Master Thesis
Middle Management Duality and Change Responses: A
Multi-level Approach
Bart van Tol 3008207 07/05/2018
MSc. Business Administration Change Management Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen
2
ABSTRACT
Middle managers are expected to show positive behavior towards change even though it has the potential to negatively affect their career prospects within the organization. Moreover, the behavior middle managers engage in is the result of their attitude towards the change. According to the literature on planned change the middle managers role consists out of change recipient and change agent components. These different components result in a positive, ambivalent or negative attitude. This study is of a qualitative nature in which the duality role of middle managers and their individual sensemaking practices is ought to influence subordinate change responses. Theory of negotiated order is used to define the influence of context within the individual sensemaking practices. The study has been conducted in a large global organization that produces chemicals. Two groups of middle managers were interviewed which had different contextual arrangements at the time of the interviews. The contextual arrangements mainly differed on geographic location and change context. From the results it seemed that middle managers that were geographically dispersed from their subordinates, and experienced a greater scope of change, had more ambivalent attitudes in comparison with the other group of middle managers. According to the literature that is used in this paper the ambivalent attitude of middle managers could have several implications for subordinate reactions and change outcomes.
Key words: Middle manager duality, individual sensemaking, theory of negotiated order, sensegiving,
3
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION ... 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8
2.1 Attitudes and responses to change ... 8
2.2 Sensemaking and Negotiated order ... 9
2.3 The influence of middle managers through sensegiving ... 13
2.4 Towards a multi-level view ... 14
3. METHODOLOGY ... 16 3.1 Case selection ... 16 3.2 Data Collection ... 17 3.3 Data Analysis ... 19 4. RESULTS ... 20 4.1 Case – A ... 20 4.1.1 Negotiation context ... 20 4.1.2 Attitude ... 21 4.1.3 Behavior ... 21 4.1.4 Approach to change ... 22
4.1.5 Norm development process of subordinates ... 23
4.2 Case – B ... 24
4.2.1 Negotiation context ... 24
4.2.2 Attitude ... 25
4.2.3 Behavior ... 26
4.2.4 Approach to change ... 26
4.2.5 Norm development process of subordinates ... 28
4.3 Cross case analysis – A & B ... 29
4.3.1 Negotiation context ... 29
4.3.2 Attitude ... 30
4.3.3 Behavior ... 31
4.3.4 Approach to change ... 31
4.3.5 Norm development process of subordinates ... 32
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 34
5.1 Discussion and propositions ... 34
5.1.1 Sub-question 1 ... 34
5.1.2 Sub-question 2 ... 37
5.2 Research question ... 38
4
5.4 Practical implications ... 40
5.5 Limitations and future research ... 40
REFERENCES ... 42
APPENDIX A: The ADKAR Model ... 47
APPENDIX B: Interview protocol ... 48
APPENDIX C: Survey middle manager ... 50
APPENDIX D: Codebook ... 51
APPENDIX E: Survey results middle manager individual ... 59
APPENDIX F: Survey results per case ... 61
5
1. INTRODUCTION
Middle managers are expected to remain positive about change even though it has the potential to negatively affect their career prospects within the organization (Dopson and Neumann, 1998). The literature on middle management’s role in implementing planned change suggests a number of challenges related to the dual role of being change recipient and change agent (Fenton-O’Creevy, 1998; Floyd and Wooldridge, 1997). These challenges can be conceptualized as a series of Negotiated Order (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011). Middle managers have to negotiate the “new order of things” on a day-to-day basis as organizational wide change disrupts the normal way of executing work. Such negotiations are likely to involve superiors and subordinates. According to Carnall (1986), a challenge of these negotiations is that organizational changes have usually been decided and formulated by the top managers, which is likely to create coercive order rather than negotiated order if input of middle managers is not present. Subsequently, middle managers may find themselves in a position in which they need to negotiate with themselves to assess whether they will be able to support and communicate changes to subordinates and to assess the boundaries within which the ‘new order of things’ can be negotiated. As such, it is suggested that negotiated order is not only based on interaction, but also intra-action (Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Bryant & Stensaker, 2011).
Many middle management studies focus on sensemaking theory through focusing on the cognitive perspective to build argumentation for how middle management influences change outcomes (e.g. Balogun and Johnson, 2004; Caldwell, 2009; Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). Furthermore, Burnes (2014) describes Lewin (1947) as the father of planned change with his three-step-model. In the context of planned change, the middle managers become implementers (or change agent) and recipients (of change). This means that for the implementer role, the middle managers have to motivate their subordinates to adopt the change. However, because top management formulated change (as in most planned change situations), middle managers may be communicating and selling changes without genuinely believing in or supporting the initiative (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011). When middle management experiences difficulties managing their multiple change roles, they might strategically pull back from one of their roles or seek to embrace senior management ‘enablers’ (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011). The former implies that middle managers would resist the change, potentially resulting in change failure. The latter would mean that middle managers engage in negotiations with superiors. This research seeks to develop new insights by exploring how the negotiated context influences individual sensemaking processes of middle managers in planned change.
6 order is the product of interaction, rather than the product of formal rules, processes and job descriptions. However, the theory does not deny that these macro organizational aspects play their role in the construction of meaning. Theory of negotiated order pays particular attention to micro-social interactions in which middle managers engage in and how these are shaped by macro- organizational factors like rules, processes, job descriptions and hierarchy (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011). Thus, the negotiated context of the middle manager influences the inter-action and intra-action processes of the middle manager. This paper focusses on the middle managers intra-action process between the agent and recipient role as individual sensemaking practice. Adopting this theory in the context of planned change is different from interpretivist approaches such as structuration and sensemaking theory by focusing specifically on how meaning is constructed and negotiated within the individual, influenced by contextual arrangements and interaction with others within this context.
