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