Purpose of the Study
In order to appreciate fully the value of organizational sensemaking as a theoretical framework, it is helpful to analyze the contributions of one such study. I invite you now to peek into a study I conducted a few years ago (Fulton, 2001), in which I conducted site visits and extensive interviews with seven Chief Information Officers (CIOs) who were merging library and computer center operations on their campuses. My study looked at the hopes, values, ideas, philosophies, and opinions of leaders as they made strategic decisions in the creation of new, merged organizations.
I focused my study on the sensemaking processes these CIOs used to decide on an organizational structure for the merged unit. The overarching purpose of the study was to understand how leaders go about envisioning a new organization and realizing those visions in terms of organizational structure. It looked at sensemaking as it relates to organizational structure, organizational vision, and strategic change. Several sensemaking questions framed my study:
How do the preferences, assumptions, frames of reference, mindsets, and interpretative schemes of CIOs influence their restructuring process?
How do CIOs sort through, filter, weave together, and perhaps even ma- nipulate the many factors that influence their thinking?
How do leaders decide what information to gather, what to pay attention to, and who and what will influence those choices?
What images, mental models, implicit theories, and cognitive structures do CIOs have about where their organizations are going that affect the actions they ultimately take in creating a new order?
How do CIOs frame and interpret social and environmental cues in order to construct options/choices that fit, that are plausible?
What are the salient situational factors for leaders in deciding on an organizational structure?
In order to do this, I obviously had to ask the participants in the study to tell me the whole story of how they came to be CIOs, what was going on within both organizations at the time, how they came to choose the structure they ultimately chose, and what they were thinking about and feeling throughout the experience. Since I stayed on each campus for several days, and made at least one follow-up visit after doing preliminary analysis of the data, I had plenty of opportunity to go back to the CIOs to ask for clar- ification and elaboration as needed. I used a combination of qualitative methodologies (phenomenology and grounded theory) to analyze each case separately and then to look for overall themes and patterns. Each CIO’s sensemaking processes were unique, and at the same time, there were similarities.
Findings: Mapping Vision to Structure
Structure is one means by which these CIOs manifested their visions, symbolized their visions, and actively worked towards those visions. Four mechanisms were identified by which leaders embedded their visions in new organizational structures: wholesale mapping, establishing a toehold, isolating the vision, and beginning with leadership. Leaders who had the most auspicious conditions were able to set their sights higher and push all at once for a new paradigm (wholesale mapping); coincidentally those who aspired to higher levels of integration tended to adopt newer organi- zational forms. The other three strategies represent ways in which leaders balanced idealism and pragmatism in their sensemaking processes. These CIOs were conscious of the need to temper their own perspectives about what they would liketo have happen because of realities around them. In these riskier situations, they settled for a slower pace of change by (a) starting with one area that was ready for change (toehold), or (b) iso- lating the vision to certain areas within the organization, such as those most in need of an overhaul, or (c) focusing first on change at the management level (beginning with leadership). They made choices that fit the institution and the situation, yet also moved toward their visions and/or towards integration.
Findings: Vectors in Sensemaking during Reorganization
I was able to identify eight questions each CIO had to answer in order to make a final determination of structure. I called these the eight vectors of choice in organizational restructuring (Fig. 1). These eight vectors are at the heart of CIO sensemaking in the merger context.
A causal process, moving from making sense of the situation to vision to structure, was verified in most cases, but not all. In almost all cases vector 1 happened very early on and the process ended with vector 8, though not always, and there was considerable variation in the relative timing of vectors 2 through 7. Some of the vectors happened more or less simul- taneously, or at least in quick succession. In other cases, significant thought time or process lapses punctuated the flow from one vector or set of vectors to the next.
Findings: Stages in Sensemaking during Reorganization
As CIOs worked through the vectors, five major stages of sensemaking emerged in this study.
Where?
2. Why? Goals for the reorganization 3. How much? Degree of integration 4. When? Evolution vs. revolution 5. Who? Role of the leader
6. How? Process for deciding on a structure 7. What? Selection of an overall structural type
8. In what way? Determining groups and matching individuals to roles Vision of the organization’s role and reputation 1.
Fig. 1. Vectors of Choice in the Restructuring Process.
Scripts and Givens
All of the CIOs came into their positions with strong beliefs about one or more of the vectors that made them unlikely to change their perspectives significantly. ‘‘Givens’’ represent sensemaking at that ‘‘earlier, more tenta- tive stage prior to interpretation when the sensemaker grapples with the question: ‘is it still possible to take things for granted?’ And if not, ‘what next?’’’ (Weick, 1995, p. 14). For example, several of the CIOs had previous negative experience with radical top–down change and were determined to use an evolutionary process that involved significant input and buy-in.
Environmental Scanning/Issue Identification
A significant component of the process for these CIOs was the environ- mental scanning activity that started during the interview and lasted up to about a year. Scanning the environment is a particularly critical element for leaders new in their positions. For a new leader, sensemaking activities include getting an overall impression of the institution, comparing this uni- versity to previous places of employment, and getting feedback about con- stituent needs (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 442). Early on in their tenure, CIOs were looking at external factors (e.g. the institutional culture, resource availability, and technology trends) to identify those that were likely to be important to their organization. They also looked internally for information about staff strengths, sources of resistance, and readiness for change. In their descriptions of their own behavior, they used phrases such as being aware, paying attention, anticipating, reading the winds, looking at trends, gauging forces, and assessing needs. Hosking referred to this process as
‘‘issue identification’’ in which the individual asks the question, ‘‘What is going on?’’ (1991, p. 97). As much as their situation allowed, CIOs took time to observe and listen carefully before committing to definitive actions. Vec- tors 2 and 5 usually involved significant environmental scanning.
