Cleaning the Mirror of the Middle Manager

(1)

Cleaning the Mirror of the Middle

Manager

Assessment of the Influence of Feedback Seeking Behavior and Self-Reflection on Self-Awareness of the Middle Manager in Organizational Change

Master thesis, mscBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization

PUBLIC VERSION 15 September, 2009

AART JAN KLOK Studentnumber: 1403400

Nijverheidsweg Noord 36B, 3821PM Amersfoort tel: +31 (0)612226969

e-mail: aartjanklok@gmail.com

First supervisor/university Second supervisor/university Dr. K.S. Prins Drs. N.A. van der Kam

Supervisor/ field of study Drs. A. de Rooij Ten Have & Company

(2)

“And since you know you cannot see yourself,

so well as by reflection, I, your glass,

will modestly discover to yourself,

that of yourself which you yet know not”

Shakespeare (1564-1616)

in “The Life and Death of Julies Caesar”

(3)

TABLE

OF

Cleaning the Mirror of the Middle Manager

Assessment of the influence of Feedback Seeking Behavior and Self-Reflection on Self-Awareness of the Middle Manager in Organizational Change

Abstract: Middle management is a frequently forgotten level of management in change management research. This study emphasizes the role and relevance of purposive middle management behavior in the implementation of organizational change. Self-awareness is a crucial requisite for effective behavior, however, accurately rating own behavior is a difficult task for people, including managers. In this study two managerial activities are tested for their influence on self-awareness: feedback seeking behavior and self-reflection. Hypotheses are tested by a quantitative research design among 21 middle managers and 79 of their subordinates. Additionally, a qualitative part of the research explores the stimulating elements of the organizational context for these managerial activities reported by the middle manager. Results in this research indicate that the amount of self-awareness is limited and middle managers tend to suffer for self-enhancement. Significant results indicate that seeking feedback by using a monitoring-strategy is associated with a higher amount of self-awareness. Stimuli for feedback-seeking are interventions providing individualized feedback and a learning culture stimulating learning in daily interactions. Self-reflection is not associated with self-awareness. Finally, recommendations for the middle manager, staff and higher management are given.

Keywords: change management, middle management, self-awareness, self-reflection, feedback

seeking behavior, transformational leadership, organizational context

AART JAN KLOK University of Groningen

In the field of change management, the so-called change agent is a role which gets a lot of attention1. A change agent is someone who “facilitates change in the particular area in which it is needed” (McCalman & Paton, 1992:144). Scientists put their main focus on two types of change agents: top management as internal and consultants as external change agents. Thereby frequently disregarding the importancy of a third actor: middle management (Balogun, 2003; Caldwell, 2003; Huy, 2002). Important because the middle manager fulfills a crucial role in the

1

(5)

process of change (Balogun, 2003; Huy, 2001; Huy; 2002): a role in translating and communicating the strategy towards the workfloor (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1994), a double-role as object and agent of change (Caldwell, 2003; Fenton-O’Creevy, 2001; Stoker, 2006) and a role as implementor and “real change leader” (Katzenbach, 1996). However, at the same time implementation of organizational changes is one of the least understood skills of managers or change agents and often fails (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). It is costly in terms of financial resources, employee and managerial time, and emotional morale. These are reasons of relevance for investigating the change agent role of the middle manager in this study.

Self-awareneness and effective behavior In this study we focus on self-awareness, an important

requisite for effective behavior of a manager. The objective is to investigate if self-awareness of the middle manager can be improved by examing two managerial behaviors: feedback seeking and self-reflection. The assumption in this study is that behavior of a middle manager is the most important way by which he communicates the change message. Conscious or not, the middle manager embodies the change (Balogun, 2003; Caldwell, 2003). The ultimate goal of the study is to improve the effectiveness of the middle manager as change agent by increasing self-awareness. This ultimate goal determines the relevance of examining the influence of feedback seeking and self-reflection on self-awareness. In the following paragraph I explain the relevance of self-awareness for effectiveness by summarizing results from literature.

Empirical research operationalises self-awareness by measuring self-other agreement: the agreement between the self-rating of managerial behavior and the ratings of others. A literature overview by Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino and Fleenor (1998) distinguishes four types of (dis)agreement relations and outcomes per category. First, when self-ratings are higher than ratings provided by others (overestimators), persons tend to have high success expectations but will ignore criticism and failure because of a self-enhancement bias. Second, when self-ratings are lower than the ratings of others (underestimators) persons tend to overestimate their weaknesses and underestimate their strengths. These persons have a low aspiration level, but work hard to compensate (Taylor & Brown, 1988). Third, shared perception is present about ratings which are undesirable. These individuals have low self-worth and show high absenteeism, low commitment and high turnover. Studies report low performance and few actions are taken to improve performance. (Yammarino & Atwater, 1997) Fourth, the optimal case is reached when ratings are in-agreement and the degrees of the ratings are high or

(6)

Increasing self-awareness If a high level of self-awareness predicts better performance the

obvious question is: how to raise self-awareness? Research on this question is limited. A recent study on traits of self-raters (Ostroff et al., 2004) was a serious attempt to answer the question. This study draws an image of the self-aware manager as a manager with several traits: female, highly educated, not to old and limited in experience. In this study I propose that not only traits but also behavior of a manager predicts self-awareness. Seeking feedback from others provide managers with an accurate sense of how they perceive and evaluate their work (Ashford & Tsui, 1991). Complementary to this, a manager has direct access to the self by self-reflection. Own thoughts, feelings and behavior are rough data which come into existence by developmental experiences of a manager (Grant, Langford & Franklin, 2002). Inquiry and interpretation of this information leads to intrapersonal learning (Seibert & Daudelin, 1999). Finally, behavior of the middle manager is not isolated from the organizational context. Recent research (Whitaker, Dahling & Levy, 2007) indicates the positive influence of a supportive environment on feedback-seeking. This finding is acknowledged and applied in an explorative component of this study.

In short, the basic question of this research is: What is the influence of feedback seeking behavior and self-reflection on self-awareness of the middle manager in organizational change?

In the next paragraphs I discuss the theoretical foundations of this study. Successively, I discuss a managerial perspective on change, the role of the middle manager in change, self-awareness, feedback-seeking behavior, self-reflection and finally the organizational context. In chapter 2 the methodology is justified and chapter 3 displays the results of the study. Finally, results and implications are discussed in chapter 4.

MANAGI NG CHANGE

In order to understand the role of middle managerial self-awareness and behavior in organizational change a managerial perspective on change is needed. The following paragraph discusses such a perspective and a “task description” of a manager in it. Further in this paragraph the middle manager is identified and several characteristics of him are discussed.

