Fourne, Sebastian

Glaser, Lotte

Heyden, Mariano

English

EUR Research Repository

2/13/2019 Research Brief: How to Make Your Change Management Process a Massive Success - ManageMagazinehttps://managemagazine.com/article-bank/organizational-change-article-bank/research-brief-how-to-make-your-change-management-process-ma… 1/8By Fourné, Glaser & Heyden -  November 22, 2018Research Brief: How to Make Your Change Management Process aMassive SuccessThe most complex managerial role is to effectively drive the change management process in anorganization.Managers have to continuously alter their organizations to capitalize on opportunities and mitigatethreats. In the wake of a generation that has seen global behemoths like Nokia, BlackBerry, andKodak crippled, or Volkswagen and Deutsche Bank in distress, inaction and resistance to changehave become acknowledged recipes for disaster.Top and middle managers play complex co-dependent change roles in relation to the initiation andthe execution of change.Yet, when change fails, which it does two out of three times (Aiken and Keller, 2009; Kotter,1996), middle managers are often hung out to dry. Indeed, change resistance studies oftenhighlight middle managers as a hurdle to change (Fenton-O’Creevy, 2001), scapegoating them forunfavorable outcomes (Balogun, 2003).However, insights from some of our recent research show that change, which is successfullydriven from the core of the organization, is a story of managerial role reversal (Glaser, Fourné, &Elfring, 2015; Glaser, Stam, & Takeuchi, 2015; Heyden et al., 2017).This is in large part due to middle managers’ ability to secure employee support for change –a keynecessary condition for realizing change.2/13/2019 Research Brief: How to Make Your Change Management Process a Massive Success - ManageMagazinehttps://managemagazine.com/article-bank/organizational-change-article-bank/research-brief-how-to-make-your-change-management-process-ma… 2/8Rethinking ‘Traditional’ Managerial Change Roles in theChange Managment ProcessDriving change can be dissected into two key managerial roles: Change initiation and changeexecution.Change initiation entails the ‘spark’ for change, where managers identify a compelling reason forchange, establish the business case, get buy-in from stakeholders, and secure key resources.Change execution, in turn, is about realizing change plans, navigating the socio-political maze ofthe organization, refocusing existing routines, motivate employees, and reducing associateduncertainty for employees by breaking down long-term plans into digestible targets.Initiating change has long been considered the domain of top managers, who take a ‘strategic’view in re-aligning the organization with their interpretation of its environment and stakeholderdemands. Middle managers, in turn, are entrusted with ‘tactical’ roles in executing changesadvocated by the top, acting as linking pins between top managers and non-managerialemployees.The idea of the change initiation role residing with top managers, and tactical execution roles withmiddle managers, remains a deeply rooted assumption in management thinking.But, are these notions of ‘who does what’ still applicable in the 21 century?Why Management 101 is Wrong about Top–DownChange in the 21 CenturyThe top-down tradition tends to ascribe unique role expectations to top managers, such as driving‘turnarounds’ (Chen and Hambrick, 2012).  In playing this role, however, top managers often haveto articulate a grand vision for change, with little detail and in ways that are aimed at anundifferentiated (and often external) stakeholder audience (Vuori and Huy, 2016). Given theirnear-term incentives, top managers may discount long-term projects (Souder, Reilly, Bromiley,and Mitchell, 2016) and fail to prepare business units for crucial changes (Vuori and Huy, 2016).Indeed, top managers may be more generalist, especially at publicly listed companies where thereis a strong focus on financial market stakeholders.As such, top managers may underrate organization members’ specific needs and concerns, whichare key to supporting change.st st 2/13/2019 Research Brief: How to Make Your Change Management Process a Massive Success - ManageMagazinehttps://managemagazine.com/article-bank/organizational-change-article-bank/research-brief-how-to-make-your-change-management-process-ma… 3/8Hence, top managers fail to communicate what ‘personal valence’ the change delivers across thehierarchy and why it matters for different business units. This is problematic, as generalrecommendations that ensue often fail to embrace nuances of everyday life experienced byemployees, real-time changing preferences of customers, and emerging