Multiple Team Membership, Role duality and Middle
Management in change and its influence on change
recipient attitudes
Exploring the influence of role duality and multiple team membership on middle management and how this influences the attitudes of change recipients
Master thesis
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
2
Abstract. Middle management plays a critical role in change processes as they connect top and
operating-levels within an organization. Being in a position of both a change agent and change recipient, they are acknowledged by literature as change intermediaries with several roles, responsibilities and complexity. Since change in organizations is currently almost inevitable, examining the role of middle management is important and the ways in which their roles are executed accordingly. Another phenomenon that is currently present within organizations is multiple team membership. Multiple team membership means that employees are part of different teams throughout the organization. Literature extensively discusses the advantages and disadvantages of this phenomenon. Therefore, this thesis aims to explore how role duality and multiple team membership within an organization influences middle management and how this influences attitudes among change recipients in change processes. Findings suggest that multiple team membership influences behavior of middle management more than did role duality. The role duality was not experienced by middle management as complex or obstructive to behavior, but instead emphasis on the agent role ensured positive sensemaking of the change. Furthermore, the research reveals that middle management behavior did influence recipient attitudes, but that personality characteristics of the recipient, the recipients’ previous experience with change and with management and the impact of the change on one’s job were also influential on the recipient attitude towards the change.
Key words. Middle management, multiple team membership, role duality, attitudes, readiness
for change, resistance to change, role duality, sensemaking, sensegiving, behavior, change recipients, change agents,
3
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. Introduction……….1
2. Theoretical background……….. 3
2.1. Organizational change………. 3
2.1.1 Roles within change projects……… 3
2.2 Middle management and change……….. 3
2.2.1 Middle management roles within change………. 4
2.2.2 Sensemaking and sensegiving………...5
2.2.3 Challenges for middle management in change………. 5
2.3 Recipient attitudes……… 6
2.3.1 Recipient attitudes towards change……….. 7
2.3.2 Factors influencing recipient attitudes towards change……… 7
2.3.3 Change readiness………... 8
2.3.4 Change resistance………. 9
2.4 Multiple team membership………... 10
2.4.1 Multiple team membership………... 10
2.4.2 Advantages of multiple team membership………... 10
2.4.3 Disadvantages of multiple team membership………... 10
2.5 Theoretical framework………. 11 3. Methodology………... 13 3.1 Research design……… 13 3.2 Research approach……… 13 3.3 Research site………. 13 3.4 Case selection………... 14 3.5 Data collection……….. 16 3.6 Case analysis………. 16
3.7 Reliability and validity………..17
4. Results……… 18
4.1 The change……… 18
4.2 Within-case analysis………. 19
4.2.1 Case 1: customer contact department (CCC)……… 19
4.2.2 Case 2: becoming a customer department (NEW_CUS)………….. 23
4.2.3 Case 3: being a customer department (EXIS_CUS)………. 27
4.2.4 Case 4: core team (CORE)………... 30
4.3 Cross-case analysis………... 33
4.3.1 Role duality of middle management in change……… 33
4.3.2 Multiple team membership………... 34
4.3.3 Middle management sensemaking and behavior in change……... 35
4.3.4 Recipient attitudes towards change……….. 36
5. Discussion and Conclusion……….... 38
5.1 Discussion………... 38
5.1.1 Role duality and middle management sensemaking and behavior... 38
5.1.2 MTM and middle management sensemaking and behavior………. 39
5.1.3 Middle management behavior and recipient attitudes…………... 40
5.2 Conclusion……….... 42
5.2.1 Theoretical implications………... 43
5.2.2 Managerial implications………... 43
5.2.3 Limitations and suggestions for future research………... 44
References... 45
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, organizational change is an integrated part of organizational life and this is currently a major topic in organizational and social sciences (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2013; Vakola, 2013). According to Vakola (2013), it is proved that up to 70% of all major change initiatives fail. In these times of highly competitive markets, rapid technological developments and globalization, initiating change within and throughout organizations is almost inevitable. Current literature therefore increasingly focuses on identifying factors that influence and increase success rates of organizational change (Rafferty et al., 2013).
As discussed by Cawsey (2016), there are different types of change roles, namely change initiators, implementers, facilitators and recipients. In most cases, change agents are the people initiating, implementing and facilitating the change, while change recipients are known to be the people receiving change and its consequences. This simplified distinction is, however, likely to be more complicated. Current literature tends to focus on either change agents or change recipients but does not explicitly take into account the position of those who might experience entanglement of those two roles.
Middle management is such a position which presents a role duality discussed in literature. Previously, authors argued that middle managers slowed down efficiency within change initiatives, but recently authors started recognizing that the value of middle managers has been displaced and consequently, middle management has gained increased interest in organizational and social sciences (Embertson, 2006). According to several authors, middle managers have an essential position within a company because they are integrated with the organization’s strategies but also its social structures, and this, if executed correctly, can facilitate change (Nonaka, 1994; Pappas, Flaherty, and Wooldridge, 2004; Valentino, 2004; Kanter, 2004). Being positioned in-between top-level strategic management and lower-level operations, middle managers’ role within change initiatives becomes complex.
2
(Kozlowski & Bell, 2013). This phenomenon is often referred to as multiple team membership (MTM). In line with Kozlowski et al. (2013), Pluut, Flestea & Curseu (2014) argue that MTM is a situation in which working time is fragmented over multiple teams and switching between teams implies that employees hold a variety of roles. Literature has extensively elaborated on the phenomenon of MTM, and both advantages and disadvantages are acknowledged (O’Leary et al., 2011; Pluut et al., 2014). Savelsbergh (2010) argues that individuals possibly struggle with allocating and coordinating resources, work overload and scheduling due to time pressure. It is acknowledged by literature that middle management plays a crucial role in a changing organization, but also that middle managers experience MTM. Therefore, it is important to explore how these MTMs influence sensemaking and behavior of middle management in change projects and how this behavior influences change recipients’ attitudes towards change.
Several authors identified that recipients’ attitudes play an essential role in the potential company success (Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph & DePalma, 2006; Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011). Additionally, the influence of middle management on these recipient reactions is highlighted since they act as the link between top- and operating-level.
In order to create a better understanding of how middle management influences organizational change, what role MTM and role duality play in this behavior and how this behavior influences recipients’ attitudes, this paper focuses on the following research question: How do role duality and multiple team membership of middle management influence the sensemaking and behavior of middle management in change projects and how does this behavior of middle management influence change recipient’ attitudes?