Organizational change What is meant by organizational change in this study? This is a

(7)

the mission and strategic goals of the organization. The two basic questions are “what should it be” and “how should it be accomplished” (2000:83). The answer at the second question is an idea or design of the path by which organizational change comes about (Ten Have, Ten Have & Janssen, 2009). Because of the existence of a preliminary idea or design, intentional or purposive change cannot be totally spontaneous or emergent. Essentially it is planned change, but not necessarily planned change as a “fossilized procedure” (in Dutch: “in beton gegoten aanpak”; Ten Have, 2005: 37). Along the path, several spontaneous elements or corrections can or must be incorporated in the journey.

In this study, Bower’s managerial perspective is a most useful perspective because it is integrative and most close to the reality middle management faces. It is integrative because it is a systematic view; it includes all the elements of the organization while these elements need to be aligned towards the mission and strategy of the organization. Related to this a managerial perspective is close to complex managerial practice: “For an academic, missing things is not a problem as long as one’s analysis reveals more of the picture over time. But for the manager responsible for the whole picture missing things can be a disaster” (Bower, 2000:86). This responsibility and task of a manager in organizational change is discussed in the following paragraph.

Task of the manager A bottom line in the task of a manager in organizational change is

recognizable in the above discussed perspective. It is their task to work systematically, well considered, integrative and purposive towards the goals of the organization (Ten Have, 2005; Bower, 2000). In behavioral terms managerial action is “directed at changing behavior of an individual, group, or organization with the aim to prepare to/contribute at improvement in realizing the goals of the organization” (Ten Have et al., 2009:12). The task of the manager to act in a purposive way is an important notion in this study. In order to fulfill a purposive role, an accurate perception of own behavior is a necessary condition. If self-perception is inaccurate, a manager can contribute to the goals of the organization in his view but actual behavior will have less effective or even destructive effects. As Fletcher explains “if self-perceptions differ from those of others then it is difficult to see how one manage work relationships successfully, contribute well as a team member and adapt one’s behavior to circumstances and individuals” (1997:187). This is the central problem of this study further discussed in upcoming paragraphs. In the following paragraph the object of study, middle management, is defined.

The middle manager By using the term “middle manager” we already emphasize the most

(8)

middle” of the organization’s hierarchy. A middle manager is a subordinate, colleague, and leader in one person. Most of the definitions of middle management are a formulation of this vertical dimension. Huy defines a middle manager as “any manager two levels below the CEO and one level above line workers and professionals” (2002:38). Stoker defines middle management as “the group of managers who give and receive direction” (2006:32). In my thesis I use Stoker’s definition thereby emphasizing two roles of the middle manager: the strategic role by translating strategy to design and implementation (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1994) and a leadership role by giving direction. The following paragraph discusses the role of the middle manager, as described above, in situations of organizational change.

Object and agent of change Caldwell describes the role of the middle manager in

organizational change as “the object and agency of change” (2003:135). This observation is supported by a study of Balogun. She distinguishes four activities of the middle manager in organizational change: (1) undertaking personal change, (2) helping others through change, (3) keeping the business going, (4) and implementing changes to departments (2003). These results emphasize the twofold role as she pointed at a sequence in these activities: “interpretation that occurs as part of undertaking personal change is in fact the key task for middle managers, since it informs all the other roles.” (2003:79). A middle manager is and needs to be object of change to act purposive as a manager and fulfill the role as a change agent. This finding is not excluded to middle management but is also an assumption in leadership literature: to lead followers in behavioral change, a leader needs to change his own behavior first (Yukl, 1998). This is the first trigger for the need of personal change and comes from subordinates. The second trigger is specific for middle management and comes from higher management: “expectations and tasks of senior management about middle manager changed and will frequently change in the future” (Stoker, 2006).

Concluding: the task of a manager is to act purposive in organizational change. As remarked, an accurate perception is a necessary condition for this task. A middle manager in organizational change has a complex role due to the inherent complexity in change, his role as a colleague, leader, and subordinate and by being both an object and agent of change. In order to increase the “purposiveness” of behavior of middle management I discuss one of the necessary conditions for it in the following paragraph: self-awareness.

SEL F-AWARE NE SS

(9)

self-awareness the more effective the manager operates. In this section self-self-awareness is explained by defining and operationalising self-awareness. Further, self-awareness is explained by choosing a most appropriate perspective to use as a benchmark for the self-perception of the middle manager. And finally self-awareness is explained by summarizing general conclusions about it in literature.

Defining self-awareness What determines self-awareness? In this study self-awareness is

defined as “the extent to which an individual sees themselves as others see him or her” (Fletcher & Bailey, 2003:397). It is the assumption of self-awareness theory that “a self-aware individual is able to assess other’s evaluations of the self, and incorporate those assessments into one’s self-evaluation” (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992:143). While these evaluations change as own behavior changes, a self-aware person has the ability to assess own behavior accurately by comparing it to new information. As earlier explained, self-awareness is operationalised by measuring self-other agreement: the agreement between the self-rating of managerial behavior and the ratings of others at a point in time.

Subordinates perspective Of course, measuring self-awareness by self-other agreement requires

“other” raters who are close to the middle manager. I propose, as a basic assumption of this study, that subordinates are the most legitimate observers to rate leadership behavior. Three different arguments lead to this assumption. First, several studies examined self-other agreement on leadership behavior from both supervisor and subordinate level (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Felfe & Schyns, 2004). Conclusions from these studies and studies on performance appraisal (McEvoy and Beatty, 1989) indicate that a subordinate perspective is an appropriate perspective to measure leadership behavior. Bernardin and Beatty (1987) found that, according to supervisors of the self-rater, subordinates are in a better position and better qualified to asses two of the twelve roles distinguished by Mintzberg. These roles were the information disseminator and the leader role. Second, complementary to this, subordinates are directly affected by leadership and observe out of first-hand experience. Decisions, such as whether to obey or to follow a leader, are based on subordinates’ perceptions of the leader (Ashford, 1989). Third, a number of studies have indicated that the accuracy of ratings increases when obtained from more than one supervisor or subordinate (e.g. Mount, 1984). While a middle manager in most cases has one supervisor and multiple subordinates, subordinates rating leadership behavior is assumed to be most appropriate.

Deficiency of self-awareness But what are the results of research on self-other agreement?

