11. Sonenshein (2010).pdf

娀 Academy of Management Journal 2010, Vol. 53, No. 3, 477–512. WE’RE CHANGING—OR ARE WE? UNTANGLING THE ROLE OF PROGRESSIVE, REGRESSIVE, AND STABILITY NARRATIVES DURING STRATEGIC CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION...

娀 Academy of Management Journal 2010, Vol. 53, No. 3, 477–512. WE’RE CHANGING—OR ARE WE? UNTANGLING THE ROLE OF PROGRESSIVE, REGRESSIVE, AND STABILITY NARRATIVES DURING STRATEGIC CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION SCOTT SONENSHEIN Rice University Data from a Fortune 500 retailer suggest that managers tell strategically ambiguous, interwoven narratives about how an organization changes and how it remains the same, thereby attempting to both unfreeze and freeze the existing meanings employees attribute to the organization. Employees embellish these narratives to make sense of and narrate responses to change (resisting, championing, and accepting), something patterned by time period and context. This study revises conceptualizations of mana- gerial and employee discourse in fostering and hampering the implementation of strategic change by broadening consideration of both the sources and the types of meanings used to “construct” change. Implementing strategic change is one of the most proach to change have focused on the construction important undertakings of an organization. Suc- of meanings that “stand out from other organiza- cessful implementation of strategic change can re- tional stories” (Barry & Elmes, 1997: 433) by differ- invigorate a business, but failure can lead to cata- entiating the future from the past. Similarly, schol- strophic consequences, including firm death (Hofer ars taking a sensemaking approach have focused on & Schendel, 1978). One of the most important pro- how managers construct meanings for others that cesses of strategic change occurs when managers lead to a “preferred redefinition of organizational use “discursive” and other “symbolic materials” to reality” (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991: 442). Practitio- destroy existing meaning systems and establish ner models of change, such as those based on Kot- new ones in an effort to set strategic direction (Fiol, ter’s (1996) work, have also emphasized creating a 2002; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). In fact, some sense of urgency about shattering outdated or mis- scholars consider the very purpose of strategic aligned meanings tied to an organization’s status change to be invoking a shift in cognitions about an quo, followed by the development and dissemina- organization and its environment (Bartunek, 1984). tion of new meanings expressed in a vision for Past change research using both narrative (e.g., change. Barry & Elmes, 1997; Brown, 1998) and “sensemak- One common characteristic of many theoretical ing” lenses (e.g., Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Gioia & and practitioner models of change is that they ex- Chittipeddi, 1991; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010) has plicitly or implicitly endorse Lewin’s (1951) basic supported the idea that strategic change requires a three-stage theory of change. The three stages are fundamental shift in meanings. This literature has “unfreezing” an existing state, moving to a new, converged on an examination of how managers desirable state, and then “refreezing” that new state “construct” meanings (i.e., interpretations of an or- (Elrod & Tippett, 2002; Hendry, 1996; Marshak, ganization) and disseminate them to others in an 1993). As Dawson noted, “The predominant mod- effort to influence those others about a new strate- els on the management of change remain rooted to gic direction. Scholars opting for a narrative ap- the orthodoxy imposed by Lewin’s (1951) seminal work. Almost without exception, contemporary management texts uncritically adopt Lewin’s three- I thank Jane Dutton, Rick Bagozzi, Debby Keller-Co- phase model of planned change” (1994: 2f). In fact, hen, Linda Putnam, Kathie Sutcliffe, and Erik Dane as scholars have adopted Lewin’s model to explicitly well as Associate Editor Mike Pratt and the three anon- focus on meanings during change, arguing that the ymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on this arti- cle. I also benefited from comments from and/or discus- change process involves managers first breaking sions with Jean Bartunek, Martha Feldman, Karen down employees’ existing meaning constructions Golden-Biddle, and Ray Sparrowe about this research. I (unfreezing), then establishing new meanings also thank Kim Jones Davenport for her research assis- (moving), and finally solidifying those new mean- tance and Tina Borja for her editorial assistance. ings (refreezing) (e.g., Corley & Gioia, 2004; Fiol, 477 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only. 478 Academy of Management Journal June 2002; Isabella, 1990; Labianca, Gray, & Brass, 2000). wrong places (purported employee constructions Although research that models change implemen- that lead to resistance) using the wrong mental tation as a set of meaning processes based roughly models (unfreeze-move-refreeze) (Dent & Goldberg, on Lewin’s approach has led to important insights, 1999). In this study, I took an inductive approach this research is limited in two key ways. First, it allowing for a variety of meanings (beyond “posi- studies only certain types of meanings constructed tive” and “negative”) to play a role in change. This by managers and employees. Second, it overlooks approach helps supplement the popular managers- the perspective and responses of recipients of overcome-employee-resistance story that has plagued change (Balogun & Johnson, 2004, 2005; Bartunek, theory development and practice (Dent & Goldberg, Rousseau, Rudolph, & DePalma, 2006; Ford, Ford, 1999; Ford et al., 2008) by examining whether the & D’Amelio, 2008). meanings of change employees generate and main- First, existing research represents an unnecessar- tain may not always hinder, but may actually help, ily narrow view of the types of meanings managers change implementation. and employees construct during change by pre- Second, existing research overlooks the dynamic dominately focusing on positive or negative mean- interplay between managers’ and employees’ ings of change (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, meaning constructions. Instead, in examining dis- 1993; Piderit, 2000). This limited focus makes com- cursive processes that provide linguistic, cognitive, mon a narrative in which employees resist change and symbolic resources for strategic change (Jarz- (drawing on negative meanings) and managers abkowski, 2005), scholars have taken a managerial struggle to overcome these resistance efforts perspective (Ford et al., 2008). For example, build- (through positive meanings). Dent and Goldberg ing on process-based approaches to change (e.g., (1999) characterized this story as a universally ac- Burgelman, 1983), researchers have addressed how cepted mental model but questioned its empirical managers engage in activities that constitute “do- reality. Lewin proposed that resistance occurred at ing” strategy work, such as constructing and dis- the systems level in organizations (manifesting in, seminating meanings of change to employees (Bar- for instance, roles, attitudes, behaviors, norms, and tunek, Krim, Necochea, & Humphries, 1999; Gioia other factors). Yet organizational scholars have & Chittipeddi, 1991; Rouleau, 2005). Yet scholars since largely viewed resistance more narrowly as have largely overlooked employees’ subsequent re- occurring at the psychological level (Dent & Gold- interpretations of these meanings (Bartunek et al., berg, 1999), thereby often implicating employees’ 2006). Buchanan and Dawson (2007) criticized constructions of change (the meanings they give to most work on change as single-voiced narratives change) as the cause of resistance (Ford et al., that overlook its complex, political, and multiau- 2008). As a result, scholars have developed theories thored nature. For scholars who theorize about about how managers overcome employee resis- change as a linguistic accomplishment that tance by unfreezing employees’ existing (negative) emerges from competing narratives (e.g., Brown & constructed meanings and then changing them Humphreys, 2003; Heracleous & Barrett, 2001), it (e.g., Corley & Gioia, 2004; Fiol, 2002; Isabella, becomes essential to capture narratives beyond 1990; Labianca et al., 2000). For example, Isabella’s those coming from politically dominant groups (1990) model