Middle managers’ leadership behaviour and employees’ attitudes towards change

(1)

Middle managers’ leadership behaviour and employees’

attitudes towards change

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

(2)

1 Abstract

This qualitative research offers insights on how middle managers influence the attitude towards change of employees’ on individual and group level and shows how the group and the individual mutually affect each other. The data is collected within an installation company located in the Netherlands. In total thirteen respondents are interviewed, including a deputy director, a company director, four middle managers and seven change recipients. The first finding implies that the amount of communication by the board and order managers and the duration of change process are relevant factors for the cognitive and emotional attitude towards change of employees on an individual level. The second finding indicates that the intended behaviour of an employee is influenced when the middle manager makes use of goal oriented behaviour. The third finding shows that the attitude towards change on a group level is highly influenced by the collective perceptions about the extent to what change is needed, the shared perception about the capability of the group, the extent to which the group feels there is enough capacity to change and the expected change outcomes of the group. The last finding implies that individuals mostly interact with their closest colleagues who belong to the same group. And, that processes of interaction and emotional contagion which occur within this group can directly influence employees’ cognitive and emotional attitude towards change, however, it does not have a direct impact on the intended behaviour of an employee.

Key words: attitude towards change (group level and individual level), leadership behaviour, middle managers, mutual influence

(3)

2

Recently, organizations struggle to cope with technological advances, a global marketplace and the denationalization and deregulation of marketplaces, which have resulted in accelerating environmental complexity (De Meuse, Marks, & Dai, 2010; Gordon, Stewart, Sweo, & Luker, 2000). In order to survive in this complex environment, organisations must rapidly change and adapt (Gordon et al., 2000). Therefore, not surprisingly, the study of change and development is already one of the greatest themes in social sciences and continues to grow (Ford & Ford, 1994; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). However, despite the fact that organizational change has been proven to be important, Beer and Nohria (2000) and Burke and Biggart (1997) have estimated that about two thirds of the change projects fail.

The reaction of change recipients is highly important in order to achieve a successful organizational change (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999). Porras and Robertson (1992) and Tetenbaum (1998) share this view by stating that employees are at the centre of organizational change. Next to this, previous studies have already shown a positive association between attitudes and actual behavioural support for change initiatives (e.g., Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Jones et al., 2005; Kwahk & Lee, 2008; Meyer et al., 2007; Michaelis, Stegmaier, & Sonntag, 2009; Parish et al., 2008). However, Choi (2011) states that in order to determine the effects of employees’ attitudes toward organizational change more studies need to be conducted.

Another interesting topic, leadership of middle managers in change situations, is not much explored in the literature on organizational change. Researchers have found that leaders have a strong impact on organizational phenomena and some authors even highlighted the importance of the change agents’ role in influencing change recipients’ attitude towards change (e.g. Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008; Klonek, Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld, 2014). However, only a small number of studies addressed the leadership behaviour of managers in the context of organizational change (Oreg et al., 2011). In addition, this already small amount of research paid little attention to employees’ reactions on organizational change (Oreg & Berson, 2011).

(6)

5 Furthermore, due to the fact that the reaction of change recipients is a main influencer on the extent to which a change program can succeed (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999), it is of great interest for managers as well. If managers understand the effectiveness of different leadership behaviours, it could help them to successfully manage the reaction of change recipients. By use of appropriate leadership behaviours the likelihood of a successful change increases.

The research question of this paper is:

How are employees’ attitudes towards change both on an individual and group level influenced by the leadership behaviour of middle managers and how do they affect each other?

The sub questions are:

Sub question 1: How are employees’ attitudes toward change influenced by leadership behaviour of middle managers on individual level?

Sub question 2: How are employees’ attitudes toward change influenced by leadership behaviour of middle managers on group level?

(7)

6 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

In order to understand the interaction between leadership behaviours of middle managers and the attitude towards change of employees on individual and group level with their mutual influences, an extensive theoretical background is needed. First, organisational change will be defined and the process of change will be described. This will be followed by the description of attitudes towards change on the individual level as well as on group level, a multi-level perspective. In addition, relevant leadership behaviours will be addressed and findings from other research will be briefly discussed.

2.1 Organizational change

The organization as a whole and the way it manages its projects are both affected by change. When change occurs, a series of reactions and events follow, such as, modified work and decision processes, organisational restructuring, transition in work dynamics, resistance from individuals and so forth (Jacob, Rondeau, & Normandin, 2008; Legris & Collerette, 2006). According to Burns (1996) there is an assumption that there is a ‘one best way’ to manage organisational change and that failure arises from not adhering to it. However, not one, but quite a few ‘one best way’ approaches to change have been proposed (By, 2005). Therefore, according to Pettigrew (2000), one or two change approaches cannot cover the full spectrum of change situations. Hence, Dunphy and Stace (1993) argue that in order to successfully change, consultants and managers need a contingency or situational model of change, one that shows how to vary change strategies to achieve a fit with the changing environment.

(8)

7 Next to planned change, several other models have investigated the perspectives of unintentional goals and strategies, named emergent change (Burnes, 2004; Mintzberg & Waters, 1985; Weick & Quinn, 1999). These models introduce the concept of intentionality and refer to the type and pace of change. In this, emergent change seems to be more systemic, gradual and continuous (Senge, 1990). However, in this paper the focus will be on planned change.

