Master Thesis The influence of leader-member exchange quality and differentiation on change readiness at the individual and team level

Master Thesis

The influence of leader-member exchange quality and

differentiation on change readiness at the individual and

team level

2

Table of contents

2.3 LMX and readiness to change 13

3

Abstract Change readiness is considered an important concept in the field of organizational change. The relationship between leadership and change behaviors is a popular subject among scholars. Most of these theories consider change leadership as a consistent behavior of a manager towards its subordinates. LMX theorists, however, focus on the quality of relationships a manager has with his different subordinates. In this research, the relationship between LMX and change readiness was investigated within two teams at a health insurance company. Semi-structured interviews and questionnaires were conducted with 22 respondents. The findings suggest that a good LMX quality relationship has a positive influence on change readiness at the individual level. However, within subgroups this influence seems decreased due to the more stronger influence of senior members. And, at the team level, dominant subgroups were highly influential in the change readiness of the team. In this paper a new method is provided to identify subgroups. The basic principle of this method is to use paper cards that resemble coworkers within a team. Asking the respondent to place these cards

4

1. Introduction

Organizations are social entities with members aiming to achieve certain objectives. Consequently, organizations can only change through the actions of their members (George & Jones, 2001). In addition to the notion that organizations exist through the actions of their members, is the way in which these members work together. Through teamwork, organizations are more capable of performing multiple, complex and interdependable tasks. Therefore, when organizations aim to change, the most critical factors are the employee’s attitudes toward change (Miller, Johnson &Grau, 1994). So, if we speak about organizational change, researchers and practitioners are mainly

concerned about changing the behavior of organizational members. These members work closely together with their coworkers in teams. Their attitudes towards organizational change are highly influenced by their direct peers.

An important concept concerning attitudes towards change is change readiness. The concept of change readiness has been examined to describe the beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully undertake those changes (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993). If the members of an organization are confident that their organization could cope with change, change readiness is perceived to be high.An organization member’s attitude towards change is influenced by their direct peers. Through their daily interaction, members of a team shape each other’s thoughts and feelings. Another critical factor that affects the change readiness of an organizational member is their manager.Managers typically have frequent contact with their subordinates. They can be the channel communicating the organizational change from senior management. Or they might even be responsible for

implementing the change within their own team. Through their frequent interaction and their functional responsibilities to communicate or implement change, it can be expected that managers play a critical role in influencing the change readiness of their subordinates.

5 The first argument is that members that experience a high LMX relationship with their manager, are more likely to engage in proactive behaviors towards organizational change (Tierney, 1999).

Members that perceive a high LMX quality relationship are argued to interpret managerial behaviors more positively to confirm their perceived relationship (Ferris & Judge, 1991). In addition, high quality LMX relationships are based on social exchange (Liden, Sparrow & Wayne, 1997) such as trust, support and obligation. Relationships based on these aspects are observed to provide the best conditions for employees to react positively to organizational change (Farr-Wharton &Brunetto, 2007). The first argument focuses on the individual level, namely the LMX quality of an organizational member with its manager and the effect on individual change readiness.

The second argument is based on the assumption that organizational members compare the

relationship with their boss with colleagues within their team. If they perceive that their relationship is of lower quality then the relationship of a co-worker (LMX differentiation), they might experience resentment (Heider, 1958). Recently, it has been argued that through differentiated LMX

relationships, a manager might create faultlines within a team (Li & Liao, 2014). Faultlines are hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more attributes (Lau &Murnighan, 1998). Because of their relationship with their manager, team members might perceive they form a subgroup with other team members that have similar quality relationships with their manager (Kelley, 1952). Research findings seem to suggest that LMX differentiation could harm group effectiveness (Wu, Tsui&Kinnicki, 2008) and improve relational conflict (Hooper & Martin, 2008).This second argument focuses on the team level, namely the LMX differentiation within a team and the effect on team change readiness.

6 This paper fills the research gap in explaining how managers shape members attitudes towards organizational change. While existing research is more prescriptive in describing ideal change leadership behaviors (how it should be), I aim to get a better understanding of how managers actually influence their followers (what actually happens). Most research on LMX focuses on outcomes of team effectiveness (Li & Liao, 2014). This paper, however, aims to better understand the relationship between LMX and change readiness.The goal of this research is to contribute to a greater understanding of the different effects of leader-member exchanges. By reaching this goal, this paper could be useful in organizations to explain the consequences of how leaders treat their employees differently.

In chapter 2, the most important concepts of this research will be discussed. This chapter provides an overview of the current scientific debate on change readiness, LMX and faultlines. At the end of the chapter, the possible relationship between change readiness and LMX will be described. In the third chapter, the research design is presented. In this chapter, the approach of the research and the used instruments will be discussed. The fourth chapter contains the results of the two teams that

7

2. Theory review

In this section I discuss the two business phenomena of this study: change readiness and LMX theory. First, the current scientific debate about change readiness will be discussed. In this section I

specifically discuss change readiness at the individual and team level. Second, I discuss the LMX theory. In this section, the concepts of LMX quality and LMX differentiation will be elaborated. Again, the focus will be on the individual and team level.

2.1 Change readiness

Change readiness was argued to be the prescription of reducing resistance to change (Armenakis et al. 1999). An important difference however, reducing resistance does not always increase change readiness (Stevens, 2013). The classic work of Lewin (1951) contains the three step model of

organizational change: unfreeze, move and freeze. The concept of change readiness is related to the step unfreeze, in that an active effort of organizational members is needed (Armenakis et al, 1993). Eby et al (2000) define readiness as an individual’s perception of a specific facet of his or her work environment and the extent to which the organization is perceived to be ready for change. Cunningham et al (2002) define the concept as a demonstrable need for change, a sense of one’s ability to successfully accomplish change and an opportunity to participate in the change process. Most of these definitions seem to be derived of the original work of Armenakis et al (1993) viewing change readiness as the beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully undertake those changes.

The definition of Armenakis et al (1993) captures three important dimensions: the cognitive-, affective and attitude component. As Ajzen (1991) point out, attitudes consist of feelings and

8 The scope of this paper contains the individual- and team level. Since managers operate within a team, the relationships they engage in are typically with the subordinates in that team.Therefore, these levels are most appropriate to explain outcomes of leadership behavior.In this paper, I treat change readiness as a two-dimensional concept of cognitive and affective components and use the individual and team level of analysis.

