Communication, leadership and a new way of working

Communication, Leadership and a New Way of

Working

Lotte van Walstijn

10141871

27 January 2017

Master thesis

Graduate School of Communication

Master Corporate Communication

University van Amsterdam

Supervisor: dr. L. Helfer

Abstract

This thesis introduces the link between the agile method, leadership and communication. The question leading this development is how does the agile way of working impact the communication between manager and employee? The agile way of working is an upcoming and innovative way of working in organisations. This way of working entails bringing people, processes, connectivity and technology, time and place together to find the most appropriate and effective way of working to carry out a specific task. It is working within guidelines (of the task) but without boundaries (how you achieve it). This way of working has influence on how an organisation is structured, how people behave and how communication is in an organisation. Partnership is a basis in an agile organisation. Work is done together and everyone is responsible for success and failure. Communication is impacted by this way of working, because it means being faster, flexible and direct – agile. This thesis shows that communication between manager and employee is changing in an agile environment. The new development of agile, leadership and communication in organisations is researched by interviewing managers and employees at ING. This thesis shows the perceptions of employees and managers about agile, leadership and communication in organisations. The interviewees say that communication is mostly based on a dialogue instead of one-way and top-down communication. Furthermore, the perceptions of employees and managers show that there is more interaction, communication is more visible, more direct, more flexible, and is more seen from a relationship perspective. This change in communication means that the organisation can work faster, quicker and is better able to adapt to changes.

Introduction

Choosing your own workplace, work time, and the way you work, is an increasingly popular organisational model in the Netherlands. Other ways of working can be seen in use of technology, but also in the way organisations are structured and how they operate (Hörning,

Gerhardt & Michailow, 1995). Furthermore, it is about how people are connected and see the

organisation which they work for as a kind of lifestyle.

For a long-time, hierarchy dominated organisations. People were ruled top-down and saw their managers as people with authority. Employees were doing everything they were asked and weren’t able or chose not to take their own responsibility (Mintzberg, 1980; Lunenburg, 2012; Lustenberger, 2014; Harper, 2015). Hence, where several years ago organisations were ruled with an iron fist, giving a tangible structure to the organisation (Jones, 2010), organisations are now implementing more and more the agile method. This agile approach offers a way to change this functional idea of organisations. Employees are free to organise their work within the required deadlines and structure. In the end, what matters is the output you as employee deliver (Dingsøyr, Dybå & Moe, 2010; Hoda, Noble & Marshall, 2012). Employees are the professionals who have their own ideas and motives. Professionals have more detailed and specialised knowledge than a general manager. Projects and processes are nowadays too complicated to manage from one position (Zoet, Heerink, Lankhorst, Hoppenbrouwers & van Stokkum, 2012). Managers have to adapt to this dynamic way of working, which means their roles are changing. The leadership style that fit this dynamic way of working, is the transformational leadership style (Arnold, Barling & Kelloway, 2001; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2004; Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009). Managers embrace the lack of control and use the abilities of the group of employees. The managers give space and stimulate discussion. They aren’t saying what people should do, but listen, understand, support and coach their employees (Avolio, Waldman & Yammarino, 1991).

This thesis addresses the issue of agile way of working, leadership and communication between managers and employees. It is interesting, because it is an upcoming and innovative way of working. This way of working is a development that started in IT. In IT, research has already been done (Sharp, Irani & Desai, 1999; Cockburn, 2006; Laanti, Salo & Abrahamsson, 2011). This research in IT on agile has mostly been about the way of working itself and not on communication when working this way. Specifically, the area of communication between managers and employees is not known yet in the literature. This gap in research on communication between manager and employee is filled by this thesis. The

agile way of working is changing communication between manager and employee and that is the issue that this thesis addresses and leads to the research question: How does the agile way of working impact the communication between manager and employee?

Theoretical background

In the theoretical background concepts are written about which are relevant for answering the research question. First, the agile way of working will be thoroughly written about. Secondly, leadership in combination with communication will be elaborated about. Lastly, communication and the agile way of working will be explained.

Agile way of working

Organisations are constantly developing ways of working to keep improving. One way that is a popular method of working is a more horizontal way. In these horizontal organisations, people have a role in the team, but don’t have clearly defined duties anymore. Everyone in the team has their own specialised skills to make the team stronger (Dam & Marcus, 1995; Chenhall, 2008). In these teams, employees are all essentially equal in terms of power. But there are supervisors and team leaders, who support, coach and steer the team.

In horizontal organisations, it is important to acquire knowledge as fast as possible (Mintzberg, 1980; Jones, 2010; Lunenberg, 2012). Thus, employees need to learn as fast as possible, to be innovative, survive and thrive as an organisation in a rapidly changing environment (Barker & Camarata, 1998; Goh, 1998). Learning organisations create a culture that encourages and supports continuous learning, critical thinking, allow mistakes, value employee contributions, encourage employees to experiment their way through problems and lastly support employees to circulate their own knowledge through the organisation (Thomas & Allen, 2006; Senge, 2006). Constantly improving the organisation, but also gathering the employees to work together and continuously delivering and improving products leads to a new development in working; the agile way of working.

