Popular in Professional

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Education

The Role of Education in Reducing Racial Inequality

University of Southern California Pedro A. Noguera

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Pharmacy

Cytotoxic Activity and Anti-Migratory Effect of Berberine-Phytantriol Liquid Crystalline on Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

University of Technology Sydney Kamal Dua

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Education

Strategic Change in a Pluralistic Context

View more insights in Professional - Business - Organisational Behaviour

View more figures from University of Liverpool

View the page of Lisa Day

Read the Study

Research points to the challenge of delivering strategic change in pluralistic contexts. Lisa Day discusses a case study of the implementation of strategic change in a post-1992 United Kingdom university.

Image courtesy of interviewee. July 24, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

The study aims to explore how meetings facilitate the implementation of strategic change within a UK university context, focusing on sensemaking and sense giving. It examines meetings as opportunities for reflection and teamwork, highlighting a leader’s role in orchestrating these gatherings to influence team dynamics and stimulate action towards change.

The research, involving a longitudinal study of a merger between two faculties, identified successful strategies despite the expected challenges of pluralistic organizational contexts, where decision-making tends to be democratic. The findings suggest that effective management of meetings significantly contributes to change processes, allowing leaders to provide direction, address conflicts, and foster collaboration.

Key contributions include a process model outlining the stages of effective meeting management, insights on the orchestration of meetings to enhance sensemaking, and the role of sense giving in influencing collective understanding and action. Recommendations for practitioners involve recognizing the value of meetings in facilitating change and carefully planning their structure and outcomes to ensure actionable results. The study also emphasizes the subtlety of leadership influence, cautioning against coercive management styles that overlook the autonomy of experienced professionals.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video:

1. **Purpose of Research**: The study aimed to explore how meetings can facilitate the implementation of strategic change in a pluralistic convideo, specifically within a UK university setting. It focused on the role of meetings in sensemaking and sense giving, where leaders can influence their teams to catalyze change.

2. **Pluralistic Convideo Challenges**: The research highlights the complexity of implementing strategic change in pluralistic organizations like universities, which have diverse stakeholder interests and democratic decision-making processes. The literature typically suggests that such convideos pose challenges to successful change due to potential resistance and conflicting priorities.

3. **Importance of Meeting Structure**: The findings emphasize the significance of meeting design, types, and the leadership approach during meetings. Meetings serve as critical opportunities for sensemaking and sense giving, allowing leaders to orchestrate discussions that facilitate collaborative action and decision-making.

4. **Findings on Meeting Types**: The research identifies four types of meetings—detecting, focus detecting, driving new change, and driving new thinking—each serving specific purposes to manage change progress effectively, enhance collaboration, and handle conflicts constructively within the organization.

5. **Practitioner Implications**: The research suggests that practitioners should reconsider the value of meetings, viewing them as important platforms for managing change, fostering collaboration, and solving problems collectively. It advises leaders to plan and manage meetings carefully to ensure they lead to actionable outcomes while maintaining a delicate balance between influence and autonomy among experienced professionals.

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes extracted from the video you , encapsulating important concepts and themes of the study:

1. **Purpose of the Study**:
- "The main aim of my study was to understand how meetings can enable implementation of an agreed plan for strategic change in a UK university."

2. **Meetings as Sensemaking Opportunities**:
- "So for us, meetings are sense making and sense giving opportunities."
- "They provide time and space away from the hustle and bustle for people to reflect and share."

3. **Role of Leaders in Structuring Meetings**:
- "Like a stage manager, a leader can decide how they set up and run the meeting... they can orchestrate the meetings, they can enable particular types of sense-making and some sense giving."

4. **Pluralistic Convideo Challenges**:
- "Decision making's generally democratic, not autocratic... it's harder to get buy-in from everyone, uh, even people at a senior level."
- "The thing that the literature shows about pluralistic organizations is that it's harder to implement change, and it often generates resistance and it often goes wrong."

5. **Sensemaking and Sensegiving Definitions**:
- "Sense making... it's about how people interpret a situation, how they make sense of what's going on, and how that guides the next action to take."
- "Sense giving... is the process of attempting to influence somebody's sensemaking and their meaning construction towards your particular preferred reality."

6. **Meetings and Organizational Change**:
- "In universities, meetings are very much accepted as... an important form of strategy making."
- "Calling a meeting doesn't generally generate a lot of resistance, but being the chair of a meeting can provide the leader with this subtle authority."

7. **Process Model Contribution**:
- "The main output from our work is a process model, which shows the role of an orchestrated series of meetings over time in implementing change in a pluralistic convideo."

8. **Accountability and Implementation**:
- "FMG members felt obliged to implement the change or they were grilled on their progress by the dean in the next meeting."
- "A meeting itself doesn't guarantee action; it's an influence opportunity."

9. **Implications for Practice**:
- "Meetings have a bad rep... don't be too quick to dismiss meetings as time-wasting or irrelevant."
- "Consider the different types, the different purposes... and particularly how you're gonna connect from your meeting to actual action, how you're gonna follow up."

10. **Nuance of Sensegiving**:
- "There can be a very fine line between... sense giving as influence, as nuance, as subtle power, and something more overt, coercive, top-down command and control approach."

This selection emphasizes the study's focus on the importance of meetings in facilitating strategic change within complex academic environments, highlighting the roles of sensemaking, sensegiving, and the power dynamics involved in these processes.

Export as PDF
Here are some articles that may be similar to the video you , which discusses strategic change implementation through meetings, sensemaking, and leadership in academic settings:

1. **"The Role of Meetings in Organizational Change: A Systematic Review"**
- This article explores how meetings aid in implementing change within organizations by providing a platform for discussion, reflection, and leadership influence.

2. **"Leaders as Sensemakers: The Role of Sensemaking in Strategic Change"**
- This paper examines how leaders use sensemaking to navigate change processes and influence their teams, highlighting the importance of communication and meetings in achieving strategic goals.

3. **"Strategic Change in Higher Education: A Case Study of Leadership Practices"**
- This case study analyzes leadership styles and practices during significant change initiatives in higher education institutions, with an emphasis on the dynamics of meetings and decision-making processes.

4. **"Understanding Sense Giving in Team Meetings: The Influence of Leadership on Change Outcomes"**
- This article discusses the concept of sensegiving in team convideos and how effective leadership during meetings can shape team members' perceptions and promote positive change outcomes.

5. **"Negotiating Change in the Academy: The Role of Collegiality and Meetings"**
- This research focuses on how academic institutions navigate strategic changes through a collaborative approach, emphasizing the importance of collegial discussions in meetings.

6. **"Managing Change in Pluralistic Organizations: Insights from the Higher Education Sector"**
- This article addresses the challenges of implementing change in pluralistic convideos like universities, drawing on examples from various institutions and highlighting effective strategies.

7. **"Facilitating Change through Meetings: The Art of Orchestrating Group Dynamics"**
- This work presents strategies for effectively managing meetings to support organizational change, detailing how meeting structures can facilitate or hinder progress.

8. **"Conflict and Consensus: The Dual Role of Meetings in Strategic Decision-Making"**
- This study examines how meetings serve as both arenas for conflict resolution and platforms for reaching consensus, exploring their dual roles in strategic decision-making processes.

These articles align closely with the themes of sensemaking, strategic change implementation, and the role of meetings in organizational convideos, especially within academic institutions.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.405 --> 00:03.145
The main aim of my study was to understand

00:03.485 --> 00:06.825
how meetings can enable implementation of an agreed plan

00:06.885 --> 00:09.825
for strategic change in a UK university.

