The Line-Manager as a Crucial Link During an Organizational Change
Caroline Larsson and Sofie Johansson Örebro University
Abstract
Earlier studies have identified factors that could be a threat to an employee's well-being, performance, and motivation during an organizational change. However, there is a lack of research on hierarchical management organizations and a line-manager's part of how a change is delivered to employees. With the use of self-determination theory as a basis, this study examined a top-manager's motivation style towards their line-managers, in the context of an organizational change, and whether the line-manager's basic psychological needs are satisfied. The hypothesis for the present study expresses: A line-manager's level of satisfaction with its basic psychological is associated with its top-manager's motivation style orientation. The sample (N= 52) consists of two levels of management, top-managers, and line-managers, and this study shows a between-subject effect, and a within-subject effect, where, based on motivation style, the rating on experienced satisfaction and frustration are different. The proposal for further research suggests taking all the different hierarchical management levels into account during an organizational change.
Keywords: Organizational change, line-manager, management, self-determination theory, basic psychological needs
Supervisor: Reza Kormi-Nouri Psychology III
The Line-Manager as a Crucial Link During an Organizational Change
Caroline Larsson och Sofie Johansson Örebro Universitet
Sammanfattning
Tidigare studier har identifierat faktorer som kan hota anställdas välbefinnande, prestation och motivation under en organisationsförändring. Det saknas dock forskning inom organisationer med ett hierarkiskt ledarskap och linjechefens roll i hur en förändring levereras till anställda. Med self-determination theory som grund undersöker denna studie en toppchefs motivationsstil gentemot sina linjechefer, under en omorganisation, och ifall deras grundläggande psykologiska behov är uppfyllda. Hypotesen för den aktuella studien är följande: linjechefens upplevelse av att ha autonomi, samhörighet, och kompetens tillfredställt har en association med deras toppchefs motivationsstil. Urvalet (N= 52) består av två nivåer av ledning, toppchefer och linjechefer. Resultatet visar en effekt både mellan och inom grupperna, där upplevd tillfredsställelse och frustration är olika baserat på motivationsstil. Förslag till senare forskning föreslås att ta hänsyn till alla nivåer i en hierarkisk ledning under en organisationsförändring.
Keywords: Organizational change, line-manager, management, self-determination theory, basic psychological needs
Handledare: Reza Kormi-Nouri Psykologi III
The Line-Manager as a Crucial Link During an Organizational Change
Changes in life are inevitable, emotions of uncertainty, feeling less capable, and lower engagement permeates changes that require a person to adapt to a new situation, followed by less effective abilities for coping and adapting to the new situation (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Deci and Ryan (1985) established the self-determination theory to understand what makes a person motivated and self-determined in their choices and how it promotes or prevents their flourishing. The self-determination theory comprises three basic psychological needs that are essential for a person to experience personal growth and development; the need for autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Autonomy refers to when a person experiences that they make decisions based upon their own volition to do, or
accomplish, something. Moreover, that a person holds a personal desire to make the choices they do, carry out activities in coherence with their genuine self-interest, and have no need for any external reward, or influences (Deci & Ryan, 2017). In contrast, a shortage of autonomy entails feeling controlled through externally enforced or self-imposed pressures (deCharms, 1968; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Relatedness concerns a person's need for closeness with others and the belief that they are cared for by the ones they care for, and, belonging to and being a meaningful part of a social group (Deci & Ryan, 2017). The need for competence refers to a person's perception of their capability to achieve a task in a desired and effective manner. How someone feels competent requires trust and confidence in their skill and ability, but it is also affected by how other people consider them to be competent or not (Deci & Ryan, 2017). A lack of competence follows with feeling like a failure and have doubts about its efficacy (Ryan, 1995).
To determine an individual's well-being, motivation, and satisfaction in life, the distinction between satisfaction and frustration with the three basic psychological needs devotes (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The experience of having satisfied needs fosters engagement,
volition, and results in improved performance, creativity, and persistence (Rahmadani et al., 2019). Whereas frustration with the needs leads to ill-being, demotivation, and predicts higher exhaustion levels (Deci et al., 2017). The psychological needs are at risk when a person goes through a change in life, and in the context of an organization, they are especially at risk during an organizational change (Simonsen et al., 2018).
