1

Juggling in the middle Middle managers’ perceptions on leading through the

complexity of change

Fanny Bergkvist and Anna Johansson D’Ath

Stockholm Business School

Master’s Degree Thesis 30 HE credits

Subject: Management

Program: [Master program in leadership], 120 HE credits

Spring semester 2016

Supervisor: Svante Schriber

2

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to our supervisor, Ass. Professor Svante Schriber at

Stockholm Business School for providing guidance during the research process.

We would also like to sincerely thank our supervisor at the case company, for providing us

with enthusiasm and valuable advice regarding the empirical data collection. Finally, we

would like to send out our gratitude towards our respondents, who have provided us with

insights into their profession in an open-minded manner. A special thank you to the people

travelling far to participate in this study.

Sincerely,

Fanny Bergkvist and Anna Johansson D´Ath

3

Abstract

Dealing with change is crucial for organizations in order to survive in today's constantly

changing business environment, such tasks are included in the role of the middle managers’.

There are plenty of studies made on change and how managers’ successfully should lead

through change, but managers’ own perceptions and considerations of what is important when

proceeding with change, seems less researched. The aim of this paper is to contribute with a

better understanding of how middle managers’ perceive their own position and leadership in

change. A case study was conducted on a large international company within the construction

and property development industry. The study is based on significant competences and

procedures required by middle managers’, when leading through change. The methodology

used was a deductive and qualitative approach, and contain in-depth interviews on middle

managers’ perceptions on change. In total, 18 middle managers’ was interviewed and the

interviews were then transcribed, thematized and presented through quotes. Our results

indicate that middle managers’ perception of leading teams through change is a difficult

process due to the often short time frames, high expectations coming from above and

leadership norms shaped in society. From a learning perspective, a change process is

suggested to be less focused on the leader and rather enable the whole team to manage

change. The most neglected aspects of learning was to take the time to reflect and to consider

mistakes as part of a learning process.

Key words: Leadership perception, Leading change, Learning through change, Middle

managers’

4

ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................................................3CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................5

1.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................................51.2 CASE COMPANY.........................................................................................................................................................61.3 PROBLEMATIZATION................................................................................................................................................71.4 AIM AND PURPOSE.....................................................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................92.1 PREVIOUS RESEARCH...............................................................................................................................................9

2.1.1 Complexity of leading change..........................................................................................................................92.1.2 The focus on the leader.......................................................................................................................................92.1.3 Leading change in steps..................................................................................................................................10

2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK...............................................................................................................................112.2.1 Leading change...................................................................................................................................................112.2.2 Communicating change...................................................................................................................................122.2.3 Accepting and believing in change..............................................................................................................132.2.4 Leading teams through change.....................................................................................................................142.2.5 Learning in change............................................................................................................................................152.2.6 Enabling reflection............................................................................................................................................16

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................203.1 RESEARCH DESIGN AND STRATEGY..................................................................................................................203.2 DEDUCTIVE APPROACH........................................................................................................................................213.3 SELECTION OF RESPONDENTS.............................................................................................................................213.4 COLLECTION OF DATA..........................................................................................................................................223.5 DATA ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................................................................223.6 VALIDITY..................................................................................................................................................................233.7 INTERNAL VALIDITY..............................................................................................................................................233.8 ETHICAL ASPECTS...................................................................................................................................................243.9 METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS.....................................................................................................................253.10 THE RESEARCH PROCESS...................................................................................................................................25

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS............................................................................................264.1 BACKGROUND TO THE CASE...............................................................................................................................264.2 PERCEPTIONS OF LEADING CHANGE.................................................................................................................26

4.2.1 Perceptions of communicating change......................................................................................................284.2.2 Perceptions of accepting and believing in change...............................................................................284.2.3 Perceptions of leading teams through change........................................................................................304.2.4 Perceptions of learning in change...............................................................................................................324.2.5 Perceptions of enabling reflection.............................................................................................................33

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION & CRITICAL REFLECTION.............................................................355.1 THEMATIZATION OF FINDINGS...........................................................................................................................365.2 PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE................................................................................................38

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................406.1 FUTURE RESEARCH................................................................................................................................................43

CHAPTER 7: LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH...................................................................................44REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................45ATTACHMENT 1.........................................................................................................................................50

5

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Dealing with change is crucial for organizations’ to survive in today's constantly changing

business environment (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Burns 2004). In order to keep up with such

a rapidly changing environment, companies need managers that can lead through change

(Brimm, 2015; Burke, 1992), who are able to deal with varied circumstances connected to

organizational change (Kotter & Schledinger, 2008). However, more than half of change

initiatives fail (Young, 2009; Cabrey & Haughey, 2014). Even though some succeed, they are

not entirely successful, either being more time consuming than first expected, emotionally

difficult and/or exceeding budget (Kotter & Schledinger, 2008). When reorganizations occur

feelings of fear and threat usually appear, resulting in increased costs and a lack of efficiency

(Kotter & Schledinger, 2008). Selander and Henfridsson (2012) describe that, change can be

troublesome due to delays, unethical behaviors and cynicism. Commitment is an important

aspect when going through change, but it is also considered important to look at attitudes,

change behaviours, emotions and reactions (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell & Liu, 2008). Ricciardi

and Schaller (2005) argue that within management literature, change is usually connected to

success, neglecting possible shortcomings. When projects are finished success factors are

considered, while mistakes many times are forgotten (Ricciardi & Schaller, 2005).

Kotter and Shledinger (2008) claim, that many managers’ underestimate the variety of

reactions on how employees respond to change, along with the managers’ perception on their

own ability to influence these reactions, revealing a focus on the manager within change

literature. The most prominent behaviour expressed throughout change literature is resistance,

which is expressed to be one of the many responsibilities for managers’ to influence and

reduce (Lorenzi & Riley, 2000). Moreover, Kotter (2012) claim, that change can benefit from

a manager who is proactive in the procedures of implementing change processes. For

instance, to take proactive measures, it is suggested that managers’ have a clear vision,

empower employees, support them and communicate the message appropriately.

Managers’ have been deeply affected by the increased urgency of organizational change,

according to Dobson and Stewart (1990). Furthermore, the task of handling change have

mainly landed on middle managers’, who at the same time are stuck in a hierarchy, exposed

for pressure from above and below (Dobson & Stewart, 1990). Adding even more pressure to

6

managers’ are the dehumanization of the role of being a manager (Petriglieri & Petriglieri,

2015). According to the authors, the understanding of the leadership role, have been narrowed

down to include a goal-focus with an aspiring set of skills and into a virtue. Such virtue may

include unaffectedness to the pull of incentives and the push of emotions. In this sense

leadership becomes disembodied through the rejection of identity, community and context

(Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2015).

There are plenty of studies made on change and how managers’ successfully should lead

through change. There are many different models and recommended leadership attributes on

how a leader should lead. There is also a lot of research on how leaders’ ideally should act in

best practise procedures. These procedures are for instance suggested by Kotter's (2012)

change model of eight stages, and by Lewin’s functional approach, followed by a three step

stage model of “freeze, unfreeze, refreeze” group behaviours, in order to manage teams in

change (Burnes & Cooke, 2013).

Managers’ own perceptions and considerations of what is important when proceeding with

change, seems to be less researched. Sveningsson and Alvesson (2010) argue, that research

sometimes neglects the importance of the leader’s context, in order to achieve universal truths

and generalised results. We are interested in finding out how these rather functionalistic

management perspectives on change are perceived in reality. Both to see when current

theoretical perspectives correlate and when they do not correlate with practise but also to

highlight middle managers’ perspectives on change and learning in relation to each other.

Therefore, we want to fill this theoretical gap, consisting of the managers’ own perception of

the complexity of change in practise. This is interesting in order to better understand the

complexity of change and the context of the middle managers’ role within change. Therefore,

we want to contribute with knowledge and a deeper understanding of middle managers’ own

perception on leading change.

1.2 Case company The case company is operating within the construction and building industry. This company is

interesting to study in relation to change due to its high contrast between being a large,

traditional and hierarchical organisation operating in a rapidly changing market. The company

has recently implemented a new strategy to unite large parts of the organization. This change

is the largest one in 15 years and the aim with the new, extensive change initiative is to

enhance the sharing of knowledge and resources, to respond to market demands more rapidly.

7

Middle managers’ have been interviewed about their leadership, whereas both “managers”

and “leaders” are used as terms throughout this report.

1.3 Problematization Change projects have a tendency to start with a coherent planning stage but miss out

following up on the finished outcome (Meredith & Mantel, 1995). Gino and Staats (2015)

claim that short-time behaviors are lacking in long-term solutions. A long-term perspective on

change, include instruments of how learning can affect the outcome of change to a higher

extent (Gino & Staats, 2015; Dweck, 2015). Since over half of organizational changes fail

(Young, 2009) this area is crucial to continue researching and might benefit from extended

theoretical contributions. There is an organisational perspective, or at least organisational

vocabulary in current change literature, downplaying the human perspective on change

(Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2015). This is problematic since change managers and employees

are the actual ones changing and going through change. Not understanding middle managers’

perspectives on change is severe, as they are the ones implementing change and living

through the complexity of change. Specified competences in literature have been conflicting

with practice, one competence can be used diversely by different managers that are operating

within different contexts (Caldwell, 2003). The solution is therefore to research managers’

perspectives on leading change, which is important, both from a theoretical and practical

perspective.

1.4 Aim and purpose The aim of this paper is to contribute with a better understanding of how middle managers

perceive their own position and leadership in change. But also to pinpoint discrepancies and

similarities between theory and practise by investigate middle managers implications when

leading change. The finished outcome is expected to both deepen and broaden an

understanding of how these perceptions are manifested in reality and more extensively

contribute to current theories on change. This will provide the literature with a more nuanced

perspective on change. To nuance and include more, in-depth, subjective perspectives on

change, we can move closer toward understanding more perspectives of the complexity. To

better grip the complexity of change is necessary for everyone operating in today's business

environment including organisations within both the private and the public sector. This

phenomenon is also important to study, compare and analyse in order to enrich and test

8

perspectives within current change literature. To reach our purpose, qualitative data will be

collected in a single case study interviewing eighteen middle managers’ during an on going

change process. This choice of method is used in order to reach a deeper understanding of

middle managers own perceptions on leading change. To reach our aim, the following

research question was formulated:

How do middle managers’ perceive their leadership when leading their teams through

change?

To further understand this phenomenon, the following sub-question was formulated:

What are the major discrepancies and/or similarities between theory and practise for

middle managers’ going through change?