Selection
A third category included vectors that turned out to be key selection points or ‘‘forks in the road’’ of change for a particular situation. CIOs sorted out the various factors that were affecting them, and filtered out the most salient ones. They asked the core question of what, if anything, they should do about the immediate situation (Hosking, 1991, p. 97). ‘‘Selection activity matches solutions with people, problems, and choices’’ (Weick, 1979b, p.
202). Vectors 3 and 4 often fell in this category.
Implementation/Action/Enactment
Vectors 6, 7, and 8 generally represented enactment processes in which CIOs translated their planning and sensemaking processes into action. These ac- tions then set a course for the rest of the integration process at each in- stitution.
Performance/Refinement
Thomas, Clark, and Gioia (1993) labeled the final process in strategic change as ‘‘performance,’’ and this fit my study as well. For these CIOs, performance of their new organization was going to be constantly changing, and so they spoke in terms of continual evolution and refinement of the new structure. CIOs clearly concluded that restructuring is not a one-time de- cision, but is rather an inductive, emergent, iterative, incremental process.
The CIOs talked about building confidence, waiting for evidence, constant repositioning, tinkering, tweaking, modifying, making adjustments, and
‘‘evolution not revolution.’’ They all ended up talking in terms of imple- menting a custom solution, seeing how it worked, and altering the strategy incrementally as needed, which is typical of ‘‘enacting organizations’’ (Daft
& Weick, 1984, p. 292).
These vectors and phases were at the highest level of interpretation, but most of the study stayed very close to the real life stories of CIOs. For example, Fig. 2 shows the factors faced by one CIO and how that factor affected the final structure.
Findings: Miscellaneous Insights and Revelations
As discussed, sensemaking research attempts to meld the theoretical and the practical in meaningful ways for readers. Sensemaking is such a rich frame- work, it allowed me to tease out many insights into leader sensemaking in this context. Therefore, my study is of interest to anyone interested in in- sights such as the following:
How leaders signaled change, rewarded progress, and made it meaningful;
Leaders’ analysis of what motivates people and how they framed issues to engage particular individuals or groups;
Why leaders chose their management team members as they did;
How leaders bridged the us/them culture rifts within the organization;
How leaders’ own ethics, philosophies, background, and personalities affected their sense of what the right choice was for their institution at that time;
Why leaders who had a mandate to serve as change agents could operate more freely than those in constrained conditions;
Why trust, respect, and empathy were critical to the success of a new organization;
What was made possible when leaders believed that resistance is a natural part of the change process rather than a problem to be solved;
How leaders dealt with ambiguity and uncertainty in organizational in- novation;
What individuals and groups leaders involved in decision-making, and what roles they played in influencing the leader’s perceptions and actions;
and
How leaders thought about the pace and the process of change.
Findings: Metaphor of the Journey
More than any other single theme in these CIOs’ stories, the overwhelming image conveyed was one of journey, and more specifically journey on the frontier. In the interview transcripts I found numerous references to ‘‘mov- ing forward,’’ ‘‘moving in a direction,’’ ‘‘finding my way,’’ and ‘‘moving ahead.’’ They talked about phases and plans and pushing. These leaders were excited by the opportunities ahead, yet cognizant of the dangers, hardships, and risks along the trail. When they accepted the position, they experienced a sense of anticipation, of challenge, of opportunity, and of uncertainty. CIOs described restructuring as looking out to the horizon and
Factor Reorganization effect
Early merger ……….….. No non-traditional models Strong incumbent directors ……… Maintain hierarchy CIO lacks technical background ……… Postpone some actions Provost leaving ……….…….……. Solve immediate problems
Union ……… Proceed cautiously
Entrenched librarian culture ……… Wait for buy-in CIO vision of information literacy ………... Create instruction unit Financial exigencies ……… Make use of existing staff
Fig. 2. One CIO’s Sensemaking about how Factors should Influence Reorga- nization.
guiding a group toward that vision, but not along a straightforward path.
All encountered barriers, detours, and diversions, but also glorious unfore- seen opportunities and discoveries.
The stories of these seven leaders are the story of realizing the vision and dreams of each. The opportunity to create a new organization, to explore a new frontier, is an exciting and risky one. It involves continuous balancing of vision, context, and situation – sensemaking and sensegiving. These CIOs’ experiences were not about the magical moment of making a decision, not about calculating probabilities of success of alternate solutions, and not about a linear or even clear progression from vision to structure. Rather, the essence of their sensemaking might best be described as the willful creation of organizational evolution.
The CIOs I interviewed expressed many times how unique an opportunity it was for them to think back on that time in their lives and analyze why they felt, thought and did what they felt, thought and did. In sharing their stories in depth, this study was unique in providing a ‘‘you are there’’ look at leader sensemaking.