What Makes Organizational Change a Risk
An organizational change can lead to harmful consequences to both the organization and the people working there since it creates new conditions and situations for the employee to cope with (de Fatima Nery et al., 2019). New working conditions can mean changes in roles where the employee entails a shift in their work, and the skills required to perform, often followed by overloaded work levels and stressful experiences (de Fátima Nery et al., 2019). The degree of involvement and provided information within an organizational change is seen as critical for the employee to comprehend and accept the change (de Fátima Nery et al., 2019). Abildgaard et al. (2018) identify decision making, planning, implementing, and further evaluation of the actions as crucial factors of the involvement in the process. That is, employees who are not prepared for what is going to happen and what is expected from them do not have a clear understanding and structure for what follows the change, and instead, they become resistant to it (de Fátima Nery et al., 2019). Consequently, this creates negative feelings, cognitions, and uncertainty, which has shown adverse outcomes on employees' well-being and relates to feelings of lack of controllability and clarity (de Fátima Nery et al., 2019). Hence, uncertainty in the matter of the content of the job, and a fear of losing it (Abildgaard et al., 2018), results in the employee experiencing lower job satisfaction and motivation (Washington, 2015). Previous research has shown that organizational change, in some cases, constitutes the highest level of risks associated with mental health problems such as anxiety, depression, and stress (Nelson & Cooper, 1995).
In summary, the stressful situations and experiences that follow an organizational change are linked to fear and doubts, which results in the employee experiencing ill-being, lower work motivation, and lower job satisfaction (de Fátima Nery et al., 2019).
Leadership Motivation Style
The way that a leader delivers a change to employees affects how they experience and exert it (Mathiesen et al., 2017). A broader allowance of input from employees could increase their sense of control and commitment and further reduce uncertainties and potential
resistance to change (Mathiesen et al., 2017). Efforts in the matter of leadership play an essential role in inspiring exceptional work upon the employee's desires as well as
contributing to well-being (Hocine & Zhang, 2014). Therefore, leadership inputs serve more successfully when supporting basic psychological needs (Deci et al., 2017). Concerning competence, relatedness, and autonomy, the leaders are responsive to construct a supportive workplace, at the same time as acting in a supportive manner, to lead towards positive results (Hocine & Zhang, 2014). To support competence, the leader must take consideration and actions around ideal challenges and achievable goals, provide relevant information and training, and give feedback (Hocine & Zhang, 2014). Leaders that acknowledge feelings, support cooperation, share information, and provide further support through regular meetings, are supportive of relatedness (Hocine & Zhang, 2014). A leadership embraces the aim to support autonomy through minimal pressure (for example, deadlines, tangibles, rewards, surveillance), give the employee decision-making power, choice, and value for others' perspectives (Hocine & Zhang, 2014). Altogether, this means a commitment and
responsibility towards the employee's perspective, supporting and offering propositions on how to interact with ideas and abstaining from pressuring behavior (Deci et al., 2017). Hence, the leader fosters an experience of satisfying psychological needs within the employees in the
workplace (Deci et al., 2017). Further, also explaining the importance of being motivated within a work context and having motivated employees (Hocine & Zhang, 2014).
Through the satisfaction of relatedness, competence, and autonomy, intrinsic motivation grows as well as facilitates the internalization of extrinsic motivation within an employee (Hocine & Zhang, 2014), it serves as an autonomous motivation where the association of autonomy indicates the sense that a rising of the actions comes from an inner endorsement (Deci et al., 2017). In a broader sense, it refers to the leader's capacity to have or change the employee's motivation emerging from internally focused sources, rather than external regulations. By facilitating autonomous motivation and support, the leader succeeds in developing a differential internal motivation and promoting well-being within the
employees (Hocine & Zhang, 2014). An autonomous motivational leader fosters motivation in that the employee engages in work-related activities with a feeling of choice and
willingness. There is an increase in autonomous motivation when an employee understands the purpose and value of the work while feeling ownership of, and autonomy in,
accomplishing the work, with clarified support from their leader —further established that an autonomous motivation style results in higher work satisfaction, performance, commitment, and fewer work exhaustions, burnouts, and turnovers (Deci et al., 2017). In distinction, leadership inputs experienced as controlling thwarts self-determination and decreases the employee's efforts, harm engagement, and performance (Deci et al., 2017). A controlling leader acts based on a non-free path, and a non-free will, the motivation style assigns to deadlines, surveillance, threats of punishment, task-contingent rewards, and evaluations. Moreover, permeated by pressure on the employee to feel, think, or perform in a specified way. A controlled motivation, therefore, relates to more short-term gains, where it is the result of an extrinsic focus (Deci et al., 2017). Controlled work conditions create external and introjected regulations (Hocine & Zhang, 2014), for it causes the induction of extrinsic
motivation, within the employee, where acts motivated to achieve separable consequences explain the behavior (Deci et al., 2017). Consequently, that leads to lower work satisfaction, performance, and work exhaustion (Deci et al., 2017).