technologies.Ahearne, Lam, and Kraus (2014) further note that top managers are seldom fully informed wheninitiating change. As a consequence, they ‘might prefer communicating nothing to communicatinginformation that later turns out to be incorrect’. They thus may provide employees with lessinformation about the rationale of the change, such as what it means for employees and theirrespective unit, and how feasible it is. Instead, they focus more on the outcomes to be achieved.Saying where to go without giving precise direction and without stimulating motivation is a recipefor failure. Of particular importance is garnering the support of employees, who have to live thechange and can bring initiatives to a grinding halt if they are not on board. Yet, how do employeesrespond to ‘who plays what’ role in change?How Employees Respond to Di erent Change Agents inthe Change Management ProcessGetting employees to support change is a precondition for effective change. Indeed, fosteringemployee support is crucial for avoiding costly delays, deviations, or even failures of intendedchange (Mantere, Schildt, and Sillince, 2012; Yang, Zhang, and Tsui, 2010).Employees often experience feelings of uncertainty, loss of control, and fear of failure caused bychange events. Hence, to buy into change, they need change initiatives that play into theirspecific technical and career strengths. Moreover, initiatives must also account for their emotionaltoll and the social fabric that is disrupted as a result of the change.This lack of tailor-made prescriptions in top-down change often leads to lack of clarity regardingthe purpose of the change. This results in an inability for middle managers and employees tomake sense of required alterations to the organization. Additionally, it places a substantial burdenon middle managers who face a daunting communication challenge, needing to execute changeinitiative that they may not necessarily support or even fully understand (Glaser, Fourné, andElfring, 2015).With middle managers and employees struggling to make sense of what change clearly means forthem, success remains elusive.In situations of prescribed top-down change with unclear purpose and merits, middle managersmay fail to get employees on board.  Recent research shows that employee support for change isboosted when change is initiated by middle managers and executed by either top or middlemanagers, with the strongest positive attitudes being achieved when middle managers take on2/13/2019 Research Brief: How to Make Your Change Management Process a Massive Success - ManageMagazinehttps://managemagazine.com/article-bank/organizational-change-article-bank/research-brief-how-to-make-your-change-management-process-ma… 4/8the initiation and top managers take on the execution—although this is the rarest configurationobserved (Heyden et al., 2017).Why middle managers should be encouraged to initiate changeChange initiated by middle managers can be a blessing because:1. It is more purpose fit. Change addresses what the business environment demands at agreater level of precision– as articulated by specialists exposed to it in their day-to-day. Itsignals participation in strategy formation across the hierarchy. The sense of involvement ofemployees in the strategy process, in setting the direction of the company, can be a powerfulmotivator.2. It is inexpensive. There is lesser to rely on expensive consultants’ solutions, no need toconvince your people that external ideas trump internal ones, change can come from within. Infact, organizations often fail to tap sufficiently into good ideas generated from within(Deichmann & van den Ende,2014).3. Role reversal among the top and middle managers can be good for the organization and forthe individuals’ standing and career development, especially for the middle managers. Middlemanagers need opportunities to initiate change in order to develop, refine, and learn valuableleadership capabilities.Why are employees more supportive of changes initiated by middle managers?Middle managers tend to be more directly affected by change themselves given that theyincur reputational and learning costs (Heyden, Sidhu, and Volberda, 2015). Consequently,employees may believe that change initiated by middle managers must be truly necessary andis a risk worth taking.Middle managers often adopt a process-orientation when executing planned change due totheir intra-organizational focus (Reitzig and Sorenson, 2013; Vuori and Huy, 2016). This focuswill make the change initiative at hand appear more digestible and thus more welcome.Because of the proximity, employees will more likely feel that they are in a position toprovide input and participate, which has been linked