Middle Managers and Collective Leadership
The purpose of this study is to understand how change happens in MNCs and what role
the practices of MMs have in those processes—what they actually do to make change
happen? Underpinning this phenomenon is an assumption that change does not happen just
through one person and that others need to be involved both in the strategic planning and
execution processes of any organizational change across the globe or regions. The literature
characterizes this as collective leadership, which I will explore more in the following
paragraphs.
When MNCs seek to launch organizational changes, it takes more than just one leader
(usually the CEO) to drive the change; naturally, the CEO requires the support and collective
leadership from the top executive team as well as the middle managers (Fairhurst et al., 2020;
Ospina et al., 2020). Kotter (1996) talks about the “isolated CEO” when the top leader fails to
build a guiding coalition in leading change (p. 52).
Denis et al. (2012) discussed the combined influence of multiple leaders in specific
organizational situations. More specifically, they identified four main streams of “leadership
in the plural”: (a) sharing leadership in teams, (b) pooling leadership at the top of
organizations, (c) spreading leadership across boundaries over time, and (d) producing
leadership through interaction (p. 5). In my past 28 years of experience working with MNCs
in Asia Pacific, I have seen MNCs apply leadership in the plural for succession planning,
contingency management, and leadership development purposes. At the middle management
level, business organizations might assign their MMs in cross functional teams, task forces,
and project teams to drive and implement changes with appropriate empowerment and
decision-making processes. Middle managers in turn could form more subgroups to
implement those change initiatives driven by the corporate offices.
Ospina et al. (2020) argued that collective leadership could be further defined based on
“locus of leadership” and “view of collectivity” (p. 443). The locus of leadership idea refers
to where people look for leadership. Does leadership exist in the group? Or does it exist in the
system? View of collectivity, on the other hand, denotes the ontological perspective of the
nature of leadership. Transformational leadership assumes leadership type whereas
leadership-as-practice, according to Ospina et al. (2020), falls under leadership lens which is
based on constructionist ontology (p. 443). The leadership lens concept is similar to the
leadership moment concept (Ladkin, 2010). That explains how I define collective leadership
in my study, that is, collective leadership residing in the group (interaction and dialogue) and
collective leadership as the lens (socially constructed by the leader and the team members).
More specifically, in my study, I will examine how collective leadership is showed in the
group during organizational change. What are the roles and functions of MMs? How do they
interact and dialogue with the team members to form this collective leadership among the
team? With this collective leadership perspective, I will look at the roles and functions of
MMs in MNC settings.
Definitions, Roles, and Functions of MMs in Multinational Settings
Wooldridge et al. (2008) pointed out that the theoretical definition of middle
management remains somewhat ambiguous. They further defined middle managers as those
who are below top managers and above first-level supervision in the hierarchy, and more
importantly, that they have access to top management coupled with their knowledge of
operations (Wooldridge et al., 2008, p. 1192). In the past 20 years, more research on middle
management and strategic process in corporations has been done (Collier et al., 2004; Floyd
et al., 2011; Floyd & Lane, 2000; Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000, 2017; Haneberg, 2005;
Kownatzki et al., 2013; Wooldridge et al., 2008). The changing nature of managerial work, as
a result of corporate organizational changes, has impacted on the jobs of MMs as well as their
careers (Foster et al., 2019). There is nonetheless very little literature written about the middle
managers, particularly their roles and functions in the organizations, not to mention the actual
leadership-as-practice at the middle levels (Hill, 2019; Tinline & Cooper, 2016).
Hill (2019) described the roles of the MM under the conceptual model of agenda
setting (financial, business, and organizational) and network building (subordinates,
superiors, peers, and external stakeholders; p. 17). More specifically, she pointed out that the
MM needs to play the roles of boss (the person in charge of the unit/operation), sales leader
(the person who drives the business to generate sales and profits), supervisor/team leader (the
person who is responsible for talent management, people development, and performance
management), administrator (the person who handles administrative and financial matters),
and politician (the person who builds and manages relationships with subordinates, superiors,
peers, and external stakeholders). Middle managers constantly need to juggle with those roles
and to manage conflicts in expectations of various parties. Those challenges could become
more acute when the organization is facing a VUCA business environment and is going
through massive organizational changes.
