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

Discussion
may even be portrayed as more frightening and hostile than it really is, to
have a common “enemy outside” (Diefenbach, 2007). Consistent with
previous studies (Ginsberg & Abrahamson, 1991; Kaarst-Brown, 1999;
Saxton, 1995), the present findings also include examples of how the
authority of external consultants may be utilized in creating legitimacy for a
change effort.
The current study complements the findings of previous literature by
showing how organizational members need to be convinced of the program
as the right approach to deliver the desired change. The three investigated
cases indicate that this may require considerable sensemaking efforts.
These efforts should be guided by the key program managers who must
simultaneously assure others of their personal abilities in leading the
change program. Consistent with this proposition, Tornikoski and Newbert
(2007) showed how entrepreneurs of emerging firms strategically
manipulate their environment to believe that they are credible and
trustworthy, with the aim to gain access to resources. The present findings
indicate that similar efforts are required in establishing temporary
organizations within permanent organizations. The findings specifically
suggest that if a program has originated at the lower levels of the
organization, the early legitimating efforts should be targeted at top
managers, after which the gained top management approval may be utilized
in enrolling others to the change cause.
Since programs tend to be long in duration and the initiation and
planning stage alone may take several years, it is not enough to initially
establish legitimacy, but it needs to be actively maintained (Suchman,
1995). The findings from the three cases show how quick wins (Gill, 2003;
Kotter, 1995; Marks, 2007) were introduced, pilot implementations
(Spencer & Sofer, 1964; Turner, 2005) were arranged and temporal
milestones (Gersick, 1991; Stoddard & Jarvenpaa, 1995) were utilized in the
two successful case programs. The related intermediary outcomes of the
program were frequently utilized in boundary activities that communicated
the advances throughout the organization. This contributed to sustaining
the momentum and maintaining the legitimacy of the change program.
Regarding the identified boundary activity types, it is not just the
legitimating and committing activities that contribute to the change
program’s autonomy. Several other boundary activity types add to the
authority of the program which is the other key element in program
autonomy. Previous research has highlighted how the guiding team of
organizational change must be powerful enough (e.g. Kotter, 1995). The
three examined cases showed how the authority of the program may be
constructed in different ways. Various kinds of positioning and negotiating
202