Multiple Levels of Leadership During an Organizational Change
Within an organizational change, the leader holds a significant role in motivating the employees and giving them the right prerequisites for doing their jobs and feeling well. The impact of an organizational change puts high demands on the leader for the change, to implement, and pass it down within the organization to the employees where identified factors threaten the employees' well-being, their willingness to perform, and their motivation at work. Hierarchical management within an organization is a structure where different levels of authority function as a chain of command; top-management is the highest level of
management with subordinates who manage their subordinates (Mihm et al., 2010). In many cases, the top-management gives further directives and goals to their subordinates to
implement and do changes in the organization without clarified guidelines. In an
organizational change, where the top-management is not in direct contact with the employees, they communicate with line-managers, who, in turn, handle all further communication with the employees. In these cases, the line-manager functions as a link between the management of the company and the employees. It means that both top-managers and line-managers are responsible for promoting optimal functioning abilities for the employees, fostering their growth, social development, and well-being, meaning satisfying the employees' psychological needs. Though both groups are responsible for fostering well-being within the workplace, here the top-manager's responsibility as a leader functions to the line-managers', which in turn can affect the line-managers leadership towards their subordinates.
Previous research concentrates on the leadership from a manager to employee, and how this affects performance, well-being, and job satisfaction. In a previous study on
hierarchical levels of leadership, Stollberger et al. (2019) concluded that management in the higher level of an organization "trickles down" through the managers in the lower levels, and has an indirect influence on the performance of employees even though those managers do not primarily lead them. It showed that leadership affects not only those managed by this leader but also those who work in the lower levels of an organization (Stollberger et al., 2019). The present study aims to examine leadership in the context of an organizational change when there is a hierarchical level of leadership; hence, if the leadership from a top-manager to line-top-manager is a critical link during an organizational change. Moreover, if it is possible to foresee risks when there is hierarchical leadership within an organization, and if a line-manager's leadership towards their superiors depends on how this person has
experienced their manager's leadership. The present study examines the leadership from top-managers to line-top-managers, and the association with their line-top-managers experiences of their psychological needs, during an organizational change. The self-determination theory is used as a foundation to determine the top-managers' motivation style and the line-manager's experienced psychological needs. This study's contribution serves the self-determination theory with a hierarchical perspective of leadership in organizational change.
Hypothesis
The study's hypothesis: A line-manager's level of satisfaction with its basic psychological is associated with its top-manager's motivation style orientation.
The formulated hypothesis aims to test if a top-manager's controlling or autonomous orientated motivation style is associated with the line-managers' experience of satisfied or frustrated psychological needs. Based on earlier research, the expected result is that a top-manager's motivation style towards their line-manager can predict the line-top-manager's experience of relatedness, competence, and autonomy, in the context of an organizational change. Further, the following assumption is; that if a top-manager holds a controlling
motivation style, this will result in an experience of frustration with the basic psychological needs within the line-manager.
Method Participants
Participants were 12 top-managers (58,3% women, 41,7% men) and 40 line-managers (55% women, 45% men), from seven companies, recruited through convenience sampling. It should be noted that one line-manager's score was removed from the present study because its top-manager did not respond. The top-managers and their respective line-managers were matched together and divided into two groups based on the top-manager's motivation style, and the distribution in the groups was 24 (6 top-managers and 18 line-managers) as an autonomous group and 28 (6 top-managers and 22 line-managers) as controlling group. Top-managers had different numbers, ranging from 1-7, of related line-Top-managers. Most of the participants (81%) had a university education, and the remaining had a high school education (Gymnasienivå). The mean years of the top-manager's experience in a leading position were 12.58 years (range= 1-20 years, SD= 5.6), and years in their current position had a mean of 4.75 (range= 1-15, SD= 3.8).
Instruments
Two different instruments substantiated of the self-determination theory were used to measure the top-managers’ motivation style orientation and the line-managers’ satisfaction with psychological needs. The two standardized scales were The Problems at Work
Questionnaire (PAW), validated in a study by Deci, Connell, and Ryan (1989), and Basic Need Satisfaction and Frustration at Work Scale (BPNSFS), Chen et al. (2015) developed and validated it, and Schultz et al. (2015) adapted it to a work context. The BPNSFS scale was slightly adjusted with approval from the Center for self-determination theory. The adjustments were made to fit the context of organizational change. PAW measured whether
the top-managers had a motivation style orientation towards being controlling or autonomous, and BPNSFS was applied to determine for the line-managers' experienced psychological needs, measuring the degree of satisfaction and frustration of autonomy, competence, and relatedness as per the self-determination theory. Linked together, aimed to test and examine the association of the motivation style and the line-managers' experienced psychological needs.
Problems at Work Questionnaire
The PAW questionnaire assessed whether a top-manager had a behavior-oriented motivational style toward being controlling or autonomous. The questionnaire consisted of eight vignettes with a statement that described a common work problem-scenario between a manager and subordinate, given four options corresponding to what would be an appropriate way to handle the problem. The respondent indicated on a 1-7 Likert scale how much they found the respective options appropriate, where 1 was "very inappropriate", and 7 was "very appropriate". Each of the four options corresponded to one of the four motivation styles; highly controlling, moderately controlling, highly autonomous, and moderately autonomous support (Deci et al., 1989). The average of the total scoring for each subscale gave the respondent a total score on the respective motivation styles. To receive a total score for each respondent that reflected which motivation style orientation they had, their subscale scores were weighted of -2, -1, 1, and 2 for highly controlling, moderately controlling, moderately autonomous, and highly autonomous. A high score indicated supportive of
self-determination, behavior-oriented towards an autonomous motivation style, whereas a low score constituted undermining self-determination, behavior-oriented towards controlling motivation style (Deci et al., 1989).
