WILL THE REAL CHANGE AGENT PLEASE
STEP FORWARD?
THE SEARCH FOR THE REAL CHANGE AGENT DURING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Liesbeth Pel (10475583)
Master Thesis Executive Programme in Management Studies, Leadership and Management track
Supervisor: Dr. A.E. Keegan
2nd Examiner: Dr. F.D. Belschak
Statement of Originality
This document has been written by Student Liesbeth Pel who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is solely responsible for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of content
Statement of Originality ... 2
Abstract ... 5
1 Introduction ... 6
1.1 Theory on change agents during organizational change ... 6
1.2 The research gap ... 8
2 Literature review ... 10
2.1 Organizational change ... 10
2.1.1 Episodic change ...10
2.1.2 Continious change...12
2.1.3 Change happens all the time ...12
2.2 Who’s driving change? ... 13
2.2.1 change leader ...14
2.2.2 Change manager ...15
2.2.3 change consultant ...16
2.2.4 change team ...17
2.2.5 Secret change agents ...18
2.3 Summary ... 19
2.4 The research question ... 19
3 Research Method ... 22
3.1 Case study research ... 22
3.1.1 Single-case design ...22
3.1.2 Interview ...23
3.1.3 The Case: A Description of the context ...24
3.2 The research validity... 26
4 Qualitative data analysis ... 27
4.1 Data reduction ... 27 4.1.1 Coding ...28 4.1.2 Data Display ...33 4.2 Data interpretation ... 34 4.2.1 Roles ...34 4.2.2 Key attributes...37 4.2.3 Place in organization ...39 4.2.4 Responsibilities ...40
4.2.5 The difference between formal and informal change agents ...42
5 Discussion ... 47
5.1 The case of the lost manager ... 47
5.2 Let’s stick together ... 49
5.3 Impact on practice... 53
5.4 Limitations ... 54
6 Conclusions ... 55
Acknowledgement ... 57
7 Reference List ... 58
Used internet sites: ... 59
Appendix I ... 60
Interview protocol ... 60
Appendix II ... 64
Conceptual Frameworks ... 64
Appendix III ... 66
Documents case study MN 3.0 ... 66
Appendix IV ... 68
The data result matrix ... 68
Roles ...68 Key atributes ...69 Places ...70 Responsibilies...71 Conditions ...72
Abstract
Theory shows the importance of change agency during organizational change. However, there is little research on multidimensional aspects of change agency, moreover real-life case studies of change programs are rare. This qualitative explorative research looks into the perspectives of change leaders, and formal and informal change agents, on change agency. The study will address the similarities and differences between formal and informal change agents. The results are based on semi-structured interviews with 18 change leaders and agents during a real-life change program. The findings reveal the importance of the middle manager during the change process, but also the gap between qualities needed and qualities present for his/her role as change agent. That gap can be filled with the qualities of informal change agents. Another result is the wish of formal change agents to have the same freedom and the possibilities to take risk as informal agents, while the informal agents wish for structure, budget and sponsoring that formal change agents have access to. Finally, the findings show that the different change agents are complementary and that organizations need all aspects of informal and formal change agency to make a program successful. The real change agent is the change agent who combines the formal and informal aspects.
1 Introduction
Organizations are continuously changing and people are involved in changing them. However, who exactly drives changes and where you can find them in the organization is until now, an unresolved issue.
In a survey among more than a 1000 senior human recourse professionals of major
companies change is mentioned as the strongest rising challenge for 2015, (Harvey Nash HR survey, 2015) indicating that the need for people with change capabilities is growing every day. You cannot open a magazine about HR, Management or IT, a newspaper, an Internet page, someone’s LinkedIn-profile without finding topics on ‘change’, ‘transition’, or ‘innovation’. At a well-known site about management literature more than 30 new management books about change managements have been offered per year since 2008, doubling the amount of the 5 years before and in 2015 already twenty-six new titles about
change management have been published. (www.managementboek.nl). The authors of all
these publications claim to have found the one and only successful method or model for dealing with change, but still change programs often fail to meet their goals (Beer and Nohria, 2000). Handling change is, for a lot of companies, not a choice but a struggle to survive. External circumstances, like the financial crisis, digitalization, innovation of new technologies and market entry of new competitors, all create a big urgency for companies to deal with change faster and better than ever before.
1.1 Theory on change agents during organizational change
The leaders of our companies have a job to do and the theorists have been focusing on this challenge for some time now. As Kotter (1990) claims ‘What leaders really do is prepare organizations for change and help them cope as they struggle through it’ (p. 3). Preparing organizations for change is not easy. Even though the change leaders are responsible for the success of the change ‘they do not make plans; they do not solve problems; they do not even organize people’ (Kotter, 1990, p. 3). So if they are not responsible for the actual execution of change who is? Where Leadership is about coping with change, management is about coping with complexity. Where the leaders are responsible for setting a direction, aligning and motivating people, management is responsible for planning, budgeting,
organizing, staffing, controlling and problem solving (Kotter, 1990). And looking more specific into change management ‘Change leaders are those executives or senior managers at the very top of the organization who envision, initiate or sponsor strategic change of a far-reaching or transformational nature. Change managers are those middle level managers and functional specialists who carry forward and build support for change within business units and key functions’ (Caldwell, 2003-2, p. 291). But change managers are not the only other actors involved in change. ‘At the center of many processes of organizational change is the key role of change agents: the individuals or teams that are going to initiate, lead, direct or take direct responsibility for making change happen’ (Caldwell, 2003, p. 140). Caldwell (2003) distinguishes two more models of change agency next to the change leader and the change manager: the change consultant and the change team. ‘The change consultants are conceived as external or internal consultants who operate at a strategic, operational, task or process level within an organization, providing advice, expertise, project management, change program coordination, or process skills in facilitating change’ (p. 140); the change team ‘is conceived as team that may operate at a strategic, operational, task or process level within an organization and may include managers, functional specialists and employees at all levels, as well as internal and external consultants’ (p. 140).
But Caldwell concludes that ‘all too often […] change agents’ roles have been identified with one-dimensional models’ (p. 140). He gives four reasons that ‘diverted attention from the increasingly vital task of understanding the empirical complexity of change agent roles within organizations, and of finding new ways of managing change processes in an integrated and coherent manner to affect successful and lasting change’. The focus on change leadership, the focus on an universal recipe for successful change, failure to explore the boundaries between different types of consultants and the focus on the learning
organization.
