http://mlq.sagepub.com/Management Learning

http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/02/07/1350507612473710The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1350507612473710

published online 11 February 2013Management LearningIan Colville, Bjorn Hennestad and Kristoffer Thoner

'soap story'Organizing, changing and learning: A sensemaking perspective on an ongoing

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Management LearningAdditional services and information for    

  http://mlq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://mlq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Feb 11, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on November 5, 2013mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Management Learning0(0) 1 –19

© The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1350507612473710

mlq.sagepub.com

Organizing, changing and learning: A sensemaking perspective on an ongoing ‘soap story’

Ian ColvilleUniversity of Bath, UK

Bjorn HennestadBI Norwegian Business School, Norway

Kristoffer ThonerLilleborg AS, Norway

AbstractThis article adopts a sensemaking perspective to explore changing and learning in an organization that has been making the same product for more than 175 years. Using an insider/outsider methodology, this case provides evidence of dynamic, ongoing processes of changing and learning across time, albeit without formal change intervention. We conclude that organizational becoming, learning and change are found in the juxtaposing of order and disorder, frames of past learning and cues of present action. This balance between the past and emerging present is advanced as a way of seeing organizational learning, which is sensitive to process and time.

KeywordsBecoming, changing, learning, insider/outsider, sensemaking

Introduction

The conceptual relationship between organizational learning and organizational change is intimate (Schein, 1996) such that organizational learning is often defined in terms of change in beliefs/cognitions or actions/behaviours (Argote, 2011). However, while learning is inevitably associated with change, they are not synonymous terms. Change figures centrally in Elkjaer’s (2004) depiction of the history of organizational learning, as represented by the metaphors of acquisition (of individual skills and

Corresponding author:Ian Colville, School of Management, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA27AY, UK. Email: i.d.colville@bath.ac.uk

473710 MLQ0010.1177/1350507612473710Management LearningColville et al.2013

Article

2 Management Learning 0(0)

knowledge) and participation (in apprenticeships and action). It follows that changes in how change is conceptualized provide opportunities for rethinking organizational learning, which we describe as an embedded and embodied relationship between organizational development and learning.

In this article, we adopt an organizing and sensemaking perspective (Weick, 1979, 1995), which allows us to reconsider the relationship between organizational change and organiza-tional learning. We propose that this processual analysis of change enables us to notice organ-izing in the ongoing dynamic between the process of changing and learning. The adoption of a process perspective reframes not only our understanding of organizational change and learn-ing but also of organization itself. That is, organization is not seen as a fixed entity but as dynamic, ongoing processes that are conveyed by the term ‘organizational becoming’ (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002).

Organizational becoming thus offers a possibility of reconsidering organizational learning (Clegg et al., 2005) within the context of a conceptual reappraisal of organizational change. This involves considering change and learning as part of the process of organizing in which people make sense of events by reducing equivocality. The image is one of creating organization out of organizing, and with it, order out of chaos. However, as the organizing and sensemaking approach understands organizing and learning to be antithetical processes and the term ‘organizational learn-ing’ to be oxymoronic (Clegg et al., 2005; Weick and Westley, 1996), our case analysis ameliorates this paradox by exemplifying how an organization continuously disrupts order to create order and learning.

We explore this conundrum further by deepening a sensemaking analysis of organizing, changing and learning through an empirical case study of an organization over time. This enterprise has been in existence for more than 175 years, making the same product, soap, without apparent organizational change and provides an interesting site for developing our theorizing in terms of continuous change and learning. This enables us to ground the idea of organizational learning in concepts that connect the theoretical to the experiential (Weick and Westley, 1996).

By adopting an insider/outsider (I/O) approach (Bartunek and Louis, 1996), this provides an ave-nue for getting close enough to see changing, while providing opportunity for reflection on experi-ence (Vince and Elkjaer, 2009). Our proposition is that a sensemaking perspective on organizational learning and becoming enriches conceptual understanding while also linking usefully to practice. This is consonant with calls to rethink organizational learning while ensuring that it remains relevant and actionable (Antonacopoulou, 2009; Cunliffe and Sadler-Smith, 2010; Li et al., 2009).

Our case study data illustrate the continuous interplay between frames (which are built from past experience) and cues (which are current stimuli that gain attention and engender action), which underpins the ever-present, ongoing nature of changing, learning and organizing. Although frames and cues are central to the creation of meaning, very little empirical work has been con-ducted to examine the nature of that relationship and their interaction. The four processes by which this interplay between frames and cues is demonstrated in our case study organization are anxiety and doubt, improvement and quality orientation, accountability and rationality and living culture. Through these processes, we provide empirical evidence of and theorize the ever-presence of becoming, changing and learning in action, which helps to advance scholarly debate.

This article begins first with a review of relevant literature, which is followed by a section out-lining the I/O approach used. The ‘Analysis and discussion’ section is structured around an explo-ration of the four processes outlined earlier, and this article is then drawn to a close with our ‘Concluding remarks’ section where we also highlight limitations of our research as well identify areas for future research.

Colville et al. 3

Organizing, learning and changing

Of seminal importance in change literature is the distinction between first-order and second-order change, championed by authors such as Watzlawick et al. (1974) and Bateson (1972). Weick and Quinn (1999: 363) also utilize this distinction as a means of organizing their influential review of change literature, with first-order change acting as the master metaphor for the continuous, evolv-ing and incremental change, while second-order change reflects episodic, discontinuous and inter-mittent change. As they note, the predominant approach to understanding change has largely been through studying episodic change rather than continuous change, that is, changing. This tendency is also reflected in organizational learning literature with focus on stages of movement rather than the process of moving (Clegg et al., 2005).

This is explained by the dominance of a research approach that gives ontological priority to order and stability and sees change as the exception rather than the norm, hence failing to notice micro, ongoing and continuous change (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002). Thus, change is the filling in the Lewinian sandwich of unfreeze/change/refreeze, which returns an organization to order. By contrast, if it is assumed that change is the norm and stability is the exception, then this reversal of ontological priori-ties sensitizes us to how pervasive change already is and allows us to see that change is potentially there if only we chose to look for it (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002: 568). It also enables us to search for and notice instances of ‘organizational becoming’ and continuous change, that is, changing, which from a distance paradoxically may be misperceived as order (Weick and Quinn, 1999).

Echoes of the paradoxical relationship between order and change are also reflected in how the sensemaking perspective conceives the relationship between organizational learning and change. ‘Organizing and learning are essentially antithetical processes which means that organizational learning qualifies as an oxymoron. To learn is to disorganize and increase variety. To organize is to forget and reduce variety’ (Weick and Westley, 1996: 440): that is, to learn is to create change and to organize is to create order, respectively.

