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
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
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
Quick Review of Sensemaking
Quick Review of Sensemaking
Literature
Literature
Sensemaking research strong focus on processes (e.g.,
Sensemaking research strong focus on processes (e.g.,
Weick et al., 2005), less on content
Weick et al., 2005), less on content
Research on link between sensemaking and performance
Research on link between sensemaking and performance
has emphasized top managers
has emphasized top managers
Thomas et al. (1993): top managers scanning and interpretation Thomas et al. (1993): top managers scanning and interpretation processes
processes
Theoretical models about links between cognitions and actions Theoretical models about links between cognitions and actions (e.g. Dutton and Jackson, 1987) with key focus on labeling of
(e.g. Dutton and Jackson, 1987) with key focus on labeling of
issues
issues
Threat/opportunity framing (Chattopadhyay et al, 2001; Staw et Threat/opportunity framing (Chattopadhyay et al, 2001; Staw et al., 1981)
al., 1981)
Little research on how employees make sense of change
Little research on how employees make sense of change
(Bartunek et al., 2006)
(Bartunek et al., 2006)
Any studies that link employee sensemaking to unit/frm Any studies that link employee sensemaking to unit/frm performance?
performance?
Sensemaking primarily focused on cognitions
Sensemaking primarily focused on cognitions
Not much work on emotions and sensemaking (Maitlis and Not much work on emotions and sensemaking (Maitlis and Vogus, 2008)
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)
Subjective Performance:
Subjective Performance:
“Ideal Employee” hypothesis
“Ideal Employee” hypothesis
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 strategyGreater 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)
1998)
More positive emotionsMore 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 emotionsLess negative emotions
Reduces resistance, something managers obsessed with Reduces resistance, something managers obsessed with (Dent & Goldberg, 1999)
“
“
Objective” performance:
Objective” performance:
But do manager’s know best?
But do manager’s know best?
Competing HypothesesCompeting 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
overload)
overload)
“
“
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
positive emotions about the change
higher
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)
“
“
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,
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
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
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
unit
Individual Level Results
Individual Level Results
Sales
(square feet) -.11**-.11** 2.11**2.11** 2.40**2.40**
Negative
sensemaking .11*.11* -.91-.91 0.100.10
R
Individual Level Results
Individual Level Results
Sales
(square feet) -.11**-.11** 2.11**2.11** 2.40**2.40**
Negative
sensemaking .11*.11* -.91-.91 0.100.10
R
Aggregate Min Model Results
Aggregate Min Model Results
Sales
Sales
Performance
Performance Supervisor Overall Supervisor Overall Assessment
(square feet) -.18*-.18* 2.06*2.06* 2.382.38
t
sensemaking .42**.42** -3.94-3.94 -1.63-1.63
R
Aggregate Min Model Results
Aggregate Min Model Results
Sales
(square feet) -.18*-.18* 2.06*2.06* 2.382.38
t
sensemaking .42**.42** -3.94-3.94 -1.63-1.63
R
Aggregate Max Model Results
Aggregate Max Model Results
Sales
(square feet) -.14-.14
t
sensemaking .09.09 -1.53-1.53 .55.55
R
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
good apple can lead to higher subjective ratings.
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
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?
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
