How and Why Do Middle Managers Support and Resist Strategic Change - Essay Example

Organizational Change Management Patch How and why do middle managers support and resist strategic change? Change is a common phenomenon in every organization owing to the dynamic nature of business processes. While most of these changes are unplanned, some of them are strategic decisions of the top management (Burke, 2010, p.1). Numerous strategic changes encounter heightened hostility, hence their implementation gradually fails and therefore for any change to be successful there are several concepts initiators of the change ought to consider. What are the keys to successful change, as described in the literature? According to Conway & Monks (2011), an organization must have a strong imperative reason to want change and the individuals in that organization must feel it as well. Various individuals in the organization will be involved in the change process and unless they understand the need for that change, their behaviour towards the proposed change will not be favourable. Behaviour change is very imperative for successful change because of the uncertainty that people perceive to come because of that change (Shea & Solomon, 2013, p. 15). The great need for the change in the organization enables the management to envision what they really want. This involves understanding reasons for the change, the structure of the change process and ensures successful implementation of that change (Shea & Solomon, 2013). Involving all the party concerned in the change also contributes greatly to the understanding of the change (Conway & Monks, 2011, p.. 191). Though strategic change may result from the top management, they should consider the middle level employees input to ensure they will not encounter much resistance. This also helps to counter any resistance early enough and make any clarification on time. Conway & Monks (2011) further asserts that for a successful change implementation, a clear outline of the benefits the change will bring must be present. What are the reasons for resistance to change as described in the literature? However, many organizations often face opposition to change thus derailing the implementation process. Majority of the individuals defy change because it comes from top management and without proper consultations with them, the management forces them to adopt the change (Conway & Monks, 2011). This is especially so when they perceive that the change will negatively adjust their work status for instance in relation to workload, status change, which may prompt some of them to guard their own interests. According to Bates (2005), various individuals defy change for different reasons. Some may resist change to guard their own self-interest. Others fears the uncertainties that change brings while others lack clarity on the change process and some may have had previous bad experience with same process prompting the defiance (Bates, 2005, p. 356) What roles do middle managers play in change processes? In many organizations, the middle managers play a pivotal role in furnishing the top management with the necessary information for their strategic decisions (McCann, Morris & Hassard, 2008, p. 344). According to Hollard & Salvo (2012), they play three critical functions in ensuring the change implementation. They help in the smooth running of the business while the change process in progress to ensure that this process does not interrupt the organization’s operations. Similarly, they ensure that the change will achieve the desired outcome by continuously validating it and ensure smooth change over from the old way of doing things to the new processes (Hollard & Salvo, 2012). The top management may overlook the role of these managers in the change process because it is quite different from what many expect their role to be but this omission could be very detrimental to the change process. Their other crucial role is acting as the link between the top management and the employee by linking the communication between the two (Herzig & Jimmieson, 2006, p. 629). What kind of issues might generate middle managers resistance? However, the exclusion of the middle managers in the change process can create a lot of resistance on their part which creates a feeling of uncertainty that might prompt them to defy the changes ( (Herzig & Jimmieson, 2006). Middle managers are also employees in an organization and when a proposed change tend to create a sense of insecurity of their job, then this can make them defy the change as well (Conway & Monks, 2011, p. 192). Similarly, part of the change role of these managers diminishes due to the emergence of information technology. In addition, the change may increase the workload of these managers and therefore they may resist the change as a result (Conway & Monks, 2011). What were the responses of middle managers towards top-down change? Although it is unavoidable to encounter criticism of every top down change, involvement of middle managers is very crucial as their resistance could derail the whole process. Top down change tend to leave out the middle management out and the result is the feeling of anxiety that might prompt them to resist the change (Beer, 2009, p.319). For instance in the case of the Irish health service, the results of the top down change was a lot of pressure to the middle managers (Conway & Monks, 2011, p. 194). According to these managers, this resulted to a lot of workload, a lot of paper work