Sensegiving for organisational change in neglected workplaces: the case of Japanese call centres

概要

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

In t
n
er
at
ion

Sensegiving for Organisational Change in Neglected
Workplaces: The Case of Japanese Call Centres

al

Journal: International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Jo

Manuscript ID IJOA-11-2022-3485.R2
Manuscript Type: Original Article

ur

Keywords:

Organisational change, Middle manager, Sensegiving, Neglected
workplace, Call centre

is

lys
na

lA
na

tio

iza

an

rg

fO

lo

na

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 1 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

2

Title: Sensegiving for Organisational Change in Neglected Workplaces: The Case of
Japanese Call Centres

3
4

Abstract

5

Purpose

6

This study aims to investigate the consequences of middle managers’ sensegiving for

7

organisational change in neglected workplaces, where middle managers are given

8

insufficient resources due to receiving low attention from top management.

9

Design/methodology/approach

na
ur

Jo
al

10

We conducted a case study of three call centres in the Japanese non-life insurance

11

industry. To collect data, we conducted interviews with ten stakeholders and made

12

multiple field observations.

13

Findings

14

We identified the following mechanism: in neglected workplaces, middle managers

15

initially focus on sensegiving to employees, because they recognise the difficulty of

16

eliciting support from top management. However, as a result, they see sensegiving to

17

employees as their top priority and do not try to elicit the support of top management,

18

which is necessary for further organisational change. As a result, organisational change

19

stops at a certain level.

20

Originality

iza

an

rg

fO

lo

lys

na

lA

na

tio

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 2 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

First, this study contributes to the body of research on the effects of sensegiving on

2

organisational change. It shows the new problems hidden behind organisational change,

3

which existing research merely regards as independent successes. Second, this study

4

identifies middle managers’ behaviour during organisational change in neglected

5

workplaces. Instead of focusing on the factors necessary for successful organisational

6

change, as in existing studies, this study extends the knowledge of the role of middle

7

managers in organisational change by focusing on their behaviours when success factors

8

are not aligned.

10
11

fO

9

lo

na
ur

Jo
al

Keywords: Organisational change, Middle manager, Sensegiving, Neglected
workplace, Call centre

12
13

Paper type: Research paper

an

14

rg

15

Introduction

16

Research on organisational change has regarded the role of middle managers in

17

organisational change as significant (Balogun and Johnson, 2004). Middle managers

18

must influence the sensemaking of both organisational members and top management in

19

the organisational change process to elicit their commitment and support (Rouleau and

20

Balogun, 2011). Therefore, sensegiving by middle managers is a contributing factor to

21

successful organisational change.

iza

lys

na

lA

na

tio

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

2

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 3 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

In particular, sensegiving can be more important in workplaces that receive little

2

attention and resource allocation, called neglected workplaces herein, because there are

3

no other effective means for change. Moreover, several existing studies (e.g. Luo et al.,

4

2015) suggest that middle managers often have to start their organisational change

5

activities without sufficient attention. Therefore, middle managers’ sensegiving in

6

neglected workplaces is worthy of attention in research on organisational change.

na
ur

7

Jo
al

However, existing research has paid insufficient attention to middle managers’

8

sensegiving for organisational change in neglected workplaces. In particular, research

9

on the success factors for organisational change has not consciously focused on such

fO

lo

10

workplaces, as they find it difficult to realise organisational change (Huy et al., 2014).

11

Because existing studies have mainly assumed linear causality and focused on the

12

surface (Heracleous and Bartunek, 2021), they have not actively studied workplaces in

13

which organisational change is less likely to succeed. Therefore, the consequences of

14

middle managers’ sensegiving for organisational change in neglected workplaces has

15

not been explored sufficiently, despite its importance. To fill the gap in existing

16

research, we addressed the following research questions: How does middle managers’

17

sensegiving work in neglected workplaces and why does it function as such?

iza

an

To answer these research questions, we conducted a case study of organisational

lys

na

lA

na

tio

18

rg

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

3

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 4 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

change in Japanese call centres. We particularly focused on the behavioural tendencies

2

of managers in neglected workplaces. When given insufficient resources, managers tend

3

to pursue short-term results (Van der Stede, 2000) and prioritise exploitation over

4

exploration (Benner and Tushman, 2003; Lavie et al., 2010). Furthermore, when

5

exploitation is successful, managers focus on it more (Levinthal and March, 1993).

6

Given these managerial tendencies, middle managers in neglected workplaces

7

emphasise sensegiving to employees, which is expected to deliver short-term results.

8

When certain outcomes then result, middle managers avoid sensegiving to top

9

management, which is not easy for them. Consequently, organisational change can be

fO

lo

na
ur

Jo
al

10

impeded. Hence, we investigated the mechanisms through which middle managers’

11

sensegiving in neglected workplaces creates limitations for organisational change.

12

The contributions of this study are twofold. First, it contributes to the body of

iza

an

rg

13

research on the effects of sensegiving on organisational change (e.g. Gioia and

14

Chittipeddi, 1991; Robert and Ola, 2021). This study shows a new problem hidden

15

behind organisational change, which existing research merely regards as independent

16

successes.

lA

The second contribution relates to organisational change in neglected workplaces.
Existing research has not focused on the role of middle managers in workplaces with

lys

na

18

na

17

tio

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

4

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 5 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

unfavourable conditions for organisational change. By contrast, this study provides new

2

insights into the role of middle managers in organisational change by focusing on their

3

behaviour in neglected workplaces.

