Commitment to change

It has been highly noted, that commitment is an essential element contributing to a successful organizational change (e.g. Brown, 2007; Meyers et al., 2007; Sidle, 2003;

Iverson, 1996). However, Meyers et al. (2007) note that there is only little empirical evidence to support this common claim.

Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) developed a model of commitment to organizational changes, which was used for systemic investigation of commitment in this context.

This model was based on Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) general theory of workplace commitment, which was introduced above. In their study Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), they proposed that commitment could take different forms and have different implications for the nature and level of employees’ behavioral support for a change.

In their study, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) found evidence to support both their hypotheses when studying primarily female hospital nurses. In their study, they found that the nature of commitment is important in explaining why employees go beyond the minimum requirements of the organization and the change process. Employees with strong affective commitment (those who believe in the change and want to con-tribute to its success) or with high normative commitment (those who feel a sense of obligation to support the change) should be willing to do more than what is required.

This happens even if this requires some personal sacrifice. However, it was also found, that employees with high continuance commitment (those whose commitment is based on perceived cost of failing to support the change) would contribute only a little more than what is required.

Meyer et al. (2007) built on this study. In their research, they chose a very different change context and sample, bringing generalizability to the findings. However, they also found, that commitment to the change itself was a better predictor of behavioral support to the change when compared to commitment to the organization. They con-cluded that employee commitment is a key factor in implementing organizational

23

changes. Furthermore, they extended this idea by suggesting that commitment to the change initiative might be even more important as compared to commitment to the organization itself.

In the study conducted by Iverson (1996), organizational commitment was also found to be one of the most important determinants of organizational change. Furthermore, organizational commitment was found instrumental in achieving organizational change as it was found to be an intervening variable for determinants in the model studied. Thus, it was suggested, that, as a determinant and mediator, organizational commitment should be integral to any change strategy.

Implementing information systems has also been widely researched as a process. Ac-cording to Brown (2007), this process is seen to progress as stages from initiation to infusion. Brown et al (2007) extended the study by Iverson (1996) by studying the role of five broad factors, which have been repeatedly associated with success and failure in the implementation process, in the process of implementing information systems. The items were selected though reviewing the existing literature. There five factors include 1) commitment, 2) knowledge, 3) communication, 4) planning and 5) infrastructure. In their study they identified commitment as the resources that were dedicated to IT and as the dedication to changing the procedures of the organization.

The resources included both financial and human resources.

Brown (2007) found that commitment is one of the main factors affecting successful implementation of information systems. In the study, communications and commit-ment was found as most important factors, as they were most frequently cited in the existing literature. Commitment gained importance steadily throughout the process, and it was found to be the most important factor in the stage of acceptance.

Arikoski and Sallinen (2007) show a model for individuals’ commitment to change.

This model is divided in eight stages: sabotage, resistance, resignation, neutrality, empowerment, acceptance, acting, cooperation and commitment. This model resem-bles a common view that individuals have a tendency to resist changes at first, but then people start to accept the changes and reorganize the attitude and practices.

24 2.3.2 Affecting commitment to change

According to Burke (2008), the reactions of the individuals can be affected. It is sug-gested that the ease of change is dependent on how much individuals believe they can define and execute the change. Thus, it is seen, that to reduce resistance to change, it is important that individuals feel they participate to the change process and can affect to the change. Thus, top-down approach to change is seen to increase resistance and it should be avoided.

This thesis views commitment to change from the perspective of employees. Along-side with the sensemaking process, the thesis examines the factors affecting success-ful change process. Whelan and Somerville (2010) note that changes in organizations are actually about changes at the individual level, as change takes place in the behav-ior, practices, values and attitudes of the individual employees.

Various scholars have studied the factors that affect employees’ commitment to change, that should be considered during the change process. Some of the factors af-fecting to commitment are found for example as communications, sense of procedural justice (Sidle, 2003) and leadership (Hill et al., 2012; Neves, 2011). This section pro-vides an overview of the factors that have been found to affect the commitment in the literature.