Besides those formal appearances of change agents Pascale and Sternin (2005) identify a different type of change agent, the secret change agent. ‘Somewhere in your organization, groups of people are already doing things differently and better’ (p. 73). Those employees are not linked to change programs but operate in their own operational environment. This kind of informal change agency asks for a different role of the change leaders and managers and is usually seen during cultural or behavioral change.
Change agents of some kind or another therefore appear to operate during organizational change processes, but one change process is not similar to others. The distinction is often made in an organizational context between planned change and continuous change (Weick & Quinn, 1999; Orlikowski & Hofman, 1997; Dunphey & Stace, 1988; Huy & Minzberg, 2003). Huy and Mintzberg (2003) combine them in an integrative framework, the change triangle, in order to provide an overview of all the kinds of changes taking place within organizations. The three dimensions of the triangle are dramatic change, systematic change and organic change. Senior management initiates dramatic change and it leads towards a kind of
revolution. Systematic change leads towards reforming a social system in a systematic way. Organic change happens all the time in organizations by small experiments and initiatives and leads toward rejuvenation of the organization. As Huy and Mintzberg (2003) point out changes are not separate but exist side by side. ‘Dramatic change has to be balanced by order and engagement throughout the organization. Systematic approaches require leadership and, again, depend on broad engagement. And organic change, though perhaps the most natural of the three approaches, eventually must be manifested in a systematic way, supported by the leadership.’ (p. 80).
1.2 The research gap
The finding of Huy and Minzberg that organizational change is multidimensional instead of one-dimensional led to the question if the role of the change agents is multidimensional as well. As Caldwell (2003) pointed out there is little research on multidimensional aspects of change agency, and real-life case studies of change programs are rare. The practices of change agents may even be more complex and obscure at this time, because of the fact that change agents are frequently involved in daily going concern business and at the same time as they are involved in being change agents. This is especially the case during major complex change processes. Therefore In this thesis I want to search for the change agents in a real-life situation and uncover core aspects of change agency seen from the perspective of different actors involved in complex change processes and interacting with change agents. I will address how change agency works in practice in a particular organizational context and develop insights that can be generalized at a theoretical or analytic level (Yin, 1994). To do this, I will study the perceptions of change leaders on the role of formal and informal change
agents. I will also study the perceptions of both formal and informal change agents on their own roles and those of their colleague change agents. This will provide a multi-perspective study on various key aspects of the roles of change agents and the nature of change agency. To research perceptions on change agents in the company that will be the focus of my research, I conducted a qualitative research. In this organization a complex organizational change (Cameron and Green, 2014, p. 393) was, and still is being carried out, providing an ideal opportunity for observation and study in real time. Eighteen people, all of whom were involved in the change process, albeit in different roles, were interviewed to get both a close-up insight in formal and informal change agency in an organization. The preliminary (start) interview questions have been drawn from the theoretical framework and adapted as the interviews went on according to emergent insights and salient issues.
The literature review describes in the first chapter the different theoretical insights on formal and informal change and the different understandings of the construct of change agency, which leads towards my research question. In the second chapter the research method is explained and the case study is described. The third chapter deals with the analysis of the data and the model that has been applied to collect the data. In the fourth chapter the discussion can be found, the multidimensional model on the change agent is presented as well as a discussion on the impact on theory and practice, and some
2 Literature review
In this chapter, the most important subjects related to formal and informal change agency will be explored on the basis of academic literature, looking at the actual insights on these subjects. Organizational change is a playing field for all various formal and informal change agents and will be described first. The chapter continues with the insights of the different change agencies roles, starting with the change agents as leader, followed by the change agent as manager, continuing with the change agents as consultant, the change agents as team, and the secret change agents.
2.1 Organizational change
Organizational change is change that affects the strategy of the whole organization. Change within organizations can happen on three different levels: the individual, the team and on an organizational level. In this chapter, change at the organizational level is discussed, but it should be clear that an organization cannot change without (the majority) of individuals supporting and acting on the change nor without the actions and input of change agents. (Cameron and Green, 2014).
Two sides of organizational change can be distinguished in the literature. On the one hand one sees episodic, event based, transformative, revolutionary, anticipated, dramatic change. Change agents are prime movers that create change and the change is formally managed. On the other hand one sees the continuous, on-going, organic, incremental, emergent, evolutionary change. Change agents are sense makers who direct change and operate in informal groups. (Weick & Quinn, 1999; Orlikowski & Hofman, 1997; Dunphey & Stace, 1988; Huy & Minzberg, 2003).
2.1.1 EPISODIC CHANGE
Episodic change often starts as a response of senior management in times of crisis or of great opportunities with external drivers such as: new competitors, change of legislation and regulation, a take-over, a merger, new technologies and innovation in the field of the core business, or a new CEO. Moreover it can lead towards a restructuring, mergers/acquisitions,
a cultural change, and IT process based change or a mix of these. (Huy and Minzberg, 2003; Cameron and Green, 2014)
Episodic change is seen as an intentional, occasional interruption of continuous business, where organizations are considered to be inert and failing to adapt their structure to the changing environment. The change follows a linear Lewinian process: “unfreeze-transition-refreeze”. Unfreezing the status quo will provide the organization with a sense of urgency that is needed to deal with the transition. After change, the organization freezes again in a new status quo. The change agents involved are the prime movers who actually create change by setting the example, building coordination and commitment. (Weick and Quinn, 1997). The change agents during episodic change often operate in a formal setting.
Although change is an almost daily routine for many people, when it comes to planned organizational change, organizations often fail to succeed. Kotter (1995) describes the eight most common errors in leading change. The different actors involved in change forget to establish enough sense of urgency with the majority of the company’s management. They do not succeed in creating a guiding coalition with enough power consisting of members not only from senior management, but also with the right information, expertise, reputation and relationships. Another error is a lack of vision, that can be easily communicated and appeal to different stakeholders. Another error is that after realization one should not forget to communicate the vision repeatedly. And one should not forget to remove the obstacles that are in the way of the new vision. Old structures, rules, as well as opponents at decision-making positions should all be removed to give the new vision the space it needs to bloom. When transformation takes too long and there are no short term wins people lose interest and there is no longer a sense of urgency. Another common mistake is claiming the change has been successful when a big part of the company is not yet there. Chance are big that the change slowly disappears again then it gets mingled the daily business. Therefore it is
important to anchor the change in the corporation’s culture, and in their behavior, and in the way things are done. All these mistakes show the roles of the people, who are driving change in all parts of the organization and in all phases of the change are crucial for the success of change initiatives. But who is driving the formal change? Before exploring that issue the informal side of change will be described.
