understanding the sustainability of a planned change

i

Understanding the Sustainability of a Planned Change: A Case Study Using an Organizational Learning Lens

by Mary Barnes

B.S. in Recreation Management, January 1999, Frostburg State University M.S. in Financial Management, May 2006, University of Maryland, University College

M.B.A., May 2007, University of Maryland, University College

A Dissertation submitted to

The Faculty of The Graduate School of Education and Human Development

of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Education

August 31, 2018

Dissertation directed by

Michael J. Marquardt Professor of Human and Organizational Learning and International Affairs

ii

The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of the George Washington

University certified that Mary Alford Barnes has passed the Final Examination for the

degree of Doctor of Education as of July 27, 2018. This is the final and approved form of

the dissertation.


Mary A. Barnes

Dissertation Research Committee:

Michael J. Marquardt, Professor of Human and Organizational Learning and International Affairs, Dissertation Director Robin R. Hurst, Assistant Professor of Teaching and Learning, Virginia Common Wealth University, Committee Member David A. Rude, Chief Learning Officer and Deputy Director for Human Resource Strategic Programs, U.S. Department of Defense, Committee Member

ii

Dedication

The author wishes to dedicate this research to my mom, who was my biggest cheerleader

in everything I did, and to my dad, who is my rock and inspiration.

iii

Acknowledgements

A doctoral degree is a team sport, and I am so grateful that I have had such a great

team, including my committee and chair, my friends and colleagues, and my family. The

amount of support I’ve received, both from those who saw me regularly as well as those

supporting me from afar, was the reason I was successful in this endeavor.

It is important that I start my thank yous with Dr. Marquardt. Not only did you

stick with me even after retirement, you have this superhuman ability to turn reviews

around in 24 hours or less, which helped keep my momentum going and prevented me

from getting stalled. You held me to my self-imposed deadlines, but also understood as

life got in the way and didn’t give me a hard time when my motivation and momentum

was overcome by events outside of my control.

To Drs. Hurst and Rude - While I trusted Mike to find committee members who

would be a good fit for me and my research, I am so grateful that you both agreed to

participate. I may not have known you from the start, but from the proposal defense

discussion to the review of the final product, the questions and input you have provided

helped to make me, and the final product, better. I’ve since been told how lucky I am to

have you on my committee by several folks, and I agree!

I was so pleased when Dr. Goldman agreed to participate as an external reader.

You are so giving of yourself to those around you that you are always busy, especially

with your recent promotion at the Medical School. I also know that when you agree to

participate, you are all in - so generous with your time and energy. I’ve thoroughly

enjoyed working with and learning from you in the past and know your questions and

comments made me a better scholar-practitioner.

iv

I put my trust in Mike once again in finding my other external reader. So, I want

to thank Dr. Pyzdrowski for agreeing to participate. I enjoyed and improved based on

your thoughts, questions, and insights. The slightly different perspective you came from

made for interesting questions to ponder and, again, made this final product that much

better. So, thanks for your time and willingness to invest in me, before even knowing

me.

I also want to thank my family, but most specifically my parents. My dad is and

has been an amazing support. His PhD is in Chemistry. At the beginning of my doctoral

career, I’d ask him for specific advice, but quickly realized that the social sciences are

completely different from the linear, clear roles of chemistry research. But, he was

always there for me to bounce ideas off of, talk through concepts, and to back me up

when I needed time away from family obligations to build, and rebuild, momentum.

This dissertation is the completion of a promise I made to my mom before she

passed. She was so supportive and proud of me as I was going through my coursework

and dissertation process. She made me promise that I wouldn’t let her illness and

ultimate passing impact my ability to complete this goal I’ve been working on for years.

While I did take a short break after her passing, my promise to her got me going again

and I know she is now beaming with pride - her whole body lit up when she was proud;

her smile was ear to ear, she sat up straighter, her eyes sparkled.

Finally, I want to thank all of my friends and colleagues who understood my

hectic schedule and supported me in numerous ways to contribute to my success - from

work life flexibility, advice, encouragement, compliments, and practical support. A

doctorate truly is a team sport, and I’ve got the best team in the game.

v

Abstract of the Dissertation


The concept of implementing organizational learning principles in an organization

to help individuals and groups “learn to learn” (Schein, 2017), thereby making the

ongoing adaptation and change that inevitably occurs in organizations more successful, is

an interesting problem to explore. While interesting, there are very few studies that

examine the sustainability of change in any context. Several theoretical models

incorporate the idea of sustaining, or institutionalizing, change. But, very few empirical

studies actually explore that concept.

The purpose of this qualitative, descriptive, embedded case study was to explore

how a government agency developed and sustained organizational learning, using the

Organizational Learning Systems Model (OLSM) as a lens. To fulfill the purpose of this

study, the following research question was addressed: How did a government agency

introduce and sustain organizational learning during and after a planned change?

The results from this study contributed to the literature and to the practitioner

community by showing that (1) the organization introduced and implemented

organizational learning by centrally managing the learning subsystems during the change

itself; (2) the organization introduced and sustained organizational learning by involving,

encouraging, and empowering employees and middle managers during the change; (3)

the organization introduced and implemented organizational learning by aligning all

messaging from senior leadership to front-line employees during the change; (4) the

organization implemented and sustained organizational learning by encouraging practice

vi

to learn the new behaviors and to iterate the change plan based on lessons learned; (5) the

organization sustained organizational learning by counting on middle managers to sustain

sensemaking and organizational learning post-change; and, (6) the organization was

challenged in sustaining organizational learning because the specific change to a

dispersed work environment has several unintended consequences that make it a tricky

change.

A conceptual model to augment the OLSM was proposed. Future studies could:

(1) test the conceptual model proposed; (2) explore the impacts of a dispersed work

environment using OLSM or social network analysis; and, (3) examine the relationship

between open office design and a dispersed work environment.

vii

Table of Contents

Dedication ........................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii

Abstract of the Dissertation ................................................................................................ v

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1

Overview ................................................................................................................. 1

Problem Statement .................................................................................................. 3

Purpose & Research Question ................................................................................ 7

Significance of Study .............................................................................................. 7

Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................... 11

Summary of Methodology .................................................................................... 17

Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................... 20

Definitions of Key Terms ..................................................................................... 23

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 24

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 24

Organizational Change .......................................................................................... 26

Sustaining Organizational Change ........................................................................ 35

Reflection and Change .......................................................................................... 44

Sensemaking and Change ..................................................................................... 46

Structuration and Change ...................................................................................... 47

Environment and Change ...................................................................................... 49

Organizational Learning ....................................................................................... 50

Organizational Learning and Change in the Public Sector ................................... 59

Summary of Literature .......................................................................................... 61

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 64

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 64

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework ............................................................... 66

Researcher’s Worldview ....................................................................................... 67

Bounding the Case ................................................................................................ 69

viii

Data Collection Methods and Process .................................................................. 72

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 83

Trustworthiness ..................................................................................................... 86

Reflexivity Statement............................................................................................ 89

Human Participants and Ethical Considerations ................................................... 90

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ............................................................................................... 91

Overview of Findings ...................................................................................................... 94

Findings - Time 0 (During the Change) ................................................................ 96

Findings - Time 1 (Immediately Following the Change) ................................... 110

Findings - Time 2 (Current-State - Five Years Post-Move) ............................... 124

Synthesis of Findings across All Three Time Periods ........................................ 145

CHAPTER 5: Conclusions, Interpretations, and Recommendations ...................... 148

Conclusions and Interpretations .......................................................................... 148

Implications for Theory ...................................................................................... 165

Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................... 167

Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................. 189

Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................... 193

References ...................................................................................................................... 196

Appendix A: Invitation to Participate In Study ......................................................... 235

Appendix B: Individual Interview Guide ................................................................... 237

Appendix C: Focus Group Interview Protocol .......................................................... 243

Appendix D: Direct Observation Guide ..................................................................... 250

Appendix E: Individual Interview Consent Form ..................................................... 251

Appendix F: Non-People Data Collection Details ...................................................... 253

ix

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Theoretical Model: The Organizational Learning Systems Model 14

Figure 1.2. Conceptual Framework: Planned Change and Organizational Learning 16

Figure 2.1. The OLSM Subsystems and Corresponding Interchange Media 58

Figure 2.2. Theoretical Model: The Organizational Learning Systems Model 58

Figure 3.1. Conceptual Framework: How organizational learning is sustained over

time

67

Figure 3.2. Data Collection Plan for Three Phases 73

Figure 4.1 Conceptual Framework: How organizational learning is sustained over

time

92

Figure 4.2 Example of Goal-Based Messaging in Business Case - Narrative Form 98

Figure 4.3 Example of Goal-Based Messaging in Business Case - Graphic Form 98

Figure 4.4 Example of Persona-Based Messaging in Business Case 99

Figure 4.5 Example of Regulation-Based Messaging in Business Case 99

Figure 4.6 Words Most Frequently Found in Internal Communications during

Change

101

Figure 4.7 Five Findings from Post-Change Focus Groups 111

Figure 4.8 Recommendations Made by Office of Customer Experience 111

Figure 4.9 Employees’ description of successful parts of the change 113

Figure 4.10 Pay It Forward: Lessons Learned and Shared During Phased Moves 118

Figure 4.11 Key Findings - Tenant Survey One Year Post-Occupancy 121

Figure 4.12 Overall findings - Tenant Survey Two Years Post-Occupancy 122

x

Figure 4.13 Annual Trends of EVS Questions - 2014 to 2017 127

Figure 4.14 Annual Trends of EVS Themes - 2014 to 2017 128

Figure 4.15 Change Agent Demographics 129

Figure 4.16 Demographic Information of Focus Group Participants 133

Figure 4.17 Focus Group Responses - Current State by Question 134

Figure 4.18 Focus Group Responses - Current State by Subsystem 135

Figure 4.19 Focus Group Responses - Change from the Past by Question 136

Figure 4.20 Focus Group Responses - Change from the Past by Subsystem 136

Figure 5.1 Implications for Practice - Change Leaders 169

Figure 5.2 Implications for Practice - Chief Learning Officers 174

Figure 5.3 Implications for Practice – Managers 178

Figure 5.4 Implications for Practice - Chief Information Officers 181

Figure 5.5 Implications for Practice - Facility Managers 184

Figure 5.6 Implications for Practice - Internal Researchers 186

xi

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Definitions of Key Terms 23

Table 2.1 Definitions of Planned Change in the Research 33

Table 2.2 Definitions and Characteristics of Sustaining Organizational Change 36

Table 2.3 Definitions and Key Components of Organizational Learning Theory 53

Table 3.1 Summary of Research Design 65

Table 3.2 Initial Categories from OLSM 85

Table 4.1 Six-Phases of Thematic Analysis 94

Table 4.2 Overview of findings for Time 0 109

Table 4.3 Building Information 119

Table 4.4 Overview of findings for Time 1 123

Table 4.5 Employee Engagement Survey - Percent of Positive Responses 125

Table 4.6 Summary of Change Agent Interviews 130

Table 4.7 Focus Group Open Responses by Subsystem 138

Table 4.8 Focus Group Open Responses by High-Level Discussion Questions 140

Table 4.9 Summary of Direct Observations 142

Table 4.10 Overview of Findings for Time 2 144

Table 4.11 Overview of Findings by Time and Dyad 146

Table 5.1 Seven Conclusions that Address the Research Question 149

Table 5.2 Conceptual Model to Augment OLSM 167

Table 5.3 Recommendations for Future Research 189

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Overview

A recent search on Amazon.com for books related to change management brought

up over 30,000 results, all presenting a different take on change management based on

the authors’ experiences and beliefs. Everyone has his or her own “no-fail” change

management strategy. Change is becoming a normal part of organizational life, almost

mandatory for organizations to adapt to the rapidly changing environment and stay

relevant. All types of change are happening at a rapid pace and organizations must keep

up. Knudstorp, Maskus, Teece, & Christensen (2017) make the argument that, while

globalization at its most basic sense - international trade - has been around since the

Roman Empire, the digitalization of recent times has been transformative. The world has

basically moved from many alphabets to the alphabet of binary language. This move

means that collaboration and communication is easier and the transaction cost has been

significantly reduced. These advances have been the “death of distance” (Knudstorp et

al., 2017), resulting in significant and rapidly-changing environments that organizations

must respond to.

Yet, even with the need to change for sustained competitive advantage and

survival, the vast majority of change management efforts undertaken by organizations are

destined to have little impact. Success rates in some industries are as low as ten percent,

and the average failure rate of 70% has remained relatively static over the past 50 years

(Beer & Nohira, 2000; Burke, 2011; Burnes, 2009; Cope, 2003; Greiner, 1967; Grieves,

2

2000; Hammer & Champy, 1993; Hughes, 2011; Keller & Aiken, 2009; Kotter, 2008;

Maurer, 2010; Rogers, Meehan, & Tanner, 2006; Senturia, Flees, & Maceda, 2008).

In the literature, several scholars have posited why the rate of failure has been so

consistent and pervasive. First, change is complex, and there is no consensus on the

definition of change, how to manage it, or even if it can be managed (Mohrman &

Lawler, 2012; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). Second, because change is so

complex, the majority of research has focused on singular aspects of change in order to

make the study simple enough to measure (Pettigrew et al., 2001), thereby adding to that

lack of consensus. And finally, because of the segmented research, among other reasons,

there is a large gap between the science of organizational change and the practice of

changing organizations (Rynes & Bartunek, 2017; Chalofsky, 2004; Graham &

Kormanik, 2004; Keefer & Yap, 2007; Mohrman & Lawler, 2012; Pettigrew et al., 2001;

Suss, 2015). Several scholars address this practice-theory gap in literature argue that in

practitioner-dominated fields like organizational change and other management

disciplines, the gap is more significant since utilizing scholarly knowledge will improve

organizational practice and performance and knowledge of practice in the organizational

context will further theory (Rynes & Bartunek, 2017; Chalofsky, 2004; Rynes, Bartunek,

& Daft, 2001; Woodman, 1993). This disconnect between theory and practice means that

popular but antiquated change strategies are being used in practice without much success

(Mohrman & Lawler, 2012).

As scholars struggle to tackle the theoretical, practitioners are out in organizations

adapting to their environment and trying to make it work. They have no choice. As the

world around an organization changes, the organization must change and adapt to be

3

successful (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000). An organization must “learn to learn”

(Schein, 1991, p. 36). To maintain a competitive advantage, organizations will not only

need to learn from their successes and failures, but they will need to do it better and faster

than their competition. They will need to transform themselves to become “places where

groups and individuals continuously engage in new learning processes” (Schwandt &

Marquardt, 2000, p. 3).

Problem Statement

The concept of implementing organizational learning principles in an organization

to help individuals and groups “learn to learn” (Schein, 2017), thereby making the

ongoing adaptation and change that inevitably occurs in organizations that are more

successful, is an interesting problem to explore. While interesting, there are very few

studies that examine the sustainability of change in any context. Several theoretical

models incorporate the idea of sustaining, or institutionalizing, change (Abel &

Sementelli, 2005; Aitken, 2012; Albert & Picq, 2004; Ament, et al., 2012; Bain, Walker,

& Chan, 2011; Chidiac, 2013; Clark, 2003; Coburn, 2003; Cooper, 2001; Duffy, 2003;

Juciute, 2009; Julian & Kombarakaran, 2006; Karp, 2006; Lopez-Yanez & Sanchez-

Moreno, 2013; Saunders, 2003; Seidman & McCauley, 2009; Steenekamp, Botha, &

Moloi, 2012). But, very few empirical studies actually explore that concept.

The literature suggests two main reasons. First, systems-view, longitudinal

studies are needed to truly study change and do not happen regularly for practical

reasons. Some say that change only occurs when individuals in the open system (Katz &

Kahn, 1978) learn and change their beliefs and actions in response to new interactions

(Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). This type of change and

4

growth takes time. In fact, Barley & Tolbert (1997) say that all change is longitudinal.

Therefore, successfully addressing this gap requires a longitudinal, or historical, study.

However, longitudinal studies are typically more expensive to conduct and require more

of a time investment (Van de Ven & Huber, 1990).

Second, practitioners do not utilize the most recent and relevant research when

implementing change, and learning and academics do not leverage the contextual

knowledge of practitioners when researching change and learning, thus creating a

significant gap between theory and implementing change in practice (Mohrman &

Lawler, 2012; Pettigrew et al., 2001; Woodman, 1993). Research and practice need one

another; research needs to understand the various mechanics and components of change

in the messy, complex, real world, and change leaders in organizations need guidance,

based in theory, to help guide their decisions with the understanding of various theories

in play.

Based on the scholarly literature, this study makes a few assumptions. First,

organizational change is complex and difficult; organizations have difficulty making

large scale changes, including the development and sustainability of organizational

learning. The failure rate of change has held steady at about 70% for decades and, in

some instances, as high as 90% (Beer & Nohira, 2000; Burke, 2011; Burnes, 2004;

Carleton & Lineberry, 2004; Kotter, 1995; McKinsey, 2010; Probst & Raisch, 2005;

Trautlein, 2013). And, that failure rate is typically measured after the completion of the

change initiative - did the change initiative accomplish the stated objectives of the

initiative? These studies do not take into account organizations which achieved the stated

goals initially, but were unable to sustain the change or desired outcomes over time

5

(Amburgey, Kelly, & Barnett, 1993; Beer and Nohira, 2000; Burke, 2011; Burnes, 2004;

Carleton and Lineberry, 2004; McKinsey, 2011; Probst & Raisch, 2005; Trautlein, 2013).

Second, the context of the change is significant when comparing research and

utilizing that research for practice. Pettigrew et al. (2001) recommends that researchers

examine context, content, process, and outcomes when studying change. Most existing

change and sustainability research is conducted with for-profit organizations that have a

profit motive for succeeding in their change initiatives. This creates a gap for change and

sustainability in other contexts.

Based on these assumptions, it is clear that change is hard and often fails.

Further, the research that does exist on organizational learning and change does not

necessarily translate to government organizations because context is so important and

research does not exist for public sector agencies looking to implement organizational

learning or change. Because of this gap in the research, there is no current information

on how to enable a government agency to develop, incorporate, or sustain organizational

learning within their organization. This study focused on the U.S. Government context in

order to address this gap.

The way of doing business in the government is changing rapidly (Gleick, 2000).

Globalization, privatization of previous governmental functions, removing mandatory

sourcing constraints leading to increased competition within the government space,

information technology modernization, increased cybersecurity concerns, ever-evolving

governmental policies, increased polarization of the political parties, budget cuts, hiring

freezes, and potential government shutdowns all impact the pace of change, and require

government organizations to change, which increases their capacity to change and their

6

ability to learn (Bin Taher, Krotov, & Silva, 2015; Bruns, 2014; Cannaerts, Segers, &

Henderickx, 2016; Fry & Griswold, 2003; Kim & Yoon, 2015; Martin-Rios, 2016;

Onesti, Angiola, & Bianchi, 2016; Pokharel & Choi, 2015; Rainey, 1999; Tajeddini,

2016). Because of these differences, specifically the lack of competitive pressure,

government organizations have even more difficulty with transformative change, such as

implementing organizational learning.

Even with the increasing need for the government to embrace organizational

learning to enable and cope with the increasing pace and need to change, there is a lack of

research focusing on change and learning within the government context. Kuipers et al.

(2014) completed a literature review study of research focusing on change in the public

sector, and found that the literature provided few details on processes or outcomes of

change, and none looked at organizational learning as part of the change. Even though

most of the research in the public sector are case studies, there is no existing literature or

research explicitly focused on developing or sustaining organizational learning in a

government agency.

The current pace of change in the government means that the ability to implement

and sustain organizational change and learning is important. And yet, change fails, and

there is little empirical evidence from any context with which to inform practice. The

literature advises that utilizing a systems view and a longitudinal, or historical, study is

the best way to address the current research gaps and that context matters. In order to

address this gap, the site for this study will be a U.S. Government agency that

implemented a planned change five years ago that has successfully sustained the intended

behaviors and benefits of the change over the past five years. The change being study was

7

a move to an open workspace, with hoteling, or hotdesking, as well as increasing

telework and virtual work for a more dispersed workforce. Both of these changes

required a significant amount of learning and behavior change from the workforce. This

historical case study used the Organizational Learning Systems Model (OLSM)

(Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000) as a systems-based framework to examine how this

organizational learning, initiated by a planned change, was sustained in a U.S.

Government organization over time.

Purpose & Research Question



OLSM as a lens. To fulfill the purpose of this study, the following research question was

addressed: How did a government agency introduce and sustain organizational learning

during, and after, a planned change?

Significance of Study

The results from this study benefit the scholarly and practitioner community in

five ways. First, the research provides an in-depth look at a process of developing and

sustaining organizational learning in a government agency. Using the OLSM as a

framework, the various organizational learning components within the system were

explored to determine how, and to what extent, the learning components were sustained

over time. By taking a rare look at an organizational change from inception through two

years or more post-change, this comprehensive, historical look at the development and

sustainability of organizational learning in a government agency provides insights useful

to help close the research-practice gap.

8

Second, this study benefits research and practice by extending the scholarly

research on organizational learning and change by embracing a systems view and the

“yes/and” perspective of paradox (Akhtar & Khan, 2011; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009;

Bloodgood & Bongsug, 2010; Garcias, Dalmasso, & Sardas, 2015; Karrer & Fleck, 2015;

Laiken, 2003; Lewis, 2000; Luscher & Lewis, 2008; Smith & Lewis, 2011; Tosey, 2005),

looking at the sustainability of organizational learning over time through a historical case

study, and working within a government agency to examine organizational learning in

practice. For example, there is an underlying assumption in the research that a planned

change is also a linear, episodic change process in the vein of the assumptions around

Lewin’s (1951) three-step model of unfreezing, moving, and refreezing; that there is no

room in a planned change intervention for unanticipated consequences or complexity

(Pettigrew et al., 2001). However, Kilduff & Dougherty (2000) recommend questioning

assumptions. Just because planned change over the years has been seen as a more rigid,

positivist view of change does not mean it has to stay that way. In fact, even Lewin’s

model of change was much more in depth than it is typically considered today,

incorporating field theory, group dynamics, and action research with the three-step model

of change (Burnes, 2004; Schein, 1999). In order to ensure that this study provided the

intended value, the researcher followed the recommendations from various scholars

(Mohrman & Lawler, 2012; Pettigrew et al., 2001). Scholars recommend that researchers

look at change with an integrated systems view, encourage pluralism, and accept paradox

(Pettigrew et al., 2001). By utilizing the OLSM and looking at the organizational

learning change and sustainability from a systems perspective, the study, by definition,

needed to examine and accept the paradox and pluralism found in the organization.

9

Third, scholars express the need to conduct more longitudinal studies to really

understand change within the context of the organization and time (Barley & Tolbert,

1997; Pettigrew et al., 2001). There is a lack of research looking at the sustainability of

organizational learning over time, especially from the public sector context. While the

reasons for this gap may be a practical one of access, funding, and long term partnerships,

the need still exists (Pettigrew et al., 2001). While change agents and organizational

leaders may be interested in ensuring that their time and energy in creating organizational

learning is well spent and that organizational learning is embedded into the organization

long term, research rarely focuses on the sustainability, choosing instead to focus on the

change itself (Buchanan et al., 2005). The research addressed this need by looking at an

organization from three different points in time – during the initiation of the change,

immediately after the change, and present day, which was about five years after the

change. This historical look at the organization addresses the gaps in the current literature

and hopefully provides insights not previously encountered in research.

Fourth, this study addresses a gap in the research focusing on government

agencies and change. Government agencies have unique strengths and challenges when

it comes to organizational learning and change, meaning that the research focusing on

other types of organizations are not always relevant or transferable to a government

agency. Rainey (1999) broadly defines differences between private and public

organizations by their environmental characteristics (such as the lack of competitive

pressures or the amount of political influence), transactions between organization and

environment (such as the nature of the customer also being the tax payer), and the

structures and processes of organizations (such as the clarity of mission and the amount

10

of bureaucracy). These differences mean that research conducted within a different

context may not apply to the government context (Denscombe, 2014). By looking at a

government agency that seemed to have successfully sustained both a planned change

and certain elements of organizational learning, other agencies have a case study and

model to follow as they undertake their next, inevitable transformation change within

their agency. This study was designed to address gaps between theory and practice, as

well as gaps in the literature, based on the identified areas of this study’s significance. By

addressing the gaps identified above in this study, the findings are more relevant and

actionable for other government agencies looking to undergo the same transformation.

Finally, this case study helps operationalize the recommendation that, in order to

achieve relevance, researchers need to work with, and learn from, practitioners and

colleagues from other disciplines (Mohrman & Lawler, 2012); to help “organizations

navigate the turbulent waters [researchers] must commit to working collaboratively with

organizations [and] spend time becoming familiar with the world of organizational

practice” (Mohrman & Lawler, 2012, p 50). In this study, the researcher was also an

organization member and change agent. While this scholar-practitioner status could have

produced some additional bias, the value of studying organizational learning and change

from within an organization meant that the researcher was familiar with the

organizational practice, which informed both the design and research. This study, and the

resulting implications for practice, provides a model to other scholar-practitioners for

operationalizing research to add to theory and simultaneously close the gap between

research and practice.

11

Theoretical Framework

For over twenty years, individual learning in organizations has been discussed as

a critical element of an organization’s ability to change and survive (Crossan, Lane, &

White, 1999; Nonaka, 1991; Senge, 2006; Marsick & Watkins, 1999). This linkage

between individual learning and change is well established. More recently, learning at

other levels - group, team, organization - has experienced more of a focus (Akgun, Lynn,

& Byrne, 2003; Boeteng, 2011; Casey, 2005; Friedman, Lipshitz, & Popper, 2005;

Kontoghiorghes, Awbrey, & Feurig, 2005; Lines, 2005; Novis, DeBella, & Gould, 1995;

Schein, 1999; Schwandt, 1997; Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000; Senge, 2006). It has now

become widely accepted that learning at all levels is a key success factor that allows

organizations to adapt to changing environments and markets (Argote & Miron-Spektor,

2011; Hilden & Tikkamäki, 2013; Lyytinen, Rose, & Yoo, 2010; van Grinsven & Visser,

2011).

While this linkage is clear in the literature for organizational change and

organizational learning, the literature is not yet as clear on the relationship between

organizational learning and organizational change over time. Most reviews of the

organizational learning literature did not deal explicitly with the topic of time (Fiol &

Lyles 1985; Levitt & March, 1988; Huber, 1991; Dodgson, 1993; Easterby-Smith, 1997;

Easterby-Smith et al., 1999; Örtenblad, 2002; Karataş-Özkan & Murphy, 2010; Argote &

Miron-Spektor, 2011). As a result, the empirical and theoretical papers that deal with the

role of time in relation to organizational learning is still incomplete. For this reason, this

study used two theoretical concepts to frame the study. The first was planned change;

specifically, the sustainability of planned change over time. Buchanan et al. (2005)

12

defined sustainability of a planned change as “the maintenance of new working practices,

structures, systems, cultures, and performance improvements for an appropriate period”

(p. 190).

The second concept was organizational learning. Schwandt (1993) defines

organizational learning as “a system of actions, actors, symbols, and processes that

enables an organization to transform information into valued knowledge which, in turn,

increases its long-run capacity” (p. 8). Both definitions include similar elements such

as systems, processes, and a concept of time.

In order to examine the linkage and relationship between these two concepts, a

model is necessary. Therefore, these two concepts were examined through the lens of an

organizational learning model. Burke and Noumair (2015) define several criteria when

looking for a model to guide research. First, the researcher should choose a model that

they fully understand and that is comfortable to work with. Second, the chosen model

should fit the organization being researched as closely as possible. And finally, the

model should be comprehensive enough to facilitate the collection of data to address the

research question.

The model that guided this study was Schwandt and Marquardt’s (2000) OLSM.

It met all three of the guidelines mentioned above. First, the model is extraordinarily

comprehensive as it relates to the ability to facilitate the collection of data. However, it

has successfully simplified the complex systems-view of the organization so that the

model can be easily understood at a high level. Second, the model not only aligned to the

themes that emerged through this organizational learning literature, but also so closely

matched the change management activities of the organization that it appeared there was

13

a purposeful alignment. Finally, because of the systems mentality, the model is suitable

for relating to a real-life organization during a case-study research looking at the

organization from that systems perspective.

The OLSM model is founded in Parsons’ General Theory of Social Action with

the premise that both performance and learning have the capacity to change an

organization (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000). Parsons was known for operating under the

paradigm of what he called “structural functionalism” (Parsons & Shils, 1951). While

the structural-functional paradigm received extensive critiques over the years (Turner &

Holton, 2014), Parsons (1951) was clear that the important characteristic of the structural-

functional paradigm is its use of the system being studied without a complete knowledge

of all of the laws that govern the processes within the system. This paradigm allowed

Parsons to mobilize what was known in order to explain the process in the system and

identify problems for additional research to further the knowledge of the system (Parsons,

1951). This concept of explaining and solving problems and understanding that the larger

system may not be fully understood, aligns well with the concept of pragmatism, which is

the theoretical foundation of this study (Creswell, 2012). According the Creswell (2012),

pragmatism, as a worldview, is based more in actions and consequences instead of

antecedent conditions; there is a concern for what works to define processes and solve

problems.

Since it is based on Parsons Theory, the OLSM shares the same paradigmatic

underpinnings. The OLSM involves four key components: environmental interface,

action/reflection, memory/meaning, and dissemination/diffusion. According to this

model, the learning at the organizational level occurs within those four components. The

14

premise for the researcher is that the actual learning is not observable; not every law in

the system is knowable. However, by observing the interaction of these four

components, the researcher can draw conclusions about how the organization learns. As

illustrated in Figure 1.1., Schwandt and Marquardt (2000) posit the observable

interactions between the four components, which are discussed in more detail below.

Figure 1.1. Theoretical Model: The Organizational Learning System Model

© 2000 David Schwandt and Michael J. Marquardt.

The OLSM defines organizational learning through four interdependent learning

subsystems: environmental interface, action/ reflection, dissemination and diffusion, and

memory and meaning. The actions manifested in the environmental interface subsystem

are actions that scan the external environment and bring in select inputs to the

organization. The action/ reflection subsystem includes actions such as decision-making

and problem solving processes with the aim of producing knowledge that will benefit and

sustain the organization. The dissemination and diffusion subsystem includes actions

designed to enhance the movement of information and knowledge throughout the

15

organization’s system. This includes actions such as leadership processes,

communications, and structural changes. Actions aligned to the memory and meaning

subsystem include things such as making of policy and procedures, organizational

culture, and knowledge management processes.

As mentioned, one cannot observe the actual learning. So, in order to convert the

model from theoretical to concrete, Schwandt and Marquardt (2000) identified outputs

for each learning subsystem that can be observed. These outputs, referred to as

“interchange medium outputs”, give the researcher the opportunity to use the framework

as an analytic framework.

For instance, the output for the environmental interface subsystem is new

information. With the role of the environmental interface subsystem being to scan the

environment for select inputs, it makes sense that those inputs from the environment are

“new information”, at least from the organization’s perspective. Goal reference

knowledge is the product resulting from the organization’s action to adapt through

learning in order to sustain the organization, which occurs in the action/ reflection

subsystem.

Structuring mechanisms are what allow for information and knowledge to move

within the learning systems and the organization itself. So, the dynamic concept of

structuring is the output of the dissemination and diffusion subsystem. Pattern

maintenance is the main function of the memory and meaning subsystem. Sensemaking,

the final medium output, is important to the sustainability of the organization. Without

sensemaking, the outputs from the other subsystems are not integrated into the

organization and its learning system.

16

This research explored the sustainability of organizational learning in a planned

change context. The OLSM framework makes sense as the theoretical framework for

several reasons. Most notably, the definition of sustainability of change for the purposes

of this research involves the maintenance of new working practices, structures, systems,

cultures, and performance improvements. Sustainability is seen a process to be managed,

not a condition to be achieved. Based on the overview of the subsystems and media

outputs defined above, working practices, structures, systems, cultures, and performance

are all accounted for within the OLSM model. Below (Figure 1.2), the conceptual

framework shows how the OLSM model was used to analyze the planned change and the

associated sustainability activities and within a comprehensive framework that already

incorporates elements of learning, change, and sustainability.

Figure 1.2. Conceptual Framework: Planned Change and Organizational

Learning

17

Summary of Methodology

Merriam (2009) defines case study as an “in-depth description and analysis of a

bounded system” (p. 40). McCaslin & Scott (2003) describe case study also as in-depth,

but define it with an emphasis on the broader context or bigger system in which the

phenomenon being studied sits. Yin (2014) states that case studies are for those who are

looking for the answers to the “how” and “why” questions. This study sought to provide

an in-depth description on the how and why of organizational learning, sustained over

time, initiated by a planned change, and within the overarching organizational system.

Using Yin (2014) as a framework, this research study took a historical view of

organizational learning, capturing multiple perspectives, experiences, and the

complexities of the change through a variety of data collection and analysis methods,

focusing on both historical and current data. Creswell (2014) states that the pragmatic

researcher tends to focus on problems of practice and use “all approaches available to

understand the problem” (p. 10). Given this researcher’s pragmatic worldview and the

goals of this study to address the research-practice gaps, among others, case study

seemed to be the appropriate research method. The following summary outlines the

research methodology, which is detailed further in Chapter Three.

Site selection

Taking a systems view when examining an organization does not limit the type of

organization that can be used as a site. To address the problem statement of

sustainability, the researcher wanted to study an organization that had successfully

managed a change and, at least on the surface, sustained that change over time. Since

18

this look at an organization over time requires a historical focus, access to historical data

and artifacts as well as the current employee population was important.

The chosen site was a U.S. Government organization. About 4,000 people were

directly impacted by the change and approximately 8,000 people were indirectly

impacted. The change studied met the definition of planned change in that the direction

for change came directly from the top leader in the organization in response to

environmental changes. The decision to change was made about one year prior to the

actual date of change, to allow for change management and preparation. This study

observed the organization approximately five years after the conclusion of the change

initiatives.

For the purposes of this research, a convenience sample of one U.S. Government

organization that has undergone a planned change within the last two years was studied.

The study site was also the researcher’s place of employment so it was easier to develop

the trust with participants and gain the full access needed to accomplish the study.

Data collection

Data collection methods for this study include historical document analysis,

interviews, and focus groups. The organization has qualitative and quantitative data from

before, during, and after the change that the researcher was able to review and analyze.

Individual, one-on-one interviews with the key personnel responsible for the change and

managing the new environment after the change were conducted. Focus groups with

employees and supervisors who experienced the change were conducted. An individual

interview and focus group interview guide containing structured questions around each of

the four interaction elements from the OLSM model was designed so that interviews

19

were guided conversations to elicit participants’ descriptions of their perceptions on how,

and to what degree, the planned organizational change has become an embedded part of

the new organizational reality. The structure was essential for a consistent experience for

each interview and focus group. Additionally, open-ended and probing questions were

developed for the researcher to facilitate conversation and draw out descriptive detail

during the interviews.

Data collection also entails direct observation that allows the researcher to

observe behaviors and examine policies and processes that are in place post-change. The

researcher was able to compare the present-day observations with the document analysis

section to help identify more of the change that occurred that may not have been fleshed

out in the interviews or focus groups. An observation guide was created to ensure the

researcher captured observations that aided in analysis, using the OLSM model as the

lens. As qualitative investigation involves a prolonged period of time immersed in

fieldwork (Merriam, 2009), the researcher conducted multiple observations over a six-

week time frame.

Data analysis

Data analysis was an ongoing and iterative process. Throughout the process of

producing descriptive statistics from the historical quantitative data, and transcribing

audio recordings, recording observational notes, and analyzing documents, notes were

recorded to highlight insights and ideas gleaned from the data. Field notes, personal

memos, correspondence with participants, and transcribed interview recordings were

organized and saved on a password protected, cloud-based filing system on the

researcher’s Google Drive offered through the George Washington University. Line by

20

line transcribed data was segmented and coded into appropriate themes. A master list of

codes was kept with the first transcript and was subsequently revised and reapplied to

future segments of data. Inductive codes were developed as the researcher examined the

data. Enumeration was done by counting frequent words and phrases across all data

points and was selectively illustrated visually in a word cloud, presented in Chapter Four

(Miles & Huberman, 1994). Diagrams and matrices depicting the relationships in the

data are also presented.

Limitations and Delimitations

This study was limited beyond the researcher’s control in a number of ways. First,

the study was looking back at a change that occurred over five years ago and therefore

has a retrospective view. The researcher had no control over the movement of employees

in or out of the organization during the period of interest. There could have been

individuals who left the organization after going through the change and there could have

been employees who joined the organization after the change had already occurred.

However, since this research was examining the learning at the organizational level, this

limitation did not necessarily impact the findings. Second, the researcher had no control

over the policies and/or priorities the leadership defined for the organization. The impact

of these policies and priorities was a topic for examination in the research, but there was

no control over whether the policies and procedures supported or worked against the

change effort being studied. However, this is true of many organizations - not all

leadership is always working toward the same strategic goals. The benefit of the case

study methodology was that the researcher was able to explore the topic in depth in a

real-life setting. While it increased the level of complexity observed, the observations

21

were much more in line with organizational realities. Third, the researcher had no control

over the participation rates in both the interviews and focus groups. There was past

information about participation rates at this organization, so steps were taken to invite

enough employees to provide for meaningful information from those who did participate.

Fortunately, a large part of this case study included gathering historical data and

observing the current organization, both of which were not limited by participation, only

by the availability of information and the researcher’s own observation skills. Fourth,

there was no guarantee that participants would be able to effectively convey their

thoughts and perceptions. The pragmatic approach taken in this research to use all

possible approaches to examine the problem helped to mitigate this potential limitation.

Additionally, the benefit of addressing the dearth of longitudinal research in the

organizational change literature was a tradeoff for the potential limitation of participant

recall. Fifth, participants may have spoken to one another during the six-week time

frame about the questions asked in the interviews and focus groups. This may or may not

have had an impact on the answers received from participants. The risk of cross-

contamination was mitigated by completing all of the focus groups in a very short time

frame to reduce the ability for the interview or focus group questions to casually come up

in conversation. While that short time frame introduced the risk of a lower participation

rate, the researcher was confident that saturation would be reached, which was eventually

confirmed through data analysis. Finally, the historical data gathered by the organization

before, during, and after the change is set. This researcher had no control over the

questions asked, the method of data collection, or the way the data was cleansed. There

22

might have been some issues of self-reporting and social desirability embedded into the

historical data.

Delimitations are driven by the researcher’s study criteria. For the purposes of this

research study the delimitations focus mostly on the site selection. The site selected for

this study was a U.S. Government, mid-sized, civilian agency. Organizational change

may be managed and sustained differently in a non-profit, public, or private company, or

even in a defense-centric government agency. Additionally, this researcher was also an

employee of the organization and was impacted by the change being studied. While this

helped create a level of access into the organization not necessarily available to an

outside researcher, it also created delimitation where bias needed to be carefully

managed.

23

Definitions of Key Terms

Table 1.1.

Definitions of Key Terms

Key Term Definition Author(s) (Year)

Planned Change

A change that is triggered by a relevant environmental shift that, once sensed by the organization, leads to an intentionally generated response. This intentional response is "planned organizational change" and consists of four identifiable, interrelated components: (a) a change intervention that alters (b) key organizational target variables that then impact (c) individual organizational members and their on-the-job behaviors resulting in changes in (d) organizational outcomes.

Porras & Silvers (1991)

Organizational Learning

A system of actions, actors, symbols, and processes that enables an organization to transform information into valued knowledge which in turn increases its long-run capacity.

Schwandt (1993)

Sustaining Change

Sustainability involves, broadly, the maintenance of new working practices, structures, systems, cultures, and performance improvements, for an appropriate period. Sustainability is a process to be managed, not a condition to be achieved and depends on the organizational context.

