APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, 2009, 1 (3), 374–390 doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01016.x
Managers’ Active Support when Implementing Teams: The Impact on Employee Well-Being aphw_1016
374..390
Karina Nielsen* The National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Denmark
Raymond Randall University of Leicester, UK
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. Keywords: intervention, middle manager support, process evaluation, teamwork
INTRODUCTION Recent research has shown that the links between organisational-level change interventions and their outcomes can be very complex. The social systems in organisations mean that there is considerable potential for variability in the * Address for correspondence: Karina Nielsen, Lersø Parkallé 105, DK-2100 København Ø, Denmark. Email:
[email protected] © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
MANGERS’ SUPPORT IN TEAM IMPLEMENTATION
375
way the intervention is experienced by its intended beneficiaries (Nielsen, Randall, & Albertsen, 2007; Nielsen, Fredslund, Christensen, & Albertsen, 2006; Semmer, 2006). One source of this variability can be middle managers’ active support for the intervention. This study examines whether middle managers’ support for implementing teams influences intervention outcomes. The study takes place within an organisation attempting to use teamwork to increase levels of social support, role clarity and meaningful work (and as a consequence employees’ job satisfaction and well-being). Research has shown that a variety of organisational change interventions that have the potential to impact positively on employees and important organisational outcomes (LaMontagne, Keegel, Louie, Ostry, & Landsbergis, 2007; Lavoie-Tremblay et al., 2005). However, the powerful positive results of an intervention do not always generalise to other similar settings (Semmer, 2006). Problems with implementation have been shown to lead to promising interventions failing to deliver good results (Nielsen et al., 2006; Nielsen et al., 2007; Semmer, 2006). This means that it is very important to understand fully the reasons why interventions fail or succeed. This requires a closer examination of the change processes and context (Cook & Shadish, 1994). To date, most process evaluation studies have used qualitative methods (e.g. Nielsen et al., 2006; Randall, Cox, & Griffiths, 2007; Saksvik, Nytrø, Dahl-Jørgensen, & Mikkelsen, 2002) or simple single-item quantitative measures (Nielsen et al., 2007). However, in the majority of these studies it is difficult to make direct links between such qualitative data and quantitative intervention outcomes. In a recent overview paper, Bryman (2006) concluded that mixed methods studies do not always live up to their potential to add explanatory power to quantitative research. Some studies have demonstrated the utility of quantitative process evaluation measures. For example, Nielsen et al. (2007) found that employees’ appraisal of influence over interventions and of intervention quality can mediate the relationship between exposure to an intervention and its outcomes. However, the simple measures used in such studies are unlikely to adequately reflect the complexity of the intervention experience that has been found in qualitative process evaluation research. In this study we examine whether employees’ appraisal of their middle manager’s support and active involvement in team implementation mediated its effects on intervention outcomes. The study took place in two elderly care centres using a multifaceted quantitative measure of the role of the middle manager.
The Impact of Implementing Teams Most team implementation studies have been conducted in manufacturing settings. Introducing teamwork tends to improve social support, improve skill discretion and mental health, especially in organisations where the focus © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
376
NIELSEN AND RANDALL
is on employee health and well-being, rather than effectiveness (Bambra, Egan, Thomas, Petticrew, & Whitehead, 2007). A small number of studies carried out in healthcare organisations indicate a positive impact on patient care (Borrill, West, Shapiro, & Rees, 2000) and patient mortality rates (West et al., 2002). However, this general finding masks considerable variation in the outcomes of team implementation interventions. Bambra et al. (2007) concluded that these variations may be due to problems with implementation or concurrent negative changes in the organisation.