2.2 Attitudes towards change

As research has shown that organizations act and change through their members, it is necessary that individuals alter their on-the-job behaviours in appropriate ways in order to work towards a successful change (Jones, Jimmieson, & Griffiths, 2005; Meyer, Srinivas, Lal, & Topolnytsky, 2007; Weeks, Roberts, Chonko, & Jones, 2004). Prior to a response to change, employees try to make sense of the new situation and draw conclusions about the possible outcomes, which determines their attitude towards the change (Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008; Gioia, Thomas, Clark, & Chittipeddi, 1994). Attitudes towards change, according to Elizur and Guttmand (1976), consist of a person’s cognitions about change, affective reactions to change, and behavioural tendency toward change. Consistent with this, according to Rosenberg & Hovland (1960), attitudes are structured along three dimensions which are labelled by Piderit (2000) as cognitive, emotional and intentional. This conception is known as the tripartite view of attitudes (Ajzen, 1984). The first, cognitive dimension of an attitude, addresses an individual’s belief about the attitude object. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) define this dimension in their review of the literature on the tripartite view as: "beliefs express positive or negative evaluation of greater or lesser extremity, and occasionally are exactly neutral in their evaluative content" (1998: 271). The second, emotional dimension of an attitude, is about an individual’s feeling in response to the attitude object. This dimension is defined by Eagly and Cheaiken (1993) as the "feelings, moods, emotions, and sympathetic nervous-system activity that people have experienced in relation to an attitude object and subsequently associate with it" (1998: 272). The last, intentional behaviour, refers to an individual’s future intended behaviour at the level of actual behaviour as well as an intention on the attitudinal level (Piderit, 2000). The separation of these dimensions is beneficial because it allows for the possibility of different reactions along the different dimensions. It accounts for the complexity and helps to understand the potential relationship between attitudes and behaviour more easily (Robbin & Judge, 2012). However, Eagly and Chaiken (1993) noted that this empirical separation of evaluative responses is evidently supported in some but certainly not all circumstances. According to Robbin & Judge (2012) all three components are related and the cognitive and affective components are inseparable.

(9)

8 to change and negative intentions will show as resistance. Yet, according to Piderit (2000), employees responses to change may evolve over time. Therefore, insights about this evolution may help to manage change initiatives successfully.

2.2.1 Readiness to change. According to Vakola (2013) readiness to change is conceptualised as a broad construct which reflects a combination of factors that indicate the likelihood that someone will behave in a way that is associated with change such as participation and support. Next to this behavioural explanation, readiness to change can also be seen as the extent to which employees hold positive views about the need for organizational change and believe that such changes are likely to have positive implications for themselves and the organisation as a whole (Jones, Jimmieson and Griffiths, 2005; Kwahk & Lee , 2008; Kwahk & Kim, 2008). Making use of the three dimensions of Piderit (2000), readiness to change shows positive responses on each dimension.

Employees try to make sense of the new environment and thereby try to draw conclusions about possible outcomes in a change situation. In order to do this, employees are actively involved in information gathering, meaning ascription, and making assumptions about the change process (Ford et al. 2008; Gioia et al., 1994). As a result, employees form expectations, assumptions and impressions regarding the need for organizational change and the extent to which such changes are likely to have positive implications for them as individual and for the organization as a whole. These expectations, assumptions and impressions comprise the individual readiness in the context of change (Choi, 2011).

(10)

9 addition, they found management support (i.e., the belief that the organizational leaders were committed to the change) to be important a as well.

2.2.2 Resistance to change. Resistance to change is traditionally defined as a restraining force moving in the direction of maintaining the status quo (Lewin, 1952). Next to this, Jermier, Knights and Nord state that "The most prevalent way of analyzing resistance is to see it as a reactive process where agents embedded in power relations actively oppose initiatives by other agents" (1994: 9). Making use of the three dimensions of Piderit (2000), resistance to change shows negative responses on the cognitive, emotional and behavioural attitudes.

Resistance to change is often identified as a reason for failure (Armenakis and Harris, 1995), and therefore, resistance is considered as an essential aspect to change management (Gale, 2012; Gilley et al., 2009; Jacob et al., 2008; Karp & Helgø, 2008; Laframboise et al., 2003; Mabin, Forgeson, & Green, 2001). Studies show that there can be several reasons to resist a change. Examples are novelty, culture change, uncertainties about the unknown, routine distraction, loss of power, control, status and security and so on (Gilley et al., 2009; Kanter, 1985; Krysinski & Reed, 1994; Laframboise et al., 2003). In addition, Giangreco and Peccei (2005) found that the degree of involvement in change and the perceived losses as a result of the change are important predictors of resistance as well. Therefore, according to them, resistance to change can be genuinely reduced through direct participation and a more effective management of the change process.

As already noted, managers often see employees who resist to a change as disobedient and therefore perceive resistance negatively (Armenakis and Harris, 1995). However, recently, a positive or more objective approach to resistance to change has become more common in the literature. As described in the article of Giangreco and Peccei (2005), resistance may cause problems for the organisation, but it is not necessarily a negative event. According to Knowles and Linn (2004) it could even have value for the engagement, existence and strength of a change, serving as a resource and an asset in its implementation and successful accomplishment. Resistance can be an alarm signal which serves a warning that the change process is imperfect (Bauer, 1993) and according to Johns (1973) , it can provide constructive feedback to the change process if managed properly. Ford, Ford and D’amilio (2008) add to this that change agents can contribute to resistance to change as an result of violating trust, breaking agreements, their own resistance, misrepresentation and communication breakdowns.

2.3 Attitudes toward change on a multilevel perspective

(11)

10 first, micro level, refers to an individual’s perception of change. The second, meso level, refers to a group’s capacity and decision to support change. And the last, macro level, refers to an organization’s capability of implementing change (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Oreg, 2003; Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). However, in this study the attitude towards change will only be examined on the micro and meso level.

Many studies focus on how individuals resist change. However, Coghlan (1994) argues that these studies are one sided because they isolate the individual from the groups with which an individual may identify. Hackman and Oldham (1976) recognize the fact that group norms, informal rules that groups adopt, can regulate and regularize the behavior of group members. Therefore, when an organizational change is not supported by group norms and expectations, it is likely for individuals to resist the change (Cummings, 2004).

Next to the fact that individual beliefs and perceptions of organizational readiness to change are influenced by the group, the state of groups’ readiness for change is constantly being influenced by the readiness of the individual group members as well. On top of this, the organizational readiness to change may subsequently be affected by the social and interpersonal dynamics within one’s work group (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993) and employee’s attitudes toward change may in turn be influenced by their perception of an organization’s readiness (Eby et al., 2000).