Buchanan et al. (2005)

24

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The literature review first addresses the historical development of organizational

change, looking specifically at planned change. The second section examines the

existing research in sustaining organizational change; the lenses and methodologies used,

and the main findings. Before diving into the organizational learning literature, in

general, or the OLSM model specifically, the third section explores how each of the four

learning concepts found within the OLSM relate to change in the literature. The fourth

section reviews the organizational learning literature and the distinctions between the

organizational learning theory and the literature around becoming a learning

organization. The fifth section explores the OLSM used as the theoretical framework for

this study. The foundations for this model are explored, the four components are defined,

and findings from prior quantitative and qualitative research using the OLSM model are

summarized. The final section considers the context of this particular study, the public

sector. The relevant literature regarding organizational learning and change in the public

sector is reviewed, in addition to other issues to contemplate when researching within the

government context.

The selection of articles for this review consists mostly of scholarly, peer-

reviewed journal articles written in English after 1951. Lewin’s (1951) three-step change

theory introduced the concept of sustainability in change through his discussions of

“refreezing” after an organizational change. Even though some seminal articles or key

articles used to show the evolution of change over time were from the 1950s through the

25

1980s, the majority of articles focused on 1990 to present day. Peter Senge’s The Fifth

Discipline (2006) marked the beginning of an increased interest in a systems view of

learning and a focus on building “learning cultures” in organizations (Garvin,

Edmondson, & Gino, 2008; Örtenblad, 2013). Similarly in the change literature, Chin

and Benne (1989) introduced their three change strategies for planned change within the

book, The Planning of Change, which they compiled with Warren Bennis. Shortly

thereafter, Porras & Silvers (1991) wrote about change through organizational

development interventions about that same time. Starting from 1990, both the change

and organizational learning literature was full of theoretical and empirical research,

including how those two bodies of literature interacted with one another.

Multiple library searches were conducted using the Internet search tool from The

Gelman Library at The George Washington University. The search spanned multiple

databases of journal articles, books, and dissertations using the following tools: ProQuest

Education Journals, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, ABI/INFORM Complete, EBSCO

Host, JSTOR, Google Scholar, and Dissertations and Theses Online. The literature

selected for this study represents a mix of both seminal and contemporary views on the

learning organization. Search terms included a combination of the following, but are not

limited to: organizational change, planned change, sustaining change, organizational

learning, environment impact and change, reflection and change, structuration and

change, sensemaking and change.

26

Organizational Change

History of Change Literature

Since the concept of organizations as open systems by Katz & Kahn (1978),

organizational change has been studied from many angles. Whether looking at the nature

of change, the inputs or outputs of change, the triggers or levers of change, or the

strategies and advice for managing change, there is research to support almost any point

of view.

Research claims that change can be planned (Chin & Benne, 1989) or emergent

(Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). It can be regular and incremental (Klarner & Raisch, 2013;

Michel, 2014). Others talk about change in terms of punctuated equilibrium (Romanelli

& Tushman, 1994; Gersick, 1991, 1994). Still others argue that change is a continuous

state (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Michel, 2014; March, 1991).

Depending on the assumption regarding the nature of change, there are several

inputs to change. Katz and Kahn (1978) discussed several inputs that are still studied

today: environment, roles, models, power, social factors technology, and more. March

(1991) expanded on the idea of the environment as an input stating that most change is in

response to environmental forces. Outputs are studied in various ways as well,

depending on the nature of change. Planned change tends to look at organizational

performance and individual development as a result from typical organizational

development interventions (Porras & Silvers, 1991). Golembiewski, Billingsley, and

Yeager (1976) defined change outcomes in terms of alpha, beta, and gamma magnitudes.

Others defined potential outcomes in terms of behaviors. Reaction to the change

could be a behavioral outcome, either resistance or silence (Amburgey et al., 1993;

27

Hannan & Freeman, 1984; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Piderit, 2000). Employee and

managerial sensemaking could also be an outcome of change (Lockett, Currie, Finn,

Martin, & Waring, 2014; Luscher & Lewis, 2008; Mantere, Schildt, & Sillince, 2012;

Weick, 1995). Individual, group, and/or organizational learning is another potential

output of change (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011; Cordery et al., 2015; Crossan et al.,

1999; Piderit, 2000; Powell et al., 1996). In fact, Powell et al. (1996) argued that change

cannot occur without learning. Finally, the concept of ambidexterity, or the “yes, and”

mentality could also be an outcome of change as the organization make sense of

seemingly opposite qualities that occur in the organization at the same time

(Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; March, 1991; Miles & Snow, 2003; O’Reilly & Tushman,

2013).

Other researchers focused on offering advice based on their own assumptions

about the nature of change. The advice tended to fall into a few broad categories. The

first category focused on maximum involvement of organizational members. Developing

a shared vision, empowering others, allowing for improvement throughout the change,

creating change agent networks, and helping people with the paradox were all concepts

that fell into this category (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012; Chin & Benne, 1989; Smets,

Morris, & Greenwood, 2012; Smith & Lewis, 2011). The second major category had to

deal with understanding and adapting to the complexity of change. This included

encouraging pluralism, questioning assumptions, planning for unanticipated

consequences, and dealing with acceleration of change (Glynn, Barr, & Dacin, 2000;

Kilduff & Dougherty, 2000; McKinley & Scherer, 2000; Pettigrew et al., 2001; Plowman

et al., 2007).

28

As the study of change has evolved from the seminal work of Katz and Kahn

(1978), several interesting developments have occurred. First, a few of the concepts

introduced by Katz and Kahn have become a given in contemporary research. Second,

follow on research introduced seemingly contradictory concepts to those found in Katz

and Kahn. Finally, more recently, the concept of paradox and complex adaptive systems

have emerged, offering an alternative to the simplistic, dyadic concepts of “either/or.”

Building off of Katz and Kahn, research began to confront the concepts introduced.

Evolution of Change Research

Several initial concepts introduced in Katz and Kahn were studied. For instance,

Chin and Benne (1989) built upon the concept of an organization as an open system,

where individuals, and their individual motives, are the input for human organizations.

They looked at the concept of motivation and posited three specific motivations that

facilitate change: self-interest, personal values, and fear (responding to power or

coercion).

March (1981) also chose to build upon the concept of organizations as an open

system, this time focusing on the concept that an organization is dependent on its

environment. March introduced the idea that change is not wholly controllable, stating,

“understanding organizational change requires discovering the connections between the

apparently prosaic and the apparently poetic in organizational life” (pg. 575). This

statement by March foreshadowed some of the more complexity-based research to come.

At that time, the research was just beginning to question the idea that change was not as

mechanistic and rote as Katz and Kahn might have thought. However, it was clear that

organizations as open systems was becoming an underlying assumption for all change

29

research. What was once a radical conclusion was now a baseline assumption for all

research.

Van de Ven and Poole (1995) also challenged some of the concepts in Katz and

Kahn. They identified four theories of organizational change that seemed to challenge

the idea that change is planned and driven by organizational efficiency. Van de Ven and

Poole (1995) talked about change being imminent, evolutionary, conflict driven (between

status quo and oppositions to stability), and goal oriented. While this still reflects an

“either/or” mentality, the complex nature of organizations began to be revealed.

Through the research, several dyadic questions emerged. Are changes planned or

are they emergent? Is change static and episodic or is it dynamic and nonlinear? Is

change incremental in nature or revolutionary? Before long, the research began to

answer these either/or questions with “yes.”

Organizational Change is Complex and Messy

Amburgey et al. (1993) concluded in their research that organizational change is

adaptive and disruptive; that change is not uniform and cannot be neatly packaged. They

saw change as a mix of structure, persistence, and flexibility. Gersick (1994) really

started questioning the dyadic nature of previous research by asking if managers could

focus both on implementing change no matter what, and be adaptable to changing

business realities as needed. Through exploring the answer to this question, Gersick

developed her ideas around temporal and event-based pacing, and how both types of

pacing within an organization can help obtain both consistency and adaptation within the

organization.

30

Romanelli and Tushman (1994) introduced the concept of punctuated equilibrium,

explaining how a change disrupts the structured routines. This research ultimately ties

back again to Katz and Kahn and their concept of roles and role conflict. Romanelli and

Tushman posit that there will always be tension between those who are responsible for

enacting changes and those responsible for maintaining organizational stability.

Change in Open Systems

As the evolution of organizational change research continued, new concepts were

introduced. Barley and Tolbert (1997) introduced the concept of institutional theory –

how schemes, rules, norms, etc. become established within an institution. Since

institutions are social structures, the idea of social change was also introduced for the first

time. In Barley and Tolbert’s research, there is also some foreshadowing of the paradox

theories to come; they talk about institutions arising from, and being constrained by,

social behavior and action. While at first glance those two roles of social behavior seem

contradictory, the research and discussion shows how that is the case.

Piderit (2000) focuses on the concept of overcoming resistance to change and how

simply overcoming resistance is not enough. Piderit posits that one must also generate

support and enthusiasm for a change to be successful. This brings home the idea of

democratic change; one cannot simply plan and dictate a change to take the organization

from point A to point B, one must create a groundswell of support. From a social

constructivist lens, Powell et al. (1996) introduces the concepts of innovation and

learning, and how change cannot be understood without understanding innovation and

learning. Powell et al. talk about a “locus of innovation” and “networks of learning,”

31

again supporting other research that introduces this idea of a bottom-up, democratic

change process.

The research is gaining an understanding that organizations, and change within

organizations, are more complex than provided for in the seminal works. Moreover, it is

more complex on several different levels. The concepts introduced in Katz and Kahn,

such as motivation, roles, environment, and others are foundational to the research as it

evolves, but divergences from the more mechanistic, simple view described by Katz and

Kahn.

As the evolution of the change literature continues, there is evidence of a greater

understanding of the true complex nature of open, social systems. Readers are introduced

to concepts such as complex adaptive systems (Buckley, 1968), organizational becoming

(Tsoukas & Chia, 2002), and paradox (Luscher & Lewis, 2008; Lewis, 2000; Smith &

Lewis, 2011). Lewis (2000) explores the concept of paradox through the lens of

complexity and ambiguity. Luscher and Lewis (2008) expand on the idea of paradox by

focusing on how it relates to managerial sensemaking and change. They explain that it is

important to not eliminate the paradox by treating it like a problem to be solved. Instead,

they recommend helping managers make sense of the paradox so they can live

comfortably with the paradox. Smith and Lewis (2011) further expand on the idea of

paradox by presenting a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing and arguing that

cyclical responses to the tension of paradox can actually enable peak organizational

performance and sustainability. The idea of “either/or” has now been replaced by the

idea of “and.”

32

Tsoukas and Chia (2002) describe change as “the reweaving of actors’ webs of

beliefs and habits of action as a result of new experiences obtained through interactions”

(pg. 570). They present this concept that change is a normal condition of life and

happens continuously. This concept of perpetual change – the idea that striving to

change from point A to point B is pointless because point B moves before the goal is

reached – is a common theme. The journey through time pauses in the present day with

an understanding that continuity and change are occurring simultaneously; that it is The

Great Paradox.

Planned Change

Planned change has been studied in the research for decades and has been defined

in several different ways. Table 1.1 shows how planned change has been defined through

the research. For the purposes of this study, planned change is defined as a change that is

triggered by a relevant environmental shift that, once sensed by the organization, leads to

an intentionally generated response (Porras & Silvers, 1991). The key component of a

planned change is that it is a deliberate decision to change in response to an

organizational need. The linear start-stop implications of some definitions of planned

change are not consistent with the systems view and the OLSM model this research uses

as its lens. The definition chosen to define a planned change does not limit the ability to

embrace the concept of paradox. A planned change can begin with an organizational

need defined by management, but does not necessarily have a clearly defined start and

stop and is not necessarily a linear, step-by-step process.

33

Table 2.1.

Definitions of Planned Change in the Research

Author(s) (Year) Definition of Planned Change

Porras & Silvers (1991)

A change triggered by a relevant environmental shift that, once sensed by the organization, leads to an intentionally generated response. This intentional response is "planned organizational change" and consists of four identifiable, interrelated components: (a) a change intervention that alters (b) key organizational target variables that then impact (c) individual organizational members and their on-the-job behaviors resulting in changes in (d) organizational outcomes.

Porras & Robertson (1992)

Planned change is “a set of behavioral science-based theories, values, strategies, and techniques aimed at the planned change of the organizational work setting for the purpose of enhancing individual development and improving organizational performance, through the alteration of organizational members’ on-the-job behaviors” (p. 723).

Grieves (2000) An initiative requiring change to critical organizational processes that, in turn, influence individual behaviors, which ultimately impact organizational outcomes

Chapman (2002) Planned change can include a change in process or organizational structure, changes in desired employee behavior, or a more transformational change involving a change in values, beliefs, and attitudes

Chin & Benne (1989)

Change in which attempts to bring about change are conscious, deliberate, and intended, at least on the part of one or more agents related to the change attempt

The study of change has, in fact, evolved. Even still, there are areas and

components of the field that require further review. One of these areas is the apparent

disconnect between the scholarly research and what is being used to implement change

initiatives in organizations today (Mohrman & Lawler, 2012). Perhaps this disconnect

has to do with researchers not having operational experience to see how the theories

function in practice.

Mohrman and Lawler (2012) talk about research relevance and how, to be

relevant, researchers need to work with, and learn from, practitioners and collaborate

with colleagues from other disciplines, such as management, to ensure the research can

34

be put into practice and used. “Research is used when it connects to practice and fits the

context practitioner’s experience” (pp 49).

Pettigrew et al. (2001) identified six different areas where the organizational

change literature remains underdeveloped. One that speaks to this disconnect includes an

increased partnership, evident in the research, between scholars and practitioners. In

today’s fast-paced business environment, successful change initiatives are of interest to

organizations; focusing more research with this element in mind might help to close the

gap in evolution between the scholarly research and organizational change in practice.

While the newest concepts of complexity and change are important advances in

the understanding organizational change, most organizational leaders are still looking for

practical advice and information on directing a planned change that moves them toward

their strategic goals. For that reason, this study will be exploring a planned change, while

recognizing the open system nature of change and learning by exploring planned change

through an organizational learning lens.

The literature defines planned change in a variety of ways and each definition

handles the complexity of organizations differently (see Table 1.1). Some definitions of

planned change do not address the idea of real organizations being complex at all (Chin

& Benne, 1989; Porras & Robertson, 1992; Porras & Silvers, 1991). Others recognize

the complex nature of organizations but also recognize the need for organizations to

make strategic decisions and implement change as a practical matter (Chapman, 2002;

Grieves, 2000). In response to the literature that shows a gap between theory and

practice (Mohrman & Lawler, 2012; Pettigrew et al., 2001), in addition to this

researcher’s pragmatic point of view, the definition of planned change chosen to guide

35

this research is a change that is “triggered by a relevant environmental shift that, once

sensed by the organization, leads to an intentionally generated response. This intentional

response is ‘planned organizational change’ and consists of four identifiable, interrelated

components: (a) a change intervention that alters (b) key organizational target variables

that then impact (c) individual organizational members and their on-the-job behaviors

resulting in changes in (d) organizational outcomes” (Porras & Silvers, 1991).

This definition has a baseline assumption that organizations are open systems, as

evident by the concept that an environmental shift is the impetus for the change. The

definition speaks to organizational leadership’s ability and desire to develop strategic

targets as the desired outcome of the change, as evident in the first two components

outlined in the definition. Finally, this definition brings the definition back to the

organizational level, which is important for this research since the level of analysis is at

the organizational level. The next section discusses the literature and definitions of

sustaining change and builds on this definition of planned change in that a planned

change where the desired organizational outcomes are sustained over time is what this

research is exploring.

Sustaining Organizational Change

The concept of sustaining change may seem like an oxymoron to some.

However, Lewin (1951) introduced the concept of sustaining change over 60 years ago.

Lewin stressed that a change toward a higher level of group performance is frequently

short lived; as soon as the active change interventions cease, the organization soon

returns to the previous level. Therefore, it is not sufficient to define the objective of a

planned change as increased performance; the actual permanency of the change, or

36

permanency for a desired period, should be part of the objective of change. According to

Lewin (1951), successful change therefore includes three aspects: unfreezing (if

necessary) the present state, moving to the new state, and freezing at the new state. Only

by striving and achieving the desired level of permanency is the change made relatively

secure against returning to the previous state (Lewin, 1951).

The literature is full of various definitions of sustaining change (see Table 2.2).

Whether the term is refreezing after a change, institutionalizing the change, embedding

the change, or some other term, the concept is the same. Sustainability of a change

involves “the maintenance of new working practices, structures, systems, cultures, and

performance improvements, for an appropriate period” (Buchanan et al., 2005). The

research indicates that Lewin was ahead of his time. While there were points in the

literature where the simplicity of Lewin’s model was critiqued as being too simplistic,

more recently, some prominent scholars have come to believe that Lewin’s model is

deceivingly simplistic and it is that simplicity that allows the model to fit the more

complex understanding of organizations today (Burnes, 2004; Marshak, 1993; Schein,

1999).

Table 2.2.

Definitions and Characteristics of Sustaining Organizational Change

Author(s) / Year Definitions of Sustaining Change

Merriam-Webster To provide what is needed for something or someone to exist, continue, etc.

Lewin (1951) A change toward a higher level of group performance is frequently short lived; after a “shot in the arm”, group life soon returns to the previous level. This indicates that it does not suffice to define the objective of a planned change in group performance as the reaching of

37

a different level. Permanency of the new level, or permanency for a desired period, should be included in the objective. A successful change therefore includes three aspects: unfreezing (if necessary) the present level L1, moving to the new level L2, and freezing group life on the new level. Since any level is determined by a force field, permanency implies that the new force field is made relatively secure against change.

Stjernberg & Philips (1993)

Diffusion of organizational traits that were the subject of the change

Kotter (1995)

Changes need to become part of the corporate culture, a process that can take five to ten years. Until new behaviors are rooted in social norms and shared values, they are subject to degradation as soon as the pressure for change is removed.

Rimmer, Macneil, Chenhall, Smith, & Watts (1996)

Sustainability is influenced by social conventions which in turn reflect the extent to which best practice has been diffused as a normal business modus operandi. Sustainability is affected by wider social norms, beyond the direct control of the individual organization

Dale, Boaden, Wilcox, & McQuater (1997)

Maintaining a process of quality improvement

Senge, et al. (1999)

Sustaining any profound change process requires a fundamental shift in thinking. We need to understand the nature of growth processes and how to catalyze them. But we also need to understand the forces and challenges that impede progress, and to develop workable strategies for dealing with these challenges. We need to appreciate “the dance of change”, the inevitable interplay between growth processes and limiting processes

Datnow & Stringfield (2000)

Effective implementation of sustainable change is not a straightforward process by which design teams simply "insert" innovations into organizations. Rather, it is a process in which real people at various levels of the system work together in a coordinated way over time for a shared aim or purpose.

Howard & Howard (2000)

Dimensions of success in sustaining change are accountability, decision making, information, knowledge, skills, and resource mobilization.

Senge & Kaeufer (2000)

A stage in the longer-term process which begins with implementation and diffusion, then follows with continuous improvement

38

Center for Mental Health in the Schools (2001)

Addressed sustainability in terms of creating "strong arguments" for the viability of an intervention/program. Strong arguments focus on identifying specific functions essential to achieving valued goals, connecting functions to the vision and mission of the organization being asked to sustain the intervention and clarifying the cost-effective strategies.

Wolff (2001) in Julian & Kombarakaran (2006)

The goal of implementation and sustainability involves institutionalizing an initiative through the development of key relationships and the acquisition and application of a variety of resources.

Jacobs (2002) Institutionalization is change that has “relative endurance” and “staying power over a length of time”, or that “has become part of the ongoing, everyday activities of the organization”.

Clark (2003)

Three dynamics of sustained change: reinforcing interaction among transforming elements; perpetual momentum resulting from steady accumulation of incremental changes; and ambitious volition embedded in the org as collective commitment and institutional will.

Partnerships for Success (2003)

Suggested seven avenues for sustaining interventions/programs: explicit statement of mission, adoption of a results orientation, utilization of entrepreneurial skills, well developed management practices, strong community support, integration of new activities into existing structures, and on-going planning and program improvement activities.

Walston & Chadwick (2003)

Achieved through full participation of the majority of managers and employees in the change, and their belief in the ultimate value of the changes. Sustainability rests largely on subjective assessments of the initiative's outcomes and such perceptions may vary significantly by organization level and may not be stable over time.

Buchanan et al. (2005)

Sustainability involves, broadly, the maintenance of new working practices, structures, systems, cultures, and performance improvements, for an appropriate period. Sustainability is a process to be managed, not a condition to be achieved and depends on the organizational context.

Hargreaves and Fink (2006)

When a process of social change becomes sustainable, people perceive it in ways that do not harm but develop and improve existing practices, creating positive benefits for all, "now and in the future"

Julian & Kombarakaran

Sustainability evolves out of successful implementation and focuses on institutionalization of an intervention/program and subsequent

39

(2006) evolution and renewal.

Kaplan, Calman, Golub, Ruddock, & Billings (2006)

There is some debate about what sustainability means in this context - whether it refers to a particular program, the benefits that result from the effort, the relationships are formed among the partners, or the capacity and skills that have been developed.

Kaplan et al. (2006)

Focused more on developing a capacity and commitment among its members, who could then continue to initiate, support, and refine ongoing efforts to achieve initiative goals. Sustainability, defined in this dynamic way, is dependent on the coalition members' developing an institutional commitment to the coalition's goals that extends beyond the implementation of a specific funded program.

Vidović & Bjeliš (2006)

Sustained success lies in harmonizing different components of management to be mutually reinforcing.

Hargreaves (2007) To share, create, and apply new knowledge continuously over time in cultures of mutual learning and continuous innovation.

Vales (2007) Institutionalization - the final step in the change commitment curve where the old way of operating is not recognizable.

Seig & Bubp (2008)

Not a destination. Empowered front-line staff that embrace and adopt the new behaviors needed and the concept of adaptability and continuous improvement.

Juciute (2009) Occurs through ownership, trust, and commitment by end users as well as delivering real benefits.

Curry, Lowery, & Loftus (2010)

Changes have been incorporated in structure, function, belief systems, practices, and cultures

Chidiac (2013)

The stance or activities that assimilate and embed change - attending to the adaptability of the organization's personality functioning as a way of ensuring sustainable change. A shift in the organization's habitual ways of being.

Lopez-Yanez & Sanchez-Moreno (2013)

The key concept of an alternative perspective for lasting improvement based on the importance of local conditions, organizational resources and capabilities, and established practices. This sustainability, or institutional rooting, can be planned but full control cannot be had. Instead, it has to coexist with the self-organizing processes that also take place in every social system.

40

Smith & Sharicz (2013)

Achieved through balancing a certain amount of organization with a certain amount of instability, leading to the predictability with disorder, and a successful planned long-term strategy achieved through many concurrent short-term actions.

Five Themes in Sustaining Change

Most of the research focusing on sustaining change can be found within the past

20 years, with some exceptions of research in the 1990s. While the details and nuances

of the varied research are all different, the body of research on sustaining changes seems

to converge on five main themes. First, there seems to be consensus that in order to

sustain an organizational change, that change must be embedded into the structure of the

organization (Abel & Sementelli, 2005; Albert & Picq, 2004; Alpander & Lee, 1995;

Ament et al., 2012; Bain et al., 2011; Carter, 2014; Clark, 2003; Clark, Cavanaugh,

Brown, & Sambamurthy, 1997; Cooper, 2001; Duffy, 2003; Johnston, 1990; Lopez-

Yanez & Sanchez-Moreno, 2013). Some research focuses on culture as a way to embed

the change. Albert and Picq (2004) posit that the emergence of new cultural norms is a

key ingredient to sustaining change. Others take a process oriented approach, stating that

sustainability of change is a process (Alpander & Lee, 1995). Others talk about processes

from a structuration perspective, stating that the organization’s processes are one of the

ways to embed the change into the organization (Ament et al., 2012; Bain et al., 2011;

Clark, 2003; Clark, Cavanaugh, Brown, & Sambamurthy, 1997).

The second theme identified in the literature is the concept that the clarity of

change and the clarity of the benefits of that change are key to the sustainability of

change (Abel & Sementelli, 2005; Adams, 2009; Aitken, 2012; Austin & Currie, 2003;

Bain et al., 2011; Clark, Cavanaugh, Brown, & Sambamurthy, 1997; Johnston, 1990;

41

Kahn et al., 2009; Kaplan, Calman, Golub, Ruddock, & Billings, 2006; Keyton, 2003;

Law, 2009; Saunders, 2003; Seig & Bubp, 2008; Snyder, 2007; Vidović & Bjeliš, 2006;

Vora, 2013; Walston & Chadwick, 2003). Adams (2009) suggests the use of metaphors

as a way to ensure the change and its benefits are clear to all stakeholders. Similarly,

Law (2009) champions the concept of storytelling for the same purpose. Others

channeled Dewey’s (1938) concept of reflective thinking and recommend reflexive

dialog and individual reflection as a way to increase sustainability (Seig & Bubp, 2008;

Snyder, 2007). Structuration popped up in this theme as well with researchers believing

that feedback loops were key to sustaining change (Aitken, 2012; Bain et al., 2011). Still

others took a more humanistic perspective and focused on appreciative inquiry (Saunders,

2003) or building coalitions (Kaplan, Calman, Golub, Ruddock, & Billings, 2006) as the

way to make the change and its benefits clear.

The third theme found in the literature relates to the need for time, support, and

practice for learning the new behaviors needed to sustaining the change (Alänge &

Steiber, 2009; Clarke & Meldrum, 1999; Julian & Kombarakaran, 2006; Jørgensen,

Owen, & Neus, 2009; Knapp-Philo, Corso, Brekken, & Heal, 2004; Law, 2009; Lawrenz,

Huffman,& Lavoie, 2005; O'Hara, 1996; Seidman & McCauley, 2009; Smith & Sharicz,

2013; Steenekamp et al., 2012). The main premise here is that if a change is going to

eventually become “just the way we do things around here”, then the behaviors need to

become second nature for organization members. Alänge and Steiber (2009) made

practical observations, including that the board of directors needs to get involved to

sustain a change since the board tends to outlast the chief executive officer and the long-

term consistency is key. Others discussed the concept of grassroots organizational

42

development (Seidman & McCauley, 2009) - engaging stakeholders in change agent

networks (Clarke & Meldrum, 1999) or communities of practice (Julian &

Kombarakaran, 2006) to help support organization members as they learned the new

behaviors to support the sustainability of the change.

The fourth theme is very closely tied to the third - building capabilities. There

were several scholars who saw a need for organizations to help members build

competencies needed to perform in the new reality, whatever that was (Auster &

Ruebottom, 2013; Casebeer, Popp, & Scott, 2009; Chidiac, 2013; Clarke & Meldrum,

1999; Julian & Kombarakaran, 2006; Johnston, 1990; Jørgensen et al., 2009; Knapp-

Philo, Corso, Brekken, Heal, 2004; Law, 2009; Lawrenz et al., 2005; O'Hara, 1996;

Seidman & McCauley, 2009; Steenekamp, Botha & Moloi, 2012). While learning new

behaviors is also a form of learning, there is an element of motivation and psychology in

learning new behaviors that does not necessarily exist when discussion capability

building (Steenekamp et al., 2012). Chidiac (2013) speaks specifically of experiential

learning to help organization members learn the new skills they need. Clark, Cavanaugh,

Brown, and Sambamurthy (1997) focus more on building “change-ready capabilities”,

positing that organization members who have the competencies they need to adapt and

deal with change will be better at sustaining the change. O’Hara (1996) makes the claim

that individual learning can lead to organizational change itself, as individuals react and

respond with their new skillsets. Steenekamp et al. (2012) make the connection between

organizational learning and sustaining change, which is in line with the concepts in this

research.

43

The final theme was the most pervasive theme in the literature and seemed to span

the various schools of thought, from positivistic to humanistic, to looking at change from

a structuration, complexity, or learning lens - creating buy in and ownership at all levels

(Aarons, Hurlburt & Horwitz, 2011; Auster & Ruebottom, 2013; Chenhall & Langfield-

Smith, 2003; Clark, Cavanaugh, Brown, & Sambamurthy, 1997; Clarke & Meldrum,

1999; Hsu& Sharma, 2006; Jørgensen et al., 2009; Juciute, 2009; Karp, 2004; Karp,

2006; Kezar, 2013; Knapp-Philo, Corso, Brekken, & Heal, 2004; Koch, 1992; Lawrenz

et al., 2005; Nasim & Sushil, 2010; Perkins, 2012; Seidman & McCauley, 2009; Seig &

Bubp, 2008; Snyder, 2007; Steenekamp et al., 2012; Stjernberg & Philips, 1993; Thomas,

Sargent, & Hardy, 2011; Vales, 2007; Vidović & Bjeliš, 2006; Vora, 2013; Walston &

Chadwick, 2003). Clarke and Meldrum (1999) boil organizational change down to a

certain level of analysis, learning, and politics, with politics being the concept of creating

the buy in within the organization. Others, such as Juciute (2009), present the same

concept, but call what Clarke and Meldrum (1999) describe as politics as stakeholder

engagement. Karp (2006) takes a more unique stance, with foundations in integral

psychology, stating that change and growth depend on each person in an organization

who, formally or informally, acts as a leader to a group of followers. Karp (2006) makes

the argument that since everyone plays a leadership role at some point in the change

process, buy in and ownership across the organization is an important part of sustaining

the change. Nasim and Sushil (2010) talk about assisting with buy in by helping

organization members manage and make sense of paradox - that some parts of the

organization will remain constant while other part will change. Nasim and Sushil (2010)

posit that managing this paradox across the organization will help reduce change fatigue

44

and increase sustainability. Kezar (2013) and Thomas et al. (2011) take the idea of

making sense one step further and begin to relate the concept of sensemaking to the idea

of creating buy in and sustaining change. Before diving into the organizational learning

literature in general, or the OLSM model specifically, the next section explores how each

of the four learning concepts found within the OLSM relate to change in the literature.

Reflection and Change

Confucius says that there are three ways to learn: reflection, which is the noblest;

imitation, which is the easiest; and experience, which is the bitterest (Goldberg, 2012).

So, the idea of reflection being a foundation of learning is certainly not new. Dewey

(1938) defined reflective thought as an “active, persistent, and careful consideration of

any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and

the further conclusions to which it tends” (p. 9). Sometime later, Mezirow (1990) made a

distinction between reflection, which is aimed at solving the problems on the job and

making tacit knowledge explicit, and other concepts such as critical reflection and critical

self-reflection. The reflection, which focuses on analyzing and trying to change the

values of the organization, is defined as critical reflection. The reflection designed to

assist in the emancipation of the individual in relation to the organization is labeled

critical self-reflection. Breaking down reflection in this way aligns conceptually with the

concept of single-, double-, and triple-loop learning, where single-loop learning is

focused on building competence, double-loop learning is focused on building capacity,

and triple-loop learning is focused on building competitive advantage (Yeo, 2006). Yeo

(2006) makes the claim that through reflection, all three loop learning phases can be

achieved. The literature seems to be in consensus that reflection is at the core of adult

45

learning and professional growth, transformation, and empowerment (Hilden &

Tikkamäki, 2013).

However, is there research to address how the concept of reflection can positively

impact organizational change? Tsasis, Evans, Rush, and Diamond (2013) conclude in

their research that in complex, open systems, like organizations, not everything can be

planned or designed. Therefore, developing the capacity to learn, rather than predict and

respond, must be cultivated. That is consistent with the double-loop learning and critical

reflection described above. Lichtenstein (2000) subscribes to the Schön (1987) model of

inquiry as reflection-in-action and describes the output of this type of reflection as

generative knowledge that can only exist in and through action. Brown and Starkey

(2000) find that critical self-reflexivity can help mitigate the organizational defenses

against change.

Schön’s (1987) concepts of reflection in action and on action are an important

component to how reflection relates to, and supports organizational change. Reflection in

and of itself does not support change; there must be periods of both reflection and action.

Research by Laiken (2003) of 10 organizations supports this point. The research showed

improved decision making, increased efficiency, and enhanced productivity when

workers were able to intersperse periods of reflection with direct action. Gilstrap (2010)

agrees and calls critical reflection an irreversible process by which transformation occurs.

Espedal (2006) focuses on organizational routines, which are outputs of critical reflection

and defined as patterned sequences of learned behavior. These organizational routines

are closely related to the need for balancing the paradox of change and stability within

the organization.

46

Sensemaking and Change

Organizational change, no matter how well planned or how much alignment there

is with the organization’s current structure, is hard, and includes moments of ambiguity

and uncertainty. In sensemaking, organizational members seek to clarify the change by

extracting and interpreting cues from their environment, using these as the basis for a

plausible explanation that “makes sense” of the change (Brown, 2000; Maitlis, 2005;

Weick, 1995; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). Sensemaking is more than just

interpretation. Meaning making is a socially-constructed phenomenon, which is

impacted by the level of participation across the organization (Bartunek, Rousseau,

Rudolph, & DePalma, 2006; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Sutcliffe, 2013; Weick, 1995;

Weick et al., 2005).

Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) provided one of the first empirical articles

connecting sensemaking with change. They found in their research that making sense,

and giving sense, are key processes in instigating and managing change. More recently,

Kezar (2013) validated those conclusions over 20 years later. Since those first empirical

and theoretical papers in the early 1990s, there has been a growing body of research on

sensemaking, examining how sense is made in organizations (Clark & Geppert, 2011;

Cornelissen, 2012; Hernes & Maitlis, 2010; Monin, Noorderhaven, Vaara, & Kroon,

2013; Navis & Glynn, 2011; Rudolph, Morrison, & Carroll, 2009; Sonenshein, 2007;

Whiteman & Cooper, 2011), as well the impact of sensemaking on a variety of key

organizational processes, including organizational change and organizational learning

(Bartunek et al., 2006; Bean & Eisenberg, 2006; Ford & Greer, 2005; Ford, 2008; Helms

Mills, Thurlow, & Mills, 2010; Jian, 2007; Kuntz & Gomes, 2012; Kezar, 2013;

47

Kyriakidou, 2011; Landau & Drori, 2008; van den Heuvel, Demerouti, Schreurs, Bakker,

& Schaufeli, 2009; Steigenberger, 2015; Stensaker & Falkenberg, 2007; Taylor, 1999;

Tucker, Hendy, & Barlow, 2015; Weber & Manning, 2001; Weick, 1988, 1990, 1993;

Weick et al., 2005). Sensemaking is central activity in organizations, and one that fills an

important gap in organization theory (Weick et al., 2005).

Structuration and Change

One of the key concepts included in Giddens’ (1976, 1979, 1984, 1991, 1993)

structuration theory is that any agent can impact the structure. There are two key words

in the previous statement that require definition. First, agent. An agent is defined as an

actor that is purposeful, knowledgeable, reflexive, and active (Giddens, 1984). The key to

that definition is action; the agent loses its ability to be an agent when or if they lose the

ability to exert causal power through action. The second term that requires a definition is

structure. In terms of structuration theory, a structure is a recursively organized set of

rules and resources that agents draw on and reconstitute in their day to day activities

(Giddens, 1979).

While a fairly theoretical concept, structuration theory has very practical

organizational change implications. For instance, an agent walks into the restroom at the

office and notices a flyer that is posted every flu season suggesting that people wash their

hands with hot, soapy water and then turn off the faucet and open the door with the paper

towel they use to dry their hands. That sign is part of the structure and influences that

actor. However, the trash can is located under the paper towel dispenser that is nowhere

near the door. That structure is also influencing the actor. The actor exerts causal power

by moving the trash can next to the door, making it easier to follow the suggestion on the

48

sign. This purposeful action influences the structure and, potentially, the behavior of

future actors who enter the restroom.

While a simplistic example, it illustrates Giddens’ claim that structures are both

created by humans and influence human actions (1984, 1991) and that structuration is a

dynamic process where structures come into being (1993). Selcer and Decker (2012)

attempted to apply Giddens’ structuration theory to a practical application and came to a

similar conclusion - structuration theory fills in the action-oriented gaps; that

organizations are a process to be uncovered and encouraged. The second concept from

structuration theory that has practical implications is the idea of dualities.

Weaver and Gioia (1994) discuss how structuration theory offers these dualities

of individual people, processes, or positions whose aspects may be temporarily brackets

and how that is much more desirable that the concept of dichotomies that sees each entity

as separate and disparate. This concept of duality is pervasive throughout the literature

using or exploring structuration theory (Akgün, Byrne, & Keskin, 2007; Beverungen,

2014; Cao & McHugh, 2005; Howard-Grenville, 2005; Hussenot, 2008; Sarason, 1995;

Schwandt & Szabla, 2013; Staber & Sydow, 2002). As they were looking at a body of

literature through a structuration lens, Akgün et al. (2007) appreciated how the

structuration view of an organization removed the individual/ organization dichotomy

and integrated the fragmented studies within the literature. This role of structuration

theory is important because it helps lay the foundation for the relationship between and

among the individual and organization, especially when research focuses on

organizational learning, which has the same duality. Sarason (1995) stated that Giddens

developed structuration theory to fill a gap in social theory and, based on the body of

49

literature that found structuration theory a useful construct for their theoretical and

empirical research (Callahan, 2004; Dumay, 2008; Edwards, 2000; Feldman, 2004;

McPhee, 2004; Patora-Wysocka, 2016; Selcer & Decker, 2012; Yeo & Marquardt, 2015),

it makes sense. Structuration theory and its concepts of reflexive action, reciprocal

influence, and duality fit seamlessly into an organizational learning and change research

paper.

Environment and Change

The majority of the research in this body of work is focused on the first theme of

balancing the paradox between exploration and exploitation (Adler & Heckscher, 2013;

Bloodgood & Bongsug, 2010; Danowitz, Hanappi-Egger, & Hofmann, 2009; Dixon,

Meyer, & Day, 2007; Garcias et al., 2015; Holmqvist, 2004; Jansson, 2013; Judge &

Blocker, 2008; Karrer & Fleck, 2015; Kim & Huh, 2015; March, 1991; Zi-Lin &Wong,

2004). Exploitation is about looking inward and reflecting, thriving on productivity and

refinement. On the other hand, exploration looks outside the organization and is

concerned with creating variety, thriving on experimentation and free association

(Holmqvist, 2004). Nominally, those two activities require different types of actions,

behavior, and even organizational culture (Garcias et al., 2015). Figuring out how to

balance those elements in order to successfully manage an organization is the key.

Part of the reason for being able to find the balance and the ability to accept input

from the external environment, while simultaneously leveraging and growing internal to

the organization, is because of the focus of the next theme within the environmental

literature: rejuvenating the life cycle. A large part of the body of literature is focused on

how exploration specifically can help rejuvenate and restart an organizational life cycle

50

and keep an organization viable (Adenfelt & Lagerström, 2006; Jones, 2005; Moran,

Simoni, & Vagnani, 2011; Piao, 2014; Wischnevsky, 2004; Zhang, 2016).

If an organizational leader recognizes that bringing in information and inputs

from the external environment will help keep the organization viable, it is certainly

something that will be explored and enacted. This action leads to the third theme we find

in the literature: the environment as an impetus for change (Shirokova, Berezinets, &

Shatalov, 2014; van der Voet, Kuipers, & Groeneveld, 2015; Zhou, Tse, & Li, 2006).

Zhou et al. (2006) and Shirokova et al. (2014) examined how the environment was the

trigger in emerging environments where organizations must grow and adapt quickly or

perish. In contrast, van der Voet et al. (2015) looked at change in the public sector and

how the environmental complexities regarding change in the government sector impacts

both the type, and success, of change initiatives. Regardless of the focus of the research,

the scholars researching and writing about the environment are writing about what

organizations can learn from themselves and the external environment.