00:10.445 --> 00:11.945
So, like I can explain more later,

00:12.045 --> 00:15.025
but from a sensemaking perspective, we were looking at

00:15.025 --> 00:17.665
how meetings can be used to influence sensemaking

00:17.885 --> 00:19.705
for a change team in a way

00:19.785 --> 00:22.305
that then galvanizes them into change action.

00:23.005 --> 00:25.345
So for us, meetings are sense making

00:25.365 --> 00:26.745
and sense giving opportunities.

00:27.165 --> 00:29.745
So they provide time and space away from the hustle

00:29.805 --> 00:32.385
and busle for people to reflect and share.

00:32.965 --> 00:36.385
Uh, but like a stage manager, a leader can decide

00:36.485 --> 00:38.185
how they set up and run the meeting.

00:38.455 --> 00:40.145
They can orchestrate the meetings,

00:40.375 --> 00:42.065
they can enable particular types

00:42.085 --> 00:43.905
of sense-making and some sense giving.

00:44.525 --> 00:45.665
And that helps the leader

00:45.765 --> 00:47.745
to influence the team in particular ways

00:48.095 --> 00:49.505
that do galvanize action

00:49.645 --> 00:51.305
and that lead to this change process.

00:52.085 --> 00:54.865
So we are interested in what's said in the meeting,

00:55.695 --> 00:58.545
also the way the meetings are structured, the turn taking,

00:59.165 --> 01:01.065
the way the chairing of the meeting leads

01:01.065 --> 01:03.745
to particular types of sensemaking and progress.

01:04.485 --> 01:07.225
And the study contributes then in three main areas.

01:07.525 --> 01:10.945
So it's around implementing strategic change in pluralistic

01:10.945 --> 01:13.945
context, research on strategy meetings,

01:14.765 --> 01:17.425
and then research on change leader sense giving.

01:18.285 --> 01:19.945
So it, it's an interesting question

01:19.945 --> 01:23.185
around whether universities are pluralistic organizations.

01:23.485 --> 01:26.625
So what we mean by pluralistic is

01:26.625 --> 01:30.345
that decision making's generally democratic, not autocratic.

01:30.885 --> 01:32.705
People are very different interests.

01:32.925 --> 01:35.225
You've got experts who need a lot of autonomy.

01:35.765 --> 01:38.385
So it's hard to get buy-in from everyone,

01:38.495 --> 01:39.945
even people at a senior level.

01:40.485 --> 01:42.425
So for example, you might get hospitals

01:42.425 --> 01:45.105
where you've got surgeons who command more power

01:45.105 --> 01:46.425
and respect than the managers.

01:46.925 --> 01:49.065
Or in universities you might have professors

01:49.405 --> 01:52.185
who bring in millions of pounds in research income.

01:52.685 --> 01:55.305
And their number one priority is their research, obviously,

01:55.565 --> 01:57.705
which may or may not align with the sort

01:57.705 --> 01:59.185
of strategic change priorities.

02:00.245 --> 02:02.945
So the thing that the literature shows about pluralistic

02:02.945 --> 02:06.425
organizations is that it's harder to implement change,

02:07.045 --> 02:09.825
and it often generates resistance and it often goes wrong.

02:10.525 --> 02:12.385
So in the strategic change

02:12.385 --> 02:14.865
that we were following in a UK university,

02:15.685 --> 02:18.145
we would've expected it to be unsuccessful based on

02:18.145 --> 02:19.745
what we've got in the existing literature.

02:19.845 --> 02:22.945
But it wasn't, it was largely a success.

02:23.205 --> 02:24.865
So, so that was our first question.

02:25.405 --> 02:27.585
Why did the change succeed given

02:27.935 --> 02:29.985
that this was a pluralistic change context?

02:30.885 --> 02:32.665
The theoretical lens we applied

02:32.685 --> 02:36.145
to the case study was sensemaking, and sensemaking.

02:36.245 --> 02:38.265
We use maitlin and christiansen's definition,

02:38.265 --> 02:39.585
which is a social process

02:39.965 --> 02:42.465
to which individuals in interaction with others

02:43.345 --> 02:45.385
construct shared accounts of their changing context

02:45.815 --> 02:48.185
that then enable them to act collectively.

02:48.885 --> 02:52.185
So sense making, just like the word suggests, it's about

02:52.285 --> 02:55.425
how people interpret a situation, how they make sense

02:55.425 --> 02:58.905
of what's going on, and how that guides the next action to

02:58.965 --> 02:59.965
Take.

03:00.245 --> 03:03.265
Linked to that, there's this term sense giving,

03:03.885 --> 03:06.225
and this is the process of attempting

03:06.225 --> 03:08.105
to influence somebody's sensemaking

03:08.325 --> 03:11.665
and their meaning construction towards your particular

03:11.815 --> 03:12.865
preferred reality.

03:13.565 --> 03:17.265
So sense giving's about influencing people, it's about

03:17.285 --> 03:20.065
how someone tries to shape someone else's sensemaking.

03:20.285 --> 03:22.505
So for example, if you think about a parent

03:22.565 --> 03:25.185
and child, say the child has a disappointment

03:25.455 --> 03:27.425
that their friend didn't want to come out to play with them.

03:27.885 --> 03:29.785
So the child's sensemaking is

03:29.785 --> 03:31.425
that her friend doesn't like her anymore.

03:31.965 --> 03:33.425
So the parent says, well, don't worry,

03:33.855 --> 03:35.345
they're probably just busy today.

03:35.525 --> 03:37.305
Why don't we go and do something together?

03:38.085 --> 03:39.825
So that offering of a different way

03:39.825 --> 03:42.545
of interpreting something is what we call sense giving.

03:43.575 --> 03:47.145
So it's not about forcing someone to do something.

03:47.595 --> 03:49.425
Sense giving is about soft power.

03:49.935 --> 03:52.265
It's nuanced, it's a subtle authority,

03:53.445 --> 03:55.305
but sometimes it's a fine line.

03:56.005 --> 03:58.425
So if I was looking at this case from more

03:58.425 --> 04:00.465
of a critical management theory perspective,

04:01.135 --> 04:04.065
then any attempt to influence others would be seen

04:04.065 --> 04:05.425
as an attempt to exert power

04:05.845 --> 04:07.905
and to manipulate people's thinking and action.

04:08.925 --> 04:10.745
So where our work situated

04:11.045 --> 04:12.985
and where it contributes is broadly

04:13.565 --> 04:16.185
the literature on sensemaking and strategic change,

04:16.805 --> 04:19.305
and then more specifically sensemaking

04:19.565 --> 04:21.745
and strategic change in pluralistic context

04:22.335 --> 04:24.625
like universities and in meetings.

04:25.375 --> 04:28.035
So the other sort of studies that consider sensemaking

04:28.035 --> 04:31.315
and sense giving that were important and share meaning

04:31.535 --> 04:33.395
and making in say meetings.

04:33.575 --> 04:34.955
Uh, we've got seminal work.

04:35.005 --> 04:37.355
We've got people like Denny Joya

04:37.355 --> 04:41.715
and, Kumar's 1991 paper in Strategic Management Journal,

04:41.815 --> 04:43.235
and these references are in the paper.