In drawing upon the middle management and negotiated order literature in the context of planned change, this study tries to explore the self-negotiation processes (individual sensemaking) between the agent- and recipient role of middle management. Moreover, middle managers are likely to engage in self-negotiation processes in an attempt to preserve their self-respect and identity. Furthermore, Balogun & Johnson (2005) state that interpretations of the middle managers arise primarily from lateral, informal social processes of interaction. The outcomes of such negotiations and social processes would undoubtedly influence how they interpret and communicate new ways of working (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011). Furthermore, this individual perspective on meaning construction is likely to influence the willingness to implement change as designed by top management. Since middle managers are recipients that may have resistance or readiness reactions towards change (Ford, Ford, & D’amelio, 2008), it is argued that these reactions are likely to influence their role as change agent implementing the change and ultimately, the collective readiness for change and thereby, the outcomes of the change project (Rafferty, Jimmieson & Armenakis, 2013).
7 to shape middle managers negotiation contexts in change projects is worth investigating. The research question of this study is:
How does middle management duality and individual sensemaking influence subordinate change recipients responses to planned change on individual level and group level?
The sub-questions of this research are:
1. How do changes in the negotiated context of middle management influence individual sensemaking and sensegiving of middle management?
8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Planned organizational change requires that middle managers act on decisions made at the top of the organization. In essence, this makes the middle manager a change recipient. In addition, the middle manager also becomes an implementer of change (or a change agent) in the context of planned change. The agent role implies that the middle manager is expected to motivate others and implement change, which requires interpreting and selling the change ideas to subordinates (Rouleau, 2005). However, because others have formulated change, the middle manager may be communicating and selling changes without genuinely believing in or supporting the initiative. As in all change approaches, top-down planned change is likely to influence resistance and readiness of participants and their attitudes toward change.
2.1 Attitudes and responses to change
Resistance to change is probably the best-known attitude toward change. Some authors view resistance as any set of intentions and actions that slows down or hinders the implementation of change (del Val & Fuentes, 2003). Others view resistance as part of a process that fosters learning among organizational participants (Msweli-Mbanga & Potwana, 2006). Accordingly, Thomas & Hardy (2011) conceptualize this as demonizing and celebrating resistance. Furthermore, the most cited definition of readiness to change, is the definition provided by Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993). They describe readiness “as organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes”.
9 negative and one that is nor positive nor negative. The attitude of recipients will influence the recipients behavior towards change (Piderit, 2000). However, the actual behavior is not included in the tripartite definition of resistance. Only when a person has a certain attitude and behaves according to it, the attitude can influence other organizational members. To study resistance and acceptance to change on single and multi-level, research needs to look further. This is why we need a follow up on the attitude literature.
According to Sonenshein (2010), there are three possible responses for employee behavior to change: resisting (subverting the change, reducing work effort, raising objections), championing (making the change a success, promoting to other) and accepting (making necessary adjustments). Accordingly, Cawsey (2016) identifies different antecedents that influence the negative or positive reactions to change (e.g. lack of experience with change, negative reactions from subordinates or supervisors, or lack of communication by supervisors). These different antecedents depend on contextual factors that implementing agents have to deal with. Regarding theory of negotiated order, organizational change situations should be explored alongside important contextual characteristics of the settings in which interactions and negotiations take place (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011). This study does this exactly but has its scope on the individual within these interactions. In other words, the focus of this study is on the individual intra-action of the agent and recipient role of middle managers and how the contextual setting influences the intra-action of roles. This study argues that the role intra-action of the middle manager influences the development of the individual attitude of the middle manager.
2.2 Sensemaking and Negotiated order
Corporate ideas for planned change have to be made sense of in the local context within which the middle managers operate. Sensemaking is defined as “extracting particular behaviors and communications out of streams of ongoing events, interpret them to give them meaning and then acting on the resulting interpretation” (Ford et al., 2008). These sensemaking practices take place in the absence of top managers who designed the change (Balogun, 2003). Sensemaking can be done by individuals, groups or organizations. It involves cognition, affect and interpersonal relationships and group/organizational dynamics (Pengyi & Soergel, 2014). The scope in this study is limited in that it focusses on the individual cognition, hence the middle managers individual sensemaking processes between the agent and recipient role. The literature about sensemaking practices states that the local context is important but does not explore this context further. Therefore, theory of negotiated order is adopted in this research to gain deeper understanding about the relevance of this context and generate new insights for individual sensemaking practices.
10 and how individuals construct meaning from these interactions. This enables researchers to explore social activities as a process that is ‘shifting and becoming, never fixed and immutable’ (Scott & Marshall, 2009). Both sensemaking and interactionism are interested in meaning and how it is extracted or given by individuals. However, sensemaking focuses more specifically on action and cognition as individual and social activities (Weick, 1995). Sensemaking theory argues that meaning extracted from action and cognition, provides individuals with the tools to make sense of ambiguous situations (Weick, 1995). Sensemaking differs from interactionism in that it focuses on exploring micro-level interactions and how meaning is derived from these. Athens (2009), criticizes interactionism theory exactly for this reason. The author states that interactionism has failed to link its micro-social focus with macro-social processes and that it provides a one-sided view of how meaning is constructed. Moreover, many studies that use interactionism for argumentation building miss important concepts such as domination, power or tools from which social structure can be analyzed (e.g. Day and Day, 1977; Denzin, 1996). Theory of negotiated order can generate new insights in that it expands upon interactionism, focusing on the micro, but does so within the context of macro-structures where the negotiations take place. Thus, negotiated order sees interaction as something that takes place between different actors which are influenced by the boundaries of the organizations such as rules, procedures, and formal hierarchies (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011). The scope in this study is limited in that it focusses on individual actors in in these interactions, hence the focus lies on middle management intra-action between the agent and recipient role rather than inter-action between different actors. Furthermore, this study tries to create an understanding of how the macro-structures that theory of negotiated order describes influences the intra-action between both roles of the middle manager.
Negotiated order theory emphasizes the informal aspects of organizations as much as the formal and that there are implied dialectical relationships in which the informal ultimately shapes the formal and vice versa (Day, & Day, 1977). Negotiated order theory includes six different contexts middle managers are involved in; (1) Organizational change context, (2) Ideological context, (3) Power context, (4) Social context, (5) Structural context and (6) Geographical context. These different contexts influence the inter-action and intra-inter-action of middle managers.
11 attending to the needs of subordinates and top management, a higher degree of ambiguity and therefore new meanings are derived and social orders are developed and re-developed (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011). The organizational change context and the level of ambiguity middle managers experience might differ for each middle manager individually.