Organizational Learning

This discussion of what organizations can learn from external and internal

environments is fitting. Moving into the organizational learning literature, there are

many of the same conclusions. Several scholars in the organizational learning space

claim that in order for organizations to sustain competitive advantage and keep up with

the precipitous pace of change and innovation, organizations must continuously learn and

transform themselves (Aggestam, 2006; Dixon, 1992; Mills & Friesen, 1992; Nonaka,

2000; Marquardt, 2011; Stata, 1989; West, 1994). One way to do that is through

organizational learning. Many scholars claim that the concept of organizational learning

51

came into favoritism within both the academic and practitioner communities after Peter

Senge’s The Fifth Discipline was published (Senge, 1990) in the United States, and

Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell’s (1997) The Learning Company in the United Kingdom

(Garvin et al., 2008; Örtenblad, 2013). However, the concept of organizational learning

has a history of theoretical and empirical development since the concept was introduced

by March and Simon (1958), expanded by Cyert and March (1963), and further explored

by Argyris and Schön (1978).

Since the concept was introduced in the 1950s, and especially since the renewed

surge of interest in the 1990s to today, a variety of ways to conceptualize, view, and

organize organizational learning have been developed. So much so, it remains difficult to

present one concise definition of organizational learning. In fact, Easterby-Smith (1997)

believed that creating a comprehensive theory of organizational learning is unrealistic

because the various existing theories come from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, all

with their own ontological perspectives - and this variety leads to confusion in the

research agenda. In his more recent book with Lyles (Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2011),

they note that there is still significant diversity in the field, leading to academic debates

on definitions, conceptualizations, and more. However, at the same time, they note the

number of cross-citations, inferring a level of commonality as well. As the field

continues to mature and come to agreement on terminology and other areas of

convergence, perhaps a single definition will emerge after all.

Örtenblad (2002) organizes the various schools of thought in terms of the

literature on organizational learning and how the researchers define the entity of learning:

only individuals can learn; organizations can learn (even if only metaphorically); and,

52

both organizations and individuals learn. The majority of the research falls into the third

category - both organizations and individuals learn.

Argyris and Schön (1978) discuss how employees learn as agents for the

organization with their concept of single and double-loop learning. They posit that

organizations learn through the detection and correction of error. Single-loop learning

maintains the organization’s status quo. However, double-loop learning disrupts, and

leads to the modification of an organization’s underlying norms, policies, and objectives.

One can see how, based on this concept of learning, organizational change occurs.

Argyris and Schön (1978) recommend creating a learning system where both single- and

double-loop learning approaches are used as appropriate.

Several organizational learning scholars leveraged this concept of single and

double-loop learning by theorizing that the knowledge learned through this process is

stored in the memory of the organizations, evidenced by organizational routines,

dialogue, or symbols (DiBella & Nevis, 1998; Hedberg, 1981; Huber, 1991; Marsick &

Watkins, 1999; Pedler et al., 1997; Schein, 1991; Senge, 1990). Table 2.3 illustrated on

the following page highlights various definitions and key components of organizational

learning put forth by selected scholars:

53

Table 2.3

Definitions and Key Components of Organizational Learning Theory

Author(s) (Date)

Definition of Organizational Learning Key Components of OL Theory

March & Olsen (1975)

Organizational learning as a potentially disrupted experiential circle - some members of an organization state a mismatch between how the world is and how it should be. This stating of a mismatch leads to an individual behavior, which connects itself to collective behavior, which is mainly understood as collective decisioning. The outer world reacts to it which again is interpreted by the individual cognitions of the organization’s members.

Focused on the impact of the cognitive limitations of managers, noting that the rational adaptation inherent in learning models is probably unrealistic. Rather, ambiguity prevails – goals are ambiguous or in conflict, experience can be misleading, and interpretations are problematic. The authors explored four situations in which ambiguity enters the learning cycle: role-constrained learning, superstitious learning, audience learning, and learning under ambiguity. Together, these four possible disconnects suggest that improvement is not a necessary outcome of learning, even though learning is intendedly adaptive. Instead, when ambiguity is present, beliefs, trust, and perceptions determine what happens.

Argyris & Schön (1978)

There is no organizational learning without individual learning, and individual learning is a necessary but insufficient condition for organizational learning. We can think of organizational learning as a process mediated by the collaborative inquiry of individual members.

Their focus is on individual and group interactions and not systems and structures. Organizational learning involves the detection and correction of error. For organizational learning to occur, learning agents, discoveries, inventions, and evaluations must be embedded in organizational memory. If it is not encoded in the images that individuals have, and the maps they construct with others, then ‘the individual will have learned but the organization will not have done so’

Daft & Weick (1984)

The process by which knowledge about action outcome relationships between the organization and the environment is developed.

Proposes a comparative model of organizations as interpretation systems. The model describes four modes: enacting, discovering, undirected viewing, and conditioned viewing.

54

Senge (1990)

“organizations learn only through individuals who learn” (Senge, 1990, p. 139).

Senge declares learning as the process by which the human is developing abilities over the time and calls as the basic level of a learning organization, if this process succeeds collectively inside a group. From his sight, five disciplines make OL possible: personal mastery, mental models, shared visions, team-learning, and systems thinking

Huber (1991)

An entity learns if, through its processing of information, the range of its potential behaviors is changed. This definition holds whether the entity is a human or other animal, a group, an organization, an industry, or a society. An organization learns if any of its units acquires knowledge that it recognizes as potentially useful to the organization, even if not every one of its components learns that something.

Focuses on four learning-related constructs of OL. Knowledge acquisition is the process by which knowledge is obtained. Information distribution is the process by which information from different sources is shared and thereby leads to new information or understanding. Information interpretation is the process by which distributed information is given one or more commonly understood interpretations. Organizational memory is the means by which knowledge is stored for future use.

March (1991)

The development and use of knowledge in organizations

Considers the relationship between the exploration of new possibilities and the exploitation of old certainties in organizational learning and discusses the competition of resources between the two within organizations

Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995)

OL as the creation of organizational knowledge. Within this model, organizational conditions for OL are: intention, autonomy, fluctuation and creative chaos, redundancy, and requisite variety.

Nonaka and Takeuchi differentiate and outlines four modes of knowledge creation: transferring tacit knowledge into tacit knowledge (socialization), transferring tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge (externalization), transferring explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge (internalization) and transferring explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge (combination). For Nonaka/Takeuchi, the process of OL takes place not only from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge and vice versa, but also from individual to group to organization to inter-organization and vice versa).

55

Crossan et al. (1999)

A principle means of achieving the strategic renewal of an enterprise (p. 522)

Their model focuses on strategic renewal to harmonize continuity and change at the enterprise level. They introduce the 4i’s: intuiting, interpreting, integrating, institutionalizing

Marsick & Watkins (1999)

Organizational learning as a continuous, strategically-used process, integrated with and running parallel to work.

Stress that the learning organization constructs is neither a destination nor a prescription for organizational success. Instead, the learning organization is a journey where (1) a learning infrastructure is embedded where knowledge is created, captured, and disseminated, (2) there is a spirit of inquiry, initiative, and experimental thinking and (3) knowledge capital is regularly audited in the organization and barriers are identified that may hamper progress toward continual improvement and innovation.

Schwandt & Marquardt (2000)

A system of actions, actors, symbols, and processes that enables an organization to transform information into valued knowledge which, in turn, increases its long-run capacity (see page 14 for more information).

Schwandt & Marquardt focus on the learning aspect of an organization as a social system and explains how an organization learns so that it can survive in a changing environment. It provides a way of viewing org behavior in such a way that we can vividly see how people in an organization collectively engage in the learning process.

Schein (2017)

The ability to create new organizational forms and processes, to innovate in both the technical and organizational arenas. The alignment among three cultures, two of which are based in occupational communities - (1) the culture of engineering and the (2) culture of CEOs - (the third culture is the culture of operators) and the shared assumptions that arise in the “line units” of a given organization as it attempts to operate efficiently and safely.

Organizations will not learn effectively until they recognize and confront the implications of the three occupational cultures. Until executives, engineers, and operators discover that they use different languages and make different assumptions about what is important, and until they learn to treat the other cultures as valid and normal, organizational learning efforts will continue to fail.

Organizational Learning versus Learning Organization

While some literature, especially those focused on organizational practitioners,

use the terms “learning organization” and “organizational learning” interchangeably,

56

most scholars see a distinct difference. Easterby-Smith (1997) contends that most

writings on the learning organization have a different purpose compared to those on

organizational learning. The scholars looking at the learning organization are more

concerned with implementation, not conceptual understanding, unless it improves

implementation. Those focused on the learning organization are more focused on

achieving an ideal future state and are more likely to use an action research agenda,

where there is a close link between the implementation of an intervention and the study

of that intervention. Even in his more recent book with Lyles (Easterby-Smith & Lyles,

2011), he still defers to Tsang (1997) to define the differences between organizational

learning and the learning organization: those studying organizational learning are

interested in the process of learning within organizations. Those interested in a learning

organization have a more performance-oriented point of view, generally with the aim to

understand how to create and improve the learning capacity.

DiBella (1995) makes the product versus process argument that is repeated

regularly throughout the literature. Organizational learning is seen as a process of

learning, and the learning organization as a form of organization. Finger and Brand

(1999) see a connection between the product and process; they define the learning

organization as an ideal organization form and organizational learning as the activities

and processes to reach that ideal form. Schwandt and Marquardt (2000) also make a case

for the product versus process argument. They define the learning organization as a

representation of a desired end while organizational learning is a representation of the

dynamic human processes needed to increase the cognitive capacity of the organization.

Marquardt (2011) further expands on this concept by looking at a learning organization

57

from a systems perspective, with learning being the central concept in a learning system,

with organization, people, knowledge, and technology surrounding that central learning

theme. In this expanded view, organizational learning is the enhanced intellectual and

productive capability gained through continuous improvement across the organization;

one part of a learning organization.

Others see the difference in the two concepts as more significant than just a

product/ process distinction. Argyris (1990) sees the organizational learning literature as

skeptical and scholarly, researched by academics, while he sees the learning organization

literature as practice-oriented and prescriptive, typically written by consultants and

practitioners. Easterby-Smith, Burgoyne, and Araujo (1999) describe the organizational

learning literature as the observation and analysis of the learning processes in

organizations. They describe the learning organization literature as action-oriented, with

a focus on tools to increase the quality of the learning process.

Schwandt and Marquardt (2000) Organizational Learning Systems Model

This study is focused on the process of learning the new behaviors required to

sustain a planned change over time. Because of that process component, organizational

learning, as opposed to the learning organization, seems to be the appropriate concept to

use to guide the study. When looking over the various organizational learning models to

use to guide this study, there was one model that explicitly incorporated the themes found

in the organizational change literature.

For this reason, the Organizational Learning Systems Model (OLSM) will be used

as a lens for this study. It views organizations from a systems perspective and does a

good job of incorporating the elements listed above. The OLSM was developed by

58

Schwandt (1997) and is based in the General Theory of Action (Parsons & Shils, 1951).

Utilizing Parsons’ General Theory of Action allows for a framework that theoretically

integrates cognition and action, and learning and performance (Schwandt, 1997). The

OLSM has two fundamental components: (1) four subsystems of collective action and (2)

four sets of interchange media (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000). Each subsystem has a

corresponding set of interchange media (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. The OLSM Subsystems and Corresponding Interchange Media

It is important to note that the media of interchange generated in each of the

subsystems is reciprocal. Each is produced within a subsystem and it is also a required

part of interaction with every other subsystem. This interaction between and among all

subsystems is clearly outlined in the OLSM model itself (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2. Theoretical model: The Organizational Learning System Model

© 2000 David Schwandt and Michael J. Marquardt.

59

The additional benefit of the Organizational Learning Systems Model (Schwandt

& Marquardt, 2000) is that the interchange media makes the model operational. While

the learning processes that occur in each of the four learning subsystems are not

observable, the interchange media is. This allows the researcher to use the model as a

theoretical framework and data collection tool.

Organizational Learning and Change in the Public Sector

Sotirakou and Zeppou (2004) note that for the past twenty years or more, there

have been a variety of reforms to achieve efficiency, effectiveness, economy, and quality

of service delivery. While Sotirakou and Zeppou (2004) are exploring the public sector in

Greece, looking at the current U.S. President’s management agenda

(https://www.performance.gov/PMA/Presidents_Management_Agenda.pdf), many of the

same priorities still exist in the U.S. Government as well: delivering quality services,

driving savings and efficiencies, and shifting to high-value work are all part of the

management agenda released by the President in 2018. Sotirakou and Zeppou (2004)

share a knowledge management, or learning, solution to help meet the needs of

accomplishing the goals. But, they are not the only ones who have linked learning at the

organizational level to achieving strategic initiatives. Srimai, Damsaman, and

Bangchokdee (2011) link performance management and organizational learning to the

achievement of strategic alignment in the Thai government. Pokharel & Hult (2010)

identify conscious learning in a state government as being the key to organizational

learning and goal achievement. Wise (2006) examined crisis response agencies in the

U.S. federal government and the role adaptive management and learning plays in the

success of a disaster response. Fry and Griswold (2003) examined how technology could

60

act as a catalyst for change and learning in a U.S. state government and the strategic

limitations inherent in the process.

Organizational change and learning have played a role in research in the public

sector, especially since the beginning of the 21st century (Bin Taher et al., 2015; Bruns,

2014; Cannaerts et al., 2016; Forrester & Adams, 1997; Fry & Griswold, 2003; Hazlett &

Hill, 2000; Kim & Yoon, 2015; Martin-Rios, 2016; Onesti et al., 2016; Pokharel & Choi,

2015; Pokharel & Hult, 2010; Rusaw, 1997; Rusaw, 2005; Rusaw & Fisher, 2017;

Sotirakou & Zeppou, 2004; Srimai et al., 2011; Tajeddini, 2016; Templeton & Dowdy,

2012; van Buuren & Edelenbos, 2013; Wise, 2006). However, the research tends to

examine either how to implement a new initiative, ignoring the sustainability of the

impact, or the impact of learning and change on an organizational metric (such as

performance management or strategic alignment), ignoring the practical tips regarding

implementation and sustaining the desired outcome over time.

During the time of President Clinton’s National Performance Reform initiatives,

there were quite a few articles specifically on reviewing or critically examining the

government’s ability to change (Kamensky, 1996; McShan & King, 1995; Peters &

Savoie, 1996; Thompson, 1999; Thompson, 2000; Thompson & Ingraham, 1996). More

recently, there have been a couple of articles examining the similar types of changes

examined in this research: a change in the way people work (Brown, Smith, Arduengo, &

Taylor, 2016; Hylmö, 2006). Brown et al. (2016) examine several factors related to

moving to a more dispersed work environment, including telework. They found that trust

was an underlying element that was foundational to the success of that type of change.

61

Hylmö (2006) instead examined the employee’s choice and how organizational

constraints played a role in the success of the implementation of a dispersed workforce.

The research on organizational learning and change in the government leaves

several unanswered questions; several gaps in the research. This study aims to fill in

some of those gaps by examining organizational learning and change with a systems

view, addressing both implementation and impact.

Summary of Literature

Across the scholarly and practitioner literature reviewed, four common themes

about sustaining change emerged. The first theme is the idea that periods of action and

reflection are key components of sustaining an organizational change. This is achieved

by creating clarity around the change, creating clarity around the benefits of change, and

facilitating learning to embed the change into the organization. The second theme is that

sensemaking contributes to the clarity of change. In addition to creating clarity,

sensemaking is also an important component of creating buy in and ownership for the

change. Structuration was a third theme that was repeated in the literature. The literature

explored how structuration supported the act of embedding change into the structure of

the world. There were also some who thought the feedback loops from a structuration

standpoint were useful in creating clarity about the change. The fourth theme described

how the environment plays a role in both embedding the change and being the impetus

for the change.

The fact that these themes seemed to pop up regularly in the conceptual and

empirical research is the main reason this researcher is using the OLSM as the theoretical

framework. If truly sustaining change means embedding new behaviors into the fabric of

62

the organization, some form of organizational learning is required. In fact, Argyris

(1982) cites a fundamental premise that links organizational development and change

with organizational learning: every organizational change effort requires new learning to

take place in order to succeed. The OLSM model is the lens being used because it

focuses on the learning aspects of an organization as a system (Schwandt & Marquardt,

2000). Additionally, the OLSM incorporates the themes that were pulled from the

literature. The four components of the OLSM include environment interface,

action/reflection, dissemination and diffusion, and meaning and memory.

This chapter has reviewed the change and sustainability literature, the different

variables explored within the change literature (reflection, structuration, sensemaking,

and the environment), and an overview of organizational learning theory. Finally, the

chapter provides the rationale for utilizing the OLSM as the theoretical framework for

this study.

Ultimately, the change literature has evolved over many decades and, while there

are a lot of theories, frameworks, and models, the failure rate of change has not changed

significantly over that same time frame. Additionally, there has been an increased

interest in sustaining change - making sure that strategic changes made within the

organization are “sticky” and last long enough to obtain the intended benefits of the

change in the first place. The scholarly literature covering the sustainability of change is

vast. Even so, there are fewer studies that focus on the public sector and even fewer that

focus on sustainability from an organizational learning lens.

When delving into the change literature generally, reflection and reflection-in-

action, structuration, sensemaking, and the environment have all received significant

63

attention individually. However, there is a dearth of research that brought all of those

change variables together, and no research that looked at the sustainability of a successful

change over a two year time frame. This study will contribute to our understanding of

how polices, practices, and structures support and sustain organizational learning after a

planned organizational change and over time. Through a historical case study, explained

in Chapter Three, the research will uncover in-depth qualitative findings that will inform

our understanding of organizational learning and change in a way that has not yet been

researched.

64

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Introduction



OLSM as a lens. To fulfill the purpose of this study, the following research question was

addressed: How did a government agency introduce and sustain organizational learning

during and after a planned change?

This chapter describes the research design and explains the rationale for case

study as the chosen methodology for this dissertation. The method for bounding the study

to a single organization is first outlined. The second section of this chapter outlines the

individual interview and focus group interview protocols. The third section outlines how

historical data was gathered and analyzed. Fourth, observation and document collection

is discussed. Lastly, overall data analysis and the methods in which findings will be

displayed are presented. Table 3.1 provides a summary of the research design. The

researcher’s worldview, reflexivity, methods to increase trustworthiness in the study, as

well as ethical and human subjects guidelines are incorporated throughout.

65

Table 3.1 Summary of Research Design

Method Qualitative, historical case study, conducted through an interpretive, pragmatic lens

Research Question

How did a government agency introduce and sustain organizational learning during and after a planned change?

Research Design

In-depth case study investigation

Primary data sources: o Focus group interviews with employees o Individual interviews with change agents o Archival records - data from past surveys, focus groups, etc. o Document collection - communications and publications related to change

Secondary data sources: o Archival records o Direct observation o Organizational artifacts

Study Sites Federal government agency that underwent a planned change, initiated over 5 years ago.

Study Participants

All employees of the Federal agency, including key personnel responsible for managing the change.

Data Sources 60-minute, interviews with key personnel responsible for managing the change and/or the new environment post-change. Independent note taker. Interview notes member checked. 6 interviews conducted.

60-minute, virtual focus group interviews with agency employees. 65 total participants across 4 focus groups total. Independent note taker.

Document collection - raw data from all pre-, during-, and post-change surveys; all notes from pre-, during-, and post-change focus groups and change initiatives.

Document collection - communications (past and present) relating to this change, all published information related to rationale, desired outcomes, and initiatives around the change.

Archival records - employee viewpoint surveys, budget and personnel records from past and present, utilization of new technology (no identifiers collected; using data that is either publically available or subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Direct observation - how staff interacts in the new environment during the course of their day.

Physical artifacts - evidence of what is valued, what behaviors are actively reinforced, etc. in the new environment, post-change.

Field notes - researcher’s perceptions and reflections.

Data Analysis MS Excel for any historical data analysis and descriptive statistics.

MS Excel utilized for qualitative data storage and analysis.

Iterative analysis with continuous triangulation.

Initial coding schemes organized around Schwandt and Marquardt’s (2000) Organizational Learning Systems Model and themes appearing in literature review.

Multiple coding passes for data reduction.

Trustworthiness Audit trail

Triangulation

Member checks - transcripts and themes

Thick description

Reflexive journal and field notes

Independent note taker

66

Case Study as Methodology

The methodology selected for this study was case study. Merriam (2009)

describes case study as an “in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system” (p.

40). Keyton (2003) states that cases connect organizational processes to the reality of

organizational practice. Case study is suitable for research that seeks to answer the

“how” and “why” questions within a real-world context (Yin, 2014). Yin (2014) also

states that case study can be driven deductively from a theoretical framework.

Given the research question for this study, seeking to understand if, how, and why

learning was sustained in a real-world organization, and the fact that the OLSM was used

as the theoretical framework, Yin (2014) was best suited to guide this study. This

method allowed the researcher to use all forms of data collection (historical data,

interviews, focus groups, observation, and document review) within a bounded case to

address the research question.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Yin (2014) states that theory provides the guidance for a study, helping to

determine the data to collect and a starting point for subsequent data analysis. For the

purposes of this study, Schwandt and Marquardt’s (2000) OLSM provided the theoretical

foundation. This model is founded in Parson’s General Theory of Social Action with the

premise that both performance and learning have the capacity to change an organization

(Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000). The OLSM model involves four key components:

environmental interface, action/reflection, memory/meaning, and

dissemination/diffusion. According to the model, the learning at the organizational level

occurs within those four components. The premise for the researcher is that the actual

67

learning is not observable. However, by observing the interaction of these four

components, the researcher can draw conclusions about how the organization learns.

This study examined how the various elements of the OLSM were sustained over

time after a planned change. As illustrated in Figure 3.1, the conceptual frame shows

how the OLSM model was used as the framework and lens to deductively examine the

sustainability of organizational learning over time.

Figure 3.1. Conceptual framework: How organizational learning is sustained over time

Researcher’s Worldview

Creswell (2014) defines worldview as a “general orientation about the world and

the nature of research that a researcher holds” (p. 6). This researcher’s worldview is

shaped by 24 years of experience leading projects and people and the non-traditional

education path that produced a B.S. in Recreation Management, an M.S. in Financial

Management, an M.B.A., and a Master’s Certificate in Project Management. All of the

continuing education past the Bachelor’s degree was done while working full time in a

68

leadership role. Both throughout my experience as a leader and a student, my focus and

strength has always been on problem solving. Solving problems of practice, and in this

research, closing the research-practice gap, served as the primary motivation for this

study.

Based on this background, the researcher brought a pragmatic worldview to the

research. Pragmatic research is grounded in understanding the problem first and

foremost, recognizing that research always occurs in a larger context (Creswell, 2014).

Pragmatism is not limited to one research method to address problems and pragmatists do

not see the world as needing to be subjected to radical criticism (Crotty, 2011). Instead, a

pragmatist uses “all approaches available to understand the problem” (Creswell, 2014, p.

10). Pragmatic research emphasizes the uncertainty and changing nature of research

finding and its dependence upon context (Ormerod, 2006). Case study fits within this

pragmatic worldview because knowledge can be gained from a variety of sources.

Additionally, the OLSM also aligns with the pragmatic worldview. The model is

an action-based model designed to bridge theory and practice to help solve organizational

problems (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000). The theoretical foundation of the model itself

is Parsons’ General Theory of Action, which depicts organizations as systems of social

actions (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000). The OLSM breaks the system down into

segments and observable phenomenon, but shows each segment and behavior within the

larger context. This is completely in line with Stake’s (1995) statement that a case study

is used to do an in-depth study of a system based on diverse data collection materials,

with an emphasis placed on the broader context or system.

69

Bounding the Case

Yin (2014) states that bounding the case is useful because it helps to determine

the scope of data collection and distinguish relevant data from the broader context in

which the study takes place. Merriam (2009) includes the concepts of a bounded case

within the definition of a case study. In fact, the very concept of a case study implies the

demarcation of what is, and is not, included within the case. For the purposes of this

study, the case study focused on one organization and, specifically on a change event of

resulting behaviors within that organization. The OLSM also helped to theoretically bind

the case by defining the specific types of data to collect and analyze to address the

research question.

Case study involves an in-depth study over an extended period of time in the field

for data collection (Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2014). The organization chosen was a choice of

convenience and practicality for the researcher. The researcher had in-depth access to the

historical data and the current workforce because the researcher was employed at the case

agency. The intent of data collection in case study, according to Yin (2014), is to collect

data from the participants in their everyday situations but acknowledges this type of

research can intrude on the organization being studied and the participants. Since the

researcher was part of the organization and understood the day-to-day activity, the

interference in daily operations was kept to a minimum. While the subjectivity and

reflexivity statements are even more important and the researcher managed bias carefully,

the level of access and the understanding of the overarching context and system provided

a benefit that outweighed potential bias.

70

The Setting

The change that this agency undertook was a move from traditional office space

to a hoteling work environment with increased remote working opportunities. This

change reduced the space footprint of the agency’s District of Columbia metro area

employees by 50%, saving over $24 million annually in rent. Porras and Silvers (1991)

thought that more research was needed on the “direct effects of physical-setting change”

(p. 75). However, this change was much more than a physical-setting change. With the

recent advances in technology, and the majority of office work being knowledge work

that is not tied to a specific space, workers are becoming more geographically dispersed

and loosely-coupled. In order to convert those changes into cost savings, businesses are

moving towards an increasingly more mobile workforce (Bean & Eisenberg, 2006).

This was the type of transition facing the agency. Employees not only moved to a

new office building, they changed the fundamental way they worked. For the majority of

the employees, there is no longer assigned office space, or even assigned seating. Instead

of cubicles and offices, there are simply desks out in the open that an employee can

reserve for the hour or for the day. The transition from the traditional way of working to

the new way of working was not easy for many employees (Bean & Eisenberg, 2006).

The desired outcome for this change, defined by leadership, was also

multidimensional. In addition to the substantial cost savings, stated goals included

increased collaboration between organizations, increased staff agility, increased

innovation, and an understanding that “work is what you do, not where you are”. This

study looked at the entire change process, how they achieved the stated goals, and how,

and to what extent, the organization sustained the desired behaviors post-change.

71

The case chosen for this study was a U.S. Government agency. This agency is a

civilian (non-defense), mid-sized agency and the headquarters is located in Washington

D.C. In order to effectively address the research question, the organization went through

a successful planned change over five years ago and there were several visible

components that imply the agency was successful at sustaining the change over the five

years since the change.

Participants

The population under investigation consisted of all employees in the Washington

DC Metro area impacted by the change under investigation, either by living through the

change and/or living in the post-change environment. Specifically, the study focused on

two groups of employees. The first group were the change agents who either helped

manage this change or who were responsible for sustaining the new environment post-

change. Because this group was a smaller group given the insights they were able to

provide, especially as it pertained to the historical data and artifacts, this group was asked

to participate in one-on-one interviews. The second group of participants were all other

employees. This group was highly diverse. All employees were full-time employees.

However, there were various job titles and salary levels, various education levels, and

various length of service at the agency. This second group consisted of about 4,000

employees. Because of the size and diversity, a subset of this group of participants was

randomly selected to participate in focus group interviews. Of the four focus groups, two

groups were set aside for employees who arrived at the organization post-change and the

other two focus groups were set aside for employees who “lived through” the change.

Both the interviews and focus groups were completely optional to avoid any labor union

72

implications. History in the agency shows a participation rate of about 20 - 30% in

optional focus groups. The participation rate for interviews is historically higher, up to

100% in some cases.

Data Collection Methods and Process

Yin (2014) claims case studies are useful as a methodology because of the

multiple sources of data that come together, strengthening the trustworthiness of the

study and making a more convincing conclusion than if the study only relied on one

source of evidence. For this study, evidence was collected from six sources - individual

interviews, focus group interviews, documents, archival records, direct observation, and

physical artifacts. The order in which this is done is important to increase the

trustworthiness of the study. The examination and analysis of historical data and artifacts,

as well as current organizational documents was the first phase of analysis. This allowed

the researcher to finalize the questions for the individual and focus group interview

guides based on the analysis. The researcher then conducted the individual interviews.

By conducting the individual interviews first, any perceptions of the broader workforce

espoused by the participants in the individual interviews could be validated in the

employee focus groups. The focus group interviews were the final phase of the data

collection, validating any themes or perceptions that came to light during the previous

phases. Direct observation occurred throughout the data collection period. Figure 3.2

illustrates the proposed six-week data collection schedule for three data collection phases.

73

Figure 3.2. Data collection plan for three phases.

Data Source One: Individual Interviews

The first source of evidence was one-on-one interviews. Qualitative interview

procedures described below are based on guidance from a number of scholars (Rubin &

Rubin, 2012; Seidman, 2006; Weiss, 1994). For the purposes of this study, semi-

structured interviews were conducted with the key change agents involved in either

managing the change at the time and/or responsible for managing the current

environment post-change. In this format, the researcher had a limited number of prepared

and follow-up, probing questions that focused narrowly on the research topic (Rubin &

Rubin, 2012). The purpose behind these in-depth interviews was to obtain rich, detailed

information with examples, stories, and experiences that conveyed the participants’

experience with this specific change within the organization. The intent for conducting

interviews was to further understand and illuminate the policies, practices, and structures

that facilitated and sustained the change using the OLSM as the theoretical framework.

74

The target audience for interviews included the change agents assigned from each

organizational group within the agency impacted by the change who helped manage or

lead change initiatives, those currently responsible for maintaining the hoteling structure

within the building and accommodating exception requests, and those who are using the

lessons learned from the change experience to advise other agencies. The researcher was

able to interview six change agent participants.

Each 60-minute interview was a guided conversation rather than a structured

question and answer session that, according to Hennink (2014), “offers the opportunity to

explore issues in greater depth and to collect personal narratives and individual

experiences” (p.29). Yin (2014) claims shorter interviews around one-hour in length are

acceptable in case studies when interview questions are organized around the study

protocol rather than extended open-ended inquiries about interviewees interpretations and

opinions about events, which could last for two or more hours and over an extended

period of time. The 60 minutes was sufficient and understood that a longer interview time

frame would have produced a much lower acceptance rate because of the busy nature of

those who were invited to participate in this study. Interviews were held in-person, in a

comfortable setting where distractions from customers and employees were minimized.

Participants were not audio recorded because of organizational constraints - all

nonsupervisory employees are covered by one of two bargaining units and recording the

meetings and the bargaining unit employees’ statements would have required a longer

approval timeframe, if it was approved at all. So, the researcher made good faith efforts

to record thorough notes and capture verbatim comments to interview questions within

the 60-minute time period.

75

Interview questions were stated in a friendly and conversational tone to elicit

descriptive responses from the interviewee (see Appendix B for the interview guide). The

researcher followed the interview guide to foster conversation but avoided asking

questions out of idle curiosity and did not form judgments about the interviewee’s

comments. When the interview concluded the participant was thanked and the researcher

made initial field notes in an electronic journal.

Data Source Two: Focus Group Interviews

The second source of evidence was focus group interviews. Marshall and

Rossman (2011) explain that focus groups provide the opportunity to gather a wider view

of information about the topic at-hand and serve as other data points that complement

other data collection methods employed in the study. Hennink (2014) suggests focus

groups “uncover various facets and nuances of issues that are simply not available by

interviewing an individual participant” (p. 3) and that the group environment “enables

participants to raise different perspectives…identifying new issues or perspectives on the

research topic that may be unanticipated” (p. 31). Data collected from focus group

interviews serves as a quality check and tends to weed out false or extreme views because

of the social moderation among group participants (Hennink, 2014; Patton, 1990).

The manner in which the researcher structured the focus group interview format

was based on the guidance from Krueger (1998a, 1998b). This study had four separate

focus groups. Two focus groups consisted of a random selection of employees who met

the criteria of having a duty station in the DC Metro Area and an onboard date for the

organization that was prior to the change in 2013. The other two focus groups consisted

of a random selection of employees who met the criteria of having a duty station in the

76

DC Metro Area and an onboard date for the organization that was after the change in

2013. The rationale for having four, smaller focus groups is to meet the criteria set by

Krueger and Casey (2000) - “small enough for everyone to have an opportunity to share

insights and yet large enough to provide diversity of perceptions” (p. 10). It would also

have been impractical and logistically difficult to manage one-on-one interviews with

enough employees to provide that diversity of thought.

The researcher moderated a 60-minute discussion to surface perspectives from the

participants following a focus group interview protocol (see Appendix E). While the

focus groups were meant to be conversational in nature, a script was necessary to ensure

the process was replicated in each of the focus groups. Efforts were made to make the

phrasing and delivery of instructions, questions, and overall facilitation less “scripted” so

that the researcher could connect with participants and build rapport. Rapport was

important to establish a sense of community and trust with participants to foster open

conversation and to elicit descriptive detail when key questions are asked (Krueger,

1998b). Additionally, rapport was established by connecting with participants very early

in the interview by conveying the commonality the researcher has with the participants -

the researcher lived through the change as well. Finally, rapport was established by

sharing why this research is being conducted and offering a report summarizing the

results to all participants who are interested once the research is completed.

Prior to data collection, the researcher conducted a peer review with colleagues

familiar with focus groups to check if interview questions were clear and conversational

in nature. While the focus group itself is not pilot tested (Krueger, 1998a), the researcher

worked with colleagues to evaluate the conversational nature of questions, address points

77

where disconnects could occur between participant and researcher, where questions could

be misinterpreted, and questions that led to stories versus short, closed-ended responses,

except where closed-ended responses were desired. The researcher acknowledges that

despite good faith efforts to make conversations as clear and compelling, not all

participants respond equally. Krueger (1998b) suggests researchers should anticipate 40%

of the participants will actively participate, 40% will need to be slightly coaxed into the

conversation, and 20% will contribute little to the focus group. The researcher notes that,

through tight facilitation of the focus groups and the option of utilizing the chat function

instead of talking out loud, everyone who attended shared their thoughts either verbally

or in writing.

Focus group size range in size. The goal was between 10-20 participants. Based

on historical focus group responses, 50 people were invited to each focus group. The

smallest focus group was 9 people and the largest focus group was 25. The number of

focus groups according to Hennink (2014) is iterative until the researcher believes

saturation is achieved and Krueger (1998a) suggests saturation is reached between 3 and

12 focus groups. With 65 total participants, saturation was reached within the four

planned focus groups.

Focus group interviews were hosted on the organization’s virtual meeting site that

allows audio, sharing of computer screens, polling, recording of the meeting, and has a

chat function. The virtual method of focus groups was in line with the new behaviors the

participants have become adept to post-change. Additionally, it provided an extra layer

of anonymity for those who want it and it provided a non-verbal way of contributing for

those who were less likely to speak out in a group. While the virtual option does not

78

always make sense in a research setting, the organization being studied has placed value

on dispersed work environments. So, the idea of a virtual meeting was commonplace

within the organizational context. Finally, the dispersed work environment has been fully

embraced by the organization and 50% of the workforce was working off site on any

given day. Providing a virtual option provided the highest likelihood of a good

participation rate. The average participation rate was in line with what history indicated;

there were 65 participants out of 200 invitees, or a 32.5% acceptance rate.

A supportive and conversational environment was key to fostering open

discussion, therefore the questions the researcher asks were open-ended and “deceptively

simple,” which allowed participants to share their perspectives, build off of one another’s

statements, and offer differing perspectives (Krueger, 1998b; Marshall & Rossman,

2011). In addition to jotting notes of what participants say and the points they emphasize,

the researcher kept track of time and guided discussion away from irrelevant issues that

arose. The researcher made judgment calls as to the extent of probing questions from the

focus group interview guide to keep the discussion flowing during the allotted time. After

the focus group interview concluded, each participant was thanked and informed of next

steps. The researcher reassured participants their information remains confidential.

Afterward, the researcher entered electronic field notes based on the focus group, noting

insights, emotions, and any personal learning that would be used to facilitate future focus

group interviews.

79

Data Source Three: Documents

According to Yin (2014), documents come in a variety of forms and are likely to

be relevant, to some degree, in almost all case studies. Documents can include letters,

memos, and other personal documents; agendas, meeting minutes, and other written

reports of events; administrative documents such as proposals and progress reports;

formal studies of the same “case” being studied; and media coverage of the event(s).

This case study looked at previous studies, internal communication documents regarding

the change being studied, other materials created to support the workforce during this

change, and any media coverage or articles written about the change. Yin (2014) warns

that documentation, even those considered verbatim meeting minutes, should not be

accepted as literal recordings of past events. Based on that caution, one of the two goals

of the document collection in this case was to corroborate and augment evidence from

other sources.

Marshall and Rossman (2011) assert that the collection of documents in research

studies should be linked to the research questions developed from the theoretical

framework for the study so the data collection effort is manageable and not an exercise in

collecting as much information as possible. The OLSM provided a guide to follow when

examining an organization using the model. Variables such as employee survey data,

decision-making or business processes, policies, the language and symbols used, etc.

were all variables that could inform the assessment of the organizational change and how

it has been sustained over the years (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000).

The second goal of document collection was to help frame the interview and

focus group questions. While individual and focus group interviews were very important

80

in capturing the data for a complete analysis, the review of the current documents related

to this change helped guide the researcher in the questions to ask, the language to use,

and the context in which the participants might be answering the questions. The

researcher categorized and stored documents in a manner that can be readily reviewed by

readers seeking additional information about the data collected.

Data Source Four: Archival Records

Yin (2014) considers archival records to include large data sets, such as the U.S.

Census survey data about participants, service or human resource records, budget records,

etc. Yin (2014) also cautions that most archival records were created for a purpose other

than the case study investigation and that sometimes the effort to collect, organize, and

analyze archival records might far outweigh the probative value they offer to the case

study investigation.

There are several opportunities for utilizing archival records to understand the

overarching environment before, during, and after the change. The most relevant

archival data source ended up being the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) that

is collected annually. The researcher was able to get agency-level data that covered the

first survey post change to the most recent survey (2014 - 2017) and examined the results

across several relevant questions in order to see the trends over time. These trends over

time helped to validate the perceptions of both interview and focus group participants and

how they interpreted the change over time. This information was used with a similar

purpose to document collection: to validate other information and to provide a more

complete picture of the environment before, during, and after the change.

81

Data Source Five: Direct Observation

The fifth source of evidence was direct observation in the real-world setting.

Because the researcher was also a staff member in the organization being studied, all

observations were classified as “participant-observation” (Yin, 2014). Merriam (2009)

contends observations should be tied to the researcher’s purpose of the study and the

theoretical framework. The researcher’s purpose for conducting observations was tied to

uncovering how the various aspects of the change, including desired outcomes and

behaviors, have been sustained and to what extent. The OLSM framework’s main

premise is that, while the actual learning subsystems cannot be observed, the outcomes

from each learning subsystem can be observed. The observation guide (Appendix D) was

crafted with that concept in mind. Merriam (2009) claims, “observational data represent a

firsthand encounter with the phenomenon of interest rather than a secondhand account of

the world obtained in an interview” (p.117). Using Merriam (2009) as a guide for an

observer-as-participant role, observation protocol and field note guidance was drafted to

assist the researcher in capturing details from the organization. In this study, the

researcher was an employee in this organization. So, any observations were minimally

distracting for the organization. However, the researcher was careful to separate daily

work with research observation and ensure that, in the role as researcher, the researcher

did not participate in the actual activities being observed. This protocol established a

systematic process that assisted in triangulating emergent findings from interviews and

document analysis, subsequently enhancing the trustworthiness of the study results (see

Appendix D).

82

Observations were frequent over the course of the study and they focused on the

organization and operations instead of individual practices. Merriam (2009) contends

recording observations can be exhausting and data can overwhelm the researcher if time

is not allocated judiciously. Highly descriptive handwritten notes were taken while on-

site and further reflections were captured in the researcher’s electronic field note journal.

Soon after each observation, full observation notes were typed in bulleted, narrative form,

which was used for later analysis.

Finally, the researcher took note of the physical environment where employees

interacted and learned as Yin (2014) claims the environment in which subjects are

observed may contribute to the researcher’s understanding of about the culture of the

organization. As it relates to this study, the researcher observed physical artifacts and the

various physical settings in and around the workplace.

Data Source Six: Physical Artifacts

The final source of data was the physical and cultural artifacts in the organization.

While Yin (2014) states that physical artifacts have less potential relevance within the

context of a case study investigation, the artifacts throughout the space that support and

reinforce the change being studied will be important to note. This data looked at how

pervasive the use of technological tools are, what behaviors are highlighted through

“etiquette” posters in meeting and public space rooms, etc.

