Sensemaking and Performance During Change: Some Preliminary Ideas Scott Sonenshein and Scott Baggett Rice University

Sensemaking and Sensemaking and Performance During Performance During

Change: Change: Some Preliminary Some Preliminary

IdeasIdeasScott Sonenshein and Scott Scott Sonenshein and Scott

BaggettBaggett

Rice UniversityRice University

Research QuestionResearch Question

How does an employee’s How does an employee’s sensemaking about change affect sensemaking about change affect change implementation change implementation performance?performance?

Starting PremisesStarting 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 differentlydifferently

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 managerseven) solely driven by top managers

Quick Review of Sensemaking Quick Review of Sensemaking LiteratureLiterature

Sensemaking research strong focus on processes (e.g., Sensemaking research strong focus on processes (e.g., Weick et al., 2005), less on contentWeick et al., 2005), less on content

Research on link between sensemaking and Research on link between sensemaking and performance has emphasized top managersperformance has emphasized top managers Thomas et al. (1993): top managers scanning and Thomas et al. (1993): top managers scanning and

interpretation processes interpretation 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 issuesissues

Threat/opportunity framing (Chattopadhyay et al, 2001; Staw Threat/opportunity framing (Chattopadhyay et al, 2001; Staw et al., 1981)et al., 1981)

Little research on how employees make sense of Little research on how employees make sense of change (Bartunek et al., 2006)change (Bartunek et al., 2006) Any studies that link employee sensemaking to unit/firm Any studies that link employee sensemaking to unit/firm

performance?performance? Sensemaking primarily focused on cognitionsSensemaking primarily focused on cognitions

Not much work on emotions and sensemaking (Maitlis and Not much work on emotions and sensemaking (Maitlis and Vogus, 2008)Vogus, 2008)

Main Contribution of Main Contribution of ResearchResearch

Examine how employees’ Examine how employees’ sensemaking content (cognitions and sensemaking content (cognitions and emotions) influences change emotions) influences change implementation performanceimplementation 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: Subjective Performance: “Ideal Employee” hypothesis“Ideal Employee” hypothesis

During change, managers want employees to During change, managers want employees to construct meaning of change in particular ways and construct meaning of change in particular ways and this will impact how they assess performance.this will impact how they assess performance. Greater understanding of the strategyGreater understanding of the strategy

Create cognitive reorientation of the firm (Gioia & Create cognitive reorientation of the firm (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, Happy-productive worker hypothesis (Wright & Staw,

1999) 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)(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 objectivesknowledge about how to perform task objectives Reduces uncertainty about change, which could limit Reduces uncertainty about change, which could limit

distractionsdistractions Increases task significance (bigger picture of how tasks Increases task significance (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’

workwork Could inundate employees with useless information (info Could inundate employees with useless information (info

overload) overload) Others?Others?

““Objective” performance: But do Objective” performance: But do manager’s know best?manager’s know best?

Competing HypothesesCompeting Hypotheses Why would sensemaking that contains more Why would sensemaking that contains more

positive emotions about the changepositive 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 efficacy (Forgas et al., 1990)Increases sense of efficacy (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 Reduce motivation because sends signals things

going well (George and Zhou, 2002)going well (George and Zhou, 2002) Lead to too optimistic of an appraisal of situation Lead to too optimistic of an appraisal of situation Others?Others?

““Objective” performance: But do Objective” performance: But do manager’s know best?manager’s know best?

Competing HypothesesCompeting Hypotheses Why would sensemaking that contains less Why would sensemaking that contains less

negative emotions about the changenegative emotions about the change higher higher performance?performance? Negative emotions associated with change Negative emotions associated with change

resistance resistance Negative emotions could reduce commitment to Negative emotions could reduce commitment to

changechange But negative emotions could. . . But negative emotions could. . .

Signal that greater effort is needed (George & Signal that greater effort is needed (George & Zhou, 2001)Zhou, 2001)

Reflect a more realistic appraisal of the change, Reflect a more realistic appraisal of the change, allowing employees to adjust behaviors allowing employees to adjust behaviors

ApproachApproach

Context: Fortune 500 retailer integrating two Context: Fortune 500 retailer integrating two divisionsdivisions

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 changeimplementing same change

Content analysis of sensemaking:Content analysis of sensemaking: Cognitive sensemaking: meaning constructions of Cognitive sensemaking: meaning constructions of

what employees know about the core strategy of the what employees know about the core strategy of the changechange

Emotional sensemaking: meaning constructions of Emotional sensemaking: meaning constructions of emotions about the changeemotions about the change

Negative emotions: sad, worried, disappointment, frustrationNegative emotions: sad, worried, disappointment, frustration Positive emotions: excitement, happy, joyPositive emotions: excitement, happy, joy

Dependent VariablesDependent Variables

Performance of change implementationPerformance of change implementation Subjective: Supervisor ratings of unitSubjective: Supervisor ratings of unit

Overall performance of implementing the Overall performance of implementing the change change