The agile way of working is about bringing people, processes, connectivity and technology, time and place together to find the most appropriate and effective way of working to carry out a specific task (Sharp et al., 1999; Laanti et al., 2011; Ries, 2011). It is working within guidelines (of the task) and taking responsibility, but without boundaries (how you achieve it). Furthermore, this way of working incorporates dimensions of time, place and flexibility, but also involves doing work differently by focusing on performance and outcomes – it is transformational (Bonner, 2010; Zoet et al., 2012; Van Ruler, 2015). There

are 4 dimensions in the agile way of working namely: time (when do people work?), location (where do people work?), role (what do people do?) and source (who carries out work?) (Schwaber, 2014; Cockburn, 2006; Dingsøyr et al., 2010). Agile working is not new, but it is a “new way of working”, maybe it is just “another way of working”. It can be placed under the umbrella term “smart working”, which is about utilising the benefits gained from changing work practices, deploying new technologies and creating new working environments (Sharifi & Zhang, 1999; Ries, 2011; Hoda et al., 2012). In short it is about people working in teams, all with different specialisms (De Meuse, Dai & Hallenbeck, 2010; Sharp & Robinson, 2010). They work mostly on one level with ‘no traditional manager’. Only an over seeing coach or manager to guide the process of the work and the people (Jongerius, Offermans, Vanhoucke, Sanwikarja & van Geel, 2013). It is therefore interesting to look at how this agile way of working impacts the communication between manager and employee.

Leadership and communication

Leadership is changing in the agile way of working. At ING, before agile, the focus was on the traditional leadership style. This focus has shifted to the transformational leadership style. The transformational leadership style is mostly related to the agile way of working.

The transformational leadership style entails leader behaviours that transform and inspire employees to perform beyond expectations while transcending self-interest for the good of the organisation (Fielding, 2005). Transformational leadership is a process of building commitment to organisational objectives and then empowering followers to accomplish those objectives (Avolio et al., 1991; Özaralli, 2003). This leadership style serves to enhance the motivation, morale, and job-performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms (Stone et al., 2004). There are 4 main characteristics in this leadership style: idealized influence (they serve as an ideal role model for employees – the leader “walks the talk”), inspirational motivation (they have the ability to inspire and motivate employees), individualized consideration (they show genuine concern for the needs and feelings of employees), and intellectual stimulation (they challenge the employees to be innovative and creative) (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater & Spangler, 2004). It is mainly focused on mechanisms like connecting the employees’ sense of identity and self to a project and to the collective identity of the organisation; being a role model for employees in order to inspire them and to raise their interest in the project; challenging employees to take greater ownership for their work and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of employees, allowing the leader to align employees with tasks that enhance their performance

(Avolio et al, 1991; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Moe, Dingsøyr, & Dybå, 2010). Leadership style has impact on the traditional interaction between the manager and the employee.

For good relationships between manager and employee communication is needed (Bonner, 2010; Groysberg & Slind, 2012). When a manager performs the transformational style, communication is important. This style asks for a two-way communication, because they want the best for and from their employees. When performing this leadership style, the manager asks their employees what they want and how they want to achieve certain goals (Dionne et al., 2004, Özaralli, 2003). This means that there is also space to have a conversation on what both sides, manager and employee, can improve.

Communication and agile way of working

Communication is often difficult in large organisations, because there are a lot of vertical lines of management and communication in the organisation. In the agile way of working these vertical lines of management and communication are disappearing (Fielding, 2005; Lunenburg, 2010). The transition from the traditional way of communication to communication in the agile way of working could mean a feeling of loss of control for managers (Greenberger & Strasser, 1986; Ouchi, 1978; Pagano & Volpin, 2005). It could also mean a feeling of loss of control for employees. They have a lot of freedom in their work, which could make them feel overwhelmed with this freedom and leads to a feeling of “loss of control”. This loss of control is managed by the transformational leader. Their focus is on getting followers to engage in and support organisational objectives (Stone et al., 2004; Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004). To get followers to engage in and support organisational objectives in the agile way communication needs change.

Communication is becoming more horizontal, meaning more bottom-up communication, more interaction, and more a two-way communication (Bush & Frohman, 1991; Lunenburg, 2010). This means that in an agile organisation, open communication is important. This way of working is about people working in teams, all with different expertise areas. They work mostly on one level with ‘no traditional manager’ anymore. Thus, in this way of working the manager is guiding the team and is therefore an overseeing manager to guide the process of the work and the people (Moe et al., 2010; Zoet et al., 2012; Van Ruler, 2015). Open and direct communication plays an important role in organisations working in the agile way. In the past, the structure was more top-down and one-way (Hallahan, Holtzhausen, Van Ruler, Verčič & Sriramesh, 2007). Communication shapes meaning, builds trust, creates reputation, and manages symbolic relationships in the organisation to support

organisational growth and secure the freedom to operate (Zerfass & Huck, 2007). This together with the bottom-up and two-way communication makes communication important for the organisation (Fielding, 2005; Van Ruler, 2015). Thus, this means for the agile organisation that communication is becoming more important to get people connected, involved and engaged in the organisation (Barker & Camarata, 1998). It is therefore of importance to look at the communication between manager and employee.

Organisational communication is considered as the social glue. Communication helps create shared meaning, the norms, values and culture of the organisation (Gumus, 2007). It is not only the social glue in the organisation, but is the foundation of the interaction between leaders and followers (Zerfass & Huck, 2007). A part of this interaction involves the constant feedback to each other, manager and employee, which involves coaching, communicating, involving others, motivating, rewarding, promoting teamwork (Gilley, Gilley & McMillan, 2009). The interaction between people is becoming better, but the interaction between teams is becoming more difficult. The teams are responsible for one task from end-to-end and aren’t responsible anymore for handing things over to other teams. This means that the general interest of the organisation can be lost, because of the agile way of working. The teams which are working with the agile way of working are only thinking of their own interest and not thinking of the interest of the organisation (Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003; Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Detert & Burris, 2007). All the teams have their own tone of voice. This asks for more communication between managers and employees, but also between teams.

Method

As noted, in this study I am concerned with the agile way of working in relation to leadership and how it impacts the communication between managers and employees. I asked ING employees to talk about their experiences concerning the agile way of working, team development, responsibility, engagement, roles, leadership and communication. Lindlof (1995) summarizes this orientation as “if we want to know how something is done and what it means, we have to know how it is talked about” (p. 234). This will be conducted as a case study, because it is looking at one specific institution (Eisenhardt, 1989; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Flick, 2009).