The Key Role of Middle Managers in Team Implementation Interdependence relations (cooperation and coordination) between different levels in the organisation have been shown to shape the outcomes of many planned changes (Guth & Macmillan, 1986). Research has often focused on the interface between senior management and those implementing the change process. This has shown the importance of senior management support in determining the success of organisational-level changes mainly because of its impact on the provision of resources and leadership (Griffiths, Randall, Santos, & Cox, 2003; Nytrø, Saksvik, Mikkelsen, Bohle, & Quinlan, 2000). Less attention has been paid to the role of the middle manager and how employees view their actions during the change process. This is surprising given that in team research middle managers are often found to be the main drivers of change (Parker & Williams, 2001). In the present study, senior management made the central decision of implementing teams; however, the individual middle manager played a crucial role in how teams should be implemented. It has been established that middle managers may resist implementing change for various reasons: (1) they may feel they do not have the skills to successfully implement the strategy, (2) they doubt the potential effectiveness of the change, or (3) they may perceive a conflict between the goals of the strategy and their own personal goals (Guth & Macmillan, 1986). As a result they may not support the changes made and procrastinate in communicating and implementing decisions (passive resistance) or directly sabotage and build coalitions against the decisions made (active resistance). Guth and Macmillan (1986) found that sometimes managers forged alliances with other middle managers to better resist change. There is potential for team implementation to trigger some of these reactions. During this type of intervention, the middle manager’s role changes from that of being the traditional manager delegating tasks to the role of the team manager which is more that of a coach (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2006; Taggar & Ellis, 2007). Managers may feel threatened by empowered employees and be reluctant to pass on the necessary skills to employees and delegate tasks to team members either because © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
MANGERS’ SUPPORT IN TEAM IMPLEMENTATION
377
they fear that they may lose power or because they do not trust employees (Parker & Williams, 2001) As a result, team implementation may suffer. Of course, if managers view the intervention positively they can enhance the impact of the change process by exerting their influence on communication, employee involvement and driving change forward. Guth and Macmillan (1986) describe the middle manager as the team’s central nervous system (receiving information, facilitating communication and integrating the information coming into the team). In terms of communication, middle managers play a key role in setting a clear vision for what can be achieved through the implementation of teams (Parker & Williams, 2001). Team managers also help to process the wealth of new information that often accompanies the implementation of teams. For example, Randall, Griffiths, and Cox (2005) found that the degree to which station managers had communicated changes designed to improve role clarity and job enrichment determined changes in employee well-being. Middle managers can do much to involve employees in the change process which can have an impact on employee buy-in and active involvement in change as well as help to ensure that employees’ expertise is utilised (Zell, 2001). They also help to ensure that change happens at a pace where employees’ skills and adaptability are taken into consideration (Parker & Williams, 2001), thus supporting employees in their work and personal development (van Dierendonck, Haynes, Borrill, & Stride, 2004). As direct drivers of change, middle managers play a crucial role in implementing change decisions made at the top levels in the organisation (Guth & Macmillan, 1986). In many interventions, middle managers’ actions determine whether employees are exposed to the components of the intervention that drive the beneficial effects on employee health and well-being. In this study we examined how employees perceived that the active involvement of their managers was related to intervention outcomes. The existing “maturity” of the organisation may influence the degree to which line managers can actively work towards implanting change (Lipsey, 1996). It has been claimed that organisations with a good working environment are more likely to succeed in their change programmes because they have the required policies and culture to support change (Mikkelsen, 2005; Nielsen et al., 2006). Having appropriate policies and procedures has been shown to predict readiness for change (Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000). Cunningham et al. (2002) found that employees in jobs with high demands and high decision latitude also reported higher levels of readiness for change. Also, Nielsen et al. (2006) found that employees in workplaces where they had no tradition for having input into the design of the working environment found it challenging to implement planned interventions to improve it. Therefore it is likely that various aspects of existing working conditions influence the degree to which line managers can become actively involved in making changes. © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
378
NIELSEN AND RANDALL
Study Hypothesis Employees’ perceptions of their middle managers’ active role in making changes will mediate the relationship between working conditions (role clarity, meaningful work, and social support) before the implementation of teams and these working conditions after the intervention. As working conditions present a more proximal measure of change, we suggest that these may be the pathway through which interventions influence job satisfaction and well-being (Kompier & Kristensen, 2001). This approach has been confirmed in previous research by Nielsen et al. (2007). Therefore these time 2 working conditions will be related to employee job satisfaction and well-being at time 2.
