Sensemaking and Performance During Change: Some Preliminary Ideas
Sensemaking and
Sensemaking and
Performance During
Performance During
Change: Change:
Some Preliminary
Some Preliminary
Ideas Ideas
Scott Sonenshein and Scott
Scott Sonenshein and Scott
Baggett Baggett
Rice University Rice University
Research Question Research Question
How does an employee’s
How does an employee’s sensemaking about change afect sensemaking about change afect change implementation change implementation performance? performance?
Starting Premises Starting Premises
Change creates interruptions which
Change creates interruptions which trigger sensemaking (Weick, 1995) trigger sensemaking (Weick, 1995)
Employees have discretion to construct
Employees have discretion to construct
meaning of same “objective” event meaning of same “objective” event diferently diferently Employees matter--bias in literature that
Employees matter--bias in literature that organizational adaptation is primarily (or organizational adaptation is primarily (or even) solely driven by top managers even) solely driven by top managers
Quick Review of Sensemaking Quick Review of Sensemaking Literature Literature
Threat/opportunity framing (Chattopadhyay et al, 2001; Staw et Threat/opportunity framing (Chattopadhyay et al, 2001; Staw et al., 1981) al., 1981)
Sensemaking primarily focused on cognitions
Sensemaking primarily focused on cognitions
Any studies that link employee sensemaking to unit/frm Any studies that link employee sensemaking to unit/frm performance? performance?
(Bartunek et al., 2006)
Little research on how employees make sense of change (Bartunek et al., 2006)
Little research on how employees make sense of change
Sensemaking research strong focus on processes (e.g.,
Sensemaking research strong focus on processes (e.g.,
Weick et al., 2005), less on contentTheoretical models about links between cognitions and actions
(e.g. Dutton and Jackson, 1987) with key focus on labeling of
Theoretical models about links between cognitions and actions
Thomas et al. (1993): top managers scanning and interpretation processes processes
Thomas et al. (1993): top managers scanning and interpretation
Research on link between sensemaking and performance Research on link between sensemaking and performance has emphasized top managers has emphasized top managers
Weick et al., 2005), less on content
(e.g. Dutton and Jackson, 1987) with key focus on labeling of
issues issues
Main Contribution of
Main Contribution of
Research
Research
Examine how employees’
Examine how employees’ sensemaking content (cognitions and sensemaking content (cognitions and emotions) infuences change emotions) infuences change implementation performance implementation performance
As assessed by managers (subjective
As assessed by managers (subjective
performance) performance) As assessed by sales data (“objective”
As assessed by sales data (“objective” performance) performance)
Subjective Performance:
“Ideal Employee” hypothesis
Subjective Performance:
During change, managers want employees to construct During change, managers want employees to construct meaning of change in particular ways and this will meaning of change in particular ways and this will impact how they assess performance. impact how they assess performance.
Greater understanding of the strategy
Greater understanding of the strategy
Create cognitive reorientation of the frm (Gioia & Create cognitive reorientation of the frm (Gioia &
Chittipeddi, 1991) Chittipeddi, 1991)
Transfer cognitions to employees (Lewis, L. & Seibold,
Transfer cognitions to employees (Lewis, L. & Seibold, 1998)
“Ideal Employee” hypothesis
More positive emotions More positive emotions
Happy-productive worker hypothesis (Wright & Staw, 1999)
Happy-productive worker hypothesis (Wright & Staw, 1999)
Managers observe positive employees, assume things are Managers observe positive employees, assume things are going well. going well.
Less negative emotions
Less negative emotions
Reduces resistance, something managers obsessed with Reduces resistance, something managers obsessed with (Dent & Goldberg, 1999) (Dent & Goldberg, 1999)
1998)
“ “ Objective” performance: Objective” performance: But do manager’s know best? But do manager’s know best?
Competing Hypotheses Competing Hypotheses
Why would adopting managerial cognitions about
Why would adopting managerial cognitions about the change the change higher performance? higher performance?
Provides higher-order goals, which could increase
Provides higher-order goals, which could increase
knowledge about how to perform task objectives knowledge about how to perform task objectives Reduces uncertainty about change, which could limit
Reduces uncertainty about change, which could limit distractions distractions
Increases task signifcance (bigger picture of how tasks
Increases task signifcance (bigger picture of how tasks improve org) improve org)
Others?
Others? But cognitions about change . . .
But cognitions about change . . .
Focuses on general strategy less relevant to employees’
Focuses on general strategy less relevant to employees’ work work
Could inundate employees with useless information (info Could inundate employees with useless information (info
“ Objective” performance: But do “ Objective” performance: But do manager’s know best? manager’s know best?
Competing Hypotheses Competing Hypotheses
Why would sensemaking that contains more
Why would sensemaking that contains more
positive emotions about the change higher
positive emotions about the change higher
performance? performance?