2.3.1 Group attitude towards change influenced by individuals. As a result of a number of top-down processes it is likely for employees in an organization to develop shared beliefs about change (Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2013). These processes produce a common set of stimuli, such as leaders, organizational events, and processes, that all group members experience. Over time, when work group members interact with each other, each individual of a particular group converges on a consensual view of key features of the workplace and events (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000. These interaction processes such as organizational socialization (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979) and attraction, selection and attrition (Schneider, 1987) will reduce the variability in perceptions in an organisation and facilitate common interpretations of the workplace and events (Rafferty & Simons, 2006). Consistent with this, Vakola (2013) found that the degree of group readiness depends on four collective beliefs and perceptions. The first is the shared belief or perception that change is needed. Second, the belief or perception that the organisation is able to cope with change effectively. Third, the belief or perception that the group will benefit from outcomes of the change. Fourth, the belief or perception that the group has the capacity to cope with change requirements.

(12)

11 induction of emotion states and behavioural attitudes" (Schoenewolf, 1990: 50). Sanchez-Burks and Huy (2009) identified several factors that influence the likelihood that employees will develop similar emotions when confronted with organisational change. They found that shared affective responses are likely to develop if employees have similar experiences regarding the forthcoming benefits and costs of the change for their work units and if they have similar interpretations about the driving force for strategic change. Next to these findings, Dutton and Dukerich (1991) argue that employees who strongly identify with their organisation are more likely to experience similar emotions when faced with changes that threaten or enhance the organisation’s identity. Lastly, since culture is an influence device that disciplines, informs and guides the emotions of employees within an organization, collective organisational emotions are also influenced by culture (Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989).

2.3.2 Individuals’ attitude towards change influenced by the group. Research on social information processing has shown that individuals use information from their social environments to understand expectations concerning their behavior and its consequences, interpret events and develop appropriate attitudes (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) also found that the behaviour of individuals is highly determined by their social context since the way they think and feel about aspects of their work environment are influenced by this social context.

Abrams & Hogg (1990) add another interesting finding to this topic by suggesting that individuals are influenced by ingroup members’ behaviours and attitudes. In addition, people seem to be even more sensitive to attitude change attempts when information is provided by ingroup members with whom they identify, as compared to outgroup members (Abrams, Wetherell, Cochrane, & Hogg, 1990; Clark & Maass, 1988; Fleming & Petty, 2000; Martin, 1988; van Knippenberg & Wilke, 1988). Abrams and Hogg (1988) even found that when members adopt their group membership as a part of their self-concepts, they alter their attitudes to be consistent with that valued or salient ingroup or they tend to be more extreme in their attitudes. Balogun and Johnson (2005) add that when individuals face change existing cognitions are likely to surface, as their expectations differ from their experience. As an result, they start to act in a more conscious sensemaking mode and make sense of what is going on around them by means of interacting with others. Through this interaction and face-to-face communication thoughts, feelings and intentions will be become synthesised and merged.

2.4 Leadership

(13)

12 1999) and Kotter (1996) indicates that a “Successful transformation is 70% to 90% leadership and only 10% to 30% management (p.23). Also, since leadership is currently largely about dealing with, and leading, change, it is interesting to further research leadership in change projects. However, the impact of leadership behaviour on project success is enormously under researched (Williams, 2005).

Kruse (2013) defines leadership as a process of social influence, which maximizes the effort of others, towards the achievement of a certain goal. Griffith-Cooper & King (2007) specifically focus on change leadership and define it as follows: ‘Change leadership refers to a set of principles, techniques, or activities applied to the human aspects of executing change to influence intrinsic acceptance while reducing resistance” (p. 14). Several researchers attempted to investigate the effectiveness of different leaderships styles, however, they argue that effective leadership will vary with circumstances (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1958; Fiedler, 1965; 1967; House, 1971; Reddin, 1970; Hersey and Blanchard, 1982). Therefore, authors describe the efficiency of different leadership behaviours in different contexts of change (Jaworski, 2001; Higgs and Rowland, 2003).

The emerging literature shows that the exercise of only a few competence and skill areas can already make the difference between effective leaders, who influence the attitude towards change of employees, and non-effective leaders (Kouznes and Posner, 1998; Goffee and Jones, 2000; Higgs and Rowland, 2001; Hogan and Hogan, 2001). Next to this, Kets de Vries and Florent-Treacy (2002) proposed that effective leadership required a combination of cognitive, behavioural and personality factors. However, Hogan (2002) and Hogan and Hogan (2001) found personality as a predominant factor, they argue that the way in which these competencies and skills are exercised is not prescribed and that is the function of the underlying personality.

(14)

13 that this model of Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) is widely accepted, it will be used in this paper in order to analyse leadership behaviours.

2.5 Leadership behaviour and attitudes toward change

Devos, Buelens and Bouckenooghe (2007) and Wanous, Reichers and Austin (2000) found that personality-based predispositions are of little or no importance in determining individuals’ attitudes towards change. In addition, these studies suggest that personality becomes irrelevant in a specific change context due the decisive effect of the change context or the change process. Next to this, research conducted on leadership in organisational change processes suggests that attitudes toward change can be shaped by appropriate efforts at the organizational level. They also highlight the efficacy of employee involvement or participation of change decision making. These studies point out that in order to create positive attitudes toward change, leaders should provide an open and participative information environment and share accurate information in a timely manner (Rafferty & Simons, 2006; Herold et al., 2008; Michaelis et al., 2010; Shum et al., 2008; Parish et al., 2008; Bommer et al., 2005; Cindy et al., 2007). Taking the different leadership behaviours into account, these studies suggest that “involving” leadership behaviour will have the highest potential to create positive attitudes toward the change among recipients.

However, the study of Higgs and Rowland (2003) showed some other results as they took the change context into account. They examined different leadership behaviour categories for effectiveness in different change contexts and found that in order to gain success in a more complex context, a more facilitative leadership style was required. In such contexts, when complexity increased, a directive or leader-centric style was found to be ineffective and inappropriate. However, this directive style was found to be more dominant and common in relatively straightforward and simple contexts.

Other research underscores the importance of charismatic and transformational leadership in periods of change (e.g., Herold, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008; Oreg & Berson, 2011). They suggest that similar beliefs and interpretations about change events will be created when leaders establish a clear vision of the future. As suggested by Connelly, Gaddis, and Helton-Fauth, (2002), transformational leaders also bring about a shared positive affective responses to change when they set an organisational vision in a way that inspires optimism and hope.