draws from Lewin’s work to explain (e.g., managers) (Dawson & Buchanan, 2005). Al- how top managers unfreeze employees’ existing though less politically dominant groups lack for- constructions and alert them that new ones need to mal power, they nonetheless shape change imple- be adopted. Fiol adopted Lewin’s three-stage model mentation through their alteration of its meaning. to identity change, theorizing that managers help By accounting for the construction of meanings by employees destroy old meanings and replace them both managers and employees, scholars can under- with a “new desired future state” (2002: 660). La- stand a wider breadth of meanings during change, bianca et al. adopted Lewin’s model to argue that as well as how meanings change over time and change involves disconfirming old schemata and across organizational levels in ways that impact then “new schema generation” (2000: 238). At a how strategic change gets implemented. Moreover, theoretical level, this argument focuses researchers because meanings shape both social realities and on employees as obstacles to change as opposed to actors’ subsequent reactions to such realities recognizing that employees may also maintain (Hardy, Palmer, & Phillips, 2000), a more dynamic meanings consistent with promoting change (e.g., understanding of meaning construction may im- Kelman, 2005). At a practical level, the “managers- prove understanding of key employee responses overcome-employee-resistance” tale may contrib- important for change implementation. This may ute to the failure of change initiatives because it help practicing managers improve what frequently encourages managers to direct energy toward the become unsuccessful change implementation at- 2010 Sonenshein 479 tempts (Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990; Kotter, interwoven narratives’ effect on employees’ mean- 1996). ing constructions and implementation of change. By broadening investigation of the types of mean- As such, the study elaborates theory (Lee, Mitchell, ings actors construct during strategic change to ex- & Sablynski, 1999) of meaning construction during tend beyond simply positive and negative, and by strategic change by addressing not only the broader accounting for a wider range of actors constructing sources of meanings, but also the broader types of meaning (managers and employees), I reexamine meanings. Ultimately, this elaboration affirms, critical assumptions in change implementation re- challenges, and advances views of change based on search. Scholars have found that managers exert Lewin’s model. downward influence on the meanings employees attribute to change through the unfreezing-moving- A NARRATIVE AND SENSEMAKING LENS refreezing of negative meanings, which are re- placed with more positive ones (e.g., George & Two related lenses are especially useful for ex- Jones, 2001; Labianca et al., 2000), yet it is less clear amining meaning constructions during change. A what theoretical process explains how employees narrative lens focuses on discourse, often contain- respond to these efforts, how they might recon- ing a sequential structure, that gives meaning to struct these meanings of change, and how this re- events (Pentland, 1999). This sequential structure construction might impact their responses when captures how organization members understand implementing change. Addressing these key ques- events in relationship to other events over time tions affords the opportunity to reconsider and ex- (Gergen & Gergen, 1997) and in specific contexts pand adoptions of Lewin’s model of change that are (Gergen, Gergen, & Barrett, 2004).1 Narratives exist based on meaning construction. at both the individual and collective levels. As I To develop these insights, I conducted a field describe in the Methods section, my primary focus study at a Fortune 500 retailer implementing stra- in this study was “composite narratives,” which tegic change. I began with the broad research ques- involve researchers’ construction of an event on the tion of how managers’ and employees’ meaning basis of a group of individuals’ narratives about constructions differ, and how these differences that same event (e.g., Dunford & Jones, 2000). matter for how strategic change gets implemented. A sensemaking lens is closely related to a narrative Drawing from narrative (Barry & Elmes, 1997; one. For Weick (1995), sensemaking involves indi- Brown, 1998; Brown & Humphreys, 2003; Weick & viduals engaging in retrospective and prospective Quinn, 1999) and sensemaking (Gioia & Chitti- thinking in order to construct an interpretation of peddi, 1991) approaches to change, I examined re- reality. “Sensegiving” is a related process by which lationships between the broader sources of mean- individuals attempt to influence the sensemaking of ings (managers and employees) and broader others (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Maitlis & Law- dimensions of meanings (derived inductively) used rence, 2007). Both sensemaking and sensegiving are to construct change. As I describe below, the re- closely related to narratives. In fact, many scholars search affirmed key elements of existing views of have treated sensemaking/sensegiving as inter- change, but also led to some unexpected findings. changeable with constructing narratives (Currie & Although my initial focus was to spotlight the fre- Brown, 2003; Dunford & Jones, 2000; Gabriel, 2004). quently underestimated role of employees during Scholars have argued that narratives are a tool that change, my data revealed that researchers’ current actors use to make sense of events (Bruner, 1990; conceptualizations of managerial discourses during Robichaud, Girous, & Taylor, 2004) and also that nar- change were also incomplete. Prior research has ratives capture the outcome of collective sensemak- emphasized that managers establish new meanings ing (Brown, 1998). Furthermore, narratives can be about an organization for employees by unfreezing and then altering their meaning constructions (La- 1 bianca et al., 2000). Indeed, I found that managers Scholars have debated about differences among nar- do construct these new meanings (through what I ratives, stories, sagas, legends, and myths. Boje defined call “progressive narratives”). Unexpectedly, I also stories as “oral or written performance involving two or more people interpreting past or anticipated experience” found that at the same time managers were estab- (1991: 111). Cunliffe, Luhman, and Boje (2004) noted that lishing new meanings, they were simultaneously “narrative” and “story” are often used interchangeably, attempting to preserve existing organizational proposing the distinction that stories usually have coher- meanings (through what I call “stability narra- ent plot lines whereas narratives do not. But I followed tives”). At this point, my attention shifted to ex- Pentland (1999) in grouping all of these forms under the plaining how and why managers simultaneously heading of “narrative,” as these nuanced differences are told progressive and stability narratives and to the not important for my theory here. 480 Academy of Management Journal June used to influence others, which is an example of ment and leisure products retailer with annual sensegiving. Accordingly, I view a narrative as a dis- sales of $4 billion and 35,000 employees. The com- cursive construction that actors use as a tool to shape pany operated over 1,000 stores, primarily in the their own understanding (sensemaking), as a tool to United States, and consisted of two divisions, each influence others’ understandings (sensegiving), and representing a different retail model: MallCo, as an outcome of the collective construction of mean- which ran smaller, mall-based stores, and Big- ing (Brown, 1998; Brown & Humphreys, 2003). BoxCo, which ran larger, freestanding stores. This A narrative lens, informed by sensemaking/sense- research examines the implementation of “Project giving, is useful for addressing my research question Convert,” in which some MallCo stores were trans- of how managers’ and employees’ meaning construc- formed into BigBoxCo Light stores. Table 1 gives a tions differ, and how these differences matter during timeline of the change. change implementation. First, narratives allow for Case selection. Because extensive data were re- multiple perspectives on change (Buchanan & Daw- quired to conduct this study, and data collection at son, 2007) and broad types of meanings, both of multiple sites was not feasible, I used a single site. which can play a vital role in