Tinline and Cooper (2016) described the MM’s life in the middle in perspectives of life
satisfaction, stress, and career development. The MM, being in the middle of the
organizational hierarchy, has certain power and influence with subordinates, superiors, peers,
and external stakeholders. To effectively manage in the middle, Tinline and Cooper suggested
that the MM could work out life management goals, leading and influencing goals, work
pressure management goals, and career development goals (p. 16).
Lee (1994) pointed out that the change leader role and the operation manager role for
MMs could be very confusing in driving organizational change. On the one hand, MMs, as
operation managers, are required to ensure efficiency and stability in production and service
operations, to focus on objectives and internal environments, and to minimize failure and risk.
On the other hand, they are expected to play the role of change leaders, in fostering change,
challenging established processes, enhancing effectiveness, encouraging questioning,
modeling and promoting risk taking, creating and communicating shared visions, and
scanning external environments to anticipate change.
Middle managers are often described as transactional leaders who maintain the
operations and execute the top management’s decisions (Burns, 1978, p. 455). Collier et al.
(2004) pointed out that MMs’ involvement strengthens shared vision, increases rationality,
and has the potential to improve adaptiveness in strategy making. Recent research has shown
that staff engagement and change effectiveness in business organizations have much to do
with the leadership qualities and styles of MMs as well as team interaction and identification
(Godkin, 2014; Spaten & Flensborg, 2013). Middle managers must balance and maintain the
right priority in their leadership and management roles. Too much leaning on the manager
role makes MMs inflexible and ineffective in driving change. Too much focusing on leader
role makes the day-to-day operations highly versatile and ultimately fall apart when the team
and the systems are not ready for the change. Middle managers need to balance between the
two roles of manager and leader in view of the ever-changing business environment and
organizational needs (Lee, 1994).
The business operations and transformation processes are intertwined. The leaders must
focus on their business goals ahead and change management results, while they strive to
balance the forces of the two sides. In my study, I will look at how MMs maintain such a
balance, or whether they are largely unable to achieve this goal. In the next section, I turn to
change management theories and approaches to explore the leadership-as-practice for MMs
in leading organizational changes. While Kotter’s eight-step change management approach
has been very popular among MNCs and practical for top management in articulating their
visions, communicating change, and implementing change, I will look at what change
management literature has critiqued about the step model and Kotter’s leading change
process (1996), and more particularly how MMs could apply the 8-step in leading
organizational change and the challenges that they might face in the process.
Change Management Theories and Approaches
Change management literature has focused mostly on the top leaders and their
strategies in leading organizational changes, assuming that successful change outcomes
depend on the leaders and their strategies alone (Banks et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2014). The
processes and the contexts of leading change among different levels within the organizations,
as well as their relations with the internal stakeholders and the external environment, require
further research (Cameron & Green, 2015; Kanter et al., 1992). Moreover, very little
literature has addressed the practice of MMs in organizational changes (Nielsen & Cleal,
2011).
Lewin (1947) argued that organizational changes take three necessary steps:
1. Unfreezing the organization, getting rid of the attitude that individuals have
against the change, creating a vision of a better future by delivering
information, and establishing the urgency to change.
2. Moving through the change process by getting the people engaged and
creating equilibrium among the driving and restraining forces inside the
organization (Bucciarelli, 2015).
3. Freezing: creating and keeping new conditions and new ways of doing things.
Following Lewin’s step model, Kotter (1991) further explored into the important
question of why many corporations had failed in their efforts of business transformation.