Secondly, the ideological considerations of middle managers is defined as their views on negotiating and their experience with negotiations. This may provide insight into how and why middle managers negotiate in particular ways, as well as impact upon their perceptions of legitimate individual negotiation boundaries (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011). Ideological considerations are likely to influence how middle managers prioritize their agent and recipient role during planned change. Moreover, prioritizing certain roles above other roles can largely impact on how managers interpret events and construct meaning from these events. Middle managers who are ideologically more in line with top management that designed the change may prioritize political concerns above relationship concerns, whereas other middle managers may prioritize relational concerns and their roles as change implementer. Following this line of reasoning, the ideologies of managers could impact the relationships between managers and others involved in negotiating order. Consequently, managers that want to implement change to please top managers at all cost may alienate subordinates, which results in a feeling of powerlessness and ultimately, resistance the change on individual or group level. Subsequently, middle managers that prioritize relational concerns above political concerns may cause top management to see the middle manager as disloyal or resistant to change (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011). Thus, the ideological considerations of middle managers influences their role intra-action and their view on how to execute their roles individually.
Thirdly, the power context in which middle managers are located can differ for each manager. Within negotiations, managers should be able to give an impression of power to others, which influences their decision-making ability. Making decisions to reduce resistance of subordinates on individual or group level or to please top management should be taken into consideration. The power context that Bryant & Stensaker (2011) describe influences how the middle manager makes decisions for both their agent and recipient role.
12 Fifthly, structural features of the organization impact both the process and outcomes of negotiations (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011). Structural arrangements can result in certain actors that hinder decisions or preferences of the middle manager. The formal job descriptions and roles, policy and procedures and responsibility for each middle managers reveal characteristics of organizations that impose boundaries upon the management negotiation processes. Furthermore, from an individual sensemaking perspective, the structural context results in boundaries for both the agent and recipient role of the middle manager.
Finally, the geographical context is relevant for all contextual characteristics. Bryant & Stensaker (2011) state that middle managers may be required to attend to a mix of political, substantive and relational tasks as part of their role of change implementer, which can be enabled or hindered by organizational groups being located in different geographic locations. Thus, the geographical location of middle managers, their superiors, and their subordinates might be of great influence for middle management role intra-action. Accordingly, the geographical context influences the five other contexts described above (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011).
Theory of negotiated order implies that there are both unplanned and planned elements in change situations that can reveal defects in the existing social order. These defects need to be re-evaluated and negotiated when planned change comes about. The negotiations that take place are interactive social processes between different organizational members. However, this study has a more individual focus. The scope of this study is the intra-action of both the recipient and agent role of middle managers. The negotiated context of middle managers influences their role intra-action and thereby how they approach interactions in their negotiated context. Moreover, middle managers engage in a self-negotiating process between their agent and recipient role, which influences their attitude towards change. The negotiation contexts that could be worth investigating in terms of their effect on individual sensemaking processes are listed in Table 1.
13
2.3 The influence of middle managers through sensegiving
Change agents or middle managers use sensegiving to influence the sensemaking processes of change recipients (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Sensegiving is defined as “a process of attempting to influence the sensemaking and meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality” (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991).
As stated before, middle managers have to sell and negotiate ideas to top management together with championing and selling change to subordinates. Rather than viewing championing as a management role, some scholars consider it as a social position within a social structure, arguing that ‘social structures reproduce certain practices in social activity but are themselves transformed in social action’(Mantere, 2005). The social action Mantere (2005) refers to can be compared to influencing the meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality as in Gioia & Chittipeddi (1991). As argued by Day & Day (1977) when drawing on theory of negotiated order, the informal shapes the formal organization and vice versa. However, contextual factors (as described in the chapter above) are not elaborated on in the sensegiving or sensemaking literature. By adopting a negotiated order lens on middle management literature, micro dynamics are considered within the broader macro-organization processes in which power and domination come into play. This is why negotiated order theory is a possible addition to the middle management literature, since it accounts for both the micro- and macro aspects. Furthermore, the influence of macro-organizational processes on middle management role intra-action as antecedents of sensegiving could be worth investigating.
14 could develop that is far from ideal for successful change. Accordingly, Cawsey (2016) states that the middle managers implementation role as change agent is most important in the change process. However, when middle managers struggle with their duality role of change recipient and change agent, the result could be a negative attitude towards change on the Affective, Cognitive or Behavioral dimension as in Piderit (2000). Accordingly, middle management could develop a resisting attitude towards change (Sonenshein, 2010), which influences their sensegiving processes and subordinate sensemaking. Thus, this attitude could have negative effects for change responses on individual and group level of change recipients, and ultimately a negative effect for the overall change outcome. Moreover, middle managers have to shape the perceptions of their subordinates (on individual level) relating to the change and influence the overall attitude (on group level) towards change (Penava & Ŝehić, 2014). To elaborate even further on this, the individual and group level attitudes also influence each other. This will be discussed in the next chapter.
2.4 Towards a multi-level view
Much literature can be found for change reactions on group or individual level. However, most literature focuses on one of these levels and multilevel literature is concise and fragmented to this day. Working towards a multi-level view on change responses is important since it can help us understand change outcomes and their antecedents. This study focuses on middle management role intra-action as antecedent for recipient responses on individual and group level.
15 future vision. In this phase it is important to show that the future state will be more beneficial and will have long term benefits for the organization (Armenakis et al., 1993). Motivating and supporting others in the unfreezing phase is one of the tasks in the middle managers agent role (Burnes, 2014). However, due to the middle managers role intra-action they might develop an attitude that makes them want to strategically pull back from their agent role. Moreover, the extent to which the middle managers can attend to their agent role and put effort into the unfreezing phase will influence individual and group attitude towards change. Thereby, middle management attitude can ultimately influence the development of group norms.