3
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This section discusses existing literature of the concepts in this study to get insight on the concepts, providing a solid basis for the research. The theoretical background will encounter useful previous researches that originate from sources like Jstor, Journals of Business Ethics, Academy of Management, Springer and EBooks. This section provides an overview of roles in organizational change, middle management and change, MTM and recipients’ attitudes towards change. Ultimately, this section will be concluded with a theoretical framework presenting the relation between the concepts.
2.1 ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Organizational change is defined as planned alterations of organizational components to improve the effectiveness of the organization (Cawsey, Deszca and Ingols, 2016). According to Cawsey et al. (2016), the components comprise organizational missions, visions, values, culture, strategies, goals, structures, processes or systems, technologies and people throughout an organization. To ensure successful change, people have different roles within the change initiative.
2.1.1 Roles within change projects. Cawsey et al. (2016) distinguish four different roles within
change projects. First of all, they specify the change implementers, who implement the change which is proposed by change initiators. Change initiators are the change agents, mostly senior management. They build the vision and provide the required resources and support for the change project. Third, there are the change recipients, who receive the change and are required to adjust in order to make the change successful. Last, there are the change facilitators, the ones that assist initiators and implementers in the change.
Cawsey et al. (2016) acknowledge that one person might play multiple roles. These different roles can occur at the highest level, among the change agents, but also among the middle management and even operational levels. Because it is acknowledged that persons within an organization can have multiple roles, the next section will specify which different roles middle management can take on within and throughout change.
2.2 MIDDLE MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE
4
Kanter (2004), middle managers are very powerful because they are exactly the ones who have their fingers on the pulse of operations (Kanter, 2004).
2.2.1 Middle managements’ roles within change. First, literature extensively argued that
middle managers slowed down organizational efficiency without adding much measurable value (Embertson, 2006). This early acknowledgement was done by Guth and MacMillan (1986). However, multiple authors like Huy (2001; 2002) and Floyd et al. (1997) started emphasizing the importance of middle management by stating that middle managers make value contributions to the realization of change at companies which are still largely unrecognized by senior executives.
Several authors argue that middle managers act as change intermediaries within change projects, because they are positioned in-between top-level and operational level (Nonaka, 1994; Pappas et al, 2004; Valentino, 2004; Kanter, 2004). Consequently, middle managers play an essential role in the process of change within an organization. Balogun (2003) suggests that middle managers fulfill four inter-related roles during change implementation, which are undertaking personal change, helping others through change, implementing necessary changes and keeping the business going. According to Balogun (2003), middle managers during change experienced a shift in roles which makes the above-mentioned roles change-related.
Huy (2001) in his article also focuses on roles of middle management within change and he explicitly focuses on the entrepreneur, the communicator, the therapist and the tightrope artist. When the roles proposed by Balogun (2003) and Huy (2001) are compared, it becomes visible that the roles proposed are to some extent overlapping. Huy (2001) however does not take into account the personal change and efforts middle management has to deal with according to Balogun (2003). The overview is presented in figure 1 on the next page.
5
Figure 1. Comparison of middle management roles within change
2.2.2 Sensemaking and Sensegiving. Personal change that is required according to Balogun
(2003) is related to middle management making sense of what the change actually entails. In her articles, Balogun (2004; 2005) focuses on sensemaking triggers among change recipients which make them engage more conscious in social processes of interaction, ensuring that old schematas – or interpretations – are adjusted according to these new triggers into new schematas. The sensemaking triggers are constantly encountered through interaction and deeper understanding with others and with the context (Balogun, 2005); it is an ongoing process of social interaction (Balogun and Johnson, 2004). Both change agents and change recipients make use of sensemaking and sensegiving. Accordingly, change agents must facilitate the appropriate sensemaking triggers for change recipients by first undertaking the personal change themselves (Balogun, 2003). Armenakis et al. (1993) indicate that beliefs, perceptions and attitudes are critical in successful change and middle management is often responsible for this. Therefore, sensemaking and sensegiving of middle management is essential for change success.
Balogun et al. (2004) argue that both vertical and horizontal communication are very important for sensemaking, and especially the latter because most interpretations will be generated through these processes (Balogun et al., 2004). Thus, sensemaking is influenced by vertical and horizontal communication that middle managers have throughout the organization.
2.2.3 Challenges for middle management in change. According to authors like Balogun
6
role of middle management is still overlooked in change projects and thus not enough attention and understanding is shown towards their role (Balogun 2003). Another factor that might play a role in this difficulty for management is that it is often unclear to estimate the amount of resources and commitment that is required for the change to succeed (Cawsey, 2016). In their role, middle managers oftentimes have activities outside of their formal communication to focus on what senior managers want and besides to focus on the interpretation of the change recipients; attention is thus shared among multiple players and stakeholders. Cawsey (2016) additionally argues that sometimes managers simply do not have the capacity to deal with complex changes that also affect the people in the organization.
Huy (2001) describes the connection to change recipients as leveraging informal networks and staying attuned to moods and emotional needs. From her research, Balogun (2003) found out that middle management was team oriented when they engaged with specific tasks, but when there were other activities, they were more focused on other peers and on themselves. This relates to the increased workload and possibly the lack of attention middle management for change projects.
Kanter (2004) argues that in order to successfully implement change, frequent and smooth contact across functions, working in teams and sharing credit and emphasizing lateral relationships as sources for resources, information and support are required. Middle managers are thus not only confronted with the role duality as change intermediary, but also have to focus on horizontal relationships and teamwork in order to succeed a change initiative. On the contrary, Balogun (2003) argues that middle management in her research lacked time for activities due to coordination and other management roles. Balogun et al. (2004) additionally argued that the horizontal and vertical social processes of interaction continued to reinforce old schematas, leading to failed generation of new schematas and thus of appropriate sensemaking (Balogun et al., 2004). Consequently, it is interesting to explore how these horizontal and vertical responsibilities of middle management work in favor of change projects or work as a factor that slows down efficiency and effectiveness of the role of middle management.
2.3 RECIPIENT ATTITUDES
7
2.3.1 Recipient attitudes towards change. In changing situations, employees try to make
sense of the environment and draw conclusions about possible outcomes by being actively involved in information seeking and assumption making about the change project (J. D. Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008). Consequently, employees form assumptions, expectations, and impressions regarding the organizational change and what kind of implications this change entails for them and the organization. It is these aspects that form the eventual attitude an employee will have towards the change (Choi, 2011). In other words, employees’ attitudes toward organizational change are shaped significantly by the way each individual experiences and regards the change situation (Choi, 2011).
