64
will be most likely conducted. Overall, it could be interesting to see how their answers will vary from each other or have similar outcomes as this study. It would be interesting to see how managers are describing the change and do they really have more information available than employees has stated.
As a future research this study could be extending to add critical aspect to theory of sense-making. Helms Mills, Thurlow and Mills (2010) suggest that critical sensemaking argues about how sensemaking analysis needs to go through again in the new light and pay atten-tion to its structure and discourse how individuals’ sensemaking occurs. In the light of crit-ical sensemaking it may help to explain the highlights of organization rules on individuals.
Therefore, the perspective is slightly same both the frameworks changes to evaluate situa-tion from the perspective of actors who enact the rules and how these rules are introduced to the organizations.
re-65
searcher. (Saunders et al. 2012.) One of limitations was also the choosing process of inter-viewees and what kind of data will be collected. Also, to avoid misunderstandings in the interview occasion it is important to go through related issues and questions in interview, which includes to topic. Being accurate helps both parties to succeed. Too often this part of interview was forgotten, and it was retrospectively cutting down the quality of collected data. (Alasuutari 1999, 50- 53.)
In the beginning of the writing process based on methodological approach seemed that the future is unpredictable. There are always more than one or two possible futures which many people have forecast. The suggestions might not happen in the future, such it is only as-sumption. As a future research, it is not certain that scenarios stated in this study will happen in the future as it is only interviews of the employees and their opinions. However, these will give some direction to go for employees of financial sector and some clues what can be happen in the future.
66 REFERENCES
Alasuutari, P. 1999. Laadullinen tutkimus. Jyväskylä: Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy.
Aladwani, A. M. 2001. International Journal of Information Management, 21, pp. 213–225
Allen, N. J., and Meyer, J. P. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, pp. 1–18.
Atom Bank 2016. Fabulous Atom Questions. Available from: https://www.atombank.co.uk/faq.
Accessed on 1.3.2018.
Balogun, J., and Johnson, G. 2004. Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking.
Academy of Management Journal, 47(4): 523-549.
Balogun, J. 2006. Managing Change: Steering a Course between Intended Strategies and Unantici-pated Outcomes. Long Range Planning 39 (1): 29-49.
Beer, M. and Nohria, N. 2000. Breaking the code of change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Beer, M., and Walton, A. E. 1987. Organization change and development. Annual Review of Psy-chology, 38, pp. 339–367.
Brown, S.A., Chevrany, N. L. and Reinicke, B. A. 2007. What matters when introducing new in-formation technology. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology; 80 (2): 185-211.
Conger, S., and Mason, R. 1998. Planning and designing effective web sites. Cambridge, MA:
Course Technology.
Conner, Daryl R. 1992. Managing at the speed of change: how resilient managers succeed and pros-per where others fail. Random House: Toronto.
67
Daniel, E. 1999. Provision of Electronic Banking in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Interna-tional Journal of Bank Marketing, 17(2), 72–82.
Eriksson, P. and Kovalainen, A. 2008. Qualitative Methods in Business Research. UK: Sage.
EY. 2011. The digitisation of everything; How organisations must adapt to changing consumer be-haviour. LLP: UK.
Filenius, M. 2015. Digitaalinen asiakaskokemus: menesty monikanavaisessa liiketoiminnassa.
Jyväskylä: Docendo Oy.
Fiss, P.C. and Zajac, E.J. 2006. The Symbolic Management of Strategic Change: Sense giving via Framing and Decoupling. Academy of Management Journal 49 (6): 1173-1193.
Hill, S. N, Myeong-Gu Seo, Jae Hyeung Kang, and Taylor, S.M. 2012. Building Employee Com-mitment to Change Across Organizational Levels: The Influence of Hierarchical Distance and Di-rect Managers. Transformational Leadership. Organizational Science 23 (3): 757-777. Accessed on 20.2.2018. Retrieved from: INFORMS Journals.
Hirsjärvi, S., Remes, P. and Sajavaara, P. 2013. Tutki ja kirjoita, p. 164, 185. 15-17th edition.
Tammi.
Helms Mills, J, Thurlow, A. and Mills, A.J. 2010. Making sense of sensemaking: the critical sense-making approach. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Jour-nal, Vol. 5 Issue: 2, pp.182-195.
Helms Mills, J., Dye, K. and Mills, A.J. 2009. Understanding Organizational Change. pp. 39–55.