This study explores the relevancy of (1) the negotiated context of middle managers for middle managers (2) attitude and (3) behavioral responses to change and thereby how they act in the different stages of planned change. This is relevant for both the middle manager and the subordinates of this middle manager since middle managers strongly influence subordinate responses with (4) sensegiving embedded in their change approach. Moreover, middle managers and their subordinates will influence the change responses of others due to the (5) development of norms. The responses to change on individual and group level influence the intended and unintended change outcomes (Balogun &Johnson, 2005). However, this study does not further elaborate on this. Figure 1 summarizes the relationship between the negotiation contexts of middle managers, their responses, and the influence on subordinates. However, a side note has to be made. Sensemaking is often a social process, but this conceptual framework is limited to individual sensemaking. While affect clearly plays an important role in sensemaking, this study focuses on the cognitive component or the intra-action between roles of the middle manager. However, the paper does not neglect the influence of inter-action within the negotiated context on the intra-action of roles.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework: Influence of negotiation contexts on change responses individual and
16
3. METHODOLOGY
The literature review explains a potential relationship between the negotiated context of middle managers and subordinate responses to change on group and individual level. Moreover, exploring the negotiated context alongside planned change could result in possible additions to sensemaking theory. However, how the negotiated context of middle managers lead to positive or negative responses towards change is not yet researched into the practice field. Subsequently, new insights on how attitudes and behavior on individual and group level influence each other could be gathered. By exploring this phenomenon we can make a contribution to the literature about the duality role of middle managers and subordinate recipient change responses on individual and group level. Therefore, theory development is needed to explore this phenomenon.
3.1 Case selection
Addressing such questions in a way that theory development can take place, results in the need of qualitative research. These questions press for deeper understanding and rich explanation of underlying relationships (Eisenhardt, 1989). The following criteria are used to select a case site for this study:
• The organization has to be in a change that is developed by higher management (planned change).
• The planned change has to be communicated to middle managers, who in turn have to communicate and implement the change in their team (agent/recipient duality).
• It should be possible to divide the middle managers in groups that correspond to a different negotiated context to see if their behavior or approach differs. The choice in this study is to select two groups that differ in their geographical context since this context influences all other contexts in the negotiated order (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011).
17 lose their office and will have to start working in the same place as their subordinates like the second group. This means that for both groups the “soll” situation is the same but the current “ist” situation differs.
All middle managers worked for at least six months for the company. The middle managers have in common that they all have a team (2-11 people) that they have to guide through the change. Moreover, the hierarchical position of most middle managers in the organization is the same. However, some are more involved in the change project than others since they volunteered to take a more prominent role in communicating practices. This has no further implications for their formal hierarchical position. All middle managers have in common that they receive the change (recipient role) and have to implement the change in their team (agent role).
The interviews were conducted in English. The reason for this is that there were a lot of different nationalities among middle managers. The different counties of origin were: Poland, Slovenia, The Netherlands, USA, and England.
3.2 Data Collection
The change project followed the ADKAR (awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, reinforcement) model which refers to different stages of groups and individuals within the change. The model that is used can be found in appendix A. In the interviews it was stated that the organization is in the knowledge stage at the moment of conducting interviews. Moreover, the awareness and desire for the change are there but recipients want to gather more knowledge before moving on to the next stage in the model.
18 dispersion of managers and their subordinates to get a better understanding of its influence on the other contexts.
Respondent bias will be excluded from the study by including multiple respondents of different functional teams within this study. A total of ten different managers will be interviewed. Overall, these managers belong to either the group that has an office, but lose their office when the change is implemented (Case A), or to the group that works in the same space as their team, and will continue doing so on a new location when the change is implemented (Case B). An overview of interviewees for each case is presented in table 2.
Table 2: Interviewees per case
Case A Case B Interviewee 1M1 Interviewee 2M1 Interviewee 1M2 Interviewee 2M2 Interviewee 1M3 Interviewee 2M3 Interviewee 1M4 Interviewee 2M4 Interviewee 1M5 Interviewee 2M5
All interviews are held on different times and days and will be held in such a way that other potential interviewees cannot hear questions or answers. This results in control for the situation according to Aken (2012).
Controllability, validity, and reliability are considered most important in this research because it improves the inter-subjectivity agreements of the research results (van Aken, Berend & Bij, 2012). During the research, steps of the research activities will be documented. This results in higher controllability (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Moreover, the research has to be able to be replicated into other studies. According to Yin (2003) this is only possible if the reliability of the study is guaranteed. For this reason, potential biases will be controlled. This is done by recording the interviews. Next to this, all the interviews are executed by the same researcher. Recording the interviews gives the researcher the possibility to re-hear the interview and transcribing the interviews in a precise way. When only one researcher executes all interviews the interpretation of given answers and asking questions will be the same. After interviews are transcribed, coding of the interview will be done. Coding will be done by the researcher himself with feedback loops to the thesis supervisor.
19
3.3 Data Analysis
The data that is analyzed followed the method of Eisenhardt (1989). Both cases/groups are analyzed individually and later on a cross-case analysis is executed. The total of 10 interviews are interpreted to form results for case A and case B separately. Cross-case analysis resulted in a clear overview of differences and similarities between cases and this is used to base our conclusions on.
The recordings of the interviews were first transcribed and coded in a deductive and inductive way. Examples of deductive codes are based on (1) Tripartite definition of attitude (Piderit, 2000), (2) Behavior to change (Sonenshein, 2010), (3) Sensemaking and Sensegiving (Ford et al., 2008; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), (4) Support of manager (Mantere, 2008), (5) Attitude through statements (Feldman, 1984), (6) Convergence of behavior (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005), (7) Negotiated context change (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011). Examples of inductive codes are (1) gossip and (2) planned change. These codes came up in multiple interviews and seemed to be of interest. The inductive codes will be used to explain certain phenomenon in the discussion and conclusion of this paper. Observations are structured according to the conceptual framework that is presented at the end of the literature review. Furthermore, observations from qualitative nature are mirrored with observations from the quantitative part of this study that depends on the survey.
20
4. RESULTS
In this section we will analyze the results that are gathered from the interviews and questionnaire. The section is structured according the conceptual framework that is developed in the literature review. In other words, the data that is collected by conducted interviews and questionnaires will be compared on the following subjects: (1) negotiation context, (2) the attitude derived as results of change, (3) behavior as result from attitude, (4) the approach to change, (5) norm development in subordinate teams due to managers approach. An overview of these subjects and their relation to each other can be found in the conceptual framework at the end of the literature review. Results will be described for case A and case B separately. Accordingly, this section will built up to a cross-case-analysis by concluding similarities and differences between both cases.
