Restructuring Organizations: Exploring the Role of the Manager by Relating the Emergent Change Process of Postbureaucratization to Darwin’s Evolutionary Process

(1)

1

Restructuring Organizations: Exploring the Role of the

Manager by Relating the Emergent Change Process of

Postbureaucratization to Darwin’s Evolutionary Process

Master Thesis, MSc Business Administration: Change Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

(2)

2

Abstract

This study explores the role of the manager in the emergent change process, by relating the emergent change process to Darwin’s evolutionary process. In order to collect data suitable for exploring the role of the manager in this kind of change process, a case study approach was used in this research. The role of the manager in the emergent change process of postbureaucratization (the transformation process of the shaping of a new organizational configuration towards a postbureaucratic organizational structure) was researched at a multinational electric utility company by conducting sixteen interviews. In these interviews, information was collected about incidents where the manager was influencing factors that stimulated the variation process (the generation of ideas related to postbureaucratization) and/or the selection/retention process (the institutionalization of showed behaviors related to postbureaucratization). This study provides a systematic overview of the factors a manager can influence to enhance the emergent change process in postbureaucratization, by distinguishing between factors having impact on the variation process in postbureaucratization and factors having impact on the selection/retention process in postbureaucratization. The most notable factors, derived from the empirical data, which influence the variation process in postbureaucratization are content expertise of the manager and a facilitator role of the manager, where the combination of these two factors is scarcely discussed in the literature. The most notable factors, derived from the empirical data, which influence the selection/retention process in postbureaucratization are clarity towards subordinates and group identification among subordinates.

(3)

3

1. Introduction

Restructuration is a frequently occurring phenomenon, initiated on a regular basis by many organizations (Balogun, 2007). Organizations intend to create more organizational flexibility, in order to respond better to environmental turbulence (Balogun and Johnson, 2004). This organizational flexibility is necessary, as theorists and practitioners claim that organizational change is of a greater magnitude, more frequent and more unpredictable than ever in the past (e.g. Carnall, 2003; Burnes, 2009). Several scholars argue that traditional bureaucratic organizations are less and less able to respond to the uncertain and highly volatile market (Kellogg et al., 2006; Child and McGrath, 2001). Accordingly, a shift is proposed from bureaucratic organizations, which are being structured in accordance with hierarchical principles and high degrees of formalization and regulation, towards postbureaucratic organizations (Burnes, 2009). A postbureaucratic configuration provides more flexibility, due to the fact that it is less hierarchical, less formalized and devolves responsibility to people in lower layers in the organization. In this paper, the transformation process of the shaping of a new organizational postbureaucratic configuration is called postbureaucratization. As postbureaucratization becomes more important, it becomes pressing to increase the knowledge of both the theoretical as the practical field of the postbureaucratization of organizations.

It is important to acknowledge that successful change is hard to realize, with the result that the success rate of change initiatives is low. A global business study of McKinsey illustrates this low success rate, by noting that only one-third of the change initiatives were perceived as successful by their initiators and leaders (Meaney and Pung, 2008). Sturdy and Grey (2003) conclude the same by proving that 66 percent of the change programs do not deliver the expected or demanded results. Therefore, the importance of organizational change seems to be matched with the toughness in successfully achieving it. In order to better realize successful change towards a postbureaucratic structure, more thorough knowledge about the change process is needed. Hence, it is viable to investigate the change process of an organizational restructuration towards a postbureaucratic organizational configuration.

In the implementation process of restructuration, blueprints are often designed by the top management (Balogun, 2007). For these new structures to work, solely carrying out the blueprint is insufficient, because the structural changes do not only have impact on the organizational chart, but also implicate changes in the way of working for the design principles behind the new structure to become reality (Balogun, 2007). Largely relying on blueprinting can be a reason that most of these change initiatives fail.

(5)

5

be sufficient on its own and a tendency is shown towards the emergent change approach, the latter is being focused on in this paper.

The emergent change process can be represented as an evolutionary process. The emergent change approach portrays organizations in a manner that much attention is paid to processes of organizing in the determination of change (Beer and Nohria, 2000). In these processes of organizing, coordination is important (Beer and Nohria, 2000). Due to diverse internal and external stimuli, coordination becomes a “dynamic process that tends to unravel and therefore has to be re-accomplished continuously” (Beer and Nohria, 2000: 229). By the continuous re-accomplishment, the coordination changes incrementally to better fit the changing environment. Marshak (1993) explains this dynamic process of unraveling and re-accomplishment by stating that organizations evolve in an orderly sequence. Normally, organizations try different strategies, identify which strategies are beneficial, and remember and repeat the strategies that work, “all of which produces an orderly evolutionary cycle of variation/selection/retention” (Beer and Nohria, 2000: 231). The emergent change process can, by combining and linking the findings of Beer and Nohria (2000) and Marshak (1993), be represented as an evolutionary process. This might also be the case in emergent change processes in restructuring organizations, where due to diverse stimuli the coordination process is disrupted, where after it is re-accomplished by an orderly evolutionary cycle of variation/selection/retention.

Pursuing the strong emphasis on the role of the manager in the change management literature (Pears and Sims, 2002; Higgs & Rowland, 2010; Van der Vloet et al., 2014), this study is focused on the role of the manager during a postbureaucratization. The role of the manager is argued to be essential in initiating and driving change, having a significant impact on the success of the implementation of change (Higgs & Rowland, 2010, Van der Vloet et al., 2014). This study, therefore, focuses on the factors a manager can influence, through which the manager tries to steer the postbureaucratization. Although the role of the manager in a change process is well accounted for in change management literature, the role of the manager in emergent change attempts is overlooked. Taking into account that the different change approaches build on different assumptions and principles, it can be reasoned that a shift from the planned change approach towards the emergent change approach has major implications on the role of the manager.

(6)

6

selection, retention, the focus should be on what a manager can do to enhance or facilitate this evolutionary process in postbureaucratization.

To reiterate, the goal of this study is to provide insights regarding how a manager can enhance and/or facilitate the emergent change process in postbureaucratization. More explanatory research about emergent change is needed because the research in the emergent change literature is immature and vague (Bamford and Forrester, 2003; By, 2005). By presenting the emergent change approach as an evolutionary process of variation, selection and retention, this study is able to deliver a more systematic view on the emergent change process and how a manager can enhance this process in postbureaucratization. Several supporters of emergent change have suggested sequences of actions that organizations should follow in a change process, however these suggestions tend to be rather abstract and difficult to apply (Burnes, 2009). That the emergent school of thought is still vague is confirmed by Bamford and Forrest (2003), who state that “its supporters (supporters of the emergent change approach), however, appear to be more united in their stance against planned change than their agreement on specific alternative” (p.547).