change (Heracleous & In selecting it, I was guided by theoretical sampling Barrett, 2001). Second, narratives are inherently a (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). At the temporal construction (Cunliffe, Luhman, & Boje, industry level, retail is a part of the service econ- 2004), and change is inherently a temporal phenom- omy that represents a growing proportion of the enon (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Third, when faced world economy (Zeithaml, Bitner, & Gremler, with a major interruption such as a strategic organi- 2006). I selected Retail, Inc., as a setting in the retail zational change, individuals construct meanings both industry because it is comprised of many geograph- to enable their own understanding (Brown & Hum- ically dispersed units (i.e., stores), which makes phreys, 2003) and to influence that of others (Gioia & extensive communication between stores and Chittipeddi, 1991). Capturing these understandings headquarters necessary, a characteristic that in turn informs theory about how people use narratives to lends itself well to the study of discourse within an understand and influence change. organization. This setting provided an “extreme case” in which narratives were more likely to be METHODS visible than in other contexts. I was also provided with an unusual degree of access to Retail, Inc., via In a single-site case study, I used narrative analysis a personal contact. This degree of access led to (Riessman, 1993) and content analysis (Berelson, building an information-rich case that helps mani- 1952) as two related approaches to examining the discourses individuals used to construct meaning fest the phenomenon of change narratives in a de- (Gephart, 1993; Pentland, 1999). Narrative analysis tailed but not unrealistic way (Miles & Huberman, focuses on the rich use of discourse embedded in 1994). I selected Project Convert as a context within context (Pentland, 1999), particularly emphasizing Retail, Inc., because it was a typical case (Miles & how protagonists interpret experiences (Bruner, Huberman, 1994): it represented a type of change 1990). Content analysis is a technique for understand- other retailers and organizations outside the retail ing the factors that explain differences in interpreta- industry perform frequently (e.g., integrating divi- tions (Langley, 1999). I first describe the case and sions, mergers, etc.). Also, most retailers and many then detail the data and analysis. By providing a rich large companies (e.g., multidivisionals) have cen- description of the case in which meanings were pro- tralized headquarters with dispersed units of em- duced, I provide more plausible and credible inter- ployees, so their structures, and possibly some of pretations of the data (Hansen, 2006) and address the challenges they face in implementing change, calls to develop case studies that combine a narrative resemble those at the focal firm. Retail, Inc. has approach with a deeper study of organizational con- senior/corporate managers who work at headquar- text (Buchanan & Dawson, 2007). ters and are responsible for formulating and dis- seminating strategy to stores. Field managers and directors, considered members of management, are Case Overview and Selection located throughout the country and are responsible This study took place at Retail, Inc.,2 which was, for overseeing the operations of large clusters of at the time of the study, a Fortune 500 entertain- stores. Their responsibilities include customizing strategies for their regions as well as disseminating instructions to stores. Both senior/corporate man- 2 All names of individuals and organizations are agers and field managers/directors issue directives pseudonyms. about change to “employees”—the store managers 2010 Sonenshein 481 TABLE 1 Timeline and Milestones for Project Convert Approximate Time Milestone Description Significance of Milestone April 2002 Retail, Inc., hires strategy Strategy consultants hired to Started first discussions about how to turn consulting company. “rejuvenate” MallCo around the MallCo division. Helped get division. MallCo stores are senior managers’ attention about not meeting customer performance declines at MallCo. Created demands and have urgency that strategic changes needed in performance variability. MallCo division. Most of 2003 Redesign Initiative starts. New interior architecture of Store remodels would be a capital store designed, including expenditure in the MallCo division, internal architecture (store something which had not happened for layout and color schemes) the past twenty years. All stores in the and product placement. MallCo chain informed they would receive some improvements/resources. September 2003– Marketing research firm Set of possible names for MallCo brand found to be “old” and January 2004 assesses impressions of MallCo brand developed inferior to BigBoxCo brand. Several MallCo brand. and risks of changing alternative names for MallCo tested, and name evaluated. Retail, Inc. decides to test the “BigBoxCo Light” name in several stores. March 2004 Project Convert officially Project’s main changes Two separate projects merged into one, created. involve a rebrand and called Project Convert. More resources remodel of stores as well are allocated per store, but fewer stores as operational and will participate. merchandising changes. June 2004 Test of concept (phase I). Seventeen stores are Initial stores selected based on geographic converted in four isolation. Phase I considered successful. geographic areas. September–December Test of concept (phase II). Twenty additional stores are Stores selected to represent competitive 2004 converted in three and customer makeup of other Retail, geographic areas. Inc. markets. Phase II also considered a success. August–November Main implementation of First set of nontest stores Project Convert is now a full-blown 2005 Project Convert—Period 1. participate in project. strategy that is being implemented. Store selection based on several criteria, including performance potential and subjective ratings by corporate managers. November 2005– Main implementation of Second set of nontest stores Project Convert remains a full-blown January 2006 Project Convert—Period 2. participate in project. strategy that is being implemented, with Store selection based on managers pressing to complete several criteria, including conversions by the end of the year. performance potential and subjective ratings by corporate managers. 482 Academy of Management Journal June and retail clerks responsible for implementing and department combined with the marketing depart- adopting storewide change.3 ment’s plans for a branding change as one of the Case overview. In the early 1990s, MallCo was company’s six most important strategic projects; the “cash cow” of Retail, Inc., bringing in steady “Project Convert” was born. Retail, Inc. executives profits that allowed the company to fund its growth assigned a full-time Project Convert project man- at BigBoxCo, which had a smaller presence than ager in February 2004 and pushed to test the con- MallCo and required significant capital expendi- cept by the early summer. According to the strat- tures to open a new store. As BigBoxCo stores egy, the company would transform the entire chain started to achieve steady profits in the mid 1990s, of MallCo stores to BigBoxCo Lights, with the new sales at the MallCo division started to flounder. The name, remodeling, and new merchandising strate- outdatedness of MallCo’s stores, combined with gies. Unlike the previous Redesign Initiative, increased competition from bigger stores belonging Project Convert would include extensive renova- to other retailers and the internet, led to a multiyear tions, enhanced product selection, and updated downward spiral of performance. Retail, Inc., re- marketing and operations strategies. sponded by closing underperforming MallCo After a “phase I test” in June 2004, managers stores, but with little investment being put into the developed a more formal business plan that con- MallCo division, those stores that sustained opera- tained financial projections of how the converted tions continued to have performance declines. stores would perform as well as cost estimates for In 2003, Retail, Inc. charged an architectural de- the changes. According to the business plan, sign firm with developing the MallCo store of the Project Convert had three main objectives (doc- future. The project, called the “Redesign Initia- 010).4 First, the project would “create greater con- tive,” involved