According to Elizur and Guttman (1976), the concept of attitude towards change is composed of cognitive, affective and intentional/behavioral components (Bouckenooghe, 2010). These refer to the feelings, opinion and action employees retain towards the change respectively. This is in line with Choi’s (2011) argument that attitudes reflect the individual’s overall positive or negative evaluative judgements of a change initiative.
Choi (2011) argues that attitudes comprise various constructs and distinguishes between readiness for change, commitment to change, openness to change and cynicism about change. Additional to the constructs specified by Choi (2011), other authors have specified on resistance to change (Ford et al., 2008; Thomas and Hardy, 2011). The mentioned constructs are possible attitudes employees can have towards change, and can be influenced by different antecedents.
2.3.2 Factors influencing recipient attitudes towards change. Among research on
8
Oreg et al. (2011). Additionally, Choi (2011) emphasizes trust, policies supporting change, personal competence, job satisfaction, organizational culture and capabilities, and aspects of leadership as important factors that influence the attitude of recipients.
Specifying on leadership, Devos et al. (2007), Rafferty and Simons (2006) and Oreg (2006) argue about the importance of employee-manager relationships, employees’ trust in executive management and effective leadership practices (Choi, 2011). Supportive management is highly important in creating willingness to change (Oreg et al., 2011). Additionally, employee-manager relationships are important for facilitating communication, involvement and information sharing aiming at positive recipients’ attitudes to change. This is in line with the arguments of Higgs and Rowland (2005; 2011) who imply that change agents must ensure that recipients are actively and effectively engaged in recognizing need for change and that there must be a specific depth of understanding throughout the organization. Extensive communication and interaction between the change agents and change recipients are thus required.
2.3.3 Change readiness. According to Armenakis and Harris (1993) and Choi (2011),
readiness is reflected in organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the capacity of the organization to successfully implement those changes. Armenakis et al. (1993) also define readiness as the cognitive precursor to the behavior of either resistance to, or support of, a change effort. It is argued to be a mindset that exists among employees during implementation of organizational changes.
According to Vakola (2013), the term readiness is used to reflect three different concepts which are not specified in the definition of Armenakis et al. (1993). First of all, she refers to individual readiness which is based on confidence and self-efficacy. Secondly, perceived organizational readiness is emphasized, comprising confidence in organizational ability to manage change. Third, Vakola (2013) argues about the actual organizational readiness to change, which is the ability to implement the change. It reflects a combination of several factors, also discussed in section 2.3.2, which indicate the likelihood that someone will experience readiness for change.
9
2.3.4 Change resistance. Piderit (2000) argues that resistance is primarily defined as a
restraining force moving in the direction of maintaining the current situation. It is often used as an explanation for why efforts to introduce large-scale changes fall short or even fail (Oreg, 2006). Piderit (2000) suggests that resistance may often involve a sense of ambivalence whereby employees’ feelings, behaviors, and thoughts about the change may not necessarily coincide (Oreg, 2006). Additionally, Piderit (2000) proposes that resistance to change must be viewed as a multidimensional attitude towards change, comprising the affective, cognitive and behavioral components discussed in section 2.3.1. According to Oreg (2006), resistance is a very complex concept because of the different variables associated with resistance. In his article Oreg (2006) focuses particularly on personality and context influencing resistance.
Resistance is often avoided by management because of the negative consequences it has for the organization (Oreg, 2006). However, Ford et al. (2008) argue that resistance can also be a resource for change and that change agents contribute to the occurrence of resistance through their own actions. They contribute to resistance in the sense that they have several expectations through their sensemaking which do not occur, they break agreements, they communicate inappropriately or unclear, they engage in misrepresentations of the change to induce participation or because they resist resistance (Ford et al., 2008). This is in line with the argument of Cawsey (2016) that managers are often unaware that their behavior and that of other managers may send out conflicting messages to employees.
Ford et al. (2008) argue resistance to be a resource because when there is resistance, people talk about it and thus become aware of the change. Additionally, resistance can ensure engagement of recipients in the change initiative through thoughtful ideas about how the change can be improved. Last, resistance is argued to strengthen the quality of decisions because people want to have a voice (Ford et al., 2008).
10
2.4 MULTIPLE TEAM MEMBERSHIP AND CHANGE
This section comprises the definition of MTM and will elaborate on the advantages and disadvantages this phenomenon entails.
2.4.1 Multiple team membership. MTM is a phenomenon has gained much interest over the
past years and means that employees are member of different teams throughout the organization simultaneously. According to O’Leary, Mortensen and Woolley (2011), approximately 65-95 percent of workers in different industries in the United States and Europe are members of more than one project team at the time. According to Kozlowski and Bell (2013), work teams adopt different sizes with different contexts, functions, processes and networks. So even though work teams are very diverse, there are some corresponding features, for example that teams comprise two or more persons, performing organizationally relevant tasks, sharing common goals, interacting socially and maintaining and managing boundaries (Kozlowski and Bell, 2003).
2.4.2 Advantages of multiple team membership. According to O’Leary et al. (2011), MTM
can strengthen network ties, enhance sharing of resources and unique knowledge and individuals are enabled to learn and increase productivity. On an organizational level, companies incorporate MTM because it seems to provide positive knowledge transfers and is suitable in highly competitive settings with pressure for learning and productivity (O’Leary et al., 2011). Additionally, MTM provides managers with more flexibility to design effective teams (Pluut et al., 2014).
O’Leary et al. (2011) argue that MTM creates intra-organizational connectivity and accordingly an improvement of utilization of the organization’s resources and prevention of redundant work. Additionally, MTM can increase unique knowledge sharing and development of efficient practices (O’Leary et al, 2011; Pluut et al, 2014). At the individual level, MTM might enhance employee well-being due to empowerment to gain knowledge within different teams and increase networks. Thus, it stimulates to become more efficient and to create opportunities for learning (Pluut et al., 2014).
2.4.3 Disadvantages of multiple team membership. MTM also knows disadvantages.
11
stakeholders who confront the people with conflicting requirements, thus overloading the team members. This leads to both work and role overload, which refers to a task which is too large for an individual to accomplish (Savelsbergh, 2010; Cavanaugh et al, 2000).
Besides these downsides, Cronin and Weingart (2007) also focus the likelihood that team members perceive tasks differently, leading to interpretation gaps. This is due to the fact that people tend to solve problems with the knowledge they possess, but this knowledge differs when you are member of multiple teams. Interpretations are thus influenced by being member of different teams (Cronin & Weingart, 2007).