METHODS
Design A questionnaire survey was used to detect quantitative changes in a longitudinal study of the impact of implementing teamwork. Questionnaires were distributed on two occasions to employees, with an 18-month interval between them. The questionnaires included demographic information, measures of work characteristics, and health outcome measures. At the second round of the questionnaire, information was also gathered on middle managers’ actions during the process of implementing teams (Randall, Nielsen, & Tvedt, 2009).
Participants The sample consisted of staff working within the elderly care department of a large Danish local government organisation. Two elderly care centres participated (61% of staff came from the larger of the two centres). Fifty-one per cent of the sample provided care to elderly people who were still in their own home (homecare) and the remainder provided residential care in elderly care homes. All staff were influenced by the central decision to implement teams. Results of t-tests revealed that there were no significant differences between the two centres on measures of demographics and key study variables. Before the intervention, employees were organised into groups, e.g. home care staff covering a geographical area or staff covering a nursing home would constitute a group. Each group had a formal leader with managerial responsibilities; this was the manager whom they were asked to evaluate. At time 1, questionnaires were distributed to 551 staff, and 447 questionnaires were returned yielding a response rate of 81 per cent. Ninety-three per cent were female, the average age was 44 (SD = 11.13), with average tenure in © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
MANGERS’ SUPPORT IN TEAM IMPLEMENTATION
379
their current workplace being 12 years. The majority of staff were healthcare assistants (62%), 12 per cent were nurses, 18 per cent had other health-related education, and the remaining 8 per cent had no healthcare-related education. At time 2 the questionnaire was distributed to 521 staff, and 274 (53%) returned the questionnaire. Surveys were sent to all employees working at the centres and thus new members of staff were included in the second round of the survey. Ninety-one per cent were female, the average age was 45 (SD = 10.93), with average tenure in their current workplace being 7 years. The majority of staff were healthcare assistants (65%), 10 per cent were nurses, 19 per cent had other health-related education, and the remaining 6 per cent had no healthcare-related education. In all, 188 participants provided data at both time 1 and time 2. Of these, 93 per cent were female. The mean age was 45 (SD = 9.90) and they had on average been at the workplace for 9 years (at time 1). The majority of staff were healthcare assistants (61%), 12 per cent were nurses, 21 per cent had other health-related education, and the remaining 8 per cent had no healthcare-related education. Therefore this sample was representative of both the time 1 and time 2 participant samples.
The Intervention The local government involved in the study was experiencing difficulties maintaining and recruiting staff, and absence levels were high. A management decision had been made that all elderly care centres in the local government would implement permanent teams in an attempt to tackle these problems. The objective of team implementation was to (i) make employees better understand how their work fitted in with others working in the department, (ii) make teams self-managing but supported by managers, (iii) make full use of employees’ competencies, and (iv) foster a climate with open discussions and joint decision-making. The organisation defined a team in line with scientific definitions of teams (e.g. Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995) as “a group of people who have a joint task to solve, they share a joint responsibility for solving the tasks and within the team there are defined roles and team members depend on each other to solve the task”. Teams were formed such that a group of employees were jointly responsible for a group of clients. They would on an ongoing basis receive problems to be solved from clients and the manager, and were then jointly responsible for allocating tasks between them and decide how these should be solved. Regular team meetings were introduced where team members would share knowledge and experiences and come up with alternative ways of solving problems. Managers that had previously been managing the groups were appointed external team managers, and groups were divided into 2–3 teams. In total, 38 teams were formed with between 2 and 15 members in each. The team manager oversaw © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
380
NIELSEN AND RANDALL
the development of the team, communicated decision-making boundaries, and acted as the contact with the external environment (e.g. senior management). An elderly care centre manager, who had previous experience with implementing teamwork, worked full-time as a team consultant to develop and roll out a top-down strategy for implementing teams. In total, 17 elderly care centre managers participated in meetings where they were told about teamwork in an effort to secure their involvement and participation. The team consultant also held after-work meetings where managers and their employees were told about the advantages and the challenges of implementing and working in teams. Further, the personnel magazine would on a regular basis publish information about team organisation. However, it was up to the local elderly care centres to decide how to implement teams, meaning that the middle managers played a key role in supporting team implementation.
