This is individual project on middle manager pros and cons in company

1. Running head: STRATEGIC CHANGE 1
Strategic Change (Individual Assignment)
Name: Mohammad Emrul Hassan Emon
ID: 1001541092
Course Code: GM523
Course Tittle: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Submission Date: 17th November 2015

2. STRATEGIC CHANGE 2
How and why do middle managers support and resist strategic change?
Introduction
Lewis (2000) acknowledges that changes and need for changes in organisations are inevitable in
the current modern business world because of emergence and evolution of new technologies,
competition and set internal goals that different organizations set. However, Franken et al. (2009)
approximated that 70% of efforts to install changes in organisation fail. Senior and Swailes
(2010) tenets that resistance to change by employees is a symptom of underlying problems.
Therefore, this paper investigates the antecedents and precedents of middle managers resistance
to strategic changes in organisations.
Different research findings portray middle management either as a level that develop and
implement new strategies or protagonists and barriers to strategic changes (McCann, Morris, &
Hassard, 2008). Middle managers slow down decision-making, and they resist organizational
change (Dopson & Neuman, 1998). Other researchers such as of Huy (2002), Currie and Proctor
(2005) indicate how middle managers are essential contributors to the performance of
organizations, and they are chief agents of strategic changes. From a survey of various studies,
Conway and Monks (2011) concluded that middle management is a key level to influence
changes. They also emphasized the need for their empowerment to increase the probability of
change to prevail. However, certain factors and measure are necessary to be considered and
orchestrated as seen in this paper.

3. STRATEGIC CHANGE 3
1. Middle Managers in Resisting Strategic Change
For any organizational change, there are various impediments. For example, Ray Davis as the
CEO experienced resistance from the employees. This resistance occurred during the
transformation of the culture and practices of South Umpqua State Bank from the then sleeping
community bank to a more competitive and conversant to the trends bank. The resistance was
mainly because the comfort of the employees was being castigated in avenues of new routines,
new behaviors, and maybe more workload that was then necessary (Senior, & Swailes, 2010).
The then CEO introduced a “return on quality” strategy that motivated both managers and other
employees as their ratification on the changes meant better rewards (Senior, & Swailes, 2010).
Another resistance to change was experienced at the Home Depot when Robert Nardelli pressed
forward to make the institution performance oriented to ensure customer satisfaction (Senior, &
Swailes, 2010).
Middle managers and employees resist changes in two major ways namely overt resistance and
subtle/Covert resistance. Overt resistance is where the employees clearly show resistance and
confront the issue before engaging in any activity that leads otherwise. Subtle on the other hand
refers to a type of resistance where the staffs pretend to be part of the change but in real sense
they are not. A good subtle resistance situation to embark on as an example is at the Symantec
Corporation in America where a different measure was placed to effect cost savings. The
employees agreed not to ship the software with cables. Nonetheless, secretively they still did the
opposite and violated the agreement as they retracted to previous customs and practices of
packaging cables together with the software though it was unnecessary (Senior, & Swailes,
2010). This section elaborates on factor and issues that result in change resistance by middle
managers.

4. STRATEGIC CHANGE 4
First and foremost there is the rivalry issue. Even after eights since the government of the United
States issued orders to transform the Federal Bureau of Investigation from solving crime
orientation to a terrorism preventing unit, the F.B.I. was still caught up in law enforcement
duties. According to government reports as reported by Senior and Swailes (2010) of the reason
for the F.B.I. Resistance was in to maintain their status quo and stand out from C.I.A. and other
agencies. Some middle managers may resist changes as a payback to a top management because
of unresolved conflicts between them (Senior, & Swailes, 2010). Senior and Swailes (2010)
named this scenario as saving the face where the resistance agents are scuttling change to prove
competence on their side and incompetence on the side of change propellers.
Secondly, strategic changes are usually accommodated by uncertainties. McCann, Morris, and
Hassard (2008) extols that many organisations as a result of initiating changes resort to large-
scale restructuring. In their research to determine effects on middle management they examined
five organisations in the United Kingdom that embarked on enabling changes through
downsizing, delayering, culture change and role design. The findings indicated organisational
changes pose increased workload, work pressure and exposure of the lack of skills and
performance ability as threats to the middle managers (McCann, Morris, & Hassard, 2008).
Middle managers may not be sure of their ability to deliver on the mandates entangled in the new
strategies. As a result, naturally they are compelled to resist these changes posed to them as
career threats (Senior, & Swailes, 2010). According to Herzig and Jimmieson (2006) uncertainty
refers to “the ambiguity about the outcomes of various actions when the situation is
unpredictable and when information is inconsistent or unavailable”. There is normally lack of
motivation because changes create uncertainty of the new workload, job security and required
skills and information (Senior, & Swailes, 2010).

5. STRATEGIC CHANGE 5
There is the problem caused by habitual routines. When middle managers are used to carrying
out work in a given manner, the experience gives them mastery of the daily scheme hence eases
work. As a result of changes this comfort and ease is disturbed thus the managers may default on
resisting the new but not yet tested paradigm shift (Senior, & Swailes, 2010). In addition,
inability to break from the prior crime investigation mindset and training was a barrier reported
to have caused the Federal Bureau of Investigation to resist the proposed change from crime
investigation to terrorism prevention.
When a team is accustomed to certain views and customs that they wield, any other change is
viewed as a negative tenacity that should be fought against (Senior, & Swailes, 2010).
Furthermore, changes that originate from one setting or community may infer different signals in
a different culture or community and result in the changes to be subject to resistance (Senior, &
Swailes, 2010).The hysteria that most organizational changes have originated from the United
States and Western states poses a mystery to investigate on how these changes have been
perceived and embraced in environments with different cultures.
General organisation system and structure may also influence activities of employees which also
includes managers.
There are different theories that have been created over time that explain change processes in
organisations. These theories are implemented to ensure the changes are successfully absorbed
(Senior, & Swailes, 2010). Kurt Lewin, a Social psychologist, developed the Lewin’s Force Field
Analysis Model. This model advocates that for any change there are two types of forces: Driving
forces that perpetuate the changes and restraining forces. Restraining forces are also called
resistances to change, and they diminish the likelihood of the change to occur. This theory
explains that when the forces are at equilibrium, there will be a constant state. Therefore, efforts