Later he outlined the eight-stage process in leading organizational transformation which
basically consisted of the opposite of those eight fundamental errors in leading business
transformation (Kotter, 1996). Kotter’s 8-step leading change model has been widely applied
in business transformation and organizational changes in the past two decades (Rajan &
Ganesan, 2017). It is very much a top-down approach, focusing on the roles and strategies of
the top leaders in driving transformations. Kotter (2001), in his discussion of leadership,
thought that one of the first jobs of managers is to create a sense of urgency for change by
getting people to comprehend a vision of an alternative future (p. 90). The next challenge is
to engage the people to believe the message and to execute the change. In MNCs, usually it is
the top leader (CEO) who develops the vision for the company based on his/her best
judgment of the business environment and analysis of the core competencies of the
organization. Then, the top leader holds a town hall meeting to communicate to the
executives and middle managers about her new visions (see Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1
Leading Change Process
Then, MMs are expected to communicate and implement the change in their
departments and teams, based on the directives and objectives defined by the top
management. The critical questions are whether MMs could follow the 8-steps which were
developed for top management in the first place in leading organizational change, and more
Visioning
Communicating
Implementing
importantly whether the step model presents the actual process and practice of MMs in
leading organizational change.
Organizational change is a very fluid process and there are different dynamics or forces
that affect both the environment, as well as the organization undergoing change, change
management is not solely following a stage/step approach (Bucciarelli, 2015). The Kotter
leading change model is less concerned with individual behaviors, except when it comes to
being motivated about the change and feeling the urgency of the change. When it comes to
detail, Kotter’s theory does not give people any frameworks or processes about how to assess
the need for change and people’s readiness for change. The Kotter model is very much a
top-down leadership and change approach, without considering the roles of the middle
management as well as the internal and external forces of the stakeholders. In addition, the
actual process of change may not follow the sequence of Kotter’s 8-step model; some steps
might be missing and sometimes some steps might repeat themselves (Bucciarelli, 2015).
Change is more of a spiral, complicated, dynamic, and sometimes chaotic process; it is
definitely not as linear as Kotter’s model describes.
Lewin (1951) rightly pointed out the simple and useful model of force field analysis,
giving consideration of the driving forces and restraining forces in organizational change,
instead of just pushing through the steps of leading change. Nonetheless, Lewin did not
address the practices of the leaders on how to survive in the power dynamics in organizations,
and how to influence those driving and restraining forces during organizational change.
Lewin’s change model, while simple, can be too simple, leaving more blanks that change
managers must fill in on their own, rather than Kotter’s 8-step change model (Bucciarelli,
2015).
Change management literature shows that the changing business environment of MNCs
requires MMs to put their top priority in driving immediate change goals and in mobilizing
their members and other agents to achieve those change outcomes. They need to manage the
complex organization during organizational changes while they seek to maintain the morale
of their teams, and to mobilize them through visioning, communicating, and implementing
practice (Cameron & Green, 2015). Effective communication could help employees manage
transition and move on to the new future. In the following section, I will examine the
challenges and practices of MMs in carrying out the visioning, communicating, and
implementing work in organizational changes.
Visioning Change
In visioning, MMs must be able to answer the question: Why change (Kotter, 2001)?
The meaning of change and the sense-making processes at the middle level and lower-level
of an organization could be different from the top management. The top leaders create the
vision for change as well as inspire and motivate the whole company or organization to
recognize the need for change and the vision for the business transformation (Kempster et al.,
2011). Top leaders often communicate their key messages of organizational changes to MMs
and expect MMs to further cascade the change messages down to the lower levels (Cameron
& Green, 2015; Kanter et al., 1992). Middle managers do not have the authority and power to
initiate or to disagree about those corporate visions and organizational changes; they are
expected to execute those changes based on the top management’s decisions and strategies
(Tasler, 2016). Middle managers, being in the middle levels of the organization, play
important roles in the sense-making process (Cameron & Green, 2015). They need to make
the vision for change relevant and meaningful to their team members instead of just repeating
what the top management has already said about the grand vision. That is a dialectic
sense-making process which involves dealing with resistance to change among the team and
facilitating open discussion among the community of practice about the needs for change, the
strategies of change, and even the timing of change, to gain the buy-in of the staff (Bendixen
et al., 2017). In my study, I will examine how MMs make the vision for change relevant and
meaningful to their team members. Based on my past consulting and training experience with
MMs, they tend to jump into the implementation process without doing the visioning and
communicating steps properly or effectively.
