Perception of middle management on implementation process

(1)

Perception of middle management

on

Implementation process

Master Thesis

MSc. Business Studies – Strategy Track

Prepared by S. Payanda PAYANDA(10824049) Supervised by Dr. Jeroen KRAAIJENBRINK Submitted on October 31th, 2018 (version1.0)

(2)

Abstract

Middle level managers play significant roles during the implementation of organizational strategies and strategic change management. Yet, concluded from the literature review little is known about the middle managers’ perception on strategy implementation and the organisational changes.

Therefore, this research is an attempt to extend our understanding on the factors that influence the implementation of strategy by presenting the middle management view on the implementation of change.

Data were collected using semi-structured in-depth interviews with 19 middle managers from international manufacturing organisations. This research demonstrates that strategic alignment, internal communication, and middle management contribution and early involvement in strategy formulation process are critical factors

influencing strategy implementation. In view of the above, the middle level managers’ perspective on the obstacles of implementation strategy adds more insight regarding what influences the implementation of success or failure of an organisational change.

(3)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student S. Payanda PAYANDA, 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 responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(4)

Acknowledgments

I am thankful to my Creator for the strengths and His blessings in completing this wonderful challenge.

With His present in my destiny I feel safe and blessed.

The support and encouragement of numerous people enabled me to complete this research and made this

journey an unforgettable experience. Thank you all! I owe a deep sense of gratitude to my parents and

(5)

2.6.3 Overcoming Barriers ... 35 3. Research methodology... 39 3.2. Introduction ... 39 3.2. Research philosophy ... 39 3.3 Research approach ... 39 3.3.1 Research measurement ... 40 3.4 Research strategy ... 40 3.5 Interviews ... 41 3.5.1 Unit of analysis ... 42 3.5.2 Sample selection ... 43 3.6 Data collection ... 43

(6)

3.7 Data analysis ... 44

3.8 Validity and reliability ... 45

3.8.1 Construct validity of the research ... 45

3.8.2 Internal validity ... 45

3.8.3 External validity ... 46

3.8.4 reliability of the research... 46

4. Findings ... 47

4.1 Introduction ... 47

4.2 Perceptions on roles and behaviors ... 48

4.3 Perceptions of Strategy Implementation ... 50

4.4 Self-perception of resistance to change ... 51

4.5 Perceptions of Barriers to Strategy Implementation ... 53

4.5.1 Strategy Formulation ... 54

4.5.2 Organisational Structure ... 55

4.5.3 Communication ... 55

4.6 Root causes ... 56

4.6.1 Not being engaged in formulation of change strategy... 56

4.6.2 Poor communication ... 57

5. Discussion and conclusion ... 60

5.1 Introduction ... 60

5.2 Roles and Behaviour ... 60

5.3 Perceptions of Strategy Implementation ... 61

5.4 Implementation Barriers ... 62

5.5 Other identified barriers ... 62

5.6 How to conquer the most significant implementation barriers ... 63

5.7 Limitations ... 66 Appendix 1: ... 67 Appendix 2 ... 73 Appendix 3: ... 75 Appendix 4: ... 78 Reference list ... 79

(7)

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Framework for identifying change depending on the nature/speed and the extent of change ... 16

Figure 2: Theoretical Model of Culture Traits ... 27

Figure 3: Interaction of six implementation barriers ... 31

Figure 4: Emotions throughout the transition phase ... 34

Figure 5: Timeline of change, as perceived by different levels of an organization ... 35

Figure 6: Actions to prevent the implementation barriers ... 36

Figure 7: The impact of well-managed organizational change ... 38

Figure 8: Methodology used in this research ... 78

Table 1: “silent killers” from Beers & Eisenstat (2000) ... 30

Table 2: Different definitions related to middle level manager ... 42

Table 3: Information about participants (gender/organisation variety) ... 73

(8)

1. Introduction

1.1 Introduction

The study of strategic management deals with the relationship between organisations and their environment

in order to be successful (Covin, 1991; Camillus, Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 1998). Because of the

dynamism in the organisation and its environment, the ability to adapt becomes even more important (De

Wit & Meyer, 2004). Therefore, organisations will have to implement strategies vital to their survival.

However, none of these strategies will beneficial unless implemented successfully (Ginsberg, 1988; Hamel

& Prahalad, 1989). Although the importance of strategy implementation is widely acknowledged, the process

of strategy implementation is poorly understood (Gupta & Govindarajan, 1984; Hamel & Prahalad, 1989;

Waldersee & Sheather, 1996).

Strategy implementation implies change in the organisation. Studies of strategic change demonstrate its

complexity; the political conflicts, the bounded rationality of managers, the inertia of organisational

structures, the cultural barriers and systems (Pettigrew, 1985, Johnson, 1987; Heracleous, 2000). This

complexity and various problems related to the strategy itself, the way the strategy was developed and the

management of change processes makes implementing strategy a very difficult task (Atherton, 1993;

Johnson, 1987; Pettigrew, 1985; Heracleous, 2000). The past years, numerous organizations have

experienced failure in implementation of change programms. However, only 30% of change programs

worldwide are implemented successfully (John Kotter, 1996; Balogun & Hope Hailey, 2004; Beer & Nohria,

2000; Grover, 1999). The challenges that managing change present are very similar to those of implementing

strategy. How and why strategy implementation processes frequently fail is usually not explained in the

primarily researched literature. According to Rouse (2011) the reason why the success rate of change

programs does not increase needs more research. He finds it strange that despite so much research and change

(9)

A development in the research on change is that the phenomenon is currently considered as not only a shift

in organizational processes and structures, but also as emotional and cognitive organizational reorientation

(e.g, Zajac et al., 2006; Barr et al., 1992; Barr, 1998; Barr et al., 1992; Gioia and Chittipeddi, 19 91; Reger

et al, 1994; Zajac et al., 2006). Nowadays, when it comes to research on change, there is a shift from studying

affected organizational structures and systems to analysis of the interorganizational interaction process

through which organizations are constituted, reproduced and changed over time (Weick, 1995; Volberda,

1999, 2001; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al., 2000; Nonaka, 1988). Also, McKinley & Scherer

(2000) and Huy (2002) argue that not enough studies have been done on the role of the middle management

and their perspective on the organizational change strategies. This could, arguably, account for the meagre

success rate of strategy implementation and is therefore the focus of attention in this thesis.