The four different options for each statement varied in support of the employee's self-determination. The top-managers who were highly supportive of self-determination, also
referred to a highly autonomous motivation style, listened to the subordinates, acknowledged their feelings, encouraged decision-making in their solutions, and provided feedback.
Whereas a moderately autonomous manager, who was moderately supportive of
self-determination, supported its subordinates by encouraging observation of others when figuring out a problem. The difference between highly and moderately autonomous was that a
moderately autonomous top-manager tended not to use and encourage an employee's own solution. However, it was still recognized to support self-determination since the manager did not suggest a prescribed solution. In contrast, a moderately controlling manager informed the subordinates how to deal with a problem, undermining self-determination. Highly controlling managers did not account for any input from its subordinates and appointed a solution with the use of punishment or sanctions, as a reward for following these. A highly controlling motivation style constituted to be the most undermining of self-determination.
The respondent was directed to respond to the questionnaire with the reckoning of an organizational change. For example, the questionnaire included:
"Jim, an employee for several years, has generally done work on a par with others in his branch. However, for the past couple of weeks, he has appeared preoccupied and listless. The work he has done is good, but he has made fewer calls than usual. The most appropriate thing for Jim's supervisor to do is; with the following options:
1. Impress upon Jim that it is really important to keep up with his work for his own good. 2. Talk to Jim and try to help him work out the cause of his listlessness.
3. Warn him that if he continues to work at a slower rate, some negative action might be taken.
4. Let him see how his productivity compares with that of his coworkers and encourage him to catch up."
Also: "Recent changes in the operation have resulted in a heavier workload for all the employees. Barbara, the manager, had hoped the situation would be temporary, but today she learned that her branch would need to continue to work with the reduced staff for an
indefinite period. Barbara should:
18. Point out that her employees will keep their own jobs only if they can remain productive at the current rate, and then watch their output carefully.
19. Explain the situation and see if they have suggestions about how they could meet the current demands.
20. Tell all of her employees that they should keep trying because it is to their advantage to do so.
21. Encourage her employees to keep up with the workload by pointing out that people are doing it adequately in other branches."
Cronbach's alpha for each subscale was: 0.88 for highly controlling, 0.92 for moderately controlling, 0.87 for highly autonomous, 0.87 for moderately autonomous. An average alpha of 0.88.
Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration at Work Scale
BPNSFS was used to measure whether a line-manager's basic psychological needs were satisfied or frustrated in the workplace (Chen et al., 2015; Schultz et al., 2014). The questionnaire consisted of 24 statements, and the respondent was to indicate how much they agreed to each of them on a 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 was "strongly disagree", 4 was
"neutral", and 7 was "strongly agree". Each of the statements in the questionnaire related to one of six subscales— autonomy satisfaction, autonomy frustration, relatedness satisfaction, relatedness frustration, competence satisfaction, and competence frustration (Chen et al., 2015, Schultz et al., 2014). The average of each subscale score indicated the respondent's
experience of the psychological need, where a higher score responded to a higher level of either satisfaction or frustration with the need.
The average score for each psychological need was combined to receive a total score for satisfaction and frustration levels. Satisfied needs meant that the person felt well,
competent, connected with others, appreciated and motivated, and frustrated needs meant that the person experienced ill-being, feelings of exclusion, doubts about competence, lack of choice, and demotivation (Chen et al., 2015, Schultz et al., 2014). The questions in the questionnaire were changed from "the past 4 weeks at work" to: "during an organizational change" to fit the present study. For example, the line-managers was asked to rank: "I felt confident that I could do things well during the organizational change"; "Most of the things I did during the organizational change I felt like "I had to"; "During the organizational change, I felt competent to achieve my goals"; "I felt excluded from the group I wanted to belong to during the organizational change.".
Cronbach's alpha for each subscale was: 0.92 for autonomy satisfaction, 0.92 for autonomy frustration, 0.94 for relatedness satisfaction, 0.96 for relatedness frustration, 0.93 for competence satisfaction, 0.97 competence frustration. An average alpha of 0.94.