In the face of this, Clegg et al. (2005) suggest that learning becomes just one element in the process of organizing if it increases variety, and in this sense, it produces disorder. This way, ‘learn-ing occurs in the interstices between different dis/orders’ (Clegg et al., 2005: 155). Conceptually, we argue that the learning that takes place in the space ‘in between’ is the vexing of order in the form of frames derived and retained from moments of past organizing (i.e. organization emerges out of organizing) against cues in the form of current moments of action. This vexing ensures that there is a willingness to disrupt order so that the organization can create order. If it is successful in these attempts, then there has been changing and learning taking place, although when viewed from a distance it appears as if no change has taken place and hence no apparent learning.

Building on the metaphors for learning – of acquisition and participation – Elkjaer (2004: 419) proposes a ‘third way’ in which organizational learning is defined as ‘the development of experi-ence and knowledge by inquiry (or reflecting thinking) in social worlds held together by commit-ment’. Her proposition is underpinned by a processual dynamic understanding of ‘becoming’ as ‘part of a transactional relation between individual(s) and environment’ (Elkjaer, 2004: 429) and is resonant with an analysis of continuous change, which gives ontological priority to changing rather than stability.

As Ford and Ford (1995: 765) point out, ‘... there are no things in the world other than change, movement or process’, yet empirical study of movement/moving, process and emer-gence remains elusive. This informs Tsoukas and Chia’s (2002: 580) call to give priority to organizational becoming, which in turn leads to reconsideration of organizational learning (Clegg et al., 2005). Paradox suffuses the relationship between order and change (Quinn and Cameron, 1988; Watzlawick et al., 1974), while, as noted, it extends to the relationship between

4 Management Learning 0(0)

organizing and learning. However, we argue that Watzlawick et al.’s use of the proverb plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (i.e. the more things change, the more they stay the same) has undermined the conceptual appreciation of the power of first-order change or changing. We propose that di Lampedusa’s (1991) aphorism is more appropriate than the plus ça change proverb; that is, if things are going to remain the same, then things will have to change. While still paradoxical, this captures a conceptually different understanding of how change can hap-pen, recasting our understanding of change to suggest that to retain order, that is, to maintain persistence of outcome and hence constancy, changes will have to be made to accommodate the perturbations along the way.

Sensemaking and process

The sensemaking perspective is a heralded approach to further our understanding of the pro-cessual perspective (Langley, 1999; Tsoukas and Chia, 2002; Van de Ven and Poole, 2005) and has the theoretical breadth to encompass both sides of the ontological dualism. Sensemaking is thus used as a way of making sense of change(ing) together with the organizational soap story that sustains such change and the enactments through which change is experienced and made real. Sensemaking and its precursor, organizing (Weick, 1979, 1995) here, operate as both topic and resource (Colville et al., 1999).

As a topic of scholarly activity and one particularly attuned to understanding organizational change and learning, we seek to contribute to that literature by attending to the phenomenon of Lilleborg. As a resource, we use it as a means of making sense of how actors in the organization make sense of the circumstances in which they find themselves: how they turn these circumstances into situations that serve as a springboard for action (Taylor and Van Every, 2000); that is, how do organizational actors collectively create an answer to the questions of ‘what is the story here?’ and ‘what do we do next?’ (Weick et al., 2005). In so doing, we recognize ‘change as endemic to the practice of organizing and hence as enacted through the situated practices of organizational actors’ (Orlikowski, 1996: 63).

Viewed from a sensemaking perspective rather than an avowedly narrative one, the signifi-cance of telling ‘what is the story here?’ resides in the relationship between frames and cues. Frames tend to be past moments of socialization, and cues tend to be present moments of experience.

If a person can construct a relationship between these two moments meaning is created. This means that the content of sensemaking is to be found in the frames and categories that summaries past experience, in the cues and labels that snare specifics of present experience, and the ways these two settings of experience are connected. (Weick, 1995: 111)

In the felicitous phrase of Bruner (1990), frames chase experience into memory, while for Goffman (1974), frames represent the organization of experience or in Schutz’s (1960) terms are culturally based recipes that function as schemes of interpretation and as guides for action. This way, frames serve as the retention system for images of past organizational learning. Such frames tend to become more engrained with age, more tightly held, more inflexible and more myopic. This means that ongo-ing streaming of the present is filtered through the past, and any cues that suggest that novelty requir-ing change is happening tend to be ignored. That is, the ‘sea of possibilities’ that William James (1956) talks of in ‘a present’ are reduced to a small pool of probabilities based on what has been seen before. This small gene pool is often retrospectively understood as the beginning of disasters, where

Colville et al. 5

cues that something new and potentially dangerous is in train are either not seen or if they are seen, not understood as being significant until time proves otherwise.

This draws attention to the role that history and structure have in attenuating processes of organizational sensemaking, in its endeavour to reduce equivocality. In so doing, it also high-lights subtle but important differences between a strong version of process ontology (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002) and that which underpins sensemaking (Weick, 1995). While advocating that change is the rule in organizations, history and structure in the form of frames influence sense-making such that a sensible event is one that has happened before (Weick, 1979: 170). Ontologically, it also finds resonance with the structuration perspective, as developed by Orlikowski (1996) and Feldman’s (2000) performative model of organizational routines, which barely change, if at all, between each iteration.

While acknowledging that among others, Weick (1995), Orlikowski (1996) and Feldman (2000) have sensitized organizational theorists to seeing change as an ongoing process, Tsoukas and Chia (2002) argue that such authors do not go far enough in terms of pursuing a process perspective to understanding organizational change. For example, in arguing that there is a role for episodic Lewinian change, Weick and Quinn (1999) are criticized for being ‘ambivalent about the ontological status of continuous change’ (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002: 569). Such ontological ambivalence together with the possibility that the sensemaking perspective can account for both continuous and episodic change counters the charge that adopting par-ticular ontological assumptions determines what we can see and how we know what we see from the outset.

In our endeavour to develop a process-oriented understanding that exemplifies ongoing process dynamics and interplay between notions of changing and learning, frames and cues, and organizing and sensemaking, we have chosen to investigate a Norwegian manufacturing company called Lilleborg, which has been in existence for more than 175 years. The next section provides a short introduction to the history and context of this firm. This is then followed by a ‘Methodology’ sec-tion in which we outline our use of the I/O methodology (Bartunek and Louis, 1996), which ena-bles our analysis to be well founded and grounded in a case organization that apparently continues to change without formal change.

