SUMMARY

The Question: Does it matter who initiates a workplace change?

The Research: That’s the question posed by Mariano Heyden and colleagues in their 2016 study, which included data from over 450 organizations. These researchers wanted to understand how the responsibilities carried out by various levels of leaders influenced employee support for organizational change. They investigated four variations, two involving change initiation undertaken by top executives, and two involving change initiation undertaken by middle management.

The Findings: When middle managers acted as change initiators and top-level managers as change executors it had the greatest positive impact on employee support for change, of the four scenarios studied. Notably, this scenario was also the least common by far, making up just 4% of the sample.  

The more traditional practice, in which top-level managers initiate change, made up almost 75% of the sample studied and had no influence on employee support.

The Bottom-line: New ways of partnering during workplace change may better capitalize on the strengths of each leadership level, in ways recognized and appreciated by employees.

TAKE A DEEPER LOOK

How are the middle manager and top executive roles defined?

The definition of roles in organizations tends to be a bit squishy, especially middle management. This difficulty is partly because an organization's size and structure can strongly influence how roles play out in practice.

If we define roles related to hierarchy, top executives tend to be those with a "C" in their titles (or positions close to that level.) Sometimes, middle managers are seen as encompassing the layer beneath the C-suite and above supervisors. A broader view defines the middle manager as anyone who isn't a top executive or an individual contributor. (In the study reviewed here, they used the more narrow definition of middle management.)

We can also define roles by looking at their function. Middle managers often have focused technical expertise, a deep understanding of relevant processes and practices, and regular interactions with diverse groups —front-line staff, cross-functional colleagues, customers, and senior executives. As such, middle managers may have a nuanced understanding of operational and cultural challenges (and opportunities) that supports them to undertake effective change initiation.

By contrast, top executives often have a broad line of sight and broader external connections. They are often better positioned than mid-level leaders to manage conflicting priorities, align to organization-wide (vs. functional) goals, and take external and internal forces driving change into account.

What’s the difference between change initiation and change execution?

Drawing from the work by Heyden, change initiation involves things like identifying the problem or opportunity that is instigating the need for change, exploring alternative solutions, and securing resources for change execution. Effectiveness in all these areas is crucial to the success of a change effort.

Change execution involves actively managing change roll-out, including planning, communication, alignment, monitoring, adjusting, etc.

How do leader roles influence employee support for change?

In their study, which included data from over 450 organizations, Heyden and colleagues wanted to understand how the roles played by various levels of managers influenced employee support for change.

Employee support is not the only outcome we are interested in when evaluating change success. However, the researchers argue, and I’d agree, it is certainly a core component of effective change efforts.

The most common practice did not influence employee support

The researchers investigated four variations, two involving change initiation undertaken by top executives, and two involving change initiation undertaken by middle management.

The two in which top-level executives initiated change were the most common — making up 75% of the sample studied. Surprisingly, they also showed no significant impact on employee support for the change (positively or negatively) regardless of who executed it.

It seems that usual change practice may not hurt us, but it isn't helping that much either.

The least common practice was the most influential

When middle managers acted as change initiators and top-level managers as change executors it had the greatest positive impact on employee support for change. This was also the least common approach, making up just 4% of the sample.

Additionally, change initiated and executed by middle managers also boosted employee support, but not by as much. Although this was more common, making up about 25% of the sample.

What’s going on here?

The researchers suggest the more unorthodox combination of roles and responsibilities may be better at capitalizing on the strengths of each leader position and mitigating their relative weaknesses.

For instance, employees may see middle managers as having greater insight into operational realities. As such, their ideas for change may be perceived as more likely to make a real difference in organizational life and performance.

In taking up an execution role, top-level managers may legitimize the change program for staff in ways that middle managers simply can't. Top execs can signal a broad commitment to the change by using their power and influence to prioritize and resource it appropriately.

The takeaway: Structure change leadership to leverage strengths, which can vary based on context

It’s not necessarily the case that we should simply do the opposite of what we normally do during change. Rather, the real lesson from this study is that we should recognize the interdependence of various roles and be open to creating change approaches that exploit their relative strengths.

Consider the reflections of a middle manager involved in cost-cutting and restructuring efforts at a public broadcaster:

“I was not alone making all these changes. I worked in a team with [my immediate supervisor]. We complemented each other like a couple. He knew the collective agreement that had to be renegotiated and he was on good terms with senior management. I knew how to make a TV show; I knew how to sell my ideas. He knew the people in Toronto and even coast to coast. I knew several people in the corporation by their first name. Between us, we had everything we needed.”