In the following part of the introduction, the concepts postbureaucratization, emergent change and the role of the manager are elaborated upon. First, the concept of postbureaucratization is discussed.

1.1 Postbureaucratization

Many organizations are implementing reforms shifting away from traditional hierarchical forms of organizing. Many organizations decide to implement an organizational restructuration in order to meet new demands for speed, flexibility, and uncertainty (Kellogg et al., 2006).

Traditional hierarchical organizations are characterized by permanent hierarchy, centralized decision-making authority, specialization, and standardized and formalized work processes (Burnes, 2009; Child and McGrath, 2001; Kellogg et al., 2006; Robbins and Judge, 2013). Max Weber was the first to consider this particular organizational configuration. Weber argued for a bureaucracy (this is how he called that organizational configuration) as the most appropriate and efficient system, under which rules, laws, procedures, and predefined routines are dominant (Burnes, 2009). Added to the work on bureaucracy is the work by Robbins and Judge (2013), who state that the main advantage of the bureaucracy is “its ability to perform standardized activities in a highly efficient way” (p.487). Another advantage of this structure is that there is little need for innovative and experienced middle- and lower-level managers, because rules substitute for managerial discretion, which in turn saves costs (Robbins and Judge, 2013).

(7)

7

“new” situations, the appropriateness of the highly bureaucratic organizational structure can be questioned. In these new situations, middle- and lower-level managers have to be able and capable of dealing with these unexpected situations.

In response to the problems with the bureaucratic structure, several scholars propose to change the configuration of organizations (Child and McGrath, 2001; Chocqueel-Mangan, 2010; Kellogg et al., 2006). Burnes (2009) elaborates on this change of configuration by proposing a shift towards a postbureaucratic structure, which he deems to be necessary for an organization to cope better with its environment. Raelin (2011) describes a postbureaucratization as follows: a transition of the organizational structure “from objective rules, hierarchical authority, and influence based on formal position to broad public standards of performance, flexible peer decision-making processes, and influence based on personal qualities” (p.141). In this paper, a postbureaucratic structure is defined as a flat, decentralized, organizational structure, with low formalization, empowerment and devolved responsibility to people in lower layers of the organization. Burnes (2009) and Chocqueel-Mangan (2010) argue for a shift in the configuration of organizations that has several similarities with the shift described by Raelin (2011). Burnes (2009) and Chocqueel-Mangan (2010) propose an organizational structure in which the people are able to have freedom to think innovatively; are allowed to experiment and operate in new patterns, which can be achieved by a flexible, decentralized structure. Due to the fact that the postbureaucratic organizational structure offers more flexibility, discretion, and decision-making authority for subordinates, organizations will be better able to respond to events in the turbulent environment of the organization. This, in turn, will increase the chances for organizations to survive (Biedenbach and Söderholm, 2008; By, 2005; Maimone and Sinclair, 2014) and therefore makes the postbureaucratic organizational configuration recommendable for organizations.

1.2 Emergent Change

From the 1950s until the early 1980s, the planned approach was the leading change approach in organizational change (Burnes, 2009). The followers of the planned change approach view organizational change as “a process that moves from one fixed state to another through a series of pre-planned steps” (Bamford and Forrester, 2003: p.547). Models of the planned change approach are often characterized as n-step models consisting of stages an organization must go through in order to achieve a successful change implementation (By, 2005). These models are helpful tools for managers that are implementing change.

(8)

8

Forrester, 2003). Another criticism on the planned change approach is that change should not be treated as a series of linear events, because change is a dynamic and complex process (Burnes, 2004).

In the wake of the criticism on the planned change approach, an additional change approach was defined: the emergent change approach. The emergent approach does not see change as a phenomenon that can be pre-planned with a finite end point (Burnes, 2009). Weick (2000) states that “emergent change consists of ongoing accommodations, adaptions, and alterations that produce fundamental change without a priori intentions to do so” (p.237). This view on the emergent change approach is supplemented by Burnes (2009), who states that “for proponents of the emergent change approach, change is a continuous, dynamic and contested process that emerges in an unpredictable and unplanned fashion” (p.366). The emergent change approach emphasizes the unpredictable nature of change: it develops by the interaction of multiple variables within an organization (By, 2005). This means that at all times and everywhere in the organization, unexpected events will happen, that have to be dealt with. As a consequence, the emergent change approach proposes that the responsibility for identifying change may have to be, partially, devolved to lower organizational levels (Bamford and Forrester, 2003; Burnes, 2009). . Because all individuals are now responsible for identifying and dealing with change at different organizational levels, this approach is better suitable with the complexity and uncertainty of the environment of organizations (Bamford and Forrester, 2003).

(9)

9

a selected variation related to postbureaucratization; establishing it as an ongoing characteristic of the behavior of an actor, group, or organization, and maintaining it over time.” By representing the emergent change process as an evolutionary process, a systematic overview of the emergent aspects of a change can be provided.

In this paper, a distinction is made between variation and selection/retention in order to reveal factors that can be influenced by the manager. Specifically factors that on the one hand, enhance the creation of new ideas/behaviors related to postbureaucratization and, on the other hand, enhance the institutionalization of showed behaviors related to postbureaucratization. Institutionalization is defined as embedding a manner of acting by subordinates that is being repeated.

1.3 Role of the Manager

As stated above, the tendency towards the emergent change approach and the assumption that this will require a new management style of the manager calls for more investigation on how the role of the manager may have to change in order to successfully facilitate the change process of a postbureaucratization. In the literature, a lot has been written about different roles of the manager (Battilana et al., 2010; Burnes, 2009). Also, some attempts have been made regarding the changing role of the manager towards a role that is appropriate in emergent change (Bamford and Forrester, 2004; By, 2005; Weick, 2000). In this section, first previous research on the changing role of the manager towards a role appropriate in emergent change is described. Then, the different factors, derived from previous research, are investigated further and are categorized by factors a manager can impact that may influence the variation process and factors that may influence the selection/retention process. In this way, the role of the manager on the orderly evolutionary cycle can be investigated systematically. In order to enhance the emergent change process in postbureaucratization, a manager has to enable or stimulate the variation and selection/retention processes.