04:43.735 --> 04:45.275
Uh, again, Denny Joya

04:45.275 --> 04:49.355
and his, colleagues in 1994 did another paper,

04:49.575 --> 04:51.355
on strategic change.

04:51.925 --> 04:54.795
Again, in academia, that's in organization science.

04:55.465 --> 04:57.195
There's more recent papers as well.

04:57.375 --> 04:58.915
So, Paul SPI

04:59.335 --> 05:01.915
and Paula Zarkowski have done a couple of papers,

05:02.215 --> 05:04.475
one in 2001 in organization studies

05:04.935 --> 05:08.075
and another in 2017 in organization science.

05:08.935 --> 05:11.035
And I think the other literature that's quite important

05:11.055 --> 05:14.715
to us is studies that explore sense giving competence.

05:14.855 --> 05:17.555
So see this sense giving as quite a skilled activity,

05:17.555 --> 05:18.955
something you learn to be good at.

05:19.095 --> 05:21.075
So, Linda Ulu

05:21.175 --> 05:24.995
and Julia Bgan did a paper in 2011 on middle manager

05:25.475 --> 05:27.315
Strategic Sensemaking that's in the

05:27.315 --> 05:28.475
Journal of Management Studies.

05:29.215 --> 05:31.355
Um, more recently,

05:31.535 --> 05:33.835
and, ARO in 2020

05:34.495 --> 05:36.755
did a paper in organization science on

05:36.815 --> 05:39.115
how can pluralistic organizations proceed

05:39.115 --> 05:40.595
with strategic change and

05:40.595 --> 05:42.355
that looks at rhetorical practices.

05:42.655 --> 05:44.675
So those are the kind of areas where we're focused.

05:45.215 --> 05:47.595
If we consider the marketization

05:47.855 --> 05:51.995
of higher education institutes since the mid 1980s,

05:52.255 --> 05:55.075
higher education's come under increasing pressure

05:55.215 --> 05:56.875
for market forces, supply

05:56.875 --> 05:59.925
And demand competition, price pressure.

06:00.545 --> 06:04.565
In the uk, we had the Jarret reports in 1985 recommending

06:04.565 --> 06:07.765
that universities adopt corporate processes from the

06:07.925 --> 06:09.165
business sector, you know,

06:09.165 --> 06:10.725
and focus more on financial planning,

06:10.795 --> 06:12.565
budgeting, resource allocation.

06:13.305 --> 06:16.405
And we see it today in the press in conversations about the

06:16.405 --> 06:17.805
cost of university education

06:18.185 --> 06:20.205
and whether students are getting good value for money.

06:20.945 --> 06:24.725
So the pressure of marketization varies across the UK

06:24.955 --> 06:27.085
between, for example, prestigious

06:27.645 --> 06:29.365
research intensive use universities

06:29.595 --> 06:31.165
that get funding from other sources,

06:32.025 --> 06:34.485
the teaching like research and endowments,

06:34.985 --> 06:36.125
and also across Europe,

06:36.655 --> 06:39.565
which is following the UK in this sort of marketization,

06:39.705 --> 06:42.685
but where the change is not quite as fast or as pronounced,

06:43.665 --> 06:45.685
but still even with this,

06:45.685 --> 06:49.325
marketization universities are very much pluralistic

06:49.675 --> 06:51.845
context compared to the business world.

06:52.385 --> 06:54.685
So it's not possible to make sweeping changes

06:55.305 --> 06:58.805
to a more market-based, top-down managerialist approach,

06:59.425 --> 07:02.285
you know, or to assume that employees are gonna be focused

07:02.465 --> 07:05.005
on a common goal like profit maximizing.

07:05.905 --> 07:08.645
So instead in these contexts, strategic change

07:09.345 --> 07:13.565
is more difficult and that's, that's where meetings come in.

07:14.305 --> 07:18.805
So in universities meetings are very much accepted

07:19.305 --> 07:22.805
as, you know, a way of doing things, an important form

07:22.805 --> 07:24.845
of strategy making and and place to do that.

07:25.185 --> 07:28.765
So calling a meeting doesn't generally, generate a lot

07:28.765 --> 07:32.485
of resistance, but being the chair of a meeting

07:33.225 --> 07:35.965
can provide the leader with this subtle authority,

07:36.555 --> 07:39.645
something nuanced, sort of symbolic forms of power

07:40.275 --> 07:42.925
that can then compensate to a certain extent

07:43.305 --> 07:47.085
for not having this strong top-down managerial authority.

07:48.495 --> 07:49.995
So even then,

07:50.265 --> 07:52.955
what we find when we look at existing research on this is

07:52.955 --> 07:55.555
that that meeting might only give the chair

07:56.235 --> 07:59.915
temporary authority, so not enough for change.

08:00.055 --> 08:01.635
So people might say yes in the meeting

08:02.095 --> 08:04.555
and then go away, and not doing anything.

08:04.695 --> 08:07.835
So some of the papers talk about front stage compliance

08:08.575 --> 08:10.115
and then backstage resistance.

08:10.855 --> 08:13.435
So a meeting itself doesn't guarantee action,

08:14.065 --> 08:15.595
it's an influence opportunity.

08:16.335 --> 08:19.635
So it's particularly hard to connect from the decisions

08:19.635 --> 08:20.715
and the things you do in the meeting

08:21.135 --> 08:22.315
to then actually making sure

08:22.315 --> 08:23.955
that something happens after the meeting.

08:25.235 --> 08:26.415
So most

08:26.415 --> 08:30.175
of the research on strategic change in university meetings

08:30.755 --> 08:34.175
is based firstly on in research intensive universities,

08:34.715 --> 08:36.855
and it's also about strategy formation.

08:36.995 --> 08:39.095
So making the strategy, deciding what to do.

08:39.755 --> 08:44.135
But with our research, we're looking at a UK post 92

08:44.695 --> 08:46.015
teaching intensive university.

08:46.635 --> 08:49.215
And what we're seeing is how meetings can be used

08:49.275 --> 08:52.095
for strategic change implementation rather

08:52.095 --> 08:54.455
than strategy formation. Our research

08:54.875 --> 08:58.245
Was based on a longitudinal study of a merger

08:58.435 --> 09:03.205
between two faculties in a UK like say post 92 university.

09:03.785 --> 09:06.645
And a post 92 is a former polytechnic

09:06.755 --> 09:09.445
that was granted university status through the Further

09:09.505 --> 09:11.525
and Higher Education Act in 1992.

09:12.465 --> 09:15.685
So the two faculties here were the architecture faculty

09:16.105 --> 09:17.485
and the art and design faculty.

09:18.545 --> 09:20.565
And they were very different in terms

09:20.585 --> 09:23.205
of things like their culture, their prestige,

09:23.205 --> 09:26.125
their reputation, their teaching approaches,

09:26.465 --> 09:28.005
and they're also located about 30

09:28.005 --> 09:29.045
minutes drive from each other.

09:30.265 --> 09:32.765
So the dean who was gonna be responsible

09:32.765 --> 09:36.085
for the newly merged faculty, his plan was approved

09:36.085 --> 09:37.645
by the university board of the board.

09:38.225 --> 09:41.245
And it included interesting things like joint life projects,

09:41.645 --> 09:45.405
a common studio based teaching approach, shared modules,

09:45.765 --> 09:49.605
rebranding a new website really to enhance the reputation

09:49.605 --> 09:51.085
of this new combined faculty.