and tiresome standardized procedure that were tiresome and yet they had a lot of other work to do. The consolidation of duties by the change also resulted to a lot anxieties due to long time in decision-making (Conway & Monks, 2011). Why was middles management more positive about bottom-up change? Bottom-up change is whereby the top management consults with all level management through a gradual process and after the inputs of all those involved determined the decision- making process (Hill & Jones, 2011, p. 205). Middle management prefers the bottom-up change because there is consideration of their ideas, there is continuous communications and hence minimized anxiety (Hill & Jones, 2011). The managers feel that this approach is the best because they have an idea of what the change entails and therefore they are not worried of what the change might bring (Conway & Monks, 2011, p. 196). Similarly, this approach gives the managers the opportunity to decide on the best way they are going to implement the change. They are also able to choose the best employees to drive this process since they have full knowledge about the process. What were the keys to success and obstacle to bottom-up change? For the bottom up change to be effective, considerations of the ideas given by all the stakeholders is crucial. Individuals feel as part of the process and hence majority of them will embrace the change (Hudges, 2012, p. 129). However, the bottom up approach is gradual and involves a series of consultations with various individual, and hence will not be appropriate for changes that are urgent (Schermerhorn, 2010). In conclusion, for people to embrace change appropriately and impact the organization as anticipated, it entails proper planning. Mainly, this encompasses involving all respective parties by first sensitizing them that the change about to occur will be for their good in quest to shun uncalled for resistance. However, in certain circumstances I think organizations through their respective capacities ought to know when to compel certain minority members who are uncooperative to embrace change. References Bates, B., 2005. Business management: Fresh Perspective. Cape Town, South Africa: Pearson Education. Beer,M., 2009. High Commitment High Performance: How to Build A Resilient Organization for Sustained Advantage. San Francisco: John Wiley. Burke,W.W., 2010. Organization change: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Thousands Oak: SAGE Publications Conway, E. and Monks. K., 2011. Change from below: the role of middle managers in mediating paradoxical change. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(2): pp. 190-203. Herzig, S.E. and Jimmieson, N.L., 2006. "Middle managers uncertainty management during organizational change", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27 (8) pp. 628 – 645 Hill, C. and Jones, G., 2011.Essentials of strategic management. Australia; Mason,Ohio: Cengage Learning Holland, D. and Salvo, D. 2012. Change Management: The New Way: Easy To Understand; Powerful To Use. Xlibris Corporation Hudges, C., 2012.Valuing people and technology in the workplace : a competitive advantage framework. Hershey,PA: IGI Global McCann,L., Morris, J. and Hassard, J., 2008. Normalized:Intensity: The new labour process of Middle management. Journal of management studios. 45(2) pp. 343-371 Schermerhorn, J. R. (2010). Management. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley. Shea, G. and Solomon, G., 2013. Leading successful Change: 8 Keys to making change work. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press. Patch 2 Why do models of planned change not bring about cultural change? What is organizational culture? Organizational culture encompasses to the system integration of beliefs and interpretations by various members of an organization, which defines how they relate with each other within and without the organization (Erbe, 2014). This means adopting the preserved way in which an organization is used to doing things and each new member coming into the organization must integrate with these beliefs. Msoroka (2013) further explains that culture foundation in an organization is through various ways such as formal organizational statement such as mission statement, and visions of the organization. Similarly, founders’ beliefs and behaviour stipulates the culture of an organization. Culture in an organization is very important as it outlines important aspects that the organization has used in the past and they have worked hence culture is relative to the performance of a particular organization (O’Donnell, 2008, p. 9). What is culture management? Culture management is the process of ensuring that known culture of the organization continuing or overseeing the adoption of some new aspect while replacing others (Willcoxson & Millet, 2000, p. 96). The main aim for cultural management is to enhance control in an organization rather than increasing productivity like many theorists asserts (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002, p. 33). Changes in the organization mainly affect the cultural aspects of the organization and this may generate various emotional reactions from individuals within the organization. There is need to effectively manage cultural aspects especially when the culture involved affects the employees emotionally (Smollan & Sayeri, 2009). Cultural changes mainly affect the employees’ in an organization since the essence of culture is to make employees feel that they