4.4 Article

Simple rules for sensemaking praxis: How HR can contribute to strategic change by developing sensemaking capability in organisations

Journal

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 299-320

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12404

Keywords

change management; HR change agent; sensemaking

Funding

  1. Kemmy Business School PhD Scholarship fund
  2. IReL

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper explores the role of sensemaking theory in HR during strategic change and identifies four Simple Rules of Sensemaking that HR can implement to develop an organization's sensemaking praxis.Through a diary study of middle managers engaging in strategic change, the paper concludes that HR has a significant contribution in developing an organization's sensemaking praxis.
This paper explores how sensemaking theory offers a new perspective on HR's role during strategic change. As change in organisations today is less of a programme and more of a continuous cycle of business transformation, there has been a shift in focus to its underpinning, cognitive process of sensemaking. However, HR's role in developing sensemaking praxis in organisations is not widely researched to date. This paper addresses that gap. We draw on Eisenhardt and Sull's 'simple rules' whereby complex strategy praxis is reduced to a highly translatable, small number of key rules (2001). Through a diary study of middle managers engaging in strategic change, we investigate their real-time, lived sensemaking praxis. We conclude that HR have a significant contribution to play in developing an organisation's sensemaking praxis through four Simple Rules of Sensemaking: (1) plan creative discourse opportunities, (2) ensure leader-middle manager parity, (3) mutually direct sensemaking through ongoing re-planning and re-prioritisation, and (4) ensure leadership effort continues beyond the initiation of strategic change.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available