1.3.1 Previous research on the changing role of the manager.

By (2005) states that the manager, in case of emergent change, is intensively concerned with the task of enhancing readiness to change. Armenakis et al. (1993) consider readiness to change to be “reflected in organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully implement those changes” (p.681). Enhancing readiness involves attempts by the manager to influence the beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of individuals without neglecting the fact that readiness for organizational change involves a social phenomenon as well (Armenakis, 1993). It is a social phenomenon due to the fact that the readiness of an individual may also be influenced by readiness of others. The readiness to change appeared to be higher in those organizations where there was a high degree of openness compared to organizations with lower degrees of openness (Burnes, 2009). This emphasizes the importance of one factor that may influence the emergent change process that will be referred to as open organizational culture. This factor will be broadly discussed in the next subsection.

(10)

10

empowered to deal with everyday problems and opportunities at their workplace. According to Van Nistelrooij et al. (2007), the role of the manager is to “empower people while giving sufficient free rein” (p.246). The statement of Van Nistelrooij et al. (2007) may be related to empowerment, which is the “delegation of power and responsibility to subordinates” (Burnes, 2009: 596). This highlights the importance of another factor that may have an impact on the emergent change process. This factor will be referred to as subordinate autonomy. In the next subsection, this factor is elaborated upon.

In the organizational climate that a manager has to establish proposed by Bamford and Forrester (2004) presented in the previous paragraph, the management values subordinates for their contributions and encourages people to come with change initiatives (Bamford and Forrester, 2004). This stresses the importance of a factor that may influence the emergent change process. This factor will be referred to as subordinate appreciation and will be discussed in the next subsection.

Bamford and Forrester (2004) add in their description of that organizational climate that in this organizational climate, that has to be established by the manager, a workforce is present that is involved in, and is willing and feels responsible for, identifying, initiating and implementing change (Bamford and Forrester, 2004). Bamford and Forrester (2004) stress by this statement the importance of another factor that may influence the emergent change process: a factor that will be referred to as subordinate involvement. Also this factor will be explained and elaborated upon in the following subsection.

As Weick (2000) comments on studies of emergent change, Weick (2000) states that important in emergent change is the steady learning from both failure and success. According to Burnes (2009), advocates of emergent change are united by the emphasis they place on learning. According to these advocates (e.g. Senge, 2000), learning is a key factor in preparing people for, and enabling and allowing them to deal with, change. Learning contains the capacity of members of the organization to identify and solve mistakes and to gain new insights, which improves their capacity to make choices that better produce the outcomes they desire (Martin, 2000). The role of the manager is to support this learning. From this, another factor that may influence the emergent change process can be identified. This factor will be referred to as

organizational learning and will be elaborated upon in the next subsection.

In research concerning effective leadership, studies were performed to observe leadership as a process, focusing on the interaction between leaders and followers (i.e. subordinates), and how leaders interact and influence individuals and groups to pursue the accomplishment of goals (Battilana et al., 2010; Burnes, 2009). According to this focus on the interaction between leaders and followers, behavior of the leader that can be distinguished are person-oriented behavior and task-oriented behavior (Battilana et al., 2010). In complex situations where an emergent change approach may be more appropriate, a softer change approach is argued to be more suitable (Senior and Swailes, 2010). This softer change approach can be related to a oriented leader’s subordinate-orientation. Resulting from this person-oriented leadership behavior, the emergent change process may be positively influenced, as subordinates perceive more trust, more consideration of their feelings, and subordinates are stimulated to interact with each other (Burnes, 2009). From this, a factor that may influence the emergent change process can be drawn, that will be referred to as person-oriented leader’s

(11)

11

As presented above, several researchers investigated the changing role of the manager and proposed new roles a manager has to take. From the previous paragraphs, six factors were derived from previous research on the changing role of the manager towards a role appropriate in emergent change. A further investigation of these factors (this investigation is described in the section below) revealed that three of the factors are expected to influence the variation process and the other three are expected to influence the selection/retention process. In the next subsections, three factors that may influence the variation process and three factors that may influence the selection/retention process are described including the role of the manager in enhancing these factors.

1.3.2 Role of the manager in enhancing the variation process.

Subordinate autonomy is referred to as the actual capacity of the subordinate to make decisions

concerning the postbureaucratization without the consent of the manager (adapted from Verhoest, 2004). According to Scott and Bruce (1994), greater autonomy and decision freedom are shown to be essential to innovative behavior. This view is supported by a study of Zhang and Bartol (2010), of which the results show that empowering leadership (resulting in giving subordinates more autonomy) influenced the psychological empowerment (“a psychological state that is manifested in four cognitions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact” p.108), which in turn influenced creative process engagement (the involvement of the subordinate in creativity-relevant processes). In this relationship it is important that the leader encourages creativity, meaning that the leader emphasizes subordinates to be creative and that the leader actively facilitates the process that may lead to creative outcomes (Zhang and Bartol, 2010). The leader is important in encouraging self-development, teamwork, and opportunity thinking (Pearce and Sims, 2002). The preceding shows that more autonomy may positively influence the process of idea generation, i.e. the process of variation. Whether autonomy enhances the variation process in postbureaucratization has never been investigated, so this is a knowledge gap that has to be filled.

Open organizational culture is defined as an organizational culture that can be

characterized by an emphasis on transparency about the postbureaucratization and where honesty is encouraged and mistakes are admitted. An open organizational culture can serve to “clarify one’s beliefs and opinions, to elicit feedback, to deepen interpersonal relationships, and to control behaviors of others through encouraging and supporting suggestions, thus change initiatives from bottom up” (Wu, Lin, and Chen, 2013:705). According to Scott and Bruce (1994), subordinates will engage in innovation more frequently. So, an open organizational culture may help to increase the interaction and generate more ideas. The generation of ideas can be related to the evolutionary process of variation. It could be argued from the preceding that open organizational culture may lead to more possibilities for and increasing willingness to produce new ideas, which both may enhance the process of variation. Whether an open organizational culture enhances the variation process in the case of a postbureaucratization has never been investigated, so this is a knowledge gap calling for an examination.