09:51.905 --> 09:54.525
And there was also gonna be really significant refurbishment

09:54.525 --> 09:57.845
work to re relocate both schools in a shared building.

09:58.265 --> 10:00.805
And that was supposed to be practical and inspirational

10:01.425 --> 10:04.365
and worthy of appearing in architecture magazines.

10:04.785 --> 10:07.405
So it was very much about two becoming one.

10:08.465 --> 10:10.885
And one of the first things the dean did was

10:10.885 --> 10:13.485
to develop this new faculty organization structure

10:13.985 --> 10:17.645
and appointed a new faculty management group, FMG,

10:17.895 --> 10:19.965
which is about 12 people who were going

10:19.965 --> 10:23.125
to lead the different areas like heads of school for design,

10:23.315 --> 10:26.605
fine art architecture, their deputies, head

10:26.605 --> 10:28.845
of student fact satisfaction marketing.

10:29.515 --> 10:31.925
They were effectively the medical managers,

10:31.925 --> 10:34.605
the people who'd implement their change in their own areas

10:34.985 --> 10:36.125
and then across the faculty.

10:37.435 --> 10:39.415
So then to manage the change process

10:39.795 --> 10:41.735
and the merged faculty going forwards,

10:42.155 --> 10:45.215
the dean initiated this new, this new meeting structure.

10:46.075 --> 10:49.695
So this consisted of fortnightly FMG meetings

10:49.765 --> 10:51.535
that the dean himself chaired.

10:51.995 --> 10:54.975
And then there were area meetings in between chaired

10:54.975 --> 10:58.055
by each FMG member with their own team,

10:58.585 --> 11:01.055
where they were expected to initiate actions

11:01.275 --> 11:02.615
to deliver the agreed decisions

11:02.615 --> 11:04.535
that were made in these FMG meetings.

11:05.835 --> 11:08.935
So what we found on the whole, which was, was

11:08.935 --> 11:12.255
that it worked very successfully, which was surprising,

11:12.265 --> 11:15.495
given this pluralistic context and what other studies show.

11:16.155 --> 11:18.735
So we wanted to look in much more detail at

11:18.735 --> 11:21.975
how this was achieved, and we focused on the meetings

11:21.975 --> 11:26.255
because we could see really just how important they were

11:26.435 --> 11:28.575
to the dean in terms of how he managed the change.

11:29.595 --> 11:33.015
So that's the overarching kind of scope of the project.

11:33.235 --> 11:36.825
And in terms of data collection, I attended over 50

11:37.045 --> 11:39.585
of these FMG meetings fortnightly over two years.

11:40.865 --> 11:43.305
I also attended over 50 other meetings,

11:43.525 --> 11:46.385
mainly these lower level area meetings chaired

11:46.385 --> 11:48.785
by these FMG members so I could track the change.

11:49.285 --> 11:51.345
Uh, all the meetings were audio recorded,

11:51.645 --> 11:53.765
all transcribed field notes,

11:54.145 --> 11:55.685
and all the documents collected.

11:56.245 --> 11:58.885
I attended lots of additional events, which were great fun.

11:59.265 --> 12:02.205
Uh, I conducted 98 interviews across the faculty.

12:02.985 --> 12:05.965
Uh, and on this paper I've really focused on 56

12:05.965 --> 12:08.205
of those interviews, which were with the dean

12:08.505 --> 12:10.045
and with FMG members,

12:10.255 --> 12:13.325
which were taken at different points over these two years.

12:13.785 --> 12:16.605
And those lasted about an hour each, a chance

12:16.605 --> 12:18.205
to really chat and get to talk to people.

12:19.145 --> 12:23.525
In terms of data analysis, it was qualitative data analysis.

12:23.865 --> 12:26.205
We used envivo, which is tool quite common.

12:26.825 --> 12:30.165
We started what's what's known as a rich description,

12:30.165 --> 12:32.845
which is where we first identified the importance

12:32.845 --> 12:33.965
of the meetings for

12:33.965 --> 12:35.725
how the dean was really managing the change.

12:36.505 --> 12:38.125
And then we started to unpack

12:38.545 --> 12:40.805
how he was setting up the meetings, what was

12:40.805 --> 12:43.245
behind his different choices, how he ran them,

12:43.785 --> 12:46.685
how this was all leading to change action and change process

12:47.225 --> 12:48.245
and change progress.

12:49.505 --> 12:53.725
So we developed what's called a three tier data structure

12:54.105 --> 12:56.485
and similar to what's known as the Joya method.

12:57.225 --> 12:58.285
So it's quite common

12:58.425 --> 13:00.845
and it it's a way of analysis that's quite common

13:01.145 --> 13:03.965
and a fairly accepted form of analysis for qualitative data.

13:04.545 --> 13:07.565
The main output from our work is a process model,

13:07.615 --> 13:10.765
which shows the role of an orchestrated series

13:10.765 --> 13:13.845
of meetings over time in implementing change

13:13.905 --> 13:15.125
in a pluralistic context.

13:16.185 --> 13:19.765
So the model is in the paper there are four main stages.

13:20.545 --> 13:23.405
The first one is establishing the meeting protocol.

13:23.945 --> 13:26.725
And all this really refers to is the beginning period

13:27.235 --> 13:31.805
when the dean was establishing the new FMGG team when he was

13:31.805 --> 13:33.365
setting up the new meeting structure

13:33.745 --> 13:35.405
and setting up the reporting structure.

13:35.465 --> 13:36.725
So it's the start of the process

13:37.505 --> 13:39.765
and then we get into these fortnightly meetings

13:39.825 --> 13:41.045
and the process around those.

13:41.905 --> 13:45.325
So the first was we just call organize the upcoming meeting,

13:45.585 --> 13:47.885
and this is how the dean decided on the

13:47.885 --> 13:48.965
format of the next meeting.

13:49.705 --> 13:52.125
And we found that it was based on his sensemaking

13:52.815 --> 13:54.965
based on cues, things that were happening,

13:55.315 --> 13:58.565
reading the FMG reports from their area meetings,

13:59.015 --> 14:02.445
reflecting on how the change was progressing, thinking about

14:02.445 --> 14:04.045
what happened in the previous meeting.

14:04.985 --> 14:08.165
And based on this, we found that he would set up the meeting

14:08.515 --> 14:11.645
that was coming, in the next stage,

14:11.835 --> 14:13.605
into four different meeting types.

14:13.985 --> 14:15.885
And we unpack those in the next stage,

14:15.885 --> 14:17.045
which we call running the meeting.

14:17.665 --> 14:21.045
So there are four different meeting types and the first

14:21.225 --> 14:24.565
and the absolutely most common we've labeled a detecting

14:24.565 --> 14:28.115
meeting and a detective meeting is a sort

14:28.115 --> 14:29.835
of diagnostic sense making.

14:30.665 --> 14:33.195
It's where if you can imagine the change appears

14:33.255 --> 14:35.715
to be running fine, things are going to plan.

14:35.855 --> 14:38.155
So the purpose of this meeting is really

14:38.155 --> 14:40.675
to just surface any issues,

14:40.925 --> 14:43.235
agree a way foot forward if they find anything.

14:43.935 --> 14:46.595
So it involves what we'd sometimes call around Robin.

14:47.135 --> 14:49.395
You just go around every FMG member,

14:49.665 --> 14:51.510
they provide an update on their area

14:51.825 --> 14:53.325
and then the dean asks them questions.

