Key findings and the theoretical implication of the findings

The key findings of this research provide a description of the sensemaking process of employees working in the health care sector. More clearly, the focus is on describing how employees make sense of commitment to changes and the relationship between commitment and sensemaking. Furthermore, the study examined commitment to change from the perspective of employees regarding factors affecting the commit-ment.

The findings represented one case of change management. The participants were asked about their experiences of factors affecting to commitment and towards new information systems. The responses varied highly, indicating an individual process towards commitment. The factors included both internal and external issues. Surpris-ingly, individuals were either affected by internal (e.g. personal characteristics, pro-fessional identity) or external factors (e.g. organizational needs) – dividing the em-ployees in externally and internally motivated emem-ployees towards the usage of the system. This also related to the Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) categorization of commitment, which distinguishes the internally motivated employees from the em-ployees who feel external pressure to use the system.

Throughout the interviews, various factors affecting the commitment of the partici-pants also came across indirectly. Factors affecting the commitment positively includ-ed usability relatinclud-ed factors, personal traits of the employees and organizational sup-port. Other themes included communication and external pressure. In comparison, negatively affecting factors included personal traits, usability and nature of the change. Also process related factors and work related factors were mentioned. The results of the study supported the literature in section 2. Participation (Whelan-Berry and Somerville, 2010; Foster, 2010) could be seen related to the educational point of view. However, no further indications about participation were mentioned. This may be since the participants did not feel that they had had much participation in the pro-cess. The participants seemed to feel that the lack of participation was because of the nature of the change. This was a planned change that was forced in the entire organi-zation.

69

Procedural justice (Sidle, 2003) could be seen as justification for the change. Partici-pants felt, that justified change is easier to commit to. Furthermore, leadership (Hill et al., 2012; Neves, 2011; Parish et al., 2008) was mentioned through support as well as communications. It became apparent that leaders can affect the employees’ commit-ment via communications. Especially they can affect the employees’ sense of justifi-cation of the change, decrease the anxiety though timely informing, and affect the feelings with positive and realistic views of the change. Parish et al (2008) noted the importance of motivation and independence for commitment. These were also men-tioned in the study.

Surprisingly, technological and usability factors occurred most frequently in the inter-views. This follows the technological and innovational view to change processes that were introduced in the literature. It represents Rogers (2003) ideology, that the attrib-utes of the innovations have important role in determining the adoption rates. This also supports Klein and Knight (2005) who suggested various reasons for innovation implementation failures, such as unreliable, imperfect, more complex and time con-suming technologies, which cause negative feelings amongst the users, especially as they affect the performance when the new system is implemented. They also suggest-ed an important role for role changes that the users might be difficult or uncomforta-ble to adapt to. This also occurred in the study as the participants indirectly talked about changes in their role and identity, as well as changed expectations for their pro-fession.

The aim of this study was also to examine the sensemaking process in a change con-text. The analysis of the interview data was done with Weick’s (1995) sensemaking categorizations. It suggests that sensemaking is grounded in identity construction, retrospective, enactive of sensible environments, social, ongoing, focused on and by extracted cues and driven by plausibility rather than accuracy.

The study showed that the participants were indirectly constructing their identity dur-ing their interviews by compardur-ing themselves to other employees, thus describdur-ing themselves indirectly or directly. The change process had also changed their view on themselves and their skills. This supported the findings of Bean and Eisenberg (2006) who noticed, that if person’s own sense of identity was compromised, employee expe-riences a shock, which triggered sensemaking process. Construction of identity was

70

related to changed tasks and work allocation, thus affecting the daily work of the par-ticipants. The employees seemed to have distanced themselves from the system and felt that it had no effect on their work identities. This could be related to the findings of Bean and Eisenberg (2006) who noticed that if identity disconfirmation did not take place, but employee felt tension to social structures, sensemaking was directed to es-tablish new meanings for the structures in question. In this case it seemed that mostly negative issues related to one’s identity arose from the interviews. Weick (1995) sug-gested that if negative images threaten the sense of self-enhancement, efficacy and consistency, people may alter the sense they make of these negative images. This may lead to redefinition of organizational identity.

The retrospective nature of sensemaking process was one of the most visible catego-ries in analyzing the interviews. The way the new system was talked about included retrospective features. It was seen as a comparison to previous systems that the partic-ipants had experienced. The particpartic-ipants talked a lot in the past tense reflecting what had already happened in the change process. As Weick (1995) also noted, the past events related to sensemaking can be assessed only after the event has occurred.

The sensemaking process was seen to be enactive of sensible environments. There were various other changes taking place simultaneously that affected the employees’

sensemaking process towards this change. All changes were seen interrelated and the relationships between different events and changes were blurred in the minds of the employees. The other changes affected the way the change in the EPR was been ac-cepted and felt towards by the employees. This supported the view of Bartunek et al.

(2006) and Weick (1995) that people are rather active than passive in relationship to the environment, which also applies to change context.

As was noted, one of the most important factors affecting the commitment to change in this study was found communication. This is also an essential part of sensemaking, since sensemaking is a social process as suggested by Weick (1995). The social nature of the sensemaking process has been highlighted the most. Rissanen and Lammin-takanen (2011) noted that organizational members create the change through interac-tion and discursion and Sidle (2003) suggested that increasing commitment requires communications. In the study, the interaction took place with both colleagues and

71

leaders, following Balogun and Johnson’s (2005) view of both vertical and lateral communications.

The ongoing nature of the sensemaking process could be related in the ongoing nature of the change process. As Weick (1995) suggested, there is no clear starting or ending point for sensemaking, thus it is continuous. The ongoing nature also became appar-ent in this study, mostly related to the change process. Thus, it could be suggested, that commitment is also ongoing process. As the change continues, the commitment is evaluated and altered continuously according to the feelings and satisfaction at that time.

Weick (1995) also suggested that sensemaking is focused on extracted cues and driv-en by plausibility rather than accuracy. These two categories were not appardriv-ent in the study related to commitment, which was the focus of this study. The final category existed at a general level when discussing change.

All in all, there are various studies done in this field, but the focus of these studies is on the management level (e.g. van Vuuren and Elving, 2008; Lüscher and Lewis, 2008; Balogun, 2006; Fiss and Zajac, 2006; Rouleau, 2005) or they examine the role of change agents (e.g. Weick, 1995b). There still seems to be lack of concentration on the perspectives of the employees. The findings of this study supported the literature about this topic. The findings followed the literature given in section 2 regarding the commitment aspect. As has been noted, similar studies that utilize Weick’s categori-zation has not been done in similar manner. However, the findings of this study re-garding sensemaking process followed the categorizations of Weick, thus supporting this view on sensemaking. The findings also supported the findings of previous stud-ies on sensemaking. The study also showed a relationship between sensemaking and commitment. Throughout the interviews, it became clear that commitment can be achieved through sensemaking process that results in positive attitude towards the change. In this context of technological change, the most influencing factors for reaching commitment seem to be technological issues and social interactions through communication.

72