4
5

Jo
al

6

Literature Review
Middle managers in organisational change

7

Middle managers play the role of ‘linking pins’ in the organisation, linking

8

organisational members (subordinates) and top managers (Heyden et al., 2017). During

9

organisational change, they are in a unique position to respond to demands from both

lo

na
ur

10

subordinates and top management (Sharma and Good, 2013). Managers can use

11

organisational systems and their managerial power to manipulate the focus of

12

discussions by sensegiving (Schildt et al., 2020) and by directing attention towards

13

certain aspects (Mikkelsen and Wåhlin, 2020). Therefore, the role of middle managers

14

in organisational change is significant (Balogun and Johnson, 2004; Christodoulou et

15

al., 2022).

iza

an

rg

na

tio

16

fO

Existing research suggests two main roles for middle managers in organisational

17

change. The first is to elicit commitment from organisational members. Employees are

18

often reluctant to commit to organisational change because they may feel it disrupts the

19

routines and social relationships important to manage their tasks (Shin et al., 2012).

lys

na

lA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

5

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 6 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

Middle managers often give meaning to organisational roles through employee

2

communication and share stories of what the organisation should look like (Boje, 1991;

3

Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991; Reissner, 2011). Change is a continuous event, and how

4

sensemaking takes place both when individual changes are underway and when they

5

have ended is vital (Balogun et al., 2015; Van Hulst and Tsoukas, 2021). Therefore,

6

sensegiving, which influences the sensemaking of subordinates, is one of the roles

7

required of middle managers in organisational change (Oreg and Berson, 2019).
The second is to elicit support from top management. Top management determines

lo

the overall direction and vision of the organisation and allocates resources (Eisenhardt

fO

9

na
ur

8

Jo
al

10

and Zbaracki, 1992; Smith and Tushman, 2005). The strategic allocation of sufficient

11

resources by top managers can facilitate the execution of organisational change by

12

middle managers. However, top management does not pay equal attention to all events

13

in an organisation (Ocasio, 1997; Ocasio et al., 2018). Therefore, during organisational

14

change, middle managers also sell issues to gain top management’s attention to the

15

departments of which they are in charge and the challenges they face (Dutton and

16

Ashford, 1993; Dutton et al., 2001). This attempt influences top management’s

17

sensemaking and elicits the support needed for organisational change (Kezar, 2013).

iza

an

Thus, existing research indicates that middle managers need to influence the

lys

na

lA

na

tio

18

rg

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

6

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 7 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

sensemaking of multiple stakeholders, both upward and downward, in the

2

organisational change process (Rouleau and Balogun, 2011). Therefore, sensegiving by

3

middle managers should be considered to be a contributing factor to successful

4

organisational change.

5

Jo
al

6

Middle managers’ sensegiving in neglected workplaces

7

A number of studies have discussed the factors that distinguish between the success and

8

failure of organisational change (e.g. Walker et al., 2007), and sensegiving by middle

9

managers has been treated as one of them (e.g. Lüscher and Lewis, 2008). However,

lo

na
ur

10

these studies have mainly assumed linear causality and focused on the surface

11

(Heracleous and Bartunek, 2021). Although organisational change research has recently

12

paid increasing attention to failure cases (e.g. De Keyser et al., 2021; Hay et al., 2021;

13

Schwarz et al., 2021), it has traditionally focused on success cases (Mellahi and

14

Wilkinson, 2010). Therefore, existing research has mainly discussed the success factors

15

of organisational change and rarely focused on workplaces with unfavourable

16

conditions for such change.

iza

an

rg

na

tio

Neglected workplaces, which are workplaces that receive little attention from top

lA

17

fO

18

management, are one type of such workplaces (Huy et al., 2014) because top

19

management’s attention determines the allocation of resources within an organisation

lys

na

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

7

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 8 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

(Joseph and Gaba, 2015). Even in neglected workplaces, there is pressure to engage in

2

organisational change (Rafferty et al., 2013). Indeed, the fact that several existing

3

studies (e.g. Luo et al., 2015) discuss the importance of activities to gain attention from

4

top management suggests that middle managers often have to start their organisational

5

change activities from a situation of receiving insufficient attention from above. Under

6

such circumstances, even though it is important to elicit attention from top management,

7

it is easier for middle managers to elicit commitment from organisational members

8

through sensegiving.

lo

na
ur

However, extant research on managers’ behavioural tendencies suggests that

fO

9

Jo
al

10

sensegiving by middle managers to organisational members in neglected workplaces

11

may have different consequences. In resource-constrained situations such as neglected

12

workplaces, managers are known to be short-term oriented (Van der Stede, 2000) and

13

prioritise exploitation (Lavie et al., 2010). Therefore, sensegiving to organisational

14

members, which is easy for middle managers and can be expected to produce short-term

15

results, can be prioritised. Furthermore, as successful exploitation inhibits exploration

16

(Levinthal and March, 1993), if a certain amount of success is achieved in sensegiving

17

to organisational members, middle managers can focus more on sensegiving to

18

organisational members and neglect sensegiving to elicit support from top management.

iza

an

rg

lys

na

lA

na

tio

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

8

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 9 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

As a result, middle managers may not take the actions necessary for organisational

2

change, which impedes it. However, sensegiving by middle managers to implement

3

change in neglected workplaces has been underexplored and its mechanisms have been

4

inadequately examined in the literature. To fill this research gap, this study investigates

5

the consequences of middle managers’ sensegiving during organisational change in

6

neglected workplaces and clarifies the mechanisms that lead to such consequences.