According to literature about change success, managerial involvement and participation is extremely important for change to succeed (Higgs and Rowland, 2005; 2011; Choi, 2011; Oreg et al., 2011). According to O’Leary (2011), more teams means less attention and opportunity for integration. This could imply, that with MTM, managers could be less able to ensure involvement and participation.
2.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theoretical background discussed the main concepts for this research. Middle management, with their essential role in change projects, is acknowledged to have multiple roles within and outside of the change project. As revealed, Kanter (2004) elaborated on the fact that successful implementation of change was dependent on frequent and smooth contact across functions, working in teams, sharing credit and emphasizing lateral relationships. This argument is in line with literature about MTM, as MTM enhances network ties, amount of resources, knowledge, information and opportunities to learn (O’Leary et al., 2011). Additionally, O’Leary et al. (2011) argue that MTM creates intra-organizational connectivity, which is important for the coherence and transition of information.
On the contrary, Balogun (2003) argued that the intermediary role of middle management in change causes increased workloads and performance pressure. They experience activities outside of their formal communication and need to leverage informal networks. Additionally, middle management is responsible for staying attuned to moods and emotional needs of change recipients (Huy, 2001). The above-mentioned features are also in line with the downsides of MTM, which comprise time pressure, , roles stress and overload, multiple stakeholders to please and gaps between interpretations of what is needed to be done in order to be successful.
12
competence and support. Furthermore, interaction between management and change recipients is essential together with the employee-manager relationship (Oreg, 2006). Aspects like trust, interaction, communication and employee-manager relationship all cost time and effort.
In order to create readiness for change, these factors must be taken into account and middle management must first undertake personal change themselves through sensemaking (Balogun, 2003; 2005) followed by careful communication, information sharing, participation and involvement with and towards recipients. Therefore, it would be expected that through the sensemaking of middle managers, they will first undertake personal change and thereafter adjust their behavior and take on desired or required roles in order to influence attitudes of change recipients.
Thus, it is expected that time and effort for middle managers to ensure readiness for change among recipients is required. With the presence of MTM, this ability to put enough attention into the change project can be expected to be negatively influenced. However, MTM also has multiple advantages which might positively influence the change project, as mentioned above. Therefore, the following theoretical framework can be derived from the theoretical background provided in this section:
13
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research design. The theoretical background provides literature about middle management
in change, MTM and recipient’s attitudes towards change. The position of middle management and the phenomenon of MTM have gained increased interest in literature, however the relation between the two concepts has not been elaborated yet. By exploring how MTM and role duality influence middle management and influences their behavior, a contribution can be made to the current organizational change literature by elaborating its relation and consequences. To further explore this phenomenon, theory building is required, as the relation still has to be explored (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012).
3.2 Research approach. This research has a qualitative focus. Qualitative research is a
multimethod research that uses interpretative, naturalistic approaches (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). Qualitative research is required when there is little or no prior theory available about the concept or combination of specific concepts. Addressing questions concerning roles, attitudes, and behavior require understanding on underlying relationships and rich explanations (Eisenhardt, 1989). These are not likely to be detected in quantitative datasets. Using constructs from previous researches, this research fills the gap in literature on the influence of MTM and role duality on the behavior of middle management and the attitudes of recipients accordingly.
3.3 Research site. The research site to observe the position of middle management and how
14
3.4 Case selection. The aim of the research is to provide a broad insight on the relations
between the main concepts. For the case selection, a change initiative was required with dynamic changes, newly organized teams and role changes. Additionally, it was important for the case selection that the cases were selected within the same division, so that the cases were all subject to the same change initiative. Furthermore, both insights of middle management and employees are required.
For these reasons, the focus will be on the Business Line of Financial Services (BL_FINAN_SERV) in SubdivisionX. BL_FINAN_SERV was chosen because of its dynamic changes, including newly composed teams and role changes among both employees and management. SubdivisionX has an overarching core team, including the core team manager together with the six line managers of the six departments within SubdivisionX. The core team manager is responsible for initiating the change, thus in this case is the change agent. The six departments comprise a Customer Contact Center (CCC), a Data department (DATA), an IT department (IT), a Business partner department (BP), a department focused on Being a customer (EXIS_CUS) and a department focused on Becoming a customer (NEW_CUS). Within those departments, a line manager is positioned along with his or her team of recipients. Thus, the line managers in this case are referred to as middle management and will be subject for the research. In Appendix A and B, an overview is presented of the old and new organizational structure of SubdivisionX.
Six cases of the six different departments were desired, in which for every department, the middle manager together with a random employee would be selected. The departments within BL_FINAN_SERV differ in size, but this did not impact the case selection, because different sizes of teams can impact middle management behavior and recipients’ attitudes towards change. Furthermore, some departments only consist of employees who have had the same manager before the change, while other departments consist of employees who got a new manager and for which the team composition had changed. Again, this was not taken into account for the selection, since this could potentially clarify the effect of management behavior on recipients’ attitudes. BL_FINAN_SERV comprises both customer-oriented and supportive departments. This did not have impact on the selection, because the aim of the research is to provide a broad insight on the relations between the main concepts.
15
Within CCC, four employees will be interviewed, because CCC is the largest department and the employees in this department were also in the team of the CCC line manager before the initiated change in July. From EXIS_CUS and NEW_CUS, one employee per team is interviewed. EXIS_CUS was newly formed in July, whereas NEW_CUS mainly kept the same composition, with some minor changes.
The fourth case comprises the core team manager, assigned as change agent, together with the line managers of every department except for IT. In this way, the communication of the change to the line managers is revealed. Insights on how this is done by the core team manager might also enable explanation of behavior and sensemaking of middle management, which is interesting for the purposes of this research. The insights can be of interest for understanding of the organizational dynamics and for providing more information on role duality, behavior and MTM. In the table below, an overview is provided of the cases, together with the interviews and different codes. A visual representation of the cases can be found in Appendix C.
16
3.5 Data collection. Data has been collected by conducting 12 semi-structured interviews. This
qualitative instrument enabled to gain detailed insights on the topics through open-ended questions. In order to gain comprehensive understanding of middle management roles and behaviors, their MTM and role duality and their influence on change recipients’ attitudes towards the change, interviews were conducted based on deductive codes derived from the literature review.