updating the interior design (with sumer appeal,” partly through the consolidated new paint colors, for example) and changing the name, leading to higher brand awareness. Second, layout of the stores’ products. Managers reasoned the project would improve marketing and opera- that updating these interiors would improve sales. tional efficiencies by creating uniformity among Although this project involved only minor modifi- stores in merchandising and operations. Third, the cations, MallCo store employees welcomed the Re- project would create additional sales through the design Initiative because it provided some sorely acquisition of new customers. A “phase II test” was needed resources for renovating stores, many of launched shortly after the business plan was cre- which had not seen any major investment for two ated. After deeming phase II a success, Retail, Inc., decades. initiated a more extensive implementation of the While the store operations department at Retail, strategy. Inc.’s headquarters worked on the Redesign Initia- tive, the marketing department assessed the viabil- Sources of Data ity of the MallCo brand. Managers reasoned that a brand that had not seen updates for years might be Unlike most research on change, which only uses in need of its own makeover. A marketing consul- retrospective data (Van de Ven, 1992), this study tant recommended that the firm consolidate its includes both retrospective and real-time data. In brands by investing in one overarching brand for total, I spent 15 months collecting data during the both divisions. The consultant’s research further testing and implementation of the strategy, and af- concluded that the BigBoxCo brand was stronger ter the project was no longer a strategic priority. I than MallCo’s and that there would be minimal risk used five data sources: interviews, documents, ar- in eliminating the MallCo name and subsuming the chival records, observations, and surveys. brand under the BigBoxCo name as “BigBoxCo Interviews. I conducted 42 with retail clerks and Light.” store managers (collectively referred to as “employ- In 2004, the Redesign Initiative of the operations ees”) and senior/corporate and field managers (col- lectively referred to as “managers”) from November 3 2004 to March 2006. Of the total number of inter- Although stores had managers, I treated them as “em- views, 67 percent were with managers, and 33 per- ployees” because they were much closer to the retail cent were with employees spread across the East clerks in status, power, and work context than to the corporate or field managers. There was a hierarchy whereby the clerks reported to the store managers, yet the 4 two were both, like Bartunek et al.’s (2006) employees, I refer to the various types of data using the following “on the receiving end of change,” and so unlike the abbreviations: “int-(#)” refers to an interview and its managers typically studied as sources of change (e.g., assigned number; “sur-(#)” refers to an employee survey; Burgelman, 1983; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). and “doc-(#)” is a management document. 2010 Sonenshein 483 Coast, Central, and West Coast regions. Of the in- Surveys. I attempted to reach all 90 of the con- terviewees, 64 percent were with females, and 36 verting MallCo stores between May 2005 and Jan- percent were with males. Appendix A lists the in- uary 2006 to solicit participation in a paper survey terview protocols. Individuals in a range of depart- via company mail. Employees at 50 percent of the ments, levels, and geographic locations were inter- stores responded to my inquiry, and 159 out of a viewed, both during and after the change was possible 414 surveys were returned from these implemented, a feature that mitigates retrospective stores (38.4%). I also attempted to reach the em- biases (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). ployees of 24 randomly generated nonconverting For the employees, I generated a list of stores to stores. Of these, 50 percent furnished respondents, sample that had one of the following change pro- and I received 51 out of 93 possible (54.8%) files: (1) stores that had completed implementation responses.5 Respondents were store managers of the change, (2) stores soon to be implementing (20.9%), assistant store managers (18.4%), clerks the change, and (3) stores with no announced plans (27.0%), and part-time clerks (33.7%). Seventy-two to implement the change. Stores were selected to percent of respondents were female, and 28 percent accommodate both geographic diversity and a rea- were male. For the analysis, I relied on open-ended sonable travel schedule. An informant provided me questions asking about the meaning of the change with contact information for store managers, whom (see Appendix A); other questions from the survey I called to schedule interviews. Store managers were collected for another study. Responses to the made staff available for my visit, and I approached survey were anonymous and were returned and each staff member in private to request an inter- tracked via a random identifier accessible only to view. All but one employee agreed to an interview. me. Pretesting suggested the survey took about 30 For managers, I used a snowball technique to iden- minutes to finish. tify all key managers at headquarters responsible for change and key field management (Miles & Hu- Data Analysis berman, 1994). I met with some informants multi- ple times. Although use of snowball sampling runs Construction of narratives. I used individuals’ the risk of limiting informants to specific networks, discourse (managers or employees) to create com- I mitigated this risk by starting with informants in posite narratives of group constructions of the all key departments involved in the change. Inter- change (Currie & Brown, 2003; Dunford & Jones, views averaged around 40 minutes and were usu- 2000; Eisenberg, Murphy, & Andrews, 1998). Com- ally recorded and transcribed. When recording was posite narratives are constructed by a researcher not possible, I took extensive notes. and based on individuals’ “discourse” (Currie & Documents. I collected 115 documents, includ- Brown, 2003). These narratives are useful for single ing primarily internal ones (strategy plans, direc- cases with extensive data since they summarize tives, and updates sent to stores) and public docu- collective constructions of meanings (Langley, ments (press releases, articles, and web pages). 1999; Plowman, Baker, Beck, Kulkarni, Solanski, & Documents provide a running history of how strat- Travis, 2007). Although narratives are sometimes egies develop and change over time (Pondy, 1983). more fully elaborated by one person or piece of The internal documents were obtained from key discourse, most narratives are “fragments of stories, informants, and the publicly available documents, bits and pieces told here and there, to varying au- from electronic databases such as Factiva. For the diences” (Boje, 2001: 5). I captured these fragments analysis, I relied primarily on core change docu- in individuals’ discourses and transformed them ments, which are documents that key informants into composite narratives. (and myself as field worker) viewed as most central To construct the composite narratives, I devised to the change, such as those sent to stores or used in a timeline to identify the sequential structure of the strategy sessions or company updates. change and better understand the case context (see Archival records. These included ongoing project Table 1) (Langley, 1999). I next read the data, updates and financial reports. I relied on tech- grouped into managers’ and employees’ segments, niques similar to those used to obtain the docu- to develop inductive codes based on informants’ ments but also obtained continuous updates about discourse. I used memos to refine and reflect on the change by being part of Retail, Inc.’s e-mail distribution list. Observations. I observed eight hours of meetings 5 One possible reason for converting stores’ lower re- in two cities (Central and East Coast regions) in sponse rate is that employees at these stores were busier which managers met with employees to discuss the because of the conversion and therefore had less time to change. complete optional projects. 