Herscovitch, L., and Meyer, J. P. 2002. Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 474–487.
Iveroth, E. 2016. Effective organizational change: Leading through sensemaking. Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge.
68
Iverson, R.D. 1996. Employee acceptance of organizational change: the role of organizational com-mitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management; 7 (1): 122-149.
Kezar, A. 2013. Understanding sensemaking/sensegiving in transformational change process from the bottom up. Higher education; 65(6):761-780. Retrieved from: EBSCOhost. Accessed on 20 Oc-tober 2016.
Koiranen, I., Räsänen, P. and Södergård, C. 2010. Mitä digitalisaatio on tarkoittanut kansalaisen näkökulmasta? Talous ja yhteiskunta, 3, p. 24-29.
Lammassaari, M. and Hiltunen, E. 2015. Change in the Finnish healthcare: managerial sensemak-ing 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 ownership frame-work – Examination of antecedents of successful change. Dissertation. Jyväskylä, Finland: Univer-sity of Jyväskylä (Published).
Lüscher, L.S. and Lewis, M.W. 2008. Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Work-ing Through Paradox. Academy of Management Journal 51 (2): 221- 240.
Maitlis, S., and Christianson, M. 2014. Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8: 57–125.
Meyer, J.P., Srinivas, E.S., Lal, J.B. and Topolnytsky, L. 2007. Employee commitment and support for an organizational change: Test of the three-component model in two cultures. Journal of Occu-pational & Organizational Psychology 80 (2): 185-211.
Meyer, J. P., and Herscovitch, L. 2001. Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model.
Human Resource Management Review 11: 299–326.
Meyer, J. P., and Allen, N. J. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational com-mitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, pp. 61–89.
69
Meyer, J. P., and Allen, N. J. 1997. Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and applica-tion. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. 1994. Fit Failure, and the Hall of Fame: How Companies Succeed or Fail. Free Press, New York, NY.
Mols, N. 1998. The Behavioral Consequences of PC Banking. International Journal of Bank Mar-keting, 16(5), 195–201.
Neves, P. 2011. Building commitment to change: The role of perceived supervisor support and competence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20 (4), pp. 437-450.
Nooa Säästöpankki. 2018. Available from: http://www.saastopankki.fi/pankki/nooa-saastopankki-oy/-/nooa-saastopankin-tulos-sen-todistaa-asiakkaat-tahtovat-ihmislaheista-pankkipalvelua. Ac-cessed on 16.2.2018.
Paglis, L., and Green, S.G. 2002. Leadership self-efficacy and managers’ motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23, pp. 215–235.
Pekkarinen, K. 2015. Digitalisoituminen valtionhallinnon esimiestyössä. Pro Gradu. Kuopio, Fin-land: Itä-Suomen Yliopisto. (Published).
Pohjola, M. 2015. Digitalisaatio ja tuottavuus finanssialalla. Available from:
http://www.finanssiala.fi/materiaalit/Digitalisaatio_ja_tuottavuus_finanssialalla.pdf. Accessed on 28.11.2016 and 24.1.2017.
Rouleau L. 2005. Micro-Practices of Strategic Sensemaking and Sensegiving: How Middle Man-agers Interpret and Sell Change Every Day. Journal of management studies 42 (7): 1413-1441.
Saarela-Kinnunen, M. and Eskola, J. 2001. Tapaus ja tutkimus = tapaustutkimus. In a book Aaltola, J. and Raine, V. (Published) Ikkunoita tutkimusmetodeihin 1. Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus.
70
Sandberg, J. and Tsoukas, H. 2014. Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constituents, limitations and opportunities for further development. Journal of Organizational Behavior 35 (S1):
S6-S32.
Sathye, M. 1999. Adoption of Internet Banking by Australian Consumers: An Empirical Investiga-tion. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 17(7), 324–334.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. 2009. Research Methods for Business Students (5th Edi-tion). Prentice Hall.
Shah, M.H. and Siddiqui, F.A. 2006. Organizational critical success factors in adoption of e-bank-ing at the Woolwich bank. International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp.
442-56.
Sidle, S.D. 2003. Best Laid Plans: Establishing Fairness Early Can Help Smooth Organizational Change. Academy of Management Executive; 17 (1): 127-128. Retrieved from: EBSCOhost. Ac- cessed on 7.12.2017.
Stoecker, R. 1991. Evaluating and rethinking the case study.39 (1): 88-112.
