Influencing Change -
Organizational Change and the
Implementation of Self-Managing
Teams
Master’s Thesis 30 credits
Department of Business Studies
Uppsala University
Spring Semester of 2017
Date of Submission: 2017-05-30
Amanda Bergman
Mastaneh Mashouri
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to express our gratitude to the persons who made this thesis possible. First and foremost we would like to thank our case company ICA for taking the time and giving us trust in allowing us to study their organization to be able to answer our research question. A special thank you to Head of Project Management Office at ICA, Marlene Öhman. We would also like to thank our supervisor Anna Bengtson and our opponents for providing valuable feedback during the research process. Last but not least, we would like to thank our families for their encouragement and support.
Amanda Bergman Mastaneh Mashouri
Uppsala University
ABSTRACT
Problem
Organizational changes are inevitable, yet up to 70% fail. Technological development and competition in a volatile environment require more flexible organizations. As such, implementing self-managed teams (SMTs) has become a more common approach. The fact that SMTs ought to be self-managed has further raised a debate, since it is argued that some form of manager still is required. Therefore, the following research question was proposed; How does the interplay of influencesunfold between the manager and the organizational context when implementing SMTs?
Purpose
Increase the understanding of how different activities, events and actions during a change process of implementing SMTs influence the manager, as well as how the manager influences the change process of implementing SMTs.Method
The research was conducted by a qualitative, abductive approach based on a case study and literature reviews.Conclusion
Managers influence perceived history of change, control and the SMTs. Managers are influenced by perceived history of change, employee commitment to change, control, and by the SMT. These influences determine how the manager is influenced by, and how the manager influences the organizational change towards the implementation of SMTs.Keywords
change process, commitment to change, history, manager, organizational change, self-managed team (SMT),TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... I ABSTRACT ... II LIST OF FIGURES ... IV LIST OF TABLES ... IV 1. INTRODUCTION ... 1 1.1.BACKGROUND ... 1 1.2.PROBLEM FORMULATION ... 2 1.3.RESEARCH PURPOSE ... 3 1.4.THESIS DISPOSITION ... 4 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 52.1.UNDERSTANDING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE ... 5
2.2.UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT ... 6
2.2.1 COMMITMENT TO CHANGE ... 7
2.2.2 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ... 8
2.2.3 PERCEIVED HISTORY OF CHANGE ... 10
2.2.4 SMTS AND THE MANAGER ... 10
2.3.SUMMARY AND PROPOSED MODEL OF ANALYSIS ... 12
3. METHOD ... 14
3.1.RESEARCH DESIGN ... 14
3.2.CASE SELECTION ... 15
3.3.DATA COLLECTION ... 16
3.3.1 PRIMARY DATA ... 16
3.3.1.1. PILOT CASE STUDY ... 16
3.3.1.2. OBSERVATIONS ... 17
3.3.1.3. INTERVIEWS ... 17
3.3.2 SECONDARY DATA ... 21
3.4.DATA ANALYSIS ... 22
3.5.REFLECTION OF CHOICE OF METHOD ... 23
3.6.RESEARCH ETHICS ... 23
4. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS... 24
4.1.PRESENTATION OF CASE COMPANY ... 24
4.2.THE PROCESS AND UNDERLYING REASONS FOR CHANGE ... 24
4.3.ONE CASE –TWO PROJECTS ... 25
4.3.1 PROJECT ONE ... 25
4.3.2 PROJECT TWO ... 26
4.4.INTRODUCING THE CHANGE ... 27
4.5.MANAGERS’ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE CHANGE ... 28
4.6.EMPLOYEES’ATTITUDES TOWARD THE CHANGE ... 29
4.7.MANAGERS IN THE CHANGE ... 30
4.8.TEAMS IN THE CHANGE ... 31
5. ANALYSIS ... 33
5.1.PERCEIVED HISTORY OF CHANGE ... 33
5.2.COMMITMENT TO CHANGE ... 34 5.3.TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP... 35 5.4.SMT&THE MANAGER ... 36 5.5.RESISTANCE TO CHANGE... 37 5.6.CONCLUSIONS ... 38 6. DISCUSSION ... 41 6.1.ACADEMIC CONTRIBUTIONS ... 42 6.2.MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ... 43
6.3.LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 44
REFERENCES ... 46
APPENDIX ... 50
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1:TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES. ... 9FIGURE 2:PROPOSED MODEL OF ANALYSIS. ... 13
FIGURE 3:ORGANIZATIONAL CHART PROJECT ONE ... 25
FIGURE 4:ORGANIZATIONAL CHART PROJECT TWO ... 26
FIGURE 5:MODEL OF INTERPLAY BETWEEN INFLUENCES IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE CONTEXT... 39
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1:THEORETICAL CONCEPTS IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE CONTEXT ... 12TABLE 2:OPERATIONALIZATION OF THEORETICAL CONCEPTS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE CONTEXT ... 20
1. INTRODUCTION
“It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory” - William Edwards Deming
Research suggests up to 70 percent of all organizational change initiatives fail (Beer & Nohria, 2000), yet, change is inevitable (Holten and Brenner, 2015). New technology and increased pressure triggers competition, which requires an ability to change (Taylor, 2016). The process, in which organizations change their structure, strategy technology, system, and the outcomes of that process, refers to an organizational change (Ocasio, 2008). Regardless of industry, companies have implemented strategies for influencing processes, organizational structures (Born et al., 2014; Baradwaj et al., 2013), and management concepts (Benlian et al., 2015). When organizations search for flexibility, in order to cope with these fast moving conditions, implementing self-managing teams (SMTs) are increasingly becoming a strategy (Taylor, 2016).
1.1. Background
SMT refers to teams with a collective responsibility to delegate, carry out tasks and make decisions. No formal managers are in charge of everyday tasks and routines, rather the team member with the most knowledge of the area acts as a manager once needed (Hoda et al., 2012). Implementing SMTs is an organizational change that can be described as a change process. A change process is defined as “as a sequence of individual and collective events, actions, and activities unfolding over time in context” (Pettigrew, 1997, pp. 338). The change process is a complex event dependent on its history (Pettigrew, 1997; Suddaby 2017) and can take place on different levels and influence individuals, groups or whole organizations (cf. Berson et al., 2006; Crossan et al., 1999; Crossan & Berdrow, 2003; Slawinski et al., 2017). Organizational change can further contribute to organizational instability, and often fails to meet its intended purpose, as well as new conditions deriving from change represents a great challenge for managers (Soparnot, 2011). The main concern of today’s management is how to handle organizational change (Graetz, 2000; Suddaby & Foster,
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
2017). Indeed, change needs to be managed well, but effective leadership is also required in order to successfully introduce and sustain the change (Roger, 2002).