484 Academy of Management Journal June these emerging codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994), possibly accounting for differences in meanings with the goal of creating a more abstract classifica- among the narratives. Given the large number of tion of the data. At this point I started recognizing cases, I provide percentages of mentions (Dutton & a key pattern in both managers’ and employees’ Dukerich, 1991) and illustrations of the types of discourse: they constructed the change as either meaning constructions. something new and significant, or as something Analysis of employees’ responses. To address insignificant and consistent with the status quo. I the last part of my research question, concerning reexamined the data set again in this light, finding how differences between employees’ and manag- several different applications for the wide lens of ers’ meaning constructions matter for change im- construction as significant/insignificant. Remain- plementation, I developed an inductive classifica- ing open to disconfirming evidence (Miles & Hu- tion of employees’ narrated change responses. I berman, 1994), I reanalyzed the data to elaborate on read employee interviews and surveys with the the emerging themes and their variants. I went goal of locating different patterns of responses through several refinements of the narratives pre- (Heracleous & Barrett, 2001). I found that employ- sented here, constantly moving between the emerg- ees narrated three types of responses. I then re- ing composite narrative and the raw data, to ensure turned to the data to search for patterns in these I was creating a credible narrative. responses and how employees constructed the Analysis of meanings over time and across con- change, building from the content analysis de- texts. Like the analyses in most qualitative projects, scribed above.6 mine was iterative (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Nar- rative analysis affords an opportunity to examine FINDINGS managerial and employee meanings embedded in a rich context by such means as examining large Managers’ Narratives of the Change fragments of discourse; content analysis provides In this section, I tell two composite narratives to an opportunity to hone in on specific meanings in illustrate the major differences in meanings con- those narratives to explain patterns (Langley, structed by the managers studied here. On the one 1999). More specifically, I sought to understand hand, the managers constructed Project Convert as more deeply how the meanings managers and em- a significant change that would rejuvenate MallCo; ployees constructed had evolved, including such they constructed new meanings for what a elements as how their discourse shifted over the postimplementation MallCo store would be. On the period the change was implemented and, for em- other hand, the managers constructed Project Con- ployees, how it differed by local contexts (i.e., vert as insignificant, holding on to meanings that stores). preserved basic understandings of MallCo. I inductively derived codes about meanings from Project Convert is a significant change that will the narrative analysis, focusing on emergent core rejuvenate MallCo. Managers recognized that themes. A research assistant classified the raw data MallCo was in trouble when they commissioned on these dimensions. Afterward, I reviewed her research to assess the division’s declining perfor- codes and resolved the handful of differences we mance. Key branding and marketing research used had through discussion. For managers, the analysis used core change documents and interviews and showed the progression of meanings over time in a 6 Although as author I inevitably made selections that table. The core change documents contained con- shaped the research, thereby providing another construc- structions of the change that were sent to employ- tion of reality and not a transmission of it (Golden-Biddle ees and disseminated through the formal commu- & Locke, 2007), work by Lincoln and Guba (1985) sug- nication channels at Retail, Inc. The managerial gested that my interpretations of the data are credible for interviews provided a means of assessing varia- several reasons. First, I used a prolonged engagement of tions in meanings among managers, as well as a 15 months with my research site. Second, I had the way to examine how some meanings may have support of the company’s management. I provided sum- changed over time for some managers (those inter- maries of emerging findings to a key informant, usually monthly. I also held a three-hour feedback session with a viewed multiple times). For employees, the analy- broader set of managers, in which I made suggestions for sis used open-ended questions from the survey. improvements in future change efforts. I used both types This survey captured the meanings employees at- of feedback for “member checking” and found that infor- tributed to the change in a way that contained more mants agreed with my main findings. Third, I used tri- variation around implementation date (for time pe- angulation by collecting multiple types of data from mul- riod) and store (for local context) than the interview tiple sources. Fourth, I used peer debriefing to bounce data. It was important to examine this variance as ideas off of outsiders to get their perspectives on the data. 2010 Sonenshein 485 negative adjectives, such as “old” (int-31). As one In what ways, if any, do you think the old MallCo is senior manager said, “MallCo solicited [sic] re- better than the future BigBoxCo Light?; In what sponses like ‘Blue Haired Lady’ and ‘Oldsmobile’ ways, if any do you think the future BigBoxCo Light is better than the old MallCo?; What, if anything, do when people were asked what they think of you think your old MallCo customers will like about MallCo” (int-32). These negative depictions of the the new BigBoxCo Light?; What, if anything, do you MallCo brand were in contrast to the positive as- think your old MallCo customers will dislike about sessments of the BigBoxCo brand, which was con- the new BigBoxCo Light?; In what specific ways, if structed as a “more contemporary brand [that] pro- any, do you think BigBoxCo is better than the old vided [an] opportunity to... invigorate and update MallCo?; In what specific ways, if any, do you think the mall brand” (int-32). Assumptions about the the old MallCo was better than BigBoxCo? (doc-055) MallCo brand were affirmed by manager statements about the internal state of MallCo stores. As one Project Convert is just a name change and is manager noted, “A number of these stores haven’t insignificant. Although managers had pitched been touched in many, many, many years... to get Project Convert as a major change involving up- basically a major remodel, it’s a big deal” (int-7b). dated operations, merchandising, and marketing, I The recognition that the MallCo brand was in found managerial discourse also minimized the na- need of improvement, combined with the belief ture of the change. Managers wrote prior to the that the BigBoxCo brand was strong, led managers major rollout of the project that “different promo- to construct Project Convert as the creation of a tional offerings resonate with the mall shopper as “mini-BigBoxCo”— one that had the “look and opposed to the ‘big box’ superstore shopper.... feel” of a BigBoxCo store, and the BigBoxCo name, MallCo and BigBoxCo Light are our mall format operations, and merchandise. Managers wanted stores, and customer expectations of the experience MallCo to be run similarly to BigBoxCo stores differ from superstore visits” (doc-041). This quote illustrates how managers constructed BigBoxCo through an updated product assortment and a pric- Light as not involving a major promotional reposi- ing strategy aligned with BigBoxCo: “Our intention tioning; BigBoxCo Light and MallCo were going to is to align the majority of prices across all BigBoxCo be operated similarly, as “mall format stores.” Ad- stores” (doc-021; doc-031). Managers presented ditionally, instead of focusing on major strategy these changes to employees as a major strategic changes, managers emphasized the name change initiative. In a memo to all employees, senior man- and remodeling aspects of the project. A report agers wrote, “One of Retail, Inc.’s Big Six strategic updating executives on the project noted that the initiatives for 2005 is to convert selected MallCo “main goal for store plans for 2005 stores [is to] give locations to BigBoxCo Lights” (doc-059; emphasis them a stronger BigBoxCo ‘look & feel,’” which added). As the Project Convert project manager included “remodels” and new logos that empha- noted, “We’re definitely going to be moving for- sized the “BigBoxCo affiliation” (doc-001). These ward and MallCo will go away eventually” (int-5c). changes were mostly constructed as