At the individual level of change readiness, two cognitive components can be distinguished: 1) the beliefs that change is needed and 2) the belief that the individual has the capacity to change (Vakola, 2013). The first component relates to the individual’s perception that there is a misfit between the organization’s current state and the organization’s desired state. This belief stems from a

dissatisfaction with the status quo. The second component concerns the perception of an individual’s own competence to change. In order to make change happen, an individual has to think he or she is capable to adapt. Affective components of individual change readiness should be evaluated by positive emotions concerning a specific change event (Rafferty et al, 2013). One of these emotions is hope, describing the prospect of a positive outcome of the change initiative (Baumgartner et al, 2008).

At the team level, cognitive components are similar to those of individual change readiness: the collective beliefs that change is needed and the belief that the team is able to cope with change. However, these cognitive components are influenced by different processes. A key team process influencing the cognitive component of change readiness is sensemaking. Through social interaction, members create a collective view on the events on the workplace (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). When experiencing organizational change, members give meaning to this change by an ongoing process of social construction (George & Jones, 2001). In both these processes of social interaction and social construction, members within a team influence each other’s view of the effectiveness of the change and their ability to cope with the change. For example, if the majority of a team shares the view that they are highly competent to make the change happen, they could convince the minority that had doubts.

9 person (Barsade, 2002). In sum, the concepts of sensemaking and shared emotions describe team processes that explain how organizations construct their beliefs and emotions towards organizational change.

Level Cognitive components Affective components

Individual  The beliefs that change is needed and

 The belief that the individual has the capacity to change

 Positive emotions concerning a specific change event

Team Sensemaking

 Social interaction (members create a collective view on the events on the workplace)

 Social construction (members give meaning to change by an ongoing process of social construction)

Shared emotions

 Emotional comparison (members use other’s emotions to describe their own state)

 Emotional contagion

(the process in which a person or group influence the emotions of another person)

Table 1. Multi-level view on change readiness

As shown by table 1, the team level of change readiness is not just the sum of the change readiness of its members. The notion of sensemaking and shared emotions explain how team processes affect the way in which a team perceives its own change readiness.

10 2.2 LMX

The definition of LMX has evolved during the last four decades. Graen (1976) describes LMX as an exchange relationship based on competence, interpersonal skill, and trust. Later on, Graen and Ginsburgh (1977) increased the number of subdimensions, including support, reward and satisfaction with the leader. Finally, in 1987, there seems to be a first systematic description of LMX:

“Leader-member exchange is (a) a system of components and their relationships (b) involving both members of a dyad (c) involving interdependent patterns of behavior and (d) sharing mutual outcome instrumentalities and (e) producing conceptions of environments, cause maps, and value” (Scandura, Graen& Novak, 1987). A basic premise of LMX theory is that leaders develop differentiated

relationships with their subordinates (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). It is important to note that LMX focuses on the relationship between employees and managers. Other leadership theories tend to focus on leadership behavior (Gerstner & Day, 1997). There are two important differences between these levels of analysis: 1) a relationship is based on a longer period of time and 2) a relationship involves both parties, managers and subordinates. The type of leader-member relationship can be evaluated by its quality and the different types of leader-member relationships within a team can be evaluated by its differentiation. The concepts of LMX quality and LMX differentiation will be

discussed below.

LMX quality captures a value determined by existing characteristics of the relationships between a member and itsmanager. Maslyn & Liden (1998) use four dimensions to describe LMX quality: affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect. Affect captures the interpersonal attraction between the leader and the member. Loyalty is concerned with the degree of public support between the leader and the member. Contribution describes the perception the leader and the member have about the current level of work activity the other puts forth. Professional respect is the degree to which the leader and the member have built a reputation within the organization of excelling at his or her work. Low quality LMX relationships describe economic exchange based on a reciprocation of tangible assets, such as employment contracts (Blau, 1964). In contrast, high quality LMX

11 In this paper, LMX quality is considered as an important concept because it influences member’s behavior. An important mechanism explaining this influence is attribution theory (Furst & Cable, 2008). According to this theory, organizational members react to managerial influence based on the quality of their relationship with the manager (Ferris & Judge, 1991). Attribution theory suggests that organizational members aim to confirm their existing perceptions of their relationships by selectively interpreting managerial behaviors. So if an organizational member experiences a low quality LMX relationship, he is more likely to selectively interpret actions of the manager as negative, to confirm his perception of a negative relationship. Attribution theory helps to explain that organizational members engage in certain behavior based on their relationship with the manager.

LMX differentiation describes the differences between LMX relationships within a team. A team with a high LMX differentiation describes a team in which many employees engage in different LMX relationships with their leader. A team with low LMX differentiation describes a team in which the relationships with the leader are homogenous (Li & Liao, 2014). Reseach indicated that group members are aware of differential treatment of their leaders (Sias&Jablin, 1995). These views of differential treatment are strengthened through communication among group members (Sias, 1996). Heider (1958) suggests that differentiated relationships between group members are dependent. Members with high quality relationships might treat members with negative relationships skeptically and collaboration between these different members might be reduced. In opposite, members with poor quality relationships may have resentment to members with high quality

relationships.Consequently, members with high and low LMX quality relationships could interact and collaborate more with coworkers with the same quality relationship and less with coworkers with a different quality LMX relationship. Therefore, LMX differentiation could lead to subgroups within a team.

Why these relationship dependencies matter will be illustrated by the configurational approach of Li and Liao (2014).Based on the idea that LMX differentiation could lead to the formation of subgroups, Li and Liao (2014) used a configurational approach to show how different configurations of LMX differentiation could lead to different types of subgroups. They suggest a taxonomy of four distinct patterns of possible LMX differentiation: shared LMX configuration, minority LMX configuration, bimodal configuration and fragmented configuration. Shared LMX configuration resembles

12 fragmented LMX configuration captures a situation in which most members have different LMX quality. In figure 1, these different types of LMX configuration are graphically depicted.

Figure 1. LMX differentiation configurations (Li & Liao, 2014)

In figure 1, the black ovals represent employees. Their position in the squares resembles their type of LMX quality with the leader. The black bold lines are faultlines. Faultlines are hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more attributes (Lau &Murnighan, 1998). Teams are considered ineffective when they possess strong faultiness (Carton & Cummings, 2012). Leaders are making relational faultlines themselves when they create differentiated relationships among their followers. The bimodal LMX configuration is characterized by a strong faultline between two evenly sized subgroups, minority LMX configuration contains a faultline separating one small subgroup from a bigger subgroup. The fragmented LMX configuration has multiple but weak faultlines to divide different subgroups.