Many scholars have been studying the role and influence of middle managers on strategy-making processes

(Wooldridge & Floyd, 1990; Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Floyd & Lane, 2000; Currie &Procter, 2005; Pappas

& Wooldridge, 2007); strategy implementation (Guth & MacMillan, 1986; Huy, 2002; Balogun &

Johnson,2004); corporate entrepreneurship (Burgelman, 1983b ; Bower, 1970), and innovation and

organizational learning (Kanter, 1982;Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) . Even though their

research questions and objectives differ widely, all researchers believe that middle managers are essential

when it comes to explaining the organisational outcomes.

Numerous arguments have been discussed in the literature to explain the importance of middle managers’

perspective (Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000), three of which will be highlighted here. First, due to their

intermediate position in the organization hierarchy, middle managers function as linchpins or fundamental

inter-faces between actors and domains of different organisational levels (Nonaka, 1991; Floyd &

Wooldridge, 1999; Floyd and Lane, 2000), such as top management and workforce. Whereas early attentions

on this influential position focused on middle managers as sources of resistance (e.g. Guth &MacMillan,

(10)

&Johnson (2004) acknowledge that complex, international organizations cannot be managed by single actors

or small groups, but require an interactive leadership throughout the organization, with middle managers as

important mediators between units and levels. Thirdly, research suggests that middle managers may play a

bigger role than top managers in activities related to capability development (King & Zeithaml, 2001). Put

differently, middle managers are a crucial point of observation from which to study the organizational

processes related to renewing and building capabilities.

The fundamental role of middle managers in influencing the process and outcome of strategic change seems

well defined (e.g., Huy, 2002, Westley, 1990, Balogun and Johnson, 2004; Floyd and Wooldridge, 1992),

yet the motives behind the middle managers support, disagreement or opposition to strategic change have

often been assumed to be mainly due to their personal interests in the narrow sense of the term; for example

their role, financial incentives or gains or losses in their organizational status (e.g., Biggart, 1977; Guth and

MacMillan, 1986, Crossan and Berdrow, 2003). However, according to Huy (2010) on this matter,“ research on implementation of strategic change has underexplored causes that are less directly personal but could still

significantly influence middle managers’ support or rejection of a new strategy”. Strategic change can arouse

intense emotions between the members of organisation, these emotions can influence their receptiveness to

change ( Fox and Amichai- Hamburger, 2001; Huy, 2002)). An increasing number of researchers notice the

necessity to raise knowledge of change processes by focusing on the way individuals create the meaning of

their organizational life (e.g, Ericson, 2001; Newton and Johnson, 1998). Ericson (2001) states that when an

organization is facing change, individual and shared values are challenged, exposed and subjected to

reconstruction. Thus, to understand organizational change, it is indispensable to understand the matters that

dominate among the organizational members, as well as the processes whereby these meanings/matters

change and happen together.

Therefore, this thesis focuses exclusively on strategy research and on exploring the barriers to implement

(11)

This study is a qualitative research. A critical review of key literature on the strategic management, change

management and the role of middle management was performed. The theory is used to analysis the

implementation process and subsequently to design an empowering framework, which illustrates the

perspective of middle management on how to empower their activities/role throughout the implementation

phase of strategy (change).

Results of this study add to knowledge related to the identification of barriers relating to strategy

implementation by addressing obstacles from the viewpoint of middle managers (who play a key role in

strategy implementation in particular and in organizational strategic activities in general). This, in turn, may

contribute to improving the success rate of change implementation.

1.2 Research Question and Objectives

The literature review was useful to narrow down the research topic from the broad field of strategic

management to a more specific area of focus. The focus of this research will be on identifying barriers

hindering strategy implementation and change by investigating the perspective of middle managers and their

role in this process. The overall character of this study is exploratory, building on existing studies done in

the area of strategy implementation and change management.

Consequently, the main research question is:

“What is the middle management’s perception of their role in the implementation of organisational change strategies and what can be done to facilitate their contribution to the success of such implementation

processes?”

To answer this question, the following research objectives are identified

1. To investigate what roles and behaviours middle managers adopt during the implementation of

change initiatives;

2. To determine which implementation variables are common barriers which exist in the strategy

(12)

3. To examine how these barriers could be mitigated according to middle management, in

ordertoempower them to contribute to a successful implementation of change;

These three objectives will also provide a basis for the structure of this thesis.

1.3 Structure of the thesis

Firstly, the literature will be reviewed and a theoretical framework is set up, including a discussion of the

expected roles of middle management in change programs (Chapter 2). Next, research methodology is

described and discussed (Chapter3). Chapter 4 presents the research findings and an evaluation of the data

(13)

2. Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the reader with a literature review of change, change management, barriers

during implementation of change, the role of middle level management in organization and during

change. As stated in Chapter One, this study is concerned primarily with the experience of middle

level management during the implementation of change. Thus, the researcher maintains that this

study will contribute to a greater understanding of change and change management from the

middle level management’s perspective.

Stemming from the above, this chapter briefly explains change and change management; presents

types of change and common models and approaches to change; and focuses on middle level

managers as the recipients of change in this study, moreover , the issue of resistance .

2.2 The Phenomenon of Change

Kanter (1992, p. 279) states that:

“ Change involves the crystallization of new possibilities (new policies, new behaviour, new patterns, new methodologies, new products or new market ideas) based on the reconceptualised patterns in the institution. The architecture of change involves the de sign and construction of new patterns, or the reconceptualisation of old ones, to make new, and hopefully more productive actions possible.”

Kanji and Moura (2003, p. 292) and Lycke (2003, p. 206) cohere this view and argue that change

can be multiplex and includes changes to structure, procedures, regulations and rules, technology,

development, trainings and customer needs within organizations.

According to Kanter, Stein and Jick (1992) change is ‘the shift in behavior of the whole

(14)

Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth and Smith 1999).

Jager (2001) stated that :

“ Change is a simple process. At least, it’s simple to describe. It occurs whenever we replace the old with the new. Change is about travelling from the old to the new, leaving yesterday behind in exchange for the new tomorrow. But implementing change is incredibly difficult. Most people are reluctant to leave the familiar behind. We are all suspicious about the unfamiliar; we are naturally concerned about how we get from the old to the new, especially if it involves learning something new and risking failure. “

Thus, according to this view, change is moving from the known state into the unknown state and

because the future is uncertain it affects employees in process of change.