2.1.2 CONTINIOUS CHANGE
Organizational change that is not triggered from external drivers, but is triggered from inside the organization, should be regarded as continuous change. Emergent change is not formally managed nor intended to have an organizational effect nor to start a revolution. It arises from initiative, local innovation, learning experiences within the organization. It can be seen as evolution (Orlikowski and Hofman, 1997; Huy and Minzberg, 2003). The metaphor of an organization that Weick and Quinn (1999) are using for continuous change is an organization that is an emergent, self-organizing company where change is constant, evolving and
cumulative. Change is then internally driven and an improvement of something that have already been executed. It follows the “freeze-rebalance-unfreeze-intervention style”. But even though this change is not formally managed, it does not mean that there are no change agents involved.
The change agents during this type of change can be described as sense makers who redirect change by recognizing innovations, translating, improvising and learning. (Weick and Quinn 1999, p. 361). Informal groups who initiate and drive the change can be seen as informal change agents.
2.1.3 CHANGE HAPPENS ALL THE TIME
As Huy and Minzberg point out organic change does not happen only in emergent and self organizing companies but happens all the time in all types of organizations by small
experiments and initiatives that leads towardrejuvenation of the organization. In their
change triangle they show that dramatic, organic and systemic change (intended and
organized but on a ‘slower, les ambitious, more focused, and more carefully constructed and sequenced than dramatic change’ (Huy and Minzberg, 2003, p. 80)) can only exist in relation to each other. Orlikowski and Hofman (1997) build on a former model of Minzberg in which he made distinction between deliberate and emergent change. They show that besides those two changes there are changes that ‘are not anticipated ahead of time but are introduced purposefully and intentionally during the change process in response of unexpected opportunity, event, or breakdown’ (p. 13): Opportunity Based Change.
two articles show that organizational change is more complex than just two sides of a coin but is multidimensional.
When organizational change is not only formal or only informal, but is multidimensional, what does that mean for the people who are driving that change? Can it be that their roles are multidimensional too?
2.2 Who’s driving change?
The literature about change increasingly identifies various types of change agents, and models of change agency, but with little agreement about what they are doing. For example, according to a leading theorist on the issue: change agent is an important role in
coordinating and effectively managing the process of change and he/she can be ‘defined as an internal or external individual or team responsible for initiating, sponsoring, directing, managing or implementing a specific change initiative, project, or complete change programme.’ (Caldwell, 2003, p. 139-140).
Caldwell (2003) identifies four types of change agency models: the change agent as a leader, the change agent as a manager, the change agents as a consultant and the change agent as a change team. O’Neill (2000) quoted by Cameron and Green (2014) defines a change agent as ‘a facilitator of the change. He/she helps the sponsor and the implementers to stay aligned with each other. The change agent acts as a data gatherer, educator, advisor, meeting facilitator and coach. Most often he or she has no direct line authority over the
implementers and is therefore in a naturally occurring triangle among sponsor-implementer-agent’ (p. 202). This definition narrows the role of the change agent down to the change agent as a consultant as described by Caldwell (2003). The change agent as a leader applies more to ‘the sponsor’ and ‘the implementer’ is often the (middle) manager. But besides the explicit multiple definitions of Caldwell and the narrow definition of O’Neill the change agent is often more implicit described in articles about change as opposed and/ or complementary to the change leaders.
2.2.1 CHANGE LEADER
Since the 1980s the most important theme for leaders in generally is having a vision, to inspire and to attach people to that vision. (Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001). Herold et al (2008) explains that change leadership is not that different from transformational
leadership, but transformational leadership aims at an individual level, while change leadership aims at group level during a specific change process.
As the literature shows change leaders are the “leaders or senior executives at the very top of the organization, who envision, initiate or sponsor strategic change of a far-reaching or transformational nature” (Caldwell, 2003-1, p. 140). Usually a company’s leadership commands […] dramatic change in the expectations of compliance by everyone else” (Huy and Minzberg, 2003, p 79-80). ‘What leaders really do […] is prepare organizations for change and help them cope as they struggle through it’ (Kotter, 2001, p. 3) by setting direction, aligning people and motivating people. According Bridges (1991, in Cameron and Green 2014) change leaders should explain the purpose of the change, draw the picture of the organization after the change, make a plan to get there and allow people to play a part in the outcome.
Caldwell (2003)looked into the key attributes of change leaders and found that the most
common attributes that are identified by change agent experts are an inspiring vision, entrepreneurship, integrity and honesty, to be able to learn from others, openness to new ideas, risk-taking, adaptability and flexibility, creativity, experimentation and use of power.
Child and McGrath (2011, in Cameron and Green, 2014) point out that new organizational forms do not follow a top-down structure but are decentralized. Power is no longer
concentrated at the top but distributed. Large business units are reformed into small multi disciplinary team and workgroup units. Management is not about control and monitoring but more but about guidance and conflict management. The vision is no longer dictated by the leaders but emerges from the organization, suggesting that organizational change which is not formally, hierarchically organized demands a different role and key attributes for the change leaders as well.
2.2.2 CHANGE MANAGER
The middle manager has a very important role in implementing radical change. ‘Middle managers understand the core values and competencies. They are the ones who can
translate and synthesize; who can implement strategy because they know how to get things done; who can keep work groups from spinning into alienated, paralyzes chaos; and who can be persuaded to put their credibility on the line to turn vision into reality’. (Huy, 2001, p. 79). The middle managers are often sketched as the group in an organization who has the biggest resistance against change but Huy (2001) shows that the participating middle manager is one of the best chances of succeeding change. The middle manager has a unique position in an organization. On one hand he/she is close to the daily operation and practices of the organization and therefore has a good view on possible problems, but with enough distance to see the big picture. Because of the diversity of the group their insights and solution are more creative and out-of-the-box than that of the senior managers. Huy calls this role ‘the entrepreneur’. As ‘a communicator’ middle managers can spread the word and get people on board because they usually have the best social networks in the company. But they also know the people who report to them and they can communicate directly and tailor
individual conversations to individual needs. In the company they can play the role of ‘the therapist’. And last but not least the middle manager is also ‘a tightrope artist’. Even during normal times middle managers managing from the right mix between change and continuity and when radical change is being imposed from the top this balancing act become more important. ‘The senior executive who learns to recognize, respect, and deal fairly with the most influential middle managers in an organization will gain trust allies - and improve the odds of realizing a complex but necessary organizational change’ (Huy, 2001, p. 79). Caldwell (2003) presents a research that shows that change leaders and change managers are different but also complementary. ”Change managers are those middle level managers carry forward and build support for change within business units and key functions” (p. 291). The found key attributes show the distinction between the two types. Change leaders should have an inspiring vision, entrepreneurship and integrity and honesty, while change managers should empower others and are supposed to be great team builders. But the two roles also overlap on learning from others, openness to new ideas and adaptability and flexibility.