1.2. Problem Formulation
A formal manager is not necessary when working in SMTs (Hoda et al., 2012), but a manager is still important in an organizational change context (Soparnot, 2011) and has an impact on the change (Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014). In addition, empirical research suggests that SMTs request a manager who occasionally delegates responsibilities and takes decisions (Stokes, 2008). This discrepancy suggests a conflicting situation for the manager and the organization when implementing SMTs. To handle organizational change, transformational leadership attributes have been considered as the most suitable approach (Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014). Transformational leadership is defined as managers who motivate their followers by taking their needs into consideration, as well as inspiring them in order to influence the organizational change and thereby influence employee commitment to change (Shin et al., 2015). However, not all transformational leadership attributes influence employee commitment to change, according to Abrell-Vogel and Rowold (2014). They found that the transformational leadership attribute ‘creating a vision’, does not influence employee commitment to change, which in earlier research is an especially important part in change (cf. Kotter, 1996; Kanter, 1992). Creating a vision refers to shaping the perception of the employees in such a way that they work towards a common future goal (Shin et al., 2015). The existing discrepancy makes it interesting to investigate how transformational leadership attributes influence commitment to change and the manager. Abrell-Vogel and Rowold (2014) suggest that additional qualitative studies can complement their findings. Furthermore, recent research (Suddaby & Foster, 2017) argues that theoretical assumptions about history in organizational change are underestimated. By interpreting the past, not just visualizing the future, managers can influence the organization’s perception of change. Therefore, it is interesting how creating a vision of the future, and how the perceived history of change, influences the change process.
Though the phenomenon of organizational change is a largely investigated research area, the lack of conformity in how to better understand and manage change still remains an area of interest to research (Suddaby & Foster, 2017) Organizational changes are complex since
they are context dependent events, influenced by multiple factors (Pettigrew, 1997). It is therefore important to investigate how the specific context and the change process influence the manager. Research suggests (cf. Abrell-Vogel & Rowland, 2014; Suddaby & Foster, 2017) that managers also have an impact on the change. Therefore, the twofold relationship between the manager and the organizational change context needs to be analyzed in order to distinguish the organizational change that influences that impacts the managers, as well as the managers’ initiatives and behavior that are influencing the change. As the organizational change context of this research depends on the implementation of SMTs, the research question is as follows:
How does the interplay of influences unfold between managers and the organizational change context when implementing SMTs?
In an attempt to answer this, the question is narrowed down into two questions:
How are managers influencing the implementation of SMTs? How are managers influenced by the implementation of SMTs?
1.3. Research Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to extend knowledge of influences on, and by, the manager and the organizational change context. In order to understand an organizational change and how events, actions and activities evolve over time, it is important to study, not only the change process and the context in which the change takes place, but also the outcomes of the change processes (Pettigrew, 1997). The outcome of the process refers to how managers are influencing the change and how the change is influencing managers. As change is context dependent (Langley, 1999), and the context differs across organizations, understanding a change requires an understanding of the context and its influencing factors. Since the change is context dependent, one cannot, and the aim of this study is not, to generalize. The research could however, provide findings that practitioners (and researchers) can use and/or facilitate when implementing SMTs.
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.4. Thesis disposition
The first chapter presents an overview of the subject and an argumentation of the relevance of the stated research question as well as the research purpose. Chapter two consists of the theoretical framework, describing the organizational change context and the phenomenon occurring in this context. The chapter ends with a proposed model of analysis. Chapter three explains the research method, selection of case company and data collection. Chapter four presents the empirical findings of the data collection. In chapter five, the empirical data is analyzed and conclusions from the analysis are presented to summarize the answers to the proposed research question. A discussion of the conclusions is presented in chapter six, followed by managerial implications and research contributions as well as limitations of the research.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theoretical framework puts the reader in this research’s organizational change context and presents concepts present in this context: commitment to change, transformational leadership, the perceived history of change, and the SMT. These concepts are then elaborated on in order to be able to answer the research question. Finally, the chapter ends with a summary of the concepts and a proposed model of analysis.
2.1. Understanding Organizational Change
Organizational change can take place over time and space, and is influenced by a combination of actions and events (van de Ven & Poole, 1995). It can be described as the process in which organizations change their structure, strategy, technology, or system, as well as the outcomes of that process (Ocasio, 2008).
As there is a plethora of research on organizational change (Kotter’s Eight Stage Process for Successful Organizational Transformation, 1996; Lewin’s Three-stage-model, 1947a; Kanter et al.’s Ten Commandments for Executing Change, 1992; Luecke’s Seven Steps, 2003) with theories describing the phenomena in different ways and on different levels, it is important to clarify how this paper aims to analyze organizational change. In this study, organizational change is described as a change process, as defined by Pettigrew (1997) as collective and individual events that are dependent on when and where the events take place. When and where these events take place is dependent on history (ibid). Furthermore, Langley (1999) emphasizes that including the effects of events (variables), and not only a description of discrete events, is what makes change process research more comprehensible. By studying events and outcomes (the effect of the events), it is possible to capture the influence the
change process have on managers, and managers’ influence on the change process1.
Pettigrew (1997) argues that the context in which the process is embedded is essential to consider in a change process. Therefore, the contexts in which this study takes place will be presented next.
1
Other more focused theories on organizational change, such as the incremental and discontinuous approach with emphasis on intensity and pace of a change (see Frantz, 2004), are not considered sufficient to answer the research question, hence not included in this research.