9

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW The first part of this chapter will present previous research within the field of organisational

change and learning. The second part regards our theoretical framework, which is structured

in accordance to the thematization made from the data.

2.1 Previous research Change literature has pinpointed the complexity of leading change and unpredictable human

behaviour. Presumptions in relation to idealised leadership, has revealed a possible

shortcoming in current literature as it is also argued to be focusing too much on the leader,

forgetting team competences. Some suggests simplified step-by-step models but these aspects

are argued by others to be neglecting the context. The literature is not coherent regarding

change and learning in multiple aspects, but most parts are agreeing upon how crucial it is to

somewhat comprehend this complexity. To sort out the different concepts, ideas and possible

shortcomings these will now be presented.

2.1.1 Complexity of leading change

Managing change include dealing with emotions, and as Burke (1992) exemplifies, dealing

with the unpredictability of human behaviour. Even changes that seem rational and are

received as something positive can contain emotions of uncertainty (Kotter & Schledinger,

2008). There are techniques for how one can avoid these uncertainties, and in the long run

resistance. Resistance is a returning theme throughout change literature, with many

suggestions and explanations on how to avoid. For instance, recommendations made by Burke

(1992), on avoiding resistance are that managers should try to let go of the past, recognize

staff members through feedback and communicate the right amount of information. These

aspects are to be considered to proactively handle in change procedures to avoid mistakes,

claims Burke (1992).

2.1.2 The focus on the leader

Caldwell (2003) argues that the role of the middle manager is of high importance when

implementing change, due to their central role and responsibilities during change. Caldwell

(2003) suggests that there is a difference between project management and the skillset

required to implement change. Change beneficial competences are rarely overlapping, and are

usually demonstrated with learning, forecasting anticipation and creating change (Caldwell,

10

2003). Managing large-scale changes is very complex and involves a high risk whereas the

skillset goes beyond the skills of a project manager, according to Caldwell (2003).

It is however common that organisational members look at their manager as the expert,

excluding their own learning process and competences (O’Brian & Buono, 1996). Here it is

important for managers’ to see the value from each team member, with an aim to move away

from the expert role. Suggested instead is to see the potential within the whole team and

encourage the learning processes within the team (O’Brian & Buono, 1996). O’Brian and

Buono (1996) emphasise the importance of managers’ raising team competences, learning

processes and that they see the potential of the whole team. This reasoning goes in line with,

Boies, Fiset and Gill (2015), who argue that in complex and competitive environments’

organisations’ depends on collaboration and teamwork.

2.1.3 Leading change in steps

The change literature has emphasised how managers’ should go about change. One

perspective of how this should be processed, is established by Kotter (2012), discussing

change with a step model, aiming to avoid risks of anxiety, cynicism and resistance. The steps

include implying urgency that the change is important, creating appropriate guidance, support

and strong coalitions. It is also suggested not underestimate the power of a vision, which is

more important than the above points mentioned, and is key to change as it gives direction,

align co-workers, inspires and affects multiple people in the organisation at once (Kotter,

2012). The importance of communicating the vision and explaining its potential is also crucial

in the steps, and then to empowering, support people to proceed with the new vision. The final

step is about incorporating the changes as the only way to behave, both in corporate culture

and work tasks (Kotter, 2012).

The model by Kotter has been criticised for neglecting the context of the change (Appelbaum,

Habashy, Malo & Shafiq, 2012). It has also been criticised for ignoring the individual.

Suggested, by Appelbaum et al (2012), is to combine Kotters’ model with other change

models, dependent on the need and context. In favour for Kotter, is his reasoning at the time

regarding that the main problem people face in change is not due to strategies, structures,

cultures or systems but the changing of people's behaviours (Appelbaum et al., 2012).

11

2.2 Theoretical Framework

2.2.1 Leading change

A common description of leadership throughout management literature, is emphasising the

leader’s ability to “lead with a vision” and reach targeted goals: “The movement of others in

the direction of goals that are clearly fixed as a vision in the mind of the leader and the use of

those others to achieve the end state desired by the leader” (Cartwright, 2002:115).

Moreover, Pendleton and Furnham (2011) describe the attributes of a leader, as a person who

is again, lifting a person's vision and raising performance and personalities to a higher

standard, beyond limitations.

According to Dobson and Stewart (1990), many middle managers’ are stuck in the middle of

hierarchy and have become frustrated and disillusioned. Organisations’ need to respond

quickly in order to survive and these implications has mainly landed on middle management,

argue Dobson and Stewart (1990). The pressures of being responsible for change include

factors as; intensified global competition, deregulation of markets, changing attitudes to

authority and demographic changes (Dobson & Stewart, 1990). Furthermore, Petriglieri and

Petriglieri (2015) describe that leadership has been dehumanized which includes a process of

narrowing down our understanding of leadership to include goal-focus with an aspiring set of

skills and into a virtue. Such virtue may include unaffectedness to the pull of incentives and

the push of emotions. In this sense leadership becomes disembodied through the rejection of

identity, community and context. By doing so, the nature of leadership as a form of personal

expression and social stewardship is ignored. Furthermore, such conduct denies the

ambiguity, emotional dilemmas and relational dynamics that leadership entails. According to

the authors, this dehumanization process has created a rift between people in leadership

positions and their followers, and if not given attention one can become complicit in

sustaining it (Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2015).

In change literature the leaders competences are often in focus. Sveningsson and Alvesson

(2010) question the leadership qualities when presented as continuously something positive.

According to Sveningsson and Alvesson (2010) the leader is often described as a subject for

change and development, as well as the person to attain the holistic picture and develop

enthusiastic employees. The work leaders are today in the spotlight and expected to

implement change, develop, engage and formulate visions into reality, and described as more

or less heroes determining whether organisations will survive or not (Sveningsson &

12

Alvesson, 2010). For instance, suggested by Caldwell (2003) interpersonal skills the leaders

should have include team building competencies, communicating and being a good listener,

as well as good at motivating change. Caldwell (2003) continues with suggesting qualities

such as to be good in dealing with uncertainty, motivating staff members and to be flexible in

their leadership. Other wanted personal attributes of managers’ are being risk taking and

having a positive attitude towards change (Caldwell, 2003). Important change competences of

leaders are to engage, motivate and lead followers in the right direction (Herold, Fedor,

Caldwell & Liu, 2008; Dalton, 1970). Furthermore, to be communicating expected

performance and appropriate behavior, as well as providing intellectual stimulation and to be

supportive as a leader are described as important qualities of leaders (Dalton, 1970).

On the subject of motivating employees for change there are other views expressing different

opinions on the leader's ability to motivate change. According to, Knights and McCabe

(2000), many employees are already committed, even beyond the call of duty, but

management are still not in control (Knights & McCabe, 2000). Another aspect emphasized to

attain as a leader during change is trust, in order to motivate and create effective teams.

2.2.2 Communicating change

The leader is suggested to be an excellent communicator during change and to deliver

transparency (Jacobsen, 2005) and customized messages (Amy, 2008). According to Jacobsen

(2005) information gathered must be variated and at the same time be transparent throughout

the organisation, whereas the absorption and also the transparency of information is crucial. A

tightly connected internal environment must therefore be created in order for communication

flows to work within and between teams (Jacobsen, 2005). According to Amy (2008), leaders

can, through individual, collective and critical reflection guide others in dialogue. This

process involves creating shared meanings by providing constructive confrontation, make

subtle suggestions, raise alternative perspectives and customize messages based on the needs

of the receiver.

According to Marks (2007), it is important to formally try to have employees adapting to the

transition of change by being optimistic when communicating where the organisation is

heading. It is good to enable a somewhat stable environment, even though it is constantly

changing (Marks, 2007).

13

2.2.3 Accepting and believing in change

To believe in the purpose and to avoid resistance as a leader is described as important when

leading change. Challenges can consist of both the uncertainty when having an unclear

purpose (Marks, 2007). One major challenge is for employees and leaders to end old

behaviours and accept change, according to Marks (2007). It is important also to take the time

to allow staff members to deal with their feelings regarding the change (Marks, 2007). Stages

of change will follow whether leaders like it or not, whereas time for closure is suggested for

the new processes to naturally proceed, claims Marks (2007). Large-scale programs usually

affect the whole organisation and can have dangerous consequences if not successfully

implemented, yet quick fixes are often used (Caldwell, 2003). Carlson and Nilsson (1999)

describe that there is a high risk in change if it goes to fast, whereas the employees do not

fully understand the purpose of the change and instead decide to go back to old behaviours. It

is important that leaders inform subordinates about the change and its value, in order to avoid

resistance towards the change (Dalton, 2007). Sometimes employee resistance is described as

irrational, however this can be a predictable result dependent upon how the change is

communicated, and whether old behaviours are accepted or not, claims Dalton (1970). Many

organisational programs that are prematurely initiated do not persist in the long run (French,

Bell & Zawacki, 1994).

Other than establishing a vision, a buy in, working out tough decisions and creating models

for successful behaviors there are also the leaders own experiences to consider when

researching change mechanisms, according to Ashby and Miles (2002). Careful guidance is

also important throughout the process and to explain how it will proceed for involved

members to make the employees understand the change, but also to consider the importance

in understanding the complications that can occur. Once the leaders understand the change it

needs to be shared and understood by staff members including the what and the why (Ashby

& Miles, 2002).

Cynicism is described as something devastating for organisations going through change, and

this should be reduced by the leader introducing the change (Boomer, Rich & Rubinet, 2003).

Cynicism can lead to feelings of unfairness, distrust, low commitment, being against the

organisation and even staff members leaving the organisation. Moreover, cynicism is

expressed as to include negative behaviors such as less motivation, performance and

attentiveness to feedback (Boomer, Rich & Rubinet, 2003). Reducing cynicism is therefore

14

important to consider for organisational change processes according to this perspective on

change. Reassurance, providing information and reducing surprises is therefore suggested

(Boomer, Rich & Rubinet, 2003).