Case

The agile movement started in ING in 2011. This change started in ING Netherlands and is now being rolled out globally. 2000 people worked in IT within the Netherlands and those

people worked in the old way; the waterfall method. The organisation was barely digitalised and there were large teams that were only responsible for one task, the ‘changing the bank teams’ with developers, and the ‘running the bank teams’, the operations. Between these two teams there were lots of handovers. After the introduction of agile teams became smaller consisting ideally of 7 persons, in which developers and operations are working together. Furthermore, a part of the tasks was automated.

2015 was a year of change again, because then business and IT were separate functions in the organisation. From June 2015 at ING Dutch headquarters, the business, development and operations are working together in one team in an agile way. Instead of one team with employees who were doing all the same tasks, teams consisted of employees of all disciplines who were needed to deliver one service for the customer. This was a gigantic change with a reduction of employment and with a consequence that the responsibility was no longer only on top-level in the organisation hierarchy but lower.

Research respondents

As mentioned, this study focuses on the case of ING. This calls for a priori sampling, because it is already defined where the research would be conducted (Flick, 2009). This sampling method also means that the people that are interviewed are experts. They have adequate knowledge on the subjects. The sample consist of fourteen interviews (appendix A). There are some characteristics that are of importance. The first characteristic is the leading and most important characteristic, because the participants should have worked at ING before and after the implementation of the agile way of working. Secondly the level of employment in the organisation is of importance, because the thesis is about communication between manager and employee and therefore managers and employees were interviewed. This leads to the characteristic of departments where people work at. I chose different departments, because this will show how the communication is perceived in the agile way of working in more places than one in a large organisation like ING. The departments researched are: COO global transformation office communications, COO IT, CIO ING Bank, ING OIB Power IT, Agile coach ING Domestic Bank NL, Business Manager CIO NL, HR CIO NL, and HR Power IT. These departments are in ING Netherlands and the departments are part of IT, business and communication. These departments consist of several teams of 6 to 9 people. The characteristic of departments could have an influence on how the agile way of working is used in an organisation or is perceived by different managers and employees. Another characteristic is gender. This is an important aspect, because men and women could differ in

their opinions on leadership, agile way of working and how this can be connected to each other. Five women and nine men were interviewed.

Procedure

Expert interviews were conducted to collect the data (Appendix B). The reason why I chose this collection of data is the in-depth knowledge you can gather from interviews. With these interviews, I found information on what people think about the agile way of working and how people react to their new roles in the work environment, and how communication is between manager and employee. The expert interviews are with employees and managers who work at ING. Flick (2009) states that experts have technical process oriented and interpretive knowledge referring to their specific professional sphere of activity. Thus, expert knowledge does not only consist of systematized and reflexively accessible specialist knowledge, but will also largely consist of practical knowledge (Clark, Holland, Katz & Peace, 2009; Flick, 2009).

These expert interviews are difficult to manage, because as a researcher you don’t have the same amount of knowledge as the experts. Moreover, there is not much time for the interview, because of the work schedules. Furthermore, the interview-guide has a double function, namely to show that the researcher has knowledge of the subjects and issues that are being discussed and to manage the topics so that the interview won’t head into too many irrelevant subjects (Flick, 2009). The interviews are conducted at ING, because that is the workplace of the interviewees. The interviews lasted about one hour, held in English. And took place at the location where the participants work. The interviews were taped by phone and fully transcribed by the researcher (Morgan & Spanish, 1984; Poland, 1995). The interviewees were informed about this study in written form and verbally by the researcher. There was an informed consent form for every participant to sign. This form stated that participation is voluntary and anonymous.

After processing the individual interviews, the data was transcribed verbatim; this resulted in 139 pages of single-spaced dialogue. This data was analysed using a process of reduction and interpretation (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). The analysis was performed with the program Atlas.TI. The first step in the analysis of interviews was open coding. This entails writing everything down of the interview and break it down to certain fragments and assign different codes to these fragments (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Saldaña, 2009). See appendix C for the code list. The second step in the analysis was selective coding (Malterud, 2001). In this step, possible categorizations were searched for. In the third step of the analysis, the relationships between topics and concepts, dimensions etc. were specified (Charmaz, 2006).

This lead to the concept-indicator model and is shown in Appendix D.

Validity and reliability

The interview-guide was checked after the first interview (Golafshani, 2003; Flick, 2009). The extensive writing of a detailed overview of the process in this study will enhance the trustworthiness. Memos were written to detect any biases of any sort and to alter the data collection (Charmaz, 2006). To enhance the credibility, there is thick description of the data in the research. This means that there will be quotations to show what this research has added (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002; Flick, 2009).

To enhance the transferability, the study has an extensive section on literature and how this study contributes to existing literature. This study was executed at the organisation ING. This is a very particular case, but the subjects, discussed in this research (agile way of working, leadership and communication), are very current. To guarantee the transferability the study is described in adequate detail to be able to evaluate the extent to which the conclusions drawn on the specific case of ING are transferable to other setting, situations, times and people (Golafshani, 2003; Flick, 2009).

Sensitizing concepts

One of the leading, sensitizing concepts that was an orientation in this research is “loss of control”. The feeling of “loss of control” could emerge from the agile way of working for the managers (Greenberger & Strasser, 1986; Olchi, 1978; Pagano & Volpin, 2005). It could also mean a feeling of “loss of control” for the employees, because they have so much freedom in this way of working, it could mean that they feel overwhelmed with this freedom and leads to a feeling of “loss of control”. Therefore, this phenomenon was a guide in this research on agile way of working, leadership and communication. Another sensitizing concept is “general interest”. The general interest of the organisation can be lost, because of the agile way of working. The teams which are working with the agile way of working are only thinking of their own interest and not thinking of the interest of the whole organisation. All the teams have their own tone of voice (Dyne et al., 2003; Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Detert & Burris, 2007).