(10)

including managers (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). Research in the area of self-evaluation showed the variance of accurateness when the self-perception of ability is compared with performance (review of 25 studies by Mabe & West, 1982), or actual behavior with the perceptions of others (e.g. Van der Velde et al., 1999). For example, in a study of self-other agreement by Fleenor, McCauley and Brutus (1996) only 409 (17%) of the 2366 participating managers were classified as in-agreement/good raters. These managers have an accurate perception of how they are observed by others and agree with others on good performance. Research on this variance in realistic perception of own behavior among managers leads to three general conclusions. First, self-raters tend to exhibit a self-enhancement bias (Kwan, Kenny, Bond, Robins & John, 2004). Second, self-ratings are less highly related to rating by other’s (i.e. peers, supervisors, or subordinates) than peers supervisors and subordinates ratings are with one another (Atwater & Yanmarino, 1992). Third, inaccurate self-raters (i.e. those with self-ratings that differ greatly from observers ratings) are poorer performers than their more accurate counterparts (Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, Fleenor, 1998).

FE E DB ACK SE E KI NG BE HAVI OR

How can we explain that self-awareness differs for each individual manager? One of the proposed answers in this study is that a passive or active attitude of the manager towards his environment influences self-awareness. As discussed in the former chapter, subordinates are the most important source of information about actual behavior of the manager. Feedback from this source can provide managers with an accurate sense of how they perceive and evaluate their work; feedback gives a manager information by which he can alter his perception. It also can provide guidance about strategies that could enhance their effectiveness (Ashford & Tsui, 1991). In this study we propose that feedback seeking behavior (FSB) defined as a “conscious devotion of effort toward determining the correctness and adequacy of behaviors for attaining valued end states” (Ashford, 1986:466) increases self-awareness.

Motives Motives for feedback seeking are different; we distinguish three primary motives based

(11)

emotionally charged and stimulates a variety of cognitive mechanism to avoid or distort information that hurts the self-image of the individual (Baumeister, 1999). The image-based

motive aims to minimize the potential risks of face loss, perceived by the individual, when publically asking for feedback. “Inquiry reveals the seeker’s ignorance about and desire for self-relevant information. Others, in turn, may interpret these as indications of uncertainty, incompetence, and insecurity.” (Ashford et al., 2003) The three primary motives are weighted against each other in deciding what kind of information to seek, how to seek and the frequency of seeking (Ashford et al., 2003). These three decisions are discussed in light of the instrumental motive and the influence on the accuracy of self-perception.

Content The content of feedback can be positive or negative. Dependent on the dominant

motive, an individual can explicitly or implicitly search for a most preferred type of information (Ashford et al., 2003). When the goal is to protect and enhance the self-image and ego, searching for positive and avoiding negative feedback seems to be most appropriate. This is valuable information according to these motives but enlarges the possibility of a self-enhancement bias (Ashford & Tsui, 1991). In case of a dominant instrumental motive, searching for negative feedback seems to be most valuable because of scarcity and hierarchy effects. Negative feedback is scarcer because individuals are more likely to give each other spontaneously positive feedback (Larson, 1986) or distort negative feedback in a positive direction (Ilgen & Knowlton, 1980). This seems to be even more likely in a power relationship between subordinate and middle manager as investigated in this study. Of course, positive feedback has informational value, while it describes what a person does well so that such behavior can be repeated (Ashford & Tsui, 1991). But according to the arguments above, the amount of spontaneously positive feedback is expected to be higher which lowers the instrumental motivation and value to actively search for it.

In order to test these expectations both positive and negative managerial feedback seeking are measured in this study. Positive feedback seeking is treated as a separate variable and is expected to have no significant effect on self-awareness. Further it is proposed that explicit searching for negative feedback is part of the direct inquiry strategy of FSB (this variable is discussed in the following paragraph) and correlates positively with self-other agreement.

Strategies A manager can use different methods to seek feedback. Generally these strategies are

(12)

particularly other people, that provide indications of how one is doing, how one compares to other, and what other people think of oneself” (Ashford et al., 2003:776). An individual constructs meaning from these observations (Williams & Johnson, 2000). Second, direct inquiry behavior involves explicit asking someone in the environment about feedback on behavior (Williams & Johnson, 2000). For example a middle manager would ask a subordinate: “how do you experience my management style?” According to Williams and Johnson “both behaviors are considered active seeking, as the individual intentionally seeks information, but the methodology employed in each is different.” (2000: 276). In this study, both strategies are measured separately and are proposed to influence self-awareness positively.

Accurate view By searching for feedback a middle manager could obtain the necessary

information to develop a more accurate view of their skills and abilities because they have more information from their environment (Ashford et al., 2003). In line with this argument we expect that an accurate self-perception about leadership behavior is associated with a more frequent participation in searching for feedback by using monitor and direct inquiry strategies. These expectations are further based on the context of the middle managers in this study. Several studies found that a context which is high on contextual uncertainty (Ashford & Cummings, 1985), novelty (Callister, Kramer & Turban, 1999) and change (Ashford, 1988) enhances the instrumental motive. An individual in an uncertain context needs more information for self-regulation and an accurate perception of own behavior.

SEL F-RE FL ECTI ON

A middle manager who is proactive in searching for feedback is gathering information from his or her environment about actual shown behavior. But complementary to these external sources of information, a manager has direct access to another source: the self. A manager who is active in inquiring and interpreting his thoughts, feelings and behavior utilizes an important source of information. This activity, the activity of self-reflection is the second independent variable in this research.

Defining self-reflection While the background and vocabulary of authors on reflection differ

(13)

metacognitive factor central to the process of individual purposeful, directed change (Grant et al., 2002; Carver & Scheier, 1998). The aim of the first group is better and more learning. The objective of the second group is goal attainment and/or increase of individual performance.

Overall, several common definitional dimensions are recognizable in theory. First of all, reflection is a cognitive process or activity (Grant et al., 2002; Rogers, 2001; Seibert & Daudelin, 1999). Second, it requires the individual’s active engagement. It is “an active persistent and careful consideration” (Dewey, 1933:3) or a “deliberate and purposeful act” (Loughran, 1996:14). Third, reflection is triggered by an unusual event or situation. Examples given by Schön are situations of complexity, uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, or values-conflict (1983). Finally, reflection involves examining the manner in which one responds to a given situation (Schön, 1983). It is a process of giving meaning to experience. The reflective process is summarized by Seibert and Daudelin: “Reflection involves the cognitive activity of taking an experience from the outside world, bringing it inside the mind, filtering it through past experiences, examining it, and trying to make sense of it” (1999:175).