The codebook can be found in appendix D, whilst the questionnaire results can be found in appendix E & F.
4.1 Case – A
4.1.1 Negotiation context
21 on this, the group sees the positive sides of the change but has some reservations regarding their own interests.
4.1.2 Attitude
The results on the cognitive attitude and the thoughts about the change differ for the relocation and the new way of working. One interviewee stated that: 1M4:After 15 years here moving somewhere else is somewhat nice.... In that respect it is nice to try something else. About the flex work uhhh….yea… that might be a little bit more difficult because you lose your own office and you have to work in a bigger department with other people and you are not necessary behind your own desk so that gives some thoughts. Will see how that works out. However, on average the group agrees (4,4) that the move is necessary and that the new way of working is profitable (3,8). Furthermore, another manager claims that: 1M5: In a way it’s a risk and I still don’t have the answers whether this was foreseen. The results point out that managers think about difficulties and risks regarding the new way of working.
The resulting emotions or affective attitude that developed in this group of middle managers are somewhat mixed. One interviewee that best describes the collective attitude states that: 1M3:Well as a person I’m not always initially excited about change. It needs time to process. I think probably in a way its mixed emotions and needed time to actually understand what these emotions were. Possibly a combination from this sounds positive and we got a lot to think through and how can this change actually be positive. It can be observed from the data that overall managers want to be positive but still have to figure out some things for themselves. Regarding the results from the questionnaire, managers agree (4,6) on a positive affective attitude towards the change.
The intentions or behavioral attitude of this group were mainly to get a better understanding of the change: 1M2: You start talking with other about it. Peers and people in your team and everybody else in the office that you know. In most cases I have a very positive look on things. Accordingly, another interviewee states that:1M1: My behavior was to embrace it and to help getting a better understanding. Regarding the questionnaire managers strongly agree (4,8) that they want to be supportive towards the change. It seems that the group has a positive behavioral attitude but wants to gather more information
4.1.3 Behavior
22 my team was aware of what the latest news was. Or at least make sure they know what was coming. The neutral stance of managers might be explained by some negative thoughts managers have, one manager stated that: 1M4:The question is if it’s really better to move to a building with more people than being in your own building if you are a specialty company. I do not fully understand this but apparently they made that choice. These results do not fully indicate championing behavior nor do they come close to the definition of resistance. Regarding the individual attitude influencing the actual behavior of the manager, the group strongly agreed (4,8) on the influence of their individual attitude on the manner in which they implement the change. Overall it can be observed that this group shows an accepting stance towards the change on the subject of behavior. Collectively, they are not fully active due to questions and concerns.
4.1.4 Approach to change
To structure the overall approach to change the organization adopted the ADKAR model. One interviewee elaborated on this model: 1M1: We had this change management course with the ADKAR (awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, reinforcement) model. It’s a process where people go through the change. You can do it for teams or individuals. However, the conceptions of a change or the perception differ for teams and individuals. You have to change as a team but everybody has Its own thoughts about it. You have to learn people where the change is about and what is in it for them. That is basically how you want people to change. So far the group agreed on that their teams see the location move necessary (3,6) and the new way of working profitable (3,6). Moreover, they also agree (3,8) on that the teams have a positive attitude towards the change.
Most interesting is the almost unanimous agreement of all managers that they find it most important to focus on the group as a whole, instead of focusing on individuals. One interviewee stated that: 1M4: As I said [I focus on] the whole group because it affect them at the same level. They work in the same area and they will all make the same change. I prefer to do that in the whole group. Another interviewee stated that: 1M5: I want to help people grow if they want to grow for themselves. On the other hand the weight of the team is more important than what an individual does. If I have a very steady team and I have one outperformer with a really bad attitude then I rather lose him and hire someone else. These statements are somewhat controversial since the explanation of the ADKAR model implies that conceptions of the change differ for teams and individuals.
23 statements, it seems that managers know the value of an individual focus but prefer the focus on teams. However, the results from the questionnaire state that managers strongly agree (4,8) on their ability to change their approach. They also agree (4,4) that they can influence their team regarding their attitude. Considering the results related to sensemaking of the manager, one interviewee states that 1M4:I think the more you know the more you actually become aware of what the actual change is and then you become more comfortable with the change. This manager points out that gathering more information about the change makes him feel more at ease. Being comfortable towards the change had to grow over time for this individual. Another interviewee states that: 1M1: If you have a team you have one on one discussions which might influence you. The results point out that due to the team focused approach of the managers they get less influenced by their subordinates. Accordingly, the questionnaire comes to the same results as managers strongly disagree (1,4) on their team influencing their attitude towards change.
A few results can be observed from the data regarding support of the manager to their team. One manager talks about providing extra resources: 1M2: Knowing their background helps you with the conversations. At some point, because we will go there, you have to deal with it. How can we make the situation easier to deal with for you and your neighbours. Moreover, all managers provide information as supportive act: 1M2: We need to keep people informed. I don’t have all the details but people want information. So they can think about it and get used to it. From the results it seems that the range of possible supportive actions are focused on the individual. Accordingly, another manager comes back to the earlier statement about the importance of listening to individual concerns in combination with giving extra information: 1M4:You have to do some investigation about what the root cause of the reaction is. You can satisfy the person by sharing more information or make changes if possible.
4.1.5 Norm development process of subordinates
24 way but still be negative. Just like you can bring over your enthusiasm you can also bring over negativity to others. The same interviewee later states that: 1M5:Due to the project and one decision we made that we put new people in the team that have experience. Three of the people that were in my team got a new team to work in. It seems that some resistant behavior was observed in this team and that some members that were resisting the change have been replaced. This might be because these people had a negative influence on the other team members. Accordingly, the statement that was made about bringing over enthusiasm and negativity seems to be very present in this team. Moreover, another manager states that: 1M4:For this change if one person feels like not to move they will easily impact others with the same idea. It seems that subordinates with a negative attitude influence others through statements they make. Moreover, interviewees state that this depends per person. How influential their attitude through statements is on others depends on personal characteristics. It is stated that: 1M3:Under certain circumstances some voices are stronger than others. I have individuals that all can voice their concerns. Potentially in a group situation you see an influence from the stronger characters.