6. STRATEGIC CHANGE 6
to increase driving forces and to reduce restraining forces are fundamental to allow for any
strategic change (Unfreezing phase). When the change is achieved the reverse of the unfreezing
process is done to maintain the achieved state. This process is called refreezing (Senior, &
Swailes, 2010).
2. Middle Managers in Support of Strategic Change
The following factors when considered have contributed greatly to admonish changes in different
organisations:
First, there is the creation of urgency for change. Exposure of middle managers to the measure of
importance that changes are needed in an organisation will enable them to adequately embrace
and enforce changes. Top leaders or owners informing them of the reality of the competition they
are facing do Creation of urgency. In addition, consumer dynamics, requirements and regulations
that govern the jurisdiction among other influences are explained (Senior, & Swailes, 2010).
Consistent with this perspective is Fernandez and Rainey (2006). Their findings confirmed that
one ingredient for a successful public sector organizational change in the public sector is a state
whereby the middle managers understand and agree on the need for change.
Secondly is a mechanism called customer influence. As a step to expose the middle managers to
the vitality of proposed changes, the latter can be placed on a platform that enables direct contact
with customers. By this, the urgency of change is practically explained by the dissatisfaction and
demands of the consumers (Senior, & Swailes, 2010).
Communication was also found to assist change process. It is beneficial by creating urgency and
importance of change. In addition, proper communication is used to reduce the fear of the
unknown. The fear is reduced by explaining the viability of the new strategies and assuring the

7. STRATEGIC CHANGE 7
employees of their security and other uncertainty resulting from changes (Senior, & Swailes,
2010).
The fourth scheme on efforts to ensure middle managers embrace and implement strategic
change is training. Every employee, including the middle managers, needs skills and information
that will accommodate the new strategies. Training is required because the probability that
middle managers may lack the experience to master the new mandates is extremely high (Senior,
& Swailes, 2010).
Number five is employee involvement. Senior and Swailes (2010) posits that employee
involvement is an essential part of change because when they take part in decision-making a
sense of owning responsibility is instilled in them. As Armenakis and Harris (2009) surveyed on
the history and different research on organizational change, they also recorded that involvement
in the change process motivates employees on embracing the changes.
Stress management is also needed to heal uncertainty and insecurity threats. In cases where the
middle managers face increased responsibility, stress therapies are fundamental to minimize the
effects of direct costs of the changes and motivate them on the desired course. Also, Giangreco
and Peccei (2005) noted in studying the nature and antecedents of middle manager resistance to
change that there a various change issues that deposit anxiety among the middle managers. These
issues include increased workload, new mechanisms of attending assigned duties and status that
adversely affects the working state of the middle managers (Giangreco, & Peccei, 2005). Such
anxiety may as well coerce the middle managers to resist changes to protect their state of comfort
and surety (Conway, & Monks, 2011).

8. STRATEGIC CHANGE 8
Another tactic to counter middle management resistant to change is by negotiations on the
benefits and resources that the managers may gain on the attainment of set goals (Senior, &
Swailes, 2010).
Last but not least is the measure of coercion. This technique is normally used as a last resort to
force the middle managers to embrace the changes. Coercion is normally enforced by measures
such as: directly confronting persons inconsistent with the requirement of change, strict and
increased levels of supervision, frequent reminders of duties and what is required.
Correspondingly by threatening opponents to changes and sometimes replacement of the middle
managers (Senior, & Swailes, 2010).

9. STRATEGIC CHANGE 9
References
Armenakis, A., & Harris, S.G. (2009). ‘Reflections: our journey in organizational change
research and practice’. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), pp. 127–142.
Conway, E., & Monks. K. (2011). Change from below: the role of middle managers in mediating
paradoxical change. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(2), pp. 190-203.
Currie, G. & Procter, S. (2005). ‘The antecedents of middle managers’ strategic contribution: the
case of a professional bureaucracy’. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (7), pp. 1325–
1356
Dopson, S., & Neumann, J.E. (1998) ‘Uncertainty, contrariness and the double-bind: middle
managers’ reactions to changing contracts’, British Journal of Management, 9(3), pp. 53–
70.
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H.G. (2006) ‘Managing Successful organizational change in the public
sector’. Public Administration Review, 66 (2), pp. 168–176.
Franken, A., Edwards, C., & Lambert, R. (2009). ‘Executing strategic change: understanding the
critical management elements that lead to success’. California Management Review, 51(
3), pp. 49–73.
Herzig S. E., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2006) ‘Middle managers' uncertainty management during
organizational change’, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27 (8),
pp.628 – 645
Huy, Q.N. (2002) ‘Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: the
contribution of middle managers’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (1), pp. 31–69.

10. STRATEGIC CHANGE
10
Lewis, L. (2000), “Blindsided by that one and I saw that one coming: the relative anticipation
and occurrence of communication problems and other problems in implementers’
hindsight”,Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28 (1), pp. 44-67.
McCann, L., Morris, J., & Hassard, J. (2008) ‘Normalized Intensity: The New Labour Process of
Middle Management.’ Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), pp. 343-371
Senior, B., & Swailes, S. (2010) Organizational Change. 4th Ed, Harlow: FT Prentice Hall