7

9

Methodology
Research setting

lo

8

na
ur

Jo
al

10

We obtained data from call centre workplaces in the non-life insurance industry in

11

Japan. There are two reasons for choosing these samples. The first reason is that call

12

centres in Japan are workplaces where organisational change has long been required, as

13

in other countries (Russell, 2008). The second reason is that call centres in Japan are

14

workplaces where it is difficult for middle managers to gain attention from top

15

management. In the 2000s, several Japanese companies (including companies in the

16

non-life insurance industry) considered call centres as cost centres and outsourced call

17

centre functions (Nitta, 2010). Therefore, call centres in Japan are provided with

18

insufficient resources by the head office, making them an appropriate target for this

19

study.

iza

an

rg

fO

lys

na

lA

na

tio

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

9

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 10 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

This study focused on three call centres (A, B, and C) of the X Group. Company X

2

is a leading non-life insurance Japanese company with several thousand employees. All

3

call centres were either departments directly owned by Company X or its subsidiaries

4

(Companies XS1 and XS2). In addition, all call centres were required to improve their

5

performance in the absence of abundant resources. The basic information on Call

6

Centres A, B, and C is summarised in Table Ⅰ.

na
ur

Jo
al

【Insert Table I here】

7
8
9

Research method

lo

10

To address our research question, we adopted an exploratory case study methodology in

11

a specific industry for three reasons. First, research on middle managers’ sensegiving

12

involves observing and interpreting their constructions and accounts, which suggests the

13

use of qualitative methods (Maitlis and Lawrence, 2007). Second, research on

14

sensegiving in neglected workplaces is still in the nascent stage; therefore, a case study

15

methodology seems to be the most suitable approach given our open-ended research

16

questions, as it allows a deeper understanding of the phenomenon (Kroon and Reif,

17

2021). Finally, case study research allows scholars to answer their research questions in

18

the form of ‘how’ and ‘why’ rather than ‘what’ or ‘how many’ (Yin, 2009), as is the

19

case in this study.

iza

an

rg

fO

lys

na

lA

na

tio

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

10

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 11 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1
2

Data collection and analysis

3

Case studies often employ multiple methods of data collection (Eisenhardt, 1989). The

4

following methods were used to collect data in this study. First, on-site interviews were

5

conducted with call centre directors, managers, and a supervisor from Call Centres A,

6

B, and C. The questions asked were related to the status of organisational change in

7

each call centre, the relationship with top management, and the relationship with

8

employees and their managers. Each interview lasted over an hour. Call Centres B and

9

C were also observed on site. Further, interviews were conducted with a sales manager

lo

na
ur

Jo
al

10

working at Company X’s head office and a former manager in charge of training

11

operators. All the interviews were audio-recorded. Table Ⅱ summarises the

12

interviewees’ information.

iza

【Insert Table II Here】

na

tio

15

an

14

rg

13

fO

16

Managers have the ability to offer sensegiving because of their hierarchical

17

position (Kraft et al., 2015; Sparr, 2018). Therefore, several studies have focused on

18

managers’ behaviours and interpretations (e.g. Kroon and Reif, 2021). One of the most

19

effective ways to investigate sensegiving among middle managers is to interview them

lys

na

lA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

11

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 12 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

(Smith et al., 2010). Therefore, we used interviews with middle managers as our

2

primary source of information. Secondary information was also obtained from 12

3

meetings with consultants who had trained the call centres of Company X for a total of

4

24 hours. In addition, company documents and websites were obtained.

5

Jo
al

The information on each centre, from published material and interviews, was

6

coded and several concepts were extracted. During coding, both the authors

7

independently verified the data and discussed the codes. This method ensured the

8

reliability of the coding (e.g. Plowman et al., 2007). In particular, we captured the

9

following definitions of organisational change and sensegiving in our case study. First,

fO

lo

na
ur

10

organisational change can be defined as the transformation of ‘how an organisation

11

functions, who its members and leaders are, what form it takes or how it allocates its

12

resources’ (Huber et al., 1993, p. 216). Therefore, this research views organisational

13

change as a change in the roles of employees within an organisation and the systems

14

associated with their work with the aim of improving organisational performance.

15

Sensegiving is defined as ‘the process of attempting to influence the sensemaking and

16

meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality’

17

(Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 442). As our focus is on middle managers’ sensegiving

18

abilities, we considered sensegiving as any activity, approach, or message initiated by

iza

an

rg

lys

na

lA

na

tio

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

12

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 13 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

middle managers that influences the sensemaking of employees.

2
3

Findings

4

The following section is divided into three subsections: organisational change through

5

sensegiving to organisational members, the limits of their organisational change , and

6

reinforcing sensegiving to organisational members without support from top

7

management.

fO

lo

9

na
ur

8

Jo
al

Organisational change through sensegiving to organisational members

10

Although the call centres studied had different objectives for organisational change,

11

they all aimed to improve productivity and quality to achieve their respective goals. Call

12

centre directors needed to transform their call centres into organisations that could

13

provide more efficient and higher quality services.

iza

an

tio

14

rg

To achieve change in the organisation, every call centre director first encouraged

na

15

organisational members (especially operators) to modify their perceptions of the

16

workplace, which is sensegiving to organisational members. Productivity and quality in

17

a call centre depend on the ability of individual operators. The higher the number of

18

operators who can complete more calls accurately and in less time, the better the

lys

na

lA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

13

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 14 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

performance of the call centre. However, we found that operators often became negative

2

about their work and were more likely to leave their jobs before they could perform

3

better. In response to these issues, all call centre directors declared to organisational

4

members that operators play an important role in attending to the voice of the customer

5

and are, therefore, a valued part of the call centre. For example, the manager of Call

6

Centre A (I2) believed, ‘Operators have a lot of contact with customers, so their voices

7

are the most important’, and let operators create their mission (e.g. a workplace that

8

attracts appreciation). The manager of Call Centre B (I4) said, ‘For a call centre to work

9

well, it is necessary to delegate authority to operators and for managers to support

fO

lo

na
ur

Jo
al

10

operators’. Call Centre C had its operators create the motto ‘listen with your heart, not

11

your ears’ to create an employee-friendly company. The manager of Call Centre C (I7)

12

said, ‘We have focused on [creating] a good working environment for employees’.