To get a comprehensive idea of what the role of middle management comprises, it was important to conduct interviews on multiple levels within BL_FINAN_SERV. Consequently, interviews were conducted with the change agent, middle management and change recipients. For both management and employee interviews, an interview protocol is established, based on the main concepts of this study. These protocols can be found in Appendix D. For middle management, questions focused on their general roles, their roles within the change project, their sensemaking of the change and their behavior towards change recipients. For employees, focus was on their reactions towards change and how this is influenced by middle management. By means of explorative questions, it was examined whether and how role duality and MTM of middle management have influence on the behavior of middle managers and how this influences recipient attitudes towards change consequently.
3.6 Data analysis. The analysis of the collected data provides new insights on the phenomena
of middle management, MTM and attitudes to change. By using the method of analyzing, the relationships between the concepts are explored.
17
3.7 Reliability and validity. It is important to consider reliability and validity throughout
research. First, reliability of qualitative research is hard, but not impossible to enhance. Reliability will be enhanced by constructing the interviews in a structured manner and ensure that coding is done systematically. To ensure this, a deductive and inductive codebook have been used to code and analyze the interviews. Additionally, inter-rater reliability is established as an interview is also coded and interpreted by another researcher to provide a check and additional insights.
18
4. RESULTS
This section comprises the change project. Furthermore, analyses are conducted of the cases separately, called within-case analyses, and the section will conclude with a cross-case analysis based on the main concepts of this research.
4.1 THE CHANGE: 1FD
SubdivisionX is a subdivision of a Dutch insurance company which focuses on financial products and services ranging from insurances to mortgages. SubdivisionX focuses on private cases and comprises approximately 900 employees. Traditionally, SubdivisionX was set up in a hierarchical manner based on traditional functional teams like Marketing, Sales and Service and Business Development, meaning that activities for the Subdivision’s main products Financial Services, Damage and General services were scattered throughout the Subdivision. The customer journey becomes increasingly important and therefore it was decided at the end 2017, that the organization could be enhanced by structurally changing the composition of SubdivisionX towards a process-based horizontal design structure (Anand & Daft, 2017) by July 2018. In this new structure, Damage, Financial Services and General Services are the three main core business lines, under which all the activities concerning that specific business line are positioned. See Appendix A and B for the organizational structures.
Damage had always been the main focus of SubdivisionX, and the activities of all three services were highly scattered across SubdivisionX. The structural change to three core business lines has had the most impact on the BL_FINAN_SERV, due to the fact that teams had to be newly composed, new managers were assigned and a renewed focus emerged.
The focus of the research will be on BL_FINAN_SERV. The idea of change started in the last months of 2017, and top management of SubdivisionX assigned the change agent (MK6) to lead the change for BL_FINAN_SERV. MK6 set up the core team, which meant to include the existing and new line managers for the departments to be constructed in the new business line. The change was, from the beginning onwards, referred to as the change to 1FD, meaning the change to one Financial Service business line. Before July 2018, when the change would be officially initiated, the core team, with MK6 in the lead, composed new teams where necessary and prepared the launch of July 2018.
19
NEW_CUS however, were new departments, where the team of NEW_CUS remained almost the same as before the change and the current manager was also part of that team, and EXIS_CUS was entirely new in the sense of employees and manager. Thus, the change had different impacts on different teams and roles.
The change to 1FD is a continuous change in which all the Financial Service activities are arranged in one business line. The core team is still focusing on refining and optimizing current operations and ensuring that the aim of 1FD will succeed. Four months after the change initiation, the interviews were conducted. This means that when the interviews were performed, the new structure of BL_FINAN_SERV was still fairly new, which possibly influences opinions and feelings about the change.
4.2 WITHIN-CASE ANALYSIS
4.2.1 case 1: Customer Contact department (CCC)
Case one comprised five interviews; the line manager (MK1) and four employees (WN1, WN2, WN3 and WN6). CCC is the largest department of BL_FINAN_SERV and comprises approximately 80 fte. MK1 belongs to the core team, and within the CCC, he has four smaller teams that all have a functional leader which MK1 directly leads. WN1, WN2 and WN3 are three of the functional leaders within the CCC. WN6 is also an employee within CCC, part of the functional team of WN1. MK1 was line manager of CCC before the change. Therefore, the composition of this department has not drastically changed since the change was initiated. On the other hand, for some employees within CCC, tasks and roles did change.
4.2.1.1 Role duality of middle management in change. Throughout the interview with MK1,
it became clear that role duality is present, however that MK1 did not experience the complexities arising due to his dual role. In his interview, it was emphasized that MK6 played an evident role in the formation of the change initiative, however, MK1 also acknowledged that he was engaged in the change initiative at an early stage. Furthermore, he acknowledged that due to the size of CCC, his role within the core team and formation of the change initiative was important. As he stated: ‘I think that in January, there was a session for the first time that was really aimed at the change to 1FD. We could think along and MK6 was soon chosen to be in the lead.’
20
very important, and additionally equivalence among people and being part of the team.’, but also about how MK1 emphasizes transparency and openness in communication. This is also acknowledged by WN3: ‘MK1 is very open, and that’s great. He is very transparent and I think that is very important.’ In his interview, MK1 emphasizes much on the leadership, communication and relations with his employees.
4.2.1.2 Multiple Team Membership. MK1 experiences MTM: ‘I am part of different teams,
and this is a big advantage because all teams work on financial services.’ As stated, MK1 perceives this as an advantage; ‘because the teams align on their subjects, you can continuously check whether what we do in one team is in line with what we agreed about the direction we want to go with the CCC.’ WN2, his employee, also acknowledges the interface of all teams with the same products. Thus, for MK1, MTM is primarily advantageous.
MK1 does experience some disadvantages of MTM, like pressure on time; ‘Considering my agenda, I cannot always invest the time that I want.’ and coordination problems, but MK1 does emphasize that his primary task is to ensure that the CCC operates well and that he is in charge of what tasks to prioritize. Thus, there is acknowledgement of disadvantages of MTM but as experienced by MK1 himself, MTM for him is more beneficial due to the alignment between the teams and his ability to prioritize tasks.
Interestingly, his employees did make statements about disadvantages of MTM for MK1. This reveals that employees did observe disadvantages of MTM through the behavior of MK1. Employees noticed that MK1 sometimes has less attention for his employees, even though he emphasized that he did prioritize this; (WN2): ‘MK1 is very approachable; likes to talk to people. First, he had more time and space in his agenda to do so; now, he has less time to chitchat. In the past he created an experience and I think the employees notice that the situation is now changing due to increased workload.’ Thus, changes in behavior during the change due to MTM are experienced by his employees.
