed. Step 3 to 11 regard the coding, categorization, and initial analysis of the second interview round, resulting in emergent structures for further investigation. Steps 12 through 16 involve the coding, categorization and analysis of the elaborated themes emerging from the second round of interviews. After these 16 steps, the within-case and a cross-case analysis were conducted. In the following chapter the initial results will be addressed, where step 9, the frequency analysis, will be presented.

First phase

Step 1. Early pattern recognition from first interview round Step 2. Development of deductive coding scheme

Second phase

Step 3. Data collection: second round of interviews

Step 4. Coding of 12 interviews from second interview round [and field notes]

Step 5. Adding codes to inductive coding scheme and modifying deductive coding scheme Step 6. Critically compare coded interviews and discuss differences with fellow researchers Step 7. Modify and finalize coding scheme

Step 8. Coding of 12 interviews from the second interview round by a different researcher Step 9. Frequency analysis of codes from second interview round

Step 11. Development of deductive coding scheme Third phase

Step 12. Further data collection: third round of interviews

Step 13. Coding of 10 interviews from the third interview round [and field notes]

Step 14. Adding emerging codes to inductive coding scheme and modifying deductive coding scheme Step 15. Critically compare coded interviews and discuss overlapping themes with fellow researchers Step 16. Meetings in which coding is discussed with the fellow researcher to reduce biased coding Fourth phase

4. Initial results

This section covers the important findings from the analysis of the data acquired in the second phase of this study. Below, an overview is given of the initial data analysis after the second round of interviews, using frequency analysis. From this frequency analysis, individual topics per researcher were selected for further investigation.

4.1 Frequency Analysis

Like explained in the methodology section, a finalized coding scheme was developed, which consisted of 73 codes, falling under 15 categories. In appendix VI an overview of these deductive and inductive coding categories is presented. The goal of this analysis was to select four individual topics for further research. When codes in the data were more frequently mentioned than others, this indicated a stronger presence of accompanying topics over others in the data, and thus interesting for further investigation. All codes were counted in order to do the frequency analysis. The number of times each code was mentioned per Changelab, as well as the number of interviews in which that specific code was mentioned (depth), were counted. A minimum threshold of 50 was used for the frequency of mentioning the code and 10 for the number of interviews in which that specific code is mentioned. Only codes equal to or above the threshold are taken into account for the selection of the individual research topics because they indicate a high frequency and thus a strong presence of certain topics. The top 16 codes satisfying these criteria, including the results of counts can be found in appendix VII.

The most frequently mentioned codes indicated four interesting phenomena for further investigation. These are Roles, Power, Sensemaking and Ownership. These phenomena will be separately investigated by each researcher in the final round of the interviews. The influence of change agents and politics can be related to the role of power within the emergent change system. Often, interviewees described situations indicating that there was something that restricted or inhibited the change agent from doing everything and involving everyone. And in other cases, interviewees described situations where they did not regard these restrictions as restraining to them. What this is, and how it works, was expected to be related to the structure of domination present, and should be researched more in-depth in order to understand its relationship with the level of activity and social practices in emergent change initiatives.