Reference group- and balance theory provide an explanation why LMX faultlines are important. According to reference group theorymember’satttitudes and behaviors are influenced by comparisons made between the member and others in his or her reference group (Kelley, 1952). These comparisons are based upon the relative standing within the social context (Firebaugh, 1980). Heider’s (1958) balance theory suggests that individuals within a team, prefer a balance in their attitudes toward their partners. This theory is reinforced by Sherony and Green (2002), indicating that if two employees have a positive relationship with their superior, they are more likely to have a positive relationship with each other. Combining both theories explains how LMX differentiation could lead to subgroups. Members identify themselves with teammembers with similar LMX

13 Level of

analysis

LMX construct Mechanism Description

Individual level

LMX quality Attribution theory

Organizational members aim to confirm their existing perceptions of their relationships by selectively interpreting managerial behaviors. Team level LMX differentiation Reference group theory Balance theory

Members identify themselves with team members with similar LMX relationships (reference group theory) and shape similar attitudes about team members in different relationships (balance theory) Table 2. Multi-level view on LMX

It can be concluded that LMX has an influence on members within a team. At the individual level, LMX quality illustrates the value of the relationship between a member and the manager. Attribution theory suggests that members act in ways that confirm their perception of the LMX quality with their manager. At the team level, LMX differentiation captures the variance of LMX quality within a team. Reference group theory and balance theory help to explain why teammembers with the same LMX quality might form a subgroup and think in the same way about other subgroups.

So far, the concepts of change readiness and LMX have been discussed on the individual and team level. In the next paragraph the relationship between these concepts will be described.

2.3 LMX and readiness for change

Individual level

As mentioned earlier, individual readiness for change is a psychological construct which is a product of the social environment of an individual. The people in the work environment surrounding an individual influence its beliefs and feelings about change readiness. An important factor influencing individual change readiness is the manager.

14 implementing change-related efforts; c) support their employees via fostering positive interpersonal relationships; and d) provide needed work resources.Typically, these factors are more covered in a high quality LMX relationship. As Farr-Wharton and Brunetto (2007) point out, a relationship based on social exchange provide the best conditions for employees to react positively to organizational change. In their review on change recipients reactions to change, Oreg, Vakola and Armenakis (2011) find that organizational members that have trust in management, perceive management as

supportive and feel respected, are more receptive to suggested changes and report a greater

willingness to cooperate with the change. Aspects as trust, support and respect are more present in a high quality LMX relationship.

Attribution theory indicates that organizational members aim to confirm their existing perceptions of their relationships by selectively interpreting managerial behaviors. Based on this theory, in this paper it is expected that individuals with high LMX quality relationships would perceive change initiatives in a way that would confirm their good relationship with the manager. So if the manager is positive about a certain change initiative, members with a high LMX relationship are more likely to share the same opinion. Consequently, they would illustrate a high change readiness. This reasoning is reinforced by Tierney (1999) suggesting that high quality LMX relationships correlate with

receptivity to change. Team level

Team change readiness is not just the sum of the different individuals perceiving their individual change readiness. In addition, team processes play an important part in explaining how team change readiness is shaped. As mentioned, the concepts of sensemaking and shared emotions illustrated how in teams, people influence each other’s beliefs and feelings about organizational change. Based on their reference group, members of a group are influenced in their beliefs and feelings towards organizational change. As discussed by Li & Liao (2014), based on their type of relationship with the employee, managers create subgroups. I distinguish two types of mechanisms that influence the relationship between LMX differentiation and team change readiness.

15 relational conflict within teams (Hooper & Martin, 2008). Differentiated LMX leadership could create divergence in leader identification and harms group effectiveness (Wu, Tsui & Kinnicki, 2008). Support in general and the extent to which others have been supportive can increase the level of comfort of organizational members’ towards change (Oreg et al, 2011). This support could be diminished during change events in which the in-group and the outgroup make sense of the change within their own group. Following this reasoning, different configurations of LMX differentiation affect the impact of relational boundaries on team change readiness.

Secondly, LMX differentiation harms the principle of equality. The equality principle is concerned with how rewards are divided equally. If a team member perceives that other group members are rewarderd more based on their relationship with the leader, they might feel that the principle of equality is violated. Deutsch (1975) proposes that norms of equality in groups are important for social harmony. Tyler (1989) suggests that leader neutrality, in this research defined as low LMX differentiation, is an important factor influencing perceptions of procedural justice. Hooper and Martin (2008) indicate that leadership that is considered unfair, makes teammembers feel frustrated and this could reduce their identification with the team. As Liden et al (2006) point out, in highly differentiated teams, low LMX members may even sabotage team performance. During a change event, the outgroup might perceive the change primarily benefiting the in-group. Therefore, they might resist the change initiative.

Level Mechanism Explanation Individual Social

exchange

Attribution theory

A relationship based on social exchange provide the best conditions for employees to react positively to organizational change.

If the manager is positive about a certain change initiative, members with a high LMX relationship are more likely to share the same opinion to confirm their good relationship.

Team Relational boundaries

Principle of equality

A supportive climate could be diminished during change events in which the in-group and the outgroup make sense of the change within their own subgroup.

During a change event, the outgroup might perceive the change primarily benefiting the in-group. Therefore, they might resist the change initiative.

17

3. Research design

This research aims to examine two type of relationships. First, the relationship between LMX quality and change readiness on the individual level will be examined. Second, I examine the relationship between LMX differentiation and change readiness on the team level. At both relationships, the main point of interest is how the relationship with a manager influences change readiness. The research question of this paper is: how does LMX quality and LMX differentiation affect change readiness at the individual and team level?In this chapter, the research design will be discussed to answer this question.

This research is based around finding explanations/mechanisms that help better understand the effects of leader-member exchanges. To create a better understanding of existing theory and identify mechanisms, a theory development approach is used. In this research, the approach of Eisenhardt (1989) is adopted. This approach involves using cases to create theoretical constructs and

propositions. Theory building is emergent, developed by recognizing patterns of relationships among constructs and within and across cases. In this paper, the focus is to get a better understanding of how managers actually influence their followers. Therefore, the main point of interest is what happens in the reality of an organization and not what is expected based on the literature. An important idea of Eisenhardt’s approach (1989) is the replication logic. Each case serves as a distinct experiment on its own analytic unit. Multiple cases serve as replications to the emerging theory. In this research teams A and B are the units of analysis.