Results

The overarching question in this article that needs answering is; ‘how does the agile way of working impact the communication between manager and employee?’. The dimensions

filtered out the many-sided ideas on what the agile way of working means to people in the organisation. First, the results show that this way of working for the interviewees mean that they are more flexible and are more involved in the organisation and people are happier in the agile way of working. Secondly, the behaviour of the manager and employee are contributing to answering this question, because in this case people are now taking their own responsibilities, people have become multidisciplinary, managers are facilitating instead of ruling, people can do anything but within boundaries, and engagement of people is higher in the organisation. Lastly, the change in communication between manager and employee is because of more interaction, communication is more visible, more direct, more flexible, and seen from a relationship perspective. The dimensions were repeatedly filtered out to show how people communicate in the agile way is not of simple kind but multifaceted.

Agile way of working

In this section roles, feelings and meaning of the agile way of working are discussed by showing what interviewees said.

Roles in the agile way of working

The agile way is a popular form of working and that it is the way ING strives for at this moment. This means that that roles of managers and employees are constantly developing and constantly changing in organisations. In the agile way of working the role of the manager is now more a facilitating one, as the next quote shows:

Uh, the manager is there to facilitate teams in my opinion.

A manager says that it is difficult for some managers to cope with this change to the facilitating role:

Yes, I do think so. Especially managers I think. And namely old fashioned managers, who used to work in the with you do this assignment, when, what, where etc. I want to have it tomorrow morning … That has to do with style and characteristics of management.

Not only for the managers it is a struggle, it is also a struggle for employees. Employees get more responsibility in the agile way of working as one of the employees said:

And for employees, it is more the other side, can I handle the responsibility and the accountability that I have been given…

You weren’t given responsibility, because you did what the manager said you had to do. Employees couldn’t make their own decisions. One of the employees said:

So, ehm, but also for the team it was very difficult, because it was management who told you what to do.

Employees’ roles are changing as well. They need to become multidisciplinary to cope with this way of working. With this change, managers and employees need to communicate more about what they are doing:

So, they start with not feeling so comfortable, because of their skills, the multidisciplinary part, but in the end, you will, if you ask around you see people being very enthusiastic, inspired by each other, getting to know about each other’ worlds a bit more and that really helps.

It is not only multidisciplinary as this quote also already shows, because everyone is in one team. You know about every single piece of work something, because about everything they need to communicate with each other. The interviews revealed that managers are being part of the team:

Managers have gone from traditional managers to people who also work in the teams. So, that they also have the knowledge and can coach people. We have gone from traditional management to chapter leads, who coach their employees in terms of their development.

Feelings towards the agile way of working

The roles are changing in the agile way of working. This means that attitudes and feelings towards the way of working are also changing. It is important to look at what people think of this way of working, because it shows whether people are open to communicate and receptive for feedback. In line with openness, this way of working means getting craftsmanship of people and to get their intrinsic motivation out, as a manager says:

And in that sense, what we try to do with this new way of working, is to try to get intrinsic motivation out and getting the craftsmanship out for people to start contributing in a more meaningful way to the work, to the company.

To contribute constantly to the organisation, people need to adapt and change every single day. This means that employees and managers working with the agile method, should be improving every day to be a step ahead. An employee of ING said the following:

What you do today is fine, and is something to be proud of, but it is not enough for tomorrow. And why, because the, the, the, most important competitive advantage we have is learning faster than our competitors.

Furthermore, interviewees say that this way of working is good for the organisation, good for results and good for the people. Respondents say that it is good for the agility of the organisation. A manager says that this way of working will lead to more fun in their work:

Yes, you see that it is good for company, good for the results, which will lead to more fun for the people in general.

Meaning of the agile way for people in the organisation

The roles are changing; the feelings are changing. People feel they are contributing to the cause of the organisation. It is also important to look at the meaning of agile to people. One of the employees said that people are better able to cope with changes in the agile way of working:

Well, the meaning of course is that you are better able to, to cope with changes.

To better cope with changes is important, but this means that people need to be flexible as well. Interviewees say that this flexibility in working shows they can adapt more easily to questions. A manager said:

The meaning … Ehm, well agile means flexible, well, flexibility. So, eh, if all goes well, the agile way of working will help us to deliver in a more flexible way, so that we can more easily adapt to the, well, questions of our sort to say internal and external stakeholders.

Not only flexibility is of importance in the agile way of working, but also clarity is an important factor for people. It gives people more clarity and thus they will truly understand what they must do through good communication. Another manager said:

Well, I think that two most important meaningful things are clarity about what is expected from me on the subjects in a smaller time horizon to, well, deliver something. And the second thing is, I guess, is well, more flexibility about on what I am going to invest my time and, so my own development.

For other interviewees, the meaning of the agile way is more based on involvement of the whole team. In the agile way of working, the teams are working together and communicating about everything they have done, are doing, or are going to do. The next quote is about involvement and sharing and therefore communicating with each other, which is important according to an employee:

The main thing you can gain when you work in an agile way is to get the involvement of the whole team. Because now, you are forced to share everything you do … You will see that the whole team you work with, get ownership of

problems, tasks or stories as a team … It really offers a, I think, a fun way and effective way to get ownership of the task you do.

There is an issue regarding the agile way of working, because doing everything with your own team means that you could lose the focus of the whole organisation. As one of the managers says:

But in every organisation, and here is no exception, there is always the danger that you focus more on a smaller environment, your own square mile, let’s put it like that, you lose the sight on the bigger picture.

An employee says:

… But when they are very busy with doing what they are doing then they can get, can lose the bigger picture and get of track.