5. Introduction into psychological ownership

From the initial results it became clear that involvement affected the level of activity within the changelabs. Therefore within this thesis the focus is narrowed to the influence involvement could have on the activity within emergent change initiatives. From the emergent change approach perspective, it is impossible for senior managers to effectively identify, plan and implement the necessary organizational responses (Todnem, 2005). Therefore, the responsibility for organizational change has to become increasingly devolved (Todnem, 2005). According to Burnes (2009), change from the emergent change perspective has become the responsibility of everyone in the organization as it cannot be left to a few experts or managers. When change is the responsibility of everyone in the organization, this responsibility has to be felt throughout the whole organization. Highly involved employees more often feel a sense of responsibility for their organization (Engström, Rosengren, & Hallberg, 2002). However the concept of involvement is broad and includes a wide scope of practices (Morgan & Zeffane, 2003). Therefore, further a literature study was done to find a more suitable concept. Organizational members derive a sense of responsibility from their needs for belonging, efficacy and self-identity being met, based on a sense of possession of the organization (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001). This sense of possession was found in the concept of psychological ownership. Psychological ownership is a reflection of the relationship between the individual and the target of ownership, which is seen as having a close connection to the person or in other words part of the extended self (Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner, 2007). The presence of psychological ownership, as it has significant emotional, attitudinal and behavioural effects (Pierce et al., 2001), triggers behaviour towards protecting and enhancing the object that is felt possession of (Paré, Sicotte, & Jacques, 2006; Shin et al., 2012). Several studies have demonstrated the importance of psychological ownership in the absence of formal or legal ownership rights (Ketelaar, Beijaard, Boshuizen, & Den Brok, 2012; Mayhew et al., 2007; Pierce, O’Driscoll, & Coghlan, 2004). However little is known about how psychological ownership is affected by organizational change and how it influences the outcome or organizational change. Consequently, the central objective of this thesis is to answer the sub research question ‘How does psychological ownership influence the level of activity within an emergent change initiative'. This answer should contribute to answering the main research question ‘What is the relationship between social practices which actors create, share, negotiate and institutionalize through interaction, and the level of activity within emergent change initiatives?’. Before the analysis, an introduction to the concept of psychological ownership in academic literature is provided below.

6. Theoretical framework

Ownership can be viewed from a legal and psychological perspective and although possibly related these perspectives differ in significant ways (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2002). Ownership viewed from a legal perspective is foremost recognized by society (outside), this kind of ownership is specified and protected by the legal system. Psychological ownership comes from the individual (inside) who holds the feeling of ownership. In the case of psychological ownership, it is the individual who creates the rights associated with ownership (Pierce et al., 2002). Pierce et al. (2001) define psychological ownership, as a state in which there is a feeling of possession (i.e., “it is MINE!”), for the whole object or a part of it. This feeling of possession can exist without legal ownership (Pierce et al., 2004; Rousseau & Shperling, 2003; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004) and also when there is legal ownership this feeling can be absent (Mccracken, 1986). Psychological ownership was found to trigger affect-driven behaviours, and therefore transcends the cognitive evaluation of the firm (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). The target of ownership can vary depending on individual and or the situation (Pinto, Slevin, & English, 2009). While some employees feel psychological ownership for their direct work other might have these feelings for the whole organization. Although some important correlations have been found, there is still a lack of understanding of the contextual factors that enable organizations to foster ownership feelings among their members (Pierce et al., 2004; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004).

between the self and the object, leading to stronger feelings of ownership toward it (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). The importance of having shared knowledge or shared understanding is emphasized in many of the more recent theories as a precondition for the actor to become involved (Seppälä, Lipponen, Bardi, & Pirttilä-Backman, 2012). However according to Panayiotou (2008) this is not sufficient, if effective involvement is to occur, actors must also feel connected by relationships of shared goal(s), vision(s) and mutual respect. Such an association is not possible without continuous communication activities involving formal or informal exchanges of facts, needs, opinions, visions, and concerns regarding the system among actors (Ng & Tan, 2009). As actors engage in communication activities with other participants, they spend time and energy. Such activities contribute because actors can make their needs and desires known others and it enables them to listen to those of the others involved. Creating the possibility to generate a shared understanding of reservations and concerns about the change as they discuss these (Pierce, Jussila, & Cummings, 2009). Thus, development-related communication activities are crucial, having this kind of in-depth information, actors are likely to develop feelings of ownership toward the change initiative. Third, an actor investing his or her energy, time, effort, and attention in objects causes the self to become one with the object and to develop feelings of ownership toward that object. In the context of organizational change, this investment can come from a variety of activities such as hands-on, communication and/or overall responsibility activities (Paré et al., 2006). Through these activities unique knowledge is gathered, therefore there is a strong relation with the second route. As a result, actors may begin to feel that the new structure flows from the self (Paré et al., 2006). In short it can be assumed that the more an actor exercises control over an change initiative, associate with it, and put time and effort into it, the stronger their feeling of ownership of that change initiative will be. 6.2 Psychological ownership within organizational change