Considering the influence of individuals on group behavior a manager stated that: 1M4:If one person or two persons in the group are not really feeling or willingly to move then they could force that uncertainty within the team and then the whole team might feel the same. The convergence of behavior to the more negative side should be overcome, according to another manager: 1M2: If I see that they are making each other more negative. Because negative talking will influence the other person as well. Then I will just say guys, this change will happen, why are you talking to each other in this way?
4.2 Case – B
4.2.1 Negotiation context
25 for this group. Questionnaire results point out that managers agree (4,4) on influence from superiors. The managers also agree (3,6) on that subordinates influence them. However, if we look more closely we can see a difference if the numbers are not rounded down. It can be observed that in terms of decision making, this group allocates more power to higher hierarchical ranks but thinks subordinates are also influential in this (power context). Furthermore, this group agrees on having an informal relationships with superiors (4,4) and strongly agrees on an informal relationship with subordinates (4,6) (social context). Considering structural arrangements, the group of managers agree (4,0) that rules and procedures help to execute the change. However, they also agree (4,4) that current rules and procedures have to be adapted to bring the change to a success (structural context). One interviewee states that: 2M1:There is no change where it’s not important to highlight that people have to turn in certain privileges. Think about the community of the company. If we can save costs maybe we can have better IT, retain more people or offer more trainings. You have to go back to where the resistance comes from[…]But what is in it for me that is still negative. What can we actually plus for this individual. Elaborating on this, this group sees the change as a rational and positive decision but expects resistance.
4.2.2 Attitude
Considering the first thoughts and the cognitive attitude in the change the following comments summarize the collective attitude of the group of managers: 2M5:I thought it was necessary since we had to move....You know what my first thought was, I know. Since we were moving to alexander stations and there are shops! For the first time in so many years I can get my presents for Christmas on time. Accordingly, another manager stated that: 2M3:What they tell me I can understand. It’s about more interaction. For now its separated. The economic part is really clear for me. If the building is too big for you I can understand it fully, you just have to move to another place. In this group the cognitive attitude was positive. Moreover, the attitude is directed on “what is in it for me” and the rationalization of the change. Managers strongly agree (4,6) on the necessity of the move and also agree (4,4) on that the new way of working will be profitable.
26 For the behavioral part of the attitude the intentions of the group can be summarized with two statements. The first interviewee states that: 2M1: I definitely want to cooperate, the change is multiple, it stand from a rationalization of costs. A second manager adds: 2M3: We need to be lean and mean and more effective. It’s about more interaction. The environment over here is not that dynamic. It seems like the change is experienced as the rational way to go and that this managers intentions rely on waste reduction. However, one interviewee makes a statement about other managers: 2M2:I’m not sure if management really wanted to embrace the new way of working or whether it was a logistical consequence of that we are looking for a new office. This statement is not applicable for the managers in group B, since they all strongly agree (5,0) that they want to be supportive towards the change. It could be that this statement relates to the group of managers in Case A. This will later be compared in the cross case analysis.
4.2.3 Behavior
Regarding the actual behavior of managers, an interviewee stated that: 2M4: I help leaderships teams to get through the change... I organize meetings, sessions and workshops to make them aware of what is expected of them. Another interviewee states that: 2M1:You go through a change because you want certain benefits to happen, people can sabotage these benefits. You have to believe in it so you can have people jumping on board so you can bring the change to a success. Both managers focus on helping others to bring change to a success and show championing behavior. Moreover, one interviewee states that 2M3:I heard about the change and I thought, well, I will see[....]I just try to get more information to do my tasks effectively. These kind of statements have been coded as accepting behavior. Moreover, the interviewees agree (4,2) on that their individual attitude influences how they implement the change. It can be observed that most managers are actively supporting the change with their behavior.
4.2.4 Approach to change
The change approach of this group of managers can be accurately described with the following statement: 2M1: It is very different [change approach for individual differs from team] and a good manager does both [focus on individual and team]. Every individual might have a certain attitude towards change. You have to see individually where they are [recipients attitude], do they understand the benefits for them and do they need training? The managers in this group agree (4,2) on that their teem sees the relocation as necessary. Next to this they also agree (4,0) that their team deems the new way of working profitable. Overall, they agree (4,0) on a positive attitude of their teams towards the change.
27 you have a directive management style. It can be said that this manager enjoys informality with his subordinates. Another manager also states that individuals are important but has a less informal view: 2M4: I look at individuals but I approach them as a team. These are your responsibilities and how can you make sure you do this effectively. Communication with individual team members is ought to be important to get to know the individual engagement. One manager states that: 2M5:Actually what I’m doing is talk to people one on one. Then you can see the level of engagement of the person. The information the manager gathers this way seems different from the information that can be gained though communicating on team level only. The manager later states that: 2M5:You talk differently to individuals than you talk in the group. I would not say the one is more easy than the other but you need to do both. From the results it seems that managers in this group communicate on both team level and individual level to increase engagement on team level.
These managers engage in sensegiving with an individual focus. One manager states that: 2M2:You have to get into the minds of your team and let them tell you what they think. I think that connection is important to get the employee with you. It’s a matter of seeking the dialog and the communication. The manager states the importance of involvement of employees. Another manager states that: 2M4:Part of that [involving subordinates] is with personal feedback. You and I just sit and we just discuss. How did you think it went, what was your role in it and how can we improve it. Individual involvement seems to be valued by this group. Furthermore, next to talking it’s also important to show what behavior is desirable according to this manager: 2M5:I have people that say I can absorb the change quickly, but you also have people that struggle with the change. It’s just like with children. It’s not what you tell them to do, it’s what you show them to do. It is assumed that the behavior you show to subordinates will influence the future behavior and actions of the subordinates. Another manager elaborates on this: 2M3:Let’s say that I don’t like the change. I must prevent that my feeling influences the complete staff. How do I do that? To keep that for myself. That is very difficult. You can tell people how they should do it, but if you don’t believe it yourself people can see that. These results point out that sensegiving is used for involvement of subordinates on individual level and team level. The former is done by taking away concerns and giving individual feedback and the latter focuses on acting in a way that can be adapted by subordinates on team level. These managers agree (4,4) on that they can change their change approach when needed. Furthermore, they also agree (4,2) on that they are able to influence the attitude of their team.