cosmetic. In Store employees were instructed to let customers fact, internally, managers stopped using brand as a know about how the store’s changing strategic po- demarcation device (MallCo vs. BigBoxCo/Big- sitioning would benefit them. Managers instructed BoxCo Light) and instead introduced language to employees to tell customers “they will now benefit separate formats: “superstore” (large, freestanding from higher discounts... and our expanded inven- BigBoxCos) and “specialty” (the smaller, mall- tory of [product lines]” (doc-031). Managers in the based MallCo and BigBoxCo Light). In a memo to MallCo division recognized the equalization of all Retail, Inc. members, a senior manager stated, power that came from the strategic change. As one “When we need to differentiate between formats in manager said, “[The change means] we’re all pretty writing, we are using Retail, Inc. Superstores and much at equal footing. I was hired when MallCo Retail, Inc. Specialty” (doc-118). Consequently, stores were pretty much considered in company managers minimized the change by labeling Big- documents as the cash cow of the company. And BoxCo Light as specialty (with MallCo) and not gosh, you felt bad being milked. Now we’re actually superstore (BigBoxCo). This was in contrast to the getting to share something that we’ve been contrib- first narrative, which constructed BigBoxCo Lights uting to for so long” (int-17). as mini-BigBoxCos and grouped stores on the basis Another manifestation of the significance of the of brand, not format. change came from the use of the words “old” and Another manifestation of how managers con- “new” to describe it. Managers used the referent structed Project Convert as insignificant came from “old” for MallCo and “new” for BigBoxCo Light in descriptions of the imposition of the changes on leading discussions with employees: employees. Managers minimized any disruption as 486 Academy of Management Journal June a result of the change and viewed the change as remained constant for managers interviewed mul- simply about altering the name of the store. As one tiple times as well as in core change documents. senior executive put it: This suggests that managers were not changing meanings over time, nor did they radically disagree I would not foresee that you need massive training among themselves about whether Project Convert effort to figure out [how] you take great [employees] was significant or insignificant. Rather, managers in the MallCo environment and make them great were simultaneously constructing two contrasting [employees] in the BigBoxCo Light environment, meanings. which is part of why... I don’t believe there was any huge explicit effort to look at what you need to To unpack the simultaneous construction of the do with staff because we are renaming it to Big- change as significant and insignificant, I present BoxCo Light. It’s just... the same process they have illustrative instances of the use of both themes. done for decades on how do you evaluate whether Consider the following e-mail, sent to both employ- somebody is any good at their job. (int-32) ees and customers, constructing BigBoxCo Light as a “familiar friend” while simultaneously emphasiz- Langley (1999) noted that narrative analysis often ing its novelty. The e-mail first states that BigBoxCo sparks additional questions, and I returned to the Light is a familiar friend, but the word “new” ap- data to make sense of why there were two very pears six times: different composite narratives about the change. We’re unveiling a new look for a familiar friend. Prior theory might suggest that the different mana- We’re excited to announce that our MallCo store in gerial composite narratives could have arisen from [location] is becoming BigBoxCo Light—a new store managers’ shifting interpretations of change over with a vibrant new atmosphere and an extraordinary time (Isabella, 1990). This would explain the two shopping experience. We’re taking the best of patterns of discourse as a consequence of managers MallCo and introducing many of the exceptional altering constructions of the change as it was im- aspects of our sister store, BigBoxCo, to create Big- plemented. Another possibility was that the differ- BoxCo Light. You’ll continue to find a great selec- ences in discourse signified disagreement among tion of [products], convenient shopping, and the managers about the meanings of the change (Don- same commitment to service by the friendly staff nellon, Gray, & Bougon, 1986; Kuhn & Corman, you’ve come to know. At the new BigBoxCo Light, 2003). As such, each narrative may have repre- you’ll also find a bigger discount... an expanded assortment, and selected BigBoxCo special offers sented a subgroup that constructed the change dif- and services. We are eager to introduce you to ferently from other subgroups. I examined these BigBoxCo Light.... It’s a new store and a new possibilities using content analysis (described in experience. (doc-007) the Methods section). The content analysis followed from what On the one hand, the e-mail positions BigBoxCo emerged in the narrative analysis and was based on Light as remaining the same, with managers noting the key difference in meanings emerging from the that customers will continue to enjoy great selec- narrative analysis: construction of the change as tion, convenient shopping, and commitment to ser- significant or as insignificant. I label the first “sig- vice. But the e-mail also presents the change as nificant constructions” and the second, “insignifi- leading to a more positive store experience, with a cant constructions.” Significant constructions fo- bigger discount, expanded product assortment, and cused on a shift in strategic direction, challenges to special offers—that a “new store” and “new expe- existing meanings such as identities, or substantial rience” are on the way. new practices, whereas insignificant constructions The dual constructions of familiarity and novelty focused on how the change did not dramatically were also presented to employees at meetings, alter the organization or was minor or cosmetic. where managers told them that simply “changing Table 2 (interviews with managers) and Table 3 name, association and color” made customers more (managerial documents) summarize the analyses of satisfied (meeting, 5/3/05). Managers told anec- managers’ narratives, grouping them into signifi- dotes of customers who “said ‘the store was actu- cant and insignificant constructions. The tables ally better,’ but literally only the sign changed” show that all but one manager’s discourse con- (meeting, 6/15/2005). Managers relayed these anec- tained constructions of the change as both signifi- dotes to employees to illustrate that BigBoxCo cant and insignificant, as did most of the core Light had not changed or improved, yet somehow change documents. Although interviewees and customers were responding to a changed (and im- documents varied somewhat in the degree of text proved) store. coded as significant versus insignificant, most of Managers also constructed the change as simul- the data contained both themes. Both themes also taneously significant and insignificant during 2010 Sonenshein 487 TABLE 2 Analysis of Manager Interviews along the Significance/Insignificance Dimensiona Illustrative Example Interview Number Title Date Project Convert Is Significant Project Convert Is Insignificant 1 Field director 3/23/05 We as the MallCo chain have gone through a It’s basically the same other than the paint and period of sales decreases... we had to do some of the fixtures and the sign out front. something in order to change that trend. And part of changing that trend was leveraging the BigBoxCo name, refreshing the stores... Attracting that mall customer that might be in there getting them to walk into our BigBoxCo Light store just as they would walk into a BigBoxCo store, but not necessarily a MallCo store. 2a Field manager 3/23/05 It’s (sighs) the concept is a wonderful It really hasn’t changed other than the type— concept and I think it’s a new identity to the sign that’s on the front, the color of the our brand to the customer and I think walls, four different colors, as funny as that they’re really identifying to that. Last seems. And now we have some leather week we were up in 8% [sales increase]. seating with little tables. But the internal But we’re running a 5% increase over last structure (speaks in a hushed voice) is year. So a huge difference... we have a basically all the—it’s basically all the same. sense of pride about this now and it’s new and exciting for customers. 