2.2.3. Triggers of organizational change

A range of reasons why organizations change have been identified in the literatures. Huber, Glick,

Miller and Sutcliffe (1993) grouping those triggers into five categories as the five- construct model

which is widely cited in the organizational studies; (1) characteristics of the organizational

environment, (2) characteristics of organizational performance, (3) characteristics of the

organization’s top managers, (4) characteristics of the organizational strategy, (5) characteristics of the organization’s structure. Change is based on both external environmental factors such as competitiveness and stability of the industry and internal environmental factors such as

competencies and organizational culture (Mintzberg, 1983).

2.2.4. Types of change

As it is mentioned before the change process can be defined as a journey between a current/existed

state and a future state. According to Dervitsiotis (2003), there are many types of change within an

organization, therefore it is critical for leaders to give serious thought to the kind, complexity and

(15)

unplanned, evolutionary or revolutionary or either as deep (e.g. culture) or surface (e.g. business

system) (Burke, 2002).

Linda Ackerman (1986) distinguished change into three different categories: developmental

change (Planned or Unplanned), transitional change (it is episodic, planned and second order, or

radical) and transformational change (radical or second order).

The first two types of change, developmental and transitional represent the simplest form of

organizational change. Both type of change which are executed within the cadre of what is already

been practiced or known by organization and do not need thoroughgoing modifications of

structure, operations or culture; developmental and transitional change lead primarily to

enhancements or improvements in existed operations (Anderson & Ackerman - Anderson, 2010).

According to Kleiner and Corrigan (1989) developmental changes are related to modifying minor

aspects, for example modification of existing manufacturing processes to improve their efficiency

without new design of production method. In comparison to other types of change, developmental

changes will affect employees and organizations to a lesser degree. ( Anderson & Ackerman -

Anderson, 2010 ).

Beckhard and Harris (1987) were the first theorists to define transitional change in their “ Three States of Change Model “ (Anderson & Ackerman - Anderson, 2010). In this model Beckhard and Harris (1987) emphasize the activities related to “ Transition state” as vital for transitional change: Due to vague circumstances during the transition state, in order to change in to a new state, the

previous state must first be entirely interrupted/demolished. By doing this, the organization

disengages with and discards the previous behaviors that hinder or do not meet requirements for

the future state ( Lozano , 2012). Transitional change is more complicated than developmental

change because with this type of change, the organizations replace the existing state of structure or

(16)

opportunity (Ander son & Ackerman - Anderson, 2010). For example: reorganization, installation

or integration of information technologies. Both developmental and transitional types of change

are linear and predictable. This characteristic makes it possible to design and plan change that will

lead to a controlled and stable environment for the organization and its employees ( Anderson &

Ackerman - Anderson , 2010 ).

Transformational change is different from developmental and transitional change. This type of

change aims to create a “new state of being ” without having a clear picture of the final state (Ackerman - Anderson , 1986). This type of change is used to transform strategy, structure, or

culture; therefore, it requires a shift in behavior and mindset at the individual and organizational

level (Anderson & Ackerman - Anderson, 2010). While human and cultural aspects are present in

both developmental and transitional change, they ate absolutely vital for transformational change

to succeed(Boonstra, 2008).

Transformational change is preferred when external environmental changes are significant and

happen very rapidly; in this case in order to keep pace, the desired end state must remain in a state

of flux ( Anderson & Ackerman - Anderson, 2010 ).

Balogun and Hope Hailey (2008) have introduced a framework for identifying the type of change

depending on the level of change (Figure 2). This framework describes what type of change to

expect by taking a look at the relation between the nature and speed of the change with the extent

(17)

Figure 1: Framework for identifying change depending on the nature/speed and the extent of change (Balogun and Hope Hailey 2008, pp. 21)

The nature/speed of change determines how the change is going to be implemented; The extent of

change ranges from transformation to realignment. The difference is that transformation involves

changing the organization’s culture while realignment does not.

The different types of change defined by Balogun and Hope Hailey (2008) are evolution,

revolution, adaption and reconstruction. Evolution is a change type that is implemented slowly

through connected activities, suitable for proactive actions for required changes in the future.

Revolution is a change where contemporary activities are occurring on many levels. Adaption is a

change in how the organization operates and implemented through controlled steps.

Reconstruction is similar to an adaption, but during reconstruction, many actions are implemented

simultaneously and oftentimes forced by a change in the competitive context.

Organizational change (organizing) and strategic change (strategizing) are also two terms in

change literature. Accordingly to Pye and Pettigrew (2006): “ the purpose of organizing and strategizing is to change behaviors of people, rather than being ends in themselves”.

Strategic change (strategizing) although intent to focus on external environment of the business

(where do we want to go ); Organizational change (organizing) however, aims to focus on internal

(18)

the organizational goals (Pye and Pettigrew, 2006).

Though they are different concepts, they are used interchangeably (Whittington, 2003). The focus

of this thesis is on organizational change (organizing), since it deals with implementation of

change and the units of analysis (middle management) are responsible for implementation of

change internally to increase flexibility, productivity, customer satisfaction and innovation.

In the literature, many definitions on organizational change are given. Generally it is seen as

“changing how an organization functions or performs”. For instance, “Organizational change is the modification of established work routines, the reconsideration of existing patterns of

communication, the reorganize of existed work groups, or the hiring of new employees” (House et

al, 1986). “Organizational change transforms how an organization functions, allocate resources, alters who its members and leaders are, or what form the organization needs to takes” (Huber et al 1993). “The purpose of any organizational change is to move the organization from its current state to a more desirable future state” (Ragsdell, 2000). “Organizational change can be defined as new ways of organizing and performing in an organization” (Dawson 2003).

2.2.5 Change management models

One of the early introductory models for change management was provided by Lewin (1951). This

is the most commonly used model in managing change (Higgs and Rowland 2005).

Lewin (1951) recognizes that change is a process whereby the organization requires transition and

moves into its new state of being. Lewins’ model identifies three stages of change: Unfreezing,

Changing (transition) and Refreezing.