Person-oriented leader’s subordinate-orientation is referred to as the quality of the

(12)

12

behavior focuses on relationships with and between subordinates in postbureaucratization. The person-oriented behavior is related to the personalized interaction of leaders with the subordinates (Stocker et al., 2014). This classification can be compared with the classification of leadership behaviors of Fleishman (1969). Person-oriented behavior is, in the classification of Fleishman (1969), called consideration, which is described as “the quality of the interpersonal relationship between the leader and his or her subordinates, and in particular the degree to which a leader shows trust in subordinates, respect for their ideas and consideration of feelings” (Burnes, 2009: 493). Due to the fact that subordinates want to perceive trust and are willing to come with more ideas when their ideas are respected, the variation process may be enhanced in a situation when a manager shows oriented behavior. Whether a person-oriented leader’s subordinate orientation does or does not enhance the variation process in postbureaucratization has yet to be investigated, which can be called a knowledge gap waiting to be filled.

1.3.3 Role of the manager in enhancing the selection/retention process.

Subordinate appreciation is seeking out, validating, and growing the value of a subordinate in

postbureaucratization (adapted from Nelson, 2006). In the study of Stocker et al. (2014) it is shown that appreciative behavior is an important tool to enhance subordinate well-being. In their study, the most frequent types of appreciative behavior were simple praise and gratitude. Yukl et al. (2002) associated the recognition dimension of leadership positively with subordinates’ satisfaction. As a result from being appreciated, the well-being and satisfaction of the subordinates are argued to be enhanced, which influences subordinates’ behaviors. From the preceding, it can be stated that by appreciating specific behaviors, future behaviors may be influenced, and subordinates may be more likely to show behavior that was appreciated in the past because that provided satisfaction. As subordinate appreciation may positively influence the likeliness that subordinates will repeat behavior that is being appreciated, this factor may influence the selection/retention process. Whether subordinate appreciation does enhance the selection/retention process in postbureaucratization has not been investigated in the past, so this is a knowledge gap that has to be researched.

Subordinate involvement refers to the level that the manager allows subordinates to

(13)

13

postbureaucratization has never been examined, so this is a knowledge gap that has to be investigated.

Organizational learning is defined as the process of improving action in

postbureaucratization through better knowledge and understanding. Feedback, more specifically, developmental feedback, is an important process in organizational learning (Zhou, 2003). According to Zhou (2003), developmental feedback can be defined as the amount to which managers provide subordinates with useful information that makes it possible for subordinates to learn, develop, and improve their actions. As a manager provides subordinates information on which actions are appropriate or not, the knowledge and understanding subordinates have of their actions may increase. This increased knowledge and understanding may result in acting in ways that are in accordance with the feedback received from the manager. As organizational learning may positively influence the assessment of behavior and may positively influence the repetition of selected behavior, organizational learning may enhance the selection/retention process. Whether organizational learning does enhance the selection/retention process in postbureaucratization is not investigated before, so this is a knowledge gap that demands investigation.

Table 1 provides an overview of the factors that a manager can influence that may enhance the evolutionary process in postbureaucratization consisting of the variation process and the selection/retention process.

Table 1 Overview of a priori factors that can be influenced by the manager that may enhance the emergent change process of postbureaucratization

Factors that may enhance the variation process*

Factors that may enhance the selection/retention process*  Subordinate autonomy

 Open organizational culture

 Person-oriented leader’s subordinate orientation

 Subordinate appreciation  Subordinate involvement  Organizational learning

* These factors were derived from previous research on the changing role of the manager presented in section 1.3.1

1.4 Research Questions & Relevance

1.4.1 Research Questions

From the preceding, the following main research question can be formulated: What is the role

of the manager in stimulating and enhancing the process of emergent change in postbureaucratization?

This research question will be answered by relating the emergent change process to Darwin’s evolutionary process; by linking the role of the manager to interventions that are aimed at increasing the process of variation and by linking the role of the manager to interventions that are aimed for stimulating the process of selection/retention. The impact of the preset factors even as the impact of other factors on the evolutionary process will be researched. The sub-questions are as follows:

I. What is the role of the manager in enhancing the process of variation in postbureaucratization?

(14)

14

 How does subordinate autonomy influence the process of variation in postbureaucratization?

 How does an open organizational culture influence the process of variation in postbureaucratization?

 How does person-oriented leader’s subordinate orientation influence the process of variation in postbureaucratization?

 How do other factors, which a manager can influence, impact the process of variation in postbureaucratization?

II. What is the role of the manager in enhancing the process of selection/retention in postbureaucratization?

This research question can be specified by the following sub questions:

 How does subordinate appreciation influence the process of selection/retention in postbureaucratization?

 How does subordinate involvement influence the process of selection/retention in postbureaucratization?

 How does organizational learning influence the process of selection/retention in postbureaucratization?

 How do other factors, which a manager can influence, impact the process of selection/retention in postbureaucratization?

1.4.2 Research Relevance

From the previous paragraphs, it can be stated that this study can contribute to the theoretical field in three ways. Firstly, as postbureaucratic organizational structures are argued to become increasingly favorable, and the change process regarding this specific change has scarcely been researched, this study can provide new insights regarding postbureaucratization that may increase the chance of a successful implementation of a postbureaucratic structure. Secondly, as the emergent change process is argued to become increasingly appropriate in organizations facing turbulent environments and this change process is still vague and immature, this study can, by representing the emergent change process as an evolutionary process, offer a systematic view on the emergent change process and can increase the knowledge on this specific change process in postbureaucratization. Lastly, since the emergent change approach is significantly different from the common used planned change approach, the role of the manager in managing the postbureaucratization change may differ considerably. This study provides a systematic overview on the role of the manager in the emergent change in postbureaucratization.

Similar to the theoretical relevance, this study can also be valuable to practitioners, especially managers. This paper attempts to increase the understanding of managers in emergent change and how to manage the emerging change process of postbureaucratization. For managers, in order to increase the success of the emergent change process in postbureaucratization, it is important to know which role they have to take in this process and how they can increase the success of the change process.

