Evaluation of the study, future studies and managerial implications

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.3 Evaluation of the study, future studies and managerial implications

According to Eriksson and Kovalainen (2015), case studies are evaluated by defini-tion of the case and its context and by its significance. There should also be sufficient evidence to the research question and presentation of both supporting and challenging evidence. The study provides important insights for a timely phenomenon. As the Finnish legislation evolves bringing new requirements for information systems, im-plementing a new information system is required.

The aim of the study was to examine the sensemaking process of the employees when committing to a change and the relationship between sensemaking and commitment.

The research was done by utilizing a qualitative single case study methodology and the data was collected through interviews. The amount of interviews conducted was five, which was found suitable for this type of study. Even though there was not a large amount of interviews, the responses in the interviews were found similar already in this amount of data. Thus, it could be argued that adding more interviews would have not added any significant value. The participants were also limited to employees.

For example studying top management would have probably affected the results of the study. Since the findings from different participants were found similar, I believe the findings represent the factors affecting to commitment and sensemaking process in this specific context.

The results of the research contribute to the existing literature by taking a new per-spective on the academic research related to change management and commitment to change. This study expands the research by examining the perspectives of the em-ployees, which has not usually been done. Furthermore, the commitment to change is studied from the perspective of sensemaking. The existing literature has left a gap in identifying reasons behind some factors, such as commitment, affecting to successful change. By describing how employees make sense of the commitment process, also its importance may be explained.

The results of the study have an important contribution to the existing change man-agement literature. The results can help future managers to understand the perspective of the employees better, and assist in implementing similar changes with better

suc-73

cess rate in the future. Many researches emphasize the role of management and lead-ership in change and also more emphasis is given on leaders’ role in facilitating the sensemaking of the employees – thus enabling the acceptance of change, as was also suggested by Balogun and Johnson (2005). As technology and legislation are devel-oped further, also information systems need to be changed. Furthermore, this specific study acts as an important reflection to the change that has taken place inside an or-ganization. Thus, in the specific organization, it helps in evaluating the change pro-cess and its sucpro-cess.

There is still a lot to be studied in this field. As has been noted, the perspectives of the employees are still less studied and sensemaking has been rarely included in these types of studies. Thus, there are various ways to extend this study, for example by extending the study to other groups of employees or to make comparisons of different employee groups. Thus, in the future it would be interesting to see whether the per-spectives of the employees and the managers vary in this context – both regarding factors affecting to commitment and the sensemaking process. Furthermore, as the participants in this study included only female, would the results be different when compared to male employees? The study could be expanded to other fields than health care as well. Another interesting perspective to study in the future would be related to the social nature of sensemaking. As was noted in the study, vertical and lateral rela-tionships affect the sensemaking process. Future studies in this field could include examining for example leader’s effect in sensemaking – the ways to intervene with the process, how much it occurs and which methods are the most effective.

74 REFERENCES

Balogun, J. 2006. Managing Change: Steering a Course between Intended Strategies and Unanticipated Outcomes. Long Range Planning 39 (1): 29-49.

Balogun, J. & Johnson, G. 2005. From intended strategies to unintended outcomes:

the impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organizational studies 26 (11): 1573-1601.

Bartunek, J.M., Rousseau, D. M., Rudolph, J.W. & DePalma, J.A. 2006. On the Re-ceiving End: Sensemaking, Emotion, and Assessments of an Organizational Change Initiated by Others. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 42 (2): 182-206.

Brabant, L.H., Lavoie-Tremblay, M., Viens, C. & Lefrancois, L. 2007. Engaging health care workers in improving their work environment. Journal of Nursing Man-agement 15 (3): 313-320.

Bean, C.J. & Eisenberg, E.M. 2006. Employee sensemaking in the transition to no-madic work. Journal of Organizational Change Management 19 (2): 210-222.

Bean, C.J. & Hamilton, F.E. 2006. Leader framing and follower sensemaking: Re-sponse to downsizing in the brave new workplace. Human Relations 59 (3): 321-349.