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.2. Understanding the Context
Organizational change is a combination of uncontrollable and controllable events (Soparnot, 2011), which implies that managers can both affect and be affected by events, actions and activities in change. When a change is planned, organizational actors aim to achieve a pre specified goal based on pressure from external factors (MacKay & Chia, 2013). The result of a planned organizational change, emphasized by both research and practice, is connected to employees’ acceptance and support (Herold et al., 2007), as well as attitudes and behaviors. Change requires ongoing support from employees (Shin et al, 2008). Employees’ support for organizational change fluctuates across time due to stress connected with change efforts
(Shin et al, 2015). One management concern is how to handle and implement an
organizational change (Graetz, 2000). Abrell-Vogel and Rowold’s (2014) study indicates that the degree of employee commitment to change influence managers. Employee commitment to change refers to their willingness to follow and support the change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). If employee commitment to change is low, more effort is required on behalf of managers. Therefore, employee commitment to change is essential when studying influences in an organizational change context. Moreover, Abrell-Vogel and Rowold (2014) argue that manager commitment to change is also crucial for the outcome of the process. They argue that manager commitment to change can be illustrated by a willingness to provide required support, based on a genuine belief in benefits following the change. However, other essential change aspects than commitment to change also exist. For example, the transformational leadership approach also has an influence on employee commitment to change (Turner Parish et al., 2008). Transformational leadership is defined as the extent to which managers motivates its followers by inspiring, as well as considering their needs (Shin et al, 2015). Therefore, both manager commitment to change and transformational
leadership are considered important in the organizational change context. An essential
transformational leadership attribute is the ability to visualize a bright vision of the benefits with the change (Herold et al., 2008). However, Abrell-Vogel and Rowold (2014) emphasize that the content of the message and the communication is more essential. When leading change, rhetoric is an essential requirement for managers, as managers have to be credible, motivational, and inspirational by using positive and winning language (Roger, 2002). This is in line with the reasoning of Suddaby and Foster’s (2017) perceived history of change,
defined as reconfiguring the past rhetorically in order to influence change.By understanding individuals’ perceptions of change, managers can influence the outcome of the change (Suddaby & Foster, 2017). Therefore, perceived history of change is essential to study in the organizational change context.
Finally, as this research aims to investigate the change towards the implementation of SMTs, the relationship between the manager and the SMT is important to investigate. The aim of SMTs is to raise organizational abilities to cope with the dynamic environment through becoming more flexible and effective (Balkema & Molleman, 1999; Taylor, 2016). The main goal is to build a base for self-managing, empowered and collaborative teams. Since SMTs manage themselves, there is no formal manager with full responsibility or decision-making authority. The manager’s role, according to Morgeson et al. (2010), within a SMT is to coach rather than direct the team. This implies that rather than removing the manager, the
manager's role changes.The importance of managers in an organizational change context is
also essential to take into consideration, as the manager is supervising the change (cf. Soparnot, 2011).
In summary, the organizational change context, which this research is studying, is analyzed through commitment to change, transformational leadership, perceived history of change, and SMTs. Below follows a discussion and an overview where the theories are presented.
2.2.1 Commitment to Change
Commitment to change can be defined as “a force (mind-set) that binds an individual to a course of action…” (p. 475) necessary for the change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). The theory has gained great attention, and is connected to important organizational outcomes such as job performance (Herold et al, 2007). Commitment to change is further closely related to support behaviors towards change (Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014).
The effect of commitment to change is confirmed by substantial research (Turner Parish, et al. 2008). There is a connection between commitment to change and behavioral intentions to support the change (Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014; Herold et al, 2008). Behavioral support is demonstrated by enthusiasm together with meeting and exceeding required goals
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
(Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). The difference between employee and manager commitment to change is that managers are persons providing guidance and support in the change process. Both managers’ and employees’ support is in general higher among those with affective commitment to the change (Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014). Affective commitment to change refers to promoting the benefits of the change to others (Turner Parish et al., 2008).
Commitment to change is moreover believed to decrease turnover intention (i.e. a measurement indicating whether employees plan to leave their position) through improving the employees’ abilities to effectively handle change. Research is therefore investigating commitment to change with earlier research in the field, such as leadership (e.g. Herold et al, 2007). The leader's behavior has an essential role in building this commitment, which is considered to be influenced by transformational leadership (Turner Parish, et al. 2008).
2.2.2 Transformational leadership
A recurring topic in research is how to conceptualize leaders in comparison with managers (Simonet & Tett, 2013). Stability and order implemented by managers is opposed to leaders’ vision of disorder and change (ibid). However, Caldwell (2003) argues the two concepts are considered complementary, since typical attributes of one of the concepts does not have to exclude the possessing attributes of the other. Therefore, in this research, the manager is as a person who can use leadership attributes.
Transformational leadership behavior is defined as the degree of which “managers provide a clear vision, inspire and intellectually motivate their followers, and consider their needs” (Shin et al., 2015, pp. 507). Transformational leadership is a well-studied concept, considered specifically well suited for an organizational change (Shin et al., 2015). It is considered to be the most active leadership style in regards to transforming or directing followers’ self-interest toward group or organizational objectives (Abrell-Vogel & Rowland, 2014). Transformational leaders inspire and motivate followers to accept and support them, as well as the organization (Kouzes & Posner, 1995). Turner Parish et al. (2008) argues that managers’ role in building commitment to an organizational change has a connection to
employee commitment to change, which in turn has a positive connection to managers’ transformational leadership attributes.
One of the most well recognized conceptualizations of transformational leadership is founded by Bass (1985), who developed the original model based on four aspects of a transformational leader. Bass’s (1985) conceptualization is developed into six dimensions by Kouzes and Posner (1995, 2002). See illustration in the model below (figure 1).
Figure 1: Transformational leadership attributes. Own conceptualized model based on Kouzner & Posner (1995, 2002)
Articulating a vision represents leaders’ ability to emphasize a bright vision of future benefits from the change for the followers (Abrell-Vogel & Roland, 2014; Shin et al., 2015; Kouzes & Posner, 1995, 2002). Providing an appropriate model refers to leaders (functions) as role models, who advocated values are consistent with their behavior (Abrell-Vogel & Roland, 2014). Fostering the acceptance of group goals refers to leaders’ effort in creating a team spirit (Shin et al., 2015). High performance expectations and high working standards are set by communicating confidence in the team members’ ability to reach high goals (Kouzes & Posner, 1995, 2002). Individualized support refers to leaders expressed respect and concern of the team members’ needs and feelings (Abrell-Vogel & Roland, 2014; Shin et al., 2015). Intellectual stimulation refers to leaders’ encouragement of team members to challenge work related assumptions and attitudes (Shin et al., 2015).