Lilleborg: a brief history and context

Lilleborg is a Norwegian manufacturing company that produces soap and other hygiene and cleaning products and has been fulfilling its mission ‘to keep Norway clean’ since its inception in 1833. This makes the history of Lilleborg a long soap story, both literally and figuratively. Against the average lifespan of companies, which is estimated to be less than 30 years, Lilleborg stands out as exceptional. Even more remarkable is the apparent absence of formal change in that time. Lilleborg has only engaged in one formal organizational change intervention during its history, which proved to be ‘not as success-ful as wished for’, hence was not repeated. Appearances suggest that not much change has taken place, such that from a distance, this looks like order and yet much has changed over the 175 years.

Perhaps most revealing was what happened during World War II when Lilleborg was put under German control and the top management was sent to Germany in custody. The Norwegian German Nazi General Dietrich Hildich was appointed president. Lilleborg’s management, not sympathiz-ing with Nazism, was in a difficult situation also because of lack of raw materials. They managed, however, to defy Hildich, extended their product line (e.g. tobacco and vegetable bullion) and produced lower substitute products such as the soap B33. Lilleborg also took care of its employees during World War II by giving them land to produce food and helping with necessities in order to

6 Management Learning 0(0)

sustain life in many ways. Every New Year during World War II, middle management sent a sea-sonal greetings card to customers. The message was subtle, picturing the Lano baby (part of the branding of the Lano soap) carrying a sign saying, ‘You have to take me as I come, maybe I become better than you think’, reminding them of the ‘real soap’ that would come back and effec-tively conveying an anti-Nazi message (see Figure 1).

Over the course of its long existence, Lilleborg has experienced change, although its progress since World War II remains similarly unruffled. Building on its considerable brand strength, its position as market leader in Norway and its mission remain intact in spite of changes that have taken place, including moves by multinational soap competitors such as Unilever, Procter and Gamble, and Reckitt Benckiser. Most obviously, soap and soap products are not produced the same way: the raw materials used, the production methods and the marketing techniques have all changed. Soap must now have other attributes; environmental issues have entered the scene; con-sumer laws have changed the competitors; and market structure as well as retail systems and logis-tics have changed enormously over this span of time; as also has what’s known now as globalization. Through the process lens of becoming, our research has studied how this company has been enact-ing and making sense of learning and continuous change, that is, changing over its lengthy lifespan without the aid of formal change intervention. The next section elaborates the methodology we adopted in order to examine this case.

Figure 1. Christmas card to Lilleborg employees during World War II.

Colville et al. 7

Methodology: an I/O approach

This research adopts an I/O approach that grew from a research-oriented report written by an insider, that is, a Lilleborg employee, about the change history of Lilleborg. Its change story was characterized by emergent and continuous change, with only one incidence of planned change attempted in 175 years, and all documentation showed that this intervention was considered not to be successful, and hence was not repeated. The two academic outsiders found it paradoxical that a company had effectively been changing without apparent formal planned change for such a long time. From a theoretical point of view, it was a ‘puzzling datum’ (Silverman, 1985) or an interest-ing and rare phenomenon calling for explanation. Both from an academic as well as a practical perspective, it was also an interesting conceptual challenge to study how this had been possible and what may be learnt in and from this process of organizing, changing and learning.

Hence, our approach was neither deductive nor purely inductive, but instead, it is best seen as abductive (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009; Suddaby, 2006), aiming both to explore and explain. We not only aimed to explore inductively how this enterprise had managed to change to stay the same but also drew on perspectives and concepts to explain how our findings could be accounted for and in turn would make a contribution to management learning. In so doing, our approach was inspired by naturalistic inquiry and evaluation-oriented research, seek-ing to develop insight into a ‘black box problem’ (e.g. Guba and Lincoln, 1992; Patton, 2002).

According to Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007), the case study approach to theoretical sampling is particularly appropriate where research exploits opportunities to explore a significant phenomenon under rare circumstances. Through its longevity and apparent lack of change, Lilleborg represents just such a rare phenomenon, hence we sought to develop to deliver an in-depth case study (Gerring, 2004; Yin, 2003), making sense of Lilleborgers’ sensemaking about change. Theoretically, it pro-vides an empirical context in which to engage in theorizing about understanding continuous change and the potential links to organizational learning, informed by a processual, sensemaking perspective.

To this end, the I/O approach proved particularly valuable in helping to address the challenge of bridging local meaning and analytical knowledge (Bartunek and Louis, 1996; Gioia et al., 2010). We were able to collect and analyse data from the standpoint of the insider’s ‘inner’ per-spective, the kind of understanding that can only be achieved by actively participating in the life observed and gaining insight by means of introspection (Bruyn, 1963: 226), combing it and tri-angulating it (Cohen and Manion, 1986) with the ‘detachment’ as well as critical and analytical perspective of outsiders.

The I/O field research and data analysis process outlined by Bartunek and Louis (1996) com-prises the following five steps:

1. Insider research, which prompts interest in further inquiry.2. Peer debriefing, in which stage 1 findings are discussed between the insider and the outsid-

ers and also separately between the outsiders who sought to understand this better theoretically.

3. Tales from the field.4. Analysing and developing categories.5. Trying out, in which researchers revisit the site and participants to engage with and reflect

on their analysis and theorization, in effect concluding the abductive research process by ‘testing out’ findings with participants.

8 Management Learning 0(0)

I/O and data analysis process

We followed each of these stages of I/O research. In stage 1, the insider conducted 1–1½ hours of in-depth interviews with eight key personnel (ranging from Managing Director (MD) through to Plant Manager and Unionized Worker – see Table 1) from across the organization, using a ‘critical incident technique’ (Flanagan, 1954). Interviews were conducted in Norwegian, audio recorded, transcribed and translated, and supplemented by field notes as participant–observer and data gath-ered from the corporate library archives.

Through peer debriefing (stage 2), we explored more theoretically the paradoxical phenomenon which had been identified of an organization apparently changing to not change. The two outsiders then initiated stage 3, negotiating access to the field. While the company was supportive of our inquiry at the highest levels, the economic circumstances of 2009–2010 led to limited opportunity to conduct interviews with contemporary managers. As our interest was in previous change experience, we also approached 12 long-experienced senior managers who all agreed to be interviewed (see Table 1). While their experience of working at Lilleborg was extensive (between 6 and 50 years), some had also worked in other companies and subsequently returned to Lilleborg. Interviews (between 1 and 2½ hours long, audio recorded, transcribed and subsequently translated) were conducted in Norwegian by one of the outsiders, generating many ‘tales from the field’ about key issues relating to ‘critical change incidents’. We also gathered secondary data from the Lilleborg museum and library including, for example, internal materials written for corporate anniversary celebrations, company newspapers and reportage of exit interviews conducted with the last five MDs.