In this study, the reflective process is demarcated to “the self”. So, self-reflection is a notion to define a specific, demarcated form of reflection. The middle manager himself is the object of reflection in which Grant, Franklin and Langford distinguish three different sources of information: thoughts, behavior and feelings (2002). Self-reflection is focused at two specific internal sources: own thoughts and feelings, which arise from experiences. The third source, behavior, is part of the experience but limited to behavior of the self. Inquiry and interpretation of these sources, giving meaning to them, is the essence of the process of self-reflection.

Antecedents of self-reflection Theory distinguishes two key antecedents (triggers) of the

reflective process: a willingness to participate in reflection and a period or situation of complexity, uncertainty and/or uniqueness. According to Rogers, “the individual readiness and willingness to engage in the reflective process is a key antecedent, identified in the literature” (2001:42). Especially cognitive psychologists emphasize the importance of the attitude of the manager, and his deliberate choice or intention to reflect (Rogers, 2001). According to the second antecedent, the reflective process of an individual manager needs a “developmental experience” (Seibert & Daudelin, 1999). Situations or periods beyond the typical experience of the manager trigger reflection.

(14)

most cases (with the exception of an experienced change manager) it is also a unique context which asks for managerial behavior beyond the experience of the manager. Because of these reasons, it is assumed that the second antecedent is present in the work-context of the middle manager. The felt need for self-reflection is included in the operationalisation of self-reflection thereby following Grant, Franklin & Langford (2002). They discovered, by constructing and testing a questionnaire on self-reflection, that the felt need for self-reflection and the actual engagement in self-reflection were “…inextricably connected” (2002:827). The outcome of their work is utilized to measure self-reflection in this study.

Outcomes of self-reflection Basically, the expected outcomes of reflection are learning and an

increase of personal effectiveness (Rogers, 2001). Only the first is discussed because of its expected relevance to the accuracy of the self-perception. Reflection has an eminent place in authorized learning theories of, for instance, Kolb and Schön (Boud & Walker, 1991) and functions in these theories as a vehicle to turn experience into learning. But learning as an outcome is a comprehensive notion. The specific sources which are inquired during self-reflection are own thoughts, behavior and feelings. It is expected in this study that reflecting on these sources also leads to more specific outcomes of learning: learning about the self and the self in interaction to his/her environment. In a study on reflection, Siebert and Daudelin (1999) differentiated specific types of learning (task, interpersonal, intrapersonal and cultural learning). They found that engaging in individual reflection after the experience leads to highest learning on an intrapersonal level (learning about the self). This finding indicates that reflection can improve the self-knowledge of the individual. It suggests that by reflection on own feelings, behavior and thoughts an individual obtains a more accurate perception of actual behavior. More specific, it suggests that a middle manager involved in self-reflection can improve the accuracy of his/her perception about actual behavior in the working place. The final paragraph discusses the tenability and legitimacy of this hypothesis in self-awareness theory.

Influence on the accuracy of self-perception Does self-reflection impact self-awareness? As

(15)

behaviors as they are manifested in workplace interactions” (1997b:281) These quotations are just two examples of the frequently mentioned influence of self-reflection on self-awareness (e.g. Branson, 2007; Young & Dulewicz, 2006). But, in spite of these suggestions, an empirical examination of this relationship is absent in literature.

ORGANI ZAT I ONAL CONT E XT

Finally, behavior of the middle manager is not isolated from the organizational environment. For instance, FBS is directed at the environment (e.g. subordinates) because these possess valuable information. Uncertainty, an earlier discussed antecedent of self-reflection, is a characteristic of the environment. These are just two examples of how manager and environment interact for both behaviors. Recent research claims a more explicit role for the environment in determining feedback seeking. Steelman (2004) and Whitaker, Dahling & Levy (2007) propose that a supportive feedback-seeking environment increases FBS and both found empirical evidence for this hypothesis. A feedback-seeking environment is defined by Whitaker, Dahling and Levy as “the extent to which characteristics of the workplace encourage the use of inquiry”(2007:571).

Recent literature demonstrates the relevance of the environment for feedback-seeking but also acknowledges the explorative status of the theory (Ashford, Blatt & Vandewalle, 2003; Steelman et al., 2004). Whitaker, Dahling and Levy commented: “Future research should focus on identifying the antecedents that contribute to the formation of a supportive feedback environment, which have received little research attention to date. (2007:571). Both suggestions, the relevance of the environment and the explorative status of theory, are acknowledged and applied in an explorative component of this study. The organizational context of the middle manager is explored by asking him or her which elements he recognizes as stimuli for self-reflection and feedback-seeking. Answers indicate which characteristics of the workplace (stimuli) are supportive in the perception and the context of the middle manager in this study. Particularly this section is expected to be fruitful for a profounded discussion and managerial recommendations by acknowledging the context of the middle manager.

HYPOT HESE S

(16)

Hypothesis 1: The frequency of the direct inquiry strategy of feedback seeking will be positively related to an accurate perception of the leadership style.

Hypothesis 2: The frequency of the monitoring strategy of feedback seeking will be positively related to an accurate perception of the leadership style.

Hypothesis 3: Explicit seeking for positive feedback will have no significant relation to an accurate perception of leadership style.

Based on the proposed influence of self-reflection on self-awareness I have formulated the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: The level of self-reflection is positively related to an accurate perception of leadership style.

The conceptual model (Figure 1) summarizes these expectations. The following chapter, research methods, explains how data is collected and analyzed in order to test this model. In the model the dependent variable, self-awareness, distinguishes three different styles of leadership the manager and subordinates can (dis)agree on. This is also explained in the following chapter.

FI G URE 1 :CO N CE P T U AL MO DE L

2. RESEARCH

METHODS

(17)

PR OC E D U RE

In order to come to a representative sample of the population I developed a procedure which is explained in this paragraph. In short, the description of the population is: middle management

with a responsibility to give and receive direction in organizational change in Dutch organizations. Organizations involved in organizational change were selected and approached with the help of a Dutch consultancy firm, specialized in organizational change assignments2. Their client network is not limited to specific branches which resulted in a sample of 14 organizations operating in different branches. In each organization between 1 and 4 middle managers3 were willing to participate in the research (N=21). These middle managers were asked by the contact in the organization or by consultants of the consultancy firm. Participating middle managers received a research outline (with definitions of a middle manager and a situation of organizational change). This functioned as a selecting step while managers who did not recognize themselves in the definition were removed from the sample. Managers were also asked to randomly select and approach 4 subordinates with which they worked for at least 6 months and invite them to participate in the research. To block social biases subordinates were guaranteed that their individual ratings were confidential and only used for this research. This resulted in a total amount of 79 participating subordinates (in a range from 3 to 4 subordinates per manager, mean= 3.76). In exchange of participation, managers and subordinates receive a copy of this master thesis and a summary of the implications (on request).