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.2.3 Perceived History of Change
Perceived history of change is defined as individual's interpretations of past events (Suddaby & Foster, 2017). As the future is shaped by it the past (Pettigrew, 1997), the perceived history will influence the future. Research suggests that history has a positive effect on organizations as past events can be utilized, in order to enhance organizations ability to absorb and directly use the knowledge in the present (Cohen et al., 1990). History can be used as a strategy that based on interpretation of the past influences the future (Suddaby et al., 2010). Based on the past, stakeholders have the ability to create stories of what happened during the organizational change, which is why the stories can be considered as biased. Therefore, it is important to manage the past in interest of the future (Suddaby & Foster, 2017). The historical perspective follows three narratives as a managerial foundation for influencing organizational changes. According to Ybema (2014), when individuals seek support for change, they are selective in choosing historical events to explain the present situation. Ybema further argues, the selected historical events function as a tool to describe the past as unwanted and the change as the desired future, which is the first step of the historical perspective. The aim is to create a division from the past and disentangle from it (Suddaby & Foster, 2017). The second narrative, with the aim to let go of the past, refers to the importance of creating a new organizational reality. This requires allowing a period of mourning and honoring of the past to reach a closure, i.e. time to digest the changes (Suddaby & Foster, 2017). In the final step of the historical perspective of handling an organizational change, Nissley and Casey (2002) argue that what is forgotten from the past shapes the organizations’ image and identity. Forgetting the past can be critical in order to allow new knowledge and innovation to flow, which is why there may be a need for discarding well-establish routines and processes (Suddaby & Foster, 2017).
2.2.4 SMTs and the Manager
SMTs can be described as a team of employees with collective responsibility and authority to
perform tasks (Hoda & Murugesan, 2016; Stoker, 2008; Wageman, 2001). SMTs aim to
improve an organization's ability to handle changing demands (Balkema & Molleman, 1999; Taylor, 2016). Shared decision-making in SMTs is considered to increase both team member satisfaction and productivity, which is why there is a need for emphasizing team empowerment (Taylor, 2016).
SMTs follow three principles: (1) autonomy, (2) variety and redundancy in functions, and (3) learning (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986). (1) Team members have autonomy in everyday decisions, while the management assists with guidance and vision. (2) A team contains skills and abilities that together can meet the required objectives. Team members can further complement and replace each other. (3) Teams are constantly self-improving through learning new skills, but also learning better ways of reaching objectives (Morgan, 1986; Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986). To sum up, the combined skills, experiences, and knowledge of a team is used to monitor, execute, and control work collectively, in order to effectively manage the process of development (Taylor, 2016).
There are, however, also risks and consequences connected with SMTs and team empowerment. One of the problems refers to the increased pressure put on the individuals as a result of the strongly monitored and controlled team construction, which can lead to stress through shared control (Barry, 1991; Taylor, 2016). Though the team is dependent on consensus (Taylor, 2016), there is a problem related to the team members’ focus on individual, rather than team goals (Moe et al., 2009). Another problem with consensus in regards to decision-making, is that a shared approach, according to Taylor (2016), often results in slowing down processes. However, as problems arise, the evidence suggests that previous leaders step back into the decision-making role, in the case when other team members are unsure or slow (Taylor, 2016).
Wageman (2001) found that team behavior mostly is affected by contextual, structural, and technological factors beyond managers’ control. Wageman further found three distinct features of how managers can influence SMTs: (1) control the basic structure (team features) of the team, (2) how reward and information is flowing, and (3) overall team direction. Research suggests that SMTs’ managers should act as a coach (Morgeson et al., 2010). Coaching refers to helping employees improve their own performance and capabilities (Stokes, 2008; Wageman, 2001). However, research also suggests (Stokes, 2008; Wageman, 2001) that the manager is expected to be involved in directing the SMT, defining, and structuring activities and roles of the team members. According to Stokes (2008), over time, team members prefer a coach rather than a director. As SMTs have a collective
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
responsibility and authority to perform tasks (Stokes, 2008), but also problems related to team members focusing on personal goals rather than team goals (Moe et al., 2009). This implies that the manager’s role should be both as a director and as a coach.
2.3. Summary and Proposed model of analysis
As described above, the organizational change context of the study consists of four different theories; Commitment to Change (Employee and Manager); Transformational Leadership; Perceived History of Change; and SMTs. A summary of the theoretical framework is presented in table 1 below.
THEORETICAL CONCEPTS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE CONTEXT
Theoretical Concept Conceptual Definition Publications
Commitment to Change A force (mind-set) that binds an individual to a course of action in change, which are
influencing the change process.
Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014; Herold et al, 2007, 2008; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Turner Parish et al., 2008
Transformational Leadership The transformational leader inspires and motivates its followers to accept and support the change by providing a clear vision, inspiring and
intellectually motivating employees, and considering their needs.
Abrell-Vogel & Rowland, 2014; Bass, 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Shin et al., 2015
Perceived History of Change History is highly subjective and the interpretation of it can be controlled. By creating stories and being selective when storytelling individuals can influence perceptions of events.
Cohen et al., 1990; Nissley & Casey, 2002; Pettigrew, 1997; Suddaby et al., 2010; Suddaby & Foster, 2017; Ybema, 2014
Self-Managed Team (SMT) A team with collective
responsibility and authority to perform tasks and take decisions.
Balkema & Molleman, 1999; Moe et al., 2009; Morgan, 1986; Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986;Taylor, 2016; Stokes, 2008; Wageman, 2001
The interplay between managers’ influence on SMTs, and the organizational change of implementing SMTs, influence on managers is presented in figure 2 below. Both transformational leadership attributes (Herold et al., 2008) and manager commitment to change (Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014) impacts the manager’s ability to influence employee commitment to change. Employee commitment to change impacts the manager’s ability to influence the implementation of SMTs, and thus the organizational change as a whole. Managers can influence the perceived history of change by reconfiguring and interpreting the past (Suddaby & Foster, 2017). Since the perceptions of the past varies among individuals (Ybema, 2014), the perceived history of change influences the manager and the manager’s ability to influence the implementation of SMT.
CHAPTER III: METHOD
3. METHOD
This section will present the research design, followed by a description of the case selection. Data collection will then be presented together with the operationalization of the theoretical framework, followed by a description of the data analysis process. Finally, the method section will end with a discussion of methodological limitations.