Table 1. Interviewees

Interviews (recorded and transcribed) conducted with Lilleborg employeesa

1. Former Head of Marketing 2. Former Head of Personnel 3. Former Head of Personnel 4. Former Head of Marketing and Recent Main Board Member 5. Former Head of Development 6. Recent Marketing Director 7. Former Head of Lilleborg Consumer Division 8. Former Head of Lilleborg Professional Division 9. Former Head of Information – 2 interviews conducted10. Former Managing Director – 2 interviews conducted11. Former Managing Director12. Former Managing Director13. Former Head of Division14. OD Researcher/Consultant15. Financial Director and Risk Coordinator16. Unionized Worker, at a subsidiary plant17. Project Manager, at a subsidiary plant18. Plant Manager, at a subsidiary planta

19. Unionized Worker, at a subsidiary planta

OD: organization development.‘Former’ indicates employees’ role at retirement.aEmployed at the same subsidiary plant.

Colville et al. 9

The stage 5 data analysis process was comparable with that by Heracleous (2001), and using well-established coding strategies (Miles and Huberman, 1994), we identified first-order catego-ries (Van Maanen, 1979) or themes. Through critical feedback and debate between the three researchers, these were then further clustered, providing the basis for second-order categories (Gioia et al., 2010). For example, accounts of concerns, such as ‘dark clouds in the horizon’ or that ‘doing well or success would be a short lasting phenomenon’, were clustered as exemplars of a persistent theme across time, which we called ‘anxiety and doubt’. Similarly, examples of practices that were ‘never good enough’ and ‘how action could have been performed better’ comprised what we refer to as a ‘continuous improvement and long-term quality’ orientation. Another persistent theme characterized by data about their ‘sober reasoning’ and use of feedback was identified as reflecting ‘accountability and rationality’. The many references to organizational character and tradition, together with examples of loyalty and commitment, were clustered as ‘living culture’ (see Figure 2) to ensure emphasis on renewal and becoming rather than stasis and being, often associated with notions of culture.

For the final ‘trying out’, stage 5, the insider invited three interviewees to form a panel and reflect on the analysis and theorization that we had developed. They were given the first-order categories and several questions in advance: for example, did they find the categories credible; of central and/or critical nature in relation to how the organization worked; was there anything missing or of greater importance; how far did the concept reach within the organization; and so on. The Norwegian outsider chaired the meeting and the insider acted as scribe, circulating notes of the meeting to all participants for comment afterwards and received no disconfirming

First Order Coding Second Order Coding

Statements about weather

Statements of understatement

Statements about ‘sober reasoning’

Statements about legacy and continuity

Statements about loyalty

Statements about apprenticeship

Anxietyand doubt

ONGOING PROCESS

Organizational Learning

Some examples of Illustrative data:

FRAMES

believing/ doubting

know-how/ know-that

thinking/ acting

CUES

Realising the pastin enacting the present

CONTINUOUS CHANGE

Living culture

Organizing and sensemaking

becomingsbeing

Improvement and long-term quality

orientation

Statements of history and tradition

Statements about feedback Accountability

and rationality

Figure 2. Data analysis.

10 Management Learning 0(0)

responses from them. Two middle managers also commented by email, and a feedback meeting was held with a former MD and human resources (HR) manager.

One of the strengths of this I/O research process lies in what Bartunek and Louis (1996: 62) refer to as ‘the approximation of the uniquely insightful vantage of the marginal person’ in which ‘the quality of being neither altogether inside or altogether outside the system – [which] informs the intelligence and gives the marginal man [sic] the third eye that penetrates the culture as no insider could’. This way we have confidence that our analysis reflects robust theorizing of both learning and change in this corporate context.

Analysis and discussion

If change is a phenomenon of time (Ford and Ford, 1994), then we know that much has changed over 175 years at Lilleborg, which suggests that the apparent lack of change must therefore be an illusion. In order to see through the illusion, we adopted a theoretical perspective that was in keep-ing with a process analysis, namely, sensemaking (Weick, 1979, 1995). This opened up the possi-bility of reframing organizational learning by enabling us to consider changing and learning as part of the process of organizing in which people make sense of the ongoing stream of events by reduc-ing equivocality. In so doing, we were alerted to the tension between order and disorder, which generate learning at their intersection (Clegg et al., 2005).

The irony is that one has to disrupt order to create order, therefore creating moments of learning by juxtaposing order with disorder and vexing them together. Evidence of such changing/becoming/learning is difficult to find because the output is order. We faced many of the challenges of process data analysis described by Langley (1999), including complexity, multiplicity and ambiguity, as well as variable time and space, precision, duration and rele-vance. For example, even with ‘close-up’ evidence from interviewees in the form of the differ-ent types of accounts told about how they learned through changing without change, it remains practically impossible to depict (in a two-dimensional (2D) print form, representation) the processual element: that is, the perpetual state of becoming, readjusting previous frames and with cues and becomings, all developing at different speeds. We now use the four process categories identified through our data coding (see Figure 2) to structure the first part of this section.

Anxiety and doubt

In a company newspaper, reporting a birthday party for its employees, past and present, hosted by the company to celebrate 175 years of Lilleborg, the relevant MD had reflected on why the com-pany had existed for so long and continued to prosper. Although it was a manager’s speech from a manager’s perspective, he used stories, metaphors and aphorisms, which we later encountered in our fieldwork and appeared central to Lilleborgers’ stories about its history and success: ‘We “Lilleborgers” have, as you know, for many years been continuously looking and wished for threat-ening clouds on the horizon, and never accepted nice weather as anything else but a short-term phenomenon that you cannot base anything on’ (MD).

The speech was well received and the MD accepted the plaudits. More interesting, however, was an email he subsequently received after the event which he revealed to the researchers at a subsequent interview. A well-known and well-regarded retired employee had emailed to say how glad he was that the MD had reminded employees of: ‘... the dark clouds on the horizon that we do not completely let loose in moments of success and the importance of continuity and innovative

Colville et al. 11

thinking ...’ At first, it seemed odd that he was relieved that management was worried, although as we collected further data, the theme of always staying worried became more prominent.