In the initial step of unfreezing, as Lewin (1951) states “Motivation for change must be generated before change can occur. One must be helped to re- examine many cherished assumptions about

oneself and one’s relations to others.”

(19)

structure, working processes are hindering the response to internal objectives or to the market

demands. The unfreezing can be triggered by pro-active analysis of the organizational environment

or re-active due to a crisis.

The transition (change) phase is marked by implementation of the change. In this stage the

organization and employees are “unfrozen” and are willing to adapt the new conditions such as new structures and new ways of working. This phase is marked with uncertainty and fear and the

hardest step to overcome.

Therefore, an essential part of the change process are the change agents who, according to

Armenakis and Bedeian (1999), shall lead and influence the change process by handling the

resistance, guide the exploration and win commitment within the organization. These change

agents can be either internal leading persons or external consultants (Saka 2003).

In the refreezing phase of this model, the organization and employees embrace the new operational

procedures and start stabilizing and solidifying the new norms or status quo. Lewin emphasize that

in this stage it is crucial to ensure that changes are incorporated into everyday business and that

employees do not revert back to their old ways of doing and thinking .

Although Lewin’s model has been a fundamental model and a research tool in the field of change management, it has also been criticized by researchers. For example Moss et al. (1992), Weick and

Quinn (1999) and Purser and Petranker (2005) argue that Lewin’s model is a linear and static illustration of change that does not entirely harmonize the reality of todays complex organisations.

Also Hendry (1996) points out, “Scratch any account of creating and managing change and the idea that change is a three-stage process which necessarily begins with a process of unfreezing will

not be far below the surface. Indeed it has been said that the whole theory of change is reducible to

this one idea of Kurt Lewin’s” (p. 624).

(20)

the organization might use the models as only a planning tool instead of a process development

model (Cameron and Green 2012). In that case, the unfreezing phase becomes planning, the

transition becomes a single implementation and the refreezing phase becomes only a review,

which leads to ignoring the reality that it is people that change along and not just the organization

(Cameron and Green 2012).

In order to manage the transition phase there are three groundwork theories about how to manage

change, to be specific: Kanter et. al’s (1992) ten commandments for executing change, Kotter’s

(1996) eight steps for successful organizational transformation and Luecke’s (2003) seven steps. Subsequently, these theories are supported and validated by Oakland and Tanner (2007), who have

used these theories to develop a seven step change management model to amplify the cycle of

change and establish continuous improvements within the organization. More about this is

explained in Appendix 1. For this study are these change management models used.

2.3 Middle Managers’ Strategic Roles in organization

Literature emphasizes four strategic roles of middle managers, categorized on the basis of

behavioral and cognitive aspects. (Floyd and Wooldridge 1992, 1996; Mintzberg & Waters, 1985;

Burgelman, 1983a, 1983b; Mintzberg, 1978; Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). The traditional role is

implementation of strategy, As synthesizers, middle managers ensure upward information flow. In

the championing role , middle managers’ different thinking has the potential to influence and change top management’s view of strategy and finally, as facilitators, middle managers encourage and motivate their subordinates or other organizational actors.

Related to the championing and synthesizing roles, a substantial amount of research has been

carried out to explore and examine middle managers’ issue-selling role (Floyd, & Baldridge, 2005; Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Dutton, Asford, O’Neil, & Lawrence, 2001; Dutton, Ashford, O’Neil, Hayes, & Wierba,1997). Through issue selling, middle managers sell/communicate issues upwards

(21)

and influence the attention of the top management.

Other literature focuses on how middle managers foster strategic change downward.

For example, the research of Beatty and Lee (1992) emphasize that middle managers as

transformational leaders were more successful in introducing technological changes than middle

managers using transactional leadership approaches, the last group only focused on technical

issues and neglected employees and organizational issues.

Huy (2001, 2002) highlights the middle managers’ role in managing emotions through radical change. Huy (2002) describes “emotional balancing” whereby middle managers help employees handle and make sense of change.

Recent studies also deal with the question how middle managers build, manage and renew

relationships not only across but also beyond the organization. Through a qualitative case study,

Rouleau (2005) uses the theory on sense-making and sense- giving of Gioia & Chittipeddi (1991)

and examines how middle managers interpret and sell strategic changes to the key stakeholders. In

this case, Rouleau (2005, page 46) identifies four middle managers’ micro- practices namely : “ translating the new orientation, overcoding the strategy, disciplining the client, and justifying the

change”. The research of Rouleau (2005) provides better insight into the tactics middle managers use in their roles as interpreters and sellers of change.

Strategic roles of middle managers have also been important in the process of

corporate entrepreneurship (Fulop, 1991). Floyd and Wooldridge (1999), for example, explain

three roles managers fulfill in order to create and incorporate knowledge in the corporate

entrepreneurship process by a. identifying opportunities, b. developing initiatives, c. renewing

(22)

2.4 The roles and behaviors of middle management in the change

In the business world there are different perceptions of the roles and responsibilities of middle

management in change processes. There are also different perceptions of the influence of middle

management on the change process. Where some people recognize middle managers as positive

factors on change, others are not that enthusiastic about it.

According to Guth & Macmillan (1986), the middle level managers sabotage the change strategies

in organisations. However, Huy (2001) argues this view and states that middle level management

earn a better perception because they behave as contributor to the realisation of change strategies

by being: a communicator, an entrepreneur, a therapist and finally the “manager” who balances the stagnation, actions and processes within the organisation. Hence, Furnham (2002) supports this

view and adds that middle managers are valuable when implementing a strategy. Huy (2001) also

emphasize that middle level managers have an unique position in the organisation, this enables

them to adopt the role of a entrepreneurs. And when it comes to firm’s growth and implementing new strategies, they are competent to envision, understand the dynamics, sense the new

possibilities and predict risks. This entrepreneurial role enables them to innovate and have

suggestions on how to change or implement a strategy.

In concurrence with Huy (2001) the middle level managers behave as therapists during the

implementation of change. As most intended strategies are top- down, change strategies result in

emotional reactions such as incomprehension, fear, concern or uncertainty. Those emotional

reactions possible will lead to resistance during implementation phase of change. Resistance

demotivates and stops individuals to perform. In this case the middle level managers are in

fundamental position to address the emotional imbalance and act up on it as a therapist. They are

crucial in this role because of the relationship they have with the employees. As a therapist during

(23)

level to catalyse or create an emotionally safe and balanced working environment. As this was also

mentioned earlier in work of Mollick (2013) and Andrzej Lis et al., those middle managers are

able to build a climate of trust, inspire, influence and manage conflicts in order to create high-

performance culture.