(15)

15

2. Case Description

In order to be able to answer the research question, the selected case was required to have finished a restructuration change towards a postbureaucratic structure. Therefore, a change process at a French multinational electric utility company (GDF Suez) was selected, because this specific change process contained a restructuration towards a postbureaucratic structure. More specifically, the research was conducted at a power plant responsible for electricity generation located in the Eemshaven in the Netherlands (from now called: Eemscentrale). Originally, GDF Suez was a hierarchical company and used to be a public utility until 2000. There always were sufficient financial assets and the organization did not have to struggle with the market forces. However, nowadays, there is (inter)national pressure on the energy market, which resulted in a pressure for GDF Suez to develop itself in order to stay attractive for customers. In January 2013, these pressures lead to a wake-up call and caused a substantial transformation at the Eemscentrale location. This lead to two challenges for the plant: (1) 50% of the subordinates were dismissed (from 100 subordinates to 50 subordinates) and (2) an immense urgency to increase the effectiveness of the plant. The plant Eemscentrale is roughly divided in an operations department and a maintenance department. In order to deal with the challenge to increase the effectiveness of the plant, the plant decided to restructure the organization into a postbureaucratic organizational structure. Especially at the operations department this postbureaucratization is implemented.

As a result, this research is conducted at the operations department, where at the time of the research 30 people were employed. In the past, the department had a hierarchical, bureaucratic, structure where the autonomy and responsibilities for the team leader were minimal. The company intended to change towards a postbureaucratic structure, which impacted the role of the different actors like the manager and the team leaders considerably. The change that was initiated was to increase the autonomy and responsibility of the team leaders and in this way increase the willingness of the team leaders to improve the operations in order to increase the effectiveness of the plant.

3. Research Methodology

The research method that is used to be able to answer the research question is theory development, which involves inducting insights from field-based case data (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997). This research method is chosen, due to the fact that the business phenomenon researched in this study has almost not been addressed in academic literature and the research related to this business phenomenon is still very exploratory in nature. Therefore, according to Van Aken, Berends and Van der Bij (2012), theory development is needed. The aim is to develop knowledge that can enrich the current literature with new insights. In order to investigate the research question, a case study method is applied, which has several advantages (Bamford, 2008): it enables you to build practical and relevant grounded theories; it focusses on phenomena in a real world situation and provides a broad environmental view.

3.1 Data Content

(16)

16

specifically, the goal of the researcher was to collect information about incidents where the manager was influencing factors that enhanced/stimulated the variation process and/or the selection/retention process in postbureaucratization and how the interviewees experienced these incidents.

3.2 Data Collection

Data is obtained from semi-structured interviews with sixteen individual interviewees at all levels and areas of the organization (table 2 for a list of the interviewees and their association with GDF Suez Eemscentrale). The researcher decided to use interviews to collect the relevant information, because, according to Eisenhardt (1989), this qualitative collection method is appropriate to use for understanding the explanatory mechanism of a relation (Eisenhardt, 1989). In order to collect information about incidents regarding the variation and/or selection/retention process of the postbureaucratization, semi-structured interviews, with mostly open questions, are used because they allow questioning to be guided and it is easy to ask for clarification of points (Frey and Oishi, 1995). The interviews are conducted during several-day site visits to the GDF Suez Eemscentrale location. The sixteen interviews (all taped and transcribed) lasted 60 minutes on average and were all conducted by one researcher.

For the interviews, an interview protocol was used (see Appendix 2). The interview protocols (the protocols were slightly adapted for the different roles of the interviewees in postbureaucratization) consisted of several parts. Before the interview officially started, the researcher introduced himself and the background and objective of the research. In part one, the interview began with the background of the interviewee and the company.

Then, in the second part of the interview, the interviewee was asked about the change content, so what was exactly changed in the organization (in this case, how the postbureaucratic structure looks like and what the consequences are for the different actors in the operations department).

The third part focused on the change process, so how the organization changed towards a postbureaucratic structure. In this part, the goal was to collect information about factors that positively or negatively influenced evolutionary process of the postbureaucratization, including the impact of the manager on these factors. The first couple of questions focused on the postbureaucratization, its outcomes and factors that influenced this postbureaucratization. These questions were meant to reveal factors experienced by the interviewees that were of influence on the emergent change process of the postbureaucratization not discussed in the introduction section. The researcher asked in this part what changed, what factors influenced the change, and if the interviewee could provide a concrete example.

The second couple of questions, regarding the change process, focused on the influence of the factors specified in the introduction section (table 1) on the emergent process of postbureaucratization, including the influence of the manager on these factors.

(17)

17 Table 2 Interviewees and their association with GDF Suez Eemscentrale

Interviewee* Association of interviewee with GDF Suez Eemscentrale Abbreviation

1 Plant Manager (current) PM1

2 Plant Manager (until one and a half year ago) PM2

3 Manager Operations MO

4 Human Resource Development HRD

5 Human Resource Advisor HRA

6 Team Leader TL1

7 Team Leader TL2

8 Team Leader TL3

9 Team Leader TL4

10 Coordinator Chemical CC

11 Day Shift Operations DSO1

14 Production Engineer PE1

* Ranked on the estimated level in the hierarchy, i.e. number 1 is the highest level in the hierarchy

3.3 Data Analysis

In order to analyze the data, the data is coded based on deductive and inductive coding. For the deductive coding, preset codes were used that were derived from previous literature discussed in the introduction section. During the coding, the researcher noticed that many stories told by the interviewees were not precisely related to variation process as defined by the researcher, but can better be labelled as proactivity of subordinates. Therefore, this term is used for the codes instead of variation. A definition of this term can be found in table 3. Even as for incidents illustrating the impact of factors on the variation process, interviewees rarely told about incidents influencing selection/retention process as defined by the researcher. The experiences related to selection/retention can better be labelled as institutionalization of behavior of subordinates. A definition of this term can be found in table 15. As a consequence, the preset codes were:

 “subordinate autonomy  proactivity subordinates”  “open organizational culture  proactivity subordinates”

 “person-oriented leader’s subordinate-orientation  proactivity subordinates”  “subordinate appreciation  institutionalization of behavior of subordinates”  “subordinate involvement  institutionalization of behavior of subordinates”  “organizational learning  institutionalization of behavior of subordinates”

(18)

18

After that, the codes were labeled into overall codes, in which several related codes were taken together. In order to be sure that the labels of the overall codes appropriately cover the content of codes the overall codes consist of and to check whether a code really belongs to an overall code, both these activities were discussed with a second researcher.

Then, per code and in turn per overall code, the frequency of the code being present and depth of the existence of the code in the transcripts (in how many different interviews the code was present) were calculated. Thereafter, the function of the recipients who provided answers on the interview questions of which fragments were coded, were ticked off.

Finally, definitions of the overall codes were composed, mostly adapted from definitions used in literature. The definitions were also shown to a second researcher in order to check if they cover the content of the overall codes, and in case of disagreement, definitions were adjusted until reaching consensus.