Procedure
Companies were contacted through email and asked if they were willing to participate in the study, the email had an information letter with a presentation of the study and relevant ethics information (Vetenskapsrådet, 2019) attached to it for the receiver to obtain more knowledge about the study. According to Vetenskapsrådet (2019) principles, the letter clarified that participation in the study was voluntary and that by the completion of the questionnaire and submitting their answers, they confirmed their willingness to participate. Additional information explained anonymity and that the use of collected information would only be for the present study. Furthermore, the letter presented a provision for participation,
which declared a requirement that the top-managers and the line-managers must have had a job relationship throughout the organizational change they had partaken. The email contact for each company was to forward the questionnaires to suitable employees within their organization or get back to the researchers with an attendee of possible participants for them to contact. In some cases, the top-manager was the one who passed the questionnaire forward to its associated line-manager. All participants were required to complete one out of the two online questionnaires, designed to fit their role in the company. There were two separate links included in the email, one for the top-manager and one for the line-manager, which took them directly to the surveys. Initials of the top-manager were requested in both questionnaires, to make it possible for the researchers to match line-managers with respective top-managers. Furthermore, one question asked the participant for the company name, to gather
demographic background information as well as enabling matching of the participants. The completed questionnaires were displayed in the researcher's database after submission. When all data collected, a new variable was computed for a total score of the top-manager's
motivation style. Based on the top-manager's total score, a median split method functioned as a division of the top-managers' into two groups with the median 0.94 as the cut-off score. Scorings lower than the cut-off score indicated a motivation style orientation towards controlling, and scorings higher than the cut-off score indicated an orientation towards autonomous, which resulted in a controlling motivation style group and an autonomous motivation style group.
By looking at the initials given, every line-manager was assigned their respective top-managers total score on motivation style. The values were re-coded based on the median split, and a new variable was created, representing their respective top-managers’ motivation style. After completion of the grouping variable, further data analysis started.
Two correlation analyses were done to see if there was a correlation between top-manager's motivation style and line-top-manager's frustration, respectively, satisfaction with the basic psychological needs. Two separate regression analysis was applied to test if the motivation style functioned as a predictor for the psychological needs in matters of satisfaction and frustration. Here the total satisfaction of the psychological needs,
respectively total frustration, functioned as the dependent variable, and the predictor used was their related top-manager’s motivation style. A mixed ANOVA was used to examine the main effect of satisfaction of needs: relatedness, competence, and autonomy, between the grouping variable of autonomous and controlling. A mixed ANOVA was repeated, but this time examining the effect of frustration in the two groups.
Results
The top-managers average rating was highest on highly autonomous (M= 5.3, SD= 1.2), and indicated a highly controlling motivation style as least prevalent with the lowest rating (M= 4, SD= 1.5). Top-manager’s scoring on motivation style is shown in Table 1. Table 1
Top-Manager's Scoring on Motivation Style
N Range Mean Std. Deviation Variance
Highly Controlling 12 4.75 4.00 1.53 2.35 Moderately Controlling 12 4.63 4.48 1.55 2.40 Highly Autonomous 12 4.13 5.32 1.25 1.56 Moderately Autonomous 12 4.63 4.13 1.46 2.13 Valid N (listwise) 12 Figure 1
The graph (Figure 1) displays each top-managers weighted total score on motivation style within the median split method, the division resulted in the controlling motivation style group (M= -2.5, SD= -2.6, min= -6, max= -0.25, range= 5.75 , mdn= -1.9) and the
autonomous group (M= 6.6, SD= 3.2, min= 2.1, max= 10.8, range= 8.6, mdn= 7.2).
The line-managers average rating of experienced psychological needs after matching with their respective top-manager's weighted scores is showed per group in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2
Line-Manager's with a Controlling Oriented Top-Manager
N Range Mean Std. Deviation Variance
Autonomy Satisfaction 18 3.00 2.43 .84 .70 Autonomy Frustration 18 3.25 5.61 .92 .85 Relatedness Satisfaction 18 2.25 2.92 .68 .46 Relatedness Frustration 18 3.25 4.89 .82 .68 Competence Satisfaction 18 4.75 3.18 1.20 1.43 Competence Frustration 18 5.25 5.03 1.31 1.73 Total Satisfaction 18 2.42 2.84 .78 .61 Frustration 18 2.83 5.18 .93 .87 Valid N (listwise) 18
Table 3
Line-Manager's with an Autonomous Oriented Top-Manager
N Range Mean Std. Deviation Variance
Autonomy Satisfaction 22 4.25 4.93 1.17 1.36 Autonomy Frustration 22 4.25 2.77 1.40 1.95 Relatedness Satisfaction 22 3.75 5.28 1.15 1.33 Relatedness Frustration 22 3.50 1.97 1.21 1.47 Competence Satisfaction 22 3.50 5.78 1.06 1.13 Competence Frustration 22 3.50 1.86 .96 .92 Total Satisfaction 22 3.50 5.33 1.01 1.03 Frustration 22 3.42 1.11 1.12 1.25 Valid N (listwise) 22
The managers with controlling motivational top-managers differed from line-managers with autonomous motivational top-line-managers in experienced psychological needs. An independent t-test of total satisfaction showed a significant difference, t (38)= -8.56, p <.001, where line-manager's in the controlling motivation style group experienced a lower level of satisfaction with the psychological needs (M= 2.8, SD= 0.8) than the autonomous group (M= 5.3, SD= 1.0). Another independent t-test of total frustration showed a significant difference, t (38)= 8.96, p <.001, where line-manager's in the controlling motivation style group experienced a higher level of frustrated psychological needs (M= 5.2, SD= 0.9) than the autonomous group (M= 2.2, SD= 1.1).