Combining the physical artifacts with the other five data sources allowed the

researcher to obtain a more complete picture of the important elements of the

organization, past and present. This approach of obtaining multiple data points to draw a

83

conclusion is a best practice in case study research and, the more the data points

corroborate each other, the more valid the research will be (Yin, 2014).

Data Analysis

Yin (2014) emphasizes that there are few formulas or scripts to guide the

researcher to interpret case study data. Similarly, Merriam (2009) claims data analysis

involves, “consolidating, reducing, and interpreting what people have said and what the

researcher has seen and read – it is the process of meaning making” (p.176). Data

collection and analysis are concurrent activities, which, according to Miles and

Huberman (1994) make analysis an on-going and lively event that affords researchers the

ability to course-correct the data collection processes if necessary. For this case study, the

analysis was iterative in nature, stopping after each phase to do a preliminary analysis

and adjust the next phase of data collection as needed. As illustrated in Figure 3.2, Phase

I included the collection of all archival and document source data, including emails and

media coverage. This was the longest phase since the data collected in this phase

incorporated all five years of the study. The second phase was the one-on-one interviews

with six change agents. The final phase was included conducting four focus groups with

current employees - two groups had not lived through the change and two groups had.

Finally, data observation occurred throughout the data collection period according to the

observation guide (Appendix D). As this iterative process continued throughout the data

collection phase, the researcher evaluated how the data tied back to the theoretical

proposition grounding the study. The researcher looked for confirming or disconfirming

evidence across the elements of the Organizational Learning Systems Model (Schwandt

& Marquardt, 2000).Yin (2014) suggests examining plausible rival explanations that may

84

explain what was observed in the field or collected in interviews that are the result of

some other influence. During data collection, evidence of other influencers was noted in

the findings.

Themes

Miles and Huberman (1994) and Marshall and Rossman (2011) suggest

researchers develop an initial list of categories prior to data collection and analysis. While

these initial themes are not meant to constrain the researcher, they are intended to be a

starting point for analysis. The OLSM, as the theoretical framework, provides the

categories to start. For details regarding these categories, see Table 3.2. Codes,

according to Saldaña (2009), are words or short phrases that “symbolically assigns a

summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of

language-based or visual data” (p. 3). As data was collected and codes were created, the

researcher kept a running list of possible codes that emerge after reflecting on the various

data points and historical information. These notes also served as preliminary clues as to

possible themes that became more (or less) pronounced as data from all data sources were

evaluated as a whole. Creswell (2014) notes that codes may emerge from data that is

surprising, which is important to note for the study findings. Ultimately, the themes that

emerge within the data, validated by one or more additional types of data, help triangulate

findings and increase the trustworthiness of the study.

85

Table 3.2.

Initial Categories from OLSM Adapted from Schwandt and Marquardt (2000)

Dyad Theme Patterns of Interaction

One - New information and goal reference knowledge

The presence or absence of reflection; the opportunity to question actions; the knowledge produced through reflection; the synthesis of external knowledge; whether actions on new knowledge support or disrupt the routine

Two - Structuring and goal reference knowledge

The absence or presence of leadership and structure that supports the desired end state; the clarity and flow of information; the effectiveness of the communication between layers in the organization; the amount and rigidity of territorial boundaries

Three - Structuring and new information

The absence or presence of leadership and structure that supports the desired end state; the knowledge produced and distributed through reflection; the clarity and flow of information; the effectiveness of the communication between layers of the organization; the amount and rigidity of territorial boundaries

Four - Structuring and sensemaking

The absence or presence of leadership and structure that supports the desired end state; the amount and rigidity of territorial boundaries; the alignment of shared values; the need for individual identities; the level of separateness and conflict and the extent to which those things drive routine actions

Five - Goal reference knowledge and sensemaking

How the reflection, or lack thereof, supports or disrupts the desired end state and the old assumptions; the presence of signals that indicate a need to reflect and make sense of the new way; an understanding of the agency goals and end state

Six - New information and sensemaking

The level to which the basic assumptions support or detract from the desired end state; the amount of filtering new information goes through as it enters the organization; reflection on the agency goals and desired end state

86

Trustworthiness

Several steps were taken to increase the trustworthiness of the study. First, an

audit trail was conducted to document data collection and analysis as the case study

occurred over a period of six weeks and included historical documents. Merriam (2009)

describes an audit trail as “a detailed account of the methods, procedures, and decision

points in carrying out the study” (Merriam, 2009, p.229). This is important as the data

collection strategies may have altered over time as the researcher completed and

evaluated each phase. Since the scope of this case was a historical one that spanned over

five years, the audit trail also helped the researcher sort through the data and present

findings for the “holistic picture” rather than loosely connecting data (Krefting, 1991,

p.220). Second, data triangulation included the historical data and artifacts; current

document collection; one-on-one and focus group interviews that were recorded and

transcribed; direct observation notes; and personal journal memos. According to Krefting

(1991) using a variety of different sources “maximizes the range of data that might

contribute to complete understanding of the concept” (p. 219). Third, reflexivity was a

key strategy as it involved disclosing self-awareness and critical self-reflection. Given

that the researcher was an employee of this agency and was a change leader with over 20

years of leadership experience, it was important to disclose biases to ensure the study

participants’ voices were heard and not censored by my worldview.

Fourth, field notes were taken throughout the data collection process. Notes were

made prior to data collection, describing what the researcher thought the data would

show. As themes emerged, the field notes were checked to see if the pre-conceived

notions of the researcher contributed to the themes and patterns that were emerging.

87

When the themes were similar, other data points were used to validate a theme before

being included in the findings. Field notes, according to Yin (2014), while not highly

polished, were stored in a way that can be easily retrieved by a reader seeking additional

information about the data collected, as they only need to be “organized, categorized,

complete, and available for later access” (p.125). Field notes assisted the researcher in

keeping track of personal insights and reflections, as well as the noted emotions the

researcher felt during the interview, which allows the researcher to bracket personal

insight and experience that comingle with the raw data captured (Marshall & Rossman,

2011).

Fifth, the interview notes were cleaned up and each participant was provided their

transcript for review and comment. These member checks enhanced the reliability of the

data collected and afforded each interview participant the opportunity to validate that the

researcher captured the interview correctly, and for the participant to provide any

corrections or further insight pertaining to the study (Marshall & Rossman, 2011;

Merriam, 2009). While member checks were done with the individual interviews, they

were not possible for all of the focus group participants since those participants were

virtual and anonymous to the researcher (the researcher knew the random sample that

was invited, but not who actually showed up to participate). That being said, several

focus group participants reached out to the researcher after the fact to thank the

researcher. For those who reached out, I provided the focus group themes for their

review to see if they heard the same themes in the focus group. There were no changes

identified for any of the interview notes or focus group themes. Many offered to provide

additional context if needed, but thought the original conversations we captured

88

accurately and the themes from the focus groups were in line with what the participants

heard in the focus group they participated in.

I did not conduct a formal peer review process since there was no other person in

the organization (that I had access to) trained in qualitative research methods. However, I

did have several organizational leaders and change agents review the themes and patterns

outlined in my findings to provide a “smell test” of the results. Additionally, I asked a

neutral third party to take the interview and focus group notes so that I was sure not to

infect the interview and focus group transcripts with my bias before the iterative coding

occurred.

Finally, I provided thick description and unattributed, verbatim quotes and data

points in Chapter Four so that the reader could see the data for themselves and determine

if the themes and patterns that were defined made sense to them and whether the findings

would be transferrable to other organizations or settings (Creswell, 2014; Merriam,

2009). Creswell (2014) outlined eight validation strategies to overcome researcher bias

and recommended that every study conduct at least two of the validation strategies. Of

the eight validation strategies I employed, 5 of them were recommended by Creswell.

Because of my role in the organization, it was important for the validity of this study to

do as many validation strategies as practical. The final recommendation of Creswell

(2014) is clarification, were the researcher comments on past experiences, biases,

prejudices, and orientations that have likely shaped the interpretation and approach to the

study. This is found in the reflexivity statement, below.

89

Reflexivity Statement

Krefting (1991) and Johnson (1997) claim that stating the researcher’s personal

history and the multiple roles they played while engaged in the research helps to establish

greater trust in the study. Generally, I have been a leader, in one form or another for over

24 years - leading people and projects. This informed my pragmatic, problem-solving

worldview and focus. This is furthered by my academic studies. All of my degrees - a

B.S. in Recreation Management, an M.S. in Finance Management, an M.B.A., and a

Masters Certificate in Project Management - were all practical in nature (i.e. not research

based). I brought all of this practical experience and interest in problem-solving to this

research.

However, perhaps most importantly for this research, I was an employee in the

organization being studied. I not only lived through the change being studied, but I was

responsible for managing the change for about half of the impacted employees. While

this gave me the type of in-depth access and knowledge of organizational context needed

for this research, it also meant I needed to be very aware of my own perceptions and

beliefs and not ascribe those to the study participants. The personal journaling and

reflexivity throughout data collection was very important to making sure the reader can

sort out my subjectivity from the results of the data collection itself.

Finally, I had a personal and professional interest in the pragmatic nature of

change in organizations. As a change leader who was responsible for leading major

organizational and culture change in the agency, the research findings will ultimately

inform the work I do and what I share with other change leaders within my own network.

90

Human Participants and Ethical Considerations

Participants in this study were asked to voluntarily participate in either focus

group interviews or one-on-one interviews. Observation of the work place was focused at

an organizational/ operational level and not focused on any individuals. The questions in

both the interviews and focus groups concentrated on perceptions of experiences at work

related to a specific change. There were no traumatic or personal questions and there

were no questions concerning illegal activity. All participation was completely

voluntary.

The most serious risk of harm participants were subject to was a breach of

confidentiality. Participants were told their responses would be kept confidential. All

steps possible were taken to ensure there was not a breach of confidentiality. No names

or personally identifiable information was collected in the focus group interviews; all

participants had an option of joining the focus group anonymously so even the researcher

did not know the identity of the participant. For the one-on-one interviews, the identity

of the participant was known by the researcher. However, the name of the participant

was at no time connected with the actual responses provided during the interview. All

references to the participant were based on a number that individual was provided. Data

collected for the research study was stored in a password protected personal, cloud-based

storage system. Additionally, all participants were made aware aggregated data would

appear in a doctoral dissertation and in subsequent industry-related publications at the

conclusion of the dissertation defense. Finally, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge,

all ethical and human subject guidelines as outlined in The George Washington

University Institutional Review Board (IRB) were followed.

91

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

This chapter presents the findings of this qualitative case study. The purpose of

this study was to explore how a government agency developed and sustained

organizational learning, using the Organizational Learning Systems Model (OLSM) as a

lens. To fulfill the purpose of this study, the following research question addressed is:

How did a government agency introduce and sustain organizational learning during and

after a planned change?

The findings in this chapter are organized by both time and the interchange media

dyads outlined in the OLSM: (1) new information and goal reference knowledge; (2)

structuring and goal reference knowledge; (3) structuring and new information; (4)

structuring and sensemaking; (5) goal reference knowledge and sensemaking; and, (6)

new information and sensemaking (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000). As shown in Figure

4.1, below, this case study looked at data from three different time periods: during the

planned change initiatives, immediately following the change, and today, five years post-

change.

92

Figure 4.1. Conceptual framework: How organizational learning is sustained over time

The first group of findings provide information around the initiation and

implementation of the change (Time 0). Documents such as media coverage, internal

emails, and the case for change were examined. Additionally, documents of experiential

change programs were reviewed. In general, the findings in Time 0 showed that the

change effort was centralized and closely aligned, from the head of the organization

down to sub-organizations, and individual supervisor messaging.

The second group of findings examined the time period immediately following

the completion of the change initiatives (Time 1). Organizational documents and artifacts

that were collected as part of the organizational “hot wash” were examined for this phase.

This included previous qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis used to

evaluate the success of the change. In general, the findings in Time 1 showed the gradual

decentralization of organizational learning and change.

93

The third and final group of findings illustrates the organization in the present day

(Time 2). Data collection for Time 2 included data such as interviews of change agents,

focus groups of employees, and direct observation, among others. This section also

explores the trends of the employee engagement survey, which has been distributed

annually throughout the period of this case study. In general, the findings in Time 2

show that the change effort itself is no longer part of the organization’s focus. Those

behaviors and assumptions that were once deliberately created to support the change are

now just part of the status quo. Some of the language still remains as part of the

organization’s vernacular. Otherwise, leadership is moving forward with other priorities

and even reversing some of the “lead by doing” components put in place by former

leadership. For a more detailed overview of the findings, see Table 4.11 which provides

an overview of the findings by dyad and time period.

While the breaking down of the data by time period was guided by the research

question, the analysis of data in the three time periods was guided by the case study

results outlined in Schwandt and Marquardt’s book (2000). In these case studies, the

analysis was presented as a description of interchange media, including data and

comments around roles, information, structure, values, time for reflection, and more (p.

80). Using the OLSM model as a lens, Schwandt and Marquardt (2000) described the

results in terms of six interchange patterns with each of the six dyads representing a

pattern of interaction between to interchange media. These six dyads form the

configuration of the organizational learning system and are therefore the way the data in

each time period is organized. Organizing the data in this way allows both the researcher

94

and the reader to compare the organizational state in each time period to observe any

change and, ultimately, address the research question of this study.

Overview of Findings

The findings were derived from six data sources. All data was collected in a 6-

week period between April and June 2018 and all qualitative data were analyzed using a

thematic analysis method for identifying and interpreting patterns of meaning across all

the data. The six-phase recursive process outlined by Clarke and Braun (2014) was used.

See Table 4.1 for the outline of the six phases.

Table 4.1

Six-Phases of Thematic Analysis Adapted from Clarke and Braun (2014)

Phase Description of Analysis Process

One - Familiarization with the Data

This involves the researcher immersing themselves in their dataset by reading and re-reading each and every data item to learn the content of the dataset ‘inside out’. Familiarization also involves starting to identify potentially interesting features of the data relevant to the research question.

Two - Generating Initial Codes

Familiarization is followed by the process of systematically coding the data to generate initial codes. A code is a pithy label that captures something interesting about the data, and the aim is to identify potentially meaningful bits of the data, at the smallest level. Codes either summarize the surface meaning of the data, or dig deeper into the data to identify latent codes, such as assumptions underpinning the semantic content.

Three - Searching for Themes

Theme development involves looking for broader patterns of meaning across the coded data; coded data can be organized into a theme by ‘promoting’ a particularly large and complex code to a theme or clustering similar codes together. There is no one way to do this; researchers rely on their own analytic judgment about what is meaningful and important for answering the research question.

95

Four - Reviewing Themes

Throughout the reviewing process, the researcher checks that each theme is coherent and substantial, with clear boundaries and a distinct central organizing concept. The researcher ends this process with a final set of themes.

Five - Defining and Naming Themes

The researcher develops and builds the analysis into its final form, with each theme (and the analysis overall) clearly addressing the research question. Ideally, the analysis must go beyond simply summarizing to tell a rich, nuanced, conceptually informed interpretative story about the meanings embedded in and beyond the surface of the data.

Six - Producing the Report

This phase provides the final opportunity for refining the analysis, such as through the integration of literature, or determining the order in which the themes are to be presented. The researcher’s goal is to tell the rich and complex story of their analysis, situated within the relevant field of scholarship, in a way that convinces the reader of the validity of their interpretations.

The first of six data sources was one-on-one interviews with the change agents for

the change being studied. There were six employees interviewed who played a change

leader and/or change agent role in the planned change. Most individuals have since

changed roles, by design or through promotion, but were still employed at the agency.

The second data source was focus groups with randomly selected employees across the

organization. There were four focus groups conducted, with a total of 65 participants.

Two of the focus groups (18 total participants) included employees who arrived at the

organization after the completion of the active change management programs (post-

2013). The other two focus groups (47 total participants) included employees who

“lived” through the change management programs since they have been with the agency

since before 2013. The third data source included a review of organizational documents.

Documents included previous studies before, during, and since the formal change

management intervention, internal communication documents regarding the change being

96

studied, other materials created to support the workforce during this change, and media

coverage about the change. The non-people data, such as document review, as well as

the next data sources, were used more to validate and inform the thematic analysis of the

other data sources (Yin, 2014). The fourth data source included archival records.

Records such as the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey for the agency, as well as

budget and human resource records were examined. The fifth data source was direct

observation and included high level observation of both the physical environment and the

way the organization interacts. The sixth and final data source was physical artifacts,

including the pervasive use of technology and the different artifacts in the shared use

spaces.

Findings - Time 0 (During the Change)

The head of a government agency of about 12,000 employees triggered the

change being studied by asking a single question: What would it take to have all

Washington DC Metro employees collocated in our headquarters building? At the time

the question was asked, about one third of the agency’s employees worked in the

Washington DC Metro area, dispersed among 7 locations. Additionally, the headquarters

building was not designed to hold more than 2,500 people.

After a significant amount of discussion and analysis, the answer had many

layers. The historic headquarters building would need to be renovated to increase the

space and convert into a more open-concept space. The concept of “hoteling” was

introduced. Hoteling is a reservation-based method for supporting unassigned seating in

an office environment. Much like at a hotel, you reserve space when you need it and

someone else has access to it when you do not have it reserved. The organization would

97

need to start encouraging and enabling a mobile workforce – changing the mobile

working policy, having technology that supports mobile work, and making the default for

every employee that they were eligible for telework unless otherwise justified.

Management also recognized that in order to make the consolidation a success, it would

be necessary to eliminate almost all private offices and 90% of assigned workstations in

favor of bench seating and a hoteling concept.

The data sources below show the progression of this move from concept, through

implementation, and up to the current day, five years post-occupancy. Data sources for

Time 0 and Time 1 are all archival data, collected through document collection archival

records. Data sources for Time 2 includes both originally collected data (interviews and

focus groups), as well as archival data, such as the Employee Viewpoint Survey data.

Sources Used

Communicated Case for Change

There were two types of business case documents reviewed. The first were the

business case validation PowerPoint slide presentations that were shown and discussed

by the change agents. These documents were iteratively updated to the produce the final

business case presented to the workforce, which was the second type of business case

document reviewed. There were four themes around the type of information that was

shared in the final business case: goal-based, persona-based, regulation-based, and

quotes.

Goal-based information was designed to both inspire employees and share the

rationale and ideal future state of the change. These goals were shared in narrative form

and well as graphic form.

98

Figure 4.2. Example of Goal-Based Messaging in Business Case - Narrative Form

Figure 4.3. Example of Goal-Based Messaging in Business Case - Graphic Form

Persona-based information was designed to help employees see themselves in the

change and show how each employee, and their specific working styles, would be

accommodated in the future state. The organization was asked to self-select which

persona they fit into most and this information was used to help design the new space as

well as to design the messaging and change initiatives.

99

Figure 4.4. Example of Persona-Based Messaging in Business Case

Regulation-based information was designed to show the top-down leadership

support for the change. Federal employees are used to responding and adjusting to

changes filtered down from administration priorities. Showing how this change aligned

to administration priorities was a key step to achieve buy-in.

Figure 4.5. Example of Regulation-Based Messaging in Business Case

The final type of messaging was the prolific use of quotes from employees at all

levels of the organization that have been living in “the new way of working” in various

100

pilot programs across the organization. These quotes tended to be organized in a way

that aligned with the goals and the proposed benefits of the change. For instance, a quote

from the administrator at the time focused specifically on the goal of leading by example:

"We can be our own proving ground, living and testing solutions. In the new

[Workplace], exploration and experimentation will be a catalyst for new business

strategies around technology, sustainability, telework, and space utilization."

As the business case discussed the benefit and intent of the change to increase

personal networks and collaboration, the Deputy Chief Information Officer was quoted as

saying, "In a more flexible, open workplace you will have more interactions and be more

productive. At all levels of the organization, the new [Workplace] provides increased

opportunities for collaboration, awareness, and knowledge sharing. "In addition,” a front

line supervisor said, “when we first moved into the building everyone was unhappy.

Now people naturally come in together on the same day and have more interactions. The

team is close, happy, and more engaged in work than when we were in separate places.”

As the business case explored how the change would support better customer

service, a division director responsible for customer delivery said, “Previously, time was

wasted to see the customer; it was a restrained way of working. You actually saw less of

the customer. Now with mobile working, we can see a customer, touchdown, and see

another customer. All our agencies and customers are supposed to be seeing people!”

Emails and Other Internal Communications

Over the course of the almost two-year change process, there were hundreds of

email and other communications that occurred at every level of the organization. In

addition to emails, blog posts and internal briefings were the next most common forms of

101

communication. Regardless of communication channel, the internal communications had

five main themes: describing the nature of change, amplifying various feedback

mechanisms, emphasizing the importance of our customers, providing support for

employees, and describing logistics and requesting action. Figure 4.6 below shows the

words most frequently found in the various internal communications. Note that the

communications reviewed were sorted by various key words to only include emails

related to the change being studied; this was not an analysis of every email distributed by

the organization during the past five years.

Figure 4.6.Words Most Frequently Found in Internal Communications during Change

Describing the nature of change was the largest theme. These communications

seemed to create an agency-specific language that was repeated over and over. The

change itself was called the "new way of working" the "transformation" and the "extreme

challenge". The tag line about telework and workplace flexibility was "work is what you

102

do, not where you are" - that language, if not the exact phrase, was pervasive in the

internal and external communications

The second purpose, or theme, of internal communications was amplifying the

various feedback mechanisms available to employees. There were surveys, focus groups,

town halls, all kinds of ways for employees to ask questions and provide feedback; not

just a top down communication framework. The feedback of the employee was actively

sought out and incorporating that feedback was factored into the project plan at all stages.

The third theme was an emphasis on the importance of the customer. Operational

units at every level of the organization were concerned that this change was going to

impact service to our customers, at least temporarily. Language commonly referred to

how the change would increase service to the customer, not the opposite. This was the

only organizational value that was consistent in the current and future state and was

highlighted as important above all else.

The fourth theme of internal communications was to provide employee support.

These emails and other communications provided tools, job aids, trainings, and more.

These communications were designed to support employees with the tactical and more

strategic changes that needed to occur for transformation success; the focus here was to

help employees with behavior change and learning.

The final theme was very directive and logistical in nature. These

communications were most likely to be email only, instead of more customized or high-

touch messaging. These emails included communication of logistics and requesting

specific actions (empty your file drawers by x date), informing of deadlines (the facilities

103

team will be collecting the burn bins on x date), and move dates (your group will be

moving on Friday, [date]. We suggest you plan to work remotely on that Friday).

The other data point of note in the communications was the recognition that

emails from an employee’s immediate supervisor were most likely to be opened and read.

For that reason, there were a lot of emails to leadership that included the direction, and

draft email language, for them to cut and paste that language and send a message to their

direct reports. This ensured consistent messaging but also allowed for supervisors to

customize the message to what they know would resonate with their team.

Media Coverage

There was a fair amount of media coverage on different aspects of the

transformational change at the time of the change. Workspace and design media focused

on the agency leading the way in the federal space. It was from these publications that

the administrator’s tag line - "Work is what you do, not where you are"- was picked up

and repeatedly used. The change these outlets focused on was the move from traditional

office space to more open, collaborative, shared office space.

Federal technology media outlets also covered the change. However, the

emphasis in these outlets was focused on the technological change of moving the

government towards cloud technology and enabling mobile work. This change had been

traditionally dismissed for government agencies because of the security concerns, so this

change was of significant interest in the federal technology space.

Because this transformational change was occurring in the Federal government,

there were specific Presidential Mandates that encouraged this change, and the change

was happening in Washington DC, local papers like the Washington Post also covered

104

the change in the politics section, mostly focused on expanding telework in the federal

government and going paperless, which were directly related to specific Executive Orders

and other regulations put into place by the presidential administration at the time.

Experiential Change Program

The Agency being studied consists of two operational services, led by

Commissioners, and several overhead functions, led by Assistant Administrators. While

this change was going to impact all functions within the Washington DC Metro area, one

of the service Commissioners was concerned that this level of change within such a short

time frame (18 months) would impact the bottom line as employees and supervisors

struggled with the change and lost sight of their customers and business objectives. In

order to mitigate this risk, the service Commissioner created a Program Management

Office (PMO) to manage the change for their people.

Each transformation initiative and program aligned with a “Transformation

Adoption Curve” — Getting Ready, Getting Going, Getting Confident, and Getting

Expert — a tool developed by the Transformation PMO that helped employees

understand the transformation and the resources available to support them as they

embraced the new way of working.

One specific transformation effort within the Workforce Agility Track, the WAVE

initiative, provided a unique opportunity for employees to prepare for the

transformation’s impact on the workforce. This effort helped employees move along a

key Adoption Curve theme: “adapting to changes in space, technology, and

relationships.”

105

The WAVE, a ten-week experiential learning program, was designed to help

employees transition away from a traditional, location-based work structure to a more

results-based style of working by simulating a distributed environment similar to that

eventually became the norm across the organization.

The WAVE: The WAVE typically ran about ten weeks per organization. Much of

the process involved equipping employees with the knowledge, tools, and resources to be

successful during the four weeks in which they vacated their workstations and continued

beyond this period. The PMO Agility Track established a number of pre, during, and

post-WAVE milestones to facilitate employees’ progress towards Getting Ready, Getting

Going, Getting Confident, and Getting Expert. Metaphors related to surfing actual ocean

waves were used to brand the change program.

Wax the Board (Getting Ready): This phase was typically two weeks in

duration. During this stage, staff, project managers, and coordinators provided tracking

tools and instructions that documented their business processes in order to determine how

much paper they generated and handled and to what extent their current operations

required a physical office presence. Teams also documented their spontaneous and

planned social interactions to become aware of how much they relied on face-to-face

communications. Employees also documented their level of proficiency using mobility

tools (e.g., Google, smart phones, VoIP, WebEx, etc.). Technical training was provided

as needed. Organizers and facilitators prepared to host Surf’s Up for the organization’s

teams.

Surf’s Up: The bulk of pre-WAVE activities centered on Surf’s Up, a half-day

facilitated event designed to equip teams with the plan, tools, support and guidance for

106

successfully surfing the WAVE. The Surf’s Up event played a key role in helping to

prepare employees for the WAVE and building their overall engagement and commitment

to the initiative. The staff made sure to incorporate the following:

Key messaging from organizational leadership

An open forum for dialogue

Engaging activities and discussion topics

Although the length of a typical Surf’s Up event was approximately four hours, it

varied depending on the specific needs of the organization. The format consisted of a

session in which the group at large reviews the overall objectives of the WAVE and the

transformation. The group discussion was followed by breakout sessions in which work

teams defined their team norms and developed specific strategies and action plans for

operating in a distributed work environment. These action plans centered on the

following topics:

Updating processes to minimize paper documents

Maintaining and growing relationships

Managing distributed work teams

Demonstrating and documenting productivity

Action items were captured as they were identified so that team members could

actively track against them. Following the team breakout sessions, groups resumed the

plenary session where they reported out their action items and facilitators provided

feedback and insight into effective implementation of these items.

Paddle Out: Organizations used the period of time between the Surf’s Up event

and their multi-week Surf the WAVE activity (typically 2-3 weeks) to track teams’

107

progress against action items established during their Surf’s Up event. Some teams held

“Paddle Out” parties to celebrate the launch of their Surfing of the WAVE, and decorated

their assigned workstations to advise drop-by visitors that they will not be found at their

assigned workstations while they were Surfing, and instructions on how to reach them.

These decorations included colorful posters, barricades, traffic cones, crime-scene tape,

and more. From a logistical standpoint, this was the phase in which the first survey was

administered (See ANOVA and t-test results, itemized below).

Surf the WAVE (Getting Going): During this stage, teams vacated their assigned

workstations for 4 weeks. They explored flexible work modes by working from diverse

locations such as hoteling stations, conference rooms, other office buildings, home,

customer sites, or any other alternative work site that supported business needs. In fact,

the only place that employees did not work was at their regular, assigned workstations.

“Surfers” documented any issues or lost productivity they experienced in a document that

was monitored by staff who could address issues in real time as needed.

Reach the Beach (Getting Confident/Expert): Post-Surf the WAVE activities

focused on identifying and communicating lessons learned and developing a strategy for

sustaining the agile practices and behaviors adopted throughout the WAVE. Activities to

support this goal included:

Debrief sessions with managers and employees

Post-Surf the WAVE surveys

Lessons learned reports to share with other organizations

108

Sustainability activities such as engaging in additional performance and

technology training, reconfiguring space, properly archiving and disposing of

paper files, and further implementation of flexible work modes.

Summary of Time 0

While the change itself did not use the OLSM as the framework to implement the

change, the data captured for the purposes of this study was aligned to the six dyads of

the interchange media. As shown in Table 4.2, the data collected for Time 0 easily

aligned to the organizational learning subsystems of the OLSM - environmental interface,

action/ reflection, memory/ meaning, and dissemination/ diffusion - and they were all

managed centrally in a deliberate way. While the centralization of these efforts were key,

there were other key components of the organizational learning during Time 0 that

enabled the sustainability of the organizational learning moving forward. The strong

collaborative nature of the centralized PMO and the active solicitation of feedback, as

well as the willingness to adjust plans to accommodate that feedback, were all

components found in Time 0 that set sustainability of action learning up for success in

Time 1. Additionally, the stratified effort - representatives on the centralized change

team had the option of running their own change teams within their smaller

organizational groups - allowed some of the larger sub-organizational units to amplify the

centralized efforts; for example, creating an experiential change program for the

employees to practice the new behaviors.

109

Table 4.2

Overview of Findings for Time 0

Dyad Time 0 - During the Change (2011-2013)


The impetus for the entire change was the head of the agency asking a powerful reflection question: “What would happen if we all moved into the headquarters building?”; leadership encouraged and modelled the idea of trying out new things, practicing, and failing fast; case studies of other organizations (in government and private industry) were used as examples and embedded in the business case; every routine is questioned and disrupted as needed to move towards the “new way of working”


Once the decision was made to move forward, there was a program management office put into place that was responsible for managing the messaging and coordinating all of the parts of the organization; communication between the various layers of the organization was deliberately managed through message maps, change networks, and trickle down messaging; structures were flexible and subject to change based on feedback


Best practices from external sources were used in “design labs” to see what would work within this agency - lessons learned from practice space informed the final design; even the business case was validated in a coordinated way at all levels of the organization - and then adjusted based on the feedback; the ability and encouragement for employees to practice and provide feedback was pervasive throughout all components of the change


Shared values, such as the need to be customer-centric, were pervasive in the change; tag lines that reinforced both the change and the shared values became part of the language in the agency: “new way of working”, “fail fast, fail forward”, “work is what you do, not where you are”; there were safe spaces and specific channels for employees to share their reservations and concerns about the change; change leaders “leaned in” to the resistance and encouraged employees to practice, learn, and adjust - and they were willing to adjust the plan as needed


The reflection question that instigated the change, as well as subsequent reflection questions to further the change, were all designed to disrupt, or at least challenge, the status quo; the disruption was in several different areas - from paper-based filing, to mobile working, to increased use of technology, to space entitlement; several communication channels - from town halls to change networks to blog posts, videos, and emails - were all in support of helping the employee understand and relate to the future state


Basic assumptions are in complete alignment with the desired end state; information coming into the organization is fairly transparent - the filtering seems to happen in real time and with employee input once the information is brought into the organization; agency goals and desired end state were developed iteratively and there was a significant amount of effort put into making the messaging clear, concise, and relevant to the larger workforce

110

Findings - Time 1 (Immediately Following the Change)

In Time 1, immediately following the change, the reader will notice a shift from

tight centralization. Instead of tights and deliberate centralization, the tasks of building

the new routines and helping employees adjust to institutionalize the change falls to the

frontline and middle managers, and the employees themselves. This shift is summarized

in Table 4.4. The data presented in Time 1 shows the centralized efforts to share best

practices, especially since the change was done in phases. However, once the changes

were complete, the centralized effort moved on to help other agencies recreate the

success and the employee support was decentralized down. The tenant satisfaction

surveys show how employees were still figuring out how to best operate in shared open

spaces, adjusting to the lack of temperature and lighting controls, as well as the noise and

distractions.

Sources Used

Post-Move Data Collection

About one year following the change, the Office of Customer Experience Focus

Groups were conducted, based on the results of the Pulse Survey, in order to understand

how people were reacting to the changes in the building and how to understand what

further improvements could be made. They identified five high-level findings (see

Figure 4.7) and made recommendations for changes on the above design principles. The

recommendations fit into five categories: physical, process, communication, culture, and

technology (see Figure 4.8).

111

Figure 4.7 Five Findings from Post-Change Focus Groups

Figure 4.8 Recommendations Made by Office of Customer Experience

112

In addition to the Office of Customer Experience Focus Groups to find

improvements to be made moving forward, other Change Champion Network Focus

Groups were conducted to identify the move experience and to capture best practices for

others who might do a similar change in the future. In these forums, the experiential

change programs were regularly brought up as a best practice. A typical comment from

an employee who did not have the opportunity to participate was, “I wish I had had the

opportunity to practice more before [the transition]. There’s a pretty big learning curve

and I know my productivity is not where it was.” In contrast, a typical comment from an

employee who did have the opportunity to participate was, “This [transition] would not

have gone as smoothly if it weren’t for the WAVE.”

Figure 4.9 shows the top words used when employees were asked to describe the

most successful parts of the change. By putting all of the focus group transcripts into a

word cloud generator and removing all of the small connector words (like at, and, the,

etc.), the word cloud was generated. While the colors are irrelevant, the bigger the word,

the more prevalent the word throughout the focus groups. The word “practice” relates to

the experiential change program and the work “Bookit” relates to the new IT tool that

needed to be learned to be successful in the new environment. “Crates” and “move” were

both related to the actual physical movement of office stuff from one location to another.

The word “teams” was typically used to describe the comradery as specific office teams

moved together and supported each other.

113

Figure 4.9 Employees’ description of successful parts of the change

Document Reviews of Previous Studies

While this study was a historical case study, part of the organizational change

documents available for review were quantitative studies that explored supervisor support

and employee readiness throughout the change. Since this quantitative data was collected

during Time 1 and is useful in understanding the organizational learning and “state of

mind” during Time 1, this data is included here. This data was used to validate the

qualitative findings for Time 1, summarized in Table 4.4. While the case study

methodology of this study is purely qualitative, the following quantitative findings

provide an interesting component to the context of the change that is important to

include. Note that the statistics and quantitative analysis results were analyzed, no

quantitative analysis was done separately for the purposes of this study. Through the

previous quantitative analysis described below, it was found that employees who

participated in the WAVE program (described in Time 0, above) felt less prepared than

those who did not participated. However, they were more proficient in the tools and

114

behaviors needed for success post-change and had a perception of a smoother move than

those who did not participate in the WAVE program. The conclusion of this analysis was

that the additional awareness provided by the change program gave them a perception of

being less prepared, since the group that did not participate did not know what they were

going to be experiencing soon, thereby overestimating their preparedness. For the

purpose of this study, this review of quantitative analysis both validates the importance

and impact of the WAVE program in Time 0. Additionally, this quantitative analysis,

when combined with the other qualitative data gathering immediately following the

change, validates the perception of the employees immediately post-move, as well as

their skill level and self-efficacy with some of the behaviors needed for long term success

in the new environment.

ANOVA Analysis of Employee Readiness and Supervisory Support. Data

was collected through an anonymous survey to all employees who participated in the

experiential change program. For this quantitative analysis, three survey questions were

averaged to obtain an “employee readiness” score; a score for supervisory support was

also used. The quantitative analysis, shown below, was completed immediately post-

move, and was peer-reviewed and selected to be presented at an Academy of Human

Resource Development conference (Barnes, 2013).

There was no significant effect of experiential change programs on employee

readiness F (1, 330) = .010, p = .922. There was no significant effect of supervisor

support on employee readiness F (1, 330) = 1.124, p = .290.

115

Independent t-test Design - Employee Readiness. Data was collected through

an anonymous survey to all employees who were impacted by the change, regardless of

whether they had the opportunity to participate in an experiential change program or not.

For this analysis, one question was examined: “I am fully prepared for the transition.”

The analysis, shown below, was completed immediately post-move and presented at an

Academy of Human Resource Development conference (Barnes, 2013).

On average, participants whose organizations had the opportunity to participate in

an experiential change program (M = 2.9, SE = .041) felt less prepared than those who

116

did not have the opportunity to participate (M = 3.15, SE = .034). This difference was

significant t (960) = -4.638, p<.001. However, the effect size was relatively low at r =

.148.

Additional Analysis of Quantitative Data. Based on the results above, Barnes

(2013) returned to the data collected and examined additional quantitative data to look for

context that might explain the results received.

Note that the frequency with which the various collaborative tools were used were

higher for those who had participated in the experiential change program (M = 3.60, SE =

117

.022) compared to those who had not (M = 3.52, SE = .021). This difference was

significant t (960) = 2.540, p=.011. However, the effect size was relatively low at r =

.082.

Additionally, those who did not have the opportunity to participate in an

experiential change program (M = .43, SE = .022) requested more support than those who

did participate in an experiential change program (M = .29, SE = .022). This difference

was significant t (960) = -4.421, p < .001. The effect size was again relatively low at r =

.142.

This quantitative study confirmed the qualitative findings that those who had the

opportunity to participate in the experiential change program were more prepared for the

change and required less support because the self-efficacy gained through practice

empowered them to figure out any issues they came across.

“Pay It Forward” Lessons Learned

As the physical relocation was conducted in phases, each group of employees was

able to share their lessons learned from their moves to have an immediate benefit on the

group of employees moving next. Figure 4.10, illustrated on the following page,

provides a high-level summary of the top lessons learned shared by organizational groups

to help other groups who were scheduled for future moves. This chart was updated as

each group completed their move and added other lessons learned. Figure 4.10 is the final

iteration of the chart, finalized after the last group completed their move. This type of

centralized reflection was the key to continued success of the change, and was one of the

areas of change management that remained centralized longer than others.

118

Figure 4.10. Pay It Forward: Lessons Learned and Shared During Phased Moves

Building Statistics

The facilities organization within the agency kept a “cheat sheet” of various

information about the building that provided some insight into the change that was posted

and information that was available to everyone. This information is outlined in the Table

4.3, below. This data was important for a few reasons. First, the consolidation and

sharing of this cheat sheet was another indication that the ability to share consistent

information was deemed important and given the attention it needed to be implemented.

Second, some of the data contained within this cheat sheet was important to

provide context around the scope of the change. The number of employees

accommodated by the building increased by more than 32% through this change. Usable

square footage per person was decreased by about a third. Only 17% of the employees in

the building had assigned seats; everyone else “booked” their seats each day that they

came into the office, thereby not taking up space when they were not in the building, or

spend the whole day in meetings. The financial business case for the change under

savings is as follows: $31.4M is saved annually in reduced rental and operation costs.

119

The impact of the change to the workforce is also provided here. Before the change, only

14% of the workforce was able to continue working during a snow storm. This cost the

agency $1.5M in Administrative leave and unknown costs in lost productivity. However,

post-change, when OPM closed Federal agencies due to snow, 82% of employees were

able to report to work, and the agency only paid out $135k in Administrative leave. This

one statistic shows a real-life impact of the change. Finally, the sustainability facts are

interesting additional impact figures. While not completely relevant to this study, it does

align back with the initial goals of the change (zero environmental footprint) and shows

yet another example of how messaging was tightly aligned.