3.1. Research Design
The purpose of this paper is to extend the knowledge of influences on, and by, the manager
and the organizational change context, through empirical examinations. The research
question is as follows:
How does the interplay of influences unfold between managers and the organizational change context when implementing SMTs? Thereafter the research question has been broken down into two questions:
How are managers influencing the implementation of SMTs? How are managers influenced by the implementation of SMTs?
Qualitative methods provide rich analysis and enable extending the understanding of a phenomenon by also considering individual perceptions and feelings (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010; Yin, 2011). A qualitative study was considered suitable since capturing the perception and feelings of involved parts such as managers, managers’ teams, and the higher
management level provided a more nuanced understanding of the change process. The
implementation of SMTs implies an organizational change. An organizational change process should be analyzed based on different functions and levels, e.g. organizational, group and individual (Langley, 1999; Pettigrew, 1997). In order to understand a change process, a combination of analysis from several units is required according to Pettigrew (1997), which is why understanding what organizational levels are influenced also is important.
Furthermore, a change process includes a time and historical perspective (Pettigrew, 1997; Suddaby, 2017). Two aspects of time and history has been taken in consideration. Firstly, this
study takes place during the change process where access to historical data is available. Secondly, and most importantly, individuals’ assumptions about the history of the change are taken into consideration through retrospective interviews.
Abductive reasoning enables going back and forth between the literature and the empirical material. (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). There are different events collectively influencing a change process (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). These events can be difficult to observe initially, why deeper empirical and theoretical analysis enables finding new concepts during the research process. Going back and forth between literature and empirical findings allows capturing when and how managers are influencing the change process, and vice versa. This provides the opportunity to stay flexible and keep an open mindset towards research findings (cf. Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007).
In order to understand how the change process is influencing managers, an understanding of the context is important (cf. Pettigrew, 1997). Case studies enable identifying recurring patterns and themes, capturing mechanism and the dynamics within a single setting (Eisenhardt, 1989), which is important when studying an organizational change process (Langley, 1999). Therefore, an understanding of the empirical case and its context was provided (cf. Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).
In order to analyze how managers are influenced by, and influencing the change process, a single case study was conducted. According to Yin, (2009) a case study is suitable when the aim is to answer a “how type” question. Moreover, in order to capture the whole change process, this paper requires analysis across multiple levels, which Eisenhardt (1989) argues a case study can provide. Finally, extending the understanding of the organizational change with focus on managers is allowed by a single case study, which according to Yin (2009) contributes to existing knowledge and theory.
3.2. Case Selection
ICA, a Swedish leading retail company, and their VUIT (Business Development IT) department recognized a need for changing their method of delivering IT projects. The traditional project management method of software development was considered slow,
CHAPTER III: METHOD
inflexible and inefficient, rarely reaching the intended purpose. Therefore, SMTs were introduced. As this research aimed to study the implementation of SMTs, ICA was considered a suitable case company.
The change process at ICA is ongoing and therefore the reality in flight could be captured, which Pettigrew (1997) argues is an important aspect when studying organizational change. He further highlights the importance of using time of events and history as building blocks to find patterns, as well as underlying mechanisms, of the change. Thus, ICA was considered a suitable case, with an ongoing organizational change where access to historical data was provided through retrospective interviews and archival data.
3.3. Data Collection
A case study typically combines different data collection methods (Eisenhardt, 1989). In this study, data was gathered in three different ways: (1) an observational study, (2) archival data, and (3) interviews, including both unstructured, and semi-structured focused interviews. As both semi-structured interviews and participant observations allow keeping an open mind, and concepts emerging from the data (cf. Bryman & Bell, 2015), the data collection methods were considered suitable, as this criterion was important for the study. As several data collection methods were combined, it provided a better understanding for the research question. Observations can be used as a method to confirm and contrast other types of collected material (Jamshed, 2014), but also the other way around (Bryman & Bell, 2015). In this study, the interviews allowed validating the observation by asking questions, and the observation was used as a method to confirm what was stated in the interviews. Also, archival data enabled confirmation of the data from the interviews, and enriched the understanding of the change process.
3.3.1 Primary Data
3.3.1.1. Pilot Case Study
Key informants, i.e. persons directing the researcher to situations, and people with important knowledge (Bryman & Bell, 2015) provided access and direction when needed. A pilot case study using archival data and unstructured interviews was conducted with the key
informant and an associate provided the authors with guidance. The key informant worked at the Project Management Office (PMO). The interviewees’ perceptions of the background of why ICA decided to implement SMTs in their IT-development department was presented. The interview provided a guideline of whom to next interview. As both literature and the pilot case study revealed that the change influenced the manager, the research question was consequently developed.
3.3.1.2. Observations
An ethnographic approach was chosen, since it allows researchers to familiarize with the organization’s everyday operations and increase their understanding of the organizational context (cf. Bryman & Bell, 2015). In order to investigate how the manager is influenced by and influencing the change, both SMTs and their managers were observed. As the aim of the observations was to study the manager in a social setting, their interactions were also essential. Another purpose with observations was to observe work routines and become familiar with the team and the managers in order to increase the chances for relaxed upcoming interviews (cf. Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2005). Questions on behalf of the researchers were asked as they came up, no other active part in their work routines were taken.
Though permission of the observational studies was given from the management level, it is not clear whether all team members gave their consent or felt comfortable. Another limitation, connected to the observation, is the risk of bias on the behalf of the researchers, due to the involvement and personal attachment with the organization and its people (Bryman & Bell, 2015). However, as the observations only took place during a shorter period of time, the authors perceived benefits of studying a social context was greater than the authors’ risk of becoming biased.
3.3.1.3. Interviews
A purposive sample for the interviews was chosen since it enables choosing the most relevant respondents for answering the research question (cf. Saunders 2009). It was important to interview both members of the SMT and managers to capture the context of change in order to be able to answer the research question. Therefore, four face-to-face
CHAPTER III: METHOD
semi-structured interviews with system developers in SMTs were conducted, and four interviews with managers from two different SMTs. Furthermore, another interview was conducted with a person from higher management level via telephone.