3.1 Case selection

18 Two teams were analyzed. Both these teams are part of the same health insurance company. The company operates in the Netherlands and is among the top five biggest health insurance companies of the country. Members of the organization work in three different locations. Team A is a team that analyzes the financial risks ofhealth insurance products. Based on historical data, they make risk assessments of insurance products. The work demands mathematic and statistical skills. Employees typically have a master’s degree at math or econometrics. This year, the financial manager of the company left the company. As a consequence, team A directly operates under the CFO. Team B is within the marketing & sales department of the company. Team B does not have a direct customer, their focus is to improve the effectiveness of the marketing and sales department. The team consists of different types of functions. The team has three marketing analysts, one brand strategist, a senior marketer and two project managers. This team has experienced a major organizational change. Since April 2015, the whole marketing and sales department has been changed in order to enhance

effectiveness. Team B is created as a consequence of this change.

3.2 Data collection

At the start of the data collection, invitations were send to gather appropriate teams to analyze. In these invitations the subject of research was explained in order to make sure that the manager knew if his or her team was appropriate for the research. After the identification of teams, interview were planned, in random order, with each team member and manager. To create a complete picture, it is important to speak every person within the team. However, due to holiday plans, one respondent of team B was not interviewed. In the planning of the interviews, only the subject of research was announced. This in order to make sure the respondent is not able to prepare socially acceptable answers.

After the planning phase, the semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 respondents. Interviews give the researcher the option to ask for explanations. Because of the main interest of mechanisms explaining influences of the relationship with the manager on change readiness, interviews seem appropriate. In this case, the respondent has the opportunity to really clarify his reasoning. During the interviews, it was ensured that data will be treated confidential. This is

19 In addition, every interview took place in a closed, private room. This to make sure that no coworkers could hear the interview. An interview protocol was used to improve reliability. The different

subjects of the interview were used in a systematic order with the same sub questions. This structure makes sure that every concept is discussed by every respondent and that the same questions were asked. Finally the interviews were recorded to be able to reproduce the data exactly.

Right after the interview, the respondent was asked to fill in a questionnaire. The questionnaire is used as a backup to check the validity of the interviews. With the use of an extra instrument,

gathered data should be more valid.The questionnaire was used on purpose right after the interview. In this way, the respondent is not influenced by other coworkers at his office and has the possibility to clarify questions with the researcher.

3.3 Measurements

Interview

The interview is added in appendix 1. The interview has three phases: introduction, individual level and the team level. Each phase has different subjects being discussed. In the first phase, the

researcher gives a short introduction. In this introduction the subjects of the interview are presented. In this phase the researcher explains the respondent that he is going to ask questions about his coworkers and manager. Therefore, during the introduction, it was important to emphasize that the data will be treated confidential. The second phase of the interview is about the individual level. The different subjects of this phase are relationship the respondent has with his manager, his

experienced changes within the organization, his individual change readiness and the effect of the relationship with his or her manager on his change readiness. Sample questions per subject are given in table 4.

Subject Goal Sample question

Relationship between the respondent and the manager

Examples of the LMX quality. Based upon affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect (Maslyn & Liden, 1998)

“How would you describe the relationship with your manager?”

Experienced changes within the

organization

Describing the change context of the team

20 Individual change

readiness

Describing the attitude towards change and the perception of cognitive and emotional change readiness (Rafferty, 2013)

“How would you describe your attitude towards organizational change within this organization?”

Effect of LMX on change readiness

Identifying effects of the LMX relationship on individual change readiness

“Which influence has the

relationship with your manager on your attitude towards

organizational change?” Table 4. Subjects of phase 2 of interview

The last phase of the interview focuses on the team level. This phase contains the following subjects: team collaboration, perceived subgroups, LMX differentiation, team change readiness and the effects of the relationship with the manager on team change readiness. Table 5, gives an impression of the content of each subject of the interview.

Subject Goal Sample question

Team collaboration Give an impression of how members within the team work together.

“To what degree collaboration is needed in this team?”

Perceived subgroups

Identifying perceptions of perceived subgroups in the team

“If we look at all the members of your team, to what degree do we have subgroups?”

LMX differentiation Examples in which the manager engages in different relationships among his/her subordinates

“To what degree does your manager have different

relationships with members of your team?”

Team change readiness

Describing the collective view on change readiness in the team.

“What is the attitude of the team towards organizational change?” Effects of LMX on

change readiness

Explaining mechanisms in which the relationship with the manager has an influence on the team change

readiness.

“What is the influence of the relationship with the manager on the team change readiness?”

21 To identify the existence of subgroups a new method is used. The coworkers within a team are written down on paper cards. In the interview the respondent is asked to place his or her coworkers according to how he or she perceives subgroups within the team. After this exercise, the respondent is asked why he or she placed the cards in the given formation. By engaging in this dialogue, data can be obtained about the perception of subgroups and the different faultline bases that underlie these subgroups.

This method had several advantages. First, it gives the respondent the opportunity to provide a rich insight in the subgroups within the team. The respondent did not only showed subgroups, but could also show the observed distance between these subgroups. In the interviews, respondents

frequently illustrated the degree of interaction and collaboration by placing subgroups further or more close to each other. And respondents could also illustrate the position of individuals within the subgroups. Often, employees placed the most influential coworker at the top of a subgroup. After this they explained why this person had a certain informal position within the subgroup. Second, this method proved useful as a supportive instrument throughout the interview. If a respondent gave an example of a subgroup, he or she could simply point to the cards to clarify the members of this subgroup. Third, this method is useful to make sure that the respondents describes a complete picture of his or her team. During the beginning of the interviews, respondents tended to neglect new coworkers or coworkers which they did not know too well. Because all coworkers were written down on paper cards, each respondent was forced to think about each coworker.

Questionnaire

22 3.4 Data analysis

Interview

Because the focus of this paper is to get a better understanding of how managers actually influence their followers, an inductive approach seems most appropriate. Consequently, most codes were found based on the observations during the interview, instead of expectations derived from the literature. The researcher did not choose for the option to make a prescriptive codebook before the interviews, as discussed by Crabtree and Miller (1999). As pointed out by King (2012), using an extensive codebook could limit the need to retain openness towards themes that are not obviously of direct relevance. Therefore, the analysis of interviews was mainly inductive, focusing on

observations in the interviews.

There seem to be no clear rules or best approaches to analyze interviews (Patton, 1990; Rowley, 2012). However, Braun and Clarke (2006) do provide a step-by-step guide to help the researcher with principles to analyze interviews. These steps contain: 1) familiarizing yourself with your data, 2) generating initial codes, 3) searching for themes, 4) reviewing themes, 5) defining and naming themes and 6) producing the report. In this paper, the steps of Braun and Clarke (2006) are adopted to analyze interviews. The first five steps are described below. The sixth step is part of the results and discussion section.