According to Balogun (2003) middle managers have a change intermediary position during implementation. The nature of their activities is sense making and coordination and
management, on their peers and themselves and on their team. The four roles they execute can therefore be described as: undertaking personal change, helping others through the change, keeping the business going and implementing the changes within the department. In the opinion of Battilana & Casciaro (2013) change agents are formally the people in
management positions, but more important is their place in the center of a network. Change agents are the senior/middle managers who are in the lead running change and are
responsible for the right implementation. The most successful change agents are those with the right network. The bridging network is the most successful network with regards to dramatic change and the cohesive network with regards to minor change. This shows that change managers are not only playing an important role during formal change, but some of them are also important during informal change.
From the above it can be concluded that middle managers are important during formal change processes, especially in empowering their teams, translating the vision to daily practice and supporting their people during implementation. However it also shows that driving change is not their only role, and not even their core business.
2.2.3 CHANGE CONSULTANT
The definition of O’Neill (2000) of the change agents corresponds with the consultancy model of change agency of Caldwell (2003). Change agents can be characterizes as advisors and experts on content, process of project and change management and they work close with senior management and in change teams.
But as Huy and Minzberg (2003) show in their change triangle consultants are not always only facilitators for dramatic change supporting the change leader. “Systematic change is often promoted by staff groups and consultants who handle planning and organization development” (p. 80). In that case a consultant can also be considered as the initiator of change.
model is about playing doctor and the third model regards process consultation. Block (2000, in Cameron and Green, 2014) distinguishes similar roles for the consultant as a change agent: the expert, the extra pair of hands and the collaborative role. With these roles the change consultant ‘establish a collaborative relationship, solve problems so that they stay solved and ensure attention is given to both technical/business problem and the relationships’ (Cameron and Green, p. 206).
The HR professional can be seen as an internal consultant. Ulrich (1998) sees a whole new role for HR. Besides becoming a partner in strategic execution, an administrative expert and an employee champion, the HR consultant should also become a change agent. In that role HR should explain the concept of culture change, make clear why cultural change adds to the success of the business, make a gap analysis between the current culture and the desired culture and finally should develop different approaches to creating the cultural change. By setting direction and sketching the desired culture the HR department plays a major role in setting the stage for informal change initiatives.
This section shows that change consultants are important change agents as well and that their role is complementary to the role of change managers. And although the role of change consultant is usually formal, they can be important for facilitating informal change as well. 2.2.4 CHANGE TEAM
The change team is the last change agency model Caldwell (2003) describes. Examples of change teams are given by Cameron and Green (2014) ‘Sometimes the senior management team is called the change team, responsible for directing and sponsoring the change. Sometimes the change team is a special project team set up to implement change. At other times the change team is a parallel team, set up to tap into organization and be conduit for feedback as how the changes are being received.’ (p. 81).
A parallel team is a team that is not part of the traditional hierarchy of an organization; they operate parallel to this structure. This kind of teams is usually used for everything that is not business as usual and can have tasks like delivering quality improvement, out-of-the-box problem-solving or decision-making, involving and engaging employees or it can work as a task force for a special project. The members of a parallel team are usually coming from all
parts of the organization and together they represent the different parts of the company (Cameron & Green, 2014).
The network team has the similar purpose as the parallel team in the sense that it is not business as usual, but can be seen ‘as a part of the glue that gives a sense of cohesion to people within the organization’ (Cameron and Green, 2014, p. 81). Network teams can add greater cohesion and can spread learning and knowledge through the organization.
This section shows that change teams are complementary to the manager and consultant as change agents. Managers are usually operating within their own team and consultants next to the change leaders and change managers, but they participate in the change teams as well. The change teams operate above or besides the existing teams and can be supporting to formal change processes and more informal change initiatives as well.
2.2.5 SECRET CHANGE AGENTS
On top of the existing models of change agency Pascale and Sternin (2012) identify a new category: the secret change agents. Whereas the types of change agents Caldwell described could be said to operate on the formal side of organizational change, the secret change agents operate in the organic corner of the change triangle as described by Huy and Minzberg (2003) ‘Whereas dramatic change is usually driven by the formal leadership and systematic change is usually promoted by specialists, organic change tend to arise form the ranks without being formally managed. It involves messy processes with vague labels like venturing, learning and politicking and is nurtured behind the scene.’ (p. 80).
To identify change agents Pascale & Sternin (2005) move away from the top-down-view on change. Especially when change is mainly about behavioral and attitudinal changes, change agents are the members of the community that have to undergo the change. They are operating from within the teams that are about to change during cultural change. For the leaders of the organization this means a radical change for their roles. The leader’s new role switches from path breaker (ownership and momentum of change) to inquiry (facilitate search, ownership at community). Instead of being the expert and leading the team towards the new future, the leader facilitates the team in discovering and implementing their own future. Pascale & Sternin have described six steps for successful change. The first is to make
the group the guru. Not the (charismatic) leader on top of the organization is the inspiration, but the initiatives and ideas from the work floor. The second step is reframe through facts, which means that instead of focusing on the conventional answers, one now looks for successful exceptions and reframing the problems with regards to these exceptions. The next step is making it safe to learn. Step four is making the problem concrete instead of blurry and high over. The fifth step is to leverage social proof; ‘seeing is believing’. The last step is confounding the immune defense response because the change is coming from
within instead of outside the group. The secret change agents are those people who are
doing things in a radically better way and who are learning-driven and are open to self-replication. Change management is developing towards being asset based, from solution based to problem solving and with a focus on enlarging the network.