13

Through this sensegiving, call centre management aimed to encourage operators to view

14

their work and position in a positive light.

iza

an

na

tio

15

rg

Each call centre had introduced specific measures that symbolised their

16

sensegiving. First, all call centres had created a reward system for their operators. This

17

system was designed to reward operators for their hard work in dealing with customers.

18

Second, all call centres conducted employee satisfaction surveys with their employees,

lys

na

lA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

14

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 15 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

including operators, to understand their situation and meet their requests as far as

2

possible. Third, they actively organised internal events for employees, such as

3

Halloween parties.

4

Moreover, each call centre made sure that the message of operators being

Jo
al

5

important was conveyed to them in a way that was easily understood. For example, Call

6

Centres A and C referred to their operators as ‘advisers’; by repositioning the operator’s

7

job as advising customers, the call centres gave operators a positive perception of their

8

job. Call Ccentre B had strongly expressed respect for its employees by adopting an

9

operational policy that counts and evaluates the "thank-you" suggested by other

fO

lo

na
ur

10

operators. On its office notice board, Call Centre C had an inverted pyramid

11

organisational chart with operators at the top.

statements from the directors and managers in each call centre.

tio

14

The management policies described above were supported by the following

iza

13

an

12

rg

When we listened to the feedback from operators; they said they wanted the

na

15

awards to be presented in front of everyone, as this would be the most motivating.

16

For this reason, we now hold a general morning meeting once every three months

17

where the centre director awards operators. (I2)

lys

na

lA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

15

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 16 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1
2
3

4
5

It is important for operators to feel that they are being looked after. It is not

good if they feel neglected. (I3)
To be self-praised, many advisers who have joined our company often tell us

that this is an employee-friendly company. (I7)

Jo
al

[To prevent employees from quitting] I praise them. I praise them as

6

concretely as possible. I give them good figures, and when I give them feedback, I

7

tell them that the process was good, even though the result was not. (I8)

lo

na
ur

8

As a result of these efforts, each call centre achieved a certain degree of organisational

9

change. By motivating employees through sensegiving and improving their skills, they

fO

10

raised their productivity and quality. All call centres achieved a satisfactory level of

11

performance according to the head office. Call Centre A were able to handle operations,

12

even when the number of incoming calls increased due to irregularities such as natural

13

disasters. Therefore, it was positioned by the head office as the first call centre to

14

introduce new initiatives. Call Centre B was only in business for a short time, but had

15

recently begun to be recognised by the head office as having gained competence. Call

16

Centre C received the international certification for call centres and was rated as the best

17

call centre in Company X.

iza

an

rg

lys

na

lA

na

tio

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

16

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 17 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

All call centres improved their employee motivation and organisational

2

performance through sensegiving to employees. From this perspective, all cases can be

3

seen as successful examples of organisational change through sensegiving to

4

organisational members.

5

na
ur

Jo
al

6

The limits of organisational change

7

Despite these achievements, all organisational changes had reached a certain limit.

8

While each call centre expressed the importance of its employees, operators were

9

dissatisfied with their compensation, which was affecting organisational performance.

As for job dissatisfaction, [it includes] … job difficulty, salary, and
interpersonal relations. (I7)

lys

na

lA

16

any work, he just watches operators’ job in the office (I4).

na

15

Operators complain of low salaries. The call centre manager hardly does

tio

14

in salary… I think operators are sensitive to hourly rates (I1).

iza

13

There is a request from operators not to do internal events and give that back

an

12

This situation was recognised by call centre managers, as shown below.

rg

11

fO

10

lo

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

17

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 18 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

Such negligent treatment of operators led to frustration among them. In all three

2

call centres, the message was sent that employees were important, but the reality

3

remained far from ideal. In other words, call centre directors were not able to create an

4

environment that fully drew on the commitment of operators.

5

Jo
al

In addition, each call centre did not give discretionary autonomy to operators in

na
ur

6

their calls. Therefore, it was challenging for operators to respond to customers at their

7

own discretion. The director of Call Centre B made the following statement:

8

Basically, in our insurance company group, we have to abide by all the rules

fO

9

lo

of the head office. In recent years, road services have also been bound by

rg

10

insurance terms and conditions, and operators cannot make decisions on their

11

own. The head office does not allow operators to make mistakes. But I think that in

12

all industries, call centres that don't have the freedom to do what they want, suffer.

13

I think call centres are difficult these days. (I3)

iza

na

tio

14

an

Thus, all call centres faced challenges regarding the compensation and

15

discretionary autonomy of operators. Existing research emphasises the need for these

16

two aspects and points out their relation to call centre performance. For example, Kinnie

17

et al. (2000) found that when changing the organisational structure of a call centre, it is

lys

na

lA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

18

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 19 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

also necessary to revise the compensation structure. Russell (2008: 200) suggested that,

2

‘in order to provide the services they are called upon to deliver, frontline workers in

3

general and call-centre employees in particular require enhanced levels of decision-

4

making autonomy’. Furthermore, Proenca and Rodrigues (2021) revealed that the

5

compensation and discretionary autonomy of operators are linked to their job

6

satisfaction and customer satisfaction. In addition, all call centre directors understood

7

that issues remained unresolved. Hence, each call centre had room for change.

fO

lo

9

na
ur

8

Jo
al

10

Reinforcing sensegiving to organisational members without support from top
management

11

Operator compensation and discretionary autonomy were not decided by call centre

12

directors. Compensation was based on the budget allocation from the head office, and

13

operators’ discretionary autonomy was decided by the head office partly because of

14

legal compliance. Therefore, it was essential to elicit support from top management to

15

address these limitations. However, each call centre director found it difficult to do so.

iza

lA

na

tio

We will do what we can within our budget, and we will deal with the

na

17

an

16

rg

comments made in the employee satisfaction survey to that extent. Even, facilities.

lys

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

19

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 20 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

We are forced to do these within the budget given at the beginning of the financial

2

year. (I1)

3

Call centres work within the amount of money offered by the client, because

Jo
al

4

we are competing with other companies. The operator’s salary cannot be varied

5

freely because sales are determined first. (I3)

6

na
ur

If we want to do many things, it is difficult because call centres are expensive.