28 comes about managers can fulfill their role better. Moreover, the manager states that the individual sensemaking process of this manager results in behavior that is more appropriate for the change situation. However, appropriate behavior that the manager refers to is the result of an individual cognitive process that might be biased. In this case there was influence of the media. Next to this, managers in this group have a neutral (3,0) stance towards their subordinates influencing their attitude.
These managers focus on giving individual support in different ways. One manager states that providing resources for individuals can benefit the change: 2M1:What part of the change is resisted? You have to take this away. Like you offer a training. Then the person will be happy to put that on his CV. An actual example of providing resources is given by another interviewee: 2M5:There is one gentleman that comes on his bike every day which takes 30 minutes. In the new building this will take 45 minutes which is a bit longer. Now we found out that it’s possible to get an E-bike with a high discount via the company for this man. Now he slowly starts to see benefits as well. One statement that best describes these incentives is: 2M4:I think a lot about what is in it for me question. What is in it for the person that has to change. What is good for him and what is bad for him. Moreover, providing information is also considered as a way to support subordinates: Information 2M2:It’s about feeding the people that you want to change with information so they understand. It can be observed that providing resources and information for both individuals and teams is present in this group.
4.2.5 Norm development process of subordinates
The individual behavior of subordinates tends to be of an accepting nature according to the data. One interviewee states that: 2M5:I think they [recipients] start to have it [positive attitude]. It is something that grew over time. Some people can handle straight away but some just need to sleep a few nights over it and see that it’s not so bad. However, some results point out resistant behavior for subordinates. A manager states: 2M2: For some people this change is really impacting their lives and that’s why they take a defensive nature. It would be really interesting for them to tell me why they do not support this. Another manager elaborates on this with: 2M4:Part of the people see it as a threat. They like the office and they like the picture of their children on the wall. We have to see how we can help them accept the change. These managers focus on overcoming the resistance by dialog and support for specific individuals.
29 than the other way around. The manager later elaborates on this with: 2M5:If you see people struggle a bit with the change in the beginning you see them always say “but”. Like when someone says something positive they just say yea, but, [negative statement]. If you have 9 people and 8 are positive and 1 is negative you have to be careful. This negative attitude can just jump to the other people in the team. I think it jumps to people quicker than a positive attitude. However, one manager states that it’s not only the attitude of subordinates: 2M2: People that speak out more have more influence in the group than people that don’t. It’s about extroversion and introversion. When people come into the team they have to adapt in the beginning. They will probably see who has things to say and when they can say something. It’s about group dynamics, norms and behavior and culture. According to the results the individual attitude can influence the attitude of other team members by statements based on the individual attitude. However, the statements that an individual makes differs for each person, based on personality, norms, culture and group dynamics. Moreover, the managers attitude and behavior also influences the team. One manager states that: 2M2: When you see your leader challenging things and if the leader is able to embrace the topic that doesn’t mean that your team is able to make that same paradigm shift. You have to be very careful if you express your opinion in front of a team. It seems that the managers in this group are aware of the possibility that attitudes and behavior develop in the same direction over time. According to one manager, communication is important to overcome the development of a negative collective attitude. He states that: 2M4:People influence each other a lot, because if you don’t have the information you make up the information from the bits and pieces you get. Accordingly, there are two ways of gathering this information: 2M1: Companies are like villages. There is always the official and unofficial information. We always have the coffee machine whispers. This statement shows that both the manager and colleague team members influence the collective attitude in the team.
4.3 Cross case analysis – A & B 4.3.1 Negotiation context
30 Both groups of managers agree strongly on that it’s possible to plan ahead but also on the fact that plans have to adapt during the change. In terms of ideological considerations about influence, all managers agree on a more powerful position of their superior in comparison with their subordinate team members. However, Case A deems the influence of subordinates as neutral, where Case B agrees on seeing their subordinates as influential in decision making. Subsequently, there are small differences in the social context of both cases. Case A scores higher on the informal relationship with superiors, whilst case B scores higher on the informal relationship with subordinates. Furthermore, both groups agree on that the present structural arrangements help to execute the change. However, in Case A the managers strongly agree on that these arrangements have to be adapted, whereas Case B agrees in a milder form.
From the quantitative data the main difference seems to be the view on influence of subordinates and superiors and the kind of relationship managers have with these two groups. Moreover, the qualitative data shows a difference on how managers engage in sensemaking processes: whereas managers of case A see some personal losses, managers of case B collectively agrees on rationalization of the change.
4.3.2 Attitude
A difference can be observed between the cognitive attitude of the middle managers in both cases. For Case A the collective thoughts were mainly focused on risks and difficulties to overcome regarding the new way of working, whilst in Case B managers thought about organizational wins and that the change would be a rational decision. When results of the questionnaire are compared and rounded down no differences can be seen in the experienced necessity and profitability of the change. However, case B rates these factors higher on average.
Regarding the affective considerations of managers some small differences can be observed. The collective feeling in case A is that managers state that they want to be positive but still have to figure out some things, whilst Case B concludes that most managers experience positive feelings. However, questionnaire results show that both groups agree strongly on that they have a positive attitude towards the change.
31
4.3.3 Behavior
To follow up on the results formulated above, the logical consequence of the observed attitude can be listed as following. The managers in Case A stated concerns and risks and were cognitively challenged by personal losses, whereas the managers in Case B were able to see personal wins and rational arguments for the change. Subsequently, the data on behavior follows this line of development. The observations in Case A did not include fully active behavior, nor did it include aggressive resistance. A more neutral accepting stance was adopted by the managers in this group. Accordingly, the managers in case B took a supportive stance, committing to the change in a more active manner. Moreover, a small difference can be observed between questionnaire results for the groups of managers of A & B. In Case A, managers strongly agree that their individual attitude influences their behavior, whereas managers in case B state that they agree in a milder form.