2.3 Summary
In summarizing it can be concluded that there are two directions in the change process: the top-down dramatic or systematic change with a charismatic leader at the top who
determines the pace and increases vision, the manager that must translation the vision for the recipients and has to deal with daily practice and change at the same time, the
consultants who help these two roles with content or process and the change team that develops, reviews and networks. At the other end of the spectrum is the organic or cultural change in which the change and vision come from within the organization. The managers and senior executives have to give room to initiatives, should facilitate their team and stimulate continuous improvement and learning.
The theory also shows that both sides of organizational change and the people who are driving those changes, are not opponents nor do they exist separately but are more integrated into a multidimensional change system where the change agents work next to each other in complementary roles.
2.4 The research question
At end of this literature review, I am left with some puzzling questions regarding change agency. Change agents with formal roles are cited in the most prominent models and frameworks, and might be expected to want to maintain their power by keeping things
formal. Empirically however, one can wonder if this is really the case? Secret and informal change agents are somewhat of a fashion nowadays and on the basis of the growing
attention for emergent change. They perhaps want to maintain their freedom, their room to maneuver. Empirically, is this the case? And what do change leaders want? Do they want to empower formal change agents with rules and clear guidelines and formal roles? And do they intend to keep their secret change agents hidden and is this the way they seek to harness their power in the change process? As it currently stands, insufficient empirical research on the formality and informality of change agency exists, and especially on the views of different key actors in the change process regarding what is preferred: formal or informal change agents.
This leads to the main Research Question of this thesis:
In order to perform most effectively in major organizational change, should
change agents be the best-kept secret, or not?
I will address this question by looking into the perspectives of various key players in a major change process regarding their perceptions on the appropriate level of formality and
informality associated with the following aspects of change agents: role, attributes, place in the organization, and responsibilities. Indeed the literature shows clearly different views and perspectives on the necessity for formalizing change agency. Therefore it is likely that various players in a major change situation will have various views on this issue and all these perspectives are valuable for gaining an overall answer to the question. To that end, the study is designed to achieve multiple perspectives from key change management insiders in a single-case organization. The following sub-questions were pose to provide an answer to my main research question.
How do change leaders perceive the roles of change agents, their key attributes,
responsibilities, and place in the organization?
How do (formal and informal) change agents perceive the roles of change agents,
their key attributes, responsibilities, and place in the organization, of change agents?
What are the main areas of agreement and disagreement between change leaders,
and between formal and informal change agents regarding these key features?
Research of the perceptions of the change leader, formal and informal change agents on key characteristics of the way change agents operate will offer me an empirical basis. With this I can propose a multi dimensional description of change agents and make suggestions on how and when the different type of change agents can be used in an organizational change processes.
3 Research Method
3.1 Case study research
In this exploratory study the different kinds of ‘change agent’ role, and their responsibilities, going through an organizational change is studied in a qualitative research method, the case study research. Rynes and Gephart (2004) noted that qualitative research ‘provides insights that are difficult to produce with quantitative research. For example, qualitative research can provide thick, detailed descriptions of actual actions in real-life contexts that recover and preserve the actual meanings that actors ascribe to these actions and settings’ (p. 455). As mentioned in the introduction real-life case studies of change programs are rare
therefore a case study can contribute to the existing theory by providing insights on the perceptions of the change experts on the role of change agents during actual change. The condition of my research has led to the use of a case study as the most appropriate method. The type of research question is exploratory, this research does not require control of behavioral events and a focus is put on a contemporary event (Yin, 2014). A case study is ‘a research strategy which involves the investigation of a particular contemporary topic within a real-life context, using multi-sources of evidence’ (Saunders and Lewis, p. 110). Qualitative research, and in particular case study research, is the therefore the most appropriate research method for a detailed understanding of the perceptions of the role of change agents in real-life compared to the agreements and contradictions in the theoretical literature about the change agents. In this research a single-case design has been selected. 3.1.1 SINGLE-CASE DESIGN
MN is a financial company in administration and asset management for multiple pension funds. In the fall of 2013 a change program was introduced: MN 3.0, a long-term change program which has two elements: an IT based process change and a culture change. A project change team has been installed to manage the change process. The company wanted to make a clear cut between the going concern and the change activities. The researcher had access to the documents of the program and to the change agents and leaders as she was working in the company and involved in the change program. The CEO
qualitative research by investigating the coordination and roles of the change agents during an organizational change. The HR director has been asked to sponsor the thesis.
There are five single-case rationales: critical, unusual, common, revelatory or longitudinal case. The MN case can be considered a common case because the circumstances and conditions of an everyday situation in an organization during change were captured (Yin, 2014, p. 52) and because of the unique position of the researcher, observing and analyzing the subject from the center of the change program, the case can also be considered
revelatory in type (Yin, 2014, p. 52). 3.1.2 INTERVIEW
The most important sources of data for this case study are the interviews. The case study includes 18 interviews during the last months of 2014. The semi-structured interviews lasted for about 45 minutes and were recorded and transcribed before being processed using computer assisted qualitative data analysis techniques (NVivo). The interview protocol contained some instructions for the interviewer and start questions per sample (see
appendix I). The start questions has been inspired by the literature on change management, change leadership and change agency.
3.1.2.1 SAMPLING
Being interested in the perspectives of change leaders as well as formal and informal change agents the interviewees were selected on the basis of their current role in the organization. The selecting of change leaders was inspired on the definition of Caldwell of change leaders (Caldwell, 2003) and contains four of the ten members of the steering group of the change program (see appendix II).
Eight formal change agents were selected from the people formally involved in the change program with a definition on change agency (Caldwell, 2003) in mind. With a focus on the internal change consultants, who are involved in the supporting and facilitating program office or working as project leader / scrum master, and a focus on the change team,
consisting of members of the project teams on cultural change or the members of the scrum teams.
Snowball sampling (Saunders and Lewis, p. 139) was used to select the six informal change agents by asking names from the interviewed change leaders and formal change agents. The sample question was based on the definition of secret change agents (Pascale & Sternin, 2005). These were the people that were not directly involved in the change program, but were known for their track records on starting new initiatives and their positive influence while doing that.
The interviewees differ in age, duration of employment, business unit, gender and place in organizational hierarchy, so the different outcomes in the three sample groups are linked to their change role in the company.
The interviewees were asked to volunteer in the interview and no one refused, therefore the list of reserve interviewees was not put to use.