and create new courses of action, which in turn transform organizational processes and structures (Weick, 1995). Placing this in the frame of structuration theory, “Structure as the medium and outcome of the conduct it recursively organizes; the structural properties of social systems do not exist outside of action but are chronically implicated in its production and reproduction” (Giddens, 1984, p.374), which is referred to as ‘Duality of structure’. This action is described as social practices; social practices have the ability to reproduce or change social structures but are also influenced by social structures. As explained in chapter two, change in social structures happen when these structures are no longer seen as fitting and therefore instead of being reproduced are changed. This derivation of comes forth from agency, it is important for employees to experience agency within their work at least to some extent, as it plays a role in the development and maintenance of their professional identity (Ketelaar et al., 2012). Employees who experience agency within their work feel in control of the choices they make within their work and that these choices are based upon their own goals, interests and motivations (Vähäsantanen, Hökkä, Eteläpelto, Rasku-Puttonen, & Littleton, 2008), adding to their sense of control.

7. Results

In this section the central objective is to answer the sub research question ‘How does psychological ownership influence the level of activity within an emergent change initiative’ as to contribute to answering the main research question ‘What is the relationship between social practices which actors create, share, negotiate and institutionalize through interaction, and the level of activity within emergent change initiatives?’. In order to do so four case were analysed in the within case analyses that offer input for the cross case analyses of which the main results are linked to existing literature in the discussion.

7.2 Within-case analysis

Changelab A: Innovation and Social Security

Changelab innovation and social security, further referred to as “changelab”, is seen as a changelab with a high level of activity. The most notable actors are; William the external change agent (A1), Debbie the internal change agent (A2), Matt who is city counsellor of the social security domain (E8), the pitchers and the general participants. The changelab was created with two goals; one, to create new way’s of working for the civil servants and second, creating innovative ideas regarding the social security domain. Matt created these goals but no clear explanation was given on their meaning, leading ambiguity towards the content of this changelab. According to William, Debbie and pitchers (A3 to A5) this negatively affected the changelab, if the goals would have been clear, the changelab would have been more successful.

A1: “We started with an unclear picture of what the changelab would be about and there was not really a sense of urgency” .

A3: “When I became involved with the changelab a great amount of time was spent on creating an approach”.

A5: “The changelabs in general are a good initiative from the municipality, however the goals are vague, this one being no exception”.

A2: “I thought we could just lunch the changelab and everything would become clear, however not much was happening”

A1: “After the kick-off meeting five guidelines were formulated, for this changelab, with those I feel pretty comfortable ”…… “especially guideline five ‘learning and playing together’”.

A1: “I’m mostly involved with the process and have limited knowledge about the content”

William, as all external change agents was hired by the municipality as consultant to lead the changelab and therefore had formal ownership of the changelab. But he also felt he should act as the owner at the start of the changelab; he felt that people expected him to take to lead. However this feeling changed during the duration of the changelab, he started to feel he was obstructing the learning experience of other actors. Therefore he chose to become more passive in effort to make other actors more active. This change in role came about during time the change initiatives of the pitchers were chosen changelab.

A1: “In the beginning I was the leader of the changelab and I and the feeling everyone was looking towards me for answers”

A1: “Later in the process I decided to act more on the background, I had the feeling I was holding A2, the members of the municipality were not learning”

According to William this change in his role meant that Debbie became the owner of the changelab. William thought this to be more fitting because he was not the person who had the knowledge about the municipality. He could not help the pitchers with information regarding the civil servants, or with the rules of the municipality.

A1: “I noticed that everybody was looking at me, when there was a need of action, while I was the one with limited time, no knowledge about the municipality and did not know much about the subject”.

A1: “Debbie had more knowledge, time and interest in the subject therefore she should become the engine of the changelab”.

Due to this change in role the behaviour of Debbie changed, she acted more as the ‘owner’ of the Changelab. She showed more initiative and began to play a fundamental role for the other actors involved. She tried to help the pitchers, provide them with information and arranged several meetings. And she also used the Facebook-platform to inform the other actors about developments regarding the Changelab.

A3: “If you wanted to arrange something internally [municipality], you contacted Debbie, and she would help you connecting with other parties”.