Survival anxiety is not something that has to be triggered by a build-up of inertia: the surfacing of a ‘sense of urgency’, which is effectively at the root of Kotter’s (1996) ‘8 lessons of change’, is constantly with them. Even in an act of celebration, the MD warns against congratulations and the follow-up email, and likewise, he cautions against ‘letting loose in moments of success’: they always take the weather with them and the future horizon comprises nothing but dark clouds wait-ing to rain on any parade. If sensemaking is about how to stay in contact with context (Weick, 2009: 265), then Lilleborgers do this by constantly telling themselves stories that mean they carry survival anxiety with them at all times. It is an anxiety that constantly keeps them on their toes to avoid the anxiety that Schein (1996) notes, which is more a state triggered by inertia and subse-quent failure. If this sounds a tad depressing and negative, this was not how it was reported, that is, ‘nice weather’ – if something works well – is seen as a short-lasting phenomenon and a passing stage, although there are always dark and threatening clouds on the horizon. What could seem very good is therefore referred to as ‘not so bad’. Looking for dark clouds also means seeing the nice (lighter) spots in between. Realizing bad weather and problems ahead is not primarily related to passive anxiety but seen as a necessity for coping and getting ahead: in effect, as one senior manager put it, one is ‘singing in the rain’.

Improvement and quality orientation

The email sent to the MD after the 175th birthday celebration not only applauded the talk about the weather but also concluded by stressing ‘the importance of continuity and innovative thinking’, as mentioned above by a senior manager. That is, to carry forward the culture in the form of recipes and frames from past experiences but to take action by looking for and creating innovation out of how current cues are altering the status quo. Shils (1981) uses the term tradition rather than culture to capture the link with longevity, arguing that for something to qualify as a tradition, a pattern must be transmitted at least twice over three generations (the interviewees in our sample have up to 50 years of experience that clearly embraces three generations of tradition).

Throughout much of the data, we find expression of the feeling that quality can always be improved, hence to describe something as ‘satisfactory’, in effect is to damn it with faint praise, as ‘there is no finishing line’ (former director). This underlying dynamic ensures that they are always thinking ahead and highlights the importance of time. However, while learning and change may be an issue of time, it is also an issue of timing (Clegg et al., 2005; Ford and Ford, 1994; Purser and Petranker, 2005). Watzlawick et al. (1974) do not take time or timing into account, such that first-order change becomes portrayed as ‘change within a system that remains unchanged – variation in process but not outcome’ – hence, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. If timing makes a difference to the nature of the change required and its trajectory, that is, becoming, then those who attend closely to what is going on and are sensitive to how the past can create blind spots (Turner, 1997) will see the need to change earlier than those who do not. They see the need for changing ahead of the necessity of change. This means that the type of change required to stay in contact with context – that is, to make sense – is different from a change that is triggered by inertia. This emphasis is on movement rather than that which is moved and is consonant with learning as becoming (Clegg et al., 2005: 159).

By integrating timing, this transforms our understanding of first-order change. First-order change when undertaken early obviates the need to engage in later second-order change that unfolds according to the principles of Lewinian episodic change triggered by inertia. Lilleborgers were utilizing this concept of taking early action in the spirit of ‘good is never

12 Management Learning 0(0)

considered to be good enough’, which enabled them to stay abreast of changes without formal change efforts. They even had a story about it concerning King Olav of Norway: ‘To remind ourselves of this important philosophy, we sometimes internally quote Norway’s former Majesty King Olav the fifth who allegedly has said: “you should take a leak when you can, and not when you have to”’. This slightly risqué remark is oft repeated, often with a smile but always with an acknowledgement of the esteem with which the old king was held in Norway. As such, there is a moral to the story, which acts as a guide to action while it also serves to link the past with the present.

Continuous changing is facilitated through continuity in organizing processes rather than continu-ity in organization structures. This conception of organization reflects what Chia (2003: 130) refers to as a ‘temporarily stabilized event cluster’ and Weick (2009) understands as ‘the impermanent organization’. That is, the organization is being renewed and remade through ceaseless changing/learning/becoming, which enables it to remain successful. As Lampedusa (1991) put it, things have to change in order to stay the same. Lilleborg has changed in order to stay successful by maintaining an impermanent organization for nearly two centuries.

Accountability and rationality

The data gathered in this organization were strikingly characterized by qualities of principled and analytical thinking and reasoning, together with clarity and accountability. On one occasion, we were told that Lilleborg is ‘allergic to superlatives’, as thinking and reasoning should be thorough, precise and detail-oriented and backed up with written documentation. This is not to suggest that it was in anyway slow or bureaucratic but that employees should feel willing and able to be held to account for their actions. Any decision would have to stand the test of others’ engagement, such that everyone was primed and prepared to ‘endure criticism’ and feedback from all stakeholders and at all levels of the organization. Given the manner and nature in which this was performed, it was characterized by learning and development rather than constrained by negativity and defensiveness.

As one senior manager explained, ‘Principled and analytical thinking and reasoning is in demand. Unfounded – or emotion driven creative argument is not. It should be thorough, precise and detail-oriented, helped and enforced by a written form’. That is, it will be ‘tested’ and people must therefore endure criticism and being exposed to feedback from all stakeholders and at all levels. ‘Emotion-driven’ argument was considered to be unfounded and not acceptable. In the words of another senior manager: ‘This is a no cake culture: those looking for cake will soon be demotivated’. Accordingly, just as with the leaders, employees either stay loyal to and employed by Lilleborg for long periods of time (an average of 22 years) or they leave fairly quickly. Tenures of this length are normally found in bureaucracies that rely on routine and tend to generate disengaged employees (Mintzberg, 2005). Creative engagement is maintained on the basis of thorough, detailed and fully accountable analytical thinking and reasoning. This is a form of instilling a disciplined imagination, and if it seems stronger on the discipline than on the imagination, this is in keeping with Lilleborg’s character of being pragmatic and action oriented.

Living culture

In seeking to reproduce this culture of action, there is a problem. Weick (1995: 125–126) points out that the one thing that cannot be transmitted is action: ‘the moment an action is performed, it ceases to exist’. This means that only images of action can be transmitted:

Colville et al. 13

The contents of the images used to portray action are crucial because they determine what will be perpetuated. Images of know-how, recipes, scripts, rules of thumb, and heuristics all represent symbolic encodings of work that enable transmission across generation. The more attention that is paid to these descriptions, the better able successors will be to benefit from the experience of predecessors. To pay close attention means to become self-conscious about actions one takes for granted. It means punctuating and labeling those actions in ways that preserve their unique form. It means, wherever possible, allowing extended apprenticeships that show what seasoned practitioners are unable to tell. It means that stories involving action are especially crucial, because this content is so difficult to transmit. Cultures that have a well-developed folklore of action should survive longer than those that do not.