Interview respondents were selected through snowball sampling, where a few initial scheduled interviews led to additional interviews. After the interviews the respondents referred to colleagues who were considered suitable for answering the research question. A semi-structured interview allows the researcher to ask follow-up questions, which can help answer the research question (Saunders et al., 2009).
Some of the questions asked can be considered sensitive (e.g. commitment to change and team members’ perception of managers), which is why individual face-to-face interviews with the respondents were chosen. Ghauri and Grønhaug (2005) argue face-to-face interviews allow the researcher to include facial expression and body language, as well as sensing the respondent's behavior and position in the matter. This was however not possible with the one phone interview, which was only a complementing interview. Another more general limitation when conducting interviews is that interviewees might be afraid of revealing sensitive information (for instance, opinions about managers); therefore one cannot be positive that the answers were fully genuine. Interpretation of past events enables capturing the perceived history of change, which is why the narratives are important. Capturing the narratives, i.e. the language of the change process, was possible through interviews (cf. Bryman & Bell, 2015)
Finally, an interview guide (see Appendix) was developed from the theoretical framework and operationalized into questions (see Table 2). For example, the concept of commitment to change, describing a mindset of the change (Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014), was captured through e.g. Q1, Table 2. This question allowed respondents to express their initial perception of the change. It was important to capture those with affective commitment to change, i.e. those who tried to promote change and influence others (cf. Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Therefore, the persons who talked very positively about, and somehow tried to promote the method, were seen as 'very committed'. The 'committed' ones, did not try to convince others, and finally those who talked negatively were considered 'uncommitted'. In order to analyze the perceived history of change question Q5, Table 2 was asked. The
question allowed investigating whether the managers provided their employees with time and support to mourn the past. Since, by doing so managers can make the transition to SMTs with less resistance (cf. Suddaby & Foster, 2017). By asking the question Q3, Table 2, transformational leadership attributes, such as encouragement of team members to rethink work related assumptions and attitudes (cf. Abrell-Vogel & Roland, 2014) could be captured. In order to find out if the developing teams followed characteristics of SMTs (cf. Taylor, 2016), the question Q6, Table 2 was asked. If the answer was in line with SMTs, where decisions are taken collectively, they were considered a SMT. The aim of the question Q7, Table 2, was to answer what influence the manager had on the team. The question also enabled finding out if the manager acted as a coach or a director in the team (cf. Stokes, 2008; Wageman, 2001).
CHAPTER III: METHOD
OPERATIONALIZATION OF THEORETICAL CONCEPTS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Theoretical Concept Conceptual Definition Publications Example Questions
Commitment to Change A force (mind-set) that binds an individual to a course of action in change, which is influencing the change process.
Abrell-Vogel & Rowold, 2014; Herold et al., 2007, 2008; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Turner Parish et al., 2008
Q1: How did the change make you feel?
Q2: Did you see benefits with the change?
Transformational Leadership The transformational leader inspires and motivates its followers to accept and support the change by providing a clear vision, inspiring and intellectually motivating employees by considering their needs.
Abrell-Vogel & Rowland, 2014; Bass, 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Shin et al., 2015
Q3: Are you given freedom and encouragement to contribute with own ideas?
Perceived History of Change History is highly subjective and the interpretation of it can be controlled. By creating stories and be selective when storytelling individuals can influence perceptions of events.
Cohen et al., 1990; Nissley & Casey, 2002; Pettigrew, 1997; Suddaby et al., 2010; Suddaby & Foster, 2017; Ybema, 2014
Q4: How was the change communicated?
Q5: Did you have time to process the change and ask questions/clarify reasons for the change?
Self-Managed Team (SMT) A group of employees, formerly working as a team, with collective responsibility and authority to perform tasks and take decisions.
Balkema & Molleman, 1999; Moe et al., 2009; Morgan, 1986; Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986; Taylor, 2016; Stokes, 2008; Wageman, 2001
Q6: How do you take decisions within the team?
Q7: What happens if the team encounters a problem?
All interviews were conducted between January and April 2017, with an approximate duration of 60 minutes. Seven of nine interviews were carried out in Swedish, the interviewees’ native language, which allowed them to express themselves without any language barriers. As the interviews were conducted in Swedish, there is a risk that the translation and interpretation was misunderstood. The remaining two interviews were conducted in English, as the respondents were external consultants from India. The depth and order of the questions, as well as the themes varied based on the interview conversation, and additional questions were asked when considered beneficial in contributing to answering the research question.
OVERVIEW OF INTERVIEWS
Position Location of interview Date Occasion
Head Manager of Project Management Office
Solna, HQ 2017-01-09 Pilot Study
Quality Assurance Solna, HQ 2017-01-09 Pilot Study
Project Manager Solna, HQ
Solna, HQ
2017-02-08 2017-03-28
Pilot Study Case Study
Project Manager Solna, HQ 2017-02-08
2017-03-28
Pilot Study Case Study
Delivery Manager Solna, IT 2017-03-29 Case Study
Product Area Manager Telephone 2017-04-10 Case Study
Product Manager Solna, HQ 2017-03-28 Case Study
System Developer Solna, IT 2017-03-29 Case Study
System Developer Solna, IT 2017-03-29 Case Study
System Developer Solna, HQ 2017-03-24 Case Study
System Developer Solna, HQ 2017-03-24 Case Study
Table 3: Overview of Interviews
3.3.2 Secondary Data
In addition to primary data, secondary data produced by the company enhanced the understanding of the context and was a support when answering the research question. The secondary data consisted of internal official and unofficial PowerPoint presentations,
CHAPTER III: METHOD
storyboards, pictures, and emails. The secondary data primarily made it possible to enrich the understanding of how the change was communicated, as well as how team members and leaders communicated during the change process.
3.4. Data Analysis
The authors took turns on leading the interviews, which were recorded and later transcribed in a software program. Moreover, notes were taken during the interviews where important concepts and themes, as well as the tone and nonverbal expressions were highlighted. After the interviews the authors exchanged perceptions in order to discuss insight and thoughts. Finally, in order to confirm what actually was said, the authors listened to the recordings, and later read the transcripts.
The analysis of the transcripts and field notes were based on the identification and the categorization of recurring relationships, patterns, and themes (cf. Saunders et al., 2009). The highlighted themes were commitment to change (manager and employee), perceived
history of change, transformational leadership, and SMTs. The themes facilitated a
foundation for analyzing the change process (cf. Langley, 1999), which further enabled connecting and interpreting the data with the theoretical framework.