The actors that became active are member as they participate in the form of going to meetings. At the first meeting there were roughly sixty members, which was a mix of city servants and civilians. However in the following meeting of these sixty around twenty remained. According to Roel (A3) this decline was do to a loss of interest of the people whose initiative did not have support Over time more member lost interest and only the pitchers and members of the municipality involved with the changelabs overall such as Nicole (B4), Helen (E1) and Frans (E3) remained. At some meetings new people showed up but they did not become a member of the changelab.

A3: “At times new people dropt by, however no new member joined, people only seemed to drop out ”. A3: “You only stay when your initiative gets supported, if not you stay away”.

Towards the end of the changelab the focus shifted ever more towards the group of pitchers as a result the communication with the Facebook group decreased. Communication about the changelab became limited towards a select group of highly involved members of the municipality.

A2: “There is a group of people William and I exchange information with by E-mail..(are their citizens part of this mailing group?).. No, now I think about it only members of the municipality”.

The pitchers are the people who had an initiative that was supported by the changelab. The pitchers were in full control over their initiative as William and Debbie limited themselves to a supporting role. This made it sometimes difficult for them to get an idea of the progress the pitchers were making.

A1: “I did know what they were planning to do, but only in a global way” A2: “We did not know much about the current process”.

In order to solve these uncertain factors, they planned some meetings with all the pitchers. However, these meetings did not really helped in getting insights into the progress of each pitcher individually. Therefore, William and Debbie decided to arrange one-on-one meetings, where they (William and Debbie) would talk with the pitcher. These conversations led to more insights, and clearness for as well the pitchers, as the change agents. By getting these insights, it was easier for Debbie to help the pitchers and connect them with new parties.

A1: “Debbie and I came up with the idea to speak with the pitcher one by one, meeting with them in a larger group did not create the opportunity to see what they were doing and if they still had the energy”.

A2: “The one on one conversation we should have done earlier, we gather a lot of information and were able to offer more specific support”.

Changelab B: Sports in Hoogkerk

“Sports in Hoogkerk” is seen as a changelab with a low level of activity. Of which the most notable actors are; Richard the external change agent (B1), Jantien the internal change agent (B2), members of the sports department, the city counsellor and Nicole member of the CCT and advisor of the city councillor. While besides Richard other actors had influence, but these actors should be seen as external to the changelab. Because these actors did not consider themselves part of the changelab and also Richard considered the changelab to be only consist of him.

B1: “I am doing it all on my own, no others became involved, like you guys saw at that meeting, others have opinions but they do not help me.

B4: “Richard is somewhat of a lone wolf, at this moment it is only him who is in contact with the sports associations in Hoogkerk”

B1: “I do not have the feeling that there are people who would call me to ask how it is going”.

As to what the goals, exceptions and results of changelab B should be was a lot of ambiguity. While the city councillor was the sponsor/creator of the changelab no clear job description for Richard. Before accepting the offer for becoming the external change agent of this changelab he had only spoken with Nicole and Linda (E1). During this meeting he created the idea that this changelab would be about creating a new sports park in Hoogkerk. He did not think this goal would be challenging, he thought it to be quite straightforward and solvable considering this background as entrepreneur.

B1: “How hard can it be to solve this problem”.

B1: “It all seems rather straightforward, the sports associations have a bad plan therefore the municipality should just tell them they are not going to do it”

He had the full control over the changelab and started out with having a good attitude towards the changelab this changed during the process. As a result Ricardo kept trying to create change but was not able to mobilize a group around him. He feels that he acts somewhat like a lone wolf, from different interviews it becomes clear that his way of working is less focussed on including others then observed in the other changelabs. This is something Ricardo seems to be well aware of but he sees it as his way of working, a style Nicole and Linda were enthusiastic about in their meeting according to him.

B1: “I am more of a entrepreneur, I conduct research and then try to make precious change, leading to a butterfly effect”

B1: “Nicole and Linda had a quick meeting with me before I became the external change agent, at that moment in time they were enthusiastic about my approach and ideas for the changelab”

somewhat of a disappointment for Richard as he realized that his presumptions were false. Richard assumed that all involved would be highly motivated, as he was finding a solution for their problem and that as earlier mentioned the problem would be straightforward. During the meetings it became clear that there was a history of failed change initiatives, which made the communication between municipality and the sports associations difficult. When Ricardo had his first meeting with the civil servants that have been involved with this problem for year he did not find involvement. In the contrarily, the members of the sports department of the municipality were sceptical about what the changelab could offer them.