Increases motivation (George & Brief, 1996) and
Increases motivation (George & Brief, 1996) and
persistence (Burke et al. 1993) persistence (Burke et al. 1993) Builds thought-action repertoire (Fredrickson, 2001) Builds thought-action repertoire (Fredrickson, 2001)
Increases sense of eficacy (Forgas et al., 1990)
Increases sense of eficacy (Forgas et al., 1990)
Leads to more helpful behavior (George, 1991) Leads to more helpful behavior (George, 1991)
Others? Others?
But positive emotions could . . .
But positive emotions could . . .
Reduce motivation because sends signals things going Reduce motivation because sends signals things going well (George and Zhou, 2002) well (George and Zhou, 2002)
Lead to too optimistic of an appraisal of situation Lead to too optimistic of an appraisal of situation
“ “ Objective” performance: But do Objective” performance: But do
manager’s know best?
manager’s know best?
Competing Hypotheses
Competing Hypotheses
Why would sensemaking that contains less Why would sensemaking that contains less negative emotions about the change negative emotions about the change higher higher performance? performance?
Negative emotions associated with change resistance
Negative emotions associated with change resistance
Negative emotions could reduce commitment to
Negative emotions could reduce commitment to
change change But negative emotions could. . .
But negative emotions could. . .
Signal that greater efort is needed (George & Zhou,
Signal that greater efort is needed (George & Zhou, 2001)
2001)
Refect a more realistic appraisal of the change,
Refect a more realistic appraisal of the change,
allowing employees to adjust behaviors allowing employees to adjust behaviors
Approach
Approach
Context: Fortune 500 retailer integrating two
Context: Fortune 500 retailer integrating two divisions divisions
Collected sensemaking of employees
Collected sensemaking of employees implementing the change (n=143) at 46 units implementing the change (n=143) at 46 units implementing same change implementing same change
Content analysis of sensemaking:
Content analysis of sensemaking:
Cognitive sensemaking: meaning constructions of what Cognitive sensemaking: meaning constructions of what employees know about the core strategy of the change employees know about the core strategy of the change
Emotional sensemaking: meaning constructions of Emotional sensemaking: meaning constructions of emotions about the change emotions about the change
Negative emotions: sad, worried, disappointment, frustration Negative emotions: sad, worried, disappointment, frustration Positive emotions: excitement, happy, joy
Dependent Variables Dependent Variables
Performance of change implementation Performance of change implementation
Subjective: Supervisor ratings of unit Subjective: Supervisor ratings of unit
Overall performance of implementing the
Overall performance of implementing the change change
Efort exerted at implementing the change
Efort exerted at implementing the change
“ “
Objective”: Sales performance Objective”: Sales performance
Change in sales after change, controlling for
Change in sales after change, controlling for time of change time of change
Aggregation Aggregation
Unit of analyses
Unit of analyses
Sensemaking data: employee level Sensemaking data: employee level
Performance data: unit level
Performance data: unit level
Aggregation tests Aggregation tests
Too much variability within units around
Too much variability within units around sensemaking of change sensemaking of change
Examine individuals’ sensemaking as
Examine individuals’ sensemaking as
predictive of their group score vs. predictive of their group score vs. average sensemaking average sensemaking Group analysis
Group analysis
Good apple, bad apple in the barrel approach Good apple, bad apple in the barrel approach
Take the minimum and maximum values
Take the minimum and maximum values for each sensemaking variable for each for each sensemaking variable for each
Individual Level Results Individual Level Results
Efort Efort
Control Control
Sales Sales
Performance Performance
(“Objective”) (“Objective”)
Supervisor Supervisor
Overall Overall
Assessment Assessment
Supervisor Supervisor
- .11**
- .11**
Negative Negative sensemaking sensemaking emotions emotions
- .02
- 0.21
- 0.16
- 0.16
0.10
4.50**
0.17 4.50**
0.17
6.18**
3.07* .22 .22 6.18**
.08 .08 3.07*
0.10 R R 2 2 F Test F Test
.11* .11*
(square feet) (square feet)
0.88 Cognitive Cognitive sensemaking sensemaking
0.88
1.21* 1.21*
.00 .00
Positive Positive sensemaking sensemaking emotions emotions
2.40** 2.40**
2.11** 2.11**
- .91
- .91
Individual Level Results Individual Level Results
(Subjective) (Subjective)
Control Control
Sales Sales
Performance Performance
(“Objective”) (“Objective”)
Supervisor Supervisor
Overall Overall
Assessment Assessment
(Subjective) (Subjective)
Supervisor Supervisor
Efort Efort
- .11**
- .11**
2.11** 2.11**
- .02
- 0.21
- 0.16
- 0.16
.11* .11*
0.17
0.17
.22 .22
.08 .08
0.10 R R 2 2
0.10
0.88 Cognitive Cognitive sensemaking sensemaking
(square feet) (square feet)
0.88
1.21* 1.21*
.00 .00