14:54.105 --> 14:57.245
So his sense scale giving might here might involve saying,

14:57.335 --> 14:59.205
great, sounds like you're on the right track,

15:00.065 --> 15:01.965
or That doesn't seem to be working.

15:02.395 --> 15:03.725
Have you had any other thoughts?

15:04.225 --> 15:06.845
So it's that influencing guiding sense

15:06.845 --> 15:08.365
giving, that we talked about earlier.

15:09.475 --> 15:13.095
The second type of meeting we called focus detecting,

15:13.835 --> 15:16.695
and this is where the dean has identified an issue.

15:17.195 --> 15:20.535
So one area, there's somebody who needs the help

15:20.595 --> 15:23.415
and support of the other FMG members to resolve it.

15:23.595 --> 15:27.255
So an example might be the head of marketing was trying

15:27.255 --> 15:28.695
to populate the new website.

15:29.115 --> 15:30.295
He needed lots of people

15:30.395 --> 15:33.095
to provide high quality images, texts, et cetera.

15:33.315 --> 15:35.495
And it just wasn't happening. People weren't doing it.

15:36.195 --> 15:39.775
So here in the meeting you get an extended time

15:40.115 --> 15:42.175
and this one person would present their problem

15:42.835 --> 15:45.295
and then the dean would open up the discussion

15:45.755 --> 15:49.855
and other members were then effectively required, encouraged

15:50.585 --> 15:53.335
sense giving guided towards

15:54.095 --> 15:55.535
collaboratively supporting the plan.

15:55.955 --> 15:58.055
So that's the dean's using his sense giving

15:58.115 --> 16:00.415
to influence people to provide support,

16:00.925 --> 16:03.335
even if it was out their main area of responsibility

16:03.475 --> 16:04.775
or their main priorities.

16:06.035 --> 16:08.975
So the third type is driving new change.

16:09.885 --> 16:12.785
And this is where the dean, has some kind

16:12.785 --> 16:15.025
of new change work, something to introduce,

16:15.025 --> 16:17.625
something additional, that he needs to present.

16:17.765 --> 16:19.225
He needs to delegate, he needs these

16:19.225 --> 16:20.385
middle managers to take this on.

16:21.045 --> 16:25.265
So here the extended time was normally given to himself,

16:25.325 --> 16:28.425
and this allowed him to share the new project, make sure

16:28.425 --> 16:31.105
that the new work was understood and was agreement

16:31.205 --> 16:34.345
and buy-in, people took on actions to deliver it.

16:35.355 --> 16:38.295
The fourth type is called driving new thinking.

16:38.355 --> 16:40.255
And this for me was the most interesting

16:40.355 --> 16:41.655
and the most surprising.

16:42.235 --> 16:45.855
Uh, so a driving new thinking meeting only actually happened

16:46.445 --> 16:47.775
when there'd been intense

16:48.155 --> 16:51.375
and prolonged disagreement in the previous FMG meeting.

16:51.835 --> 16:54.255
And it was quite rare, generally,

16:54.755 --> 16:56.935
at least on the surface it was all quite cordial.

16:56.995 --> 17:00.495
So what happened in this meeting was two

17:00.515 --> 17:03.495
or more FMG members were asked

17:03.495 --> 17:05.695
to present on something interesting

17:05.795 --> 17:07.095
and novel, something

17:07.165 --> 17:09.175
outside the normal reporting in the meeting.

17:09.955 --> 17:13.055
So people within FMG were given time

17:13.075 --> 17:15.575
and space for a very much more strategic

17:15.585 --> 17:17.055
discussion around the topic.

17:17.715 --> 17:20.495
It very much appeared that it helped to build rapport,

17:21.295 --> 17:23.495
stimulate strategic thinking, a bit

17:23.495 --> 17:26.015
of a cooling off activity, not

17:26.015 --> 17:28.695
so bogged down in the operational firefighting, sort

17:28.695 --> 17:31.295
of lifting them from this disagreement,

17:31.295 --> 17:32.655
this level they got down to.

17:33.235 --> 17:34.415
And then what we found was

17:34.465 --> 17:36.535
after this more strategic discussion,

17:36.765 --> 17:38.615
when everybody was a bit more relaxed,

17:39.245 --> 17:41.015
then the dean would come back

17:41.275 --> 17:43.255
to whatever was this contentious issue,

17:43.615 --> 17:44.815
whatever was on the plate

17:44.815 --> 17:46.975
that really needed a bit more buy-in

17:46.975 --> 17:48.935
that perhaps was gonna cause contention.

17:49.465 --> 17:52.245
And you find there was a more cordial and relaxed atmosphere

17:52.505 --> 17:55.085
and the actions will get taken up and it will get resolved.

17:55.265 --> 17:56.645
So it's really quite powerful.

17:57.465 --> 18:00.165
The final stage we call galvanizing action.

18:00.825 --> 18:04.685
And this is how really linked to how the area meetings,

18:04.705 --> 18:06.645
and this is the meetings that happened in the weeks

18:06.965 --> 18:09.845
between the fortnightly meetings, how this

18:10.205 --> 18:13.165
provided a forum where the FMG members could delegate

18:13.165 --> 18:16.645
to their own teams monitor action, their own actions.

18:17.505 --> 18:20.205
And also they then had reports from those meetings,

18:20.205 --> 18:22.845
which enabled the dean to track the change progress

18:23.305 --> 18:24.805
and hold people to account.

18:25.425 --> 18:29.205
So FMG members felt obliged to implement the change

18:29.905 --> 18:31.525
or they were grilled on their progress

18:31.545 --> 18:32.765
by the dean in the next meeting.

18:33.545 --> 18:36.965
Uh, I think this is the area where that line

18:36.965 --> 18:40.245
between sense giving as nuance to subtle authority

18:40.835 --> 18:43.525
influence starts to feel a bit more

18:43.585 --> 18:45.445
of a like power and control.

18:45.865 --> 18:49.085
Uh, there's a lot of accountability, there's transparency,

18:49.115 --> 18:52.525
there's nowhere to hide, you know, if you don't progress

18:52.545 --> 18:56.235
to change paper's contribution, as I said, is based

18:56.235 --> 18:57.435
around three main areas.

18:57.935 --> 19:01.435
So the first area is strategic change in pluralistic

19:01.435 --> 19:05.115
context, and the main contribution is our process model

19:05.575 --> 19:06.795
and the explanation of

19:06.815 --> 19:09.075
how it galvanizes change action over time.

19:09.775 --> 19:12.555
So it builds on other research that explains

19:12.735 --> 19:15.995
how strategic change implementation is facilitated

19:16.215 --> 19:17.475
rather than how it goes wrong.

19:18.055 --> 19:22.755
So papers such as, Paula Sakowski, Jane Lee,

19:22.755 --> 19:26.315
and Julia bgan have a 2019 paper in the Academy

19:26.335 --> 19:29.115
of Management Journal, around,

19:29.185 --> 19:31.235
realizing mandated radical change.

19:31.345 --> 19:34.435
That that's, we we're sort of adding to that conversation.

19:35.295 --> 19:37.385
Similarly, we contribute around

19:37.575 --> 19:39.985
what we know about strategy meetings and change.

19:40.925 --> 19:43.825
So our findings respond directly to calls

19:44.005 --> 19:46.385
for greater understanding really on the role

19:46.385 --> 19:50.025
of meetings over time, and not just for formulating

19:50.025 --> 19:52.745
and developing strategies, but also for implementing them.