B1: “We were sitting opposite to each other and they said; tell me what are you coming to do?, and I said to them; you tell me…… as were I had the idea I was coming to help them, they had the idea they are were here to help me ”.

B2: “At one point I was confronted with the changelab”. According to Mel they choose to focus the changelab at this area because “The City Councillor just spoke with someone from the area”.

This led to a small crisis within the changelab as no actors were found that would participate within this changelab. Richard reached out to Nicole as she was the one he gave him this job and seemingly the only one who was involved besides him. Together they organized what they called “the restart” and invited professionals that operated within the era of Hoogkerk on the topic of sports. While this meeting started with a lot of energy, in the ended there was no energy left. The researcher were present at the meeting and saw people did not think this problem would be easy to fix or that the actors had time to become involved with the changelab. This led to Richard organizing a meeting with City councillor, as he was the sponsor. In a meeting with the City Councillor it became clear that all the actors involved with making the decision to focus a changelab on this area made presumption that are would be a lot of energy for solving the problem, however they had to conclude that this was not the case, leaving Ricardo with the feeling that his changelab was filler.

B4: “The sports organizations had specific plans about what they needed for the future, we expected them to be willing to cooperate ”.

B1: “At the start they had seven changelabs, then this changelab just got added”.

B1: “Why this changelab focuses on Hoogkerk is a mystery to me, fact is that there is no energy in Hoogkerk”

Changelab C: Happy neighbourhood

Changelab C is seen as a changelab with low activity, however towards the end of the research this changelab showed potential for becoming more active. The most notable actors are; Enno the external change agent (C1), Roelien the internal change agent (C2) and members of the CCT. Similar to the other changelabs the city councilor of this department created the subject and goals but he seemingly had no further influence. The goal of this changelab was to create new ways of working, more specific generate new initiatives regarding ‘neighbourhood oriented work’. In the beginning of the changelab had to deal with a lot of ambiguity, it was unclear what their focus would be. According to Roelien and Enno this resulted in a slow process and affected the activity within the changelab. Due to this uncertainty about what the focus of the changelab would be the external and internal changelab found it difficult to select an approach.

C1: “At the start of the changelab there were many doubts about what this changelab should focus on” B4: “At the start changelab ‘Happy neighborhood’ had some trouble with finding their focus, we as CCT tried to help them ”

C2: “There was already the current ‘neighborhood work’ at that point it was unclear for me what made us different”

According to the change agent some of this ambiguity was due to the name they started with, “Neighbourhood oriented work”. The change agents state that citizens found it hard to relate to this name, as it remained unclear that was expected from those who participate. Therefore the change agents chose to modify the name of the changelab to “Happy neighbourhood”. They noticed after this change of name that citizens found it easier to picture what the changelab was about.

C1: “The modification of the name was our real first step towards creating a vision, now when I spoke to people that had an idea what this changelab was about”

Not only citizens found it difficult to picture what this changelab would be about also members of the municipality had struggles. At the start of the changelab the change agents did not straight away involved citizens, however they did try to involve city servants. During this process they encountered resistance from civil servants in the domain of ‘neighbourhood-oriented work’. They did not see the meaning of the changelab, so they did not see the added value of getting involved with the changelab and even resisted the changelab because it challenged their way of working. This resistance did not go away but it became less as some of the civil servants visited meetings of the changelab. This al resulted to the changelab being somewhat isolated because the change agents were not able to get others involved.

C1: “There must be people there who think: ‘what is it they are doing in that changelab? and ‘I have not involved them yet but maybe they want to”.

C2: “A few colleagues, two or three or four, something like that, gained interest after visiting a meeting.. however the majority remained skeptic”.

Enno was already involved with the changelabs before the start of changelab C. He acted as a consultant for Nicole and Art (E6), He sees himself as one of the creators of the changelabs initiative. Needless to say he had influence over what the changelabs should become before he chose to become external change agent of one. He shows great interest in the overall goals of the changelabs and calls it a necessity that the municipality changes its way of working towards a way in which the municipality collaborates with its citizens. Besides formal ownership Enno derived from begin the external change agents, other actors like Roelien, the city councilor and members of the CCT trusted Enno.