4.2.1.3 Middle manager sensemaking and behavior in change. Sensemaking. Sensemaking
21
people in this view very early, telling them what we are doing. I constantly tell them how amazing this change is, because we are no longer compared to Damage; instead, the focus is now on Financial Services.’ This shows how MK1 interpreted and made sense of the ideas of MK6 and 1FD and how he consequently transferred his ideas towards employees.
The sensemaking process was also influenced by interactions with employees. For some of his employees, tasks and responsibilities changed, whereas for others the impact was way less. For example, MK1 did acknowledge that for some the impact was less: ‘someone within CCC is still busy with phone conversations. That person knows that around him, a lot has changed, but that person is likely to less experience the change than for example us in the core team.’ This statement shows that MK1 made sense of the meaning of the change for his employees and thus influenced sensemaking of the change.
Behavior. In this case, MK1 mainly emphasized helping others through change. Explicit statements about the other three behaviors were less present, however it became apparent that the behaviors were interconnected in the sense that behavior aimed at helping others through change could simultaneously also help keeping the business going.
Helping others through change was emphasized by MK1: ‘we need to celebrate successes, to see what is realized, but also critically look at where we are, what are our dilemma’s, where is our organization heading and what does this mean for you?’ This can also be linked to keeping the business going. Furthermore, MK1 emphasized his aim of presence and high accessibility ‘I am in the middle of the department, I am easily approachable; I organize lunches, meetings in which I speak to the team, and I sometimes listen people talking on the work floor to know what is really going on.’ Thus, by physically being present MK1 hopes to be able to help others through change.
Undertaking personal change was not particularly present in the case, prominently because MK1 was line manager of CCC before the change to 1FD. Furthermore, keeping the business going was slightly highlighted by statements about helping each other and working together properly in order to ensure progress. For implementing necessary changes, MK1 only emphasized; ‘We are really going to do things differently, so not only talk about doing things differently, but really start working on it. People now see things changing, so they start believing in it.’ This quote is also related to the middle management sensemaking and helping others through change.
22
always find it a bit vague. I think there are incredibly many teams; and then I think; what are we actually doing?’ Thus, this shows that the sensemaking of the recipients in the team of MK1 is different from the sensemaking of MK1. Thus, the behavior – or sensegiving – of MK1 did result in attitudes of employees towards the change, since communication was insufficient.
4.2.1.4 Recipients’ attitudes towards change. The recipients’ attitudes towards change in this
case were predominantly positive or impartial. Besides management behavior, there were other important antecedents for the attitudes of recipients.
The behavior of middle management influenced recipient attitudes, which is revealed through the comparison employees made between previous and current management; (WN6): ‘we had managers in the past and I think MK1 is very active, engaged and close to people.’ Additionally, WN3 emphasizes: ‘MK1 is very open. I have other experiences, so I appreciate it a lot.’ This shows that the management behavior is important. The enthusiastic behavior of MK1 about 1FD and the emphasis on the separation from Damage was also conveyed to the employee and influenced the employees’ sensemaking: (WN6): ‘1FD means that we are separate from Damage, that we are now an independent business line. That is what 1FD means to me and I like it.’ This shows that behavior had considerable influence on sensemaking of the recipient and consequently the attitude.
Furthermore, both MK1 and the employees acknowledge that resistance is in every change. As WN3 stated: ‘I had someone in my team who was resistant and who eventually quit. This had to do with the entire transition, the multi-skilled tasks that were required. She chose to leave.’ Thus, resistance was present. The resistance mainly had to do with employees that were required to become multi-skilled. Thus, the impact of the change on the employees’ job was an antecedent that became apparent. Furthermore, resistance appeared due to previous negative experiences with change: (WN1): ‘they were quite scared because the year before there had been some reorganization, which were quite sudden, in which teams saw many people becoming redundant. So there was an anxiety that the employees would lose their job.’ For the employees that did not perceive high impact on their jobs, the attitudes were more positive or neutral, like WN6 her attitude.
23
really would have liked to know what they are exactly doing, I need to just ask.’ Thus, personality characteristics influence attitudes. This is strengthened by WN1: ‘Do they really have difficulties with how things are going? Or are they people who always emphasize the negative sides, regardless of which choice we make?’ and (WN2): ‘I don’t think they know what is going on, but they don’t ask me questions either. They are mainly busy with their own desk.’
4.2.1.5 Summary of patterns
§ Role duality is present, but complexity not experienced.
§ MK1 was engaged in early stages and supported by MK6 properly.
§ Sensemaking mainly through change agent interactions and early engagement. § MTM is present, but is experienced as helpful to create alignment between activities. § The disadvantages of MTM were more noticed by employees in the behavior of MK1. § Undertaking personal change was not explicitly present
§ Attitudes were predominantly positive and impartial among recipients
§ Behavior of management is important: enthusiasm and openness encourages positive recipients’ attitudes.
§ Other influencing antecedents on attitudes: Impact of the change, Previous experience with change, Previous experience with management, Personality characteristics
4.2.2 case 2: Becoming a Customer department (NEW_CUS)
This case comprised two interviews; the line manager of NEW_CUS and one employee. The middle manager (MK3), which is assigned as a product owner, manages a team of 12 fte, the employee (WN5) being one out of these. MK3 is part of the core team of BL_FINAN_SERV because she manages NEW_CUS. Before the change initiative, the middle manager was not officially positioned a management role, however she has been working closely with approximately 80% of her current team before the change.
4.2.2.1 Role duality of middle management in change. Role duality is present but the change
24
On the other hand, also the change recipient role is mentioned by quotes like (MK3): ‘MK6 ensured to keep us informed about the entire 1FD story.’ The two components of agent and recipient present the role duality that exists, however the duality is not perceived as complex or difficult in this case.
4.2.2.2 Multiple Team Membership. MK3 experiences MTM, both advantages and
disadvantages. MK3 is part of multiple teams, which is also acknowledged by her employee; (WN5): ‘MK3 is very busy, especially taking on her role with stakeholder management and extinguishing little fires in order for the team to be able to function properly. She is also an online marketeer.’
The statements of MK3 showed aspects of increased efficiency, connectivity within the firm and enhanced knowledge. MK3 emphasized that efficiency is increased due to the fact that all the projects, communities and teams are online based, which is her specialism. Combining those tasks increases instead of impeding efficiency: ‘being product owner of NEW_CUS is my main task, and I have an online background which makes it easier for me to translate everything. This ensures speed and efficiency, but also understanding what stakeholders want.’