3.1.3 THE CASE: A DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTEXT
MN is one of the largest pension administrators and asset managers in the Netherlands. They administer the pensions of 2 million people and manage over EUR 100 billion in
invested assets for pension funds and multinationals. The vision of MN is ‘we are the leading authority in financial solutions for employees and employers. In the Netherlands, we are the standard against which other companies are measured. Abroad, we are the new blood that offers fresh solutions’. The mission states ‘We ensure that what our clients are earning today, will turn into the financial future that they deserve tomorrow’. MN employs 1200 people.
The management developed a vision for 2018, which led towards a change initiative starting in 2013. It started with the need to adjust IT systems and pension processes. These were once top of the bill but given developments in pension law and the society is call for more flexible and individual pension schemes the systems and process had become out of date. However flexibility and innovation is also not present in the DNA of MN’s employees. The program started with ideas for an innovative IT system and processes but it turned that more complex change (Cameron and Green, 2014, p. 394) was needed. MN put the focus on four main pillars: management & organization, processes, people & culture and information & systems (see appendix II).
The organization is divided in seven business units: Pensions, Insurance, Asset Management, Client Relations, Finance & Risk, Information Technology & Services and Board & Staff. Within the units Pensions, Insurance and Asset Management business cases have been developed in which the goals, risks, resources, costs and benefits have been described. To ensure the cohesion of the program a consultancy was asked to order and coordinate the initial phase of the program. In that initial phase also the impact on the culture and other parts of the company were considered. At the start of the program a program director was hired and a governance model (see appendix II) was implemented. A program office
supports the program director who manages five domains: Pension, Asset Management and Insurance as business domains and HRM and ICT as supporting domains. The program is a long-term program that will last until 2018.
MN has chosen to split up the going concern activities and the change organization, which means that people working for the change program are fully dedicated to the program. Companies often chose to work in so called change teams when ‘a planned […] change of significant proportions is necessary’ (Cameron and Green, 2014, p. 81). There are different change teams with different goals. The steering group is ‘a change team of senior
management, responsible for directing and sponsoring the change’ (Cameron and Green, 2014, p. 81); there are special project teams that are developing new processes and systems by using scrum methods; there is a project team for the cultural change with middle
management and internal experts (HR, Strategy, Communication and Corporate Control). And the HR director started an initiative for a networked team of change catalysts to support the cultural change. External consultants were hired to support the cultural program, to coordinate the board sessions about a new organizational design, the broader introduction of scrum/agile and to manage the program.
In theory the governance of the change program had been organized but in practice the company struggles with the execution. An observation to outline this struggle is an employee meeting where the start of the change program was announced. The board had chosen for a more informal presentation by setting up an interview with three members of the steering committee about the program: the CEO, the COO and the Change Director. The question was asked ‘who is responsible for the program’ and the table plunged into dead silence for a few seconds. When the question was asked again all three of them answered at
the same time with ‘me’. In the confusion that followed they all tried to put some nuances on that answer but the confusion in the room was obvious. That confusion is exemplary for
the change program at the time the research was conducted.1
3.2 The research validity
The research validity was achieved by the use of multiple sources of evidence including interviews, company documents and direct observations of the researcher. Multiple experts reviewed the draft of the case study report as a form of validity, known as member checking (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2007). Besides my supervisor, the HR director of MN and a partner of a change consultancy office agreed to review the draft. The literature about the
phenomenon of change agents has been studied and analyzed to be sure the case study achieved external validity by being grounded in and potentially contributing to broader theoretical insights on this issue. The start codes, captured in the interview questions, were drawn from existing literature. When new insights arose during the interviews the codes were adjusted and as well as the interview questions. Data analysis was thus iterative and recursive throughout the study consistent with best practice in qualitative research (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2014).
The researcher is also one of the formal change agents in the company so she was aware that her own experience might have influenced the answers of the interviewees as well as the findings. To limit that risk she emphasized her different role as a researcher/interviewer at the start of the interview. During the analyzing phase she was alert to her own bias on the topic. Finally, by using member checks throughout the process the researchers’ own bias was constantly subjected to validity checks to ensure insights are truly grounded in multiple sources of information and on the internal validity of emerging insights.
1The real-life case of the company of MN that is described in this thesis has made a big change on its change agency. This was caused by very important changes in the leadership team. The CEO, Program Director, COO en IT Director have meanwhile all left the company and are replaced. The change program has been going through
4 Qualitative data analysis
In this chapter the process of data analysis undertaken in this study has been described to using theory on post interview data analysis (O’Dwyer, 2014, p. 392). Post interview data analysis contains three phases. Data reduction is the first phase where the themes emerging from interviews have been identified through a process of coding and the data (phrases, utterances, images, etc.) connected to each of the preliminary themes have been gathered together. Elements of this phase of data analysis are ‘the creation of a general overview’, ‘recording initial themes’ and ‘the reflection phase’. The second phase is the data display phase aiming is to visualize the reduced data in a matrix or mind map to enable further reflection on and refinement of the main themes. The final phase is data interpretation where the results emerging from the thematic analysis and representation have been interpreted by the researcher.
4.1 Data reduction
Data reduction is ‘the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the raw data that appear in edited field notes’ and ‘occurs continuously throughout the life of any qualitatively-oriented project’ (Miles and Huberman (1984), p. 23).
Before making the interview protocol literature about the phenomenon of change agents was studied and analyzed to ensure the case study could achieve external validity by being grounded in and potentially contributing to broader theoretical insights on this issue (Kotter, 1995; Caldwell, 2013; Cameron and Green, 2012; Huy and Minzberg, 2003). Before starting the interviews a conceptual framework (See Appendix II) has been designed, based on existing literature on the subject and by developing a thorough understanding of existing research in the field. This review identified importing sensitizing concepts for understanding emerging data and linking new insights to existing knowledge in the field. Developing this framework allowed understanding of the relationship between the change leaders, change managers, change consultants and secret change agents already exposed in previous research. Besides developing and understanding of the existing theory, secondary data has been collected as well, such as information on the governance structure of the case study
change program and role descriptions (see Appendix III) as background information for the interviews.
4.1.1 CODING
The start codes, captured in the interview questions, have been drawn from t existing literature. When new insights arose during the interviews the codes have been adjusted and also the interview questions, as data analysis is iterative and recursive throughout the study. The coding framework can therefore be seen as an evolving combination of deductive and inductive coding (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).