C2: “A lot of experience in leading change processes in organizations, that is what he brings to the table, and why he is so influential”

B4: “Enno is a great mind and has year of experience in organizational change”

Enno had a major influence on the changelab because he was seen as the one that would bring about change, the one that would make sure that goals would be met. Enno’s vision was that his changelab should be something that would not be planned, no specific approach, because he did not wanted to look to far into the future.

C1: “It arises at the sport, where they are used to planning change, it is within this change more about starting something and after a while, you should look back and reflect on what you accomplished and how it was created”

them. As a result there was a drop in energy and no notable new actors become involved with the changelab. The second meeting that was arranged was slightly different from the first meeting. The most notable change was the location, the choice was made to pick a location members of the municipality would not know but was also close to the participants that were invited. This meeting started with a good level of energy but because if similar reasons as the first meeting ended with uncertainty and a low level of energy. The third meeting was arranged with a smaller group of participants of whom the change agents invited the majority. This group consisted out of both citizens and civil servants, and form of this meeting was radical different from the first two meetings. During this meeting the focus was on helping and inspiring each other. The people that participated were asked to pitch an idea, in many cases this was their idea because the people selected all had a clear initiative they would like to see realized. This resulted in a high level of energy as people were connecting and finding ways to support each other. At the end of the meeting Enno asked the participants if all this ideas should be realized within one area of Groningen. The majority did not see this as a good idea, however Enno felt this should be realized. This resulted in a drop of energy, the effects of were not observed as this research concluded. Due to the variability of attendance at the changelab meetings, it is still uncertain which citizens are actively involved and which are not. Therefore, they are still considered to be outside the borders of the changelab context. The citizens seem enthusiastic and trusting towards the internal and external change agent and are willing to develop their pitches. But in practice, it is not certain what the future will hold.

Changelab D: Safety

Changelab “Safety” is seen as a changelab with a high level of activity. The most notable actors are; Richard the external change agent (A1), Linda who is seen as internal change agent (A2), Nicole (D4) as member of the CCT, Pete who is the city mayor of Groningen (E11) and the general participants. A city councillor chose this topic as changelab but Pete became the supporter of this changelab because safety is one of the focus points of his policy. As all the other changelabs, also this changelab started with as one goal to create new ways of working between citizens and members of the municipality. The other goal however was to find and create new initiatives that would increase the safety of the citizens of the municipality.

D1: “At the start of the changelab two goals were formulated, one doing something with safety, the other one to create some change in the municipality ”

D1:“The civil servants had to idea to create a huge WhatsApp group, this idea was copied from Rotterdam, I did not really feel for this idea, I thought this changelab should be about doing things differently”

D1: “After the conversation, which was a good conversation, it took a long time before I had contact with the municipality again, which was kind important since I needed a go for my project”

Richard in the meantime was also busy with other assignments, as he did not feel any “energy” coming from this assignment. As time passed by he got frustrated with the slow communication process within the municipality and decided to just start with something. This something became his journey towards finding a focus for the changelab, a focus that also had his interest. This process started as somewhat of a one-man show, Richard started to conduct research into safety. This research he conducted by asking questions in the Facebook group of the changelab and using his network. As a result multiple walks organized in parts of Groningen in an effort to find ideas for making the city safer. During this journey Linda became involved, she is a member of the CCT and therefore had contact with all the change agents. Different to the other changelabs this changelab had no internal change agent. Some people were interviewed but they did not want to or were not able to become the internal change agent. Therefore Linda offered her services when Richard needed something or someone from the municipality. Linda did not she herself as the internal change agent and had no ambition of becoming one, Linda did not attend any meetings. However Richard pointed her out as being the internal change agent, his buddy and someone he listens to as he has great respect for her.

D2: “D1’s sparring partner, and the one taking care of things internally, so people join in”.

D1: “Linda was not planning on becoming an internal change agent, but there was a click between us and she enjoyed going on an adventure”

D2: “(Interviewer how involved do you feel?) Not that much, but also not little. I just help were I am able to”.