(15)

14 proactive managers who act as champions and coaches of change are more successful in preparing employees for the change attempts than managers who only monitor for the signs of resistance to change.

2.6 The role of middle managers

Middle managers play a central role in change processes and, therefore, have a potentially key effect on the eventual failure or success of change initiatives in organisations (Giangreco & Peccei, 2005). Next to this, the role of middle managers in change processes is particularly interesting since they play a dual role during a change, they are both the recipient and the agent of change (Balogun & Hope Hailey, 2008). Middle managers are frequently made responsible for the implementation of change in the organisation (Balogun, 2003) and as an result, they often feel a lot pressure because not only their roles change, but they are also expected to be agents of the change and realize the linkage that allows for strategic forms to become operative solutions (Floyd and Lane, 2000). And according to Huy (2001), since middle managers interact more with their employees, they are even more influential than top managers. Because of this critical and complex position of middle managers and the fact that literature on this topic is lacking and inconsistent (Gatenby, Rees, Truss, Alfes & Soane, 2015), we will focus on the leadership behaviour of middle managers specifically.

2.7 Relationship between concepts

(16)

15

(17)

16 3. METHODOLOGY

In this section the research design and research site will first be described. Hereafter, the processes of case selection and data collection will be explained, which is followed by the accountability of the research. Lastly, the process of data analysis will be described.

3.1 Research design

Due to the fact that there is not much research conducted on leadership behaviours in the context of change, this is an immature literature field. In addition, even fewer studies have linked leadership behaviours to the reaction of change recipients and in many studies the relation between individuals’ attitude and group attitudes are neglected. Since the literature is limited in terms of these concepts, theory development is needed in order to make a useful contribution to this field (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012).

3.2 Research site

In order to collect data interviews were conducted in an installation company located in the Netherlands. This company has approximately one hundred twenty employees spread across two sites which are located in Lelystad and Wateringen. The company provides installations and services on heat and cooling equipment and serves the private as well as the public sector. Three years ago, the company hired a change agent to help restructure the organisation and improve several work

processes. During the summer of 2013 the organisation had to restart and fire several employees who worked in the Wateringen location. Directly after the restart the company began the reorganisation and many changes have been implemented since then. More information about this change project and the organisation is presented in the results section.

3.3 Case selection

(18)

17 form socially desirable answers, they are more likely to express their true feelings (Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls, & Ormston, 2013).

The installation company from which the interviewees have been selected has approximately twenty departments. Seven of these departments perform preparatory activities for the technicians (in Dutch: monteurs), so that the technicians can execute the services. From these seven departments, four similar departments (two in Lelystad and two in Wateringen) were selected for this research. For one of these cases (in Lelystad) two technicians which are directed by the department were selected instead of employees working in the department. Each of these departments are led by one middle manager, who is also known as an order manager. Each of these departments has four to seven employees performing their own activities, depending on their function, that contribute to the final execution of work. Examples of these functions are employees, service coordinators and engineers. However, which functions are represented in a department is dependent on the project it is connected to. Since these individuals are all led by the order manager of their department, this can be seen as one group and will therefore referred to as ‘employees’ from now on. The other departments in the organisation, which perform non-core supporting activities, will not be discussed since they are not included in the case studies.

To allow for relevant comparison, the order manager and one or two employees were selected from each of the four selected departments. In order to compare the findings on attitudes towards change and examine the group influence, two employees were randomly selected for each case in advance. Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances during this study, only one employee was interviewed in the second case. Two out of the four cases that are selected comprise of an order manager and employees working in the location Wateringen and the other two cases include an order managers and employees of the site in Lelystad. However, the departments in both of the locations perform similar tasks and can therefore be easily compared.

(19)

18 in ‘the field’ and most technicians within this group have a lower level of education than employees at the office.

To provide clarity, the selected cases are visually displayed in Table 1. The cases’ geographical location, the functions of the employees and the associated codes assigned by the researcher are shown.

Case Function (Named within company) Code

Case 1 (Lelystad)

Middle manager (Order manager) VER11110

Employee (Technician) VER11111

Employee (Technician) VER11112

Case 2 (Lelystad)

Employee (Planner) VER11121

Case 3 (Wateringen)

Case 4 (Wateringen)

Employee (Service coordinator) VER12122

Table 1: Cases

3.4 Data collection

(20)

19 3.5 Inter-subjective agreement.

As argued by many authors, the central aim of research is to strive for inter-subjective agreement (Swanborn 1996). In order to provide an inter-subjective agreement on the research results controllability, reliability and validity should be taken into account (Swanborn 1996; Yin 1994). In order to make the study controllable, it is important to make a detailed description of the study so that others can replicate it and compare results (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012). Next to this, the results should be presented with as much accuracy as possible (Swanborn 1996). Therefore, detailed notes have been made of all steps taken during the data collection phase and data analysis phase in order to accurately document the data analysis process. Finally, in order to present the results in an accurate manner all findings were written immediately during the data analysis phase.

Secondly, the results are reliable when they are independent of particular characteristics of the study and therefore can be replicated in other studies (Yin 2003; Swanborn 1996). In this study, the researcher has no personal interests, motivations or emotions that could lead to manipulation of the results. With respect to the recipients, employees are chosen at random from different departments. Next to this, the recipients were interviewed on different days and different times in order to prevent biases from influencing recipient responses.

Lastly, the manner in which research results are generated must be justified in order to make the study valid (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012). The construct validity is covered due to the nature of data collection through interviews. It allows for corrections to be made both during the interview and between interviews. These corrections are mainly adding new relevant components and deleting irrelevant existing ones. In order to make an internally valid diagnosis, multiple theoretical angles were used during the interpretation of the data to prevent overlooking important issues. To increase the external validity of the study employees of different departments in two different locations were interviewed. These departments perform similar activities, but work with different projects.

3.6 Data analysis

(21)

(22)

21 4. RESULTS

In this section first the change project will be described. Hereafter, each case will be shortly introduced and followed by an analysis of the case. Last, the four case will be compared in a-cross case analysis.