Resistance in organisational change is often seen as a hindrance or a negative factor,

according to Thomas, Sargent and Hardy (2011), but the author’s studies also show that

resistance can be useful in different aspects. The conventional perception of resistance in

change literature is that “resistance is an inevitable and natural reaction, triggered because

individuals are fearful, have resistant personalities, or misunderstand the benefits of the

proposed change” (Thomas, Sargent & Hardy 2011: 35). Thomas, Sargent and Hardy (2011)

suggest that resistance can play a facilitative role in organisational change for example

through conceptual expansion and reframing. This kind of thoughtful resistance can be more

effective in organisational change than unquestioned acceptance. Thoughtful resistance is a

communicative process, which involves counter-offers by both middle and top managers’ and

by change recipients. Thomas, Sargent and Hardy (2011) also highlight the importance for top

managers’ to be open for counteroffers, otherwise a degenerative dialogue can arise where

change is imposed based on existing knowledge. Hence, if top managers’ or change agents are

resistant to new ideas or counter-offers they: “may be as much to blame for failed change

initiatives as so-called resistance by subordinates” (Thomas, Sargent & Hardy, 2011: 35). In

such situations middle managers’ seldom engage with senior or top managers’ and are more

likely to defend their own meanings.

2.2.4 Leading teams through change

The leader of change is considered to lead the group and adapt to different phases of change,

dependent upon which phase the group is in. Wheelan (2005) describes that different

development stages of teams require different types of leadership, when proceeding with

change. In a newly formed team, members expect the leader to be decisive, confident,

structured and focused on the task at hand, according to Wheelan (2005). Since the members

do not have time to organize themselves, they rely on the leader to provide structure. The

author gives the following advice to reduce the member's anxiety and fear of being rejected:

provide positive feedback and create open discussions about goals, values and work tasks. It

is also good to consider making sure members feel confident by providing guidance, training

and task education. It is suggested when forming teams in change to also, according to

Wheelan (2005), not take challenges personal as a leader.

15

When leading change, it is considered of value to involve members in leadership functions by

delegating, share the power of decisions and encourage the group to make the necessary

structural changes and enhance performance, argues Wheelan (2005). The decisive role of the

leader is no longer as important as in the early stages, since the goals and roles have already

been clarified, instead the leader takes a more consultative role within the group. In the final

stage, the leader becomes an expert member within the group and works alongside the other

members in order to reach goals and make the team successful. It is suggested to maintain the

team processes, look for signs of regression and important also to continue being an effective

team member regardless of which stage the group is in (Wheelan, 2005).

2.2.5 Learning in change

Change management literature has emphasised learning combined with change, as learning is

a change process and changing is a learning process, according to Young (2009). When

change is effective learning is involved (Young, 2009). According to Yukl (2009)

organisational learning can appear through encouragement and by questioning traditional

methods, inspire through vision, facilitate required skills, create a learning culture, develop a

cause-effect relationship and facilitate knowledge sharing through social networks. To acquire

knowledge about the change where the change were effective or ineffective can be helpful, in

order to learn about the change. These reviews can indicate when to abandon projects, how to

use decentralised subunits and how to implement reward systems for knowledge and learning

(Yukl, 2009).

Leaders can facilitate and enable environments for learning, according to Amy (2008), and

suggested by Lima (2007), employees can reach a higher level of skills with the help from the

leader and colleagues. Amy (2008) describes further that, leaders can facilitate individual and

organisational learning, whereas the leadership role as a mentor/coach is the basis to facilitate

learning. This role can be seen as an informal and accessible communication style. The aim is

to create an open and trusting environment, where the leader facilitates learning by asking

questions, teaches employees about personal experiences, clarifies expectations, controls

learning projects and maintains standards. Furr and Dyer (2014) argue that leaders need to

manage their teams by including aspects of learning, in order to keep up with competition. It

is not solely about providing time for reflection but also distributing the right tools. Moreover,

not solely focusing on creating new ideas but making the company ready to also process new

ideas (Furr & Dyer, 2014).

16

Lima (2007) goes far in the responsibilities by the leader. The leader is personally responsible

for employee development including new skills that did not previously exist in the

organisation. Dialogue is the educational leader's tool, using it creates a link between

organisational goals and opportunities for individual development. The dialogue should focus

on the immediate future and the dialogue needs to include: the player, positions and the

organisation, as well as its associations, to identify and develop these opportunities (Lima,

2007).

Dweck (2015) discusses attitudes in forms of fixed and growth mindset as a process to self

appreciate one self’s learning abilities. Employees attitudes and job satisfaction is affected by

their viewpoint of the organisation as having a growth or fixed mindset in terms of

empowerment, value for innovation and creativity as well as support for taking risks (Dweck,

2015). It is also important to make mistakes into something you can improve and not as

something dangerous. A process based attitude is important in order to provide good

strategies and to view learning as a process rather than a project that ends (Dweck, 2015). The

“fixed mindset” -genetics influence intelligence and talent, which decreases the ability to

learn as failure and appearance matters largely. Whereas a “growth mindset” means that you

are more willing to seek risks and learn from mistakes rather than avoiding them. Dweck

(2015) discusses how a growth mindset that includes belief in one's ability to grow and learn,

leads to better results compared to people who believe their intelligence is fixed.

There is also critique directed at the concept of learning. According to Levitt and March

(1988), when combining action and learning, the concept of intelligence become unclear.

Various contexts make it hard to distinguish between the different concepts of intelligence.

For example, experimentation with managerial illusions of control and risk taking may be

perceived differently in a community than in an organisation. Even within the context of one

single organisation the concept “intelligence”, is limited, “learning does not always lead to

intelligent behaviour” (Levitt & March, 1988: 534).

2.2.6 Enabling reflection

Gino and Staats (2015) argue that companies seeking for a quick solution enforce a short-term

approach forgetting the importance of learning and the resources available. These short-term

approaches are apparent when companies do not prioritise reflection, causing quick fixes and

a decreased ability to learn, instead of continuous improvements and long-term learning

processes (Gino & Staats, 2015). There is a gap between what companies say and what they

17

do when it comes to continuous learning, which causes issues in remaining as learning

organisations. One example is that managers’ can say that learning starts from failure but at

the same time they are scared to fail causing a lack in developing new capabilities (Gino &

Staats, 2015).

Argyris (1991) describes that the key to success is to have learning organisations. At the same

time, people in management positions, even though highly educated, do not seem to know

how to learn and how to learn from failure. For instance, too much focus lies within problem

solving and correcting the external environment. Problem solving is important but it is also

crucial to look inward, to effectively unblock defense behaviors and for learning to persist.

Argyris (1991) believe managers’ need to critically distingusih their own behaviors: “They

need to re�ect critically on their own behavior, identify the ways they often inadvertently

contribute to the organisation’s problems, and then change how they act. In particular, they

must learn how the very way they go about de�ning and solving problems can be a source of

problems in its own right.” (Argyris, 1991:4). At the same time, descriptions regarding

continuous improvements are usually not executed in the same procedure, leading to

contradicting stories. “Put simply, people consistently act inconsistently, unaware of the

contradiction between their espoused theory and their theory-in-use, between the way they

think they are acting and the way they really act.” (Argyris, 1991:7).

Performance is many times in focus rather than learning. However, to learn from mistakes

leaders must enable a learning environment, see potential and embrace risk taking (Gino &

Staats 2015). Gino and Staats (2015) explains their study where a fifteen minute reflection

spent each day increased performance with 20 percent compared to those who worked on as

usual. Reflection increases with breaks between sights, downtime, vacations, to get outside

during breaks and plan to reflect either before or after your original work tasks starts.

Reflection enables adjustments of the outcome. It is important also to aim for competence

before following norms and as a leader listen to different competencies rather than explaining

what to do. Leaders can support staff members through feedback, identify strengths and

include competencies as a goal and individualised empowerment. One method is to ask

questions rather than explaining material in order to engage learning (ibid).

According to Yukl (2006), team leaders can facilitate and encourage team learning through

two main activities; after-activity reviews and dialogue sessions. Employees are more likely

18

to learn, when an important activity is finished, by discussing the reasons for failure or

success (Yukl, 2006). An after-activity review is an event where the team collectively discuss

the outcomes of an activity (Yukl, 2006). Then it is suggested to plan how to use learning for

the future, in order to improve the performance. The role of the leader in such sessions is to

guide the review process and make sure that the focus is on constructive problem solving. The

analysis should be done objectively and not to criticize separate individuals in order to

improve future performance (Yukl, 2006).

Another important factor is dialogue sessions, in order for team members to understand each

other's perceptions and role expectations, in order to easier coordinate actions. A mutual

understanding is also an important factor since it is more difficult when team members have

different assumptions about the cause of the problem. The team leader should encourage team

members to identify implicit assumptions and discuss perceptions. Members of the team

should try to identify points of agreements and disagreements about how they perceive task

variables. The possibilities of a consensus should be discussed together with ways of

obtaining additional information that can refine models and possibly solve disagreements

(Yukl, 2006).

In summary, there are many competencies required by the manager as described by previous

change literature (Kotter, 2012; Amy, 2008; Burke, 1992). It will be interesting to see whether

the leaders themselves believe they possess these and if the competencies are regarded

important in practise. The problem found in current literature is that competencies and

procedures focus on the actions of the leader (Caldwell, 2003) as well as neglects the context

of the leader (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2010; Appelbaum, Habashy, Malo & Shafiq, 2012).

There seems to be an identified problem of high expectations on change leaders, and these

expectations of being idealised, heroic descriptions (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2010), instead

of using the competencies of the whole team (O’Brian & Buono, 1996).

Previous literature also shows a theoretical problem, change divided into simple steps, such as

described by Kotter (2012), versus regarding change as a more complex process. This will be

interesting to investigate perceptions in practise. Emotional aspects and different behaviors

are also considered throughout previous literature, this will also be interesting to see how

perceived in practise. Resistance is said to best be avoided by some (Burke, 1992; Kotter,

2012) but could be perceived as useful by others (Thomas, Sargent & Hardy, 2011), whereas

this will be interesting to further investigate.

19

Learning in relation to change is unavoidable when scanning literature on change, whereas

ideas of learning is interesting to see how they are perceived in practise. Change and learning

are incorporated and necessary to succeed, according to Young (2009) and having a learning

mindset is also suggested to ease organisational change, according to Dweck (2015). It is also

suggested by some, that the leader is responsible for learning (Furr & Dyer; Lima, 2007;

Amy, 2008). Whether the respondents agree or share another opinion is to be further inquired.

How leaders perceive their leadership during an on-going change process is somewhat limited

throughout the research, whereas there is a theoretical gap between how the managers’ own

perceptions on leading change. Therefore, a qualitative study, investigating their perceptions

on change will be presented in the next chapter.