belong to a family (Burke, 2010). When culture changes, there is an involvement of an emotional part of the employee since this culture is formed as part of a continuous working process in the organization (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). The response to this change primarily follows the way an individual perceives the effect of the change either in the sub culture level or in the entire organization (Smollan & Sayeri, 2009, p. 3). What are the approaches to cultural change? What is the nature of most culture invention? There are new several approaches to cultural change depending on different authors for instance the “aggressive” approach, which is best suitable to begin the process of change (Bate, 2013 p. 215). This approach follows a model whereby the top management initiates the changes and then imposes them into the people. The model mostly elicits aggressive behaviour, hence on its own it is not appropriate (Bate, 2013, p. 216). Additionally, the approach does not elicit interest in many participant therefore it lacks the following needed for its development. The other approach for cultural change is “conciliative” approach, which rates high in matters of commonality because of its ability to offer a chance for input by the users. This approach act as a step forward for the aggressive approach as it furthers from where the aggressive approach has left off. Individuals feels involved as they can scrutinize the change and offer their ideas making them have a sense of ownership in the change process (Bate, 2013, p. 216). This approach has the ability to steer the whole change project into completion. However, the most explored approaches to cultural change are the planned approach and the processual approach. The planned approach utilizes the laid out sequence of operations to steer the change program (Burnes, 2004 p. 989). Contrary to this approach, the processual approach concentrates more on the relationship of individual in an organization and the impact they have in the organization, before undertaking any change process (Burnes, 2004). The approach emphasizes more on the need to study the change itself as well before undertaking on the process its self to ensure effectiveness (Burnes, 2004). Can culture be managed? There are three perspective through management has been debated. Which one do the authors adopt? Organization is a socially constructed entity with norms and values that they follow and therefore the culture is manageable within this context (Witte & Muijen, 2000 p. 497). Further arguments assert that culture is a construct of the organization itself, and due to this fact, it is manageable. Culture management mainly takes two perspectives, which defines how organizations cope with ever changing business dynamics and the challenge of aligning the culture to these dynamics. There is the maintenance perspective, which means preserving the existing culture and the changing perspective, which includes modifying some aspects of the existing culture to suit the current business condition (Willcoxson & Millet, 2000). The most referred approach is the changing due to the dynamic nature of business, which will inevitably prompt culture to be change to fit into those processes. What are the eight common management actions and subsequent invented consequences of culture changes programmes in this paper? In any effort to manage culture, there are outcomes that emerge from those attempts, which may be intended or even unintended. Intended consequences are outcomes expectations from the whole process of management while the unintended repercussions are unpredictable and they emerge as impromptu (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002, p. 37). Therefore, the change program stipulates the following actions in reference to the unintended consequences to enhance proper change process. Ritualizing change of culture In their effort to control the unintended consequences, managers argue that changing what employees believe in is not a short-term goal. Change should be a process that takes a longer period like five years so as for the change to be completely acceptable (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002). Hijacking the process The whole expectations of the culture management group were that the culture would be in their jurisdiction to control. However, some participants unintentionally dominate the process for unknown reasons (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002, p. 39). Culture erosion Although earlier statement stipulates that ritualization results from short-term cultural change action, argument further emerge depicting that long term process programs of culture change can cause erosion unintentionally (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002). Cultural reinvention Management activities in the change programs can similarly divert the original cultural status into some new aspects of change, which were not originally there disguising as the old culture. Ivory tower culture change Cultural change programs should happen basing that there is an understanding of the interactions of the whole organization. However, when actions to change culture happen without this knowledge, then this unintended consequence happens (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002) Ignorance of symbolism Symbols refer to the values and an aspect that guides the feeling of the members of the organization and sometimes change teams overlooks them there