Table 4.3

Building Information

Category Information

Background Information

Building construction completed - 1917 Last major renovation - 1933, includes the addition of office space

on the 7th floor

Recent Move Timeline

Phase 1 Renovation and refresh completed - October 2013 Moves began in May 2013 and took place every weekend until

November 16th, 2013

Occupancy Change

Previous tenant headcount - approximately 2,500 Approximate headcount as of October 2016 - 3321 Building designed for approximately 4400 tenants

Post-Move Statistics

Space Allocation (projected for October 2016) = 3321 headcount / 454,404 usf = 136 usf / person

Space Allocation prior to transformation - 205 usf / person There are approximately 2,300 individual workstation seats in the

building, and about 4,400 seats total including conference and collaborative seating

There are approximately 400 assigned seats in the building, called “long term reservations” (roughly 17% of the overall seats)

120

Construction Costs

Construction costs for the project (in gross square footage (all interior space contained in the exterior walls including vertical penetrations (e.g. stairwells, elevator shafts):

Phase 1 (added 50,000 usf to the overall building): $161M / 435,524 GSF = $370 per GSF

Refresh: $8M / 354,922 GSF = $22.54 per GSF Rough IT Costs = $8.85M = $11.20 / GSF; wireless and IPTV set

up = $4.11M = $5.19 / GSF

Other Costs

Furniture procurement - $10.34M / 454,404 usf = $23.07 per usf Per workstation cost = approximately $1100 per benching station IT configuration per workstation (22” monitor, keyboard, mouse,

port replicator) = $363.50

Savings Rental savings - $24.4 million annually Reduced leased SF is approx. 457,311 RSF Operation costs savings - approx. $7 million annually

Change in Telework

Every employee has a telework agreement. In 2010, when OPM announced a city-wide closure of federal

buildings, 14% of employees in the DC area were able to report for work

Agency issued $1.5 million in Administrative Leave On March 17, 2014, during another OPM announced closure -

82% of employees were able to report to work Agency issued only $135k in Administrative Leave

Sustainability

Energy down 2/3 from Baseline 100% Daylighting in Working Space LED in Hallways, Stairwells & Outside 100% Rainwater Capture into new Cisterns Solar Direct to Computer Servers (DC to DC; No Inverter) 100% Solar Hot Water Green roof to reduce heat load Energy - solar panels produce 700,000 KwH / year

Tenant Surveys - One and Two Years Post-Occupancy

In 2014, the organization conducted the first tenant satisfaction survey post-

occupancy. Figure 4.11 shows the key satisfaction findings from that first survey. In

2015, a second tenant satisfaction survey was conducted. Figure 4.12 shows the high-

121

level findings from that survey. It is noteworthy by looking at the findings from the

initial tenant survey that the areas of struggle include individual and group work

effectiveness, and interaction and communication. The key findings from the second

tenant survey, while not comparable in terms of numeric values, shows that satisfaction

increased over the one year time period, suggesting that employees are getting more

accustomed to the new work environment. However, the interaction issues - disturbing

others while collaborating or the ability to hold a private conversation - are still areas of

concern for employees.

Figure 4.11 Key Findings - Tenant Survey One Year Post-Occupancy

122

Figure 4.12 Overall findings - Tenant Survey Two Years Post-Occupancy

Summary of Time 1

Time 1 was the transition between the active change (Time 0) and the “new”

status quo (Time 2). Similar to Time 0, Table 4.4 summarizes the state of the

organizational learning immediately following the change by using OLSM as the

perspective and the respective dyads as the lens through which the change was analyzed.

Some subsystems, like Action/Reflection were still deliberately centralized. However,

others, like Meaning/Memory, were becoming more decentralized. The strong

collaboration and transparency observed in Time 0 was important in ensuring that the

transition to a more decentralized model, beginning in Time 1, did not disrupt the

organizational learning, thus possibly setting employees up for failure.

123

Table 4.4


Dyad Time 1 - Immediately Following the Change (2014-2015)


Reflection is still strong immediately following the change; “hot washes”, post-move surveys and focus groups, and other reflective exercises were completed; this reflection had two goals - ensure continuous improvement and help other agencies follow in the agency’s footsteps; reflection and feedback are still being actively encouraged and sought out as feedback


Even with a change in top leadership before the change was completed, the new administrator doubled down on the vision and moved out into the open with his other top leadership and converted the historic office into conference space; deliberate communication slowed down significantly; norms were communicated via various print collateral on desktops, in shared or common spaces, and in conference rooms - how to use the technology and rules of engagement, for example; exceptions were beginning to be requested, especially by senior leadership as they tried to make the new way of working work for them; some adjustments were made - for example, most organizations ended up choosing at least one day where everyone would come into the office so face-to-face meetings were more doable


There was a shift post-change where the agency stopped seeking outside case studies and started using this change as the case study for other customer agencies; “selling” the change process to other agencies was the purview of one subset of the organization; change networks and other structures were dissolved as the initial reflection post-change died down; people were individually responsible for reinforcing and continuing to adapt to the change


Senior leadership visibly supported the space reduction and transparency components of the change, such as sitting out in the open in small benching stations that were the same size everyone else had access to; exceptions to the rule for senior leaders in terms of permanent versus shared space became more prominent after the deliberate change efforts stopped; employees at all levels were making sense of what the new routine looked like in the new current state


While there is still centralized reflection in terms of formal evaluations, the way supervisors and all levels of the organization were engaged in sharing the same messages and encouraging the same behaviors has stopped; leaders in each organization are responsible for individually helping employees reach or exceed former productivity levels and embed the new norms into the organization; employees are taking some ownership of this sensemaking themselves

124


A large part of the agency’s mission is to deal with external organizations; because of the media attention and the agency’s marketing of the change to its customer agencies, employees found themselves fielding questions about how things are working; this “teaching” of others at a one-on-one level seemed to act as a reinforcement to the benefits of the change; external information from other agencies provided perspective the alternatives

Findings - Time 2 (Current-State - Five Years Post-Move)

In Time 2, the reader can see the long-term impact of the change. The

Engagement scores for select questions have, for the most part, increased year over year.

The interviews with the change agents and the focus groups with employees tell the story

of how employees see the organization as it is today and how they interpret the evolution

from Time 0 to today. At the end of this section, Table 4.10 summarizes the state of

organizational learning today (Time 2), and Table 4.11 provides an overview of the

findings at all three time periods, making the evolution of the organizational learning

within each time period clear.

One of the most interesting examples of how the strong centralization in Time 0

has survived over time and become part of the new status quo is the use of language.

There was very deliberate and aligned messaging in Time 0 and those words are still

being used to describe the change, even more than five years later - both by employees

who lived through the change and those who arrived to the organization after the change,

showing that the language is being transferred to new employees as they come onboard.

Sources Used

Engagement Surveys

The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) which is administered annually

by the OPM is one source of information that the agency uses to gauge the workforce

125

perceptions related to the work environment. Additionally, the agency administers an

additional survey to gather a mid-year pulse of the workforce related to the focus areas

within the National Engagement Strategy. These mid-year pulse surveys are less-

regularly conducted, but do provide some information. EVS surveys from 2014 through

2017 were reviewed, as well as two pulse surveys from 2015 and 2016. Since the

historical EVS surveys are all several pages long, Table 4.5, below, shows select

questions, relevant to this case study, compared across all surveys.

Table 4.5

Employee Engagement Survey - Percent of Positive Responses (Agree/ Strongly Agree)

Question Theme 2014 2015 2016 2017

02 - Enough information to do job well

Access to Information

69.3% 71.2% 74.0% 76.0%

03 - Come up with new & better ways

Empowerment and Innovation

61.6% 62.7% 67.0% 71.0%

06 - Know what is expected

Understanding Expectations

77.9% 77.6% 80.0% 83.0%

08 - Looking for ways to do job better


90.5% 90.5% 91.0% 92.0%

09 - Resources to get job done

Resources 50.9% 52.6% 56.0% 59.0%

14 - Physical conditions allow to perform job well

Resources 69.7% 70.6% 71.0% 73.0%

20 - People cooperate to get the job done

Working Together 78.3% 79.4% 81.0% 83.0%

26 - Employees share job knowledge


27 - Skill level has improved in the past year

Quality Work 57.3% 59.8% 62.0% 68.0%

28 - Rate overall quality of work done

Quality Work 86.0% 86.8% 88.0% 90.0%

29 - Workforce has job-relevant knowledge and skills

Quality Work 69.1% 69.3% 71.0% 77.0%

126

30 - Personal empowerment with work processes


47.1% 48.1% 53.0% 59.0%

32 - Creativity & innovation are rewarded


41.1% 43.0% 49.0% 54.0%

40 - Recommend my organization as a good place to work

Overall Satisfaction 67.1% 68.0% 72.0% 78.0%

41 - Survey results used to make agency results a better place to work

Listened to by Leadership

45.2% 45.9% 51.0% 57.0%

42 - Supports need to balance work and other life issues

Work Life Balance 84.9% 85.6% 87.0% 89.0%

48 - Listens to what I have to say


80.8% 81.6% 84.0% 85.0%

49 - Treats me with respect


84.9% 85.4% 87.0% 89.0%

58 - Promote communication among different work units


59 - Support collaboration to accomplish work objectives


62 - Senior leaders demonstrate support for Work/Life programs

Work Life Balance 65.5% 67.4% 71.0% 75.0%

63 - Satisfied with involvement with decisions that affect work


53.7% 55.1% 60.0% 65.0%

64 - Satisfied with information received on what's going on

Access to Information

52.6% 55.1% 61.0% 66.0%

69 - Satisfied with my job Overall Satisfaction 67.7% 68.8% 73.0% 76.0%

71 - Satisfied with your organization

Overall Satisfaction 60.2% 61.3% 67.0% 72.0%

In addition to the table of selected questions from the historical EVS, the two

charts below show the trends in a visual depiction, both by question and by theme. The

127

2014 scores were lower across the board from previous years; 2014 was the first EVS

survey post-change. However, by looking at Figures 4.13 and 4.14, the overall upward

trend from 2014 to 2017 is clear. The engagement score of this federal agency tends to be

several points higher than the federal government overall. This agency regularly scores

in the “best places to work” as defined by the Partnership for Public Service. The impact

of the change on the 2014 engagement scores is clear; and the upward trend back to a

highly engaged workforce is also clear.

Figure 4.13 Annual Trends of EVS Questions - 2014 to 2017

128

Figure 4.14 Annual Trends of EVS Themes - 2014 to 2017

Change Agent Interviews

Change agent interviews covered a lot of the same information as this study’s

focus groups, but interviewed people who were responsible for implementing the change,

either for the entire organization as a whole or a part of the organization. Figure 4.15

shows the demographics of this group. All change agents had been at the organization

for more than 6 years, meaning that they were well versed in the organization prior to the

change. Additionally, over half of them are still in roles that continue to reinforce the

“new way of working”. Nobody is in their same position because over the years the

agency has reorganized, and personnel have either moved on or been promoted.

129

Figure 4.15 Change Agent Demographics

The information received in the change agent interviews was more detailed than

the information from the employee focus groups. The change agents were able to

respond with more confidence, presumably because of the increased level of context and

big picture view of the change. However, there were no themes that emerged from the

interviews that were not also present in this study’s focus groups. Interestingly enough,

even the comments that brought out the theme of an increasing divide between leadership

and the employees was found as a theme in both the study’s focus groups and change

agent interviews. So, the most significant value of the interviews from the change agent

was not, as expected, the unique perspectives and insights that were different from the

front line employees. Instead, it was the ability of the detailed responses during one-on-

one interviews to validate the themes at each time period. This type of cross-checking

and validation of the themes created provided both the researcher and the reader with

more confidence in the findings. Below is Table 4.6 that highlights some of the questions

6‐10years

11+years

YES

NO

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

YearsatGSA stillinarolethatactivelyreinforcesthe"newwayofworking"

ChangeAgentDemographics

130

asked, and key quotes from the change interviews. The quotes listed either align to one

of the themes that are emerging, or provided additional context and information from the

data collected in the study’s focus groups.

Table 4.6

Summary of Change Agent Interviews

Interview Question

Representative Quotes Attributable to Emergent Themes

From your perspective, what are some of the changes that have since become "just the way we do things"?

"Managing ‘stuff’ was a huge concern prior to our move. Employees self-promoted their interests, hobbies, and values through their cubicle decorations. Filing cabinets dominated the hallways. You could tell a lot about a person's career path and job series, just by the textbooks and reading materials displayed in their space. It was amazing how many people were wound up over the stuff and how they would ever cope without it. Today, you rarely see paper - we use document sharing and cloud technology to share ideas and draft documents. Some people have a few small artifacts that they carry with them and display on their temporary (daily) work space. And introductions are far more important than the shelves of books. What seemed a significant hurdle was actually pretty seamless; but we just had to make the jump”

“[A] key issue was the loss of personal space - a seemingly big deal in the beginning that is no big deal now. Everywhere you go, you see employees camped out and holding impromptu conversations. Most people are thrilled to work ‘from anywhere’ and that plays out - the [common area with the best view] is crowded on a blue-sky day; kitchen areas and the high-top tables are a great place for collaboration; the comfy sofas and chairs throughout the building provide great privacy for calls"

“Using collaborative tech tools to stay connected or meet” “Having to check into conference rooms booked to avoid getting bumped from

the reservation” “Having shared supplies and no personal printers” “Mobile work is more the norm than the exception”

What changes were initiated during the change to the new way of working that didn't stand the test of time?

“Blended or communal working with other groups” “There were initially rules about food in the work space. Many voiced opinions

about the need to eat or store food in the kitchen areas only. But once the pace of the day kicks in, you see people eating power bars in the hallway or taking quick bites of salads between meetings. In the fast-paced environment we work in, such rigid rules just got overruled very early on”

“No assigned seats! Plenty of organizations have permanently assigned seats to execs and senior staff”

“I no longer work in [the building] but I understand that the requirement to reserve your desk through Book-it is not consistently utilized”

131

Where do you think THE AGENCY is today versus immediately following the move regarding its awareness and responsiveness to the external environment?

“I believe we are always growing to learn and to adapt/accommodate new ways moving forward”

“I think we are incredibly more responsive to and respectful of our customer's environments...most people recognize that our environment is not the same as our customers, so it forces the conversation. ‘Tell me about the work that you do, how you do it, and what gets in the way’"

“The environment has encouraged greater agility and resourcefulness across the entire workforce that translates into the agency's ability to better respond to customer needs and shifting priorities”

“I think we have adapted how things work based on employee feedback yet still have overall stuck with the major plan of consolidation-by-sharing”

“I think we have probably gone backward, the current Administration does not seem to have the same interest / desire to promote the 'new ways of working' so people have returned to what is comfortable, keeping the new elements they liked and letting the more uncomfortable/challenging ones fall away. I think we have returned to being merely order takers for our client agencies rather than change agents to promote the new ways of working and bring other agencies along”

Do you think the change to the new way of working and the move had either a direct or indirect impact on this change? How so?

“Both -- working remotely requires much more flexibility and understanding” “The move had a direct impact on this. It forced a creativity and agility that

some people were lacking. Today, that agility is just part of our DNA” “Yes I do think the move to our new space/environment has impacted THE

AGENCY's ability to be more innovative or to be more entrepreneurial” “It was certainly easier to make the changes desired by making a physical

change in the space we work in, whether it was moving from one part of the building into a recently renovated space or from an different building entirely”

“I see the change as more related to changes in leadership and Administration priorities than as a result of THE AGENCY's move to a new way of working”

Where do you think THE AGENCY is today versus immediately following the change regarding its action and reflection on goals, learning, and innovation?

“I see a great deal of innovation and focus on goals. Employees are more engaged and involved in other parts of the organization, which is new since our move”

“I do think that since the change, THE AGENCY has moved to sell services to customer agencies that we've adopted and implemented into our everyday way of doing business... Reduced space, more collaborative seating, cloud computing, etc.”

“I think, as time goes on, we are constantly improving the way we work collaboratively by using technology and new ideas that have cropped up through our sharing”

“I think the agency is singularly focused on cost-savings at the expense of everything else, often innovation costs money and there is no appetite for that”

132

Where do you think THE AGENCY is today versus immediately following the change regarding its dissemination and integration of roles, communications, leadership, and development?

“I believe we are the same in some ways still adapting/accommodating new ways of successfully moving forward”

“The need for clear communication and roles/responsibilities understanding is more palpable than ever. Unfortunately, I don't think that leadership has recognized that need or has responded to it”

“Since this change, I'd say THE AGENCY needs to be even more vigilant with communicating electronically to all employees because obtaining information in the office has become more difficult in our more dispersed, virtual work environment. The result is email/communication overload which has had a decreasing impact on getting a message across since employees are inundated through this medium”

“I think the information gets out there, but it goes out in so many different venues (e-mail, website, chatter, Google drive) that it's hard to keep up sometimes”

“I think we have gone backward; we currently lack visionary leadership and any appetite for risk taking or innovation. Directives and initiatives are top down and often do not involve staff in planning and decision making; employees are left to implement orders rather than lead with their expertise”

“I see the leadership as behaving largely the same way as before. Many of our leaders have assigned space and come in to that space 4 or 5 days out of the week. For them, other than the office walls, not much has changed so they haven't changed. Yet, for most employees, we move around the building several times a day and are rarely in the same spot. We rely on electronic communications to keep abreast of changes and keep our managers up-to-date. We are more comfortable with phone conversations, drive-by updates, or meetings via Adobe Connect or Google Hang-outs. But our leadership is stuck in the old ways of working. And that difference is creating a rift”

Where do you think THE AGENCY is today versus immediately following the change regarding its culture of development and innovation?

“Trust is growing among employees and deteriorating with leadership. Most employees are dedicated to the customer and demonstrating improvements both to themselves and the customer, with or without the support from leadership. And because of how we move around the space, you see new friendships and alliance on a regular basis. People introduce themselves and catch up as they trade out of conference space. It is really amazing, professional, and very family-like”

“I do think the organization puts less value on developing individuals than it did prior to the change, but not sure if the change impacted that difference or not. I do think the change has increased attention on raising the bar, encouraging new ideas & innovation, and allowing for mistakes in some parts of the agency but not all. I feel in some staff offices, the failure to embrace this new environment has caused leadership to draw inward and become less open to ideas and innovation due to the loss of a more traditional environment and definitely a greater lack of trust and empowerment”

“I think the leadership is trying, but with some employees, it's just never enough for them”

“Again, I think we have gone backward; we currently lack visionary leadership and any appetite for risk taking or innovation. We have become a risk averse organization and staff is not empowered to make decisions, innovate or deviate from prescribed leadership direction”

“I think the leadership reversion back to old ways was immediately recognized by employees and created mistrust. But, I think most employees recognize the impact of the changes to their productivity and are not hampered by their leadership, just disappointed in it”

133

Employee Focus Groups

Four focus groups were conducted in real time for this research. Two focus

groups were conducted with employees who joined the organization after the move was

completed in September 2013, and two focus groups were conducted with employees

who “lived through” the change because they were onboard prior to the September 2013

date. All invitees were randomly selected from an employee listing of all employees who

had a duty station at the headquarters building, sorted by on-boarding date (before and

after September 2013). Fifty employees were invited to each focus group. For the newer

employees, 18 people participated in the focus group, which equaled an 18%

participation rate. For the employees who lived through the change, 47 people

participated in the focus group, which equaled a 47% participation rate.

Figure 4.16 below shows the demographic information about the 65 participants;

how many years they had been at the agency, whether they lived through the

transformation, if they have ever previously participated in a change program, and what

type of interaction they had with customers.

Figure 4.16 Demographic Information of Focus Group Participants

0‐2Years

3‐5Years

6‐10Years

11+Years

YesYes

NoNo

Internal

External

Both

None

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

YearsofServiceatAgency

LivedThroughTransformation

ParticipatedinChangeProgram

CustomerInteraction

FocusGroupDemographics

134

The focus group was organized by OLSM subsystem. The researcher first asked

questions and facilitated discussion around the current state. Then, the discussion was

shifted to whether the subject of the question had increased, decreased, or stayed the

same since the move. Below are several charts that show the synthesis of this focus

group data. Figures 4.17 and 4.18 illustrate the focus group’s perceptions of the current

state of the organization. Based on the focus group responses, the majority of

participants felt as though the subsystems of the OLSM were present. The groups’

strongest consensus was around the components of dissemination and diffusion, while

there was less consensus around action and reflection. The focus groups were split when

asked if the organization had goals for developing new products and services. Some of

the responses seemed to indicate that the organization was goal oriented, but that the

goals did not focus on creating new products and services. Another question that had less

agreement was the idea of a strong culture supporting organizational or individual

development. The thought here was that this was much more dependent on an individual

supervisor, as opposed to consistency across the organization.

Figure 4.17 Focus Group Responses - Current State (Time 2) by Question

135

Figure 4.18 Focus Group Responses - Current State (Time 2) by OLSM Subsystem

Figures 4.19 and 4.20 depict the feelings of the focus group on whether these

same elements discussed and depicted above have increased, decreased, or stayed the

same over the past several years. The majority of responses indicated that these

conditions have either increased or stayed the same over the past several years. There

was almost unanimous consensus across all groups on the importance placed on

customers and how the focus on customers has either increased or have always been of

utmost importance in the organization. The least amount of agreement was on the

concept of support for organizational and individual development. Not far behind were

the ideas of sharing information and collaboration. There was a theme that emerged that

identified a loss because of the change. Some used the word “family”. Others simply

spoke of more organic collaboration with peers. This sense of loss seemed to emerge in

the focus group as a decreased level of collaboration, sharing of information, and

136

development support. Some of this language is evident in the open responses highlighted

in Tables 4.7 and 4.8.

Figure 4.19 Focus Group Responses - Change from the Past by Question

Figure 4.20 Focus Group Responses - Change from the Past by OLSM Subsystem

137

In addition to the short answer components of the focus group, there were also

discussions pertaining to respective OLSM subsystems, as well as some higher-level

discussion questions and responses identified in Tables 4.7 and 4.8, respectively.

138

Table 4.7

Focus Group Open Responses by Subsystem - Notes from the Focus Group, Reflective of Emergent Themes

Environmental Interface Action/ Reflection Memory/ Meaning Dissemination/ Diffusion

relationship with external environment highly dependent on industry - IT, yes; others, not so much

big difference in perceptions - individual versus organizational development, as well as both extremes with individual and organizational development -> leader and microculture dependent; based on specific orgs

"roller coaster" strong, almost unanimous voice that what customers say is critical to organizational success

external information is sought out based on specific projects or initiatives; reactive and ad hoc; not a regular process

goal setting and reflection/action is much more meaningful in smaller org components

EVS results drive working groups and increased comms

our revolving fund (versus annual appropriation from Congress) gives some parts of the organization more flexibility with change and trying new things

those who have easy knowledge sharing tools (like Slack) are more willing to and likely to share industry and other external information

performance-based metrics in place for every org, most have not yet gotten to measuring impact

ways to communicate have increased but that doesn't mean the effectiveness of comms has increased

as the workforce gets more dispersed, shared values seems to decrease (or become more fragmented)

when Slack groups and access grows to over 100 or 150, sharing seems to reduce - no longer as safe as space for informal sharing

communication is also leadership dependent - strong in pockets; weak in others

process improvements and innovations implemented in one part of the organization are not being institutionalized across org on a regular basis

some very broad shared values at the agency level (like customers being important) but other values are shared more at a smaller organization level

139

benchmarking is one way that external data is used throughout the agency

dispersed work environment means that communication and development needs to be more deliberate

"we cannibalize our communication efficiencies"

mission stays constant but the espoused values needed to support the mission seem to change with every administration change

industry days are a common practice - project-based way to get external data to inform work

risk management is more important now

too many working groups - some are poorly led, others continuously tap the same people - "I am on three different working groups all with almost the same scope"

there does seem to be change fatigue in the workforce

administration priorities play a big role - when there is focus, more external data is sought and offered

most org goals are around implementation and buy-in, not on developing new products or services

working groups to develop plans seem to be effective - implementation and feedback falls short

norms are still being figured out in newly consolidated orgs - from a consolidation back in 2012

increased complexity leads to reaching out

scope needs to be targeted to be effective

Continuous change - is it necessary, or just a fact of life?

dispersed work environment makes sharing more important - and needs to be more deliberate - but not the only factor

feedback and focus/follow-through is key to success (and not common)

change programs don't extend past the end of the actual change - no deliberate reinforcement or nurturing

front line employees are so busy, they don't feel they have time - if leadership does scan the external environment, it may or may not trickle down - even if it does, employees may or may not absorb it

most communication is passive and requires action from employee - lots of content and context to unpack

140

Table 4.8.

Focus Group Open Responses by High-Level Discussion Questions - Synthesis of Emergent Themes

Just the way we do things now Why it stuck What didn't stick

communication is more often Gchat or email compared with face to face or phone

no option to return (structuration) open telework days - orgs created in-office days for everyone to increase collaboration and knowledge sharing

knowledge sharing - files on the cloud, etc. high WIIFM for employees (sensemaking) < 10% will have dedicated space -> most org leaders and staff have permanent reservations (still in open space)

mobile workforce - telework, etc. leadership support

elevated leadership comms -> immediately following the change, there was an effort for deliberate communication at all levels, that has since decreased

non-mandatory source -> leads to customer focus

increased efficiencies (action/reflection)

Administrator working out in the open - lasted for 3 permanent (and more acting) administrators; current administrator renovated space to create enclosed office and meeting space just for her

data driven decision making could find better talent in less competitive markets (EI)

some specific tech tools - were replaced with something better

141

collaborative IT tools used daily technology to support new ways of working available to all

you can sit anywhere in the building - "neighborhoods" are more protects by occupants, making others feel uncomfortable

allocation of shared resources

BookIt versus squatting - as more folks feel comfortable with mobility, they simply find open space to squat versus booking a conference room

communication is more deliberate - less ad hoc

sense of community/ family - less connected when everyone was in the office most days, sat in the same spot, etc.

harder to organically make connections at work

ability to create a team identity - in open, shared space, there is no opportunity to create an identity or shared motivation

measuring employee engagement fewer phone calls

goal was more organic collaboration, but might have had opposite effect

further consolidation of space not yet implemented

virtual work (100% telework) is being more strictly regulated now

142

Direct Observation

The researcher conducted direct observation during the six-week data collection

period and notes were taken in regards to both the physical setting of the building and of

the individuals and their observed interactions. Below is a summary table of those

observations.

Table 4.9

Summary of Direct Observations by the Researcher

Observation Type

Summary of Researcher Observations

Physical Setting

work environment is separated between renovated and refreshed space refreshed space shares the same furniture, but is much more

compartmentalized, less airy and open renovated space is bright, open concept space both spaces have bench desks as the standard workstation conference rooms all have wall mounted TVs with connections for laptop

hookup and whiteboards; they vary in size from a small phone room for 1-2 people to a large training center for hundreds; conference rooms are dispersed throughout every floor and wing

lighting is sunlight or LED lighting renovated space has “smart” shades that go up and down, seemingly without

cause and can impact the quality of light when not behaving correctly (i.e. sunshades down when it is dark and cloudy outside)

temperature is comfortable in most areas with smart occupancy sensors in renovated space that monitor room capacity (air goes off or slows down when room is vacant); conditioning of space in renovated section turns off at 6pm nightly

temperature in the refreshed space is still conditioned by radiators and window units; temperature is locally controlled and some sensitive to temperature sit near the controls to “own” the temperature in that area

Employees & Interactions

observed employees in general in their workspace no notes of specific people or conversations were recorded teams tended to sit adjacent to each other in “neighborhoods” some days - especially Mondays and Fridays - the space was almost vacant

with most choosing to work remotely senior leadership was more likely to be in the office and at an assigned or

permanent space than the rest of the organization the new administrator built out an office and moved out of the common space

with the other senior leaders of the organization - this was the fourth administrator (not include acting) since the administrator who announced the

143

change, and the first to revert back to an older style of working the culture/norms vary throughout the building; some areas are lively with

active collaboration and talking at full voice, others are quiet with people working individually wearing headphones

most interaction is initiated via chat first, unless it is an organic interaction in the hallway, which occurs frequently

the formality of the environment varies throughout the building - some teams are in business formal attire while others are business casual and still others are just casual; this tends to be dictated by both leadership example and customer interactions

when people “squat” in areas not typical for them, regular occupants in that area give them strategy looks, or even kick them out - there seems to be an unwritten rule to stick to your own “neighborhood”

most meeting invites, even at the senior leadership level, tends to have a virtual option included; however, unless the meeting is all virtual, the virtual attendees are at a disadvantage and they are easily forgotten

it is still the norm to request that everyone be in-person for “important” meetings, whenever possible

there are some groups who have truly dispersed teams of virtual people who collaborate effectively with rare or no in-person opportunities

there is a lot of mobility - a majority of people bring their laptops into a meeting and use the cloud to store documents - this leads to a comfort level in finding a place to “squat” in common or open spaces (or even a coffee shop or on the roof deck) in between meetings - folks can typically be productive anywhere with just their laptop, cell phone, and WiFi

most teams have a day(s) where folks are asked to come into the office to collaborate; other days are open for employee choice

the number of telework days seems to relate to several things - for some, it is the nature of the work; for others, it is personal preference; the biggest cultural factor is how much interaction the person has/needs with senior leadership - with most senior leaders having assigned desks and coming into the office every day, the immediate circle of senior leadership is the least changed group

middle managers seem to be the key to balancing the dispersed culture for front line employees and the in-person culture of senior leadership - they may telework less and be less mobile than their employees, but they have figured out how to effectively manage a dispersed workforce

144

Summary of Time 2

As described in Table 4.10, the current state of the organization is no longer

focused on the change as a priority. In fact, new administration priorities have taken

over. At the same time, leadership is taking action that reverses some of the principles of

the change - the new administrator built herself an office that is more traditional and

behind closed doors, instead of sitting out in the open like her three predecessors.

Employees and the previous change agents have noticed a growing divide between

employees and leadership. This puts even more pressure on the middle managers who

are responsible for bridging that growing gap.

Table 4.10.


Dyad Time 2 - Current State (2018, five years post-move)


Reflection is no longer deliberately done centrally; reflection occurs at the individual or team level based on a specific issue or project-based need; this reflection does inform actions and the change has made the ability to reflect and act on new information easier; employees’ ability to adapt based on input has increased, it is just done at a level further down in the organization


The new Presidential Management Agenda (PMA) developed by the new Administration, and the priorities of the new administrator, nominated by the new President, means that the goals of this change are no longer as important; there have been some rule reversals, or at least tightening down on flexibilities (like 100% telework); there is a divide in communication between actions and expectations of senior leaders and actions and expectations of front line supervisors and employees; front line supervisors and middle managers are in a position of needing to balance that divide and help employees make sense of the direction


Some of the new information coming into the organization is contradictory, with itself and with previous goals of this change (e.g. reduced costs are important, but virtual work is unlikely to be approved, even if at a cost benefit); communication is so pervasive that filtering all of the information to find relevant information is difficult and can be overwhelming

145


The structuring and sensemaking process has solidified a few shared values agency wide, including the importance of serving the customer and the need to be agile; employees regularly get the reinforcement that the agency is miles ahead of other government agencies in their agility and flexibility; the individual branding of specific business lines has always been important, but there is an increased request from senior leadership to embraced shared services and think more enterprise-wide


Recent leadership changes are specifically counter to the goals of this goal - like the Administrator moving from common, open space with her senior leadership team back into an exclusive, commonly locked wing of the building; employees who do not have a need to access the Administrator regularly just roll their eyes or may not even know the change has been made; however, the growing divide between senior leadership and the front line employees is breeding distrust; no deliberate efforts have been made to undo the values of risk-taking, transparency, agility, flexibility, and customer-focus; but, senior leadership actions seem to have this unintended consequence


External information is deliberately sought out at the operational level to inform project and programs; there seems to be less seeking out new information from a centralized perspective, unless it is a directive from the Administration; senior leadership is effective at converting the PMA into pithy statements that relate to the organization; other sensemaking occurs at the leadership level during the strategic planning process; the level to which this sensemaking gets pushed down to the front line varies significantly based on leadership, but is rarely very effective; most employees operate at the level they can control, bringing in knowledge, making sense of it, and applying it to the projects, programs, and processes they have control of

Synthesis of Findings across All Three Time Periods

Generally, there was an evolution of organizational learning between the three

time periods (Table 4.11). In Time 0, the organizational learning was centralized and

deliberate, while also focusing on inclusion, empowerment, and transparency. During

Time 1, the transition to a more decentralized effort began. Reflection was still

centralized, but other areas were decentralized, relying on empowerment and practice

from Time 0 to set employees up for success. Time 2 is the new status quo, five years

past the change. Leadership focus has moved on completely at this point, which has

created some challenges for the sustainability. Less focus is being placed on leadership

“leading the way” with the desired behavior, which is creating a divide that is noticeable

by some of the people interviewed for this study. However, other components have

146

become status quo even without strong, visible leadership support because the middle

managers and front line employees are getting positive reinforcement from the positive

benefits of the change.

Table 4.11

Overview of Findings by Time and OLSM Dyad

Dyad Time 0 (During Change) Time 1 (Post-Change) Time 2 (Current Day)


new information and reflection are centralized and active

new information and reflection are centralized and scaling back

new information and reflection are decentralized and now done ad hoc down lower in the organization


structuring managed centrally; strong communications alignment; structures are iterative based on feedback

strong leadership support; decentralizing structuring and communication; iterations tend to revert back to old ways

“new way of working” seen as status quo and not addressed by leadership; divide between senior leadership and operational employees; some specific undoing of goals


centralized, active, and iterative structuring based on proactively sought out new information

decentralizing structuring based on ad hoc reactively sought out new information; centralized effort moved from “learning” to “selling as expert”

decentralized structuring based on overwhelming amounts of sometimes contradictory information


shared values; common language; safe environment for risk-taking and practice

espoused support from leadership; misalignment between leadership “doing” and “saying”; employees responsible for figuring out their own new routines

A few shared values solidified (customer-focus & agility); balancing individuality and an enterprise-focus seems to be next focus


reflection questions deliberately disruptive of status quo; communications supported sensemaking process

sensemaking decentralized; therefore, less alignment in messaging and outcomes

sensemaking decentralized and divide growing between senior leadership and operational employees

147


Assumptions and end state align; information is filtered and interpreted in a transparent way; feedback and iterative design were key components

Information is coming into the org in a decentralized, informal way; provides employees with perspective that reinforces benefits of change

Information is coming in at all levels; sensemaking occurs individually and in teams with some support from communications, depending on org; employees operate within their own span of control

A few shared values emerged; being customer-focused and agile are two of the

values that were unanimously shared across the focus groups. Additionally, the

decentralization of sensemaking and sorting of external information means that

information overload was a common comment by interviewees and focus groups. The

result is that most information and sensemaking is now done ad hoc on a project by

project basis and not as an ongoing effort. When retrospectively aligning the change and

findings to the OLSM subsystems, most are currently happening at the team or front-line

level and not at the larger organization level, causing a divide between leadership and the

front-line. The next chapter will explore the conclusions and interpretations of these

findings, and how the evolution of the organizational learning subsystems can help

inform other change initiatives.

148

CHAPTER 5: Conclusions, Interpretations, and Recommendations

This chapter presents the conclusions, interpretations, and recommendations of

this case study. The purpose of this study was to explore how a government agency

developed and sustained organizational learning, using the Organizational Learning

Systems Model (OLSM) as a lens. To fulfill the purpose of this study, the following

research question addressed is: How did a government agency introduce and sustain

organizational learning during and after a planned change?

Conclusions and Interpretations

In an effort to answer the research question, the data from all of the various data

points were divided into three time periods: Time 0 - during the change; Time 1 - post-

change; and Time 2 - current day. Then, each time period was synthesized using the six

subsystem dyads of the OLSM: new information and goal reference knowledge;

structuring and goal reference knowledge; structuring and new information; structuring

and sensemaking; goal reference knowledge and sensemaking; and, new information and

sensemaking. Finally, the analysis completed retrospectively for each time period,

aligned to the six OLSM dyads, were compared to each other to show any change over

time.

It was the deep understanding of the data, and the synthesis of the data into time

periods and dyads, that informed the seven main conclusions that addressed the research

question: How did a government agency introduce and sustain organizational learning

during and after a planned change? Five conclusions were things that the organization

did throughout the change to support the sustainability of organizational learning. Two

149

of the conclusions were things that challenged the sustainability of organizational

learning long term. The conclusions are outlined in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1

Seven Conclusions that Address the Research Question

Conclusions How it Relates to OLSM

1. The organization introduced and implemented organizational learning by centrally managing the different components of the learning subsystems during the change itself.

This conclusion relates to all subsystems and relationships as the change was initiated and implemented. By looking at Table 4.2, it is clear that all four learning subsystems were tightly, but collaboratively, managed during the change (Time 0).

2. The organization introduced and sustained organizational learning by involving, encouraging, and empowering employees and middle managers during the change.

This conclusion relates to all subsystems and relationships, but is more focused on Memory/ Meaning and Action/ Reflection learning subsystems with the sensemaking and goal reference knowledge interchange media. The collaboration and transparency when the change was initiated and implemented (Time 0) helped empower employees and middle managers in preparation for sustaining the change past the end of the change initiative, where they would have more responsibility for sustaining the change.

3. The organization introduced and implemented organizational learning by aligning all messaging from senior leadership to front-line employees during the change.

This was strongly aligned to the Memory/ Meaning learning subsystem. With the examination of Table 4.2, it is clear that sensemaking was centralized during the change and the strong alignment and transparency prevented mixed messages and built trust.

4. The organization implemented and sustained organizational learning by encouraging practice to learn the new behaviors and to iterate the change plan based on lessons learned.

This conclusion is closely aligned with the Dissemination/Diffusion learning subsystem and the structuration interchange media. As evidenced by Tables 4.2 and 4.4, some of the structuration was due to the nature of the change. Other structuration was due to the encouragement of practice and incorporating the lessons from that practice into the implementation and sustainability of the change (Time 0 and Time 1).

5. The organization sustained organizational learning by counting on middle managers to sustain sensemaking and organizational learning post-change.

This was strongly tied to the Action/ Reflection and Meaning/ Memory learning subsystems. Tables 4.4 and 4.10 show how the subsystems were decentralized after the change initiative was over (Time 1 and Time 2), sensemaking and goal reference knowledge became the responsibility of employees and middle managers.

150

6. The organization was challenged in sustaining organizational learning because the specific change to a dispersed work environment has several unintended consequences that make it a tricky change.

This was an interesting impact on the learning subsystems. The structural change of reducing space and allowing workplace flexibility by changing policies meant that the Dissemination/ Diffusion learning sub-system was strong. However, the dispersed workforce that resulted from the structural change presented a barrier to the other three learning subsystems, especially during Time 1 and 2, when the efforts were more decentralized. (see Tables 4.4 and 4.10)

7. The organization was challenged in sustaining organizational learning because as senior leadership priorities move further away from the specific change, the organizational learning became more decentralized and fragmented.

This conclusion was another barrier to the sustainability of organizational learning. It mostly impacted the Environmental Interface, Action/ Reflection, and Memory/ Meaning learning subsystems. Without the centralized focus, new information, goal reference knowledge, and sensemaking were all implemented in a more fragmented way and the assistance employees had in Time 0 with making sense and moving forward was no longer presence. Table 4.10 shows how, in Time 2, Dissemination/ Diffusion learning subsystem was also impacted as some of the structural changes adopted in support of the change are beginning to be undone.

By looking at the strength and centralization of the four learning subsystems and

six interchange media in the OLSM, this retrospective case study shows a distinct

evolution of the status of the learning subsystems over time. In Time 0, the entire

learning subsystems had well-aligned and centrally managed elements. As the change

initiative wrapped up and the organization moved into Time 1, the learning subsystems,

specifically the Action/ Reflection and Memory/Meaning subsystems, remained

observable, but in a more decentralized way - middle managers and individual employees

were now responsible for adjusting and creating group norms that help them succeed in

the “new way of working”. Reflecting back from Time 2, the two barriers to the

sustainability of organizational learning and change emerged - the nature of the structural

change actually acted to disconnect and disperse the system and leadership focus moved

on before the “new way of working” was fully embedded into every layer of the

organization, making the other elements of organizational learning more difficult to

151

sustain. Each conclusion listed below is addressed in depth and the contribution to

existing literature is examined.

1. The organization introduced and implemented organizational learning by

centrally managing the different components of the learning subsystems during the

change itself.

From the start of the change initiative, the change was iterative and collaborative.