SAM P L E

The procedure resulted in a sample of middle managers (n=21) and their subordinates (n=79). I present characteristics of both groups in table 1 and table 2 to justify the sample compared with the population (as described above). Table 1 presents the gender, age and highest education level of both groups. A middle manager is at average 44 years old, relatively well educated and mostly men. A subordinate is at average 43 years old, has an average educational level and mostly men. Table 2 shows a specific characteristic for middle management and subordinates. Specific characteristic for the middle manager is the position in the hierarchy of the organization (or department/business unit in large organizations). The amount of management layers varies

2_{Ten Have & Company,}_{www.tenhavecompany.nl} 3

Branche, organizations and amount of participating middle managers: Healthcare: Van Boeijen (4), Steinmetz de Compaan (1), Mondriaan ZG (2), Pameijer (3), Psyq (1). Industrial: DSM (1), Philips (2). Finance: Mn Services (1).

(18)

between 2 and 6 with a mean of 3.76. The mean of the management layer of the participating managers is 2.484. Specific characteristic for the subordinate is the period he/she receives direction from his/her manager.

ME AS U RE S

Participants received a personal invitation to fill in a digital questionnaire (Appendix A). The questionnaire contained measurement scales (including operators) with the goal of measuring behavior and testing the research hypotheses. Open questions are submitted for measuring the supportiviness of the environment. The questionnaire differed for manager and subordinate. The questionnaire of the manager contained items measuring the perception of own leadership behavior, self-reflection and open questions about the environment. The questionnaire of the subordinate consists of items measuring the perception of leadership behavior of the middle manager and FBS Behavior.

Leadership Behavior For measuring leadership behavior I utilized the adjusted form of the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1989) of Den Hartog, Van Muijen en Koopman (1997). This is a frequently used, tested and improved instrument to measure leadership behavior. The instrument consists of 34 items and is multi-dimensional. It distinguishes three different leadership concepts. The first is transformational leadership (scale

4

1=board of directors

TABLE 1

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

Demographic

variables * Management Subordinates Gender

Men 67 58

Women 33 42

Age

Mean 44 Years 43 Years

Highest education University and PHD 33 19 HBO 47 40 MBO 10 37 LBO 0 1 HAVO/VWO 5 3 MAVO/VBO 5 0

* Statistics shown are percentages. The sample sizes were 21 for middle management and 79 for subordinates.

TABLE 2

Specific Demographic Characteristics

Demographic

variables Management Subordinates Period of experience with

this manager*

-6 months 6

6 months- 1 year 15

1 year- 2 years 27

2 years- 4 years 27

4 years and longer 25

Management layers in organization Mean (S.D.) 3.8 (0.94) Layer of manager in sample Mean (S.D.) 2.5 (1.2)

(19)

1; 18 items) distinguishing four dimensions: charisma, individual consideration, intellectual stimulation and inspiration. As explained by Antonakis, Avolio & Sivasubramaniam: “Transformational leaders are proactive, raise follower awareness for transcendent collective interests, and help followers achieve extraordinary goals” (2003:264). The second is transactional leadership (scale 2; 9 items) distinguishing three dimensions: contingent reward, active management by exception and passive management by exception. As explained by Antonakis et al.: “Transactional leader behaviors focus on clarifying role and task requirements and providing followers with material or psychological rewards contingent on the fulfillment of contractual obligations” (2003:265). The third is laissez-faire leadership (scale 3; 7 items) and distinguishes no different dimensions. Laissez-faire leadership avoids decision making and supervisory responsibility. “This type of leader is inactive. In a sense, this extremely passive type of leadership indicates the absence of leadership” (Den Hartog, 1997:21).

All of the scale items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale varying from strongly

disagree to strongly agree. The scales were rated by managers and subordinates with the objective of composing a variable on self-other agreement (or manager-subordinate agreement). Formulation of items differs for manager (perception of own behavior, i.e. “I am ready to

overcome any obstacle”) and subordinate (perception of manager’s behavior, i.e. “I am ready to

trust him/her to overcome any obstacle”).

Feedback Seeking Behavior For measuring FBS I utilized three scales developed by Ashford

and Tsui (1991). The two different strategies to seek feedback are monitoring and direct inquiry. The monitoring scale (scale 4) consists of three items and is unaltered. The direct inquiry scale (scale 5) is a combination of two dimensions separately distinguished by Ashford and Tsui: direct inquiry (3 items) and explicitly seeking for negative feedback (2 items). The items of the last mentioned scale are complementary because they also presume a direct inquiry strategy (for instance: “my manager asks others to be critical when they gave him or her feedback”). In the theoretical section other reasons for expecting complementarity are already discussed. Complementarity of the scales will be explored by using principal component analysis. Finally, the tendency to seek positive feedback (scale 6) was measured by two items. All of the scale items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale varying from totally not to very often. The scales were rated by subordinates.

Self-Reflection For measuring self-reflection I utilized the SRIS-SR scale (scale 7) developed

(20)

empirical validation of their instrument they found that both subscales loaded on the same component and concluded that both measure self-reflection. Internal consistency of the new SRIS-SR scale will be explored by using principal component analysis in this study. All of the scale items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale varying from strongly disagree to

strongly agree. The scales were rated by the manager.

SC A L E AN AL Y SI S

A principal component analysis (with varimax rotation) was applied for the scales of direct inquiry, monitoring and self-reflection (scale 4, 5 and 7) to explore the internal structure. Scale 4 (a composition of direct inquiry and negative feedback seeking) and scale 5 (monitoring) were explored together in order to test the expected relations as discussed earlier. Additionally all scales were tested for reliability by computing the reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha). The scales on leadership behavior were separately tested for the middle manager and subordinate.

Principal component analysis on the scale of direct inquiry and monitoring distinguishes two relevant components (Eigenvalue component 1, 2 and 3:4.7, 1.63 and 0.57). Correlations in the component matrix confirm that items of scale 4 loaded on component 1 and scale 5 on component 2 (Appendix A). Results on the scale of self-reflection show a less consistent pattern of component loadings. 7 of the 11 items loaded highly on component 1 (Eigenvalue component 1, 2, and 3:4.9 1.8 and 1.3). The component matrix (Appendix A) shows no clear evidence for distinguishing between need for self-reflection and engagement in self-reflection as originally expected by Grant, Franklin and Langford (2002). The 4 items with low scores on component 1 are deleted in order to come to a consistent scale. Further, based on the reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) two scales of leadership behavior, the transactional and laissez faire, were revised by rejecting one item. Items were deleted for both the manager and subordinate version. Table 3 shows the scores on reliability for all scales including the scores before revision. Appendix B contains the questionnaire including the deleted items.

