Managers' Active Support when Implementing Teams: The Impact on Employee Well‐Being

Abstract

Research has shown that a variety of organisational change interventions can be effective but the powerful positive results of an intervention do not always generalise to other similar settings. Problems with implementation and a difficult intervention context have been shown to undermine the effectiveness of promising interventions. The impact that middle managers have on the change process and intervention outcomes has not been widely researched. This longitudinal intervention study was carried out in the elderly care sector in a large Danish local government organisation (N = 188), where poor social support, and lack of role clarity and meaningful work had been identified as significant problems. To tackle these problems, teamwork was implemented, with teams having some degree of self‐management. It examined whether middle managers' active support for the intervention mediated its impact on working conditions, well‐being and job satisfaction. Structural equation modelling showed that middle managers' active involvement in implementing the change partially mediated the relationship between working conditions at time 1 and time 2. Working conditions at time 2 were in turn related to time 2 job satisfaction and well‐being. These results suggest that the degree to which employees perceive their middle managers to play an active role in implementing change is related to intervention outcomes.

Does training managers enhance the effects of implementing team-working? A longitudinal, mixed methods field study

“…In one of the few studies to examine directly problems in team implementation, Parker and Williams (2001) found that one of the main barriers for effective teams was associated with managerial behaviours (a nonparticipatory leadership style and a lack of detailed feedback on performance). More recently, the importance of managers as drivers of change was confirmed in a study by Nielsen and Randall (2009). Here it was found that the active support for team implementation by middle managers mediated intervention outcomes.…”

What works for whom in which circumstances? On the need to move beyond the ‘what works?’ question in organizational intervention research

“…It has been argued that the intervention process and the behaviours of key players, such as line managers, have a What works for whom? prominent role in supporting the intervention and shaping its outcomes (Nielsen and Abildgaard, 2013;Nielsen and Randall, 2009). Also the participatory process, i.e.…”

Consultants’ versus Managers’ - Perceptions of a Group Development Intervention Program

“…The theme consisting of just one manager, who did not seem to be able to use the intervention at all, was not shared by the consultants. The reason for that is unclear but it once again suggests the manager's importance in distributing a change process [9][10][11]21]. Why the managers' theme of becoming a team were not a shared experience with the consultants raises questions, especially since this was the purpose of the intervention [1].…”

“…This theme was captured among the managers with groups that retrograde development. It seems that the managers and their attitudes towards the intervention remains of immense importance [3,9,10,[19][20][21] and since the narratives of their leadership were exclusive for the 'retrograde' managers and not shared by the consultants its appealing to interpret the statements as either a way of defending themselves against shameful associations [12] in that they were afraid of implementing the change [19], or as an expression of resentfulness that their specific needs were not being met [16]. The second experience, this time by the managers that showed progress, not shared with the consultants was statements about that they had wanted the fitters to have been involved in the workshops.…”

“…Middle management exerts a special position with regard to implementation of change [9,10,[19][20][21]. Middle management may implement the determining factor modulating whether or not a change will be executed successfully [19].…”