7

We inevitably have a parent company. The labour costs that Company X pays to

8

call centres is several billion yen. It's big. (I4）

fO

9

lo

Money cannot be spent. Responses to employee feedback are being done

rg

10

where feasible. We changed the chairs, installed Wi-Fi, or so on. We do what we

11

can within our budget. (I6)

The head office seems to only look at the call centre’s numerical

lA

15

head office:

na

14

This lack of support is attributed to the low attention paid to call centres by the

tio

13

iza

12

an

indicators….I recognise that it’s more of a niche department within the group. (I1)

lys

na

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

20

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 21 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

2

The head office will not provide specific directions on what kind of

organisation the call centres should change into. (I3)

3

A person from the assessment department of the head office becomes the

Jo
al

4

president of Company X2. Rarely does a call centre expert become the president.

5

(I7)

6

na
ur

I would not like it if I was told that I would be the call centre director in the

7

company…There is a perception in Company X that it is a position where it is

8

difficult to move up the ladder any further. (I9)

fO

9

lo

Company X's top management only looks at figures such as call centre

rg

10

response rates. They do not look at call centres seriously from a customer-oriented

11

perspective. (I10)

iza

an

12

Thus, they recognised that the lack of support from top management could not be easily

13

changed. Therefore, they reinforced the sensegiving that ‘operators are important’

14

within the current resources and authority given to them.

lA

na

tio

15

After a certain level of performance improvement, Call Centre A did not make any

16

major changes to its policy. It focused on internal events such as award ceremonies and

lys

na

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

21

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 22 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

roundtable discussions. More recently, a social event was organised across the various

2

departments within the call centre, because the call centre manager felt it was a good

3

initiative to stimulate organisational members. They prioritised continuing sensegiving

4

to employees over gaining support from head office. Such priorities can be seen in the

5

following conversation.

7

(operators) in the future? Or is it about getting investment from head office?

I1: The priority is to take care of the advisers, as they are the foundation of
the call centre.

rg

fO

9

Interviewer: Is the challenge for this call centre to take care of the advisers

lo

8

na
ur

6

Jo
al

10

Behind this prioritisation was the director’s perception of his own situation. He

11

considered that call centres were niche workplaces and, therefore, could not demand

12

resources from the head office. Hence, he perceived his job as sensegiving to employees

13

rather than negotiating with the head office.

iza

an

na

tio

14

Call Centre B did not only motivate its operators but also provided them with more

15

training. This training was meant to give operators a deeper understanding of their work

16

significance. The director of Call Centre B believed that teaching the reasons why

lys

na

lA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

22

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 23 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

operators do the job and the context in which the current job is done would help them

2

feel more comfortable with their work.

3

The director of Call Centre B was not necessarily satisfied with the head office’s

Jo
al

4

response. He considered those call centres where operators and supervisors were given

5

some discretion as ideal. However, the director of Call Centre B believed that such a

6

situation was still better because he was given some discretion over sensegiving to his

7

employees. Therefore, he did not intend to make strong demands on the head office.

The president of Company XS1 has given me discretionary power over the

fO

9

lo

8

na
ur

organisational management of my call centre. Although there are budgetary

rg

10

constraints, in many areas, we are allowed to run the call centre as we please. I

11

feel happy just to be allowed to do that. (I3)

iza

12

an

The director of Call Centre C responded differently from the other two call centres.

tio

13

Call Centre C ensured that its sensegiving policy, which did not assume the support of

14

the head office, gained legitimacy within Company X. It explained its policy of

15

organisational change to the head office and has earned a good reputation within the

16

group. However, it does not use its reputation to elicit more support from top

17

management. Call Centre C would rather have top management approve of its way of

lys

na

lA

na

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

23

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 24 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

doing things than receive their support. Such perceptions can be seen from the

2

following conversation.

3

4

knows more about call centres or the one who does not?

I7: Frankly, the president of Company XS2 does not have to be an expert in

na
ur

5

Interviewer: Who should be the president of Company XS2: the one who

Jo
al

6

call centres, as long as he/she understands our call centre policy. In our company,

7

we have created our manuals, even manuals for operating standards, such as call

8

centre operating standards. It enables us to maintain the same operational quality,

9

no matter who becomes president. Successive presidents have also 'studied' our

rg

policies when they became president and have understood our operations.

an

11

fO

10

lo

Because the top management of Company XS2 was transferred from Company X,

iza

12

some people did not necessarily understand the operation of a call centre. However,

13

even though some of the top managers of Company XS2 lacked an understanding of

14

call centres, the director and managers of Call Centre C did not see this as a problem

15

because they could educate these top managers through their manuals. Rather, they

16

aimed to make top management believe that the current state of the call centre was the

lys

na

lA

na

tio

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

24

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 25 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

desired one even though they still faced challenges in organisational change. The

2

director of Call Centre C described these conditions as follows:

3

4

head office are really one body. (I6)

As described above, call centre directors, who felt they received limited support

na
ur

5

We work with the head offices of Company XS2 and Company X. We and the

Jo
al

6

from top management, further reinforced their sensegiving to organisational members.