1. Familiarizing yourself with your data

To get acquainted with the data it’s important that the researcher invests time in the depth and breadth of the content (Braun & Clarke, 2006). During the interviews, the researcher took notes as a reminder of essential observed subjects. As well, all the interviews were transcribed to reflect what was said exactly. This led to 160 pages of data. This process of transcription is a useful way to start getting familiar with the data (Riessman, 1993). After the transcriptions were made, the researcher re-read all transcriptions to improve the understanding of all the interviews. This focus on the transcriptions can facilitate the interpretations to analyze the data (Lapadat& Lindsay, 1999).

2. Generating initial codes

23 This prevents losing possible interesting themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). For example: A11 said: “Sure, when we are in a meeting my manager asks my opinion.” This quote was coded as “asking opinion of subordinate”. At this phase, 75 different codes were distinguished.

3, 4, 5. Searching, reviewing and naming themes

In this phase, the researcher looked how different codes could be combined in an overarching theme (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Themes were constructed by recognizing similar patterns among quotes. To improve reliability the researcher evaluated if every quote fits the features of the theme and, if a theme could not be part of more than one code. This is coherent with Patton’s (1990) criteria for judging categories: internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity. Data within a theme should be related meaningfully and should be distinct from other themes. For example the previous example of A11 and A3: “My manager sometimes asks me a critical question back.” are both part of the theme “critical, challenging relationship”. After this the researcher checked if no other themes contained elements that were similar to this theme. After this phase, 22 different themes were distinguished. The coding scheme is added in appendix 4.

Questionnaire

24

4. Results

In this chapter, the results of the data collection will be presented. In paragraphs 4,1 and 4,2 the results of teams A and B will be discussed. Both paragraphs start with the description of the team and the different team members. After this, results will be presented on the individual- and then on the team level. At the individual level, the findings on the relationship between LMX quality and individual change readiness will be discussed. At the team level the findings on the relationship between LMX differentiation and team change readiness will be discussed. Both paragraphs end with a conclusion. Finally in paragraph 4,3 a cross-case analysis is used to show patterns that were

observed in both teams. 4.1 Team A

In team A, twelve employees and one manager were interviewed. Seven of the employees are male and five are female. The average age is around 39 years old. Employees within the team are on average eight years in the company.

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

Gender Male Male Male Female Female Male

Age 32 47 53 33 47 47

Function Actuary Senior actuary Senior actuary Actuary Senior actuary Senior actuary Years in

organization

6 19 16 0,16 15 21

A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12

Gender Female Female Male Male Female Male

Age 37 35 31 39 38 28

Function Actuary Actuary Actuary Senior actuary Senior actuary Actuary Years in

organization

0,75 4,5 3 14 1 0,08

25 Individual level

Change readiness

The general attitude towards change provided mixed results. Seven employees (A1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10) described a positive attitude towards change, three (A2, 9, 11) employees said they had a critical attitude towards change and six employees (A2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) mentioned a negative attitude towards change. These attitudes reflect their answer to the question: “How would you describe your attitude towards change.” Some respondents mentioned that they might have multiple attitudes towards change. The characteristics of these attitudes are described in appendix 4. In team A, five employees (A2, 3, 5, 6, 7) described a negative cognitive change readiness. These employees had negative thoughts about the effectiveness of past change events. As A6 said: “In this organization there is a belief that change is the cure for all our issues, however most of the times it are just people that do not follow their promises.”Two employees (A8, 10) described a positive cognitive change readiness: “I think that change is a good thing. Sometimes it is okay that people are forced to do something else.” Three employees (A2, 3, 5) described negative affective change readiness. They experienced negative emotions when talking about change. These employees mentioned that they were cynical about change and experienced change as something exhausting and unsatisfying. Only one (A10) described a positive affective change readiness. A10: “I love change!”.

In the questionnaire, the employees all scored above average on the different dimensions of change readiness. The average scores on the affective and cognitive dimension of change readiness were 4,6 and 4,8. The average change readiness score was 4,7. The individual scores are depicted below.

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 Affective 3,67 4,33 4 4,33 5 4,67 Cognitive 4,67 5,33 4,67 5,33 6 4,33 Change readiness 4,17 4,83 4,33 4,83 5,5 4,5

A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12

Affective 4 6,33 4,67 5 4,67 -

Cognitive 4,67 3,33 5 3,67 5,33 -

Change readiness

4,33 4,83 4,83 4,33 5 -

26 A12 did not scored any change readiness dimensions because he only worked in the company for two weeks. Overall, the scores show a higher change readiness than what was perceived during the interviews. Respondents seem more critical or negative during the interviews. A5 scored highest on the overall change readiness scale. However, during the interview she described a negative attitude towards change. At least for A5, the attitude towards change and change readiness seem not to be related.

LMX

Six employees (A1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9) explained the relationship with their manager as a critical and challenging relationship. Features of this relationship are: getting feedback, being challenged to improve and engaging in discussions about the content of work. A2 described this relationship: “He knows where he is talking about and is capable of engaging in an open discussion.” Five employees (A2, 5, 9, 10, 11) talked about an open / partner relationship. This relationship is characterized by the feeling of equality, using the manager as a sounding board, being honest and the opportunity to speak freely. An example is the following quote of A11: “He tells me what had been discussed in certain meetings. And he also tells me the dilemma’s he is encountering himself.” Ten employees (A1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) told their relationship with their manager is a personal and supportive relationship. This relationship is characterized by a feeling of trust, room to talk about personal issues, empathy, support and appreciation. A4 captured this concept when she said the following: “This is a manager who shows interest, really listens and wants to know your personal goals and interests.”