Correlation and Regression Analysis Table 4
Line-Manager's Scoring on Basic Psychological Needs
N Range Mean Std. Deviation Variance
Autonomy Satisfaction 40 6.00 3.81 1.62 2.63
Relatedness Satisfaction 40 5.50 4.22 1.52 2.34 Relatedness Frustration 40 5.50 3.29 1.80 3.24 Competence Satisfaction 40 5.25 4.61 1.72 2.96 Competence Frustration 40 6.00 3.29 1.95 3.79 Total Satisfaction 40 5.33 4.21 1.55 2.39 Frustration 40 5.50 3.54 1.81 3.29 Valid N (listwise) 40
Total Satisfaction Associated with an Autonomous Motivational Top-Manager
The line-manager's total satisfaction, and top-manager's motivation style showed a positive correlation, r (40) = .84, p < .001. Top-managers, who have scored high on
motivation style, have line-managers with higher levels of satisfaction. Further, a regression analysis was done, the overall regression model was significant F (1,38) = 90,32, p < .001, R2 = .70. The variance in motivation style accounted for 70% of satisfaction. Results showed that the more the top-manager oriented towards an autonomous motivation style, the higher the level of satisfaction the line-managers experienced. The top-manager's motivation style significantly predicted the satisfaction of the psychological needs, b = 0.244, (t = 9.50, p < .001) for each unit the motivation style increased, the experience of satisfaction with the psychological needs increased by 0.244 units (Figure 2).
Total Frustration Associated with a Controlling Motivational Top-Manager
The line-managers scoring of the experienced total frustration and their related top-managers' motivation style showed a negative correlation, r (40 ) = -.87, p < .001. Top-managers who scored low on motivation style had line-Top-managers with higher levels of frustration. In the regression analysis, the line-manager's total frustration was the dependent variable, and top-manager's motivation style was the predictor. The overall regression model was significant F (1,38) = 116,78, p < .001, R2 = .75. The variance in motivation style accounted for 75% of experienced frustration. Results showed that the more orientation the top-manager had towards a controlling motivation style, the higher level of frustration the line-managers experienced. Motivation style functioned as a significant predictor of the total frustration experienced within the psychological needs, b= -0.297, (t = -10.81, p < .001), for each unit the motivation style increased, the experience of frustration decreased by -0.297 (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Mixed ANOVA
The Top-Managers Effect on the Line-Managers Experienced Psychological Needs
A mixed ANOVA was conducted for the experienced satisfaction with one between-subjects factor (two groups of line-managers based on controlling versus autonomous
motivation style in their top-managers) and one within-subjects factor (satisfaction in three levels of autonomy, relatedness, and competence). The results showed a significant between-subject effect, F (1,38)= 73.29, p <.001. The ratings of satisfaction were significantly higher in the autonomous motivation style group (M= 5.3) than the controlling (M= 2.8). The line-managers with an autonomous top-manager experienced higher levels of satisfaction than the line-managers with a controlling motivational top-manager. There was also a significant main effect of the ratings on satisfaction, F (2,76) = 16.70, p < .001. The differences within the experienced satisfaction showed in a further Bonferroni corrected post hoc test that both the satisfaction of relatedness (M= 4.1) and competence (M= 4.5) were higher than the
experience with satisfaction of autonomy (M= 3.7), all significant at the p-level < .05. There were no significant interaction effects, F (2,76) = 0.37, p = .60. The controlling and
autonomous motivation style groups were different in the three components of satisfaction.
Figure 4
The same mixed ANOVA was conducted for the experienced frustration with one between-subjects factor (two groups of line-managers based on controlling versus
autonomous motivation style in their top-managers) and one within-subjects factor (frustration in three levels of autonomy, relatedness, and competence). There was a
groups were different in the total score of frustration; the controlling motivation style group indicated a higher frustration (M= 5.2) than the autonomous motivation style group (M= 2.2). The results also showed a significant main effect of frustration, F (2,76) = 24.22, p < .001. The three components in frustration (autonomy, relatedness, and competence) were
significantly different. A Bonferroni corrected post hoc test showed that both the experiences of relatedness (M= 3.4) and competence (M= 3.5) were significantly lower than autonomy (M= 4.2), both ps < .001. The experience of relatedness and competence did not significantly differ (p = .90). The interaction effect showed no significant result, F (2,76) = 0.94, p = .40, the two groups are different in all three components.