Evaluation Three types of work characteristics were expected to improve for employees based on the introduction of teamwork: (1) it was predicted that role clarity would increase as middle managers would define the boundaries within which team members would function, (2) it was predicted that social support would increase as team members would be working more closely with each other and middle managers would be supportive of the team’s work, and (3) it was predicted that as team implementation would help team members see the impact of their work and feel an important part of the organisation, increases would also be found in meaningful work. We predicted that the middle managers’ active support for the intervention would mediate the impact of the intervention on these variables.
Measures Working condition measures and job satisfaction and well-being were all taken from the COpenhagen PsychoSOcial Questionnaire (COPSOQ; Kristensen, Hannerz, Hogh, & Borg, 2006). The COPSOQ has been used in a number of studies and has been found to show good reliability and validity (e.g. Nielsen, Randall, Yarker, & Brenner, 2008; Nielsen et al., 2006, 2007). Meaningful Work (three items). Employees were asked to rate the degree to which they experienced their jobs to be meaningful and their work was part of a greater whole. An example of an item is: “Do you feel that the work you do is important?” Response categories were: 1 = To a very large extent, 2 = To a large extent, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = To a small extent, 5 = To a very small extent. Cronbach’s alpha at time 1 was .66, and .63 at time 2. © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
MANGERS’ SUPPORT IN TEAM IMPLEMENTATION
381
Role Clarity (three items). This measured the degree to which employees reported that they knew their roles and responsibilities. An example of an item is: “Does your work have clear objectives?” Response categories were: 1 = To a very large extent, 2 = To a large extent, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = To a small extent, 5 = To a very small extent. Cronbach’s alpha at time 1 was .59, and .75 at time 2. Social Support (three items). This measured the degree to which employees felt supported by colleagues and superiors. An example of an item is: “I receive help and support from my colleagues”. Response categories were: 1 = To a very large extent, 2 = To a large extent, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = To a small extent, 5 = To a very small extent. Cronbach’s alpha at time 1 was .81, and .84 at time 2. Well-Being (five items). This scale measured the degree to which employees had been in a positive state of mind, e.g. happy and vivacious. An example of an item is: “Have you over the past two weeks felt active and energetic?” Response categories were: 1 = All the time, 2 = Most of the time, 3 = A bit more than half of the time, 4 = A bit less than half of the time, 5 = Only a little of the time, 6 = Not at all. Cronbach’s alpha at time 1 was .87, and .85 at time 2. Job Satisfaction. This was measured using a five-item scale. An example of an item is: “How satisfied are you with your job as a whole, everything taken into consideration?” The response categories were 1 = Very satisfied, 2 = Satisfied, 3 = Dissatisfied, 4 = Highly dissatisfied. Cronbach’s alpha at time 1 was .82, and .82 at time 2. In addition to the COPSOQ, an additional measure of the middle manager’s actual support of team implementation was employed (Randall et al., 2009). This was line manager attitudes and actions (seven items). These items examined employees’ appraisals of their middle manager’s attitudes and actions during the implementation of teams. Items concerned the degree to which the middle manager openly communicated about change, involved employees in the change process, and actively worked towards implementing teamwork. An example item is: “My immediate manager was positive about the implementation of teams”. The response categories were 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Partly agree, 4 = Disagree, 5 = Highly disagree. Cronbach’s alpha = .89. As outcomes were measured on different scales, these were transformed to standardised scales so they ranged from 0 to 100 with 100 representing a high (positive) score on the construct. For scales with five response categories, responses were transformed such that 1 = 0, 2 = 25, 3 = 50, 4 = 75, 5 = 100. This was done to enhance clarity in the interpretation and meaning of the © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
382
NIELSEN AND RANDALL
results. This standardisation does not impact on the relationship between variables and thus does not influence the covariance matrix on which the analyses are based.