27 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 Affect 5 (5,67) 5,33 (5) 5,67 (5,33) 5,33 (5) 5,67 (5,67) 4 (6,33) Loyalty 5 (6) 5 (6) 6,67 (6,33) 5,33 (5,67) 5 (6) 3,67 (6) Contribution 6 (7) 6 (5) 6 (5) 5 (4) 4,5 (5) 6 (7) Professional respect 4 (5) 6 (5) 7 (5,67) 7 (4) 4,33 (5) 5,67 (5,33) Overall 4,91 (5,82) 5,55 (5,27) 6,36 (5,64) 5,73 (4,73) 4,91 (5,45) 4,73 (6,09)

A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12

Affect 4 (4,33) 4,67 (5) 6 (5,67) 5 (5) 6,33 (5,67) - Loyalty 4,67 (5,33) 6,33 (6) 5,67 (6) 4,33 (5,67) 5 (6) - Contribution 6 (6) 7 (6) 5 (6) 6 (6) 6,5 (6) - Professional respect 5,67 (2,67) 5,33 (4,67) 5 (5) 6,67 (5) 5,67 (5,33) - Overall 5 (4,45) 5,73 (5,36) 5,45 (5,64) 5,45 (5,36) 5,82 (5,73) - Table 8. LMX scores team A

From the employee’s perspective, A3 perceived the highest LMX quality. A3 has 16 years of working experience and is considered as someone with a high reputation when it comes to calculating financial risk. His manager mentioned: “He does not only have a good reputation within this company, but also outside the company. On his area of work, he has a lot of knowledge.” The manager of team A has significant experience as a financial supervisor. Because of his own

professional status, it seems reasonable that A3 would value a manager that knows what he is talking about.A3 scored his manager maximum on all items of professional respect and this is reflected in the interview: “I respect the professional background of my manager. He comes from a highly

respected bank. In the past we had met each other several times in his role as financial supervisor. He always made a good impression. Based on this background I have the feeling that if he says

28 LMX – change readiness

Nine (A1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11) employees say that the relationship with their manager has some influence on their change readiness. Four employees (A3, 4, 8, 9) believe that because of their relationship with their manager they are more positive towards change. A4: “Because I have a good relationship with my manager, I think that I’m more positive towards change. Maybe that’s just a feeling. I think I relate work related issues to the person.” Five employees (A1, 2, 3, 4, 11) think they are influenced because of the way the leader communicates during change. Because the leader is explains change in a clear and understandable way, they are more positive. A1 explains why this has a positive influence on him: “If issues are clearly communicated, It is much easier for me to

understand why things are happening.” Closely related, seven employees (A2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11) believe that they are influenced because of the rational characteristics of the manager. These represent discussions, arguments and being critical. A7 explains why this affects her change readiness: “Well he knows what he is talking about. Because of this, I tend to accept more from him. So I have more confidence in him.” This observation seems in line with the individual LMX scores. Within this team, having expertise and being able to use good arguments seems highly valued.

Team level

Change readiness

29 LMX – change readiness

Seven employees (A1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9) believe that the relationship with the manager had a positive influence on the team change readiness. A7 explains that the relationship with the manager is one of several factors that influence the change readiness of the team. A7: “I don’t think that if the manager thinks it’s a good idea, everyone follows. However, I do think that the team members would take it in consideration.” A9 thinks that the relationship with the manager has a stronger effect on his

individual change readiness than on the change readiness of the team: “If the manager is positive about something, it has more impact on me at a personal level. However, I believe the team would also attach some value to it, but less.” Also on the team level the communication skills (A1, 2, 4, 8), the rational skills (A3, 4, 6, 8) were mentioned as positive factors to team change readiness. In addition, five employees (A2, 3, 5, 8, 9) appreciate the political skills and the effectiveness of their manager. They describe that their manager has a reputation within the organization, is able to represent the team and get things done.A3: “This manager is someone with a reputation, which is really pleasant. He has power within the organization.”

Subgroups

Every respondent said that there were subgroups. Therefore, they were asked to show visually how these subgroups were formed. All employees showed the same formation of subgroups. This formation is illustrated by figure 2.

30 The black circles represent the three different subgroups. The distance between the subgroups describes how much the different subgroups interact. In team A, subgroups S2 and S3 typically have more contact with each other than with S1. The thickness of the circles represent how strong the subgroups perceive they are a subgroup. The size of the different employees represent their relative informal power within the subgroup.

The relationship with the manager did not create any faultlines. Six employees (A1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11) explained that the manager did not had different quality of relationships with different members. The most important faultline basis for this subgroup formation is the location in which the employees work. Every subgroup is located at a different office. A6 said: “These subgroups have to do with locations, you could just as well make three teams of this team.” The manager confirmed this

faultline basis: “I have employees on three different locations. That determines the relationship I have with those people. I work at location S3 so I have a more direct relationship with the employees in S3.”

S1 is perceived as a strong subgroup. An important factor is that they not only work together in the same location, but also in the same room. A10: “They know each other better because they work in the same room.” They also have contact with each other out of work time, A4: “In that sub team, they compete in bowling tournaments.” Another observation is that they resemble a coalition that share the same opinions about work, A6: “They will support each other, they are a strong collective. They are dominant in meetings." The manager believes that S1 has their own work meetings: “I think that S1 have their own work meeting. And S2 and S3 do not have such a meeting.”

S1 also differs in their attitude towards change. Six respondents (A1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 11) believe that S1 is more critical towards change than the rest of team A. A6: “This group is critical. Really critical. In my opinion, to critical.”A2 explains why his subgroup is more negative towards change: “We have two old people here, A3 and me, and A5 is also working here a long time. We have seen a lot of change projects come and go, so we feel like, why should we invest our time in these projects.”

31 A9 explains why A3, A2 and A5 have an influence on his attitude towards change; “They have guided me when I just started working here. I’m always really curious and asked a lot of question. And they always showed patience and gave me answers. I know that they are always here for me. They want to help me. Therefore, I appreciate their opinion and attach some value to it. Especially since these three share the same opinion.”

S2 is a moderately strong subgroup. They know each other personally; A1: “A6 and I have a really good relationship outside of work. We are sort of friends.” However, they sometimes physically work at the location of S3. A6: “A1 and I also work a day or two in the location of S3. So we see S3 more often than S1.” Their attitude towards change is described as pragmatic, flexible and positive. A7: “They are cooperative and want to help.” During the years, S2 is also becoming more and more similar in personality. A1 describes this process: “I think that if you are working together closely, you take over personality traits. I think that A6 and I have the same personality.”

S3 is a weak subgroup. They do not have close relationships or participate in social activities like S1 and S2. There is not one employee who can describe typical characteristics about this subgroup. A2 mentioned that this subgroup is more introvert. And A1 explains that most employees in this team are relatively new, so that he does not have a clear picture about this group.

Conclusion

On the individual level this team was mixed about their attitude towards change. Onthe team level, the team is critical about change, which is reflected in their negative examples of cognitive change readiness. An observed mechanism was the influence of senior members within their subgroup. Since all of the senior members in S1 (A3, 2, 5), were critical about change, this subgroup was more negative about change than the other subgroups. The influence of more cynical senior members could also explain why the team is more negative about change than each member on the individual level. Summarizing these findings, the following pattern can be observed: the change readiness of individuals is affected because of their LMX relationship with their manager. Within their subgroups, the senior members also have a strong influence in shaping the change readiness of subgroup members. And on the team level, the strongest perceived subgroups seem dominant in influencing the team change readiness.