According to Raelin (2016), an organization’s vision should preferably arise out of the
group as it accomplishes its work. The leader does not walk away to create the vision; the
vision is often already present. It just needs articulation in the form of meaning making and
usually that is done through dialogues among the executives and the members.
Meaning making can come from anyone in the group, though usually the meaning is voiced
by someone who listens well, is close to the rhythm of the team, and is expressive (Raelin,
2016, p. 65). Such a bottom-up visioning process might not be feasible for MNCs when most
of the strategic decisions are made in the board rooms instead of the shop floors. For MMs,
they could involve their teams in communicating change and implementing change with their
feedback and participation in decision making at the department or team levels.
Communicating Change
In the communication stage of the Kotter’s leading change process, MMs often lack
sufficient information about organizational changes, and yet they are expected to just do it in
a VUCA business environment. After all, they know very well that their top management
only look at the big pictures and they care less about what is happening at the ground levels
(Tinline & Cooper, 2016). They have realized that the top leaders might not have the interest,
time, or energy to be concerned about their divisions, departments, or teams, when they are
very much preoccupied with fighting the global competition and other big issues (Cameron &
Green, 2015). Some MMs who have worked for a company for several years might be used to
the old patterns or ways of doing things, and they may feel helpless and powerless in leading
organizational changes that they themselves do not see as urgent (Kegan & Lahey, 2009).
Other MMs who may be receptive and even supportive of the change initiatives, may feel that
they do not have clear directions from their top leaders. In communicating the organizational
change to their staff, MMs need to gain the buy-in for change from their staff, and direct them
in executing those changes, despite the fact that they do not support the change or do not have
the necessary information for implementing change at hand.
Middle managers understand the leadership challenges when they do not have the
direct authority to make decisions about organizational changes; there are conflicting needs
among different stakeholders, and MMs need to manage those conflicts while they continue
to communicate and implement changes. Whenever there is organizational change, the heat is
always there; either it is from the top or from the bottom or from outside the organization.
Middle managers need to play the role of facilitator of dialogue (Raelin, 2012b, p. 818) to
involve the stakeholders in identifying the problems and finding the solutions to those
challenges at their department or team levels, by being with the team and working alongside
with them while seeking to listen, ask, reframe, bridge, and coach them under the grand
scheme of organizational change (Ernst & Chrobot-Mason, 2011; Raelin, 2012a).
When MMs communicate organizational change, they must address the benefits of
change to the staff, to the team, and finally to the company and customers in contract, to the
top management message about the benefit of change to the company and to the customers
only (Kotter, 1996, 2001). The individual members must align their goals to the team goals
and to the company’s goals to foster the adaptive leadership moment in the team and in the
complex environment (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002). Middle managers may let the team know
their personal goals and emotions about the change in positive ways. Middle managers also
need to model risk taking by leaving the comfort zones (the old patterns) and learning new
knowledge and skills to adapt to changes. In this study, I will observe how MMs go about
communicating the vision of change with their teams and involve their team members in
participating in decision-making process during change implementation.
Implementing Change
The focus of MMs at the implementing stage is to make sure that the change plan
works and the leaders, together with the teams, make necessary adaptation to the rapidly
changing environment as they move on. The aim is to achieve the change results and work
together with their teams and other stakeholders to achieve those results (Schaffer &
Thomson, 1991). Middle managers who supposedly know the day-to-day operations of their
business, could acquire an entrepreneurial spirit in taking the ownership of change, and
implementing the strategies and the new ways of doing things (Collins & Lazier, 1992).
Ownership and Entrepreneurship. Schaffer and Thomson (1991) pointed out that
successful change programs begin with results. Middle managers need to take the
entrepreneurship or ownership of the change programs to drive and deliver the desired
change results; it is not just about going through the motions of change, but about achieving
the change outcomes.