Data Analysis To test the hypothesis, two models were developed and tested using structural equation modelling. The mediating effect of work characteristics was tested using structural equation modelling (SEM) with pairwise deletion (LISREL 8.7; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1999). The maximum likelihood method of parameter estimation was used with the covariance matrix as input. Scale scores were used as indicators for each construct in the models. We accounted for the effects of measurement error by fixing the value of the unique variance indicator to be one minus the reliability multiplied by the scale variance (Lim, 2003). To control for baseline levels of job satisfaction and well-being we included time 1 measures of these variables in our model. As the three different kinds of working conditions were found to correlate and we assume that they operate in the same way, we decided to create a factor covering all three conditions (Cronbach’s alpha .78). We call this scale working conditions. To confirm the proposed seven-factor structure of our measures we tested a measurement model including time 1 and time 2 measures of: perceived working conditions (role clarity, meaningful work, and social support), job satisfaction and well-being, plus the measure of the middle manager actions. This was done to confirm whether our three work characteristics could be meaningfully combined in one scale and were distinguishable from other factors. We tested whether the measures could be combined because the theoretical basis for the study could not support the formulation of predictions about each of the work characteristics being affected in different ways by the intervention. The measurement model provided an acceptable fit to the data, c2: df ratio = 2.55 and RMSEA = .05. All factor loadings were significant (p < .01). Thus the proposed seven-factor measurement model provided an acceptable fit to the data. This confirmed that the three work characteristics could be combined into one scale in further analyses. First, we tested full mediation of the role of the middle manager measure by including paths from time 1 working conditions to role of the middle manager, and from this variable to time 2 working conditions. To control for baseline measures of job satisfaction and well-being we included paths from these to the corresponding time 2 measure. Second, we tested whether partial mediation was present by including direct paths from time 1 working conditions to time 2 working conditions. The two models were then compared to see if the relationship between working conditions at time 1 and working conditions at time 2 was partially © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
MANGERS’ SUPPORT IN TEAM IMPLEMENTATION
383
mediated or fully mediated by the active support of the middle manager. A model is considered to fit the data better than a rival model if the c2 value is significantly lower (p < .05) than that of the one to which it was compared. The acceptable levels of fit used to assess the adequacy of each model were according to the recommendations made by Anderson and Gerbing (1988).
RESULTS Table 1 displays the scales, means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of all variables in this study. All scales were significantly correlated. Simple t-tests between time 1 and time 2 revealed that role clarity (t(255) = 1.15, p > .05), meaningful work (t(257) = -.31, p >. 05), social support (t(232) = -1.96, p > .05), job satisfaction (t(253) = -1.85, p > .05), and wellbeing (t(258) = 1.16, p > .05) did not improve significantly. This shows that without considering the middle manager’s active support and involvement in implementing teams it would appear that the impact of the intervention had no effect on these variables.
Testing the Study Hypothesis Model 1 presented a poor fit to the data. RMSEA was .14. NNFI and AGFI both indicated an unacceptable fit to the data, below the level of .90, and only CFI was supportive of a good model fit. Second, we tested for partial mediation by including a path between working conditions at time 1 and time 2. This model provided an acceptable fit to the data. RMSEA was .07. and CFI, AGFI, and NNFI were all above the recommended .90 for good model fit. Comparing the c2 revealed a much improved model (1, N = 346) = 89.40, p < .001. For an overview of the two models see Table 2. The final model is presented in Figure 1. It was found that the hypothesis was confirmed. Significant paths existed between self-reported working conditions at time 1 and employees’ ratings of their middle manager’s active involvement in implementing teams. This active involvement predicted working conditions at time 2. Also a direct path existed between working conditions at time 1 and working conditions at time 2: this indicated partial mediation. Also, it was found that working conditions at time 2 significantly predicted well-being and job satisfaction at time 2, after controlling for baseline levels of job satisfaction and well-being.
DISCUSSION This study presented the results of a natural intervention implementing teams in the elderly care sector. We examined how the actions of middle managers © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
Role of middle manager Social support Meaningful work Role clarity Job satisfaction Well-being
75.14 76.60 71.97 66.76 66.47
M (T1)
20.23 13.74 15.29 16.17 17.21
SD (T1) 61.21 73.14 76.29 72.72 64.91 67.63
M (T2) 18.51 20.30 12.47 13.52 15.68 15.75
SD (T2)
1. .44** .49** .17** .28** .40** .27**
2. 29** .22** .41** .49** .36** .24**
3.
.38** 26** 51** .54** .24** .30**
4.
35** .31** .34** .39** .41** .27**
5.
22** .15* .35** .27** .38** .53**
6.