eliciting unintended consequences (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002). Uncontrolled and uncoordinated practices Cultural change management programs are controlled programs, which should be a one-point operation, so when this lacks then unprecedented consequences are inevitable (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002, p. 43). Behavioural compliance This is the last intervention, which explains many organizations alter the behaviour of their members but fail in their goals to change value. In conclusion, for any entity to experience significant cultural change, ought to be aware it entails time like at least five years. This is to ascertain what to implement and alter in regards to culture, hence use changing approach. Since, similar to what other scholars have contended I think it considers the dynamic settings in which organizations normally operate though entails proper consideration. References Bate, P., 2013. Strategies for cultural change. Oxford: Elsevier Burke, W.W., 2010. Organization change: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Thousands Oak: SAGE Publications Burnes, B., 2004."Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies?: The case of XYZ construction", International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24(9), PP. 886 – 902. Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E., 2011. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & sons. Erbe, N., 2014. Approaches to managing organizational diversity and innovation. Hershey, Pa: IGI Global Msoroke, M., 2013. Organized culture: Its implication to educational institutions. Norderstedit, Germany: GRIN Verlag. O’Donnell, O., 2008. Understanding and managing organizational culture: CPMR Discussion paper 40. [pdf]. Dublin 4,Ireland: Institute of public administration. Smollan R. and Sayers J. G., 2009. Organizational Culture, Change and Emotions: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Change Management. 9 (4), PP. 435-457. Harris, L. C. and Ogbonna, E. (2002). The Unintended Consequences of Culture Interventions: A Study of Unexpected Outcomes. British Journal of Management, 13(1), PP. 31–49. Willcoxson.L. and Millet,B., 2008. Understanding and Managing organizational culture. Australian journal of management and organizational behavior. 3(2), PP 91-99. Patch 3 How do leadership behaviours positively and negatively impact upon employee commitment to organisational change? Based on studies so far conducted that relay varied arguments of scholars in regards to leadership and employees’ relationship, it is irrefutable any firm’s success depends on employees’ input (Fugate, 2012). However, the extent of success ought to commensurate with the kind of management or leadership behaviours, which employees observes from whom they emulate. Since they significantly influence how they react to the devised policies, which leaders pass them down onto them to implement and conduct themselves as necessitated towards complying with certain advocated organizational change. For instance, according to Shrestha and Mishra (n.d), adopting transformational leading approach normally has direct influence employees. This is in influencing any change whereby they will be more than willing due to the inspiration as well as motivation they get from the conduct of those leading them. Therefore, any change will not encounter uncalled for resistance because its exemplification to occur is from the top coupled with establishment of close relationship with the leading towards attaining common targets. However, this cannot be possible if the leading team does not exhibit trust to whom they are influencing to implement the change they anticipate. According to Fugate, (2012, p. 192), for the leading to ensure complete compliance to any change they anticipate, they ought to trust their employees in carrying on with the responsibilities meant to realize their targets. This is by informing them before and invests adequate times in ensuring they have skills meant to carry on the mission, which in turn translates to heightened commitment to change (Fugate, 2012). Empowerment positively influences the extent of staff’s dedication to their firm’s change (Gill, 2003, p. 316). Since, this is what gives them power and an elevated capacity meant to enable them exercise the intellect as well as imagination they have to attain what the leading may be advocating. Hence, exhibit less or no resistance for they already know their responsibility placed upon them because of seen as having the capability to accomplish the assigned tasks irrespective of challenging situations (Gill, 2003). This is essential and helpful especially in the present day’s situations whereby according to Gill (2003) top-down interaction is rapidly shrinking due to increased use of technological knowhow. Therefore, interaction arenas meant for one on one are diminishing and only way to influence employees is to inform, impart them with appropriate skills as well as by exhibiting the necessary conduct. Empowerment in this case acts a motivation towards commitment to change as Thomas and Hardy (2011) in their study contends though addressing it from basis of power relations. In their study Lundy and Morin (2013), while addressing the inevitable organization change that currently encompasses the heart of each firm, contends the leading acts as unifying factor. Therefore, leaders entail to have adequate skills meant to influence whom they are leading and link them to diverse