Making sense of different responses to corporate change

Abstract

Organizations can respond to change in a number of ways such as by transforming the organization, by making symbolic changes, by customizing the change to better fit the context, or by corrupting the change and actually reinforcing status quo. In this article we compare how three business units respond to the same corporate change initiative.We traced organizational responses to change over time and found that responses to change initially varied across business units, but over time most organizational changes were customized to fit the business unit context. We argue that organizational-level responses and how these develop over time can be explained by examining individuals’ interpretative responses. Through inductive analysis we identify five interpretative responses at the individual level: convergent response, divergent response, unresolved sensemaking, creative response, and non-compliance, and show how these shape organizational-level responses.

A Sociomaterial Perspective on Temporal Work: Practice Breakdowns during Strategic Upheaval

“…First we show how temporal work emerges from actors' existential situations and how variations in the socio-material structures shape different levels of temporal work. In doing so, we extend current views on the emergence of intentionality and practice development (Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007;Stensaker & Falkenberg, 2007). Second, our research contributes to S-as-P scholarship by responding to their call how strategy making can be understood from a socio-material point of view (Balogun et al, 2013).…”

“…How actors make sense of an ambiguous and uncertain environment and go on to develop strategy is an important theme in organizational scholarship (Garud, Kumaraswamy, & Karnøe, 2010;Kaplan, 2008;Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2012;Stensaker & Falkenberg, 2007).…”

How practice breakdowns disclose existing structures and contribute to practice innovation

“…First we show how temporal work emerges from actors' existential situations and how variations in the socio-material structures shape various levels of temporal work. In doing so, we extend current views on the emergence of intentionality and practice development (Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007;Stensaker & Falkenberg, 2007). Second, our research contributes to S-as-P scholarship by responding to those scholars call to explore how strategy making can be understood from a socio-material point of view (Balogun et al, 2014;Sandberg & Dall' Alba, 2009).…”

“…How actors make sense of an ambiguous and uncertain environment and go on to develop strategy remains an important theme in organizational scholarship (Garud et al, 2010;Kaplan, 2008;Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013;Stensaker & Falkenberg, 2007). The Strategy-asPractice approach (S-as-P) emerged and aimed to shift the focus from organizations and strategies to strategists and strategizing (Jarzabkowski, 2005;Whittington, 1996).…”

“…We observed the coordinators and chairmen of each association during their presence in cluster meetings and document how they respond to initiatives taken by members of the other associations. These observations helped to reveal what these members consider as significant in their own particular practice (see also Stensaker & Falkenberg, 2007). It was thus possible to identify temporal work during these cluster meetings in as far key members deliberately reflect on the upcoming changes in relation to their practices and that of others.…”