19:53.365 --> 19:57.465
So for example, one area is our explanation of this,

19:57.735 --> 19:59.785
this way that conflict was managed

19:59.785 --> 20:02.625
through these driving new thinking formats.

20:03.125 --> 20:04.865
So that supports research

20:04.865 --> 20:07.265
that's out there on the positive effect

20:07.265 --> 20:09.705
of conflict management in strategy meetings.

20:10.165 --> 20:13.185
So there's a paper by Harold Tuckerman in organization

20:13.185 --> 20:17.265
Studies 2019 that looks at hospital executive boards.

20:17.925 --> 20:21.145
And there's another nice paper, Dennis Vel Chop

20:21.285 --> 20:24.505
and his co-authors in 2021 in the

20:24.505 --> 20:25.585
Academy of Management Journal.

20:26.005 --> 20:28.745
Uh, and that's around board CEO,

20:29.015 --> 20:31.065
cognitive conflict and chair leadership.

20:31.955 --> 20:33.945
We're also contributing,

20:33.945 --> 20:36.025
what we know about change leader sense giving.

20:36.765 --> 20:40.385
So we show that meetings provide an important space

20:40.485 --> 20:43.265
for sensemaking and sense giving during strategic change

20:43.765 --> 20:45.625
and how meetings can be orchestrated

20:45.685 --> 20:46.785
to provide the leader with

20:46.785 --> 20:49.045
These particular sense giving advantages.

20:49.745 --> 20:52.405
And we show the importance of regular leader sense giving

20:52.745 --> 20:54.325
and staying close to the action

20:54.325 --> 20:56.085
through monitoring change progress.

20:56.585 --> 20:58.885
Uh, so se sense giving stays informed

20:58.885 --> 21:00.925
and relevant, you need to stay on top of things.

21:01.545 --> 21:03.165
We contribute to understanding

21:03.265 --> 21:05.285
around the skills of sense giving.

21:05.825 --> 21:08.965
So we show that it's not just what you say in the meeting,

21:09.315 --> 21:11.245
it's how the meeting is stage managed

21:11.625 --> 21:13.405
and that sets up these different type

21:13.405 --> 21:14.885
of sense giving opportunities

21:15.025 --> 21:16.685
and these different meeting formats.

21:17.345 --> 21:20.365
So for example, the stage management aspect

21:20.395 --> 21:22.725
that builds on the strategy research,

21:22.725 --> 21:25.805
which takes this dramaturgical perspective.

21:26.185 --> 21:28.485
So papers like Andrea Whi

21:28.665 --> 21:31.965
and her colleagues in 2020 in strategic organization,

21:32.195 --> 21:35.565
there's a nice paper on the art of straight stagecraft

21:35.905 --> 21:38.565
and this perspective on strategic change.

21:39.595 --> 21:43.295
So it also opens up in terms of areas for future research.

21:43.655 --> 21:45.455
I think definitely an area

21:45.455 --> 21:49.255
that would be really interesting is to see how fully online

21:49.595 --> 21:52.575
or hybrid meetings compare with face-to-face.

21:52.795 --> 21:55.455
So whether they still provide this change leader

21:55.645 --> 21:57.495
with similar influence opportunities,

21:58.145 --> 22:00.335
these subtle power advantages.

22:01.075 --> 22:04.335
And then more traditionally, as qualitative researchers,

22:04.365 --> 22:07.615
we'd always say to consider, you know, the similar role

22:07.615 --> 22:10.735
of meetings, and strategic change in other contexts.

22:10.835 --> 22:13.055
So, more corporate settings,

22:13.525 --> 22:17.095
more research intensive universities outside the uk.

22:18.235 --> 22:21.055
And finally, I think it's worth just picking up a few

22:21.055 --> 22:23.255
implications for practitioners,

22:23.255 --> 22:24.895
particularly if someone's listening to this.

22:25.475 --> 22:27.655
Uh, I think the thing I would often find,

22:27.655 --> 22:29.495
I've found myself saying a lot since this paper

22:29.555 --> 22:31.055
and since the initial research, is

22:31.055 --> 22:32.775
that meetings have a bad rep.

22:32.775 --> 22:36.735
Generally. Uh, don't be too quick to dismiss meetings

22:36.915 --> 22:38.775
as time wasting or irrelevant.

22:39.355 --> 22:41.895
Uh, I think regular meetings could be a really good way

22:41.895 --> 22:46.535
to manage change, also to cross pollinate good practice,

22:46.535 --> 22:49.015
build relationships, encourage collaboration.

22:50.075 --> 22:53.335
Uh, second, I then think carefully about

22:53.435 --> 22:55.055
how you plan and manage meetings.

22:55.055 --> 22:56.175
There's power there.

22:56.275 --> 22:58.615
So it's really worth thinking about

22:58.615 --> 22:59.975
what it is and how you use it.

23:00.975 --> 23:03.895
Consider the different types, the different purposes

23:04.155 --> 23:06.935
and particularly the research would say, consider

23:06.995 --> 23:08.535
how you're gonna connect from your meeting

23:08.595 --> 23:10.775
to actual action, how you're gonna follow up.

23:11.985 --> 23:15.685
And then finally, I think there can be a very fine line

23:15.685 --> 23:18.485
between what we've seen here in terms of sense giving

23:19.065 --> 23:22.205
as influence, as nuance, as subtle power,

23:23.025 --> 23:27.125
and something more overt, coercive, top-down command

23:27.125 --> 23:30.605
and control approach, which is unlikely to be successful.

23:31.105 --> 23:34.445
Uh, so meetings should really be used to surface issues,

23:35.115 --> 23:39.165
alleviate anxiety, solve problems collectively,

23:39.905 --> 23:42.965
but not to micromanage, not to try

23:42.965 --> 23:46.605
and overtly control experienced professionals

23:46.605 --> 23:50.205
and experts who really do need their autonomy to

23:50.925 --> 23:52.325
exercise their judgment effectively.

00:00 - The main aim of my study was to understand how meetings can enable implementation of an agreed plan for strategic change in a UK university. So, like I can explain more later, but from a sensemaking perspective, we were looking at how meetings can be used to influence sensemaking

00:17 - for a change team in a way that then galvanizes them into change action. So for us, meetings are sense making and sense giving opportunities. So they provide time and space away from the hustle and busle for people to reflect and share. but like a stage manager, a leader can decide how they set up and run the meeting. They can orchestrate the meetings, they can enable particular types

00:42 - of sense-making and some sense giving. And that helps the leader to influence the team in particular ways that do galvanize action and that lead to this change process. So we are interested in what's said in the meeting, also the way the meetings are structured, the turn taking, the way the chairing of the meeting leads to particular types of sensemaking and progress. And the study contributes then in three main areas.

01:07 - So it's around implementing strategic change in pluralistic context, research on strategy meetings, and then research on change leader sense giving. So it, it's an interesting question around whether universities are pluralistic organizations. So what we mean by pluralistic is that decision making's generally democratic, not autocratic. People are very different interests. You've got experts who need a lot of autonomy. So it's hard to get buy-in from everyone,

01:38 - even people at a senior level. So for example, you might get hospitals where you've got surgeons who command more power and respect than the managers. Or in universities you might have professors who bring in millions of pounds in research income. And their number one priority is their research, obviously, which may or may not align with the sort of strategic change priorities. So the thing that the literature shows about pluralistic

02:02 - organizations is that it's harder to implement change, and it often generates resistance and it often goes wrong. So in the strategic change that we were following in a UK university, we would've expected it to be unsuccessful based on what we've got in the existing literature. But it wasn't, it was largely a success. So, so that was our first question. Why did the change succeed given that this was a pluralistic change context?