32 The two main arguments for this influence is the way how the manager communicates change and the rational characteristics of the manager. At the team level, the relationship with the manager has an influence on the team change readiness, however this influence is less significant than at the individual level. Again, one observed mechanism was the more dominant influence of negative senior members within the team. So it seems that the influence of the manager is weakened on the team level, because individual members were also influenced by their senior coworkers. This process was most salient in S1. At the team level, the communication and rational features of the LMX

relationship were appreciated. However, additionally, the team acknowledges the political skills of the manager as a positive factor in their change readiness.

Within the team, subgroups were perceived. The main faultline basis for these subgroups is the location. Working on different locations seem to create different subgroups, as these subgroups interact more frequently with each other than with other members of the group. The two stronger subgroups had their own unique characteristics. In team A, members even observe differences in change readiness among the different subgroups. Two identified processes in subgroups were that 1) team members take over each other personality traits and 2) that senior members within the

subgroup influence the change readiness of younger members of the subgroup.

33 4.2 Team B

From team B, six employees and one manager were interviewed. Three of the employees are men and three are women. The average age is 42 years. Employees within the team are on average 9 years with the company. The sample description of team B is given in table 9.

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

Gender Female Female Female Male Male Male

Age 43 41 37 42 40 49 Function Marketing analyst Marketing analyst Projectmanager Brand strategist Senior Projectmanager Marketing analyst Years in organization 6,5 7,5 10 7 4 24

Table9. Sample description team B

Individual level

Change readiness

The general attitude towards change on the individual level is moderately positive. Four employees (B1, 2, 3, 4) described their attitude towards change as positive and four employees (B1, 2, 3, 6) thought their attitude towards change is critical. Not one employee mentioned a negative attitude towards change. Five employees (B1, 2, 3, 4, 6) mentioned a positive cognitive change readiness. This view was characterized by a positive view on the effectiveness of the past change initiative. B3: “I understood why change was needed, I got the picture, they’ve explained it well. So I do believe in the effectiveness of this change.” Two employees (B3, B4) mentioned a negative cognitive change readiness. Both of them were negative about the way the past change was implemented. B4: “Well, some aspects of the change were not explained, that way I could not decide for myself If I thought we were on the right track.” Three employees (B1, 3, 4) described a positive affective change readiness. They had positive emotions on the past change. B1: “I was actually happy that this change finally happened, it gave me energy.” Two employees (B3, 4) described a negative affective change

34 All the respondents scored high on the different components of change readiness. The mean score on the affective and cognitive dimension were 5,4 and 6,2. On the overall change readiness, the mean score was 5,8. The individual scores are shown in table 10.

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

Affective 5 4,67 6 6 5 6

Cognitive 6,33 6 6 6 6 7

Overall 5,67 5,33 6 6 5,5 6,5

Table 10. Change readiness scores team B

The high change readiness scores were reflected in the interview. During the organizational change, senior management had to fire employees because of the decrease in FTE. As mentioned by some of the team members, senior management filtered on employees that were progressive and had a positive attitude in general. This could provide the explanation why this team has such high scores on change readiness; B6: “We want to go forward and build on this new organization. That’s why we are still in this team.”

LMX

Four respondents (B1, 4, 5, 6) described an open partner relationship with their manager. This relationship is characterized by the feeling of equality, using the manager as a sounding board, being honest and the opportunity to speak freely. B1: “I discuss a lot with my manager. If I have some issues, but also the other way around, if my manager has questions about work related issues.” Five employees (B1, 2, 3, 4, 5) described a personal supportive relationship with their boss. The personal supportive relationship is based around a general pleasant relationship, the room to discuss personal issues and the feeling of trust and appreciation. B3: “I notice that our relationship is built on trust. I have the feeling I’m safe and I am willing to be open on everything that is on my mind.” Five

35 Based on the questionnaire, every respondent has a high LMX quality with their manager. The mean scores on affect (5,4), loyalty (5,4), contribution (6), professional respect (4,8) were above average. The overall LMX score was 5,4. From the manager’s perspective, the mean scores were affect (6,33), loyalty (6,4), contribution (5,8), professional respect (5,4). And the mean overall LMX score was 6. The individual scores are summarized in table 12. The scores between the brackets represent the score of the manager.

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 Affective 7 (7) 4 (6) 6 (6,33) 5,33 (6,67) 6,67 (5,67) 3,67 (6,33) Loyalty 7 (6,67) 4,33 (6,67) 6 (6,33) 6,33 (6) 4,33 (6,33) 4,33 (6,33) Contribution 6,5 (6) 5 (6) 6 (6) 6 (5,5) 7 (5) 6 (6) Professional respect 6,33 (6,33) 4,33 (5,33) 6 (4,67) 5 (5,67) 4 (5,33) 3,33 (6,33) LMX overall 6,73 (6,55) 4,36 (6) 6 (5,82) 5,64 (6) 5,36 (5,64) 4,18 (6,55) Table 11. LMX scores team B

An interesting observation is the relative low scores of B2 and B6. This is interesting, because B2 and B6 worked together with the manager before the organizational change in April 2015. The manager, on contrast, scored both these employees relatively high. As B1 explains, B2 and B6 are more critical towards their manager than she is: “I believe that there are some people more critical towards the manager than I am. I think B2 and b6 are more critical about how the manager represents us in the whole company.” B2 and B6 specifically score low on the loyalty and professional respect dimension. They seem to be less satisfied with the managerial skills (professional respect) and how the manager stands for the priorities of the team (loyalty). As B2 said: “She does not support us sufficiently in facilitating leadership. I think that she does not do a good job to help us do our work effectively.” LMX – change readiness

36 Team level

Change readiness

The team has a positive general attitude towards change. Four employees (B2, 3, 4, 6) think the team is positive about change andone employee (B1) mentions a critical attitude towards change on the team level. Three employees (B2, 3, 6) described a positive cognitive change readiness. B6: “We want to go forward and build on this new organization. That’s why we are still in this team.”B1 described a negative cognitive change readiness. She said: “We are critical about change, you need to come up with good arguments.” Two employees thought the team has a positive affective change readiness. B4: “There is a good energy in this team. We all embraced our new roles in the organization.” Not one employee mentioned a negative affective change readiness at the team level.