Note: N = 188. Correlations below the diagonal are from time 1 and above the diagonal from time 2. Correlations in the diagonal are between time 1 and time 2. The role of the middle manager was measured only at time 2. * p < .05; ** p < .01.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Scale
TABLE 1 Intercorrelations Between Scales
384 NIELSEN AND RANDALL
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
MANGERS’ SUPPORT IN TEAM IMPLEMENTATION
385
TABLE 2 Fit Indices for Nested Sequence of Longitudinal Models Model Model 1: Fully mediated model Model 2: Partially mediated model
c2
Df
NNFI
CFI
AGFI
RMSEA
131.81 42.41
11 10
.85 .96
.92 .98
.85 .95
.13 .07
Note: NNFI = nonnormed fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.
FIGURE 1.
Final model of the mediating effect of an active middle manager.
impacted upon the success of the change process through (i) their direct influences on change outcomes and (ii) as mediators in the change process. Our analysis showed that the actions of middle managers did partially mediate the relationship between working conditions at time 1 and working conditions at time 2. Also we found that working conditions at time 2 were significantly related to other important intervention outcomes (job satisfaction and well-being). This suggests that the actions of middle managers are related to changes in job satisfaction and well-being through their impact on employees’ working conditions. This finding indicates that in intervention research it is important to include proximal (e.g. measures of working © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
386
NIELSEN AND RANDALL
conditions) as well as distal measures (e.g. measures of well-being) of the intervention outcomes. In an attempt to understand how the change process itself impacts upon the outcomes of organisational-level interventions, researchers have introduced the distinction between theory failure and programme failure. Theory failure means that the content of a given intervention did not address the problems faced by the organisation and thus did not have the intended effect. Programme failure means that the analysis of the problem was correct and so was the content of the intervention, but intervention was not implemented correctly and thus the potential effect of the intervention was not realised (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Cook & Shadish, 1994). When conducting simple comparisons of changes before and after the implementation of teams we found no differences in outcome measures. However, by taking measures of middle managers’ actions into account we were better able to explain variance in working conditions at time 2. Where employees rated the managers to have communicated openly about change, involved them in the change process, and that the manager had worked towards the implementation of teams, greater improvements in working conditions, job satisfaction, and well-being were observed. This suggests that implementing teams can increase role clarity, involvement, and social support if certain conditions (e.g. middle manager support) are present. This would also explain why improvements were not significant across the whole participant sample. The evaluation of these change processes often uses qualitative methods, e.g. semi-structured interviews (Saksvik et al., 2002; Nielsen et al., 2006; Pryce, Albertsen, & Nielsen, 2006). However, these require many resources, both in terms of the competencies of, and time used by, those conducting the evaluation (and therefore most often require external help). Also it is very time-consuming for organisations to allow managers and employees time to participate in interviews. Using a quantitative measure of change processes means that enhanced evaluation can be integrated into existing risk assessments and attitude surveys to provide an insight into how the change is progressing. It also offers a tool to help manage and monitor change. Although this research indicates the vital role of the middle manager in supporting and implementing change, this should not excuse senior managers from taking responsibility for interventions. Rather it emphasises the role of senior management to ensure that middle managers have the skills and information they need to implement change, and allow them to discuss these in an informed manner with their employees and make decisions according to the overall strategy (Øyum, Kvernberg Andersen, Pettersen Buvik, Knutstad, & Skarholt, 2006). Our results also showed that the quality of the intervention process is related to working conditions pre-intervention: working conditions pre-intervention predicted the line managers’ active involvement in introducing teamwork. This suggests a maturity effect: only where there is a certain © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
MANGERS’ SUPPORT IN TEAM IMPLEMENTATION
387
level of a good working environment will managers be able to work towards implementing teams and involve employees in the process. This means that where employees may be most in need of change, line managers may not be able to actively implement change and as a result changes may not be successful. An alternative explanation may be that those that appraise their working conditions positively are also more likely to see their middle manager in a positive light.