As people are working in these small teams, they could lose sight of the general interest of organisation, because you only focus on the tasks you as team have. On the other hand, teams do their work based on a definition of done, which is based on the vision of the organisation. A manager says that this means that teams can keep track of the general interest of the organisation:

So actually, they are even more aligned with the bigger picture, because everything they do, they can find the way why are we doing that for the overall purpose of the organisation.

How people behave in the agile way of working

The agile way of working is introduced by the parts on roles, feelings and the meaning. Additionally, it is important to look at how people behave in this way of working. The focus will be on engagement and responsibility, because these are important aspects of behaviour in the agile way.

How people are engaged in the organisation and in the team

Engagement is part of the behaviour people perform. When people feel engaged they will work harder. People achieve goals and make them feel engaged in the organisation. These goals are set by communicating about your goals. The more goals you meet, the more engaged you will be as an employee says:

With each other sculpting the way you want to achieve a goal. Setting the individual short-term goals adding up to it. And therefore are able to show and see the progress you are making, which will well, feels more enthusiastic working again.

This quote shows that people feel more engaged when they see their own progress. Their progress is now visible. Before the agile way of working people could hide in their work. Several interviewees, managers and employees, say that it was a big problem. Now people can’t hide anymore and show that they are more working together and should communicate more:

Some people were hiding in their work. When they had some difficulties, they didn’t want to ask some colleagues, and now it is transparent and it is good to ask about difficulties.

People are working more intensely together, are part of a process and can’t hide anymore. The way they are engaged is by achieving the set goals, seeing your own progress, communicating and by working intensely together.

How people deal with responsibility

First and foremost, people need to take their responsibility in the agile way of working. When you don’t take your own responsibility, you will not be visible anymore. You won’t be visible when you don’t show and communicate. An employee says that this is important:

Hiding is not possible anymore. In the non-agile way of working you can sort of go through the motion and do your thing and don’t take responsibility and nobody, well possible nobody will and can notice, but that is not possible in an agile team. If you are always diving and don’t come up with any ideas, then you get in the second lane of the team sort of.

Taking responsibility is the first important thing according to the interviewees. Secondly, responsibility is going a step further than one person taking responsibility. It is now more about shared responsibility. As one entity, you work, deliver, and communicate:

So, you are not an island in the team, the whole team is responsible for something. If something is a success, it is a celebration for the whole team. When it is a failure it, well the disappointment and well the lack of the whole team.

Together you are getting a step ahead. Taking your own responsibility for what every individual in the team is doing, and communicating about what you are doing. Making their own decisions and creating what is necessary for the organisation. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t any boundaries. Regarding responsibility, it is also important to keep in mind that you’re working in a large organisation, which has a bigger goal than just one person. As Ron van Kemenade, CIO ING, says:

It is like playing football, you don’t tell the player how he or she should play the ball, and who to pass the ball to, but there is a set of rules, right. There are side-lines to the pitch, that says 100 by 60 metres, and you have a goal that is specified by 7 metres something and 2 metres something. So there are rules and there are boundaries within which all individual players have a lot of room to manoeuvre.

It means that people can do whatever they want and keep their own responsibilities, but it has to be within the field, because the lines of the field do matter. This means that people should keep in mind that they communicate about what they are doing or want to do. Thus, open communication is important in the agile way of working

Communication in the agile way of working

The agile way of working changes the way how people behave in the organisation. Not only behaviour is changing, but also communication is now changing in the agile way of working. This change is already shown in the part on engagement. In that section communication is becoming important, because you can’t hide anymore in your work and therefore people need to communicate about what they are doing. Furthermore, the section on responsibility shows that communication is becoming important, because you aren’t alone anymore and you do everything together and share responsibility. In the agile way of working people’s perceptions, attitudes and behaviour is changing. The change is more towards working together and not being an island in a team, which means that communication is also changing:

It is really about engaging each other, stimulating each other, and helping each other. So, that is completely different kind of communication.

The meaning of communication in the agile way of working

Flexibility is a word that interviewees frequently used when talking about the meaning of communication in the agile way of working. They said that communication is more flexible in the agile way of working. This means that people are also more flexible in communication. Several interviewees say that they are more flexible to communicate, which means that there are more possibilities to communicate. One of the managers said the following:

The team is more open, the team is more flexible, eh, there is more interaction in the team, not hidden anymore, so people can’t hide, because the other people don’t know what I am working on – so I don’t have to tell to the others – so they can’t hide, it is really in the open.

It means that communication becomes more visible. The frequency increases as well, because you have set moments to interact with each other. According to an employee, you are forced to communicate about everything you are doing:

The communication between each other is more visible. It is more direct, or it should be more direct. Uhm, it is predictable, because you have the set moments to confront one and other. I think it is more, uhm, more intensive as you have the stand-up moments and you as a team are owner of the stories and products together that forces you to elaborate on those issues with each other.

This quote also shows that communication is becoming more direct. People are talking more directly with and to each other. The next quote of an employee shows that communication is becoming more direct and more frequent:

We don’t only want them to talk directly to each other, but we also want them to talk frequently to each other to, to have constant alignment instead of alignment every two weeks, every month. That is a completely different way on communication. So directly and frequently as possible.

This all means that communication is becoming more flexible, more visible, more direct and more frequent.

How the communication is with other teams

Communication is becoming more flexible, more visible, more direct and more frequent in the agile way of working. In such a large organisation like ING, communication with other teams is important. Some teams aren’t working agile yet, which complicates communication. A manager says that this means that there is a disconnect:

There is a disconnect, they can’t find each other anymore … It is easier when everyone drives right, instead of one left and the other one right – that complicates.