Parrish et al (2008) note various aspects that affect the commitment to change. Firstly, the change must be in alignment with the strategic vision of the organization. Fur-thermore, they see that the quality of the employee-leader relationship affects the level of commitment. Furthermore, they saw that the work motivation and the level of in-dependence in the work of the employees affect the commitment. Thus, they suggest for example, that the more motivated the employee is, the more likely the employee is to commit to both the organization and the change itself. These four issues were seen to affect affective and normative commitment positively and were seen as enablers for these types of commitments.

Whelan-Berry and Somerville (2010) suggest that participation in change process deepens the understanding about the change, and may lead to increased commitment.

Foster (2010) supports this view and suggests actions by which participation can be

25

increased. These measures include dialogues, interviews and forums, which all en-courage sharing the visions and emotions of the individual. Brabant et al. (2007) ex-amine committing employees to reorganization, and suggest that making employees participate is important, but as important is to appreciate the employees that are un-willing to participate in the change process.

Rissanen and Lammintakanen (2011) as well as Brabant et al. (2007) see that employ-ees are valuable assets for the changes – the ideas of the employemploy-ees should not only be listened, but managers and leaders should also act upon those ideas in the planning and execution stages. Brabant et al. (2007) further suggest that openness is in a key position for accepting reorganization and committing to the changes. Accepting and committing to the change was seen easier when employees are enabled to participate to the planning and execution of the change. Rissanen and Lammintakanen (2011) see that participation can decrease the anxiety and uncertainty of the employees, which increases the sense of control and trust towards the future. Furthermore, it is suggested that employees who feel they can individually affect the change – the education and training, scheduling etc. - are expected to possess affective or normative commitment to change (Parish et al., 2008).

Parish et al. (2008) note some further factors affecting to the commitment, which in-cludes consistency with the vision, the relationship between the employee and leader, motivation and feeling of independence. They suggest that good relationship with the supervisor and motivation towards the change results in less feelings of being coerced to implement the change. They also suggest that independence in work role makes individuals more committed to change.

Another factor affecting to commitment to change is suggested to be justice, both be-tween individuals and regarding knowledge (Rissanen and Lammintakanen, 2011;

Foster, 2010; Whelan-Berry and Somerville, 2010). The justice is reflected especially in the communications between the employees and supervisors. Communications should be detailed, timely and individual, explaining every stage of the change pro-cess. Here again, participation through education and feedback forums are suggested.

(Rissanen and Lammintakanen, 2011; Foster, 2010)

The importance of communications is also noticed by Whelan-Berry and Somerville (2010), who state that communications directed towards understanding the need for

26

change is essential. Regular communications can increase understanding about the change, resulting in increased commitment. Furthermore, they note the importance of two-way communications, which includes sharing information and listening to others.

According to Rissanen and Lammintakanen (2011), healthcare sector varies from oth-er fields in that often decisions are made extoth-ernally of the organizations, which often means the political decision makers of the municipalities. Thus, the changes in the field of health care are often involuntary at least to some extent. They further note that the specific features of the health care organizations, such as large size, hierarchy and competing interests of different professional groups, bring challenges to managing change. They note that the sense of justice is dependent on the level of knowledge employees have about the change, participation and cooperation. Commitment to change can be enforced by feeling of togetherness, equality, sense of safety and mutu-al trust. Especimutu-ally the role of trust is highlighted – sense of justice leads to trust and trust requires sense of justice.

Hill et al. (2012) highlight the importance of the communications in commitment to change. They studied how hierarchy and transformational leadership affect the affec-tive and normaaffec-tive commitment of the employees. Transformational leadership style is often related especially to change situations and it refers leaders that create and communicate a vision, create empowering opportunities and stimulate people intellec-tually, and have personal credibility that affect in trust and admire (Herold et al., 2008). Hill et al. (2012) suggested that the effectiveness in communicating the change at the upper management levels has an important role. This was in both top-down and bottom-up communications. Top-down communications was found important for en-hancing the level of affective commitment, and it played an important role especially in the early stages of the change process.