Figure 5
Discussion
In the current study, we investigate if a top-manager's motivation style, oriented towards controlling or autonomous, has an association with its line-managers' experience of satisfied or frustrated psychological needs in the context of an organizational change. The results suggest that an autonomous oriented top-manager is associated with having line-managers with a higher level of satisfaction with psychological needs, and a top-manager oriented towards a controlling motivation style is linked to line-managers who are more frustrated with their needs. A further finding shows that the top-manager's motivation style
functions as a predictor. By looking at the top-manager's orientation towards a controlling or autonomous motivation style, it is possible to predict whether a line-manager is frustrated or satisfied with the needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence. The results explicate a difference within the experience of the three components in satisfaction. It shows that both satisfaction with relatedness and competence were more prominent than the experience of satisfaction with autonomy. The effect within frustration points to the experiences of
relatedness and competence being lower than the experience of autonomy. Between the two groups, autonomous and controlling, this study suggests an effect where the total experience of frustration and satisfaction with the basic psychological needs are different. Our findings highlight that line-managers with an autonomous oriented top-manager are experiencing more satisfaction than line-managers with a controlling oriented top-manager. It also
indicates that the line-managers with a controlling motivational top-manager are experiencing a higher level of frustration than those with an autonomous motivational top-manager.
The results correspond with past researchers' findings, where people who experience satisfaction with their needs are more engaged, volitional, and have improved performance, whereas those frustrated with their needs shows more ill-being, demotivation, and higher exhaustion levels (Deci et al., 2017; Rahmadani et al., 2019). Additionally, an autonomous motivation style stimulates higher work satisfaction, performance, and commitment, in distinction, a controlling motivation discourage self-determination and the employee's efforts (Deci et al., 2017). Therefore, the present study contributes to a demonstration of
line-manager's experience of their basic psychological needs and the connection to its top-manager's motivation style.
While previous research has not taken the hierarchical leadership into account, this study demonstrates that it is a vital aspect to consider, especially since an organizational change already is a threat to the employees' motivation, satisfaction, and well-being at work
(de Fátima Nery et al., 2019). From our findings, we anticipate that the outcome of an organizational change could be associated with management high up in hierarchical leadership in organizations since it trickles down through the organization. Management higher up in an organization has a secondary influence on the performance of employees lower in a hierarchical organization (Stollberger et al., 2019). Since the context of an
organizational change itself can introduce more restrictive circumstances and be experienced as controlling, a controlling motivation style underpins a line-manager worse prerequisites during an organizational change, and it could harm how the line-managers, in turn, manage their subordinates. A shortage of autonomy entails feeling controlled through externally enforced or self-imposed pressures (deCharms, 1968; Deci and Ryan, 1985). Suggestively, within an organizational change, the need for autonomy can be seen as the most endangered component of the psychological needs. This can be explained and supported by the
experiences of both satisfaction and frustration within the line-managers, where relatedness and competence are lower respectively higher than autonomy.
Although the present study does not consider how the line-managers in their turn handle the organizational change when managing their employees, it contributes to an
observation that the line-manager may be a critical link in hierarchical management during an organizational change. The leadership towards a line-manager is essential for a successful organizational change and having drifty employees while implementing it. Aforementioned, the results supported the hypothesized association between the top-manager's motivation style and the line-manager's autonomy, relatedness, and competence during an organizational change.
The present study took place in the Spring of 2020, during a hectic time due to the virus COVID-19. Because of the circumstances with the virus, companies did not accept visitors, and Örebro University held further restrictions for conducting the studies physically
(or by interviewing). That hampered the recruitment of companies and participants and was bound to the accessible ones. An issue that arose from the inability to meet the participants face-to-face was that there were no possibilities to control for environmental factors. Nor if the given information was accurate, or if it was the intended person, in the matter of role within the company, who answered the questionnaire. Additionally, asking them to give their answers online could have affected the participants' feelings of anonymity, which could have influenced their answers. These factors could affect the reliability of their answers.
A crucial point to make is that the use of the median split method does not say that one group is autonomous and the other controlling, it is merely a division within this study between the participants. A larger sample of top-managers would have affected the median and, therefore, the division of the top-managers. Another limitation due to the selection and the group division is that each top-manager did not have the same number of related line-managers, the same frequencies of participants would give more reliable results. Since each participant has a matching part, this study shows strength in having related top-managers and line-managers. Further, the pairs had taken part in the same organizational change, but what kind of organizational change they had participated in, nor the outcome, are not investigated, and different types of organizational changes might result in different experiences. Another aspect that can reflect the result within the line-managers experienced satisfaction or
frustration in a work context, which this study focused on and measured, is whether they are feeling well in life elsewhere. We recommend additional studies to make a comparison before and after an organizational change in companies that have been through an equivalent
change, as well as control for the line-managers experiences outside of work.