At this moment, there is even a split within ING, because there are essentially two worlds of agile and non-agile. Communication is difficult with teams that aren’t agile, because as teams there is a completely different vocabulary according to a manager:

Well that is sometimes difficult. Well in my opinion, there are really two worlds. Well, when you talk about agile and non-agile, I think what it makes it difficult that there is another vocabulary, because when you talk about sprints, demos, retros, when you really aren’t into agile, you think you understand, because a

sprint is just a board or whatever. This isn’t the case at all, so there are, those are two different worlds.

Communication with other teams that are not into agile is often difficult, because there is a disconnect. This disconnect is caused by the difference in vocabulary-use, therefore caused by use of other communication by the teams that work agile and teams that don’t work agile.

Communication between manager and employee

Communication between teams is changing and could complicate sometimes. The use of communication between manager and employee is also changing due to the agile way of working. This change is mostly based on the hierarchical role of the manager, because now people are for instance starting a discussion with their manager. An employee said the following:

Radically, because ehm, ehm, in the beginning it was still from a hierarchical perspective, so you saw that managers still wanted to fire rockets on the team, so to say. And not using the scrum framework, that enables you to perform good agile way working. So yes, it was quite confronting for managers because their people, employees, were now saying we don’t listen to you now.

Employees are more and more daring to speak up to the manager and to talk with the manager. Where in the hierarchical form of working, there was no room for real dialogues with the managers. It is more about relationships. There are even less bad relationships according to an employee due to this way of working:

So, it is more difficult to have bad relations, relationships, in the team, between the manager and the team.

It used to be that the manager told you, as employee, what to do and now it more going towards asking if they can help and support the employees’ choices:

Ehm, yes, well, first it was one way of this is your assignment, go do that. And now it is more this is what we want to achieve, this is our direction, and then also from a manager is asking how can I help you? Are you facing any impediments, do you need help in solving them? It is really about engaging each other, stimulating each other, and helping each other. So, that is completely different kind of communication.

Furthermore, there is more room for a dialogue. You as employee can even say what you want to do. It is more about the having a dialogue, two-way communication instead of the one-way communication. A manager says that it is about taking decisions together:

Since the roles have changed and the communication should have changed more to a dialogue between manager and employee, what are your talents, what are you good at, what are you contributing to team and how can we increase that contribution?

Communication is even now more together. The manager and employee are together on a journey to get the work done. Everyone has an opinion on subjects and those views need to be shared as well. It is important to talk about these different views, because maybe there are views and feelings that aren’t thought of yet. A manager said:

What I think, is that there is some sort of feeling, because we started something completely new ehm, you feel like that you’re on the journey together. I very much welcome the views and thoughts of everybody in the team.

It is not only together, but also about equality. Most interviewees said that manager and employee are now more on the same level instead of a hierarchical relationship:

It is more about partnership, I think, more equal.

Conclusion

This thesis is about the agile way of working, leadership and communication and was set out to answer the question: How does a new way of working impact the communication between manager and employee? First, I looked at the agile way of working and what it means to people in the organisation. This was answered by three sub-segments. First, I looked at the agile way of working and what it means to the people in the organisation. The agile way of working means that people are better able to cope with change, people are more flexible and are more involved in the organisation and people are happier in the agile way of working. Secondly, I looked at how people behave in an agile organisation and what it means in an agile organisation. People are now taking their own responsibilities, people have become multidisciplinary, managers are facilitating instead of ruling, people can do anything but within boundaries and engagement of people is higher in the organisation. Thirdly, I looked at communication in an agile organisation. There is more interaction, communication is more visible, more direct, more flexible, and is more seen from a relationship perspective. This change in communication means that the organisation can work faster, quicker and is better able to adapt to changes. These are the sub-segments that lead to the answering of the question how does a new way of working impact the communication between manager and employee?

Scientific implications

The answer to this questions is that communication is improving between manager and employee, because of a new way of working, namely the agile way of working. Ries (2011) says that the agile way of working is about bringing people, processes, connectivity and technology, time and place together to find the most appropriate and effective way of working to carry out a specific task. In this way of working people need to collaborate a lot to achieve their goals. There is more an equal relationship between manager and employee instead of a hierarchical relationship wherein the employee was told what to do. This asks for more communication, which is necessary, otherwise the agile way of working doesn’t work (Zoet et al., 2012). Furthermore, Avolio et al. (1991) say that for the manager it is a process of building commitment to organisational objectives and then empowering employees to accomplish those objectives. Through communication between manager and employee there is a mutual understanding using more communication moments in the agile way of working. The multidisciplinary role of the employee and the facilitating role of the manager is also improving the communication between employee and manager, because this means taking away an impediment of an unequal relationship (Fielding, 2005). It is now more a conversation between manager and employee (Groysberg & Slind, 2012). Communication needs to become faster, quicker and more in line with how an agile organisation works. In an agile organisation, there is more room for dialogue in the agile way of working, it is more about partnership. Good communication will get the best out of every manager and employee.

Limitations

This research was conducted by going back and forth between theory and data. Based on grounded theory this thesis was performed, this research method is a very specific one, and it can’t be claimed that the results of such a research are universally applicable. This kind of research rather accurately characterises the contexts that are studied. Thus, the data derived from the interviews could be prone to bias (Flick, 2009). I attempted to overcome this potential threat to validity using multiple strategies. These strategies entail the following, firstly, thick description was used for the results (Morse et al., 2002). This entails the extensive use of quotations of the data. Secondly, the entire process is thoroughly described in the method section, which means that other researchers can take the same steps. These strategies made sure that the threat of bias was low.

A theoretical limitation is the one of the agile way of working. The research done has mostly been in IT. There are articles about agile, but those are mostly non-academic. The

research, therefore, used is mostly based on IT research (Dingsøyr et al., 2010). The trouble with this research is that it is difficult to transfer to other areas, like communication. This limitation I tried to overcome by using more theory on horizontal structures to get a broader understanding of agile. Horizontal structures are similar and have components of the agile way of working.