The types of codes that have been used to analyze the data are mainly descriptive codes. The code summarizes in a word the basic topic of a passage of qualitative data and provides an inventory of the main themes of the thesis. On a few occasions simultaneous coding has been used when a part of the interview covers more than one topic (Saldana, 2012)
The main themes at the heart of the empirical study regarding change agents (Role, Key Attributes, Place in organization and Responsibilities) correspond with the themes of the interview questions and provided a basis for the initial coding framework. While coding according to the initial themes (or start/deductive codes = SC) inductive codes were added if mentioned by more than one interviewee (IC). Start Codes that were not mentioned by the interviewees have been removed (codes dropped = CD). Some inductive codes have been bundled together in one clustered code (CC) or absorbed in a start code.
Parts of the interviews which specific references to a formal or an informal change agent were made have been coded. This in order to be able to distinguish differences in
perspectives towards formal and informal change agents. 4.1.1.1 THE ROLES
The start codes for Roles have been abstracted from the different change agents roles of Caldwell (2003-1): the change leader, the change manager, the change consultant and the change team, in addition to the secret change agent of Pascale and Sternin (2005).
leading a specific part of change especially during systematic change. The project leader correspondence with the description of a member of a change team. Therefore the coding of the project leaders has been combined with the change team. The second role appearing from the interviews is the change agent as change ambassador. The title change
ambassador was literally mentioned by the interviewees. Sometimes the role change catalyst was mentioned but with the same meaning as the change ambassador. Although the description of change ambassador matches mainly the definition of Caldwell (2003-1) of the change manager there is one major difference. The change ambassador described by respondents is not tied to a formal position, but is an informal change agent role. The change ambassador was added to the coding table as inductive codes.
4.1.1.2 KEY ATTRIBUTES
The start codes of the key attributes were initially based on the 10 key attributes of change leaders and 10 key attributes of change managers which had been selected and ranked by a change management expert panel (Caldwell, 2003-2). Some of the attributes of the change leaders were overlapping with the attributes of the change managers so the coding started with 17 start codes. 10 start codes were not mentioned at all during the interviews and where therefore dropped. 7 of those dropped start codes were assigned to the change leaders by the expert panel and were also not recognized by the interviewees as key
attributes of change agents. 2 out of 3 start codes from the original change leader list were also present in the key attributes of change managers.
Besides the 1 originally key attributes of change leaders (risk-taking) 2 overlapping key attributes of change leaders and managers (openness to new ideas and adaptability and flexibility) and 4 change managers’ key attributes (empowering others, networking,
knowledge of the business and problem solving), 14 more attributes were mentioned during the interview. As shown in the table below the majority of those inductive codes were absorbed into a start code, because the attributes were overlapping or the inductive code described a part of the start code. Credibility and Endurance were added to the list of key attributes, which led to a list for change agents of 9 key attributes
4.1.1.3 PLACE IN ORGANIZATION
Huy and Minzberg (2003) distinguish in their change triangle three types of change.
Dramatic change starts at the very top of the organization, Systematic change starts by staff groups or consultants and Organic change starts from the bottom of the organization, but as Huy and Minzberg explain ‘neither dramatic nor systematic nor organic change works well in isolation’ (2003, 80). To identify the change agents in the organization questions were asked about the place in the organization the change agents are operating in. The codes of Place in Organization were mostly Inductive.
4.1.1.4 RESPONSIBILITIES
The 16 start codes of the Responsibilities have been derived from the definitions of change agents of Caldwell (2013) ‘a change agents is defined as an internal or external individual or team responsible for initiating, sponsoring, directing, managing or implementing a specific
change initiative, project, or complete change programme’ (p. 139-140) and O’Neill (2000) ‘The change agent act as a data gatherer, educator, advisor, meeting facilitator and coach’ (Cameron and Green, 2014, p. 173) and the six steps for successful change of Pascale & Sternin (2005) ‘make the group the guru’ (p. 74), ‘reframe through facts’ (p. 76), ‘make it safe to learn’ (p. 77), make the problem concrete’ (p. 78), ‘ leverage social proof’ (p. 78) and ‘ confound the immune defense response’ (p. 80).
The table shows the 6 start codes, which were dropped as they were not mentioned by the interviewees. 7 inductive codes were added as they were mentioned in in the interviews, but the codes were partly overlapping the start codes and have therefore been combined. This led to a list of 10 responsibilities for change agents.
4.1.1.5 CONDITIONS
During the interviews the change leaders, formal and informal change agents mentioned ideal conditions for change as a response to the current situation of the case study. Because of these insights the conditions provided a new theme, which was was added as Conditions, with 15 codes, all inductive.
4.1.2 DATA DISPLAY
‘The second major display of analysis activity is data display, defined as an organized assembly of information that permits conclusion-drawing and action-taking.’ (Miller and Huberman (1984), p. 24).
After the interviews had been coded in NVivo the first time for the main themes and the second time to distinguish the parts about the formal and informal change agents some queries were run to summarize the data. Every theme has it owns set of matrix coding. At
first the results for the whole interview data set in which the three different set of interviewees and the total of all interviewees have been compared. We get here more generic insights in the change agent surface of this level. The matrix coding queries were repeated for the part of the interviews that were only about the formal change agents and also for the parts about the informal change agents. The whole dataset is presented in appendix IV.
Besides the matrix coding quotes have been abstracted from the interviews to support and to lend additional support to the data in the matrixes.
4.2 Data interpretation
Conclusion-drawing and verification is ‘the third stream of analysis’ and ‘involves drawing meaning from displayed, reduced data, patterns, explanations, possible configurations, causal flows, propositions. ‘(Miles and Huberman (1984), p. 24).
In this chapter the outcomes of the matrix coding by theme are presented, interpreted and supported by quotes form the interviews
4.2.1 ROLES
As shown above, the interviewees suggest that the change ambassador (which is a type of change agent that emerged inductively while analyzing the data) the change manager and the change team are the main roles they associate with change agents or perceive change agents in their view as playing. How do we explain this result? Looking in more detail at the different samples of the interviewees, there are some further interesting outcomes.