The change was initiated by a disrupting question from the head of the agency to her

senior leadership, not a directive. The creation of the business case for change was

iterative and collaborative in nature. Every part of the change management process was,

while nominally top-down, transparent and participative. A centralized PMO for the

“Extreme Challenge” was put into place and members from all stakeholder groups were

made a part of that matrixed PMO for the life of the change initiative.

This strong centralization revealed itself in every dyad in Time 0, when viewed

through the OLSM lens. New information was brought in from all parts of the

organization, but curated and centrally shared out. The reflection on the new information

was also done centrally, which then informed of any messaging going out or iterative

changes to be made. Centralized sensemaking was apparent by the prolific use of

common language; even today, employees who lived through the change refer to the

change to the “new way of working”.

More than words and messaging, there was alignment between the behaviors

needed in the change (smart risk-taking, flexibility, agility, etc.) and the behaviors asked

for by senior leadership, especially in the critical time period during the change. While

this centralized management was only truly present in Time 0, all indications are that was

152

where the centralized management was most important. As the change initiative moved

from being an active change initiative to a past, and then more distant past, initiative, the

centralization and focus dissolved and employees and middle managers were responsible

for picking up the slack and figuring out how to continue to iterate and adjust routines

and process to succeed in the new environment.

There was a portion of the change research that focused on offering advice based

on their own assumptions about the nature of change. Whether the advice focused on

maximum involvement of organizational members - developing a shared vision,

empowering others, allowing for improvement throughout the change, creating change

agent networks, and helping people with the paradox (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012; Chin

& Benne, 1989; Smets, Morris, & Greenwood, 2012; Smith & Lewis, 2011) - or dealing

with understanding and adapting to the complexity of change - encouraging pluralism,

questioning assumptions, planning for unanticipated consequences, and dealing with

acceleration of change (Glynn, Barr, & Dacin, 2000; Kilduff & Dougherty, 2000;

McKinley & Scherer, 2000; Pettigrew et al., 2001; Plowman et al., 2007) - the consensus

was that this “help” was centrally orchestrated for all parts of the organization going

through the change. The results from this case study largely support the research that

recommends maximum engagement of stakeholders or helping stakeholders deal with the

various complexities of change. The centralization of these efforts helps build a certain

amount of shared experiences, common language, and baseline understanding that

seemed to be a powerful force in sustaining the organizational learning and change across

the three time periods.

153

2. The organization introduced and sustained organizational learning by involving,

encouraging, and empowering employees and middle managers during the change.

The participative, iterative, and transparent change management process that

involved select managers and employees, and encouraged the rest to get involved and

provide input, served an important purpose. This involvement from the beginning

seemed to empower and give confidence to those stakeholders, while growing their buy-

in as their feedback was iteratively incorporated into the change process. This confidence

and empowerment grew into self-efficacy, which enabled middle managers and front line

employees to keep the organizational learning alive once the organized, centralized

support dissolved post-change.

In Time 1, the data shows evidence that leadership is moving on; they are

claiming success and selling the experience to customers as the self-proclaimed experts,

the divide between what they say and what they do seems to be growing more apparent,

and the self-empowering, risk-taking messaging coming from top leadership has ceased.

Regardless, employees, and especially middle managers who have to straddle that

growing divide between leadership and employees, continue to embrace the principles

behind the change. Some of the less compelling, and perhaps more contrived, goals of

the change (like Zero Environmental Footprint) fall away, and employees rally around

the goals that make the most sense for the organization as a whole - values such as being

customer-centric and agile.

It is important to empower employees and middle managers to cope with the

paradox of the change - the need to adapt AND build new routines; the need to learn the

“new way of working” AND maintain the old level of customer service (or better); the

154

importance of the “new way of working” to organizational success AND the fact that top

leadership is not agile as the rest of the workforce is becoming. Luscher and Lewis

(2008) compare the stages of coping with paradox - confronting, accepting, transcending

- with single-, double-, and triple-loop learning. This fits easily into the idea of

developing and sustaining organizational learning through a planned change. As

employees and middle managers learn how to make sense of, and live with, the paradox,

they are able to help others make sense of it as well. Making sure the structure of the

change program allows for that empowerment is one of the keys to sustainability.

If it were not for the structure and encouragement in Time 0, it is possible that as

the centralized support died down in Time 1, the employees and middle managers would

have reverted back to the old ways of doing things as much as possible. It is important to

note here that, since part of the change was a 50% reduction in space, fully reverting back

to the old way of doing this was not possible; there was not enough space. However, the

changes that have sustained long term are more than were required to maintain just

because of the space constraint. Tsoukas and Chia (2002) describe change as “reweaving

webs of beliefs and habits of action to accommodate new experiences obtained through

interactions” and describe organizations as sites of constantly evolving human action.

This philosophy of each interaction, and each person, being part of the organizational

change is consistent with the idea that empowering employees at all levels, but

specifically at the middle and front-line levels, is imperative to sustaining organizational

learning and change long term.

155

3. The organization introduced and implemented organizational learning by

aligning all messaging from senior leadership to front-line employees during the

change.

The alignment of messaging, from the words and concepts shared internally and

externally from the head of the agency to the messaging sent to front-line employees

from their direct supervisor, was another factor in Time 0 that made the alignment to the

OLSM model so strong. This alignment was accomplished through a few specific tactics.

The first was the level of transparency and the involvement of the key stakeholders from

the beginning. This allowed representatives from each stakeholder group to share what

was most important, and most concerning, for the specific organizational sub-groups.

The second was the creation and constant updating of a transformation message map.

This message map allowed the messaging to align, but did not create a bottle neck where

organizational leaders at all levels were waiting for the messaging to trickle down.

However, the biggest impact for messaging alignment was the creation of change

networks. The centralized PMO created a change network for all stakeholders. This

group shared information on a weekly or bi-weekly basis throughout the change period.

Information flowed both ways in the change networks; this was the largest feedback

channel for the PMO and their iterative change process. For those stakeholders who had

larger groups that they were representing, they created their own change networks to

share information from the central PMO as well as help address any unique issues,

concerns, and needs that group needed. One of these unique needs was the “WAVE”

experiential change program led by one of these sub-networks.

156

This striated model of networks provided several layers of channels to filter

information down and up throughout the organization and ensure messaging alignment

and a constant feedback loop. Not only did this change network model ensure alignment,

but it also meant that messaging could be catered to the specific audience and stakeholder

group so that messaging was as relevant and meaningful as it could be. This

communication alignment appeared to support to OLSM learning subsystems and dyads

in several different ways, from creating common language and shared values to assisting

with centralized sensemaking.

Proper change messaging - messaging that is useful, timely, and adequate - is an

important component of empowering employees and preparing them to change (Wanberg

and Banas, 2000). Kotter (1995) makes the claim that inadequate change communication

is one of the main reasons why organizational changes fail. A more recent study found

that the more useful, timely, and adequate the information about the change was in the

perception of the employees, the higher their support for the change (van den Heuvel,

Freese, Schalk, & van Assen, 2017). These findings are supported fully in this case

study. Not only was the messaging useful and timely, but it was also incredibly

consistent and shared at all levels of the organization. Interviews with the administrator

that were published in public articles were consistent with the information shared

internally by not only the administrator, but by all levels of the organization. This

consistency and alignment sent the employees a strong message and gave them a level of

confidence that the change was happening and the business case shared with them was

the truth. This trust manifested in things like developing a shared language - a way each

employee talked about the change that aligned with and reinforced the change messaging.

157

4. The organization implemented and sustained organizational learning by

encouraging practice to learn the new behaviors and to iterate the change plan

based on lessons learned.

Whether an employee was, or was not, part of an organization that conducted a

structured experiential change program, the overall message was still clear: lean in, take

risks, and practice the new way of working. Practice was used in the form of “design

labs” to test out different space designs to see what the organization needed the most.

Practice was encouraged to learn how to be an effective teleworker and to collaborate

when the team is not collocated. Practice was used to develop the team and group norms

that would be needed in the “new way of working”. Finally, all of the lessons learned

from the practice were used to iterate and evolve the change process, and in some cases

the design plans, to ensure maximum success. These centralized efforts to help

employees learn and practice the needed behaviors supported several of the OLSM

learning subsystems and dyads. Practice helped with action and reflection, as well as

sensemaking and created group and team norms to support the new behavior moving

forward.

Research posits several benefits for experiential change programs, including

heightened organizational awareness, strengthened organizational culture and values,

increased job performance, increased organizational learning, and enhanced decision

making based on policies and procedures (Russ, 2010, 2011). The benefits were apparent

in this case study.

Practice enables the employee to have a heightened awareness of the implications

of the new way of working, and their proficiency with the behaviors needed to be

158

successful in that new way of working. While less direct, this case study highlights the

solidification of shared values within the organization. While some that were espoused at

the beginning of the change did not sustain, those that did (like being agile and customer-

centric) have become “part of the DNA” of the organization. With the knowledge of what

behaviors were needed, and what the employee’s current proficiency was with those

behaviors, the employee was able to work on learning and building competence before

those behaviors were absolutely needed, thereby increasing job performance, or at least

reducing a drop in productivity post-change. The practice in the experiential change

program, in collaboration with the iterative nature of the change process, sustained

organizational learning throughout and long after the change and enhanced the decision

making regarding both the change process as well as changes needed in policies and

procedures. Russ (2008, 2010, 2011) posits that the high levels of interactivity embedded

within an experiential change program, one that encourages cognitive, affective, and

kinesthetic engagement, might be a reason for this level of success.

Armstrong (1982) found that even with evidence that an initiative worked for over

95 out of 100 people, that initiative was seldom used by others to change their own

behavior. However, people were often willing to generalize from their own experience to

say how they would act in the future and even to predict how others would act. This

finding indicates that the most rational and compelling business case (even one where, as

in this case, there is joint ownership of developing the business case) does less to

encourage change than letting people experience the benefits for themselves. In fact, the

main assumption of experiential learning is that one learns best by doing, especially adult

159

learners who favor a learning-from-experience approach (Rollag & Parise, 2005; Walter

& Marks, 1981).

Based on the concept that the visceral engagement found in experience-based

methods is generally lacking in more traditional methods and the theoretical assumption

that change is most successful when stakeholders are treated as active learners, Russ

(2008, 2010, 2011) developed a conceptual framework to define participatory

Experiential Change Programs (ECP). The objective of the participatory ECP is

knowledge creation. Instead of specific, planned outcomes, the participatory method has

overarching learning objectives. Instead of blind compliance, the participatory method

emphasizes reflection and promotes process-driven change (Russ, 2010). This method

offers opportunity for employee engagement and feedback and is in line with the

experiences of this case study and the OLSM that focuses on reflection, structuring, and

sensemaking.

Experiential change programs have the capability to foster emotional conditions

that are likely to compel mid-level managers to make a concerted effort to bring about

change in organizational settings (Russ, 2011). This engagement of middle managers is

key since, in this case study, middle managers were the ones who bore the responsibility

of balancing the changing priorities and behaviors of senior leaders while still helping the

front line employees to make sense of and adopt the change.

5. The organization sustained organizational learning by counting on middle

managers to sustain sensemaking and organizational learning post-change.

Sensemaking is a concept that involves “ongoing retrospective development of

plausible images that rationalize what people are doing” (Weick et al., 2005, p. 409).

160

Sensemaking is a process undergone in times of uncertainty to “interpret and create an

order for occurrences” (Luscher& Lewis, 2008, p. 221). It is also the interchange

medium associated with the Memory and Meaning learning subsystem in the OLSM

model (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000). It includes the processes of scanning,

interpretation, and associated actions (Thomas, Clark, & Gioia, 1993). Employee and

managerial sensemaking could also be an outcome of change (Lockett, Currie, Finn,

Martin, & Waring, 2014; Luscher & Lewis, 2008; Mantere, Schildt, & Sillince, 2012;

Weick, 1995). Sensemaking is not just a cognitive process; it is also an emotional one,

where emotions of the individual doing the sensemaking influence the interpretation of

the event. This is one of the reasons why the alignment and centralized management of

messaging and the change process is so important at the beginning; the organization

wants to help direct individuals, and the organization as a whole, towards meanings that

are not rooted in the fear of the unknown or pure resistance to change.

However, once the centralized efforts ceased post-change, middle managers found

themselves in a position where the messaging from above and the needs and messaging

from below were not in alignment. Middle managers found themselves needing to

engage in “sensegiving” where they address the ambiguity experienced by others and

provide a renewed clarity for further action (Corley & Gioia, 2004). This process of

sensemaking–sensegiving has been related to instigating strategic change (Gioia &

Chittipeddi, 1991), identity change (Corley & Gioia, 2004), and drawing people into the

change process (Rouleau & Balogun, 2011). In this case, middle managers found

themselves in a position to balance the new priorities of senior leadership while also

161

giving the employees what they need to continue to settle into a routine that supports the

new way of working.

By examining the dyads in Time 1 and Time 2 through the perspective of the

dyads, it is evident that the organizational learning related to this change became more

and more decentralized, and was only sustained through the efforts of middle

management navigating the divide between employee needs and leadership demands,

along with the self-efficacy of employees.

6. The organization was challenged in sustaining organizational learning because

the specific change to a dispersed work environment has several unintended

consequences that make it a tricky change.

While the previous five conclusions were more related to the reasons that the

organizational learning was sustained, the final two conclusions represent challenges to

the sustainability of the organizational learning and change long term. One of the themes

from the focus groups, interviews, and other documentation analyzed was the feeling

among employees that the organization has lost something in this change. Some call it a

“sense of family”, while others simply reference the lack of organic interactions and

bonding in the new way of working. Most attribute this loss to the dispersed work

environment. While the business case for the change to the new way of working

described space that would be customizable to anyone’s working style and that there

would be an increased level of organic collaboration and knowledge sharing, those

benefits were benefits found to be true in open spaces where employees all reported to

the office (Andriopoulos & Gotsi, 2001; Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, & Janssen, 2011;

Barber, Laing, & Simeone, 2005; Coradi, Heinzen, & Boutellier, 2015a, 2015b). The

162

new way of working in this case included moving to the open, activity-based space while

simultaneously moving to an increasingly dispersed work environment with increased

telework and virtual work.

This challenge, even five years later, still has the organization grieving over a

time where meeting new people, hanging out with colleagues after work, coming up to

speed faster in a new role because of immediate access to mentors, and feeling a sense of

community was easier and more organic. There has been a lot of research over the past

several years on how the workspace impacts various components of human performance

and organizational culture (Andriopoulos & Gotsi, 2001; Appel-Meulenbroek et al.,

2011; Barber et al., 2005; Brown, 2009; Coradi et al., 2015a, 2015b; Ekstrand &

Damman, 2016; Ladinski, 2017; Martens, 2011; Peterson & Beard, 2004; Richter, 2001;

Roper & Juneja, 2007; Rothe & Heywood, 2015; Skogland, 2017; Skogland & Hansen,

2017). Many organizations are seeing the potential benefits of finding talent out of highly

competitive markets, reducing overhead costs by eliminating or reducing brick and

mortar buildings for their staff, as well as many others (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2011).

Coradi et al., (2015a, 2015b) have been researching the impact of workspace on

organizational learning and suggest that exploitation is supported by workspace design

where people are collocated, leading to faster feedback cycles and first-hand information.

Exploration, however, is supported by workspace design with high visibility across

teams, triggering more cross-functional interactions and thereby the variability of

knowledge. These goals of increased inter- and intra- team collaboration are echoed in

the goals of the change studied in this case. However, others have studied employee

impacts after the fact and found that there are some unintended consequences to activity-

163

based workspaces, such as loss of productivity, dissatisfaction, and even illness.

Employees using the space differently than intended was the most common cause for

undesirable feedback (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2011).

Studies that examine the workspace and the impact of the workspace on

employees’ productivity, positive or negative, make the underlying assumption that the

employees come to the office regularly. Barber et al. (2005) noted the trend several years

ago that "organizations expect work to become more collaborative (both face-to-face and

virtually), information technology will enable growth in distributed working, and the

workplace will be re-designed to support collaboration rather than individual work

activity" (p. 211). Presumably, this trend has accelerated since this trend report over ten

years ago. This case study supports that assertion.

7. The organization was challenged in sustaining organizational learning because as

senior leadership priorities move further away from the specific change, the

organizational learning became more decentralized and fragmented.

The leadership in this case followed a familiar path. There was initially a lot of

alignment, focus, and passion about the change to the new way of working. The initial

leadership was especially good in setting up a change process to usher the organization

through the change. However, as leadership changed and the organization moved further

away from the time period and priorities that initiated the change, the organizational

learning became more decentralized and fragmented.

This fragmentation presents a challenge for the organization and its ability to

sustain organizational learning long term. With such decentralized learning, the

information being circulated at any given time is so overwhelming, with almost no

164

messaging “sticks”. While the process of the organizational learning can be seen in the

employee viewpoint survey trends and how the various responses, which had bottomed

out immediately post-change, have gone up every year, it is still notable that questions

related to empowerment and innovation, resources, and working together are all still

below 70% positive, despite three straight years of improvement.

It is certainly not practical to expect leadership to manage a change centrally,

even five years past the change, or even highlight the change in communications as a top

priority. However, one of the transitional pieces that seems to be missing is the

deliberate baton pass between the centralized effort and a more generalized but

decentralized organizational learning effort. As mentioned above, middle managers

landed into the sensegiving role, but without much, if any, deliberate support or guidance.

As Luscher and Lewis (2008) stated, middle managers need help understanding how they

can make sense of the change. Change is paradoxical in nature and as the transition from

a centrally-managed process to a more decentralized process occurred, it might have been

helpful to have support for middle managers in understanding their role moving forward.

A deliberate baton pass might have helped sustain organizational learning in a more

deliberate way. Perhaps a more deliberate transition between the specific change effort

and sustained organizational learning, with guidance, direction, and expectations for

middle managers, would have alleviated this challenge and helped prevent the

fragmentation that seems evident in Time 2, five years post-change.

Another interesting perspective is the idea that change leadership, in and of itself,

is an oxymoron; that scholars and practitioners alike are fostering myths of an “us” versus

“them” mentality - that there is somehow a shortage of leaders (By, Hughes, & Ford,

165

2016). By looking at the most popular citations over the past several years, it is Kotter

(1996), with his perspectives on leading change, and Bass (2006), with his perspectives

on transformational leadership, which have dominated the debate. They both share a

common trait with Burns (1978), who first made the distinction between the concepts of

transformational and transactional leadership. However, if one considers leadership to be

a trait or role, not based on a position, the evolution of the organizational learning from a

centralized, top-down position to dispersed throughout the organization, as seen in this

case, the concept of leadership needed to lead the change stands. However, the

responsibility of leading is on all of those in the organization, not just those employees

who happen to be in a management position.

Implications for Theory

Augmenting the Organizational Learning Systems Model

Even though the OLSM was not part of the information used to implement and/or

sustain the change and was only applied as a theoretical framework after the fact, use of

the model in this retrospective view proved to be a very useful way to capture all of the

moving parts of the system during and after a planned change. The actions and concepts

the researcher deemed to be of key importance from the data analysis fit seamlessly into

the OLSM. Conversely, this researcher can see how it could be a useful model when

looking to manage and sustain a change from the beginning.

However, in order for the OLSM to be truly useful as a tool to guide the initiation

and sustainability of an organizational change, time - and how the dyads evolve over time

- needs to be incorporated in the model. This case study shows that part of the success of

the studied change was the strong alignment and deliberate management of the learning

166

subsystems captured in the six dyads, even if inadvertently. But, the nature of how the

dyads manifested in the organization evolves over time, the further the organization got

away from the actual change initiative.

Change is inevitable; it is unrealistic to assume that every change initiative, even

large transformational ones, will remain centrally managed and the organization’s top

priority in perpetuity. Instead, the interchange needs to somehow be transferred into all

levels of the organization over time. In this case study, where the organizational learning

was most successfully sustained, the alignment remained and the actions descriptive of

each dyad were decentralized and shared throughout networks. Where the sustainability

of the organizational learning was least successful, the decentralization occurred without

maintaining a certain level of alignment and the organizational learning became so

fragmented that it made it hard for any learning to filter back into the organization as a

whole.

Based on this case study and the findings when sorted by dyad and time, the

researcher is proposing a conceptual model on how each dyad should evolve for

maximum sustainability over time.

167

Table 5.2 Conceptual Model to Augment OLSM

Dyad During Change 1-2 Years Post-Change 3-5 Years Post-Change


new information and reflection are centralized and active

new information and reflection are centralized but scaling back

new information and reflection are decentralized but shared widely through various organizational networks


structuring managed centrally; strong communications alignment; structures are iterative based on feedback

strong leadership support for new behaviors and capabilities; decentralizing structuring and communication

change now seen as status quo; alignment between behaviors/ capabilities and organizational measures and what is valued


centralized, active, and iterative structuring based on proactively sought out new information

decentralizing structuring but new information sought out proactively at all levels

decentralized structuring but new information sought out proactively at all levels and shared widely through networks


shared values; common language; safe environment for risk-taking and practice

alignment between leadership “doing” and “saying”; employees empowered to figure out their own new routines

shared values solidified; “new” routines are now second nature; leadership moving on to next focus, which builds on past changes


reflection questions deliberately disruptive of status quo; communications support sensemaking process

reflection and sensemaking transferred to middle management; support provided to middle management

reflection and sensemaking now part of routines and done at all levels of the organization and shared among networks


alignment between assumptions and end state; information is filtered and interpreted in a transparent way; feedback used to iteratively update change plan

information comes into the organization in formal and informal ways at all levels; ideally, information helps reinforce change behaviors; all levels open to feedback

information comes into the organization in formal and informal ways at all levels; sensemaking occurs individually and within teams/ networks

Recommendations for Practice

Since this research was conducted through a pragmatic lens, a lot of the

conclusions and discussions to this point have been relevant for practice. In fact, the

168

recommendations for practice are relevant to several different stakeholders within the

organization. For that reason, the recommendations for practice section has been divided

into six separate sections, each section focusing on tips for a different organizational

stakeholder.

The first section focuses on recommendations for change leaders who are looking

to implement and sustain a successful organizational change. The second section focuses

on tips specifically for those in a Chief Learning Officer role. The third section addresses

tips for managers living through a change. The fourth and fifth sections focus on

organizational roles that played a part in the specific change studied in this case: Chief

Information Officers and Facility Managers, respectively. The final section provides tips

to other scholar-practitioners looking to do research within their own organization.

Each section is depicted in both paragraph form and graphic form below. The

recommendations for practice came from not only the findings and discussion of this case

study, but also from the data analysis and researcher notes that may not have been

relevant to answer the research question of this study, but still held relevant lessons for

organizational stakeholders.

Recommendations for Change Leaders

This section includes seven factors that this researcher has identified as critical

success factors in the implementation and sustainability of the organizational learning

and change studied in the case.

169

Figure 5.1 Recommendations for Practice - Change Leaders

1. Use the OLSM to Guide the Development of a Change Program.

The change studied in this case did not deliberately follow the OLSM from the

outset of the change. Instead, it was applied retrospectively as a theoretical framework.

However, the alignment between the actions of the change team and the OLSM shows

how the four learning subsystems (Environment Interface, Action and Reflection,

Memory and Meaning, and Dissemination and Diffusion) and the six Interchange Dyads

(new information and goal reference knowledge; structuring and goal reference

knowledge; structuring and new information; structuring and sensemaking; goal

170

reference knowledge and sensemaking; and, new information and sensemaking) can be

used to ensure all aspects of the change system are accounted for in a change plan.

Further, the augmentation to the OLSM proposed in this research (see Table 5.1)

provides a road map as to how the different dyads could look during, after, and long after

the change. This is particularly useful if sustaining organizational learning and change is

an important component of the change.

2. Create a Centralized Program Management Office that aligns all components of the

OLSM.

The centralized program management office (PMO) was a key component of the

change. It had several key characteristics. Membership was open to all stakeholders and

the control of those stakeholders was loose. The PMO ensured alignment and

consistency, but did not act a bottle neck or roadblock for stakeholders who wanted to do

additional change management work. On the contrary, the centralized PMO was

interested in sharing lessons learned and incorporating those lessons into the larger

change initiative. This aligned-but-collaborative approach worked to engage

stakeholders to get their buy-in while also improving the overall change process.

3. Utilize Change Networks at all Levels of the Organization to Help Implement the

Change.

Change networks were a powerful feedback mechanism and communication

channel for the studied change effort. In this case, there were two levels of change

networks. The network that was aligned with the centralized PMO consisted of one or

two representatives from each internal stakeholder group and was focused mostly on

expressing the needs of the various stakeholders to the PMO, helping with language for

171

the messaging that would resonate with the stakeholders, and collaboratively creating

documents, such as the business case.

The second level of network was at the stakeholder level. Some of the larger

stakeholder groups, who were representing thousands of impacted employees, created

their own change agent networks to actually support the needed behavior changes for a

successful change. Typically, the lead of the stakeholder network was the representative

of the stakeholder on the centralized PMO. The two levels of change networks were

aligned through common goals, defined messaging, and transparent collaboration.

However, the stakeholder network groups were much more tactical and “hands-on” with

the impacted employees.

This striated organization and alignment between the groups allowed the network

at the agency level to benefit from “hands-on” interactions, without having to manage

that for the larger organization. These change networks were resource intensive, but very

effective in enabling and sustaining organizational learning and change.

4. Utilize Experiential Change Programs to Help Employees Practice New Behaviors.

The post-change surveys validated the importance of discreet experiential change

opportunities. The program that one of the stakeholder networks conducted was provided

to the rest of the stakeholders as a model. One of the findings from the document review

was that the perception of readiness by employees who had not gone through the change

was high; they did not know what they did not know. In contrast, those who did go

through the change had a lower perceived readiness score. However, in the post-change

surveys, the responses flipped. Those who had gone through the experiential change

program felt the change was smooth and there was minimal loss of productivity. Those

172

who had not gone through the experiential change program regretted that fact and

acknowledged that practice might have reduced or eliminated the loss in productivity

they were sure was the case.

5. Develop Programs that Support and Empower Middle Managers During and After

the Change.

This implication was a lesson learned from this case study. Middle managers

became the group of employees responsible for bridging the gap between leadership, who

tends to move on to the next priority quickly, and employees, who might still be

struggling and learning how to operate in the new environment. Because the alignment

and support was so strong in Time 0 for this case, middle managers, for the most part,

seemed to be able to bridge this gap fairly seamlessly. However, if the transition from

centralized change effort to decentralized management at the organization level was more

deliberate, with specific engagement, training, and support for middle management, the

sustainability of organizational learning and change may have been even more successful

and certainly less stressful for those middle managers.

6. Foster an Open Process that is Transparent, Collaborative, and Iterative.

The change in the case study was a transparent, collaborative, and iterative

process from the very beginning. This is not a common phenomenon in large

bureaucratic institutions, especially in federal organizations. Whether it is because of

union considerations or worry about the media impressions or something else,

transparency is something that is often discussed but rarely achieved in the federal space.

This change was the exception, and that is part of the reason for its success. From the

first “what if” question, input was solicited and the plan was created with input from

173

stakeholders, and it evolved as it needed to. It should be clear that this did not mean there

were not resistance voices from various stakeholders. But, those voices were welcomed

to the table to provide input with a “this is happening, but if you want to help design how

it happens, you are welcome” attitude. The “this is happening” message was strong and

never wavered, despite the naysayers. But, everyone was welcome to collaborate to

make the change process better. This open process helped engender buy in from the

outset and made the change process much better than originally envisioned.

7. Align Messaging and Brand the Change Externally and Internally, from the Top

Down.

Words matter. And, the federal organizations tend to use ten words when one will

do. However, in this case, a lot of attention was spent on how the change was described

and the words were used very strategically. “Extreme Challenge” was a way of

acknowledging the difficulty, while still sending the message that change was coming.

“New Way of Working” was a concise way of labeling a very complex and multi-faceted

change. “Work is what you do, not where you are” was a pithy way of expressing the

philosophical change that was underway. These words and phrases, once decided on,

became the drumbeat words that everyone used. They were placed on the message map.

The head of the agency used them in her blogs to employees and in interviews to the

media. They became the brand of the change; a common language that meant something

to all of the stakeholders, and that stakeholders could use to describe the change to others.

174

Recommendations for Chief Learning Officers

This section includes seven recommendation for those in Chief Learning Officer,

or similar, roles that are responsible for formulating the strategy to drive corporate

learning direction, goals, and policies within an organization.

Figure 5.2 Recommendations for Practice - Chief Learning Officers

1. Set the vision for the organization and make sure it is understood by everyone.

This case study focused on sustaining a tangible planned change through

organizational learning and examined that learning by retrospectively using the

Organizational Learning Systems Model. Those in Chief Learning Officer, or similar,

roles are responsible for delivering something slightly less tangible. Even so, the impetus

175

for change in this study was the Administrator asking a disrupting question, which

eventually became the vision for the change initiative. This vision was clear and the

messaging around it was aligned from the top leader all the way down to the front line

employee, including external media. This clear vision acted as the catalyst for the change

explored in this study. Building the strategy and capacity for organizational learning is

less tangible than reducing the office footprint and increasing telework. For that reason, it

is even more important that the vision be clear and understood by all of the stakeholders

in the same way.

2. Enlist senior leadership to actively support and model the defined vision.

The organization’s leadership sets larger organizational strategy and develops

measures, metrics, and other recognition systems that either support or detract from that

vision. The support needed for a successful change is much more than simply espoused

support from leadership. This study showed that true leadership support – where all

leaders were expected to help implement the change, were living through the change

themselves, and were modeling the new behaviors – was an important part of the

implementation success. The study also showed that as the priorities changed and

leadership moved on to new initiatives, even reverting back to old ways in some

instances, a divide grew in the workforce. The support – with words and actions – is a

key factor for success.

3. Create measurable goals for the organization to strive for.

The change in this study was easy to measure in terms of reduced square footage,

reduced filing space, increased use of telework, etc. these were measures that had both

individual and organizational implications. Most of these measures were also tangible

176

enough that an individual could judge their own success – is the individual utilizing less

square footage, less filing space, more telework? The ideal behaviors and benchmarks

were well defined and provided to employees as their benchmark of success. If looking

to build a learning culture or other similarly intangible goal, converting the ideal future

state into tangible behaviors and goals that employees can judge for themselves is going

to be a key for success.

4. Define the benefits of the end state in a way that everyone can measure.

Similar to goals that individuals in the organization can measure themselves, the

benefits need to be individualized as well. The benefits in this study were pivotal in

sustaining the change. They provided an immediate reinforcement of the behaviors and

gave each individual an incentive to adopt new behaviors. Especially if the change is less

tangible, the ability for all actors in an organization to be able relate to – and desire – the

benefits of the change will be an important part of any successful change.

5. Practice is key and may need to be guided initially.

Once the benefits and goals are clear, the organization may need help getting

jumpstarted in practicing the new behaviors. In this study, and experiential change

program was used to guide practice in a meaningful way. It was not the only way

employees were able to practice, but it was a way the change leaders could guide practice

and set up good norms and behaviors from the start. It also provided a resource for

employees as they were going through the transition. The same is true when looking at

any change that will require new behaviors from the organization.

177

6. Encourage two-way communication to capture and respond to feedback.

Change is personal. Even organizational changes are subject to individual

reactions. The only way to be aware of, and adapt to, those reactions is to have a way to

capture and respond to feedback. One of the success factors in this study was the willing

ness of the change leaders to adjust messaging, tactics, and more in order to respond to

individual reactions to the change. This gave everyone a sense of being heard and acted

to empower employees, especially middle managers. This message of empowerment

then became critical to sustaining the change after leadership moved on to the next

initiative.

7. Be willing to adjust course in order to incorporate feedback.

While the ultimate goal in the change being studied never changed, the change

leaders were willing to adjust tactics, some timing and order of change initiatives, and

more to incorporate employee feedback. While this meant that the planning phase of the

change initiative was a little longer, it helped with long-term employee buy-in and

reducing the amount of employee resistance. Additionally, if listening to feedback

empowered the workforce, actually utilizing the feedback to make changes to the

approach empowered the workforce that much more. As change leaders, it is sometimes

hard to let go of the best-laid plans and adjust based on the whims of the employees.

However, letting go of that perception and engaging the workforce in designing their own

change program through the feedback process creates benefits that would otherwise not

exist.

178

Recommendation for Practice - Managers

Figure 5.3 Recommendations for Practice - Managers

1. Understand your role – you are the key to sustained success in an organizational

change.

This research showed that managers are the keystone to a successfully sustained

change. Once all of the formal change initiatives are through and employees are left to

their own devices, this case study showed that it was up to the managers to help

employees continue to adjust and succeed post-change. As a manager, it is important to

recognize the role you play and empower yourself to be successful in that role. Keep

yourself educated about the initiative. Read the messaging that comes out about the

change. Talk to your peers about the positive and negative impacts of the change and

what you will need to do to keep your employees happy and performing well. Whether

179

you initially agreed with the change or not, your responsibility to your employees is to

figure out how to succeed and keep moving forward, and support your employees to do

the same.

2. Translate impact and messaging to your employees.

Sometimes the messaging coming from the senior leadership is purposely vague

in order to apply to everyone. This can mean that the “so what” for a specific team may

not be clear. The manager’s responsibility is to translate those generic messages for the

team to make it real. Let your employees know how an organizational change will impact

them directly – what processes will change, what people (if any) are moving, etc. This

case study showed a change where the messaging was really well aligned and driven

down to the front line supervisor. This messaging was distributed at the front line

supervisor level because the organization determined that the employees were more

likely to open an email from their direct supervisor. Employees want to hear from the

people they work with on a daily basis. The manager plays a key role in helping make

sense of the change for his or her employees.

3. Avoid resisting the change in front of your employees.

Sometimes, change agents forget that managers are employees too. It is unlikely

that a manager will wholeheartedly support every organizational change that impacts

them throughout their career. However, resisting the change in front of the team can be

detrimental. As mentioned above, managers play a pivotal role in implementing and

sustaining the change. If the manager is seen resisting, even slightly, it sends a message

that breeds distrust in the change. The distrust remains even after the manager has gotten

onboard with the change. In this case study, there were managers that were just as

180

resistant as some employees in the change. In order to engage the managers, the change

agents invited the managers to provide feedback and participate in creating elements of

the change program. By empowering the managers and giving them a place to express

their concerns, the resistance did not “infect” the employee population and the managers

were given the tools they needed to bring their people along with them.

4. Allow ample time to practice – and to fail.

This case study focused on a government agency that had a large portion of the

workforce that was not funded through appropriations. This meant that, just like a for-

profit business, the lost productivity when an employee is more concerned with a change

rather than a customer impacts the larger business. The “WAVE”, an experiential change

program to support employees, was designed to allow practice prior to the change so that

employees would not lose total focus on the customer during the change. Whether the

change initiative has a formal experiential change program or not, practicing the new

behaviors needed post-change can be a really powerful way for managers to support their

employees and empower them so they are more resilient throughout the change. Part of

practice is figuring out what works, and what does not work. This case study showed that

some things developed as norms in the practice stage were not sustained after the change.

Sometimes this was because other things had changed; other times it was because the

plan did not work in reality. Having the flexibility to adjust as needed and learn from the

practice – even when the idea did not work – is an important part of a successful change.

5. Align your messaging to the leadership message.

Message alignment was a critical success factor in this case study. Messaging

was so clearly aligned that it was part of the branding of the change. The common

181

language that was used to talk about the change was a powerful way to get everyone on

the same page. Even if leadership is not aligning messaging about the change as closely,

the manager can accomplish some of the same benefits for their teams. Mentioned above

was the idea of interpreting the impact – the “so what” – for the team. Here, the

recommendation is to take the messaging about the change sent out by leadership and

using the same words as the communications are drafted for the team. Notice phrases,

justifications, and other words that the leadership uses to talk about the change. Use

those same phrases, justifications, and words as you craft your own messaging to inform

and direct your team. Using the same language can help brand the change and empower

employees to resonate more with senior leadership because the language is familiar.

Recommendation for Practice - Chief Information Officers

Figure 5.4 Recommendations for Practice - Chief Information Officers

1. Use the knowledge of agile development and apply it to change management.

The iterative, progressive nature of agile development mirrors the iterative,

collaborative nature of the implementation of change in this case study. While not a

perfect metaphor, the sprint-release-feedback-iterate process of agile development is

182

similar to the process of developing a change management plan, soliciting and

incorporating feedback, and continuing to manage change with the improved plan.

Technology played a significant role in this case study, enabling the new behaviors that

were required post-change. As the CIO in an organization is looking at the possibility of

implementing an IT change, they would be served well by their understanding and

implementation of agile principles.

2. Ensure that the IT solution being introduced actually solves a problem that is visible

to the end user.

One of the findings in this research was that the self-evident benefits actually

served to help sustain the change once it got started. This is an important concept that the

Chief Information Officer can learn from. From a business perspective, information

technology is an enabler a business strategy. In this case study, the technology played an

important role in allowing the continued collaboration within a dispersed workforce. In

order for a change, especially a change in technology, to be successfully sustained, it is

important that it actually solves a problem and that value is shared with all employees. It

is also important that the value highlighted be a value that the employee can see and

measure for themselves. While it is true that the change in this research resulted in

reduced carbon footprint and a savings of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, the benefits

that actually helped to sustain the change were the benefits employees could see and feel

on a daily basis. That does not make the environmental and financial benefits any less

important, it just means it is not as compelling for sustaining individual behavior on a day

to day basis.

183

3. Allow for time to practice and adjust processes.

The first two recommendations relate to being collaborative in the change

management and solving a compelling problem for the end user. However, it is important

to remember that IT is a business process enabler. No matter how antiquated the

technology is, any IT tool or application in use has business processes that interact with

that tool. That means that no matter how collaborative, no matter how many problems it

solves, there is still going to be some resistance because a change in an IT tool most

likely includes a change in at least minor business processes that help the employee

accomplish their mission. Acknowledging this up front and incorporating time into the

schedule to allow for practice and the development of the new business processes will

help the actual change implementation go much more smoothly. In this case study, the

technology changes were just one part of a larger change. So, the process and practice

work was handled by the larger change management implementation. Even if the

technology change is a standalone change, allowing time for practice and process change

will make the change go that much more smoothly.

184

Recommendation for Practice - Facility Managers

Figure 5.5 Recommendations for Practice - Facility Managers

1. Remember that space design does not occur in a vacuum. Think bigger.

One of the recommendations for future research in this study is to look at how

open space design interacts when also inhabited by a dispersed workforce. As discussed

below, most research around the benefits of open workspace has an underlying

assumption that the workforce comes into the office on a daily basis. This was not the

case in this case study. The needs for the space needed to be adjusted to allow for more

conference and collaborative space and less individual workstations because of the

nomadic quality of the workforce. So, as facility managers look at redesigning the space,

make sure to consider the big picture and not just the behavior of people who sit in the

space.

2. Moving employees is all about the details.

One of the data sources in this case study showed how important the detailed and

active management of the actual physical move was to the workforce. Table 4.3 shows

how the move was phased and conducted every weekend for six and a half months. The

185

concept was that the employee packed everything up in a bin by Thursday afternoon

before the move, the employee then worked from home on Friday and, by the time they

showed up for work on Monday, the bins they had backed on Thursday were in their new

home, ready and waiting for them to unload them and get back to work. In addition to the

orchestrated ballet of the phased moves, there was also onsite support to help with any

issues that arose. This level of detailed management of the move was frequently pointed

to as one of the successful components that made the change overall so smooth. In

addition to the move itself, there was a concerted effort to support the reduction of stuff

prior to the move – there was support to help people scan and digitize documents, there

were additional burn bins and recycle bins to get rid of paper that could be disposed of,

and there was even a collection of all hoarded office supplies to help stock the centralized

supply room in the new location. Every detail was carefully thought through and actively

managed, providing a smooth transition for employees.

3. Invite stakeholders to participate in the design.

Architects do not know everything. Part of the iterative and collaborative nature

of the change in this study was to invite stakeholders to help define their needs with the

architecture firm. This was an important part of getting initial buy in from employees, in

addition to making sure the new space worked for the employees. Making sure that

stakeholder needs are solicited and that the architecture firm is open and willing to

making adjustments based on stakeholder feedback are important components of a

successful change the includes the work space.