Sidle (2003) studied the importance of commitment during the change processes. The findings supported the findings from other scholars introduced before. Increasing commitment was seen to require communications, for example regarding the purpose of the change early in the process. The feelings of justice were seen to affect the atti-tudes and behaviors of employees. Overlooking employee perceptions over procedur-al justice in the planning stage may affect the employees’ trust in executives

negative-27

ly, their willingness to stay in the company and the sense of psychological contract to the company, referring to mutual obligations binding employees to the company.

Hill et al. (2012) studied the effects of direct leaders in the change context. Most of the research has been conducted focusing on top level or middle level managers. They found that the leadership style affected the level of affective and normative commit-ment especially at the early stages of the process. At first stages, employees reported higher levels of affective and normative commitment, when the leader used trans-formative leadership style. Hill et al. (2012) further suggest that when commitment is established through transformational leadership, the level of commitment may remain unchanged throughout the process.

Finally, related to leadership, Neves (2011) studied the relationship between supervi-sor competence and support and commitment to change. It was noted that supervisupervi-sors, as change agents, play a key role in implementing the change successfully. Their study found that perceived supervisor support mediated a positive relationship be-tween competence and affective and normative commitment to change. However, supervisor competence was found to be negatively related to continuance commit-ment.

2.4 Sensemaking

Sensemaking refers to the ‘site where meanings materialize that inform and constrain identity and action’ (Weick et al., 2005: 407). As a term it is self-explanatory as it simply means marking sense of events. Materializing in this context refers to sense-making being an issue of language, talk and communication as for example situations are brought into existence through talk (Weick et al., 2005). Weick (1995) explains that people generate sense in their words through conversations. This takes place when people convey something about their ongoing experiences. According to Pek-karinen (2015), the ideal result of a sensemaking process is realizing the meaning of the event.

According to Weick (1995), sensemaking simply means the making of sense. The conceptualization of sensemaking has been examined from the perspectives of

strate-28

gy and socialization. From the strategic perspective, sensemaking has been seen as a framework and directive force in interpretations (e.g. Westley, 1990; Goleman, 1985;

Dunbar, 1981). In comparison, socialization perspective sensemaking is a thinking process - or a recurring cycle - that uses retrospective accounts in explaining surpris-ing events (Louis, 1980). Accordsurpris-ing to the latter perspective sensemaksurpris-ing starts when individuals make predictions about future events. After this people experience the events and the experiences may differ from the predictions. These surprises then trig-ger a need for explanation and for a process through which interpretations of the dis-crepancies can be developed (Louis, 1980).

Weick (1995) notes that sensemaking exists everywhere, since people can make sense of everything. Sensemaking has been examined in organizational contexts. Weick (1995) notes that in organizations sensemaking occurs especially in two common oc-casions: in cases of ambiguity or uncertainty. These two cases engage people in sensemaking due either being confused by too many interpretations (ambiguity) or being ignorant of any interpretations (confusion).

Sensemaking must be separated from interpreting. According to Weick (1995:13),

‘sensemaking is about the ways people generate what they interpret’. Furthermore, sensemaking consists of actions, activities and creation that lay down traces that are then interpreted and probably reinterpreted. This categorization suggests that sense-making is about activities or processes, while interpretation can be a process or a product as an interpretation that someone can ‘make’. However, the process of sensemaking is seen more similar with interpretation, than comparison or classifica-tion of events (Weick, 1995).

Various authors place some actions or mechanisms in the discussion of sensemaking.

Some scholars (e.g. Louis, 1980 and Westley, 1990) have the focus on individuals placing stimuli to the frameworks. This perspective is extended by Thomas Clark and Gaiola (1993) adding information seeking, meaning ascription and action into the discussion on sensemaking. This view sees environmental scanning and interpreta-tions included in the included mechanisms to sensemaking processes. Furthermore, Sackman (1991) extends the discussion by including the standards and rules associat-ed with perceiving, interpreting, believing and acting to the discussion. This

perspec-29

tive further notes that the standards and rules are applicable in specific cultures and settings.