Brown, S.A., Chevrany, N.L. & Reinicke, B.A. 2007. What matters when introducing new information technology. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology;

80 (2): 185-211.

Burke, W. 2008. Organization Change. Theory and Practice. 2 nd edition. California:

Sage Publications Inc.

Cooper, R.B. & Zmud, R.W. 1990. Information technology implementation research:

A technological diffusion approach. Management Science 36(2): 123-139.

Ericson, T. 2001. Sensemaking in organizations – towards a conceptual framework for understanding strategic change. Scandinavian Journal of Management 17 (1): 109-131.

Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen A. 2015. Qualitative Methods in Business Research (2^nd edition). UK: Sage.

Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen A. 2008. Qualitative Methods in Business Research. UK:

Sage.

Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. & Herold, D.M. 2006. The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: a multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology 59 (1): 1-29.

Fiss, P.C. & Zajac, E.J. 2006. The Symbolic Management of Strategic Change:

Sensegiving Via Framing and Decoupling. Academy of Management Journal 49 (6):

1173-1193.

Foster, R.D. 2010. Resistance, justice and commitment to change. Human Resource Development Quarterly 21 (1): 3-39. HE 219/2013. Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle laeiksi sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakastietojen sähköisestä käsittelystä annetun lain sekä sähköisestä lääkemääräyksestä annetun lain muuttamisesta. Available from:

http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2013/20130219 [Accessed on 14 November 2016]

Helms Mills, J., Dye, K. & Mills, A.J. 2009. Understanding Organizational Change.

pp. 39–55.

Herold, D.M., Fedot, D.B., Caldwell, S. & Liu, Y. 2008. The Effects of Transforma-tional and Change Leadership on Employees’ Commitment to a Change: A Multilevel Study. Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (2): 346-357.

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Exten-sion of a three component model. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (3): 474–487.

Hill, S. N, Myeong-Gu S., Jae H.K. & Taylor, S.M. 2012. Building Employee Com-mitment to Change Across Organizational Levels: The Influence of Hierarchical Dis-tance and Direct Managers' Transformational Leadership. Organizational Science 23 (3): 757-777.

Hirsjärvi, S. & Hurme, H. 2010. Tutkimushaastattelu: Teemahaastattelun teoria ja käytäntö. Estonia: Gaudeamus Helsinki University Press.

Iverson, R.D. 1996. Employee acceptance of organizational change: the role of organ-izational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management; 7 (1):

122-149.

Jaros, S. 2010. Commitment to organizational change: A critical review. Journal of Change Management 10 (1): 79-108.

Kezar, A. 2013. Understanding sensemaking/sensegiving in transformational change process from the bottom up. Higher education; 65(6):761-780.

Koskinen, I., Alasuutari, P., & Peltonen, T. 2005. Laadulliset menetelmät kauppatie-teissä. Finland: Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy.

Lammassaari, M. & Hiltunen, E. 2015. Change in the Finnish healthcare: managerial sensemaking in the private sector. Int. J. Services Technology and Management, 21(1/2/3): 5–15.

Luoma, J. 2015. Understanding change management through the psychological own-ership framework – Examination of antecedents of successful change. Dissertation.

Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä [published].

Lüscher, L.S. & Lewis, M.W. 2008. Organizational Change and Managerial Sense-making: Working Through Paradox. Academy of Management Journal 51 (2): 221-240.

Maitlis, S. 2005. The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal 48 (1): 21-49.

Kanta-palvelut n.d.. Available from: https://mediconsult.fi/tuotteet-ja-palvelut/kanta-palvelut [Accessed on 14 November 2016]

Meyer, J.P., Srinivas, E.S., Lal, J.B. & Topolnytsky, L. 2007. Employee commitment and support for an organizational change: Test of the three-component model in two cultures. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology 80 (2): 185-211.

Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. 2001. Commitment in the workplace: Toward a gen-eral model. Human Resource Management Review 11: 299–326.

Mintzberg, H. Ahlstrand, B. & Lampel, J. 2005. Strategy Safari. A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Management. New York: Free Press.

Neves, P. 2011. Building commitment to change: The role of perceived supervisor support and competence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology;

20: (4): 437-450.

