Explanation of the phenomenon

A central part of the Findings is illustrated in Figure 5, the overview of the themes. Pattern A has been discussed extensively in the results section: the Application determines to a large extent, underlying Composition, and Roles. Similarly, Pattern B has been discussed: confirmation of the Testers/super-users application across cases. Theme linkages have been discussed throughout the Findings sections while referring to each other. Inferred from the Findings, the linkages are shown in Figure 8. This graphical illustration provides a more specific picture of how the phenomenon works, central to the following explanation.

The TEU theme is central, as argued both in the Findings section when discussing TEU and Attribution to success. However, TEU is not only central but also accounts for a large portion of the success Attributed to GCs (see “S” in Figure 8). These linkages, therefore, deserve a further

explanation. For this explanation, the Typical application of GCs is taken as a reference. Extra-role is linked with TEU, as professional employees are embedded in their departments (their in-role) at their respective functions and become ambassadors of the change. Ambassadors who provide

translations, explanations, localization, and personalization, which supports unrolling (together TEU).

The Composition themes (grey colored, see Figure 8) support TEU similarly. It is vital to have people in relevant regions and all relevant functions (Functional and regional distribution). These diverse teams contribute by providing translations, personalization, and explanations. Their priorly gained knowledge (Constant over time) contributes to TEU effectivity (see Findings, Ch. 5).

From the Findings, Extra-role is linked to Signaling; expressions like “eyes and ears on the ground” were discussed. The link between Extra-role and Signaling was a pronounced Finding.

Signaling also interacts with TEU; e.g., problems are signaled and taken to the team / CM, which results in GC members providing (additional) explanations or personalization. The Extra-role has an indirect effect via Signaling and TEU. However, GCs are described as very energetic teams who enjoy their role and contribute voluntarily. In this respect, the Extra-role might directly contribute to the success of the organizational change (by OCB, see next section).

6.2.1 Explanatory theories

For this section, the preceding explanation of the phenomenon is essential, as the power of GCs is mainly inherited from the discussed central themes and linkages. Therefore, the focus lies on academic research that can explain these themes and underlying mechanisms. Moreover, the Figure 8

Illustration of how GCs contribute; illustration of linkages from Findings

Note. TEU is the central theme; Extra-role supports signaling and TEU; Functional/regional

distribution and Constant over time also support TEU; Signaling in the organizations supports TEU.

Composition themes are marked grey; Roles are white.

a “S” indicates that these themes directly contribute to the theme GCs Attribution to success.

following sections argue that literature-supported connections exist between these explanatory theories contributing to the Theoretical validity of these explanations, which means that the linkages between Findings align with connections in academic literature.

Extra-role and OCB. GC members participate voluntarily to develop themselves and work across organizational borders because they enjoy this position (see Extra-Role, para. 5.3.2). This relates strongly to Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB), a behavior part of the Extra-role that supports colleagues and benefits the organization (the change in this context). OCB behaviors are discretionary, not part of the job description (in-role), and are performed due to personal choice while positively contributing to organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988). OCB is linked strongly to performance outcomes and might explain why the Extra-role contributes directly to success as well.

The literature also supports the argued link between Extra-role and TEU (see Figure 8), as TEU is a helping behavior. Helping behavior is an integrated construct of Extra-role, according to van Dyne et al. (1995). In this respect, the literature supports the Findings mechanisms.

Signaling, voice, and psychological safety. As argued, Signaling is a prominent role fulfilled by GCs. Embedded GC members receive different signals during organizational change, e.g.,

resistance or progress. Signaling Theory explains this mechanism. Signaling Theory is concerned with reducing information asymmetry between parties (Connelly et al., 2011). During change, information asymmetry is likely; those involved with leading and those affected by the change have different information. GC members are involved with the change and support unrolling towards those

affected. The data supports GC members’ involvement in reducing information asymmetry, e.g., the quotes that those affected want to understand the impact from people they “have relationships with, whom they trust” (see Extra-Role and Signaling, paras. 5.3.2 & 5.3.6). This highlights the GC’s involvement and why the members and not someone else should provide these explanations.

As presented in the Findings, Signaling is broader than Signaling Theory; as with Signaling in the data, speaking up is meant as well, which is called Employee Voice in literature. However, Signaling Theory in management strongly relates to Employee Voice (Taj, 2016). Employee Voice is

about creating opportunities to speak up and express ideas and concerns (Mowbray et al., 2015). The embedded GC members in different functions on different levels, in different countries or cultures, provide this mechanism (see Findings, para. 5.2.2). Nevertheless, employees will only voice if safe conditions are provided (psychological safety, see Findings, para. 5.2.1). The fact that “one-of-the-guys” GC members (see Extra-role, para. 5.3.2) are available for employees instead of HQ,

consultants, or others at a distance enhances safety.

Nevertheless, the organization, its TM, and CMs should create and support a safe environment for Employee Voice to be effective. A psychologically safe environment was not researched explicitly, but the Respondents prominently mentioned the importance of a safe environment. The Findings also discussed potential problems with psychological safety, e.g., inherited from cultural differences, where some people did not feel safe to speak up in the group (separate sessions were held to overcome, see Power distribution, para. 5.2.1).

Interestingly Employee Voice is related to Extra-role and OCB, according to Mowbray et al.

(2015, p. 385). This relation highlights the connectivity between the explanatory theories presented in this section and the discussed themes (Findings). The pronounced Findings, combined with the connectivity of theories, provide additional support for the mechanisms shown in Figure 8.

6.2.2 Research implications

The pronounced mechanisms from the Findings, supported by literature, provide a solid explanation regarding the powerful contributions GCs provide during organizational change. The Findings and explanations presented are, of course, no genuine proof for the mechanisms underlying GCs. However, the consistency within the data, the strong theme linkages by Respondents’

explanations, and the correspondence with connections within the literature support that GCs power is inherited from the discussed Organizational Behaviour (OB) literature. This research herewith convincingly contributes to the gap in the literature by providing an explanation of the power GCs provide.

This new knowledge of underlying mechanisms extends extant literature on GCs and connects with supporting literature in other fields. HRM scholars like Boswell, Buller, and McEvoy (2006; 2012), argue that identification with the goals rather than understanding these goals per se (localization, personalization) is what leads to performance (see Literature review, para. 3.2.4). This identification is what GCs provide (Extra-role leading to TEU) by mechanisms explained by OB literature.

The findings of this study do not fully align with Bradley et al.’s (2018) study on GCs in healthcare (see Academic literature, para. 3.2.2). They mentioned teamwork and strong connections with TM as results, besides strong learning effects within the GC. Teamwork and strong ties with TM are not very pronounced nor researched. Although the GC is described as energetic and performing, which hints at teamwork, it was not found explicitly. This study argues that ties with TM are context-dependent (Additional findings, Power distribution) and argues a different position of change management within program management, perhaps applying to businesses rather than hospitals.

However, the learning effect strongly applies to the Findings of this study, e.g., the discussed peer coaching and translation and explanations are aspects of TEU roles besides GCs’ own learning, resulting from their cooperation and being available over the project's term (Constant over time). In this respect, this research deviates and extends the findings of Bradley et al. (2018) in a different and broader context with rich explanations.