Quotes about multiple stakeholders, pressure on time, work overload, coordination problem and less attention and involvement could be derived. Examples are; (MK3): ‘the employees state that I am only missed physically sometimes.’ and ‘it is always a consideration which tasks to prioritize’. Additional to the acknowledgement of MK3 about some of the abovementioned disadvantages, WN5 also highlights struggles she notices MK3 has due to the MTM: ‘definitely with the double roles she is constantly trying to make choices what to do first and how much effort do I put in a specific task.’, which highlights coordination problems and might also highlight work overload. The fact that this is acknowledged by the employee shows that the disadvantages of MTM come forward in the behavior of MK3.
4.2.2.3 Middle management sensemaking and behavior in change. Sensemaking. For middle
25
you did notice that telling the story is completely different than experiencing and surviving the change.’ and ‘the motivation of MK6 to ensure that everyone is on board; if something is said, then she will really work on it. She is very good in keeping everyone together.’ Simultaneously, the quotes emphasize that hearing about the change had different impact on her sensemaking than eventually experiencing and surviving the change, thus, the recipient role became visible during post-implementation. On the contrary, MK3 did provide statements about her enthusiasm of the change: ‘and this is what is awesome about the core team: things that don’t go well are explicitly named and we are really going to change it.’ Through the interactions with her colleagues and change agent, she thus positively made sense of the activities they are performing for the change.
Behavior. For middle management behavior in change, MK3 did specify on additional responsibilities and changing roles due to the change. About responsibilities: (MK3): ‘You need to inform and get information from your stakeholders, which is a new responsibility. Additionally, I am now the owner of the back log, where first the team decided together what we were going to do and now, I as product owner decide the tasks.’ Thus, MK3 experienced undertaking personal change due to the fact that she did not have this role before the change.
Additionally, the statements of MK3 also provide insights on the need to implement necessary changes and helping others through change, two examples are (MK3): ‘I am going to provide handles for the team for example by filling out profiles to see what everyone thinks, why everyone reacts the way we do. We are going to look back and discuss how we think it is going.’ and (MK3): ‘you notice that within a change team, feelings and emotions are present. How can we ensure that people better respond on each other?’ As becomes evident, activities can be assigned simultaneously to helping others through change, implementing necessary changes and keeping the business going.
4.2.2.4 Recipients’ attitudes towards change. The case reveals that recipient attitudes towards
change vary. Acknowledged is that management behavior is important for shaping recipients’ attitudes towards change, however throughout the case more antecedents which influence the attitudes were explicitly provided. Among these are previous management experience, changing attitudes over time, the impact of change on the job and personality characteristics.
26
of MK3; for me it is not so important. But for others it is.’ The behavior in terms of physical presence and communication towards the employees is of importance for recipients’ attitudes. For communication, WN5 states that ‘what we run into now is that some people in the team feel like they are way less involved.’ and ‘if they expect everyone to know where we are in the change, then the core team should also tell us more about where we are now.’ The lack of involvement and information shaped attitudes of employees towards the change.
Additionally, for the behavior of management, this case also revealed comparing quotes about previous and current management: (MK3): ‘Employees say; the manager that was previously here, combined the roles of product owner and business developer. Those two roles conflicted and that caused imbalance within the team. What employees missed? They missed a real product owner. And that is what I fulfill now.’ This shows that compared to previous practices, attitudes towards the change were more positive due to the improvement of behavior of the current line manager.
MK3 stated about readiness: ‘in the beginning, I think the change was very big for them, but they understand me now and they see what effects the change have and I think they experience it very positive.’ Important to note is that MK3 states that readiness emerged over time, when insecurity about the change was not present anymore. For resistance, MK3 stated: ‘the other half, sometimes experience conflicts within the team. They think it’s difficult, the change and the change of roles.’ WN5 emphasized she experienced no resistance, due to the fact that her roles and responsibilities positively changed during the change. Thus, the change did not have negative impacts on her job. The impact of the change thus was a visible antecedent on the attitude towards the change.
Personality characteristics were also visible. WN5: ‘I am not scared to ask questions. I can complain about things I don’t understand, but I’d rather ask directly.’ This reveals that the employees’ personality characteristics also play a role in the attitude towards the change. As WN5 states: ‘I think some people need more information because they are scared to miss out, and others just simply think it is interesting to stay informed.’
4.2.2.5 Summary of patterns
§ Role duality was present, but complexity not experienced.
27
§ Living the change is different than hearing it; manager experienced difficulties due to proximity to operational processes.
§ Undertaking personal change present due to new roles and responsibilities. § Attitudes in this case were estimated 50% positive, 50% negative.
§ Management behavior on recipients’ attitudes, mainly physical presence and communication aspects.
§ Other antecedents influencing the attitudes of recipients: previous management experience, impact of the change, personality characteristics
4.2.3 case 3: being a customer department (EXIS_CUS)
This case comprised two interviews; the middle manager of the EXIS_CUS and one employee. The middle manager (MK2), assigned as a product owner, manages a team of 13 fte, of which WN4 is one. MK2 is part of the core team of BL_FINAN_SERV. Before the change initiative, MK2 was not officially positioned a management role. The team consists of some external employees and the composition of the team has been changing constantly since its set up in July
4.2.3. 1 Role duality of middle management in change. For this case, role duality of middle
management is emphasized by statements about the change agent role and the change recipient role. However, this case does not portray explicit complexities arising from this duality. For the agent role, MK2 emphasized leadership practices: ‘I am functionally leading the team. I do define what my team will be doing.’ The recipient role was also emphasized by MK2: ‘I was constantly updated by MK6 and I have had a lot of conversations with her.’ MK2 was well supported by MK6 throughout the change.
28
4.2.3. 2 Multiple team membership. MTM was present in this case and interestingly, no
advantages of MTM were mentioned. For some disadvantages, WN4 also mentioned examples; ‘I think that MK2 has a lot of other parties which execute pressure on things MK2 should prioritize.’ MK2 himself also emphasized this, explaining discrepancy between prioritization of himself and the stakeholders: ‘especially because there is pressure on time, and the stakeholders often already made a decision from which we think; ‘this is not possible’. This is difficult to cope with.’ Work overload and coordination problems were also emphasized by MK2, stating that he sometimes needs to cancel appointments and has to cover up ‘holes’ in his team. Information overload was also acknowledged by MK2: ‘e-mailing is dramatic; your mail box is full in no time. I get so many e-mails; I don’t even have time to read them. The CC disappears in a box which I don’t even look at.’