4.1 Change project

The following research has been conducted in a technical installations company located in the Netherlands. It is a mid-sized company specializing in mechanical and electrical systems and plumbing for commercial building projects. The company has two locations, one in Lelystad and the other in Wateringen. The managing board consists of about twenty people and most of them are located in Wateringen. The total organisation has 120 employees, of which 45 are in Lelystad and 75 in Wateringen. Both locations perform similar tasks albeit Lelystad is smaller than Wateringen. The company provides installations and services on heating and cooling equipment such as air conditioning, boilers and sanitary facilities. The design of the whole organisation and the different departments is shown in figure two (p.22).

In the summer of 2013 this company almost faced bankruptcy as a result of the financial crisis in combination with ineffective work processes in the company. According to one of the owners of the company, responsibilities were not clear to employees and therefore they performed other activities then prescribed for their function. As an result, the old organisational structure appeared to be no longer profitable due the lack of efficiency.

(23)

22 standards that have been set by the top of the organisation. In conclusion, the company has become more structured and professionalised.

Despite the fact that the change is initiated top-down, one of the goals of this change is to involve employees in improving their work processes in order to change the organisation into a learning organisation. The employees have more responsibility for their own tasks and are challenged to take a critical look at their own working methods. Responsibilities and goals for each function are set more clear, however, now that the employees are more responsible for their own work activities they are free to determine how they are going to reach the goals within their function themselves. Additionally, in each department an order manager is responsible for the activities that are carried out in his or her department. As these managers, formerly known as team leaders, were previously helping in the execution of work activities before the change, they are now responsible for the performance of their team and therefore should mainly focus on the delegation of work and controlling their employees. According to one of the owners, they planned to complete the implementation of the change within one and a half to three years. Now, almost 3 years after the restart of the company, the company is not half way of their desired end goal. According to one of the owners, preparations have been made, documents are developed, changes are communicated and even implemented. However, they are still implementing changes, reverse changes where needed and fine-tuning working processes. Next to this, employees did not completely adapt their behaviour to the changes yet. In order to get the desired results out of the change, the modification of behaviour is a must. The employees feel that there are still many changes initiated and that they are in the middle of the change process at the moment.

The company is characterized by a culture in which flexibility, care for personnel, involvement of employees and attention for the customer is a central focus. The corresponding freedom and responsibility of employees are set between clear limits. The average education level at both of the offices is higher vocational education. A planner as well as an order manager are expected to have completed their higher vocational education and an order manager is expected to have extra certificates. The technicians are the lowest educated employees within the company, in order to become a technician intermediate vocational education is required.

(24)

23 4.2 Within case analyses

In order to answer the research question, data from both sites has been collected and analysed to make 4 cases. Each case will be briefly described, followed by an analysis of the data. Hereafter, the four cases will be compared in a cross-case analyses.

4.2.1 Case 1. The first case is based on data collected from three interviews with employees who work in the installation company at the location Lelystad. The interviewees in this case are an order manager and two technicians who are led by the order manager. The order manager in this case works in one of the order management departments which consist of four employees. The technicians work in the field and are responsible for the installation of the product and associated services. The technicians are both middle-aged men and finished their intermediate vocational education. The order manager completed higher vocational education and is a middle-aged man as well.

(25)

24 (VER11112): “I think is it purely the person itself. One is more socially oriented I think, viewed from a human perspective”.

The order manager mainly focuses on the group when implementing changes. However, when changes were not implemented the way he had instructed or when the behaviour of the employees did not conform to the plan, the manager shifted his focus to the individual (VER11110): “I have told you guys what I expect from you.. So next time I can ask an individual to come to me and tell him; this is how you will need to behave from now on”. Both of the technicians agree that employees are individually corrected when needed and one of them confirms that the forthcoming changes were introduced to the group.

In addition to the behaviour of the order manager, the way of communicating about the change has been mentioned. According to the order manager and one technician, desired goals were not sufficiently communicated throughout the whole company by the board and the order managers. The technician underscored that, since he was not part of the management he thinks that only 80 to 90 percent of what has been spoken of in the top layer of the organisation comes to his attention. On the other hand, the other technician thinks that employees are informed quite well and even too much at times regarding the upcoming changes by the executive director. He said the following: (VER11111) “So much have been told that I do not remember it all. Especially not when it is not matter to me directly”.

4.2.1.2 Attitude on an individual level. Both technicians feel that changes are for the good. One of them expressed this nicely (VER11112): “If you want to improve things, you need to change things”. The other technician adds that when changes are well explained and its significance is clear, people are positive. However, they did reflect upon their emotions during the interview.

(26)

25 will be working in another function from now on”. He adds that he has had good intentions but that at some point you just realise that is does not work, because there are no visible results. He also feels that changes are not entirely implemented because others do not change. He tries to adjust his behaviour, but he thinks changes freeze at the offices because order managers do not change and adjust their behaviour. The other technician also noticed that the behaviour of technicians did not remarkably change (VER11111): “I’m not sure if I see a difference there, how technicians work. Or either that the changes are visible”. However, he noted that someone’s behaviour could be dependent on that person’s personality as well.

4.2.1.3 Attitude on a group level. Each of the interviewees has other perceptions of their group. The order manager feels he is part of his department, one technician feels he is part of all technicians and the other technician sees himself as part of the whole company. However, they all feel that there was a shared need for change. Since the company had to restart after a financially poor period, they feel that a change was needed in order to become a well performing company again. However, all three of the interviewees indicate that there is not enough capacity to change. As mentioned before, changes only became visible after a long time. According to the order manager, this is caused by the lack of resources (VER11110): “It is because we do not get the answers we need or because we do not have the resources needed. Financially or otherwise, or simply because it will not be finished. In addition, I think we are doing too many things at once”. One of the technicians expressed his dissatisfaction with an example (VER11111): “A small example is the clothing. It will take another year before you will get your clothes. But it has been promised a year ago, you know”.

The order manager thinks that the enduring process of implementing changes is also caused by the capability of the group or organisation as a whole. He thinks that the management has difficulties with making decisions and therefore, it takes too much time. In addition, one of the technicians mentioned that the company has a history of lengthy processes when implementing changes. Only one of the interviewees referred to the expected change outcomes: (VER1111): “When something has been spoken of you think.. well will we see. And later you will notice that some things have changed, hey it gets better”.