Though the themes were used as a foundation for the analysis, it was important to stay flexible in order to allow new concepts to emerge. Information that did not match the categories was moved to and analyzed under other information. Some of the themes were more prominent than other, and some of the categories could be elaborated on, while others could not.
The English interviews were categorized and analyzed in English, while the Swedish interviews first were categorized and analyzed in Swedish and then translated to English. Since parts of the interviews required translation, thorough analysis was conducted to capture the idiomatic expressions and experiences correctly.
3.5. Reflection of Choice of Method
The change towards the implementation of SMTs has been implemented gradually, and the change process was officially announced at VUIT relatively recently (2016). Developing insights and understanding takes time (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010), therefore, there is no guarantee that the participants have reflected over the impacts or processed the new conditions. People generally have an initial negative attitude towards changes (Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005), which implies that the perception of the participants already could have been biased.
Since this research was conducted with a qualitative method, the degree of influence from the different themes could not be measured. The research cannot tell whether, for instance, transformational leadership attributes or manager commitment to change had the most impact on employee commitment to change. However, the purpose was not to quantify, but rather to capture influences and stories of participants in the change.
3.6. Research Ethics
The authors are well aware of the importance of respect towards both the organization and the participating individual’s privacy, and this has been taken into consideration by anonymization of the given information. Another more specific way of ensuring the participants anonymity is by not making any distinction between managers’ hierarchal levels of the managers within in the projects, and thereby referring to all of them as managers. Finally, ICA and the employees had the opportunity to read the study before publication.
CHAPTER IV: EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
4. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
This section presents the findings from the empirical case study. Firstly, the case company, the change process, and the underlying reasons for the change will be presented. Thereafter, events, actions and activities will be presented as well as perceptions of the change
4.1. Presentation of Case Company
ICA Sweden is one of the largest Swedish food retail chains, with an approximate market share of 36 percent (ICA Gruppen, 2017). The organization operates in collaboration with autonomous ICA store retailers owning and operating their own supermarkets. Through locally adjusting their concepts and offers, the autonomous stores’ aim is to meet the their customers needs. ICA Sweden is responsible for coordinating store establishments, purchase, logistics, market communication and IT, why economies of scale can be reached.
4.2. The Process and Underlying Reasons for Change
The change process at ICA, VUIT (Business Development IT) started in 2010 with the implementation of SMTs. According to Pettigrew (1997), it is important to define the change process in order to capture underlying influences and mechanisms. Pettigrew describes when and where in the organization the change is taking place, as well as whom it concerns and how. Because of traditional project management’s inability to efficiently deliver IT projects, a request for SMTs at ICA started to grow. Previously delivered IT projects were considered slow due to the several layers of communication the process had to go through, ICA recognized a need to implement SMTs, not only in their IT development but also in the line organization where the method is considered appropriate. Initiatives and requests to adopt SMTs initially came from managers and developers from different departments at VUIT. In 2016, constructing SMTs in VUIT was decided by the higher management level and was delegated in some of the projects. However, the extent of adopting SMTs varies among the different projects, and the different projects still have authority to decide the construction themselves. One manager expresses it as: “If we would have wanted to run this project with a more traditional project management approach, I do not think it would have been forbidden”. In order to support the change, ICA hired in external coaches. The coaches
presented the concept of SMTs and how the teams should perform, held workshops and were a point of contact for the managers and the teams to turn to support and questions.
4.3. One Case – Two Projects
The two investigated projects at ICA were both constructed with SMTs and one project manager. Firstly, this section will present empirical findings from both projects, followed by a merged presentation of the introduction of the change, attitudes towards the change, the managers and the employees in the change, as well as resistance to change.
4.3.1 Project One
The project manager is responsible for the project and reports to the higher management level (see direct lines in figure 3). The manager is also responsible for lower level managers and teams of developers. The dotted line in figure 3 illustrates that the teams/manager does not directly report to the manager in the box above. However, that person can still have an
Figure 3: Organizational Chart Project One, Own Model
impact on the individuals by i.e. giving assignments. The teams in the project consist of in-house developers and external consultants, both Swedish and international. The project manager is responsible for handling risks and problems, such as resources and the
budget. The product manager is
responsible for the requirements of the business and the development manager’s responsibility is protecting and supporting the teams in their developing. The project
begun as a pre-study where
implementation of SMTs were discussed and later written in the directions of the project by the project manager. According
CHAPTER IV: EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
to other participants in the project, it was decided to implement SMT by the project’s program management. The pre-study took off during the fall of 2015, followed by the project start in June 2016, however, the views on the implementation time varied with approximately six months. The statements in regards to the reason for implementing SMTs also varied among the respondents. While the project manager expressed implementing SMTs was an obvious choice due to previous experience and benefits, other participants of the project argued there was a need for changing project structure because of the need to speed up deliveries from projects.
4.3.2 Project Two
The below figure (4) is an illustration of the construct of the project. The project manager is responsible for reporting to the higher management level, illustrated by black lines. The black dotted line in figure 4 illustrates that the team/manager does not directly report to the manager in the box above. However, as in the above figure, that person can still have an impact on the individuals by i.e. giving assignments. The team has worked together for approximately six years, and when the team is not a part of a larger project (such as this project), the construction of the department is illustrated by the grey lines in figure 4. The
Figure 4: Organizational Chart Project Two, Own Model
line organization manager reports to higher management levels. One of the managers described the responsibilities of the project managers as creating trust and report to the higher management level, and ensuring that the team has a product to introduce on the deadline, or provide access to more time or resources if
needed. In January 2016, prior to the
project, a pre-study was held and the
decision to implement SMTs was
communicated in the pre-study directives. The project manager, together with a developer from the team, held the
pre-study. Both the manager and the developers were familiar with SMTs, and did not consider
the change as a problem. In fact, the developers argued to have promoted the method to
the higher management at ICA during six years.