Sandberg, J. & Tsoukas, H. 2014. Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constituents, limitations and opportunities for further development. Journal of Organ-izational Behavior 35 (S1): S6-S32.

Sidle, S.D. 2003. Best Laid Plans: Establishing Fairness Early Can Help Smooth Or-ganizational Change. Academy of Management Executive 17 (1): 127-128.

Parish, J.T., Cadwallader, S. & Busch, P. 2008 Want to, need to, ought to: employee commitment to organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Manage-ment 21 (1): 32-52.

Pekkarinen, K.. 2015. Digitalisoituminen valtionhallinnon esimiestyössä. Pro Gradu.

Kuopio, Finland: Itä-Suomen Yliopisto. [Published]

Rissanen, S. & Lammintakanen J. 2011. Sosiaali- ja terveysjohtaminen. Helsinki:

WSOYpro Oy.

Rouleau L. 2005. Micro-Practices of Strategic Sensemaking and Sensegiving: How Middle Managers Interpret and Sell Change Every Day. Journal of management stud-ies 42 (7): 1413-1441.

Saboohi, N. & Sushil, S. 2011. Revisiting Organizational Change: Exploring the Par-adox of Managing Continuity and Change. Journal of Change Management 11(2):

185-206.

Shin, J., Taylor, M.S. & Seo, M. 2012. Resources for change: the relationships of or-ganizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees’ attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change. Academy of Management Journal 55 (3):

727-748.

Tiedon Lifecare-järjestelmä etenee: Taivalkoski ottanut käyttöön terveydenhuollossa ja 2016 käyttö Suomessa laajenee -potilasdata pysyy kotimaassa. (2015). Available from:

https://www.tieto.fi/menestystarinat/tiedon-lifecare-jarjestelma-etenee-taivalkoski-ottanut-kayttoon-terveydenhuollossa-ja-2016-kaytto [Accessed on 14 No-vember 2016].

Van de Ven, A.H. & Sun, K. 2011. Breakdowns in Implementing Models of Organi-zation Change. Academy of Management Perspectives 25 (3): 58-74.

Van de ven, A.H. & Poole, M.S. 2005. Organization Studies, 26 (9): 1377-1404.

Van Vuuren, M. and Elving W.J.L. 2008. Communication, sensemaking and change as a chord of three strands: Practical implications and a research agenda for communi-cating organizational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 13 (3): 349-359.

Weber, R.P. 1990. Basic content analysis.(2^nd edition). UK: Sage.

Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. UK: Sage

Weick, K.E. 1995b. Reflections: Change Agents as Change Poets – On Reconnecting Flux and Hunches. Journal of Change Management 11 (1): 7-20.

Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization Science 16(4): 409–421.

Whelan-Berry, K.S. & Somerville, K.A. 2010. Linking Change Drivers and the Or-ganizational Change Process: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Change Manage-ment 10 (2): 175-193.

Yin, R.K. 2003. Case study research: design and methods. 3^rd edition. Sage Publica-tions: USA. p. 1-165.

Appendix 1. Interview scheme in Finnish Appendix 1 1(2)

Henkilötiedot

 Nimi, ikä

 Ammatti, työvuotesi organisaatiossa

Muutos

Yleisesti muutoksesta

 Millaisia aiempia kokemuksia sinulla on tietojärjestelmän muutoksia?

 Mitä tämä muutos on sisältänyt?

 Kuinka prosessi on edennyt?

 Ketä on ollut osallisena muutoksessa? Mitkä on ollut heidän roolinsa?

Muutoksen tarve ja muutoksen suunnittelu

 Kuinka kuvailisi muutoksen tarpeellisuuden organisaatiossa o Onko tarpeellinen, miksi? Jos ei, miksi?

 Minkälaista muutoksen tarpeesta viestiminen on ollut?

 Minkälaista muutoksen suunnittelu on ollut?

Tiedonkulku ja osallistuminen

 Mitä tiedotuskanavia on käytetty? Minkälaista tiedottaminen muutoksen aika-na on ollut?