Another role of middle management during change is as mentioned by Huy (2001), they keeping

the business operate. He affirms that the middle management also have a positive influence on the

speed balance of the implementation phase; as a very fast implementation of change strategy

brings chaos to the process, in contrast a tardily implementation of change will result in business

stagnation.

Trowbridge (2011) mentions a research, which resultant the role of middle managers in change

process as essential communicators, change managers, advocates, coaches and liaisons. However,

the irony of this study is that these same managers were also mentioned as most likely resistant

group to the change initiatives. Hence, an earlier survey done by the Lean Management Institute

(LMI) in 2007, presents the top three obstacles in implementation of change: 1. middle

management resistance to change (by 36.1%) 2. Shortcoming in implementation know-how (by

31%) 3. Employees resistance to change (by only 27.7%). Samuel (2010) argues that when the

middle managers resist to change they are suffocating the information flow and are unwilling to

make the needed efforts. He states that the resistance from middle management is a hazard barrier

to any change program. Moore (2012) and McMahon & Walsh (2013) declare that often the

middle managers are fearful when it comes to change; as they are concerned about losing power,

authority or losing their job. The study of Meyer (2006) displayed earlier how the middle level

managers of four Nordic partners destructed a merger strategic intent that was not in their interest.

Newton (2013) explains that middle managers form an obstacle in change management programs

(24)

Huy (2001) points out that middle managers are a source to innovation and successful

implementation of change. As they own a formal and informal network to form the needed

Coalition; they are emotionally intelligent and therefore motivators to their team; they are able to

manage the chaos and conflict situations throughout implementation phases of the change

program.

However, Kanter (1982) done a research on 165 middle level managers in five different companies

to study what factors have innovative organisations in common and what makes middle level

managers to take part of innovation. Interestingly, she concludes that productive organisations

have innovative middle level managers whom are visionary in their field, persistent and open to

change. According to Kanter (1982) the middle management are able to create an environment of

trust and transparency wherein fears and uncertainty can be openly discussed. Likewise,

Wai-Kwong (2001) mentions that middle managers have a unique position in the organizational

structure as they are able to combine the implementation of transformational efforts alongside with

the daily operational effectiveness. Huy (2002) approve this view by stating that the efforts of

middle managers in supporting and empathize with their team positively affects the change

process.

Attested by Wooldridge and Floyd (1990), the involvement of middle level managers during the

decision-making phase of change strategies results to more effective decisions, higher degree of

support from members of the organisations, better implementation and improves performance.

Also, according to Wooldridge et al. (2008) the perspective of middle management on change

process is valuable as they have access to the top management and know a lot about operational

ability. Therefore, they are able to feedback on decisions which is made by top management and

mediate the message to the lower members of the organization. Different researches also continue

(25)

and implementing of strategic change initiatives (Balogun 2003, Balogun & Rouleau 2011).

The research done by Huy (2001) shows important efforts of middle level managers during change

which are found in four areas, but go mostly unrecognized by executive management;

Firstly, their entrepreneurial suggestions and ideas. They are willing and able to realize those ideas

when they feel appreciated and heard by the upper management.

Secondly, they excellence in influencing and managing the informal networks as their networks

run deeper than most executive management.

Thirdly, they are aware of their teams and attentive to employees’ emotions and uncertainties during change initiatives.

Finally, they are able to manage internes and chaos due to their skills by positive influencing the

tension between continuity of daily business and implementation of change process.

Huy (2001) examines each of those efforts with examples of real world. Despite the

acknowledgement that not every middle level manager excels in those areas, he emphasizes that

neglecting the skills, influences and roles of middle level managers during the change process; or

by reducing their responsibilities and ranks, will drastically minimize executives and

upper-managers chances in successfully implementing the intended change strategy. Hence, in the real

world the middle level managers might be the absent ‘guiding allies’ or the missing ‘piece of the puzzle’ of executives in implementation of successful change initiatives.

(26)

2.5 Implementation variables as potential berrier to strategy implementation

Okumus (2001) identified implementation variables and their potential to form obstacle to the

implementation process. Next a brief explanation of the frequently addressed varriables:

2.5.1 Strategy Formulation

Strategy formulation is explained as a process whereby decisions are made in order to meet the

organizational objectives (Forster & Browne, 1996; Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992). The

implementation phase is the realisation stage of strategy formulation. Therefore, if the strategy

formulation is not done properly, it will form a barrier to the implementation phase. In addition, it

seems that the strategy formulation and strategy implementation are viewed as two separate

processes carried out by two different groups/levels of organisation (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985;

Guth & MacMillan, 1986). Therefore, it is possible that individuals who are responsible for or

crucial to the implementation phase, are missing the essential information that has been

communicated in the strategy formulation process (Hunger & Wheelen, 1996). However,

communication of strategy, expressing the emotions and involvement of operational employees

would facilitate the implementation phase of intended strategy (Floyd and Wooldridge,1992; Guth

and MacMillan,1986; Heracleous ,2000).

2.5.2 Environment

Change in environment is often being indicated as the reason behind change in organizations

(Ansoff, 1979; Heracleous, 2000). A research of Bryson and Bromiley (1993) also explains that

the stability of the environment as a variable has a significant effect on the strategy design and

implementation process. Thus, when significant changes in environment result in change and

transformation within organizations the environment uncertainty forms a potential barrier to the

(27)

2.5.3 Organisational structure

In literature on strategic management, this aspect is often mentioned as an important variable (e.g.

Waterman, 1982; Chandler, 1962; Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984; Heracleous, 2000). Management

can adopt to different organizational structures when necessary, in order to lead the organisation

towards desired state (Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984; Heracleous, 2000). Alike, Galbraith and

Kazanjian’s (1986) research on implementation emphasizes that for successful implementation of new strategy, the organizations may need to change their structure. Interestingly, Chandler (1962)

studies several US based corporations, the outcomes highlights that changes in strategy results into

transformation/change in organisational structure. This leads to the idea of strategy-structure fit,

where the organizational performance is based on ensuring a fit between structure and strategy

(Chandler,1962; Leavitt 1965). Nutt (1998) mentions that different management levels within

organisation, have different approaches when it comes to the implementation process. Therefore,

organisational structure can form a barrier to the implementation if individuals in different

organizational levels have different perspectives on intended strategy and implementation process.