4. Results

In this section, the results derived from the interviews are presented. First, the outcomes related to research question I are shown, by presenting a coding scheme, divided by predefined and additional overall codes, followed by an elaboration on the findings including an analysis of the interview outcomes. Next, the outcomes related to research question II are presented in the same structure as the results related to research question I. Lastly, findings are provided regarding other factors that influenced the change process, which appear to be important for the manager to acknowledge.

The purpose of the interviews was to reveal information about factors that influenced the variation process and the selection/retention process (of the postbureaucratization). Unfortunately, the interviewees found it difficult to talk about relations between factors and the variation and/or selection/retention process. If the codes would be limited to stories about concrete examples then we practically could not extract information. However, interviewees told a lot about how factors were generally perceived in postbureaucratization. These statements of the interviewees include information that explains how these factors influence variables that touch upon the research questions, being the case for factors influencing the variation process as well as for factors influencing the selection/retention process. When, for example, a factor called subordinate autonomy influences proactivity, it can be suggested that the subordinates provide more input. This input is related to the specific change, the transition of the organization towards a postbureaucratic organizational structure (for example, the goal of the postbureaucratization is that subordinates provide more input and become more active), but may not explicitly mean input in the change process itself. The next sections will clarify this.

4.1 Interview outcomes related to research questions I

(19)

19

those outcomes thus positively touch upon the relationship between the factors and the variation process. Below, first the coding scheme is presented followed by a detailed description of the themes and, if possible, supported by quotes.

Table 3 Interview outcomes: coded interview fragments related to research question I

Overall code(*, **)

Definition Frequency

(The amount the overall code is ticked off in the interviews)

Function interviewee (The function of the interviewee, described in table 2, who provided answers on the interview questions of which fragments were coded)

Subordinate autonomy  Proactivity subordinate s

The actual capacity of the subordinates to make decisions without the consent of the manager influences the extent to which subordinates show

change-oriented and

self-initiated behaviors in situations.

(partially adapted from Verhoest, 2004)

64 PE1, DSO1, TL1, MO,

TL2, HRA, TL3, TL4, PE2, DSO3, PE3, DSO2, CC, PM2 Open organizatio nal culture  Proactivity subordinate s

An organizational culture that can be characterized by an emphasis on transparency and where honesty is encouraged and mistakes are admitted and allowed influences the extent to which subordinates show change-oriented and

38 PE1, DSO1, HRD, TL1, MO, HRA, TL3, TL4, PM1, DSO3, PE3, DSO2, CC, PM2 Person-oriented leader’s subordinate -orientation  Proactivity subordinate s

The quality of the interpersonal relationship between the leader and his or her subordinates, and in particular the degree to which a leader shows trust in

subordinates, respect for their ideas and consideration of feelings influences the extent to which subordinates show change-oriented and

48 DSO1, HRD, MO, HRA,

(20)

20

(partially adapted from Burnes, 2009: 493) Organizatio nal learning  Proactivity subordinate s

The process of improving action through better knowledge and understanding influences the extent to which subordinates show change-oriented and self-initiated behaviors in situations.

/ PE1, DSO1, HRD, TL1, MO, TL2, HRA, TL3, TL4, PE2, PM1, DSO3, CC, PM2 Mutual trust between the manager and the subordinate s and among subordinate s  Proactivity subordinate s

The reliance on the integrity, strength, ability and surety between the manager and the subordinates and between the subordinates among each other influences the extent to which subordinates show change-oriented and self-initiated behaviors in situations. 32 PE1, HRD, TL1, MO, TL3, TL4, PM1, DSO3, PE3, DSO2, CC Stimulating input from subordinate s  Proactivity subordinate s

Rousing subordinates to provide ideas influences the extent to which subordinates show change-oriented and

self-initiated behaviors in situations.

26 PE1, DSO1, TL1, MO,

HRA, TL3, TL4, PE2, PE3, DSO2, CC, PM2 Responsibil ities to subordinate s  Proactivity subordinate s

Accountability for tasks or certain aspects of tasks to subordinates influences the extent to which subordinates show change-oriented and self-initiated behaviors in situations. (partially adapted from Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997)

/ PE1, DSO1, HRD, TL1,

(21)

21 Facilitator role of the manager  Proactivity subordinate s

A manager who helps the organization to perform by coaching subordinates and by enabling subordinates to have a constructive exchange and removing any obstacles that may get in the way of productive interactioninfluences the extent to which subordinates show change-oriented and self-initiated behaviors in situations. (partially adapted from Raelin, 2013) 37 HRD, TL1, MO, HRA, TL3, TL4, PM1, DSO3, DSO2, CC, PM2 Personality of the manager  Proactivity subordinate s

A stable property of the manager that predicts behavioral,

emotional or attitudinal

outcomes influences the extent to which subordinates show change-oriented and

self-initiated behaviors in situations. (partially adapted from Woods et al., 2013)

37 DSO1, TL1, MO, HRA,

TL4, PM1, DSO3, PE3, DSO2, CC, PM2 Content expertise of the manager  Proactivity subordinate s

The amount of the manager possessing subjective and valuable information regarding the technical operations that has been validated and that has been organized into a mental model influences the extent to which subordinates show change-oriented and self-initiated behaviors in situations.

(partially adapted from Dalkir, 2011) 30 DSO1, HRD, TL1, MO, TL2, HRA, TL4, PE2, PM1, DSO3, PE3, DSO2, CC, PM2 Group identificatio n among subordinate s  Proactivity

The collective perception of subordinates of belonging to the group of subordinates influences the extent to which subordinates

/ PE1, HRD, TL1, MO,

(22)

22

subordinate s

show change-oriented and self-initiated behaviors in situations. (partially adapted from Lin et al., 2014) Communica tion between manager and subordinate s and subordinate s with each other  Proactivity subordinate s

Two-way process of reaching mutual understanding, in which manager and subordinates not only exchange information, ideas and feelings but also create and share meaning influences the extent to which subordinates show change-oriented and self-initiated behaviors in situations.

17 PE1, MO, TL3, PM1,

DSO3, PE3, DSO2, CC, PM2

* The overall codes were broken down into a number of codes representing the different manifestations of the independent variable, see Appendix 1

** Text that is shown in italic refers to predefined codes

4.1.1 Subordinate autonomy  Proactivity subordinates

A clear relation between subordinate autonomy and the variation process did not emerge from the interviews. However, aspects did emerge that are important for answering research question I. Many descriptions of situations are available where the interviewees stated that subordinate autonomy in one way or another leads to the situation that people become more proactive. In the interviews, this relation is shown 64 times in fourteen interviews and is presented in interviews in all layers of the interviewees.