Effort exerted at implementing the changeEffort exerted at implementing the change ““Objective”: Sales performanceObjective”: Sales performance

Change in sales after change, controlling for Change in sales after change, controlling for time of changetime of change

AggregationAggregation Unit of analysesUnit of analyses

Sensemaking data: employee levelSensemaking data: employee level Performance data: unit levelPerformance data: unit level

Aggregation tests Aggregation tests Too much variability within units Too much variability within units

around sensemaking of changearound sensemaking of change Examine individuals’ sensemaking as Examine individuals’ sensemaking as

predictive of their group score vs. predictive of their group score vs. average sensemakingaverage sensemaking

Group analysisGroup analysis Good apple, bad apple in the barrel Good apple, bad apple in the barrel

approachapproach Take the minimum and maximum values Take the minimum and maximum values

for each sensemaking variable for each for each sensemaking variable for each unitunit

Individual Level ResultsIndividual Level ResultsSales Sales PerformancePerformance

(“Objective”)(“Objective”)

Supervisor Supervisor Overall Overall AssessmentAssessment

Supervisor Supervisor EffortEffort

Control Control (square feet)(square feet)

-.11**-.11** 2.11**2.11** 2.40**2.40**

Negative Negative sensemaking sensemaking emotionsemotions

-.02-.02 -0.21-0.21 -0.16-0.16

Positive Positive sensemaking sensemaking emotionsemotions

.00.00 1.21*1.21* 0.880.88

Cognitive Cognitive sensemakingsensemaking

.11*.11* -.91-.91 0.100.10

RR22

F TestF Test.08.08

3.07*3.07*.22.22

6.18**6.18**0.170.17

4.50**4.50**

* p<.05; **p<.01

Individual Level ResultsIndividual Level ResultsSales Sales PerformancePerformance



(Subjective)(Subjective)




-.11**-.11** 2.11**2.11** 2.40**2.40**


-.02-.02 -0.21-0.21 -0.16-0.16


.00.00 1.21*1.21* 0.880.88


.11*.11* -.91-.91 0.100.10

RR22

F TestF Test.08.08

3.07*3.07*.22.22

6.18**6.18**0.170.17

4.50**4.50*** p<.05; **p<.01

Aggregate Min Model ResultsAggregate Min Model ResultsSales Sales PerformancePerformance




-.18*-.18* 2.06*2.06* 2.382.38tt


-.20-.20 -6.46*-6.46* -1.07-1.07


-.07-.07 2.382.38 4.414.41tt


.42**.42** -3.94-3.94 -1.63-1.63

RR22

F TestF Test.29.29

3.90**3.90**.46.46

4.04*4.04*0.24 0.24

1.51, ns1.51, ns

T p<.10; * p<.05; **p<.01

Aggregate Min Model ResultsAggregate Min Model ResultsSales Sales PerformancePerformance







-.18*-.18* 2.06*2.06* 2.382.38tt


-.20-.20 -6.46*-6.46* -1.07-1.07


-.07-.07 2.382.38 4.414.41tt


.42**.42** -3.94-3.94 -1.63-1.63

RR22

F TestF Test.29.29

3.90**3.90**.46.46

4.04*4.04*0.24 0.24

1.51, ns1.51, nsT p<.10; * p<.05; **p<.01

Aggregate Max Model ResultsAggregate Max Model ResultsSales Sales PerformancePerformance







-.14-.14tt 1.221.22 1.531.53


-.02-.02 .55.55 -.36-.36


.00.00 3.04*3.04* 3.003.00tt


.09.09 -1.53-1.53 .55.55

RR22

F TestF Test.09.09

.99, ns.99, ns.34.34

2.462.46tt

0.24 0.24

1.52, ns1.52, nsT p<.10; * p<.05; **p<.01

Summary of FindingsSummary of Findings

Employees’ sensemaking based on emotions Employees’ sensemaking based on emotions influences supervisor ratings of change, but has influences 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 predicts sales performance but has no impact on supervisor ratings.on 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 affect manager promoted), but does not affect “objective” unit performance.“objective” unit performance.

Group level: one bad apple spoils barrel; but Group level: one bad apple spoils barrel; but one good apple can lead to higher subjective one good apple can lead to higher subjective ratings.ratings.

Theoretical ImplicationsTheoretical Implications Linked employee-level sensemaking to unit Linked employee-level sensemaking to unit

performanceperformance How employees make meaning of a change impacts How employees make meaning of a change impacts

performanceperformance 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 performanceperformance

DiscussionDiscussion 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 finding?Should I frame paper around this finding?

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 problemsAggregation problems

Other Ways I Can Use Your Other Ways I Can Use Your HelpHelp

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 findings about emotions at group-levelMain findings about emotions at group-level Main findings about cognitions at individual-Main findings about cognitions at individual-

levellevel This does not seem elegantThis does not seem elegant

Any ideas?Any ideas?

Documents

Sensemaking and Performance During Change: Some Preliminary Ideas Scott Sonenshein and Scott Baggett Rice University