4.4. Introducing the Change
Before the projects started, formal introductions were held in order to introduce SMTs together with the principles behind. Besides a formal introduction, various meetings, workshops and educations were held during the project, where the benefits of SMTs were illustrated. During the workshops, the different roles and participants of the project were introduced. The projects also had access to external coaches, who demonstrated the method and whom they could pose questions to. The kickoff-meetings introduced the team to games, such as “the dot game”, a way of illustrating the principles behind SMTs. In both projects, participation in the kickoff, workshops and the meetings varied among the teams. The introductory events were however, experienced as poorly structured and planned, according to one of the participants. One of the managers experienced the team as resisting and anxious when announcing the changes in work processes and routines of the SMTs initially. Therefore, the manager instead gradually introduced and implemented the change, which was perceived as non-complex and clear.
Exactly when and how SMTs were implemented differs among all the respondents. One of
the managers argued that it was introduced through a formal introduction in the project directives and discussed throughout the whole pre-study: “It was pretty well established [to implement SMTs], but if [the involved] fully understood the implications of it? No I do not think so... They are beginning to understand the implications now, and also the force of it. Which is great, but it has been a journey”. In the same project, another manager first heard about the decision to implement SMTs in November 2016. “Maybe in November...because then we took a mutual decision that everything we do under the umbrella of [Project Program] should be done with [SMTs]. However, by then we had already started [the project] as a traditional project, and ICA has no experience from [SMTs]”. Finally, the manager argued that the formal introduction of SMTs was introduced in an email from the
CHAPTER IV: EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
program management. Simultaneously, a reorganization, with the aim to facilitate SMTs, was announced and later introduced in January 2017.
4.5. Managers’ Attitudes Towards the Change
Some of the managers had previous experience of SMTs. One of the managers took the suggestions to implement SMTs without opposition, while another manager explained, being the one who suggested the implementation: “Me and another business consultant... Instigated [SMTs]… Perhaps the [team members] and the organization lacked understanding of the implementation… But we decided to ignore it and continue”. The manager described traditional methods as slow and inefficient: “I have seen too many projects fail and written to many extensive specifications to understand that it is not possible to act according to [traditional project management]”. However, this manager was no longer engaged in convincing and encouraging other parts of the organization to implement SMTs due to previous attempts without results. The same manager argued that SMTs are not suitable for all managers since it to some extent implies more of a facilitating role rather than delegating; “...which implies there is a need of letting go of the control”. Though all managers experience benefits with SMTs, difficulties were also experienced. One benefit was described as the possibility of quickly releasing a product, something that works even though it is not perfect. Another benefit is less amount of time wasted on documentation. A problem with SMTs, expressed by the managers, concerns trust. More specifically, trust in pushing down the decision-making to lower levels, such as developers, since at times, decisions without the manager’s permission were taken: “Even though the cause of the decision was good, I have more information to see the full picture and to base the decisions on, in comparison with the rest of the team”. The manager also mentioned another problem, namely communication with higher management. Though communication in general has increased with the implementation of SMTs, the managers experienced that the higher management level did not fully understand the approach, which is why one mentioned acting as a bridge between them and the development team. Moreover, one of the project managers also described that the overall participation initially was low, which was evident by the few attendants at the scheduled meetings.
Another manager’s perception of working with SMTs can be described as twofold. The manager explained that it becomes more clear what the product is and who is responsible for what. The shorter release times and the meetings enable keeping track of how far the developers have come in their work, as well as solving potential problems. The manager spent less time on delegating roles and responsibilities. Since the team has better knowledge of system development, one of the managers did not see any cause for interfering. However, the manager expressed a sense of less control since SMTs requires leaving fixed frameworks, which is why trust becomes important.
4.6. Employees’ Attitudes Toward the Change
Though both of the projects had previous experience of working with SMTs, a team member from one of the projects described being nervous about the implementation initially, as the construct of SMTs was experienced as unclear. The team member did, however, also express believing that this was in line with how people generally felt towards changes initially. When asked why, it was mentioned that SMTs implies less delegated responsibilities and increased flexibility, which made the team members experience a lack of control. In the other project, all team members had previous experience with SMTs, and did not express any feelings of anxiousness about the introduction. The response from a managers’ point of view was different. The managers described how the team members seemed to lack familiarity with working in SMTs despite their expressed previous experience. They further argued that there was a lack of transparency among the team members. The initial experienced anxiousness and lack of control has, however, during the implementation turned into optimism. The majority of the team members described benefits with SMTs since it enables following the development of a product from start to release, which made them feel more involved. Moreover, the different decision layers that traditionally exist are fewer when working in SMTs, making it easier to directly interact with involved parties, which in turn make the team members more motivated. In fact, one of the team members experienced the whole team as more motivated when participating in a larger project, and explained that the team even has tried to promote SMTs to higher management levels. Another benefit expressed by a team member, is related to shorter delivery times: “It is easier to follow the process of [the product] all the way to production and to stay up to date, which is the goal”. Moreover, the
CHAPTER IV: EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
team members expressed the benefits with the possibility to participate in discussions, and express ideas and thoughts on how to improve their work environment and their daily work on a regular basis. Finally, though team members of both projects perceived benefits with SMTs, it is important to mention that one of the projects was experienced as more enthusiastic than the other.
4.7. Managers in the Change
The interviewed team members expect a helpful manager when they encounter a problem. Guidance, direction, and knowledge when needed, were expressed as necessary factors by the interviewed team members. All team members also expressed a desire for support and trust from their managers, which they experienced as provided in the SMTs. The team members experienced their managers to be accessible, which was demonstrated by the managers by ensuring the team they could get in touch whenever they had problems. During the observations of the projects, this was also visible, since the managers physically were present on the same premises together with their teams. Moreover, as a result of the team members’ acknowledgement of multiple requests of guidance, direction and knowledge, one of the projects received an additional manager responsible for support.
Before one of the projects took off, the manager circulated material on SMTs, with information on what it is, the benefits with the method, and implications on the work process. The manager also used presentations in the form of weekly emails containing pictures and symbols. The weekly presentations contained a summary of previous weeks, followed by an update of the upcoming week’s main focus, as well as a presentation of potential progress and reached goals. Feedback on these newsletters was, according to the manager and the team, perceived as positive. This was, furthermore, indicated through one of the team members’ views on the newsletter: “a great way of keeping track of the progress and also a way of feeling a part of the project”. The team member also mentioned the manager congratulating the team on their progress in emails, which was experienced as encouraging and motivating. In addition, all team members were encouraged to initiate ideas. The team also experienced an expectation of self-improvement through the opportunity to constantly learn and develop.