The independent variable subordinate autonomy came up in different manifestations (table 4):

Table 4 Manifestations of independent factor subordinate autonomy classified by presence or absence of the factor

Presence Absence

workable freedom of the subordinate, decision-making authority of the

subordinate, decision-making authority of the subordinate for short term, power of the subordinate, no frequent contact subordinate and manager, faster decision-making by subordinate, no need for interference manager, make subordinates chairman of meetings, interference of manager only if necessary, no

(23)

23

interference of manager, subordinate autonomy

In Appendix 1 more details can be found regarding these manifestations where the relation of subordinate autonomy and proactivity is broken down according to the codes.

The following example, from the interview with TL1, shows the impact of subordinate autonomy on proactivity: “In the past we had to discuss everything [with the manager], we had to call in the night for every little thing. Now, we have more freedom to make decisions ourselves.” How this impacts the proactivity explains TL1 by the following example: “So, now I often provide input to the process technologist which I can now approach directly without having to contact the manager in advance.”

4.1.2 Open organizational culture  Proactivity subordinates

Many interview outcomes pointed to a positive impact of an open organizational culture on the proactivity of subordinates. The outcomes of the interviews show this 38 times in fourteen interviews in all layers.

The independent variable, open organizational culture, emerged in various manifestations (table 5):

Table 5 Manifestations of independent factor open organizational culture classified by presence or absence of the factor

openness, honesty of manager and subordinate, room for mistakes by

subordinates, to bring out vulnerability of subordinates, vulnerable positioning manager himself, manager admits mistakes

fear by subordinates to make mistakes, no openness, no room for mistakes by

subordinates, manager rarely admits mistakes

In Appendix 1 more details can be found regarding these manifestations where the relation of open organizational culture and proactivity is broken down according to the codes.

That an open organizational culture influences proactivity, and mistakes are allowed is an important manifestation of this preset factor in the relation with proactivity, can be described by the following summary of a part of the conversation with HRD. HRD said that the manager is very conscious of the fact that if the manager wants subordinates to be proactive, the manager has to allow subordinates to make mistakes. In the past, subordinates were punished for making a mistake, so this culture had to change in postbureaucratization. The manager emphasizes that mistakes are allowed in meetings and HRD noticed that the subordinates are getting more out of their seats to provide input, because they are becoming less and less afraid to make mistakes.

4.1.3 Person-oriented leader’s subordinate-orientation  Proactivity subordinates

Another factor derived from the interview outcomes that appeared to have a positive influence on the proactivity of subordinates is a person-oriented leader’s subordinate-orientation. This outcome is shown 48 times in eleven interviews in all layers.

(24)

24 Table 6 Manifestations of independent factor person-oriented leader’s subordinate-orientation classified by presence or absence of the factor

attitude manager changed towards less detachment, combination task-oriented and people-oriented behavior of the manager, personal approach manager

impersonal approach manager, manager in beginning not social, manager in beginning deliberately not social, task-oriented manager, no connection manager with lowest level subordinates, manager not social

In Appendix 1 more details can be found regarding these manifestations where the relation of person-oriented leader’s subordinate-orientation and proactivity is broken down according to the codes.

As TL4 stated: “In the beginning, when Pieter [the manager] just started at the Eemscentrale, he didn’t even say hello when you saw each other. This gave the feeling that the manager was not social and formed a barrier. When I had something to ask or to say I wouldn’t go to his room to tell him [the manager].”

4.1.4 Organizational learning  Proactivity subordinates

From the interviews, a clear relation between organizational learning and the variation process cannot be derived. However, many interview outcomes showed a positive impact of organizational learning on the proactivity of subordinates. 50 fragments related to the independent factor organizational learning were coded in fourteen interviews in all layers, of which multiple fragments related to the influence of organizational learning on the proactivity of the subordinates.

The factor organizational learning appeared in the interview outcomes in many manifestations (table 7):

Table 7 Manifestations of independent factor organizational learning classified by presence or absence of the factor

feedback for subordinates, individual feedback for subordinates, mutual coaching subordinates, learn from mistakes, self-reflection subordinates, possibility for individual training subordinates, look for real causes of mistake, constructive feedback for subordinates, explanation in case of mistake by subordinates, evaluation with subordinates

no technical workshops in order to increase knowledge subordinates, symptom treatment by subordinates, only negative feedback for subordinates, top-down feedback by manager to subordinates, no feedback for subordinates,

In Appendix 1 more details can be found regarding these manifestations where the relation of organizational learning and proactivity is broken down according to the codes.

(25)

25 4.1.5 Mutual trust between the manager and the subordinates and among subordinates  Proactivity subordinates

Many interview outcomes pointed to a positive impact of mutual trust between the manager and the subordinates and among the subordinates on the proactivity of subordinates. Situations are outlined that show that mutual trust between the manager and the subordinates and among subordinates in one way or another leads to more proactivity of the subordinates. This interview outcome is shown 32 times in eleven interviews in all layers.

The factor mutual trust between the manager and the subordinate and among subordinates was present in different manifestations (table 8):

Table 8 Manifestations of independent factor mutual trust between the manager and the subordinates and among subordinates classified by presence or absence of the factor

mutual trust manager and subordinates and among subordinates, mutual respect

no trust, no trust in management, trust not optimal

Appendix 1 more details can be found regarding these manifestations where the relation of the overall code is broken down according to the codes.

That mutual trust manager and subordinates and among subordinates influences proactivity can be illustrated by the following summary of a statement by TL1: “In the past we had to discuss everything, even in the night we had to call for everything. Now the manager trusts us more, which makes that we do not first have to ask everything, because we have the knowledge ourselves. So, because we now are trusted, we are more likely to show initiative and take things up.”

4.1.6 Stimulating input from subordinates  Proactivity subordinates

The sixth factor that is derived from the interview outcomes is stimulating input from subordinates. Many interview outcomes pointed to a positive relation of stimulating input from subordinates on the proactivity of subordinates. Situations show that stimulating input from subordinates in one or another form results in more proactivity of the subordinates. This is shown 26 times in twelve of the sixteen interviews, in every layer.