Tonsberg and Henderson (2016) discussed the praxeological evolutionary conception
of leader action and follower response, pointing out the interaction between leader
entrepreneurship and follower entrepreneurship. Using these ideas, MMs encourage
individual members to make their own choice for their careers, share their knowledge and
information with their team members and other stakeholders, learn and be creative in solving
new problems and challenges encountered every day (Cameron & Green, 2015). Their
self-directed career orientation and adaptability to change could enable them to connect and
interact with their significant others in the organization and external stakeholders in the
business environment in much positive ways (Dopson & Steward, 1990; Katzenbach & the
RCL Team, 1995). Instead of waiting passively, and sometimes negatively, for instructions
from the top or from MMs, their team members could address to change issues directly and
responsively, based on their knowledge and judgment in the frontlines.
Ownership of the change process and entrepreneurship among all members could be
the most important critical factors of success for any organizational change. In this study, I
will observe and interview MMs to see how they engage their team members to take more
ownership about the organizational change, and how they coach their team members to
manage their career development in uncertainties.
Building a New Team Culture. Additionally, while MMs are trying to inspire and
motivate their team members to accept and support the change initiatives, they are expected
to stabilize the morale and maintain the operational efficiency in their departments. The
eighth and the final step of Kotter’s business transformation process is building a new culture
(Kotter, 1996). Heifetz et al. (2009) also advocated that building an adaptive culture is the
final step of mobilizing the system process. Other change management literature also points
out the importance of building a new team culture and positive change behaviors as a
community of practice (Bendixen et al., 2017; Hofstede, 1991; Lee, 1994; Pritchett & Pound,
1988, 1992, 1993; Wenger, 1998). Crevani and Endrissat (2016) pointed out that during
organizational change, on the people side, people are in relation based on their roles and
functions in the team. On the actions side, leaders and members interact with actions acted
upon the team, the organization, or the environment, to create positive or negative change
outcomes.
If building a new team culture and leading organizational change is about how people
behave and interact with each other and with other stakeholders in new ways brought about
by the change, social learning theories could be useful for understanding the leadership and
change management process among the teams and within the learning organization
(Goldstein, 1981; Senge, 1990). “Learning was described as a process that involves someone
mastering something for some purpose within a particular situation. What makes it a social
learning event are its interactional and social characteristics and purposes” (Goldstein, 1981,
p. 251). It may not be overexaggerating to say that change management is learning
management. How organizations, teams, and individuals adapt to change is through learning.
Senge (1990) advocates for the need to build the “fifth discipline” in the learning
organization by changing the mental models (cultures if you want), that is, how people think
and how people interact.
The leadership-as-practice of MMs for change management, therefore, is about dealing
with the complicated people issues and mobilizing actions among the individuals and the
teams (Crevani & Endrissat, 2016, p. 36). In my study, I will observe how MMs deal with the
people issues and mobilize actions among the individuals and the teams during organizational
change. With the learning perspective in mind, I will continue to explore
leadership-as-practice of MMs in leading change through learning and continuous
improvement. Now I will turn to leadership-as-practice theories and empirical studies to look
for insights and evidence of the actual leadership practices of MMs during organizational
changes.
Leadership-as-Practice Theories and Empirical Studies of MMs
In the following sections, I will explore how adaptive leadership theory and boundary
spanning leadership theory describe the practice of leaders and MMs in leading
organizational changes. Moreover, I will explain the leadership moment concept to bring in
the perspective of process and time in understanding leadership as practice. Finally, I will
analyze the empirical findings from LAP studies to identify the key roles and practices of
MMs.