(27)

26 According to the order manager and one of the technicians, emotional contagion is perceptible as well. The order manager said (VER11110): “Yes, mutual influence is a very strong medium. I would like to say weapon, but that.. in business I will not.. Yet, it’s just that”. In addition, he pointed out a disadvantage of mutual influence or contagion. According to him, people will more easily go along with negative behaviour than with positive behaviour, since negative behaviour is much stronger than positive behaviour. In the contrary, one of the technicians does not feel influenced by someone else’s emotions. Lastly, group norms do not to appear to be very present according to the two technicians. VER11111 said for example: “I’m still not sure whether or not I complete it the right way. Sometimes I hear other technicians that they complete it in a different way”.

4.2.1.5 Relationship between leadership, attitudes and mutual influence. Since the leader makes use of goal oriented behaviour, the employees feel that matters are presented to them black and white. According to one of the technicians, he understands why changes are lead that way, however, it does not fit with the organisation and its operations. On the other hand, this leadership style ensures a certain behaviour of employees, since the direction is set very clear by the manager. As a result, employees will behave in a way that is appropriate within certain guidelines.

Despite the fact that the technicians do not feel it that way, the order manager believes that he does involve them and emphasises that is important to do so. The order manager also thinks that communication plays an important role in changing employees, since communication keeps people interested in the change. The need to change needs to be explained in order to get the employees actually go along with it. One of the technicians agrees on this and said that there is always a reason why the management has a certain schedule or why they do certain things. When changes are not explained, employees will feel unnecessarily irritated. On top of this, when changes are not clear to employees, they will make sense of it by means of interaction and this will result in a certain self-taught behaviour. The amount of time necessary to implement a change is found important by the interviewees. The order manager noticed that when change outcomes are not visible for a long time, the attitude of employees will change in a negative way. However, he explains that many changes are first put in motion somewhere high up in the organisation and that only after some time becomes visible for the employees. In addition, when positive results are shown, employees automatically feel positive about the change and go along with it.

(28)

27 manager shifts his focus to the individual and directs this person in a certain direction. According to one of the technicians, the individual simply needs to change his behaviour, since the direction is set very clear.

The degree of mutual influence is very dependent on how extensively the change is communicated. When changes are not clear to the technicians , their cognitive attitude will be more negative then when they understand the reason behind the change. As a consequence, their emotional and behavioural attitude will be negatively changed as well. And, when this happens more emotional contagion takes place among the technicians. By influencing each other in a negative way, implementing the change will be made more difficult.

4.2.1.6 Patterns.

 The order manager shows goal oriented behaviour (all interviewees).

 The order manager mainly focuses on the group while implementing change (1x technician, 1x order manager).

 The order manager shift his focus towards the individual when resisting behaviour is shown (all interviewees).

 When the order manager shows goal oriented behaviour the technicians show positive intentional behaviour (both technicians).

 When the significance of the change is made clear by the order manager the technicians’ cognitive attitude will be positive (both technicians).

 Communication by the board and order managers is not sufficient (1x technician, 1x order manager).

 Changing takes a lot of time and desired results do not always show (all interviewees).

 When goals are not achieved in a timely manner the emotional attitude and the intentional behaviour of the technicians change in a negative way (both technicians).

 Employees in general find it hard to change their regular behaviour (both technicians).  The perception of the group differs per interviewee (all interviewees).

 A shared need for change is perceived (all interviewees).

 There is a shared belief that there is not enough capacity to change (all interviewees).

 There is a shared belief that the organisation is not capable enough to change (all interviewees).  Technicians mostly interact with other technicians in ‘the field’ (both technicians).

(29)

28 work in this department. Both interviewees in this case work at the office, finished their higher vocational education and are middle-aged men.

4.2.2.1. Leadership. According to the employee, the order manager shows goal oriented behaviour in combination with involving behaviour. At first, the order manager tells the employees in his department what needs to be done and expects his employees to go along with it. However, when they do not agree with him they are free to speak up and give their opinion. The order manager agrees on this and feels that he and his department set goals together. However, when employees show undesirable behaviour, the order manager makes use of goal oriented behaviour (VER11120): “No, we do it together. I will not tell them you are going to do this and that. Until they make a mess of something, then I will interfere”. Neither of the interviewees referred to any engaging behaviour of the leader.

When leading changes, the order manager mainly focuses on the group. He tells the group what to do and how to do it. Nevertheless, when an individual expresses his dissatisfaction, the focus of the leader shifts from the group to the individual (VER11120): “If there are comments coming from one person, you proceed on that person. Because you know what is behind that thought, you know how he is as a person”.

Both the order manager and the employee mentioned the lack of communication throughout the whole company by the board and order managers. The order manager encounters problems in answering questions of the employees in his department. He discusses issues with the management team, however, these questions are not always answered by the board of directors. As a result, he is not able to inform the employees in his department as well as he would like to. The order manager clarified this by means of an example (VER11121): “We heard that there were some problems with the supplier, that they totally redefined their organisation. However, people kept asking me, you know, how about it. But no one knew anything. Yes they did know, although they did not tell. That’s when I said; why don’t we just tell the guys that something went wrong with that supplier. Just tell them. That is communicating, then you will no longer get any questions and none ambiguities”. The employee recognises the fact that the communication about the change and ongoing business is insufficient throughout the whole company which applies to managers as well as other employees. According to him (VER11121): “It is a pity that knowledge is just not transferred to others”.

(30)

29 on the processes within the organisation. This has consequences for his emotional attitude since frustration is the result. He argues that employees are just concerned with their professional activities and that they do not have the time to do other activities next to it. As he said in the interview (VER11121): “When I’m really busy, just let me put it that way, I can respond like; damn do I really have to do all that”. However, in terms of behaviour the employee simply does what is expected from him. He adds that the attitude of an individual could also be determined by someone’s personality and he underscored that he is not a type of person that counteracts.