2.5.4 Organisational Culture

Organisational culture has been defined in many researches. For example:

Peters and Waterman (1982) describe culture as shared goals; Schein (1985) describes

organizational culture as relative to leadership; Morris (1992) defines organisational culture as a

set of behaviour, individual norms and beliefs and values.

The model of Denison and Mishra’s (1995) in figure 4, emphasizes cultural attributes and values linked to effectiveness and points out four traits of organizational culture: involvement,

consistency, adaptability, and mission. Involvement apply to the extent that organizational actors

participate in the organization. Accordingly, individuals with a high degree of involvement, have a

(28)

which is grounded on accepted values within the organization; Adaptability is related to the

organizational norms and beliefs and prepares the individuals for internal change in response to

external circumstances; Mission provides organization with a long term vision and purpose.

Figure 2: Theoretical Model of Culture Traits (Denison and Mishra’s (1995), pp. 13)

In two different studies, Schwartz and Davis (1981) and later Scholz (1987) argue that achieving a

fit between organisational culture and strategy facilitates organisational success.

Despite the different definitions of culture, one thing is common to all, namely: organisational

culture is not static, but can be changed and influenced (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Organisations

that found intended strategies on the basis of a fair understanding of their own culture, operate

more successfully than organizations with no alignment in strategy and culture (Recardo & Jolly,

1997). Therefore, organizational culture may act as a potential barrier to the implementation

process.

2.5.5 Operational Planning

Operational planning or project/implementation planning(Carroll, 1993) refers to a set of

(29)

to addressing and scheduling relevant practices and allocation of required resources for the

implementation process. To ensure the success of implementation processs, the

actions/performance need to be monitored. The implementation planning can form a barrier if it is

(30)

2.5.6 Communication

It has been indicated that the manager’s effectiveness and success in managing responsibilities is interrelated with the organisation’s ability to develop efficient internal communication (Beer & Eisentat, 2000; Phillips & Brown, 1993; Tourish, 1997). The communication skills of different

organizational levels seem to be a powerful tool to increase commitment of all employees at all

levels (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992; Tourish, 1997). Additionally, communication encourages

exchange of feedback (Sadler, 1998). Communication is concerned with the manner individuals

communicate and the information flow within different level of organization. However, effective

communication requires time and effort (Tourish, 1997). Lack of communication leads to

misunderstandings, which will eventually affect the result of any implementation initiatives due to

poor vertical communication or unclear strategy and conflicting priorities (Beer and Eisentat

,2000) . Therefore, communication can be a vital barrier to any change within the organisation

(Tourish, 1997).

2.5.7 Resource Allocation

The resources, in terms of skills, knowledge, finance and time, is thought to be crucial to strategy

implementation (Alexander, 1986; Miller, 1997). The availability of resources represents the

strengths of an organization in supporting the implementation process(Barney, 1991).

2.5.8 People

This variable represents individuals within the organisation (Waterman, 1982). Different authors

(Cook & Ferris, 1986; Devanna, Fombrun & Tichy, 1984; Martell, Gupta & Carroll, 1996; Schuler

& Jackson, 1987) believe that human resource management is important to strategy

implementation and sometimes strategy formulation. Different frameworks in strategic

management also emphasize the importance of employees (e.g. Candido & Morris, 2001; Peters &

(31)

implementation. Therefore, if the people are not managed well, they form a potential barrier to the

implementation process.

2.6 Other barriers to implementation

2.6.1 “Silent Killers”

The process of implementation is very complex. It requires realigning organizational structures, systems,

leadership and management, culture and values. However, between the ideal strategic alignment and

strategic implementation there are potentially hidden barriers. Especially when companies face obstacles

that block implementation of strategy and organizational learning. These unseen barriers were named

“silent killers” by Beer and Eisenstat (2000). They will not cause immediate failure of the implementation process as long as organizations are aware of them and upper management/leaders actively encourages

individual’s participation throughout the process and communicate about the barriers and their underlying sources (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000). These barriers are presented in the table 1 below ;

Top-Down or Laissez-Faire Senior Management Style (9 of 12 cases) Unclear strategy or conflicting priorities (9 of 12 cases)

An Ineffective senior Management Team (12 of 12 cases) Poor vertical communication (10 of 12 cases)

Poor coordination across functions, businesses or boards (9 of 12 cases) Inadequate Down-the -line leadership skills and development (8 of 12 cases)

Table 1: “silent killers” from Beers & Eisenstat (2000)

The six silent killers can be cause difficulties when happen individually, however, when they happen

together it will be a huge problem to the business practice and impact the quality of direction, quality of

organizational learning and quality of implementation (Beer and Eisenstat, 2000). As those barriers are

(32)

strategy implementation barriers, grouped into the three different categories and the interaction between

them.

Figure 3: Interaction of six implementation barriers ( Beer&Eisenstat,2000)

If the first step, quality of direction, is poor it will be very difficult to implement successfully.

The first barrier is the Top-Down or Laissez-Faire Senior Management Style. Where decisions are made by

the top management most of the time without engagement and input of the functioning managers. Beer &

Eisenstat (2000) argue that this complicates the required coordination with lower level managers.

The conflicting priorities and poor coordination are interrelated. And happen when, within the

organization, different strategies or parts of them compete for the resources, this initiates an internal

competition between the groups of two conflicting strategies. Beer & Eisenstat (2000) add that if this

conflict situation is not handled correctly, it will lead to an internal affliction.

The third barrier is An Ineffective senior Management Team; When top management make decisions alone

and operate without engagement of different levels of organization. Beer & Eisenstat emphasize that this

aspect leads to a skewed view and an inefficient cooperation of organizational members.

(33)

implementation process. Employees are often able to recognize the issues but if the management is not

listening, the problem can not be solved. This happens when there is a gap in communication between

managers and employees. The communication problems arise when employees do not trust management to

be open to the concerns or feedback of lower level, or when employees feel that management avoids y the

issues.