The factor stimulating input from subordinates was present in various manifestations (table 9):

Table 9 Manifestations of independent factor stimulating input from subordinates classified by presence or absence of the factor

stimulation for ideas from subordinates, demanding input from subordinates, active attitude manager towards new ideas from subordinates, forcing input from subordinates, make subordinates more active, stimulation for ideas from subordinates if well supported

no stimulation by manager towards ideas of subordinates, no use of ideas subordinates

(26)

26

workshop, in which the subordinates had to constructively provide their opinion and were forced to engage in the discussion. A team leader (TL4) described it as follows: “Everyone had to stand up and everyone must have an opinion. Everybody also was forced to say something about his opinion. It was explicitly asked, like why are you standing on this side? What are your arguments? This is done in order to make everybody more active.” This resulted in the situation that the subordinates become more proactive, as TL4 states: “Many people withdrew during a meeting and took a very passive attitude. Nowadays, as the manager is stimulating us to provide input and is taking a less directive role, we are now far more active and everybody speaks and provides input.”

4.1.7 Responsibilities to subordinates  Proactivity subordinates

An immaculate relationship between responsibilities to subordinates and the variation process cannot be derived from the interviews. However, responsibilities to subordinate appeared to be an important factor in answering research question I, as the interviews present situations that responsibilities to subordinates, in one way or another, positively impacts proactivity of the subordinates. 119 fragments related to the independent factor responsibilities to subordinates were coded in all the interviews in all layers, of which multiple fragments related to the influence of responsibilities to subordinates on proactivity of the subordinates.

Responsibilities to subordinates came up in the interviews in different manifestations (table 10):

Table 10 Manifestations of independent factor responsibilities to subordinates classified by presence or absence of the factor

responsibility of subordinate, pointing out responsibilities of subordinate, clear responsibilities of subordinate, pointing out differences in responsibility

perception between subordinates, positioning role subordinates, give

assignments to subordinates, subordinates responsible for ideas, not always

assignments for subordinates based on capabilities, supported assessment by subordinates of lowest layer subordinates, responsibility subordinates for assessing lowest layer subordinates, mistakes reflected on team instead on individual, ask for responsibility by subordinates, manager demands argumentation by subordinates, responsibility for training at subordinates, devolving responsibilities towards subordinates, pointing out expectations of subordinates, no possibility for hiding by subordinates, repeating responsibilities of subordinates, subordinates perceive more responsibility

role ambiguity of subordinate, in the past subordinates were hiding from responsibilities, in the past no clear responsibilities of

(27)

27

In Appendix 1 more details can be found regarding these manifestations where the relation of the overall code giving responsibility to subordinate with proactivity is broken down according to the codes it consists of.

The following illustrates the impact of responsibility to subordinate on proactivity by an example related to the code give assignments to subordinates. The manager (MO) gave the teams, and individuals like team leaders, assignments, as PE3 states: “We now have an assignment to investigate how we can start faster and we had the idea to keep the voice turbine up steam with a hot air dryer.” The impact of giving assignments on proactivity is portrayed by the manager (MO) to be as follows: “I started to give them [the subordinates] assignments, like work this out, and ask your colleagues how they think about it. Now I see at team leader meetings that those people say: I actually think this and I think we need to take this decision. They are more actively involved in the business and enthusiastically provide input and ideas.”

4.1.8 Facilitator role of the manager  Proactivity subordinates

The eighth factor that is derived from the interview outcomes is the facilitator role of the manager. Many interview outcomes pointed to a positive relation of the facilitator role of the manager on the proactivity of subordinates. Portrayals of situations appeared that show that the facilitator role of the manager in one or another form influenced the proactivity of the subordinates. The results of the interviews showed this 37 times in eleven interviews in all layers.

The factor facilitator role of the manager showed up in numerous manifestations (table 11):

Table 11 Manifestations of independent factor facilitator role of the manager classified by presence or absence of the factor

supporting manager, manager showing success, manager stimulating mutual coaching subordinates, coaching

manager, manager demands listening, in case of miscommunication steering function manager, manager analyzing and acknowledging current situation, manager first observing, manager deliberately not providing opinion, facilitating role manager

controlling manager, manager aware of being original directive manager, manager providing clear opinion, no support manager for idea,

(28)

28 4.1.9 Personality manager  Proactivity subordinates

Many interview outcomes pointed to a positive relation of the personality of the manager on the proactivity of subordinates. Descriptions of situations are existent that show that the personality of the manager in one way or another influences the proactivity of the subordinates. The outcomes of the interviews show this 37 times in eleven interviews in all layers.

The independent variable personality of the manager came up in the interviews in different manifestations: provocative questions manager, rigid manager, passionate leadership,

resolute manager, involved manager, manager being proud, manager showing interest in operations, commitment manager, cooperative attitude manager, manager keeping up to appointments, frustration manager, impatient manager, flexibility manager, strictness of the manager, fierce manager, pervasiveness of the manager. In Appendix 1 more details can be

found regarding these manifestations where the relation of the personality of the manager and proactivity is broken down according to the codes.

The relationship between the personality of the manager and the proactivity can be illustrated by taking an example of the manifestation of the personality of the manager by provocative questions of the manager. As TL4 portrayed (summarized): “Pieter [the manager] can act very provocative. He can ask very provocative and penetrating questions. When you [a subordinate] come to him [the manager] with something he [the manager] says: did you look well to it yourself? And then he can ask provocative questions. When you did not look that good at it you feel a bit embarrassed and you will ensure that you take the next time a more proactive attitude and investigate and prepare it better.”

4.1.10 Content expertise of the manager  Proactivity subordinates

The tenth factor that came up from the interviews is the content expertise of the manager. Although a clear relation between this factor and proactivity cannot be derived from the interviews, this factor remains important for answering research question I, since the amount of content expertise of the manager in one or another form appeared to influence the proactivity of the subordinates. This relationship is coded 30 times in fourteen of the sixteen interviews, in all layers.

The factor expertise of the manager came up in a couple manifestations (table 12):

Table 122 Manifestations of independent factor content expertise of the manager classified by presence or absence of the factor

expertise knowledge of the manager no expertise knowledge of the previous manager

In Appendix 1 more details can be found regarding these manifestations where the relation of the amount of content expertise of the manager and proactivity is broken down according to the codes.

Restructuring Organizations: Exploring the Role of the Manager by Relating the Emergent Change Process of Postbureaucratization to Darwin’s Evolutionary Process