4.3.4 Approach to change
The approach managers adopt in both cases differs in an interesting way. The managers in Case A have a strong tendency to focus their approach on team level, whilst managers in Case B agree collectively on an individual approach as well as on team level. While argumentation for a team focus in Case A doesn’t go further than the argument of time efficiency, the managers of Case B state that it’s important to know the individual level of engagement. Furthermore, managers in Case B want to focus on individual concerns and try to help their subordinates to take these concerns away. It could be argued that the managers in Case A are busy with their own concerns at the moment and therefore prefer a team focus. Questionnaire results point out that in both cases managers agree on that the subordinates see the necessity and profitability of the change. Managers also agree in both cases that their team has a positive attitude towards the change. However, when results are not rounded the teams of the managers in Case B score higher on average on all three aspects. Next to this, some thoughts could be given to the fact that when a manager has both an individual and team focus, a better oversight of the actual attitude of individual team members is generated.
32 The sensemaking practices of both groups somewhat differ. The group of managers in Case A tries to make sense of personal losses whereas the managers in Case B are making sense of wins on organizational level. The results for Case A describe less influence of subordinates for managers attitude and sensemaking in comparison with the results of Case B. The questionnaire shows that managers in Case A strongly disagree on the fact that subordinates influence them, whilst managers in Case B take a more neutral stance towards this. Managers in Case B actively seek new information from others to develop their role in the change.
On the spectrum of supportive behavior, small differences can be observed. Supportive behavior of managers is focused on individuals in Case A, but statements are less clear as in Case B. While case A considers possibilities, Case B provides actual examples of supportive behavior. Next to this, in Case B it is clear that there is supportive behavior towards both individuals and teams.
4.3.5 Norm development process of subordinates
The individual attitude of subordinates differs slightly in both cases. In Case A there are somewhat mixed results. According to the managers, subordinates look at what is in it for them. It is also observed that the managers ask the “what is in it for me” question themselves. Next to this, it seems that some resistant behavior is present. The behavior in Case B is also mixed but managers approach this differently. It is stated that not only subordinates resist the change. Some of the middle managers that lose their office have shown, or are expected to show, resistant behavior. However, these managers do not belong to the group of managers in Case B. The managers in Case B focus on overcoming the resistance by dialog and support for specific individuals.
Similarities can be found on how individuals influence the collective attitude according to the managers. In both cases evidence can be found for individuals that make certain statements based on their individual attitude. Managers in both cases argue that these statements influence others in their team. An interesting addition is made by the managers in Case B, who state that negative statements are stronger than positive ones. Following this line of reasoning, it is stated that a subordinate that shows resisting behavior has a stronger influence on the group than a subordinate with championing behavior. Furthermore, it is stated that individual statements (negative or positive), by manager or subordinate, are somewhat bound by norms, personality and culture.
33 managers in Case B state that communication takes place between both the manager and the colleague team members. It is important to pay attention to individuals because they influence each other, also when the manager is not there at the time. This could be the reason that managers in Case B prefer the focus on individual concerns as on team level behavior, they want to prevent that individual negative attitudes influence the rest of the team. An overview of results for both cases can be found in figure 2.
Figure 2: Cross-case analysis table
Group of managers in Case A
Group of managers in Case B
Change context
Managers have their own office in the current situation. In the change they move to a new building with big open flex workplaces.
Managers work in the same room as their team. In the change they move to a new building with big open flex workplaces.
Ideological context
Political concerns on supervisor level more important than relational concerns on subordinate level.
Political concerns on supervisor level evenly important as relational concerns on subordinate level.
Social context
Strong informal relationship with subordinates and superior.
Strong informal relationship with subordinates and less informal with superior.
Structural context
Structural arrangements help to execute the change. However, all managers strongly agree that structural arrangements have to be adapted.
Structural arrangements help to execute the change. However, managers agree on that some adaption is needed.
Power context
Superior is more important than subordinates in terms of decission making. Managers are neutral in terms of subordinates influencing them in decision making.
Superior is more important than subordinates in terms of decission making. Subordinates are influential in decision making.
Geografical context
Both teams and manager occasionally work from home or different places than on location. These managers work in their own office most of the time
Both teams and manager occasionally work from home or different places than on location. These managers work in the same room as their subordinates most of the time. Affective
Want to be positive, still have to figure out some things.
Positive.
Cognitive
Neutral/Negative, focus on personal
losses and difficulties. Positive, focus on organizational wins. Behavioral
Want to cooperate but gather more information first.
Want to cooperate since the change seems a rational decision.
Behavior Accepting and waiting. Championing and acting in a more
active manner.
Sensemaking Making sense of personal losses. Making sense of organizational wins. Sensegiving Mainly on team level. On team and individual level.
Support
Want to give support to their team and know the value of individual support.
Gives examples of support given to individuals untill now and has intentions to continue with this.
Behavior of subordinates Mixed results Mixed results
Convergence of behavior
Subordinates influence each other Subordinates influence each other. Negative statements more strongly than positive statements.
Subject
Change context
Attitude
Approach to change
34
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In this part the findings and patterns of the research are listed. At first, the sub-questions will be answered and compared to existing literature. These sub-questions are used as base to answer the research question: How does middle management duality and individual sensemaking influence subordinate change recipients responses to planned change on individual level and group level? Accordingly, propositions will be listed. Furthermore, theoretical and practical implications will be given. Finally, future research and limitations of the study will be given.
5.1 Discussion and propositions 5.1.1 Sub-question 1
“How do changes in the negotiated context of middle management influence individual sensemaking and sensegiving of middle management?
To engage in specification of the definition of contextual influence on individual sensemaking practices, and hence to adequately describe the role of power, geographic location, social relationships, and organizational structural arrangements, in individual sensemaking and micro-level processes has been of great interest in this study. The literature on sensemaking practices states that the local context is important but does not explore this context further (Weick, 1995).
This study explored how changes in the negotiated context influence the attitude towards change of middle managers. From the results it became clear that middle managers experienced change differently depending on their contextual arrangements. Patterns can be observed regarding different attitudes and behavior as result of the individual (1) organizational change context and (2) geographical context. The former can be explained by comparing the results of both groups of managers regarding their view on the scope of change. For both groups of managers the goal of the change (soll) is the same, however, the current situation (ist) differs. Managers that experienced a broader scope of change also experienced more ambivalent attitudes. This is in line with the study of Van den Heuvel, Schalk, Freese & Timmerman (2016), which state that the perception of change can differ for each person and influences the individual attitude.