20

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research design and strategy This study is designed to investigate leaders subjective opinions and experiences of what they

consider important during change. Merriam (2009) describes case studies are rooted in

situations from reality, whereas the aim is to find the effects of “cause and output”, between

various contexts. A simple case study design is based on solely one analysis model (Ghuari &

Gronhaug, 2010), which correlates with this thesis aim, to explain and understand specific

explanations, rather than general outcomes. When interviewing middle managers’ at the case

company, we aimed to deepen our understanding of the middle managers’ individual

perceptions of change, in order to better understand discrepancies and similarities in literature

regarding the phenomena of managing change. The research aims to study the phenomena in

its natural context, whereas the gathering of data was made on the headquarters location

outside of Stockholm, in accordance to Farquar (2012); Swanborn (2010)’s description of

what a case study research should consider. This study is autonomously designed as it studies

perspectives of middle managers within one organisation. Due to the this design, it will not

enable generalised results but rather deepen an understanding for the studied phenomena, in

accordance to Swanborn (2010)

The focus of the study lies on understanding how individuals create, modify and interpret

their surroundings, hence a qualitative method is chosen. In accordance with Merriam (2009),

this deepens an understanding of the phenomena, and according to Widerberg (2002) enables

the important focus of the characteristics in data. Furthermore, the research question indicates

a subjective character of the study in line with Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011).

Regarding epistemological aspects, Cohen et al. (2011) describe, focus on how knowledge is

gathered and passed on to other people. The knowledge of our data is subjective, personal and

unique, whereas a close involvement is required by us as researchers (Cohen et al., 2011). In

other words, to answer our research question, we have to understand that the data will be

subjective and that the relationships created can affect the respondents and thereby the results.

Furthermore, our study takes on a nominalistic perspective as the objects experiences must be

seen and understood in their social context. The aim is not to find universal concepts or shared

21

meanings, therefore the words are interpreted in their own context, similar to descriptions

made by Cohen et al. (2011).

3.2 Deductive approach This study uses a deductive approach, in which case studies are appropriate to use as the

approach starts in theory with established research, and then is tested on empirical findings

(Ghauri & Gronhaug, 2010). Tested theories in this case, have started off in theories regarding

leadership in change. The first step in this research project, was to establish what is already

known about leadership and change within literature. This was done to establish a better

theoretical grounding and with this in mind the data collection began, in a similar manner

described by Bryman and Bell (2003). These findings were compared with theories and later

extended with more theories. This is in general common to do throughout the process,

according to Bryman and Bell (2003), within the deductive approach. Not following a linear

deductive model was apparent, since when data was collected, new insights were made. As

Bryman and Bellman (2005) state, the theories available are often informative and

enlightening, but must be tested in reality to be understood. This nonlinear model helped us to

better form an interpretation, in regards to answer our research question.

3.3 Selection of respondents In this study, a sample size of 15 was first selected but in order to better understand the

purpose, another three interviews were executed. This element was at first difficult to decide

as there are no clear answer on how large a sample size should be, as it depends on the

purpose of the research, expected amount of responses, number of variables included in the

study, and whether the study is qualitative or quantitative (Cohen et al. 2011). Saturation was

reached after eighteen interviews as most of the answers started to contain patterns from the

respondents. Corbin and Strauss (2008) describe that a saturation of the results are obtained

when the empirical data does not exceed the already found result, which happened in the data

collection, even though each interview of course is unique.

When it comes to the sample selection, this study uses a non-probability sample. According to

Cohen et al. (2011) this type of sample builds on the assumption that the researcher focuses

on a particular group and is aware that the group is not representative of the entire population.

Non-probability samples are appropriate in qualitative studies, according to Merriam (1988)

22

as generalisations are not the goal. According to Cohen et al. (2011), there are different types

of non-probability samples. The type that is best suited for the current study is a purposive

sample. The respondents were chosen due to their operational responsibilities and experience

of an ongoing change process. The middle managers positions within the company consist of;

one business relationship manager, one business manager, one quality manager, one

construction site manager, one development manager, one property development manager and

one manager of digitalisation strategy. Furthermore, two project development managers, three

head of unit/department, three commercial/sales/marketing managers and three regional/area

managers.

3.4 Collection of data In qualitative research, a combination of data can be collected such as interviews,

observations, analysis of documents as well as recordings and transcribing (Silverman, 2001),

where this study contains recorded and transcribed interviews with a duration of

approximately one hour. An interview guide was conducted following a more flexible semi-

structured outline (Merriam, 2009) with open-ended questions in order to get the participants

perspective on the change initiative. Out of eighteen interviews, sixteen were executed

through personal meetings and two interviews via telephone. Bryman and Bell (2003) explain

one issue with telephone interviews as the researcher cannot see facial expressions, this was

solved by video conference calls where we could see the respondents.

3.5 Data Analysis The process of analyzing qualitative data includes organizing, accounting for and explaining

the data (Cohen et al., 2011). One way of analysing data is through Creswell’s data analysis

spiral, which is described by Randolph (2008). The first step is to organize the data, which

means that the data is broken down into smaller segments. The data we found was transcribed

and then thematized in order to proceed with our analysis. The second step is to classify,

describe and interpret data (Randolph, 2008). In our data we found themes to structure our

theoretical analysis, which were perceptions of: communicating, accepting and believing,

leading teams through change, learning and reflecting. The goal with the themes is to achieve

a detailed description of the data, which later on will be developed into different categories

(Randolph, 2008). The above-mentioned categories reappeared and were strongly emphasised

as important throughout the interviews, and were therefore selected as themes. The analyses

23

were made separately, in order to generate further perspectives on underlying patterns. The

presentation of the data is the third step (Randolph, 2008). We chose to use quotations in

order to present some of the original content from the interviews to provide vivid examples of

our findings.

3.6 Validity Validity can traditionally, according to Cohen et al. (2011), question if a researcher really

examines what the study aims to investigate. More recent research, defines many forms of

validity, for example in chosen qualitative research method. Validity can be seen as a measure

of extent, depth, detail and honesty within the data. It also includes questions of how

participants took part, to which extent triangulation was used and the researcher's objectivity

(Cohen et al., 2011). The interviews were based on in-depth, qualitative questions in forms of

“How” and “What”, to reach the measure of extent, similar to Cohan’s et al. (2011)

explanation on validity, in relation to qualitative research.

The results were fairly presented and analysed in detail, using direct citations and research

triangulation. A research triangulation throughout the research process aims to see the

research from a holistic and accurate perspective of the studied phenomena. As we both

analysed, interpreted and compared data independently, a research triangulation has been used

in order to better validate found data (Merriam, 2009). The results are able to be repeated

(Bryman & Bell, 2005) due to the consistency in the structuring of analysing the results,

chosen citations are carefully selected either speaking for what multiple respondents

expressed or where there was a significant difference in their answers, which has been

described either before or after the quotes. Furthermore, the results have reached

confirmability with two researchers bringing more than one perspective of the study.

3.7 Internal validity Internal validity means that a study should have an internal coherence and that the results

should be congruent with reality, as well as ensure a valid conclusion properly derived from

the previously given premises (Merriam, 2009). Furthermore, Cohen et al. (2011) describe

that internal validity for qualitative data should focus on plausibility, credibility and provide

more convincing evidence for enabling greater claims. Internal validity can also be addressed

in several ways, for example by the use of multiple researchers and by the use of peer

24

examinations of data (Cohen et al., 2011). In the current study several measures were taken, in

order to ensure the internal validity of the research project. For example, in order to provide

plausibility and credibility we have been meticulous in quoting our respondents properly and

not taking quotes out of context. Furthermore, more evidence in forms of extensive quotes,

commentary and references to established theories, have been added when presenting,

analysing and concluding bold claims. The educational process of this study has also added

elements that can be said to further ensure the internal validity of this study, by having peers

evaluate our data and as aforementioned being two authors (Cohen et al., 2011). We have

been able to use different perspectives and opinions on the same data and a dialogue regarding

coherence as the study has progressed.

3.8 Ethical aspects To answer the current research question, deep rooted data is required. Data can be severe and

possibly unethical to collect, unless the data is handled in an ethical manner (Cohen et al.,

2011). Based on the research question’s subjective and possibly private nature, this report

needs to consider the ethical guidelines significantly. To obtain the required data the

respondents must feel trust and therefore the study must be ethically anchored (Cohen et al.,

2011). It is important to have a balance of being personal and professional, in order for the

respondents to not cancel their participation and ensure that the interviews are not taking to

long (Bryman & Bell, 2003). A relationship was established with each respondent and no

cancellations were made during the process, the interviews remained around an hour long and

an attempt of balancing being personal and professional in the meetings was made. If the data

is not sufficiently detailed and honest it can jeopardize the study's validity (Cohen et al.,

2011).

In line with Farquhar (2012), below aspects have been considered while ethically proceeding

with the research. Integrity has been carried out in a professional manner where no names

have been revealed and no one but the researchers and supervisor have accessed the material

of data collected. The aspect of plagiarism has been ethically considered where new ideas and

data has been collected and theories referred to correctly. No financial aspects has been

involved in this paper where there has not been any conflict of interest to consider. The data

has been handled in an effective manner and kept confidential, even though the company

asked for the collected data, the researchers turned down this request in order to keep the

25

material confidential and value the integrity of our respondents’ coherent with Farquhar

(2012).

3.9 Methodological limitations Criticism of case studies have been regarded aspects of objectivity, however the aim of this

study is to achieve a subjective, in-depth understanding, whereas a case study is chosen as

research design, in accordance to Farquhar (2012). The generalisation and sample of a

population is another criticism, which neither is the aim for this study and we are aware that

the single case study presented does not represent the whole population, but rather

investigates and deepens the phenomena (Farquhar, 2012). Factors and influences that have

restricted this study are the time-frame, which for instance limits a longitude study to follow

up the experiences further along the change process. Another restriction to mention is the

budget, which does not allow any technical equipment for data transcription. This has been

solved by manual transcriptions but affects the option of for instance making more interviews,

as it is more time-consuming than digitalised options. Both of these factors suggested by

Cohen et al (2011) suggests to consider when preparing a research design.

3.10 The research process We started the thesis process by brainstorming together, in order to interoperate our various

interests to find an interesting field to study. After that we researched into literature reviews

and found a gap, where our problematisation took form and led us to our research question.

Already in November 2015, we initiated the first meeting with our contact person at the case

company. We presented our topic and looked into possibilities of how to best proceed with

the collection of data. Beforehand, the leaders received a smaller version of our idea paper

and the estimated time frame, in order to enable preparation and familiarity to the upcoming

interview situation for our respondents. The interviews took place at the company’s

headquarters where we were allowed to use available meeting rooms. During the interviews

we took turns asking questions while the other person took notes. The collected data was

recorded, transcribed, summarised and analysed separately, in order to establish more valid

information. Data was then compared and analysed with our theoretical framework. Finally

our conclusion led to answering our research question, but also an understanding of its

limitations and options of what can be studied in the future.