5a Project Convert 4/18/05 MallCo was facing declining in comp sales So what’s going to happen to your store and as project for five plus years... we were looking at far as the look and feel. What is the manager a way to turn around [MallCo] and at the construction schedule going to look like? same time leverage our BigBoxCo brand What preparations do you need to make? that’s been doing very well... that was a major... shift in direction for 2005. 5b 5/13/05 It was just a matter of... getting [the store] on [Asked how employees’ jobs are different after board with [Project Convert]... There was a conversion] After they become BigBoxCo lot of changes.... [employees] don’t know Light, they should be a [retail clerk] as what BigBoxCo is in that market because usual... there’s not anything specifically as they’re not familiar with the BigBoxCo far as like what it means for their job. name brand because they are so isolated. 5c 8/26/05 Bringing the two different divisions And one of the big takeaways from this year is together... That’s been probably the most that some of these stores are just so old that beneficial piece just because for so long with the limited scope of work that we do they’ve been these parallel tracks and for BigBoxCo Light [we need to do more]. haven’t had much interaction with each other. And so now bringing them in the same room, now that they share the same brand name and—talking about and creating that synergy of how they can work together more closely instead of look at each other as competitors. 5d 11/18/05 The difference in before and after difference The main things that are BigBoxCo Light for these stores is so dramatic.... The specific as far as compliance [is] to make BigBoxCo brand really seems to make a sure that they have their BigBoxCo branded difference with this demographic base materials and supplies. around here. So strong mall, a huge before and after difference, and the BigBoxCo brand recognition... are kind of the key factors [driving performance]. 488 Academy of Management Journal June TABLE 2 (Continued) Illustrative Example Interview Number Title Date Project Convert Is Significant Project Convert Is Insignificant 5e 3/9/06 We have a lot of [MallCos] that aren’t very To me it is largely based on size. So super profitable and it’s really going through this stores twenty to twenty five thousand square year store by store to determine the life of foot box. Very different operating them... We will put capital money into environment, much larger staff, larger them to re-brand them... the ultimate inventory base, different systems. goal would be a single brand. 7a Project Convert 5/18/05 If I could take the best from BigBoxCo and Promotional efforts [at BigBoxCo Light] communication put it into the—a size store that we have weren’t really aligned with BigBoxCo manager in the mall, this is what it would be. anymore. They were kind of aligned with These are the things I would keep these MallCo... We had sort of the small format are the nice-to-haves. These are processes stores and the big format stores instead of that would have to change because the BigBoxCo stores and the MallCo stores. currently we had two different inventory systems, two different POS systems. 7b 10/3/05 A BigBoxCo Light battle... “It’s won in the Most everything that goes to the general mind and the heart and not in what your population on Project Convert either focuses store looks like.” Because BigBoxCo Light on look and feel or sales results and doesn’t really isn’t about you have graphics and really answer the question of why are we you have a handful of [type of doing this rebrand. That’s actually not been product]... there’s still a pretty big a hot issue this year anywhere. divide culturally between BigBoxCo and MallCo and that doesn’t really exist in most other places in the company anymore. 12a Marketing manager 5/4/05 We are going to really raise our revenues It’s pretty much the same... we didn’t even (former Project and probably drive some additional extend some of the benefits that the store Convert project sales.... We’ve done a lot of study.... that the BigBoxCo employees have and the manager) We have these ten years of negative comp BigBoxCo Light don’t. I’m sorry, to the sales at MallCo. It’s an old brand. And we BigBoxCo Light folks—because, again, the actually started doing something here. level of complexity is not—it is not that of BigBoxCo, it’s that of MallCo. 12b 12/6/06 It was notorious that [name of competitor] It was very clear that the job wouldn’t change beat us every time and still beat us in because we’re changing the brands. It was terms of awareness. And one of the very clear it would be the... the same job reasons [is] because they have more stores but it would be called BigBoxCo. than we do.... We just realized that in reality, we have more stores than [competitor], so eventually if we convert all the stores into big BigBoxCo single brand, we will also raise awareness. 16 Marketing 5/13/05 The project is really to reenergize the mall I think from the marketing perspective, I look specialist stores, the existing MallCo locations... at it as I tend to think of it as this is just trying to convert it into BigBoxCo Light is to—to freshen up a deadbeat store. about trying to bring what we’d like to think of as the BigBoxCo brand into the mall... the colors in the store, the inventory you see in the windows... trying to bring some new energy into the store, but also connect the two. 2010 Sonenshein 489 TABLE 2 (Continued) Illustrative Example Interview Number Title Date Project Convert Is Significant Project Convert Is Insignificant 17 Store 5/13/05 There’s some apprehension that MallCo’s [asked about the change’s effects on empoyees] operations losing their identity. So I mean there’d be I mean a lot of the longer term people like manager some mourning. There’s a lot of pride with me if I was still in the field... the joining being associated with the cash cow in the with BigBoxCo, it’s one more thing. I still field. So who am I? would be a question get to sell [type of products]. that would need to be answered. So I think there would be some apprehension that way. What is my identity now? 18 Store 5/13/05 It does affect a lot more than just changing And all of our MallCo stores... have been operations the name of the store on the storefront. having to change hats.... They’re used to specialist working at the [main store], with their MallCo nametag [and] going down to the kiosk [that MallCo also operates under a separate name in the mall] and changing nametags.... It’s the same [with BigBoxCo Light]. 21 Store training 6/9/05 n/a (not applicable; dimension not found in We don’t have any specific BigBoxCo Light manager this interview). materials right now.... If we created a different manual, it would not be significantly different because there’s not that many operational differences. 22 Field manager 6/14/05 There was some resistance even with We’re really not changing; it’s still the same [employees] because we changed it into company. It’s just changing the name for the zones within the stores basically like what branding. BigBoxCo does. 23 Field manager 6/14/05 I think that people will be excited. I’m It’s little things. But just like even just certainly excited that we’re doing it and brightening the store up and adding the we’re putting the money back into the paint and—and maybe making it a little MallCo operation. younger and fresher store location. 24 Field manager 6/14/05 We’re spending the money and we’re We’re doing a name change. investing in the brand and they [employees] play a huge role in the success of this as a company.... It’s bringing us that much closer, the walls are slowly closing in. We’ll all be in the same big company... the [store] managers here probably took my message from that meeting and are like, “Oh, I’m one step closer now. I really feel like I’m part of Retail, Inc. instead of MallCo.” 25 Field director 6/16/05 I remember the very day that they presented It gives a different ambiance. And so that is a the new look of the store. And that day to feel to the store. Even though nothing me was like something’s going to happen changes, the name changes. here that’s going to be terrific. To me, that was the turning point... the image is... not old, it’s new, it’s good, it’s Starbuckian (laughing)... the tone is set in the—in the store that they’re excited, this is a great thing, look how we’re going to... this is connecting us more with BigBoxCo. 