Säästöpankkiliitto. 2015. Available from: http://www.saastopankki.fi/raportit-ja-tiedotteet. Ac-cessed on 03.11.2017.
Tellis, W. 1997. Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report 3(2). Available from:
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html.
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 communicating organizational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 13 (3): 349-359.
Weber, R.P. 1990. Basic content analysis. (2nd edition). UK: Sage.
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. UK: Sage.
71
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K. M. and Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking.
Organization Science 16(4): 409–421.
Yin, R. 1997. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Zhang, P. and Soergel, D. 2014. Towards a comprehensive model of the cognitive process and mechanisms of individual sensemaking. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65: 1733–1756.
72
Appendix 1 (2) APPENDICES
Interview structure in Finnish
Taustakysymyset
• Nimi
• Haastattelun tavoitteet ja tutustuminen
• Tämän hetkinen työkuva, pääasialliset työtehtävät
Nykytilan analyysi
• Miten määrittelet digitalisaation?
• Miten digiaalisatio määritellään alallasi – ja miten siitä keskustellaan
• Mikä on Nooan määritelmä digitalisaatiosta?
• Miten sinua on informoitu yrityksesi kautta tulevasta muutoksesta (kohti digitalisaatiota)
• Miten edustamasi yritys (Nooa) on määritellyt (digitalisaation) nykytilan, ja miten se mielestäsi vastaa nykytilaa?
Oma näkemys
• Millainen on tämän tämänhetkinen pankin ohjeistus?
• Kuvaile minulle tulevaisuuden pankki – miten se eroaa perinteisen pankin toimenkuvasta.
• Miten tulevaisuuden pankki pystyy digitalisaation avulla yhdistämään ihmiset, digi(sovellus)alustan, tehokkuuden ja globaalisation mukautumalla asiakkaan tarpeisiin?
• Mikä on perinteisen pankin tulevaisuus?
• Mitä haasteita digitalisaatio on tuonut nymymuotoiseen pankkiin ja mitkä niistä koet kaikista haastavimmaksi. ”henkilö vastaa” jatkan: Miksi näin?
• Miten digitalisaation voisi estää?
• Onko digitalisaatio välttämätöntä tulevaisuuden pankille?
• Miten digitalisaation muutosta hallitaan pankkisektorilla?
73 Tahtotila
• Mihin suuntaan Nooa on menossa digitalisaation kanssa. Mitä sillä on mahdollista saavuttaa?
• Miten oma vaikuttamisesi heijastuu yrityksen digitalisaatiosta?
• Verraten yrityksen nykystrategiaan digitalisaation suhteen, miten toimisit toisin paremman lopputuloksen eteen?
• Miten yrityksesi pääsee haluamaan tulokseen? – Mitkä sisäiset- ja ulkoiset tekijät ovat esteenä tällä hetkellä?
• Miten oma ja tiimisi työpanoksesi edesauttaa tavoiteltua lopputulosta?
• Miten koet sääntelyn vaikuttavan muutoksissa kohti digitalisaatiota. Onko se mahdollisuus vai jarru?
Tulevaisuuden analyysi
• Mihin suuntaan ala on menossa?
• Mikä on tulevaisuuden työnäkymäsi?
• Miten itse pysyt vauhdissa mukana?
Onko mahdollista saavuttaa, miten, mitä itse voit tehdä vs. muut?
• Millainen oma näkemyksesi Nooan suunnasta muuttuvassa murroksessa?
74
Appendix 2 (2) Interview structure translated in English
Personal Information
• Name
• Aims of the interview and get familiar with the topic
• Profession, main work tasks, how you describe your regular working day
Analysis of current situation
• How would you describe what is digitalization?
• How digitalization is defined in your field, and how it is being discussed?
• What is the banks definition of digitalization?
• How did you get informed about upcoming change, towards digitalization?
• How does yours represent company (Nooa) defined digitalization current situation, and how you think it meets the current situation?
Own description of the situation
• What is the bank’s current guidance?
• Describe to me the future bank – how it different from the traditional bank’s de-scription?
• How is possible the future bank able to connect digitalization with people, digital platforms, efficiency and globalization by adapting customer needs?
• What is the future of traditional bank?
• What challenges have digitalization brought to a nimble bank and which ones are the most challenging. “person responds…”, continued with Why so?
• How could digitalization be prevented?
• Is digitalization necessary for the future bank?
• How is the change of digitalization managed in the banking sector?