This lengthy quote bears inclusion as it captures almost exactly a cultural analysis as to who Lilleborgers are and how they survive and prosper. Unpacking this, we find evidence of tradition over generations. There is rigour in thinking that is acted out through an apprenticeship in which each generation is schooled by attending a compulsory series of seminars on the history and cul-tural ways of Lilleborg. In this way, the tacit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi, 1966) of know-how (Ryle, 1949) that seasoned practitioners are unable to tell is transmitted. The cultural heritage and the lessons of predecessors – management learning – is passed on, encoded into symbolic know-that. However, the lessons are only realized and brought to life when being enacted – that is, when the images are turned back into know-how. Lilleborg knows more than it can say, but it has a method for transmitting and transforming that knowledge, so that it is acces-sible to the next generation.

As described in the preceding section, Lilleborg provides a tough apprenticeship, offering no inducements in the form of ‘a cake culture’. While the culture appears disciplined for purposes of transmitting the frames and routines, it is important to point out that it is not unthinking or unacting in its application to the present: ‘Reasoning should be sober and one should doubt oneself to deci-sions’ (senior manager). The constant questioning of the present as to the appropriateness of cur-rent actions is always there for revision and modification. The natural tendency for frames in the form of recipes or routines is to become taken-for-granted and slip from conscious attention only to be revealed later, at times of crisis, as out-of-date assumptions. This is countered by holding frames and cues in a process of constant tension, creating learning moments. Lilleborgers are trained to simultaneously believe the accumulated experience (the frames) while doubting whether it is appropriate to the current circumstances. Doubt is thus organized in a ‘spirit of contradiction’ (Kramer, 2007: 18).

Sensemaking about changing, learning and meaning

To organize doubt is to engage in meaningful argumentation in which sensemaking is balanced by sense-discrediting (Weick, 2009: 262). At Lilleborg, this is reflected in what can be described as a Socratic approach to learning and organizing, that is, not only are the new managers being tasked in terms of their ability to write, speak, defend, justify and explain, they are also learning how to inherit the culture without being captured by it. In so doing, they believe the lessons of the past while doubting their relevance to the present. This tension between believing and doubting is resolved through action.

Action clarifies sensemaking because people not only make sense cognitively, they also make sense by acting their way into meaning. They do not discover sense so much as they enact it in the light of prior experiences (Colville et al., 2012). This has led some to criticize sensemaking as being too concerned with cognitive processes and to argue that action gives rise to embodied sense-making (Cunliffe and Coupland, 2012). Lilleborg underscores this point. Certainly, if we are

14 Management Learning 0(0)

looking for confirmation of the proposition that ‘cultures that have a well-developed folklore of action should survive longer than those that do not’, then Lilleborg is such an example. That it has survived so long and so successfully suggests that what it knows and does is a competitive advan-tage that, if not unique, is not easily copied. This is because while the lessons of the past are carried and transmitted in the recipes/routines/frames, these are images that relate to action in the here and now.

It is in the active doing of organizing and sensemaking, the execution of action, that culture is realized. Many spoke of leaders as ‘cultural carriers’ and that as managers, they were ‘living the culture’. Living is enacting it on a daily basis – making it real – and using it to make sense of pre-sent doing (Mangham and Pye, 1991). Knowing the recipe/routine does not help any organization that would seek to emulate Lilleborg because the competence is in the enacting of the recipe, that is, in the carrying out of the doing. Without the tradition allied to that know-how (practice), the knowing that (theory or recipe) is really uninformative. From a practice point of view, one cannot copy a culture by reading the cultural recipe book.

Ever since Weick (1979) identified that Geertz’s (1973) famous phrase ‘man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun’ is comparable to the processes of organizing model of enactment (spinning), selection (attributing significance) and retention (webs of significance), there has been an affinity between organizing and sensemaking and cultural understanding that has an emphasis on meaning. One common issue was the degree to which the webs of significance or, in our analysis, frames of past experience come to dominate what cues are attended to and what meaning/significance is attached to them. Viewed from this perspective, culture is a bulwark against change and a means of perpetuating order. However, when viewed from a processual perspective: ‘Change is the reweaving of actors webs of belief and habits of action to accommodate new experiences obtained through interac-tion’ (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002: 567). The routines that comprise the frames and the webs are thus a source of change as well as order (Feldman, 2000; Feldman and Pentland, 2003) and a site for learning. There is a constant comparison method taking place in which frames and cues are interrogated on an ongoing basis to see if any adjustments to keep up with the environment (and hence make sense) are required. Change, or reweaving, takes place on an ongoing basis and is constitutive of organization, and as such, it is difficult to separate out as a discrete activity called change. The image we wish to create is of an organizational web that is renewed and remade. It has a resilience and flexibility to it that can accommodate and adapt to ongoing circumstances. In one of the idiomatic aphorisms that were espoused on a regular basis, it is said that ‘we are all the time painting the devil on the wall’.

Even if the words are sometimes not directly translatable from Norwegian to English, the meaning and the organizational attitude reflected is clear. That is, in keeping with a processual view of chang-ing and learning, the ontology that Lilleborg enacts and how it makes sense is focused very much on and in the present. Through action and through always painting the devil on the wall, nothing is ever settled – Lilleborg is not an organization such much as organizing on the move – not so much a way of being as one of perpetually becoming, for 175 years.

Completing the reflexive turn

We sought to make sense of how Lilleborgers made sense of their organizational world through the stories they told of that world. However, we have also fed back to them the sense we have made of their sensemaking – thus producing more data and further sensemaking in the abductive practice of I/O research. For Czarniawska (2008: 133), the hope for organization theory is ‘to be close to the practice of organizing while keeping enough distance to problematize it’ and in this way, ‘the researchers con-tribute a re-contextualised picture of practice that is presented to the practitioners with two questions. “Do they recognize the picture?” and “Do they want it to be that way?”’. While the first question can

Colville et al. 15

be taken literally, the second question implies the seeds of learning and change, to the extent that it effectively encourages consideration of whether this is acceptable. The answers we have from Lilleborgers are that they do recognize the picture and that the Lilleborg culture has kept them going for more than 175 years. However, they also claim that through the research, they have a fuller and more conscious appreciation of how the picture is constituted. While they have known that the practice as to what they did in pragmatic terms worked, they now have a better understanding of how it works.

Concluding remarks

Our case study depicts a story of organizing, not organization. As a story of organizing – that is, a processual account – it is not a story of change that is epic or tragic (Brown and Humphreys, 2003), merely an everyday drama that is sometimes exciting, sometimes moving and sometimes mundane (Czarniawska, 2008: 134). In other words, it is an everyday soap story of organizing and sensemaking that has been sustained for nearly two centuries, maintained and renewed by the traditions carried in the stories that Lilleborgers tell each other. This article has made sense of these tales from the fjords by adopting a sensemaking perspective from which our research contributes and addresses three interrelated gaps in the literature.