DA T A AN A L YS IS

(21)

TABLE 3

Reliability Analysis1

Scales Subordinates Middle management

Transformational 0,890 0,731 Transactional 0,701 (0,674)2 0,651 (0,600)2 Laissez-Faire 0,717 (0,676)2 0,786 (0,767)2 Direct Inquiry 0,933 - Monitoring 0,818 - Positive Feedback Seeking 0,833 - Self-reflection - 0,879 (0,855)2 1

=Statistics shown are Cronbach's alpha's (α)

2

=Scores before revision

reliable than the individual ratings (Van Velsor, Tailor & Leslie, 1993). Secondly, the mean of items were computed on these aggregated scales. Thirdly, discrepancy variables were assimilated by subtracting the mean of subordinates from the mean of the manager. Finally negative scores were transformed in positive scores of difference. The new three variables are scores of disagreement (or discrepancy) on the three leadership scales and ready for being analyzed.

Hypotheses were tested with the help of correlation and several regression techniques. Before, data is checked for being normally distributed. For all tests a confidence level of 95% is used. This means that correlations are significant when the significant level is below 0.05. Additionally to correlation, regression was used to gain insight in the explaining power of the complete model. Multiple regression analysis was controlled by three control variables: age,

educational level and gender. For the control variable age we made use of categories.

Additionally to the quantitative test of hypotheses, the context of the manager was explored by a qualitative analysis. In the survey middle managers responded to two open questions: “In what way does your organization stimulate self-reflection?” and “In what way does your organization stimulate feedback-seeking?” Answers were analyzed for each question and transformed in briefly phrased descriptions by the researcher. Answers with clear similarity were allocated to one overall description. Finally, the different descriptions were allocated to four different summarizing categories. These categories are defined in the results section.

(22)

how stimulating they are. The analysis is complementary to the results on hypotheses (from the quantitative part of this research). Instead of isolating the middle manager from his context, insight in it will lead to a more profounded discussion and managerial recommendations.

3. RESULTS

DE S C RI P T I VE ST AT I STI C S

Table 4 provides the means and standard deviations of the leadership scores for both managerial and subordinate perspective. First, it demonstrates an inflated effect for the managerial score on transformational and transactional when compared with the perception of subordinates. In spite of this, managerial scores for laissez-faire are lower when compared with subordinates. Secondly, from both perspectives, scores are the highest on transformational compared to transactional and laissez-faire.

Table 5 provides descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables used in the research model and hypotheses. The variables of Table 4 are transformed in scores of discrepancy on the three leadership scales (as discussed in the method section). Notable is that the mean on self-reflection is relatively high (3.70). Means on FSB indicate that seeking feedback is done more frequently by a monitoring strategy than by direct

inquiry (3.61 and 2.71). Explicitly seeking positive feedback is even more exceptional (1.92). Finally, by comparing the discrepancy variables, the highest amount of in agreement is found for transformational, than transactional and the lowest amount of in agreement is found for laissez-faire (0.26, 0.33 and 0.5).

COR R E L AT I ON

Table 5 shows the correlations between all variables. It indicates a significant correlation for hypothesis 2

TABLE 4

Descriptives of leadershipstyles

Manager Subordinates

Variabel Mean SD Mean SD

Transformational leadership 4,02 0,28 3,78 0,28 Transactional leadership 3,13 0,50 3,02 0,30 Laissez-faire leadership 1,89 0,59 2,14 0,37

REMINDER:HYPOTHESES

(23)

(24)

(only for transformational leadership); the frequency of feedback seeking by monitoring is negatively related to discrepancy on transformational leadership (r=-0,743, p=0,00). No significant correlations are found for hypotheses 1, 3 and 4. Two significant positive correlations are also found between the independent variables: monitoring and direct inquiry (r=0,444, p=0,022) and between self-reflection and direct inquiry (r=0,396, p=0,038). Finally, a significant positive correlation is found between discrepancy on transformational and discrepancy on laissez-faire (r=0,390, p=0,022).

TABLE 8

Regression analysis of feedback seeking and self-reflection on the discrepancy about laissez-faire leadership

Scales Model 0 Model 1

β t Sig. β t Sig. age .096 .419 .681 .148 .579 .572 gender -.228 -.993 .335 -.325 -1.383 .190 educational level .250 1.083 .294 .359 1.345 .202 direct inquiry-fbs ---- ---- ---- .127 .428 .675 monitoring- fbs ---- ---- ---- -.431 -1.533 .149 positive fbs ---- ---- ---- .138 .521 .611 self-reflection ---- ---- ---- .460 1.472 .165 R2 (F) .121 (.779) .359 (1.042)

β= standardized regression coefficient; fbs=feedback seeking behavior; discrepancy= between self-report and subordinates report; sig.=significant

RE GR ES S I ON

(25)

Table 7 shows the results of regression analysis for discrepancy on transactional leadership. Control variables in model 0 exhibit no significant direct relation with the dependent variable. Also for the predictors in model 1 no relation is found significant. Feedback seeking bij direct inquiry comes closest to significance (β=-.640, p=.065). The negative beta means that inquiry reduces the discrepance on transactional leadership. Finally, the variance explained by the complete model is not significant (R2=..264 F=.666, p=697). Based on correlation and regression results, all hypotheses for this dependent variable are rejected.

Finally, table 8 shows the results of regression analysis for discrepancy on laissez-faire leadership. Control variables in model 0 exhibit no significant direct relation with the dependent variable. Also for the predictors in model 1 no relation is found significant. The variance explained by the complete model is not significant (R2=..359 F=1.042, p=0449). Based on correlation and regression results, all hypotheses for this dependent variable are rejected.

QU AL I T AT I VE AN AL Y SI S

Additionally, middle managers responded to two open questions: “In what way does your organization stimulate self-reflection?” and “In what way does your organization stimulate feedback-seeking?” Table 6 summarizes the data and distinguishes four categories5. Meetings are planned conversations focused at reflection, evaluation and improvement. Instruments are mostly HR-oriented tools for personal development. The category Others includes more cultural stimuli as the amount of stimulating informal conversations and a stimulating learning culture. The category Absent includes managers in an unsupportive context or without stimuli.

