In the previous article we described a starting situation of the company. New CEO was about to implement a strategic change and he had support of middle management. However, gradually he lost this support. The top team was too focused on external matters. That is why middle management experienced collective anxiety and frustration.
The managers who should have been implementing their change projects felt a lack of support. There was an urgent need for interaction with the top management team, however they were too busy handling external stakeholders. The promised IT solutions were late and didn't work properly, more people were leaving the company and no one heard any explanations from the top management. Top managers only pressed middle managers to deliver financial objectives. Otherwise they were invisible to the rest of the company.
Collective morale fell rapidly and so did the opinions the middle managers had about the top management team, its motivation and legitimacy.
The uprising
Consequently, top managers were blamed for focusing only on external matters and not on internal change implementation. The benefits that had been promised as the result of the change were not materializing. Informed insiders knew that although the financial objectives were fulfilled, improvements to the company’s long term capabilities were still not present.
Criteria on which top management and its legitimacy is being judged
Cognitive criteria are important in the initial stage when the change is shaped. Later relational and moral criteria gain importance, especially in the change evaluation stage. Furthermore, shifting legitimacy judgments are usually highly emotional and determine whether middle managers will continue obeying the change directives or not.
During a change top management should:
- Maintain focus on both external and internal matters.
- Refrain from announcing grandiose goals.
- Avoid making specific commitments that might become unrealistic.
-jk-