First, we contribute theoretically and empirically to conceptions of organizational change as becoming. In championing the process perspective, Tsoukas and Chia (2002: 508) acknowledge that the appraisal is limited in so far as we know little about the micro-processes of change or about how change is accomplished. This article answers this need by adopting a process perspective to conduct an empirical study ‘to see the change that is potentially there if only we care to look for it’ (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002: 508). As the ability to see ongoing change is often masked by formal interventions creating episodic change, the absence of such programmes in the case of Lilleborg provides a clearer view. Our findings suggest that you can only ‘see’ becomings (cues) over and against the retrospec-tive ‘goings’ (frames). That is, even with a process perspective of continuous changing, this emerges out of a juxtaposing of change and order. However, we propose that there is more to the process perspective than process, as demonstrated in our case that illustrates the interaction between order and changing.

Second, incorporating order as the essential stability that allows us to see change is consistent with Clegg et al.’s (2005: 148) call to rethink and reframe organizational learning in terms of organizational becoming. Learning and organizing are both implicated in forging order out of chaos, but drawing on Weick and Westley (1996), they acknowledge that organizing and learning are antithetical processes.

What the empirical examples from Lilleborg allow us to appreciate is that while organizing is directed to a reducing equivocality, that is, creating plausible order out of flux, the processes that are applied to equivocal inputs must themselves be equivocal (Weick, 1979: 189):

It is the unwillingness to meet equivocality in an equivocal manner that produces failure, non-adaptation ... It is the unwillingness to disrupt order, ironically, that makes it impossible for the organization to create order. If people cherish the unequivocal but are unwilling to participate in the equivocal, then survival becomes more problematic.

Lilleborg has survived over a very long period of time by meeting equivocality (variety) in an equivocal way (requisite variety). Ironically, paradoxically and oxymoronically, they effectively disrupt order to create a new changed order. This is achieved by both believing and doubting the frames and the cues. This looks like order from a distance, but in close-up, it is continuously chang-ing through learning; that is, things have changed in order to create order. This becomes clearer

16 Management Learning 0(0)

when looking retrospectively over some 175 years; we see how much has been changing without the distorting effects of episodic change interventions.

This analysis does not dissolve the oxymoron but prevents it from becoming the stumbling block for research endeavours to advance organizational learning in terms of organizing and sense-making. It is a more nuanced conception, which itself demonstrates a more ironic approach to learning that Clegg et al. (2005: 49) call for, and provides an approach that is capable of appreciat-ing the subtlety of the picture of the Lano baby (Figure 1).

Third, this article makes a contribution to the literature of organizing and sensemaking by add-ing an example of much-needed empirical work, which is called for by Weick et al. (2005: 417) in their substantial review of research into sensemaking. However, despite the espousal of continuous change that underpins the process-oriented sensemaking perspective, a majority of the empirical studies that exist in the sensemaking literature have examined episodic events, for example, explor-ing interruption in the form of crises such as the Bhopal chemical disaster (Maitlis and Sonenshein, 2010; Weick, 1988, 2010) and Mann Gulch wildlands fire (Weick, 1993). Likewise, even when directly addressing issues of learning, the sensemaking perspective is usually used to explore learning through rare events.

By providing an example of interruptions and recoveries that are less visible, less dramatic and continuously ongoing, we address the tension between episodic and intermittent change, which is a growing theme in sensemaking literature (Weick, 2012: 146). We also highlight the interaction between frames and cues, which is another theme gaining greater attention in current literature (e.g Holt and Cornelissen, in press; Maitlis and Sonenshein, 2010). Thus, our research contributes valu-able insight into how the interaction between frames and cues can lead to modifications and improvisations that involve intermittently generated interruptions and recoveries in the continuous process of modifying frames (and with that, cues).

While our case study organization has existed for an extraordinarily long period of time and pro-vides a rich stream of case material, we also recognize that there are inevitable limitations associated with our research approach. First, we have chosen to do an in-depth analysis of one company, so do not have the ability to compare and contrast with other such organizations. However, we made this choice on the grounds that the richness of our single case data outweighed the potential benefit of parsimonious data from multiple case studies. Consequently, we make inferences about the repre-sentativeness of this particular case organization, organizing and learning, and encourage further such studies of comparative cases as a future research opportunity.

With regard to other research opportunities that emanate from this study, it could be fruitful to exam-ine more closely the micro-processes of learning and changing, which underpin the themes that we have identified in our case. This would also require an ethnographic (e.g. Larsson and Lundholm, 2010; Samra-Fredericks, 2003) rather than I/O approach and would need to be time-bounded (e.g. 3 years rather than 175 years) in order to be feasible to conduct. However, the outcome could be particularly illuminating in terms of identifying daily practices of sensemaking, learning and changing, which in turn could have benefit for future learning and organizing.

Another research opportunity lies in exploring Dewey’s (1922/2002) concepts of ‘reflective think-ing’ and ‘experience’, which Elkjaer (2004) uses in developing her reconciliation of individual and collective learning and which also figures prominently in sensemaking. That is, as Dewey (1922/2002: 178–179) puts it, ‘Life is interruptions and recoveries’, which together with order, Weick (2006: 1731) goes on to remark, is ‘sensemaking in a nutshell’. If order, interruption and recovery constitute sense-making, then it makes a difference if an interruption evokes ‘change’ through replacement of a frame or ‘changing’ accommodated through minor modification of an extant frame. Empirical study of these process notions based on Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy could provide valuable evidence and insight into the strength of such integrative conceptualisations of individual and organizational learning.

Colville et al. 17

In sum, the story of Lilleborg has made it possible to focus on processes of becoming rather than states of being. Further developing the notion of organizational change as becoming by also attending to goings has enabled us to demonstrate how this amended view of becoming and organizing can con-tribute to a reconsideration of organizational learning. Our analysis also highlights how the organizing and sensemaking perspective can understand interruption and recovery in terms of frames and cues. We conclude that organizing leads to organization by reducing equivocality but can only do that by being equivocal in the way in which frames and cues interact, and the process of learning is hidden from view while the outcome is a continuation of order. In the absence of formal episodic change intervention, attention can be focused on what substitute has been taking place by way of change – and that substitute is learning, that is, increasing variety, in the form of disrupting order. As our case study reveals, the absence of change ironically testifies to the presence of changing and organizational learn-ing, and provides illustration of the ever-presence of becoming, changing and learning.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Alvesson M and Skoldberg K (2009) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Antonacopoulou EP (2009) Impact and scholarship: Unlearning and practicing to co-create actionable knowl-edge. Management Learning 40(4): 421–430.