186

Recommendation for Practice - Internal Researchers

Figure 5.6 Recommendations for Practice - Internal Researchers

This case study was conducted by an internal researcher and was able to do so

successfully for a few specific reasons, as shared below. Note that the need for managing

bias was not included in these recommendations since that was covered at length in the

Trustworthiness section above.

1. Get approvals to do the research early in the process.

Most organizations will have their own internal approval process to do research

within the organization. One of the lessons learned for this case study was to get those

approvals early, because it can take longer than you expect, especially if research is not

typically done in the organization. The first hurdle this researcher came across was that

nobody was quite sure what the process was. That meant that the approval request

187

bounced around from one leader to another, then to the legal department and back again

before finally getting approved. It was also important to get the approval from the

organization before getting any external review completed. The legal department in the

organization requested a few changes to the methodology that did not change anything

substantial, but might have caused an issue with the university’s review board had this

research not been deemed exempt.

2. If you do not have name recognition within the organization, use a sponsor that

does.

The next tip for internal researchers is the concept of name recognition. Because

of the position of this researcher, most employees in the employee population being

studied at least recognized my name and my position identified in the signature block.

This meant that the emails sent in support of this research were actually opened and the

acceptance rate for invitations to participate was high. If this is not the case, the

recommendation is to find an organizational sponsor who does have that recognition to

sponsor the research and allow his or her email to be used to send out invitations. At least

in the organization studied in this case study, everyone is bombarded with hundreds of

emails a day and emails from someone they recognize is much more likely to be opened

and read than an email from someone they do not know.

3. Use a model to organize the data.

While the OLSM model was not used as part of the change management process

itself, it was an incredibly helpful tool to organize all of the data after the fact. The good

news about being an internal researcher is the amount of access the researcher has to data.

The bad news is that all of that data can actually lead to a bit of overwhelm. Without a

188

model to act as the organizing framework, the sheer abundance of data can be hard to

manage. The model helps the research make decisions on the relevance of the data point,

how it should be organized, and helps to answer the research question. Just like the

OLSM in this case study, the model should meet several criteria (Burke & Noumair,

2015). First, the researcher should choose a model that they fully understand and that is

comfortable to work with. Second, the chosen model should fit the organization being

researched as closely as possible. And finally, the model should be comprehensive

enough to facilitate the collection of data to address the research question.

4. Make sure you tell the organization what is in it for them.

Doing internal research can be a powerful win-win scenario for the researcher and

the organization. However, some organizations are hesitant to agree to be a research cite

at first. To help the organization approve the request, make sure to define explicitly the

benefits they will receive. In this case, the researcher agreed to provide a synopsis of the

findings to the organization. This synopsis would provide practical implications to the

study and help improve future change management initiatives. The benefit provided to

the organization will be different, depending on the type of research and the research

question being explored. However, finding a way to offer a practical benefit to the

organization in exchange for being a research cite is a great way to get organizational

approval for the study.

5. Recognize that participating in your study is not billable work.

One of the reasons for providing additional practical benefits to the organization

in the previous recommendation is because the organization is giving the researcher

permission to distract a certain number of employees from their daily work. Participating

189

in research is not “billable” work – it is not work that they are traditionally paid for or the

directly supports the mission. As the data collection plan is developed, keep this fact front

of mind. In this case study, the research held interviews and focus groups mostly on

Fridays, a slower day of the week. Capturing as much data as possible around the lunch

hour prevents a conflict between data collection and the employee’s mission-oriented

work. The organization is much more likely to approve the research, and appreciate the

results, if the data collection is not disruptive to the core business.

Recommendations for Future Research

Given the conclusions and interpretations of this case study, there are several

ways this topic could be explored further in future research. The details of the future

research recommendations are outlined below.

Table 5.3



1. Explore the Impact of a Dispersed Work Environment on Organizational Learning and Change

2. Use Social Network Analysis to Identify the Change in the Depth and Breadth of Networks After Moving to a Dispersed Work Environment

3. Conduct Action Research to Test the Conceptual Model to Augment OLSM (Table 5.2) Helps with a Successful Transformation

4. Explore the Impact of a Dispersed Work Environment on Open Space Office Design

5. Compare the Transformation to an Open Office Space Design and/or Dispersed Work Environment Across Industries

190

1. Explore Impact of Dispersed Work Environment on Organizational Learning and

Change

This case study focused on sustaining organizational learning and change over

time, but did not specifically focus on the impact the dispersed work environment had on

the workforce’s ability to learn and change. Since one of the conclusions was the need to

have messaging and implementation closely aligned and centralized, it would be

interesting to examine how being in a dispersed work environment impacts the ability to

centralize and align and if that, in turn, impacts organizational learning and change.

Research could again focus on a specific case, multiple cases, or on employees’

experiences at the individual level.

2. Use Social Network Analysis to Identify the Change in the Depth and Breadth of

Networks after Moving to a Dispersed Work Environment

It would be interesting to explore how the breadth and depth of the employee

networks changed throughout this transformation. While social network analysis has been

around in its current form since the 1970s, and in a more simplistic form since the 1930s,

advances in social network analysis have been quite rapid, mostly with an aim to make

social network analysis accessible to those with a more limited mathematical background

(Scott, 2017).

Several researchers have been recently taking on the examination of

organizational learning through various social network analyses (Skerlavaj, Dimovski, &

Desouza, 2010; Vohra & Thomas, 2016; Zappa & Robins, 2016). Skerlavaj et al. (2010)

drew on concepts from cognitive theories, theories of homophily and proximity, theories

of social exchange, the theory of generalized exchange, small-worlds theory, and social

191

process theory to study patterns and structures of intra-organizational learning networks.

Vohra and Thomas (2016) argue that social network theory can be used to “capture

organizational learning at multiple levels, to capture relational data (expressed as linkages

between actors), and can yield actionable insights for changes within the organization"

(p. 587).

Since organizational learning, especially through the lens of a systems view

model, like the OLSM, is based on reflecting, adapting, and learning based on

interactions with internal and external information (presumably information from

people), looking at the OLSM with a focus on the social networks might produce some

information that would be really compelling for scholar-practitioners who are looking to

use this type of information in setting organizations, and the people within them, up for

success.

3. Conduct Action Research to Test the Conceptual Model to Augment OLSM

This case study resulted in a conceptual model to augment the OLSM model by

incorporating the element of time and defining how each dyad should look at various

time periods during, after, and long after the change intervention (see Table 5.2).

Conducting research to test this conceptual model to see if the concepts and

recommendation is sound would add value to the literature. Testing a change model

concept is hard to do after the fact. This conceptual idea is best tested through an action

learning intervention where the OLSM change model is utilized and evaluated in real

time.

192

4. Impact of Dispersed Work Environment on Open Space Office Design

The majority of current literature on open space design makes the underlying

assumption that employees regularly come into the office (Andriopoulos & Gotsi, 2001;

Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, & Janssen, 2011; Barber, Laing, & Simeone, 2005;

Coradi, Heinzen, & Boutellier, 2015a, 2015b). This case study highlighted the fact that

moving to an open office space concept while at the same time moving to a more

dispersed work environment had unique challenges. Looking at the relationship between

these two concepts would be helpful and relevant to the current workforce trends.

Since the literature is fairly aligned with the benefits and potential drawbacks with

open office space, research using those elements could be either quantitative through

surveys or more qualitative through interviews and focus groups. Research could either

focus on a specific case, could conduct a multiple case study to explore the differences

between multiple organizations going through similar changes, or could focus more on

the individual level by surveying or interviewing employees who have experienced that

type of change, regardless of the organization.

5. Compare the Transformation to an Open Office Space Design and/or Dispersed

Work Environment across Industries

This case study focused specifically on one organization in the U.S. Federal

Government. While there may be some similarities between the federal government and

large, bureaucratic organizations, small businesses or organizations in different industries

may not have the same experience. One of the comments the researcher heard from

leadership during the change as well as during the data collection for this case study was

that private companies would not have spent as much time and effort on the change,

193

compared to our efforts. While this is just anecdotal evidence, comparing the

experiences of this type of change in different industries would provide a balance of

information that would serve a larger audience than this specific historical case study can.

Concluding Remarks

This research started as an exploration into a planned change to see how, and to

what extent, organizational learning was sustained after a planned change. At the end, it

is clear to the researcher that the change was, in fact, successful in most areas. Some of

the success was by luck; some by design. However, through this in-depth, historical case

study, the researcher has identified several conclusions that supported the sustainability

of organizational learning and change, a couple of conclusions that interfered with the

sustainability of organizational learning and change, a proposed conceptual model to

augment the OLSM theory to incorporate change and time, and a handful of implications

for practice to help inform future change efforts. There are four main areas where this

study has made an impact on theory and practice.

First, this historical case study provided a unique look into developing and

sustaining organizational learning in a government agency. Whether for access or

logistical reasons, there are very few studies that explore an organization through the

development and sustaining periods of organizational learning or change. This case

study did just that. It gave a rare look into how when viewed through OLSM subsystems,

organizational learning morphs over time as the organization and its leadership move

further away from the actual change implementation.

Second, this research extends the scholarly research on organizational learning

and change by using a systems view. A large portion of the research on organizational

194

learning and change focuses on just one or two variables within a larger system. While

this is helpful, the paradox scholars discuss how organizational change cannot be

understood alone (Battilana & Casciaro, 2012); that coping with the paradox of change

relates to the process of single-, double-, and triple-loop learning (Luscher & Lewis,

2008); and that perception - leading to individual understanding and conceptualization,

and then leading to organizational knowledge - are both occurring in organizations at the

same time (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). In this world of paradox, it is important to look at

organizational learning and change through the systems lens, like this study has, to be

able to capture the nuances of the paradox.

Third, this historical case study looked at a change initiative over an extended

period of time, covering over five years during and after the change. Pettigrew, et al.

(2001) mentions that one of the six areas where research is lacking is in research that

incorporates time, process, history, and action. By exploring how the organizational

learning process evolved over time, this case study did address this gap and helped to

bridge the gap between research and practice.

Finally, the exploration of change in federal organizations is a context that is not

widely documented. Whether because of access to conduct the research or because of

another reason, exploring a change and learning initiative within the federal government

context is not common in literature. And, when there are studies to be found, they are

more likely to be studies that are not from a systems or historical view. Because of the

historical nature and systems lens used, this study provides a rare look into a successful

change in a federal government organization. Mohrman and Lawler (2012) state that in

order to achieve relevance, researchers need to work with, and learn from, practitioners

195

and colleagues from other disciplines. The hope of this researcher is that this historical

look into an organizational learning and change initiative provides insights in this way.

This study was designed to address gaps between theory and practice, as well as

gaps in the literature, based on the identified areas of this study’s significance. “Research

is used when it connects to practice and fits the context of practitioners’ experience”

(Mohrman & Lawler, 2012, p. 49). By addressing the gaps identified in this study, the

findings are more relevant and actionable for other government agencies looking to

undergo the same transformation. Ultimately, the hope of this researcher is that there are

both scholarly and pragmatic “ah-ha” moments in this study that can fuel future research,

as well as other successful organizational learning and change initiatives for practitioners.

196

References

Aarons, G. A., Wells, R. S., Zagursky, K., Fettes, D. L., & Palinkas, L. A. (2009).

Implementing evidence-based practice in community mental health agencies: A

multiple stakeholder analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 99(11), 2087-

95.

Abel, C. F., & Sementelli, A. J. (2005). Evolutionary critical theory, metaphor, and

organizational change. Journal of Management Development, 24(5), 443-458.

Adams, J. R. (2009). Using Winnie the Pooh characters to illustrate the transactional

analysis ego states. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 4(3), 237-248.

Adenfelt, M., & Lagerström, K. (2006). Enabling knowledge creation and sharing in

transnational projects. International journal of project management, 24(3), 191-

198.

Adler, P. & Heckscher, C. (2013). The collaborative, ambidextrous Enterprise/La

empresacolaborativa y ambidiestra.Universia Business Review, (40), 34-51.

Aggestam, L. (2006). Learning organization or knowledge management: Which came

first, the chicken or the egg? Information Technology and Control, 35(3), 295-

302.

Aitken, L. (2012). Improving the translation of evidence into practice. International

Journal of Nursing Practice, 18, 3.

Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J. & Keskin, H. (2007). Organizational intelligence: A structuration

view. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(3), 272-289.

197

Akhtar, N. & Khan, R.A. (2011). Exploring the paradox of organizational learning and

learning organization. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in

Business, 2(9), 257-270.

Alänge, S., & Steiber, A. (2009). The board's role in sustaining major organizational

change. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(3), 280-293.

Albert, M., & Picq, T. (2004). Knowledge-based organizations: Perspectives from San

Francisco Bay Area companies. European Journal of Innovation Management,

7(3), 169-177.

Alpander, G. G., & Lee, C. R. (1995). Culture, strategy and teamwork: The keys to

organizational change. Journal of Management Development, 14(8), 4-18.

Amburgey, T. L., Kelly, D. & Barnett, W. P. (1993). Resetting the clock: The dynamics

of change and failure. Administrative Science Quarterly. 38, 51-73.

Ament, S. M. C., Gillissen, F., Maessen, J. M. C., Dirksen, C. D., van der Weijden, T., &

von Meyenfeldt, M. F. (2012). Sustainability of healthcare innovations (SUSHI):

Long term effects of two implemented surgical care programmes (protocol). BMC

Health Services Research, 12, n/a-423.

Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2001). 'Living' the corporate identity: Case studies from

the creative industry. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(2), 144-154.

Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Groenen, P., & Janssen, I. (2011). An end-user's perspective on

activity-based office concepts. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 13(2), 122-135.

Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to

knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123-1137.

198

Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action

perspective. London: Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational.

Jossey-Bass.

Armstrong, J. S. (1982). Strategies for implementing change: An experiential approach.

Group & Organization Studies (pre-1986), 7(4), 457-475.

Auster, E. R., & Ruebottom, T. (2013). Navigating the politics and emotions of change.

MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(4), 31-36.

Austin, J., & Currie, B. (2003). Changing organisations for a knowledge economy: The

theory and practice of change management. Journal of Facilities Management,

2(3), 229-243.

Bain, A., Walker, A., & Chan, A. (2011). Self-organisation and capacity building:

Sustaining the change. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(6), 701-719.

Barber, C., Laing, A., & Simeone, M. (2005). Global workplace trends: A North

American and European comparison. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 7(3),

210-221.

Barley, S. R. & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalism and structuration; Studying the

links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93-117.

Barnes, M. (2013). Experiential learning: Helping to facilitate organizational change.

Unpublished manuscript, George Washington University, Washington, DC.

Bartunek, J. M., Rousseau, D. M., Rudolph, J. W., & DePalma, J. A. (2006). On the

receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational

199

change initiated by others. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(2),

182-206.

Bass, B. M. & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc/Psychology Press.

Battilana, J. & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A

contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal,

55 (2), 381-398.

Bean, C. J., & Eisenberg, E. M. (2006). Employee sensemaking in the transition to

nomadic work. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(2), 210-222.

Beer, M. & Nohira, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change. Harvard Business School

Press.

Beverungen, D. (2014). Exploring the interplay of the design and emergence of business

processes as organizational routines. Business & Information Systems

Engineering, 6(4), 191-202.

Bin Taher, N. A., Krotov, V., & Silva, L. (2015). A framework for leading change in the

UAE public sector. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 23(3), 348-

363.

Bloodgood, J. M. & Bongsug, C. (2010). Organizational paradoxes: Dynamic shifting

and integrative management. Management Decision, 48(1), 85-104.

Boeteng, R. (2011). Do organizations learn when employees learn: The link between

individual and organizational learning. Development and Learning in

Organizations, 25(6), 6-9.

Brown, A. D. & Starkey, K. (2000). Organizational identity and learning: A

200

psychodynamic perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 102-120.

Brown, A. D. (2000). Making sense of inquiry sensemaking. Journal of Management

Studies, 37(1).

Brown, A. S. (2009). BUILDING a place for INNOVATION. Mechanical Engineering,

131(11), 38-43.

Brown, C., Smith, P., Arduengo, N., & Taylor, M. (2016). Trusting telework in the

federal government. The Qualitative Report, 21(1), 87-101.

Brown, S. L. & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking

complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1-34.

Bruns, H. (2014). HR development in local government: How and why does HR strategy

matter in organizational change and development? Business Research, 7(1), 1-49.

Buchanan, D., Fitzgerald, L., Ketley, D., Gollop, R., Jones, J. L., Lamont, S. S. &

Whitby, E. (2005). No going back: A review of the literature on sustaining

organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(3), 189-

205.

Buckley, W. (1968). Society as a complex adaptive system. In W. Buckley (Ed.), Modern

systems research for the behavioral scientist (pp. 490-513). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Burke, W. W. & Noumair, D. A. (2015). Organization development: A process of

learning and changing. FT Press.

Burke, W. W. (2011). A perspective on the field of organization development and

change: The Zeigarnik effect. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2),

143-167.

201

Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: a re‐appraisal.

Journal of Management studies, 41(6), 977-1002.

Burnes, B. (2009). Managing change, 5th ed, London: FT/Prentice Hall.

By, R. T., Hughes, M., & Ford, J. (2016). Change leadership: Oxymoron and myths.

Journal of Change Management, 16(1), 8-17.

Callahan, J. L. (2004). Reversing a conspicuous absence: Mindful inclusion of emotion in

structuration theory. Human Relations, 57(11), 1427-1448.

Candy, V. (2013). Managing Planned Change: The Transition From A Nationalized

Organization To A Fragmented Network. American Journal of Health

Sciences, 4(2), 55.

Cannaerts, N., Segers, J., & Henderickx, E. (2016). Ambidextrous design and public

organizations: A comparative case study. The International Journal of Public

Sector Management, 29(7), 708-724.

Cao, G. & McHugh, M.A. (2005). Systemic view of change management and its

conceptual underpinnings. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(5), 475-

490.

Carleton, J. R., & Lineberry, C. (2004). Achieving post-merger success: a stakeholder's

guide to cultural due diligence, assessment, and integration. John Wiley & Sons.

Carter, T. M. (2014). Assessment and change leadership in an academic library

department: A case study. Reference Services Review, 42(1), 148-164.

Casebeer, A., Popp, J., & Scott, C. (2009). Positively deviant networks: What are they

and why do we need them? Journal of Health Organization and Management,

23(6), 610-26.

202

Casey, A. (2005). Enhancing individual and organizational learning: A sociological

model. Management learning, 36(2), 131-147.

Chalofsky, N. (2004). Human and Organization Studies: The Discipline of HRD. Online

Submission.

Chapman, J. A. (2002). A framework for transformational change in

organisations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(1), 16-25.

Chenhall, R. H., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2003). Performance measurement and reward

systems, trust, and strategic change. Journal of Management Accounting

Research, 15, 117-143.

Chidiac, M. (2013). An organisational change approach based on gestalt psychotherapy

theory and practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(3), 458-

474.

Chin, R. & Benne, K. D. (1989). General strategies for effecting changes in human

systems. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne & R. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change

(4th ed., pp. 22-45). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College

Publishers.

Clark, B. R. (2003). Sustaining change in universities: Continuities in case studies and

concepts. Tertiary Education and Management, 9(2), 99.

Clark, C. E., Cavanaugh, N. C., Brown, C. V., & Sambamurthy, V. (1997). Building

change-readiness capabilities in the IS organization: Insights from the Bell

Atlantic experience. MIS Quarterly, 21(4), 425-455.

203

Clark, E., & Geppert, M. (2011). Subsidiary integration as identity construction and

institution building: A political sensemaking approach. Journal of Management

Studies, 48(2), 395-416.

Clarke, M., & Meldrum, M. (1999). Creating change from below: Early lessons for

agents of change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(2), 70-80.

Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2014) Thematic analysis. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.),

Encyclopaedia of Quality of Life and Well-BeingResearch (pp. 6626-6628).

Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting

change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.

Collins, D. (2005). Book Review: Making Sense of Change. Organization, 12(1), 140-

142.

Cooper, D. (2001). Against the current: Social pathways and the pursuit of enduring

change. Feminist Legal Studies, 9(2), 119-148.

Cope, M. (2003). The seven C’s of consulting (2nd ed.). London: Financial

Times/Prentice-Hall

Coradi, A., Heinzen, M., & Boutellier, R. (2015a). A longitudinal study of workspace

design for knowledge exploration and exploitation in the research and

development process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(1), 55-71.

Coradi, A., Heinzen, M., & Boutellier, R. (2015b). Designing workspaces for cross-

functional knowledge-sharing in R&D: The "co-location pilot" of novartis.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 236-256.

Corley, K. G. & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a

204

corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 173-208.

Cornelissen, J. P. (2012). Sensemaking under pressure: The influence of professional

roles and social accountability on the creation of sense. Organization

Science, 23(1), 118-137.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Sage.

Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999), An organizational learning

framework: From intuition to institution, Academy of Management Review, 24(3),

522-27.

Crotty, M. (2011). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the

research process. Washington, DC: Sage.

Curry, B., Lowery, L. M., & Loftus, D. (2010). What a community will bear: leadership

and the change process. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(5),

404-417.

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ, 2, 169-187.

Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation

systems. Academy of management review, 9(2), 284-295.

Dale, B. G., Boaden, R. J., Wilcox, M., & McQuater, R. E. (1997). Sustaining total

quality management: what are the key issues?. The TQM Magazine, 9(5), 372-

380.

Danowitz, M. A., Hanappi-Egger, E., & Hofmann, R. (2009). The development and

205

implementation of a diversity management curriculum. The International Journal

of Educational Management, 23(7), 590-603.

Datnow, A., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school

reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 5(1-2), 183-

204.

De Bernardis, L., & Giustiniano, L. (2015). Evolution of multiple organisational

identities after an M&A event: A case study from Europe. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 28(3), 333-355.

Denscombe, M. (2014). The good research guide: for small-scale social research

projects. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Touchstone.

DiBella, A. J. & Nevis, E. (1998). How organizations learn: An integrated strategy for

building learning capability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DiBella, A. J. (1995). Developing learning organizations: A matter of perspective.

Academy of Management Journal, 287-290.

Dixon, N. (1992). Organizational learning: A review of the literature with implications

for HRD professionals. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3(1), 29-49.

Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: a review of some literatures. Organization

studies, 14(3), 375-394.

Duffy, F. M. (2003). Dancing on ice: Navigating change to create whole-district school

improvement. Organization Development Journal, 21(1), 36.

Dumay, J. C. (2008). Narrative disclosure of intellectual capital. Management Research

News, 31(7), 518-537.

206

Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and

critiques. Human relations, 50(9), 1085-1113.

Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. (2011). The evolving field of organizational learning

and knowledge management. Handbook of Organizational Learning and

Knowledge Management (1-20). Chichester: Wiley.

Easterby-Smith, M., Araujo, L., & Burgoyne, J. (Eds.). (1999). Organizational learning

and the learning organization: Developments in theory and practice. Sage.

Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J., & Araujo, L. (Eds.). (1999). Organizational learning

and the learning organization: Developments in theory and practice. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Edwards, T. (2000). Innovation and organizational change: Developments towards an

interactive process perspective. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,

12(4), 445-464.

Ekstrand, M., & Damman, S. (2016). Front and backstage in the workplace. Journal of

Facilities Management, 14(2), 188-202.

Espedal, B. (2006). Do organizational routines change as experience changes? The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(4), 468-490.

Feldman, M. S. (2004). Resources in emerging structures and processes of change.

Organization Science, 15(3), 295-309.

Finger, M., & Brand, S. B. (1999). The concept of the learning organization applied to

the transformation of the public sector: Conceptual contributions for theory

development. Organizational learning and the learning organization:

Developments in theory and practice, 130-156.

207

Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of management

review, 10(4), 803-813.

Ford, M. W. & Greer, B. M. (2005). Implementing planned change: An empirical

comparison of theoretical perspectives. Mid - American Journal of Business,

20(2), 59-69.

Ford, R. (2006). Organizational learning, change and power: toward a practice-theory

framework. The Learning Organization, 13(5), 495-524.

Forrester, J. P., & Adams, G. B. (1997). Budgetary reform through organizational

learning: Toward an organizational theory of budgeting. Administration &

Society, 28(4), 466-488.

Fry, B. & Griswold, J.S. (2003). Defining and implementing the learning organization:

Some strategic limitations. Public Administration Quarterly, 27(3), 311-335.

Garcia, D., & Gluesing, J. C. (2013). Qualitative research methods in international

organizational change research. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 26(2), 423-444.

Garcias, F., Dalmasso, C., & Sardas, J. (2015). Paradoxical tensions in learning

processes: Exploration, exploitation and exploitative learning. M@n@gement,

18(2), 156-178.

Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization?.

Harvard business review, 86(3), 109.

Gersick, C. (1994). Pacing strategic change: The case of a new venture. Academy of

Management Journal, 37(1), 9-45.

208

Gersick, C. J. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the

punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10-36.

Giddens, A. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method. London: Hutchinson.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Los Angeles: University of California

Press.

Giddens, A. (1991). Structuration theory. Past, Present and Future. In: Bryant, C. and

Jary, D.(eds.). Giddens’ Theory of Structuration. A Critical Appreciation.

London: Routledge.

Giddens, A. (1993). New Rules of Sociological Method (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Policy

Press.

Gilstrap, D. (2010). Complexity and philosophy: Critical reflection as an irreversible

process: Epicurus, the arrow of time, and an ontology for organizational learning

phenomena. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 12(4), 95-117.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change

initiation. Strategic management journal, 12(6), 433-448.

Gleick, J. (2000). Faster. New York, NY: Hachette

Glynn, M. A., Barr, P. S., &Dacin, M. T. (2000). Pluralism and the problem of variety.

Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 726-734.

Goldberg, K. (2012). Reflective journaling: Building bridges between theory and

practice. Journal of Homeland Security Education, 1(1), 63-69.

209

Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. (1976). Measuring change and

persistence in human affairs: types of change generated by OD designs. Journal

of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 12, 33-57.

Graham, P., & Kormanik, M. (2004). Bridging the conference gap: A challenge to

enhance the research–practice dialogue. Human Resource Development

International, 7(3), 391-393.

Greiner, L. E. (1967). Successful organization change: The ingredients that make it stick.

Management Review, 56(8), 48-55.

Grieves, J. (2000). Images of change: The new organizational development. Journal of

Management Development, 19(5), 396-406.

Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for

business revolution. London: Nicholas Brearly.

Hannan, M.T. & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change.

American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149-164.

Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. Professional

learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas, 181-195.

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). The ripple effect. Educational leadership, 63(8), 16-

20.

Hazlett, S. & Hill, F. (2000). Policy and practice: An investigation of organizational

change for service quality in the public sector in northern Ireland. Total Quality

Management, 11(4-6), S515-S520.

210

Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn? In Nystrom, P.C. and

Starbuck, W.H. (eds.). Handbook of organizational design. London: Oxford

University Press.

Helms Mills, J., Thurlow, A., & Mills, A. J. (2010). Making sense of sensemaking: the

critical sensemaking approach. Qualitative Research in Organizations and

Management: An International Journal, 5(2), 182-195.

Hennink, M. M. (2014). Focus group discussions: Understanding qualitative research.

New York, NY: Oxford.

Hernes, T., & Maitlis, S. (Eds.). (2010). Process, sensemaking, and organizing (Vol. 1).

Oxford University Press.

Hilden, S. & Tikkamäki, K. (2013). Reflective practice as a fuel for organizational

learning. Administrative Sciences, 3(3), 76-95.

Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration

within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development.


Howard, D. C., & Howard, P. A. (2000). Towards sustainability of human services:

Assessing community self-determination and self-reliance. The Canadian Journal

of Program Evaluation, 15(1), 25.

Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The

role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618-636.

Hsu, P. & Sharma, P. (2006). A systemic plan of technology integration. Journal of

Educational Technology & Society, 9(4).

211

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the

literatures. Organization science, 2(1), 88-115.

Hughes, M. (2011). Do 70% of all organizational change initiatives really fail? Journal of

Change Management. 11 (4). 451-464.

Hussenot, A. (2008). Between structuration and translation: An approach of ICT

appropriation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(3), 335-347.

Hylmö, A. (2006). Telecommuting and the contestability of choice: Employee strategies

to legitimize personal decisions to work in a preferred location. Management

Communication Quarterly, 19(4), 541-569.

Jacobs, C. D., & Heracleous, L. T. (2006). Constructing shared understanding: The role

of embodied metaphors in organization development. The Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, 42(2), 207-226.

Jacobs, R. L. (2002). Institutionalizing organizational change through cascade

training. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(2/3/4), 177-182.

Jansson, N. (2013). Organizational change as practice: A critical analysis. Journal of


Jansson, N. (2014). Discourse phronesis in organizational change: a narrative

analysis. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(5), 769-779.

Jian, G. (2007). Unpacking unintended consequences in planned organizational change:

A process model. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 5-11, 13-28.

Johnson, R.B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education,

118(2), 282 – 292.

212

Johnston, J. A. (1990). Building and sustaining change in the culture of secondary

schools. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 46-48.

Jones, C. (2005). Firm transformation: Advancing a Darwinian perspective. Management

Decision, 43(1), 13-25.

Jørgensen, H. H., Owen, L., & Neus, A. (2009). Stop improvising change management!

Strategy & Leadership, 37(2), 38-44.

Juciute, R. (2009). ICT implementation in the health-care sector: Effective stakeholders'

engagement as the main precondition of change sustainability. AI & Society,

23(1), 131-137.

Judge, W. Q. & Blocker, C. P. (2008). Organizational capacity for change and strategic

ambidexterity. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 915-926.

Julian, D. A., & Kombarakaran, F. (2006). Assessment of quality of outcomes within a

local United Way organization: Implications for sustaining system level

change. American journal of community psychology, 38(3-4), 153-164.

Kahn, L., Hurth, J., Kasprzak, C. M., Diefendorf, M. J., Goode, S. E., & Ringwalt, S. S.

(2009). The national early childhood technical assistance center model for long-

term systems change. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29(1), 24-39.

Kamensky, J. M. (1996). Role of the "reinventing government" movement in federal

management reform. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 247.

Kaplan, S. A., Calman, N. S., Golub, M., Ruddock, C., & Billings, J. (2006). Fostering

organizational change through a community-based initiative. Health promotion

practice, 7(3_suppl), 181S-190S.

213

Karataş‐Özkan, M., & Murphy, W. D. (2010). Critical theorist, postmodernist and social

constructionist paradigms in organizational analysis: A paradigmatic review of

organizational learning literature. International Journal of Management Reviews,

12(4), 453-465.

Karp, T. (2004). Learning the steps of the dance of change: Improving change

capabilities by integrating futures studies and positive organisational scholarship.

Foresight : The Journal of Futures Studies, Strategic Thinking and Policy, 6(6),

349-355.

Karp, T. (2006). Transforming organisations for organic growth: The DNA of change

leadership. Journal of Change Management, 6(1), 3-20.

Karrer, D. & Fleck, D. (2015). Organizing for ambidexterity: A paradox-based typology

of ambidexterity-related organizational states. Brazilian Administration Review,

12(4), 365-I.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nded.). New

York (NY): John Wiley & Sons.

Keefer, J., & Yap, R. (2007). Is HRD research making a difference in practice?. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 18(4), 449-455.

Keller, S. & Aiken, C. (2009). The inconvenient truth about change management.

McKinsey and company, retrieved October 4, 2014 from:

http://www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Reports/Financial_Services/The_Inconven

ient_Truth_About_Change_Management.pdf

Keyton, J. (2003). Teaching a pig to sing? Management Communication Quarterly,

16(3), 453-458.

214

Kezar, A. (2013). Understanding sensemaking/sensegiving in transformational change

processes from the bottom up. Higher Education, 65(6), 761-780.

Kilduff, M. & Dougherty, D. (2000). Change and development in a pluralistic world: The

view from the classics. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 777-782.

Kim, G. & Huh, M. (2015). Exploration and organizational longevity: The moderating

role of strategy and environment. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(2),

389-414.

Kim, S. & Yoon, G. (2015). An innovation-driven culture in local government: Do senior

manager's transformational leadership and the climate for creativity matter?

Public Personnel Management, 44(2), 147-168.

Klarner, P. & Raisch, S. (2013). Move to the beat-rhythms of change and firm

performance, Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 160-184.

Knapp-Philo, J., Corso, R. M., Brekken, L. J., & Heal, H. B. (2004). Training to make

and sustain change: The Hilton/Early head start program. Infants and Young

Children, 17(2), 171-183.

Knudstorp, J. V., Maskus, K., Teece, D., & Christensen, B. J. (2017). Business on

Globalization—A Panel. In Globalization (pp. 587-600). Springer Berlin

Heidelberg.

Koch, H. (1992). Sustaining commitment. Managing Service Quality, 2(3), 157.

Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbrey, S., & Feurig, P. (2005). Examining the relationship

between learning organization characteristics and change adaptation, innovation,

and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2),

185-211.

215

Kotter, J. P. (2008). A sense of urgency. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business

Review, 73(2), 44–56.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Krefting, L. (1991) Rigor in qualitative research. The American Journal of Occupational

Therapy, 45(3), 214 – 222.

Krueger, R. A. (1998a). Developing questions for focus groups: Focus group kit 3.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Krueger, R. A. (1998b). Moderating focus groups: Focus group kit 4. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups (Vol. 610). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Kuntz, J. R., & Gomes, J. F. (2012). Transformational change in organisations: a self-

regulation approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(1), 143-

162.

Kyriakidou, O. (2011). Relational perspectives on the construction of meaning: A

network model of change interpretation. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 24(5), 572-592.

Ladinski, V. (2017). Designing for adaptability: The gateshead civic centre. International

Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 35(4), 380-396.

Laiken, M. E. (2003). Models of organizational learning: Paradoxes and best practices in

the postindustrial workplace. Organization Development Journal, 21(1), 8.

Landau, D. & Drori, I. (2008). Narratives as sensemaking accounts: The case of an R&D

216

laboratory. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(6), 701-720.

Law, S. (2009). Learning from employee communication during technological change.

Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(5), 384-397.

Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D., & Lavoie, B. (2005). Implementing and sustaining standards-

based curricular reform. National Association of Secondary School Principals.

NASSP Bulletin, 89(643), 2-16.

Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual review of

sociology, 14(1), 319-338.

Lewin, K. (1951) Problems of research in social psychology. In D. Cartwright et al. Field

Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy

of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.

Lichtenstein, B. M. B. (2000). Generative knowledge and self-organized learning:

reflecting on Don Schön's research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(1), 47-54.

Lines, R. (2005). How social accounts and participation during change affect

organizational learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(3/4), 157-177.

Lopez-Yanez, J., & Sanchez-Moreno, M. (2013). Levers for sustainable improvement of

spanish schools in challenging contexts. Journal of Educational Change, 14(2),

203-232.

Luscher, L. S. & Lewis, M. W. (2008) Organizational change and managerial

sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal,

51(2), 221-240.

Lyytinen, K., Rose, G., &Yoo, Y. (2010). Learning routines and disruptive technological

217

change. Information Technology & People, 23(2), 165-192.

Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of


Mantere, S., Schildt, H. A., & Sillince, A. A. (2012) Reversal of strategic change.

Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 172-196.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.


March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1975). The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning

under ambiguity. European journal of political research, 3(2), 147-171.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations.

March. J. G. (1981). Footnotes to organizational change. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 26(4), 563-577.

Marquardt, M. J. (2011). Building the Learning organization: Achieving strategic

advantage through a commitment to learning (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Nicholas

Brealey Pub.

Marshak, R. J. (1993). Lewin meets Confucius: a review of the OD model of change. The

Journal of applied behavioral science, 29(4), 393-415.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.).


Marsick, V. & Watkins, K. (1999). Looking again at the learning organization: A tool

that can turn into a weapon! The Learning Organization, 6(5), 207-211.

Martens, Y. (2011). Creative workplace: Instrumental and symbolic support for

creativity. Facilities, 29(1/2), 63-79.

218

Martin-Rios, C. (2016). Sensemaking of organizational innovation and change in public

research organizations. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(3),

516-531.

Maurer, R. (2010). Applying what we’ve learned about change. The Journal for Quality

and Participation. 33(2), 35-38.

McCaslin, M. L. & Scott, K. W. (2003). The five-question method. The Qualitative

Report 8(3), 447 – 461.

McKinsey. (2010). Making it work in government. The McKinsey Quarterly. Available

at http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com

McPhee, R. D. (2004). Text, agency, and organization in the light of structuration theory.

Organization, 11(3), 355-371.

McShan, C. G. & King, J. J. (1995). On the threshold of change in government. The

Government Accountants Journal, 43(4), 11.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative case study research. Qualitative research: A guide to

design and implementation, 39-54.

Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. Fostering

critical reflection in adulthood, 1, 20.

Michel, A. (2014). The mutual constitution of persons and organizations: An ontological

perspective on organizational change. Organization Science, 25(4), 1082-1110.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miles, R. E. & Snow, C. C. (2003). Organizational strategy, structure, and process (pp.

3-30 and 68-80). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

219

Miller, G. E. (2003). Making sense of organizational change. Personnel Psychology,

56(4), 1060-1064.

Mills, D. Q. & Friesen, B. (1992). The learning organization. European Management

Journal, 10(2), 146-156.

Mohrman, S. A. & Lawler, E. (2012). Generating knowledge that drives change.

Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 41-51.

Monin, P., Noorderhaven, N., Vaara, E., & Kroon, D. (2013). Giving sense to and

making sense of justice in post merger integration. Academy of Management

Journal, 56(1), 256-284.

Moon, M. Y. (2009). Making sense of common sense for change management buy-in.

Management Decision, 47(3), 518-532.

Moran, P., Simoni, M. & Vagnani, G. (2011). Becoming the best: By beating or ignoring

the best? Toward an expanded view of the role of managerial selection in

complex and turbulent environments. Journal of Management & Governance,

15(3), 447-481.

Morrison, E. W. & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and

development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-

725.

Nasim, S., & Sushil. (2010). Managing continuity and change: a new approach for

strategizing in e-government. Transforming Government: People, Process and

Policy, 4(4), 338-364.

220

Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial

identity: Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility. Academy of


Nevis, E., DeBella, A., & Gould, J. (1995). Understanding organizations as learning

systems. Sloan Management Review, (winter), 73-85.

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review (Nov-

Dec), 96-104.

Nonaka, I. (2000). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.

In Knowledge, groupware and the internet (pp. 3-42).

O'Hara, S. (1996). Organizational change through individual learning. Career

Development International, 1(4), 38.

Onesti, T., Angiola, N., & Bianchi, P. (2016). Learning by using performance measures

in local governments: The perspective of public managers. Public Administration

Quarterly, 40(4), 842-881.

O'Reilly, C. A. & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present,

and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.

Ormerod, R. (2006). The history and ideas of pragmatism. The Journal of the

Operational Research Society, 57(8), 892-909.

Örtenblad, A. (2002). A typology of the idea of learning organization. Management

Learning, 33, 213-230.

221

Örtenblad, A. (2013). Handbook of research on the learning organization: Adaptation and

context. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. New York and London: The Free Press and

Collier Macmillan.

Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (1951). Values, motives, and systems of action. Toward a

general theory of action, 33, 247-275.

Patora-Wysocka, Z. (2016). The institutionalization of practice: A processual perspective

on value co-creation 1. Economics and Business Review, 2(2), 113-126.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.) Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Perkins, K. M. (2012). Sustainability and innovation: Creating change that engages the

workforce. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (46), 175-187.

Peters, B. G. & Savoie, D. J. (1996). Managing incoherence: The coordination and

empowerment conundrum. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 281.

Peterson, T. O. & Beard, J. W. (2004). Workspace technology's impact on individual

privacy and team interaction. Team Performance Management, 10(7/8), 163-172.

Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational

challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697-713.

Piao, M. (2014). A long life after exploitation and exploration. European Journal of

Innovation Management, 17(2), 209-228.

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A

multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of


222

Plowman, D. A., Baker, L. T., Beck, T. E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S. T., & Travis, D. V.