26

CHAPTER 4 Analysis and findings

4.1 Background to the case The case company is one of the leading construction and property development companies

within northern Europe. The Nordic region is the home market but the company is also

present in other parts of Europe, developing and building residential and commercial

properties, industrial facilities, public buildings and roads. The organisation is proceeding

with an on-going organizational change and physically re-locating some departments within

the organisation. The organisation is trying to apply a Nordic perspective, which involves

extensive cooperation within the company to unite the large organisation, and increase the

cooperation between countries and departments.

To enable analyses of found data the interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematized.

The themes in the findings were developed from what most managers emphasized as

important during change. All of the respondents’ answers were organised in a table in a

separate document to easier visualize prominent themes. This was made to enable the choices

of citations and to group and count the answers for each question. Chosen citations were,

presented exactly as stated, and selected in regards to what most respondents expressed as

important. Sometimes an answer stood out from the rest and therefore cited to present a fuller

picture. The respondents are anonymous whereas no real names or form of middle

management position will be revealed in order to protect their identity, the distribution of

gender is neither coherent with actual findings. In appendix 1 the interview guide is attached.

4.2 Perceptions of leading change The current literature (Dalton, 1970, Boies, Fiset & Gill 2015; Caldwell 2003) and our

empirical findings suggest a coherent picture of which attributes managers should attain

during change. The focus is on leaders’ competences and ability to lead with a vision

(Cartwright, 2002; Pendelton & Furnham, 2011). According to Petriglieri and Petriglieri

(2015), the role of leaders have been dehumanized as leadership has in some sense become

disembodied through the rejection of identity, community and context. We find a similar kind

of dehumanization in some of our data, not perhaps explicitly but more implicitly through the

high expectations exerted on the managers to lead.

27

As previous literature suggest, which also is supported by our empirical findings, middle

managers are described as being of high importance when introducing change (Caldwell,

2003). One manager described that he was a “good leader” since: “I think many things but

one of them is that I dare to speak about things and also to say that we want to go this way.

But I think a good leader is not only speaking about but also is showing the way so I have

to lead the pack and show good examples.” (Interview “Ryan”). The respondent’s answer

describe a perception of the leaders to be the person in the forefront of the change process

within the team. Many other attributes were rather general of how the respondents thought

their leadership needed to be. Attributes that are less focused on the leader themselves

included for instance honesty, listening and being understanding. For instance: “I think I am

a good listener and I know my team very well” (Interview 13, “Michael”). Attributes that

was more emphasising that responsibility to lead the team, was mentioned in descriptions of;

to lead by example, have courage, guide, coach and to be comfortable in uncertain situations.

For instance: “I try to give some vision of what we are going to do and try to sell it to the rest

of the organization also.” (Interview 11, “Kate”).

To understand the middle manager’ context (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2010), questions

regarding challenges were asked. Time emerged, as one of the biggest challenges, according

to 6 out of 18 respondents. Time and the lack of working less proactively, are simultaneously

described in literature (Carlson & Nilsson, 1999; Selander & Henfridsson, 2012; Burke,

1992). A short-term perspective prevailing a lack of time was questioned: “If you put the

water on the most urgent fire that makes you go home and feel that you have done a great

job and there are no more crises. That is wrong since it should not be any crises and we do

not have time for that… to work so proactively.” (Interview 2, "Bryan"). The crucial aspect

of time was also described with following quotes: “That is a problem, big companies can not

change so much that fast, in a very short time.” (Interview 13, “Michael”). “We try to

support in different tools and courses etcetera but change will take time” (Interview 8,

“Hanna”).

The combination of leading the team forward, challenges of coping with time and proactive

measures, emphasise the difficulties of managing change for the organisations middle

managers, and that middle managers are stuck in the middle of the hierarchy and have become

frustrated (Dobson & Stewart, 1990).

28

4.2.1 Perceptions of communicating change

Communication was mentioned by more than half of the managers as important when

implementing change, simultaneously with literature (Caldwell, 2003; Boises, 2015;

Jacobsen, 2005; Marks, 2007;). The ability to explain the purpose adapted to the individual,

was expressed as important, in order to involve and motivate team members forward. There is

a coherent perspective on how communication should be manifested, and also an interesting

presumption that the middle manager is to be the one motivating: “Yeah, I think the

communication part is so crucial, to keep them informed about the change, to involve them

(...) you have to maybe motivate them in different ways, you have to include them in

different ways” (Interview 14, “Nathalie”).

The information provided to the employees must, according to the respondents, be carefully

selected. This is also emphasized in previous literature, describing the importance of having

the ability, as a manager, to customize information based on the needs of the receiver (Amy,

2008) and to strongly emphasise dialogue (Lima, 2007). Many of the respondents expressed

the dilemma: “It is a lot about information, you can actually have too much information.

because we have so much information, going around. We have emails, we have, some

people will write too long, you don’t have time to read it, we have information everywhere,

so from my perspective I just shut it off. So that’s a balance.” (Interview 16, “Peter”).

To involve people by encouraging an accepting climate for individual needs was emphasised

by the interviewees. The leader is here described as the enabler and motivator of creating this

accepting climate, whereas an excellent communicator can be interpreted as an important

attribute to possess as a middle manager in change. This requirement adds to the complexity

of being a middle manager, as the information relies on their ability to manage the huge

information flow, take the time to go through it and then customize it individually.

4.2.2 Perceptions of accepting and believing in change

To “be on board” and “explaining the why” is coherent in the descriptions of what is

considered important, in literature (Ashby & Miles, 2002; Jacobsen, 2005) and expressed by

the respondents. Defined as crucial was, for the managers not only to understand the why of

the change, but accepting and believing in the change as well. This resulted in a dilemma, as

not all of the respondents’ completely believed in the change: “I can understand it but not by

29

the heart and that is the key to get people involved.” (Interview 4, “David”). (Context

suggest in the heart and not by the heart).

Another manager also described considerations amongst top managers regarding the change

initiative: ”I experienced that the managers that did make the decisions, they don’t walk the

talk, so when we made the change they were complaining and you know in front of many

others, complaining about this change. However they made the decision.(...) ...so you need

to you know, be in the forefront and really try to adapt to this, be positive, even though its

tough, I understand its tough, its tough for everybody. But you have a responsibility as a

manager to yeah, adapt.” (Interview 8 “Hanna”). This reveals that some managers’ higher

up in the hierarchy have been rather resistant or negative towards the change. It also shows

that the emphasis is put on the leaders to deal with the tough challenges ahead, be in the

forefront and to take the responsibility for change.

There was another respondent who expressed a sense of being suspicious toward the change.

The respondent described that this change happened about five to ten years ago and that it

would reverse: “This is changing so we just relax and okay we are gonna change again.

Doesn’t affect us too much. In a few years it's gonna go back.” (Interview 18, “Sarah”).

The citation reveals a cynical reaction towards the change, whereas the manager certainly did

not believe that this change was going to persist.

If not sticking to a constant message it can be perceived as short-time fluctuations, confirmed

by Marks (2007). Programs that are prematurely initiated do not persist in the long run

(French, Bell & Zawacki, 1994). The following quote illustrates a potential outcome: “It is

very important that you with such initiative, that we talk about for the company that we

stick to it. Because people see that initiatives are up for such a short time and then suddenly

they disappear”. (Interview 17, “Ryan”). This reveals that the initiatives was not perceived as

persistent nor including time for adjusting to the recent change, perhaps causing a potential

challenge for middle managers’ to defend new change initiatives, towards their teams.

Unwanted behaviours and emotional responses that emerged during the change and these

were expressed by the managers to best be solved in group discussions, with a climate of

acceptance. However, difficulties in engaging team members was expressed: “Most, ehm,

most part the people are working here under me are not that, they are quite reluctant to

change, especially bigger change.” ( Interview 5, “Ewe”). Most of the employees were

30

described as accepting the change whereas others: “A lot of people stick their heads in the

sand.” (Interview 16, “Peter”). Emotional responses were expressed as a hindrance to

motivate and encourage some team-members to change. A simultaneous perspective on how

to handle unwanted behaviours is described by Burke (1992), suggesting emotional responses

to be solved by having individuals involved to reach a higher commitment toward change.

However, these behaviours were not always solved, not amongst employees nor middle

management.

Meanwhile, there are other perspectives concerning the same matter, which have shed light on

resistance from another angle. According to, Thomas, Sargent and Hardy (2011), resistance

does not entirely have to be seen as a negative factor, instead it can act as a facilitative factor

through conceptual expansion and reframing. Such facilitative roles require both middle and

top managers to be more open for providing counter-offers. Furthermore, if managers are

unwilling to negotiate and provide counter-offers, they can be as much to blame, if the change

initiative fails (Thomas, Sargent & Hardy, 2011). Hence, the question of who is really to

blame for being resistant in our study? The answer seems to be far more complex than to

blame unwilling and hesitant followers. It is probably far easier to name the followers as the

source of resistance than scrutinizing your own or a superior's way of acting. How to deal

with resistance in a favourable manner is easier said than done. Dealing with resistance

amongst everyone in an organisation seem complex, at the same time several actors within an

organization need to align throughout the teams, in order to benefit from resistance.

4.2.3 Perceptions of leading teams through change

All of the eighteen respondents expressed the first phase as most crucial and did not put a lot

of emphasis on other phases, in the change process. Wheelan (2005) does not suggest any of

the phases to be more or less important, whereas literature and the respondents’ perspectives

diverge. 9 out of 18 respondents uttered extensive strategies regarding the initial phase.

However, no significant plans described about following up the initial phase and how to

maintain the momentum of the change. Most of the respondents focused on the first phase of

change, which is not coherent with Wheelan (2003); Burke (1992). For instance “to challenge

all aspects in the beginning” was expressed as important. Moreover, the explaining of “the

why” (purpose) was also emphasised in the first phase: “I think especially in the beginning it

is very important to talk about the why, why we are doing this.” (Interview 17, “Ryan”).

Another respondent expressed the importance of overcoming resistance in the beginning:

31

“They were really stuck in the resistance phase saying this is just stupid and you are all

wrong but eventually we overcame that hurdle and people started buying into things”.