Inadequate Down-the -line leadership skills and development happens when the lower management

doesn’t develop the necessary skills to lead the change or when they are not supported with coaching, leadership or training.

(34)

2.6.2 Emotional barriers to implementation process

All type of changes involve individuals/human beings, thus understanding human behavior and

emotions during change processes is essential, not only to maximize the chance that successful

change is brought about, but also to minimize the amount of anxiety among employees within the

organization. Janssen (1996) presented a view on the role of emotions during change. He classified

the change process into four rooms or phases. The first room is where the employees are satisfied

with status quo and don’t want to change, the next room is denial where employees’ satisfaction decreases and a defense mechanism for the existing arises. The third room is confusion where one

is not letting go of the old and by some means is unsure about future state. The last phase is the

inspirational, when one is understand and realize the new opportunities that come with the change.

Change is an external force (the different policy, structure or practice that the organisation is trying

to bring about), Transition is the state that change puts employees/individuals into and it is an

internal force. Bridges and Mitchell (2000) state, even when a change is displaying signals that it

may work, there is the issue of timing, because the transition happens much more slowly than

change itself. Keeping this in mind, unfortunately plans and change efforts are based on getting the

change accomplished, not on getting the employees/individuals through the transition. The process

of transition is illustrated in Figure 6. The diverse states of mind and emotions are showed by the

grey line; the essential feelings are marked as: announcement, shock, denial, anger, bargaining,

depression, testing and acceptance. The person’s productivity on the shown emotions is illustrated on the black line. Cullberg and Lundin (2006) distinguish these stages into four phases of: the

denial phase where employees’ belief “it won’t affect me”, the resistance phase “I don’t want/like to”, confusion phase “what is it all about” and the last stage of commitment phase “ok, I accept, I’m in!”. The transition process can be separate into three stages of the letting go-loss phase, the neutral zone and the new beginnings.

(35)

Figure 4: Emotions throughout the transition phase (Austin and Currie 2003, pp. 233)

In this case the most difficult part for organizations /change leaders is to manage the neutral zone, where the fear and anxiety arise amongst the employees (Austin and Currie 2003). The level and altitude of these emotions depends on functions within different levels of the organization. This is called the marathon effect (Bridges and Mitchell 2000) and it illustrate the idea that more often the leaders or senior managers, who have been working on the change, have had more moments to think and talk about and accept it (Figure 7). The same leaders experience personal changes and transitions in very beginning stage of change. By the time the organization announced the change, they are ready to change since the stages of personal loss and transition is behind them. In this stage they still might have

challenges and questions, but they can understand the intended change better and long before the rest of the organization. This results that senior managers or leaders do not consider managers’ and employees’ transition stages. Therefore, they might rush the “neutral zone” which might lead to challenges during the implementation process or the failure of the change program.

(36)

Figure 5: Timeline of change, as perceived by different levels of an organization (Austin and Currie 2003, pp. 237)

2.6.3 Overcoming Barriers

When organizations identify the possible barriers to implementation, it is crucial to consider methods of

overcoming these to make sure certain that risks of failure are minimized. Since the examined literature in

the field of strategy implementation did not label to overcome barriers to implementation, the different

implementation approaches are used to provide suggestions to how ensure successful implementation.

These approaches are used as a guideline for this study. For example: ensuring that there is a fit between

the strategy and organisation (Chandler, 1962; Gupta & Govindarajan, 1984; Miles & Snow, 1984;

Waterman, 1982). Also, literature from other authors (e.g. Miller, 1997; Okumus, 2001; Salem, 1998;

Scholz, 1987) indicate implementation variables which they belief are essential to successful

implementation of strategies if they managed well. Effective change management is also indicated to be

vital when it comes to overcoming issues during implementation (Johnson, 1987; Pettigrew, 1985; Pratt,

1998; Sadler, 1998). Despite, the fact that available literature does not provide direct input on how to

(37)

The reaserch done by Beer & Eisenstat (2000) emphasizes three common responses from organizations

towards the six silent killers, namely: a)Avoidance; b)Managerial replacement ; c) Engagement. As stated

by Beer & Eisenstat (2000) those three responses to some degree, proved to be successful. However, the

engagement response of organizations towards those six barriers, was the best opportunity to build long

term competitive abilities. Actions corresponding to each of the silent killers are presented in the figure 6

below.

Barriers to Implementation Preventative actions

Top-Down or Laissez-Faire Senior Management Style

Creation of a partnership; built around the development of a business direction, enabling organizational context and the delegation of authority to accountable individuals and teams.

Unclear strategy or conflicting priorities A statement of strategy is created by the top

team as a group and priorities are developed which the members are willing to back.

An Ineffective senior Management Team Top team as a group is involved in all

aspects of the change process so that its effectiveness is tested and developed.

Poor vertical communication Honest communication. This based on facts

should be established with lower management

Poor coordination across functions, businesses or boards

Define business wide initiatives, new organizational roles and capabilities to facilitate implementation.

Inadequate Down-the -line leadership skills and development

Lower-level management develops skills by leading change and driving key business initiatives. By supporting, coaching, training and recruitment should ensure success.

(38)

Two fundamental aspects to maximize the chance for successful transition during change efforts are

communication (Goodman and Truss, 2004) and commitment to change (Brown and Cregan, 2008).

Many scholars emphasize the importance of communication during change. It reduces the employees’ anxiety and enable them to accept implementation of change (Hartley and Bruckham, 2000);

communication leads to high degree commitment towards the change effort which is interrelated to a much

higher chance of successful organizational change (Lorenzi and Riley, 2000). Communication is

fundamental aspect, both internal as external communication (Daft 2008), and require to take place

properly and managed well in order to win commitment among the employees (Simonsson and

Halvarsson, 2006). It is essential to choose right timing and method and suitable media for communication

(Goodman and Truss, 2004). Accordingly, for different types of change there are four different level of

communication which vary from routine to complex. Namely, face-to-face communication, interactive

communication, personal memos and general bulletins. This viewpoint is also supported by Clegg et al

(2011). They emphasize that there are, similar to Goodman and Truss’ (2004), four different levels of communication: dyadic communication, small-group communication, organizational communication and

mass communication. Different chosen media and methods, to communicate with, are suitable for different

circumstances. The most important aspect here is to communicate and inform employees as much as

possible (Clampitt and Berk, 1996). Figure x, illustrate the ideal transition/change process, whereby

organizational anxiety and employee’s emotions are properly managed by leaders. The result is also that the organization’s productivity did not decrease in any great extent (Austin and Currie, 2003).