It must be further noted that often sensemaking, as a way of understanding events better, is seen to result in some action (Thomas et al., 1993; Sackman, 1991). Howev-er, Feldman (1989) argues that that often sensemaking does not result in any action.

Instead, it is seen that sensemaking may lead to understanding that actions should not be taken or that before taking any actions, the understanding of the event must be en-hanced. Thus, the result may be individuals possessing more and different type of information about the event rather than in any concrete actions.

2.4.1 Sensemaking as individual process

Sensemaking can be addressed at different levels of analysis (Weick, 1995; Wiley, 1988). Sensemaking can be examined at the three macro levels, which are seen above the individual level of analysis. According to Wiley (1988), these levels include inter-subjective, the generic subjective and the extra subjective levels. Intersubjective sensemaking takes place upon the synthesis and synthesis of two or more communi-cating parties. Generic subjective level is about the level of social structure and this level considers organizations instead of individuals. Finally, extra subjective level of analysis considers cultural level.

This view is supported also by Pekkarinen (2015) who notes that sensemaking can be approached from two perspectives: individual and social construct. The individual approach is based on individual habits, interpretation and learned models to make sense of new situations and their effects on action. The perspective of social con-structs emphasizes the joint process and ways to act in a changed situation.

According to Weick (1995), sensemaking is grounded in individual and social activi-ty. However, it is seen, that these two may not be even separable. Sensemaking as an individual process is about building personality (Pekkarinen, 2015; Weick, 1995).

People’s worldviews are affected by the upbringing, personal experiences and social context. Sensemaking is a process that begins when people face events and clues in their environment that they are not used to (Weick, 1995; Pekkarinen 2015). This

the-30

ory has its bases on joint learning in organizations, the interactive relationships be-tween the members, and causality. (Pekkarinen, 2015)

Sensemaking can be further explained by some critical questions that help explaining the context in everyday life. How does something come to be an event for organiza-tional members? What does an event mean? Now what should I do? This is a way of confronting something unintelligible, thus bringing an event into existence and bring-ing meanbring-ing into existence. The second question stems from connections with the past experience and dialogue with other people. In comparison, the last question emerges from the presumptions people have about the future and projects that become clearer when they unfold. (Weick et al., 2005)

It is noted that rather than being the influence of evaluation on choice, sensemaking is about interplay of action and interpretation. It is suggested that if action is the central focus of change, interpretation is the choice of phenomenon. Sensemaking notes that smallness does not mean insignificance. Instead, small structures and short moments within the change processes can have rather large consequences. (Weick et al., 2005)

2.4.2 Sensemaking and change

Sensemaking has its origins within the organizational theory and it is often related to the studies about change in general and organizational change (Kezar, 2013; Weick et al., 2005). The concept is a central element in organizational theory, as it has a central role in determining human behavior (Weick et al., 2005). According to Weick (1995), organizations are social constructions that are created and recreated by individuals when they make meaning of their work life.

In the change context, sensemaking could be seen referring to understanding the change and making the change meaningful for the stakeholders of the change (Kezar, 2013). Weick et al. (2005) notes that it is difficult for people to engage in a change process if it is not made meaningful for them and they cannot see a connection to the change. Thus, it was seen that leaders can aid in making connections and sensing the meaningfulness by placing structures and processes in place. These can assist in creat-ing shared senses of organization such as task forces and dialogues for individuals.

31

It is suggested that sensemaking can be started by five different kind of events catego-rized as 1) important planned, 2) important unplanned, 3) small planned, 4) small un-planned and 5) hybrid events. Implementing a new information system is considered as a small planned event. These planned changes in procedures affect either

It is suggested that sensemaking can be started by five different kind of events catego-rized as 1) important planned, 2) important unplanned, 3) small planned, 4) small un-planned and 5) hybrid events. Implementing a new information system is considered as a small planned event. These planned changes in procedures affect either