Richard started with some small projects but these did not have the results he was hoping for. As time went by he kept experimenting and searching for what this changelab should be about. At one point he posted questions on his blog and on Facebook asking people for suggestions. As a result he found that most people think Groningen is safe but people feel unsafe at some spots. Therefore he switched his focus from safety to what makes a person feel unsafe. He posted a message on Facebook in which he asked people to name places where they felt unsafe. Somewhat of a public debate took place within the Facebook group, the topic of safety trending on that moment because it was in the same week as a terrorist attack. It became clear that three similar places close to each other made the most people feel unsafe. To research why people felt unsafe here, Richard organized open meetings were people participate in discussing what makes people feel unsafe and how this feeling could be changed. He then

organized a meeting to create plan of action about how they were going to change one of the three bicycle

experiences. Richard later revered to this as social programming the participants. He then asked to people be write down ideas to enhance their feeling of safety on this spot. In a same manner as changelab A he then asked if people wanted to become responsible for carrying out some of these ideas in small groups. This led to a lot of energy and willingness of the people present to become involved.

7.2 Extreme case-analysis

Within this extreme case analysis, a more detailed look is taken into how the psychological ownership was influenced and influenced the activity within the changelabs. The cases that were indicated as having a high level of activity are cases A and D. Opposite to these cases are the cases indicated as having a low level of activity cases B and C.

Association

No psychological ownership will be created if an actor is not willing/able to associate with the object. From the results it becomes clear that at the start of all four cases actors struggled with ambiguity in vision. This made it difficult for others to get involved with the changelabs, as due to this ambiguity there was no clear picture of what they could associate with. In case A and D this vision was created relatively early in the process, while in case B the journey of finding this vision lasted almost the whole duration of the changelab. At the start he did not recognize the task given to him as complex leading him into false clarity: an oversimplification of the task. The creation of this vision meant for cases A and D they could communicate their vision in an effort to persuade others to participate. In case C there seemed to be a clear vision however Enno found to difficult to communicate this vision. As a result in case B and C a limited amount of actors could associate with the changelabs resulting in other actors becoming or staying uninvolved. Within case A and D there was open and reciprocal communication as mainly social media were used to communicate with actors. This made it possible for actors to gather and share information about the changelab. In case B and C there were less communication with actors. In case C communication was limited to a select group of civil servants as these were part of a mail group. In case B Richard acted like a lone wolf, as he kept conducting one-on-one conversations with actors he saw as relevant for creating a vision on the problem. This resulted for case B and C in a small amount of actors that could derive a sense ownership from the relationship between them and the changelab based on the knowledge the have of the changelab.

Sense of control

determination, as they became the owner of their initiative. In case D a similar process occurred, Richard asked on social media what he should focus on with as result the bicycle tunnels. He then asked the participants of this meetings what they fought was a good idea. But then made them responsible for the realization of these ideas. In both cases the change agents started creating a group of followers using social media, then with participative decision-making after which involved actors were given control and therefore created a sense of ownership. In both case B & C the decision-making process was done by a small amount of actors. In case B mainly by the external change agent made the discussion regarding the changelab. No other actors felt like they could affect Ricardo’s decision-making, this even resulted in Roelien becoming uninvolved.

Investing energy, time, effort and attention

From the cases it becomes clear that all actors who invest energy, time, effort and attention in the changelabs have a degree of psychological ownership. There is no difference observed between the low and high activity cases. However what we do see is that actors who have psychological ownership keep investing energy, time, effort and attention towards the changelabs. In case A and D only the citizens with a degree of psychological ownership kept investing in the changelab. In the cases B and C no other actors besides the change agents created a feeling of psychological ownership. In both cases the members of the CCT were involved with the changelab but these members invested less energy, time, effort and attention towards the changelabs than in cases A and D.

Territorial behaviours

8. Discussion

The goal of this section is to answer the sub-research question: ‘How does psychological ownership influence the level of activity within an emergent change initiatives’ and to develop sound propositions. In order to do so, the results of the cross-case analysis will be interpreted and linked with existing literature.