(39)

Figure 7: The impact of well-managed organizational change (Austin and Currie 2003, pp. 242)

Ramaseshan et al. (2013) points out that the most strategies fail in the implementation phase. To prevent

failure, it is important to clearly communicate the formal strategy into many parts of the organisations. Huy

(2001) suggests that the unique structural positioning of middle level managers make them the suitable

communicator of change strategies. Huy (2001) emphasizes that when middle level managers receive

credible information about the change and recognizes the intended strategy, they are more likely to

(40)

3. Research methodology

This chapter explains the research methodology used in this study in order to collect empirical data

to answer the research question. This chapter also contains a discussion on the validity and the

reliability of the findings.

3.2. Introduction

This thesis research is qualitative, partially descriptive and mostly exploratory in nature. The

suggestions of Saunders et al.(2009/2016) and Yin (2003) are used to increase the validity and

reliability and minimize the weaknesses of a qualitative approach.

3.2. Research philosophy

Research philosophy is related to the nature, source and development of knowledge and influences

the process of data collection and analysis. Epistemology and Ontology are different ways to view

the philosophy behind a research. According to Bryman (2008) ontology is concerned with the

objective (objectivism) or perception (subjectivism). According to Klein (2005), epistemology is

concerned with knowledge in the particular field of the research. According to Bryman (2008)

ontology is either concerned with the objective (objectivism) or perception (subjectivism) of what

socially constituted a fact. Epistemology is defined in two concepts of Positivism, which only

consider the measurable knowledge, and Interpretivism with subjective focus on the content of social

action/phenomena.

3.3 Research approach

According to Saunders et al.(2016) a research approach explains how scientific challenge is

addressed, how the data is collected and linked to the theory.

(41)

is highly structured the crucial elements of the subject and modifies from theory to data. This thesis

is based on literature, models and theories on the research topic. Earlier research and literature were

used as a framework to define the interview questions, manage data collection and data analysis.

Therefore, this study contains the characteristics of an deductive approach.

3.3.1 Research measurement

According to Feilzer (2010) a qualitative research is commonly used for examination of social

phenomena, instead of looking for cause & effect correlation between known variables. Feilzer

(2010) points out that a qualitative research helps to discover new insights or theories by observation

and interpretation of samples. In this kind of research even small samples are applicable. In a

qualitative research the data collection happens in an unstructured way and the outcomes are

subjective. The existing literature on the research topic of this thesis is mostly based on a quantitative

approach (Tower Watson, 2012). The aims of the research and sub questions are not only to evaluate

existing theory but to gather new information’s and facts which will give more insights on the topic. Besides, it will provide the key elements which may add value to currently existing change

management practices. According to Taylor and Bogdan (1998), the qualitative approach is a more

suitable approach when the researcher wants to collect non-standardized information. Yin (2012)

also introduces this approach as he concludes that it is the best method to disclose why an event

occurs and what makes the happening possible. Besides, in this approach, the researcher wants to

avoid projecting her own experiences and perceptions upon the participants regarding this social

phenomenon (Banister et al., 2011). This is why the author of this thesis prefers a qualitative and

deductive approach as it is more appropriate to answer the research question.

3.4 Research strategy

According to Sander et al. (2016) researchers often use case studies to form a deeper understanding

(42)

of this research is to provide a better insight of the role and capabilities of middle level managers

during change programs.

3.5 Interviews

This study investigates the phenomenon of change and the role of middle management in influencing

the process. Interestingly, the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly

identified. According to Frels & Onwuegbuzie (2013), interviews provide the researcher with more

meaningful data. Interviews are one of the most familiar methods for collecting data in a qualitative

research. According to Leedy & Ormrod (2001) there are three types of interviews: unstructured,

semi-structured and structured/focus groups. To gather the needed information for this research,

open-ended semi-structured interviews are conducted. There are a few main subjects or questions

that help structure the interview a bit, but then the interviewer can elaborate on the given answers to

see where it leads to. Semi-structured interviews are of use if the researchers seek for further

clarification when needed. As asking open-ended questions will encourage research participants to

communicate more information about the topic. Therefore, this is a valuable approach for this

research. Interviews provide this research with untold experiences about the used methods and

successful/lesson-learned outcomes within participating organizations. Last but not least, Olson

(2011) adds to this by arguing that successful interviews require preparation, taking notes during the

interview and dealing very carefully with sensitive information. These points are not just important

for getting usable information, but also impacts the rapport a researcher builds with their

participants. The aim of the interviews has been to collect data about perceptions of managers,

middle managers and employees about subject change, the roles and behaviour of the middle

managers during change programs, skills, challenges and key elements of their behaviour which

effect the successful implementation of change initiatives. Open questions were asked, and the

(43)

participants felt uncomfortable by questions, they could end the interview. Each participant was

informed about the aim of interview, why their participation was valuable and the duration of the

meeting. The participants were told that their answers, stories and experiences were only used for

this research. Participants could ask related questions during the interview. Participants were glad

they had the opportunity to anonymously take part of a research that it might help other middle

managers, but also top management understand how to manage change successfully. The researcher

was prepared by a topic list. The duration of the interviews varied from 90 minutes to 3 hours

depending on experiences and how much the participants could contribute to the research topic. The

interviews were conducted semi-structured as this enables the researcher to ask more questions when

needed, since the purpose of this exploratory study is to find out what really happens in a real-life

context

3.5.1 Unit of analysis

The unit of analysis in this research are participants with experience in middle management position.

From “Who is the ‘ middle manager ‘ ?” Harding et al.(2014)

The middle level managers are defined as a managerial position between the apex and the operating core (Mintzberg, 1989)

In the organizational hierarchies, middle level managers are individuals in managing position below the top level of strategic management and above first-line supervision

(Dopson et al, 1992)

Employees in management role, one level above first-level supervision and two levels below the CEO level. (Huy, 2001)

Perception of middle management on implementation process