Power distribution

The Power distribution theme strength is rated weak, as it is less pronounced and very context-specific. Nevertheless, all Respondents gave meaningful feedback. However, due to the context-dependency and weaker pronunciation, the suitability of this theme to discover patterns, conclude, and develop theory is limited. Besides context specificity, the Respondents' perspective is very influential on the feedback for this theme. For example, among Respondents with a global vs.

local scope, the perspective of TM's involvement and TM's role is very different than from nationally

operating firms. Respondent 7 calls the direct, operational supervisors MM, a group of thousands of people from their perspective at a far distance (p. 116). This view differs significantly from

Respondents from smaller companies, where this group is relatively small and within reach.

Respondent 7's perspective originates from giant global multinationals (named but hidden for privacy reasons). For the following discussion of the Power distribution, this perspective matters for the given feedback and the possibility of including certain levels in GCs.

Besides across cases, within a case, Respondents also express a lot of “it depends.” However, despite more general applicability, these conditions are very descriptive and valuable for composing GCs. As a result, this theme is covered extensively to share these insights. Respondent 2 stresses the importance of considering power distribution alongside the company culture when composing GCs (p. 26):

If you've got a very hierarchical, top down, traditional, traditionally structured organization.

And then you're working with a coalition that is, you know, people at sort of all different levels from all different backgrounds and experiences, you know, getting a, I don't know, a 25 year old sales professional to knock on the door of, you know, one of the one of the

Table 4

Overview of compositions’ sub-themes, their strength, and definition

Sub-theme Strength Description Power

distribution

- Hierarchical composition of GCs; which levels are represented in the GC, which are not, and why? Is it essential to have all levels involved, or should some levels not be involved for the best effectiveness?

Levels are TM/MM/LM: top management (TM), middle management (MM), and lower management (LM).

Functional / Regional Distribution

+++ Composition of GCs regarding functions or regions involved. Which organizational functions are involved? When international, how are different regions involved in the GC?

Constant over time

+++ Is the composition of GCs kept constant over the project term, or is it changed, and why?

Note. For an overview of the themes, see Figure 5.

managing directors or whatever else, then you have a problem because you're not even allowed on that floor potentially. So being able to work with that and and work around that is, is really important. So it's something that I think we should recognize. I mean, you could be very radical in how you create that coalition, but if you've not got people in that coalition that can open the doors initially, then it's very, very tough. So I think the the coalition to a certain extent needs to consider the culture within the organisation for it to get traction.

Let's say, because if it doesn't and it's not recognized, you know, it can be very, it can be very lonely and not very rewarding having doors slammed in your face, you know, metaphorically on the day to day basis. So I think having some some reflection, you know, of the

organization structure of the culture within the organization is a is a consideration.

Further, in the interview, Respondent 2 mentioned that a hierarchical organization and a junior coalition could work if the CM provided enough support and guidance (p. 26). These examples highlight the within-case context-dependency of this theme again, of which culture is just one example.

Another context-dependent example is the project's nature. Together with size (see GC Size, para. 5.6.1), Respondent 1 mentions that projects with a significant impact throughout the

organization (at all levels) require a GC with low power distribution, mainly those involved with the work, not TM (p. 94; 98-102). On the contrary, highly confident projects (e.g., reorganizations) contain mostly TM in GCs, as the project cannot be shared openly (p. 94). Respondent 1 also mentions GC members withholding from speaking up due to power imbalances, particularly in cultures with a considerable power distance, again a cultural example (p. 120-122). Respondent 7 provided similar feedback and mentioned that separate sessions were held in an international case with China, as members did not feel safe speaking up in the complete (global) setting (p. 128). These examples point to the importance of psychological safety in GCs, which was found across.

Respondent 3 indicates that involved levels are “mainly MM” (p. 83-85) and that GC members must

have the mandate to make decisions (p. 89). The latter might relate to the GC application as Facilitators (see Pattern A, para. 5.4.2).

In summary, this theme is not very pronounced and particularly context-dependent.

Nevertheless, the feedback provided by Respondents is valuable when composing a GC. The contextual examples are very illustrative, inspirational, and meaningful. Nevertheless, despite the different perspectives, middle management (MM) was expressed prominently, and these specific findings will be discussed.

An essential role for Middle Management. With a few examples addressed above, most Respondents call MMs' role highly important, in line with Heyden et al. (2017), see Academic

literature (para. 3.2.4). Despite the different perspectives across cases and “it depends” within cases, it becomes clear that a larger group is meant with MM, namely those managers operating closely with the employees. The critical role of MM is highlighted with a quote from Respondent 2 (p.20):

So yeah, middle managers are critical because of course, you know, they're the conduit that everything goes through when we look at that, that middle management. They're the ones that are catching everything that sort of comes down. So they are really important, you know, to be: one (1) part of that coalition because we have that level of experience. But two (2): to work with that coalition because, you know, they're the ones that are really going to make it happen at the end of the day so yeah they're an important group in as I would say in in an organization and without and you know, you work with them, you get them on board, you get them comfortable, and then the magic happens. If if you're always navigating around them and then it's energy sapping.

For Respondent 7, the MM group is generally at a distance and not directly represented in the GC.

Still, the crucial role MM performs is for them nearly the same as for those Respondents working within (or for) smaller organizations. Respondent 7 explains: “Ultimately, one listens best to their direct lead. Yes, that is just how it works” (t.p. 122). Respondent 7 states the role of MM explicitly as being critical to sustainable implementation (t.p. 116):

Because you can still do so much. But if in the end, your direct manager says: oh hey, big deal, just do it the old way, then you are completely killed. Then you can again.., you are back to zero. Yes, that's just the key…

This was expressed in a dialogue of managing change globally from HQ but executing it on the lower levels of OPCOs (operating companies). These thousands of MMs are at a distance from this

Respondent and not in the GC. Nevertheless, the Respondent tries to reach this group via the GC.

Otherwise, as the Respondent argues, the project will not succeed. Therefore, a powerful confirmation of the essential role this group of managers performs, especially since this group is nowhere near the CM during the project.