7

The director of Call Centre A did not consider eliciting support from the head office as

8

his job. The director of Call Centre B believed that he would be in a better situation

9

only if he was given discretion over sensegiving to operators. The director of Call

rg

fO

lo

10

Centre C tried to influence top management not to elicit support during organisational

11

change but to gain legitimacy for the call centre. Despite differences in individual

12

reactions, all directors considered sensegiving to organisational members, which led to

13

certain performance improvements, to be more important and did not try to elicit

14

support from head office, thereby limiting organisational change.

iza

an

15

na

tio

16

Discussion

17

When it is difficult to elicit support from top management, middle managers, who

18

attempt organisational change, first try to elicit support from organisational members

lys

na

lA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

25

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 26 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

through sensegiving. However, afterwards, they do not shift towards eliciting support

2

from top management and choose to strengthen sensegiving to employees. This is

3

because managers tend to lean towards the short-term returns of exploitation (Benner

4

and Tushman, 2003; Lavie et al., 2010) and pay more attention when exploitation is

5

successful (Levinthal and March 1993). However, middle managers’ unwillingness to

6

obtain the necessary resources for organisational change from the top limits further

7

change.

na
ur

Jo
al

8

These cases show that organisational change through sensegiving is not as positive

9

as existing research suggests (e.g. Rouleau and Balogun, 2011). Middle managers under

fO

lo

10

resource constraints focus on sensegiving to employees who have achieved results in

11

the past and thus avoid sensegiving to top management to elicit their support necessary

12

for organisational change. The present study suggests hidden aspects of sensegiving that

13

are missed when organisational change through sensegiving is seen as a mere success

14

story.

iza

an

na

tio

15

rg

Furthermore, this study reveals that there are situations in which middle managers

16

themselves are forced to be trapped by sensegiving during organisational change.

17

Sensegiving in organisations is not a one-way process but interacts with sensemaking

18

(Cristofaro, 2022; Kraft et al., 2015). The middle managers themselves are also

lys

na

lA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

26

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 27 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

constrained by their sensegiving activities. When it is difficult to elicit support from top

2

management, middle managers focus more on sensegiving to organisational members,

3

even when receiving support from top management is important for organisational

4

change.

5

Jo
al

6

Implications for scholars and practitioners

7

The theoretical contributions of this study are twofold. First, it shows the new problems

8

hidden behind organisational change, which existing research regards as independent

9

successes. Unlike studies dealing with organisational change failure (e.g. Raelin and

lo

na
ur

10

Cataldo, 2011), the case presented in this study shows seemingly successful

11

organisational change initiated by middle managers through sensegiving. However,

12

simultaneously, it can be seen as a process in which the functioning of sensegiving itself

13

results in middle managers becoming trapped within the limits of organisational change.

iza

an

rg

14

fO

The second contribution is identifying middle managers’ behaviour during

tio

15

organisational change in neglected workplaces. Instead of previous studies’ focus on the

16

factors necessary for successful organisational change (e.g. Oreg and Berson, 2019;

17

Rafferty et al., 2013), this study extends the knowledge of the role of middle managers

18

in organisational change, focusing particularly on their behaviours when success factors

19

are not aligned.

lys

na

lA

na

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

27

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 28 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

This study’s findings offer practical implications. Even in cases of seemingly

2

autonomous and successful organisational change by middle managers’ sensegiving to

3

organisational members, a lack of top management support may obstruct organisational

4

change. Middle managers’ behaviour tends to be biased towards approaches to

5

organisational change that are likely to yield short-term results, which may hinder

6

further change. Furthermore, this tendency may be stronger when middle managers are

7

subjected to short-term results-oriented pressure from top management.

lo

9

na
ur

8

Jo
al

Limitations and suggestions for future research

10

The first limitation of this study is its specific context. This study considered call

11

centres in Japan to be representative cases of neglected workplaces. However, Japan-

12

specific circumstances (e.g. the low social status of operators) may have influenced

13

these results, and the conclusions of studies dealing with organisations in non-Western

14

countries could differ from those dealing with Western organisations (Muzio, 2022).

15

Therefore, future research in different national contexts is necessary.

iza

an

rg

na

tio

16

fO

The second limitation is that the hidden side of sensegiving identified in this study

17

inadequately examines whether it appears in contexts other than neglected workplaces.

18

This study chose neglected workplaces as representative cases of workplaces with

19

unfavourable conditions for organisational change. However, other conditions (e.g.

lys

na

lA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

28

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 29 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

employee characteristics, organisational culture) also exist. The organisational

2

circumstances under which the hidden side of sensegiving tends to appear is unclear and

3

needs further study.

4

The third limitation is that sensemaking on the part of employees was not fully

Jo
al

5

captured. In the current study, the main interest was in the sensegiving of middle

6

managers. The hidden side of sensegiving suggested by this study may also affect

7

employees’ perceptions and influence organisational change. Future research is

8

necessary to understand employees’ perceptions affected by sensegiving.

9

fO

lo

na
ur

10

Conclusion

11

This study focused on sensegiving by middle managers to implement change in

12

neglected workplaces. In such workplaces, middle managers focus on sensegiving to

13

organisational members, which masks the need for further steps (i.e. engaging top

14

management) and thus limits organisational change. Scholars and practitioners must

15

understand that stories of organisational change, through sensegiving by middle

16

managers, may appear to be success stories from one perspective. However, from the

17

other side, they can be failure stories with lost opportunities for organisational change.

na

lA

na

References
Balogun, J., Bartunek, J. M. and Do, B. (2015). “Senior managers’ sensemaking and
responses to strategic change”, Organization Science, Vol. 26, No.4, pp. 960-979.

