02.07.2015 Views

Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti

Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti

Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Results<br />

Table 17 Identified associations between the boundary <strong>activities</strong> <strong>and</strong> the intent of the change<br />

program<br />

<strong>Boundary</strong> activity types<br />

Visible need<br />

<strong>and</strong> pressure<br />

<strong>for</strong> change <strong>and</strong><br />

sustained<br />

momentum<br />

Intent<br />

Clear <strong>and</strong><br />

shared vision,<br />

sense of<br />

direction, <strong>and</strong><br />

commonly<br />

accepted goals<br />

Purposeful plan<br />

<strong>for</strong> change<br />

content, change<br />

process, <strong>and</strong><br />

program<br />

structure<br />

Positioning <strong>and</strong> negotiating X X<br />

Linking<br />

Task coordinating<br />

In<strong>for</strong>mation seeking X X<br />

Resource seeking<br />

In<strong>for</strong>ming<br />

Legitimating <strong>and</strong> committing<br />

Influencing<br />

Guarding<br />

Enclosing<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

X<br />

As Table 17 indicates, in<strong>for</strong>ming <strong>activities</strong> as well as legitimating <strong>and</strong><br />

committing <strong>activities</strong> were seen to contribute to the visible need <strong>and</strong><br />

pressure <strong>for</strong> change <strong>and</strong> sustained momentum. The data indicates how<br />

boundary <strong>activities</strong> did not create the need <strong>and</strong> pressure <strong>for</strong> change, but<br />

they were utilized to make a wider audience of people aware of the need <strong>and</strong><br />

to make them agree with the reasoning behind launching the change<br />

program. Firstly, according to the analysis, various kinds of in<strong>for</strong>ming<br />

<strong>activities</strong> were per<strong>for</strong>med to communicate the need <strong>and</strong> pressure <strong>for</strong><br />

change. In all three cases, the need <strong>for</strong> change had been acknowledged by<br />

the key managers even several years be<strong>for</strong>e the program launch, but after<br />

the change programs were officially initiated, in<strong>for</strong>ming others about the<br />

need <strong>for</strong> change became a significant activity. To give an example, the<br />

program owner in Chain described these <strong>activities</strong> in the following way:<br />

Q53 (Chain, program owner): “To get people to wake up <strong>and</strong> realize that there is<br />

a need <strong>for</strong> change, <strong>and</strong> to point out that something is happening <strong>and</strong> we need to<br />

change in order to survive also in the future, all this has required a lot of<br />

discussion … Nowadays we don’t need to talk about this that much, we don’t<br />

need to assure people that something is happening. But we have spent a lot of<br />

resources on talking about those changes during the past two years.”<br />

Similarly as in<strong>for</strong>ming <strong>activities</strong>, the data shows how legitimating <strong>and</strong><br />

committing <strong>activities</strong> aimed at making people acknowledge <strong>and</strong> accept the<br />

need <strong>for</strong> change, <strong>and</strong> also at sustaining the commitment to the change<br />

150

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!