(Interview 7, “George”). These contradicting facts suggest that literature is not used properly

or that the theories need updating, toward the first phase of change.

The heavy emphasis on explaining the why in a change process is interesting as this implies

that leaders perceive themselves, to lead their teams. However, the context the leaders operate

in, include highly educated people, whom should be able to grasp the context of an

organizational change process. Perhaps the pressure brought on leaders, to achieve remarkable

outcomes in change processes has created such behaviours.

The individual was emphasised when describing perceptions of change phases by seven of the

respondents, for example: “yeah I don’t think you can talk about a phase the team is in, I

think you can talk about the phase the individual is in…”(Interview 12, “Lydia”). To lead

teams through phases of change is emphasised in the literature (Wheelan, 2005), however, as

many of the respondents chose to pinpoint the individual although answering questions

regarding their teams. This reveals a remarkable contradiction in theory and practise, whereas

findings suggest adapting change toward the individual, whereas the literature treats the whole

team as a solid unit, whereas these perspectives clash.

There is emotional aspects to consider when leading teams through change (Burke, 1992), and

this change was described as something rather complex: “…for myself it is tough in an

emotional way because you have to absorb all the feelings, so ehm, in my own, person, I’ve

sensed that maybe a little, lower on energy than I’m used to. Because you know you have to

adapt so much and you have to absorb so many questions, and feelings and emotions, and

not just mirroring the emotions back in the organization but take it out.”...“Then it’s a very

vital process running, in the middle of the storm in the ocean. And that can emotional be a

hard one to be in.” (Interview 12 “Lydia”). The emotional aspects amongst employees are

something that throughout literature is described for leaders to handle (Lorenzi & Riley, 2000;

Kotter & Shledinger, 2008). The leader's own emotional journey (Petriglieri & Petriglieri,

2015), behind the somewhat heroic descriptions of middle managers (Alvesson &

Sveningsson, 2010; Knights & McCabe, 2000), is less considered in current change literature.

The findings reveals that it can be very emotional being a middle manager in change

processes. Findings reveal that the heroic picture of the leading manager perhaps should be re-

evaluated and change focus toward all individuals throughout the organisation.

32

4.2.4 Perceptions of learning in change

To learn from each other and not seeing the manager as the only expert was, simultaneously

stated by O’Brian & Buono (1996) and Amy (2008) and findings, explained further by one of

the respondents: “And I think one thing I believe in is employees can’t learn everything

from you (...) So they have to learn from each other. Then I think that they really can

grow.” The same respondent continued by expressing: “...they need to build up a culture

inside the teams that they give feedback to each other, after meetings or whatever. The

greatest learning I think.”(Interview 8, “Hanna”). This type of leadership, according to Amy

(2008), represents a shift in leadership that is moving from a control and command mindset to

a facilitative approach. Such a shift means that leaders abandon their role as experts to a role

as a coach, the focus lies on developing the followers.

Many of the respondents expressed that they had learnt to listen more to their team members

point of view throughout the change initiative, which is a coherent description of what is

perceived as important in the literature (Caldwell, 2003: Gino & Staats, 2015; Young, 2009).

This was emphasised by one respondent: “It is to listen more in to people and use the tools

available. Maybe that is one of the things my colleagues appreciate I try to let them be part,

their view I listen to.” (Interview 7 “George”).

Another recurring subject was that the respondents had learnt to involve their employees at an

early stage in the change process, which is simultaneously described as important by Herold,

Fedor, Caldwell and Liu (2008); Wheelan (2005). One middle manager expressed:

"(...)include the people in your teams in an early stage. Because if you do that in the change

process, they will drive the process with you. They don’t feel that okay it’s going to be a

change you have to change” (Interview 14, “Nathalie”). This reveals that the first phase is

expressed as crucial, but it also show that it is important to involve members early to learn

from each other and motivate them through change.

The leaders were also asked to reflect on what their team had considered important through

the change process. An emerging factor appeared in the respondents answers, regarding the

employee's learning about dealing with uncertainty and being more independent: “I think

they have learnt to deal with uncertainty (…) I think that some of the team members have

learnt that managers and their closest managers is not or are not going to, I wouldn’t say

babysit but they are not going to do everything for them.” (Interview 5, “Ewe”). Dealing

with uncertainty, is also suggested by Marks (2007) as important in change. The uncertainty

33

in relation to change has been expressed and perceived, both in theory and practise, as

something that leaders and teams need to learn to comprehend. It also reveals a desire

amongst middle managers to have independent teams, where the focus is less on the leaders

and rather including the whole team, to deal with the complexity of change.

4.2.5 Perceptions of enabling reflection

One strongly emerging theme was the importance of reflections. Several respondents’

described reflection as an efficient tool to facilitate learning: “Reflect on what we are doing,

what are we doing good and what are we not doing so good. Do meetings and understand

behaviour and so on.” (Interview 11, “Kate”). Reflection was expressed as important for the

respondents, in order to share and distribute knowledge and to create shared meanings. Amy

(2008); provides a corresponding description by highlighting the importance of critical

reflections, in order to guide others in dialogue. Furthermore, the reflections may also concern

more than solely the result of the change process. It should also include deeper emotions,

different perspectives and open up for constructive discussions (Argyris, 1991). Yukl (2006)

also highlights the importance for leaders’ to facilitate such session of reflection, by

identifying implicit assumptions and discuss other ways of perceiving the subject of

discussion.

Learning and reflections are as aforementioned important factors for organizations going

through change, but the concept of intelligence is harder to identify in such context.

According to Levitt and March (1988), learning is no guarantee for achieving intelligent

behaviour. Perhaps reflection has to concern more than just positive and negative aspects of

the change process, and include looking inward (Argyris, 1991), using knowledge that is

already collected in earlier change processes, learn from mistakes and perceive these as a

learning process (Dweck, 2015). Since when projects are finished success factors are

considered, while mistakes many times are forgotten (Ricciardi & Schaller, 2005). However,

relating to the earlier statement of change, whereas the focus is suggested to rely on the

individual, and not treat the team as a whole. Similar adaptations should most likely be

encouraged with considerations for each person's context, abilities and will to learn.

To prioritise reflection was considered important: “Take time for reflection I would say. We

are not so good at that, it is important to see what we could have done better. You need to

stop and see are we doing the best? Could we do better? And take time for that.”(Interview

11, “Kate”). Another respondent discussed reflections as limited: “...And everything was

34

going so fast so we did not really have time to reflect." (Interview 6, "Fiona"). To prioritize

this was also expressed as a suggestion: “Actually making room in people's schedules to

have time to discuss it. And reflect upon it”. (Interview 3, “Carrol”). Reflection is expressed

as crucial in the findings, but finding the time to reflect emerged as a challenge. Gino and

Staats (2015) suggest that when short-term performance is higher valued, learning

opportunities are lost. That the time aspect should be an actual issue, is dismissed by Yukl,

(2006);Gino & Staats, (2015)., suggesting that the realization of reflections can increase

performance dramatically. The contradictions of the respondents’ descriptions also go inline

with Argyris (1991), who suggests that this is common amongst well-educated executives.

Even though Argyris (1991) refers to top management, this seems to also be occurring

amongst the interviewed managers, but not yet comprehended.

In our findings several respondents expressed that the company as well as the industry, had

acted in conservative ways in regards to change. Uttered by some of the respondents was, that

the company was not used to change and new procedures. This dilemma is confirmed by Furr

and Dyer (2014) arguing that, in order for effective learning to occur, the company needs to

be ready to process new ideas. Hence, a combination of not allowing sufficient time for

reflections, and the organisation not easily adapting to new perspectives, could be an

explanation of why these aspects still remain as a prominent complexity.

35

Chapter 5: Discussion & Critical Reflection The aim of this paper is to contribute with a better understanding of how selected middle

managers perceive their leadership during change. The problem with not understanding

middle managers perceptions of leading their teams through change, is that we end up with

limited perspective on change. Since change seems to still be a challenge for today's

organisations (Cabrey & Haughey, 2014), this problem needs to be further studied and

adjusted towards the middle managers context (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2010; Appelbaum,

Habashy, Malo & Shafiq, 2012). This report contributes with 18 middle managers

perceptions, of an on-going change, within a large, traditional construction company. There

are many theories within the change literature discussing how leaders should manage change

(Ashby & Miles, 2002; Boomer, Rich & Rubinet, 2003; Marks, 2007: Kotter, 2012), but we

believe that today's managers own perceptions of change needs to be further investigated,

including their own contextual dilemmas and complexities.

There is much in previous literature that was coherent with our findings, such as how the ideal

change leader should be (Amy, 2008; Burke, 1992; Kotter, 2012). The dilemma is living up to

all of these expectations, or perhaps more so, to find the time to do so. The findings tell us

that there is a remaining perspective of the manager being the lead star, which is coherent to

earlier change literature (Caldwell, 2003). The time was expressed as a limited resource in

many areas. For instance, changes happening too quickly where the members of the

organisation do not have enough time to adapt to the new changes nor have enough time to

manage the information flow properly. The most prominent aspect that occurred was lack for

time to reflect, as everyday work also have to proceed. Therefore, the optimal conduct

described in theory can sometimes be seen as an unachievable utopia.

Change-projects are often too compressed in time to allow for implementing change in

accordance with “best practise”. Such short-term focus can be seen as very counter-

productive, but the competitive business environment of today, often influences organizations

to reach short-term targets rather than reaching long-term productivity. Hence, there is a large

difference between theory and practice. In order for theory to guide everyday work in

organizations combined with new change initiative, organizations need to allow for such

36

processes to take time, to make room for reflection to enable further development, and for

theory to work in practise. This digression lead to the million dollar question, are organization

prepared to implement such long-term strategies involved with change, in exchange for short-

term revenue and business advantages.

The findings also tell us that time for reflection is wanted, but often not sufficiently allocated

during change procedures in organisations. This reveals that theories regarding change need to

consider the expressed need for reflection. It was revealed that management perspectives on

change have influenced the organisation, in regards to our respondents’ way of expressing

themselves. Many of the theories regarding change were confirmed. For instance, this was

expressed by being an excellent communicator (Amy, 2008; Jacobsen, 2005), by accepting

and believing the change (Marks, 2007), all this within the responsibility of the middle

manager (Caldwell, 2003). Something that the findings also expressed in regards to leading

through change, was that the literature tend to look at teams going through change (Furr &

Dyer, 2014; Wheelan, 2008), whereas almost half of the respondents expressed that

adjustments made on individual level are more important.