LMX – change readiness

At the team level, employees (B1, 2, 5, 6) think that the manager has less influence on their change readiness. B1 describes that on the individual level, the manager had more influence on her change readiness than on the team as a whole. B1: “I think that within the team there are a few people that more critical towards the manager than I am. So I think her influence on our change readiness is less on the team than on me as an individual.” Two employees (B3, 4) think that the manager is

facilitating the process of change. B4: “She facilitates us as a team. She helps us to discuss issues regarding change. She is also willing to think with us, but she will not provide the answers.” One employee (B3) mentions that she influences the team change readiness by defending the wishes of the team by the senior management of the organization. B3: “She is our spokesperson towards senior management.”

37 Subgroups

Every respondent visualized the same formation of subgroups. This is demonstrated in figure 3.

Figure 3. Subgroup formation team B

The black circle illustrates the only subgroup perceived. The thickness of this circle shows that this subgroup is strongly perceived by the members of the subgroup. All the respondents are equally sized, meaning they have the same informal power within their subgroup. The distance between the respondents represents their interaction. As can be seen from the figure, B5 is more distanced from the rest of the team.

The basis of the faultline separating S1 from the rest of the team is their shared history. Before the organizational change in April 2015, this subgroup was a functional team. B1: “I believe that I, B2 and B6 are a subgroup. We do not want to, but because we work together for a long time, I think we are.” In addition, they all share the same function: marketing analyst. The manager thinks S1 is a strong subgroup as well: “the people of S1 work together longer and are some kind of the same species. They talk the same language and understand each other really well.” And, within the marketing and sales department, B3, B4 and B5 had to apply for a new function because of the change. So they were removed from their old functions and had to do job interviews to get a new function. This included periods of insecurity and stress. In sharp contrast, B1, B2 and B6 were not removed from their old function. B5: “They did not had the insecurity of losing their job, and they didn’t had to apply for a new one.” Consequently, when a new team was formed after the organizational change,

38 This created some tension with B5: “When our team was formed, I wanted to get in contact with my new coworkers. So I send a mail to ask how we should monitor our holidays during the summer. The members of S1 reacted by saying that there is already an existing holiday administration and I could just put my name under it. They clearly felt that I was joining their team, instead of that we are a new team.”

Four employees (B3, 4, 5, 6) believe that the manager has a different relationship with the team members from S1. B3 thinks this is because she was the team manager from this subgroup before the organizational change in April 2015. B3: “Because she was the manager of S1, she knows them longer.” B5 explains that the majority of the team was part of the former team S1, including the manager. B5: “Four of our team were in the same team before the change. So the manager knows them best.” The manager describes her own relationship with the employees of S1: “I know B1, 2 and 6 really well. I have an open relationship with them, based on trust.” In addition, the manager

believes that S1 has a more critical attitude towards change. “They have a more critical attitude. Most of the times this attitude is positively critical, but sometimes the positive might go away. You need to have proof and arguments to convince these people.”

Four employees (B1, 2, 4, 6) believe that B5 is more distanced from the group than the rest. B1 believes that B5 has a different style of communicating. More specifically, she believes that he thinks he has more power than the rest of the team. B1: “I get the feeling he still thinks he is on the same level as the manager. He does not think he is equal to his coworkers. We are all professionals and no one is different or better.” B2 believes that B5 thinks more about himself than about the team. B2: “I believe that he does not comply with the wishes of the team but more to his own wishes.” B4

explained how B5 behaves differently during team meetings. B4: “B5 talks a lot during a meeting. And when he’s talking, he does not want to be interrupted. And B2 and B6 are those kinds of people who interrupt him. And he thinks that is annoying and rude.”

Conclusion

Individual members and the team as a whole were moderately positive about change. This was reflected in their positive scores on the cognitive and affective change readiness.

The relationship with the manager could be summarized with three different concepts: the open / partner relationship, the personal supportive relationship and the facilitating relationship. The relationship with the manager had an influence on the individual change readiness. The manager had some credibility based on her relationship and could offer new perspectives when it concerns

39 On the team level, the relationship with the manager had an influence on change readiness, but a less significant influence.She facilitates the team members by supporting them on their process and she was a spokesperson for the team towards senior management.

One strong subgroup was perceived. The important faultline dividing this subgroup from the rest of the team was their shared history. The members of the subgroup worked together in a team before the organizational change in April 2015 and they still had the same function. They all perceived the new team members as an expansion on their former team, which led to some tension between members of the subgroup and the rest of the team. Also, this subgroup was perceived to have a different change readiness than other members of the team.

Not any differentiated LMX relationships were observed. The manager did have different

relationships, but not different quality in those relationships. However, the manager was also part of the dominant subgroup. As noted by team members, she expressed her worries that she does not want to be part of this subgroup. It seems that this manager is preventing herself from creating relational faultlines.

4.3 Cross case analysis

Change readiness

On the individual level, the attitude of the members of team A were more critical than those of team B. One observed explanation is that members of team B just experienced an organizational change in which they were selected for new functions because of this attitude. Also, it seemed that the more senior members of team A were the most critical and gave examples of negative cognitive change readiness. On average, team A had more senior members than team B. In contrast, the members of both teams scored high on the change readiness scores. It seems that change readiness scores do not reflect the general attitude towards change.

On the team level, team A was even more critical than on the individual level. By team B, the

40 LMX

Two types of relationship could be observed in both teams: the open / partner relationship and the personal supportive relationship. At team A, members also mentioned a critical and challenging relationship. And at team B, members talked about a facilitating relationship. In both teams the manager had some influence on the change readiness of the individual. In team A, members explained that the manager communicates change in a clear and understandable way and that they appreciate the rational characteristics of the manager. In team B, members said that the manager had some credibility based on her relationship and could offer new perspectives concerning change. On the team level, the relationship with the manager had less influence on the team change

readiness. At both teams, there are members critical on the manager at team meetings. In team A, it was observed that the influence of the relationship with the manager was weakened because individual members were more influenced by their senior coworkers. In addition to the individual LMX concepts, team A mentioned the political skills of the manager and team B mentioned that the manager is a spokesperson for the team towards senior management.

Subgroups

At both teams subgroups were perceived. In team A, there were three subgroups. These subgroups were based on the location in which members of the subgroup worked. In team B, there was one subgroup. This subgroup was based on their shared history; they worked longer as a functional team before the organizational change in April 2015. In both teams the strongest subgroups had their own unique characteristics and were more critical towards change. In team A two processes in subgroups were perceived 1) team members take over each other personality traits and 2) that senior members within the subgroup influence the change readiness of younger members of the subgroup. In team B, members of the subgroup shared the thought that the other members were just an expansion of their original team, which created some tension.