Positive Positive sensemaking sensemaking emotions emotions
Negative Negative sensemaking sensemaking emotions emotions
2.40** 2.40**
- .91
- .91
Aggregate Min Model Results Aggregate Min Model Results
2.38 t t Negative
Sales Sales
Performance Performance
Supervisor Supervisor
Overall Overall
Assessment Assessment
Supervisor Supervisor
Efort Efort
Control Control
- .18*
- .18*
2.06* 2.06*
- .20
- 6.46*
- 6
- 1.07
- 1.07
- .07
- .07 >3.94
- 1.63
- 1.63
R R 2 2 F Test F Test
1.51, ns
0.24 1.51, ns
0.24
4.04* 4.04*
.46 .46
3.90** 3.90**
.29 .29
.42** .42**
2.38
Cognitive sensemaking sensemaking
4.41 t t Cognitive
4.41
2.38
2.38
Negative sensemaking sensemaking emotions emotions
(square feet) (square feet)
Positive Positive sensemaking sensemaking emotions emotions
Aggregate Min Model Results Aggregate Min Model Results
Control Control
2.38 t t Negative
Sales Sales
Performance Performance
(“Objective”) (“Objective”)
Supervisor Supervisor
Overall Overall
Assessment Assessment
(Subjective) (Subjective)
Supervisor Supervisor
Efort Efort
(Subjective) (Subjective)
- .18*
- .18*
(square feet) (square feet)
- .20
- 6.46*
- 6
- 1.07
- 1.07
Cognitive sensemaking sensemaking
0.24
0.24
.46
.29 .46
R R 2 2 .29
.42** .42**
4.41 t t Cognitive
2.06* 2.06*
4.41
2.38
2.38
Positive Positive sensemaking sensemaking emotions emotions
Negative sensemaking sensemaking emotions emotions
2.38
- .07
- .07 >3.94
- 1.63
- 1.63
Aggregate Max Model Results Aggregate Max Model Results
1.22
Sales Sales
Performance Performance
(“Objective”) (“Objective”)
Supervisor Supervisor
Overall Overall
Assessment Assessment
(Subjective) (Subjective)
Supervisor Supervisor
Efort Efort
(Subjective) (Subjective)
Control Control
1.53 Negative Negative sensemaking sensemaking emotions emotions
- .14
- .14 t t
1.22
- .02
- .02
- .36
- .36
- 1.53
- 1.53
0.24
0.24
.34 t
.09 .34
R R 2 2 .09
.55 .55
.09 .09
Cognitive sensemaking sensemaking
3.00 t t Cognitive
3.00
3.04* 3.04*
.00 .00
Positive Positive sensemaking sensemaking emotions emotions
.55 .55
(square feet) (square feet)
1.53
Summary of Findings Summary of Findings
Employees’ sensemaking based on emotions
Employees’ sensemaking based on emotions infuences supervisor ratings of change, but has infuences supervisor ratings of change, but has no impact on sales performance. no impact on sales performance.
Employees’ sensemaking based on cognitions
Employees’ sensemaking based on cognitions predicts sales performance but has no impact on predicts sales performance but has no impact on supervisor ratings. supervisor ratings.
More positive emotions and less negative
More positive emotions and less negative emotions might get unit accolades (or store emotions might get unit accolades (or store manager promoted), but does not afect manager promoted), but does not afect “objective” unit performance. “objective” unit performance.
Group level: one bad apple spoils barrel; but one
Group level: one bad apple spoils barrel; but one
Theoretical Implications
Theoretical Implications
Linked employee-level sensemaking to unit
Linked employee-level sensemaking to unit performance performance
How employees make meaning of a change impacts How employees make meaning of a change impacts performance performance
The way managers’ subjectively make meaning of
The way managers’ subjectively make meaning of change performance not consistent with change performance not consistent with
“objective” performance “objective” performance
Resistance story—too much attention (Ford et al. 2008) Resistance story—too much attention (Ford et al. 2008)
Danger of subjective performance indicators hat dominate Danger of subjective performance indicators hat dominate change research change research
The importance (or lack thereof) of constructing
The importance (or lack thereof) of constructing
positive meaning about one’s work on objective
positive meaning about one’s work on objective
performance performance
Discussion
Discussion
What resonates most with you?
What resonates most with you?
How should I develop the How should I develop the subjective/objective story? subjective/objective story?
Should I frame paper around this fnding?
Should I frame paper around this fnding?
Most of mechanisms theorized at individual Most of mechanisms theorized at individual level; ideas for unit level theorizing. level; ideas for unit level theorizing.
Because of lack of ability to aggregate, have
Because of lack of ability to aggregate, have
both individual and unit level (min and max)
both individual and unit level (min and max)
results. results. Build a multi-level theory?
Build a multi-level theory?
Aggregation problems Aggregation problems
Other Ways I Can Use Your Other Ways I Can Use Your
Help
Help
For “average model”, I use disaggregated For “average model”, I use disaggregated results (ICC does not support results (ICC does not support aggregation) aggregation)
Main fndings about emotions at group-level
Main fndings about emotions at group-level
Main fndings about cognitions at individual- Main fndings about cognitions at individual- level level
This does not seem elegant
This does not seem elegant
Any ideas? Any ideas?