Stimuli for self-reflection are reported as absent for 4 of the 21 managers. For the remaining group of managers, meetings are most mentioned as stimuli, following the category others and at last the category instruments. For the category meetings, group discussions with an evaluating or case/dilemma-focused character are frequently mentioned (6 and 4 times). Also, more individual discussions about progress with the leader are mentioned as stimulating (4 times). For the category others, the informal conversations with subordinates and peers, an encouraging leader and a stimulating “learning” culture are frequently mentioned (6, 3 and 3 times). Finally for the category instruments, performance management and the availability of external coaches are mentioned frequently (3 times).

Stimuli for feedback seeking are reported as absent for 8 of 21 of the managers. Instead of

meetings for self-reflection, instruments are most mentioned as stimuli for feedback seeking,

5

(26)

following the category others and at last the category meetings. Performance management, feedback systems and training are most mentioned instruments (3, 3 and 2 times). As well as for self-reflection, informal conversations, an encouraging leader and a stimulating “learning” culture are frequently mentioned (4, 3 and 4 times) for the category others. Finally for

meetings, job evaluations and group meetings with a case/dilemma-focused character are two times mentioned each.

TABLE 6

Organizational Stimuli for Managerial Reflection and Feedback-seeking

Reflection Feedback-Seeking

Frequency (n=21)

Meetings Progress discussion (L) 4 -

Job evaluation (L) 1 2

Evaluation/intervision meeting (T) 6 1

Off-site vision day (T) 1 -

Work meeting (dilemma or case discussion) (T) 4 2

Sounding board (T) - 1

Subtotal 16 6

Instruments Performance management 3 3

System of "sparring partners" 1 -

Feedback system (internal HR-cycle) 1 3

Personal development plan - 1

Employee satisfaction survey - 1

Customer feedback form - 1

Training - 2

External coach 3 1

Subtotal 8 12

Others Informal conversations (L, S & P) 6 4

Clear vision and mission 1 -

Encouraging leader 3 3

Stimulating "learning culture" 3 4

Subtotal 13 11

Total 37 29

Absent Absent/discouraging part of culture 4 8

N=21 middle managers. L=Leader, T=Team, S=Subordinates & P=Peers.

(27)

culture”, encouraging leader). Finally, a relative large part of the sample reports that stimuli for feedback-seeking are absent. The picture drawn by the sample is further discussed in the following paragraph.

4. DISCUSSION

In sum, in this study I empirically examine the contribution of self-reflection and feedback seeking on the self-awareness of a middle manager. Typically, I concentrate on the role of a middle manager in a situation of organizational change. In the theoretical secion I made the case for recognizing the importance and complexity of self-awareness in a change agent role. Important because the middle manager fulfills the role of change agent in organizational change efforts. Self-awareness is a necessary condition for purposive action6 and effective leadership of change agents. Complex because the middle manager himself is object of changing expectations and/or is part of an uncertain context. Complexity can be a threat towards an accurate self-perception. This result in the paradox of this study: self-awareness for the middle manager is highly desirable but hardly attainable.

SE L F R AT I N GS AR E I N FL A T E D

Results of this study confirm the expected inaccuracy of self-ratings. Self-ratings for transformational and transactional leadership are inflated and for laissez-faire leadership (which is a less desirable style indicating an absence of leadership) deflated compared with the ratings of the 3 or 4 subordinates. In literature this is not a new finding and mostly interpreted as a self-enhancement bias of the manager (Kwan et al., 2004). Remarkably, the results indicate that on transformational leadership discrepancy is the highest. Research indicates that transformational is the most desirable style of leadership in organizational change (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt & Van Engen, 2003) and most appealing in general (For instance, observe the popularity of Mr. Obama). On transactional (a less appealing but not undesirable style of leadership in organizational change) discrepancies are smaller. Self-enhancement is one explanation of this difference which originates in the attractiveness of behavior and attributed on the self by the middle manager.

A second explanation arises if we look at the behaviors associated with a style of leadership (see appendix A for items). Transformational behavior is more focused at the relation with the follower and more ambiguous (e.g. items as “confidence”, “pride”, “vision” and “being a role

6

(28)

model”) than transactional behavior (e.g. items as “monitoring”, “tracking mistakes”, “rewarding” and “punishing”). To the knowledge of the author, literature on self-awareness neglects the differences in “the level of ambiguousness” between groups of behaviors. This explanation can complement the self-enhancement argument since ambiguousness on appealing items as “vision” and “confidence” are more open to inflation.

M ON I T OR IN G EN HA N CE S S EL F-A WA R E NE SS

Based on Ashford and Tsui (1991) we distinguished two strategies of FBS. Direct inquiry involves explicit asking someone in the environment for feedback about behavior. Monitoring is a more indirect method by observing other people that provide indications of how own behavior is perceived. Further, we measured positive feedback-seeking: an explicit search for a positive content thereby avoiding critical comments. According to the results, monitoring is a more frequently used strategy than direct inquiry. The means of both variables are almost identical to findings of Ashford & Tsui (1991). Further, monitoring is positively connected to an accurate perception of own transformational leadership. Direct inquiry shows no significant relationship with self-awareness. Finally, positive feedback seeking is scarce behavior according to subordinates and shows no significant relationship with self-awareness.

Unexpectedly, results show that monitoring is a more effective way to seek feedback than direct inquiry. Different explanations can be given for this finding. First, the difference can be explained by the nature of the monitoring strategy. A manager using monitoring has a direct cause (a signal given by the subordinate) on which he initiates inquiry. Interaction starts by the subordinate so he could be more able and more willing to express his feedback. Contradictory, direct inquiry is initiated by the manager which enhances the change for a moment where a subordinate is less able or willing to express feedback. Second, the difference can be explained by interpreting the use of a monitoring-strategy as a characteristic of the manager or the manager-subordinate relation. Dependent on the sensitivity of the manager to his environment he will recognize signals given by a subordinate or not. A definite answer lacks in this study but both explanations are proposed for verification in future research.

(29)

LE A R N I N G OR P ER F ORM I N G

But, if monitoring FSB is desirable, how to understand differences in the frequency of it for each individual? Two suggestions, a signal of the subordinate and the sensitivity of the manager, are already discussed. Additionally, a new development in theory proposes that individual difference in goal orientation (part of the attitude of the manager) is a central influence in the FSB-process (Tucky, Brewer & Williamson, 2002; VandeWalle, 2003; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997). These authors propose that there are two broad classes of underlying goals that individuals can pursue: (a) a learning goal orientation to develop competence by acquiring new skills and mastering new situations and (b) a performance goal orientation to demonstrate and validate the adequacy of one’s competence by seeking favorable judgments and avoiding negative judgments about one’s competence. Important to note is that both orientations are not mutually exlusive dispositions but that it is found that people have a tendency to be more orientated towards a class (Vande Walle, 1997). The influence of goal orientation is explained by Tucky, Brewer and Williamson:

“Since learning-oriented individuals are focused on improving performance and willing to exert effort to do so, they should show a strong desire for useful information. In contrast, performance-oriented individuals perceive ability as fixed and are more focused on demonstrating ability than improving it and should therefore be less likely to believe that useful information can be obtained that will improve their ability to perform a task and less likely to want to exert extra effort to obtain information that improves performance” (2002:198)

Research on goal orientations is encouraging. There is growing evidence for the propositions that (a) a learning orientation is positively related to the instrumental motive for FBS and negatively to the image- and ego-based motive (Vande Walle, 2003), and that (b) a performance goal orientation is negatively related to the instrumental motive for FBS and positively to the image and ego-based motive (Tucky et al. 2002; VanderWalle & Cummings, 1997).