02:30 - The theoretical lens we applied to the case study was sensemaking, and sensemaking. We use maitlin and christiansen's definition, which is a social process to which individuals in interaction with others construct shared accounts of their changing context that then enable them to act collectively. So sense making, just like the word suggests, it's about how people interpret a situation, how they make sense of what's going on, and how that guides the next action to

02:58 - Take. Linked to that, there's this term sense giving, and this is the process of attempting to influence somebody's sensemaking and their meaning construction towards your particular preferred reality. So sense giving's about influencing people, it's about how someone tries to shape someone else's sensemaking. So for example, if you think about a parent and child, say the child has a disappointment

03:25 - that their friend didn't want to come out to play with them. So the child's sensemaking is that her friend doesn't like her anymore. So the parent says, well, don't worry, they're probably just busy today. Why don't we go and do something together? So that offering of a different way of interpreting something is what we call sense giving. So it's not about forcing someone to do something. Sense giving is about soft power.

03:49 - It's nuanced, it's a subtle authority, but sometimes it's a fine line. So if I was looking at this case from more of a critical management theory perspective, then any attempt to influence others would be seen as an attempt to exert power and to manipulate people's thinking and action. So where our work situated and where it contributes is broadly the literature on sensemaking and strategic change,

04:16 - and then more specifically sensemaking and strategic change in pluralistic context like universities and in meetings. So the other sort of studies that consider sensemaking and sense giving that were important and share meaning and making in say meetings. we've got seminal work. We've got people like Denny Joya and, Kumar's 1991 paper in Strategic Management Journal, and these references are in the paper.

04:43 - again, Denny Joya and his, colleagues in 1994 did another paper, on strategic change. Again, in academia, that's in organization science. There's more recent papers as well. So, Paul SPI and Paula Zarkowski have done a couple of papers, one in 2001 in organization studies and another in 2017 in organization science. And I think the other literature that's quite important

05:11 - to us is studies that explore sense giving competence. So see this sense giving as quite a skilled activity, something you learn to be good at. So, Linda Ulu and Julia Bgan did a paper in 2011 on middle manager Strategic Sensemaking that's in the Journal of Management Studies. more recently, and, ARO in 2020 did a paper in organization science on

05:36 - how can pluralistic organizations proceed with strategic change and that looks at rhetorical practices. So those are the kind of areas where we're focused. If we consider the marketization of higher education institutes since the mid 1980s, higher education's come under increasing pressure for market forces, supply And demand competition, price pressure. In the uk, we had the Jarret reports in 1985 recommending

06:04 - that universities adopt corporate processes from the business sector, you know, and focus more on financial planning, budgeting, resource allocation. And we see it today in the press in conversations about the cost of university education and whether students are getting good value for money. So the pressure of marketization varies across the UK between, for example, prestigious research intensive use universities

06:29 - that get funding from other sources, the teaching like research and endowments, and also across Europe, which is following the UK in this sort of marketization, but where the change is not quite as fast or as pronounced, but still even with this, marketization universities are very much pluralistic context compared to the business world. So it's not possible to make sweeping changes to a more market-based, top-down managerialist approach,

06:59 - you know, or to assume that employees are gonna be focused on a common goal like profit maximizing. So instead in these contexts, strategic change is more difficult and that's, that's where meetings come in. So in universities meetings are very much accepted as, you know, a way of doing things, an important form of strategy making and and place to do that. So calling a meeting doesn't generally, generate a lot of resistance, but being the chair of a meeting can provide the leader with this subtle authority,

07:36 - something nuanced, sort of symbolic forms of power that can then compensate to a certain extent for not having this strong top-down managerial authority. So even then, what we find when we look at existing research on this is that that meeting might only give the chair temporary authority, so not enough for change. So people might say yes in the meeting and then go away, and not doing anything. So some of the papers talk about front stage compliance

08:08 - and then backstage resistance. So a meeting itself doesn't guarantee action, it's an influence opportunity. So it's particularly hard to connect from the decisions and the things you do in the meeting to then actually making sure that something happens after the meeting. So most of the research on strategic change in university meetings is based firstly on in research intensive universities,

08:34 - and it's also about strategy formation. So making the strategy, deciding what to do. But with our research, we're looking at a UK post 92 teaching intensive university. And what we're seeing is how meetings can be used for strategic change implementation rather than strategy formation. Our research Was based on a longitudinal study of a merger between two faculties in a UK like say post 92 university. And a post 92 is a former polytechnic

09:06 - that was granted university status through the Further and Higher Education Act in 1992. So the two faculties here were the architecture faculty and the art and design faculty. And they were very different in terms of things like their culture, their prestige, their reputation, their teaching approaches, and they're also located about 30 minutes drive from each other. So the dean who was gonna be responsible

09:32 - for the newly merged faculty, his plan was approved by the university board of the board. And it included interesting things like joint life projects, a common studio based teaching approach, shared modules, rebranding a new website really to enhance the reputation of this new combined faculty. And there was also gonna be really significant refurbishment work to re relocate both schools in a shared building. And that was supposed to be practical and inspirational and worthy of appearing in architecture magazines.

10:04 - So it was very much about two becoming one. And one of the first things the dean did was to develop this new faculty organization structure and appointed a new faculty management group, FMG, which is about 12 people who were going to lead the different areas like heads of school for design, fine art architecture, their deputies, head of student fact satisfaction marketing. They were effectively the medical managers, the people who'd implement their change in their own areas

10:34 - and then across the faculty. So then to manage the change process and the merged faculty going forwards, the dean initiated this new, this new meeting structure. So this consisted of fortnightly FMG meetings that the dean himself chaired. And then there were area meetings in between chaired by each FMG member with their own team, where they were expected to initiate actions to deliver the agreed decisions

11:02 - that were made in these FMG meetings. So what we found on the whole, which was, was that it worked very successfully, which was surprising, given this pluralistic context and what other studies show. So we wanted to look in much more detail at how this was achieved, and we focused on the meetings because we could see really just how important they were to the dean in terms of how he managed the change. So that's the overarching kind of scope of the project. And in terms of data collection, I attended over 50

11:37 - of these FMG meetings fortnightly over two years. I also attended over 50 other meetings, mainly these lower level area meetings chaired by these FMG members so I could track the change. all the meetings were audio recorded, all transcribed field notes, and all the documents collected. I attended lots of additional events, which were great fun. I conducted 98 interviews across the faculty. and on this paper I've really focused on 56

12:05 - of those interviews, which were with the dean and with FMG members, which were taken at different points over these two years. And those lasted about an hour each, a chance to really chat and get to talk to people. In terms of data analysis, it was qualitative data analysis. We used envivo, which is tool quite common. We started what's what's known as a rich description, which is where we first identified the importance of the meetings for

12:33 - how the dean was really managing the change. And then we started to unpack how he was setting up the meetings, what was behind his different choices, how he ran them, how this was all leading to change action and change process and change progress. So we developed what's called a three tier data structure and similar to what's known as the Joya method. So it's quite common and it it's a way of analysis that's quite common