(2007). Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small

change. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 515-543.

Pokharel, M. P. & Hult, K. M. (2010). Varieties of organizational learning. Journal of

Workplace Learning, 22(4), 249-270.

Pokharel, M. P., & Choi, S. O. (2015). Exploring the relationships between the learning

organization and organizational performance. Management Research Review,

38(2), 126-148.

Porras, J. I. & Silvers, R. C. (1991). Organizational development and transformation.

Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 51-78.

Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational development: Theory, practice,

and research. Consulting Psychologists Press.

Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational

collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116-145.

Probst, G., & Raisch, S. (2005). Organizational crisis: The logic of failure. The academy

of management executive, 19(1), 90-105.

Rainey, H. G. (1999). Using comparisons of public and private organizations to assess

innovative attitudes among members of organizations. Public Productivity &


Reissner, S. C. (2010). Change, meaning and identity at the workplace. Journal of


223

Richter, C. (2001). Workplace design: A laboratory for inventiveness. The Journal for

Quality and Participation, 24(2), 52-55.

Rimmer, M., Macneil, J., Chenhall, R., Smith, K., & Watts, L. (1996). Reinventing

competitiveness: Achieving best practices in Australia. South Melbourne: Pitman.

Rogers, P., Meehan, P. & Tanner, S. (2006). Building a winning culture, Boston, MA:

Bain and Company.

Rollag, K. & Parise, S. (2005). The bikestuff simulation: Experiencing the challenge of

organizational change. Journal of Management Education, 29(5), 769-787.

Romanelli, E. & Tushman, M. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated

equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1141-

1166.

Roper, K. O. & Juneja, P. (2007). Valuation of AW: Modeling the impacts of

distractions. Facilities, 25(13/14), 536-553.

Rothe, P. & Heywood, C. (2015). Demystifying the short-distance relocation process: 5

cases from finland. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 17(3), 160-177.

Rouleau, L. & Balogun, J. (2011). Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and

discursive competence. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 953-983.

Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.


Rudolph, J. W., Morrison, J. B., & Carroll, J. S. (2009). The dynamics of action-oriented

problem solving: Linking interpretation and choice. Academy of Management

Review, 34(4), 733-756.

Rusaw, A. C. (1997). Reinventing local government: A case study of organizational

224

change through community learning. Public Administration Quarterly, 20(4),

419-432.

Rusaw, A. C. (2005). How downsizing affects organizational memory in government:

Some implications for professional and organizational development. Public

Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 482-500.

Rusaw, A. C., & Fisher, V. D. (2017). Promoting training and professional development

in government: The origins and early contributions of SPOD. Public

Administration Quarterly, 41(2), 216-232.

Russ, T. L. (2008). Communicating change: A review and critical analysis of

programmatic and participatory implementation approaches. Journal of Change

Management, 8, 199-211.

Russ, T. L. (2010). Programmatic and participatory: Two frameworks for classifying

experiential change implementation methods. Simulation Gaming, 41(5), 767-

786.

Russ, T. L. (2011). An exploratory study of an experiential change program’s impact on

participants’ affective outcomes. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 32(5), 493-509.

Rynes, S. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2017). Evidence-based management: Foundations,

development, controversies and future. Annual Review of Organizational

Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 235-261.

Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge

creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of

management Journal, 44(2), 340-355.

225

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sarason, Y. (1995, August). A model of organizational transformation: The incorporation

of organizational identity into a structuration theory framework. In Academy of

Management Proceedings (Vol. 1995, No. 1, pp. 47-51).

Saunders, M. D. (2003). Institutionalizing retention activity: Toward a theory-based

model. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(4), 329-335.

Schein, E. H. (1991). What is culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 243-253.

Schein, E. H. (1999). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes

toward a model of managed learning. Reflections, 1(1), 59-74.

Schein, E. H. (2017). Organization development: A Jossey-Bass reader. John Wiley &

Sons.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for

teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.

Schwandt, D. & Szabla, D. (2013). Structuration theories and complex adaptive social

systems: Inroads to describing human interaction dynamics. Emergence:

Complexity and Organization, 15(4), 1-20.

Schwandt, D. R. (1993). Organizational learning: a dynamic integrative

construct. Unpublished Manuscript.

Schwandt, D. R. (1997). Integrating strategy and organizational learning: A theory of

action perspective. Advances in strategic management, 14, 337-360.

226

Schwandt, D., & Marquardt, M. (2000). Organizational learning: From world-class

theories to global best practices. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Scott, J. (2017). Social network analysis. Sage.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Seidman, W., & McCauley, M. (2009). A scientific model for grassroots O.D.

Organization Development Journal, 27(2), 27-37.

Seig, M. T., & Bubp, K. (2008). The culture of empowerment: Driving and sustaining

change at Conner Prairie. Curator: The Museum Journal, 51(2), 203-220.

Selcer, A. & Decker, P. (2012). The structuration of ambidexterity: An urge for caution

in organizational design. International Journal of Organizational Innovation,

5(1), 65-96.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning

organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning

organization (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Doubleday.

Senge, P. M., & Kaeufer, K. H. (2000). Creating change. Executive excellence, 17(10), 4-

4.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., Smith, B., &Guman, E. C. (1999).

The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning

organizations.

227

Senturia, T., Flees, I., & Maceda, M. (2008). Leading change management requires

sticking to the plot. London: Bain and Company.

Skerlavaj, M., Dimovski, V., & Desouza, K. C. (2010). Patterns and structures of intra-

organizational learning networks within a knowledge-intensive organization.

Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 189-204.

Skogland, M. A. C. & Hansen, G. K. (2017). Change your space, change your culture:

Exploring spatial change management strategies. Journal of Corporate Real

Estate, 19(2), 95-110. Ansari, S., Munir, K. & Gregg, T. (2012). Impact at the

‘bottom of the pyramid: the role of social capital in capability development and

community empowerment. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 813-842.

Skogland, M. A. C. (2017). A spatial approach to transformational change. Journal of

Corporate Real Estate, 19(4), 285-299.

Smets, M., Morris, T., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From practice to field: A multilevel

model of Practice-driven institutional change. Academy of Management Journal,

55(4), 877-904.

Smith, P. A., &Sharicz, C. A. (2013). The bi-modal organization: Balancing autopoiesis

and fluid social networks for sustainability. The Learning Organization, 20(2),

134-152.

Smith, W. K. & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Towards a theory of paradox: A dynamic

equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-

403.

228

Snyder, K. M. (2007). The european education quality benchmark system: Helping

teachers to work with information to sustain change. European Journal of

Education, 42(3), 425.

Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding

to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of


Sotirakou, T. & Zeppou, M. (2004). The "MATE" model: A strategic knowledge

management technique on the chessboard of public-sector modernization.

Management Decision, 42(1), 69-88.

Srimai, S., Damsaman, N., & Bangchokdee, S. (2011). Performance measurement,

organizational learning and strategic alignment: An exploratory study in thai

public sector. Measuring Business Excellence, 15(2), 57-69.

Staber, U. & Sydow, J. (2002). Organizational adaptive capacity: A structuration

perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(4), 408-424.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stata, R. (1989). Organizational learning: The key to management innovation. Sloan

Management Review, (spring), 63-74.

Steenekamp, K., Botha, G., & Moloi, K. C. (2012). Sustaining change in a learning

organization. Africa Education Review, 9(2), 380.

Steigenberger, N. (2015). Emotions in sensemaking: A change management perspective.

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(3), 432-451.

Stensaker, I. & Falkenberg, J. (2007). Making sense of different responses to corporate

change. Human Relations, 60(1), 137-177.

229

Stjernberg, T., & Philips, A. (1993). Organizational innovations in a long-term

perspective: Legitimacy and souls-of-fire as critical factors of change and

viability. Human Relations, 46(10), 1193-1219.

Suss, D. (2015). T4 MAP™: A Scholar‐Practitioner Model for Performance

Improvement. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 27(4), 49-75.

Sutcliffe, K. M. (2013). Sensemaking. The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic

management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Advance online publication.

Retrieved from http://www. palgraveconnect.

com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137294678.0623.

Tajeddini, K. (2016). Analyzing the influence of learning orientation and innovativeness

on performance of public organizations. The Journal of Management

Development, 35(2), 134-153.

Taylor, S. S. (1999). Making sense of revolutionary change: Differences in members'

stories. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(6), 524-539.

Templeton, G. F., & Dowdy, J. F. (2012). CASE-mediated organizational and deutero

learning at NASA. Information Systems Frontiers, 14(3), 741-764.

Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. (1993). Strategic sensemaking and

organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and

outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 239-270.

Thomas, R., Sargent, L. D., & Hardy, C. (2011). Managing organizational change:

Negotiating meaning and power-resistance relations. Organization Science, 22(1),

22-41.

Thompson, J. R. & Ingraham, P. W. (1996). The reinvention game. Public Administration

230

Review, 56(3), 291.

Thompson, J. R. (1999). Devising administrative reform that works: The example of the

reinvention lab program. Public Administration Review, 59(4), 283-292.

Thompson, J. R. (2000). Reinvention as reform: Assessing the national performance

review. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 508-521.

Tosey, P. (2005). The hunting of the learning organization: A paradoxical journey.

Management Learning, 36(3), 335-352.

Trautlein, B. A. (2013). Change Intelligence: Use the Power of CQ to Lead Change That

Sticks. Greenleaf Book Group.

Tsang, E. W. K. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organization: A

dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations 50(1),

73-89.

Tsasis, P., Evans, J.M., Rush, L., & Diamond, J. (2013). Learning to learn: Towards a

relational and transformational model of learning for improved integrated care

delivery. Administrative Sciences, 3(2), 9-31.

Tsoukas, H. & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational

change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567-582.

Tucker, D.A., Hendy, J., & Barlow, J. (2015). The importance of role sending in the

sensemaking of change agent roles. Journal of Health Organization and

Management, 29(7), 1047-1064.

Turner, B. S., & Holton, R. J. (2014). Talcott Parsons on Economy and Society (RLE

Social Theory). Routledge.

231

Vales, E. (2007). Employees CAN make a difference! Involving employees in change at

Allstate Insurance. Organization Development Journal, 25(4), P27.

vanBuuren, A. & Edelenbos, J. (2013). Organizational competence development in two

public agencies in the netherlands: The effectiveness of in-company training

versus learning by doing. Public Personnel Management, 42(3), 385-402.

Van de Ven, A. & Poole, M. (1995). Explaining development and change in

organizations. Academy of Management Review,20(3), 510-540.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Huber, G. P. (1990). Longitudinal field research methods for

studying processes of organizational change. Organization science, 1(3), 213-219.

Van den Heuvel, S., Freese, C., Schalk, R., & van Assen, M. (2017). How change

information influences attitudes toward change and turnover intention. Leadership

& Organization Development Journal, 38(3), 398-418.

Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., Schreurs, B. H. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B.

(2009). Does meaning-making help during organizational change? Career

Development International, 14(6), 508-533.

van der Heijden, A., Cramer, J. M., & Driessen, P. P. (2012). Change agent sensemaking

for sustainability in a multinational subsidiary. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 25(4), 535-559.

Van der Voet, J., Kuipers, B., & Groeneveld, S. (2015). Held back and pushed forward:

Leading change in a complex public sector environment. Journal of


232

Vidović, V. V., & Bjeliš, A. (2006). Entrepreneurialism at the University of Zagreb:

managing the sustainability of change. Higher Education in Europe, 31(2), 157-

193.

Vohra, N. & Thomas, N. (2016). Investigating organizational learning through social

network analysis: The case of a consultancy firm in india. Thunderbird

International Business Review, 58(6), 587-600.

Vora, M. K. (2013). Business excellence through sustainable change management. TQM

Journal, 25(6), 625-640.

Walston, S. L., & Chadwick, C. (2003). Perceptions and misperceptions of major

organizational changes in hospitals: Do change efforts fail because of inconsistent

organizational perceptions of restructuring and reengineering?. International

Journal of Public Administration, 26(14), 1581-1605.

Walter, G. A., & Marks, S. E. (1981). Experiential learning and change. New York, NY:

John Wiley & Sons.

Wanberg, C.R. & Banas, J.T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in

a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142.

Weaver, G. R., & Gioia, D. A. (1994). Paradigms lost: incommensurability vs

structurationist inquiry. Organization Studies, 15(4), 565-589.

Weber, P. S. & Manning, M. R. (2001). Cause maps, sensemaking, and planned

organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(2), 227-

251.

Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations [1]. Journal of

management studies, 25(4), 305-317.

233

Weick, K. E. (1990). Technology as equivoque: sensemaking in new technologies.

Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch

disaster. Administrative science quarterly, 628-652.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (pp. 1-62). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of

sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.

Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative

interview studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.

West, P. (1994). The concept of the learning organization. Journal of European

Industrial Training, 18(1), 15-30.

Whiteman, G., & Cooper, W. H. (2011). Ecological sensemaking. Academy of


Wischnevsky, J. D. (2004). Change as the winds change: The impact of organizational

transformation on firm survival in a shifting environment. Organizational

Analysis, 12(4), 361-377.

Wise, C. R. (2006). Organizing for homeland security after katrina: Is adaptive

management what's missing? Public Administration Review, 66(3), 302.

Woodman, R. W. (1993). Observations on the field of organizational change and

development from the lunatic fringe. Organization Development Journal, 11(2),

71-75.

234

Yanchus, N. J., Shoda, E. A., Derickson, R., & Osatuke, K. (2015). Organizational

change and sensemaking in the veterans health administration. Journal of

Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 74-89.

Yeo, R. K. (2006). Learning institution to learning organization. Journal of European

Industrial Training, 30(5), 396-419.

Yeo, R. K. & Marquardt, M. J. (2015). Think before you act: Organizing structures of

action in technology-induced change. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 28(4), 511-528.

Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Zappa, P. & Robins, G. (2016). Organizational learning across multi-level networks.

Social Networks, 44, 295.

Zhang, X. (2016). Co-evolution between institutional environments and organizational

change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(3), 381-403.

Zhou, K. Z., Tse, D. K., & Li, J. J. (2006). Organizational changes in emerging

economies: Drivers and consequences. Journal of International Business Studies,

37(2), 248.

235

Appendix A: Invitation to Participate In Study

Date_______

Dear (name),

I am writing today to invite you and to participate in a research study I am

conducting for my doctoral dissertation at The George Washington University. As an

organizational development and change professional with over 20 years of experience

leading people, projects, and change, I am asking for your assistance as a colleague so

that I can include your voice to my research study.

The focus of my study is to understand how organizational learning takes place

and is sustained after a planned change. The planned change that I am specifically

focusing on is the change from traditional work space to a more nomadic, dispersed work

environment.

I will be collecting several data points from which your interview is a very

important component. In addition to hearing your reflections, thoughts, and lessons

learned from your experience as a change agent in the change being studied, I will also be

conducting employee focus groups, looking at various organizational data (like BookIt!

data and the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey) and doing some onsite observations as

well.

You will receive summarized results from this study, which you can use as you

see fit in your work to facilitate this transition across government. In all cases, your

name, and the names of any employee involved in this study will not be disclosed.

Pseudonym names and consolidated data will appear in my doctoral dissertation and any

236

subsequent published works. The advances of technology combined with the need to

reduce space and space-related costs means that organizations, both public and private,

are looking to make some transition to a more cost-efficient work space environment. By

participating in this study you are contributing to an under-served area of research that is

greatly needed and findings from your insights will help inform industry practices.

I would like to ask for your commitment and participation with this important

study. If you are willing to participate, please reply to: [email protected] or contact

Mary Barnes at 571-340-1059 by (date). If you are unable or unwilling to participate,

please let me know. If I don’t hear back from you in the coming week, I’ll follow up with

you to see if you are interested.

Thank you for your consideration!

Very Respectfully,

Mary Barnes

Doctoral Candidate

The George Washington University

571-340-1059

[email protected]

237

Appendix B: Individual Interview Guide Date & Time: Participant Name & Role

Interview reminders:

Conversational & informal

Direct, easy questions

Short segues

One concept at-a-time

Language appropriate for audience

Use “Think back…”

Avoid “Why?”

Avoid providing examples

Probe judiciously

Serendipitous Q’s at the end if time allows

Neutral verbal and body language responses to participant comments

Answer participant questions on study swiftly

Housekeeping:

Silence phones

Keep track of time

Paper & pen

Participant thank you note

Small Talk Prior to Starting:

Current role and what they have been up to

Personal updates (family, travel, etc.)

Researcher Use Only. Am I hearing what I need to hear?

How does THE AGENCY exhibit adaptation learning, from the change agent’s perspective (now and then)?

o sharing information o aware of industry trends o tracking external best practices o deliberate evaluation of external information

How does THE AGENCY exhibit goal learning, from the change agent’s perspective (now and then)?

o goals for innovation/ new products/ services o using org structure to share ideas o goals for individual and org learning

How does THE AGENCY exhibit integration learning, from the change agent’s perspective (now and then)?

o opportunities for KSA development o leadership supported communications o knowledge sharing systems in place for SOPs o use of collaborative arrangements to facilitate change

How does THE AGENCY exhibit latency learning, from the change agent’s perspective (now and then)?

o implementing ideas and innovations from employees o believes continuous change is necessary o strong culture that supports individual and

organizational development o customer input is viewed as critical to achieving org

goals

238

Introduction

[Opening: Purpose is to welcome participant, explain the interview format,

introduce the research, and establish the environment for the next hour].

Hello and welcome! Thank you for taking the time to join me today as we talk

about organizational learning and change in the agency, focusing specifically on the

change to a more dispersed work environment that has been occurring over the past few

years. More importantly, I’m glad to just have an excuse to catch up with you and get

your thoughts on how the change has been going.

Currently, I am working on completing my doctoral dissertation at George

Washington University where I’m researching how organizational learning and change is

sustained in the agency. I thought focusing on the change to a dispersed work

environment would be a good subject to study, and I might be able to provide some

insights to THE AGENCY as well.

You were selected to participate in this interview because you had a change agent

role during the change and are still at the agency in one capacity or another. I really

appreciate you taking the time to share with me today. I want to hear from you. There are

no right or wrong answers to the questions we go over today and no quotes will be

attributed to individuals in any of my reports (all quotes will be anonymous and stripped

of any identifying information), so feel free to be as open and honest as you like.

Since we know each other professionally, the interview is obviously not

anonymous. However, I will be using a pseudonym for this interview so only you and I

will be able to attribute any comments back to you.

239

My role is to ask questions and listen. I’ll also be moving the conversation along

to ensure that we stay within our 1-hour time frame - I want to make sure I respect your

valuable time and don’t keep you past that hour.

Let’s quickly go over how this interview will proceed. The interview has two

parts. This first part I will ask straightforward questions about your perception of the

change. The second part, I’ll ask you to think back to immediately after the change and

compare then to now in order to answer the questions. Because I would like to be able to

focus on listening and asking follow up questions, I’d like to record our session so I can

go back later to take more complete notes. Is that okay?

What am I going to do with the information from this group? I’m conducting up

to 10 interviews with change agents from the initial change. I am also conducting focus

groups with employees and collecting other documents and observations as secondary

data points. I will take the information and insights I gain from all of the various data

points and synthesize them. Ultimately, I hope to learn how well we have been able to

sustain the organizational learning and change from the point where we really started to

move towards this more dispersed work environment. Not only will the data feed my

dissertation, I also hope it will provide some very practical insights for the agency to use

as we continue to learn and change to adjust to the seemingly ever-changing government

environment. I’ll eventually share these findings to leadership, and might even share

more broadly to other government agencies.

As a reminder, your responses will be reported anonymously and in aggregate - so

we encourage you to openly share your thoughts and opinions!

Any questions before we get started?

240

Part 1: General Questions

1. What was your role during the change to a more dispersed work environment? 2. Are you still in a role that actively reinforces the “new way of working”?

a. If not, what is your new role? 3. From your perspective, what are some of the changes that have since become

“just the way we do things”? a. What do you think contributed to that?

4. What changes were initiated during the change to the new way of working that didn’t stand the test of time?

a. Why do you think that is?

Part 2: Now vs Then Questions

For the next questions, I’m asking you to think about the organization back when

the change was just completed and compare that to where the organization is today.

5. Where do you think the organization is today versus immediately following the change regarding its awareness and responsiveness to the external environment?

a. By this, I mean an awareness of what customers’ needs, what industry best practices and trends are, how and why to share knowledge with external stakeholders, etc.

b. Do you think the change to the new way of working had either a direct or indirect impact on this change? How so?

6. Where do you think the organization is today versus immediately following the change regarding its action and reflection on goals, learning, and innovation?

a. By this, I mean a deliberate focus on goals regarding innovating new products or services, effectively using organizational structures to share ideas, setting org and individual goals for development


7. Where do you think the organization is today versus immediately following the change regarding its dissemination and integration of roles, communications, leadership, and development?

a. By this, I mean taking opportunities for developing knowledge, skills, and abilities, sharing new insights, and collaborating at all levels of the organization

241


8. Where do you think the organization is today versus immediately following the change regarding its culture of development and innovation?

a. By this, I mean valuing individual and organizational development, viewing mistakes as learning opportunities, consistently raising the bar/ measure of success, creating a climate of trust and responsibility


That’s it. We’ve reached the end of our discussion today. I would like to thank

you for your time, your candor, and the stories that you’ve shared with me today. I will

be interviewing others from the old crew over the next week or so. To ensure they share

their perspectives like you did today, kindly refrain from discussing our conversation

today. Thanks so much for doing this - I know how busy you are. I will be sharing out my

draft findings as a “thank you” for taking time out of your day. Hopefully, there will be

some practical nuggets you can use. If you have more interest in the full research

analysis or have other questions, you know where to find me. Thanks again!

Interview Reflection for Researcher’s Journal Notes:

• Most important themes or ideas that surfaced?

• How did these differ from what was expected?

• How did these differ from earlier interviews in this restaurant? From other

restaurants?

• What long quotes resonated with me that should be used in the report?

• Were there any unexpected findings?

• General feeling / emotion / attitude of the interviewee?

• Ease of providing examples / rich detail?

242

• Difference among job roles (FOH vs. BOH)?

• What should I do differently next time?

243

Appendix C: Focus Group Interview Protocol Introduction

[Start 0:00]

Good afternoon everyone! Thank you for joining. We will wait a little bit longer

to let others sign on.

Just a reminder -- you may remain anonymous during this session. If you see your

name in the chat box and prefer to be anonymous, please log back in as a “GUEST.”

[When we’re ready to go]

[Start 0:03]

[Opening: Purpose is to welcome participants, explain the focus group interview

format, introduce the researcher, and establish the environment for the next hour].

Hello and welcome! Thank you for taking the time to join me today as we talk

about organizational learning and change in the agency, focusing specifically on the

change to a more dispersed work environment that has been occurring over the past few

years. My name is Mary Barnes. Since 2008, I’ve had the pleasure of working in the

agency with you and, I am currently completing my doctoral dissertation at George

Washington University where I’m researching how organizational learning and change is

sustained in the agency.

You were selected randomly to participate in this focus group, and I really

appreciate you taking the time to share with me today. I want to hear from you. There are

no right or wrong answers to the questions we’re going over today, and no quotes will be

attributed to individuals in any of my reports (all quotes will be anonymous and stripped

of any identifying information), so feel free to be as open and honest as you like.

244

This group discussion is virtual to allow for anonymity, if you so choose, and

because it is a familiar and convenient way to have meetings in our dispersed work

environment. That allows us to participate in many ways. There will be some polling

questions for simple demographic questions. You can always use the chat box to

contribute without have to speak on the phone, and I hope we can also have a discussion

over the phone as well. Positive and negative comments are equally helpful - like I said,

there are no right or wrong answers here.

My role is to ask questions and listen. I’ll also be moving the conversation along

to ensure that we stay within our 1-hour time frame. There can be a tendency for some

people to be very descriptive with their stories while others may be brief and to the point.

I will try to mix up the flow of conversation so that quiet participants have an opportunity

to share their experiences as well.

Let’s quickly go over how this focus group will proceed. We’re going to take

about 50 minutes to ask a series of questions about learning and change. We’ll talk about

your perceptions of learning and change in today’s environment and ask you to think

back to when we were in more traditional office space and less dispersed. Some of them

will be open ended, and I invite you to answer using the group chat in MeetingSpace. Be

prepared though! I may ask you some follow-up questions.

I’ll also ask you some polling questions - for these, simply select your answer,

and if you’d like to add context, feel free to write any comments in the chat.

What am I going to do with the information from this group? I’m going to hold a

series of at least 4 focus groups. I will take the information and insights I gain from the

245

focus groups and combine it with other data I’ve gathered from other interviews, past

surveys, and other data. Ultimately, I hope to learn how well we have been able to

sustain the organizational learning and change from the point where we really started to

move towards this more dispersed work environment. Not only will the data feed my

dissertation, I also hope it will provide some very practical insights for the agency to use

as we continue to learn and change to adjust to the seemingly ever-changing government

environment. I’ll eventually share these findings to leadership, and might even share

more broadly to other government agencies.

As a reminder, your responses will be reported in anonymously and in aggregate -

so we encourage you to openly share your thoughts and opinions!

Any questions before we get started?

[Start 0:05]

Single Select - Polling Question

1. Let’s start with an easy one to break the ice: how many years have you been with THE AGENCY?

a. 0-2 years b. 3-5 years c. 6-10 years d. 11+ years

Environmental Interface

[Start 0:07]

OK, we’re going to switch to some open ended questions. For each question, I

ask that you answer it based on the current environment today. Then, I’ll ask you to

think about whether this has increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past two

years and for your thoughts on how and why.

246

2. Do you and your colleagues share external information? a. Has this increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past two years?

How? Why? 3. Does your organization predict the changes occurring in industry?

a. Has this increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past two years? How? Why?

4. Does your organization continuously track how others improve similar products, services, and operations? a. Has this increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past two years?

How? Why? 5. Does your organization deliberately reflect upon and evaluate external

information? a. Has this increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past two years?

How? Why?


6. Phew! Are you hanging in there? Thank you so much for your thoughtful responses. I’ve got another easy one for you: Do you work in a service or staff office?

a. Service b. Staff office

Action/ Reflection

[Start 0:19]

Now, let’s talk a little more about your organizations. The same format stands.

First, think about the current state, and then think about if it has changed over the past

two years. Ready?

7. Does your organization have set goals for researching and/or developing new products/services? a. Has this increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past two years?

How? Why? 8. Do members of your organization effectively use org structures (like chain of

command or personal networks) when sharing ideas and innovations? a. Has this increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past two years?

How? Why?

247

9. Does your organization have clear goals for individual and organizational development? a. Has this increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past two years?

How? Why?


10. Time for another polling question: Did you live through the transition from traditional office space to hoteling, and increased telework within the agency?

a. YES b. NO

Dissemination/ Diffusion

[Start 0:31]

We’re at the midpoint now. I appreciate you guys sticking with me. There have

been some really insightful comments that will be very helpful to my research. The same

format stands for the next questions as well. First, think about the current state, and then

think about if it has changed over the past two years. Ready?

11. Do your organization’s leaders support quick and accurate communication among all employees? a. Has this increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past two years?

How? Why? 12. Are there systems in place to share new operational processes and procedures

throughout the organization? a. Has this increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past two years?

How? Why? 13. Does this organization establish working groups, networks, or other collaborative

arrangements to help the organization change? a. Has this increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past two years?

How? Why?


14. Time for another polling question: As you were going through the “new way of working change”, or any other change at the agency, had you participated in a

248

change management program (like a change agent network or the WAVE program)?

a. YES, I participated in the WAVE program b. YES, I participated in a change agent network c. YES, I participated in another type of change program (please explain) d. NO, I have not participated in a change management program

Memory/ Meaning

[Start 0:43]

We’re almost there. The same format stands for the next questions as well. First,

think about the current state, and then think about if it has changed over the past two

years. Ready?

15. Does your organization use ideas and suggestions from its employees? a. Has this increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past two years?

How? Why? 16. Do you think that this organization believes that continuous change is necessary?


17. Do you think this organization has a strong culture of shared values, beliefs, and norms that support individual and organizational development?


18. Do you think people in this organization believe that evaluating what customers say is critical to reaching organizational goals?



19. Speaking of customers, I’ve got another quick polling question for you: Do you interact with customers directly in your current role?

a. YES, I interact with external customers (outside of THE AGENCY) b. YES, I interact with internal customers (within THE AGENCY) c. YES, I interact with both internal and external customers d. NO, my current role does not involve direct interaction with customers

249

Change in General

[Start 0:55]

To finish up the focus group, I have two larger picture questions about the change

from traditional office space to the more dispersed work environment of hoteling:

20. What is the biggest or most impactful change you have seen over the past few years that was once new but has now become “just the way we do things”? Why do you think this change “stuck”?

21. What changes were initiated during the change to the “new way of working” but didn’t seem to stand the test of time? Why do you think that is?

Closing

We're almost out of time. I’ll leave the chat space open for any final thoughts

you’d like to share regarding change and learning at THE AGENCY. Thank you again

for your participation! I will be sharing a summary of the results of the focus group once

compiled, in case it is helpful for future org change initiatives in your organizations.

Everyone invited to the focus groups will get a copy. If you are interested to hear more

about my research and results, or have any other suggestions or further questions, please

email me at [email protected].

250

Appendix D: Direct Observation Guide Setting:

Description of Activities:

Date / Start & End Time: Event Observing: Participants: Researcher Reminders – Observing What Ties Back to OLSM 1. Environmental Interface - Those aspects of the action system that are aimed at allowing and/or

disallowing information to enter the learning system a. This function is manifested in organizational actions that scan or test the

environment and selects inputs to the organization 2. Action/ Reflection - Those organizational actions that are aimed at satisfying learning needs or

goals of the learning system a. This function is manifested in organizational actions such as experimentation,

research, evaluations, critical thinking, decision-making and problem-solving processes, and clarifying discussions

3. Dissemination and Diffusion - Those organizational actions directed at coordinating the elements of the learning system

a. This function is manifested in the implementation of organizational roles, leadership processes, structural manipulations, and communications that enhance the movement of information and knowledge

4. Memory and Meaning - The aspect of actions that aims at or consists of maintaining the general learning system’s patterns of actions - it creates and stores the meaning or sensemaking control processes for the learning system.

a. This function is manifested in organizational actions such as reasoning processes, comparisons, making of policy and procedures, creation of symbols reflecting org values, language, artifacts, basic assumptions, and the storing and retrieval of knowledge

The Physical Setting: What is the environment like (space, lighting, temperature, noise)? How is the space designed? What objects/technology present in the space?

Participants: General - Are entire teams together or just individuals? Are front line employees there, but no supervisors? No collection of individual or team names.

Interactions: What’s going on? Is there a sequence to the activities? How are people interacting with one another? Are there norms or rules – spoken or unspoken guiding behavior? How long does the interaction last? When did the activity happen in context of the operation? Are there handouts, product samples, tastings, etc.?

Subtle Factors: Formality of event. Insider information / insider jokes. Nonverbal communication. What didn’t happen that ought to have happened?

Researcher Behavior: What was my role? What did I do or say? What are my thoughts about what’s going on?

251

Appendix E: Individual Interview Consent Form Understanding the Sustainability of a Planned Change Through an Organizational Learning Lens

IRB #031810 Principal Investigator: Dr. Michael J. Marquardt, 571.553.3764

Sponsor: George Washington University

You are invited to take part in a research study being conducted by Dr. Michael J. Marquardt and Mary Barnes, sponsored by The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education

and Human Development.

You are being asked if you want to take part in this study because of your change agent role as part of the move to 1800 F Street and the “new way of working”. Please read this form and ask us any questions that will help you decide if you want to be in the study. Taking part is completely voluntary and even if you decide you want to, you can quit at any time. Your employment status will not be affected in any way should you choose not to take part or to withdraw at any time. Even if you decide to take part and then change your mind, you can quit at any time. You are 1 of about 15 people being invited to an individual interview for this study. There will also be 4 or 5 employee focus groups and other data collection as well, all in an effort to answer the research question: How did a government agency introduce and sustain organizational learning after a planned change? Purpose The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore how a medium-sized government agency developed and sustained organizational learning. I want to see how the organization learned -and sustained that learning - in order to sustain the planned change, which was a change that required behavioral and procedural change in the organization. The study examines the organization as a whole through pre-existing data, documents, and records as well as interviews, focus groups, and observation in a work environment. No information obtained will be recorded in such a way that individuals will be identifiable, and the focus groups will be in a virtual setting with pseudonyms, so that confidentiality is preserved. My interest is in the aggregate organization, not individuals. Procedures The total amount of time you will spend in this study is approximately 2 hours over the course of one meeting for the interview, and a follow-up review. In addition to our one hour meeting, I will provide you with a transcription of your interview for you to review for accuracy and edit, as needed. That is the extent of your time commitment if you choose to participate.

252

Risks & Confidentiality The study has the following risks: Risks of participation in this study are minimal since all requests for information are about behaviors and observations in a work environment, where there is not an expectation of privacy. Additionally, no personal data will be recorded, so there is no risk of loss of privacy. There is an unlikely risk that there is a loss of confidentiality. There is a small chance that someone not on our research team could find out that you took part in the study or somehow connect your name with the information we collect about you. However, the following steps are being taken to reduce this risk: Interviews are being recorded, and the recordings will be kept on the Cloud under password protection. Once the dissertation is successfully defended, all recordings will be destroyed. The records of this study will be kept private. In any published articles or presentations, we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you as a subject; all data from interviews and focus groups will be synthesized and presented from an organizational perspective with no unique identifiers. Your individual answers (without a unique identifier) from the interview may be reviewed by members of my dissertation committee and by departments of the University responsible for overseeing research safety and compliance. Benefits While there is most likely no direct benefit for you as a result of participating in this study, you will be contributing to research and helping to provide data that has the potential to add to our theoretical and practical knowledge base. At the conclusion of the research, I will be providing the agency with a copy of the practical implications as a result of the study. These findings may provide value to future organizational change and organizational learning work, and may even provide meaningful information in our efforts to help other agencies with this type of change. Questions Contact Mary Barnes (571-340-1059, [email protected]) if you have questions, concerns, complaints, or if you think you have been harmed. For questions regarding your rights as a participant in human research, contact the GWU Office of Human Research at 202-994-2715. Documentation of Consent If you agree to take part in this study, please sign below. After you sign this Consent Form, the research team will provide you with a copy. Please keep it in case you want to read it again or call someone about the study. _________________________________________________ ___________________________ Sign Name Date

253

Appendix F: Non-People Data Collection Details

Type of Data What do we need to know? Other Comments Space Reduction In Square feet? However they captured it is fine, I'm assuming

by square feet - we might also get a cost savings number

VOIP Number of Accounts, Hours Used Common Printers Number of available printers (is the

alternative office specific or private printers?) - combine this with pages printed. How is it correlated?

Each person in CC used to have their own individual printers. Either a % of people who have personal printers then vs now or a number

Universal Docking Stations

This is just an observational data point - we went from direct hook up at our permanent desks to specific docking stations with the weird connection on the bottom to universal docking stations as we continued to adapt and improve the technology to meet the new way of working

Telework Rates Increased in the signed agreements, number of days

This we can get from ETAMS - a trend of number of telework days over the past several years

Google Drive Utlization

Has this increased from the I-Drive? What does this say about dispersed workforce?

meeting space use Hours? Yes - I think the contract is paid by the amount of usage so we should have this data somewhere

travel dollars spent

Percentage utilization of budget spent on travel (is there an additional data point about increased technology?)

reasonable accommodation

Special use chairs or other reasonable accommodation data (was it needed or was it a reaction to change? Do those who require special accommodation work more from home? Has the building evolved to accommodate modern workforce needs (e.g., standing desks) Have they left?))

This might be tricky but I'm hoping we get some high level data - when we first moved over, everyone wanted to keep their own special chair, needed a dark, quiet space, etc. I'm wondering if the number of accommodation requests has decreased over time, either because it wasn't needed, those needing accommodations could WAH, or because those needing accommodations attrited

Attrition Get data trend BookIt usage Frequency of usage for conference

rooms, also for workstations? Total Frequency?

Whatever trends they can give us. Trends over time for things like: how many reservations got bumped; how many complaint/help calls; workstation and conference room trends; percentage of available space booked each day (Avg for Monday vs Tuesday, etc.)

Change in telework policy

Mary observed it - it changed. Also in email archives

Another observational data point - it did.

Pages Printed Simple data point over time

254

18F tours Done as we were moving - PBS might have data for themselves. FAS offered as part of the WAVE - we have this data. Could this be an interview data point? (Interview Lisa, Marci)

This was something that was done prior to the move by PBS to give folks a feel for what 18F would look like. Not sure if PBS has any data. I think I have some data on the groups from FAS we organized to do the tours

PBS Org for federal change

This is the group in PBS who sells this transformation to other customer agencies - I'd like any data on the work they've done with other agencies since this whole thing started

Messaging: - Administrator XZ

How does the messaging trickle down from the A-suite down. What happened with the transition to Dan?

This is looking for any information in the media that Martha Johnston shared as this was getting started as well as any internal messaging. Also, when Dan Tangerlini took over, the messaging he sent out (internally and externally) to continue the change - also his actions - he took it one step further than Martha and moved out into the POD as well. This might be something we ask in the focus groups for those who lived through it - what messages do they remember seeing, either internally or externally, from Martha or Dan?

- Commissioners Same thing for the Commissioners - ACs/RCs ditto - Change Agent Network for FAS and for all of THE AGENCY

Mary has these lists ditto

WAVE messaging

I have this

External News internet research Find this THE AGENCY blogs / articles

Are these each requesting news sharing? e.g. the number of THE AGENCY blogs that were published on the planned change?

It’s not just the quantitative number of blogs, but also the messaging that was shared versus the reality that exists today

Chatter Are these each requesting news sharing? Same as blogs Emails Are these each requesting news sharing? Same as blogs Conference room - Usage Is this also BookIt data? How has the

ratio from conference rooms to workstations worked?

Yes, but also maybe observational re: drop in rooms

- Signage Observational and Focus Group question

This is an observational data point - it might also be a focus group question regarding how the signage has changed since we first moved in

- Technology Observational and Focus Group question

same ^

- Phone Room Usage

Observational and Focus Group question

this will have to be observational since these are not on BookIt

- Pods Mobile work stations

Observational and Focus Group question.

same ^

255

- Rollaways and lockers (storage space)

Increase in order or rollaways and lockers

Travel Funds Total travel budget I think this is a separate data point - travel

budgets versus dollars spent - budgets for travel have reduced significantly, although that was also related to the Vegas incident, not all because of the way we work

Guards and Janitorial Staff

Cost over time I think cost would be a better/easier data point here - both are contracted out

Office Supplies Total Budget? Are people hoarding in the same way.

Yes - I think the trend of spend here would be interesting. Also, the observational data point in the change - from each office ordering their own and hoarding supplies to centralizing it - Lisa's observations and stories about how many office supplies she reclaimed as people left CC that she didn't need to make an order to initially stock the supply closet in 18F. Also, I'm sure their processes have changed as they've settled in - that would be an interview question for Lisa

Utilities Total Budget? Total spend IT Hardware Assigned IT (e.g. desk phones, cell

phones, VOIP, laptops v desktop, monitors, etc.)

Floor monitors Human beings who monitor the floor - interview point and a focus group of the floor monitors

Supply Rooms Include in office supply story - could it be related to decentralization / access?

Conference room etiquette / evolution /. usage

Observational and fg question

Google Drive utilization

See above

Meeting space Utilization

See above

WAVE event - Post WAVE changes

Archival data that Mary has

FEVS All Scores? Workspace specific, telework, and overall scores

We used to ask some tw questions, but mostly just the trends of the overall score and maybe some workspace specific questions

TW Data See above Pre-vs post-WAVE surveys

See above I have not only the raw data scores of these surveys, I have already completed the analysis of this data and even presented a paper about it at SHRM, AOM, and AHRD

Tenant Satisfaction and other surveys

Ask Lisa for more information on what information was collected and for the data