Practical implications

For the business, it means that people in the organisation need to be aware of the communication needed in this way of working. Sometimes the change to the agile way of working gets resistance of employees and managers. This resistance need to be considered when implementing the agile way of working, because often people are afraid of change and find it difficult to change. The agile way of working entails bringing people, processes, connectivity and technology, time and place together. This means that people aren’t alone on an island anymore, but are together in one team. Not only in one team anymore, globally they need to align as well. This alignment is over countries, over functions. This thesis contributes to the business by showing how communication is between manager and employee in the agile way of working. It could be an example how manager and employee can change their roles and how communication is changing in the agile way of working.

Future research

Based on the limitation of generalisability this research could be of use, and can be expanded to other organisations in the private sector and even to public-sector organisations. This could be done by using other methods of research to get a broader picture of how the agile way of working has impact on communication between manager and employee. When the study is more standardised and more quantitative the generalisability will be higher.

This way of working asks more from people and therefore also from communication. People are asking for more communication and what is important now is to look at whether the traditional communication tools are outdated. It should be researched whether newer or other communication tools could help dealing with this amount of communication in the agile way of working.

Furthermore, future research could be looking at the difference between man and women and how they communicate in the agile way of working. This way of working has influence on how people perceive, behave and communicate. The difference between man and women wasn’t completely considered in this thesis.

References

Arnold, K. A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership or the iron cage: which predicts trust, commitment and team efficacy? Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 22(7), 315-320.

Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Leading in the 1990s: the four I’s of transformational leadership. Journal of European industrial training, 15(4), 9-16. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,

research and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449. Barker, R. T., & Camarata, M. R. (1998). The role of communication in creating and

maintaining a learning organization: Preconditions, indicators, and disciplines. Journal

of Business Communication, 35(4), 443-467.

Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? The

Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 36-59.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The leadership quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.

Bonner, N. A. (2010). Predicting leadership success in agile environments: An inquiring systems approach. Academy of Information and Management Sciences Journal, 13(2), 83-104.

Bush, J. B., & Frohman, A. L. (1991). Communication in a “network” organization.

Organizational Dynamics, 20(2), 23-36.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.

Chenhall, R. H. (2008). Accounting for the horizontal organization: A review essay.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4), 517-550.

Clark, A., Holland, C., Katz, J., & Peace, S. (2009). Learning to see: lessons from a participatory observation research project in public spaces. International journal of

social research methodology, 12(4), 345-360.

Cockburn, A. (2007). Agile software development: the cooperative game. Addison-Wesley. Dam, N. H. M., & Marcus, J. A. (1995). Een praktijkgerichte benadering van organisatie en

management. Noordhoff Uitgevers.

De Meuse, K. P., Dai, G., & Hallenbeck, G. S. (2010). Learning agility: A construct whose time has come. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 119-130.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884.

Dingsøyr, T., Dybå, T., & Moe, N. B. (2010). Agile software development: current research

and future directions. Springer Science & Business Media.

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of organizational change

management, 17(2), 177-193.

Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550.

Fielding, M. (2005). Effective communication in organisations. Juta and Company Ltd. Flick, U. An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). London: Sage.

Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., & McMillan, H. S. (2009). Organizational change: Motivation, communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly,

21(4), 75-93.

Goh, S. C. (1998). Toward a learning organization: The strategic building blocks. SAM

Advanced Management Journal, 63(2), 15-22.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The

qualitative report, 8(4), 597-606.

Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. (1986). Development and application of a model of personal control in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 164-177.

Groysberg, B., & Slind, M. (2012). Leadership is a conversation. Harvard business review,

90(6), 76-84.

Gumus, M. (2007). The effect of communication on knowledge sharing in organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 8(2), 15-26.

Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., Van Ruler, B., Verčič, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3-35.

Harper, C. (2015). Organizational structure: key dimensions. In Organizations: Structures,

Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S. (2012). Developing a grounded theory to explain the practices of self-organizing Agile teams. Empirical Software Engineering, 17(6), 609-639.

Hörning, K. H., Gerhardt, A., & Michailow, M. (1995). Time pioneers: Flexible working time and new lifestyles. Blackwell Publishers.

Jones, G. R. (2010). Organizational theory, design, and change. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Jongerius, P., Offermans, A., Vanhoucke, A., Sanwikarja, P., & van Geel, J. (2013).Get agile: Scrum for UX, design and development. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.


Laanti, M., Salo, O., & Abrahamsson, P. (2011). Agile methods rapidly replacing traditional methods at Nokia: A survey of opinions on agile transformation. Information and

Software Technology, 53(3), 276-290.

Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). Formal communication channels: Upward, downward, horizontal, and external. Focus on colleges, universities, and schools, 4(1), 1-7.

Lunenburg, F. C. (2012). Organizational structure: Mintzberg’s framework. International

journal of scholarly, academic, intellectual diversity, 14(1), 1-8.

Lustenberger, F. (2014). Organizational Hierarchy and How to Maintain Flexibility. IEEE Engineering management review, 42(2), 10-11.

Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. The lancet,

358(9280), 483-488.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5's: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design. Management science, 26(3), 322-341.

Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2010). A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 480-491.

Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International journal of

qualitative methods, 1(2), 13-22.

Ouchi, W. G. (1978). The transmission of control through organizational hierarchy. Academy

Özaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(6), 335-344.

Pagano, M., & Volpin, P. F. (2005). Managers, workers and corporate control. The Journal of

Finance, 60(2), 841 – 868.

Poland, B.D. (1995). Transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 290–310.

Ries, E. (2011). The lean start up: how constant innovation creates radically successful businesses. London: Portfolio Penguin.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

Schwaber, K. (2014). Agile project management with Scrum. Redmond: Microsoft press. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization.