The present study took place in Sweden, and both of the questionnaires were in English, which makes the questions and answers somewhat depending on the participant's knowledge in English. The PAW-scale is validated to fit different countries and cultures
where some of the options related to "highly controlling" did, at some statements, refer to the manager making someone redundant. When it comes to making someone redundant, Sweden has strict restrictions and laws, which may have caused even a strongly controlling manager not to agree to that option strongly.
In the questionnaires, the participants were told to remember a feeling or an
experience that could have influenced their answers, as it might have been difficult for them to retrieve it accurately. Besides, the difference in top-manager's motivation style might be due to earlier experiences with organizational changes and leadership training. Instead of asking the participants for their age, the top-managers were to indicate their years of experience within a leading position, while the line-managers were not. The aim was to retrieve information about the line-managers satisfaction and frustration with needs, without intention to have this defined by their years of employment. Although, without this
information, we cannot control whether the length of working experience has any impact on the results. Future studies would benefit from asking this for a future interest in examining the line-managers leadership and the outcome within the whole organization.
Despite the limitations, the study has implemented methods with
well-established and reliable scales, making it possible to replicate. The findings support earlier research on leadership, it captures two levels of management within a hierarchical
organization, and enhance an understanding of a line-managers functioning. Although the present study shows significant results, it is not possible to generalize the result to the population due to the small sample size. Suggestions for future research is to take all the different levels of hierarchical leadership into account, and the outcome of it, in terms of the psychological needs within the whole organization during the change.
References
Abildgaard, S. J., Nielsen, K., & Svereke, M. (2018). Can job insecurity be managed? Evaluating an organizational-level intervention addressing the negative effects of restructuring. Work & Stress, 32(2), 105-123.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1367735
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedian, A. G. (1999). Organizational Change: A Review of Theory and Research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500303
Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction, and Frustration Scales. (n.d.). https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/basic-psychological-needs-scale/
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Duriez, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., Mouratidis, A., Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., & Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 216–236. https://doi-org.db.ub.oru.se/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1 Deci, E. L., Connell, P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-Determination in a Work Organization.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580-590.
Deci, L. E., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations: The State of a Science. The Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19-43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych- 032516-113108
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109-134.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. The Guilford Press.
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The Internal Affective Determinants of Behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
De Fátima Nery, V., Franco, S. K., & Neiva, R. E. (2019). Attributes of the Organizational Change and Its Influence on Attitudes Toward Organizational Change and Well-Being at Work: A Longitudinal Study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 55(4), 477-496. https://doi.org//10.1177/0021886319848125
Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 588-607. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410551507
Hocine, Z., & Zhang, J. (2014). Autonomy supportive leadership: a new framework for understanding effective leadership through self-determination theory. International Journal of Information System and Change Management, 7(2), 135-149.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISCM.2014.069397
Mathisen, G. E., Brønnick, K., Arntzen, J. K., & Bergh Vestly, L. I. (2017). Identifying and managing psychosocial risks during organizational restructuring: It’s what you do and how you do it. Safety Science, 100(A), 20-29.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.12.007 Motivators' Orientations Questionnaires. (n.d.).
Mihm, J., Loch, C. H., Wilkinson, D., & Huberman, B. A. (2010). Hierarchical Structure and Search in Complex Organizations. Management Science, 56(5), 831-848.
http://dx.doi.org.db.ub.oru.se/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1148
Nelson, A., Cooper, C. L., & Jackson, P. R. (1995). Uncertainty amidst change: The impact of privatization on employee job satisfaction and well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68(1), 57-71.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1995.tb00688
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63(3), 397-427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00501.x Schultz, P. P., Ryan, R. M., Niemiec, C. P., Legate, N., & Williams, G. C. (2015).
Mindfulness, work climate, and psychological need satisfaction in employee well-being. Mindfulness, 6(5), 971-985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0338-7 Sharkie, R. (2009). Trust in leadership is vital for employee performance. Management
Research News, 32(5), 491-498. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170910952985 Stollberger, J., Las Heras, M., Rofcanin, Y., & José Bosch, M. (2019) Serving followers and
family? A trickle-down model of how servant leadership shapes employee work performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 158-171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.003
Zhong, J., Zhang, L., Li, P., & Zhang, D. Z. (2020). Can leader humility enhance employee wellbeing? The mediating role of employee humility. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(1), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2019-0124 Vetenskapsrådet. (2019). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig
Washington, W. M. (2015, December 3). Managers as effective communicators: Reducing employee uncertainty before and during organizational change. ProQuest.
https://search.proquest.com/openview/943203561d3369ea7ab87c1b6b70c929/1/advan ced