Keep in mind, the relative strengths of middle managers and top executives can vary by the situation — context always plays a role.

In fact, a large body of research on leadership roles during strategy development indicates that we should be discerning about our approach — neither top-down nor bottom-up is always the best approach.

This research suggests it may be most effective when some middle managers play non-traditional roles in change initiation and many middle managers carry out activities related to execution. Middle managers most suited to initiation roles seem to be those with strong cross-functional or cross-boundary ties. It may also be most useful to “mix things up” when an organization is aiming to innovate, rather than to defend or strengthen its current strategic position.

Putting the research to work for you

To capitalize on the strengths of all your leaders during change, you may want to consider how to support people to contribute to change in non-traditional ways.

Conflict, confusion, and ineffective processes can arise when we aren’t skillful about such shifts — as reflected in a CEO’s description of his company’s efforts to create a bottom-up strategy process:

“Top management didn't really have the guts to call the shots, so we were trying to get middle management to come up with strategies and then taking pot shots at them. It wasn't clear whether middle management had either positional or informational power.”

Multiple studies reflect that middle managers themselves may not recognize the unique value they can offer during change initiation. Therefore, it's essential to create awareness, shared understanding, and structural support for new ways of interacting across leadership levels. An experimental approach is advisable, starting small and building based on learning.

Some ideas for consideration:

Create norms and expectations that encourage top-level leaders to tap into middle manager insights.

• Integrate an internal scan as part of all change initiation efforts. Ask the question: "Who (else) in our organization knows the most about this? What do they think? What are they already doing to address it?"

• Require cross-level representation in change diagnosis. When creating formalized groups to diagnose problems and identify change solutions, include relevant middle managers.

• Regularly ask: What is your team saying? Not just, "What do you think?" Everyone's busy and everyone wants to be successful. If leaders know they will be expected to articulate varying perspectives on a change, they may be more likely to invest the time and effort necessary to gather them.

Make it easier for middle managers to influence change initiation.

• Institute periodic discussions on strategic topics between levels. Top-level managers can convene dialogues within their reporting lines or, even better, tap into existing cross-functional groups of middle managers to enable the broader exchange of ideas.

• Develop clear conduits for the flow of information and ideas. For example, a centralized strategic management function might capture and collate ideas or create a process through which groups of middle managers can raise strategic opportunities/challenges for consideration.

• Experiment with new types of cross-level partnerships. Identify lower-stakes, small-scale changes to enable middle managers and executives to try out working together in uncommon ways to achieve shared goals.

Prepare everyone to play less habitual roles during workplace change.

• Create awareness of how diverse perspectives improve decision-making. A comprehensive body of research indicates that organizations make better decisions when considering a variety of information, views, solutions, and criteria.

• Support top-level leaders to develop the skills necessary to engage rather than direct. Many top leaders feel responsible for having all the answers. It may take proactive effort through coaching and training to help them develop confidence in encouraging others to take initiative and generate ideas. Additionally, leaders at this level may benefit from exploring various levels of delegation. There is a full spectrum of possibilities between the poles of "I do it" or "you do it."

• Help middle managers develop the capacity to innovate and influence up and down the hierarchy. Recent writing indicates that the most value-added actions of mid-level leaders involve negotiating, mediating, or integrating demands across organizational levels — which comes with risks. Longer-term efforts, such as building psychological safety within and across levels and some of the structural supports noted above, can help reduce the costs of playing this intermediary role. In addition, coaching and peer support can assist middle managers to develop the awareness and skills necessary to confidently manage up and down the hierarchy to facilitate meaningful organizational change.

 

References

Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2(3), 239-262.

Hermkens, F. J., Romme, A. G. L., & Dolmans, S. A. (2020). An exploratory study of Middle Manager's roles in continuous improvement. International Business Research, 13(5), 9-30.

Heyden, M. L., Fourné, S. P., Koene, B. A., Werkman, R., & Ansari, S. (2017). Rethinking 'top-down and 'bottom-up roles of top and middle managers in organizational change: Implications for employee support. Journal of Management Studies, 54(7), 961-985.

Jaser, Z. (2021). The real value of middle managers. Harvard Business Review.

Rouleau, L., & Balogun, J. (2011). Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive competence. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5), 953-983.

Van Rensburg, M. J., Davis, A., & Venter, P. (2014). Making strategy work: The role of the middle manager. Journal of Management & Organization, 20(2), 165-186.

Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. (2008). The middle management perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1190-1221.