Strengths and Limitations The main strengths of this study are its relatively large sample size along with the integration of process evaluation (i.e. the role of the middle manager) into the outcome evaluation (Semmer, 2006). Controlling for pre-test levels on study variables helped to rule out many of the threats to internal validity (Cook & Campbell, 1979). However, there are several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, we had no control group – this was not possible as the changes were implemented organisation-wide. This is common in intervention situations partly because organisations seek to give as many employees as possible the chance to benefit from the intervention (Randall et al., 2007). The use of process evaluation allowed us to capitalise upon between-participant variability in the intervention experience. Second, we used self-report measures. We measured employees’ appraisal of their middle manager rather than his or her objective behaviour. However, appraisals play a crucial role in dominant theories (e.g. stress theory, Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; theory of planned behaviour, Ajzen, 1991; and mental models, Johnson-Laird, 2003) in that it is the individuals’ appraisals rather than the objective environment that determines individuals’ behaviours. Third, we conducted this study in an elderly care setting where there was a great emphasis on middle managers as drivers of change. The results may not be generalisable to other settings, although we did include all staff employed in the elderly care centres including canteen staff, cleaners, and maintenance to increase generalisability. More research is needed to examine how these findings generalise to other settings. Fourth, we only measured employees’ rating of their middle manager at follow-up. It would have been ideal to measure this at more time points throughout the process such that the organisation could have made use of this information in monitoring and adapting the change process. Finally, our data were collected among teams, and under each manager a number of employees were clustered. To test whether multilevel analysis would have been appropriate we used ANOVA to detect whether there were significant group differences in our outcome measures and ICC1 to calculate how much of the variance could be explained by the group level. For well-being, we found no significant difference among groups (F(27, 230) = 1.28, p > .05), and ICC1 revealed that only 3 per cent of the © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
388
NIELSEN AND RANDALL
variance could be explained at the team level. For job satisfaction we found no significant difference among teams (F(26, 226) = 1.34, p > .05) and calculation of ICC1 revealed that 3 per cent of the variance in job satisfaction could be explained at the team level. This indicated that multi-level analyses were not appropriate.
Conclusion This study offers new knowledge at two levels. First, it establishes the importance of considering the role of the middle manager when implementing team structures. In this study it was found that employees’ positive ratings of their middle managers’ role in implementing teams explained some of the variance in working conditions, job satisfaction, and well-being at follow-up. As such it provides valuable of information on the importance of how middle managers behave to ensure successful interventions. Second, the study introduced a sophisticated measure of the role of the middle manager which was found to explain some of the variance in working conditions, job satisfaction, and well-being. Using quantitative process evaluation may offer a cost-effective solution to manage and monitor intervention processes and may be integrated into existing risk assessments and attitude surveys.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This research was funded by the Danish National Working Environment Research Fund, grant no: 16-2004-09.
REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. Bambra, C., Egan, M., Thomas, S., Petticrew, M., & Whitehead, M. (2007). The psychosocial and health effects of workplace reorganisation. 2. A systematic review of task restructuring interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61, 1028–1037. Borrill, C., West, M., Shapiro, D., & Rees, A. (2000). Team working and effectiveness in health care. British Journal of Healthcare Management, 6, 364–371. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6, 97–113. Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Cook, T.D., & Shadish, W.R. (1994). Social experiments: Some developments over the past fifteen years. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 545–580. © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
MANGERS’ SUPPORT IN TEAM IMPLEMENTATION
389