This study started with identifying the importance of involvement of employees in the creation of emergent change initiatives. From the emergent change perspective, the responsibility for change has to be dispersed throughout the organization. However the concept of involvement is broad and includes a wide scope of practices (Morgan & Zeffane, 2003). Therefore in literature a concept was sought that better described the phenomenon that was observed in the initial results of this study. This concept was found in psychological ownership. Psychological ownership triggers affect-driven behaviours (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004), resulting in behaviour towards protecting and enhancing the object that is felt possession of (Clary et al., 1998; Pierce et al., 2004). Consequently actors with high levels of psychological ownership are expected to influence the change initiative. This process in which human action influences structure could best be analysed using structuration theory, as this theory provides insights in how change in social structure comes about. Structure is the outcome of as well as governing power on actions that produce and reproduce structure, which is referred to as ‘Duality of structure’ (Englund & Gerdin, 2008). This action is described as social practices; social practices have the ability to reproduce or change social structures but are also influenced by social structures. As explained in chapter two, change in social structures happen when these structures are no longer seen as fitting and therefore instead of being reproduced are changed. Therefore the activities of an actor can have change in social structure as result when these actions lead to the social structure no longer being in line with what is desired.

their peers. A lack of collaboration can lead to individual values and beliefs which in turn can lead either to enactment of traditions, lowering expectations, or to innovating alone (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001). This seems to be especially the case where the change agents lacked the connection with others and therefore the possibilities to collaborate. An explanation for this lack of connection with the others, this might be what Pierce et al. (2003) calls the dark side of ownership. The change agents may unconsciously act too possessively about their changelab and therefore shut out others from collaborating.

From the results of this study several practical implications can be derived. If the recipients’ frames of reference correspond with the frame of reference of the change, and they experience enough agency to be able to find their own way in putting the change into practice, they can feel a high degree of ownership regarding the change initiative. Second, the importance of collaboration in the change process became clear. In the case of emergent change, it happens when actors continually improvise by making sense of and acting coherently in the world around them (Orlikowski, 1996), which is why involving them is necessary. Also, it leads to more information and better knowledge about the change initiative, which can strengthen feelings of ownership (Pierce et al., 2001). Collaboration may also help to prevent change agents from wandering towards the dark side of ownership, sense-making and agency, and ending up on an ‘island’ where nobody can reach them anymore. Within emergent change therefore is it important to stimulates collaboration and at the same time respects the different identities of recipients.

8.1 Propositions

In this section propositions will be drawn from the discussion as to provide researchers with a starting point to test how psychological ownership influences the activity within emergent change activities.

This research found evidence for the three interrelated routes of sense of control over the object, association with the object and an actor investing his or her energy, time, effort, and attention in the object through which psychological ownership is created suggested by van Dyne and Pierce (2004) in their research.

Proposition 1: Psychological ownership is created through the three interrelated routes of sense of control over the object, association with the object and an actor investing his or her energy, time, effort, and attention in the object.

When actors were found to have psychological ownership they showed protective behaviours towards the change initiative. This behaviour resulted in either resisting or supporting the change initiative. When the change initiative was seen as self-initiated and evolutionary actors supported the change, this is in line with the study of Avey, Avolio, Crossley, and Luthans (2009). When actors felt that a change initiative would threaten the object they felt possession of this would result in resisting the change.

Proposition 2: When actors feel that the change initiative leads to growth of the object they feel possession of they will support the change initiative.

9. Conclusion

As discussed in Chapter 4, four topics were chosen in an effort to answer the central research question ‘What is the relationship between social practices which actors create, share, negotiate and institutionalize through interaction, and the level of activity within emergent change initiatives?’. These topics are; Power, Roles, Sensemaking and Psychological ownership. In this chapter, we explain how these topics overlap and shape social practices that lead the activity within emergent change initiatives. Activity within this research was defined as “doing in order to transform something”. From literature and the results, it became apparent that this ‘doing in order to transform’ should focus on creating interaction, as emergent change is only possible if there is continuous interaction within the context of the change. Structure governs social practices; therefore, a structure is needed that contributes towards ‘doing in order to create interaction within the change context’, in other words, increase the level of activity. This process could best be analysed using the theory of structuration, which provides interesting insights into the way interaction between actors and structure should take place to increase that level of activity. It was used to analyse how actors influence the development of the new structure, and how this same structure, on the other hand, influenced the actors.