Additional findings

This section presents a few additional findings, as visible in the code list (see Appendix B), as more meaningful data was gathered than required to answer the RQ. However, only findings closely related to the RQ or relevant for a broader understanding of the context are discussed. These findings can be relevant for future research, as well as for the Discussion section.

5.6.1 GC size

Part of Composition—initially inspired by Beer (1990, p. 11) and Kotter (1995, p. 62), who suggested specific sizes of a GC, the a priori coding scheme contained GC size. However, emergent from the data, this proved less pronounced and not valuable and was left out. It is

context-dependent, for example, regarding the project at hand and the differences between companies (e.g., smaller national companies or large multinationals). A noteworthy match between Hiatt (2006, p.

127), who does not describe a fixed amount but a balance between the amount of change and the size of the GC, Respondent 2 expresses (p.30):

That optimum level of about 370 people and that sort of works with the activities that go on because having people who are engaged and developed but then don't have anything to do, that's not a good thing. You know, if we, you know, we want our people to be active and engaged. So you need to find the optimum level for the amount of change, let's say, within the organization.

Besides Hiatt prescribing something remarkably similar, this quote exemplifies why size is a too unilateral theme for this type of research. It strongly depends on the amount of change the company plans, which in turn, might also depend on many other factors.

Respondent 1 mentions that size is very project-dependent (p. 94; 98-102). Projects with a significant impact throughout the organization require large GC teams. In contrast, highly confident projects (e.g., reorganizations) contain mostly (TM) in GCs, as the project cannot be shared openly.

According to Respondent 1, this notion also influences the theme Power distribution: confidential

projects require TM in the GC, while the GC team is small (p. 94; 98-102); and vice-versa: non-confidential projects with a broad impact require little to no TM in the GC and a large group.

5.6.2 Position of change management

In practitioner literature, change management is central to leading the change (see Practitioner literature, para. 3.1). As mentioned prior in this chapter, Respondents express differences between theory and practice. A noticeable difference is the position of change

management, which overarches the RQ. When focusing solely on the GC, this overarching aspect is not visible. However, this finding might also account for outcomes within the scope of the RQ. For example, the little Analysis or active Vision development by the GC, as prescribed by practitioners;

simply as change management, is perhaps not as central as assumed.

Respondent 1 mentions that a project manager is leading the change with a project team and that the change manager acts as a shackle within the project, as illustrated by Figure 7 (p. 15,18,38).

Respondent 1: “In my current position, you have a change manager, in this case who is actually the link between the project team and the group to which the change relates” (t.p. 38). As a gatekeeper, the CM (and GC) guard the quality of the project for the people affected by the change while

representing the project team as well (p. 38).

Program management Change management

GC Change management

GC Figure 7

Illustration of the position of change management (practitioners: left, findings: right)

Note. As Respondents suggest, change management acts within project or program management

However, it is not only Respondent 1 who expresses this position of change management.

Respondent 4 addresses that they became responsible for change management, while a colleague became responsible for the overall program management: “…and I became the change manager there, and a colleague of mine initially became the project manager” (t.p. 15). This highlights two distinct roles. Respondent 4 continues to explain a different scope of responsibility, with change management being responsible for the people side of change (p. 3), clearly distinguishing between the project team and the GC (like Respondent 1). Respondent 4 explains: “We are, we started with one, but I think with about 40 people in [project name] as a project team, so not just the people side, but the project team” (t.p. 27). This quote (people's side) highlights the different dimensions within the same project.

Respondent 6 shares similar experiences (p. 16), starting with the people side and ending with explicitly highlighting a hierarchy and difference in accountability between program

management and change management (t.p. 16):

… a network of people in the organization who implement or supervise the people side [emphasis added] of change. The relationship is that in our case the project leader or the program leader is always accountable, so that he or she is still above the change managers because they have the responsibility from the business to ensure that.. Well, we speak always about “get the value out of the change”.

Respondent 7 also mentions that they (CMs) come after the strategists while naming a specific consultancy firm (p.14), one of the Big Three (also known as MBB), or their own strategists. The strategists come ahead of them (CMs) to define the strategy and vision. They (CMs) are responsible for unrolling the change, based on strategists' reports (p. 16).

It goes beyond this section to discuss the impact of these findings. However, it becomes clear that the position of change management in organizational change is not as central as practitioners describe and what was assumed prior to conducting this research. These findings overarch the RQ, but they likely account for differences between theory and practice within scope.

5.6.3 Role of TM(T)

An essential aspect overarching the GC is the role of top management (TM) or the top management team (TMT) on the subject of organizational change. Apart from the GCs role, dynamics with TM and TMs roles and responsibilities were prominently mentioned. TM significantly influences the organization, even when change emerges bottom-up. In that case, TM is creating or supporting these conditions. According to the Respondents, the direct interaction between TM and the GC is often not as intense as practitioners suggest, potentially due to the previous section (see Position of change management, para. 5.6.2). Nevertheless, all Respondents called TM sponsors of their change projects, in some cases with TM more actively involved than others. Often within the TMT, besides implicit support, there is an active TM sponsor, for example, as expressed by Respondent 7: “Often you have a sponsor of a program, so that is often someone on the board” (t.p. 110). Respondent 4 actively uses the Prosci sponsor diagram (www.prosci.com) to evaluate if sponsorship of the project is strong enough and if sponsors understand their role. In this sponsor diagram, according to Respondent 4, TM is represented (p. 33).

Besides the sponsor role, for a Typical GC application, TM is responsible for the change. In answer to whether TM is actively involved with change, which was confirmed, Respondent 6 adds: “I think they bear responsibility for that” (t.p. 52). Followed by a more fiery explanation regarding TM’s responsibility (t.p. 58):

I think that ehm.. Yes, we have whole discussions here about accountable, responsible, blablabla.. I think in the end, if you set out the vision then you are also responsible for having the right people, in the right place put and also to literally enable them to be successful at it.

So if there are things that are not clear or are not possible, or that gradually it appears that something is not possible, then I think that as a leader you have a responsibility in this and cannot just victimize your project manager or change manager and say: yes, he has not done well. I really don't think that is appropriate.

The note of potential blaming is deliberately presented here, providing a unique insight into a practical context. Nevertheless, according to Respondents, for the Typical application of GCs, the end responsibility for a successful change lies with TM.