Cunningham, C.E., Woodward, C.A., Shannon, H.S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D., et al. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 377–392. Day, D.V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the threshold of a new era. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 211–216. Eby, L.T., Adams, D.M., Russell, J.E.A., & Gaby, S.H. (2000). Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’ reactions to the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53, 419–441. Griffiths, A., Randall, R., Santos, A., & Cox, T. (2003). Senior nurses: Interventions to reduce work stress. In M. Dollard & T. Winefield (Eds.), Occupational stress in the service professions (pp. 1–22). London and New York: Taylor & Francis. Guth, W.D., & Macmillan, I.C. (1986). Strategy implementation versus middle manager self-interest. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 313–327. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2003) Mental models and reasoning. In J.P. Leighton & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of reasoning (pp. 169–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1999). LISREL 8.3: Users’ reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Kompier, M.A.J., & Kristensen, T.S. (2001). Organizational work stress interventions in a theoretical, methodological and practical context. In J. Dunham (Ed.), Stress in the workplace: Past, present and future (pp. 164–190). London: Whurr. Kristensen, T., Hannerz, H., Hogh, A., & Borg, V. (2006). The Copenhagen Psychosocial questionnaire (COPSOQ): A tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health, 31, 438–449. LaMontagne, A.D., Keegel, T., Louie, A.M., Ostry, A., & Landsbergis, P. (2007). A systematic review of the job-stress intervention evaluation literature, 1990–2005. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 13, 268–280. Lavoie-Tremblay, M., Bourbonnais, R., Viens, C., Vezina, M., Durand, P.J., & Rochette, L. (2005). Improving the psychosocial work environment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49, 655–664. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer. Lim, V.K.G. (2003). Managing HIV at the workplace: An empirical study of HIV and HR managers in Singapore. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 235–246. Lipsey, M. (1996). Key issues in intervention research: A program evaluation perspective. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29, 298–302. Mikkelsen, A. (2005). Methodological challenges in the study of organizational interventions in flexible organizations. In A.M. Fuglseth & I.A. Kleppe (Eds.), Anthology for Kjell Grønhaug in celebration of his 70th birthday (1st edn., pp. 151–178). Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget. Mohrman, S.A., Cohen, S.G., & Mohrman, A.M. Jr. (1995). Designing team-based organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Nielsen, K., Fredslund, H., Christensen, K.B., & Albertsen, K. (2006). Success or failure? Interpreting and understanding the impact of interventions in four similar worksites. Work & Stress, 20, 272–287.
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
390
NIELSEN AND RANDALL
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., & Albertsen, K. (2007). Participants’ appraisals of process issues and the effects of stress management interventions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 793–810. Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., & Brenner, S.-O. (2008). The effects of transformational leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 22, 16–32. Nytrø, K., Saksvik, P.Ø., Mikkelsen, A., Bohle, P., & Quinlan, M. (2000). An appraisal of key factors in the implementation of occupational stress interventions. Work & Stress, 14, 213–225. Øyum, L., Kvernberg Andersen, T., Pettersen Buvik, M., Knutstad, G.A., & Skarholt, K. (2006). God ledelsespraksis i endringsprocesser: Eksempler på hvordan ledere har gjort til en positiv erfaring for de ansatte [Good management practices in change processes: Examples of how managers have made restructuring a positive experience for employees] (Rep. No. 567). København: Nordisk Ministerråd. Parker, S., & Williams, H. (2001). Effective teamworking: Reducing the psychosocial risks. Norwich: HSE Books. Pryce, J., Albertsen, K., & Nielsen, K. (2006). Evaluation of an open-rota system in a Danish psychiatric hospital: A mechanism for improving job satisfaction and work–life balance. Journal of Nursing Management, 14, 282–288. Randall, R., Cox, T., & Griffiths, A. (2007). Participants’ accounts of a stress management intervention. Human Relations, 60, 1181–1209. Randall, R., Griffiths, A., & Cox, T. (2005). Evaluating organizational stressmanagement interventions using adapted study designs. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 23–41. Randall, R., Nielsen, K., & Tvedt, S.D. (2009). The development of an intervention process measure (IPM) for organizational-level stress management interventions. Work & Stress, 23, 1–23. Saksvik, P.Ø., Nytrø, K., Dahl-Jørgensen, C., & Mikkelsen, A. (2002). A process evaluation of individual and organizational occupational stress and health interventions. Work & Stress, 16, 37–57. Semmer, N.K. (2006). Job stress interventions and the organization of work. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health, 32, 515–527. Taggar, S., & Ellis, R. (2007). The role of leaders in shaping team norms. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 105–120. van Dierendonck, D., Haynes, C., Borrill, C., & Stride, C. (2004). Leadership behavior and subordinate well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 165–175. West, M., Borrill, C., Dawson, J., Scully, J., Carter, M., Anelay, S., et al. (2002). The link between the management of employees and patient mortality in acute hospitals. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 1299–1310. Zell, D. (2001). Overcoming barriers to work innovations: Lessons learned at HewlettPackard. Organizational Dynamics, 30, 77–86.
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