London: Random House.

Sharifi, H., & Zhang, Z. (1999). A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organisations: An introduction. International journal of production economics, 62(1), 7-22.

Sharp, H., & Robinson, H. (2010). Three ‘C’s of agile practice: collaboration, co-ordination and communication. In Agile Software Development (pp. 61-85). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Sharp, J. M., Irani, Z., & Desai, S. (1999). Working towards agile manufacturing in the UK industry. International Journal of production economics, 62(1), 155-169.

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.

Stone, A., G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 25(4), 349-361.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Thomas, K., & Allen, S. (2006). The learning organisation: a meta-analysis of themes in literature. The Learning Organization, 13(2), 123-139.

Van Ruler, B. (2015). Agile public relations planning: The reflective communication scrum. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 187-194.

Zerfass, A., & Huck, S. (2007). Innovation, communication, and leadership: New developments in strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic

Zoet, M., M., Heerink, A., W., Lankhorst, M., M., Hoppenbrouwers, S., J., B., A. & van Stokkum, W. (2012). An agile way of working. In Agile service development:

combining adaptive methods and flexible solutions (pp. 111-139). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

Appendix A: participants David Bogaerts Eric Mooij Janna Brummel Joyce Hulst Leendert Kalfsbeek Marco van Pesch Marianne van der Zwan Marina Schreuder Margot Borst-Damen Mark Heistek

Martijn Cruyff Ron van Kemenade Tjeerd Hunnekens

Appendix B: Interview guide

Interview Guide Introduction:

 Research on agile way of working and leadership

 Procedure: I will indicate the topic. Participants can freely discuss this.

 I would like to record the conversation. You all have agreed to this in an earlier time, do you still don’t mind me recording the conversation?

 I will use this interview for the purpose of writing my thesis at the University. In this paper no references to any specific individual will be mentioned and therefore is completely anonymous.

 Do you have any further questions before starting? 1. Defining the agile way of working

(compared to the old way of working), agile way of working and teams

Aim: insight in the agile way of working in ING and what types of leadership exist in this organization.

Introduction & initial question: As said before, I’m interested in your thoughts on the agile way of working and how leadership comes into play in this phenomenon. How do you see the agile way of working in your team?

Follow up questions:

- What is the meaning of the agile way of working for your team?

- What is the difference with the old way of working for your team?

- Do you feel comfortable with the agile way of working in ING? If so, why? If not, why? Follow up question: Why and parroting

Items:

- Information on agile way of working - Agile way of working and teams

2. Team development engagement, responsibility and roles

Aim: insight into leadership, team development and engagement in agile way of working

Introduction & initial question: Now that I’ve got an overview of what your thoughts are on the matter of the agile way of working, I would like to know how the teams are working in the agile way of working?

Follow up questions:

- Have the teams changed since the introduction of the agile way of working? If so, how?

- How does this way of working engage managers and employees in the organization?

- Do you feel like you really contribute something in this way of working? If so, how? If not, why?

- How has the responsibility of the manager and employee change since the agile way of working?

- Has the role of the manager and employee changed?

- What is the role of the manager and employee in the agile way of working?

- What is your own role in agile way of working?

Follow up question: Why and parroting Items:

- Leadership in agile way of working - Team development

- Engagement - Responsibility

3. Communication in the agile way (manager - employees / employee - employee)

Aim: insight into communication in the agile way of working

Introduction & initial question: Now that I’ve got an overview of agile way of working, leadership and responsibilities I am now interested in communication in the agile way of working. How does the agile way of working have influence on communication?

Follow up questions:

- How is the communication between manager and employee in the agile way of working? - How does the agile way of working have

influence on communication with other employees?

- What are the positive and/or negative aspects of agile way of working on communication? - Reasons for this? (Maybe loss of control) Follow up question: Why and parroting

Items:

- Communication in agile way of working - Different communication levels

Wrap up:

Thank you for helping me to understand how the agile way of working impacts the leadership style. Do you have any questions?

Appendix C: Code List A About customers Acceleration Acceptance Achieve goals According to agile frameworks

Act accordingly and take decisions

Activities in the agile way Actual interaction Adapt Adapt quickly Adaptation Adaptation Adapting Adding value Adding value Adding value Adding value Adding value Adds value Adjusting

Adopt way of working of the whole organisation Adopted agile principles Adopting new ways Adoption agile everywhere

Adoption skills and knowledge

Advocate of the devil Afraid Afraid to communicate Afraid to show themselves Afraid to talk Agile Agile Agile Agile Agile Agile already Agile as goal itself Agile avant garde Agile coaches Agile is flexible Agile is improving communication

Agile mind-set

Agile and communication Agile in teams

Agile principles Agile scrum project Agile way Agile way Agile way Agile way Agile way Agile way Agile way Agile way boosts communication Agile way in team Agile way in team Agile way is just a way of thinking

Agile way of working Agile way of working Agile way of working Agile way of working Agile way of working Agile way of working Agile way of working and communication

Agree as a team After planning

Aimed at improving and creating Align Aligned autonomy Alignment Alignment Alignment Alignment is still a challenge All together All work to make it happen

Allow contribution Already agile

Already in facilitating role

Also giving feedback Also successes Always a struggle Always be a step ahead Always friction

Always improving Always in line with Another vocabulary Any time Apply Appraisal Appraisal Appraisal 360 degrees Appreciation from environment

Aren’t producing directly Aren’t useful

Around bureaucracy As manager you decided As person

As quick as possible As soon as possible As soon as possible Asking help

Assessments are broader Assignments are smaller Autocratic Automation Automation Automation Automation Automation Automation Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy

Autonomy gets lost A whole other way to look at work

B

Backlog Backlogs

Back to the old way Balance

Balance between what is important and what is not Balancing act