to favorable attitudes. Initiation by middlemanagers may offer opportunities for proactive involvement in strategy processes foremployees, which often entails positive attitudinal responses (Gopinath and Becker, 2000).Middle managers as facilitators may be in a better position to absorb what additionalinformation and skill-upgrades are needed by employees for them to feel empowered and haveconfidence in their ability to successfully realize the change (Balogun, 2003; Caldwell, Herold,and Fedor, 2004).2/13/2019 Research Brief: How to Make Your Change Management Process a Massive Success - ManageMagazinehttps://managemagazine.com/article-bank/organizational-change-article-bank/research-brief-how-to-make-your-change-management-process-ma… 5/8Why top managers should take the lead in executing the change management processWhy employees are most supportive if the change is not only initiated by middle managers butalso executed by top managers:Middle managers often lack the authority and legitimacy to introduce organization-widechange. As top managers have a more comprehensive view of activities across the value chain,they can anticipate ripple effects and more swiftly pre-empt bottlenecks during execution. Forinstance, the involvement of top managers might be crucial for fast allocation of supportingresources.When top managers execute change initiated by middle managers, employees may perceivethat top managers take the concerns and ideas developed at other levels within theorganization seriously. The upward flow of ideas and top managers’ willingness to adopt themis encouraging to those lower in the hierarchy. This perceived participation increases opennessto change and infuses the execution with more eagerness and pride.Top managers can create a performance management context that makes middle managers’change initiation and risk-taking more effective (Glaser, Stam, and Takeuchi, 2016).Signaling principal support and sponsorship of the change imbues the change withlegitimacy and instills both motivation and confidence across the organizational hierarchy.Top managers may detect and prevent business-unit specific favoritism in middle managerinitiated change. Thus, top managers ensure that the proposed initiative is in line with overallorganizational goals. This adds legitimacy to middle managers’ change proposals across allbusiness units and fosters cooperation among employees and unity behind the changeinitiative.Time to Flip the Script on Change Roles in the ChangeManagement ProcessIn sum, change does not have to, or perhaps even should not come from, the top. Recentresearch reveals that it is not necessarily the traditional path that is the most effective path toinitiate and execute change. Rather, it appears that roles should be flipped so that top managerstake charge during the execution and middle managers spark the change initiation.Findings highlight a blurring distinction between ‘thinking’ and ‘doing’ often encountered inmanagement education through labels like ‘strategy formulation’ versus ‘implementation’.We encourage organizations to challenge these notions and to help both top and middle managersembrace change roles that have not traditionally been considered part of their job description.2/13/2019 Research Brief: How to Make Your Change Management Process a Massive Success - ManageMagazinehttps://managemagazine.com/article-bank/organizational-change-article-bank/research-brief-how-to-make-your-change-management-process-ma… 6/8That said, there needs to be a platform or market for change initiatives and the opportunity formiddle managers to speak up and generate support among top managers, who then take chargeand lead the execution. This change in interpretation of ‘who does one’ will also have implicationsfor the design of support systems, including rewards, incentives, career recognition, andprofessional development opportunities for supplementary skills.Altogether, navigating change effectively might benefit from encouraging change initiation fromthe core of the organization, while letting execution be driven from the top.For long-term impact to be sustained and embraced across all levels of the hierarchy, it isappropriate to try out inside-out, middle-up change.Now, perhaps, more than ever, managers who are closest to the action have to take charge andinitiate change. ReferencesAhearne, M., Lam, S. K., & Kraus, F. (2014). Performance impact of middle managers’ adaptivestrategy implementation: The role of social capital. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 68-87.Aiken, C., & Keller, S. (2009). The irrational side of change management. McKinseyQuarterly, 2(10), 100-109.Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating changeintermediaries. British Journal of Management, 14(1), 69-83.Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2004). Toward an understanding of the relationshipsamong organizational change, individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: across-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 868-882Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G.(2004). Upper echelons research revisited:Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal ofManagement, 30(6), 749-778.Chen, G., & Hambrick, D. C. (2012). CEO replacement in turnaround situations: Executive (mis)fit and its performance implications. Organization Science, 23(1), 225-243.Deichmann, D., & van den Ende, J. (2014). Rising from Failure and Learning from Success: TheRole of Past Experience in Radical Initiative Taking. Organization Science, 25(3), 670-690. doi:doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.08702/13/2019 Research Brief: How to Make Your Change Management Process a Massive Success - ManageMagazinehttps://managemagazine.com/article-bank/organizational-change-article-bank/research-brief-how-to-make-your-change-management-process-ma… 7/8Fenton-O’Creevy, M. (2001). Employee involvement and the middle manager: saboteur orscapegoat? Human Resource Management Journal, 11(1), 24-40.Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of thestory. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377.Fourné, S. P. L., Jansen, J. J. P., & Mom, T. J. M. (2014). Strategic agility in MNEs: Managingtensions to capture opportunities across emerging and established markets. CaliforniaManagement Review, 56(3), 13-38.Glaser, L., Fourné, S. P. L., & Elfring, T. (2015). Achieving strategic renewal: The multi-levelinfluences of top and middle managers’ boundary-spanning. Small Business Economics, 45(2),305-327Glaser, L., Stam, W., & Takeuchi, R. (2016). Managing the risks of proactivity: A multilevel studyof initiative and performance in the middle management context. Academy of ManagementJournal, 59(4), 1339-1360.Gopinath, C., & Becker, T. E. (2000). Communication, procedural justice, and employee attitudes:Relationships under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26(1), 63-83.Greve, H. R. (2003). A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence fromshipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 685-702.Heyden, M. L. M., Fourné, S. P. L., Koene, B. A., Werkman, R., & Ansari, S. S. (2017). Rethinking‘top-down’and ‘bottom-up’roles of top and middle managers in organizational change:Implications for employee support. Journal of Management Studies, 54(7), 961-985.Heyden, M. L. M., Sidhu, J. S., & Volberda, H. W. (2015). The conjoint influence of top and middlemanagement characteristics on management innovation. Journal of Management,0149206315614373.Kellermanns, F. W., Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2005). The lack of consensus aboutstrategic consensus: Advancing theory and research. Journal of Management, 31(5), 719-737.Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard business press.Mantere, S., Schildt, H. A., & Sillince, J. A.(2012). Reversal of strategic change. Academy ofManagement Journal, 55(1), 172-196.Reitzig, M., & Sorenson, O. (2013). Biases in the selection stage of bottom‐up strategyformulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(7), 782-7992/13/2019 Research Brief: How to Make Your Change Management Process a Massive Success - ManageMagazinehttps://managemagazine.com/article-bank/organizational-change-article-bank/research-brief-how-to-make-your-change-management-process-ma… 8/8https://www.pinterest.dk/website/confirm/download/Souder, D., Reilly, G., Bromiley, P., & Mitchell, S. (2016). A behavioral understanding of investmenthorizon and firm performance. Organization Science, 27(5), 1202-1218.Vuori, T. O., & Huy, Q. N. (2016). Distributed attention and shared emotions in the innovationprocess: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(1), 9-51.Yang, J., Zhang, Z. X., & Tsui, A. S. (2010). Middle manager leadership and frontline employeeperformance: Bypass, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Management Studies, 47(4),654-678. Fourné, Glaser & HeydenSebastian P. L. Fourné (Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada) Lotte Glaser (Rotterdam School of Management,Netherlands) Mariano L.M. Heyden (Monash Business School, Australia)

Research Brief: How to make you change management process a massive success

https://pure.eur.nl/files/48161153/Repub_114913.pdf

Research Brief: How to make you change management process a massive success

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

EUR Research Repository