13:01 - and a fairly accepted form of analysis for qualitative data. The main output from our work is a process model, which shows the role of an orchestrated series of meetings over time in implementing change in a pluralistic context. So the model is in the paper there are four main stages. The first one is establishing the meeting protocol. And all this really refers to is the beginning period when the dean was establishing the new FMGG team when he was setting up the new meeting structure

13:33 - and setting up the reporting structure. So it's the start of the process and then we get into these fortnightly meetings and the process around those. So the first was we just call organize the upcoming meeting, and this is how the dean decided on the format of the next meeting. And we found that it was based on his sensemaking based on cues, things that were happening, reading the FMG reports from their area meetings,

13:59 - reflecting on how the change was progressing, thinking about what happened in the previous meeting. And based on this, we found that he would set up the meeting that was coming, in the next stage, into four different meeting types. And we unpack those in the next stage, which we call running the meeting. So there are four different meeting types and the first and the absolutely most common we've labeled a detecting meeting and a detective meeting is a sort

14:28 - of diagnostic sense making. It's where if you can imagine the change appears to be running fine, things are going to plan. So the purpose of this meeting is really to just surface any issues, agree a way foot forward if they find anything. So it involves what we'd sometimes call around Robin. You just go around every FMG member, they provide an update on their area and then the dean asks them questions.

14:54 - So his sense scale giving might here might involve saying, great, sounds like you're on the right track, or That doesn't seem to be working. Have you had any other thoughts? So it's that influencing guiding sense giving, that we talked about earlier. The second type of meeting we called focus detecting, and this is where the dean has identified an issue. So one area, there's somebody who needs the help and support of the other FMG members to resolve it.

15:23 - So an example might be the head of marketing was trying to populate the new website. He needed lots of people to provide high quality images, texts, et cetera. And it just wasn't happening. People weren't doing it. So here in the meeting you get an extended time and this one person would present their problem and then the dean would open up the discussion and other members were then effectively required, encouraged sense giving guided towards

15:54 - collaboratively supporting the plan. So that's the dean's using his sense giving to influence people to provide support, even if it was out their main area of responsibility or their main priorities. So the third type is driving new change. And this is where the dean, has some kind of new change work, something to introduce, something additional, that he needs to present. He needs to delegate, he needs these

16:19 - middle managers to take this on. So here the extended time was normally given to himself, and this allowed him to share the new project, make sure that the new work was understood and was agreement and buy-in, people took on actions to deliver it. The fourth type is called driving new thinking. And this for me was the most interesting and the most surprising. so a driving new thinking meeting only actually happened when there'd been intense

16:48 - and prolonged disagreement in the previous FMG meeting. And it was quite rare, generally, at least on the surface it was all quite cordial. So what happened in this meeting was two or more FMG members were asked to present on something interesting and novel, something outside the normal reporting in the meeting. So people within FMG were given time and space for a very much more strategic

17:15 - discussion around the topic. It very much appeared that it helped to build rapport, stimulate strategic thinking, a bit of a cooling off activity, not so bogged down in the operational firefighting, sort of lifting them from this disagreement, this level they got down to. And then what we found was after this more strategic discussion, when everybody was a bit more relaxed,

17:39 - then the dean would come back to whatever was this contentious issue, whatever was on the plate that really needed a bit more buy-in that perhaps was gonna cause contention. And you find there was a more cordial and relaxed atmosphere and the actions will get taken up and it will get resolved. So it's really quite powerful. The final stage we call galvanizing action. And this is how really linked to how the area meetings,

18:04 - and this is the meetings that happened in the weeks between the fortnightly meetings, how this provided a forum where the FMG members could delegate to their own teams monitor action, their own actions. And also they then had reports from those meetings, which enabled the dean to track the change progress and hold people to account. So FMG members felt obliged to implement the change or they were grilled on their progress by the dean in the next meeting.

18:33 - I think this is the area where that line between sense giving as nuance to subtle authority influence starts to feel a bit more of a like power and control. there's a lot of accountability, there's transparency, there's nowhere to hide, you know, if you don't progress to change paper's contribution, as I said, is based around three main areas. So the first area is strategic change in pluralistic context, and the main contribution is our process model

19:05 - and the explanation of how it galvanizes change action over time. So it builds on other research that explains how strategic change implementation is facilitated rather than how it goes wrong. So papers such as, Paula Sakowski, Jane Lee, and Julia bgan have a 2019 paper in the Academy of Management Journal, around, realizing mandated radical change. That that's, we we're sort of adding to that conversation.

19:35 - Similarly, we contribute around what we know about strategy meetings and change. So our findings respond directly to calls for greater understanding really on the role of meetings over time, and not just for formulating and developing strategies, but also for implementing them. So for example, one area is our explanation of this, this way that conflict was managed through these driving new thinking formats. So that supports research

20:04 - that's out there on the positive effect of conflict management in strategy meetings. So there's a paper by Harold Tuckerman in organization Studies 2019 that looks at hospital executive boards. And there's another nice paper, Dennis Vel Chop and his co-authors in 2021 in the Academy of Management Journal. and that's around board CEO, cognitive conflict and chair leadership. We're also contributing,

20:33 - what we know about change leader sense giving. So we show that meetings provide an important space for sensemaking and sense giving during strategic change and how meetings can be orchestrated to provide the leader with These particular sense giving advantages. And we show the importance of regular leader sense giving and staying close to the action through monitoring change progress. so se sense giving stays informed

20:58 - and relevant, you need to stay on top of things. We contribute to understanding around the skills of sense giving. So we show that it's not just what you say in the meeting, it's how the meeting is stage managed and that sets up these different type of sense giving opportunities and these different meeting formats. So for example, the stage management aspect that builds on the strategy research,

21:22 - which takes this dramaturgical perspective. So papers like Andrea Whi and her colleagues in 2020 in strategic organization, there's a nice paper on the art of straight stagecraft and this perspective on strategic change. So it also opens up in terms of areas for future research. I think definitely an area that would be really interesting is to see how fully online or hybrid meetings compare with face-to-face. So whether they still provide this change leader

21:55 - with similar influence opportunities, these subtle power advantages. And then more traditionally, as qualitative researchers, we'd always say to consider, you know, the similar role of meetings, and strategic change in other contexts. So, more corporate settings, more research intensive universities outside the uk. And finally, I think it's worth just picking up a few implications for practitioners, particularly if someone's listening to this.

22:25 - I think the thing I would often find, I've found myself saying a lot since this paper and since the initial research, is that meetings have a bad rep. Generally. don't be too quick to dismiss meetings as time wasting or irrelevant. I think regular meetings could be a really good way to manage change, also to cross pollinate good practice, build relationships, encourage collaboration. second, I then think carefully about

22:53 - how you plan and manage meetings. There's power there. So it's really worth thinking about what it is and how you use it. Consider the different types, the different purposes and particularly the research would say, consider how you're gonna connect from your meeting to actual action, how you're gonna follow up. And then finally, I think there can be a very fine line between what we've seen here in terms of sense giving

23:19 - as influence, as nuance, as subtle power, and something more overt, coercive, top-down command and control approach, which is unlikely to be successful. so meetings should really be used to surface issues, alleviate anxiety, solve problems collectively, but not to micromanage, not to try and overtly control experienced professionals and experts who really do need their autonomy to exercise their judgment effectively.

Faculti AI can make mistakes