490 Academy of Management Journal June TABLE 2 (Continued) Illustrative Example Interview Number Title Date Project Convert Is Significant Project Convert Is Insignificant 30 Vice president, 10/6/05 MallCo did not have a store planning I run the store planning, architect and store department because so little work has been construction group.... I manage [Tracy] planning done in MallCo that they—they didn’t have who is the project manager for Project any resources in maintenance or store Convert. And the reason it landed in my planning or the architecture piece... world is kind of an odd place possibly for there was a full blown store planning her to sit. Is that the bulk of the conversion department for BigBoxCo. When I came on was, store planning and construction... a board and we started working—talking lot of HR and operations, etc. at least about the idea that BigBoxCo Light, my initially haven’t changed. desire was to open up that group to be all encompassing. So that store planners for BigBoxCo Light are also touching the BigBoxCo so you’re getting that sort of cross-pollination. Everyone’s thinking the same. 31 Senior vice 10/14/05 In a BigBoxCo Light store, one of my main To take a look at the MallCo stores and president, concerns is that as we convert, there is an understand how we could update. You MallCo understanding, within the store... how it know, how can we make these stores look will differentiate us and how it will better? What should the layout be? Should benefit a BigBoxCo customer... to service we change paint color, etc.? their needs in a way that they didn’t think MallCo necessarily could do before. And a good example of that would be BigBoxCo is known for selection. 32 President, 3/8/06 The biggest thing that is standing in the way I would not foresee that you need massive Retail, Inc. of really leveraging a single brand is we training effort to figure out you take great (former don’t have great incentives down through [retail clerks] in the MallCo environment president the field force other than we are one big and make them... sellers in BigBoxCo Light MallCo) happy company: why does a BigBoxCo environment.... I don’t believe there was person care that much about how MallCo any huge explicit effort to look at what you does and vice versa particularly because need to do with staff because we are culturally we sort of set them up as renaming it to BigBoxCo Light. It’s just that competitive entities a little bit like GM’s fell into the same process they have done for five brand strategies... Now we have that decades on how do you evaluate whether connection that will try and drive more somebody is any good at their job. the cross fertilization and the stuff that needs to make a single plan work. 33 Chief marketing 3/24/06 I would describe that situation as really a A lot of things are very similar and expected and product turnaround. It was beyond realignment for [regardless of type of store]. The mall is officer basic situations.... MallCo had gone from more driven by things that are hot and realignment to turn around fairly rapidly, I topical and the need for convenience is would say in the last three or four years. much stronger in the mall based format than So we knew we needed to do a number of it is in the superstores. things. We knew we were missing in terms of just basic requirements of a mall based store and being able to fulfill consumers’ needs just on that level, we were underperforming. a This analysis is based on interviews I was able to record and transcribe. Two sets of interviews were excluded: int-0 (HR director, 3/23/05) and a group interview with int-4 (operations director), int-5, int-6 (marketing research manager), and int-7 (Project Convert project manager) on 4/5/05. 2010 Sonenshein 491 TABLE 3 Analysis of Documents along the Significance/Insignificance Dimension Illustrative Example Document Number Description Date Project Convert Is Significant Project Convert Is Insignificant 1 Project Convert 2/05 Building the brand and marketing 2005 BigBoxCo Light Plans... BigBoxCo paint update to theme/message... Create palette; BigBoxCo Carpet; Black & white executives market synergy. photo graphic. 3 Project Convert 4/05 Please wait until your store Install graphics, carpentry work (as required): logistics converts to BigBoxCo Light to install door kick plates... complete any update merchandise your [new type of graphic/signage work. product]. 7 E-mail sent to 8/04 (ongoing) We’re unveiling a new look for a You’ll continue to find a great selection of employees and familiar friend.... Our MallCo [products] convenient shopping; and the customers store... is becoming BigBoxCo same commitment to service by the friendly Light—a new store with a staff you’ve come to know. vibrant new atmosphere and an extraordinary shopping experience. 10 Project Convert 9/04 [preliminary goals of Project Due to the smaller size of the mall-format Concept Convert]: Create greater store; this new store does not offer a Document consumer appeal (higher brand [signature BigBoxCo service]. awareness and increased consumer reach);... Improve marketing efficiencies; Maximize investments in advertising and; Reduce marketing (collateral and signage) costs; Create operational efficiencies. 11 Frequently asked 6/04 (until BigBoxCo Light will expand the BigBoxCo Light will continue to be treated as questions 8/04) selection at MallCo to include part of MallCo financially and report to (FAQ) sent to the hottest new [products] to MallCo operations. store better serve the needs of employees customers. In addition, we’ll potentially add a selection of [additional products]. 18 Employee update 7/04 Not applicable; dimension not As long as we have MallCo stores in the of operational found in this document. market place, we will continue to see details of the MallCards [MallCo corporate discount change card]... we have decided not to replace existing MallCards. We don’t want to penalize existing customers because of the name change. With the in-store system being MallCo [point of sale], existing customers can... do business as usual. 21 Updated Project 09/04 to 12/04 As soon as the customer crosses BigBoxCo Light systems will remain the same Convert the lease line he or she should (i.e., MallCo) at this time. Implementation feel that they are in a BigBoxCo Guide and store. This not only reinforces FAQ the message of the brand, it is fundamental to achieving the marketing efficiencies that are a goal in this test. 492 Academy of Management Journal June TABLE 3 (Continued) Illustrative Example Document Number Description Date Project Convert Is Significant Project Convert Is Insignificant 31 FAQ sent to 9/04 (until You should never make BigBoxCo In case [customers] ask you about BigBoxCo store 12/04) Light seem worse or ‘smaller’ Light, you should tell them that we are employees than BigBoxCo. Off course you changing the name of their store in an effort want to mention that BigBoxCo to better serve our customers. Reassure them Light is a small format store, that the same employees they have come to but that they will enjoy most of know will continue to help them. the BigBoxCo benefits, such as [type of services], a large [type of products], and a knowledgeable staff. 41 Project Convert 4/05 One of Retail, Inc’s “Big Six” We continue to offer our customers the Communications strategic initiatives for 2005 is excellent service and convenience of a mall Plan to convert selected MallCo based store.... Promotional activity at locations to BigBoxCo Light... BigBoxCo Light stores will be aligned BigBoxCo Light will expand the primarily with MallCo.... Customers are selection at MallCo... to better savvy enough to appreciate both the serve the needs of customers. selection offered at a BigBoxCo superstore and the convenience and value of our mall- based BigBoxCo Light and MallCo. 48 Updated FAQ 2/05 (ongoing) Congratulations!... Loyal BigBoxCo The corporate structure of MallCo Company, sent to shoppers will now have the added Inc. has not changed; legally, it has merely converting convenience of the BigBoxCo adopted an additional name under which it stores brand and experience at the mall. will operate. Branding our stores as BigBoxCo... strengthens our brand recognition as the world’s largest [seller of products].... Our customers will enjoy most of the BigBoxCo benefits. 49 Meeting agendas 3/05 (ongoing) One of Retail, Inc.’s “Big Six” MallCo and BigBoxCo Light are our “mall sent to stores strategic initiatives for 2005 is format” stores, and customer expectations of about Project to convert selected MallCo the experience