Both WN4 and MK2 acknowledged less attention, involvement and participation. WN4 mentioned: ‘I have no clue with which things MK2 is busy. If I check his agenda to make an appointment I simply see that it is packed, that it is extremely difficult to find a free spot and that he is barely present and continuously walks away.’ MK2 himself also emphasizes: ‘the attention for my team should have been more. Yesterday I was present but I was only at my desk for two minutes and then I had to jump from one thing into another.’ The fact that the employee also made statements about the behavior of management due to MTM shows that MTM did have visible influence on the behavior of the manager.
4.2.3.3 Middle management sensemaking and behavior in change. Sensemaking.
Sensemaking of MK2 was interesting because as MK2 stated: ‘I see it more as a reorganization in which the marketing and sales are blended with customer contact in different business teams.’ Through his statements, it becomes visible that MK2 did not perceive the change to 1FD as impacting nor important: ‘I personally don’t think the change to 1FD is so exciting, I don’t think it is very interesting. It is more important to look at what will be our main focus next year.’ Strengthened by interactions with the recipient, MK2 makes the assumption that: ‘I doubt if my team really needs the knowledge on 1FD, I personally think they don’t.' This implies that his sensemaking is more based on assumptions made than on the real interaction with the recipients.
29
interpretation of events, MK2 acknowledged that: ‘the difficult things are that projects are initiated by the product factory, which is weird because now they decide how we want to serve our customers.’ Statements like these show that MK2 has difficulties making proper sense of the change.
Behavior. Behavior is affected by sensemaking. As presented, the change is not yet communicated properly to the team, mainly due to the assumptions of MK2 that the change is not important for the team, and because the team composition is still changing.
The behavior of MK2 shows aspects of undertaking personal change; ‘For me it is a large process and for me an interesting learning aspect is to let some things go. I need to trust that my team does the right things.’ Before the change, MK2 did not pursue the role of product owner, thus undertaking personal change was required. Additionally, MK2 showed aspects of implementing necessary changes: ‘I noticed that people didn’t ask questions but instead directly started working. I implemented kick-off meetings for every story in which important stakeholders are explained to the entire team.’
Helping others through change was less evident in this case, which was also confirmed by WN4: ‘I hear from colleagues that they find it difficult to find the person that is responsible. I hear that often.’ The case reveals that more focus was on undertaking personal change, implementing necessary changes and keeping the business going: ‘we have quite some people which are external, so people within the team are shifting. I want to put those people on a specific subject so that they fully understand that specific job.’ Implementing necessary changes and keeping the business going require much attention due to the changes in team composition. Helping others through change seems less important due to his sensemaking of the change. This is also emphasized by WN4 as she does not know what MK2 is busy with; ‘I don’t know what is normal for him. What you just said about him being in the core team, apparently he needs to be there because of his skills and knowledge.’ This shows that employees are not aware of his change-related responsibilities.
4.2.3.4 Recipients’ attitudes towards change. Both readiness and resistance were present,
30
not see the change as important. Attitudes in this case were also influenced by personality characteristics, perceived impact of the change on the job and history factors.
MK2 emphasizes neutrality among external workers: ‘I think that most think; as long as I can do my job, it’s fine.’ WN4 agreed: ‘I don’t see the use of that information, I just want to finish my job.’ The neutrality can be derived from several aspects: first, it might due to the behavior of MK2 towards the change. MK2 did not perceive the change as important or interesting, did not communicate the change properly, and focused more on implementing necessary changes to keep the business going. Thus, recipients have not created explicit attitudes. A second aspect was that the impact of the change was small. (WN4): ‘I am still building content; I am still doing activities for the website; I still build funnels.’
Furthermore, personality characteristics were important: (WN4): ‘We get so much information that you don’t necessarily have to know. I only want to know the things that have to do with my work.’ This emphasizes that personality characteristics also influenced attitudes.
Striking was that the history of the team was also emphasized by both MK2 and WN4: (MK2): ‘The team really knows a history. First there was a product owner who negatively influenced the team, making them wonder; ‘what is wrong with our team?’ WN4 reinforces this idea: ‘my team fell apart, in a period with a lot of employers shortly one after another; every time someone else was leading. At one point the team agreed; this doesn’t work and poof, the entire team was gone.’ Even though this became apparent, it did not have explicit influence on the recipient attitudes towards change, because she did not seem to care for the change.
4.2.3.5 Summary of patterns
§ Complexity of role duality was not explicitly acknowledged
§ Only disadvantages of MTM are emphasized and noticed by employees through behavior of MK2 § Sensemaking influenced behavior of MK2.
§ Attitudes were neutral due to: team composition, management behavior, personality characteristics and impact of the change on jobs
4.2.4 case 4: core team (CORE)
31
4.2.3. 1 Change agent role. MK6 emphasizes on openness and transparency of communication
towards both management and employees. Additionally, managers reveal how MK6 really trusts them and provided them with opportunities when the change was initiated. MK6 chose to engage the managers in an early stage, creating the overarching core team. The engagement, coordination and support that she provided might be a reason why the managers in general did not experience the complexity of role duality in change, but predominantly experienced the change agent role. MK6 emphasizes on the team cohesion: ‘we do it together. I can only achieve that if I have the right people around me.’ and additionally the openness of communicating the change: ‘I am sometimes more open than other people, but I do believe in this approach of being open and transparent.’ These are important aspects of her change agent role and the role she takes is highly appreciated by management.
Furthermore, emphasis in this case was on the trust MK6 has on her management team: (MK5): ‘MK6 is someone that really directs people on self-motivation and trust. She trusts people, and that is important.’ MK6 also acknowledged her aim of trusting: ‘I want to provide the teams with high responsibility and freedom, and if they get stuck, then I can always help and plan a meeting.’ Thus the trust she creates positively influences the sensemaking and attitude of the managers and employees.
Last, opportunities that MK6 provided during the change are emphasized: (MK2): ‘MK6 asked me: ‘what is it you get energy from? What do you like to do?’ Then I explained to her, and she asked me if I would like to become a product owner.’ MK2 emphasized that he gets energy from MK6 as core manager, and therefore enthusiasm was created for the change. MK6 also stated about this situation: ‘MK2 was able to make a proper development. I do feel MK2 still needs some more coaching to loosen up from details, and the entire team needs to get more strength. But MK2 is simply a very hard worker.’
4.2.3. 2 Multiple team membership. The only disadvantage of MTM mentioned by MK6 was
addressing the multiple stakeholders. She is present in both horizontal and vertical teams, all requiring different information and having different needs: ‘Now I have three chains to deal with, four managing boards to deal with, outsourcing partners to deal with, and I also have to be present in the departments.’