A SU PP OR T I VE E N VI R OM E N T

(30)

to activity in stead of passivity (which is also imaginable) of the middle manager. . Simultaneously, results show a non-supportive context for a substantial amount of the sample. Organisations and research can benefit from these findings. Organizations are provided with the question if and how they support the middle manager to be sensitive and active in searching for feedback. Interventions based on stimuli mentioned by middle management provide a first agenda for improvement. For research, the same stimuli provide a first step to understand what a supportive environment comprehends for a manager. After an extensive discussion of feedback seeking we move to a much shorter discussion of self-reflection in the following paragraph.

SE L F-RE FL E C T I ON

Self-reflection on thoughts, feelings and behavior has no influence on self-awareness. At least, when the self-assessment of the manager is correct. While this study emphasizes the inaccuracy of perception, it measures engagement in reflection solely by the perception of the self-rater. It points at an invincible question of how to accurately measure a cognitive activity like self-reflection? One option is the scale of Grant, Franklin and Langford (2002) which was used in this study. Other studies used more quantitative approaches like interviewing (Seibert & Daudelin; 1999), using reflection journals or diaries (Woodward; 1998) and observation during learning experiences. Problem with most of these approaches is that they are used to asses a developmental experience during the time, and at the same time are a developmental experience in itself. To assess the frequency of self-reflection of a manager in daily life work settings it seems more appropriate to combine quantitative and qualitative methods by on the one hand adjusting the scale of Grant, Franklin and Langford (2002) to a more quantitave scale (including frequencies of self-reflection per day or week and a clear description of a self-reflection activity). On the other hand such a method can be reinforced by taking interviews and by participating in the theory-building started by the work of Seibert & Daudelin (1999).

Because we found no evidence for the influence of self-reflection on self-awareness, the analysis of stimuli for self-reflection becomes less relevant for this study. For researchers interested in the relationship between context and managerial self-reflection our findings are still valuable. Our analysis indicates that especially group meetings and more individualized interventions stimulate self-reflection. For more details we refer to the results section.

(31)

In accordance with expectations from theory, we found that self-ratings about leadership are inaccurate. Especially self-ratings for transformational leadership are inflated. This finding is relevant in our research because theory recommends this type of leadership for situations of organizational change. Two explanations were given. First, because of this desirability and the attractiveness of transformational leadership, leaders overestimate their transformational behavior. Second, because transformational behavior is more ambiguous than transactional behavior the self-rating is more sensitive for inflation. Further we found that monitoring, in spite of direct inquiry, is an effective way to reduce discrepancy on self and other ratings of transformational behavior. Two explanations were given. First, monitoring behavior starts with a signal of the subordinate on which a manager initiates feedback-seeking behavior while direct inquiry starts with the need of the manager. Second, the effectiveness of monitoring behavior points at sensitivity as a crucial trait of the manager to become self-aware. Further, by describing goal orientation theory, we gave an additional explanation for why managers differ in the frequency of FSB. This theory says that the goal orientation of the manager influences the instrumental motive to seek feedback. A learning orientation, in spite of a performance orientation, is positively connected to the instrumental motive. Finally, we included the supportiveness of the managerial environment in our research. In an explorative qualitative part of this research we found that the middle manager seems to become activated to search feedback by individualized feedback and a learning-oriented culture from within the organization.

LIM I T AT I ONS AN D F U TU R E RE SE A R C H

(32)

be extended and will improve the effectiveness of change agents like top management, management consultants or change teams7.

MA N A GE R I A L REC OM M E N D AT I ONS

What are the lessons learned about the middle manager in this study? First, that possessing and maintaining a high level of self-awareness as a change manager is challenging, important and measurable. Purposive action, based on a high level of self-awareness, is difficult since a middle manager frequently does what he knows, but doesn’t know what he does. This lesson discovers an important need for change in middle managerial practice. Second, that self-awareness can be improved by frequently seeking feedback and developing yourself as a learning-oriented middle manager. Third, organizations are able to support their managers in change by providing a supportive environment. These lessons encourage me to recommend several actions in the following paragraphs to improve middle managerial action. Sometimes these actions are directly applicable for the middle manager himself. In most cases actions ask for strategic decisions on a higher managerial level.

First of all, the middle manager can be stimulated to become aware of his learning orientation. For instance in a training program. Several excercises in such a program can be focused at raising awareness of the distribution in one’s goal orientation and the drawbacks of a skew distribution. Since a mainly performance-driven change agent will be highly motivated to show his change agent competency, his self-image can become more and more inaccurate by a deficiency of mirrors. A mainly learning oriented change agent will be highly motivated to learn from his environment but, possibly, can become insecure in making important tough decisions. Second, specific interventions can be focused on changing self-theories and attitudes towards learning. Perceived imago and ego costs of seeking feedback can be reduced by a changed attitude. By these interventions it becomes more likely for the manager to seek self-improvement feedback in their leadership behavior (VandeWalle,Brown, Cron, Slocum, 1999). Third, focus on attitude change can be combined with the introduction of a multi-source feedback program8. This provides the manager with individualized feedback on a regular basis, the costs of imago and ego motives can be reduced for this instrument, and it possibly stimulates a culture change broader in the organization towards a more supportive learning environment.

7

A fourth-fold classification of Change Agency models is given by Caldwell (2003) 8

Cleaning the Mirror of the Middle Manager

Cleaning the Mirror of the Middle

Manager

“And since you know you cannot see yourself,

so well as by reflection, I, your glass,

will modestly discover to yourself,

that of yourself which you yet know not”

Shakespeare (1564-1616)

in “The Life and Death of Julies Caesar”

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

Cleaning the Mirror of the Middle Manager

2.

RESEARCH

METHODS

3.

RESULTS

4.

DISCUSSION