lys

21

tio

20

iza

19

an

18

rg

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

29

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 30 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
12
13
14
16
18
19
21
23
25
26
28
30
32
33
35

lys

36

na

34

lA

31

na

29

tio

27

iza

24

an

22

rg

20

fO

17

lo

15

na
ur

11

Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. (2004), “Organisational restructuring and middle manager
sensemaking”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 523–549.
Benner, M. J. and Tushman, M. L. (2003), “Exploitation, exploration, and process
management: the productivity dilemma revisited”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 28, No. 2, p. 238-256.
Boje, D.M. (1991), “The storytelling organization: a study of story performance in an
office- supply firm”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, No.1, pp. 106–126.
Christodoulou, I. P., Wasim, J., Reinhardt, R. J. and Ivanov, K. (2022). “The strategic
role of middle managers in the formulation and implementation of digital transformation
projects”, Strategic Change, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 613-622.
Cristofaro, M. (2022). “Organizational sensemaking: a systematic review and a coevolutionary model”, European Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 393-405.
De Keyser, B., Guiette, A. and Vandenbempt, K. (2021). “On the dynamics of failure in
organizational change: a dialectical perspective”, Human Relations, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp.
234-257.
Dutton, J.E. and Ashford, S.J. (1993), “Selling issues to top management”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol.18, No.3, pp. 397-428.
Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., O'Neill, R.M. and Lawrence, K.A. (2001), “Moves that
matter: issue selling and organizational change”, Academy of Management journal, Vol.
44, No4, pp. 716-736.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol.14, No.4, pp. 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). “Strategic decision making”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. S2, pp. 17-37.
Gioia, D.A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991), “Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic
change initiation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 433–448.
Hay, G. J., Parker, S. K. and Luksyte, A. (2021). “Making sense of organisational change
failure: an identity lens”, Human relations, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 180-207.
Heracleous, L., and Bartunek, J. (2021), “Organization change failure, deep structures
and temporality: appreciating Wonderland”, Human Relations, Vol.74, No. 2, pp. 208233.
Heyden, M.L.M., Fourné, S.P.L., Koene, B.A.S., Werkman, R. and Ansari, S. (2017),
“Rethinking “top-down” and “bottom-up”roles of top and middle managers in
organizational change: implications for employee support”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7, pp. 961–985.
Huber, G.P., Sutcliffe, K.M., Miller, C.C. and Glick W.H. (1993), “Understanding and

Jo
al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

30

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 31 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
12
13
14
16
18
19
21
23
25
26
28
30
32
33
35

lys

36

na

34

lA

31

na

29

tio

27

iza

24

an

22

rg

20

fO

17

lo

15

na
ur

11

predicting organizational change”, in Huber G.P. and Glick W.H. (Eds.) Organizational
Change and Redesign, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 215-268.
Huy, Q. N., Corley, K.G., and Kraatz, M.S. (2014), “From support to mutiny: shifting
legitimacy judgments and emotional reactions impacting the implementation of radical
change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.57, No. 6, pp. 1650–1680.
Joseph, J. and Gaba, V. (2015), “The fog of feedback: ambiguity and firm responses to
multiple aspiration levels”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 13, pp. 19601978.
Kezar, A. (2013), “Understanding sensemaking/sensegiving in transformational change
processes from the bottom up”, Higher Education, Vol. 65, No. 6, pp.761-780.
Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S. and Purcell, J. (2000). “'Fun and surveillance': the paradox of
high commitment management in call centres”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 967-985.
Kraft, A., Sparr, J. L. and Peus, C. (2015). “The critical role of moderators in leader
sensegiving: A literature review”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.
308-331.
Kroon, D. P. and Reif, H. (2021). The role of emotions in middle managers’ sensemaking
and sensegiving practices during post-merger integration. Group & Organization
Management, https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211037789
Lavie, D., Stettner, U. and Tushman, M. L. (2010). “Exploration and exploitation within
and across organizations”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol.4, No.1, pp. 109-155.
Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2021), “The new paternalism? the workplace as a place to
work—and to live”, Organization, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 949–975.
Levinthal, D. A., and March, J. G. (1993). “The myopia of learning”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. S2, pp. 95-112.
Luo, B., Wang, Q., Lu, Y., and Liang, L. (2015), “How to win the attention of top
executives: the interaction of an issue’s characteristics and environmental threats”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 970-992.
Lüscher, L.S. and Lewis, M.W. (2008), “Organizational change and managerial
sensemaking: working through paradox”, Academy of management Journal, Vol. 51,
No. 2, pp. 221-240.
Maitlis, S. and Lawrence, T. B. (2007). “Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in
organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No.1, pp. 57-84.
Mellahi, K. and Wilkinson, A. (2010). “Managing and coping with organizational failure:
introduction to the special issue”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 35, No. 5,
pp. 531-541.

Jo
al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

31

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 32 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

3

Mikkelsen, E.N. and Wåhlin, R. (2020). “Dominant, hidden and forbidden sensemaking:
the politics of ideology and emotions in diversity management”, Organization, Vol. 27,
No. 4, pp.557–577.

4

Muzio, D. (2022). “ Re ‐ conceptualizing management theory: how do we move away

5

from western‐centred knowledge?”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.59, No.4, pp.

6

1032-1035.
Neves, P. and Caetano, A. (2009), “Commitment to change: contributions to trust in the
supervisor and work outcomes”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 34, No. 6,
pp. 623–644.
Nitta, M. (Eds.) (2010), Employment relations and human resources development in call
centers in Japan: Japan report for the global call center project. Tokyo, Department of
research on the staffing industry, institute of social science, University of Tokyo. (in
Japanese)