There are complementary theories of leadership which clarify the challenges faced by
MMs. Adaptive leadership (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002) is about how leaders
encourage people to adapt by rightfully identifying the problem and finding the adaptive
solutions to those problems, challenges, and changes (Northouse, 2016). Boundary spanning
leadership (Ernst & Chrobot-Mason, 2011), based on the direction, alignment, and
commitment (DAC) concepts developed by the Center for Creative Leadership, provides
leaders with an understanding of the essential practices necessary to lead in this changing
complex business environment. Ladkin (2010) applied process philosophy developed by
Whitehead (1978) and Bergson (1983) to leading change. Process philosophy argues that
change, rather than stability, is the nature of reality (Ladkin, 2010, p. 139). In the process of
leading change leadership, according to Ladkin, is seen a moment, which is realized “in the
interpenetration of a person taking up the ‘leader’ role, those who would follow him or her,
the purpose towards which their action is directed, and the particular context in which they
are located” (p. 138). I will review the literature of those three major LAP theories and
empirical studies in detail applying them to my study of MMs in leading organizational
change.
The Adaptive Leadership Work of MMs in Leading Change
Adaptive leadership theory puts more importance on the process of mobilizing adaptive
work among the stakeholders than on the leadership qualities or behaviors of the authority
figures or the frontline managers without authority. The role of the adaptive MM is not so
much in giving direction or making decisions for the organization or for problem solving of
situations in the midst of conflicting values and goals among the stakeholders. Instead, the
adaptive MM allows and facilitates actively the ownership of the problem identification and
solution by providing a holding environment whereby the stakeholders may interact and
challenge each other to negotiate a final adaptive and acceptable outcome. Middle managers
must trust the stakeholders and take risks in restraining their authority and power to make
decisions and to solve problems on behalf of or for the sake of the stakeholders; the adaptive
work must be carried out through the process and active participation of the stakeholders.
Heifetz (1994) recognized that leadership is built on the roots of authority and the
application of power in the mobilization and interaction with the stakeholders. Middle
managers must maintain that delicate balance of when and how to apply their power, as if
they are walking on the “razor’s edge.” They do not want to take away the opportunity of
adaptive work among the stakeholders to find the long term and effective solutions to
challenges and problems instead of making resolutions with their authority and power as if
the challenges are merely technical problems which require expert solutions. Furthermore,
the frontline MMs need to take the risk of creative deviance because they are more
knowledgeable about the people and the situation in the frontline, not those on the top.
Heifetz and Linsky (2002) further pointed out the importance of “staying alive through
the dangers of leading,” particularly when MMs are caught in the middle. They described the
proper response of MMs as well as the need to dwell on one’s body and soul in the process of
leading. According to them, the adaptive MMs should do the following:
1. Get on the balcony to see the big picture and to sense the political and emotional
dynamics on the top as well as in the frontline. Middle managers must not be so
caught up in the processes, interactions and sometimes conflicts in the frontline (or
ballroom) that they lose sight of the overall scheme of things.
2. Think politically such that MMs do not step on the mines in the bureaucratic
environment and jeopardize the primary interests of those who are on the top.
Middle managers must not be presumptuous about the unconditional support from
the top management when they deal with a problem; the top management could
change their minds when the winds (public pressure or political climate at the top)
are strong and against their underlying agenda.
3. Orchestrate the conflict such that the interactions between different parties who have
different agendas and interests could see the real problems and generate solutions
that are acceptable to them, not from someone in authority.
4. Instead of solving the technical work (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002, p. 14) as typical
technocrats could do, the adaptive leaders give the work back to the stakeholders so
that they could identify the problem, generate the solutions to the problems, and
execute those solutions whole heartedly. Trusting the stakeholders to solve the
problems themselves involves courage and risk taking on the part of the adaptive
MMs, because the final outcomes might not be what MMs want to see. When MMs
have the authority and power to solve the technical problems, people on the top or in
the frontline could blame MMs for not making decisions or finding solutions.
5. Hold steady, particularly when things are getting tough and conflicts are generating
heat from the top, the bottom, and all around MMs. In the midst of challenges and
conflicts, MMs must anchor themselves on their values and their sacred heart, that
is, their passion and mission (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002, p. 227). Middle managers
should find confidants whom they could talk to and reflect upon their leadership and
adaptive work; the leaders could not do it by themselves.