The order manager also noticed that time is important and added that when something is promised to employees and then they have to ask for it, they will change their attitude in a negative way. These promises are mainly about changes that are asked for by employees and information they like to receive. However, the order manager agrees with the employee that people do not show actual resistance. There are always some comments on what he tells them, but in the end they behave in the way that is expected from them (VER11120): “However, after a while you will receive the lists you have asked for. So, that’s probably when they understand. If you, while leading, just try to show everyone the significance”.

4.2.2.3 Attitude on a group level. Both interviewees most strongly identify themselves with their own department and therefore mostly interact with them as well. Since the employee started working in the organisation after the restart, he is not able to compare the situation before the change with the current situation. However, when the employee came into the company he noticed that processes were not organised as well as he thought they would be. So according to him, there certainly was a need for change. However, by answering the questions on the attitude of the group, the employee focused more on his own thoughts and feelings than that of the group. So, whether this need for change is shared by all employees or not has not been answered in the interview. Unfortunately, the employee feels that there is a lack of capacity since employees dot not have enough time to implement changes next to their daily activities. However, he does not think that the employees are not capable, he even thinks that people are in fact capable to do more than they are doing now. In addition, he has high expectations of the change outcome (VER11121): “Yeah I think the organisation is going to be great. However, there is a lot that needs to be done”. The order manager did not refer to any of these elements of group attitude in his interview.

(31)

30 and time will be saved when colleagues would help each other out. He adds that he does not want the organisational culture to change in a way that everyone only focuses on their own activities, in their own cubicle. He would like the communication to be more extensive and knowledge to be shared. Despite this, he feels that emotional contagion is indeed perceptible. The order manager and the employee did not mention the group norms, identification with the organisation and organisational culture as relevant factors for mutual influence in their interview.

4.2.2.5 Relationship between leadership, attitudes and mutual influence. Because of the goal oriented behaviour of the order manager, the employee adjusts his behaviour to the expected standards of the order manager. Next to this, since the order manager also shows involving behaviour, he feels that he can speak up when he does not agree on the changes, they can give input when they do not agree on the original plan. However, the order manager clearly directs in a certain way even after input has been given. Therefore, most of the time the employee simply adjusts his behavioural attitude and follows the directions of the manager. When implementing the change, the order manager focuses on the group, however, when resisting behaviour is shown his focus shifts to the individual.

The lack of capacity to change of the organisation bothers the employee, which results in a negative cognitive and emotional attitude. He feels that there is too much focus on processes and he does not have enough time to implement all of the changes. As a result, he gives priority to the daily tasks instead of the organisational change. This indicates that the intended behaviour of the employee is affected in a negative way, however, since the order manager makes use of goal oriented behaviour the employee eventually adjusts his behaviour.

Next to the lack of capacity, a lack of communication by the board causes problems in the implementation of the change as well. The order manager is not able to answer all the questions asked by the employees in his department. Due the lack of clarity, employees’ cognitive and emotional attitude towards the change is negatively influenced and therefore it takes a lot of time before employees adjust their behaviour and changes become visible in the organisation.

Last, since the employee does not discuss the content of the change with his colleagues, the quality of the results arising from the change are not optimal. Despite this, emotional contagion is perceptible in his group. By contrast, the order manager does discuss the content of the change with other managers, however, emotional contagion seems not to be present at this level.

4.2.2.6 Patterns.

 The order manager shows goal oriented behaviour in combination with involving behaviour (both interviewees).

(32)

31 (order manager).

 Communication by the board and order managers is insufficient (both interviewees).  Changing takes a lot of time and desired results do not always show (both interviewees).  Lengthy change processes have a negative impact on the cognitive and emotional attitude

towards change of an employee (employee).

 When the order managers shows goal oriented behaviour the intended behaviour of an employee will be positive (both interviewees).

 The order manager and the employee both interact mostly with colleagues within their department (both interviewees).

 There is a shared need for change (employee).

 There is a shared perception that capacity is lacking (both interviewees).

 The employee thinks that the organising is not capable enough to change (employee).  The employee has high expectations of the change outcome (employee).

 The order manager discusses the content of the change with other managers, but does not feel that emotional contagion is present (order manager).

 The employee does not discuss the content of the change with his colleagues, but feels that emotional contagion is present (employee).

4.2.3 Case 3. This case is based on data derived from interviews conducted in the installation company located in Wateringen. The interviewees are an order manager and two employees who work in one of the order management departments within the office. This departments has five employees, of which two employees have been randomly selected. The interviewees are all middle aged men and completed higher vocational education.

4.2.3.1 Leadership. According to the order manager as well as to the employees, the order manager shows goal oriented behaviour in combination with involving behaviour. The order manager himself said (VER12110) “I’m pretty directive and straightforward” and also “I think it is very important, I could like to do anything.. however, I find it important to know what they think of it too”. However, neither of the interviewees indicated that engaging behaviour was shown.

(33)

32 While leading the change, the order manager focuses more on the individual. He feels that the board of the organisation addresses the group and that he himself provides more personal attention. VER12112 recognizes this and adds that since the order manager knows the employees he is dealing with very well, he can lead the change in a way that suits the person. However, both employees think there is a lack of communication by the board and order managers. VER 12111 said that he does not hear much about the change: “Eh, so to speak.. at the new year’s reception they told about the focal points for the upcoming year. And that is basically the only thing they communicate. What reaches us anyway”. The other employee agrees on this by stating (VER12112): “Sometimes one order manager, * for example, has more to do with the management so to say. He hears way more, however, he communicates about it in his own team, but forgets to communicate it to me”. On top of this, he underscores the importance of communication. He would like to be informed about the change in order to understand what is behind it. According to him, it is important to make employees understand why change is needed in order to prevent from resisting behaviour. The order manager himself acknowledges that information does not always reach the people in the lower layers in the organisation. However, in his perception, this is a good thing (VER12110): “Ultimately, let’s say the person at the bottom of the ladder will notice the least of it. That is what you try at least. That is where the connections and the sounds are and the higher you are, the greater the changes are”. None of the interviewees gave notice to any engaging behaviour by the leader.

4.2.3.2 Attitude on an individual level. Both employees had a positive cognitive attitude towards the change in the beginning. They were positive about the announced change, since they understood the need for change and idea behind it. VER12111 explained: “Mwa, I did support it. We just have one goal together, and that is keeping the most of us”. Next to this, VER12112 added: “And yes, there is always a reason behind it. And if you know that reason, you can also argue like okay by doing it that way it might go faster or better. Therefore, the organisation will be improved”.