2

7
8
10
11
12
14
16
17
19
21
23
24
26
28
30
31
33

lys

34

na

32

lA

29

na

27

tio

25

iza

22

an

20

dynamics: an attention ‐ based view of strategic change”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 155-167.
Oreg, S. and Berson, Y. (2019), “Leaders’ impact on organizational change: bridging
theoretical and methodological chasms”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 13, No.
1, pp. 272–307.
Plowman, A., Baker, L.T., Beck, T.E., Kulkarni, M. and Travis, D.V. (2007), “Radical
change accidentally: the emergence and amplification of small change”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 515–543.
Proenca, T. and Rodrigues, H. (2021). “Empowerment in call centers and customer
satisfaction”, Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of
Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 143-161.
Raelin, J.D., and Cataldo, C.G. (2011), “Whither middle management? empowering
interface and the failure of organizational change”, Journal of Change Management,
Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 481-507.
Rafferty, A.E., Jimmieson, N.L. and Armenakis, A.A. (2013), “Change readiness: a
multilevel review”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 110–135.
Reissner, S.C. (2011), “Patterns of stories of organisational change”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 593–609.

rg

18

Ocasio, W. (1997), “Towards an attention ‐ based view of the firm”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. S1, pp. 187-206.
Ocasio, W., Laamanen, T. and Vaara, E. (2018), “Communication and attention

fO

15

lo

13

na
ur

9

Jo
al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

32

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 33 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
12
13
14
16
18
19
21
23
25
26
28
30
32
33
35

lys

36

na

34

lA

31

na

29

tio

27

iza

24

an

22

rg

20

fO

17

lo

15

na
ur

11

Robert, K. and Ola, L. (2021), “Reflexive sensegiving: an open-ended process of
influencing the sensemaking of others during organizational change”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 476-486.
Rouleau, L. and Balogun, J. (2011), “Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and
discursive competence”. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 953–983.
Russell, B. (2008), “Call centres: a decade of research”. International journal of
management reviews, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 195-219.
Sharma, G. and Good, D. (2013). “The work of middle managers: sensemaking and
sensegiving for creating positive social change”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 95-122.
Schildt, H., Mantere, S. and Cornelissen, J. (2020). “Power in sensemaking processes”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 241–265.
Schwarz, G. M., Bouckenooghe, D. and Vakola, M. (2021). “Organizational change
failure: framing the process of failing”, Human Relations, Vol. 74, No.2, pp. 159-179.
Shin, J., Taylor, M. S. and Seo, M. G. (2012). “Resources for change: the relationships of
organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees' attitudes and
behaviors toward organizational change”, Academy of Management journal, Vol. 55,
No.3, pp. 727-748.
Smith, A. D., Ashmos Plowman, D. and Duchon, D. (2010). “Everyday sensegiving: a
closer look at successful plant managers”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol.
46, No. 2, pp. 220-244.
Smith, W. K. and Tushman, M. L. (2005). “Managing strategic contradictions: a top
management model for managing innovation streams”, Organization Science, Vol. 16,
No.5, pp. 522-536.
Sparr, J. L. (2018). “Paradoxes in organizational change: the crucial role of leaders’
sensegiving”, Journal of Change Management, Vol.18, No. 2, pp.162-180.
Van der Stede, W. A. (2000). “The relationship between two consequences of budgetary
controls: budgetary slack creation and managerial short-term orientation”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 25, No. (6), pp. 609-622.
van Hulst, M. and Tsoukas, H. (2021). “Understanding extended narrative sensemaking:
how
police
officers
accomplish
story
work”,
Organization,
https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084211026878
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed., Sage
Walker, H. J., Armenakis, A.A., and Bernerth, J.B. (2007), “Factors influencing
organizational change efforts: an integrative investigation of change content, context,
process and individual differences”, Journal of Organizational Change Management,

Jo
al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

33

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 34 of 36

on
ati
ern
Int
1

Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 761-773.

iza

an

rg

fO

lo

na
ur

Jo
al
lys

na

lA

na

tio

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

34

is

Page 35 of 36

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

on
ati
ern
Int
Years since

establishment

No. of

TableⅠ Overview of the call centres
Call Centre A

Call Centre B

20

Jo
al

employees

Affiliation

Attributes of
operator

220–230

Company X Group

na
ur

Temporary worker
from temporary

employment agency

Call Centre C

7

11

250

500

Company XS1 in

Company XS2 in

Company X Group

Company X Group

Part-time and full-time
employee

Part-time employee

lo

Reception from

insurance subscribers;
Services
provided

fO

Sales commissioned by
other financial
institutions;

Reception of overseas

To be a call centre that

Organisational

consolidates various

Change

functions

Accident telephone
reception

To be a call centre

capable of providing the
highest level of road
service

To be the best call

iza

Goals of

an

non-life insurance

Road assistant services

rg
centre within the X
Group

tio

Productivity and

Productivity and

Productivity and

Key

response quality

response quality

performance

(Number of calls

(Speed and

index

received and accuracy

appropriateness of

received and accuracy

of response)

response)

of response)

response quality
(Number of calls

lys

na

lA

na

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

is

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Page 36 of 36

Jo
al

on
ati
ern
Int
Table Ⅱ Information on the interviewees
Gender

Data

Time

Call Centre A/Director

Male

2 Oct. 2019

1 hour

I2

Call Centre A/Senior manager

Male

2 Oct. 2019

1 hour

I3

Call Centre B/Director

Male

16 May 2019 and 14 Nov. 2019

2 hours

I4

Call Centre B/Senior manager

Male

16 May 2019

1 hour

I5

Call Centre B/Senior manager

Male

14 Nov. 2019

1 hour

I6

Call Centre C/Director

Male

2 July 2019

1 hour

I7

Call Centre C/Senior manager

Male

2 July 2019

1 hour

I8

Call Centre C/Supervisor

Male

2 July 2019

1 hour

Male

rg

Name

Affiliation/Position

I1

1 hour

Sales Department of Company
X/Manager
Education Manager of Company X

Female

9 Oct. 2019

an

Consultant/Former Call Centre

fO

I10

lo

I9

na
ur

16 May 2019, 2 July 2019, 2 Oct. 2019, a
nd 14 Nov. 2019

2 hours

iza
lys

na

lA

na

tio

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

is

この論文で使われている画像