shareholders (Lundy & Morin, 2013, p. 48). This is to ensure there is team spirit among the staff as well as leverage other requirements or resources meant to realize organizational goals. However, before resulting to any strategy that will prompt a leader to exhibit a certain conduct, he or she ought to conduct a thorough audit regarding the message to the employees. Since according to Cooper, Karanika-Murra and Biron (2012, p. 66) one ought to be aware any change in an organization is a threat to certain people’s identities, hence it may yield to some waging resistance (Myers, Hulks & Wiggins, 2012). Therefore, it encompasses cautious approach especially by leaders because they are the agents of change, which they need to see and their staff complying with the already outlined regulations to effect varied policies. Suppose the change agents fail to relay the right information to the staff, then they end up arousing tension in their organization, which calls for negative retaliation from the employees towards organizational change. I think any organization that anticipates having its employees completely support varied changes that it entails to effect ought to embrace a transformational leadership (Daft, 2010, p. 434). Since, this not only empowers the staff but avails an ample environment of innovation and relaxed interaction towards realizing a certain change though as per that firm’s vision, which the leaders communicated. Conversely, by embracing certain behaviours mainly influences those they are leading to resist, which in turn make their work impossible. Mostly, the firm through its inconsiderate leaders may inadvertently through their behaviours prompt employees failing to act as per their full potential. Full potential in this case implies being innovative such that in undertaking any task staff will not do it due to compulsion in order to please the leading. Consequently, this yields to pressurizing the staff towards where they may not be willing to go despite in the firm having no voice but to comply. Hence, end up not being innovative enough towards embracing the prevailing or coming change for they are unaware of its impact on their present identities. Due to this, they indirectly embark on agitating against the change or frustrating any meaningful efforts in order to main that status despite the organizational change meant for their wellbeing. By failing to be inclusive about the change they are about to implement, I think leaders end up instilling fear and anxiety among the staff. In turn, they end up failing to learn of making any effort towards equipping themselves with the necessary skills because their morale is already deflated (Kumar & Meenakshi, 2009, p. 481). Consequently, this reflects itself in the performance of the organization because change normally entails coping with the changing settings of the market whereby due to leaders not being able to influence their employees end up failing miserably. Despite change meant for the good of an organization, I also think it ought to have a balance. This is in such a way employees do not perceive those leading them have certain agendas, hence the reason are in hurry to initiate numerous changes to suit their identities (Kumar & Meenakshi, 2009). Therefore, leaders ought to ensure employees’ appraisal of organizational change (Oreg, Michel & By, 2013). This is to minimize anxiety and in turn arouse employees need to engage their leaders such that they are like a team towards realizing certain targets without either of the side respective identities threatened. In conclusion, leaders’ behaviours in any given entity are essential in influencing the manner in which their respective employee will be committed to change. Therefore, for them to make any significant steps towards realizing any change ought to be inclusive and trusting those they lead. Since, this is what will make them prosper for the employees will not retaliate based on anxiety and fear. References Cooper, C., Karanika-Murra, M. & Biron, C. 2012. Improving Organizational Interventions For Stress and Well-Being: Addressing Process and Context. London: Routledge. Daft, R. L. (2010). Organization theory and design. Mason, Ohio, South-Western Cengage Learning. Fugate, M. 2012. The impact of leadership, management, and HRM on employee reactions to organizational change. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 31, pp. 177-208. Gill, R. 2003. Change management or change leadership. Journal of Change Management, 3, 4, 307318 Kumar, A. & Meenakshi, N. 2009. Organisational Behaviour, 1E. India: Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd Lundy, V, & Morin, P 2013, Project Leadership Influences Resistance to Change: The Case of the Canadian Public Service, Project Management Journal, 44, 4, pp. 45-64. Myers, P., Hulks, S., & Wiggins, L. (2012). Organizational change: perspectives on theory and practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Oreg, S., Michel, A., & By, R. T. (2013). The psychology of organizational change: viewing change from the employees perspective. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Shrestha, A. K. & Mishra, K. A. n.d. Leadership styles, employees’ commitment to organizational change, and organizational performance: a study in a nepali technology based organization. [Pdf] Available at: [Accessed 20Th March 2015] Thomas, R, & Hardy, C 2011, Reframing resistance to organizational change, Scandinavian Journal Of Management, 27, 3, pp. 322-331. Read More