6. Build an adaptive culture as part of mobilizing the system process (Heifetz et al.,
2009). More specifically all members, not just MMs, should make it a norm to name
the elephants, share responsibility for the organization, encourage independent
judgment, develop leadership capacity at all levels, and institutionalize reflection and
continuous learning.
Based on my observation of MNCs in Asia Pacific, such adaptive culture is not
encouraged and most of MMs as well as their subordinates tend to be submissive and quiet
about their opinions. Naming the elephants could mean career suicide when it is against the
will of the leaders among many Asian cultures, where autocratic leadership styles are
commonly practiced. On the other hand, many European and American MNCs try to foster
adaptive leadership and culture within their organizations. In my study, I will examine
whether the top management of the MNC promotes such leadership practices, and more
importantly whether MMs actually apply adaptive leadership and create adaptive culture in
their teams.
Adaptive leadership theory has aptly pointed out the importance of the political and
organizational context, the process as well as the involvement of all stakeholders in the
problem identification and solution. The adaptive MMs, unlike the transformational leaders
who give direction and strategy, and the rest of the organization follows, refrain from
asserting their authority and power to solve the problems as technical work when they are not
technical in nature. Middle managers must be clear about their purpose and must allow
diverse forces to interact and to create the solution discovered, accepted, and executed by all
the stakeholders, not by the leaders. It is no longer MMs solely driving the change, but the
stakeholders involved in the problem or challenge.
Middle managers, according to Heifetz and Linsky (2002), should bear in mind the
notion of adaptive work when they are driving change initiatives among their departments or
teams (p. 14). They are not the only drivers of change, but the whole team of stakeholders are.
The whole adaptive work requires political skills, conflict management skills, and
influencing skills on the part of the adaptive MMs. While time is critical, they must maintain
the holding environment by building an adaptive team culture among their working teams as
well as fostering a common commitment towards problem solving among all the
stakeholders. Without that process of adaptive work among the stakeholders, the desired
change outcomes will never come forth. Middle managers also need to convince the top
management to give them time and space to find and execute the adaptive solution, instead of
just executing the top-down decisions (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002). In my study, I will observe
the interactions between the top management and MMs in relation to executing the
organizational change. More specifically, I will see how MMs convince the top management
to let them do adaptive work with the stakeholders.
Each level of the organization may initiate or trigger adaptive leadership within the
whole organization. Middle managers are often in a position to engage in adaptive leadership
behaviors because of their access to resources and their direct involvement in the boundary
conditions for the systems’ production level (Uhl-Bien et al., 2008). They need to manage the
entanglement between adaptive and administrative structures, the administrative-adaptive
interface, and the innovation-to-organization interface (Uhl-Bien et al., 2008, pp. 210–213).
They are truly the middle persons between all those structures and people in the
organizations.
To illustrate the adaptive work, let me use a real story of a friend, who was a
government official in charge of a transportation improvement project. He worked under the
government’s policy and regulation, but at the same time he needed to be adaptive in
communicating with the stakeholders, particularly the local residents of the neighborhood in
which the road construction work was carried out. The official went to visit the residents and
heard their concerns about noise and removal of the trees and gardens next to their houses.
The government’s policy and regulation stipulated that the official was not allowed to reclaim
lands when he could use government land to do the road construction work. The official went
back and forth with the concerned departments and convinced them that the proposed
solution, which involved reclaiming of land from nearby landowners, and the cost could be
cheaper than the original construction work. He appealed to another policy which allowed
him to keep the lowest cost in achieving administrative objective with his adaptive leadership.
Adaptive leadership requires immersion in the process and the dynamics of the
interactions among MMs, the teams, the top management, the other departments in the
organization, and the stakeholders in the business environment concerned. Because MMs
cannot predict or control the outcome of the problem solving and decision-making processes;
they need to be adaptive and walk on the razor’s edge, in maintaining the delicate balance
among the different interested parties. Adaptive leadership theory could, at best, point out the
