Sensemaking, Emotion, and Assessments of an Organizational Change Initiated by Others

By Jean M. Bartunek, Denise M. Rousseau, J. Rudolph. 2006

147 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/77009655907c46f43c441026c0877b2599440a73

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Change Recipients’ Reactions to Organizational Change (2011, background): “Antecedents Variables Considered in Articles Reviewed Antecedent category Variable References Recipient characteristics Personality traits (1) Locus of control; (2) personal control (1) Fried et al. (1996); Holt et al. (2007); Judge et al. (1999); Lau and Woodman (1995); Naswall et al. (2005) (2) As”
Active on the Job—Proactive in Change (2007, result): “This typical instrumentality hypothesis (Vroom, 1964) is in line with previous work on the importance of anticipated outcomes for promoting employee support of organizational change (e.g., Bartunek et al., 2006; Piderit, 2000).”
Sensemaking in Crisis and Change: Inspiration and Insights from Weick (1988) (2010, background): “…literature, where research has shown that employees draw on their felt emotions in interpreting a change programme (George and Jones, 2001), and may interpret negative feelings as a sign that an organizational change is detrimental to their well-being (Bartunek et al., 2006; Sonenshein, 2009).”
Implementation Activities and Organizational Sensemaking (2008, background): “It has, to a large extent, neglected the two-way dialogue between change agents and change recipients and an understanding of how change recipients interpret planned change initiatives (Bartunek et al., 2006).”
From hero to villain to hero: Making experience sensible through embodied narrative sensemaking (2012, unknown): “…2000; Haynes, 2008), but often view emotions from an essentialist perspective as a variable to be categorized as part of a sensemaking model (e.g. Bartunek et al., 2006), as part of a communicative or discursive process of making sense (e.g. Myers, 2007; SamraFredericks, 2004; Taylor and…”
Rethinking ‘Top-Down’ and ‘Bottom-Up’ Roles of Top and Middle Managers in Organizational Change: Implications for Employee Support (2017, unknown): “Employee responses to TM-MM change role configurations Employees are not passive recipients of change (Bartunek et al., 2006; Iverson, 1996).”
Negative Emotional Reactions to Project Failure and the Self‐Compassion to Learn from the Experience (2009, background): “(Bartunek et al., 2006), they have not yet explored the heterogeneity across individuals”
Affective Commitment to Change and Innovation Implementation Behavior: The Role of Charismatic Leadership and Employees’ Trust in Top Management (2009, background): “…2006) and this study suggest that emotions play a major role in the innovation-process, and particularly during change-initiatives (Kiefer, 2005; Bartunek et al., 2006), future research might investigate the role of supervisors capability to influence followers’ emotions in promoting affective…”
Considering planned change anew:stretching large group interventions strategically, emotionally and meaningfully (2011, background): “or unintended results of strategic change, such as inter-divisional tensions, turnover, and so on (e.g., Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Bartunek et al., 2006).”
Employee participation and engagement in working for the environment (2015, background): “(2006), other positive associations are made between participation and understanding the meaning and benefits of a change initiative (Bartunek et al., 2006).”
Leaders’ Impact on Organizational Change: Bridging Theoretical and Methodological Chasms (2019, background): “These latter studies therefore highlight the well-established understanding that the effective implementation of change requires careful attention to and consideration of change recipients (Bartunek et al., 2006).”