The order manager agrees upon the fact that employees were happy about the change, however, he adds that changing is not as satisfying as everybody thought it would be. According to him, people became restless, since results did not show for a long time. As the results did not meet the expectations people had, they unconsciously reverted to their old habits. He thinks that the employees did have positive feelings about the change in the beginning, since the change made people take faith in the company again. However, he stresses that implementing a change is not simple and in order to make it happen effort is needed. (VER12110): “It will be announced and then we aim to start with it, or just start.. However, we will not come to a proper sequel. We then slightly fall back into the old pattern”. He adds that in order to prevent this from happening, employees should be held more accountable for their behaviour.

(34)

33 is something positive and that the people who initiate the change have thought things through before implementing it. However, he also points out that he already has developed a way of working and that it is hard to change that pattern. He also states that changing becomes even more difficult when he does not have the time to implement it (VER12112): “I will simply try to execute it, however, sometimes you have a great deal of work so to say. You have developed your own work pattern and it is just hard to implement something new next to it”. However, he also indicates that an attitude may be dependent on the personality of that particular person. He thinks that there are always people that are afraid of changes and therefore, will heavily resist: “And others, no matter what you tell them, they will just block because they do not want to change.. since they have been doing it that way for years. And they do not want to pursue another path, since this this is the right way to do it”.

4.2.3.3 Attitude on a group level. Both of the employees report that they feel part of their own department and especially part of their own project team and the people they most interact with during their daily activities. According to the order manager and one of the employees, a shared need for change was highly noticeable. As said by the order manager (VER12110): “Well he brought, he announced a change, that was obviously received well in the inside of the organisation.. since we had a restart. It would be strange to continue on the same basis. Because, yes we were tipped over”. VER12111 adds that they all strive after the same goals and try to make as little mistakes as possible.

Despite this high need, changing turned out to be very difficult, since they all perceive al lack of capacity to change. They all feel that the change process takes more time than they had initially anticipated. Both employees feel that it has to do with the fact that they have to implement changes in addition to their daily activities. VER12111 explains his feeling: “Yeah just, they would like to.. actually get it done by tomorrow, while.. it must fit in your own activities as well. And yes, as a matter of course you have to change behaviour. So that takes longer, takes more time than that they wanted it to”. Only one of the employees mentioned the expected outcome. He said that he realizes that changes will improve the organisation eventually. However, in order to reason it for himself he needs to be informed about the idea behind the change. The capability of the group, such as the knowledge and abilities of employees, has not been mentioned by the interviewees.

(35)

34 a discussion will be formed about how we are going to deal with it and how to do it. But not like, no I’m truly not doing that. Yet, that is after the meeting instead of during it”. In addition, he feels that mutual influence is particular perceptible among employees who work at the same level since they interact intensively and talk about their feelings. However, according to this employee, not all colleagues influence each other. There are also people that are just willing to listen, but do not act upon it. Only one of the employees mentioned the identification with the organisation. Next to his own department he identifies himself with the whole organisation as well (VER12111): “If I walk to next door when I’m not able to solve something, we have a challenge I always name it, we have a challenge and people are eager to help you. That does feel like one team, one whole”. The described desire to help each other is part of the culture as well. However, group norms are not specifically mentioned by any of the interviewees.

4.2.3.5 Relationship between leadership, attitude and mutual influence. The goal oriented behaviour of the leader provides clarity during the change which has a positive impact on the cognitive attitude of an employee. Next to this, the involving behaviour of the leader ensures that employees stay motivated. Beside this, both employees argue that time and communication are important in order to implement a change. Their cognitive attitude is highly dependent on how much they know about the rationale behind the change and their emotional attitude is highly influenced by their sense of time constraints.

The employees both underscore that resisting behaviour will emerge when people are not told why they need to behave in a certain way. According to them, employees should first understand and recognise the need for change, which results in a positive cognitive attitude, in order to become emotionally positive about the change and actually change their behaviour. When desirable results do not show for a long time, people get restless and change their behaviour in a negative way. As a consequence, it takes a long time before changes are actually visible in the organisation or changes will not be fully implemented at all. Also, when employees feel that their peers dot not adapt to the guidelines, their own intended behaviour will negatively change and their efforts to make the change work will decrease. All of the interviewees feel that they belong to the same group, which is their own department. Within this group they especially interact with employees in their own project team. In this group, there is a shared belief that change is needed. However, they all feel that capacity to change is lacking since they do not have the time to implement the change. When discussing the content of the change, the employees mostly interact with their order manager. But, emotional contagion is perceptible as well, this mainly occurs among employees at the same level.

(36)

35 4.2.3.6 Patterns.

 The order manager shows goal oriented behaviour in combination with involving behaviour (all interviewees).

 The order manager adjusts his behaviour to the reactions of employees (all interviewees).  The order manager mainly focusses on individuals when implementing the change (1x

employee, 1x order manager).

 There is a lack of communication by the board and order manager (all interviewees).

 When the significance of the change is made clear by the order manager the employees’ cognitive attitude will be positive (both employees).

 The attitude towards the change of employees was positive on each of the three dimensions in the beginning of the change (all interviewees).

 When goals are not achieved in a timely manner the emotional attitude and the intentional behaviour of the employees change in a negative way (1x employee, 1x order manager).  Both employees see their departments as the group they belong to (both employees).

 The employees mostly interact with their order manager when discussing the change content (both employees).

 There is a shared need to change (1x employee, 1x order manager).

 The is a shared belief that the company has not enough capacity to change (all interviewees).

4.2.4 Case 4. This case is based upon data collected from three interviews conducted at the Wateringen location. The interviewees are an order manager and two employees who work in one of the order management departments. The employees are randomly selected out of the four employees who work in this department. The order manager is a young man, one employee is a middle-aged woman and the other employee is a middle-aged man. They all completed higher vocational education.

Middle managers’ leadership behaviour and employees’ attitudes towards change

Middle managers’ leadership behaviour and employees’

attitudes towards change

Table of Contents