5.1 Thematization of findings Communication is expressed as a crucial competence required by middle managers

implementing change. This is shown both in literature (Burke, 1992) and in our own research.

This part bring us closer to better understand what is perceived as important when leading

change, as this is extensively described in the findings. Communication was expressed as

important in combination with explaining the purpose and being open for feedback. These

coherent responses reveal that the respondents are well educated in regards to change and

aware of the message that the organisation wants to establish. However, their striking

similarities of expressing themselves also reveal that they are affected by the message/courses

provided by the organisation.

Furthermore, it is expressed as important to accept and believe in change in order to proceed

and to try to avoid resistance. Even though some of the middle managers did not believe in

change, or even resisted it, they expressed that they need to accept it, in order to motivate

team members going forward. This is coherent with some literature on change and

perceptions of how a manager “should” go about change when discussing resistance (Dalton,

2007). The middle managers in this case are not being part of the strategic planning

37

throughout their large, hierarchical organisation. Hence, there is no option of providing and

receiving counter-offers (Thomas, Sargent & Hardy, 2011) between the segments of managers

in the organization. At the same time they are expected to believe, or at least pretend to

believe in the initiatives decided at organisational levels above them. Although resistance is

described as something to avoid, resistance remained in the organisation amongst managers

and employees. This finding tell something about the complexity of change, as the theoretical

expectations of the middle manager's position, can be problematic to deal with and potentially

because the middle manager is not able to make critical suggestions or counter-offers.

When leading teams through change, literature suggest that teams go through different phases

(Wheelan, 2003), there is a discrepancy between theory and findings, as the former give equal

importance to all phases of change, whereas the respondents stressed the initial phase (9

respondents out of 18). Findings also emphasise the individual rather than the team, whereas

the theoretical descriptions of phases and steps are emphasising the team phases rather than

the individual’s phases. Another complex factor to remember is that the individuals in the

team, most likely will be at different stages within the change process at different times. This

is rarely expressed in the literature (Wheelan, 2003), but in findings expressed as something

important. To comprehend the complexity (Burke, 1992) an understanding of individual needs

and emotions, when leading teams through change, was expressed as more crucial than

defining various phases or steps.

Perceptions of learning in change was, that it was important to involve members at an early

stage as well as managing uncertainty together in the teams. To apply knowledge and not

taking the expert role as a manager was expressed as crucial. To build a culture of learning

was also suggested as vital, to facilitate learning. All these aspects are coherent with literature

(Amy, 2008). However, to create a culture seems easier said than done, and for instance

reflection on change was brought up as a lacking procedure.

Reflection was expressed as important by the respondents, but also considered as something

that could be done more extensively. Literature (Argyris, 1991), as well as the respondents

state that reflection is crucial but even so, responding managers are unable or are not

prioritising, time to reflect. Several responding managers said that they did not take the time

to reflect, but rather chose to look “forward”, which is simultaneously described with

literature (Gino & Staats, 2015) and findings, as a common dilemma. This could be a result of

maintaining a complex role in a complex environment, where time management being the

38

main obstacle and challenge. Adding to the complexity is the large, traditional, hierarchical

structure and potentially inert organisation. However, we believe time for reflection is well

worth it, even though it might feel time consuming to start with, reflection is part of enabling

continuous learning and improvements for the future.

5.2 Practical contribution to knowledge Our suggestion is to make routines for reflection as an integrated part of the change process.

Reflection has appeared during the interviews in expected and unexpected ways, indicating

that this is worth to more extensively follow up. Important parts of the change process is for

instance to discuss; learning aspects, development areas, strengths, weaknesses and wisdoms.

Resistance was described as a challenge and appeared amongst managers and other team

members during the change. The expressed resistance is something potentially containing

constructive feedback on change that could be further reflected upon.

These suggestions are proposed in order for upcoming change processes to benefit from more

perspectives, and also enhance a long-term culture. Similar to Dweck (2015), whereas

learning from mistakes is established and a learning perspective is more encouraged.

Therefore, we suggest, to perceive resistance as valuable for reflections on change, and an

opportunity to learn from each other and grow. In order to be able to use resistance in a

constructive and beneficial way, there has to exist such conditions that allow the facilitating

aspects of resistance (Thomas, Sargent & Hardy, 2011). It is especially important for top or

senior management, to be prepared to attain counter-offers and enable discussions regarding

the terms of the change. Many times followers are regarded as the problem in relation to

resistance, but senior managers can also contribute equally to the creation of resistance

(Thomas, Sargent & Hardy, 2011). In the case company, which can be said to be

characterized by hierarchy, there are probably existing old structures and norms amongst the

top segment of managers, which can be said to contribute to resistance. For example, the

middle managers described that suddenly it was time to change. Hence, dialogue between the

segments of managers seemed restricted in the implementation of the change initiative.

Therefore, this one way communication, could potentially restrain the important feedback as

to what is causing the resistance.

39

The middle manager role has high expectations. In many cases literature and findings agree in

regards to how a change leader should act. From a societal perspective the parts that are

coherent reveals how the management literature is dominating in today's organisations. We

expected a more diverse perspective on change throughout our interviews but got many

similar answers regarding how the manager is supposed to lead the team forward, and the

competences that are expected from them. This made us see a connection between

management literature and norms of how managers “should” be in organisations.

The simplified model demonstrated below, shows a new perspective on how to perceive the

complex process of change. We suggest that change should be seen as an on-going process

rather than something linear. The model indicates the flow of change incorporated with

learning. Reflection should be prioritised and seen as a start, rather than something potentially

forgotten at the end, and preferable incorporated throughout the whole change process. We

believe that the combination of learning and reflecting on change combined, enables a shift of

focus from the leader towards the team. We believe that the middle manager enables the

learning process within it's team, but does not necessarily have to lead all change. In order for

leaders together with their team, to lead through change and facilitate learning, we argue that

not solely the leader's attributes should be valued. We suggest to include, to a higher extent,

the various teams’ competences and experiences of change. We argue that incorporating a

more learning oriented environment throughout the whole process of change, ensure

transparency, motivates and enables leaders and teams to better juggle the complexity of

change.

(Model 1”Juggling change”, Bergkvist & D’Ath, 2016)

40

Chapter 6: Conclusion The following chapter summarizes our results. Presented is our conclusion in relation to our

problem formulation “How do middle managers perceive their leadership when leading their

teams through change?”, and the following sub-question “What is the major discrepancies

and/or similarities between theory and practise for middle managers going through change?”

The findings help us answer our research questions as they have deepened our understanding

of how middle managers perceive change and what they consider important. The findings are,

in some aspects, coherent with current literature on change, but they have also given new

insights as to what can be considered important. Aspects of learning when leading change,

and more specifically reflections on change is a new, extended insight of what is considered

important for these managers. To also consider the individuals within the teams rather than

the team as a whole has brought on a new perspective on what is considered important when

leading change. These aspects and new insights have provided us with the opportunity to

reach the aim for this study as it has brought us closer to better understanding middle

managers perceptions on their leadership through change.

Key findings:

• So far management literature has focused on how an ideal leader should lead through

change and which leadership competences to have. We found that what seemed

important for the managers’ themselves were in line with previous research regarding

leadership competences. These competences are similarly defined in theory and

practise and reveal management perspectives on change permeates in the organisation,

and puts a lot of pressure on middle management.

• Communication, acceptance and belief was brought up as important factors in order to

lead change, deal with complexity and avoid unwanted resistance. Resistance was

perceived as something to avoid and quickly deal with. However, resistance still

occurred in the change initiative. Therefore their answers is coherent with literature

but what they truly believe can be utterly different. To accept change and to believe it

is described as important but not everyone believed in the new initiative, therefore

there can exist a deviation between what the manager say and do.

41

• When leading teams through change the leaders emphasized the first phase of change

where the “why” is explained, whereas current literature suggest all of these phases

equally important. The systematic descriptions of change are neither appearing in

similar manners as suggested in current literature. This might have been a cause of the

respondents taking the same course, but only remembering the first thing presented

during the course. This indicates that distributed knowledge and investments made on

change courses, should be followed up. To follow up results was also mentioned

during the interviews as potential improvements, which this example could be an

indication of.

• A difference also occurred, as current literature emphasize teams but findings suggest

individual adaptations, as everyone reacts differently to change. Therefore, it is

important to consider not only the whole team but also the individuals comprising the

team.

• The respondents perceived time as the most crucial aspect of change, and especially

time for reflection. Time for learning through reflection seemed compromised. We

believe an organisation should begin a changing process by evaluating what the team

and organisation can learn from recent changes. We also suggest that change should

be viewed a process, where learning is incorporated from the start.

• Reflections should focus on understanding resistance and learning from earlier

experiences of change. If these aspects are discussed in teams, competences of the

individuals throughout the whole organisation are more likely to be transparent. We

argue that, using all competences of the teams will put less emphasis on the leader and

more focus on the organisation as a whole. We believe that by starting with learning

when proceeding with change, many of the things expressed as important will be more

easily incorporated. For instance feedback from earlier mistakes can be more

extensively used.

To answer the research question, Middle managers perception of leading teams through

change is that the process is difficult due to the often short time frames, high expectations

coming from above and norms shaped in society. Competences required were found to be

mainly coherent with management literature on change. The most important competencies

were how to behave as a leader when communicating change, how to believe in, and accept

change and how one best avoid resistance. From an organisational learning perspective, a

learning process is suggested to be less focused on the leader and rather enable the whole

42

team to manage change. This can result in all team members being more motivated by the

development opportunities found during change. We believe that by doing this, change

become less complex to manage. However, the current theories in today's organisations and

throughout society at large regarding change focusing on the leader, their competences and

procedures rather than long-term perspectives that instead could be incorporated together with

organisational learning theories. The most neglected aspects of learning, was the lack in

taking time to reflect and to consider mistakes as part of the learning process. Another

important aspect is to put less emphasis on the leader and more focus on the individuals.

In regards to our sub-question searching for major discrepancies and/or similarities between

theory and practise for middle managers going through change, several aspects were found.

The most striking discrepancies between theory and practice is the absence, in practice, of

several clearly defined phases during the change processes. Instead, the middle managers

distinguished the first phase, which requires the most need to be present as leaders. Firstly,

our findings indicate that middle managers do not always believe in the change initiative but

has to accept it, in order to drive the change process. To not be believing in the change is

therefore not coherent with suggestions in theory, and if not believing the change by heart it is

probably more difficult to pretend to. Secondly, our findings highlight the importance of

leaders having a individual focus rather than solely focusing on the team as a whole. Finally,

our findings indicate a great focus on the teams and its members rather than solely focusing

on the middle manager.