Argote L (2011) Organizational learning research: Past, present and future. Management Learning 42(4): 439–446.

Bartunek JM and Louis MR (1996) Insider/Outsider Team Research. London: SAGE.Bateson G (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Brown AD and Humphreys M (2003) Epic and tragic tales: Making sense of change. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science 39(23): 121–144.Bruner J (1990) Acts of Meaning. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruyn S (1963) The methodology of participant observation. Human Organization 22(3): 224–235.Chia R (2003) Organization theory as a postmodern science. In: Tsoukas H and Knudsen C (eds) The Oxford

Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 113–140.Clegg SR, Kornberger M and Rhodes C (2005) Learning/becoming/organizing. Organization 12(2):

147–167.Cohen L and Manion L (1986) Research Methods in Education. London: Croom Helm.Colville ID, Waterman RH and Weick KE (1999) Organizing and the search for excellence: Making sense of

the times in theory and practice. Organization 6(1): 129–148.Colville ID, Brown AD and Pye AJ (2012) Simplexity: Sensemaking, organizing and storytelling for our

time. Human Relations 65(1): 5–15.Cunliffe A and Coupland C (2012) From hero to villain to hero: Making experience sensible through embod-

ied narrative sensemaking. Human Relations 65(1): 63–88.Cunliffe A and Sadler-Smith E (2010) Continuing to be different. Management Learning 41(1): 3–5.Czarniawska B (2008) A Theory of Organizing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Dewey J (1922/2002) Human Nature and Conduct. Mineola, NY: Dover.di Lampedusa GT (1986) The Leopard. London: Harvill Press.Eisenhardt KM and Graebner MA (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy

of Management Journal 50: 25–32.Elkjaer B (2004) Organizational learning: The ‘Third Way’. Management Learning 35(4): 419–434.Feldman M (2000) Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science 11(6): 611–629.Flanagan JC (1954) The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin 51(4): 1–33.

18 Management Learning 0(0)

Ford JD and Ford LW (1995) The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 541–570.

Geertz C (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Gerring J (2004) What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review 98(2): 341–354.Gioia DA, Price KN, Hamilton AL, et al. (2010) Forging an identity: An insider-outsider study of pro-

cesses involved in the formation of organizational identity. Administrative Science Quarterly 55(3): 1–46.

Goffman E (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper & Row.Guba EG and Lincoln YS (1992) Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation Results

through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Heracleous L (2001) An ethnographic study of culture in the context of organizational change. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science 37(4): 426–446.Holt R and Cornelissen J (in press) Phenomenology and sensemaking theory: Learning again from the Mann

Gulch case. Management Learning.James W (1956) The Will to Believe. New York: Dover Publications.Kotter JP (1996) Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Kramer E-H (2007) Organizing Doubt: Grounded Theory, Army Units and Dealing with Dynamic Complexity.

Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.Langley A (1999) Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review 24(4):

691–710.Larsson M and Lundholm SE (2010) Leadership as work-embedded influence: A micro-discursive analysis

of an everyday interaction in a bank. Leadership 6(2): 159–184.Li S, Easterby-Smith M and Bartunek J (2009) Research methods for organizational learning: The transatlan-

tic gap. Management Learning 40(4): 353–356.Maitlis S and Sonenshein S (2010) Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick

(1988). Journal of Management Studies 47(3): 551–580.Mangham IL and Pye AJ (1991) The Doing of Managing. Oxford: Blackwell.Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd edn. London:

SAGE.Mintzberg H (2005) Mintzberg on Management. New York: Simon & Schuster.Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Orlikowski W (1996) Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective.

Information Systems Research 7(1): 63–92.Patton M (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. London: SAGE.Polanyi M (1966) The Tacit Dimension. New York: Doubleday.Purser RE and Petranker J (2005) Unfreezing the future: Exploring the dynamic of time in organizational

change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 41(2): 182–303.Quinn RE and Cameron KS (1988) Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Framework of Change in

Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Ryle GH (1949) The Concept of Mind. Chicago, IL: New University of Chicago Press.Samra-Fredericks D (2003) ‘Strategizing as lived experience and strategists’ everyday efforts to shape strate-

gic direction. Journal of Management Studies 40(1): 141–174.Schein EH (1996) Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of

managed learning. Systems Practice 9(1): 27–47.Schutz A (1960) The social world and the theory of action. Social Research 27(2): 203–215.Shils E (1981) Tradition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Silverman D (1985) Qualitative Methodology and Sociology: Describing the Social World. Aldershot, Hants:

Gower Publishing.Suddaby R (2006) From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal 49: 633–642.Taylor JR and Van Every EJ (2000) The Emergent Organization: Communication as Its Site and Surface.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Colville et al. 19

Tsoukas H and Chia R (2002) Organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science 13: 567–582.

Turner BA (1997) Man-Made Disasters. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Van de Ven AH and Poole MS (2005) Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization

Studies 26(9): 1377–1404.Van Maanen J (1979) The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly

24(4): 539–550.Vince R and Elkjaer B (2009) Breaking the boundaries of existing knowledge: A celebration of the 40th anni-

versary of Management Learning. Management Learning 40(1): 1–6.Watzlawick P, Weakland JH and Fisch R (1974) Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem

Resolution. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Weick KE (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing. 2nd edn. New York: Random House.Weick KE (1988) Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies 25(4): 305–317.Weick KE (1993) The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative

Science Quarterly 38(4): 628–652.Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. London: SAGE.Weick KE (2005) The experience of theorizing: Sensemaking as topic and resource. In: Smith KG and Hitt

MA (eds) Great Minds in Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 394–415.Weick KE (2006) Faith, evidence, and action: Better guesses in an unknowable world. Organization Studies

27(11): 1723–1736.Weick KE (2009) Making Sense of the Organization: The Impermanent Organization, vol. 2. Chichester: Wiley.Weick KE (2010) Reflections on enacted sensemaking in the Bhopal disaster. Journal of Management Studies

47(3): 537–550.Weick KE (2012) On conceptual linkages that define interpretive work. Human Relations 65(1): 141–153. Weick KE and Quinn RE (1999) Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology 50:

361–386.Weick KE and Westley F (1996) Organizational learning: Affirming an oxymoron. In: Clegg S, Hardy C and

Nord D (eds) The Handbook of Organization Studies. London: SAGE, 440–458.Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM and Obstfeld D (2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization

Science 16(4): 409–421.Yin RK (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th edn. London: SAGE.