 Kuinka henkilöstö on päässyt osallistumaan muutoksessa?

 Kuinka henkilöstö on päässyt osallistumaan muutoksen suunnitteluun ?

 Kuinka henkilöstö on päässyt osallistumaan muutoksen toteutukseen?

Muutoksen toteuttamisen eteneminen

 Kuinka muutoksen edetessä on mahdollistettu kommunikaatio myös työnteki-jöiltä johtajien suuntaan?

 Millaisia haasteita muutoksen etenemisessä on esiintynyt?

 Kuinka organisaatiossa on varauduttu muutoksen etenemisen haasteisiin?

Sitoutuminen Appendix 1 2(2) Muutokseen sitoutuminen

 Kuinka määrittelisit termin sitoutuminen?

 Kuinka kuvailisit sitoutumistasi tähän muutokseen?

o käytän tietojärjestelmää, koska minun täytyy tai minulla ei ole parem-pia vaihtoehtoja

o käytän tietojärjestelmää, koska koen sen velvollisuudeksesi

o käytän tietojärjestelmää, koska haluan käyttää tätä tietojärjestelmää Sitoutumiseen vaikuttaminen

 Mitkä tekijät ovat vaikuttaneet sitoutumiseesi?

 Mitkä tekijät ovat vähentäneet sitoutumispanostasi?

 Kuinka motivoitunut olet työssäsi?

Muutoksen vastaanotto yhteisössä

 Kuinka kuvailisit muutoksen vastaanottoa työyhteisössä?

o Mikä on ollut esimiehesi suhtautuminen tietojärjestelmään?

 kuinka koet vaikuttaneen omaan suhtautumiseen o Mikä on ollut kollegoidesi suhtautuminen tietojärjestelmään?

 Kuinka koet vaikuttaneen omaan suhtautumiseen

Esimiesten rooli muutoksessa

 Kuinka kuvailisit ylimmän johdon näkyvyyttä muutoksessa?

 Kuinka koet lähimmän esimiehesi toimineen muutoksessa?

Muutoksen laajuus

 Kuinka laajana koet muutoksen tietojärjestelmässä?

 Kuinka laajana koet muutoksen omassa työssäsi?

 Kuinka koet muutoksen muuttaneen työidentiteettiäsi?

Appendix 2. Interview scheme translated in English Appendix 2 1(2)

Personal Information

 Name, age

 Profession, number of years in this organization

Change General

 What kind of previous experiences do you have from changes in information systems?

 What has this change consisted of?

 How the process has proceeded?

 Which parties have been involved in the change? What was their role?

Need for change and planning

 How would you describe the need for the change in this organization o Is it needed, why? If not, why?

 How the need for change has been communicated?

 How was the change planned?

Communication/informing and participation

 Which channels have been used for communication and informing the em-ployees? How would you describe the communication throughout the change?

 How the employees have participated in change?

 How the employees have participated in planning the change?

 How the employees have participated in implementing the change?

Implementation process

 How was the communication enabled during also from employees to the lead-ers/managers?

 What type of challenges has occurred in the change process?

 How has the organization prepared for the challenges in the process?

Commitment Appendix 2 2(2) Commitment to change

 How would you define the term commitment?

 How would you describe your commitment to this change?

o I use the information system because I have to or there are no better choices

o I use the information system because I feel obligated

o I use the information system because I want to use this information system

Affecting the commitment

 What factors have affected your commitment?

 What factors have decreased your commitment?

 How motivated are you in your work?

Acceptance of the change in the community

 How would you describe the acceptance/reactions of the community towards the change?

o How has your supervisor reacted to the change?

 How has this affected your reaction?

o How has your colleagues reacted to the change?

 How has this affected your reaction?

The role of supervisors

 How would you describe the top managements’ role in the change?

 How do you see your supervisor’s actions through the change?

The scope of the change

 How broad do you see the change in the information system?

 How broad do you see the change in your work?

 How do you see the change in your work identity due to the change?

In document Making sense of commitment to change : case of implementing information systems in health care (sivua 73-83)