Several similarities between theory and practice were also found. Firstly, our findings imply a

organizational top-down perspective when leading change. Secondly, our findings indicate a

great focus on the leader instead of the whole team. Third and final, it can be concluded that

theory in general correlates well with descriptions from our findings. The many similarities

with theory also reveal how management theories are highly influential and courses in “how

to” go about change almost indoctrinated in how people talk about change.

Even though this change is the case company's largest one in years, on paper, it might not

have been so large for the employees in practise. It might be easy to rely on current theories if

change is not perceived as such a large challenge. To educate your staff within the same

course might also be an efficient way to lead during smaller challenges. A more

overwhelming change with for instance large cut downs and more transitions might have

43

brought more discrepancies from theory where more emotional aspects would be

demonstrated to a higher extent. Therefore, we believe that the discrepancies between

literature and the studied case are not as extensive as they could have been if researching a

case of change that had included more challenges and drastic adjustments.

6.1 Future Research In order to further understand and broaden various perspectives on change, we suggest to

collect data from different organisations in a multi-case study. For instance one could

consider including perspectives from middle managers within various organisations.

To broaden the perspective within this organisation, more respondents could be included to

achieve a higher extent of reliability and to find more perspectives. It could also be interesting

from an employees’ perspective to reach a higher symmetry. As Alvesson and Blom (2015)

suggest, we tend to look at the leader too much, causing an asymmetry between the leaders

and follower relationship. The authors discuss: “...the assumption that leaders lead those who

need and benefit from being led still dominates the majority of the leadership literature”

(Alvesson & Blom, 2015:266-268). This is an interesting critique against current literature

and could be a thought to consider further for future research.

Needed in extension to this study, is empirical evidence of longitudinal research on what

affects leadership behaviour have on employees’ attitudes over time. A longitudinal study

could be interesting for future studies, in order to increase the understanding of middle

managers perceptions of change over time. For instance this study could be done both before

the launching of the change and further into the process, to see if the results varies.

44

Chapter 7: Limitations of Research Out of eighteen respondents only five were women, which makes the research non-

representative from a gender perspective. Another possible flaw is that it is a single case

study, which is limited to only one company’s middle managers perspective on change, which

makes the results less reliable.

Most of these middle managers have gone through the same course whereas there answers are

very similar and in accordance with theory. To instead compare different companies would

possibly reveal more varied and diverse answers.

The answers we received might have been characterized by political and organizational

correctness. We experienced difficulties penetrating the respondent’s professional facades.

We might have been able to reduce such answers if we had followed up on our first interview

with each respondent, but we neither had the time nor the resources to do so. More time for

interviewing would also possibly have built up relationships of trust and thereby provide a

more diverse picture.

The change is huge on paper but perhaps not so large in influencing the employees

emotionally as another change might have done, whereas one could potentially have found

more tensions and emotional difficulties in another change initiative.

45

References

Argyris, C. 1991. Teaching smart people how to learn, Reflections, Harvard business review

Vol 4, (2), pp. 4-16

Alvesson, M. & Blom, M. 2015. Less leadership less fellowship? An inquiry into the basic

but seemingly forgotten downsides of leadership, M@n@gement Vol. 18, (3): 266-282 266.

Alvesson, M. & Sveningsson, S. 2010. Ledarskap, Malmö: Liber.

Amy H. A. 2008. Leaders as facilitators of individual and organizational learning. Leadership

& Organization Development Journal. Vol. 29, (3), pp. 212-234.

Appelbaum, A. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J-L. Shafiq, H. 2012. Back to the future: revisiting

Ashby, M. D. & Miles S. A. 2002. Leaders talk about leadership, Oxford, Oxford university

press.

Boies, K., Fiset, J. & Gill, H. 2015. Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the

relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. The Leadership

Quarterly Vol 26, pp. 1080–1094.

Bommer, W.H., Rich, G.A. & Rubin, R.S. 2005. Changing attitudes about change:

longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about

organizational change, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 733-53.

Brimm, L. 2015. Managing yourself: How to embrace complex change, Harvard business

review september pp. 108–110, 112.

Brown, S. L. & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1997. The Art of Continuous Change: Linking complexity

and Time-paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations. Cornell University 42, pp.

1-34.

46

Burke, W. W. 1992. Organization Development -A process of learning and changing

Addison-Wesley publishing company, Reading, Massachusetts.

Burnes B., & Cooke, B. 2013. Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory: A Review and Re-evaluation,

International Journal of management Reviews, Vol 15, pp. 408-425.

Burns, B. 2004. Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: back to the future?. Journal of change

management Vol. 4, (4) pp. 309-325.

Caldwell, R 2003. Models of Change Agency: a Fourfold Classification, Vol. 14, pp. 121-

142. British Journal of Management.

Carlson, H. & Nilsson, A. 1999. Ledtrådar till ett moget ledarskap Lund, Studentlitteratur.

Cartwright, R. 2002. Mastering team leadership. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. 2011. Research methods in education. London:

Routledge.

Dopson, S. & Stewart, R. 1990. What is happening to middle management. British Journal of

Management, Nr.1: pp. 3-16.

Farquhar, J. D. 2012. Case study research, London, SAGE publications ltd.

French, W. L., Bell, C. H., Zawacki R. A. Organization development and transformation

managing effective change (Fourth edition), Irwin, Illinois.

Furnham, A & Pendelton, D. 2011. Leadership: All you need to know, Palgrave Macmillan,

U.K.

Furr, N & Dyer, J. H. 2014. Leading your team into the unknown. Harvard Business Review.,

Vol. 92, (12), pp. 80-88.

47

Gino, F & Staats, B. 2015. Why organizations don’t learn. Harvard Business Review,

November issue: pp. 110-118.

Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S. & Liu, Y. 2008. The effects of transformational and

change leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: A multilevel study, Journal of

applied psychology, Vol. 93, (2) pp. 346-357.

Jacobsen, D. I. 2005. Organisationsförändringar och förändringsledarskap Lund:

Studentlitteratur.

Knights, D. & McCabe, D. 2000. `Ain't Misbehavin'? Opportunities for Resistance under New

Forms of `Quality' Management. Sociology Vol. 34, (3) pp. 421-436.

Kotter, J. P. 1996. Change model, Journal of Management Development,Vol. 31, (8) pp.764-

782.

Kotter, J. P. 2012. Leading change Harvard business review press, Boston.

Levitt, B & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology, Vol 14,

pp. 516-541

Lima, C. 2007. Kommunikation, organisation och ledarskap. Malmö: Liber.

Lorenzi, N. M., & Riley, R.T. 2000. Managing change: An overview, Journal of the american

medical informatics association, 7, (2) pp.116-124.

March G. J. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning, Organization

science, Vol. 2 (1) pp. 71-87.

Marks, M. L. 2007. A framework for facilitating adaptation to organizational transition,

Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol 20, (5) pp. 721-739.

Meredith, J.R & Mantel, S.J. 1995. Project Management - A managerial approach, John

Wiley and sons inc, New York.

48

Merriam, S.B. 2009. Qualitative Research: A guide to Design and implementation. San

Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

O’Brian, C. D. & Buono A. F. 1996. Building effective learning teams: lessons from the field.

SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 61, (3) pp. 4-9.

Petriglieri, G & Petriglieri, J. L. 2015. Can Business Schools Humanize Leadership? Academy

of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 14, (4) pp. 625–647.

Randolph, J. J. 2008. Multidisciplinary Methods in Educational Technology. Hämeenlinna:

Hamk.

Ricciardi, M. R & Schaller, J. 2005. Projektpsykologi -En introduktion, Studentlitteratur,

Malmö.

Selander, L. & Henfridsson, O. 2012. Cynicism as user resistance in IT implementation. Info

Systems Journal, Vol. 22, (4) pp. 289–312.

Silverman, D. 2001. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for analysing talk, text and

interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.

Swanborn, P. 2010. Case study research: What, why and how. Sage, London.

Thomas, R., Sargent D. L. &, Hardy, C. 2011. Managing Organizational Change: Negotiating

Meaning and Power-Resistance Relations, Organization Science, Vol, 22 (1) pp. 22-41.

Wheelan, S. 2005. Att skapa effektiva team. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Young, M. 2009. A meta model of change Journal of Organizational Change Management

Vol 22 (5) pp. 524-548.

Yukl, G. 2008. Leading organisational learning: Reflections on theory and research. The

leadership quarterly, Vol. 20, (1) pp. 49-53.

49

Reports

Cabrey, T. S. & Haughey, A. March 2014. Enabling organizational change through strategic

initiatives Project management institute.

Dweck, C. S. January/February 2015. The remarkable reach of growth mindset, Scientific

American.

50

Attachment 1

Interview guide:

Introduction

· What is your background in management/general (within the company)?

. What is your role in this company?

. What was your first and current take on the change (Thoughts, considerations)?

. What is the goal with the change and what is your role in the change?

Leadership

· What makes you a good leader (according to you, competences, attributes, skills etc)?

· What has influenced you as a leader (How you lead, viewpoint, background)?

Leading change

· How do you motivate change within your team?

· What has been important for you as a team leader in the implementation of the change?

· Can you describe if you have experienced different phases of your team during the change?

· Have you as a leader experienced that you need to adapt your leadership, depending on

which phase your team has been in? Koppla till ex. contingency theory

. How do you perceive your team’s various behaviors and participation when implementing

the change (activity, attitudes, autonomous)?

• has this behavior changed during the process?

. What risks are / were apparent with this change?

. What can be challenging when planning change according to you?

Team learning during change

51

· How have you developed through this change? What have you learnt about your leadership

during the change?

· What have your team learnt?

· How can you as a leader create conditions for learning within your team during the change,

exemplify?

· How have you taken advantage of the team competences during the change? (Exemplify)

(Reflection, other?)

. How have you managed the information flow during the change between top management

and in your team?

Finishing questions/reflections

· What are the upcoming largest challenge now and in general for your team?

. Do you have any good example of how colleagues and/or team could support you in

managing the change in any way?

. What have you learnt about the company’s strengths and development areas when

handling change situations? (culture, system, beliefs etc)

. Something you would like to add regarding aspects of learning during change within your

team and as a leader?

Stockholm University

SE-106 91 Stockholm

Tel: 08 – 16 20 00

www.sbs.su.se