To explore this in more detail, the role of the change manager is described by the interviews as follows:
"functional power and I mean middle management" (CA1)
"[...] in the end the team managers have the key role, I think "(CA5)
Although in the theoretical literature different roles of change agency have been described, the interviewees frequently refer to a role that is not theoretically substantiated, especially when contrasted with the much discussed change manager role. They perceive the change ambassador role as crucial to change agency:
Change Agent 4 defines the change ambassador as:
“Well, for me a change agent is someone who knows which direction we have to go. Who wants to think along, but also supports the change. And who is constantly communicating about the change with colleagues and environment. Where are we going and why are we doing what we do. How does it fit in in the future? It is someone who is constantly an ambassador of the change”. (CA4).
And change leader 1 completes the definition with:
“And change catalysts, [...], those are the ones you need. Who are the enthusiastic ones within your company, who will lead the rest of the population” (CL1)
The role overlaps with the role of the change manager, but the main difference between the role of the change manager and the role of the change ambassador is that the latter role is not a formal, but informal role as described by change agent 7:
“[…] this can be per definition everywhere. I call it the critical ability or the critical conscience. That can be inside an organization within a change program, but can or even should be outside the program as well and can even come from outside the organization.” (CA7)
During the interviews the role of the change manager became less important as defining what a change agent should be.
Change agent 4 describes their skepticism for example on the practice of the change manager as follows:
“I think you would be very much more, start the dialogue with people.” INT: “the open sessions?” “Not only open sessions. In each work consultation ... You know, I'm even wondering if the
managers are organizing team meetings, but ... “(CA4)
The change manager appears to be seen as more as a facilitator for the real change agent as change leader 2 cites:
“With all due respect: you know as a manager that you should not present the big story for the entire group at once, but actually ... you have to do that as part of the game, but you know it is not going to be that effective. What you should do is making an inventory to find out who are the informal leaders? And to make sure that they are supporting the change. And to figure out how to accomplish that. That is what is most important!!” (CL2)
At the end of the interview the change agent 4 admits her preference for the informal role of a change ambassador:
“The seniors that are having influence on the work floor and uhm Yes ... From a certain ... uhm ... informal influence, like... Because they have a broad network and deep respect and their technical knowledge is highly regarded. That is the reason why they are so influential. So, I see that kind of people high in the hierarchy; let’s say on middle management level. That is what I often see.” (CA3) "That is a man who makes an entrance, uses his network and proclaims the change and starts the conversation on it." (CA4)
The change leaders perceive the roles of change ambassador and the change manager as the main roles. The change leaders that were interviewed are mainly directly involved in the cultural change program and indirect involved in the formal system and process change. That formal part of the change is the responsibility of the change director and the change (scrum) teams that have been set up within the program. This explains the main focus of the change leaders on the implementation of the IT / process change, whereas the change (middle) managers play a key role for their teams (Huy, 2001; Balogun, 2003).
“In the business you need people at different levels: leaders. They have to tell every time why it is important to change” (CL 3)
As the change leader in the culture change program has a lack of enthusiasm for the
(cultural) change, the formal change agents tend to have a preference for the role of change ambassador in contrast to the change manager.
And you need a few people in the organization who like it. […] They are excited about the change that needs to take place. (CL 3)
The formal change agents agree with them, and state that the change manager and change team roles are most important. However they state that the role of change consultant has more prevalence in their perception as change agents than the informal role of change ambassador. This suggests a preference for formal roles for change agents. Their preference for the formal roles reflects their own environment. The formal change agents are operating in parallel and multidisciplinary change teams. The members of these teams are external and internal experts and project managers.
It is also remarkable that the informal change agents do not mention the change manager at all! According to Pascale and Sternin (2005) their managers should be the facilitator of their initiatives by carrying forward or at least sponsor their initiatives, but instead of pointing out the middle manager as the change agent they belief in the informal culture and the support or sponsoring of the change ambassadors for their initiatives. They cite the change
ambassador and the secret change agent as key defining roles for change agents, but both of which are informal roles.
With the strong preference for the role of change manager as change agent it was to be expected that the key attributes of change agents would not differ a lot from the key attributes listed for change managers in the existing literature (Caldwell, 2003-2).
Caldwell notes knowledge of the business as an attributes of the more traditional classical managerial role. From the interviews particularly with formal change agents it appears that they cite this attribute. This may be explained by the fact that formal change agents are often selected for their knowledge and experience. This is also a remark from which change leader 3 acknowledges:
“When I entered the program the project had already been launched, and they already had more or less a role somewhere, they had already been selected. I did not participate in the selection, but it was based on their knowledge and skills "(CL3).
Change agents 3 and 7 also confirm the focus on knowledge for formal change agents:
"the technical aspects are always in high regard" (CA3)
“A person with more distance, outside the organization will have various views such as development in the market, that we must take into account " (CA7).
Empowering others is the second key attribute that comes forth from the data for change agents and the key attribute that the change leaders and informal change agents prefer:
"That they are visible boarding the team, which is launching the change but also work along and guides the team. Eh, that they really are part of the team, that they are visible ". (CA3)
“You have to find someone who understands how change works. And how to get people to join it, how to get people to commit to it, who understands that you need them, eh, and who wants to do all that" (CL3).
Some interviewees mentioned that cultural change is the ‘real change’ and that can explain the main focus on the responsibilities that could be linked to secret change agents.
“For me the behavioral and cultural change is the only real change. The rest is ICT and if you not do not change behavior and culture, changed in ICT are not going to work out well, because the processes do not fit h the people who have to work with it." (CA4).
The second and third key attributes of change managers (Caldwell, 2003-2) team building and leaning from others are not mentioned once in the interviews.
Looking specifically at the key attributes of the formal change agents the knowledge of the business (4:5) is less important then the openness to new ideas (6:7). For informal change agents the knowledge of the business (3:5) is surpassed in importance by risk-taking (6:10). 4.2.3 PLACE IN ORGANIZATION
The findings of the data for Place in organization have one clear and perhaps even surprising outcome: the interviewees do not see change agents in the management layers of the organization!
According to the respondents, the change agents can be found close to operations, inside the change program or can be everywhere. Looking more specifically at the details, the
interviewees place the formal change agents inside the change program and the informal change agents can be anywhere or close to the operations:
“People who are operating close to the, well, I'll just say it, to the regular staff level " (CA1).
By contrast, the change leaders prefer the change agents to be in a change program:
"They are within the program organization, when it comes to the supporting activities – so, within a program office, when it comes to stakeholder management - ... Because they are people who support
